THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT 
              Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Friday, September 22, 1995             TAG: 9509220021
SECTION: FRONT                    PAGE: A14  EDITION: FINAL 
TYPE: Editorial 
                                             LENGTH: Medium:   60 lines

YIELDING TO THE UNABOMBER WAS A MISTAKE: PUBLISH OR PERISH?

Between killings, the murderous Unabomber fancies himself a savior of mankind. He demanded that The Washington Post or The New York Times publish his homespun gospel or he'd keep blowing up innocent people with homemade bombs.

The FBI told the papers it was their civic duty to comply with blackmail, so after much soul-searching The Post published the lunatic screed as a special section and The Times agreed to help pay for it.

Many who have commented on the case have sympathized with the publishers of The Times and The Post for having to make an agonizing decision, and have concluded they came down on the right side since it might save lives (if the Unabomber can be trusted to keep his word) and it might lead to his capture (if the FBI can be believed after 17 years of failure).

Yet the same people who praise this capitulation to threats as civic-minded rightly ridiculed Ronald Reagan for trying to trade arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair.

The argument then was that you can't afford to accede to terrorist demands. In fact, it was our national policy never to do so because it would only encourage more hostage-taking, more ransom demands, more blackmail attempts and more violence. Refusing to satisfy terrorist demands was the right position then and it's right now.

The Times, The Post and the FBI have set a dangerous precedent. Yielding to the Unabomber could encourage future terrorists to act upon their warped fantasies rather than discourage them from it.

Between killings, the murderous Unabomber fancies himself a savior of mankind. He demanded that The Washington Post or The New York Times publish his homespun gospel or he'd keep blowing up innocent people with homemade bombs.

The FBI told the papers it was their civic duty to comply with blackmail, so after much soul-searching The Post published the lunatic screed as a special section and The Times agreed to help pay for it.

Many who have commented on the case have sympathized with the publishers of The Times and The Post for having to make an agonizing decision, and have concluded they came down on the right side since it might save lives (if the Unabomber can be trusted to keep his word) and it might lead to his capture (if the FBI can be believed after 17 years of failure).

Yet the same people who praise this capitulation to threats as civic-minded rightly ridiculed Ronald Reagan for trying to trade arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair.

The argument then was that you can't afford to accede to terrorist demands. In fact, it was our national policy never to do so because it would only encourage more hostage-taking, more ransom demands, more blackmail attempts and more violence. Refusing to satisfy terrorist demands was the right position then and it's right now.

The Times, The Post and the FBI have set a dangerous precedent. Yielding to the Unabomber could encourage future terrorists to act upon their warped fantasies rather than discourage them from it. by CNB