It was only reasonable to expect that our nation would take appropriate measures to increase security after the deadly attacks on our citizens on Sept. 11, 2001. And since security inevitably means restrictions, it was also reasonable to expect a public debate over the question of how much individual liberty should be sacrificed for how much individual and national safety.
It is now apparent that the USA Patriot Act is at ground zero in this national debate. And from listening to the critics of the act, you would think our nation is well on its way to becoming a police state.
Lost in the sound bites and the rhetoric against the USA Patriot Act is the realization that the act has vastly improved counterterrorism efforts by law enforcement in several significant ways. For example, the USA Patriot Act now facilitates information-sharing and cooperation among government agencies so they can better "connect the dots." The act has removed the legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence and defense communities from sharing information and coordinating activities in the common effort to protect national security.
Some months ago, a federal grand jury in Tampa indicted several alleged members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the world's most violent terrorist organizations. The PIJ is responsible for murdering more than 100 innocent people, including Lisa Flatow, a young American killed in a bus-bombing near the Israeli settlement of Kfar Darom. The indictment was possible because the USA Patriot Act allowed our federal criminal prosecutors to use foreign intelligence information gathered by agents against this terrorist group.
The USA Patriot Act contains more than 157 sections, including provisions for financial assistance to victims of terrorism, increased benefits for public-safety workers and consumer protection from fraudulent charitable solicitations after an attack. This comprehensive set of laws is misunderstood when critics use it as a vehicle to create a false choice between civil liberties and national security.
One notable provision of the USA Patriot Act condemns acts of violence or discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans and seeks to protect their civil liberties and safety. Our office recently prosecuted a case involving a bomb threat to a Tampa mosque. The individuals responsible for the bomb threat received significant prison sentences.
The fight against terrorism implicates important constitutional values which should be debated by an informed electorate. It is disappointing when inaccuracies and false assumptions perpetuate the myth that the USA Patriot Act violates constitutional rights. From my perspective, the act provides important tools to combat terrorism while preserving the constitutional rights that make America worth protecting.
-- Paul I. Perez, United States attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville
Boost in shipping raises security issues
Re: Container shipper steams into Tampa, Aug. 28.
While I suppose we should be pleased that Zim America Israeli Shipping will be moving about 10,400 cargo containers through the Port of Tampa annually, thereby increasing by more than 150 percent the number of containers that now move through the port, one can only hope that the port has made the appropriate security arrangements to assure the population that the increased number of containers will be adequately inspected.
Many experts have indicated that a glaring weakness in our homeland security is the vulnerability of ports that handle shipping containers. It is all too easy to fit all kinds of nastiness into a 20-foot cargo container. What additional security is planned at the Port of Tampa to handle the increased number of containers? Is the Port of Tampa equipped with the latest security devices for scanning containers? Are containers opened at random at the Port of Tampa to check the contents? How is the security in Kingston, Jamaica, where a container bound for Tampa would likely be loaded onto the ship?
One suspects that it has not been unnoticed by our enemies that the U.S. Central Command is located in Tampa. In terms of potential terrorist targets, Tampa has to rank right at the top. And a recent meeting of the Safe Boating Council of Tampa Bay featured a very sobering presentation by U.S. Coast Guard representatives on just how incredibly vulnerable the Port of Tampa really is.
While lots of new containers coming in and out of Tampa may sound good on paper, let's be sure before they start arriving that the security is in place at the Port of Tampa to handle the additional shipments, and to guarantee that nothing virulent, explosive or otherwise dangerous is inside those containers.
-- Tyler Carder, Largo
A deadly miscalculation
It is obvious to me that diverting our attention from the war on terrorism to attack Iraq was a terrible mistake. The senators and congressmen who voted to grant the president the authority to do so made a deadly miscalculation. They believed the president and his administration were prepared for the aftermath as well as the military action. They weren't.
They didn't have any idea what they were getting into. Glory, oil and the idea of liberating the Iraqis blinded them to the reality of the situation. They should have known the destabilization of Iraq would turn it into a breeding ground for terrorists and a magnet for those who would pour into Iraq from neighboring countries to disrupt U.S. efforts to bring peace to the country.
Those senators and congressmen who gave the president the power to wage war should apologize to the American people for their mistake in trusting George Bush. Such a confession would help them to regain the support of those of us who predicted that the Iraq war was going to be a disaster and did all we could to try to stop the madness before it started.
-- Dorothy S. Carter, Spring Hill
The quagmire in Iraq
The following excerpt from a Washington Post article is very disturbing and indicative, I believe, of the failure of the Bush administration's plan to secure peace and establish a new democratic type of government in Iraq.
"The rising number and quickening pace of soldiers being wounded on the battlefield have been overshadowed by the number of troops killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations May 1. But alongside those Americans killed in action, an even greater toll of battlefield wounded continues unabated, with an increasing number being injured through small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, remote-controlled mines and what the Pentagon refers to as "improvised explosive devices.' "
The president's unrealistically high expectations for a quick fix have gone awry. Peace in Iraq remains uncertain and tense. Whether the recently increased number of attacks is random or orchestrated by the remains of Saddam Hussein's army does not matter. U.S. troops are, and will always be, in danger as long as they are stationed in this country steeped in religious and cultural ways of ancient times. It is a far more complicated situation than the Bush administration foresaw, or ignored. The new and escalating attacks of guerrilla-like tactics are distracting our troops from their mission and are a destabilizing force in the area. They are destabilizing to the point that promised order and rebuilding have not materialized, and the planned transition toward democracy is as elusive as ever. More attacks may be expected by hard-line old regime supporters. Sadly we are seen as occupiers and oppressors, infidels and intruders. I fear we are approaching a quagmire from which it will be increasingly more difficult to extricate ourselves. It is time for the president to swallow his pride and get the United Nations and NATO involved.
The cost of this war, in terms of losses in manpower and dollars is, I admit, beyond my comprehension and I hope that Congress will step up and take action that will provide America with an honorable exit from this difficult situation.
-- Orfeo Trombetta, Seminole
Hearts and minds not being won
The powers that be seem intent on convincing us that all the bombing and killing of Americans in Iraq is the result of a small number of people. That may or may not be so. But what they fail to acknowledge is that these folks, who are opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq, could not get away with so much killing and destruction if the general population of Iraq supported the efforts of the United States. In America, and other countries, there are many fringe groups that would love to blow up the status quo. They aren't successful because the general population is vigilant and reports on their activities. No such luck in Iraq.
It was the same during the Vietnam War. Frances Fitzgerald's book, Fire in the Lake, documents in painful detail how the efforts of U.S. troops in Vietnam were stymied by the lack of cooperation from Vietnamese peasants.
We are led to believe that in a short while the people of Iraq will suddenly come to understand the charm of America and the American way of life. It never happened in Vietnam, and I see no evidence that it's about to happen in Iraq.
-- Alan Reeder-Camponi, St. Petersburg
Bring the troops home
"Stay in for the long haul. We can't just pull out."
I heard that in Vietnam while my friends were being killed. It did no good to stay.
We can pull out of Iraq and we should. Turn over the reconstruction and government to the United Nations. We went to war because of weapons of mass destruction, and there are none. We went to depose Saddam Hussein, and he's out of the ruling loop. We went to free the Iraqi people and they are free.
President Bush declared "mission accomplished." So if it's not for the oil, or for the billions to be made by Halliburton et al., why in heaven's name should we stay and allow our boys to die each day? Write or call your representatives in Washington and demand our troops come home. Then and only then will the mission be accomplished.
-- Carl Anderson, Palm Harbor
A repetition of history?
In recent reading I came across an account of a conversation that sent a shiver up my spine. When asked whether common people favor war, this man's reply was: "Why, of course the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? . . . [I]t is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. . . . [T]he people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
The questioner? Gustave Gilbert. The place? The Nuremberg jail circa 1946. The man quoted? Hermann Goering.
Seems even when we know history, we cannot help but repeat it.
-- Nancy Parker, Englewood
Another Vietnam?
How is it that a little sex in the White House can cause an impeachment, but the killing each day of American troops is okay. Are we looking for another Vietnam, Mr. Bush?
-- Louis Van Roy, St. Petersburg
The presidential vacation
Re: In need of an Iraq policy lobotomy, Sept. 3.
Thomas Friedman, a columnist I admire very much, said, "I don't know what (President) Bush has been doing on his vacation, but I know what the country has been doing: starting to worry."
Somebody should brief Friedman about one of our president's major activities. He traveled all over the United States and raised obscene amounts of money for his re-election campaign.
-- Jim Lyman, Lutz
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. 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.
