Credit card companies abusing consumers

To the editor:

I recently called my credit card company, and they informed me that my interest rate was going from 9.5 percent to 17.5 percent even though my account has never been late and I am a customer in good standing. They informed that I could opt out of this if I chose and would receive a letter. I said I wanted to opt out, and the person transferred me to a computer program that would not let me opt out because I didn't have the number from the letter. I waited for the letter and never received it. I called recently and they told me that the time to opt out had expired and I no longer have the option.

This is highway robbery. Didn't my tax dollars help bail these companies out? The only thing I got was "We sent the letter and now you have to pay." My intent was obviously to opt out. How many other people are being abused by these companies?

Shelley Lyons

LAS VEGAS

Bad, but torture?

To the editor:

In response to Joseph Carbone's Saturday letter to the editor on torture:

Of the techniques he listed -- water boarding, slapping the face, sleep deprivation, etc. -- some may be wrong, bad or even abusive. But they are not torture.

I picture torture as "the rack," "thumb screws," being stuffed in a small 3-foot by 3-foot bamboo cage for months, or having your hands chained to a wall so high your feet don't touch the ground. I see the "torture chambers" of Europe during the Spanish Inquisition. I see the horrors of Vietnam prison camps and the gas chambers in Germany.

I see torture as taking our military prisoners and others, and brutally chopping their heads off while being recorded on video and played on the Internet. I see torture as their mutilated and naked bodies being dragged through the streets to cheering crowds, again recorded and played on the Internet.

So while Mr. Carbone is worried about a slap in the face or a vicious dog lurching at these well-fed, clothed and medically treated "detainees," he should think about all the things the wonderful, decent and considerate enemies of the United States are doing to our men and women.

I am sure Daniel Pearl would much rather have had his picture taken wearing women's undergarments than having his head chopped off.

Dan Dietz

LAS VEGAS

Sucking up

To the editor:

If the Bybee memos were really, purely legal opinion sans bias, why would Judge Jay Bybee be sorry he wrote them? Albeit anonymously, Judge Bybee's friends and acquaintances almost unanimously reveal that he exhibited remorse that he gave acquiescence to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad via these memos, offering them cover for the day they could be held accountable for the torture they proposed in the name of safety.

These three -- George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld -- should be the ones serving prison sentences for the Abu Ghraib abuses. So Jay Bybee's memos do not seem to be so much a "logical and sensible" legal opinion as they are an obsequious gratuity to his bosses.

Diane Shaul

HENDERSON

Secret photos?

To the editor:

I'm still trying to imagine what someone in the government was thinking when he granted permission to do a photo shoot of Air Force One, which was sanctioned by the White House, no less. This happened over New York City, with the aircraft flying extremely low near the remaining high-rise buildings.

The explanation that they had to update photos of Air Force One is a lame one, because they go on to say that it was "classified." The authorities were notified, but told not to inform anyone else. Sounds kind of illogical and stupid, huh?

Maybe they were after some other kind of data, relating to passenger-type aircraft and buildings in New York. After all, a photo shoot could have been done anywhere else, why New York? It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, isn't it?

The question: Why the secrecy about this so-called photo shoot?

Roger Ouellette

LAS VEGAS

In con-text

To the editor:

I see no reason for the Legislature to enact a law prohibiting texting while in control of a motor vehicle (Review-Journal, Friday). Laws already exist against driver inattentiveness, and they encompass all forms of distractive behavior. It is not necessary to specify the activity in order to be in violation.

If the Legislature specifies texting as an offense, will it then have to specify eating, drinking, applying makeup, fiddling with the radio dial and arguing with the kids in the back seat?

Let's quit drafting unenforceable laws and try doing something constructive in Carson City.

Bruce Schowers

Mac Frank

LAS VEGAS