Due Process for True Justice

Marc Cooper may have a mild case of war fever, but he shouldn’t try to infect America’s left (“Liberals Stuck in Scold Mode,” Opinion, Oct. 14). Terrorism is an international problem calling for an international response, one that cannot be mistaken for neocolonialism in a vigilante guise. A U.N. tribunal should be convened to hear evidence against Osama bin Laden and arrest warrants issued if evidence so indicates. Only an approach that emphasizes procedural justice has a chance of winning the hearts and minds of people everywhere and reaching a just resolution. Surely such a measured response would be more effective than stirring a hornet’s nest of anti-American rage that an open-ended action is sure to produce.

Cooper is right; more than a legal approach is needed. But this will not be found in a belief that selective military strikes will solve a political problem. Only political solutions, such as establishing a viable Palestinian state, ending the cruel embargo on Iraq and letting the Taliban fall from its own oppressive weight, will dampen the fires of fanaticism. We cannot rule the world, nor should we try.

Doug Doepke

La Verne

*

President Bush has made his demand very clear: The Taliban are to turn over Bin Laden so that he may be brought to justice. What does this really mean? Will Bin Laden be tried at The Hague? And if not, where? Who will preside? These questions have not been addressed.

Will Bin Laden have due process? Even Slobodan Milosevic, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity, is being offered a fair trial at the World Court. One of America’s values most worth defending in our war against terror is the principle that due process is essential for real justice.

Algernon D’Ammassa

Los Angeles

*

On Oct. 14 The Times headlined the fact that an errant American bomb had caused civilian casualties in Afghanistan. In addition we were treated to a picture of civilians standing amid rubble. This is war. We lost over 5,000 innocent civilians, and they are going to lose some too. The Times does not have to highlight these facts. To do so is unpatriotic and undermines the war effort. This prolonged conflict is going to be tough enough on the American psyche without counterproductive reporting.

Mark McCartin

Laguna Niguel

*

At the end of Robert Kaplan’s article (Opinion, Oct. 14), he insists America must become a greater imperialist power. America does indeed have an empire, but an empire never put to plebiscite. The time is approaching that the citizens of the American republic must decide if they wish to reform their republic or descend into empire.

The Roman republic lasted for 450 years before its fall. The pressure from the empire Rome had created abroad imploded the republic at home, facilitating the ascendancy of Caesar and the birth of Imperial Rome.

Two centuries ago, having gained independence from the world’s greatest empire, the founders of the American republic looked to the history of the Roman republic for guidance in establishing a new era of self-government. We still have the opportunity to learn from Rome. But make no mistake, there will not be both republic and empire.

Joe Costello

Mammoth Lakes

*

With Tony Blair reminding us that three-quarters of the world’s opium is grown in the Afghanistan region, is it not time to devote billions of dollars to emergency drug-treatment programs throughout the civilized world? Ending the demand for perversely profitable heroin may well be the most effective measure we can take for both national security and international relations. Not only would we be giving a pro-life message to recovering addicts, we would be allowing a starving region to once again grow food for its own people. All while removing the profit center for the Taliban and the Al Qaeda network.

Victor Kenyon Brown

Los Feliz

*

When I surf the channels for the news on television, I am amazed at the range of information being offered the general public. Suddenly I know where vast amounts of sarin gas are stored in Iowa and I’ve been informed how easy it would be to start a hoof-and-mouth epidemic in California.

In network press conferences, reporters beg for the latest information on our plans for attack. Do we really think our enemies don’t have satellite television? Obviously they see the same programs I do and they can benefit from this information much more than some couch potato interested in the latest steps in revenge.

Why are we broadcasting information they can use for their destructive purposes, mostly for our entertainment purposes? I think it’s time we used a little more discretion in our information dissemination. It was our lack of discretion that has enabled them to be so successful here. Perhaps the media could strike a better balance.

Wayne Hodge

West Los Angeles