(2 of 4)
The assassination of Iraq's murderous dictator might be rationalized by the biblical injunction of "an eye for an eye," but it would not be the right kind of retaliation at a moment when the world needs a lesson in justified, legal criminal prosecution. Governments have acted ambivalently and timidly in recent "ethnic cleansing" atrocities in Bosnia, Iraq, Africa and elsewhere. Capturing Saddam Hussein and enumerating his evil acts in an international court of law could rekindle lapsed indignation about unconscionable behavior. Saddam's punishment under law, almost certainly a death sentence, would make it clear that moral imperatives supersede oil interests, trade deals or political pacts in dealing with the world's outlaws. DAVID S. HUDSON Harrisonburg, Va.
McAllister is on the mark in asserting that "the biggest obstacles to killing Saddam aren't moral or legal but practical." Americans who are squeamish about political assassinations may be surprised to learn that one advocate of tyrannicide was Abraham Lincoln, himself the victim of an assassin's bullet. Lincoln believed that when a people have suffered under a tyrant for a long time, all legal and peaceful means to oust him have been exhausted and prospects for his early departure are grim, then the people have a right to remove him by drastic means. McAllister is correct: this is not a job for Americans to undertake, but we should have no moral qualms about providing financial inducements or technical assistance to others. ERNEST W. LEFEVER, Senior Fellow Ethics and Public Policy Center Washington
Saddam should have been punished for his crimes after Desert Storm. You don't just chase away a rattlesnake. You hunt it down and kill it. JACK DENNIS Milledgeville, Ga.
NOT WORTHY OF A UNIFORM
Brent Sadler's report on Iraqi commandos training outside Baghdad told of frenzied recruits disemboweling a dog and pulling apart live rabbits. Such acts of cruelty and torture serve only to dehumanize these soldiers, not turn them into gallant men worthy of a military uniform. I served in Vietnam and saw the best of soldiers, both American and Viet Cong. There were honorable men there, not rabble. How can Iraq countenance such barbarism? RICHARD PAUL CLEMENCEAU New York City
WHO'LL MIND THE STORE?
When the president of the U.S. is forced to take his eye off the ball and spend time on personal affairs, the losers are the people of the U.S. That is what is happening in the Paula Jones case [NATION, Nov. 24], as her new supporter John Whitehead pursues this matter as a "human-rights issue." Next May the case comes to trial, and the President will have to defend himself. Will he then be able to watch the store full time? ARTHUR REIS JR. New York City
So the religious right's Whitehead and his Rutherford Institute have taken up Paula Jones' cause! This illustrates the biggest weakness of Protestant morality: focusing on sexual mores instead of the questionable actions of vested interests that threaten the common good. Nothing worthwhile can come from this case. If Jones wins, other opportunists will believe the court system will reward them too. And win or lose, the American presidency will be damaged. DAVID COWARD Pensacola, Fla.
NOSTALGIA FOR FUNNY PRESIDENTS