We're often told not to discuss politics or religion in polite company. But sometimes your hand is forced. It all started with two stories that appeared in subsequent weeks -- in the 9 May and 16 May 2004 issues:

Diane in WebTVland took great exception to the second story. She wrote to complain, and I responded. That exchange was published in the 23 May editions:

• Freedom of speech is one thing, but potential subversion and outright sympathy for the enemy is another. You are just the type of person who whines that early signs of trouble were not heeded before 9-11, but now cries about 'freedoms' when those in authority do act cautiously. It sounds like that boy was only questioned and nothing was done to him, so why did you even mention it? I know why, and you don't deserve the freedom this great country has purchased for you and others like you over the last several hundred years. By the way, if these terrorists do win the battle, people like you are the first ones they will kill -- they don't like what you believe in.

Well, that's certainly true: I believe in freedom of speech. By their actions, the 9/11 terrorists clearly don't. I believe in true freedom of religion. By their actions, they clearly don't. I believe in due process (even though our current administration doesn't seem to). They very obviously don't. I believe in all the other rights enumerated in our Constitution (and the responsibilities that go with them), and most would agree they don't. So what's your complaint? Ah yes: that I "whined" about "early signs of trouble" that were ignored before 9/11 (Yeah? Can you point to one instance? I didn't think so) and that I "don't deserve the freedom this great country has purchased" for me.

Does everyone clearly understand this woman's concept of freedom? In her world view, she gets to decide who "deserves" freedom! I've spent 10 years supporting our country's military in True, but I "don't deserve" the freedom that my country guarantees to all of its citizens. (And, sigh, our country's military let us all down when it first didn't follow the Geneva Conventions, as our country both has agreed to do and demands other countries follow and, second, didn't take strong, decisive action against the chain of command that allowed, or even ordered, soldiers to commit outrageous acts against prisoners. But I digress.)

Diane "knows why" I "mentioned the story" but doesn't offer to share what her clairvoyance revealed to her. So why did I "mention" it? Because it was wrong; it was an outrageous abuse against the first right guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. And most everyone did get that. What would I have suggested have happened instead? If the teacher was worried about the art, she should have called the kid's parents in for a chat. Remember when teachers did that? If she had further concerns (say, the parents didn't give her a reasonable response), then she takes it to the principal. She skipped the first part and went straight for the second. The principal, then, if he saw a problem, should have done what the teacher failed to do: call in the parents. He failed too.

Schools are so quick to call the police these days, and it's pathetic. The stories in my Zero Tolerance series are a case in point. I mean really: call the cops because a tiny bat fell off a baseball trophy?! But then, the police were called in the art case. The police are supposed to know people's rights! Are we expected to believe they don't understand them? They are supposed to use discretion and act as gatekeepers to the courts; they didn't roll their eyes and tell the school it was overreacting? Nope: that would involve (gasp!!) a decision! They passed the buck to the Secret Service. Once called, of course the Secret Service had to send someone out to interview the boy. But finally there was someone who had the guts to make a decision and not pass the buck, so the case ended there. Bravo to that anonymous federal agent.

Teachers are cowed. School administrators are cowed. Even the police are cowed. By what? Fear of ZT rules and laws. Fear of lawsuits. Fear of making a decision. Fear of taking responsibility. That's simply not good for our country. What happens when we get into that mindset? Well, we get things like enlisted Army types being ordered to torture a prisoner. They think: "Gee, that doesn't sound like a good idea, but that's my orders!" when they should be thinking: "That's wrong. That's against international law, that's against ethics, that's against morals. My superior is out of line, and I need to report this." That takes guts. Remember when we had guts?

The slippery slope is called that for a reason. Being a citizen of the U.S., or the world, is not just about "rights"; it's also about responsibility. It's about saying something is wrong when you're a witness to wrongdoing. It's not about screaming "you don't deserve freedom" when someone points out a problem. It's not about forcing your world view on others, it's about seeing the big picture. We've already seen what happens when someone like Diane in WebTVland gets to be in charge: that was Iraq. With any luck, the world will get beyond Saddam, and people like Diane, but it won't be easy. We all have to take responsibility. It's a tough job, but that's what's required out of being a good citizen of the world. From what I see, the only ones who "don't deserve freedom" are those who don't accept those parallel responsibilities.

Letters

(Note: Please resist the urge to write on this topic unless your point is not already covered below.)

The first several readers I heard from were quite upset that I implied that the U.S. military had acted contrary to the Geneva Conventions. Several were livid that I accused the military of abuse when they are, at this point, still allegations, not proven cases of abuse. Example:

• Wow. If you've always been a dogmatist, using your column to make wild, unsubstantiated attacks on the government, in lieu of reasonable discussion, I've never noticed it before. And, so, perhaps, shame on me. If, however, this is the first time you've used your forum to make critically damning conclusions, without the facts to support them, and while the investigations are still in process....well, that's enough for me. --Alan, Massachusetts

"Wild, unsubstantiated attacks"? OK, let's take a look at some recent reports and statements on the Abu Ghraib fiasco:

In addition to the obvious humilation tactics used in Abu Ghraib shown in released photographs, there is evidence that at least one inmate was slammed head first into a wall so hard that he died; beating a prisoner to death is certainly not treatment according to the Geneva Conventions. Several had their faces pushed into urine. One guard, Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., is reported to have said to another, "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'"

Who documented these charges? Enemy propagandists? Nope: U.S. military investigators. (Source: Los Angeles Times)

"We are devastated by what happened at Abu Ghraib. We apologize to those who were abused in such an awful manner." (Note the word "abuse", not "alleged abuse".) A statement by a foreign agent trying to disgrace the U.S.? Nope: President Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell. (Source: Reuters)

These all are merely allegations? Nope: U.S. Army Spc. Jeremy Sivits has already pleaded guilty to three charges:

• Maltreatment of subordinates by taking "a photograph of nude detainees being forced into a human pyramid position."
  
• "Negligently fail[ing] to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty and maltreatment, as it was his duty to do."
  
• "Did maltreat a detainee, a person subject to his orders, by escorting the detainee to be positioned in a pile on the floor to be assaulted by other soldiers."

Sivits admitted under oath that detainees were beaten, stripped and forced to masturbate and simulate oral sex on each other. He said he "saw people being stomped on," at least one so hard that he was knocked out, but did nothing to stop it. "I let everyone down.... I should have protected those detainees." U.S. Army judge Col. James Pohl asked Sivits: "Did you know this was wrong?" "Yes, sir," Sivits replied. "Did you have a duty to prevent this?" the judge asked. "Yes, sir." "Did you try to stop this?" "No, sir.

Before being sentenced to a year in a military prison, Sivits said "I wanted to help the people of Iraq be free. I've learned a huge lesson: You have to stand up for what is right. I'm sorry for what I've done." (Source: Los Angeles Times)

"Under [Saddam Hussein], prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values." A statement by some anti-Bush Democratic apologist? Nope: a statement by President George W. Bush, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. (Source: White House Press Office transcript of the president's address to the United States Army War College)

Based on this rather damning evidence, admissions, court conviction(s), and apologies by our own leaders, who can blame anyone for saying these events actually happened? They're clearly not simple allegations, are they?

• I take deep exception to your comments regarding the problems in the Iraqi prison and failure to follow "Geneva Conventions". The United States is not dealing with a conventional enemy: they don't wear uniforms, they shoot from hiding, they commit homicide by blowing themselves up just to take someone with them (in many cases non-combatants like women & children). They respond to U.S. "abuses" of taking photos of naked prisoners by hacking the head off an innocent american seeking employment (Nick Berg) and videotaping it...then broadcasting that tape publicly, their faces covered with masks, and cheering loudly as they savagely slice off his head and holding it up to the camera like a sick trophy. Do you think you can possibly equate what our troops have done with the multiple atrocities of the Iraqis? I do not think that you "don't deserve freedom", but I do think that your position regarding the Iraq situation is offensive. --Max, New York

1) Disgusting actions like what happened to Nick Berg don't justify disgusting actions like what happened to detainees in Abu Ghraib. 2) Do I think I "can possibly equate what our troops have done with the multiple atrocities of the Iraqis"? Of course not: I have not done so -- again, two wrongs still don't make a right. 3) What, specifically, do you think is offensive? That I called a wrong a wrong? Are you also offended that the President and the Secretary of State called it wrong? Why or why not?

• I believe your blaming our entire military for the actions of a few went a bit too far. To date, we have heard allegations against less than 2 dozen officers and enlisted personnel in the US Army, most of them reserves. While I do not condone the actions described and personally hold the officers directly in charge of those personnel equally if not more responsible than those that physically committed abuse, I do not think it appropriate to paint the entire armed forces with this same broad brush. Hopefully, those responsible will be held accountable for their actions or inaction. As for your claim of "didn't take strong, decisive action...", that too remains to be seen. Even those who committed these acts are afforded the same due process, protected by the same Constitution that is the crux of your repartee. As for me, my wife and I are both veterans of the US Military and our only son currently serves as a machine-gunner in the USMC, the fourth straight generation in our family to proudly serve. Please do not condemn us all for the actions of a few. --Tim, Georgia

Good points. I do have conflicts in my job description, such as entertain... and provoke thought; lead opinion... and reflect existing sentiment. There's no denying that the existing sentiment worldwide, and growing within the U.S., is condemnation of our actions in Iraq. That a very small number of soldiers gave explosive ammunition to fuel that condemnation is awful; it doesn't just paint the entire armed forces with a broad brush of moral outrage, it paints the entire country in justifiable outrage. As I've said, I've been a strong public supporter of our military since True started 10 years ago. That I feel shame over the actions of a few speaks volume; I, and many of my readers, feel let down by those we trusted. The military, and the country, has a lot of work ahead to fix the very real damage that has (not "allegedly has"!) been done.

As for taking "strong, decisive action", yes: the military did do just that -- against several enlisted men and women. But they did not do so against the chain of command, who "knew or should have known" what was going on. Yes, the investigation has started to widen and go up that chain to those in charge, but it certainly didn't happen as quickly as it did with the enlisted.

• One aspect of this whole sordid business in the Abu Ghraib Prison does illustrate the "American Way": when the abuses were discovered and even before they were completely substantiated, we, as Americans, faced them and owned up to them. It would have been easier to destroy the photographs, "disappear" the prisoners that were at the prison and transfer the guards. Instead, the pictures were published by our free press, those responsible for the abuses are being tried and convicted by our courts, and our political leaders are publicly apologizing. Compare this with the ongoing struggles with similar problems in South America, Africa, Asia and even Europe. --Mike, California

Or, indeed, compare it to the usual way of doing business in the Middle East.

• As an ex-American, I cry for my former country. So much promise ruined by a few narrow minded people. Let me make it clear, I left the States for economic & adventurous reasons a year after being honorably discharged after three years in a U.S. Army combat unit. (I wasn't drafted.) I am proud of my military service. I am proud of anyone who chooses to serve their country (Canadian, American, or otherwise) with honor & loyalty. That especially includes the troops in Iraq today, many of them National Guard troopers who have given up good paying jobs and families because their country called but failed to supply with proper equipment. I became Canadian for two reasons; this is where I live & pay taxes, and to protest American foreign policy promoting dictatorships over democracies in the third world because it was better for big business. I saw in America a growing tendency for individuals and groups to wrap themselves in the flag and demand the all "loyal American" follow them blindly. Anyone who doesn't follow is labeled a Commie, unpatriotic, pro-terrorist, or whatever the current dark evil is. Freedom has a price that Diane and her kind are unwilling to pay: study, understanding, & action. Sad to say people of her kind are found in every democracy, even Canada's. They are unwilling to study their nation's documents like their constitution, and to fearlessly study their real nation's history, which includes the bad with the good. They need to study the news and opinions of all sides, especially those they don't agree with. They need to try to understand all sides of an issue because in most cases, the truth lies some place in between. And lastly, they must act like they believe what they say. If your say you believe in free speech then you have to fight for that right to be extended to all even when you don't agree with them. If you believe in justice, then it is justice for all. If you believe in democracy, you need to look long and hard at the candidates and issues; and then vote with your head. Both Canada and the U.S. are holding elections this year. I pray that all loyal citizens will get out and vote. --Ron, B.C., Canada

• You did your usual good job of publicly spanking Diane. But I was surprised to see you overlook one tiny aspect of her letter: it was veterans that purchased those freedoms, no one else. And they did it without placing any conditions on freedom. We are free to be pretty much anything we want; asshole, anti-war activist, dumb ass, whatever. I don't always agree with the things people choose to be, but freedom means you can be whatever you want to be. Like it or not, everyone gets to enjoy those freedoms, even Diane, from the land of dumb ass. --Michael, USN Ret., Idaho

• I don't know what your political affiliation is, if any, nor could I opine with any confidence on what direction you would lean on a given issue; suffice it to say that it seems you're not one to be called a "radical conservative". I say that only because in a lot of cases, I am one of those people that might get billed as a "radical conservative". Despite that conservative bent, I've pretty much run out of patience with the administration, and I'm overjoyed to hear someone with an influential voice stepping up to the plate of reason and suggesting that things like due process are being overlooked of late. Despite the hordes of angry mobs who instantly lump a critique of the administration in the category of slander toward the military, attacks the American way of life, disgust for patriotism, or even treason, you are perfectly justified in your claim that you support the military fully (except, as you go on to say, for those individuals who violate international law and those others who let them do it). Thanks for your comments -- I continue to appreciate them. --Josh, California

• You concluded, "From what I see, the only ones who 'don't deserve freedom' are those who don't accept those parallel responsibilities." I have to disagree with you there. Everyone deserves freedom, whether they are strong enough to accept the parallel responsibilities or not. (Here, "strong" can be interpreted myriad ways.) It's one of the great (and sometimes irritating!) things about freedom, and one of the great (and sometimes irritating) things about this country. --Emily, Virginia

• I have felt for a long time that the lack of responsibility in this country will be our downfall, and I have strived in my daily life to always accept responsibility for my shortcomings. If something I have done, or not done, causes problems, I readily admit my guilt and get on with correcting the situation. If I must explain the reasons for my performance, or lack thereof, I think before I speak, making sure what I say does not come out as an excuse, blaming others or outside forces for my failures. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, those in authority choose not to take this moral high road and would much rather "pass the buck" than accept responsibility for making a decision. --Phil, Texas

• Despite your implied contention, few countries faithfully follow (or even attempt to follow) the conventions (Geneva and Hague) and the Law of Land Warfare, but I know that the majority (99%) of our military try, to the best of their abilities, to adhere to the established standards. Please also remember that these "rules" of Abu Ghraib were approved by civilian attorneys (probably ideologues) and not by practiced judge advocates (military attorneys), many of whom raised concerns about these rules. I think the military's restraint regarding our actions since the start of the war have been admirable, as it is always much easier to visit the enemy with massive destruction than attempting to separate out legitimate military targets from civilians. Until this entire episode plays out, I don't see how you can say that "strong, decisive action" hasn't been taken. Already 6 officers have had letters of admonishment/reprimand placed in their files, which effectively ruins any chances at promotion and is in reality, a career-ending action. Yes, junior enlisted personnel have so far borne the brunt of "justice", but I would hope that if an officer is found to have committed an overt act (either actual participation, directing, planning, or giving orders), that they would be punished to the maximum extent allowed under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, rather than if they had committed an act of omission (such as not properly supervising their enlisted personnel). If officers are found to have committed serious transgressions, it will be a "black-eye" for the military to not punish them severely, if guilty. Those that commit the offenses will always bear a much greater responsibility, for they had the ability to end things rather quickly and despite their protestations, one can't blame the military when you don't afford another human being the same simple courtesies that you would expect to be given. The military provides plenty of training in regards to the Geneva Conventions and Law of Land Warfare, I would estimate that I have had over 25 hours of training (on each subject) in my career. One needs look no further than Specialist Darby than to find a soldier who served in a manner that we, the American people, expect, but can also look up to. --Lt. Col. David, US Army, Missouri

You and I agree that Darby, who brought the abuse to light, is to be commended. I have read, but did not clip the story so I can quote it directly here, that the enlisted personnel at Abu Ghraib, many or most of them reservists, did not have training in the Geneva Conventions. I was too young for Viet Nam and too old for the current draft, and did not volunteer for the Services, but I have at least a basic knowledge of the Geneva Conventions just from watching TV and movies. That 1) real soldiers and 2) those assigned to actually work with detainees, whether civilian or combatant (both of whom are covered by the Conventions) don't have specific training regarding the "rules of war" is a scandal, if true.

• About the pictures we've been seeing from Iraq: I don't think the people being persecuted for what they've done is right. Yes, Persecuted. Geneva or no Geneva, it's pretty much common knowledge that bad things happen to prisoners of war. On both sides. This isn't Great Aunt Mary we're talking to. It's the enemy, and we're trying to get him to squeal. This is not a god-damned tea party we're planning here. And the more we can break these people down and get them to give information that can save our son's lives, the better. I say do what we have to. Why is everyone so shocked?? Are we so naive as to believe this sort of thing doesn't happen? Or is it just easier to not think about it? What if it were your son's life on the line? What would you do? What wouldn't you do?? --Melanie, Texas

The problem is, once it becomes known that we don't follow the rules, we can't demand they follow the rules when they have our sons -- and daughters -- in custody. The worst thing about this isn't our shame, it's that the idiots at Abu Ghraib have made war much, much more dangerous for U.S. troops.

• I agree totally with you in your posting of the story and your take on it. Clearly a case of overreaction and lack of clear thinking which is a standard for ZT policies. I disagree with Diane. However, I've noticed in the years that I've been subscribed to your newsletters that sometimes you react very passionately to comments that reflect poor thinking or just outright stupidity. Sorry, I just don't get it. It's like scolding a 6-year-old because he didn't correctly factor an algebraic equation. --Oscar, California

This isn't advanced algebra, this is basic citizenship -- but I get your point. There are two big reasons I take the time and effort to respond to silly spoutings like Diane's: First, she's by far not the only one who thinks this way. People who have to deal with such types need examples of how to talk back when they hear such idiocy. And second, readers find it entertaining.

• Through time the world has regarded America as a great leader. It has been the one country that has staunchly espoused the rights of the individual and has been the dream nation for many. This discovery of a country that fails to honor international conventions, that runs after stupidity, is so cowed that it cannot speak without seeking recourse to unnecessary authority, is a little shocking and a let down. More so, because, if you see it from an outsider's point of view, America today is no different from so many others. Are we going back over the centuries to Hamurabi's code of law: an eye for an eye, a hand for a hand, a life for a life? Is that what America stands for? Or does it stand for Justice, Liberty and Freedom? Overreaction, frivolous suits, zero tolerance...for God's sake! It seems as if the collective conscience that made U.S. so great has decided to go bury its head in the sand or maybe is turning in the grave. No longer is the U.S. a place one would like to be, and its so called high moral posturing is revealed to be an empty container "full of sound and fury signifying nothing". Are these the actions of a world leader? The answer is a resounding NO! Is this the image you want to leave us with? People like Diane certainly seem to affirm that. --Kirti, India

And that, of course, is exactly why I rant against such things. This is exactly why responsibility is such an important thing to remember, especially when people are screaming for their rights. I'm proud that the U.S. has been such a good example of how to be a human, and how to run a government "for the people, by the people." It's for that very reason that I'm so ashamed of what some of our representatives to the world did at Abu Ghraib. Rather than standing up and showing the world how things should be done, they showed the world that we're no better than the cruel and selfish dictator we deposed. Is that damage irreversible? Of course not. But the damage certainly is real, and we have a lot of work to do to repair it.

As I've shown, many of the things I've ranted about over time -- "zero tolerance" in schools, ignoring responsibility while demanding "rights", ridiculous lawsuits that demand "someone must pay -- even though I'm really the one at fault" are all interrelated. They're symptoms of an ill society, and if we don't get to work soon on fixing it, "the Fall of Rome" will look like a silly little warm-up exercise.

• How I wish you would give us subscribers permission to forward this particular edition to everyone we know -- your response to "Diane" and her unclear-on-the-concept thoughts about "Proof the Terrorists Have Won II" was absolutely wonderful. --Amy, Texas

Sorry you can't forward your Premium edition to friends, but you may certainly direct them to this page. In fact, I'd much prefer that to ever-more more "atta boy" notes!

• Your response to Diane said it all and your comments should be on page one of every major newspaper in the world, plus required reading for all elected officials. She just doesn't get it and should read the Constitution and Bill of Rights before opening her mouth and inserting her foot up to the knee. It is exactly because of our sacrifices in the military (ten years in the Navy in Vietnam here) that she has the right to say what she does. We also have the right to ignore her. --John, Colorado

• Randy, it's a shame you can't issue Diane a "Get out of America free" card. --Kent, Arizona

• If this had been a speech, I'd have stood to applaud. My hat's off to you, sir. --Ed, Florida

• I especially like your editorial response about zero tolerance and the First Amendment. Congress passes laws and as a federal employee I am called upon to enforce them in the naturalization interviews I do daily. I hope I do this only on the basis of the law and not my personal opinion, or whether or not I like or dislike someone. I do this because that is what America is supposed to be about: freedom from government tyranny. --Bill, California

• I am sure you knew you were going to open up a can of worms by posting Diane's response, but I think that's the point -- open dialogue amongst regular people. Note: In the Air Force Reserve, Law of Armed Conflict training is an annual requirement. I don't buy the "they didn't tell me" excuse for that reason alone, not to mention the other blatantly obvious reasons. Back to the "personal responsibility" issue again, ain't it? It's amazing, but today I have consciously figured out how it all ties together: ZT policies, Stella Award type lawsuits, personal responsibility, consequences, etc. --Brian, Colorado

• You said, "NO ONE would make a decision and be responsible for that decision." I spent five years in China surrounded by people like that on all levels of academia & bureaucracy. My American colleagues would say it was the fault of Communism, but my Chinese friends told me it is an ancient Chinese saying that the head that stands high in the field is the one that gets cut off. If it's happening so much now in the USA maybe we've become too cowed by bureaucracy. --Marion, Russia

• Your patience with extremists like Diane, who wants to decide who deserves what rights but refuses to accept the responsibilities that accompany them, speaks volumes about mature action in this world. Your direct, straight up, no nonsense reply was a real treat, actually hearing someone speak the obvious, daring to mention that rights carry obligations. You constantly encourage people to think about their actions and their effects. Please continue your important contribution to all of society through your work with This is True. --Steve, Virginia

• Diane and her ilk are downright scary. According to her, we are all free to speak our minds as long as we don't speak of "potential subversion and outright sympathy for the enemy"? Am I allowed to have sympathy for prisoners who were abused in Abu Ghraib prison (prisoners who, by the way, are innocent until proven guilty)? Freedom of speech means just that: you are free to speak of what you will (and draw pictures too!) Freedom of speech means that each of us will, at one time or another, be forced to endure the offensive, unjust, or unwise words of others. To quote Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Come to think of it, Voltaire made several astute observations which apply equally well here:
  • "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

  • "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

  • "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

  Had a political cartoonist drawn an image of George W. Bush's head on a stick, we wouldn't be having this debate. --Dave, Colorado

• I must commend you for your rant against the moron from Web TV. It takes people like you, with an audience, to keep trying to get the word out. I am so fed up with people who won't see what is happening in our country. I am a fourth-generation Veteran of the US military and my daughter is an MP in the US Army, soon to deploy to some part of the sandbox. No one ever better dare to question my family's patriotism! I love my country -- that's why I am so saddened to see the direction our president has taken us. --Lauri, Oklahoma

• Best rant you've ever written. I've always admired the USA's high regard for personal rights and freedoms. I've therefore been profoundly puzzled by the American tendency to sue despite plainly stupid action on the plaintiff's part that is occasionally the cause of the "wrong". What happened to the responsibility side of the freedom coin? --Scott, Canada

• I do not want to live in a dictatorship where my neighbor decides who gets what rights. --Vicki, Maryland

• Every person in the entire world "deserves" freedom. We in the United States just happen to have it (most of the time). --Steph, Colorado

• Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know. --Rick, Missouri, USMC

• I have read and heard comments about the treatment of the prisoners in Iraq being boiled down to "it's the only way to make them talk." I am disgusted. What the people making these comments fail to grasp is that we went in to Iraq to STOP this exact behavior. We are supposed to be the white hats here. Also, not many Iraqis missed the irony of these abuses being carried out in the same place that Saddam was brutalizing his own prisoners. A very suspicious Muslim world is pointing to the actions of these few military people as "proof" that our being there is not to help but to conquer and subjugate. We have to reverse that if we are to have a prayer of successfully creating a democratic Iraq. Hopefully, the brave actions of Specialist Darby will be the starting point. --Eric, Minnesota

• The fear being perpetuated by the government at this time is a control factor. To me it is no different that the fear Hitler fostered among the Germans until it was too late to turn the tide. Playing on peoples' fears and insecurities is an old trick that still sells. One truth is that as we give up freedoms in whatever way for whatever purpose when will we learn that to get them back is nearly impossible. The truth is that we are about to repeat the history of many great nations and, if our knack for not liking to study history holds, we are doomed to repeat it. --Rev. Lester, Maryland

• Diane said, "By the way, if these terrorists do win the battle, people like you are the first ones they will kill -- they don't like what you believe in." Perhaps unwittingly, she implies that terrorists will like the way she believes. --Dan, California

• I am a new permanent resident, and aspire to both the freedoms and responsibilities available to citizens of this country, which were unavailable to us in the Philippines under the dictator we had till 1986. Diane from WebTVLand is free to speak, but it is precisely because she has the freedom to express her views that those views would be ironic if they weren't so sad, because her views echo those of dictators I've lived under -- feel free to speak freely so long as you agree with me. She and her ilk are the painful but necessary fire in which the gold of our freedoms are tested and made pure. --Jose, Connecticut

• Perhaps you should have used the title "Proof That We Have Lost To the Terrorists". You, along with everyone else, have lost because of rights taken away from you in the name of, or under the gist of, security -- and you know it. People like "Diane in WebTVland" have likewise lost -- but she doesn't even know it. Freedom (with the corresponding responsibilities) is the ultimate terrorists are after, not for gain for themselves, but to deprive of others. --Dennis, Costa Rica

• Ok, I know there have been some abuse problems with Iraqi prisoners, and I think that such things are reprehensible, and inexcusable. What irritates me so much about our news media is that they never show the good that the American and other coalition soldiers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "bad" is front page news, while the good rates a small blurb on the back of the sports section of any major paper in the country. I don't think that it surprises anyone who has been around for more than a few years that we humans are often inhumane, but we are also capable of great deeds of charity and kindness to others, be it in a war ravaged country, or a drought stricken land in Africa full of starving people. Truer words were never spoken than these: a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel. Please, let's not forget the soldiers who are doing their jobs, and trying to do the right thing. --Alexandra, Texas

• In Australia we have been hearing news of the abuse and wondering when and how much our politicians knew about it all. Being partners with the USA (though minor) in the invasion, what are our responsibilities when our "big brother" does something like this? I saw a brief news clip on the news last night that was heartening though: one of your senate representatives stating in outraged tones "Not enough training??? What sort of training do you need to act like a human being?" Now to me expectations like that are what makes a great civilization (or country). I wish I caught his name so I could email my thanks. --Nick, Australia

• Dave in Colorado ascribes to Voltaire the line "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."; I've certainly seen the line, but rarely ascribed, and I thought the formulation looked far too modern to be Voltaire. So, lest anyone be interested, there's a great run-down on the quote. And perhaps, in the current climate, one might suggest that Diane would be better served in considering George Washington's words:
  

  "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

  
  ...though I suppose the point is that in Diane's view you are manifestly not conducting yourself as a worthy member of the community, given that irksome way you expose that which you believe to be wrong and defend the freedoms guaranteed you by your Constitution and Bill of Rights. --Dara, Ireland

• Roughly 70% of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were innocent. American military raids sweep most males up, guilty and innocent alike. The innocent ones are eventually released and given [restitution]. However, after being tortured and raped, those innocent people now harbor hatred towards the perpetrators and might consider using violence for revenge. Duh, how hard is that to understand? People like Dianne don't have the moral intelligence to sympathize with the wrongly accused. She would make an excellent religious right christian. The Golden Rule is much too "complicated" and "adult" for people of Diane's ilk. --Terry, New York