Noriega’s Conviction

In response to “Noriega Conviction Relieves White House,” news analysis, April 10:

While Noriega’s conviction may be a relief to the Bush Administration, it represents, in its basis, perhaps a most dangerous legal precedent. I am speaking to the question of whether the United States has a right to send a strong force outside of its boundaries to kidnap someone for whatever reason--be it an alleged drug interdiction or because some U.S. politico does not like the way someone combs his or her political hair.

Former chief State Department lawyer Abraham D. Sofaer was quoted as saying that the U.S. had every right to go after Noriega as a common criminal because “we never recognized him as a head of state. . . . That was the reason he was indicted--he was not a head of state in our view.” Well, excuse me.

I opine similarly with Georgetown University law professor Sam Dash’s sentiment in the same article by saying that the “good ol’ boys” best not complain now if Saddam Hussein sends his terrorists to abduct our defense secretary or top general for their roles in the Persian Gulf War. The legal precedent now exists.

What do we say to gang members who argue that, because they do not recognize the legitimacy of a rival gang leader, they then have the right to abduct and deliver him to their own form of justice?

If the U.S. government can willy-nilly assume an upward power grab and bend the “laws” accordingly, then “we the people” can take that same leap of faith on a lower level, twisted as it may be. Are there really no laws, just momentary political expedience? Woe be to us all.

STEVE RODICK

San Diego