Following content is from one of the web pages at http://www.senderberl.com

A letter to an editor from a citizen highlights the danger of putting pepper spray in the hands of those who, while they have been authorized to protect the Constitution, remain so intentionally distant from what this country is all about.

My outrage goes beyond the torture-like application of a highly noxious substance on restrained individuals, clearly a direct violation of both the manufacturer's warnings to avoid spraying within two feet of the face and international prohibitions against the mistreatment of prisoners. Here, of course, we were not dealing with convicted felons but demonstrators. As a toxicologist, I can report that capsaicin, the active ingredient of capsicum (the technical name for pepper spray), is among the most noxious chemicals identified to date. It not only produces profound pain at micro-doses, but it enhances the pain produced by later stimuli. Less well known is the fact that capsaicin is a mutagen and a potent chromosome-breaking chemical. Through its activities on the inflammatory system, it can also aggravate the airways in asthmatic patients, accounting for at least two deaths nationwide. When sprayed it can produce corneal abrasion and possibly permanent eye damage. Knowing all of this, you might ask why would we permit this chemical to be put directly into the eyes of defenseless teen-age women? The answer, I am afraid, is less an example of the police misuse of chemicals to control citizen protest than it is one of our own willingness to permit public officials to expose defenseless citizens to gene-damaging and carcinogenic chemicals because they would not stop hugging trees. MARC LAPPE, Ph.D. Center for Ethics and Toxics

We liked his letter:

Since Frank Riggs has had his say about the "appropriate" use of pepper spray by the Humboldt County fascists, I insist that I have mine. I have no tolerance for human rights abuses anywhere, let alone in this marvelously tolerant land of purported individual and civil liberties. Attacks on peaceful protesters, regardless of their trespasses, amount to suspension of due process -- violations of the protesters' constitutional rights. As a fellow citizen, and a potential victim of this despicable type of law enforcement, I reject vehemently any notion that this barbarism should pass as an appropriate mechanism for pursuing justice. More simply, this type of violence inflicted upon those in civil disobedience is criminal, and should be treated as any other felonious assault -- with arrests and trials of the officers. Perhaps as equally sickening as the cowardly actions of those who pose as enforcers of our laws is the disgusting public stance of Representative Riggs. What qualifies him -- as a lawmaker, entrusted by the public to uphold our Constitution -- to pass judgment on actions that defy decency? How does he justify the suspension of civil rights in the name of state terrorism? He is a public disgrace and an insult to humanity! I suggest to Frank Riggs that the next time he expresses such an abominable opinion that he offer himself up for the same treatment accorded to those who at least had the courage to demonstrate their consciences. Say something ignorant and self-serving? Sponsor a bill that is distinctly self-serving to your own peculiar ideology? Sit quietly while we pin your arms down and administer pepper-spray justice. We are all governed by the same laws, aren't we? PETER J. WARNER

Another:

Mr. Riggs, after watching you on the "Today" show Monday morning, I'm embarrassed to admit you're an elected congressman from the state I call home. I can only hope you get the treatment you deserve next election day. Apparently, you condone torture when your rights are being violated, as if you and your employees are somehow better than the protesters or Joe Citizen for that matter. The elitist attitude you revealed on national television is so far out of the mainstream, you're finger shaking so repugnant, you'd better wake up or find another career. Why was it so important to remove the protesters immediately? How can torture possibly be justified in a situation where no harm or threat of harm to persons or property exists? Mr. Riggs -- You owe the protesters, and the people of California an immediate apology. DAVID A. HOWARD chief architect, co-founder Spectrum Wireless, Inc.

Finally, we include a last excerpt.

I find it a bit ironic, in a week when Chinese President Jiang Zemin was visiting the United States and human rights are deservedly an issue, that the FBI launches an investigation into the use of pepper spray against protesters in Humboldt County. Was not the sit-in a legitimate political protest? This may not be equal to the massacre in Tiananmen Square, but it certainly equates to repressing political protest. Do we protest Chinese repression because they are not a democracy, but accept such actions in our own country because we are free? Human rights are a legitimate issue but it cuts both ways. Who are we to protest political repression in any form if we cannot tolerate dissent and legitimate protest in our own country? MICHAEL SOLOMON Los Angeles