Letters to the Editor

Ohio Congresswoman sparks Iraq withdrawal

Dear Editor:

I am writing to voice my agreement with yesterday’s editorial regarding the fallacious argument that only politicians with direct experience on a subject have the moral authority to discuss it as a matter of public policy. Think of where this country would be if the president’s purview was limited to matters relating to cheerleading, drunk driving, cocaine use and failed business ventures. I would, however, like to offer a point of clarification. It was actually Ohio’s own Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt who started this whole episode by trying to use what she mistakenly perceived as Rep. Murtha’s lack of military service to attack his stance on Iraqi troop withdrawal. The thrust of her argument on the House floor was that only Marines have the guts to stay the course. That certainly sounds like an experienced-based attack to me. I’m sure it was an honest oversight that the Daily Kent Stater editorial board ignored Rep. Schmidt’s similarly ” un-American approach to politics (that could) result in limits on freedom of speech.”

Tom Brewer

Assistant professor, justice studies


‘Stater’ should know life before supporting death

Dear Editor:

The Stater got one thing right in its Nov. 28 editorial on Stan ” Tookie” Williams: His case will have a far reaching effect on how Americans view the death penalty.

Not for reasons of law and order like the Stater argues, but because William’s case is indicative of how working class people are treated in the criminal justice system that lets the rich get away with a slap on the wrist but doesn’t even provide adequate legal defense for the poor. The system is racist to the core.

Williams’ trial was a mockery of the notion of a fair trial because he was tried by an all-white jury. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the dissenting opinion called it “blatant, race-based jury selection.”

Not only was racism used to convict Williams, but the key evidence was the testimony of jailhouse snitches with serious motivation to cut a deal with prosecutors.

Given the real facts of Williams’ case, what will be happening on Dec. 13 is not the protection of civil liberties and the rule of law, but a legal lynching. A lynching that the Stater seems to support given the biased history of the Williams case and the scorning of those who support Williams in the Stater’s Nov. 28 editorial.

Robert Hare

Junior political science major