In the Sept. 1 editorial rant against the possible prosecution of CIA agents and their mercenaries who may have committed unlawful acts during the Bush administration, the writer conveniently omits the word "torture" ["Dagger in the back"].
Some of these very same acts have been performed against American captives and were considered "torture" both at the time and
Would the editorial writer so eagerly defend them if they were performed against himself or a member of his immediate family, justified by a suspicion he might be
The writer opposes the disclosure of undercover CIA agents, citing harm to the careers of people defending our country.
Did I miss the writer's outrage when a member of the vice president's staff put a dagger in the back of such a person, destroying her career solely for political reasons?
Is the writer aware that anyone ever associated with Valerie Plame is now tainted as a CIA asset? In some parts of the world, that can be a death sentence.
As a career military officer and Department of Defense civilian, I was constantly aware that the Nuremburg defense ("I was just following orders") would not protect me from prosecution for an illegal act.
No one is above the law, least of all those who have sworn "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."
You can't have it both ways.
Stephen Miller
Spotsylvania