To remove, or not
to remove

Refusal to convict is dangerous precedent

Members of Congress are the lawmakers of this country. Those members who refuse to convict President Clinton are sending a message that it is OK to lie in written or verbal depositions to the courts.

They are saying that, if what someone states is later proven to be false, he or she should not be punished because our president was not punished for lying.

If only the average man is punished for lying in a legal proceeding, those members of Congress who refuse to impeach Clinton for giving false testimony are a bunch of hypocrites. Such actions will lead to the decay of our judicial system.

Wilbert W.W. Wong

Clinton is certainly worthy to lead U.S.

In answer to James M. Lee's Jan. 22 letter, the current situation proves only that a president can be impeached on a totally partisan basis (as happened in the only other case) and as the founding fathers specifically warned against.

How stupidly easy it is to say, "Do we want an impeached president leading this country?" Yes, if he is not convicted by wiser men and women in the Senate, and if the people want him because he is doing a great job! Remember, 250 House Republicans do not run this nation.

Nancy Bey Little

Mililani

Clinton should be impeached for Rwanda

From the beginning, the process of impeachment has been nothing more than an absurd spectacle of party politics. The fact that Bill Clinton was foolish enough to be involved with a wide-eyed political groupie, and human enough to lie about his idiocy, does not enter the realm of "high crimes."

If the Republicans want to remove Clinton from office, they should come up with a better reason than lying about an extramarital affair. Although I have been a Clinton supporter from the beginning, after watching an hour of television last night, I believe I have found an act committed by Clinton that would rise to the level of a "high crime."

Frontline's "The Triumph of Evil" documented the horrible events that took place during the Rwandan genocide. It detailed the brutal murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi men, women and children by the Hutus. This happened, in part, because of Clinton's unwillingness to do anything to stop it.

With full knowledge of the slaughter that was to come, and with full understanding of the massacres that went on day after day for the duration of the genocide, Clinton stood by and did nothing about it. He still slept soundly at night.

Of course, some would argue that, to be a bystander is not the same as having committed the crime. In addition, it is often said that America cannot be expected to intervene in every conflict.

However, today there just aren't any excuses left that can justify inaction when the corpses of the innocent begin to line the streets. If anyone wants to impeach Clinton, they should do so because of his criminal conduct in Rwanda, not for his rendezvous with Lewinsky.

Cindy Mackey

Problems still occur with living wills

My husband, H. William Goebert Jr., recently passed away. He was a physician/attorney who wrote and lectured on death with dignity and the right to die.

Members from both professions have related to me that most "living wills" are too vague. His was not. It left no question as to his wishes or his definition of "quality of life."

Even so, problems arose. What was the meaning of reasonable? When should the will go into effect? How did the medical staff perceive comfort?

I have knowledge of both medicine and the law, yet was still made to feel guilt. What must the average lay person go through?

Living wills are primarily meant for those unable to make decisions for themselves and to ease the minds of those having to decide for them. I believe assisted suicide and living wills are separate issues and should be treated as such.

Jo Ann Goebert

Kailua

Hawaii doesn't need Kevorkian laws

Legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and physician-assisted death (PAD) would forever transform the role of the physician from one who preserves life to one who takes it. The poor, elderly, sick and disabled would be at risk for abuse and coercion, no matter what the proposed safeguards.

It would inevitably turn the right to die into a very subtle but insidious duty to die, particularly in a culture where sick and elderly people are so conscious of being a burden to their families. And it would immeasurably diminish the sanctity and value of all human life.

There is one thing upon which both sides of this debate can agree. We need to do a better job of eliminating the reasons people request PAS and PAD in the first place. We must have more effective pain management. We must do a better job of diagnosing and treating depression, and increase the use of hospice care.

As a place with one of the strongest traditions of balancing the interests of the entire community against the notion of rugged individualism, Hawaii must proceed with caution. Patients in Hawaii deserve physicians who will deliver appropriate and compassionate care for their pain and depression, not physicians who will deliver tools of death. Hawaii can and must do better than Dr. Jack Kevorkian.

Kelly M. Rosati

Executive Director

Hawaii Family Forum

Two got similar sentences for their drug offenses

I would like to correct a number of inaccuracies in Lisa M. Wiley's Jan. 7 letter. To begin with, based on the amount of drugs involved in their respective cases, neither local attorney Gary Modaferri nor Wiley's husband, Edward, was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. Both were sentenced under the federal sentencing guidelines.

When he was sentenced Dec. 21 for distribution of 0.05 grams of crystal methamphetamine, Modaferri faced a guideline sentence of 6-12 months of incarceration. Judge David Ezra sentenced him to nine months' confinement (three months in prison, six of house arrest), a confinement in the middle of the guideline range.

Edward Wiley participated in a large-scale marijuana cultivation effort at two sites on the Big Island from 1989-94. He was sentenced on July 8, 1996. His guideline range was 41-51 months in prison. Judge Helen Gillmor sentenced Wiley to 44 months of incarceration, a figure also in the middle of the guideline range.

No one is above the law. Both Modaferri and Wiley took responsibility for their actions, were given credit for doing so, and were both sentenced within the guideline ranges for their respective offenses.

Steven S. Alm

U.S. Attorney

Transit is vital project for the city to pursue

Our mayor was wise in offering three alternative concepts in his new transit plan. His "shared participation" is refreshing and is working. Congratulations to all who participated and shared their vision.

At this early stage, I prefer the "mixed plan" because:

It provides the best balance between the highway mode, bus mode and electric mode.

The components can proceed separately, with better cost control and earlier completion.

It requires the cooperation of the city and state.

The system is flexible and can be altered.

The plan will attract drivers, as rapid transit will run alongside the highway.

The possibility of buried plate propulsion is exciting.

Capital costs will be less, although labor costs will be greater than for a light rail system.

E. Alvey Wright

Kailua

---

Write a
Letter to the Editor

Want to write a letter to the editor? Let all Star-Bulletin readers know what you think. Please keep your letter to about 200 words. You can send it by e-mail to letters@starbulletin.com or you can fill in the online form for a faster response. Or print it and mail it to: Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802. Or fax it to: 523-8509. Always be sure to include your daytime phone number.