Giving away security secrets is serious crime

The Sun refers to the current FBI investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of national security information as a farce and an absurdity ("Curtains for FBI farce," editorial, Aug. 7). But it is The Sun's ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of the situation that could be considered absurd or farcical, if this were not such a serious matter.

The FBI is not conducting a wide-ranging investigation of congressional leaks. It is attempting to determine which members of Congress or their staff members betrayed their obligation to safeguard sensitive intelligence material and, in so doing, violated not only their oath to protect this material but also U.S. laws governing its disclosure.

As the editorial suggested, the press loves blabbermouths. So do our adversaries. Our enemies and our potential foes benefit from the publication of information that compromises extremely sensitive sources and methods used in intelligence collection and analysis. When these sources and methods are revealed through congressional leaks or journalistic irresponsibility, our enemies react by tightening their security.

That makes it far more difficult for our intelligence agencies to collect and analyze material that might provide timely warning of future terrorist attacks and thereby protect the lives of American citizens.

The editorial is correct that the public has a right to know about the activities of government agencies. For the activities of the U.S. intelligence community, that right is exercised through oversight by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The members of these committees are the elected representatives of the U.S. public. When they leak sensitive material, they betray our trust and break the law. They should be subject to penalties.

Unfortunately, the press is not subject to penalty or punishment for printing or broadcasting information that could strengthen our enemies and weaken our government's efforts to defend us.

One would hope that patriotism and genuine concern for the safety of our country would be enough reason for reporters and editors to act responsibly. But too many journalists place a higher value on a scoop and their egos than on our national interests and safety.

Jeremiah Davis

Linthicum Heights

New center protects access to Capitol

The Sun's editorial "No-visitors center?" (July 19) uses a series of inaccuracies and ungrounded cynicism to make a point about the Capitol Visitor Center under construction in Washington. As chairman of the firm honored to be the architect for this complex and challenging building, I thought Sun readers should have the benefit of the facts.

The primary purpose of the new center is to provide visitors with a safe, comfortable and educational visit to the Capitol.

While the events of Sept. 11 have caused us to review security measures, our dedication to open access has remained steadfast and Congress' insistence on this has remained firm.

The visitor center's total cost is about $300 million -- not the $1 billion The Sun suggested.

Granted, this is not exactly a small sum. But consider that the Capitol offers more than 4 million visitors a year from every country on the planet an object lesson on this country's legislative process and a first-hand glimpse of the underpinnings of a democratic process that has lasted more than two centuries. The investment seems worth it to me.

And the "gobs of new office space" the editorial mentions are actually hearing rooms, meeting space and other facilities needed for the smooth administration of Congress.

As symbolic and cherished as it is, the Capitol is still a working, thriving office building that has not had a major refurbishment in more than three decades. Adding modern facilities is hardly an extravagance; it is sorely needed to alleviate cramped conditions in many of the building's offices.

The center will be a three-story underground facility. The complex -- and somewhat controversial -- decision to design an underground facility was made, among other reasons, to maintain views of the building and retain the historic landscaping around the building. It is no small feat to construct a building of this size underground, beneath an Olmsted-designed plaza and adjacent to one of the most historic structures in the country.

It's true that the "Capitol is our most powerful symbol of the freedom and democracy we are fighting to protect." Every person on Earth should visit it, learn its lessons, and come to know its history.

The Capitol Visitor Center will give more people the opportunity to do so.

Harold L. Adams

Baltimore

The writer is chairman of RTKL Associates Inc.

Explore alternatives to war with Iraq

Mona Charen argues in her column "Put U.S. might to good use" (Opinion

Commentary, Aug. 12) that the United States should remake Iraq and other societies by replacing their despotic regimes with democratic, pluralistic governments -- "sowing freedom" as it has done for the past 40 years.

What is she thinking of -- the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile and the installation of the brutal Augusto Pinochet? The U.S.-backed death squads in El Salvador? The backing of murderous juntas in Guatemala? The blood-letting in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man, as are other leaders and governments the United States deals with strategically and financially.

But the bombing and economic sanctions that have continued since the Persian Gulf war have done nothing to cause Mr. Hussein's removal.

What would intensifying this ongoing war accomplish? It might provoke Mr. Hussein to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and Israel, as well as extend hostilities throughout his volatile region.

More civilians, including children, would then end up as collateral damage, and hundreds of thousands of American troops would be put in harm's way.

However, the choice in dealing with Mr. Hussein does not have to be between military action and doing nothing. Other possible steps include:

Stopping the bombing and economic sanctions while continuing the embargo on military equipment.

Continuing multi-lateral diplomatic efforts to resume U.N.-led weapons inspections.

Providing humanitarian aid to prevent starvation and epidemic disease.

As slow and frustrating as a non-military approach may prove to be, the alternative is unnecessary, counterproductive and dangerous.

Lee Lears

Annapolis

Drug prohibition serves racist agenda

The writer of the letter "Illegal drug trade causes city's carnage" (Aug. 3) says that she just doesn't get why drugs are illegal when you can still buy them easily and the only effect of drug prohibition is a huge number of murders.

One answer is that the drug laws are the successor to the Jim Crow laws, just as the Jim Crow laws were the successor to slavery.

Drug prohibition keeps African-Americans in an inferior status. It gives the government an excuse to imprison millions of them. And, by giving a substantial percentage of the minority population criminal records, it prevents them from becoming educated, getting jobs, entering professional occupations and voting.

Another answer is that drug prohibition is big business. Private prisons are springing up; municipalities rake in millions from forfeiture laws; politicians and police depend on bribes from drug dealers.

Everybody benefits -- except crime victims and members of racial minorities.

Henry Cohen

Baltimore

Bush is right to cut our taxes

Thomas Schaller decries President Bush's reaction to corporate criminal transgressions, saying he is "reacting rather than leading," and slams the president's reliance on tax cuts ("We've been here before," Aug. 4).

But unlike Mr. Schaller, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, I have worked in the private sector world of finance for a quarter-century. I deal with business people daily, the vast preponderance of whom are honest and hard-working.

And I suggest Mr. Bush is on the right track in slashing our confiscatory tax system and returning money to individuals and companies rather than relying on centralized government bureaucrats who -- no matter what their noble intentions may be -- inefficiently squander our funds.

If self-righteous idealists such as Mr. Schaller bothered to check the historical evidence, they would see that lower taxes are the engine of job creation throughout the capitalist world.

Income redistribution ultimately results in economic stagnation and fiscal ruin.

Thomas M. Neale

Baltimore

City backs sacrilege of Jesus beer 'art'

The article "Controversial billboard defaced" (Aug. 6) warrants several comments.

If a public body -- the Baltimore Office of Promotion and the Arts -- sponsors Artscape, it has a responsibility to determine whether a submitted object is "art."

Somehow freedom of speech has come to trump all other freedoms, including freedom of religion. Yet surely a public body allowing someone (I can find no reason to label him an "artist") to call anything at all "art" does not make it art.

When a public body allows a billboard mocking Jesus, it endorses irreligion and sacrilege. This is as offensive to me as a Christmas creche on public property is to an atheist.

And I fail to see any connection between "spoofing the mindless consumerism of advertising and commercial images" and art, especially when making fun of something is not normally considered an artistic endeavor.

Would anyone want to see the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s image on a billboard? Why not him and Yasser Arafat, arm-in-arm, endorsing beer?

Shall we make fun of Buddha and the Dalai Lama while we're at it?

Patricia Keimig

Baltimore

Guides don't catch truth about seafood

As the nation's largest seafood trade association, the National Fisheries Institute was disappointed in reporter Tom Horton's article on seafood guides ("A color-coded guide to help choose the catch of the day," Aug. 2).

Mr. Horton is correct that fisheries management is a complex process. Unfortunately, he expresses support for the simplistic approach to fisheries management of the Audubon Society and other environmental groups.

These groups lack two essential characteristics needed for sound resource management: a broad public mandate and an objective, global view of the issues.

Government agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) are responsible for representing the public and accountable to it. They are required to base their decisions on sound science.

Private organizations target only issues they care about, rather than the entire complex system. The science used to support this narrow focus is not as deep as the science that shapes NMFS or FAO policy.

And while we appreciate the effort to help consumers enjoy the taste and health benefits of seafood with a clear conscience, we disagree with using a wallet guide to manage the ocean's resources.

Richard E. Gutting Jr.

Arlington, Va.

The writer is president of the National Fisheries Institute.

Development causes wells to run dry

The Sun's article "Well drillers are flooded with orders" (Aug. 6) presents a very confusing picture of a serious situation.

It does not consider the difference between wells drilled for new homes (which new residents require to obtain an occupancy permit) and wells drilled to replace dry or contaminated wells for homes that are already occupied.

And the well-yield test, which requires that a well pump a minimum of 1 gallon per minute, is a state requirement, which Baltimore County has no authority to change. There is no "county standard" in this matter.

In 1993, my organization, the Maryland Line Area Association, protested a proposed development of 52 homes. Three nationally known geologists testified that the groundwater shortage in northern Baltimore County is the result of its geologic structure and that the area is not suitable for dense residential development. But the development was approved despite this warning.

Northern Baltimore County has very shallow soil over a deep layer of impervious bedrock. Groundwater is found only in a network of narrow crevices and cracks.

To create a well in the area, one must drill into the bedrock and strike one of the water-bearing cracks. The water yield depends on the size and depth of the crack.

Wells intercepting the same crack or network of cracks will compete for water, and simultaneous pumping of neighboring wells will draw down the water in the cracks.

Obviously, if there is only a very limited supply of groundwater and dense development (i.e., a house per 3 or 4 acres or less) depletes the groundwater, what will result is the problem we have now -- wells going dry.

This is not the area's first drought, nor is it the worst, Many of the wells failing now survived many serious droughts -- but at that time they were not surrounded by 50 new homes.

It is our contention, based on expert opinion of geologists and well experts, that the current well failures are the result of over-development of northern Baltimore County -- and the problem is aggravated by the drought of the last 2 1/2 years.

Richard W. McQuaid

Parkton

The writer is president of the Maryland Line Area Association Inc.

Spoiling the country to reap private profit

The recent letter criticizing Gov. Parris N. Glendening's pledge to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over clean air standards puzzled me ("Governor is wrong on pollution standard," Aug. 3).

The writer claims that the governor's statement that "they want to give some of the state's biggest polluters the ability to pollute more" is "outrageously incorrect."

Yet the so-called "Clear Skies Initiative" allows polluters to emit more mercury and other toxins than previously allowed under the Clean Air Act, calls for "voluntary" (i.e. optional) reductions of carbon dioxide emissions and allows pollution trading that would permit power plants unable to meet standards to buy credits from other plants and continue polluting above the limits.

The Bush administration's audacious "fox guarding the hen house" Cabinet is loaded with former (and of course future) executives, lobbyists, board members and lawyers for the very industries and financial institutions it is now charged with regulating.

What can you say when the EPA, for example, changes the law forbidding stream fill from mountain-top removal coal mining to allow the dumping of not only coal mining waste but several other kinds of waste, including plastics, and calls this "regulatory clarification?"

We will keep seeing more of such initiatives as those elected to serve us continue to loot and despoil our country for the profit of themselves and their friends who donate to their campaigns.

And this is not a partisan issue -- both major parties are guilty. The Bush White House is notable, however, for its total shamelessness.

As long as the cost of running for office is many millions of dollars, things will not change. The solution can only be the full public funding of elections.

Kathryn Parke

Baltimore