TACTICAL RETREAT Russ Smith: I was overjoyed that, after a week ...

REAT

Russ Smith: I was overjoyed that, after a week when the U.S. effort in Iraq took a turn toward Conrad and the administration you so boldly defend had to fight to stay together, you chose to submit a column on baseball and Spider-Man ("Purists Go Home," 5/12). Good to know that even though your pompous observations on New York are now issued from a safe house in Baltimore, you still know what's really important. Thanks for keeping it real.

Brian Boyles, Brooklyn

HOW MANY JEWS?

Like most unfunny comedians, Ned Berke blames the audience for his own lack of talent ("That's Not Funny!," 5/12). The area of the Holocaust that has yet to be mined for humor is the big business entity that is predicated on the idea that if the public isn't reminded about the Holocaust on an hourly basis, the New York Yankees will be playing tonight's game with swastikas on their caps. Unfortunately, the best Berke and his twerp staff can do is a clever retread of the tired, old joke: What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza? I can get that from Jackie "The Joke Man" Martling.

Brett Slater, Manhattan

DON'T LABEL US, MAN

Ames' review of The Day After Tomorrow is peculiar ("Preview Review," 5/12). It does not actually say anything of use about the movie. Shouldn't this more properly have been filed under "columns"? Furthermore, his premise, "Average Joes...harbor fantasies about the violent destruction of America," is not particularly insightful. The apocalypse story form obviously has a rather long history and is not particular to the U.S.

Karl U. Bucus, Phoenixville, PA

PREVIEW REVIEW. PREVIEW. GET IT?

Mark Ames' review of the Chronicles of Riddick ("Preview Review," 5/5) certainly woke me up this morning. I live in the Netherlands, hence it's early in the morning right now.

He states: "This last line is spoken by a taunting, hot, menacing black chick. She looks believable, contentedly zombified, confident of the metaphorical-Muslims' victory."

I certainly believed we were beyond this degradation of women and name-calling. Guess I was wrong. The woman he's referring to is Thandie Newton, an actress with a degree in anthropology and a list of movies to her name that is impressive (Interview with the Vampire, Loaded, Beloved, Mission Impossible II, etc.). Maybe Ames should check the cast and crew lists before he writes another review?

His ideas about the movie are his and his alone. Political reference is nowhere to be found in the Chronicles of Riddick in my opinion, but since I have analyzed several movies to the core, I know you can find political views in even the simplest of cartoons, as long as you look hard enough.

Maybe next time he can write about the movie he saw, not about his political views and what's going on in the world today. I do read the news section when I need news and I love columns for personal views. Movie reviews should be movie reviews-at least that's what I've learned. And they don't have to be raving, because luckily there are movies for everyone and every taste. If Riddick wasn't Ames' cup of tea, so be it, but he shouldn't call names or put people down.

Irene van Wijk, Zwaag, The Netherlands

FOR CHRISSAKE, HE DIDN'T SEE THE MOVIE

Mark Ames' review of The Chronicles of Riddick was pretty lame ("Preview Review," 5/5). First of all, the "taunting, hot, menacing black chick" that he salivates over is Thandie Newton, a respected professional actress who is more than just eye candy.

Second, although Ames seems to think he is intellectually superior to Vin Diesel, it behooves a person to call another professional names.

Third, I think Ames' comparison of the Riddick storyline to present-day politics is decidedly beside the point and seems irrelevant. While I agree most Americans root for underdogs, I hardly think that most Americans view themselves as underdogs.

A good critic/reviewer wouldn't have had to wander so far afield to find ways to tell the public that he just wasn't that fond of the flick.

K.A. Kincade, Port Angeles, WA

AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!

Mark Ames' review of Chronicles of Riddick was the worst movie review I have ever read in my life ("Preview Review," 5/5). Oddly enough, the review itself had nothing to do with the movie! Your journalist has a seriously twisted view of what his job description actually is. If he's going to try his hand at politics, put him in that department, but for the sake of movie-goers everywhere, do not let this man continue to write reviews with massive political accusations like what he put in the Chronicles of Riddick's review.

His derogatory comments regarding the actors in the film were completely uncalled for. Dame Judi Dench, whom he called "an eerie witch-woman," has contributed greatly to the theater for many years and deserves more respect than that.

"Forced conversion-every Baptist's greatest fear, worse than rearing a homosexual." What does rearing a homosexual have to do with a sci-fi movie? Forced conversion happens every day in this country-we are forced to conform to the rules of our jobs, just so our families don't go hungry. We are forced to do many things in this world that could be much worse than the snide little remark he made here.

"'The more you resist them, the greater the damage will be.' This last line is spoken by a taunting, hot, menacing black chick. She looks believable, contentedly zombified, confident of the metaphorical-Muslims' victory."

What is this?! His racist, sexual, religiously bigoted comment was totally off base here! How could anyone allow such rudeness to happen in something that is going to be read by millions?

"If you're American, you delude yourself-'suspend belief' they call it-into believing that Diesel is the underdog even though he's the star, just as Americans imagine themselves as the world's underdog." Again totally uncalled for! Ames is also an American citizen, and if he's saying we're delusional, then he's on his way to the nuthouse!

When I first read this review, I had to do a doubletake, asking myself if this was a spoof, or if it was for real. All of your other reviewers were able to stay on task, commenting on the movie and doing a very fine job of it. Ames took a totally fictional movie and turned it into some sort of personal vendetta against the United States. That, in itself, is inexcusable. He lives in this country, and yes, we are all entitled to freedom of speech, but when you cross a sci-fi fantasy with real life, it gets you into trouble! Those two genres are so far apart that there shouldn't be any way to cross them.

Ames' inability to stay on task with a movie commentary reflects badly on New York Press. He has made himself and the rest of your staff look stupid.

Kristi Connolly, Ivins, UT

WEB, AND BILE, SLINGER

Gee, so now Russ Smith is reduced to picking on sportswriters' responses to the stupid Spidey promotion ("Purists Go Home," 5/12)?

I understand. It must have been very hard to come up with a defense for Rummy's pathetic Capitol Hill performance, the administration's demonstrated incompetence and torture that even neocons can't defend. My guess? You know it's time to spit out the bile and hang it up with the column.

Peter Engel, Manhattan

UM. "HIS"

I wanted to let you know that because of Caeriel there are a bunch of folks out in Urbana, IL reading your online paper. Our local weekly, The Paper, which had her horoscopes in it, closed down. In a desperate search to find another way to keep receiving her grand prophetic prose, I sought her out. She directed me to nypress.com, and I directed all my friends there. Now we're all pleased. Aren't you?

Just giving props where they're due.

Beth Tub, Urbana, IL

KOOKY KOMMANDANT KWOTE?

In the course of listing examples to support his contention that the use of torture by American forces, such as what has been recently reported in Iraq, is not a new phenomenon, Alan Cabal offhandedly, almost casually, makes a claim so outrageously incorrect that it must be addressed ("Ilsa, She-Wolf of the National Guard," 5/5).

In his article, as one example of the use of torture by U.S. forces in the past, he states: "Our troops have been torturing enemy prisoners since 1945. Many of the more outlandish confessions at Nuremberg were reportedly extracted by the use of torture." I suppose that he could be considered technically correct, if one forgets that the "reports" implied in "reportedly" come mainly from Holocaust deniers who seek to deny the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials. For the moment, I will give Cabal the benefit of the doubt with regards to his claim that torture was used at Nuremberg to obtain confessions, "outlandish" or otherwise.

I suspect that, probably without realizing it, Cabal may be remembering allegations that Rudolf Höss, SS Kommandant of Auschwitz, was tortured into initially testifying at Nuremberg that 2.5 million Jews were killed under his command, an estimate that ultimately turned out to be too high by a factor of two. Claims that Höss was tortured into attesting to the higher death toll have been used for years by Holocaust deniers and fascists to cast doubt on the historical fact that at least one million Jews died at Auschwitz. (The real explanation for the discrepancy is far less sinister: Höss was simply remembering an estimate by Eichmann.)

It is true that Höss was treated harshly when first captured, with beatings and sleep deprivation, likely because there was a Jewish sergeant in the arresting party whose parents had died at Auschwitz. It should be noted, however, that it was the British who initially imprisoned Höss, not the Americans. Later, Höss was transferred to the custody of the international military tribunal to testify as a defense witness for the accused war criminal Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the former head of Reich Main Security, and was treated well there. He even said as much in his memoirs, in which he likened imprisonment with the IMT to "staying at a health spa," compared to his previous imprisonment. He was later transferred to Polish custody.

Although there was a period of time in which he and other prisoners were mistreated by the Poles, the prosecutor's office intervened and stopped the mistreatment, leading Höss in his memoirs to marvel that the Poles would treat him so well. In any event, American soldiers did not mistreat Höss, and there is no credible evidence that there was torture of Nuremberg defendants to force them to make "outlandish confessions."

If it is really true, as Cabal states, that "many of the more outlandish confessions at Nuremberg were reportedly extracted by the use of torture," perhaps he would be so kind as to tell his readers which specific "outlandish" confessions at Nuremberg were obtained through the use of torture and from whom. If there were many of these "outlandish confessions," then it should be very easy for him to provide specific examples, shouldn't it? Perhaps Cabal will instead choose to hide behind his careful use of the word "reportedly."

Or, maybe-just maybe-he'll do the right thing and apologize for his erroneous statement.

David Gorski, Milltown, NJ

NO SCRUPLES HERE

In Alan Cabal's recent column, he makes the following statements:

"Our troops have been torturing enemy prisoners since 1945. Many of the more outlandish confessions at Nuremberg were reportedly extracted by the use of torture" ("Ilsa, She-Wolf of the National Guard," 5/5).

First off, Cabal has picked a specific date for when "our troops" began using torture. I defy him to back up that statement with any facts. The historical record is rather clear that torture extends in United States to much earlier dates than 1945.

In one way the sentence is correct: Our troops have used torture since 1945 in much the same way Alan Cabal has been breathing since yesterday. Even though he seems to lack a grasp of history, even I do not believe he was born yesterday.

The second of these statements is more troubling. Cabal states that confessions at Nuremberg were extracted via the use of torture. This statement's only basis in history is that the lie came out at almost the same time as the confessions in question. Yes, he used the word "reportedly." Perhaps by inserting "reportedly" into a statement, a columnist excuses all manner of errors.

Many people at the time did not wish to believe that the Germans tried at Nuremberg were guilty of the crimes of the Holocaust. Today the same fallacy is repeated by those who deny that the Holocaust even happened. Since they call the surviving victims of the Holocaust liars, they then need to discredit the confessions of the perpetrators as well, so they say that the confessions were forced out via torture. By claiming this, they invalidate any corroboration of the victim's testimony by the perpetrators and by any other surviving evidence.

If Cabal does have some valid reference work that supports his claim that the confessions at Nuremberg were the product of torture rather than admissions of guilt, let him state what this work is. Otherwise I believe that he owes an apology for supporting the work of Holocaust deniers. Since he is "reportedly" a scrupulous journalist, this should pose no problem.

Charles C. "Chris" Tucker, Aurora, CO

RUSH TO JUDGMENT

Please tell Michelangelo Signorile that it is poor form to quote from sources with the intent to distort both meaning and intent ("The Sickpuppy Defense," 5/12).

His article suggests that the Hughes piece attempts to "explain and excuse" the twisted behaviors that occurred at Abu Ghraib. But this misses entirely her intent and what she actually wrote.

The NRO article is about acts of humiliation as effective control devices-so effective that victims can be manipulated to perform any sex act imaginable. The article's focus was about crushing the will to refuse and, while some would suggest there is a place for such tactics in a war setting, Hughes properly condemns such techniques and calls upon those in the fight for liberty to take a higher path.

Hughes was also right to ask why the sadistic porn of the photos was such a big deal in the eyes of those who demand access to anything at any time without restriction. As she said, "Why can we easily see the violations of human beings in one set of images, but miss it in others?" The naked folks displayed by a pay-per-view source may have been no more anxious to participate than the Iraqi men in the prison pictures.

Your piece also makes a disingenuous personal attack on Limbaugh. Hughes begins her NRO piece with the following:

"The photographs of sexual abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison are shocking and disgusting. They are also familiar. I have seen images like these before in other places and contexts."

Rush said the following in reference to the Hughes piece on his show:

"On the other hand, what you have here-and I mentioned this yesterday-if you look at these pictures, you cannot deny that there are elements of homoeroticism and as was stated by a woman's, and I forget her name, column on National Review Online yesterday, her point was I've seen stuff like this on American websites. You can find these if you have the passwords to these various porn sites, you can see things like this; and her point was maybe the kids, the soldiers, guards, whoever, who are in a certain age-group who have grown up with access to this are simply acting out what they've seen on websites or something, just for the fun of it or maybe other reasons."

By changing Limbaugh referencing Hughes: "her point was I've seen stuff like this?" to Limbaugh instead saying of himself: "I've seen stuff like this?" suggested that Limbaugh was speaking from personal experience about homoerotic porn. But Limbaugh's whole point in bringing up the Hughes article at all concerned his argument that some of these actions taken by our troops at the prison-which possibly began as overly aggressive steps to get the prisoners to talk-evolved into something sadistic. What began as humiliation to break the will of prisons and obtain intelligence just may have grown into secondary sexual abuse and perversion.

Creating straw men of Hughes and Limbaugh through distortion and then trashing them is not the way to impress or persuade readers.

Tim Green, Omaha, NE