Stooping to torture won't conquer terror

This week, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden publicly admitted that the agency has used waterboarding as an interrogation technique ("CIA admits using waterboarding," Feb. 6).

At least General Hayden's candor is appreciated.

President Bush, on the other hand, has said that we don't torture. So much for his candor.

And just when was it that we descended to the point where we use methods we previously condemned as despicable and barbaric when they were used by our adversaries?

Do the events of 9/11 justify our descent into barbarism?

Keeping to the high ground of decency and the rule of law may be difficult in these times when terrorists abide by no rules and vow to kill us. Yet if we follow lawful procedures, we could see more terrorists convicted after they are apprehended while conducting their nefarious acts.

And when we compromise our humanity by using torture in some blind, fearful attempt to defend our security at any price, we have become no better than our enemies.

Dave Lefcourt

Ellicott City

Well, it's official: We are no better than the terrorists who blow themselves up to kill us.

This week's admission that the CIA has used waterboarding will have some easily foreseeable consequences, but none of them will make America safer.

Most obviously, it will help inspire thousands more terrorists who can't wait to kill us.

And don't count on any sympathy from the world for the next 9/11-style attacks on the United States. Instead, what we're going to hear will be more like, "Serves them right." As the Bible suggests, he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind.

William Smith

Baltimore

Mortgage crisis key to economic woes

In response to Paul Marx's column "Want real stimulus? Try a jobs program" (Opinion Commentary, Feb. 6), I would point out that recessions are a necessary evil in a dynamic, capitalist economy. They help us to avoid the far more severe problems such as hyperinflation or depression.

They aren't pleasant, but they do act as a pressure valve that helps keep the economy from either exploding or imploding.

The best thing we can do to help those most adversely affected by a recession is to extend unemployment benefits and reform the health insurance system.

However, the real roots of our current economic dilemma must be addressed, not only for our sake but also for that of future generations.

And this will not be accomplished by massive increases in public spending - in fact, such increased spending will only create massive public debt or force us to raise taxes to a debilitating level.

Our current economic crisis is the result of the mortgage meltdown, which is causing people to lose their homes and home values to plummet.

Fixing our home mortgage mess will require smart government leadership and massive infusions of government capital.

But restoring Americans' confidence in the future value of their homes is the best way to avoid further economic deterioration, increase employment and put America back on track.

However, our future prosperity also depends on decreasing government debt.

So dare I propose both tax increases and spending cuts?

Stuart Hirsch

Reisterstown

Abuse of heroin is larger problem

I am puzzled by The Sun's ongoing insistence on printing follow-up stories about the abuse of buprenorphine ("Misuse of 'bupe' is found to be on the rise," Feb. 3).

It's clear that no one would commend the abuse of any medication. And almost any medication can be abused.

Yet medical experts and practitioners as well as the treatment communities in Baltimore and Maryland and around the world have stated repeatedly that buprenorphine is an incredibly effective treatment for heroin addiction.

Isn't heroin addiction a very major problem in this city?

Shouldn't we try to make enormous efforts to get treatment for this chronic disease?

Shouldn't we focus on the fact that this medication really can provide great hope for the many who need it instead of on the very, very small issue of abuse?

Debra Rubino

Baltimore

The writer is director of strategic communications for the Open Society Institute - Baltimore.

Primaries exclude independent voters

In Maryland, an entire part of the voting population is left out of the primary process because the state apparently believes that their voices don't matter.

Independents in Maryland are left out of the primary races, as state regulations do not allow them to vote in either major party's primary.

Independents have made the difference in several major states.

New Hampshire, for instance, lets independent voters take part in either party's primary, and these independents played a major role in the primary upsets we saw this year.

Those who feel that independents should just switch their party affiliation, allowing them to vote in the primary of their choice, should remember that Maryland requires that a change in party must be made 12 weeks before the election.

That's long before some voters have had time to decide which candidate to support or, for that matter, which party has the candidate that voters would like to support.

Besides, should independent voters really have to compromise the values that made them put down independent on their voter registration card to begin with?

The Maryland voting system is flawed if it doesn't allow everyone to have his or her say.

Katie Ryan

Jessup

Too much manure is befouling the bay

The letter from a Perdue Farms Inc. vice president underestimated the seriousness of the bay pollution problems caused by excess chicken manure ("Industry is recycling the chicken waste," Feb. 2).

Data from the Chesapeake Bay Program confirm that chicken manure causes about 10 percent of all bay-choking nitrogen pollution in Maryland and that agricultural animal manure produces more phosphorus and nearly the same amount of nitrogen pollution in the bay as all human wastewater from sewage treatment plants.

The plain truth is that so much manure is concentrated on the Eastern Shore that there simply is not enough farmland to properly absorb and use it.

Much of the area's farmland is already phosphorus-saturated, and no manure should be applied on it.

Yet chicken manure is typically stored until crops are harvested and then dumped on exposed soils. Much of it then escapes into the nearest stream that runs into the bay or into the groundwater.

And defending the status quo by pointing to the Western Shore rivers as the major bay polluters totally disregards how significant the chicken manure problem is for the shore's local river systems and the bay at large.

The Choptank River, for instance, which is ranked as the second-most-polluted river in Maryland, receives 70 percent of its nitrogen from farmlands. Much of this pollution comes from chicken manure. And the amount of nitrogen flowing into the river was twice as high in 2005 as it was in 1985.

Chicken production is a very leaky business, and agriculture produces more bay pollutants than any other source.

Yes, development and growth are serious problems; sprawl needs to be reined in and better state land-use legislation enacted.

But we wouldn't let a town of 25,000 people dump human manure untreated on open lands.

Why should we allow the dumping of the equivalent level of waste - the manure of 150,000 chickens each production cycle - on farmland?

Gerald W. Winegrad

Annapolis

The writer is a former state senator and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.