Slouch
By Jim Earle
“J think I’ve found my Easter eggs here in bed, and
they’re raw eggs. ”
Opinion
Proposed laws limits access
As legislation advances in Congress to bring the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investiga
tion under statutory control, it has become evident that
various proposals would seriously undermine the Freedom
of Information Act.
One bill now under study would let the FBI keep secret
its records for 10 years after the end pf hyyps^igation or
..prosecution. Another would pefmijt thp^EBI to (Jjgjgtroy all
‘ criminal-investigation records 10 ySars' after the* end of an
investigation or prosecution. These two bills combined
would virtually exempt the FBI from disclosure under the
information act.
No one doubts that the two intelligence agencies must
have sufficient power to accomplish their assigned func
tions, and that power must include the authority to maintain
essential secrecy. But the CIA and the FBI now have broad
exemptions from disclosure. Some modification of present
law may be necessary, but there is no evidence to show that
these agencies should be given virtual exemption from the
Freedom of Information Act.
Congress should proceed cautiously, and not permit the
frustrations over the crises in Iran and Afghanistan to out
weigh a judicious judgment of current legislation.
Los Angeles Times
the small society
by Brickman
HAT&P
PAY)
TAY
i-A^T WEeK...
WA^ PATTlM^^M
aay^&lf -
©1980 King Features Syndicate. Inc World rights reserved
The Battalion
U S P s 045 360
LETTERS POLICY
Lrtttrs to the editor should not exceed KM) words and are
subject to heinn nit to that length or less if longer Thi
editorial staff reserves the right to edit such lettirs and does
ru/t guarantee to publish any letter Each letter must In
signed, shotc the address of the writer and lust a telephone
numbin’ for verification
Address correspondence to le tters to the Editor. The
Battalion. Room 21b. Reed Mi Donald Building (ullege
Station. Texas 77H43.
Represented nationally b> National Kducationul Adver
tising Services. Inc New York ( itv Chicago and l>os
Angeles.
The* Battalion is published Mondav through Fridas front
>eptemlx r through Mas except during exam and holidas
>eriods and the summer, when it is published on Tuesdav
hrongh Thursdav
Mail subsc riptions are $16.75 per semester. $33.25 per
schfxd year. $35.00 pe r full year Advertising rates furnished
on recpiest Address The Battalion Room 216 Reed
McOmald Building. College Station. Texas 77S43
Uniter! Press International is entitled exclusivels to tin-
use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it
Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved
Second-Class jxistage paid at College- Station. T.X 77S43
MEMBER
Texas Press Association
Southwest journalism Congress
Editor Roy Bragg
Associate Editor Keith Taylor
News Editor . . . Rusty Cawley
Asst. News Editor ...... Karen Cornelison
Copy Editor Dillard Stone
Sports Editor Mike Burrichter
Focus Editor Rhonda Watters
City Editor Louie Arthur
Campus Editor Diane Blake
Staff Writers Nancy Andersen,-
Tricia Brunhart,Angelique Copeland,
Laura Cortez, Meril Edwards,
Carol Hancock, Kathleen McElroy, "
Debbie Nelson, Richard Oliver,
Tim Sager, Steve Sisney,
Becky Swanson, Andy Williams
Chief Photographer . Lynn Blanco
Photographers Lee Roy Leschper,
Steve Clark, Ed Cunnius,
()pini(>rvi expressed in The Battalion are
those of the editor or of the writer of the
article and are not necessarily those of the
University administration or the Board of
Regents. 1 he Battalion is a non-profit. self-
supporting enterprise operated by students
as a university and community newspaper.
Editorial policy is determined by the editor.
Viewpoint
The Battalion Friday
Texas A&M University April 4, 1980
Reader s Forum
3S SP j
4 C;
5S Fel
Tabor
6S E
Both sides wrong in senate issue
Bilge
7S Stt
tel —
1J Cr,
401 El
12 Ro;-
Editor:
Once upon a time and 421 miles west of
the Great Blue Watertower, I, too saw the
Bad Business of Closed Meetings. As
president of the Odessa College Student
jS?ongre$£ W##ed ,with naked eye the ess
ence of this furious, malevident beastie.
What I saw might be of interest today.
To the Most Noble Editor, I humbly
confess my wrongs: I, too, am an instigator
of dread Closed Meetings. Ah yes, you see,
the cancer has spread far. But wait! From
what quarter does this rottenness truly
issue from? Allow me to recount parallel
occurances concerning the Horrendous
Evil which has lately been foisted upon the
Universe by Kapavik, et. a/.
At OC, as at TAMU ... 1) those billions
who weekly attended our meetings were
viciously thrown from the Congressional
Chambers ... 2) insidious plans were laid
with the intent of undermining all human
thought, life, liberty and property , . . and
3) the press was excluded.
And so we come to the heart of the mat
ter. You see, Ags, to exclude the press is to
turn on Civil Defense speakers blaring
“Unconstitutional! Freedom of the Press
denied! Where, oh where, is the Attorney
General?” (There is an old adage: “The
guilty dog barks first,” which, thou not al
ways true . . . )
Why did the OC press scream so loudly
over our closed meetings? I submit to you
that they were motivated by what the Batt
has accused the A&M Senate of: deception.
(Now that’s a pretty heavy word to be
thrown around. Rife with implications,
“deception is an excellent red-herring for
one’s own guilty path.) Witness my evi
dence: first, prior to the furor, editorial
comment and the controversy which yields
such were non-existent. (Ask yourself some
questions at this point: Could this be a
parallel? Would an editor stoop to sensa
tionalism to rejuvenate his dormant col
umn? Does A&M have traditions?) Second,
the editor of the OC “Roundup” was look
ing at the journalism job market. (Do you
mean that she tried to make her mark as a
Parkwt
reporter-with-experience by suclii 13 Ht
raking? Again, does A&M havetradit® 200
Mb M
Finally, it is entirely true that!»1201 R
terests of a student body can best be* 115 p a
through the closed meeting in somecJ5oi §.
agree that the substance ofsucha* ig g ON
must be publicized (as Kapavik hasi\v. 26t
but not the particulars. Issues arise* T -p ra
delicacy demands cloistered con '25th
tion. Misinformed press-coverageCjlp r y
ticipation can easily, easily nullifyJ?|\(| g r y
ing decision which would be benefc 19
the student population. From ' (, >28()1 V
comes the rottenness then?
Kim Yowl |
Mercenary army is unwanted
Editor:
In his recent State of the Union address,
President Carter called for a reinstatement
of registration for the draft. Since then,
people thorughout the nation have been
discussing and debating many issues on
registration, the draft and foreign policy. I
can think of no other school in the nation
that is more qualified to participate than
Texas A&M University. As a part of the
discussion, I would present one point of
view.
The heritage of the United States of
America is firmly rooted in the concept of
individual liberty. The Declaration of Inde
pendence and the Bill of Rights were writ
ten to define and emphasize the inalienable
natural rights by which individuals could
be protected from other individuals and,
more importantly, from the government
itself. The founders of our country thoght it
morally wrong for the government itself to
infringe upon an individual’s liberty.
One way to define individual rights is to
say that you should be able to do as you
please as long as you don’t damage
another’s freedoms. Obviously initiating
violence or threatening violence against
another is a violation of his or her rights.
This viewpoint recognizes that people live
in a complex, interdependent soceity, but
maintains that the best way for people to
live is for people not to make others do
things with guns.
In my opinion, the draft is diametrically
opposed to the concept of individual liberty
and the tradition upon which this country
was founded. To draft a person means that
you threaten to put a person in jail if he or
she refuses to do what the government
wants. If the person resists when the
policemen come to put him or her in jail,
the policemen will use whatever violence
necessary to detain that person.
Does my opposition to the dralt mean
that I don’t believe in a strong defense or a
strong military? I don’t think so. To defend
the individual liberty of the citizens of this
country, we need a strong military. But we
need a military that is not created by the
violation of the very principle it is supposed
to be defending.
Does my opposition to the draft mean
that I don’t believe in “Serving mv coun
try?” In America, “Serving your country
does not mean “serving the state” as it does
in communist and fascist regimes. Serving
your country means that you are willing to
fight for the ideals of freedom. If I do not
believe that my government is furthering
individual liberty, I am acting in a patriotic
way by resisting it. Even if I believe the
government’s cause is just and I choose the
fight for it, I still would fight for the right for
others to freely make their decision to fight
or not fight.
So far, the argument has focused only on
the morality of the draft. I believe that it is
morally wrong to force another person to
risk his or her life for something I believe
in. But what if all of these neat principles
just don’t work? What if trying to protect
individual liberty at home by not drafting,
we lose a war to outside invaders?
First, there is disagreement over the
military’s staffing needs for a strong de
fense. just before President Carter’s call for
registration, a government report came out
saying that we don’t need it today. Several
Presidential candidates who believe in in
dividual liberty and a strong defense,
Ronald Reagan, Phil Crane, and Ed Clark
have opposed the draft. Most of the argu
ment has centered around the need for a
quick reaction to wartime conditions. If we
need to be prepared for quick inductions,
why do we need a registration for a draft?
Why not a registration of those who would
be willing to be inducted in time of war, but
not during peacetime?
Others have raised the question of what
exactly is “national” defense. About half of
the present military forces of the United
States are stationed in Europe and Korea.
As we watch the growing economic power
of these regions, one wonders whether the
American taxpayer isn’t being unfail:
died with an expense that the locals! 1
region can now afford. Is the replacfl
of an American soldier for a Germans*
to defend Germany “national” dcfei*
And finally the question of the qulj
a volunteer vs. drafted army arises,
military is having trouble getting f
recruits, the solution consistent will
vidual libertv is to pay higher waf
military personnel. Military wagffl
not kept up with civilian wages. lY
pay was comparable or better than#]
pay, quality and quantity of .staffing*
not be a problem.
But do we want a mercenary array!}
How do you like mercenary polW
firemen, or professors? Those contefi
ing ever serving in the services in W
should ask army Vietnam veteranswl
they would rather have a drafteeora«j
teer covering them when they j
battle?
But in the end, the question ofll
boils down to the issue of freedom!
Friedman said it all in a recent
with General Westmoreland. Wei
land exclaimed, “I don’t wanttocoi
an army of mercenaries!” Friedi
plied, “Well, General, would you
an army of slaves?”
Tom Cli*
Thotz
By Doug Graham
WAIT-A-HI MUTE, TOM
. , 1 ex IT- TVS I
WE BOTH bdEMT TO^
VOTE TOb&THS*, All'