I read the Feb. 2 editorial "Trial of Trials: The 9/11 Case Should Be Heard on U.S. Soil," anticipating persuasive arguments supporting the Post-Gazette's opinion. Alas ... the bulk of the editorial merely restated strong Democratic and Republican objections to stateside trials.

The final two paragraphs of the editorial did make a valiant, but futile, attempt at justifying U.S.-based trials.

The next-to-last paragraph claimed that, "There are plenty of secure locations, like military bases or prisons, where such trials can be held safely." The last paragraph argued that if we are to spend hundreds of millions to house Gitmo terrorists in Thomson, Ill., (thereby abandoning hundreds of millions already spent in Cuba), "Why can't the public get two for the price of one by holding the trials there as well?"

The proposed investment in a U.S. facility to house terrorists cannot justify the added cost of holding a 9/11 trial there. The enormous cost of building a new U.S. facility is justified on one ideological premise: that our friends and enemies want Gitmo closed.

The enormous cost of holding a 9/11 trial in the United States is justified on another ideological premise: that the terrorists attacked us at home, and should therefore be tried here.

At a time when the American people are questioning the wisdom of trillion-dollar deficits, the government should be using our Gitmo investment to its fullest, rather than wasting multi-hundreds of millions on ideologically justified U.S.-based facilities and trials.

ROBERT J. KONIG
Collier

Haiti needs a break

As I read the Feb. 3 article about helping Haiti ("8 Experts Brainstorm on How to Help Haiti"), I was struck by Dr. Steven Williams' statement, "The problem in Haiti is that ... [the] government ... does not function for the benefit of its people."

I could not agree with Dr. Williams more; however, he implied that government greed and corruption were the root cause of the country's contorted past. I disagree. The government does not function for the benefit of the people because it has never had the opportunity.

To understand Haiti's current state, one must look to historical records. Haiti was born of a black slave revolt that led to independence in 1804. Since that time, Haiti has seen little solace from the international community as well as dictatorial regimes that were supported by generous aid from the United States and others (see "The Uses of Haiti" by Paul Farmer).

Haiti has a young democracy, begun only with the first free elections in 1990. Since then, elected presidents have been ousted twice by coups d'etat. The Haitian democratic government has never had the opportunity to even try to provide for its people. One can argue incessantly about Haitian politics, but no justification exists for twice deposing an elected leader.

It is time to cancel Haiti's international debt and provide grants to Haiti's federal government to begin reconstruction.

JONATHAN DOHANICH
Monaca

Unsafe at Bigelow

Some may recall several years ago when then-Mayor Tom Murphy and University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark Nordenberg made a deal to close Bigelow Boulevard between Forbes and Fifth avenues. Mr. Nordenberg said one reason was because it was unsafe for students to cross Bigelow between the student union and the Cathedral of Learning. The deal to close Bigelow was killed once it was made public.

But Mr. Nordenberg has done nothing since to protect Pitt students weaving through traffic on Bigelow. He could have built a tunnel under, or a pedestrian bridge over, Bigelow. At the very least, he could have had the city install a light at the crossing that is synchronized with lights at Forbes and Fifth so that traffic is stopped when students are crossing Bigelow.

Recently, a Pitt student friend of mine got hit by a car at that very crossing. Fortunately, he was not seriously injured. I guess a student will have to be killed crossing Bigelow before the chancellor acts.

DAVID HUGHES
Squirrel Hill

Why report this?

The recent story about a martial-arts instructor was interesting for reasons other than his removal because of a drug-related conviction ("Program Removes Volunteer Due to Criminal Record," Jan. 26). In quoting Patrick M. Livingston, a lawyer who represented the man in 2008, the PG referred to him as "court-appointed." It's not clear how that fact was relevant to his legal representation, let alone his dilemma of living with a criminal conviction.

In other stories encompassing the newspaper's crime beat, the PG often highlights defense counsel as either a member of a public defender's office or court-appointed when the defendant or suspect is indigent. Unless there is a dispute about whether the individual is actually owed representation at the government's expense, what message is being sent by identifying the lawyer in such a way? Privately retained lawyers are typically not identified as such. If the lawyer is part of a larger firm -- which is not typical since most defense practitioners are of the solo or small-group variety -- that, too, goes unnoticed.

It cannot be that indigent counsel offers a different level of representation. Any individual facing a criminal charge faces enough anxiety, embarrassment and related concerns without being tagged as unfortunately unable to retain a lawyer of his or her choosing. Why emphasize that point when reporting those events?

MARK A. SINDLER
Squirrel Hill
The writer is a criminal defense attorney.

Medical fairness

It's 5 a.m. or so on an otherwise nondescript morning in Pittsburgh. Suddenly the earth begins to shake, violently knocking down homes and buildings like some giant fist crushing them to the ground. A lot of people are killed outright, but most somehow survive the earthquake and are now in the streets injured and needing medical help.

While the hospitals have taken their share of destruction, dedicated doctors and nurses somehow make their way to what's left of them ready to help the injured. But before they can begin, the patients must be processed through admissions. While those seeking emergency help will get the minimum required, will this be enough to enable them to recover from their injuries? Those who have the right magic insurance cards in their wallets will be assured of the best care possible -- even to the point of being flown to undamaged locations.

There are two types of patients -- those without medical insurance left to struggle with their injuries once they have received "emergency" treatment, and those who have medical coverage that provides them with all the care they need.

Among the uninsured there are many, like my wife, who would buy insurance coverage if they could qualify but cannot find it at any price because while they were working and had insurance they developed some sort of problem, like diabetes or high blood pressure.

Of course my example is highly exaggerated, but what is fair? Abandoning people to misery, or coming up with a system where all have a chance at proper medical care?

FRED N. BUSH
Wilkins

Atomic bombs saved millions on both sides by ending WWII

Liz Hughes' absurd letter ("U.S. Wrongdoing," Jan. 16) is missing a few "historical facts" regarding implied U.S. terrorism (the use of atomic bombs). None of the options to "the bomb," such as an invasion of Japan, were very appealing. High U.S. casualties in previous assaults (Okinawa/Iwo Jima) and strong Japanese defenses were projected to result in 1 million U.S. casualties and 2 million Japanese casualties (a 10-fold increase over the atomic bomb), possibly more.

Japanese leaders had determined the conflict could not be won and were planning a defense that would inflict high U.S. deaths and enable a negotiated peace that would maintain much of their remaining conquests. Japanese reinforcements made achieving the proper invasion force ratio difficult, and the Navy was withdrawing its support.

Even if the Japanese homeland were lost, the government planned to move to occupied China and continue the fight. There is no guarantee a U.S. invasion would have resulted in success or ended the war. Countless lives, both American and Japanese, would have been lost in what would have been a foolish decision not to use the atomic weapons.

The cities selected for bombing were industrial areas and legitimate military targets. Conventional bombing had resulted in even higher casualty rates, including 200,000 in Tokyo alone.

It was the Japanese who cared little for the suffering of their people, opting for a no-surrender position. They initiated and perpetrated a barbaric conflict and chose to fight to the end.

To the few Americans who developed and delivered the bomb, "never has so much been owed by so many to so few."

MICHAEL TURLEY
South Park

Town Talk, a discussion forum on issues of the day, is featured exclusively in the Opinion section on PG+, a members-only web site from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.