Giving government more power to eavesdrop
Re: “Oversight needed for eavesdropping,” Aug. 8 editorial.
One can only surmise that after the next Sept. 11 – were President Bush still in office – there would be another commission demanding to know why all the dots were not connected. The surveillance power to monitor a call from terrorists overseas to other terrorists outside the U.S. via international communications without a warrant might well prevent this destruction of an American city, not just several buildings and 3,000 citizens.
William H. Smith, Palm Desert, Calif.
…
Sen. Ken Salazar has betrayed the people of Colorado once again. He voted in favor of the amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Friday. Although the administration wants us to believe that the amendment only allows the NSA to tap into calls from one foreign national to another without a warrant, it actually allows the NSA to tap into any call, so long as the attorney general “reasonably believes” that one person on the call is not in the United States. Thus, any call can be monitored without a warrant, so long as Alberto Gonzales believes one of the speakers is outside the United States.
Haven’t we had enough of Alberto Gonzales? Do you want to trust your civil liberties to him? I would love to know if Sen. Salazar knew what he was voting for when he voted for this change. If he didn’t know, he should be removed from office for dereliction of duty. If he knew, he should be removed from office for failing to protect the Constitution.
Russell Bean, Denver
…
Several years ago, Sen. Ken Salazar introduced Alberto Gonzales to the Senate as his first official act. Since that time, Mr. Gonzales has shown himself to be unworthy to be the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S.
This past weekend, Salazar voted to give this man greater authority on wiretapping. I have yet to hear a good reason why. Presidents from Truman through Bush 1 faced the prospect of “mutually assured destruction” because of the millions of megatons pointed at us, and they did not think they needed greater authority to secretly listen in to Americans to protect us. They did not need to throw the Constitution out, and yet we faced complete annihilation if they failed to keep us safe.
Please tell me why you think it was wise to provide this administration and specifically an untrustworthy attorney general with more power to protect us against “terror”? Where are the Democratic ideals that said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”?
Tim Killcoyne, Westminster
Stop providing education to illegal immigrants
Re: “In-state tuition for all legal residents,” Aug. 7 editorial.
Colorado’s higher education commissioner, David Skaggs, thinks that the children of illegal immigrants should be eligible for in-state college tuition. He is quoted in the Rocky Mountain News as saying: “The disconnect is, we treat these kids as Colorado kids for purposes of K-12 education, and then suddenly they fall of the edge of the Earth.”
The solution is to no longer provide free K-12 education to the children of illegals. Proof of legal residency should be required for all students educated at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. I doubt that any other country provides free K-12 education for the children of illegal aliens. Does Mexico, Germany, Poland, Russia, etc., provide a free education to the children of illegal aliens? I strongly doubt it. And, yes, I’m aware that the U.S. Congress would have to change existing laws which require the states to provide K-12 education to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense.
If jobs for illegal aliens were no longer available because of strict penalties and enforcement of laws requiring employers to verify the legal status of workers, and we no longer provided free education, free medical care, welfare benefits, etc., to illegals, we would solve the illegal immigration problem in short order. We wouldn’t need border fences. If we take away the incentives to be in the U.S., illegals in large numbers simply will not come here.And most illegals already here will leave when they can no longer work and they no longer can receive benefits at taxpayer expense.
However, if we continue to provide jobs and benefits for illegals, no fence will ever keep them out.
John Sidor, Northglenn
Sheriffs are clearly not to blame in death of inmate
Re: “Probe faults deputies in jail death,” Aug. 5 Denver & the West story.
As a past Denver sheriff’s deputy assigned to both of the jails, I have witnessed the unprofessional care inmates receive at the hands of the medical staff. It should be noted that deputy sheriffs are at the jails to provide security, not treatment or determine the medical needs of inmates. Deputies follow post orders requiring 30-minute rounds of the inmate living area. They also are given instructions on how many blankets an inmate receives. When I was a deputy, an inmate could only have one blanket unless a second was authorized by the medical staff.
Deputy sheriffs see thousands of inmates pass through the city and county jail each year and most of them complain of something during their stay. According to the reports, a jail deputy contacted the nurse on duty and informed her of Ms. Rice’s complaints. This deputy did exactly what she was trained to do. In my opinion, the medical staff at the hospital and at the city jail are responsible for the death of Emily Rice, not the deputy sheriffs.
The lack of rounds by the deputies is not the reason Ms. Rice is dead, the lack of medical attention is. To discipline or even fault the deputies in this tragic death is wrong. The probe clearly shows a deputy contacted the medical staff about Emily, which is protocol. The nurse should be at fault for not acting on this information.
Deputy sheriffs have been taking the brunt for the medical staff for many years. It is time for the Denver Sheriff’s Department to stop protecting the medical staff when they clearly are responsible for the death of Emily Rice.
Lenny Ortiz, Wheat Ridge
Infrastructure repairs
Re: “Disaster may stir Congress to push taxes for repairs,” Aug. 8 news story.
Isn’t it ironic that as our country goes to great lengths to protect itself from al-Qaeda’s terrorism, America’s neglect of its infrastructure is causing terrorist-like catastrophies? Al-Qaeda must be smiling.
Virginia L. Wielgot, Aurora
…
The congressional people are all saying there is no money to fix the bridges in the U.S. They should get the dollars from the same spigot that Bush does for his war in Iraq.
Dobby Cheever, Lakewood
Tancredo on the attack
Re: “Tancredo: Threats on Islam sites could deter terrorists,” Aug. 3 news brief.
I am alarmed that Rep. Tom Tancredo, in whose district I live, is once again recommending that the best way to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. is to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites. This “eye for an eye” mentality is not a path to global peace, nor does it inspire confidence in one who aspires to be president of the United States.
I urge Tancredo to return to the drawing board and craft an anti-terrorism strategy that does more than perpetuate violence. We need leaders who recognize the difference between terrorists and innocent people worshipping according to their faith traditions.
Sister Maureen McCormack, President, The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Englewood
…
I honestly couldn’t believe what I read, that Tom Tancredo actually suggested an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina in response to a terrorist attack, and that such a threat would actually deter such attacks. Mr. Tancredo’s misguided, irresponsible and hateful comments have made me embarrassed to see his name and my home state in the same sentence. Not only is he proving himself to be unfit for the presidency, but he’s also unfit to represent the people of Colorado.
Michael Ladefoged, Parker
Online extras
For more letters to the editor, go to
To send a letter
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
