Letters to the Editor
Renegade Iconoclast
Published Letters: 630 Editor's Choice: 11
-
No thanks
[Read the article: Scooter Libby responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The fact that he was shown to have lied under oath about matters material to the investigation shows he had, and still has, something to hide. He also is protecting someone from criminal prosecution.
This is exactly the sort of thing we cannot tolerate in a democracy, at the highest levels of government. By granting Libby freedom, we risk nothing less than our own. For if tyrants and authoritarians are not deterred by prosecution, who would disagree that they are made ever so bold by its absence? Witness Putin, who fears reprisal from no man, and the remarkable luck he has with reporters. The more vocal their criticism of him, the shorter their life span.
The material act which Libby aided in covering up will no doubt inflict grave damage to the United States, if it has not already done so. Its likely that many, many others were compromised in the leak. Even if this were not so, a message has been sent, that has been well heard around the world. Our word is no longer sacred, even when it comes to matters of national security. No longer is your principle worry other spies, or being detected by the enemy. Your ally may expose you, and can't be trusted not to, if the political climate makes it vaguely worthwhile to his narrow interests. You're expendable if the Prez is having a bad media day.
No, my friends, this is not a probationary offense. In my opinion, Scooter is very lucky he committed his crime in modern times. He is very lucky because we no longer seem to have a taste for prosecution of his real crime - treason, or at the very least accessory to treason.
-
Tired of right wing substance-free arguments
[Read the article: Scooter Libby responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous must have been laughing when he wrote:
How would these radical, name calling bloggers feel if all the major TV networks (fox excluded)and all the left wing major newspapers really went after all the corruption of President Clinton (and Hillary) as they do against everyone one even slightly conservative.
Did you even turn on the television during the Clinton administration? It was Paula this, Monica that, and Jennifer the other thing, all day, every day. Yet we spent millions of dollars investigating the supposed "corruption" of the Clintons, and found nothing at all.
You don't present any evidence whatsoever that what you are saying is true about anyone at all. Even I could do better than that, and I'm a left winger. Specifically, this article is about Scooter Libby, and you don't even mention his name in your post! You accuse the left wing of name calling, and then proceed on a name calling, straw man tearing down adventure of your own.
Here's something for you to try out. Do some research, and try arguing the merits of your case on actual facts, rather than innuendo, sweeping generalizations, and name calling. Can you do that? Thanks!
-
Well, I am the Iconoclast
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm extremely in the minority, and I can live with that, because ironically enough it means that I'll most likely get what I want.
Basically, I think torture should be illegal and rare. I want no government sanction of it, of any kind, and I don't want widespread use of it. I don't trust the government to pick the right folks to torture, any more than I trust them to pick the right folks to put to death.
But if we were to capture Bin Laden, or a top lieutenant, I don't see a moral issue with torturing them. In fact, I think it is immoral to avoid using every method available that could possibly get that information from them. If the extreme pain of one person can save thousands of lives, and the person in question is guilty of conspiring to kill them, that's an easy equation for me.
Those who say it doesn't ever work are kidding themselves. For one thing, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. For another, it's just not true.
Torture doesn't work if the person you torture doesn't have the intel you are looking for. That's pretty damn obvious, but it has to be said because people make that argument and seem to think they've proven some point. It's a tautology, and it proves nothing. Bin Laden does have intel we need, and so do his lieutenants. Do you just let them sit there, and ask them politely to talk? Seriously?
If Al Zarqawi were captured, and I was asked to illegally torture him for information, and I knew I was unprotected, and that I would go to jail or perhaps even be executed if caught, I would do it anyway. That's how strongly I feel about it. I'm truly not a violent person, and the idea of torturing someone is personally abhorrent.
Thing is, Bin Laden does not recognize the Geneva Convention. A giant with its hands tied can be felled by a dwarf with with a steak knife. Or a box cutter.
I'm no right winger either. In fact, if it wasn't for his foreign policy, Kucinich would be my favorite candidate in the Dem primary. As it is, I think I'll have to go with Edwards, but maybe Barack will show that he's more of a populist than he seems so far. God save us all from Hillary. Peace. Out.
-
Why is musical criticism so, like, totally awesome?
[Read the article: Why is "Sgt. Pepper" so overhyped?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think maybe it's the special way the writer can grab you by the hair and repeatedly bang your head into the wall, giving you a concussion and that slightly euphoric, dizzy feeling you had, right before your first fist-fight.
Or that the author can take a rose bud and roughly pull apart its petals, for all to see just how ragged such a lovely thing can be.
Ah, the special thrill of sneaking into the cathedral late at night, climbing up to the podium, lowering one's trousers, squatting, and defecating. What if the priests catch you? It's so exciting! Hey, someone grab a camera!