A QUESTIONABLE SET OF RIGHTS

Apparently, when a drug dealer comes into our country and attempts to sell
10,000 lines of cocaine, he has rights.

Re: Bensalem police v. Miqueas Acosta.

I love courtroom drama and I enjoy trying to analyze decisions made by our
justice system. But this case has me a little puzzled. Maybe Judge Rea
Boylan could clear a few things up for me. Apparently, when a drug dealer
comes into our country and attempts to sell 10,000 lines of cocaine, he has
rights. The drug dealers have a right to have an interpreter, whatever
language they speak, so that police can give them their rights and ask
permission to look for the suspected drugs - drugs that destroy the lives
of our precious young people and create 50 percent of our crime by
desperate people stealing from us to solve their addiction.

And then when we catch them in the act, we have to provide an interpreter
to ask them if we can look in their car to confiscate the very stuff that
is causing a cancer in our society. And if we don't provide someone that
speaks their language all the evidence that is going to put them out of
business is thrown out. How frustrating it must be to be a police person,
drug counselor, or a parent that is fighting the war on drugs to see how
our judges interpret the law. I wonder now that this precedence has been
set, do all of our police departments have to provide interpreters for all
the languages in the world so that when our dedicated police catch another
drug dealer, they can only talk to him in his own language. Are our judges
so naive and liberal that they really think these foreign drug dealers can
live in society, drive fancy cars and make thousands of dollars without
speaking English. Supreme Court Justice Thomas talks about a higher law,
every law can be argued in different ways, the higher law is to protect our
society before the drug cancer spreads and kills our whole way of life.

What a way to fight a war!

Bill Hodgkiss, Newtown