Unfettered Letters

Closing Gitmo

Regarding “Ex-diplomats call for closing Gitmo” (3/28, A-14): Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell act like they don’t realize we are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Releasing prisoners to the battlefield would endanger troops. My two Marine sons could be at risk from this policy.

They say the next president should “move quickly to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.” How could a president do this to our troops? Baker said Guantanamo “gives us a very, very bad name.” America’s attackers on 9/11 should have a bad name. America should “talk to its enemies.” Who will be the first to talk to bin Laden?

The story states Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain have called for Guantanamo to be closed. It did not point out why they would release fighters from prison to return to the fight.

Marijane Green
Kansas City, Kan.

Castro a tyrant

I found the Oliphant cartoon on the Letters page of Feb. 21 to be a new low even for The Star’s standards. It depicts Fidel Castro as helpless and wheelchair-bound while the evil Republicans fret over whom to hate when he is gone.

To paint this communist dictator as a sympathetic figure is an offense against truth, reason and justice.

For liberals such as Oliphant, it appears the fog of time and the strength of anti-anti-Communism have obscured the real Castro.

Oliphant and others of his ilk need to be reminded that Castro killed innocents — dissidents, democrats, artists — or had them imprisoned in his labor camps where they were left to suffer and die.

When the old communist finally does expire, I fear we will be subjected to a celebration of Castro’s life in the pages of The Star and other left-leaning news organizations. However, it is comforting to know that when he dies, Castro will be held accountable for his deeds by someone who will not be empathetic to murderous tyrants.

David Howell
Kansas City

Pakistan election

That The Star waxed effusive over the rejection of Pervez Musharraf in the election of moderates to power in Pakistan should not come as a surprise to anyone (2/21 editorial, “A big victory for moderation”). Nor should the paper’s unbridled glee at the damage to the Bush administration, inasmuch as its editorials have constantly concluded that any setback for the president must be good for the country.

It is possible that the victory by Pakistan’s moderates may prove propitious; nevertheless, is it not a bit premature to declare a favorable change of government before the ink is dry on the certification? A more prudent and adult reaction would be to wait and see what form of government emerges and where its loyalties may lie.

Any student of history should remember our misplaced enthusiasm for that benevolent revolutionary Fidel Castro, who promised a free and democratic Cuba following the overthrow of the dictator Batista. As I remember, no advantage accrued to the United States.

I for one am far more comfortable with Department of State professionals determining our foreign policy than I am with The Star doing it.

J.K. Miller
Columbia

Human rights, Cuba

I would like to answer Pablo La Rosa’s “trick question” (2/14, Letters, “Who is currently responsible for perpetrating the most serious human rights violations on the island of Cuba -- Fidel Castro or George W. Bush?”) with one of my own: Is anyone being detained at Guantanamo for being gay or an anti-regime reporter or writing dumb letters to the newspaper? (No hint necessary.)

Dave Markus
Kansas City

Human rights in Cuba

Trick question: Who is currently responsible for perpetrating the most serious human rights violations in the island of Cuba, Fidel Castro or George W. Bush? (Hint: In what large Caribbean island is the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay located?)

Pablo La Rosa
Mission

Guantanamo protest

On Jan. 11 thousands of Amnesty International supporters, including our local group, staged protests in more than 30 countries spanning all five major continents calling for an end to the unlawful detention centers at Guantanamo Bay.

I noticed The Star let this important anniversary go unmarked (except for a tiny picture showing demonstrators in D.C.).

Six years ago, the U.S. began detaining people at Guantanamo, without charge, without trial, without end. Since then, conservatives and liberals, military officers, interrogators, senators and representatives have condemned the detention camps there as immoral and ineffective.

I believe the perpetrators of the heinous attacks of 9/11 must be brought to justice. I believe the U.S. has a duty to protect its citizens. Guantanamo Bay helps us do neither.

Justice only comes when governments uphold the rule of law and universally respect human rights. The detainees at Guantanamo must be brought to trial or released.

Kara Erickson
Group coordinator, Amnesty International
Local Group No. 115
Kansas City, Kan.

Justice for detainees

There are more than 300 detainees still being held at Guantanamo Bay, and after six years, they still don’t have access to legal representation and a fair trial. Wouldn’t we want someone to speak out against injustice on our behalf?

The collective voice of the American people is much more powerful and potentially beneficial than relying solely on our government (especially our current government) to act in a fair and just manner.

We have a great opportunity here, to convey to the world that we —unequivocally — uphold and vigorously defend those values that we hold dear. We have an opportunity to clearly establish our sense of valor, to show how we, the people, are much more powerful than any self-absorbed government, and that we will most certainly do what is within our power to defend those too vulnerable to defend themselves.

Call your representatives. Write letters to editor. Sign petitions. Force the hand of this administration. Remind them that they that represent us, not the other way around.

As long as any one segment of society is disenfranchised, wherever and whoever they may be, we all remain at risk.

Diana Skill
Kansas City

Try Iran or Cuba

Several people have written recently against the United States having nuclear weapons and for the U.S. having universal health care.

I would suggest that they move to countries that fit their desires.

For those against nuclear weapons, I would suggest Iran. They claim to have none. If I recall correctly, both of the writers on this subject were women. I’m sure they’d really love Iran.

As for those in favor of universal health care, I would suggest Cuba. While there, you’d also get the benefit of not being allowed to own a gun.

By the way, having nuclear weapons at least passes constitutional muster, as they are a large part of our national defense. Nowhere does the Constitution mention national health care or anything resembling it. The 10th Amendment would then prohibit it, as it is not delineated as a federal responsibility.

Also, the preamble to the Constitution says promote the general welfare, not provide it.

Mike Sienicki
Farley, Mo.

Cuban ‘epidemic’

Jacqueline Bustillo Lucas’ letter (10/27, “Hypocrisy from Cuba”) brought back an interesting memory.

In the early 1990s, a mysterious “epidemic” appeared in rural Cuba. Thousands of people had vision and neurological problems. Many possible causes were suggested.

Fidel Castro said (via the state-controlled media) that he had determined that it was caused by a virus that had been developed by the CIA, and smuggled into Cuba.

A group of scientists from UCLA traveled to Cuba to investigate. It was quickly determined that the “epidemic” was, in fact, caused by a lack of thiamine and vitamin B-12 in the rural diet, possibly combined with the poisonous effects of poorly distilled local rum. The dietary deficiencies were the result of the termination of donated food subsidies, following the breakup of the Soviet Union.

An international plea for help was issued. American and European pharmaceutical companies responded by donating many tons of inexpensive vitamin supplements.

Also, the Cuban government quietly asked the population to stop manufacturing rum at home. The “epidemic” quickly disappeared.

A few years later, Castro begrudgingly admitted that the donated vitamins had stopped the “epidemic.” They had “killed off the CIA virus,” he said.

John R.W. Taylor
Kansas City

Hypocrisy from Cuba

I am angered by the column regarding the Cuban custody case by Kathleen Parker (10/22, Opinion, “Just as with Elian, child belongs with her father”).

It seems she, like so many others, are unaware or oblivious to the fact that over 15,000 children came to the United States in the early 1960s unaccompanied by their parents in what was known as Operacion Pedro Pan (Operation Peter Pan).

For several years that followed, the Cuban government intentionally denied visas to the parents of those children seeking to be reunited with their families. Each time a visa was denied, those “biological” parents had to wait another full year to apply once again.

Why was it less important for children to be with their biological parents in the ’60s? The importance Cuba now places on family is hypocritical.

Jacqueline Bustillo Lucas
Overland Park