Bush’s bill doesn’t change torture stance
Re “Tortured logic,” editorial, Sept. 13
With President Bush announcing his “alternative set of procedures” in lieu of out-and-out torture, it is apparent to anyone above grade-school level that Bush is merely rephrasing his sound bite so he can continue with his illegal practices.
Americans are becoming more and more aware that our president has no personal moral reference point nor respect for our Constitution, but instead he will do whatever he deems politically advantageous at the moment.
JACQUELINE KERR
Glendale
*
The Times editorial is accurate. The Bush administration has assumed the narrowest possible legal position on detainee protections under U.S. and international law, while the administration has too often taken a mile when the law gives an inch. Congress must uphold the rule of law and remember that other countries will subject Americans to the treatment that Congress allows.
CARL TOBIAS
Richmond, Va.
The writer is a professor of law at the University of Richmond.
*
The GOP’s objection to Bush’s bill to lessen the standard for torture shouldn’t be because we’re afraid other countries will do the same to our soldiers if captured. It should be because torture is an unacceptable practice and we don’t want that to happen to anyone. It is obvious to me that Bush wants the standard lessened, and retroactively to boot, because charges may be brought in the future for his administration’s criminal actions over the past five years. Fortunately, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has some experience in this area or we might be seeing another rubber-stamped whitewash of Bush’s policies.
STEVE BLACKWELDER
Dana Point
*
The Times’ editorial stated: “The Bush administration has a record of taking the narrowest possible view of protections for detainees under U.S. and international law.” Having watched television networks again and again showing the two fuel-loaded jet airliners crashing into the World Trade Center, and recalling that there have been no further terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, I can only respond: Thank God.
WILLIAM H. SMITH
Palm Desert