“Why should they remain?” is the title of the cover story in the British weekly THE ECONOMIST (15-21/9) which analyses the situation in Iraq, calling it “a terrible chaos”. “If America could choose again – says the editorial – it wouldn’t enter the civil war in Mesopotamia. But for a superpower there are more serious reasons than preventing a bloodbath and putting its own soldiers at risk. Having invaded Iraq in pursuit of its own interests – to remove the weapons of mass destruction that later turned out to be non-existent -, America has a debt to pay to the Iraqi population, within which a slender majority wishes her to remain. It’s difficult to see how it will be possible to put Iraq together again. The country has plunged to such a low point that” everything must be done to save it. “But it’s not sure whether that’s possible”.In Germany the heated debate continues on the country’s anti-terrorism measures and in particular on the hypothesis whether, in the case of the hijacking of a passenger plane, it would be legitimate to shoot the plane down to prevent further damage. The Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe has in fact ruled that the case cannot be judicially regulated since the shooting down of a passenger plane would in any case be considered a penal offence. Heribert Prantl comments on the ruling in the SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG ( 19/9): “The law ought not to prevent iniquity but ought not to be transmuted into it. That would happen if martial law were to be applied in cases of maximum criminality. At one time the monarch could declare a ‘state of siege’… Why couldn’t the government act like the emperor?” Because “a constitutional state under the rule of law remains such even in situations of extreme danger. The tragic consequences of terrorist attacks cannot be judicially resolved in a satisfactory manner. Recognizing that is perhaps a challenge, but a minister of defence must face up to this challenge. It is part of his political tasks and responsibilities”.”The problem lies in the Constitution […]”, says a comment in the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG (18/9). “Neither the Chancellor, nor the government: it’s the Minister [of Defence] who decides whether the air force should shoot down a hijacked plane. If he decides to do so in a few minutes, he must alone assume the political and penal responsibility, irrespective of whether the pilot has or has not carried out the order. If however the order were to be given through the Chancellor, in the context of a non-declared war against terrorism, it would be clear to the population and to the world that the German government has made this decision by full authority. It would not be necessary to discipline anything else. If something can represent a deterrent against terrorists, perhaps there is only this solution”.”I fail to understand those who conduct a strenuous campaign against the death sentence and, at the same time, legalise the killing of children in the mother’s womb or the elimination of elderly and invalid people, under the pretext of wishing to shorten their sufferings, but in reality to suit their own convenience”, writes Father Artur Stopka on the website www.wiara.pl, the best known of the Catholic portals in Poland. “And I’m happy there won’t be a European Day against the death sentence, since that would be a strange celebration. As I see it, it would be a day of hypocrisy. It would be a day on which everyone pretended to defend and cherish human life. And that’s far from true”, continues the author, though he expresses the wish: “It would be a good thing not only if Europe agreed to hold a day in defence of human life, but if all the countries of our continent were to reach a consensus on this, by introducing into their legislative systems the principle of the defence of life from conception to natural death”.The death in Lebanon of Antoine Ghanem, Falangist MP and loyal supporter of the Gemayel family, “has caused a new and dramatic situation: as never before, the Maronite Catholic Church, in the person of its Patriarch, has raised his voice and spoken out loudly and clearly”, observes Fulvio Scaglione in an editorial in the Italian Catholic daily AVVENIRE (20/9). “Nasrallah Sfeir has pronounced unequivocal words” while the date of the presidential elections on 25 September approaches. “Cardinal Sfeir and his Church have worked hard to ensure that the various Christian parties express as unitary a candidate as possible – comments the editorialist -. They have run into many, too many obstacles: the intransigence of Aoun, who wants at all costs to become President and, with the aid of Hezbollah, is ready even to boycott the elections, thus causing the lack of a quorum in Parliament; the conflicting vetoes of various Christian factions and leaders; and lastly the lack of viable solutions, given that the personalities most in public view are also the most controversial, and the others don’t count. To speak as he did yesterday, the Patriarch must have decided that the crunch has come and it’s time to make a clear and unapologetic appeal to the responsibility of everyone”.
