Terror suspects need to be seen as innocent until proven guilty
The July 10 article, "Congress argues the recrafting of terror tribunals," summarized the relevant points very clearly. Especially revealing was the end of the article describing lawyer David Rivkin's view that terrorists do not deserve the usual rights of those facing prosecution in courts-martial, since they do not adhere to the rules of war, either.
But we do not know that these people are terrorists; they are only suspects.
From what we have heard about Guantánamo Bay, there is indeed a substantial number of suspects who never did anything wrong but got caught up in a dragnet by happenstance.
There is a good reason why we in the US consider anyone arrested innocent until proven guilty, and we should apply the same principle here. Otherwise, our reputation not only will continue to deteriorate in the eyes of the world, but we will also create such an internal atmosphere of paranoia that we ourselves will damage our liberties more thoroughly than terrorists ever could.
John Dillin's July 6 Opinion piece, "How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico," should serve as a road map for the president and Congress. President Eisenhower simply told the illegals to go home or face arrest and deportation. Then he appointed a military man to carry out his order. The same "Operation Wetback" that worked once can work again, if President Bush honors his constitutional oath to protect all states from invasion.
The US has enough border agents today to deport 2,000 illegals per month. The real decrease will come from the up to half million illegal immigrants per month who would flee to their home country, fearing arrest, as they did 50 years ago.
Rochester Hills, Mich.
I was saddened as a Mexican American to read John Dillin's July 6 Opinion piece. I'm hurt that he would cite the term "wetback." It's one thing to reference certain groups that were in existence at the time, but the word is used with no explanation of the racism involved with it.
Regarding the July 10 article, "Church of the higher tech": When I attend church it is with one purpose: to commune with God in silence. Instead of trying to compete with the entertainment industry, churches should provide a haven of stillness, a place where we not only face God but ourselves as well, free from the visual and aural dissonance now accepted as worship.
When I want entertainment I go to the theater. When I want to connect with God, I now go to church when the guitars, power amplifiers, PowerPoint presentations and second-rate musicians are silent.
Regarding Dante Chinni's July 11 Opinion piece, "When media aims for balance, some views and facts get lost": There is a special case often neglected. Third-party candidates have a difficult time even being recognized by the media. Because third parties usually have limited budgets for advertising, editors refuse to acknowledge them. This does a disservice to the public.
Voters are entitled to be told about all candidates' stances on matters of interest to voters. Too often, media let their greed for advertising dollars override their public responsibility.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Any letter accepted will appear in print and on our website, www.csmonitor.com.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to (617) 450-2317, or e-mail to Letters.