Confirming Alito, or anyone like him, will be the coup de grâce of the coup d'état and will facilitate, legitimize and institutionalize the criminal and monstrous agenda of the Bush cartel and their masters. This is not a conservative or Republican agenda, but a globalist and corporatist one. This is far larger than partisan politics, which are only a tool of oppression. The entire Democrat vs. Republican game is a ploy, a simple device called Divide and Rule; and in order to advance the agenda, “leaders” of both parties are required to play their roles.
We must stop framing these issues in terms of Democratic or Republican values, stop making our neighbors who side with the other party the enemy, and understand that the elite are making war on us through the instruments of politics, banking and media. From all the facts at hand, one can only conclude that the ruling elite are advancing a plan to destroy America as a constitutional republic and conclusively enslave the people. Alito is not a bad pick because he's a Republican, he's a bad pick because he'll serve the elite--not justice, not the Constitution and not the people. We must draw the line. Who among us has the courage?
Chris Hassell Anton Chico, NM
If Bush was a Democrat
It seems to have become a fairly regular thing for President Bush to think he can act with disregard for the law and Constitution of this country. First, he talks about declaring wars with or without the consent of Congress (see Article I, Section 8), then he decided that he can hold "suspected terrorists" indefinitely and without trial (see Fifth and Sixth Amendments), and now he's saying he can spy on Americans without bothering to get a warrant (see Fourth Amendment).
The bottom line is this: The president is never above the law, and the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and if I remember right, the oath of office includes something about protecting the Constitution. I know that the oath of enlistment in the military does. The sad thing is that I used to be a die-hard supporter of Heather Wilson, but when I found out that she hasn't been supporting inquiries about intelligence failures and the like, I wrote her, asking her to reconsider. She responded simply saying that she was and still is a supporter of the war, saying it was the right thing to do. After reading her response, I looked at how she handled the Clinton impeachment. She said then that it should be demonstrated that the president is not above the law. Perhaps this only applies to those presidents that are Democrats?
Randall Sobien Albuquerque
Wiretapping Americans without a warrant appears to violate the Constitution and the president has admitted to doing just that.
This is not about tracking terrorists, it's about a potential breach of the Constitution. The administration says the spying program is narrow, and even said it's limited to people with ties to Al Qaeda. But the president already has the authority to track terrorists. Further, the New York Times reports the facts differently, saying the data was overwhelming and often led to innocent Americans. Republicans and Democrats believe the president may have broken the law. The White House is claiming that Democrats are the only ones objecting to the program, but there is strong bipartisan concern. Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, John McCain and Arlen Specter have offered some of the harshest criticism of the program.
Congress did not give the president authority to conduct the secret program. The White House has claimed the authority to conduct secret wiretaps because of a Congressional resolution passed after 9/11. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that the resolution didn't authorize the program, and found it "unlikely" that any court would agree with the White House's justifications.
Thomas Prando Albuquerque
Big Brother Should Lead by Example
I've been reading some articles in some New Mexico and out-of-state newspapers concerning the insistence by this administration that Iran, North Korea and other third-world countries not be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons program. They say that it would threaten our security.
I thought we were on the right track back in 1992, when the United States and Russia had agreed to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal which was being done under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty. Unfortunately, a new administration came into office that unilaterally decided that this was not in the best interest of this country. According to the New Mexico Nuclear Watch newsletter, the Department of Energy, prodded by the military and corporate warmongers, has been making every effort to convince Congress to allow them to improve our nuclear weapons under the guise of building "smaller" nuclear bombs. Their rationale is that the "bunker-busting mini-nukes" would detonate below ground and reduce the amount of external damage. This is definitely not acceptable since you would still be left with the long-term nuclear radiation after-effects.
With this kind of thinking by our administration, how can we, in good conscience, demand that all third-world countries desist from trying to develop their own programs? What about the security of the third-world countries? Don't they have a right to do the same thing we are doing? It's all right for the "big boys" to have them so they can keep all third-world countries subservient to their whims, but it isn't all right for the third-world countries or weaklings to have them to defend themselves. Just where is the justice and equity in this type of behavior?
Personally, I think the United Nations should take a stronger stance in the matter of nuclear weapons. They should insist that all countries rid themselves of all nuclear weapons. Since we seem to be so concerned about other countries developing their own nuclear weapons programs, we should support such an endeavor and start leading by example by systematically getting rid of our nuclear arsenal. We must keep in mind that, in case of a nuclear war, nobody wins--the damage to our world would be unfathomable.
We have plenty of other devastating non-nuclear weaponry that we can use should we choose to do so. For my part, I would very much like to see my children and grandchildren grow up and live in a nuclear weapons-free world. I just hope someone is listening.
Nahum Castillo Albuquerque
Letters should be sent with the writer's name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to email@example.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.