Letters to the Editor
CarolynC
Published Letters: 200 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Any discussion of military rules concerning civilian casualties
[Read the article: When is an accidental civilian death not an accident?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]needs to mention the existing rules of engagement that make force protection, not the protection of innocent civilians paramount.
For example, how many innocent civilians have been killed at army checkpoints, based on minimal suspicion? Fear of suicide bombers at checkpoints taking the lives of American soldiers has resulted in the deaths of myriad innocent civilians at checkpoints.
Soon after rules saying, in essence, "Shoot first, ask questions later" were put into effect, American soldiers opened fire on a vehicle killing seven civilians inside, including five children. In response to the frequent killing of innocent civilians at checkpoints, the military could be expected to alter this policy. But it did not.
The reason the military relies so much on bombs and air power in the first place is to minimize casualties to American troops, to lose as few as possible so as to make war more palatable to Americans at home.
In his overview of American military practices in Afganistan and Iraq in his book "The President of Good and Evil, the ethicist and philosoper Peter Singer concludes, "American troops appear not to have valued the lives of innocent Iraqis in the same way that they would have valued the lives of innocent Americans."
All the oh-so-sober discussions of the rational decision-making process the military undertakes when it plays God, literally looking down from above on the civilians whose lives will shortly be snuffed out, does not obscure the fact that people around the world can see how we disproportionately value the lives of Americans over the lives of others. It may seem unclear to us, it most assuredly is not to those who view our wars from beyond our country's shores.
-
A warning from the founding fathers
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost. . . is lost forever."
- John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1775
-
One nation, under surveillance
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jack Balkin over at Balkinazation makes the argument that we are entering an era of powerful governmental surveillance of citizens, and that the only question left is whether there will even be minimal safeguards put in place, or whether there will be unfettered power for the executive to conduct surveillance without any oversight whatsoever. He describes this latest vote as an indication that it will be the latter outcome.
This is depressing, to say the least. I am reminded of Naomi Wolff's series in the Guardian several months ago. She made the argument that there is every indication that this country is on a slow slide toward some type of totalitarianism. (She uses the F-word, fascism). Even though her argument was powerful, I still found myself disagreeing with her hopeless outlook.
In the face of recent depressing events, I still allow myself to hope that ordinary citizens can awaken and mobilize, that somehow all of us together can make a difference. History contains examples of groups of people, armed with nothing more than courage and conviction being able to prevail against seemingly insurmountable odds. (The American revolution is only one such example. The democracy movements in eastern Europe just two decades ago are another example, as is India's success in throwing off colonial rule using nonviolence and grassroots resistance.)
These and so many other examples give me hope. The pushback has begun and will take time to gather strength and make itself felt.
-
Dems view civil liberties as a loser politically
[Read the article: More on the FISA debacle]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They subscribe to the CW that Americans don't care about having their privacy invaded, as long as it's done in order to keep them safe in some vaguely defined way.
The Republicans has had some limited success painting people concerned about civil liberties as suspect, terrorist-loving, Dirty Hippies, but polls done over the past three years show an increasing concern over privacy rights when people are polled about domestic spying, wiretapping, etc., with more Americans now more concerned about privacy rights than before. But the poll results have not indicated resounding support for Constitutional protections, in the way that civil libertarians would hope.
In a USA/Gallop poll from May 2006, people were asked, "Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people’s civil liberties in order to fight terrorism?" 41% said too far, 34% said about right, and 19% said not far enough.
Polls like this indicate that Americans are sharply divided on this issue, with Republicans far more likely to dismiss civil liberties' concerns, and Democrats far more likely to express the view that the Bush administration has gone too far in curtailing them. Grassroots Democrats have to make civil liberties a defining issue, and explain to the apprehensive that they are the hallmark of a free society. They must avoid appearing apologetic for defending the Constitution. Unless politicians feel civil liberties have the vocal support of a large group of Americans, they will find it easy to vote them away.
-
The New York Times and the so-called liberal media
[Read the article: The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]gets sucker-punched by this administration every time.
The New York Times op-ed pages choose articles from diverse individuals with some claim to objective knowledge of their subject matter. They make an effort to be even-handed on their opinion page. They at least try to give all sides a voice and then they expect the reader to weigh competing claims.
But this approach assumes that all players are operating in good faith and are open and honest with their readers. In the case of this op-ed piece, as in so many other instances, the administration has thrown out the rules and no longer plays fair, making an honest argument based on the facts of the matter. They score big when they co-opt people with respectable establishment credentials like Pollack and O'Hanlon and then spoonfeed them biased, deceptive "facts," that further the adminstration's objectives.
This administration is not concerned wtih presenting the truth about what is going on in Iraq; it believes its function is to "manufacture consent" using the same focus-group tested marketing strategies used by Madison Avenue. Since the ends justify the means, distortions, lies and manipulation are okay if they help Bush, Cheney and the neocons gain support for their endless warmaking.