ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

From The Critics

RE: "Who Is Jose Padilla?"

In Maria Tomchick's article, she makes statements that engender doubt about US government officials with regard to some of the information they impart: "...again gives no details", "...the reliability of this information is in question," and the like. However, she herself goes on to cite US intelligence people "speaking on condition of anonymity" to form the backbone of certain arguments she fabricates, at least twice. Thus, using her own logic, if people who don't give full details cannot be trusted, then Ms. Tomchick's entire article shouldn't be trusted either.

Note that I am not faulting her for distrusting government officials who don't fully disclose important details (any sane citizen should distrust them in that situation, irregardless of political stripe), but if her readers are to trust her reporting, information, and conclusions, she should avoid emulating those whom she despises.

RE: "Where Is The Resistance?"

I agree; if "many, many people believe that to be the case" (GMO genetic engineering research is bad), then WHERE ARE THEY? The fact that no deaths have resulted from humans consuming GMO's, or that this research could provide much hope for the world's starving millions, is seemingly lost on the majority of protesters who allow alternative rock bands to do their thinking for them. (And we all know that musicians are so well-trained in hard science public policy issues...)

Grow up, Geov Parrish. Your "freakin casual and polite" peers who believe just as strongly as you do have realized that, for the most part, radical, violent, and/or criminal action, no matter how well-intentioned, does more harm to society than any good that might come of it. They have already conducted personal analyses and concluded that these issues, while important, are not worth jeopardizing their family's stability and future. Reasoned, balanced approaches to addressing their concerns may not be as sexy as getting arrested for arson (and thus not good enough for ETS! fanatics), but in the long run most people have realized that they are the best means of gradual, effective change in a civilized society.

Lastly, any reference to the efforts of the 9/11 terrorists as "worthy" is despicable. You try to divorce their dedication from their goal ("not the mass murder part"), but the crime against humanity is too great, in my opinion, to refer to any part of their actions as a laudable example for future activists. Choose better role models; to use those hate-filled men as exemplary "activists" because of their organizational abilities is to spit in the faces of the families of thousands of American and international citizens who died by their evil efforts.

RE: "Afghanistan's Loya Jirga"

If the US completely left the country, ETS! would complain; that the US is there trying to help (attempting to make the best of a horribly disorganized situation) still gives ETS! reason to complain. I sense a theme here...

I understand the desire to rush into the post-Taliban Afghanistan and radically set up full, western-style democracy, but it's just not feasible yet. There are literally dozens of intricate facets to be considered in such nation-building affairs, none of them served by rash absolutism that disregards indigenous culture and history.

The best democracies emerged after long periods of gradually-increased and revised organization, not vague anarchy which keeps the starving unfed and the weak oppressed. If those periods of structure-building include strong, central authorities in the early stages, at least there is stability for the populace while they incrementally revise their government towards truer democracy. Conversely, long periods of civil unrest and no government lowers health standards, increases disease and starvation, and results in lives without hope (despite the mythical prosperity anarchy promises).

If the only viable government the US and the rest of the world can assist Afghanistan in forging right now is less than perfect, at least it will be better than the war, anarchy, and oppressive theocracy that preceded it. It will be something that can be changed and revised as time goes on with an organized process, rather than leaving the country to despots and warlords (as when the European monarchies left African shores). Something is better than nothing in this instance. The war-torn people of Afghanistan deserve no less.

--John J. Dougherty, via e-mail

MT replies: Regarding my article on Jose Padilla, I cite conflicting information provided by different government sources--not to bolster my own argument, as Mr. Dougherty claims, but to show the unreliability of government sources. This supports my argument that any evidence against Jose Padilla should be produced in a civilian court of law, where it can be examined and held to high standards. Terrorists have been tried in our civilian courts without threatening our national security. There's no excuse not to do it now.

Meanwhile, the only "secure" place in Afghanistan is Kabul (and only if you're not a government minister). People are starving in the provinces because of a strike by truckers who are tired of having their cargo looted by militias and bandits. Aid workers are being assaulted and raped. Doctors are being murdered. Women still have to wear the burkha. And refugees are returning home to no housing, no food, no clean water, no jobs, and, yes, no government to speak of. Democracy can't do any worse than that.

G.P. replies, too: And, on Afghanistan, let's not forget that it's not the United State's responsibility to intervene in Afghanistan -- let alone determine its government and derail efforts for real democracy. And I'm talking about 1979 on, not just post-9/11. Were the Taliban a menace? Yes. Does it follow that the US, alone among the world's countries, has the right to unilaterally overthrow them and install a puppet regime? Based on the catastrophe of our policies there over the last two decades, the US is perhaps the least-suited country in the world for the role.

Regarding resistance: I suggested direct action as a missing component among the full spectrum of efforts for change that we need, including the types the writer lists. And as for acknowledging the perpetrators of 9/11 as human beings who were a mixture of good and (very) bad traits: It's no worse than what we do every day with our own elected officials -- who have more blood on their hands, in more places around the globe, than any Al-Qaeda fanatic has ever dreamed of. The point isn't that "war criminals are human, too"; it's that only by recognizing their very real mixture of traits can we understand how they're created and how to forestall them. And, in this case, we're not going to dissuade people like Ashcroft et al. without at least some people displaying some of the same single-minded fanaticism our culture so often celebrates in other venues -- fanaticism not in service of imposing one's will on others, but of preventing most of the rest of humanity, and countless other species, from being judged just as disposable as our Al-Qaeda friends considered Manhattan office workers.