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