President Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence
Re: “Bush spares Libby, but mocks justice,” July 3 editorial.
George Bush’s commutation of Lewis Libby’s sentence is the crowning cherry on a disinformation sundae that began with Joe Wilson’s simple protest in 2003 that facts, not propaganda, should guide our country’s foreign policy.
Since then, we have witnessed the exposure by Bush administration principals of a covert CIA agent in an attempt to silence Wilson; a trial that found Libby guilty of multiple felonies; and a full- court press by right-wing politicians, lobbyists and media to cast Libby as a victim of overzealous prosecution.
The facts are these: Libby was charged by a Republican Department of Justice, prosecuted by a Republican U.S. Attorney, and tried by a Republican-appointed judge. He was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, and given the minimum sentence called for by guidelines that both the president and the majority of Republicans in Congress have endorsed.
George Bush’s rationale that Libby’s sentence was “excessive” and the media’s characterization of Libby’s prosecution as “partisan” are belied by the facts.The president has ensured that Libby has no motivation to shed light on actions that could implicate the president and the vice president in the outing of a covert CIA agent.
Jim O’Leary, Columbine Valley
…
Is anyone else out there trying to figure out what Libby said he would tell if he had to spend any time in jail? Scary thoughts, aren’t they?
Elizabeth Rave, Denver
…
President Bush again asks for more patience on Iraq in a July 4 speech, saying “Withdrawing prematurely, based on politics will not be in our national interest.” Hey, saving countless lives (on both sides) by withdrawing as soon as possible isn’t politics, but saving an administration loyalist from prison? Now that is politics!
Leroy Quet, Denver
…
It is hardly surprising that the liberal Democrats are finding fault with the president’s commutation of “Scooter” Libby. However, the facts do not support the sentence in this case, especially when the special prosecution was unable to prove that a crime had been committed. It is ironic that the Democrats will stop at nothing to defend terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, yet sit in judgment of Libby. One would think it should be the other way around. In short, they have shown just who they really are. The facts speak for themselves.
Brian Stuckey, Denver
The FBI and the fight against terrorism
Re: “Crack down on FBI abuses,” June 29 editorial.
Your editorial calls into question the FBI’s ability to learn from recent mistakes in its use of a critically important investigative tool: National Security Letters (NSLs). It is important to note that the NSL does not allow us to listen to telephone calls or read e-mails, just to obtain records. The Post suggests that additional oversight of the FBI is necessary to prevent a repeat of those problems and that FBI personnel must understand that breaking the rules will not be tolerated. In fact, those issues are at the center of reforms being implemented.
Following the report by the Inspector General, Director Mueller ordered a larger and more comprehensive internal audit to examine a greater sampling of NSLs. The FBI’s expectation was that looking at a wider sample of NSLs would give us a better picture of the most common human errors and failures in administrative systems. We identified more than 1,000 possible violations since 2002. The error percentages were consistent with the Inspector General’s findings. We used this data to help us put in place meaningful reforms and compliance mechanisms designed to prevent future mistakes.
I disagree that the errors in question were “wanton violations,” as the Post suggests. The IG found no deliberate intent to misuse NSL authorities or to violate the law. In our study, most of the errors were made by the companies that provided the records, not the FBI. Nonetheless, NSLs are a tool that must be used responsibly and in a manner consistent with applicable laws, regulations and policies. The FBI has taken full responsibility for mistakes made in our use of these investigative tools and we have moved quickly to strengthen procedures.
The FBI is not in the business of spying on Americans; we are in the business of preventing acts of terrorism. We must be able to connect the dots between thousands of names and numbers that arise in terrorism and espionage cases.
The American public expects us to uphold the Constitution and to safeguard privacy rights and civil liberties. We must use all legal tools at our disposal and use them correctly. Anything less cannot and will not be tolerated.
John Miller, Assistant Director, FBI Office of Public Affairs, Washington
Ruby Hill and putting power lines underground
Re: “Councilor: Ruby Hill power-line bill ‘shady,”‘ June 19 Denver & The West story.
The Denver view plane ordinance was designed and approved by the Denver City Council to preserve our unique vistas and skylines from intrusion by anything. City Council members, planners and the public have zealously protected these mountain vistas and skylines for many years from prospective intruders. All of the protected views are from public places.
In the case of the Ruby Hill View Plane Ordinance, the city has all the leverage to force Xcel to go underground. If they need to provide additional power to prevent blackouts, it should be underground. Undergrounding of all cables and wires has been a municipal target for many years, to protect our mountain views, our health and to prevent their dangerous grounding during storms. How can an elected councilperson vote to violate these laws most critical to our quality of life in order to further promote an unsightly structure in our park?
The financial cost to the monopolistic monster that is Xcel is a pittance in its budget. And I would expect that Denver citizens would overwhelmingly vote to continue to protect our views.
Alan Canter, Denver
Where America stands
Re: “Celebrate our place in the world,” July 4 Chris Rawlings’ Colorado Voices column.
It is especially rewarding to read such wise and perceptive comments from a Colorado University graduate. Perhaps the anti-American lunacy of notable CU faculty member Ward Churchill and others of his ilk isn’t as influential to the minds of CU students as I have been led to believe.
I believe that Americans have had it too good for too long. Too many of us take for granted the many rights, privileges and rewards we enjoy. We have it so good, some of us complain that every aspect of our society isn’t utopian perfection, which is obviously unattainable.
Americans enjoy an incredible standard of living. Even our poorest people enjoy electricity, clean water and television, and many of them are fat. Starvation is not a big problem in America. Compare America’s poor to those of Somalia, Ethiopia, or India.
It is no wonder that deprived people around the world want to come to America.
Darrell Arnold, La Veta
…
I am glad to see that Chris Rawlings appreciates the fact that our country represents ideals that should be celebrated. I am also glad to see that he doesn’t stoop to calling those like Howard Zinn (who point out that we have sometimes failed to live up to those ideals) “America Haters.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Rawlings loses some credibility with his “still one nation under God” sentence in order to get in his digs at the ACLU and the 9th Circuit Court.
Maybe he should be reminded that the Pledge of Allegiance has only existed for about half the history of the country and has only had the unrelated words “under God” included for about half that time.
Maybe he should also be reminded that this is true, even though a minister was the author of the pledge.
I also want to comment on the July 1 Family Circus cartoon, with God saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. It boggles the mind.
It would be hard to think of a theologically or logically more incoherent view of God and a country which didn’t even exist until centuries after the last part of the Bible was written.
Mark Guengerich, Brighton
Online extras
For more letters to the editor, go to blogs.denverpost.com/eletters
To send a letter to the editor
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; Fax: 303-954-1502
Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
