Feb 09 2010
I read the Feb. 2 editorial "Trial of Trials: The 9/11 Case Should Be Heard on U.S. Soil," anticipating persuasive arguments supporting the Post-Gazette's opinion. Alas ... the bulk of the editorial merely restated strong Democratic and Republican objections to stateside trials.
The final two paragraphs of the editorial did make a valiant, but futile, attempt at justifying U.S.-based trials.
The next-to-last paragraph claimed that, "There are plenty of secure locations, like military bases or prisons, where such trials can be held safely." The last paragraph argued that if we are to spend hundreds of millions to house Gitmo terrorists in Thomson, Ill., (thereby abandoning hundreds of millions already spent in Cuba), "Why can't the public get two for the price of one by holding the trials there as well?"
The proposed investment in a U.S. facility to house terrorists cannot justify the added cost of holding a 9/11 trial there. The enormous cost of building a new U.S. facility is justified on one ideological premise: that our friends and enemies want Gitmo closed.
The enormous cost of holding a 9/11 trial in the United States is justified on another ideological premise: that the terrorists attacked us at home, and should therefore be tried here.
At a time when the American people are questioning the wisdom of trillion-dollar deficits, the government should be using our Gitmo investment to its fullest, rather than wasting multi-hundreds of millions on ideologically justified U.S.-based facilities and trials.
ROBERT J. KONIG
Collier
Feb 09 2010
As I read the Feb. 3 article about helping Haiti ("8 Experts Brainstorm on How to Help Haiti"), I was struck by Dr. Steven Williams' statement, "The problem in Haiti is that ... [the] government ... does not function for the benefit of its people."
I could not agree with Dr. Williams more; however, he implied that government greed and corruption were the root cause of the country's contorted past. I disagree. The government does not function for the benefit of the people because it has never had the opportunity.
To understand Haiti's current state, one must look to historical records. Haiti was born of a black slave revolt that led to independence in 1804. Since that time, Haiti has seen little solace from the international community as well as dictatorial regimes that were supported by generous aid from the United States and others (see "The Uses of Haiti" by Paul Farmer).
Haiti has a young democracy, begun only with the first free elections in 1990. Since then, elected presidents have been ousted twice by coups d'etat. The Haitian democratic government has never had the opportunity to even try to provide for its people. One can argue incessantly about Haitian politics, but no justification exists for twice deposing an elected leader.
It is time to cancel Haiti's international debt and provide grants to Haiti's federal government to begin reconstruction.
JONATHAN DOHANICH
Monaca
Feb 09 2010
Some may recall several years ago when then-Mayor Tom Murphy and University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark Nordenberg made a deal to close Bigelow Boulevard between Forbes and Fifth avenues. Mr. Nordenberg said one reason was because it was unsafe for students to cross Bigelow between the student union and the Cathedral of Learning. The deal to close Bigelow was killed once it was made public.
But Mr. Nordenberg has done nothing since to protect Pitt students weaving through traffic on Bigelow. He could have built a tunnel under, or a pedestrian bridge over, Bigelow. At the very least, he could have had the city install a light at the crossing that is synchronized with lights at Forbes and Fifth so that traffic is stopped when students are crossing Bigelow.
Recently, a Pitt student friend of mine got hit by a car at that very crossing. Fortunately, he was not seriously injured. I guess a student will have to be killed crossing Bigelow before the chancellor acts.
DAVID HUGHES
Squirrel Hill
Feb 09 2010
The recent story about a martial-arts instructor was interesting for reasons other than his removal because of a drug-related conviction ("Program Removes Volunteer Due to Criminal Record," Jan. 26). In quoting Patrick M. Livingston, a lawyer who represented the man in 2008, the PG referred to him as "court-appointed." It's not clear how that fact was relevant to his legal representation, let alone his dilemma of living with a criminal conviction.
In other stories encompassing the newspaper's crime beat, the PG often highlights defense counsel as either a member of a public defender's office or court-appointed when the defendant or suspect is indigent. Unless there is a dispute about whether the individual is actually owed representation at the government's expense, what message is being sent by identifying the lawyer in such a way? Privately retained lawyers are typically not identified as such. If the lawyer is part of a larger firm -- which is not typical since most defense practitioners are of the solo or small-group variety -- that, too, goes unnoticed.
It cannot be that indigent counsel offers a different level of representation. Any individual facing a criminal charge faces enough anxiety, embarrassment and related concerns without being tagged as unfortunately unable to retain a lawyer of his or her choosing. Why emphasize that point when reporting those events?
MARK A. SINDLER
Squirrel Hill
The writer is a criminal defense attorney.
Feb 09 2010
It's 5 a.m. or so on an otherwise nondescript morning in Pittsburgh. Suddenly the earth begins to shake, violently knocking down homes and buildings like some giant fist crushing them to the ground. A lot of people are killed outright, but most somehow survive the earthquake and are now in the streets injured and needing medical help.
While the hospitals have taken their share of destruction, dedicated doctors and nurses somehow make their way to what's left of them ready to help the injured. But before they can begin, the patients must be processed through admissions. While those seeking emergency help will get the minimum required, will this be enough to enable them to recover from their injuries? Those who have the right magic insurance cards in their wallets will be assured of the best care possible -- even to the point of being flown to undamaged locations.
There are two types of patients -- those without medical insurance left to struggle with their injuries once they have received "emergency" treatment, and those who have medical coverage that provides them with all the care they need.
Among the uninsured there are many, like my wife, who would buy insurance coverage if they could qualify but cannot find it at any price because while they were working and had insurance they developed some sort of problem, like diabetes or high blood pressure.
Of course my example is highly exaggerated, but what is fair? Abandoning people to misery, or coming up with a system where all have a chance at proper medical care?
FRED N. BUSH
Wilkins
Feb 09 2010
Liz Hughes' absurd letter ("U.S. Wrongdoing," Jan. 16) is missing a few "historical facts" regarding implied U.S. terrorism (the use of atomic bombs). None of the options to "the bomb," such as an invasion of Japan, were very appealing. High U.S. casualties in previous assaults (Okinawa/Iwo Jima) and strong Japanese defenses were projected to result in 1 million U.S. casualties and 2 million Japanese casualties (a 10-fold increase over the atomic bomb), possibly more.
Japanese leaders had determined the conflict could not be won and were planning a defense that would inflict high U.S. deaths and enable a negotiated peace that would maintain much of their remaining conquests. Japanese reinforcements made achieving the proper invasion force ratio difficult, and the Navy was withdrawing its support.
Even if the Japanese homeland were lost, the government planned to move to occupied China and continue the fight. There is no guarantee a U.S. invasion would have resulted in success or ended the war. Countless lives, both American and Japanese, would have been lost in what would have been a foolish decision not to use the atomic weapons.
The cities selected for bombing were industrial areas and legitimate military targets. Conventional bombing had resulted in even higher casualty rates, including 200,000 in Tokyo alone.
It was the Japanese who cared little for the suffering of their people, opting for a no-surrender position. They initiated and perpetrated a barbaric conflict and chose to fight to the end.
To the few Americans who developed and delivered the bomb, "never has so much been owed by so many to so few."
MICHAEL TURLEY
South Park
Feb 08 2010
It was with gratitude that I read of the proposed "sweeping overhaul" of No Child Left Behind ("Obama to Alter School Policy," Feb. 1), that "many of the provisions that teachers unions, associations of principals, school boards and other groups have found most objectionable" would be reworked or eliminated. May that be so!
I know personally two teachers, the sort one wishes could be cloned -- devoted, caring, effective -- who left their public school positions before retirement age, simply because they had to tailor their teaching around the mandated tests, making it impossible for them to give the children what they knew was the education those children needed to carry them through life.
While the goal is admirable, are there reliable statistics that show marked effects? How many more high school graduates have come through since the law's institution? How many fewer graduates are functionally illiterate? How many children are reading at grade level? Same for math and language skills? Comprehension? Marked improvement in how many "challenged" school districts?
Who will head this overhaul? How about forming a task force of teachers, recognized publicly for their success in changing the lives of their students in all ways, not just in how well the children perform on federal tests? Include a solid representation of teachers from "challenged" districts. And let there be acknowledgment of the role the arts can play in the development of well-rounded citizens!
JOYCE MOON STROBEL
Ross
Feb 08 2010
Regarding the Feb. 3 "Brewed on Grant": cartoonist Rob Rogers is way out of line. Until an apology is made to the Pittsburgh police force, decent Pittsburgh citizens will continue to cancel their Post-Gazette subscriptions.
Ask Mr. Rogers if he interviewed the officers who arrested Jordan Miles. Stop hiding behind the "comic" facade and understand the facts before you make false accusations -- especially against the people who risk their lives ensuring our safety.
MARK and LYNELLE DeNAPOLI
Cranberry
Feb 08 2010
In response to the letters from Victor J. Ruisi and Dan Malakoff (Jan. 27): Mr. Ruisi ("This Court Decision Is Devastating for Democracy") is worried that corporations will permeate politics? Has he not heard that our president has appointed Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric to his economic recovery board? That GE Capital has received a $139 billion bailout in the form of FDIC debt coverage? GE hires former Sen. Tom Daschle to its health advisory board and Tom's wife, Linda, as a lobbyist? (Have to love that "no politician as lobbyist" law). That if health care and cap-and-trade are passed, GE stands to make billions? That does not represent me.
Mr. Ruisi, you and I have no "right" to be represented in every decision made in politics. Therefore, no "right" has been violated.
As per Mr. Malakoff's wonderful idea of stripping away corporations' free-speech rights ("Not Working for Us"), I wonder how long it would take before he would be stripped of his free-speech right.
Also, if you allow the number of senators to be determined by the population, it means that nine states will determine everything that happens on a federal level. Nine states have more than 50 percent of our country's population. Twenty-five states have under 17 percent of our population. That is why the powers that were given to the government at the federal level were so limited.
I do not want fewer than 18 percent of the states deciding how I will be governed. Especially since that means other states will be completely ignored when it comes to money, projects and social programs.
PAUL LIPINSKI
Sheraden
Feb 08 2010
When dealing with teenagers sending nude or sexually explicit pictures of themselves or others, there is broad consensus that these kids should not be charged with felony sex crimes ("Update the Law: 'Sexting' Is Teen Foolishness, Not Something Worse," Jan. 28 editorial). But House Bill 2189 is also not the answer.
The House Judiciary Committee is on the verge of passing an extremely flawed bill that does nothing to prevent felony prosecutions while expanding the teen conduct subject to criminal charges. The bill encompasses so much innocent teen conduct that it is unconstitutional and subject to immediate legal challenge.
"Sexting" is a term used to describe a wide range of activity. Under HB 2189, even a teenage couple consensually sending semi-nude pictures of themselves to each other would become criminals, with penalties that will affect their ability to attend school, find jobs, enter the military and get government benefits. Real child pornography is a terrible crime, but most sexting is not and should not be made a crime.
Why the rush to criminalize our children? If HB 2189 passes in its current form, it would be one of the most punitive laws on sexting in the nation. Our children deserve better. They certainly don't deserve to be saddled with a criminal record for exploring their sexuality, which is a normal part of child development.
ANDY HOOVER
Legislative Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg
More Posts
Next page »