![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tanaqui posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
thisfinecrewNomination of General John F. Kelly, USMC (Ret.), to be Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
When: Tuesday 10 January from 3.30pm
Committee Members: (as at 6 Jan) Chairman: Senator Ron Johnson (R - WI), Senator John McCain, John (R - AZ), Senator Rob Portman (R - OH), Senator Rand Paul (R - KY) , Senator James Lankford (R - OK) , Senator Michael B. Enzi (R - WY), Senator John Hoeven (R- ND), Senator Steve Daines (R- MT), Ranking Member: Senator Claire McCaskill (D - MO), Senator Thomas R. Carper (D - DE), Senator Jon Tester (D - MT), Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D - ND), Senator Gary C. Peters (D - MI), Senator Margaret Wood Hassan (D - NH), Senator Kamala D, Harris (D - CA)
What the committee should be concerned about: Kelly has relevant experience, having run the United States Southern Command (covering the Caribbean, Central and South Latin America). According to the New York Times, this has "a reputation for emphasizing “soft power” over hard military might. It gets deeply involved in issues such as migration, organized crime and disaster relief, as well as programs to train local militaries."
However, he opposed Obama's efforts to close Guantánamo Bay, which he was in charge of as part of his command, is on record as saying "there are no innocent men down there" and has dismissed criticism about inhumane treatment of prisoners, claiming, for instance, that force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike was a humane approach. He also has made statements, regarded as "a little over the top" by advocate groups, that terrorist organisations could use immigration smuggling rings to bring in operatives or weapons of mass destruction.
Consensus from advocate groups, according to the New York Times seems to be that there were a lot worse options being considered, so he should be cautiously welcomed.
Suggested script for calling representatives: Assuming you think it's worth the time/effort to oppose this nomination (and it may be worth doing so just to show representatives you're paying attention to everything), this is one possible script:
"Hi, my name is ________, and I'm a constituent of the Senator. I want to let the Senator know that I have concerns about General John Kelly becoming our next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security because of his cavalier attitude to due process and human rights while in charge of Guantánamo Bay, and his testimony before the Armed Services Committee that showed a lack of proportion when dealing with immigration issues. Without evidence of change in these attitudes, General Kelly is unsuited to become our next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security."
Please use the comments to suggest more reasons why the committee should reject the nomination and to suggest amendments to the calling script.
When: Tuesday 10 January from 3.30pm
Committee Members: (as at 6 Jan) Chairman: Senator Ron Johnson (R - WI), Senator John McCain, John (R - AZ), Senator Rob Portman (R - OH), Senator Rand Paul (R - KY) , Senator James Lankford (R - OK) , Senator Michael B. Enzi (R - WY), Senator John Hoeven (R- ND), Senator Steve Daines (R- MT), Ranking Member: Senator Claire McCaskill (D - MO), Senator Thomas R. Carper (D - DE), Senator Jon Tester (D - MT), Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D - ND), Senator Gary C. Peters (D - MI), Senator Margaret Wood Hassan (D - NH), Senator Kamala D, Harris (D - CA)
What the committee should be concerned about: Kelly has relevant experience, having run the United States Southern Command (covering the Caribbean, Central and South Latin America). According to the New York Times, this has "a reputation for emphasizing “soft power” over hard military might. It gets deeply involved in issues such as migration, organized crime and disaster relief, as well as programs to train local militaries."
However, he opposed Obama's efforts to close Guantánamo Bay, which he was in charge of as part of his command, is on record as saying "there are no innocent men down there" and has dismissed criticism about inhumane treatment of prisoners, claiming, for instance, that force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike was a humane approach. He also has made statements, regarded as "a little over the top" by advocate groups, that terrorist organisations could use immigration smuggling rings to bring in operatives or weapons of mass destruction.
Consensus from advocate groups, according to the New York Times seems to be that there were a lot worse options being considered, so he should be cautiously welcomed.
Suggested script for calling representatives: Assuming you think it's worth the time/effort to oppose this nomination (and it may be worth doing so just to show representatives you're paying attention to everything), this is one possible script:
"Hi, my name is ________, and I'm a constituent of the Senator. I want to let the Senator know that I have concerns about General John Kelly becoming our next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security because of his cavalier attitude to due process and human rights while in charge of Guantánamo Bay, and his testimony before the Armed Services Committee that showed a lack of proportion when dealing with immigration issues. Without evidence of change in these attitudes, General Kelly is unsuited to become our next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security."
Please use the comments to suggest more reasons why the committee should reject the nomination and to suggest amendments to the calling script.
