Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (March 7, 1996)
irch 7,1996 The Battalion the Acad- end and a )P n id die school he headed to :h sponsored .aw of South- versity. Uvalde visit re president’s in Texas. succeeded ict a wall J, and we a President dham Clinton First Lady came out in irstlady, npressed with ie,” said Tony op Democrat. ,he first time st lady here. . again in our erda, who at- ; in the 1970s time Clinton les from San ent. aere all alone e to her and 'erything she aen in Ameri- said. chool children npaign rally) ling signs say- Hillary.” FAFF! er & :h 13, nter ii 18 i 17 The Battalion hursday March 7, 1996 Rights keep fading away Shannon Halbrook Columnist T he Supreme Court suffered a bla tant burst of conservatism Mon day — a burst during which the supposedly most learned and reason able court in America stomped on the constitutional rights of all Americans to make the police’s job easier. Conservatives everywhere bemoan the loss of our freedom to Washington bureaucrats. But the loss of our free dom isn’t coming from the liberal legis lation of previous Congresses. Instead, ft now ironically being dictated by the -robed conservatives on the Supreme Court. At issue in the case of Bennis vs. Michigan was a 1977 Pontiac, owned jointly by Mr. and Mrs. Bennis of De troit. One night Mr. Bennis took it out and used it to commit an immoral act basically, he decided to try pulling a igh Grant. Like Grant, Bennis was caught with his britches down and ar rested for public indecency. Although the $600 car was owned by both Mr. and Mrs. Bennis — and although Mrs. Bennis kn,ew nothing of her husband’s activities — the car was impounded. So Mrs. Bennis, because of her hus- nd’s illegal activities, was deprived of her property by the Detroit Police De partment. Demanding payment for half car (a mere $300), she took the case to court, claiming that her constitutional rights of due process and ownership of property had been violated. The case reached the Michigan Supreme Court of als, which found for the police de partment and stated that Mrs. Bennis had no right to her property, since it was involved in a crime. On Monday the conservative Supreme Court affirmed the state court’s decision. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, which stank of political rhetoric and overconservative slop. The state here sought to deter ille- piactivity that contributes to neigh borhood deterioration and unsafe streets,” Rehnquist said. ‘‘The Bennis auto, it is conceded, facilitated and was used in criminal activity.” Traditionally in America, a person’s freedom and right to property have been deemed more important than pun ishment. Congress has spent the last 40 years or so passing legislation that has ensured the rights of the criminal. And when questionable, it has been consid ered better to let the accused keep his or her rights and remain free instead of facing possibly wrongful punishment. But things are different now. Now we’re concerned more with the rights of the police rather than the rights of the accused. We’ve started to get some kind of comfort out of throwing people behind bars or into the electric chair; it con vinces us that the justice system is . working. The frequency with which we use the death penalty shows we now hold some kind of a social belief that somebody must pay for a crime. Since we view strict enforcement of the law as the best way to fight crime, we think it’s best to give the police broad powers. We can’t seem to strike a good bal ance between protecting society and preserving the rights of the accused. Both are important, but most people think that one or the other should be emphasized. The victims suffer when the suspects are given too many rights, and the suspects suffer when the vic tims get too many rights. This is the logic behind the court’s decision; Rehnquist apparently believes that it’s more important to punish Mr. Bennis than to preserve Mrs. Bennis’s rights. He states that the car “facilitat ed” Mr. Bennis’s amorous activities and implies the car ought to be taken to pro tect the safety of our streets. This kind of overdramatization of the necessity of broad police power is ridiculous — and being so creative with the law is dan gerous. The car was not a public men ace. The car was not convicted of inde cent exposure. The car did not facilitate the activity. Mrs. Bennis, faced with the loss of her transportation, deserves a more reasonable explanation. By talking of “neighborhood deterio ration” and “unsafe streets,” Rehnquist sounds like an apocalyptic Republican presidential candidate. It sounds a little like he’s blaming social deterioration on our right to own property and move freely. It’s almost as though conserva tives in our government — while boldly and vehemently defending our right to own guns — think that all our other freedoms are secondary to crime preven tion and police control. The right to own a gun is in the Bill of Rights, but so is the right to own property. Our property is still ours — even if it was involved in a minor crime committed by someone else. It should never be denied to us. Shannon Halbrook is a sophomore English major Opinion Money may talk, but we shouldn’t listen I f Louis Farrakhan has done anything significant in my life, it has been to confuse the hell out of me. He is a paradox personified. Islam — the religion he claims to represent — is based on a doctrine that espouses love and peace, yet Farrakhan’s epithets are stained by hatred and increasingly advocate an all- out race war in America. Farrakhan says he wants to unite the black community, but his message is dividing that community along gender, economic and social lines — and it will continue to do so. Yet in spite of his conspicuous hatred and clandes tine motives, tens of thousands listen to his rhetoric. No matter where he speaks, Farrakhan’s message is heard and reiterated loudly and clearly. Late last month, Farrakhan delivered his message to the Middle East, the cradle of the Islamic faith. During his “peace mission,” Farrakhan visited and talked with the leaders of Libya, Iran and Iraq. He accepted a dona tion of at least $1 billion from Moammar Gadhafi, the Libyan dictator. Farrakhan claimed that the money will be used to increase the black community’s political pow er in America. Undoubtedly, Farrakhan’s trip was not a symbolic gesture used to unite black America with the people of the Middle East. It is imperative that Americans — par ticularly the black community — see this for what it re ally is: a grandiose fund-raising scheme used to further the radical beliefs of Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. Farrakhan’s excursion — even more so than his Mil lion Man March — is perhaps the biggest smokescreen in American history. Only time will reveal to us what danger lurks beyond. How does one pledge peace with murderous despots? The task is not insurmountable, but one would be cor rect in asserting that Farrakhan does not have the edu cation or the experL.se to do so. What is even more bizarre is that Farrakhan, who is definitely not a leader of the black community, wants to associate the black community with Gadhafi and Sad dam Hussein, two men who advocate terrorist activity and vehemently oppose peace with Israel. But peace is fine with Farrakhan as long as the Jew ish people are not included. At least this is how he sees it. Jews, in his mind’s eye, have “wrapped their tenta cles around the U.S. government.” Herein lies an other paradox: Far rakhan is a staunch anti-Semite, yet without the help of Jews dur ing the Civil Rights Movement in the ’50s and ’60s, Farrakhan would not have the freedom he enjoys today. Perhaps the American people can take some solace in the fact that not all Muslims agree with Farrakhan’s preachings. The Nation of Islam is the only Muslim sect that follows Farrakhan’s doctrine. But more than any group, black Americans should worry the most. The threat of Far rakhan must be taken seriously. If we defiantly proclaim that we do not want hate mongers leading us into the next century, then not only will the Louis Far- rakhans of the world be forgotten, but the Pat Buchanans, Vladamir Zhrinovskys and Jesse Helmses of the world will also lose their cheering sections. We must voice our concerns about these people as suming leadership roles; we can change nothing with apathy. Farrakhan’s beliefs and his methods of im plementation do not reflect the black community as a whole. But it would be a shame to have the world believe that they do. H.L. Baxter is a junior geography major Mail Silver Taps ceremony demands respect Silver Taps is a very solemn and serious time where we mourn the loss of a fellow Aggie and reflect on our own lives. The attitude of many of the people that gathered at the MSC before and after Silver Taps was any thing but solemn. The loud talk ing and noise these people were creating made it seem as if they were attending a party, not Silver Taps. We must always remember that the people Silver Taps hon ors are real people, real Aggies, with real families and real friends who have come to honor them. The families of those who passed away are met and escort ed to Silver Taps. I hope and pray that they didn’t see or hear the spectacle outside the MSC. Un fortunately, many people are not taught about this tradition. All the lights are to be extinguished and nothing but the hymns form Albritton Tower should be heard throughout campus. The entire campus should remain silent be fore, during and after Silver Taps. It is not a time to stand on benches and watch the Ross Vol unteers, but a time to look within ourselves and to heaven to gaze upon those we can no longer see. Marc Mulkey Class of’96 I would like to recognize the insensitive and disrespectful indi vidual who felt that it was so im portant to have pictures of Tues day night’s Silver Taps ceremony. From where I was standing, he seemed to have a good vantage point — perched on a bench with his camera and tripod. I hope he got some good pictures of shots being fired or maybe some close- ups of family and friends who were mourning the loss of a loved one. Perhaps next time he can set up and get a few shots of the R.V.s as they march in. Better yet, why don’t we just forget about the whole “lights out” thing and bring in television crews, maybe get some local stations out to do a live radio broadcast. I did not know any of the peo ple who were being honored at Sil ver Taps, but I have experienced some recent losses of friends in my life. Tuesday I was standing next to others who have experienced similar losses, and Silver Taps af fected me deeper than it ever has. The sound of pictures being taken was not appreciated. Aggies have not continued the Silver Taps tradition because it looks cool. We don’t even do it for our own personal entertainment or amusement. We do it to honor those who once stood here with us. To those people seeking enter tainment during the next Silver Taps, I suggest they stay home and watch Letterman instead. Jeff Wurzbach Class of’96 The Battalion Established in 1893 Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views of the editorials board. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Battalion staff merqbers, the Texas A&M student body, regents, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, cartoons and letters express the opinions of the authors. Contact the opinion editor for information on submitting guest columns. Editorials Board Sterling Hayman Editor in Chief Stacy Stanton Managing Editor Michael Landauer Opinion Editor Jason Brown Assistant Opinion Editor Fee Talk Open meetings for fee increases give students a voice. After considering an idea that connected Gen eral Use Fee increases with state tuition in creases, Texas A&M President Ray Bowen has properly rejected an illegal part of it. The bill would have automatical ly increased the GUF by the same amount as tu ition increases without holding public hearings to dis cuss proposed increases. Once fee in creases are pro posed, they are very difficult to stop. Without voices to argue their merits and flaws, fee in creases can be come nothing more than numbers on a piece of paper. Public hearings enable students to air their gripes with proposals, and they also enable the administra tors to hear from the people their decisions are affecting. Preventing students from attending public hearings and complain ing about proposed in creases buries a vital voice in the process. If the doors to these hear ings were suddenly closed, students might find themselves victims of fee increases without even knowing about it — until they appear on their fee slips. Public hearings are not just a good idea; they are also required by law. Bowen made his decision after learning that such meetings are required by Texas Legislature House Bill 815. Had Bowen gone through with the bill, he would have been acting illegally. In an age when people have become in creasingly atten tive of how much money the gov ernment ex tracts from their pockets — and where it goes — these hearings fulfill many vital needs. They give needy college students a vital say in whether their money will be taken from them. They enable administra tors to hear the feelings of the people they’re charging. And, if the fee increase proves to be a sound idea, students can see exactly where their money is spent and why increases are needed. Perhaps this kind of open, two-way communi cation is what academic and non-academic gov ernments could use a lot more of. Bowen