Leonard Pitts a confused, conflicted man?

I applaud Leonard Pitts’ honesty, sincerity and candor in his column “Life and death not black and white” [Opinion, syndicated column, Nov. 15].

A self-proclaimed staunch opponent of capital punishment, because the power of life and death is too awesome to be left in human hands, Pitts nevertheless acknowledges satisfaction in the executions of John Allen Muhammad and Timothy McVeigh.

Pitts refers to his own fractured logic in condemning capital punishment to protect human life, while at the same time defending abortion rights. He acknowledges that he can’t square his opposing and contradictory belief systems.

His mind toils in confusion.

Attempting moral equivalency with the right, Pitts then refers to the logic of the classic conservative position of opposing abortion, while supporting capital punishment as equally fractured.

The principle underlying the classic conservative position is to protect innocent human life. Murderers such John Allen Muhammad and Timothy McVeigh are not innocent. The unborn are. Pitts ignores or misses this part of the argument, I believe purposefully.

I take comfort that confused, conflicted and therefore indecisive, inconsistent and ultimately ineffectual men such as Pitts are employed as columnists, rather than in mightier professions where decisions must actually be made based on principle and law.

— John Hafen, Woodinville

Sept. 11 terrorists a major breech of security

Another of many examples of the disastrous incompetence of the Obama administration comes with an announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder [“The rule of law,” Opinion, editorial, Nov. 14]. Five of those involved in the 9/11 hijackings will be tried in civilian court in New York, where they will be afforded free lawyers and health care forever, as guests of the U.S. while they await trial.

These guys are not citizens and should be tried by military tribunal.

This will cost the U.S. millions upon millions of dollars, take years, create a security nightmare for New York, and give the jihadist’s a free forum to spew their hatred for all things Western and the U.S. in particular.

No good will come of this, and much of it is geared toward the desire of some to make the U.S. out to be the bad guy. This decision is disgraceful, and while Obama will surely contribute it to the attorney general, the president hired Holder and he moves things in the direction he wants them to go.

These evil men may actually walk free on our streets one day because of this.

— Scott Stoppelman, La Conner

No poetic justice in New York trial

The editors of The Times praise the decision to try 9/11 suspects in federal court, claiming it proves that the rule of law prevails. I wish that were true.

In reality, the Obama administration will give suspects their day in court only in cases where it is sure of winning a conviction. As with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has reportedly confessed to plotting the 9/11 attacks.

In cases where the evidence is weaker or tainted by torture, suspects will be tried before military commissions. When even a military commission can’t guarantee convictions, the government will continue to imprison suspects without trial.

The procedure is different in each case, but the outcome — imprisonment or death — is always the same. Contrast this to the genuine rule of law, where trial by jury is constant, but the outcome depends on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The rule of law is not something that can be invoked selectively, only when it suits the prosecution.

This may be good public relations, but it isn’t justice. And when we defend justice for those the government calls terrorists, we defend it for ourselves.

— Warren Jones, Seattle