Two letters elicit writer’s response

This is in response to two recent letter writers, Charles Joyce of Hawaii and Tyler Murphy of Flatwoods.

In Mr. Joyce’s letter, he accused me of throwing out the Geneva Convention rules against torture. I did no such thing. He must be assuming that because Obama declares waterboarding to be torture, it is torture.

Torture defined is: Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. Excruciating physical or mental pain. Something causing severe pain.

My letter just stated that you could not die from waterboarding (it is not painful) and none of our enemies since World War II honored the Geneva Convention. The USA did via the Code of Conduct for the U.S. Fighting Man, which can be read at this site: http://freepages.military.rootsweb.ancestry.com/.

Your readers may note that in article 3, there is a provision that states: I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. This is why John McCain never accepted early release. I don’t believe we violated the Geneva Convention when we obtained valuable information about al Qaida including the prevention of another 9/11 event in Los Angeles.

Tyler Murphy, the self appointed expert on anything pertaining negatively to President Bush, the Geneva Convention, the national security of the U.S.A., the interconnected global community, and falsely claims that the U.S.A. trains people to inflict torture, thinks differently.

I hope that your readers of Sunday’s editorial page read the article by Charles Krauthammer, on the following page. He blew away every argument Mr. Murphy made. He points out that besides other CIA directors, the current Obama director of national Iintelligence concurred that these interrogations yielded “high value information,” a claim Murphy dismisses.

William B. Secrest , Lt. Col. USAF retired, South Shore



‘Green jobs’ will create employment

What is all the fuss over green jobs? What does the term “green jobs” even mean?

Well, here’s the answer: Green jobs refer to the momentous movement of job creation while simultaneously affording sustainable development and alleviating carbon footprints of people as a whole.

Before anyone gets defensive, this goal is not about job depletion. Everyone is saying, “If you remove our dirty jobs, then what do we have left? No jobs. We might get a clean environment afterwards, but it’s not like you can live off of clean air, right?”

Wrong. Green jobs legislation, if passed, does not result in the removal of jobs. It actually facilitates replacement of them and then some. According to the organization The Alliance for Climate Protection, a recent report estimates that a $516 million investment in developing a green‚ economy could create over 12,000 new jobs for the state in two years. And, this report only captures a portion of the service, construction, and technology jobs that will be created in the state by truly “Repowering America.”

Jobs centered on renewable energy sources, such as wind energy or biomass, are apropos for conditions in this region. Why not join the job creation bandwagon and support green jobs policies at your local legislature today?

Tiana Dixon, Huntington