Letters: Jun. 2, 2003

Secrets of the New Matrix

After all the stories about crises, the war in Iraq and SARS, I was very happy to see the actors in the new Matrix movie on TIME’s cover [MOVIES, May 12]. It felt good to look at your magazine and not see pictures of war and destruction. Thank you for informing and entertaining your faithful readers around the world. SEHZAD M. SOOKLALL Paris

What am I to think when TIME decides to put The Matrix Reloaded on its cover, given everything that is going on in the world? What’s more, the story was an exclusive sneak peek. What a “coup” for a magazine owned by the same company, AOL Time Warner, that controls Warner Bros., the studio putting out the movie. JACK SHEEHAN Eden Prairie, Minn.

Your cover showed the sunglassed heroes of The Matrix Reloaded and their glamorous lethal weapons. The story, which focused on the film’s style-setting influence, will be self-fulfilling. A mass-market publication doesn’t just report on culture, it also creates it. AMLIN GRAY Byrdcliffe, N.Y.

I was disappointed, not to mention angered, by writer Richard Corliss’s blow-by-blow description of the film. Please consider the casual moviegoer when publishing such articles, and please don’t spoil things for those who haven’t yet seen the movie. It leaves a bad taste in the mouths of millions of people. JEFF BURTON Dover, N.H.

I like reading about Hollywood’s latest blockbusters, but I do not like to learn too many plot details before I see a movie. So I appreciated the “warning” in the article, which allowed me to get information without sacrificing my enjoyment of the movie. MARCOS CEDILLO East Lansing, Mich.

I jumped across the couch when I saw your cover on the new Matrix movie. It ushers in the most anticipated film since Star Wars. At first glance, the cover photo looked like a simple group shot of the characters, but to me the photo-montage represents the very essence of the deceptiveness of reality that is the Matrix. Corliss’s article added to the excitement we fans have been feeling. GORDON ROBERTS Barrington, R.I.

Corliss was wrong to suggest that only a small, lonely segment of “cybernerds” was stimulated by The Matrix and its intellectual allusions. I was grateful to the writer-directors Andy and Larry Wachowski and their incredible cast and production team for inspiring me to dust off my copy of French social theorist Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacres et Simulation, get out my books by semiotician Roland Barthes, argue with my friends about the theories of psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan and remember the thrill of the first time I read abstract mathematician Edwin A. Abbot’s Flatland. KEVIN HALL Bowie, Md.

No Clear Road to Peace

In his article on the road map for peace in the Middle East [VIEWPOINT, May 12], Charles Krauthammer mistakenly credits the “radical new policy adopted by President Bush” for the current irrelevance of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. While the Bush Administration deserves high praise for its role in the Palestinian reforms, the real decision to strip Arafat of any relevance was made by Israeli citizens in the 2001 elections, when they chose Ariel Sharon to be Prime Minister on the basis of his promise to cease talks with Arafat until all Palestinian violence was brought to a halt. Under tremendous pressure from the U.S. and Europe to resume talks in spite of attacks, Sharon publicly declared, “We are not Czechoslovakia.” Thus is the power of democracy! JOSEPH CHEMTOB New York City

President Bush’s nonpolicy satisfied people like Krauthammer who believe that the Palestinians do not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in their own land. But Krauthammer apparently hasn’t noticed that Sharon’s unchecked brutality has just about destroyed the Israeli economy. The once thriving tourist industry is dead. Sharon doesn’t even pretend he will comply with the road map. It’s clear that there can be no peace or justice until Israel is forced to comply with U.N. resolutions and an international force protects both sides. Only then will Israel no longer be able to steal Palestinian land under the pretense of security needs. The American people said they were happy to see Iraq “liberated.” When in the name of God are they going to care that their tax money is supporting the destruction of an entire people? JULIE ADAMS Salt Point, N.Y.

Krauthammer attempted to put the best face possible on Bush’s train wreck of a Middle East policy. It took the Administration 1 1/2 years to develop a plan for peace that completely fails to include participation of the key players in the region. If Bush is looking for a policy that sounds good in a 10-second sound bite during a presidential election, the road map may be the ticket. However, if we want a policy with teeth and a legitimate chance at success, we had better not hold our breath. AARON MICHAEL ZITZELSBERGER Kenosha, Wis.

Safe at What Cost?

The graphic that accompanied your article “The War Comes Back Home” [NATION, May 12] included text stating that “immigrants with no terrorist links can be detained indefinitely.” This is false. The individuals in question were illegal aliens who have no right to remain in the country, or to walk free during removal proceedings. Currently, only a handful remain detained. If law-enforcement officers encounter aliens who are illegally in the country, the law provides for their detention. There is a dramatic difference in the percentage of aliens who are successfully deported when they are detained (94%), compared with when they are not detained (13%).

The graphic text also claimed “thousands were jailed and then let go. Only a few have been charged.” This is wrong. As your story noted, only about 750 illegal aliens were detained. Most of them–approximately 500 to date–have been deported, not “let go” or “released” as your report stated. All were charged on immigration or criminal charges. The fact that aliens were deported rather than prosecuted doesn’t mean they had no knowledge of, or connection to, terrorism.

In addition, the graphic text said that the Justice Department can conduct wiretaps or surveillance or seize property without a warrant. This is incorrect. A court order is required to conduct electronic surveillance or search and seize private property. In national-security matters, the government asks the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court for this order, after demonstrating probable cause that the subject is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power who “knowingly engages” in “sabotage or international terrorism” or is preparing to do so.

Beyond these examples, your article did a disservice by mischaracterizing the lawful steps the Justice Department is taking to safeguard the lives and liberties of all Americans. Federal courts have reviewed the actions taken by the department following 9/11, and time and again sustained the work of the department. Americans should know that we work aggressively within the bounds of the law and the Constitution to target terrorists who would harm our people. BARBARA COMSTOCK DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Washington

I find it ironic that the U.S. is promoting democracy in Iraq while the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft seem to be involved in enforcing the destruction of civil liberties here at home. GAIL VITTUR Prairieville, La.

Ashcroft told TIME, “There are no civil liberties that are more important than the right to be uninjured and to be able to live in freedom.” Is he not violating these crucially important rights when he locks up and interrogates people, including American citizens, under harsh conditions we can only guess at, since those arrested are being held in secrecy? Considering the drastically loosened standards by which people can now be imprisoned, sometimes for long periods, many of those being held are surely innocent of any crime. MARGARET DONSBACH Portland, Ore.

Manifest Imperialism

Michael Elliott’s commentary “Why Empires Strike Out” [GLOBAL AGENDA, May 12] stated, “Imperialism may be chic, but it’s not the American way.” I wonder if Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians, Alaskans and Mexicans would agree. The U.S. has, since its inception, been an imperial power. Just like the British, French, Belgians and Italians, Americans conquered and coerced dark-skinned people into acquiescing to foreign rule. Though most of the conquered and purchased territory has been contiguous geographically and was eventually incorporated politically, our imperial history cannot be denied, and our continued imperial relationship with Puerto Rico and American Samoa cannot be ignored. SEAN HOLIDAY Washington

Jet Jockey in Chief

As Bush strutted across the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln [NOTEBOOK, May 12], he joined a list of world leaders with a penchant for military garb that includes Muammar Gaddafi, Manuel Noriega and Kim Jong Il. The truly shocking thing is the wild success of the Bush propaganda machine despite its transparency. The photo op of the Jet Passenger in Chief was a great way to distract us from asking, “So where are those pesky weapons of mass destruction anyhow?” The Bush Administration has proved that you don’t have to justify a war as long as you are victorious. BRADLEY McCORMICK New York City

This Dad Was Not Amused

Re Allison Pearson’s “A Working Mother’s Day, from A to Z” [ESSAY, May 12]: As a single father who, when married, held down a demanding job and fully participated in child rearing and household chores, I was offended by Pearson’s fatuous attempt to mine the worn-out vein of humor about useless males. She defines a husband as “a well-meaning individual often found reading a newspaper.” None of the fathers and husbands I know come anywhere close to this stereotype. I was dismayed that TIME would print such tired pap and think it’s funny or relevant. GEOFFREY CRAIG Rhinebeck, N.Y.