In releasing bombers, President Clinton sent the wrong message
Contrary to the suggestion in The Sun's editorial "Clinton within rights to grant clemency," (Sept. 22) I believe Americans should be concerned about the President's clemency for 16 convicted terrorists from the FALN, a Puerto Rican independence group.
Mr. Clinton's action has compromised the United States' hard line on terrorism and undercut our efforts to pressure other governments to stand firm against it.
While the president has the legal right to grant clemency, he has the moral obligation to explain his motives to the families of the dead Americans, wounded police officers and other victims of the FALN's 130 bombings from 1974 to 1983.
The release of prisoners was strongly opposed by the nation's law enforcement institutions and criminal prosecutors.
In a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde, FBI Director Louis Freeh stated, these individuals "participated in activities resulting in no fewer than nine fatalities, hundreds of injuries, millions of dollars in property damage . . ."
In a bipartisan vote, Congress overwhelmingly condemned the president's decision -- the vote was 311-41 in the House and 95-2 in the Senate.
The White House spin -- that the 16 terrorists released did not commit violent acts -- is simply wrong.
Eight of them were found waiting to kidnap a Chicago businessman in a stolen van filled with weapons; three held employees of the Chicago Carter/Mondale headquarters hostage during an armed takeover; two were caught on tape making a bomb and planning a breakout of Leavenworth prison; and three were involved in plotting an armed holdup of an armored car.
The president's release sends the wrong message. The release of one terrorist is one too many.
Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., Washington
The writer represents Maryland's 2nd District in the House of Representatives.
Even assuming President Clinton's clemency offer for the FALN terrorists was a sincere and humane effort to be just (and I believe it was), it was the wrong thing for him to do.
The FALN's attacks left victims blinded and crippled and permanently traumatized. As a society, we are desperate to block such terrorist behavior.
It is not unfeeling or unjust to expect that the FALN members be made to serve out their full prison terms. Making them do that would have shown some empathy and compassion for their victims.
Like former President Jimmy Carter -- who encouraged Mr. Clinton to offer clemency -- Mr. Clinton's heart is often in the right place. But he can also act with an arrogant blindness about how his decisions impact those around him.
In this case, the president famous for feeling other people's pain failed to feel the pain of those hurt by the FALN.
Kenneth Hudson, Baltimore
U.S. government was part of East Timor's problem
I don't understand how Charles Madigan can ask why the United States was so slow to "help craft a solution to violence in East Timor" and not even mention the role this country has played in backing Indonesia during the past 25 years ("E. Timor was victim of West's politics, too," Opinion Commentary, Sept. 28).
Mr. Madigan speculates that the United States was slow to become involved because it wanted to give Indonesian President B.J. Habibie the benefit of the doubt and not offend Indonesia.
How about the fact that the U.S. government helped arm and train the Indonesian military from the time of its 1975 invasion of East Timor right up to the start of the most recent violence?
Our government needs to answer for a whole lot more than just being slow to help find a solution.
Douglas P. Cunningham, Baltimore
Millions can't forgive the president's misdeeds
On Sept. 28, President Clinton publicly thanked Americans -- primarily his family and staff -- for their "unmerited forgiveness" of his sins ("Clinton gives thanks for forgiveness," Sept. 29).
Please allow me to speak for millions of Americans who have not forgiven the Clintons for the disgrace in which they have smothered the presidency.
To us, Mr. Clinton stands, unforgiven, as an ugly scar on the presidency.
C. Richard Bowers, Frederick
We need honest leaders, rather than great spellers
The Sun's Oct. 3 editorial cartoon depicting Dan Quayle waving goodbye with the background words "QUAYL 200" (instead of 2000), and the caption "I quite," was a sad commentary on American values and politics.
Why do we belittle and bash leaders with decent principles, while we praise or make excuses for criminals, terrorists and liberal politicians?
If I had to choose between a president who's a great speller and one who's trustworthy, I'd take the man of integrity.
We have lost our moral direction. We are paying the price for putting our faith and trust in the Clintons and Buchanans of the world, instead of in God.
These are dangerous times, and Americans must vote wisely and seek new role models -- not make fun of those who may not be the best spellers in the world.
Barbara Ann Bloom, Owings Mills
Gov. Bush's interest in Buchanan is worrisome
Pat Buchanan has some scary views, but I don't worry about him -- as I'm more likely to get a date with Julia Roberts than he is to become president.
But I do worry about someone so lacking in integrity that he still wants Mr. Buchanan in his party.
Does the "W." in Texas Gov. George W. Bush's name stand for wimp?
Dennis Olver, Baltimore
Tobacco suit is cruel to N. C. flood victims
The day after the president told the people of North Carolina that he would get them federal flood recovery aid, Bill Clinton told the nation that the Justice Department would sue the state's most important agricultural industry, the tobacco industry ("U.S. alleges scheme of fraud, deceit in suing tobacco firms," Sept. 23).
This is the worst thing he could have done to people who have been devastated by the forces of nature. It will take away hope for the future from thousands of people in the Carolinas.
But this act of hypocrisy was welcomed by the liberal politicians and news media -- and by all the do-gooders who want to regulate every aspect of daily our lives.
Much has been said about the cost of treating tobacco-related health problems. But little is said about the billions the state and federal tax dollars generated by tobacco products.
Joe Duval, Upper Marlboro
Positions on pot, tobacco show the GOP's hypocrisy
Although I have been a registered Republican for 45 years, I am disgusted with the party's policy on marijuana and tobacco.
When the citizens of Washington, D.C., overwhelmingly voted to legalize the use of marijuana for medical reasons last fall, congressional Republicans refused to allow the results to be announced until they were forced to by a court order.
These representatives are now threatening to write language into the District's appropriations bill that would forbid implementation of that initiative.
These are many of the same Republicans who protect tobacco interests in Congress, while gleefully accepting millions of dollars in campaign and soft money contributions from that industry.
Somehow they appear to believe that it is all right to smoke a drug that causes cancer, but not to smoke a similar drug that helps ease the pain of cancer, AIDS and other diseases.
I wonder how their opinions would change if marijuana kingpins could legally mimic the large campaign contributions tobacco kingpins provide.
John H. O'Hara, Bowie
Pub Date: 10/07/99