Sir, - Niall O'Dowd (Opinion, December 19th) has joined the ranks of those who attack anyone who questions US foreign policy as being "anti-American". Let us get one thing straight: at its best the charge of "anti-Americanism" is a very poor substitute for actually debating the very complex issues of counter-terrorism. At worst it is a direct attack on the basic democratic right to debate, question or oppose the means employed in countering terrorism.
Mr O'Dowd, in taking such a blunt and ignorant position is - perhaps unwittingly - guilty of negating our democratic rights rather than defending them as he claims to want to do.
The NGO Peace Alliance condemns - unreservedly - the terrorist attacks on the US but, if Mr O'Dowd is demanding silence from us on the response to those devastating attacks, he cannot have it. At least, we are prepared to debate the specific issues while Mr O'Dowd and other proponents of the "anti-American" argument prefer to avoid or distort the specific issues, employ emotive language and frequently present inaccurate "facts".
For instance, "War by the Marquis of Queensbury rules is a new phenomenon while we are facing the deadliest enemy since Hitler". Why does he not simply refer to the conventions that actually apply to war, such as the Geneva Convention, the Charter of the United Nations and various instruments of international law? We suspect it is because it is inconvenient, considering the use of carpet bombing of civilians (civilian casualties killed directly by US bombing up to December 10th is estimated at 3,776); the establishment of military commissions to "try" suspects; the re-establishment of CIA assassinations squads; bombing a prison uprising; dropping cluster bombs; arranging pardons for indicted war criminals; the slaughter of prisoners, and so on. Are all these conventions now redundant and does asking this question constitute "anti-Americanism"?
The O'Dowds of this world cannot have it every way: professing to defend democracy and all that goes with it - including freedom of expression - while at the same time abusing those of us who engage in democratic processes. If the aim of the exercise is to shut us up, it's not working - and it's not going to work. - Yours, etc.,
Declan McKenna, NGO Peace Alliance (Representing 41 organisations), Phibsboro Road, Dublin 7.