President s signing of terror detainee bill
Re: “Bush signs bill restricting rights for terror detainees,” Oct. 18 news story.
A mere sweep of the pen is all it took, and habeas corpus died Tuesday. George W. Bush signed legislation into law that destroyed arguably the greatest source of our American freedoms: the right to be brought before a court or judge if detained by the government. At the president’s whim, a foreigner or an American citizen can be detained, held in a secret prison with no notification to family, never charged and held indefinitely, and tortured to the point of organ failure or death.
If charged, an American civilian may be tried by a military tribunal and condemned to death on hearsay evidence. It matters little whether Bush or a future president will wield this power; the fact is that they can.
The media should have been sounding the alarm for all America to clearly hear, but they were screaming about Madonna and an adopted child instead. That is why we did not blink.
Frank Slavick, Superior
…
Sens. Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard voting for the Military Commissions Act is the ultimate Judas kiss against American democratic principles written in the U.S. Constitution. Bush can now declare anyone he wants (including U.S. citizens) as “unlawful enemy combatants” and hold them indefinitely without access to due process, i.e., no more habeas corpus. Bush hasn’t been successful “bringing to justice” those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, but he’s certainly been quite accomplished in getting Salazar and Allard to support his morphing our democratic government into a totalitarian one.
Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons” has a great scene in which a character says he’d “cut down every law in England” to go after the devil, and Thomas More replies, “Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, all the laws being flat?”
Cathy Cloepfil, Erie
…
Re: “Detainee bill a step backwards,” Oct. 18 editorial.
I was greatly relieved to see your editorial critical of the detainee bill. I am so ashamed that neither of our senators had the courage to stand against this violation of all the rights that have been gained for individual defendants over the centuries.
One of the truths that the morally defective always fail to grasp is that, when we act on the basis of our fear and our hate, we are on a fast track to becoming what we fear and hate. If we surrender all moral high ground to our fears, we will become as repulsive as the terrorists. In doing this, we feed and justify the hatred of those who would do us harm. The terrorists are counting on our fear and hate and we are giving them exactly what they want.
Robert Griswold, Denver
City councilman’s support of pot initiative
Re: “Councilor takes heat for pot-issue support,” Oct. 17 news story.
As the lead proponent for Amendment 44, I was troubled by the tone of a recent article detailing Denver City Councilman Doug Linkhart’s support of our initiative.
Rather than highlight the main point, which is that an elected representative took what should be an unremarkable step of expressing an opinion shared by a majority of his voting constituents, the article emphasized the negative reaction by opponents of the initiative.
The Post described members of the Denver law enforcement community as being “astounded” by Linkhart’s opinion. Denver Police Protective Association president Mike Mosco accused Linkhart of “condoning the use of an illegal substance,” despite the fact that Linkhart was merely expressing his opinion on a legal debate.
Worse, The Post published a quote from Robert McGuire, a campaign coordinator for opponents of the initiative, in which he said it was “reprehensible” for Councilman Linkhart to support ending punishments for adult marijuana users.
If one wonders why elected officials are hesitant to say they support ending marijuana prohibition, this public flogging orchestrated by The Post is Exhibit A.
Mason Tvert, Campaign Director, SAFER
…
I applaud Denver City Councilman Doug Linkhart for taking a stand and voicing his support for what the citizens of Denver have already approved.
Amendment 44 is exactly what our state needs to help ease the burden of our overworked police departments and overpopulated jails.
I find it offensive that public officials, even after passage of Denver’s Initiative 100 last year, will not respect the will of the voters.
Adam McNeil, Denver
…
Re: “Kids, adults don’t need new habits,” Oct. 18 Jim Spencer column.
Jim Spencer argues that marijuana should remain prohibited because people might abuse it. He is wrong for several reasons.
First, prohibiting something because it is potentially dangerous is not reasonable. Loading up on Big Macs and fries is harmful to anyone’s health, but no one is arguing that we should ban fast food.
Second, it is simply not right to restrict people who would not abuse a drug because other people might abuse it.
If someone wants to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their own home, the government should keep its nose out. What does “land of the free” mean, anyway?
Third, and most important, prohibition does not work. Prohibition has never worked. Instead of stopping kids from wanting to try marijuana, prohibition makes the drug more alluring to them.
Parents should be teaching their kids to use drugs responsibly instead of harboring the silly notion that “no” will do any good at all.
Kurt Freund, Loveland
Political ads and trust
Re: “Political ads lying in wait for fools,” Oct. 15 Diane Carman column.
Diane Carman hit the nail on the head. However, she failed to drive the nail all the way. She neglected to add columnists who practice the art of omission to push their personal agendas and political cartoonists who offer no context to their attacks on politicians. The most egregious are the newspapers that pretend to be objective in their news stories, but in fact write with the yellow ink of subjective journalism.
So, Diane, if we “turn off the TV,” where then do we turn for the truth? Your paper’s objective reporting? Or maybe today’s bastion of the truth, the Internet?
David O’Shea-Dawkins, Denver
Faith-based education
Re: “Faith, Hope, unclarity,” Oct. 18 news story.
Hope charter schools fill an educational need that is not met in other school environments. Our son attended a school that is funded by Hope because he absolutely could not function in a “normal” public school. Hope had the perfect solution to meet the non-traditional needs of our son.
When a program like Hope can meet the needs of our children, why do we need to be upset if it is housed in a religious, private- school environment? Although we are Christians, our son attends a Hope school at a non-religious campus because this best meets his special needs. If a religious campus better meets the needs of another student, he should have the right to have his needs met in this way. Many students need the strict structure provided in private, religious schools. If the parents are unhappy with Hope, they could easily return their kids to their neighborhood schools. Of course, they chose to leave their neighborhood schools because they weren’t meeting the needs of their children.
Politicians would benefit by spending their time figuring out why our local public schools are not meeting our children’s needs, rather than taking away our choice to actually meet these needs.
Beth Doig, Arvada
Terror war detainee
Re: “Detainee tries to force feds’ hand,” Oct. 19 news story.
After having read the article on the detained Pakistani Haroon Rashid, his arrest, treatment and imprisonment, our country – the “leaders of the free world” – is looking more and more like a Third World country where basic legal and human rights are ignored. Today it’s Mr. Rashid; tomorrow it could be you!
Al Gurule, Pueblo
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-954-1331
Fax: 303-954-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
Re: “Bush signs bill restricting rights for terror detainees,” Oct. 18 news story.
