Letters - and editorial responses - Column

Washington Monthly, April, 2001 by Charles Peters

Behind Bars

I think that Charles Peters is confused when he refers to "our inefficiencies of the criminal justice system, not just because they are embarrassing, but they mean that too many dangerous criminals get away with it." What nation does he compare us to? The truth is that we convict and imprison more of our citizens than any other nation in the world. If he wants efficiency, the best way to get rid of dangerous criminals is not more prisons, it is sane gun laws. Criminals without guns are far less dangerous. It seems to me that, in a democracy, we should be more "embarrassed" about how many innocent people we send to prison than how many criminals "get away with it."

SANFORD THIER Los Angeles, Calif.

Charles Peters replies:

I agree we imprison too many people for too long, usually easy-to-catch minor dope offenders, but that doesn't change the fact that too many violent criminals get away with it because of sloppy police work and inept or overworked prosecutors.

What About The Facts?

I read with interest and amazement Nicholas Thompson's March article tided "This Ain't Your Momma's CIA"

I must admit that I am completely astounded by what either I draw as journalistic naivete or journalistic deceptiveness on matters of Military or National Intelligence and its internal structure and oversight.

To say that what the CIA did in Kosovo was just "centralize intelligence" is almost laughable. There are many more reports by both media outlets and by private commercial intelligence companies that provide an entire A-Z overview of how our intelligence apparatus worked with and on the Yugoslav democracy movement that is completely contrary to your article.

Additionally, it is total nonsense to believe that this movement was a grassroots campaign to oust Milosevic. Without Kostunica, this so-called democracy movement couldn't get itself elected to dogcatcher in Belgrade. The movement was so fractured that no one could get more than 50 percent of the vote. I find it hard to believe that a journalist like yourself reports on events such as these that are totally baseless in fact. It isn't whether it was the CIA or DIA, NSA, NRO, USAID (and more than likely all five combined), but the fact remains that the United States of America covertly or for that matter overtly overthrew a government.

What you should really be looking at is how the $50 million was spent or let's say how much went in the pockets of this so-called democracy movement and some of its leaders. To say that our intelligence operations must pass legal muster is also absolutely silly. Many covert operations indeed defy international law, just like the bombing of Yugoslavia did.

How about writing a story on why we are going after Milosevic, who by the way is a real bad guy, and not after Arafat, Saddam, and Quadaffi in the same manner. The latter three are responsible for the deaths of Americans and incursions outside their own borders, while Milosevic, indeed a bad guy, never killed Americans and never went outside his borders. Remember this was a civil war. Yeah, I know the old genocide route. Balderdash is exactly what the charge of genocide was! Yep, no mention of this in your article either.

Mr. Thompson in all seriousness, either report facts or get a job on talk radio where facts do not matter with many of the hosts.

LTC. JACK ALLAN, USA (RET.) Hoboken, N.J.

Betrayed?

Your item in the Jan/Feb. "Tilting at Windmills" about the controversy surrounding the assignment of a civil servant to a foreign service slot at our embassy in Peru is, to use your words, "dead wrong" No one has argued that a foreign service officer is inherently more qualified than a civil servant. For you to mischaracterize AFSA's stance, and then use that straw man as proof of the legendary snobbery of the Foreign Service just isn't fair. FSOs who oppose the appointment (and not all do) make two arguments. First, we deserve to have first crack at diplomatic jobs not because we passed an archaic examination, but because we paid our dues working visa lines, uprooting our families every few years, contracting exotic diseases, and getting blown up, all the while advancing American interests.

Is it snobbish or is it reasonable to expect that the very few responsible jobs in attractive posts will go to qualified people who have dedicated their lives to the Foreign Service? It seemed reasonable to the State Department when it agreed with AFSA that such jobs should go to FSOs (if there are qualified applicants--and there were in this case). That is the second objection: The appointment violates the assignments rules negotiated by the bargaining unit of our professional diplomats. This may be the first time The Washington Monthly has come down against collective bargaining. Carried to its logical end, your piece essentially renounces the need for a professional diplomatic corps. If that is your position, fine, make the case, but don't smugly dismiss these genuine concerns.

You argue that an FSO's willingness to undergo hardship 24 hours a day and literally risk his or her life for our country should be discounted in the assignments process. Doesn't this contradict your deep conviction that government service is a worthy calling? Just this sense of vocation is what keeps a lot of us going out in the field, and for you (of all people) to call that into question is demoralizing. As one who subscribes to your magazine because your attitude toward government service is inspiring, I feel personally let down. The crack about Foreign Service snobbery is undeserved, denigrates those who are living what you preach, and perpetuates a false stereotype popularized by espionage potboilers and Hollywood. Please reconsider.