Integrity or illegality?

Re “Out of order,” editorial, Feb. 12

Your editorial lacks focus and perspective. It is a stew of concern about the possibility that the convictions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other alleged terrorists might depend on coerced testimony. You fret about habeas corpus for detainees and opposition to the death penalty.

We may be rightly concerned about the permissibility of coercive interrogation, but that does not demand an apologetic posture in these overdue proceedings. There has been a cry for two years to try detainees or free them. A trial process is now underway. The Times responds by attacking the “odious statute” that established the tribunal’s protocol. The suggestion that the trial must convince “the world that the 9/11 terrorists were not noble freedom fighters” is fatuous, and the description of them as “common criminals” is an unfortunate choice of words. I suggest taking a deep breath and granting the military tribunal a presumption of integrity.

William R. Snaer

Palm Desert

--

The U.S. has forfeited its moral authority to execute any person on whom torture was used to extract incriminating information. Interrogation that uses torture is equal to the athlete who cheats by using steroids.

Daniel P. Quinn

St. Petersburg, Fla.

--

Re “Tied to Bush’s waterboard,” Opinion, Feb. 14

Rosa Brooks states, “Very soon after taking office, our next president needs to lay this monster to rest by unambiguously repudiating waterboarding and all forms of torture.” This is incorrect.

The task for the next president, Democrat or Republican, is to repudiate the patently absurd claim of Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey that no one can be prosecuted. Consistent with previous historical prosecution of torture as a war crime, any member of the current administration who has either participated in or facilitated waterboarding should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Stephen Burns

Los Angeles