The whole truth

and nothing but

Dear editor,

Joe Wiesner's recent letter to the editor ("Equal opportunity wiretapping," Dec. 27) regarding Bush's "spying on Americans" in which he asked "Where was the indignation when President Clinton did the exact same thing?" is misleading, at best, especially when the entire information is available. When Clinton signed executive order 12949 on Feb. 9, 1995, he did indeed authorize searches for foreign intelligence purposes without a court order. What he didn't authorize, though, was for that spying to be done on American citizens as George W. Bush has authorized. In fact, executive order 12949 states "Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section." And section 302(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorizes physical searches without a court order "if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."

Thank you for printing the entire story.

Tom Fuller

Napa

Thank you

good Samaritan

Dear editor,

I just wanted to thank the lovely lady who found and returned my wallet to me after I lost it while walking my dog at Alston Park. I didn't even have a clue that it was lost until she arrived at my home to return the wallet. And all this good Samaritan wanted as a reward for her honesty and kindness was a hug. Well, here's two tons of hugs for her wherever she goes!

All the best for a happy and prosperous New Year!

Lynn Hawkins

Napa

Dirty creek a

burden on Napa

Dear editor,

Flood warnings were out Dec. 28, 2005, as we await the possibility of Napa Creek becoming a raging torrent of water that will inundate neighboring homes and businesses. Merchants are sandbagging their store fronts. City crews are placing restriction signs, blocking off Clinton to Soscol. The forecasters are calling for heavy rains through Friday so that the perennially dirty little creek may once again become a torrential force to be reckoned with.

Napa Creek is a trash dump, an eyesore of this trying hard to be "world class city." So why not keep it clean? Can our city's leaders answer that question? Among some of the almost impossible tasks facing our city, it would seem that keeping Napa Creek clear of broken bicycles, mattresses, and junk of all sorts would be an easy task. A weekly clean-up force could do that job nicely. Folks drawn from community service obligations, volunteers, teenagers or trusted incarcerates, providing a minimum wage is offered could handle the job of keeping the creek pristine and therefore beautiful as intended, not a dump blocking natural flow and increasing the cause of the creek to overflow its banks.

I sure hope we don't have a flood. The weather person has been known to be wrong. But please, rain or shine, we need to keep that creek clean.

Craig Payne

Napa

Guilt lies with the owners, not the pet

Dear editor,

I've been a pit bull and mastiff owner and breeder for over 17 years. They've been some of the greatest friends and providers of safety for my family. I had my kids around not only the adults, but also the puppies, when adults were present.

If I were a judge or Animal Control, I would find the guilt with the owners, and not the animals. So few of these dog owners are responsible to the point of assuming accountability. When a dog's imprisonment or life equals a human's, then society is in the advanced stages of failure. Take for example the coach in San Francisco who died with killers living next door, sharing a hallway. Regarding babies who have had a neighbor's, or worse, their own dog killing them, the dog owner's claims of the animal being a "good dog" make me sick.

People can own tigers or like animals also but they have to show some responsibility. They can't have them in an apartment complex. If they maul someone, they're put down. Dogs are no different. Owners should show they are buying from good breeding lines and that the pups are trained in obedience and socialized while young. If the owners want a bad dog, something worthy of fear and capable of killing, the owners should have a bond present so when their pet harms or kills, it's a start. Not just some jackass that says, "Your hand got bitten. Get over it." Show real ownership, real responsibility, and be a real part of society.

This is why I, as a homeowner and responsible part of society, cannot see how I could own another pit. It's all the fools that ruin it for the good owners of good dogs. Yes, there are pits that on command will come back before hurting or killing, but those are overshadowed by the many (too many) that won't. As long as good pit bull owners back the bad dogs of bad owners, killing will prevail. Mark my words.

Dave Charon

Rohnert Park