CONOR McCARTHY,
Sir, - Tony Allwright (January 19th) attempts to justify the unjustifiable in his defence of the United States' shaving, shackling, sedating, hooding and caging of Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.
He suggests that shaving is for "cleanliness and ease of identification". Identification by whom? Presumably the prisoners know who they are, and have been identifiable up to now by their friends and colleagues. The implication is that, to Americans, all these foreign fellows with lots of hair and beards look the same.
Tony Allwright is fooling himself if he thinks that the motive for shaving is as innocent as that. Shaving is one way of depersonalising a captive, or any new recruit to what Erving Goffman famously called a "total institution", such as a prison or an army.
Allwright claims that "the US always shackles its prisoners", but the routine nature of a practice is no justification. The "cages" are hardly "normal prison cells"; no prison cell is normally bounded by razor wire.
Is it clear that, in order to be treated as a POW, a combatant must be a member of a uniformed national army? Mr Allwright may be correct that the al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners "constitute an entirely new category of prisoner for whom new conventions need to be developed", but he is not correct to concede that those categories are to be developed unilaterally by any one power. - Yours, etc.,
CONOR McCARTHY, De Vesci Court, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Vincent Browne asks how we can tolerate the world's most powerful nation bombarding one of the weakest and not be outraged.
In his column of January 9th he painted a graphic picture of Afghan women "who shriek in grief over the death of their children". How can we stand idly by? I'll attempt to answer these questions.
Firstly, in the case of the disparity in technology and weaponry between the two sides, it's clear that "collateral damage", as the Americans quaintly call it, would be far greater were the sides more evenly matched.
Secondly, however callous it sounds, people are willing to live with Afghan casualties, if in the process the Al-Qaeda is defeated and greater loss of life on the scale we saw on the September 11th is averted. I am acutely aware that these answers are cold comfort to Afghan families who huddle terror-stricken in their crumbling abodes with the prospect of being blown to smithereens at any moment.
We are reliant on the combatants to play by the rules. We would hope that the side we identify with will be exemplary in this regard, but we know in our heart of hearts this will not always be the case. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, did the people who danced in Leicester Square on VE Day spare a thought for the 25,000 people, mostly refugees fleeing the Russians, who were massacred in Dresden? Probably not.
Mr Browne, in John Lennon mode, asks if it is not possible to be against all killings. Of course it is, but the graph on our emotional Richter scale will react differently depending on the circumstances. We may regret the needless loss of life of the hijackers of the planes on September 11th, but I doubt if anyone did a "month's mind" for them. Our greater sympathy rests with the passengers on the planes and the people who lost their lives in the Twin Towers.
What brought this tragedy closer to home was the fact that Irish people, together with people of Irish descent, accounted for such a large proportion of those killed and injured in a city that comes to a standstill on St Patrick's Day.
At the time of the Stardust tragedy, was it surprising that the reaction here was far greater than it would have been in England, Scotland and Wales? The closer to home a tragedy occurs, the more keenly it is felt.
Having said all that, I can only suggest that when this sorry saga is over, perhaps there should be a world day of mourning for all the victims, whether they're from New York or Yemen. - Yours, etc.,
JIM O'CONNELL, The Paddocks, Blackhorse Avenue, Dublin 7.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - I thank you for providing good unbiased reporting on what is going on in the aftermath of September 11th. The mainstream media in the US have become traitors to their readers (and their noble profession) and tout the administration's line on what is happening in and around Afghanistan (ad nauseam, without question).
Some of them actually send reporters to places such as Kabul, but we end up getting the same choreographed story from them as we do from those covering the Pentagon.
I turn each day to your newspaper to find the truth.
If American visitors appear ignorant, realise the propaganda they are now continually being fed by American corporate hacks such as Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings. Set them right, but be understanding.
Please continue to enlighten the world with your great newspaper. - Yours, etc.,
FRANK GLEESON, Chicago, USA.