LETTERS: More thoughts on the 9/11 trial, charities and more
More views on
the 9/11 trial
Regarding "Does New York need these trials?" [Opinion, Nov. 19]: How could President Barack Obama think that angry, upset New Yorkers would allow these five suspected terrorists to be paraded down our streets without an outright riot? Does he really believe that, of the millions of people here, not a single one would attempt to take justice into his own hands?
An attempted assault on the defendants seems almost certain, despite intense security. And what if such an attack injured a 9/11 victim waiting outside the courthouse? What if one of our police officers or firefighters was injured by an angry citizen attempting to reach Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Whoever is unlucky enough to have to defend these five may also become a target. Does this administration think that the same people who fled, terrified, across the Brooklyn Bridge on that awful September day will stand idly by as an American citizen stands up when the judge calls for the defense's opening statement?
We cannot ignore the risks that come with a civilian trial when it comes to the five most despicable figures in American history.
Kris Bartley
Hauppauge
It must be wonderful to live in a dream world where quoting fictional characters from movies takes the place of reality.
Whatever Rick Blaine said in "Casablanca" is irrelevant to any real-life situation that is going to occur in Manhattan during the criminal trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ["We have the strength for this," Opinion, Nov. 19].
Assemb. Charles Lavine's (D-Glen Cove) experience representing an accused seditionist, who, by the way, was found guilty of conspiracy to bomb tunnels, bridges and landmarks in New York City, does not give him any superior intellectual insight into the mindset of Islamic terrorists.
To Lavine's suggestion that a civilian trial would let Americans look into the "mindset of the enemy," let me reply: "We have seen their mindset," and - I speak for many who won't say their thoughts aloud - "we don't like it."
I learned all I needed to know about this enemy on Sept. 11, 2001.
Those who attack the United States are not entitled to be tried in civilian courts. Attack the United States and be tried as a war criminal. We are a free country. Those who attack our way of life, our freedom, our being, our existence, do not deserve - nor are they entitled to - a civilian trial. They are entitled to a military trial, where the rules are different and the penalties more suitable to the crime.
Christopher Pontorno
SmithtownTry another site
for the trial
Does anyone remember that on Sept. 11, there was also a terrorist attack on Washington, D.C.? Move the trial there!
Audrey Ruttura
HuntingtonA fundraising idea
for the Postal Service
Perhaps if the U.S. Postal Service charged companies that mail catalogs the regular price, it could overcome its deficit ["Post office deficit $3.8 billion," Business, Nov. 17]. Every day I receive from six to 10 unasked-for catalogs, which are tossed as soon as the covers and order blanks are destroyed.
I don't even look at them anymore because there are too many and they all come at the same time.
Charities are just as bad. They pretty much have dispensed with sending labels, and the scratch pads are winding down. I have so far received two pairs of gloves and about 10 packages of Christmas cards.
Alice Poskrop
Floral ParkModerate drinkers can cause trouble
A new state law makes it a felony to drive drunk with a child in the car and also creates a penalty requiring all drivers convicted of DWI to have an ignition interlock system installed ["Driving drunk with child now a felony," News, Nov. 19].
American Beverage Institute director Sarah Longwell appears concerned that this will impact "moderate" drinkers and should be used only against high blood-alcohol counts and repeat offenders.
Has a first-time offender never been in an accident? Has a lower blood alcohol count never been involved in a fatality? Is it OK for moderate drinkers to drive under the influence and break the law?
Kat Lichter
Islip TerraceAll charities suffer
from telemarketing
State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's report "Pennies for Charities," on telemarketing campaigns, brings to light a shocking fact that in some cases less than 25 cents of every dollar raised actually goes to benefit the charity ["Nonprofits slam AG charity report," News, Nov. 18].
What reputable nonprofits employing these fundraising tactics fail to understand is that they are part of a larger universe. When one does wrong, it taints us all.
Those who employ this method often tell me that without it, they feel they could not raise even the meager percentage they receive from the firms' services.
Contributors to worthwhile causes are wise investors, as they should be. Because their support is based on trust, they have a right to ask and expect that their hard-earned dollars will be used to further the organization's mission, with a minimum applied to overhead and other expenses, including soliciting donations. When nonprofits engage in the type of fundraising efforts described in the report, they betray that trust.
Randi Shubin Dresner
MineolaEditor's note: The writer is president and chief executive of Island Harvest.
