Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
why are you surprised?
in ALL the world we know that USA allows and support torture in ALL the countries.
Please, WAKE UP Americans!
It's much harder to stitch a head back on.
Who is the civilian interrogator called Johnson? What is his background? Judging from the gang hand signals in one of the photos, one could conclude he only qualification is that he is a thug.
Does the name Gonzales ring a bell? Afterall he advised the tenant of the White House that the Geneva Convention was equal the toilet paper. Since the civilian torturers are the responsibilty of Gonzos department do we really expect him to contravene his own brutal philosophy? And justice for all? Lets start with the justice department's head!
The "hand signal" in question is the Shaka, which is a common greeting in Hawai'i and surfers worldwide.
As someone who flashes it at friends and strangers alike, please do not confuse the Shaka with gang hand signals.
Thank you.
Salon in the past has taken the position that Arnold Schwarzenegger is irredeemably evil and Gray Davis is unquestionably good.
Anyone who reads the LA Times regularly has learned enough facts by now to realize that when it comes to violating the human rights of California prisoners, Gray Davis comes out looking like the evil one and Arnold actually comes out looking like the moral hero.
If Salon ever publishes another screeching diatribe listing all of the many sins and flaws of our action hero governor, will they at least give him one line of praise for at least TRYING to make California prison guards accountable for their actions on the job?
His prison reform plan had been out for MONTHS when Salon published their last screeching diatribe against him, but that screeching diatribe didn't contain the TINIEST bit of information about prison reform.
Right now it really looks like Salon's editorial policy when it comes to human rights is decided by nothing more than partisan politics.
Prisoner abuse is morally acceptable in California because the Democrats need money from the prison guards union to win elections, but it's not morally acceptable in Iraq, because the Democrats can use it to attack the Republican war?
Is that how simple the rules are here?
Please tell me this isn't how it really works.