A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Journal-Advocate, April 11, on the move to try 9/11 suspects in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay:
Last week, President Barack Obama announced a change of mind in regards to the trying of 9/11 suspects in civilian federal courts in New York.
Instead, avowed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged henchmen will face military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they are housed in the U.S. military prison.
The announcement came after Congress passed legislation that prohibits bringing any detainees from the prison to the United States.
The restrictions have raised hackles in the Capital, with Attorney General Eric Holder saying a legislative body cannot make prosecutorial decisions. He noted that the move not only forces the change of venue for a trial; it also places a huge obstacle in the way of closing the prison, which remains the administration’s goal.
We feel that this reversal is the right decision, as bringing these extremists onto U.S. soil carries a level of danger to our own doorstep that isn’t necessary or prudent. We also don’t believe that terrorists should be granted the equal rights and protections under the law that a U.S. citizen has. Furthermore, a civilian court proceeding leaves the door open to aborted justice if some overzealous lawyer or judge determines that the prisoners have not been provided all of their rights, or that the proper procedures and protocols were not followed.
And regardless of the politics behind the decision, the point of the matter is this—it has been nearly a decade since the tragic and horrifying attack. That’s 10 years of waiting for the family members left behind after planes crashed and the towers fell. Ten years of waiting for justice to be served to those who took away mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, and dear friends.
We think they’ve waited long enough.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter Herald, April 9, on justification of pepper-spraying of 8-year-old:
The initial reaction to hearing about Aidan Elliott’s encounter with Lakewood police officers, for most people, likely was an outraged, “What? Police pepper-sprayed an 8-year-old?”
That outrage, though, quickly dissipated for many as they learned more details about the incident or saw Aidan and his mother, Mandy, on ABC’s “Good Morning America” or NBC’s “Today” show.
On TV, Mandy Elliott said she couldn’t think of any situation in which officers should use pepper spray on an 8-year-old.
But was she initially outraged? Apparently not.
According to a Denver Post story, which cited the police report of the incident, when Mandy was told police had hit Aidan with pepper spray, she said, “Well, you probably deserved it.”
And on the “Today” show, Aidan acknowledged that “I kind of deserved it.”
Whether he deserved it or not isn’t the issue, though. The issue is whether the officers were justified in using pepper spray to subdue an 8-year-old.
That’s a tough call. The Lakewood Police Department, through spokesman Steve Davis, defends the officers’ actions.
“Had the officers chosen to be hands-on with him, the potential for him getting some type of injury and, maybe even officers, would have been much higher,” Davis said. “It was the best choice made.”
Could the officers have “talked him down,” as Mandy Elliott suggested and as they’d done on two other occasions police had been called to Glennon Heights Elementary to deal with Aidan?
Perhaps. But maybe more background sheds light on why the officers this time chose pepper spray.
In the classroom on Feb. 22, after an incident on the school bus, Aidan threw chairs, screamed expletives at teachers, brandished a pointed piece of wood at them and threatened to kill them, according to the police report. The teachers locked themselves and eight other students in another room after they couldn’t calm the boy.
When police arrived, Aidan, still holding the sharp piece of wood, told the officers to “Come get me, f—–,” according to the report. When officers couldn’t calm him, they resorted to pepper spray.
Some more background: At the school, Aidan was in a program for children with behavior problems (he’s since transferred to another school). His school is in the same district that includes Columbine High School, where two students in 1999 shot and killed
12 students and a teacher. By all accounts, the boy was out of control, aggressive and threatening.
Maybe no 8-year-old ever deserves to be hit with pepper spray, but this is the rare occasion where officers were justified in doing so.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Pueblo Chieftain, April 11, on a bill requiring elementary students to exercise during the school day:
A bill requiring elementary students to get at least 30 minutes of physical activity during the school day has been approved in the Legislature and sent to Gov. John Hickenlooper for his signature.
Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, was the prime sponsor of the legislation. He called it a benefit to parents, teachers and kids.
“Performance goes up when (youngsters) are active,” he said upon final passage. “Their behavior improves. Juvenile diabetes and obesity are on the upswing, and this bill helps combat those things.”
Physical activity for kids has been the focus of a nationwide program encouraging youngster to take part in at least 60 minutes of outdoor play each day. The program is sponsored by the National Football League, which realizes the value of good physical conditioning.
Researchers believe young boys, in particular, do better in the classroom when they are allowed to run off some energy during the school day.
We support this bill. It’s good for Colorado kids.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, April 11, on a bill that would make cold and allergy medications only available by prescription:
Methamphetamine is a seriously destructive illegal drug that has prompted law enforcement crackdowns and public health initiatives, and rightfully so.
But is meth production such a growing problem in Colorado that it justifies making a whole swath of over-the-counter decongestants, used as ingredients for meth, prescription-only?
We’re not convinced.
Senate Bill 196, pending in the state legislature, would make some 15 popular cold and allergy medications available only by prescription.
The products, now kept behind the pharmacy counter, contain pseudoephedrine, a crucial component that meth makers must have to create meth.
It’s in products such as Mucinex D, Sudafed D, Zyrtec D, and Claritin D.
As it stands, you have to request these products from pharmacy staff and show identification, but a prescription is not required. The ID requirement is an effort to prevent large-scale purchases, which are used in meth production.
The process would change under SB 196. Proponents of the bill say a doctor’s visit wouldn’t be required to get a prescription for these medications—that patients could merely call a doctor for a prescription. However, doctors have the final say in how they’d handle such requests.
Making pseudoephedrine products prescription-only surely would make it more difficult for those who want to buy the pills en masse to manufacture meth.
However, as we said at the outset, we’re not convinced meth production is a growing problem in Colorado. And we’re concerned that going to prescription-only would be a burden for Coloradans.
Numbers kept by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration show a dramatic and steady decrease since 2004 in what the agency calls clandestine meth lab incidents in Colorado.
The DEA numbers are only an indicator, although we’re told a reliable one, because they don’t include busts made by local agencies that are not reported to federal authorities.
What the numbers say to us is that current efforts are working to hold down meth labs. According to the DEA, in 2004 there were 238 discoveries of meth labs and associated activities in Colorado. In 2010, the agency reported 15.
Law enforcement is doing a good job in harassing would-be producers. The Colorado Meth Project, a prevention program, is making inroads, too. And keeping pseudoephedrine behind the counter is making it more difficult for meth producers to get ingredients.
That balance could tip, and we are not unsympathetic to the arguments made to us by the Colorado Drug Investigators Association and others, who support the passage of SB 196.
Indeed, the same DEA figures we cited show an uptick nationally in meth lab discoveries during the last few years.
Other states have responded with prescription-only bills, several of which have failed. Only Mississippi and Oregon have passed such laws.
Before taking the dramatic step of making these medications prescription-only, we’d like to see drug companies work with the federal government in developing a more robust ID system that is resistant to the use of fake IDs.
And we think there ought to be clearer indicators that meth production is on the rise again in Colorado.
Editorial:
