Letters.

--In "Ashcroft with Horns" (March 25), Jay Nordlinger quotes retiring liberal columnist Anthony Lewis as saying that the most important lesson he'd learned in 50 years with the New York Times is that "certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right, like Osama bin Laden and John Ashcroft." I only wish the interviewer had responded: "Uh-huh, and you're certain of that, are you?" Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry character once said: "There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as all the right people get shot." In the same way, there's nothing wrong with certainty, as long as you're certain about the right things!

Steve Sawyer

Fountain Hills, Ariz.

--Anthony Lewis is either not certain that his opinion is right (and is therefore decent and humane), or he is certain that he is right (and is therefore indecent and inhumane). After 50 years with the Times, he still hasn't seen the absurdity of being certain that there should be no certainty!

Douglas Taylor

Huntingdon Valley, Pa.

--John Miller's assault on the Arab American Institute ("Arab American in Chief," March 25), though cloaked in partisan politics, is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on ethnic political activism, namely that of Arab Americans. Your mission to defame persons of Middle Eastern descent is so obvious that it would be laughable were it not for its blatant bigotry. President Bush is working to unite our nation and promote our strength over partisan politics. I wish NR and its unnamed "Republican activist" would join him.

George R. Salem, Chairman

Arab American Institute

Washington, D.C.

--After reading "Arab American in Chief," I must applaud Dr. Zogby's courage as a pro-life Democrat. However, I question the motives behind his continuing silence on the pervasive discrimination against, and persecution of, Christian minorities throughout the Islamic world. His failure to address this leads me to conclude that his numerous Muslim donors would not tolerate a defense of Christian minorities by their Maronite Catholic spokesman.

Fr. Keith Roderick

Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights

Macomb, Ill.

--In The Week (March 25), indicating that the Hungarian Socialist (rechristened from Communist) Party would rename Budapest's "House of Terror" the "House of Memory and Reconciliation," you asked what the Hungarian word for "weasels" might be. The word is menyet, but lacks the same connotation. A more appropriate animal analogy would be "chameleons" or "rats." The Communists/Socialists want to change their appearance and flee from their past like rats. Thanks for not allowing them to get away with it.

Eugene F. Megyesy Jr.

Denver, Colo.

--Knowing that NR would not wish to do an injustice even to an enemy, I write to correct an item in The Week (April 8). The point of the item was to damn the Associated Press for its foolish reference to "a fetus that is fully outside a woman's body." Great. However, you then say that "unless Peter Singer is writing your stylebook, don't you just sometimes have to call a baby a baby?" Now, Singer's claim that newborn infants are not persons with a right to life, and that it is often not wrong to kill them, is morally atrocious. But to give him his due, Singer does not deploy euphemisms or torture the language to disguise the killing he advocates. He does call a baby a baby -- even when he advocates killing the child. His article defending infanticide could not have been more candid: "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong."

Robert P. George 

Princeton, N.J.

--The aim of Sam Dealey's article (" 'A Very, Very Bad Bunch,' " March 25) is to exert pressure on members of Congress, who have stated their support for the Iranian Resistance in dozens of statements and thousands of letters over the past 18 years, to cease their support.

Since 1992, a majority of members of the House have supported the Iranian Resistance five times. In the same period, a majority of senators declared a similar position once, while on two occasions, a third of the Senate gave their support to the Iranian Resistance.

The article falsely claims that American legislators supported the Mojahedin for the money they have received from it. It claims that Rep. Dan Burton stopped supporting Mojahedin in 1995. But from 1995 through 2000, Rep. Burton gave his support to the Iranian Resistance in writing on at least three occasions.

The mullahs' regime has made the same accusations and smears against the representatives of the American people. The Iranian foreign- ministry spokesman said on October 15, 2000, that U.S. lawmakers had been "hoodwinked by terrorist groups." A state-run daily, Abrar, wrote on the same day: "The congressmen, in the most naive manner, have fallen into the trap of the plotters of this political statement. In a dumb and simplistic move, they have been lured into a trap designed by the Zionists."

The inclusion of the Mojahedin in the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 1997 was a futile bid by the Clinton administration to appease the terrormongers ruling Iran. A day after the announcement, the Los Angeles Times reported that a "senior Clinton administration official said inclusion of the Moujahedeen was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president, Mohammad Khatami."

Two years later, Martin Indyk, then assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, publicly acknowledged that naming NCRI as an alias of PMOI was in response to Tehran's demands. He said, "The Iranian government had brought this to our attention."

The Mojahedin's military resistance targets only military and suppressive targets inside Iran, and is a legitimate resistance in the context of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions, as well as of Christianity and Islam. A majority of members of parliaments in the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, and Norway, and a large number of French and German parliamentarians, have supported the Mojahedin.

The murder of U.S. citizens in the 1970s had nothing to do with the Mojahedin. All the leaders of the organization were arrested in 1971 and later executed, except for Mr. Rajavi, who was the sole surviving leader, but remained in prison until 1979. The organization's leadership was taken over by Communist infiltrators who staged a coup in a bid to usurp the Mojahedin's popularity. The coup plotters even murdered those Mojahedin members who had not been arrested by the shah's secret police. The Mojahedin cannot be held accountable for acts in which they played no role. Contrary to the author's claim, Mr. Rajavi had no control over those who were using the Mojahedin's name. He condemned them right away and predicted that the coup would lead to the rise of the religious fundamentalists led by Khomeini.

Mr. Dealey's claim that the Mojahedin played a role in the U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran is utterly false. Khomeini's Chief Justice Moussavi Ardebili said: "[The embassy takeover] led to the confusion of left- wing groups and the Mojahedin and exposed their real faces" (Tehran radio, November 4, 1985).

The presence of a part of the Mojahedin in Iraq has no aim or reason other than the effort to topple the mullahs' regime. The Mojahedin's relationship with Iraq is that of two sovereign states, and even U.N. agencies operating in Iraq reported, after visiting Mojahedin camps, that "sites belonging to the Mojahedin were not under the authority of the Iraqi government."

The Mojahedin's sole source of money is the unsparing material support of millions of Iranians in Iran and in diaspora.

Shahin Ghobadi

People's Mojahedin of Iran

Washington, D.C.

--Sam Dealey replies: The assertion that the State Department identified the National Council of Resistance of Iran on its terrorist list only as a sop to Iran is not true. While Martin Indyk did say that the Iranian regime had brought the NCRI to State's attention, he also said: "Iran is also a victim of terrorism. We condemn these acts as we condemn all acts of terrorism." The Iranian regime is a nasty lot, but that hardly means all who oppose it are good.

The claim that Massoud Rajavi held no control over the movement is also dubious. Despite his imprisonment, according to a U.S. intelligence report, Rajavi "rose to command in 1975 after the Mojahedin experienced an internal schism" and "maintained absolute control" over the Mojahedin.

Mr. Ghobadi's assertion that the Mojahedin did not take part in the 1979 U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran is equally dubious. Though mentioned in my article, it bears repeating: On the day of the embassy takeover, the Mojahedin's leaders stated: "After the shah, it's America's turn." And when the hostages were released 444 days later, the group boasted it was "the first force who rose unequivocally to the support of the occupation of the American spy center."

As for whatever support the Mojahedin has ginned up among various lawmakers -- I make no apologies for the latter's ignorance or greed.

If the Mojahedin is serious about its reforms, there are a number of positive steps it might take to reassure the U.S. and its allies. The first might be a renunciation of its Marxist and anti-Western past. Also, it might identify and hand over those within the organization who participated in the attacks on Americans and U.S. business and government entities. Last, the Mojahedin could renounce all aid from Saddam Hussein. Until then, the inescapable conclusion is that this is not a group Americans should be supporting.

-- Ramesh Ponnuru writes: In "Watching the Watchmen" (April 8), I attributed a quote to Human Rights Watch when I should have attributed it to Amnesty International. It was Amnesty International that said that the word "terrorism" should be eschewed because "there is no universally accepted definition" of it and "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."

My apologies.