Letters to the Editor
Saleem
Published Letters: 19 Editor's Choice: 4
-
The legal system needs reform, not anti-terrorism laws
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Brianna Waters was found guilty of arson despite what appear to be gaping holes in the case against her. She was named by witnesses hoping to reduce their own punishments, and there is no other credible evidence against her.
But all that has nothing at all to do with the increasing tendency of prosecutors, law enforcement and legislators to treat eco-terrorism and animal rights terrorism as what they are: terrorism. The article teaser screams that "U.S. attorneys exploited post-9/11 counterterrorism laws to pursue and prosecute an environmental activist." But the FBI and prosecutors did not go after Waters because she was an activist. They went after her because she was named by witnesses as a participant in criminal activity.
Prosecutors may very well have abused their power in this case, as they do in many cases. The problem is not the post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws. It is that there is little accountability for prosecutors who "win" convictions of innocent people. The legal system needs reform, not the law.
-
Re: Chilling Effect
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It wouldn't surprise me at all if, post-9/11, the FBI has used its expanded authority to use techniques such as wire taps against suspected terrorists who aren't terrorists at all, and shoudn't even be suspects.
But this line of government creepiness just doesn't apply to the Briana Waters case. There is no evidence at all that she was pursued by the FBI because she was an activist. There is no evidence that the government obtained evidence against her that would have been illegally obtained were it not for the post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws.
Hyping this aspect of the story obscures a much larger problem with the criminal justice system. That is that prosecutors often willfully ignore exculpatory evidence, and do not share it with the defense. If they decide you are guilty, and have just a shred of evidence, they can find ways to put you in jail. They are, in fact, no different from the witnesses who falsely accuse others because if they name names, their own sentences are reduced: prosecutors' careers depend on putting people in jail, not on putting the RIGHT people in jail. Once it comes to light that an innocent person was convicted, it is an uphill battle for the wrongly convicted to demonstrate that the trial yielded an incorrect result. And the prosecutors are rarely, if ever, held accountable for their misdeeds.
Aside from the destroyed building and the ruined research it housed, the true tragedy of the Waters story is that she was probably a victim of shady practices that are all too common among US and district attorneys.
-
@JackSparx: we don't know
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]JackSparx writes that it's entirely possible that post-9/11 targeting of environmental activists is what got Briana Waters arrested. You're right, Jack, we don't know whether that is the case or not.
But the article does not suggest, except in its insinuating headline and teaser, that this is what actually happened. What I'm objecting to is the journalistic practice of setting up a story to evoke an emotional conclusion from readers ("Here go those overreaching feds again, pursuing innocent activists and justifying it by pointing to 9/11!") that would not be evoked had the headline and teaser matched the facts. I don't like being played with that way, and I don't think it serves the defenders of civil rights to blame every obnoxious thing the government does on excess post-9/11 terrorist-baiting, particularly in cases where the evidence clearly does not support that conclusion.
-
Oh, come on.
[Read the article: E. O. Wilson gives soccer moms a bum rap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The worst that can be said about EO Wilson's comment is that its phrasing doesn't rise to the level of genius that is so apparent in his written works. His books (e.g, "Consilience") contain some of the most enlightening ideas about human biology I have every read.
While I disagree with the sexism inherent in the term "soccer moms", let's not forget that Wilson is making a fairly innocuous point here: modern childrearing is out of balance and needs less organization, and more free exploration, if kids are going to truly appreciate the intricacies and mysteries of biology. That's it. There is really no need for Andrew Leonard to call Wilson on the carpet so harshly. Save it for the oil companies and the investment bankers, Andy.
-
Whether 600 or 6000 square miles...
[Read the article: Ask Pablo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's suppose an average roof top is 1000 square feet. If we need 600 square miles of solar panels, that's 16.7 million roofs covered with panels. If it's 6000 square miles, then we need 167 million roofs.
I'm sure there are 16.7 million roofs in this country that get a lot of full sun. Whether they can provide us with 10% or 100% of our electricity needs, it is just plain dumb to let those roofs sit there not providing us with energy.
What should be undertaken is a program on a national scale similar to the city of Berkeley's. My understanding is that they provide homeowners with the capital to install a solar system, and bill you over the years with an add-on to your property tax bill. It becomes a total no-brainer to take advantage of this: your electricity bill goes way, way down, and you use the savings over 10 years or whatever to pay the increased taxes - and when it's paid off, you just get the free electricity.
Imagine doing this on a national scale, with the federal government providing billions to individuals AND businesses to install solar collectors, to be paid off with increased taxes over a few years. Imagine how the huge influx of cash to the solar industry would spur innovation. Imagine how many coal-burning power plants we could shut down.
-
"Held hostage by the sun states"?
[Read the article: Ask Pablo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even in New York state, people install solar panels on their roofs. Sure, southern states have more sun exposure, but northern states have plenty, too. There is no reason not to convert that energy to electricity.