Sir, - Gerry Adams categorically condemns the terrorist attacks on America as "ethically indefensible". Yet he goes on to provide a definition of "true political activism" in terms of unqualified "struggle" leading only "forward". Such endless, unreflective activity leaves no room for moral purchase. The issue of proportionality does not arise.
It is not then surprising that he excuses the violent actions of the PIRA over the last 30 or so years on the entirely subjective and amoral basis that the participants, "considered they had no other choice".
It is clear from Atta's last testament that the suicide attackers rationalised their devastating actions in similar terms. Clearly, there were other choices.
The amoralism which lies at the heart of Sinn FΘin-PIRA's conception of politics as ceaseless action "forward" is epitomised in its attitude towards decommissioning. Mr Adams sees decommissioning primarily as a pre-condition imposed by the unionists and the Irish and British governments. In fact, it is an integral part of the Belfast Agreement, overwhelming endorsed by the peoples of Ireland.
It is integral, because at the end of the day (and we are well past that day), the retention of an arsenal of offensive weaponry is ethically incompatible with the tenets of liberal democracy and consent freely given.
These are the principles which are the foundation of the agreement.
It is high time that Mr Adams applied his new-found moral insight to the republican movement's total lack of action on the substance of decommissioning. Indeed, this failure is now "indefensible". - Yours, etc.,
Simon Partridge, East Finchley, London N2.