Letters to the editor

Excellent no decision

In regard to Wednesday's story, "Resolution in support of the war dies in Senate:"

Congratulations for doing the task they were appointed for shouldn't be necessary, but in anticipation of the inevitable backlash from the obvious sources that will come as a result of voting their consciences in Tuesday's meeting, I would like to assure the elected senators of the ASUW that their decision is appreciated by those of us who dreaded the approval of Kemmling's resolution, but thought of it as a foregone conclusion. Recognizing that approval of the war does not in fact require a muck-raking and unfairly worded resolution to validate it, and that the minority of students on campus who are against the war on principle deserve not to be dismissed out of hand is exactly the kind of thing we expect you senators to do for us, and you did it very well. Good work.

Adam Hindman

sophomore, English

International courts, part 5

Regardin William Shenken's reply (Oct. 25) to my question on alternatives to the war in Afghanistan: The offer from the Taliban to extradite bin Laden to a "neutral" third party for trial is unacceptable for two reasons:

1) When an American soldier is accused of raping an Okinawan woman, we do not offer to send the soldier to Canada for trial. Since the accusation concerns a crime against a Japanese citizen committed on Japanese soil, the proper venue for a trial is a Japanese courtroom. Japanese citizens are rightly outraged by the prospect of a U.S. court martial, which leads us to simply hand over our soldiers to Japanese authorities without much in the way of fuss. Likewise, since a massive crime has been committed against mostly U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, it is clear that a U.S. court has jurisdiction. There ought to be no question and no fuss. The Taliban has not offered anything resembling an explanation for why it questions U.S. jurisdiction in this matter. Nor, for that matter, have peace activists.

2) The "third party" nation might have been anything but neutral. What if bin Laden had been "tried" in an Iraqi court? Anyone care to wager on the outcome? Also, if United States had rejected an offer to "try" bin Laden in Iraq, would those calling for peace now be supporting the war? I doubt it.

United States is perfectly justified in demanding that bin Laden be turned over to American authorities. So the question remains: How do we get him without a war?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

Robert Lyman

grad student, physics

Mormons never killed anyone

I notice that your editorial page treats Mormons with language and images generally reserved for thieves and murderers, but invariably writes of Islam with oily sycophancy. What accounts for the difference? Is it perhaps that Islamists have recently massacred nearly 6,000 people whereas Mormons can boast of no such accomplishment?

Angie Lopez

pre-major