Only 18 of 63 Supreme Court justice candidates passed the

Only 18 of 63 Supreme Court justice candidates passed the
interview and screening stage conducted by the House of
Representatives. And most of those who passed did so with
conditions attached.

The Supreme Court needs 26 new justices but only 18 were
passed by the House, and some of them will probably be rejected
by the President.

We have been informed that our judges -- as well as our
prosecutors -- are less than qualified. Most of them are said to
lack integrity and knowledge of the law.

The way the House screened the justice candidates was
questionable because it did not set clear parameters. But we
should acknowledge House Commission II, which had the courage to
select new justices based on their expertise. In this way, the
House will help the Supreme Court improve its performance.

But in the future, the House will no longer select the new
justices. Based on the amended 1945 Constitution, a Judicial
Commission will be in charge of the selection of justices.

-- Kompas, Jakarta

The war and the pope

Can a fast stop the spiral toward war, which quickens more
every day? Can a fast save peace?

To a believer, the purpose of a fast, as of a prayer, is
linked to the promise and mystery of God. But for all of us,
believers or not, this gesture proposed by the pope is a
challenge to logic of interests, of force and of violence.

It is a political act in the highest sense of the term,
because it concerns the most profound reasons of human
coexistence. To fast as a personal choice, when a large part of
the world risks starvation, means committing oneself to a cause
and defining oneself as responsible.

It would be wrong to consider the pope's call anti-American,
or as an answer to Bush's refusal of his overtures for peace. It
is much more. The pope condemns terrorism along with war,
refusing violence from all sides. He denies the pretenses of men
and states to judge over good and bad, condemning all holy wars.

The pope's call for a fast has a strong religious meaning,
coinciding with Ash Wednesday. But it is also a historical,
powerful and tangible contribution to the difficult road of peace
in the Iraq crisis.

-- La Republica, Rome, Italy

on Josef Stalin and Russia

50 years ago today, Josef Stalin, one of world history's worst
dictators, died.

That he, in alliance with the United States, Great Britain and
France, led the Soviet Union to victory over Nazi Germany does
not excuse the brutal persecution, which may have claimed the
lives of 20 million-30 million Russians.

Many other peoples have been forced to slow and painful
reckonings with their history. But in Russia, there are still
many who hail Stalin.

Last fall, (Russian President Vladimir) Putin approved the
minting of 500 silver coins with Stalin's portrait. The Russians,
too, should actively come to terms with their past.

He who secretly hails Stalin cannot at the same time become a
democrat with respect for human rights.

-- Huvudstadsbladet, Helsinki, Finland

The formation of Islamic
party in the Netherlands

The Arabic-European League, born in Belgium, has now arrived
here. The movement advertises itself as an 'Islamic, democratic
party.'

Not only has a group of young, educated Moroccans called a
party into existence with a religious basis, but that party holds
a number of conservative values on drugs and prostitution. How
the liberal, secular Dutch society will react is unknown, but
it's exciting.

But if there can be a Christian Democrat party, why not an
Islamic Democrat party, as long as it, like the Christian
Democrats, can abide by the rules of our secular democratic
system?

If so, then the AEL could even play an important part in
emancipating Moroccans in the Netherlands, and the much-needed
rapprochement between Islam and democracy can take place.

-- Volkskrant, Amsterdam, Netherlands

The capture of
an al-Qaeda terrorist

The capture of al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is both
a huge blow for freedom and a strong rebuke for critics of the
Bush administration.

Consider the latter issue first. For at least half a year,
naysayers and political opportunists among Democrats in Congress
have argued that President George W. Bush's focus on Iraq was
hobbling efforts to fight the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

The worst offenders charged that the administration, by
supposedly doing little more than grubbing for oil in Iraq, was
negligently leaving the United States vulnerable to more al-Qaeda
attacks of the 9-11 variety.

One prominent senator and now-presidential candidate, Bob
Graham of Florida, voted no on last fall's congressional
resolution authorizing military force against Saddam Hussein
specifically for that reason. Sen. Graham said, in effect, that
the United States couldn't fight Iraq and al-Qaeda at the same
time.

Mr. Graham himself is no cheap-shot artist. His positions at
least have had the courage of consistency. But others in his
party in recent months have picked up that same drumbeat without
his level of knowledge or nuance. ...

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's arrest is the most important
counterterrorist arrest, ever. ...

This is big stuff. The world is safer as a result. Next up for
the cause of freedom: Take out Saddam Hussein. Because when it
comes to fighting terrorists, the United States can indeed walk
the walk against some and chew Saddam at the same time.

-- Mobile Register, Mobile, Alabama

The United Nations and Iraq

The diplomatic tug-of-war over a second U.N. resolution on
Iraq is turning into a charade. Three times in the past five
days, George Bush has made plain his intention to overthrow the
Iraqi regime, whatever the U.N. says. His aim, he said last week,
was "a liberated Iraq. ... America's interest in security and
America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction." At
the weekend, Mr. Bush again sketched out plans for a bright new
future entirely predicated on Saddam Hussein's downfall. The U.S.
president's candid although still very blurry focus on a post-
Saddam settlement, rather than on disarmament, makes it clear
that nothing less than physical as opposed to behavioral regime
change will now suffice. U.S. determination to impose its will by
force renders the U.N. debate redundant in terms of practical
outcomes. It makes a mockery of the Security Council. ...

-- The Guardian, London

The North Korean challenge

Iraq masks a second emerging crisis, no less dangerous,
perhaps even more: North Korea. The recent interception of an
American spy plane in international airspace by four North Korean
fighter jets over the Sea of Japan, Sunday March 2, ... gives the
impression that the Korean Peninsula is skidding.

Wrong or right, North Korea feels it is the next target of
Washington after Iraq; it intends to show it is not intimidated
by the United States. ...

Washington insists it does not want war with North Korea and
is favorable to negotiating a solution to the crisis started by
the nuclear ambitions of Pyongyang.

But the more the Americans delay restarting dialogue with
Pyongyang, the more the process of reactivating a (nuclear)
reprocessing facility in Yongbyon, capable of producing
plutonium, becomes inescapable.

-- Le Monde, Paris