Follow-Up E-mail From Darcy Burner's Campaign

As an update to this article about Darcy Burner last week, I received an e-mail response yesterdayTuesday, which I'm going to print in its entirety minus valid e-mail addresses:

From: Alex Hendrickson <xxxx.xxxx@darcyburner.com.invalid>
To: Cujo359 <nom-de-ordinateur@a-big-isp.net.invalid>
Subject: Re: Send a nerd to Congress
Date: Dec 27, 2011 11:18 AM
Hi Cujo359,

Thank you for sharing your blog,

Darcy has some very strong feelings about the NDAA 2012 bill, as follows is her statement:

"I remain strongly opposed to this bill.

Many members of the media and of Congress have tried to assure us that the ‘improved’ language in the NDAA 2012 renders Americans ‘safe’ from the draconian provisions which lie within it. But regardless of how this President says he would interpret the language, I am opposed to any erosion of our Constitutional rights-especially when we are asked to rely on the goodwill of whomever the President might be in the future.

Due process was given extensive protection in the Bill of Rights for good reason. I wholeheartedly believe our modern world requires greater due process protection, not lesser.

We can not continue the illegal and immoral Bush era policies of rendition and torture of any person, regardless of their nation of birth. Simply sweeping suspected terrorists off to indefinite detention, without due process, representation or basic human rights is unacceptable, and un-American."

Please let me know, if I can provide you with any further information!


Alex Hendrickson

Darcy Burner for Congress

I tried to do an Internet search for any mention of this online, and have not found anything. Ms. Burner's issues page still does not mention this issue specifically. I'm sure that the Burner campaign assumed I might publish this e-mail, since it is from a public official discussing a publicly accessible Internet site (mine).

Interesting, only one congressman from the Washington delegation voted against the NDAA. That congressman was Jim McDermott:

“I have heard from nearly a thousand of my constituents in opposition to the appalling language in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains sweeping provisions that allow the President to indefinitely lock up American citizens without charge or trial. History shows that acting on fear has dangerous and irreparable consequences on our nation – the illegal internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II is a prime example. I also reject the language in the bill that would severely restrict the transfer of detainees in Guantánamo Bay for any purpose, including trial in federal court. The Senate bill is un-American, unconstitutional and unnecessary. I urge my colleagues on the Senate and House Armed Services committees to strike out these abhorrent provisions in the final defense budget bill.”

McDermott Statement On Defense Bill’s Indefinite Detention Provision

The Stranger has has an article containing his speech on the floor of the House that day.

What I find appalling is that no other of the state's Democrats joined in rejecting that bill. This is why I don't take statements like Darcy Burner's at face value anymore, at least when it comes to figuring out whom to support.

UPDATE: I actually put this on a timed release two days ago, so the e-mail in question arrived the day before that, Tuesday.

In a followup e-mail, Burner campaign representative Alex Hendrickson mentioned that he expected there would be some updates to the issues page of the website, and that Darcy Burner has mentioned this issue in some of her campaign speeches recently.

I'll keep an eye out to see what's going on both with the Burner campaign and other local congressional campaigns.