Editorials
Thursday, January 8, 1998FOR six years the international community has remained largely silent while an estimated 65,000 people have been massacred in Algeria, mainly by Muslim fundamentalists battling the secular government. Now Western governments are belatedly protesting the killing, spurred by their constituents' horror at the mass slaughter. Slaughter in Algeria must be stopped
The bloodbath has reached appalling proportions. Nearly 1,000 deaths have been reported in the first week of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting - the most since the insurgency began. The atrocities have included gang rape, murder of children and pregnant women, mutilation of corpses and the slaughter of worshipers. They are attributed to a fanatical group that claims to be fighting for an Islamic state.
The killing began when the army intervened in 1992 to block elections that a religious party was poised to win. Throughout the Islamic world, religious leaders have condemned the bloodshed, to no avail. Now Western governments, long reluctant to intervene because they did not welcome a fundamentalist Muslim regime taking power in Algeria, are finally speaking up.
The European Union, in a statement issued by Britain, said on Monday it was "deeply concerned that the scale of violence in Algeria had increased dramatically since the beginning of Ramadan." However, the EU stopped short of suggesting any action beyond exploring with the Algerian government and non-governmental organizations ways of helping the victims.
The United States went further and called on Algeria to allow an international investigation "to get to the bottom of some of these issues to determine the extent of the massacres - perhaps begin to pin more clearly the blame for them."
The Algerian government of President Liamine Zeroual, a former general who is determined to prevent foreign intervention, rejected the idea of an international investigation. The government usually does not comment on reports of atrocities and when it does acknowledge an attack reports a lower toll of casualties than that given by hospital workers.
But the situation is intolerable. Ways should be sought to force the regime to cooperate. The world cannot simply stand by while the slaughter of the innocents continues.
TERRY Nichols' life has been spared by a deadlocked Denver jury that convicted him of involuntary manslaughter in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but the jury's inaction may be no more than a reprieve. Oklahoma prosecutors have promised they will ask for the death penalty when they try Nichols on state charges. He remains likely to spend the rest of his life, however long that may be, behind bars. Nichols' reprieve
The refusal of the jury to order Nichols' execution came as no surprise. This was the same jury that rejected the murder charge and returned a conviction on a lesser charge that entails no intent by Nichols to kill anyone.
Nichols clearly helped onetime Army buddy Timothy McVeigh construct the bomb that blew apart the federal building in Oklahoma City. However, the jury apparently found reasonable doubt, at least, that Nichols had remained part of the plot before McVeigh set off the explosion, killing 168 people.
A death penalty, which only a jury can impose under federal law, would have been extraordinary and inappropriate following such a verdict.
The law gave the jury the option of imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment, or sending the issue back to the judge to decide. It permitted jurors to impose the death penalty even after acquitting Nichols of murder, but only if they determined that he intentionally participated in the plot to blow up the federal building with the knowledge that someone would die.
Such a finding would have been inconsistent with the jury's verdict. Jury forewoman Niki Deutchman said jurors' views of Nichols' participation ranged "all the way from a very tiny amount to totally," thus the deadlock.
Oklahoma prosecutors undoubtedly will study the record of the federal trial thoroughly in preparing their case against Nichols. Unless they can produce more evidence that Nichols shared in McVeigh's intention of mass murder, 12 Oklahomans will have no reason to reach a different verdict than the jurors in Denver.
STATE Human Services Director Susan Chandler wasn't happy with the critical assessment of her department's management performance by the state auditor released last week. Chandler called the findings "incomplete and in places inaccurate." She said the findings gave scant acknowledgement of the department's efforts to improve since a 1995 audit. Getting off welfare
Now Chandler is pointing to an impressive achievement in an evident attempt to show that the Human Services Department isn't doing so badly after all. The department announced that it had saved the state $7.4 million from July to November by placing more welfare recipients in jobs.
It's happening under a program called First to Work, which offers education and interview/resume skills to welfare recipients, and incentives to companies to hire them. Chandler said Hawaii ranks in the top third of the states in the success of such programs. Of course, it's not only the savings to the state that matters; far more important is the benefit to the people who succeed in getting off welfare and becoming productive members of society.
The auditor's reports provide a valuable service in spotlighting deficiencies in state government operations and citing areas needing improvement. But sometimes they don't tell the whole story.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
