A signature, like a vote, is private

I want to thank Judge Benjamin Settle for the courage to stop the release of names of people who signed Referendum 71 ["R-71 signatures kept private," page one, Sept. 11].
Even though I did not sign this one, as a private citizen I think of these petitions as a vote. In signing them, people are essentially voting for or against an issue.

In this country we keep our votes anonymous. If these names are released, everyone will be averse to ever signing a petition again for fear of retribution by the opponents of it.
I hope Settle has the intelligence to make this temporary injunction permanent.

-- John Hed, Covington

Retribution is not free speech; signatures shouldn't be disclosed

The threat of publicly releasing Referndum 71 signatures defines what's wrong with today's political discourse: self-interest.

I signed the petition not because I am against anybody, but because I believe in equality of opportunity rather than equality of result. I am 41, never married and sexually abstinent -- not for lack of interest or desire but because of belief and conviction.

That said, I get no break on my health care for living a sexually risk-free life, nor do I enjoy the benefits of married couples or those living in domestic partnership. Equality of result would have me fight for those "rights." Equality of opportunity informs me I will have those benefits, too, someday, should I marry the woman of my dreams.

I signed knowing someone might use my signature against me without knowing me or asking why. Disappointing for sure, but this is still America where we are free to take sides, free to speak up and free to love our neighbors when the dust clears.

I disagree with releasing R-71 names and making them public. Not because I am afraid, but because hatred, anger, retribution and political expediency should never be masked under the guise of free speech.

-- Justin Kawabori, Redmond

Signing a referendum also supports direct democracy

As a teacher of Washington-state history I want to explain that not all the people who signed the petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot oppose extending domestic-partnership rights.

I teach my students about the initiative and referendum process in my class, and we discuss what they will need to consider when they are asked to sign one.

What a citizen is agreeing to is that they want to have that issue come to a statewide vote. In this case, we may have people who signed it because they like direct democracy and believe citizens should be able to vote on as many laws as possible. Or people may have signed it because they believe a statewide vote will get rid of the law, or people may have signed it because they believe a statewide vote will keep the law.

My point is the assumption that all the people who signed it did so for the same reason is not true.

-- Todd Beuke, Sequim

A cougar removed while dangerous pit bulls are ignored

Did any one else see the dichotomy of these situations: A cougar living in its natural habitat, which happens to be near an urban area is hunted down, captured and moved to a more remote area because of the potential of the danger its presence presents ["Discovery Park cat gets treed and freed," page one, Sept. 7]. I am glad this happened, both for the people nearby and for the cougar itself.

Meanwhile, in another case in a different locale, five dogs who people reported and complained about ["Neighbors warned agency of dogs," NWWednesday, Sept. 9] and who had in the past threatened and intimidated people were basically ignored. Left until "real" injury was imposed.

Saying a response is made within 10 minutes of a reported attack is no comfort; in 10 minutes much of the damage is done. Walking our neighborhoods has become more and more dangerous thanks to dog owners who, I believe, acquire some dogs only to intimidate others.

-- Jan Broz, Redmond

In cougar relocation, a shining example for other states

Seattle and the communities surrounding Discovery Park should take pride in their calm, cautious and reasonable response to the cougar recently discovered in their vicinity. They did not panic nor did they demonize the danger the cougar presented.

We are very fortunate in Washington state to have a number of extremely experienced and well-trained biologists. As a nature and science writer, I have worked with these scientists and have written a number of articles so the rest of the country might become aware of their innovative work and findings.

They have studied the mountain lions in Washington state for many years, and their expertise was evident in their handling of this recent event. We are so fortunate to have a healthy population of these amazing cats. Very few states can claim this.

By agreeing to relocate rather than kill this cougar, Seattle has shown how humans can coexist with wildlife. Washington state must set the example for the nation by making every effort to preserve its wildlife treasures by supporting the work of these biologists.

-- Laura Bowers Foreman, Issaquah

Lay on fines for negligent pet ownership

Your story about the dogs' brutal attack on the two mares ["Mares killed after dogs attack," NWMonday, Sept. 7] turned my blood cold.

However, I disagree with the euthanizing of the dogs. I think they should have been split up for adoption to responsible pet owners.

Now, I'm waiting for the happy ending: I want to hear about this negligent knucklehead of a neighbor getting a massive fine for the lives of the mares, another hefty fine for the injuries to the colts and their heartbreaking loss and another huge fine for the pain and suffering of Patricia Clark. The court should demand that Negligent Knucklehead build a eight-feet-tall fence between Clark's property and his.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about these things happen because our courts don't crack down and make the fines and punishment stiff enough. Throw the book at 'em!

-- Lee Ryan, Des Moines

Strike illegal, but will teachers face consequences?

For being educated people, striking Kent teachers don't seem to understand their strike is illegal, yet they still serve no consequence for their action. ["Kent teachers delay decision on whether to stay on strike," page one, Sept. 4.]

Kent teachers point their fingers at other school districts when they talk about money and class sizes, so why don't they leave the Kent District and go to those other districts?
The teachers' strike has caused the rescheduling of the start of classes, so why don't the students, parents and taxpayers insist the teachers' union pay the district's expenses for the period of time the strikes cost?

-- H. Lontz, Kent

A history lesson in strikes from the Boston Tea Party

Is there ever a right time to strike? A right time to break the law?

Some of my ancestors believed strongly it was right to remain loyal to the crown, so they moved to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada; others thought the law bad, so they disguised themselves as Native Americans and threw tea into Boston Harbor to protest.

These Americans thought they had an inalienable right to break a bad law.

I taught for 31 years, and I am sure there's more to the Kent teachers' strike than is on the surface. I say, "Throw the tea in the harbor."

-- Delbert O. Lawrence, Bellevue

Roads shouldn't be governed by survival of the fittest

I heartily disagree with the state Court of Appeals and The Seattle Times ["Court right to reject Seattle traffic law," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 21] that a traffic infraction cannot turn into a crime.

It seems to me that turning illegally into the path of an oncoming vehicle -- whether bicycle or car -- and killing that other person demonstrates a certain "reckless manner" and "disregard for the safety of others."

The issue has nothing to do with the "tensions created by traffic congestion" or with "competition for road space" or with "sharing limited space." Drivers need to avoid killing other people whether the roads are crowded or not!

Driving is not a contact sport or a blood sport governed by the law of the jungle: survival of the fittest. If drivers are not held accountable for criminal actions, or criminal outcomes, then we are all at the mercy of the legions of drivers who commit traffic infractions through carelessness, thoughtlessness, stupidity, irresponsibility and incompetence.

-- Dale Flynn, Shoreline

Judge had duty to uphold state law

A motorist should be held accountable for the injury or death of a pedestrian or cyclist. I understand the anger at the overturning of the Seattle law.

However, the anger is directed in the wrong direction. The Seattle ordinance conflicted with state law, and judges have a duty to determine what the letter of the law is. The judge overturned the Seattle law because it was against state law.

The judge can't change the law and neither can The Times.

What really needs to be done is to change the state law so careless motorists are held accountable for their carelessness. Those angry about the court's decision should write to their state legislators urging a change in the law.

-- Bob Fleming, Seattle

Cyclists, pedestrians not just collateral damage in accidents

Is the life of a bicyclist or pedestrian worth no more than the life of a deer shot out of hunting season?

That appears to be the opinion of The Seattle Times in its Aug. 21 editorial ["Court right to reject Seattle traffic law," Opinion]. Per The Times and the Court of Appeals, drivers who kill or injure cyclists or pedestrians are at most guilty of traffic violations. Let the motorist pay a few hundred dollars to the city treasury and take his SUV back out on the road.

According to The Times, any death or injury is just an unfortunate result of "the increased competition for road space." Has the Times decided that the unfettered competition championed by its business columnists is an ideal policy for traffic as well?

Cyclists and pedestrians beware. You are potential collateral damage in the competitive road economy, and The Times says that's how it should be.

-- Ray Redd, Lynnwood

Court rejected accountability from motorists

Perhaps the Court of Appeals ruling isn't anti-cyclist ["Court rejects city traffic law," NWTuesday, Aug. 18]. But it sends an awfully disturbing message to the cycling community.

When I read the Motor Vehicle Laws and got my driver's license, I was sobered to learn that I would be held accountable for any damage I did with the several-thousand-pound vehicle I was being allowed to operate. Perhaps the court has rejected accountability for motor-vehicle operators by their ruling in this case, too.

The Times cited the defense attorney's earnest claim that his client had not failed to do anything that was asked of him. But he left one thing out: The motorist failed to observe the traffic law. He failed to yield the right of way to the cyclist, who subsequently died.

I learned of the circumstances of this case only through reading Times' accounts and opinions of it. Nonetheless, it now seems that all noble promises made by the Department of Licensing about traffic laws being equally enforced for all users of the roads are false, and those who take to the streets on bicycles had better ride as if every car on the road is out to do them serious bodily harm.

That certainly fits my experience of commuting to work on a bicycle. And it fits the facts of this case.

-- William Imhof, Seattle

Kalebu case highlights importance of treatment

Your coverage of the horrible murder and assault that Isaiah M.K. Kalebu is accused of committing ["Video, DNA trail led police to suspect," page one, July 26] suggests he became competent to stand trial in response to mental-health treatment at Western State Hospital.

Like most people who have severe mental illnesses, Kalebu seems to respond to taking medications. We need to remember that severe mental illness is treatable, and the vast majority of people who have mental illness are not violent. Kalebu's repeated threatening and assaultive behaviors may or may not be related to his mental illness.

-- Perry Wien, Seattle

Don't blame mental illness for all violent crimes

As news stories about the horrific violence Teresa Butz and her partner endured continue ["South Park slaying suspect caught," page one, July 25], we are sure to learn more about the mental-health status of the suspect, Isaiah M.K. Kalebu. While we all want an explanation for why such a heinous crime occurred, it is unlikely to be found with this line of reporting.

The news story, "Study says mental illness alone is no trigger for violence," was published by The Seattle Times Feb. 9 [seattletimes.com, Health]. Many research studies, including the one reported in this news story, find that people with mental illness, without other big risk factors, are no more violent than most people.

It is bewildering then that crime stories routinely report any past or a current diagnoses of mental illness -- implying there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the diagnosis and the crime.

If journalists are looking for possible explanations for violent crimes, they should be spending their time tracking down other attainable facts -- such as whether suspects are abusing drugs or alcohol, are recently divorced or separated, have a parental criminal history or were unemployed in the last year, as researchers have found these to be better predictors of violence than a diagnosis of mental illness.

It is time to examine why mental illness has become a scapegoat to explain violent crimes. Is it further evidence of the stigma and discrimination people with mental illness endure or a lack of education that perpetuates the myth?

-- Jennifer Stuber, Seattle

Judges may not have clairvoyance, but do need common sense

Editor, The Times:

The revelation that our justice system had an opportunity to keep the public safe from at least one potential danger and decided not to is both disturbing and incredibly sad ["South Park slaying suspect caught," NWSaturday, July 25]. The King County Prosecutor's Office apparently did everything that it could to put Isaiah M.K. Kalebu behind bars at least for a short period of time. Prosecutors felt, and rightly so, that Kalebu was a danger to public safety.

King County Superior Court Judge Brian Gain didn't see it that way, and Teresa Butz lost her life and her partner was seriously hurt as a result.

No one is suggesting that judges should have clairvoyance, but a little common sense wouldn't hurt. It seems to me that there were all sorts of reasons to at least hold Kalebu for mental evaluation.

While no judge can foresee murder, the danger to public safety was apparently quite evident. I wonder what was evident to Gain?

-- Phil Bate, Lynnwood

Make it a policy to always print judges' names

Thank you for naming the judge who declined to place the alleged slayer in custody on a different offense six days before the suspect killed a woman and injured another.

Print and TV reporters frequently use phrases like "the court ordered" or "the judge said" in reporting legal actions but omit the names of the judges. This omission does voters a disservice. Without the names we have little information on which to base votes for or against judges, except the sometimes questionable ratings of the Municipal League.

I strongly recommend that The Times establish a policy of naming judges and court commissioners in articles about their actions, except in rare extraordinary situations.

By doing so you will provide a valuable service to your subscribers.

-- Harry Petersen, Bellevue

Remember South Park slaying when electing judges

It is no surprise that Isaiah M.K. Kalebu, the suspect in the South Park murder, has a history of mental illness and run-ins with the police. It's also sadly no surprise that the courts and the mental-health system are still failing to protect us.

Kalebu's aunt recently filed for a protection order; he had threatened and assaulted her. Kalebu may have responded by burning his aunt's house, killing her and a tenant --he's a suspect in that murder, not yet charged.

Kalebu is also awaiting trial for threatening to kill his mother. A Western State Hospital psychologist found he "did not have the capacity to rationally understand" that case against him. Then Kalebu failed to attend a court hearing. Later, when he finally did appear in court, the prosecutor naturally asked Superior Court Judge Brian Gain to place Kalebu in jail custody because of the aforementioned facts. Gain outrageously and tragically refused to order that he be held. Kalebu was allowed to remain free.

This decision was unbelievable and indefensible. Six days later, he brutally stabbed two women, murdering one, Teresa Butz.

Kalebu clearly should have been placed in jail. This murder was preventable. And who will be the next victim? When are the citizens of this state going to get the protection we deserve?

At the least we can do one thing: Remember this the next time Gain runs for Superior Court judge. By placing the "rights" of an obviously dangerous, mentally ill criminal above the rights of us citizens, he failed to protect us all.

-- Doug Hjellen, Mill Creek

Three missed opportunities to prevent South Park slaying

I read with dismay ["Video, DNA trail led police to suspect," page one, July 26] about murder suspect Isaiah M. K. Kalebu.

In the space of less than a week, King County Superior Court Judge Brian Gain had three opportunities to keep this murder suspect and arsonist off the streets. In all three he denied motions that would have kept Kalebu behind bars.

Four days after the last opportunity on July 10, Kalebu was linked to the attacks of two women in South Park. One of them was killed.

What could this judge have been thinking? Yes, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. But in this case the suspect had a long history of violence and even his mother was afraid of him and didn't want to be around him.

I hope Judge Gain thinks long and hard about this case and the opportunities he squandered to prevent a horrific crime.

-- Dick Malloy, Seattle

AP Photo/Washington State Penitentiary

This undated photo provided by the Washington State Penitentiary shows Cal Coburn Brown. Brown, was scheduled to be executed March 13, but the sentence was stayed by the state Supreme Court pending a court review of lethal injection.

A cruel and unusual delay

Editor, The Times:

Well, once again our illustrious Supremes have stepped in it. This time they have placed a temporary stay on the execution of a real piece of work, Cal Coburn Brown, who nearly 20 years ago kidnapped, raped, tortured and brutally murdered an innocent young woman and has been on death row ever since. ["Brown execution delayed," Times, Local News, March 13.]

Hours before his scheduled date with the needle, the court stayed it until it can review this state's method of execution, lethal injection, on the grounds that it may be cruel and unusual punishment.

Now I ask you, what could be more humane than simply going to sleep and not waking up? This is way more than this monster deserves, despite his pleas and supposed remorse over what he did.

Problem is, even if the court rules the method legal and correct, the new argument for keeping this piece of inhuman filth alive will be that to make him wait a few months more after a stay, then tell him we're going to kill him anyway, would be "cruel and unusual."

What about the victim's and the family's rights? What did the victim do to deserve her inhumane treatment at the hands of this worthless scumbag? A few minutes after hearing of this debacle, were told that the moron who shot eight people in Skagit County a while back is not competent to stand trial. Oh, great.

I fear our country has lost its collective mind!

-- Scott Stoppelman, LaConner

Family denied closure

Once again, a family is denied closure and a murderer dodges justice courtesy of our foolish state Supreme Court. Cal Coburn Brown is as deserving of his punishment as a person could be, but the court is instead concerned he may suffer unduly through lethal injection, a challenge brought forth unsuccessfully by animals like him in the past.

All this for a man who abducted, raped and butchered an innocent young woman, leaving her body in the trunk of her own car.

Apparently, it's not cruel or unusual if you happen to be the victim.

-- Karl E. Woods, Tukwila

Opposition hoping to dupe less-emotional thinkers

As we approach the execution of Cal Coburn Brown, opponents of the death penalty argue we should cease executions because it is cheaper than continuing them ["State prepares for first execution since 2001," Local News, March 9].

There are a number of problems with this argument. First, the reason the death penalty is so expensive is because of the frivolous legal challenges mounted by these very same opponents. Their tactics are akin to extortion. If they really wanted to lower the cost of justice, they would help expedite the executions, not inhibit them.

Second, by basing their argument on costs, they imply they would favor executions if a way could be found to lower the costs of execution to a price less than life in prison.

Let's skip the hypocrisy.

The opponents of the death penalty are morally opposed to it at any price, but rather
than wave their Bible at us, they are tossing out tortured, amoral arguments in the hopes of duping less-emotional thinkers.

-- Dick Dickinson, Seattle

Three strikes, you're in

What great news about Stevan Dozier, three-striker, being recommended for clemency by the Clemency Board ["Board recommends clemency for three-times offender," News, Dec. 12].

The three-strikes law was sold as removing the "worst of the worst" from society. But many people don't understand how the severity of crimes are defined in Washington state. There are 16 levels of severity. At the top is level 16: aggravated murder. That's the severity level of the 48 murders committed by the Green River Killer who was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Robbery 2, which are Dozier's three crimes are a level 4. Other crimes at level 4 are posing as a licensed insurance agent and influencing the outcome of a sporting event. And, if you commit three Robbery 2's, you get the same sentence as the Green River Killer.

What's wrong with this picture? Today we saw evidence that people do care about fairness in sentencing.

-- Lea Zengage, Seattle

Hero indeed

Danny Westneat is right. Michael Mukasey's audience was not the Rotary Club ["Saluting a shout-out for justice," staff columnist, Nov. 30]. It was a meeting of the Federalist Society -- very experienced lawyers and judges trained in U.S. law. They each took an oath to protect the Constitution.

Mukasey told his audience that torture, indefinite incarceration, spying on our own citizens, habeas corpus, renditions and all the rest don't violate the Constitution. Why? Because the administration says. The audience politely listened with their hands folded in their laps.

Justice Richard Sanders was the only one that had the courage to stand up and say what most of the country now knows: This is wrong.

Give him a medal. What was Sanders supposed to do? Write a letter to the organizing committee of the event? He made the speaker feel the sting in the moment for knowingly betraying the Constitution and the oaths he took.

The loser here was Miss Manners. The winner was the Constitution. Without it, Sanders could have easily been arrested and carted off to Guantanamo Bay.

-- Gene Bolin, Edmonds

Torture them

So Danny Wesneat thinks that Justice Richard Sanders is "onto something." Unfortunately, the only thing he is onto is his and Westneat's misguided opinion of how to deal with terrorists.

Of course these two wouldn't want to use the word "terrorist," they prefer militant or extremist. Terrorists deal in terror, that is their weapon of choice. Since they aren't signatories to the Geneva Conventions and in fact break every part of it, there is no reason why we, the victims of their terror, should be held to its standards when fighting the terrorists.

Suppose there were a terrorist group -- sorry, militant group -- that wanted to kill anyone with the last name of Westneat or Sanders and had, in fact, murdered many of them in cold blood. Do you think these two self-righteous individuals might be willing to torture a terrorist in order to save members of their own families?

It amazes me that columnists and judges can be so cavalier when the lives of their relatives or friends aren't on the line. Wake up gentlemen. Terrorists deserve no more compassion than what they show to their victims.

-- Frank Lippman, Seattle

Orwell would be proud

Danny Westneat's Sunday column is a classic example of Orwellian political obfuscation. It is ironic that Westneat, by using the tactic of calling Attorney General Michael Mukaskey's speech "an Orwellian attempt by the U.S. government to varnish over [a] sorry history" was committing the political sin that George Orwell most strongly condemned: the promiscuous use of a politically inflammatory term to prevent proper debate.

Westneat was trying to not just defend the indefensible conduct of a Supreme Court justice, but to cast it as heroic.

He chose to varnish over the fact that detainees at Guantanamo were armed enemy combatants by calling them "foreigners."

He misstated the "intense national debate" as merely "what to do about torture. Not whether to continue it ..." The politically sophisticated Westneat knows that the debate is just the opposite. There is no generally accepted definition of torture, let alone any settled doctrine on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to armed combatants engaged in acts of insurgency and terrorism directed frequently at the civilian population and unaffiliated with any state or nation or uniformed military force.

I warrant that Westneat is familiar with the Wikipedian description of "Orwellian" as the use of political manipulation of language to obfuscate meaning by eliminating ideas and the meaning of ideas.

A final thought: The shouting of "Tyrant. You are a tyrant" is a pure example of Orwellian obfuscation.

-- John O'Harajr, Chelan

Be thankful for that

Shouting names from the anonymity of an audience and then leaving doesn't qualify as heroic ["State justice confirms he yelled "Tyrant!" at [Michael] Mukasey before AG collapsed," Politics, Nov. 26].

[Washington Supreme Court Justice] Richard Sanders's delay in admitting his juvenile, disrespectful actions attest his agreement. The embarrassment for himself and his office is limited, fortunately, by the private nature of the forum.

Sanders's remarks to The Times present no reasoned basis for disagreement with Mukasey's arguments. His "impulse" betrays an injudicious bent inappropriate for his judicial duties. We are fortunate Sanders will have no involvement in matters affecting our national security.

-- L.C. Bohrer, Federal Way

An unguided missile

Ace (arrogant, condescending, egotistic) Sanders demonstrated his leadership and ego during a dinner where Attorney General Michael Mukasey was giving a talk to the audience. Ace Sanders stood and shouted "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!"

Obviously, he was not demonstrating his manners, intellect or professionalism, but rather his unbounded ego. What would happen if someone in a Supreme Court session stood and shouted the same when Justice Ace Sanders was speaking?

It would be worth the effort to be in attendance and witness his reaction as an unguided missile.

-- Colin Saari, Seattle