Letters

Inside the Manhunt

Sending aid or promising goodies hasn't yet convinced any of the Muslim nations of our love for them [THE WAR, Nov. 26]. Nor will it. Dropping or threatening to drop nuclear bombs won't deter a single terrorist anywhere. Those who threaten the U.S. have nothing to lose and no fear of death. The only ex-terrorist is a dead terrorist. The only friendly Muslim nation is one that doesn't raise a significant clamor for America's demise. We cannot do anything to change this. We are in a war that the U.S. can neither win nor lose. And we cannot quit. Welcome to the 21st century. LARRY MCGUIRE Wayzata, Minn.

The Taliban is at death's door, but al-Qaeda and worldwide terrorism are not. It is frightening to think that the death of al-Qaeda's leader might result in a call to terminate hostilities against the criminals who attacked civilization on Sept. 11. The war against terrorism has just begun. It would be nice if the death of Osama bin Laden would end terrorism, but the loss of any one individual rarely deters fanatics. The sole response to terrorists must be to kill them before they kill us. We must accept acts that in the past would have been found repellent in a democracy. We must find the backbone to take on any nation that teaches hatred and exact a price for that behavior. EDWARD HORN Atlantic Beach, N.Y.

We need to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan's children with more than food and blankets. I suggest that the kids of America purchase dolls and other toys from thrift stores or gather their discarded G.I. Joes and Barbies and take them to the nearest military base. From there the toys could be shipped across the ocean and distributed to needy Afghan kids. This gesture, in a spirit of hope for a lasting peaceful relationship, with no strings attached, would help the people of that devastated land know that somebody cares. BOB RICHARD San Diego

The U.S. did not bomb Afghan cities out of a need for revenge. The foreigners in the Arab al-Qaeda forces infested Afghanistan in order to be trained to commit terrorist acts; they are not innocents. The innocents were those people who died in New York City, Washington and western Pennsylvania. Compassion is always preferable to revenge, but true compassion demands justice. THOMAS KRAEMER Woodbury, N.J.

--Many of you objected to the riflescope view of Osama bin Laden in our cover illustration. "The picture of bin Laden encircled in a gunsight was deplorable and in extremely bad taste," complained a California woman. Two New Mexico readers agreed: "By placing him in the cross hairs, you send the message that in America it's O.K. to murder people." But others who wrote were simply tired of seeing the face of al-Qaeda's leader. "You continue to give this insect the notoriety he seeks as a terrorist," wrote a Coloradan. "Be creative and accentuate the positive for a bloody change!" And a Texan could not have been more blunt: "If I see one more cover of TIME with bin Laden's face on it, I honestly think I'm going to be ill."

For More Secure Skies

The airport-security measures passed by the U.S. Congress will do little to improve the situation in the short run [AIRLINE SAFETY, Nov. 26]. One quick solution would be to provide a monetary incentive to security screeners for each and every bomb, knife and other dangerous object found. Federal supervisors could verify the found objects, and bonuses would be based on the number of weapons found. Although funding would be required, the cost could be more than justified by screeners highly motivated to do a better job. It should provide an immediate security improvement, even before more qualified security personnel can be hired. JOYCE BISCHOFF Hockessin, Del.

The airline industry should have to help pay for the new federally mandated security at airports. The American people should not have to foot the entire bill. The industry's lack of foresight and quest for profits contributed to the lack of security that led to the events of Sept. 11. Better screening procedures at airports will ensure that the airlines prosper, but they must put human lives before profit. SUSAN WATSON Oak Grove, Mo.

Pictures from a Liberation

When I saw the photograph of the smiling Afghan women with their uncovered faces in the sun [PHOTO ESSAY, Nov. 26], I knew that America and its allies had done the right thing. Whatever happens later politically, the women and the men in those pictures are happier now than they were before. While it's problematic to say "God bless America" and praise the U.S., we may say, "God bless the power that stands against wrong and stands up for right." MISOOK KIM Brussels

The photos of the Taliban soldier being murdered were the saddest things I have seen in a long time. War is truly senseless and vile. I'm not a pacifist, but I am opposed to those who would proclaim that there is something glorious or heroic about going into battle. If war was necessary in Afghanistan, so be it; but I urge everyone who says it was to look closely at the man who is being brutalized in these photos and remember that when violence is institutionalized, this kind of madness will erupt sooner or later. I don't usually consider myself a sensitive person, yet when I looked at the eyes of that man begging for his life, my tears would not stop. JONATHAN BROWN Helsinki

Taking the Long View

America is disliked in some parts of the world because of its superpower status, but this is only a part of the reason [THE WAR, Nov. 26]. A key factor is that successive American administrations have consistently shown a poor sense of geopolitics and have never been able to judge which countries are natural U.S. allies, to be trusted in the long run. U.S. foreign policy, at least toward the developing world, has been governed by short-term tactical necessities rather than far-seeing strategic thinking and action. A superpower should not have tunnel vision. If the U.S. were to adopt a broader perspective and a deeper understanding of people and nations around the world, the hatred toward America could be gradually reduced. There is simply no quick solution. DEEPAK BANERJEE New Delhi

Many times since Sept. 11, I have wondered how I can navigate the moral high road when it comes to the war on terrorism. It is all too easy to slip into an attitude of vengeance. I take consolation from the fact that there are people in this world who provide a necessary balance to knee-jerk reactions, as reasonable as these reactions may seem at first. I can only pray that I may travel the path of peace, forgiveness and hope throughout these troubled times. I will fail miserably in this task without a rational and moderate religious perspective in my heart to guide me. BARBARA OZBURN Waterloo, Ont.

Debating Wartime Legalities

The article "And Justice For...", about the Bush Administration's proposal to use special and most likely secret military tribunals [THE LEGAL WAR, Nov. 26] to try those it considers terrorists, said, "The defendant has neither the absolute right to challenge the evidence against him nor the right to hear it." This statement sent chills down my spine. Is this still America? RICHARD A. BUSEMEYER Boca Raton, Fla.

Are military tribunals fair? That's a good question. But why not also ask if crashing airliners into U.S. buildings is fair? When a country goes to war, there is nothing fair about that decision. Life is not fair. Neither is war. President Bush is trying to ensure that justice prevails. The terrorists need to understand the consequences of attacking the U.S. JIM KONTILIS Houston

For any kind of justice to be credible and viable, there must be transparency so that future confidence in the system is not eroded. It resonates well when justice is not only done but also seen to be done. NIGAR SULEMAN Plano, Texas

Every single issue raised by the war on terrorism has to be considered in the light of the terrorists' desire to annihilate the greatest American cities. All our ethical and political discussions these days should start with the premise that there is a near-term nuclear threat to New York City and Washington. Anything the U.S. government does to combat terrorism can be evaluated only on whether it is necessary, and thus justifiable, to prevent nuclear annihilation. FRED WHITE Baltimore, Md.

Answering Our Essayist

Charles Krauthammer fears that a trial of al-Qaeda terrorists in a U.S. or world court would be a "legal circus" [ESSAY, Nov. 26]. Despite that risk, an open trial carries greater moral weight than a military tribunal, which is still associated with injustice and dictatorship in too much of the world. If Americans really want to persuade other countries to embrace our values of freedom and respect for human rights, we should welcome this opportunity to showcase how our democratic society puts into practice its belief in inalienable rights. PAM VINCENT Houston

The defense of secret tribunals by Krauthammer should be required reading for every bleeding-heart liberal who criticizes President Bush's response to Sept. 11. It is those never-satisfied personal-liberty and privacy advocates who placed the U.S. in the vulnerable position it was in on that fateful day. Is there risk of potential abuse? Possibly, but it's a small price to pay for the increased effectiveness of those burdened with the responsibility of our nation's security. TOM TUCKER Carlsbad, Calif.

In supporting the use of physical torture in limited, extreme cases, Krauthammer gives in to vengeful instincts. We need a rational approach to ethics. Torture of any kind is unnecessary and counterproductive. KENNETH M. ZICK Malden, Mass.

We must adopt new and flexible judicial models. We cannot allow our sworn enemies to take advantage of America's constitutional protections. To do so would demonstrate to the world that our commitment to an outdated civil libertarian philosophy has a higher priority than the safety and welfare of U.S. citizens. Do we want to send such a message to our enemies or even our allies? PHIL DIAMOND Saratoga Springs, N.Y.

Beware the Reckless Robot

The section on computerized robots in your feature on the top new products of the year [BEST INVENTIONS, Nov. 19] included an item on the Slugbot, a robotic garden-slug catcher that could eventually power itself with energy released by the bacteria eating its victims' bodies. This news makes me wonder if science isn't recklessly leaving the realm of common sense. Surely I am not the only one to see a terrifying shadow lurking beside this contraption. It is, after all, a machine that draws its power from the consumption of a living organism! To create robots that devour flesh is to step over a line that we would be insane to cross; it would herald the dawning of our worst nightmare. SAND SHEFF Durango, Colo.

Smut by Any Other Name?

Richard Corliss's story on the explicit sexuality in recent French films [CINEMA, Nov. 26] suggests that since the French are using more elaborate production standards, we can call such pornography art. That's just silly. Dirty movies are dirty movies. Go ahead and watch them, but don't insult people by trying to justify your taste in entertainment by calling such films art. MARK KIMBALL Omaha, Neb.