Re: USA Patriot Act helps efforts to combat terrorism, letter, Sept. 4.
The arguments put forth by U.S. Attorney Paul I. Perez are at best disingenuous. There are those who would have been supporters of rounding up the Japanese- Americans in 1942 and the heinous actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee. That does not make those people right, or moral, or constitutional. We have made those mistakes in the past. Let's not make them again in the name of "security."
Any time we take away constitutional rights, such as the right to be secure in our papers and personal effects, we put ourselves in harm's way. We do not make ourselves more secure. Attorney General John Ashcroft is campaigning around the country trying to convince the public that it is okay for the government to trace the reading habits of the general public. That does not make us more secure. Remember when the Nazis burned books? Did that make the Germans more secure? Putting badges on people, tracking their movements, making lists of the public's activity, do not make a country more secure. These things make it easier for the government to control from the top. That is not democracy or security.
Any time constitutional rights are taken away from the least of us, they can be taken from all of us. If we don't stand up against an injustice done to a few, we are all susceptible to the same violation of rights. Section 215 of the Patriot Act is dangerous, and much of the rest of the Patriot Act is not at all patriotic.
We have a right to disagree with our government, and we should - loud and clear!
-- Georgie Bowser, New Port Richey
Propaganda ordered from on high
Re: USA Patriot Act helps efforts to combat terrorism, letter.
U.S. Attorney Paul I. Perez's piece about the benefits of the Patriot Act is mere propaganda as he is simply following orders from his boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft, who is currently on his propaganda promotion tour for support of the act.
Perez's letter is not from the heart; it is from the bowels of Washington. According to MSNBC: ". . . sources tell Newsweek, the country's 94 U.S. attorneys were instructed to help gin up support by convening "community meetings,' writing op-ed articles in local newspapers and ensuring that uniformed cops are seated in bleachers behind the A.G. during his visits" (http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/953414.asp)
The "community meetings" are appropriately in quotes because they are not open to the public, but instead are a closed-door charades populated with government employees and select members of the press.
The sheer size of the act, with hundreds of sections, and passed only six weeks after 9/11 should call into question a rush to judgment. When has Congress ever been so efficient not only in creating and reviewing, but also passing a giant bill?
According to Rep. Ron Paul from Texas, a true conservative, members of the neoconservative Bush administration coerced Congress into passing the legislation on grounds the act's opponents would be blamed for the next terrorist attack. This is a scary premise. What other draconian legislation has already been written and is sitting on the shelf, waiting to be passed under the "right" circumstances?
There is no myth about the Patriot Act violating constitutional rights, as Perez claims. The violations are a fact. For one, it eliminates important checks and balances among the branches of our government, a key tenet of our Constitution. Second, and among many other violations, it allows for spying on innocent citizens' Web-surfing habits, implying we are now guilty until proven innocent.
A very bright man and Founding Father, Ben Franklin, said it best: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Bryan Young, New Port Richey
Act has nothing to do with patriotism
Re: USA Patriot Act helps efforts to combat terrorism.
The letter from U.S. Attorney Paul Perez is frightening. First of all, let's all be honest with ourselves about the name of this abominable act. No representative government should ever call any type of legislation a "Patriot Act." There is an implication that disagreement is somehow unpatriotic, plus the act has nothing to do with patriotism.
Perez conveniently leaves out of his letter the provisions that allow government access to citizens' financial, medical, bookstore and library records without probable cause of a crime. Librarians are even forbidden from advising citizens that the government has gained access to their library records. This should be called the USA Fascist Act.
We need diligence in the fight against terrorism. We need to apprehend terrorists and shut off the financial flow wherever it may come from. We need to stop kissing up to Saudi Arabia. We don't need John Ashcroft and Paul Perez working so frantically to eliminate our rights.
-- Charles Reigle, St. Petersburg
What was left unsaid
Re: USA Patriot Act helps efforts to combat terrorism.
U.S. Attorney Paul Perez failed to mention several aspects of the Patriot Act in his letter. He didn't mention that:
The FBI can monitor/spy on private citizens and organizations without suspicion. Remember Cointelpro?
The government can lock you up without access to a lawyer or without a phone call. Officials say this is only for aliens, but that's a lie.
The FBI can spy on your computer, your e-mail and your library activity. "Just looking around."
It greatly expands wiretaps. Judges are required to issue warrants without knowing who is going to be monitored.
The FBI can enter your home on a "sneak and peek" search warrant without notifying you.
Most egregiously, Perez failed to mention that government officials had more than enough information to prevent 9/11 had they connected the dots. There is no credible evidence that they would have made the connections with the added provisions of the Patriot Act.
There is no "false choice" between civil liberties and national security as stated in the letter. Under the Patriot Act, your civil liberties consist solely of what the government decides to permit you to do. Nothing more. "National Security" is the bogeyman designed to scare you into letting go of your liberties. The United States is a nation of laws that protect us from capricious and arbitrary acts of the ruling government. The Patriot Act seeks to undo that.
-- George Bickner, Largo
Estrada's unfair treatment
Re: Federal judge fight flares as nominee Estrada withdraws, Sept. 5.
It is clear that proabortion politics rule when the Senate Democrats have filibustered to block a vote on Miguel Estrada's confirmation on his bid to join the federal appeals court in Washington. President Bush nominated Estrada more than two years ago, and the Democrats have managed to close the door to a Hispanic attorney who is more than qualified.
The major issue here is abortion, and because Estrada has stuck to his principles and moral opinions he has been rejected by the Democrats.
It is a sad day in America when a nominee has to withdraw because of being Hispanic and being prolife. The response by Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was one of Estrada's opponents, was cruel and cutting when he said Estrada's withdrawal was "a victory for the Constitution, for the nation's judicial system and for the American people." Is he forgetting that the Hispanic community makes up a substantial part of the American people? Is he forgetting that the Hispanic community will have a definite impact on elections? Just because Kennedy is up in the Northeast sitting comfortably in his Senate seat does not mean that other Senate Democrats throughout the country, especially in Florida, will not feel the wrath of the Hispanic community when they go to the polls. Maybe it is time for the Hispanic community to get organized and be heard!
I am appalled, but not surprised by this editorial. In keeping with liberal tradition, it was marked by much passion, but little common sense.
It is sad that the medications Monica Navarrete took to control her epilepsy during pregnancy caused her son to be born with birth defects. However, after that experience, did she not realize the risks of getting pregnant again? I called the public health department, and Medicaid does pay for vasectomies and tubal ligations. It also offers birth control at a sliding-scale cost. Because of the nature of epilepsy and the effects of treatment during pregnancy, wouldn't that have been a "medically sensible route" for her? We have become a society with a complete lack of personal responsibility. She chose to have sex. (It wasn't rape or incest, since Medicaid would have then paid for the abortion.) She knew the risks. Sadly, when she became pregnant, she wanted taxpayers to fund her abortion rather than give birth to another child with birth defects.
I am thankful to live in Florida where the "necessary funding" was not readily available for her due to the "rigid antiabortion views of Tallahassee politicians." I am glad that my money did not pay for her to abort her child. I am hopeful that in the future people will once again take responsibility for their actions and realize that every choice has a consequence.
-- Mary Timberlake, Largo
Put the people first
Re: Byrd picks BlackBerry for House e-mail, Sept. 5.
When I read Steve Bousquet's article regarding modernizing political communications at taxpayer expense - handheld e-mail devices for all 120 House members - I just had to comment.
These representatives for the taxpayers need to attend a seminar entitled "Human Beings vs. Material Items and How to Prioritize." We don't even have a cell phone. We don't want one. However, we have regular phones, which suffice very nicely. And if the cost of these things is in the budget, please roll these monies over to 2004 and help make up the losses that caused extractions of money for education, seniors and needy people.
If these representatives need these devices, let them cover the cost. They should put the people they represent first! And cut some of the representatives' costs!
-- M.M. DeLorenzo, St. Petersburg
Buying a toy with taxpayers' money
Re: Byrd picks BlackBerry for House e-mail.
Once again our elected officials in Tallahassee are concentrating on themselves and methods to waste precious taxpayer dollars. House Speaker Johnnie Byrd simply desires a toy. The technology and gadgets in questions have been consistently abandoned by the private sector as inefficient, cumbersome and a waste of money. But for Speaker Byrd, it's not about money or the prudent use of taxpayer dollars. It's about a personal agenda and poor leadership.
There is no legitimate reason taxpayer dollars should fund this type of equipment. Each House member who responded "yes" to Speaker Byrd's BlackBerry survey did so with selfish interests in mind and absolutely no regard for prudent use of public money.
-- Mike Terrell, North Redington Beach
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.
