Letters to the Editor

Mumbai, the NYT's revisionism, and lessons not learned The Times' Editorial Page blames the Bush administration for "blessing" the military coup against Hugo Chavez without mentioning that it did the same. Why does that matter? Glenn Greenwald [2008-11-28]

• When did we make the change?

  I agree with Glenn that this is now the common response to events like terrorist attacks:

  The temptation is great even among the most rational to empower authority to do anything and everything -- without limits -- to punish those responsible and prevent repeat occurrences.

  I can remember a time when the sentiment for such a situation was "Throw the book at them!"

  What a difference that is. The idea was for the perpetrators to suffer the maximum possible punishment, but for that punishment to come from "the book", a euphemism for the law.

  Now, the punishment (along with the procedures for convicting and sentencing) called for by "the book" are simply not good enough and we must go further. This quite literally true with regard to one book, the US Army Field Manual, that lays out in detail what is and what is not allowed in interrogation.

  Imagine the alternative universe where a President Gore "threw the book" at al Qaeda. Or one where the citizens and press of the United States insisted that President Bush operate "by the book" in his efforts.

  Is the willingness to throw away "the book" what they really mean when "patriots" say that "everything changed after 9/11"?

  -- Jim White
  [Read Jim White's other letters]
  Permalink Flag Friday, November 28, 2008 06:08 AM
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel