Letters to the Editor
Ray Walker
Published Letters: 62 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Al Loomis
[Read the article: Arraigning the 9/11 suspects, Guantánamo-style]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Al Loomis lays the culpability at the doorstep of the American government. Al believes in moral equivalence here. If there is a moral issue here that falls, as Loomis says, against us, then we should be morally willing to suffer the consequences and cede our lives to these offended people as a just retribution for over 78 years of our sins against the Muslims.
Well, self-righteous motivation seems to be Mr. Loomis' soul satisfying position. National suicide will satisfy him. Common sense is unnecessary to these views of justice.
Mr. Loomis' great grandfather may have owned or supported slavery 150 years ago. I assume he is willing to personally pay for his ancestors' sins. I'm assuming he is consistent in his morality.
Since America is the only criminal enterprise in history, he seems to be saying, we are the only ones to be held accountable for the sins of history.
It is a sad realization that Mr. Loomis is hardly a small minority of similar thinkers. The Dark Ages beckon from his form of justice. Unless, of course, the rest of humanity is so different from us that they are morally pure from their roots to their present descendants.
-
Cheap, tawdry,
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whoever said Bush was cheap has got to be kidding. Have you checked the deficit and debt?
All I can say is if I were 60 yrs younger, i.e.,17, Denise Richards would appeal to me as a one night stand. I'd prefer she not talk. But she has the vulnerable sex look that attracts horny males. Relationship would be impossible for an adult with at least 100 IQ.
I agree that Salon is bottom feeding here.
-
Scalia on GITMO
[Read the article: Tom the Dancing Bug]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The precedent for suspension of habeas corpus was Lincoln during the Civil War. In any case, the Constitution provides guarantees for American citizens, and any alien, legally or illegally in the country who is arrested by law enforcement here within our boundaries.
POWs are covered by the Geneva Convention. Habeas Corpus is not applicable. Foreign irregulars, guerrillas, taken in combat on foreign soil, are not covered by Geneva or the American Constitution. They come under military law. That's the way it has been since the War of Independence. The recent SCOTUS decision on GITMO is a brand new interpretation. I realize ideologues of right or left are impatient with the lengthy amendment procedure, but courts are to interpret not write new law. That is usurping the authority of congress.
-
Gun rights
[Read the article: Supreme Court gun ruling could backfire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This argument has been going on my entire life. I'm 77. I have never been able to understand the emotional reaction to permitting law abiding citizens to be armed if they believe it necessary. Antigun laws only affect the law abiding. Criminals have never paid attention to such laws. Most state carry permits require extensive classes clearly warning about the use of deadly force. In states that adopt carry laws the violent crime stats have gone down. In D.C. the only folks with guns were the hoods and an over-matched police dep't. The right to self defense is the right to life. The police cannot always be there in time to aid you.
-
Swift Boat
[Read the article: Of all the attack dogs McCain could have picked ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't thik the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry are necessarily false. Kerry refused to permit access to his military records. Why? McCain's are open. I think Kerry is a poseur. His attacks on Vietnam vets as criminals was and is false. The truth is not in his code of conduct.
-
Winning Vietnam
[Read the article: What John McCain didn't learn in Vietnam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Conason, you need to look at the politics prior to the end of the Nam war. LBJ and McNamara were the major actors responsible for the conduct of that war. The Vietnamese winners have written their opinion, and expressed shock at our manner of handling it. They thought they had lost. There were several possibilities they considered we would employ that they could not defeat and they seriously discussed at what point they'd have to quit.
The Anti-war mood by a fickle public and a violently antiwar press sealed the political decision to quit the war. It was winnable. You speak of how many more lives. Fewer than the 200,000 Japanese in the two atomic strikes, or the 400,000 Japanese in the fire bombings of Tokyo. In war people die. Preferably the other guy's people.
McCain is quite right. It was winnable. We lost faith at home. None of that answers the question of whether we should've been there. That was JFK and LBJ's choices.
Democrats Truman and JFK involved us in wars their party would not let us win. Two Republicans, Ike and Nixon ended those wars.
Democrats are like old women arguing incessantly and starting things they won't finish. Prior to Bush, Republicans did it right. Reagan ended the Cold War without a shot being fired. Carter fiddled while Tehran took our embassy. Liberals are feminine thinkers, Republicans are male thinkers and doers. Even the sloppy foolish Bush has done better than Gore or Kerry would've done.
We had several attacks here by Muslim Jihadists as well as around the world at embassies under Clinton's watch. Since 9/11 and Bush, we have had no more. They're too busy being martyred in Iraq.