Last modified: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:20 AM EDT Discrimination alive, letter reminds us all To the editor: Re: "Real story missed on same-sex partner" (Oct. 21): Thank you, Jay Guinan, for reminding the people of Attleboro that despite Massachusetts law, the federal government can still legally discriminate against gay and lesbian citizens. The Sun Chronicle was correct to entitle the Associated Press article "Studds' spouse denied death benefits" because that's exactly what happened. A leader passed away, and a hate-based federal law denied his husband his benefits. And you're happy about that. Mr. Studds deserves to be respected and mourned and his husband deserves his death benefits, just as much as your wife would deserve yours. One day in our nation's future, people will read letters penned by people such as yourself and will wonder what it was like to live in times of ignorance and bigotry. Imagine, not too long ago, the federal government, the same wonderful government you proudly applaud in your article, forbade woman to vote and allowed African Americans to be enslaved. I guess it's not a stretch to think the same government would be guilty of discriminating against gays and lesbians. But as with slavery and discriminatory laws against woman, the federal government will see the errors of its ways and a future husband of a deceased gay state representative, not from Massachusetts I may add, will receive his death benefits. Let's take this time to honor Rep. Gerry Studds, not add to the sadness by reminding people how our government discriminated against him. Joseph Solis Attleboro Not finding weapons no proof they weren't there To the editor: John Wade quotes President Bush as saying, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of that intelligence turned out to be wrong. We did not find those weapons." While the quote is accurate, his understanding of it is a fatal mistake. Mr. Wade interpreted the quote to mean that WMDs did not exist in Iraq. That is the fatal mistake. Every nation, including our own, was correct that Saddam had WMDs, but the intelligence as to where we would find them turned out to be wrong. We did not find the weapons. This does not mean they did not exist. They had been removed from the country while we dallied with the UN before we launched our assault in March of 2003. Georges Sada, a close and trusted general to Saddam, explained how that they were transported to Syria before we attacked. Mr. Wade also wrote, "General Sada said Saddam had neither nukes nor any way of making them, thus no nuclear WMD, which everyone knew before the war." While this is technically accurate, his understanding of it comprises another fatal mistake. General Sada explained that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, naming some of the scientists involved. Sada also tells how far Saddam had progressed with this program, and what his intentions were. Liberals like Wade have misunderstood what the president said, misinterpreting his plain words, denying the existence of that which every knowledgeable person knows was there. Liberals also claim that because Saddam had no nukes, he posed no threat, which is ludicrous on its face, since he was doing everything he could to acquire nuclear weaponry as fast as possible. These liberal views are deadly to America, and prove once again that Democrats cannot be trusted with our nation's defense. Harold Crowell North Attleboro Letter shows ignorance of how justice works To the editor: After reading Gary Johnson's letter of Oct. 11 ("Candidate clearly too soft on crime") I assume he never hired a defense attorney to defend him in court. I feel confident, if he were indicted, he would appreciate a defense attorney who would work as hard to prove his innocence as the prosecution's team is working to prove his guilt. Mr. Johnson's statement that Deval Patrick's or any defense attorney's efforts should stop after a person's conviction disregards our legal right to appeal any conviction. In this case, Deval Patrick paid to represent his client. A rare treat, indeed! If Mr. Johnson were convicted wrongly of the crime of rape, would he demand that no attorney assist him with an appeal? I seriously doubt anyone would say "no!" to any assistance freely offered by a defense attorney to prove one innocent of his crime. However, Mr. Johnson can judge falsely, in print, an attorney and candidate who willingly assisted a stranger in proving his innocence. As a voter, I would like my governor to be willing to assist a stranger in need. I wonder if Mr. Johnson knows that hundreds of incarcerated inmates have been proven innocent by DNA testing and released from prison? Hundreds, convicted of murder and rape, were proven innocent and released because someone cared and acted. Our system of justice has many faults because of a few morally weak people involved in the process. Local prosecutors should honestly try to convict people who they think are guilty. This is their job, and everyone applauds their efforts. We should also applaud the efforts of the attorneys who support a client's claim of innocence. Without both sides doing their best to prove innocence or guilt, our society would lose, just as we lose when an innocent person is convicted of a crime that he/she did not commit. John DeWitt Wade Norton