Senator John Sununu, in a letter to me, has effectively condoned torture by the United States.

I wrote to Senator Sununu on January 7. 2005 asking the Senator to vote against the nomination of Alberto Gonzales in part because Gonzales advised the President that torture was OK because the Geneva conventions were ‘quaint’ and ‘obsolete’ .

In his letter to me, Sununu claims that "Gonzales advised the President that all detainees should be treated humanely". What Sununu states here is absolutely false. In fact, Gonzales specifically said in writing, in > documents released by the White House, that officers of Central Intelligence Agency and other nonmilitary personnel fall outside bounds of 2002 directive issued by Pres Bush that pledged humane treatment of prisoners in American custody; also says that separate Congressional ban on cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment has 'a limited reach' and does not apply in all cases to 'aliens overseas'; legal analysts say that position has implications for prisoners held in American custody at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.

Second, after stating in his letter to me that Gonzales advised humane treatment to all detainees (which is false), Sununu goes on further to condone any torture that did occur by stating "but as a legal matter, al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not considered 'legal combatants' and are not covered by the Geneva Convention. This allows U.S. officials to detain, prosecute terrorist suspects; a critical component in the war on terrorism". Wait a minute John, these two statements do not follow! Sununu is saying here that because al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not covered by the Geneva convention, anyone, anywhere in the world who the U.S. Government considers a "terrorist" can be "detained" and "prosecuted". Well Mr. Gonzales has defended the process called "extraordinary rendition" whereby the Bush administration sends foreign detainees to other countries where Gonzales says the U.S. receives "assurances" they won't be tortured while acknowledging that once a transfer occurs, the United States has little control. Look we know that the Bush Administration, and apparently Senator Sununu, believe that the American people are stupid but this contorted reasoning is beyond the pale because sending these detainees to foreign countries where they might be tortured would eliminate the U.S. government's ability to prosecute these people for terrorist acts.

Sununu goes on in his letter to further claim "This legal position has been affirmed by multiple federal courts across the country, the 9/11 Commission, the Schlesinger Report, and human rights organizations that have been frequent critics of the Administrations policies". Which legal position, John? If you mean the narrow conclusion that al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not covered by the Geneva Convention, well sure.

But if you mean your non-logical conclusion that the interpretation of the Geneva Convention allows the U.S. government to detain anyone they want, anywhere they want, without probable cause, and then to "render" them to some foreign government for torture, I think the groups that you mentioned, including the 9/11 Commission and the various human rights groups, would like to have a serious discussion with you regarding your ascribing to them the sanctioning of torture.

According to Sununu's reasoning, as long as someone is not classified as a "legal combatant" the Geneva Convention applies and no restrictions apply to the detainment and questioning of anyone.

Well CIA agents are not "legal combatants" and neither are American tourists in foreign countries. I guess Sununu believes that the folks detained in Abu Gharib prison weren't either. And neither were the people in Beirut who protested against the Syrian forces in their country nor the brave fellow in Tienanmen Square who stood resolutely in front of that tank during the Student Revolt in China of 1989. According to John Sununu's rationale, these people are not covered by the Geneva Convention and therefore it must be perfectly legal for other governments to "detain" them, "question" them, and "prosecute" them as long as the governments call them "terrorists".

I guess if anything comes from this letter and the previous letter sent to me by the Senator, is the conclusion of how poorly John Sununu is representing the moral views and feelings of the citizens of New Hampshire and of the United States as a member of the U.S. Senate.