NTERNAlij
THE
ill!
*ait'
Opinion
THE BATTALION
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
operai:
tary
aza.
oils carried
1 a popular
xisy at 2 am
ring the m
itants freque
with its
histicated
arplanes M
e
d out dura.
Tuesday
the fi
in R
hilled \yn
Halav>eh, a
irce 17 uni!
senior ’
hospital
said he ui
tor se\en
ding the
s of anti-An:
iinyaminZee
a Greek nv?
id Egsptiar
n Washing:
mne the
WS IN Bill
t sets;:
?ct pet
HI, Pakistj’
court on '.#■
etition to:+
of the ke. |
mg of
porter Da -1
?d States ?
nt promis
violation ci
cutor sa
wife
)mar
court Fn®
land over
‘sday, the
ssured the o
n't be handet
;n authonti
i to the law
a Quereshi
hi did note®
ent appeete :
open to W
rcordance#
Vote for Education
When the state legislature convenes in January, higher educa-
ion will be competing for very limited funds, and Texas A&M
eeds a representative who is committed to expanding access to
ollege and keeping costs down for students.
Because of his proven record as a forceful advocate for higher
ducation, The Battalion recommends voters in the March 12
epublican primary cast their votes in the state representative
ontest for Fred Brown.
Brown is seeking a third two-year term, and if, as political
bservers expect. Republicans gain a majority in the Texas
ouse, Brown will become the chair person of the higher edu-
ation committee.
The Texas Grant, which Brown co-sponsored in 2001, provided
200 million for low-income Texas students to attend college,
nd Brown said he would work to continue the program,
(though the state is facing a $5 billion budget shortfall, Brown
nderstands increased spending on higher education is an
Investment that will give Texas the skilled workforce it needs to
e economically competitive.
Also, Brown's conservative approach to government will
nsure the state scrubs the budget and stretches every dollar so
he cost of education is not passed on to students. Both Texas
&M and the University of Texas are proposing substantial stu-
ent fee hikes to the tune of $1,000 per year.
Brown has floated a proposal that would require students at
op-tier universities to take 30 credit hours (including summer
erms) a year. The additional tuition revenue would allow uni-
ersities to meet their spending needs without raising student
ees. Brown also will work to secure passage and funding for a
ilot program at Texas A&M that would lower tuition for summer
chool and take advantage of under-utilized facilities, such as
lassrooms and professors.
With the looming budget crunch, Texas A&M needs Brown's
roven leadership and innovative approach to ensure the state
devotes resources necessary to improve higher education with
out passing the bill to students.
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief MARIANO CASTILLO
I SINCE 18*3 l
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
News Editor
News Editor
Brian Ruff
Cay la Carr
Sommer Bunce
Brandie Liffick
Member
Member
Member
Member
Melissa Bedsole
Jonathan Jones
Jennifer Lozano
Kelln Zimmer
•i d
77)e Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less
| ' and include the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
Reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submit
ted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be
ailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com
MAIL CALL
cience
bo
raham
Hand
chitcctud^’
veeney
ilkmaii
g rtms0 ce
Matlock
es
ores
e pwgr^
ids
>ck ledge
rs Program 1
^roximattty
•M faculty
inistrai° rS
extra off> cC
thenisel veS
Lidents.
s will be
,e Battd m
Jensen poisons
student minds
In response to Jessica Watkin's
March 5 article:
As a student at the University of
Texas School of Law, I have had
the (dis)pleasure of being bom
barded with professor Robert
Jensen's socialist and anti-
American ramblings in the Austin
community. However, it saddens
me to see that his rhetoric is poi
soning the minds of students in
College Station as well.
I think students at A&M should
seriously question the credibility
of a speaker who was publicly
called a fool by his own
University president last Fall.
Jensen equates the American
military response with terrorism,
and says that the solution to this'
all is to discard our "plush" mid
dle class lifestyles. How a pro
fessor at a prominent university
could hold such a baseless view
is beyond me.
America a terrorist country?
America is not the country
enslaving its women. America is
not the country holding public
executions in soccer stadiums.
America is not the country sys
tematically committing genocide
against minorities.
On the contrary, America is the
country providing food and med
ical care to millions of civilians in
Afghanistan and other countries
throughout the world.
America is the country con
ducting a just military action
with minimal loss of life against
terrorists who happily murdered
thousands of innocent
American lives without so much
as blinking an eye.
To equate these actions by the
United States with the actions of
Al-Qaida terrorists is not only
irresponsible, it is ludicrous.
Moreover, seeking pain and
discarding pleasure is some sort
of neo-communist philosophy
that in reality makes no sense
and solves nothing.
Jensen is a prime example of
why universities should imple
ment post-tenure review. Doing
so would rid universities of indi
viduals like Jensen who purport
to be full-time professors, but
who are in fact full-time radical
activists who indoctrinate their
students with biased and irra
tional information.
Jonathan M. Apgar
Classes of 1999 and 2001
LEGALIZE MURDER?
Repeal assassination laws Maintain executive order
MATTHEW MADDOX
P
A \
perhaps not since Hitler
"or Cold War Castro
have there been for
eign leaders who were such
thorns in the side of
America as there are today.
Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden lay claim to that
dishonor through their rhet
oric and actions as terrorist
leaders. These men simply
will not go away, and must
be dealt with soon. The
United States has been
fighting with one hand tied
behind its back and must
not hesitate to remove the
bonds that render it ineffec
tive. The long-standing
executive order that forbids
American assassinations
must be lifted to combat
today’s terrorist threats.
The most recent limitation
on America’s ability to assas
sinate was Executive Order
12333 by President Reagan.
It proclaimed that, “No per
son employed by or acting on
behalf of the United States
government shall engage in,
or conspire to engage in,
assassination.” Presidents
Carter and Ford proclaimed
similar directives during their
temrs. While that is all fine
and dandy, there is nothing
permanent about an executive
order. Essentially, they are
presidential decrees that can
be removed, changed or tem
porarily suspended by the
current president. The
Constitution delegates to the
president the ability to defend
the nation in the face of an
attack, and an assassination
could do exactly that.
Allowing for assassina
tions undoubtedly would
save American lives. Bloody
wars fought against regimes
could be sidestepped with a
single strike rather than the
loss of soldiers. This could
be likened to the atomic
bombs dropped on Japan in
World War II. To invade
Japan would have meant
millions of Japanese and
American deaths.
Assassinations, like the
atomic bomb, are the ugliest
side of war. However, their
value lies in what they can
prevent, not in their destruc
tion. Recent reports place
the annual cost of the war on
terrorism at $30 billion. Had
the ban on assassinations not
been in place, Osama bin
Laden probably would not
be alive today, and the
World Trade Center might
still be standing.
Terrorists and the states
that support them target
Americans of all political
stature, from statesmen to
janitors. Intelligence pro
cured by the FBI and the
CIA shows that Saddam
Hussein almost succeeded
in assassinating President
George Bush in 1993.
Hussein also attempted to
assassinate an Iraqi Prime
Minister, assassinated most
of his family and has tested
chemical weapons on his
own people. In Iran, a cleri
cal oligarchy rules the coun
try with an iron fist and has
had a leading role in export
ing terrorism through
arranged assassinations
abroad. The United States
cannot afford to withhold
assassination against those
who already employ it
against themselves.
Lifting the ban on assas
sinations could prevent
future conflicts by cutting
off the head of the prover
bial snake. War may not dis
lodge or eliminate charis
matic leaders causing later
problems, and the procedure
for extradition is difficult
and dangerous. If the radical
leadership of Iraq were
eliminated, the production
of weapons of mass destruc
tion could be stopped. The
citizens of Iraq could
become a democratic ally in
the region, and the Middle
East peace process could be
back on track.
One problem that could
be solved by assassination
is the difficulty of raising a
coalition during crisis. In
the past and today, threat
ening situations exist
where the United States
lacks allies. In crisis like
this, there is little time to
prevent disaster and it can
be wasted in political
debate. Assassinations
would allow America to act
unilaterally without the
need of wide-based foreign
military support.
When considering
Hussein and bin Laden, the
United States does not con
flict with the people who
live within their countries.
Unfortunately, when
America goes to war, it ends
up fighting not the ruthless
rulers, but their oppressed
people and soldiers. The
regrettable side effect is that
the innocent civilians need
ed as American allies are
harmed worse than those in
charge. Assassination is the
answer to the questions pre
sented by those evil leaders.
Matthew Maddox is a
sophomore business
administration major.
S
BRIEANNE PORTER
ince the Sept. 1 1 terrorist
attacks, the government
has dealt with the idea of
being pro-active in the war on
terrorism instead of being
reactive. While many
Americans agree that making
pre-emptive strikes against ter
rorists would save many lives,
others wonder how far being
pro-active can be taken.
The government is debating
repealing the executive order
on political assassinations for
dealing with leaders of terrorist
organizations and countries that
sponsor these organizations. Is
it possible to balance the idea
of protecting the nation from
these people and not becoming
terrorists ourselves? No, it is
not possible to legalize assassi
nations without becoming a
country that has state-spon
sored terrorism.
In 1976, after years of U.S.
intelligence agencies’ assassi
nations of political leaders.
President Ford issued an execu
tive order ending these assassi
nations. While there have been
no assassinations, there have
been many military strikes that
seem to be a cover for attempt
ed assassinations. While many
argue that these military strikes
have caused the deaths of inno
cent people, they fail to recog
nize the Catch-22 of the situa
tion. While America has the
obligation to protect its citi
zens, it cannot become another
country that sponsors terrorism.
Not only does this create a
problem there is also the idea
of the moral basis for these
attacks. Sen. Patrick Leahy,
D-Vt., voiced the thoughts of
many on the Senate floor on
Oct. 31, 2001.
“A policy of preemptive
assassinations would be
morally repugnant, a violation
of international law. It is also
ineffective, because it creates
martyrs whose deaths become
a terrorist’s rallying cry for
revenge,” Leahy said.
America is a country
seeped in the ideas of justice
and morality. The idea of
assassinations of political
leaders is contrary to the ideas
of justice and morality.
As a country, America can
not argue that it is protecting its
citizens by murdering people
without a trial. To follow the
American ideals, it is appropri
ate to arrest terrorists and let
the American legal system
decide their fate. Jonathan
Turley, a law professor at
George Washington University,
in an article in The Record of
Bergen, NJ., said, “It is, in
fact, our laws that define us as
a people and give legitimacy to
our acts as a nation.”
Brieanne Porter is a senior
political science major.
FRANK CHANCE ♦ THE BATTALION