We are led astray by the recent comments (letters, Dec. 10) regarding the USA Patriot Act. It is perhaps because the Act is not plain and clear in its language. All American citizens are welcome to judge for themselves.

The Act and its legislative background can be found without the spin from the left or the right at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:, but very few of us have bothered to read the Act and to follow all the changes it makes to older federal statutes. Whatever conclusion one might draw from a careful review of the Act, I would offer a few of my own observations:

1) The Act was passed by Congress merely a month after Sept. 11, 2001. It was not written in response to Afghanistan or Iraq or Liberia. And in fact it was not composed in response to 9-11. Instead, it had been thought over and assembled long before Sept. 11.

Its need had been anticipated. It was "rolled out." And it was rewritten into a piece of legislation in that short time. It could not have been composed in one month. If you read it, I'm afraid that you can reach no other conclusion.

2) It is the Act itself, and not its critics, that alters the Constitution of the United States. In particular, the Act gives new meaning to the First, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth Amendments. Whether one looks upon this favorably or otherwise is irrelevant. It is simply so.

3) I do not understand Tom Ferguson's comment in defense of the Act that terrorism's "only comparison is to that of the black plague." Plague has no terror when people are informed of the disease. Only the ignorant are terrorized by the plague. The effect of the Act is not to enlighten us about the threat of terrorism but to allow law enforcement to engage in secret operations to more effectively deter terrorists and their crimes. The effect of that, of course, is to bring most of us into ignorance.

It is not that I disagree with Mr. Ferguson. I merely do not understand his reasoning.

4) Martin Kavanagh's concerns about privacy are understandable, I suppose, but he fails to acknowledge that this is the price he and all of us pay for living a convenient and comfortable existence in today's society.

But privacy is only one element of society's concern about the Act. The larger issue here is whether we should trust those in power always to act in our very best interests.

Our Founding Fathers did not have that trust and that is why they insisted on the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Kavanagh asserts that "the Patriot Act is narrowly aimed toward terrorism."

The Act itself makes no such statement. Mr. Kavanagh tells us that "it seems logical that we must employ new and creative ways to effectively fight the war on terror" when we have not been able to adequately explain what might have been wrong with the existing ways.

This assumes, of course, that our law enforcement and intelligence communities have resolved to wake up, communicate, cooperate and be effective in their jobs.

Mr. Kavanagh further writes that "the Patriot Act certainly contains some provisions that are worrisome and if, or when, the Act is used to prosecute non-terrorist activities, it will assuredly be taken to the courts." He even suggests that the abused and violated may even be able to argue their cases in the United States Supreme Court.

But I wonder how this might be possible when the Act specifies that any report of a search or an arrest or other action by law enforcement is itself a criminal act.

Yes, when the FBI walks into the local library with a search warrant to investigate what you have been reading, the man or woman at the circulation desk can go to prison for letting you know that they were looking into your reading habits.

Please explain how that abuse is going to make it into the courts.

I won't make any judgment here of the men and women who proposed and approved the USA Patriot Act.

In this moment I assume that their intentions were good and focused on the common welfare of the people—in Saratoga and around our nation.

There are no well-defined and obvious limits to what liberties the people have given up by the passage of this Act. The terms and definitions found in the Act are vague.

The due process and open oversight we embrace as central to our society, to our way of discussing and deciding the issues of our lives, are not beyond the reach of this legislation.

Personally, I do not believe that this Act strengthens us. The only real strength of our nation is its people. And our people are only strong when they are free to speak, to listen, to read, to believe, and to act without fear.

Robin Oliver

Mill Valley

(Robin Oliver is a native of the area who still visits locally and has been a regular reader of the local newspapers for about 45 years.)

Supporting the
troops is more
than ribbons

Lance Corporal Ferguson and his family are clearly in an unenvious, stressful situation, to say the least (letters, Dec. 10). However, it is not fair for them to accuse those who speak in favor of Constitutional protections with not caring about defending the country or "not supporting" our troops.

I am sick and tired of hearing anyone who disagrees with the war in Iraq being labeled as unpatriotic or anti-service.

Yes, I think the war is fraudulent, mismanaged and counterproductive. Yes, I'd like to ask the Corporal if he's found the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" his commanders used to justify his deployment.

And yes, I want to support the troops.

It's just that to me, and a lot of people like me, "supporting the troops" means more than tying yellow ribbons, waving the flag and not thinking critically about what the government says.

To us, "support" means providing a northern front through Turkey, a meaningful coalition of allies to help the Corporal operate more safely, a justification for fighting that isn't laughed off by the rest of the world, a functioning system of VA hospitals to care for them when they're hurt, and an exit strategy that brings them back to where law enforcement is still handled by civilian police—and never the Marines.

William Lorton

Los Angeles

Media allows
only liberal
viewpoints

I wish to express my utmost appreciation to Corporal Tom Ferguson, his father Bill Ferguson and Martin Kavanagh (letters, Dec. 10).

Having many of my conservative letters to the paper rejected over the years, it was like a breath of fresh air to read their letters and partially believe that logic, cultural facts and anti-leftist propaganda is not always an anathema to the liberal media.

As a conservative who detested Governor Davis' political mismanagement, but who believed in the democratic process, I was only one of many who opposed his recall.

That opposition changed about a week before the recall date, when the New York Times , the Los Angeles Times , the San Jose Mercury and other local newspapers came out in strong opposition to the recall.

Resentment of the news media's "Freedom of the Press" interpretation, allowing only a liberal viewpoint to be expressed, has created a conservative backlash to their recommendations.

The satisfaction I derived from the recall was not that we elected an actor (who may or may not have the ability to govern), but over the anger of the voters in rejecting the new media's recommendations-an anger that prompted several thousand of them to cancel their subscriptions to the Los Angeles Times .

May I again thank Corporal Tom Ferguson for being a professional, not only in his personal endeavors, but also in his ability to describe a world of reality that counters the liberal's fanciful world where good is evil and evil is good.

Marge Evans

Saratoga