For Democracy's sake, we need improved voting systems
Letters to the EditorPublished December 22, 2005
The Dec. 16 article Can vote machine be hacked? is simply one more piece of evidence that ballots need to be on paper. But don't take my word for it.
"Building Confidence in U.S. Elections," the Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, a panel which included Florida's own Betty Castor, and was co-chaired by Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, published in September of this year a series of recommendations (www.american.edu/ia/cdem)
These included that all voting systems provide for a voter-verifiable paper ballot, "(a) to increase citizens' confidence that their vote will be counted accurately, (b) to allow for a recount, (c) to provide a backup in cases of loss of votes due to computer malfunction, and (d) to test - through a random selection of machines - whether the paper result is the same as the electronic result."
The commission got it right, and Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho proved it. We need to improve our voting systems or there will be no stopping the deterioration of democracy.
-- Helen Avila, Redington Shores
Hold commander in chief accountable
After having military personnel committed to prison sentences and other penalties for not following the letter of the military law, we should at least also hold the commander in chief accountable for the letter of the current laws.
When I was in the military, I was told certain things weren't legal and permitted even in the face of authority that may be abusing the legal statutes and demanding inappropriate action.
I felt then and still do now, that those poor soldiers were victims of circumstance and that they were not the original sinners. It is obvious to most, that their behavior was reflective of their superiors' egregious abuse and misuse of the code of ethics. Justice was not served then, as those soldiers from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were only the scapegoats of a corrupt senior command.
-- Michael Ritenour, Tampa
Proof is in the pudding
Since Sept. 11, terrorists have struck Bali, Madrid, London, and other cities, but not one more time in America. Left wing publications trumpet polls showing that Americans think we are losing the war on terror. Do these people think the radical Muslim movement thinks Bali, Madrid and London are better targets than the United States? Are they all morons?
I don't pretend to know what my government is doing to stop these murderers, but I do know the proof is in the pudding. And it could not be clearer that our president, supported by our military and our homeland security forces, is kicking butt! And I for one am thankful.
-- Rob Hoskins, Safety Harbor
A shifting of the blame
President Bush is being quite clever when he says publicly that the United States is "winning" the war in Iraq now and that it would be a mistake for U.S. forces to leave now. Thus, if U.S. forces leave Iraq soon and Iraq turns into a nightmare for the United States, the logical conclusion is that the fault lies with those who supported a withdrawal. This is not a new ploy. There are still a few diehards who believe the reason the United States lost in Vietnam was the eventual lack of support of the American public for the war.
A crucial part of the planning of any war is judging how costly the eventual conflict will be. Also, judging whether or not the citizens of the country are willing to pay the eventual price of "winning." President Bush underestimated the costs and overstated the benefits of this war and now he wants to shift any blame for eventual failure in Iraq on to others.
-- Alan Reeder-Camponi, St. Petersburg
Support for surveillance
Re: Warrantless surveillance, editorial, Dec. 18.
I believe I represent the majority of Americans who support the president's use of surveillance to fight terrorism. I believe we have avoided another attack like 9/11 by using all means in our power.
If we have another attack, Bush's opponents will complain the president did not do enough.
-- Nanci Gaenslen, St. Pete Beach
Going above the written law
Re: Above the law? editorial, Dec. 20.
Rather than follow the reasoned opinions expressed by distinguished presidents, legislators, and jurists since the founding of our republic, President Bush perhaps decided to follow the learned Fawn Hall, White House secretary to Col. Oliver North in 1986. Hall explained that she shredded records during the Iran-Contra episode because there were "times when you have to go above the written law."
Is there room above the doorway at the Justice Department for this inscription?
-- Ray Smith, Tampa
Shades of Richard Nixon
On the front page Tuesday is an article about the Bush administration's illegal domestic spying program, which President Bush tries to defend by crying "9/11." On page 7A is an article about FBI counterterrorism agents and their investigations of the "terrorist organizations" commonly known as "Vegan Community Project," "Catholic Workers," and "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."
It was similar domestic spying abuses by the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon that resulted in laws designed to limit the ability of the executive branch to conduct domestic surveillance. That abusive, secretive and paranoid administration ended when reporters began to ask, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" It is time for reporters to ask those questions again. George W. Bush has not only admitted to committing "high crimes and misdemeanors," but has defiantly stated that he will continue to do so. It is time for Congress to appoint a special prosecutor.
-- Paul Starr, Treasure Island
A call for extreme measures?
Re: Trouble in Tehran, editorial, Dec. 17.
You say Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be a danger to the Middle East, cannot be ignored and "the rest of the world must do everything it can to make sure such a hateful radical cannot make a nuclear bomb."
Since you are advocating an "anything-goes" approach to quash Ahmadinejad's apparent ambitions, does it seem fair to say it is your opinion that if Iran's nuclear bomb development cannot be stopped through diplomatic reasoning or sanctions, the only alternative would be to wage war on Iran - with or without the support of France, Germany and Russia?
-- A.E. Roberts, St. Petersburg
A capital wife
Bill Adair's article Capitol Hill wife who just won't sit still in the Dec. 19 St. Petersburg Times about Bill and Beverly Young was a delightful read. Bill Young must be very proud of his wife, and for good reason.
Her bluntness and honesty must be a breath of fresh air in that mixed-up place we call Washington, D.C. Too bad couples like the Youngs are a minority, but one or few are better than none.
-- Doris Landsman, Clearwater