LETTERS: Difference between drones, torture? One is illegal
To the editor:
In the Dec. 19 Review-Journal, a Victor Davis Hanson column asked the question of the difference (of morality) between drone strikes and advanced interrogation techniques, and why the Democratic Party has called out the use of the advanced interrogation techniques during the Bush administration but not the drone strike policy of President Obama.
The answer lies in legality. Last I heard, advanced interrogation techniques are illegal under the Geneva Conventions regarding torture. It is not something we want American prisoners to be subjected to. Alternately, The Hague Convention clarifies the use of weaponry and the protection of civilians and non-combatants (not to be confused with rogue militants). The use of drones cuts civilian casualties massively (a few vs. a few hundred).
If the United States refuses to follow the laws of these important conventions, how can we ask other countries to? We are still considered to be at war and, with that said, are within our rights to bomb our enemies. I think Mr. Obama has shown great restraint with the use of drone strikes. Previous wars used missiles (not to forget the two atomic bombs).
The argument could be made that countries that support terror don’t necessarily follow the laws against torture (i.e. beheadings). But the one message the United States should put out there is that we abide by the laws and we will also enforce (or force) others to do the same, even by means of war. We can’t do that if we are breaking those same laws.
MARK LEWSADER
LAS VEGAS
Better stadium
To the editor:
In response to stories about the planned downtown soccer stadium:
Having lived most of my life in the San Diego area, I enjoyed many baseball games (the Padres) and football games (the Chargers and Aztecs) at one facility; Jack Murphy/Qualcomm Stadium. I’m sure many soccer games have been played there as well.
We need a better multipurpose stadium here. I’m sure if everyone pooled their resources, a really nice, maybe even covered, sports stadium could be in our future. It’s just a thought.
LARRY WOOLF
HENDERSON
Supporting the underdog
To the editor:
Marianne Telisman is absolutely correct (“Dotty’s ruling amounts to dirty politics,” Dec. 21 letter). I have not gone to or participated in anything that has to do with Stations Casinos for years. When I first heard of what they were doing to the little guy, I lost all respect for Station and its associates. Dotty’s is a warm and relaxing place to go. You can actually win money, and the machines keep you playing for hours. Can Station Casinos say the same? I think not.
All big business does is take and take, never giving back. I wish more people would boycott Station and stand up for the little guy. Isn’t it about time?
BARB GOT
LAS VEGAS
Hunting disgusting
To the editor:
The article and picture on Page 7C of the Dec. 18 Review-Journal absolutely turned my stomach. The picture of that dead beautiful bighorn was the second most disgusting thing on the page, an innocent animal killed to give a brave hunter a “lifetime thrill,” according to the headline. The most disgusting thing was saying the hunter “harvested” the animal, as if he were bringing in the crops to feed the hungry.
What sportsmanship! With a high-powered rifle and a Zeiss scope he “competed” against an opponent that did not even know he was participating in the game. His only activity was standing still long enough to get shot. How about competing in a nonlethal sport against other humans? If shooting is your thing, how about going to an amusement park and playing laser tag? There, at least, your opponent will be a person of at least equal intelligence and not an innocent, helpless animal. Harvested indeed.
LEE BERNSTEIN
LAS VEGAS
Fiore’s money
To the editor:
On Alan Stock’s radio show, Assemblywoman Michele Fiore made numerous excuses and blamed her business’s bookkeeper and other helpers for screw-ups that led to IRS tax liens (“Hambrick says Fiore may take legal action,” Dec. 23 Review-Journal).
As captain of her ship, she should see where it’s being steered. And now she wants to steer the state’s tax policy? Really?
It reminds me a bit of when Wayne Newton filed for bankruptcy twice. He blamed his accountant for his excessive spending without much regard, and he stiffed plenty of good people he owed money to.
Has anybody looked into Ms. Fiore’s history a little deeper? Does she have a bankruptcy in her past, which is a good sign of lousy money management? A simple credit check ought to be a basic requirement for people in charge of public money. If you’re not paying your bills, that’s a red flag for rejection from the job. Even in the military, if a soldier is applying for a high-security position, the command will contact all his creditors to see that bills are paid. I know because I have been contacted by military command personnel for that reason.
As far as Assembly Speaker-designate John Hambrick goes, I think his handling of Ms. Fiore’s problems is wishy-washy, almost fickle. Caving in to people who are upset, what kind of leadership is that? Maybe he wants people to like him, or the skin is thin. What would Bob Beers do?
GEORGE LE MAY
LAS VEGAS
