Reader’s Forum

Defying Ashcroft: Yeas and nays

To the editor: I was appalled by your January Editor’s Viewpoint (“Police departments balk at Ashcroft’s request”). Your liberal mindset is why our country is in grave peril. Did it ever occur to you that the girl you mentioned in your article might be marrying “Mohammed?” Maybe Mohammed is connected to the murderers who brought down the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.

I would say that would be a relevant lead. I would also say it would be fine to interview someone like that. And if Mohammed is an illegal immigrant, Mohammed needs to leave our country.

If it wasn’t for people like you and former President Bill Clinton — who I’m sure you supported — we wouldn’t be in this state of tragedy and war.

Political correctness, affirmative action and lax immigration laws have brought this country to its knees, and I’m sure you support all of those things. Liberals like you are losing the battle.

Unfortunately, it took 9-11 to wake us up. Do us all a favor and diversify your publication by hiring some people who are not too afraid to hurt some feelings and give us a non-biased viewpoint.
— Larry Wolford
Nashville, Tenn.

To the editor: I want to salute you for your January viewpoint. We’re a nation and a people capable of rebounding from terrible tragedy technically, economically and emotionally. The keys to that are justice, fairness, wisdom, perseverance and cultural sensitivity.

Some of us are fortunate enough to be in this country but unlucky enough to have Arab names. Although we work as hard as anybody else, we go the extra mile to please, and we compromise a lot.
— Hakim Saadi
Topeka, Kan.

To the editor: I don’t necessarily disagree with the overall message of your viewpoint. This request by Ashcroft is a risky civil rights issue and would seem to have a low probability of success. However, I do take issue with one comment: “If you are trying to find criminals, gun purchases seem a much more realistic way to start than does some girl’s love life.”

You have to remember that the federal gun purchase records deal with people like me who bought firearms for perfectly legal and harmless reasons. I’m on that list, my wife is on that list, and we don’t even have a traffic ticket between us. This is just another type of profiling and is a dangerous road to head down.
— Michael Lein
Carver County Environmental
Services Director
Chaska, Minn.

To the editor: Your leftward leanings were really being displayed in your editorial. I saw four things that show your blatant bias:

First, there are 285 million people in the U.S., and Ashcroft wants the police to interview 5,000 — about one person out of every 57,000. He had a list of names and was seeking the location of these people to gather any information they may have had about the terrorist attacks. I think he has more of a reason to ask this particular section of the population questions than the Census Bureau has asking every person some of the questions that were on the last census.

Second, your take on profiling is illogical (though it fits current liberal thinking). Suppose a robbery occurred at a basketball game, the gymnasium was closed so that no one could leave, and the perpetrator was described as a masked male seven feet tall. According to your logic, it would be wrong to gather up all males more than 6’6″ tall and begin questioning them. I’m sorry, but if it looks like a duck, flies like a duck and sounds like a duck, the odds are pretty good it is a duck. It is hard for some people to look straight at the truth because they don’t like what they see.

Third, you make the same illogical jump as most liberals when you state that searching the gun owners database for criminals seems like a logical place to start. First, you assume that most gun owners must be criminals, and, second, you ignore the fact that criminals don’t buy their guns, they steal them.

Fourth, you indicated that police are too busy with security issues (bomb scares, anthrax, airports and a general overall heightened sense of security) to be asking these particular individuals any questions. If the police were to contact these people and information was discovered then maybe we could get to the bottom of how the terrorists were able to do what they did.

Don’t think I want the federal government to have any more power than it does. But I think Ashcroft was doing what is required when an act such as this is performed. Overall, you looked beyond the factual information available and jumped to skewer someone you don’t like politically.
— T. Reid
Raleigh, N.C.

To the editor: Your editorial was right on target. It seems that if you question any tactic that the government is taking, you are now branded as unpatriotic. I applaud all the city and county officials who are standing up to John Ashcroft and protecting our rights as citizens to some semblance of privacy. What he is asking our local officials to do is question people on the basis of race or place of origin. Yet our police departments are criticized for racial profiling.

We may have a replacement for Sen. Joseph McCarthy in this man. I am old enough to remember Sen. McCarthy and the many people who lost their jobs because they exercised their right to remain silent in accordance with our Constitution. One local San Francisco radio personality was off the air after he was questioned by McCarthy; no charges were made or needed, and there was no explanation by the radio station.

I also am old enough to remember what this country did to loyal citizens of Japanese ancestry in 1942. Didn’t we learn anything from that experience?

I worked with some of those people after the war and learned what they went through. Many lost their homes and property. These were people who were born and raised in the United States. At least we haven’t yet repeated that mistake.

Are we willing to give up our freedom in order to protect our freedom? If so, what will we have left? Certainly not freedom.
— Charles Leitzell
Mokelumne Hill, Calif.

To the editor: I am very concerned about expanded police powers being used against law-abiding Americans under the guise of fighting terrorism. The potential for abuse is ever-present, as you pointed out.

However, I take issue with you on one point. You seem to think records of gun purchases are a good place to start if you are looking for criminals. This is incorrect. Criminals and terrorists do not register firearms. They steal them — often from police and military sources.

Terrorists, in particular, bring their own arms into this country. The only people affected by a national firearms database are freedom-loving Americans. Without exception, history shows that a national registration program leads to outright firearms confiscation and, ultimately, to a totalitarian regime. Armed citizens are the ultimate deterrent to would-be conquerors, both foreign and domestic.
— Samuel Allen
Specifications Manager
DeKalb County, Ga.

To the editor: I love the way everyone picks through the barrel when it comes to civil rights, choosing whose rights can be violated. Your editorial basically proclaimed that no Arabs should be bothered about personal matters. However, it is quite all right for the FBI to begin bothering the average working, law-abiding citizen of this country, of which a large part are female and/or Arab, simply because we choose to exercise our freedom.

Our country is great because you have the right to pick and choose. I also have the right to decide that I will not stand for any civil rights violations. When our government asks questions about whom we intend to marry, it is out of line. When our government asks questions about legal firearms purchases, it, again, is out of line.

Our greatest mistake in this country, especially in these times, is to leave anyone behind. Whether we like it or not, we must carry the entire barrel, or we have failed.
— Terry Newton
Pulaski, Tenn.

To the editor: I’m not able to tell if you’re really that out of touch or, if like the other Jerry Springer types, you just say outrageous things to stir controversy and sell magazines. How would the profiling of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase firearms inhibit extremists from detonating bombs or crashing airplanes into buildings? By the way, the Democrats demanded that Ashcroft interpret the law “to the letter,” and now, when he does, they don’t like it. Make up your mind.

I spend a good deal of time at Ground Zero, not watching from the observation platform, but in the mud searching for the bodies of people burned and crushed by an unseen enemy. Unfortunately, the enemy operates in the shadows, since it doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and face us.

Your opinion only points out what should not be done. How about a real workable suggestion to identify a clandestine terrorist or his support system? I — and a lot of other unpolitically correct Americans — are weary of your armchair play-calling.

This is not the first time that your editorial has had very little to do with the day-to-day services that public workers provide to the public. How about using your resources for a good cause, like finding a solution to solid waste issues or the crumbling infrastructure? Or, better yet, why not run for office and experience the frustration caused by people who only contribute to the cynicism in our communities and won’t lift a finger to offer real solutions? Kindly remove my name from your mailing list.
— Alan Simerson
Director of Public Works
Egg Harbor Township, N.J.

To the editor: I just got done reading your January Editor’s Viewpoint. Now that I’ve wiped the puke off it, I feel I must respond to your short-sighted, ignorant views.

Who in the hell are you to decide that information solicited by federal law enforcement professionals is “irrelevant?” I find it amusing that you feel the FBI being prohibited from the federal gun-purchase database has any impact on tracking down terrorists. How many guns did the hijackers have on board on Sept. 11? As for someone being questioned about their marriage plans, how do you think some of these terrorists or other illegal aliens get residency status? That’s right. They marry someone for that specific purpose.

I also find it amusing that you mention the San Francisco PD and its position that “in no uncertain terms… do they intend to be part of [Ashcroft’s] interrogations.” How nice. Let’s hope the next attack targets San Francisco.

Thanks also for mentioning Time magazine, one of the many liberally slanted media publications that just don’t get it — like yourself. How blind can you be?

I suppose your next editorial will deal with the horrors of how we are treating prisoners at our base in Cuba. Imagine this when you’re writing it: a friend of mine and his family are on a plane heading on vacation. The next thing you know, they’re incinerated as the plane strikes the World Trade Center. Please tell me and the rest of their grieving friends and family that you think the prisoners need cable TV and a workout room.

Liberals like you are the real threat to America and its freedoms. I can only hope that you and your family are on the next plane hijacked and flown into a building.
— Dan Johnson
Sacramento, Calif.

To the editor: I wanted to commend you for — and express my appreciation for — your editorial. For far too long, publications for professionals, administrators, etc., have avoided taking principled stands on social issues in defense of democracy and social justice. In these times, it is more important than ever.
— John Vago
Philadelphia Water Department
Philadelphia

To the editor: I agree that Ashcroft has gone too far in some of his requests. I applaud Chief Croker’s stand on refusing to ask certain questions.

However, you hit a nerve with your statement about gun purchases.

Thanks a whole bunch for classifying everyone who owns a legally purchased firearm as a criminal. This is the typical thinking that makes it bad to be an honest citizen in the U.S.A. What makes you think that criminals have legally purchased weapons and that they would be in a federal gun-purchase database?

People who jump through all the legal hoops in order to own a firearm for personal protection or to enjoy the many shooting sports tend to be more law-abiding and more patriotic than much of America — patriotism that was strong before Sept. 11 and will continue long after the fair weather patriots fade into whatever new fad appears.

Try to understand that going after people because they legally own guns is as quixotic as persecuting people because of their skin color or interviewing people because they are named Mohammed.

We need to start prosecuting the criminals, not the tool, not the race and not the ideology.
— Peter Conine
Waukesha, Wis.

Expressway photo did not agree with article

To the editor: I was just reading in the December issue about how Chesapeake, Va., took the burden off local roads with its new expressway. What about the burden on the people in the traffic jam shown in the accompanying photograph, which has cars bumper-to-bumper as far as the eye can see?
— Craig Van Natta
R. Kenneth Weeks Engineers
Norfolk, Va.

[That was our fault. The cutline should have indicated that the photo was a “before” shot. — JW]

HOV lanes contribute to congestion

To the editor: Regarding HOV lanes:

• HOV lanes contribute to smog because the mixed flow lane can’t move. The average speed [in the mixed lane] is less than 35 miles per hour, while the traffic on the HOV lane is doing over 60 miles per hour.

• If HOV lanes were eliminated, as proposed by California Sen. Tom McClintock, the freeways would have a chance of flowing, thus eliminating “declining mobility” and “growing congestion.” Make them “mixed-flow” ala New Jersey.

• There are more accidents on the HOV lanes. New Jersey discovered this.

• Certain engineers created a special niche for themselves as HOV gurus. Let’s stop listening to them beating their drums and get EPA off the beat. The cost of HOV lanes has been enormous because of special grade separations and flyovers.

• The U.S. DOT Director of Engineering said in a letter in February 1985 that HOV construction “accomplishes little more than rearranging traffic in lanes according to occupants.”
  — Chris Ema
  Transportation Engineer
  Santa Ana, Calif.