Meant for homeless, a threat to all of us

It is with utter contempt, outrage and sadness that I pen this loud objection to Act 50 as it was used by the public library guard recently to:

(1) Review the content of the person using the Internet at the library (in this case the user had accessed a gay resource line);

(2) Make an individual decision that the resource line was pornographic;

(3) Ban the gentleman from use of this library for one year ("trespassing" is the term used in the law).

Would anyone in the world suspect that this kind of law might exist in the Aloha State?

In Hitler's Germany? Yes.

In the despotic and dictatorial countries of the world? Yes.

In Hawai'i nei? Unfortunately, yes.

First, the state takes away the rights of lesbians and gays. Then, the houseless, then the Hawaiians, Filipinos, Vietnamese. (Oh yes, don't worry because they are headed in your direction, too.)

Just think, it all started with Act 50, the Trespassers Law, an attempt to evict the homeless from the beaches. Now, you and I are at further risk of losing our rights.

Where's due process in using deadly force?

In regard to the local farmer who shot Marcelino Pacheco Jr., Lt. Bill Kato is quoted saying that Hawai'i law allows the use of deadly force when protecting one's property.

Does this imply that civilians have the right to execute judgment upon a thief? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What do we have a justice system for if we can pass judgment upon our fellow citizens?

Perhaps it comes as no surprise that to some people, Pacheco got what he deserved. Perhaps he might have continued a life in crime and drugs, but since when is property more valuable than life? I don't believe an officer has the right to use his gun on a burglary suspect, so why should civilians have such a right?

Fewer negative ads, and a better agenda

I would find it humorous that Duke Bainum keeps attacking Mufi Hannemann about his negative campaigning, but with his deep pockets to fund all of his own negative ads, Bainum may just be reaching those critical undecided voters with the slick, expensive television commercials and relentless radio ads. That's scary.

I hope my fellow voters see right through the attractive, pricey packaging of Bainum's glossy ad campaign — and vote for the truth, instead. Bainum has "slung mud" at Hannemann from the very beginning, so he's just being hypocritical.

Hannemann knows how to bring people together — and not just "special interest groups" as Bainum keeps repeating. Hannemann can talk to big and small businesses, to unions, to private owners, to city, state, national and international governments, from the kid in Kalihi, to the congressman on Capitol Hill, and everyone in between.

Hannemann has discussed the issues and has a great plan for Honolulu, where he was born and raised. He may not have the family wealth to pay for more and slicker ads, but he has the best interests of the people of Hawai'i in his heart and mind. That is priceless.

Endorsement backfires

Your endorsement of Mufi Hannemann makes us want, all the more, Duke Bainum for mayor. Duke Bainum will serve the people's interests and make honesty and integrity a priority.

If Hannemann is such a comedian and his impressions of himself and others are so "wickedly funny," then he should go on stage as an entertainer and leave the seriousness of taking care of business as mayor to Duke Bainum.

Change our antiquated laws to fight drugs

Time and time again our citizens have voiced that they want action taken on the drug problem in Hawai'i. There is a double standard that warrants serious attention and Rep. Bud Stonebraker, in your Aug. 19 edition, hit it the nail on the head.

Changing our antiquated laws on drugs is a must if we are to have any control over its abundant spread. Why have a DEA if we do not provide the proper tools that HPD needs to protect citizens' rights and safety? How many more families will be destroyed by crystal meth? How many more innocent children will be displaced? How many more babies will die from this poison? Legislature: Wake up and smell the problem.

Student leader's record defended

I have been asked to correct the record with regard to a statement that appeared in a commentary by Robert M. Rees on Aug. 8. In that article it was stated that, in 1989, Mark Takai, while he was serving as University of Hawai'i student body president, "had attempted to undermine President Al Simone."

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I knew Mark well while he was a student. We interacted frequently in his role as editor of the student newspaper and president of the student body. We became good friends then and have maintained that friendship over the years.

As good friends and partners in the governance process often do, we disagreed sometimes. But the disagreement — both sides — was always respectful, professional, and mutually supportive. Mark was then- — and I am sure is today — totally dedicated to the welfare and forward progress of the UH student body and the university as a whole.

I am extremely proud of my good friend and former counselor, Mark Takai, for his dedication as a student and for his professional accomplishments since.

Kaneshiro approach to Drug Court hurt

I would like to correct the impression left by Lisa Tam's Sept. 4 letter ("Kaneshiro's approach to drugs is far better"). I was the deputy prosecutor assigned by Keith Kaneshiro to work with other agencies to set up the Drug Court for Honolulu.

After more than a year of working with Judge Marie Milks, former Judge Duke Aiona, representatives from the HPD, public defender's office and other affected agencies, and after training to be the Drug Court prosecutor, I was removed from the position by Mr. Kaneshiro one month before the program opened, and one of Kaneshiro's cronies was put in my place.

In my opinion, the Drug Court concept did not work well in those early days, in part because the concept was so new, but also in part because the prosecutor assigned did not have the depth of understanding necessary to get the program off the ground.

When Peter Carlisle was elected, he assigned me to the Drug Court position, which I held for three years. The Prosecutor's Office is still being represented at Drug Court by a very competent deputy prosecutor.

I have returned to more traditional prosecution of drug offenses in a state/federal task force that is supported by all the county prosecutors and police departments, the U.S. attorney, state attorney general, and various state and federal investigative agencies. It can hardly be said that Peter Carlisle ended cooperation with other agencies when he took office.