Violations of protesters' rights are getting little attention
I am concerned about the lack of attention in local media to the civil rights violations of demonstrators during and following the protest on the evening of March 20 ("Protest Turns Ugly as Police Arrest 122," March 21). As one of the arrested, I experienced these violations firsthand.
The first violation of civil rights came on the evening of the protest, which had transpired peacefully. When protesters were asked to remain on the sidewalk, they largely complied. After 2 1/2 hours of protesting, police told everyone to disperse, a call to which our tired legs were ready to abide.
However, as we attempted to disperse to Liberty Avenue, we were forced back by police. We attempted to go the other direction and were met with the same force. The police told us that we were under arrest and to face the wall. We had followed the orders given by the police, but were arrested for our demonstration anyway. Neither any other protester I spoke with nor I were read our rights or told with what we were being charged.
After being transported to the jail, demonstrators were verbally abused by jailers with derogatory language. We were placed in holding cells, where I discovered that some of those with whom I was arrested were still bleeding from beatings that they had received from the police.
We patiently waited to be arraigned and released, thinking that surely we would be out that very night. We attempted to sleep on the dirty concrete floors of our cells with little success. Some protesters' eyes became swollen and infected from these conditions.
It was 12 hours before we were allowed to see a public defender. As we waited, jailers taunted us over the intercom system and through the cell glass. At least one protester was physically assaulted.
I was not booked until 27 hours after my arrest. We were told by multiple sources that the city had intentionally delayed the booking process. Upon my arraignment, 34 1/2 hours after being arrested, I was finally told what I was being charged with: "failure to disperse" and "obstructing public passage."
The entire time that I was under arrest and in jail, I neither received a phone call nor was read my rights. Because I wasn't allowed to make a phone call, friends and family became concerned about my whereabouts. They could not verify my arrest from the police or the jail, despite visiting the jail four times. After 24 hours, my family attempted to file a missing persons report.
Regardless of what you might believe about the current situation, all American citizens should believe in the rights of all citizens to free speech, to be read their rights and to a phone call.
DANIEL HERYER
Bloomfield
Taking up police time
I feel cheated when I see the police forced to baby-sit the temper tantrums of anti-war ranters who would be toast (along with the other 70 percent who support the war) if the technological superiority suddenly belonged to Saddam Hussein and not us. Why do I feel cheated? They are undermining the security of us all by giving Saddam a political boost and by taking up local police time to oversee demonstrations when we need maximum law enforcement efforts to go full force into protecting us against potential terrorists.
I am not sure what is more dangerous, potential weapons of mass destruction produced in tyrannical states, or those who encourage policies conducive to the delivery of terror on our soil.
DAVID MOWRY
Butler
Protesters are too late
We can't understand all these anti-war protesters who marched Downtown on March 20. Don't they have anything else to do? We too don't like war with all its destruction and killing, but protesting now has no point.
The war has started. It is too late for these marchers. Yes, this is America, and we have freedom of speech, but now is the time to get behind our country and our men and women who are fighting for you.
Get on with your lives, protesters, and stop condemning our president and our military.
JAMES and MARILYN McKNIGHT
McCandless
Three simple questions
I would like to ask three simple questions to those who so strongly oppose our government's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. First, do you feel that our government (or government agencies) should intervene (with force if necessary) and correct the situation when parents physically or mentally abuse their children?
Second, do you feel that our government (or government agencies) should intervene (with force if necessary) and correct the situation when pets or farm animals are abused by their owners?
Third, if your answer to either (or both) of the first two questions is "yes," then how can you disagree with our government's decision to intervene and remove from power a ruthless dictator who has murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own people, imprisoned hundreds of thousands more for speaking out against his actions, intentionally ordered the single greatest manmade environmental disaster in history, invaded two neighboring countries in recent years in an attempt to expand his empire, openly commends and rewards the families of suicide bombers who kill innocent Israeli citizens, openly supports terrorist activity against the United States and continues to show a clear desire to dominate the Middle East -- an action that if successful would destabilize the entire world?
DIRK TAYLOR
Mt. Lebanon
Flags should be flying
I was driving around my neighborhood and I noticed something quite disturbing. We are at war and there are hardly any flags flying. I remember after 9/11, everyone had flags out and everyone was uniting with each other. I think the flags should be flying again, and even if people are against the war, they should at least be supporting our troops and praying that they make it home safely.
ANDREA PINIGIS
Swisshelm Park
Other methods better
The universal need to take to the streets in protest of our country's troops being sent into war seems to be an exercise of a very important right at a very wrong time. We have so many rights to exercise that our universal need to exercise that which is electronically easy, easily misconstrued, easily misunderstood, easily dramatized, easily amplified, is astounding to me.
We have the right to lobby our legislators, learn the issues, study the budget, actively campaign, get out the vote, change our votes, change our parties, learn about world history, world politics and world religions and determine our views and stances. We have the right not to vote or to vote, to encourage votes, sit in the halls of our lawmakers, write, visit and form organizations.
We have many rights in our wonderful democracy; some of them take time, and require responsible thought and action. We need to exercise our rights and responsibilities as residents of this wonderful country of freedom, liberty and equality -- a great country, much preferable to living where dictators acquire billions while philanthropic organizations feed their hungry.
It is not too early to take a proactive stance regarding our next election or to lobby our current leaders. And, there is always much to learn. Thank God we have the right to question.
MARY ANN SERRAPERE
East McKeesport
Court showed integrity regarding the pledge
Concerning the furor over the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' integrity on its ruling concerning the Pledge of Allegiance ("Pledge of Allegiance Ruling Bans It in 9 States' Schools," March 1): The ruling doesn't ban the pledge from being recited but simply bans the "under God" portion of the pledge.
A brief history is in order. The pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Christian socialist and Baptist minister. Bellamy, even though a minister, wrote a secular and not a pious pledge. He seemed to realize that there is no correlation between patriotism and a belief in a deity.
So what happened? Communism and McCarthyism, encompassed by hysteria and paranoia, happened. In 1954 Congress made the pledge religious by adding the phrase "under God." This action was a shocking epiphany for a nation founded on a secular constitution with a wall established to separate church and state.
Integrity, sadly, is something Americans don't readily expect from their government these days. But, occasionally a government branch will display courage and integrity by doing the right thing even against overwhelming popular opinion. Such were the actions of the 9th Circuit Court.
The pledge to the flag should represent all citizens, not just those who profess a belief in a religious creed. To do otherwise ostracizes and relegates all others to second-class citizenship.
If a statement acknowledging the existence of God is not an expression of religion, then what do people think religion is? Our government has no right to encourage its citizens (especially impressionable children) to trust in a god/gods or to discourage trust in a god/gods. The government should remain neutral, as our forefathers designed. Should any student who finds belief in God irrational be forced to recite an oath that talks about liberty and then denies the liberty to deny that belief?
It remains to be seen if our Supreme Court justices will also display courage and integrity when they review the 9th Circuit's ruling.
T. ALEXANDER O'HARE
Pleasant Hills
E-mail this story 
