My local MP, James Clappison, has responded to my recent fax regarding Guantanamo Bay (long story short, I asked him to support Amnesty's campaign to close the facility, he didn't want to, I told him why he should).
I disagree vastly with him, of course, but fair play to him for taking the time to respond, and very quickly in the case of this letter:
The classic liberty / security argument it would seem and one which completely fails to stand up to scrutiny. People like me who are against Guantanamo Bay aren't proposing that those held there be released if it can be proved they have committed a crime, but rather that they should face clear, transparent and fair due process, as opposed to detainment purely on the basis of a "feeling" some intelligence officer has about them (or, put another way, who is deciding that those held them are a security risk?). Those against whom sufficient evidence is not available, but the authorities still have concerns about, should be subject to rigorous surveillance in accordance with the law. Question is, should I bother responding to this letter, or just let this issue lie?
It would be interesting to know how many other MPs hold a similar position to my local parliamentarian. Amnesty has put up a list of those who have signed the petition if you're interested where your MP stands on this issue (although a failure to sign obviously doesn't mean support per se).