Posted: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:00 am
Why son has phone at school
I just wanted to comment on the cell phone issue at school (Oct. 8). My son goes to Memorial Middle School and is in the seventh grade. They were told in an assembly at the beginning of the year that cell phones were not allowed at all no matter what.
My son carries it anyway due to the fact I need to know that he made it to school that morning, since he has to ride his bike across Pacific Boulevard to get to school. And he was told he could not use the phone at school unless it was an emergency.
And he also carries it in case he gets in a bad situation. For example, last year he was being chased after school by five bullies. When he got out his phone and called home, his dad came to his rescue and stopped what could have been a very bad beating up of my son by these five boys. Had he not had his phone he would not have been able to do this. I hate that I have to have my son break a rule at school, but I wouldn't send him to school without one.
He does not have it on during school, only to call home when he gets there and when he leaves, and if he has a problem. It has given me peace of mind knowing he is at school safe and that he can call if there is a problem.
I think it's a good idea for kids to have a cell phone for these kinds of reasons, and I don't think they should have to worry about getting into trouble at school if they have a phone in their possession if turned off during school hours. Especially since they can only use the phone at school in an emergency, and since schools continue to have kids that like to bully other kids and chase them down to beat them up.
Kelli Pape, Albany
Law will be ignored
Mr. Hering, your editorial regarding HR 6166 (Oct. 8) was right on the mark. Everything you said was true. The only problem is, in order for this to work, we need an honest and forthright administration. That we do not have. The current administration has ignored laws and trampled on our constitution. What makes you think this will be any different?
Also, have you noticed how the price of gas is falling like a stone? One month before the elections. Could it be that big oil wants to keep the Republicans in power? Why? I'll tell you why. Oil companies are required to pay royalties in exchange for drilling on federal land. Prior to Bush taking office, our government was collecting nearly $200 million per year. Today they are receiving about $49 million. This is a fact. Check it out for yourself. All I can say at this point is, anyone who believes anything this current administration says must have an I.Q. that rivals their shoe size.
R. Joseph Earle, Sweet Home
HR 6166: Another view
I have not seen such a shameless exhibition of lying and cherry-picking of text as Mr. Hering's "Read the law: What torture?"
Mr. Hering, I have read HR 6166 and it is painfully obvious that you are hoping the public will not read the bill.
Your first assertion is that the bill excludes American citizens, and then cites a passage which uses the term "alien unlawful combatant." But you had to skip the beginning of the bill which defines "unlawful enemy combatant" (948a) which does not distinguish citizenship status of said combatants. In other words, Mr. Hering, American citizens are subject to this act.
Then you claim that torture is not permitted under the act, and you utilize some agonizing uses of ellipses to buttress this lie. The follow-up on this is equally false. In actuality, the act permits the use of evidence obtained by torture, including self-incriminating statements, if the military judge finds 1) that circumstances render the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value, and 2) interests of justice would best be served by admission of statement into evidence. (Section 948r (c))
In other words, Mr. Hering, torture is not allowed unless the military judge decides to allow it.
You make the same false claim with violations of the Geneva Convention. You are also shockingly unconcerned with the act giving the president discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Convention. Our president has defended and promoted the use of torture, of illegal war (re: Iraq and Afghanistan), and killing of civilians (re: Iraq and Afghanistan again). He cannot be trusted to "interpret" the Geneva Convention.
The Albany Democrat-Herald abdicated all journalistic responsibility by presenting this White House propaganda piece that Pravda would be proud of, as "editorial opinion." You have done your readers untold harm.
A prominent retraction should be immediately forthcoming.
Kathleen Dervin, Chicago
No retraction is offered or necessary. It's true that the law defines "unlawful enemy combatant," but it also defines "lawful enemy combatant." "co-belligerent," "alien," "classified information" and "Geneva Conventions." The key section says: "Purpose: This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions." As for torture, the law completely bans the use of confessions obtained since the start of 2006 by cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. As for earlier statements in which the degree of coercion is disputed, a judge may admit them in the interest of justice if he finds them reliable. (hh)
Legislation is, too, a threat to all
In his Oct. 8 commentary "Read the law: What torture?" Hasso Hering paints a rosy picture of HR 6166.
I would assume, as his title suggests, that he actually read this bill recently passed by Congress. He tries to assure fellow readers that our government would never pass legislation allowing unlawful arrest and imprisonment of Americans. He is wrong.
Mr. Hering asserts that this commission will try "alien unlawful combatants" and not Americans. The actual definition in Sec. 948a, does not specify "alien" or U.S. citizen; only "a person." (See editor's note on opposite page.)
A recent L.A. Times article by Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman states, "The compromise legislation … authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. Once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
The New York Times stated that the legislation introduced "A dangerously broad definition of 'illegal enemy combatant' in the bill could subject legal residents of the U.S. to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope for appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted."
This new bill is frightening, and Bush has declared himself to be above the Constitution and the laws of the United States. In short, Hasso, the text of HR 6166 does indeed support the allegations of other writers about what this law means.
Doug Huntley, Corvallis
'Forceful information extraction'
It is weirdly fascinating to read the "tortuous" logic employed by some letter writers in attacking those who criticize the administration's patriotic use of forceful information extraction (by most people's definition called "torture") as something a true conservative should be proud of.
Unfortunately these folks let the cat out of the bag by stating that criticism of this sort would get one in a lot of trouble in some other countries. The implied threat is that we need to watch what we say (we don't want our "enemies" to think we are unhappy, do we?).
I am afraid there are fewer and fewer things we can be proud of, and the midterm elections will determine whether our faith can be restored. And to answer Mr. Bush's blind loyalists: No, we are not moving to another country, and too bad if that prospect displeases. And spare us the litany of cliches and soundbites; they are frankly unconvincing and boring.
Leo de Vogel, Corvallis
What's become of conservatives?
"Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose," the conservative columnist George Will once wrote. Unfortunately, today's neo-cons in power have actually swung around to oppose traditional conservative values.
I sure miss when conservatives still cared about keeping the country out of debt; still knew that religion and politics were separate pursuits; still knew the country didn't necessarily need military intervention to remain the world's unchallenged superpower.
With Republicans in the White House and the Congress now wallowing in the results of these "neo-concoctions" over the past six years, it's critical for traditional conservatives to strongly oppose the "neo" before their name - to once again define their true values. If not, the consequences for the Republican Party, the American political system and our country will be dire.
Steven Kunert, Corvallis
Trust Amnesty International more
I thank Hasso Hering for his excellent suggestion Oct. 8 in his commentary, "Read the law: What torture?"
After reading his editorial on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, I did go read the bill. I discovered that I was wrong on a couple of points: U.S. citizens are excluded from the law. I was mistaken on this point.
However, the right to a speedy trial is expressly abolished by the law. Some people have been in custody for over five years now.
Torture is not allowed. I was wrong on this, too. However, the law states the convicted persons can be transported to any penal facility "the U.S. is allowed to use." Sending people to countries where torture is known to be inflicted has been alleged against the administration.
If it is happening, this law makes it legal, as long as we don't know about it. Furthermore, if the evidence is classified, then it can be kept from the defendant.
The Geneva Conventions are supposed to be followed, but the accused cannot use them as a source of rights, habeas corpus is abolished in this case, and the president is given the right to interpret the Geneva Conventions as he chooses.
But a source I trust more than Mr. Herring's or my own reading of the law is Amnesty International, who calls the military tribunals "a sham" and states this law will "deepen America's reputation as a renegade violator of human rights." This law is wrong, and I oppose it and the administration and Republican machine that passed it.
John Simonsen, Corvallis
Why give immunity for past torture?
You forgot to mention that HR 6166 gives protection from prosecution for acts of torture that have already been committed. Why should the private contractors or the CIA get immunity?
They knew what the definition of torture was, yet they get to order around U.S. Army personnel and then just walk out the door.
After Sept. 11, Vice President Cheney is quoted as saying that we would have to "work … the dark side" to defeat Bin Ladin. I wonder if any of the private contractors involved in torture work for subsidiaries of Halliburton? I refuse to let this administration make me less of a human being then I am.
Bruce Crossan, Lebanon