Honor our veterans by having the courage to seek truth
Letters to the Editor
Published November 16, 2005
Nov. 11, 2005, should be remembered as one of the most infamous Memorial Days in American History. It was made so by President Bush as he castigated those who questioned our government's motives and policies for invading Iraq. He is concerned that these critics, calling for congressional oversight of crucial administrative decisions, may "rewrite history" and in so doing "give comfort to the enemy."
Yes, history has already been "rewritten" with tragic results. Every American interested in history needs to see the documentary film, The Power of Nightmares (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm) It should be a required text in world history courses.
We honor those men and women who have died in wars, only when we have the courage to match theirs. It is the height of cowardice to hide behind our own mythologies and subvert efforts to seek the truth in matters of our own nation's policies and practices.
The best way to "give comfort to the enemy" is to weaken our own civil society through subversion of the truth. When we send our citizens to "fight for democracy," we should be willing to practice it at home. To do less is to dishonor and defame the memory of both veterans and noncombatants who believed their leaders.
-- Merle F. Allshouse, St. Petersburg
Using troops for a political backdrop
As a veteran (U.S. Air Force 1960-63), I highly resent the president using Veterans Day for political purposes as he did last Friday.
Veterans Day is celebrated each year to honor those who have served our great country. President Bush showed his lack of knowledge as to why we have this day by the speech he gave that day. The president continues to show disrespect for our military by trying to push his political agenda using our great troops as a backdrop.
-- Glen Copeland, Wesley Chapel
A president's insensitivity
How shameful that George W. Bush should choose Veterans Day to attack those who oppose the Iraq fiasco! Once again we see this president's insensitivity and inability to unite. We are a military family who served this country for 20 years, oppose the Iraq war and resent the audacity of Bush and anyone else to question our patriotism!
-- Richard Guitard, U.S. Army (retired), Tampa
Unseemly calls for retreat
In a war situation when people start dying, Americans have no staying power. The North Koreans would not run, and we finished that war in a stalemate. The North Vietnamese would not run. They said they could never defeat us in Vietnam; they would defeat us in the streets of Los Angeles and Washington, and they did. When a Black Hawk went down in Mogadishu, we abandoned that effort. We would never have finished World War II if there had been a CNN.
Now we have met another enemy that will not run. This enemy has proven to be willing and able to kill anyone anywhere. They plan to kill Americans again as soon as they can work out the details. Regardless of how we got to Iraq, the war has morphed into a battle between America and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his al-Qaida ilk. They know that if they last long enough, Americans will start calling for a withdrawal. Now many are already sounding the bugles for retreat, and American senators are leading the charge. My question is: Just whose side is the American Senate on?
-- Lynn O'Keefe, Largo
In defense of Sen. Specter
Re: A threat to due process, Oct. 31.
This editorial unjustly assails Sen. Arlen Specter for his work on legislation to reform federal habeas corpus law. Chairman Specter is currently working to construct a reform that preserves defendants' rights while decreasing serious delays in obtaining a final verdict in state criminal cases. Data recently released by the Judicial Conference demonstrate that courts are taking almost twice as long to resolve capital cases on habeas than they did in the late 1990s.
The current bill has been dramatically reworked and now provides greater access to the federal courts for defendants who forfeited constitutional claims in state court; it strengthens incentives for states to provide counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases; and relaxes certain filing deadlines so defendants can more easily get a hearing on newly discovered evidence of innocence.
This legislation ensures that federal courts retain all necessary powers to avoid the execution of innocent persons, and safeguards important procedural protections for criminal defendants while still taking needed steps toward ending the egregious litigation abuses that too often cause defendants and victims to wait years or even decades before their case is finally resolved.
The editorial did get one thing right: Sen. Specter has long been a supporter of individuals' civil liberties. On that issue his compass is "dead on" and he is using it to navigate a complicated maze that is refining our writ of habeas corpus.
-- William Reynolds, chief of staff and communications director for Sen. Arlen Specter, Washington
Do what's best for consumers
Re: Businesses oppose ID theft safeguard, Nov. 10.
The proposal to protect against ID theft by instituting a freeze on information release that could be removed by a $5 fee is excellent, and state legislators should wholeheartedly support it. This issue must be decided by what is best for consumers, who would be most adversely affected by ID theft, and not by what is expedient for business owners. Why should a business have the right to deny me any method, particularly something as reasonable as a $5 fee, that would offer some protection?
Businesses argue that "instant credit" is something the consumer wants and needs. If so, I'm sure that businesses could simply add to the amount of the purchase the $5 fee for the consumer to have the freeze lifted.
Recently in my neighborhood a thief stole mail over several days and used information he obtained about one neighbor to open credit card accounts, to attempt to buy a car and to transfer money from their checking account. I am missing a box of checks sent during the period of thefts. Knowing some simple safeguards were in place to help protect credit information would make me and my neighbors feel a lot better right now.
-- Ray Smith, Tampa
Let's have their names
Re: Out in the cold, editorial, Nov. 11.
I think the St. Petersburg Times would do consumers a great service by printing the names of the legislators who choose not to protect us by not promoting a credit freeze bill. Our lives are ruined every time a thief steals our identity, and the idiots in Tallahassee want to protect big business and the thief. That alone speaks volumes about where their interests are.
It is we, the consumers, who vote for them in order to do the job of protecting us. Therefore, please let us know who is not doing the job they were elected to do, and we in turn will get them out of their seats in Tallahassee.
-- Tess Jordan, Trinity
[Last modified November 16, 2005, 01:09:18]
