Letters to the Editor
Torture kept no one safe The remarks by former Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday were as shady as President Obama's were candid ("Squaring off on closing Guantanamo," Friday).
Torture kept
no one safe
The remarks by former Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday were as shady as President Obama's were candid ("Squaring off on closing Guantanamo," Friday).
Consider, for instance, Cheney's reference to the "willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top-secret program of enhanced interrogations." Anyone who has read the Red Cross report and the recently released memos showing CIA interrogators in continual contact with Office of Legal Counsel attorneys can easily trace what went on at Abu Ghraib right back up the chain of command. The enhanced techniques were not invented at Abu Ghraib, but in Washington, while White House attorneys provided dubious legal cover.
It is time to end the myth that these practices kept Americans safe. It is time to call these "enhanced interrogation methods" by their real name: torture.
Barbara Quintiliano
Malvern
CIA briefing
was illegal
Charles Krauthammer has it all wrong on Rep. Nancy Pelosi ("Pelosi was silent on torture," May 4).
In 2002, when she, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, and two senators were briefed by the CIA, the reality of the moment was clear: President Bush was steamrolling everything, and whatever degree of briefing the CIA gave Pelosi was of the cover-your-butt variety.
According to Vicki Divoli, former deputy counsel to the CIA Counterterrorism Center and counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, briefing only four members of Congress was, in fact, illegal, because the National Security Act requires full notification of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in circumstances like the covert use of torture. In extraordinary circumstances, the notification can be limited to eight people. This was not done, either.
John Grant
Plymouth Meeting
Abolition
and abortion
Before the Civil War, abolitionists were derided by many as zealots and radicals because of their uncompromising stand against slavery. They are similiar to pro-lifers today, who are criticized because of their uncompromising stand for life.
The debate over slavery centered on whether black people had natural rights to life and liberty that should be recognized and protected by law. The debate over abortion centers on the same issues. Should we not all be radical in our defense of human liberty and the right to life?
Rev. Scott D. Brockson
Philadelphia
Israelis don't want
a Palestinian state
Trudy Rubin mistakenly claims that the majority of Israelis support the creation of a Palestinian state ("Speaking frankly on Israel," last Wednesday).
A February 2009 Maagar Mohot Survey Institute poll showed that Israelis oppose creating a Palestinian state by 51 percent to 32 percent. An October 2007 Tel Aviv University poll showed that Israelis opposed dividing Jerusalem even in return for a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority by 59 percent to 33 percent.
These figures suggest that Israelis understand that creating a Palestinian state under current conditions will not bring peace, but more bloodshed.
Morton A. Klein
National President
Zionist Organization of America
New York
Stopping
cyber-bullying
The article by Robert C. Clothier was interesting but off the mark ("Student speech in an online age," May 18).
Tinker v. Des Moines is used in cases regarding the Internet because it is one of the few cases that involve a school district and free speech. Up to now, the U.S. Supreme Court has tried very hard to keep its nose out of any argument regarding the Internet and free speech unless it involved pornography. Time and time again, the Supreme Court has sided with the Wild West of the modern age - the Internet - with a hands-off policy.
The Supreme Court would be best to keep to itself when it comes to cyber-bullying. Cyber-bullying is a social problem, not a criminal problem, and it is the parents who are responsible, not the students.
What is needed is more funding for the schools to teach awareness so that cyber-bullying can be stopped before it starts.
Sideris Bastas
Philadelphia