In times of rebellion the processes of democracy are always strained at best. When the revolution comes after long years of repression and cruelty, any measures which can avert a blood bath have strong justification. But between averting a blood had and inciting and abetting of new violence lies a fine line, and one too easily crossed.

The Cuban revolution has been remarkable in a way. The wholesale slaughter of Batista adherents which observers feared would follow the fall of the old dictatorship did not materialize. While the "atrocity" trials alarmed many people who could treasure legal procedure in a calmer and less vengeful society, Castro did a reasonable job of adhering to civilized forms.

The "coliseum trials" were the first sign that the new leader's zeal might have exceeded the bounds of necessity. On his own initiative, Castro called these "showcase" tribunals into action--and while popular pressure may have demanded the executions which preceded and followed them, the only excuse for the trials themselves was to make an international case for the executions. The most significant result was to increase the frenzy of a citizenry already enraged by the memory of past horrors.

Even the temporary suspension of constitutional guarantees was perhaps a reasonable action in abnormal times. Less acceptable, however, is Castro's refusal to allow Batista adherents who took refuge in foreign embassies to leave Cuba. This violation of international principles again suggests that the liberator is not so much a reluctant agent of an aroused people as he is their willing and active leader.

The illusion that some basis of fair procedure underlay the war trials vanished last week when Castro ordered the retrial of forty-three airmen accused of bombing civilians during the civil war. Aside from the defense that in military operations bombing civilians is perhaps inevitable, or at least has not been outlawed in recent wars, the fliers had been acquitted on the same charge by a lower court. Castro, exclaiming that they were being tried "not by law, but by the will of the people," ordered a new trial.

In violating the accepted priniciple that no defendant may be put in jeopardy twice for the same crime, Castro has destroyed even the veneer of legalities which the trials maintained. He has also shown that he places himself above the legal machinery of the revolutionary regime. It seems that those whom Castro proscribes will be punished no matter what the courts may decide.

Nobody would suggest that the problems Cuba faces have not been real and difficult, but after four hundred executions and two months' suspension of constitutional rights, it is depressing to find the abuses of legal procedure growing even more acute. As an ex-lawyer, Fidel Castro is making a thorough success of destroying the law.