Restrictions A Necessary Step

Advertisement

Editor:

I'm writing in response to Jerry Thebado's editorial (Jan. 28). If the purpose of his (commentary) was to create controversy, it did. His main theme was "... the U.S. Supreme Court approved the further erosion of our basic civil liberties in a 6-2 decision ... by allowing enforcement officers to use drug-sniffing dogs, regardless of probable cause."hen he expands this issue by saying, "... when the Patriot Act hangs over our heads like a black cloud, and the Religious Right has taken up residence in the White House (emphasis mine) for another term, this latest turn ... is just another slap in the face of our civil liberties."

If I were caught for speeding and the officer issuing the ticket also decided to sniff out my car with his dog, it wouldn't bother me, unless I was carrying drugs or a partially empty whiskey bottle. In other words, a law-abiding citizen might be surprised but not offended by this slight "invasion of privacy." Certainly, I would not deem it "an erosion of my basic civil liberties." It just might catch a few drug dealers.

Would Jerry like to return to our civil liberties prior to 9-11 which prompted the Patriot Act?

The Bush Administration and Congress have restricted some of our liberties to combat terrorism. This was a necessary step to reduce attacks in this country, and it has worked so far.

"Black cloud" portrays a gloom and doom environment for which, of course, Republicans are responsible. My, my, the Patriot Act has really abridged my rights.

What is meant by "Religious Right" -- a term used so often by mainstream media? "Religious" must refer to religions of which there are so many. Which particular religion(s) are included? Can we say that most religions believe in God? I hope so, and I, for one, am thankful we have a president who does.

Yes, "Religious Right" has been and is used in a negative way by many politicians and the biased media. Has there been a political party with a stated platform to deal with this perceived problem? No, because it would be political suicide. And that is why this editorial, with its negative connotation, will cost the "Liberal Left" more votes.

Wes Suhr, Pine

Commenting has been disabled for this item.