I don’t think the two issues should be intertwined, but you did think so and did so.
That’s where I see the problem. This staffer took on the “constitutionally qualified” issue because that’s the incendiary one in which everybody is ridiculed and called “birthers” who question Obama’s qualifications.
That let the staffer off the hook, in my view, because he could choose to answer that part of your letter instead of being on the hook for the treatment of this individual you are concerned about.
If the treatment of the individual is wrong, then it is wrong on its own merits, regardless of the other issue.
Hardly. The staffer did not address the main question and that pertained to Lakin & his court martial. Thune’s staff had already sent me a response regarding NBC in early 2009. It was lamer than this letter. This letter took parts of what I had addressed in my initial couple of contacts with Thune’s office after the election which included the info from Donofrio & Wrotnowski’s cases. Costic obviously went into my correspondence file to pull early concerns I had written to Thune about. He thought he could be a slick willy & ignor the grave situation facing a highly decorated military personnel officer. The main duty of Costic’s position as Thune’s Armed Services liaison is to specifically address military issues. By Costic ignoring the UCMJ & Judge Lind's denying Lakin ALL evidence & witnesses for his defense, he side stepped his duty as a publicly paid representative of SD via his employment by Thune to properly & respectfully address my concerns.
Therefore, the staffer is not off the hook and your position that the way my letter was written gave him a choice is highly ignorant on your part. Letters sent to reps are answered by staff specifically hired to address specific issues. Usually because of their expertise or education in those areas. Every time I call Thune’s office I am asked what my correspondence pertained to. My call is then directed to the specific staff that handles the issue or topic of that particular correspondence. I stated my concern from the outset:
Sept. 24, 2010
Dear Sen. Thune,
As a member of the Armed Forces Committee & member of the subcommittee on Personnel, I am imploring you to please take this seriously & take immediate action.
The Commander in Chief has begun court martial proceedings against Lt Col Terry Lakin. Now Lt Col Lakin is being refused access to documents that are critical to his defense.
I ended with:
I implore you to request the immediate release of all the records requested on behalf of Lt Col Terry Lakin by his defense team.
You obviously don't call your reps very often or you would know the proper way constituent correspondence is to be addressed.