Interesting editorial, “Confronting the past means we can move forward — Investigation of CIA necessary” (8/27).

I disagree completely concerning investigating the CIA. That doesn’t mean that I’m happy with the CIA. My impression is that it is basically run by effete Ivy League graduates. To the detriment of our country, its competence is highly questionable.

As to your commentary regarding torture, I guess you are just going to have to call me uncivilized. Torture is justified under one condition — to save lives. (Waterboarding should be tried first, and waterboarding is not torture.)

Let’s make an example personal. A loved one has been kidnapped by terrorists. They are going to kill your loved one horribly in five days, record it, and broadcast the murder over TV. In custody is a person who knows where your loved one is being held. He will not reveal the location. Would you agree or not agree to some forms of torture to obtain the location and have a very great possibility of rescuing your loved one? Or would you not agree, allowing the terrorists to brutally murder your loved one and broadcast it to the world?

I know my answer. What’s yours?

Robert S. Kennedy Jr. Camarillo

Editor’s note: It has been proven that people will say anything to stop the torture.

Crisis Center statements misleading
Did you actually do any background checking on the Ventura County Crisis Pregnancy Center (Feature, 8/20)? Did you read their own description of their philosophy? Ms. Ambroselli is quoted as saying they give pregnant women a choice. That would be an accurate statement if one concluded that they give a choice between doing what they say is right or burning in hell for all eternity.

On the center’s Web site, it is stated as fact that women who have abortions are inevitably doomed in this life as well to experiencing a completely fraudulent diagnosis known as post-abortion trauma syndrome. This so-called syndrome or disorder has been flatly debunked by the American Psychological Association and other credible medical research sources.

Yes, of course, some women may experience trauma. The entire process of winding up with unwanted pregnancy can be traumatic. But part of the point of research is to ask, “As compared to what?” When compared to taking an unwanted pregnancy to full term, the answer is that rates of trauma appear no different, and are low for both groups. And how is it possible that this organization seems able to declare that a raped or abused woman must carry to birth? Such decisions are surely to be made by a woman in such terrible straits within the confines of her own needs and in consultation with neutral helpers who can aid her in working through such complex and difficult decisions. Telling her that it is God’s will, and that, if she does not abide by one interpretation of that will, she is by extension doomed either now or in some future life is in itself deeply immoral.

The center also takes a totally accusatory stance toward women who wind up with unwanted pregnancies, making it clear that this must only happen because of bad morals, and that ending a pregnancy is a decision based on little more than whim? The unborn, the elderly, the handicapped, the terminally ill — all have been or could become the unwary victims of this “easy come, easy go” philosophy.”

You have sent a harmful message to women, especially younger women who may already have had a deeply traumatizing experience such as rape. I just have to wonder why you told only part of the story of the Crisis Pregnancy Center, why you did not mention material they put on their own Web site?

Dr. Daniel Jordan, Ventura County

Reality for 4H animals
The Ventura County Fair is over. What happened to the 4H pet market animals?

Most of them were transported to the slaughter house. How many of the 4H animal owners accompanied their pets to the slaughter house? How many of the 4H pet owners have ever been to a slaughter house to witness the horrific process of slaughter?

These 4H pet owners have been brainwashed and programmed by 4H leaders to accept that their pets will be slaughtered, butchered and eaten. Would these 4H pet owners do this to their dogs? These 4H pets were raised from “babies,” given names, groomed, petted, walked and learned to love and trust their 4H caregivers.

These desensitized 4H pet owners who have bonded with and gained the trust and love of their 4H pets for many months, replace sad faces after the auction with smiles after receving their auction checks and plan to repeat the process next year because it was so much fun. It wasn’t fun for the pet animals.

Are we a nation addicted to red meat? People are more concerned about what they put into their automobiles than what they put into their mouths. It is well documented that a diet of red meat and its high cholesterol contributes to obesity, heart attacks, diabetes and other serious health problems. Not to mention the cost to the environment.

The Ventura County Fair is over. We know what happened to the 4H pet market animals. Most of them were transported to the slaughter house. Except for one. A very lucky and beautiful six-month-old Hampshire pig’s life was spared. A kind, compassionate and generous lady purchased him at the auction for almost $2,000 to allow him to mature and live out his life with excellent care and safety from the two-legged carnivores.

Marty Fast, Ojai

Parking at the Point not an issue
RE: Beach restoration presents logistical problems for Surfers Point

Your article by Paul Sisolak (News, 8/27) incorrectly portrays the beach restoration project at Surfers Point as impacting coastal access. This is unfortunate, as the project was designed specifically to ensure continued beach access. In fact, although there are almost unlimited parking spaces in the adjacent fairgrounds, beach access has always been one of the primary issues regulated by the Coastal Commission. According to the plans approved for the first phase of the project, only the upper portion of the existing beach parking lot will be removed, most of which is currently unused due to the damages caused by erosion more than a decade ago. During this phase, there will actually be more parking than there is currently, since the new parking area in the fairgrounds dirt lot will be improved for daily use in addition to the remainder of the current beach parking. The Coastal Commission permit also requires that all work must be done during the winter season to avoid the “peak” summer season and annual County Fair events.

The Surfers Point Managed Shoreline Retreat project has been designed to undo the mistake made 20 years ago when the shoreline was graded and filled to provide for a bike path and parking lot. This was approved at the time, despite objections from locals who had witnessed the previous failed bike path and who understood the dynamics of this beach formed by the Ventura River and shaped by large winter swells. Managed retreat will not only restore the natural ability of the beach to adapt to the forces of nature, but also give back to Ventura a beautiful beach by the river mouth as envisioned by our benefactor, E.P. Foster, in the early 1900s.

For more details and a diagram of the plan, please see: http://venturaecosystem.blogspot.com/2008/10/surfers-point-working-group-considers.html

Paul Jenkin, Surfrider Foundation, Ventura

Kudos for Halaco story
I hope that editors at the VCReporter noted as I did that Paul Sisolak got it right in his Aug. 27 story on a reported breakthrough in getting an EPA cleanup started at the Oxnard Halaco site. Sisolak’s work is noteworthy because another local paper apparently failed to do its homework and check to see if indeed the EPA was ready to make this major commitment.

The network of local citizens and elected officials who support removal of all of bankrupt Halaco’s remains grows all the time. The Reporter’s treatment of these issues has been very helpful. But those of us who have been involved for decades are perhaps too hungry for good news involving resolution of Halaco’s problems. Perhaps that’s why the initial story about removal of the buildings at the plant site “grew legs.”

I believe that plans to deal with Halaco require substantially more deliberation by all of the parties involved. Foremost is the question of ultimate public ownership. Why should the public foot the bill if, in the end, another industry takes over and conceivably pollutes the site all over again? This means that the updated Oxnard General Plan must reflect a goal of public ownership and restoration. Second, removal of Halaco Mountain can only happen if all responsible agencies work together toward that goal. This kind of cooperation has not been apparent to date. Lastly, some provision must be made for inclusion of the site into the restoration plans for the greater Ormond area. Numerous questions must be answered about ownership, management, planning and other issues.

As we work through these issues, accurate reporting can only help the public to be informed of the choices before them.

Alan Sanders, Chairman, Sierra Club, Sespe Group
Port Hueneme