I was feeling rather pissed off his morning and wrote a letter to the editor of the local papers.
But I’d like some tips on how to make this better. Logical errrors, grammer, spelling, anything.
I can’t add more because of the word limit(in fact, I’m probably pushing the limit as it is).
Torture not moral.
Dear editor,
This administration claims we are the greatest, freest country in the world, yet doesn’t want to act like we are. Instead, it appears that, since we are so good, we can do whatever we want. In the name of freedom, the administration has claimed powers that should frighten anyone. Since 9/11, the administration has claimed the right to hold anyone (American citizens included) indefinitely, without trial or access to legal counsel, on the most spurious reasons. That is, if we think someone’s a terrorist, we grab them and throw them in a secret prison. Abu Gharib(a human rights nightmare of rape, sodomy, torture and murder) suggests that torture is the standard order of the day at such places.
Of course, “We don’t torture” says Bush. Cheney, on the other hand, is pitching a fit over the idea congress might ban torture. Apparently it’s okay, because they were terrorists. They have to be terrorists, because otherwise the US wouldn’t be holding them. If they deny it, all we need to do is torture them until they confess. We don’t give them trials or legal counsel because we don’t need to. We know they’re guilty and can skip straight to the prison rape. Do I really have to explain what’s wrong with this? Oh, yes, they cut off people’s heads. Thus, everything we do is justified. Excuse me while I puke.
I remember the Right wing screaming about government abuse of power back during the 1990’s. Why the silence now? Likewise, The religious right is always going on about how sin, be it evolutionism, secularism, or gay marriage, is sending our society to hell. I never hear “Torture” as part of that list, which seems like the greater evil. So why does Bush get so much “Christian” support? Did I miss the “Who would Jesus Torture?” verse?
(1) “prison rape” – will definitely get axed by the editor. There’s no need to be overly graphic.
(2) Your last paragraph has nothing to do with your first two, and can be cut in its entirety. You’re ranting about how the American military has zero accountability, not about why Bush is elected.
The thread had turned into a mess due to my botching of a simple job of moving it and editing the title. I’ve split the OP and the one relevant reply off into a fresh start, and closed the remnant.
Okay, I changed the prision rape thing to “We know they’re guilty, so there’s no need to prove it”
I’ve been going how to best end the letter but haven’t decided just how yet. I suspect I’ll have to tackle the hypocracy of the religious right in another letter.
I don’t think is quite right; the rant isn’t about zero accountability of the military, it’s pointing out the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, using their unwillingness to ban torture (which most people will see as “immoral”) as the counterpoint to their professed “moral” stand.
It seems like it could be tightened up, especially if you’re concerned about word count. Some other things:
[ul]
[li]on the most spurious reasons is awkward; perhaps “on the most spurious of charges” or “for the most spurious reasons”[/li][li]Abu Gharib…suggests that torture is the standard order of the day at such places is a bit hyperbolic for my taste, as the charge can easily be ducked by saying that it is an anamoly.[/li][li]pitching a fit and Excuse me while I puke might be too colloquial; it sort of depends on the rest of the letter. That is, it would fit if the rest of the letter had the same type of phrasing, but not if there are few other informal phrases.[/li][li]The last paragraph can be included if it is made more consistent with the rest of the letter.[/li][/ul]
It seems to me that you could be more direct, using various devices to elicit responses from the reader. How about:
Feel free to pick my take on it apart or modify as you see fit.
I would say too immature, as if they were written by a whiny teenager. What stuck me is that the content of the letter is very good, but there’s too much poorly expressed emotion. Just the facts, ma’am.
I think you’re right about the first, but wrong about the last. I had just read the “honor” thread in GD, and had Marc Antony’s speech about Brutus being honorable in my head when I responded (hence the repetition of “Is that freedom?”, akin to “But Brutus is an honorable man”). My disagreement with “just the facts” is that this is an opinion piece. Emotion is good; appeals to ethos can be convincing when buttressed by facts, but the facts are not the primary content here.
Unless you were just referring to “poorly expressed”. Then, disregard the above.
If I were the editor of a newspaper and that letter showed up in my inbox, it would be scanned, sent around to everyone in the office via e-mail to give them a good laugh, then thrown in the trash.
Or possibly hung up on the bulletin board as this month’s Nutjob Letter To The Editor. And then get thrown in the trash next month as its replacement goes up.
This is about 4 paragraphs rolled into one. Rather than devoting seperate sentences to the different kinds of abuses, just list them as examples of the administration betraying American principles. How about this:
The Bush administration claims we are the greatest, freest country on earth, yet doesn’t act like we are. Instead, it uses our greatness as an excuse to betray our own principles of freedom and justice. Since 9/11, this administration has claimed the authority to hold prisoners (including US citizens) without charging them or giving them access to legal council, to operate a string of secret prisons, and to use torture as a means to extract information. Is it any wonder that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib fet they had a license to commit attrocities? Attrocities that tarnished our image as a nation through images flashed around the world.
how about:
*
“We don’t torture” says Bush, while he sends his VP, Dick Cheney, to lobby Congress to allow the CIA to do precisely that. Whom does he want to torture? Anyone he claims is a terrorist. How do we know they are terrorists? We just know-- no need for charges, a trial or legal council. The ruthlessness of our enemies as they decapitiate prisoners is no excuse to decend to their level.*
how about:
Conservatives used to rail against the abuse of government power, but now they embrace it. Bush likes to look to God for guidence. If we ask God whom we may torture, surely we all know what God’s answer would be.
Anyway, I tried to untangle some of the longer sentences, tone down the overly emotional aspects, yet retain your central ideas. Good luck!
Please correct me if I am wrong, but Abu Ghraib (note the spelling, BTW) had rape, sodomy , and murder? I know there were humiliations and other violations that deserve all the animus you wish to give, but I think you don’t help by exagerrating the crimes.
I like John’s changes. At the very least, simplify that first paragraph- the constant parenthetical statements make it a quagmire to the readers’ tracking, especially as you’re linking together so many events.
Actually I think that thats pretty accurate. True, a lot of it was done by the Iraqi guards, but the US guards allowed it to happen. Appearently the Iraqi’s are still doing such things according to this article. (an interesting note is the the US has taken control of the facility away from the Iraqi’s to sort things out)
Perhaps some of the Iraqi’s rage is understandable considering that they are most likely Shi’ite…and what the ‘insurgents’ have been putting them through. Think of all the attacks on the security types (not to mention attacks against the civilians). Still, its no excuse to bring yourself down to the animal level of your foes.
(an interesting note is the the US has taken control of the facility away from the Iraqi’s to sort things out)