Opinion: War on terrorism is disregarding our Constitution

Our Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to be charged with a crime in order to be held against his will, to be informed of what that crime is and to be offered legal representation prior to questioning. The holding of Jose Padilla (also known as Abdullah al Muhajir) without charging him with any crime blatantly disregards the most basic elements of our Constitution. The action by the Bush administration of holding him as a military combatant ignores the essential facts that the military is not a civilian law enforcement agency and that the Congress of the United States has declared no war.

The war on terrorism, like the war on pornography or the war on drugs, is a war in name only and does not empower the military to suspend the constitutional rights of American citizens. This precedent empowers the military to hold U.S. citizens in suspension of their Constitutional rights at the whim of the Departments of Defense or Justice under the guise of national defense.

Over the last several months we have seen the Bush administration use the threat of terrorism to slowly chip away at the privacy rights of individuals and the protections against illegal search and seizure. It has now dismissed the right to due process. Any student of history recognizes the inherent threat in the actions of the Bush administration. We are now living in a de facto state of martial law.

Our forefathers understood the threats from the military to individual freedoms, and they created the Constitution to protect the rights of the individuals. Any action that chips away at these rights, no matter the cause, threatens the freedoms of us all.

There are two lingering questions that must be asked. The first is: At what point will Congress or the judiciary return the balance of power and stop this flagrant disregard for the Constitution? The second question is: What is the Bush administration so afraid of in turning these cases over to the courts?
-- Edward Briggs, St. Petersburg

Where is a citizen's protection?

Re: Terrorist's clues unravel plot, June 12.

Let's see if I have this straight: An American citizen is arrested and jailed for a month already on sealed evidence because he has had contact with al-Qaida after Sept. 11. He did not bomb or make bombs, nor did he carry any plans to do so. He was arrested just because he might do something.

Is this the United States of America if you can get arrested for talking with the wrong people? Is this our country with its Bill of Rights protecting our citizens from unjust imprisonment?

Abdullah al Muhajir may well be implicated in some kind of nefarious activity, but until we have evidence, we have no right to arrest him. Keep him under surveillance; do what the CIA and FBI are supposed to do, but stop violating our constitutional rights.

If we look at our history, we see that at times our government has violated civil rights. Two examples come to mind easily: the internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War II and all the abuses of McCarthy era. We came to regret and feel shame over such abuses. Can we learn anything from our past mistakes?
-- Lucy Fuchs, Brandon

Lost rights won't be easily regained

I have become increasingly worried of late over the results of national polls that seem to indicate many Americans are prepared to compromise or give up certain civil and constitutional rights for the sake of "security." What doesn't seem to be apparent to these people is that it is far easier to give up rights than it will ever be to get them back and that, if we aren't ever vigilant, we will gradually slide into some sort of benign dictatorship by government.

With personalities of the ilk of John Ashcroft, we are already on a very slippery slope. It is utterly inconceivable to me that others would so willingly have their rights taken for the false sense of "security" they would get in return for that great loss.
-- Anthony Pasco, New Port Richey

Primers for terror made available

Re: Fighting terror: "dirty bomb" suspect caught, "Dirty bomb": low-tech but high fear and Web site maps nuclear waste shipping route, June 11.

Thank you, St. Petersburg Times. Now the Abdullah al Muhajirs will not have to go to Afghanistan to learn how to build a "dirty bomb" and use it to contaminate Washington, D.C.; they can just buy one of your papers at almost any newsstand in Florida. This is convenient for them, as many are known to migrate to our liberal state. This is where anything goes as long as it is termed freedom of speech or personal liberty.

Between one copy of your paper and the Environmental Working Group, a terrorist can learn (1) the damage a "dirty bomb" can produce, (2) how to build one and (3) where to pick a remote highway or railroad to possibly secure the dirty (radioactive) part for his bomb. This is a new low for journalism, all done just to sell more papers while hiding behind the freedom-of-the-press banner.

By the way, the Environmental Working Group forgot to point out that spent fuel waste is shipped in heavy steel vessels that have been tested to show they can withstand a drop from a helicopter. The group hides behind an environmental title just to raise funds, but it is really trying to stop nuclear power, probably the one technology that can reduce the greenhouse effects and slow the consumption of our remaining oil reserves.

People who only studied journalism in college, or never even went to college, cannot understand the true facts of nuclear power and the environmental contamination from using coal as our power source. They just ride merrily along in their SUVs.
-- Gilbert M. Brown, Dunedin

Governor disserves the learning disabled

Re: The state budget is worth the wait, by Gov. Jeb Bush, June 8.

I was saddened, though not surprised, to read that Gov. Bush considered Learning Gateways to be a "budget turkey." My son is autistic and has suffered greatly under this administration. The governor's education budgeting has caused him and many other learning disabled children to lose the extra help they need to excel in school. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the post-Sept. 11 economy either. My son had his enhanced aide pulled in June of 2001. About the same time that the governor's party spent millions in advertising on the McKay Scholarships. The state then forked over millions to hastily slapped together private "schools," which pocketed the funds and failed to provide even the minimal necessities required to educate these children. I do consider books and desks to be minimal necessities. The governor's response when this rip-off was brought to light was essentially a shrug of the shoulders.

My son, prior to the Bush administration, was making honor roll and principal's list nearly every grading period. He won first prize in his school's science fair. By the second year of this administration, he no longer had his own enhanced aide but was forced to share one with a couple of other children. By the third year of this administration, his enhanced aide had been taken from him entirely. At this point he has had to make do with an aide who is shared by five to 10 other children all in different classes. He is getting by, thanks to the dedication of the school's teachers and support staff. But with the pressure to teach the FCAT, some teachers don't have the time or the inclination to deal with a learning disabled child.

I am also fairly positive that, since the rules the governor imposed on the FCAT deny him any special help in taking this test, he will never receive a diploma. I do not believe that this has to do with either the budget or the governor's dedication to improving education. If he can pound millions of dollars down a rat hole funding makeshift, unsupervised and unevaluated private schools and give millions away to corporations that don't need the money, then he can fund the necessary enhancements to help meet a learning disabled child's educational needs in the public schools.

It appears that the governor has an indifference to the needs of the learning disabled that borders on hostility. If he has any explanation at all for this, I'd love to hear it.
-- Rae Ann Osborne, St. Petersburg

Making homes visitable

Re: And access for all, June 8.

Please give Judy Stark my sincerest thanks for her article on home construction and the current state of "un-visitability" we see around this country.

My sister uses a wheelchair so I am particularly aware of how difficult it is for those with limited mobility to do the things we all take for granted. The Americans with Disabilities Act has made some inroads into our ability to go shopping, eat out or see a movie. However, even with the ADA, these are still difficult. Department stores still like to pack their display racks so close together that you can't get through, and restaurants don't think anything of making someone in a wheelchair use the back door! Would they let the president, if he were disabled, go in through the back?

But just paying a social call can be a nightmare. We have to find out ahead of time what the front door access is like (do I need to lug the portable ramp or will we need a strong man around -- hate that!). And then we usually have to make visits short enough so that restroom use isn't necessary because seldom is that going to work.

It amazes me that the conditions here are no better than up north. With so many one-story, concrete slab homes, there is no reason they couldn't be more accessible. My sister and I happen to live next door to each other now. We just redid both of our front walkways to take out two small steps. The results are terrific and I wonder why it wasn't done that way to begin with. Now there are two houses in our neighborhood where my sister can roll up, ring the bell and enter like everyone else. Wouldn't it be wonderful if she could visit anyone she liked without having to make special arrangements?

She can drive herself wherever she wants to go but she can't get up the steps or in the front door -- and the remedy is so simple. Thanks for pointing that out and making consumers and the home construction industry aware.
-- Robin Del Guidice, Tampa

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page