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