PUBLIC FORUM.Blessing in disguise? Re ``Hamas wins political stake'' (Jan. 26): Perhaps now that terrorists are actually on the seat of a government body they may deflate somewhat. After all, the problem with most terrorists is when they strike, there is no country the victims can focus on to mount a counterattack, no legitimate government to blame. A declaration of war has been made, but there is no battlefield to fight on. Now, Hamas, a terrorist organization, is part of a legitimate government and fledgling state. It has a choice: Work within the system or continue an agenda of radical idealism. If the newly elected officials work within the system, they are fast going to learn the meaning behind ``red tape'' and ``compromise,'' which may actually put them at odds with their own radical constituents. If they become a majority and pursue Hamas' more violent ideas - such as the annihilation of their neighbor state, Israel - at least now there is a country on which to focus. In their determined pursuit for power and recognition, becoming official may not turn out to be the blessing Hamas was looking for. - Laurie Stevens Northridge No surprise Re ``Surprise, surprise'' (Your Opinions, Jan. 26): Robert Gardner is surprised that all the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against Samuel Alito? Well, I'm not surprised that all the Republicans voted for him. Most of them said they would before the hearings started, and during the hearing the time spent by Republicans was more of a lovefest than a probing the nominee's character and fitness to be on the highest court in the land. - Ron Hohn Los Angeles Try winning elections I have watched and listened to Judge Alito being called racist, a step backward and so many more things that my head is spinning. For those complaining about this judge, check the voting results: Democrats lost. The president in power gets to select a judge who has similar, majority beliefs and is consistent with those people who elected him. I get tired of those in the minority, claiming that they speak for the majority. If they were in the majority, they would have won the election and this would be moot. - Barry Levy Redondo Beach No dictator The following are some facts for those concerned about President George W. Bush taking away personal freedoms or becoming a ``dictator'': John Schmidt, associate attorney general under President Bill Clinton, notes that every president since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 has asserted the inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified that ``the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.'' That case law (supporting President Bush's actions) includes a 1972 Supreme Court decision, four federal courts of appeal decisions, and the 2002 opinion of the Court of Review specially established to hear FISA FISA - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (US government) FISA - Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d'Aerophilatelic (French: International Federation of Aerophilatelic Societies) FISA - Federation Internationale des Societes d'Aviron (International Rowing Association) FISA - Federation of Independent School Alumnae FISA - Federazione Italiana delle Società di Agopuntura (Italian Federation of Acupuncture Societies) FISA - Ferris Indian Student Association appeals (In Re: Sealed Case). - Gregg Frazer Santa Clarita Dangerous trend A third-grade civics student knows that the founders never intended the president to be more powerful than the other two branches of the federal government. I fear - we should all fear - the superpowers this administration is trying to grab for the chief executive. For those who support this power shift, please remember the president will not always be a Republican. - Dan Conlon Sherman Oaks Another suggestion Re ``Political job-hunting'' (Your Opinions, Jan. 25): In reference to Frank Jacobs' suggestion, I would like to make another suggestion for any politician who has long been in office: When politicians' terms end, they should not be able to run for office again for the same length of time that their last term lasted. If that's one year, then for one year the politician cannot run for another office. If it's two, three or more, then so be it. Let's make these politicians work for a living for once, and maybe they'll do a better job when they get back in office, if ever. - Edward H. Straub Palmdale |
|
||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion