OPINION
Monday, January 24, 2(XX)
THE BATTALION
Page 15
lick here for excuses
{Internet intoxication defense does not hold water
intoxication. The word it-
I self brings to mind small,
[crowded spaces on
(rthgate, a sudden fear of
lice officers and a close re-
onship w ith a porcelain
lure in the bathroom. In
brt, one usually pictures
thi- altered state in associa-
h with alcohol. Florida
|lav yer Hllis Rubin, however,
|ociates it with something else the Internet.
Rubin is the lawyer for 18-year-old Michael
Ttpbell of Cape Coral, Fla., who is awaiting tri-
bn felony charges of know ingly transmitting a
leatening message across state lines. Last L)e-
jnber, as Campbell participated in an America
ine chat room, he sent the message “I need to
|ish what begun and if you go I don't want your
tod on my hands" to Columbine High School
dent Erin Walton, warning her not to attend
iool the next day. Campbell’s warning implied
ha he was planning to add to the list of 13 mur-
Nf s that two Columbine students committed at
school in April.
â–  Walton did not attend school the following
d f and she was not the only one. Columbine of-
fic.ils shut down the high school two days early
fc| w inter break due to the threatening message.
Hmpbell recently apologized, calling it a "stupid,
stund prank."
I Ellis Rubin plans to use an affirmative defense
Heads "Internet intoxication" to defend that “stu
pid. stupid prank.” Rubin claims in Campbell’s
__Hfense that the teen was so addicted to the Inter-
^^■1 that he was operating out of a “virtual world”
at the time he made the threat, and therefore could
be held responsible for his actions.
I Creative defenses like this one show up previ
ously in Rubin’s repertoire. The first example was
ini 1977, when Rubin claimed “television intoxica-
tion" in defense of another Florida teen. Rubin
storms a that 15-year-old Ronny Zamora had been
then jumps kef by the violence he watched on television,
h the greatest caiis ‘ n 8 him to murder his 82-year-old neighbor.
Zamora was eventually convicted.
I In 1991, Rubin represented a woman charged
with prostitution, defending her with a claim that
she was suffering from Prozac-induced nympho
mania. He said that her prostitution was a form of
therapy for her condition, as her husband was im-
maneuvers.
st eru
uul revisionist acai
ill there is noevidc
ilians at Nanjing,
lorv at Tokvo's A'
( potent. She eventually pled guilty to the charges.
With this latest case, Rubin has simply updated
his "intoxication" defense for the 21 st century.
Under the influence of “Internet intoxication,”
Campbell became more than just a teenager caus
ing trouble. Instead, he was drunk on the Internet.
He was helpless in its grasp; ensnared in its trap.
More likely, Cambell was wrapped up in its
invisibility.
The Internet continues to offer increasing lati
tude to those who wish to discard their physical
identities and adopt an alternate personality (or
personalities). In a chat room, no one can be sure
of anyone’s true identity. Lies are difficult to de
tect in the online world, as most human senses are
numbed by the presence of only a screen name
Rubin and his client
are claiming that the
Internet is at fault for
what amounts to a
simple case of very
poor judgement.
and a string of words that serve as conversation.
Campbell, like so many others who spend time
chatting online, took advantage of this invisibility
w hen he threatened Walton. F'vcn if he was joking,
he took his anonymity to an extreme—an extreme
that cannot be tolerated. Role-playing on the Inter
net might be all fun and games for teens like
Campbell, but it still carries the responsibility of
respecting others and respecting the law. Do
words mean something different on the Internet? It
is an ethical question that begs an answer, and Ru
bin seems to think the answer is yes.
Rubin and his client are claiming that the Inter
net is at fault for what amounts to a simple case of
very poor judgment. However, Rubin might run
into a roadblock with this new creative defense.
Intoxication can be defined as either inebria
tion or an excited state of delirium. Campbell was
not physically inebriated, and the only delirium he
was suffering from was the idea that he could
make such a threat without getting in trouble. In
toxication is going to be hard to justify.
In a Reuters article, former Denver prosecutor
Craig Silverman said, “You’d have to say that his
computer slipped him a Mickey.”
In addition, with a general intent crime like
Campbell’s, intoxication, even in the standard al
cohol-related definition, cannot legally stand on its
own as an affirmative defense.
However, if Rubin uses the concept of “hypno
sis" in combination with "intoxication,” his de
fense may be more viable. If Rubin can prove that
Campbell was in a state of Internet-induced hyp
nosis, his suggested intoxication may be seen as
involuntary. Campbell’s defense would stand le
gitimate, and America's technology buff's would
find themselves with a new catch-phrase.
In light of all this hype about the intoxicating
Internet, maybe Northgate bars will start selling
Internet instead of alcohol. Since there is no such
ERIC ANDRAOS/Tm- Rattai.ION
thing as an “Internet belly,” the change could be
quite popular. Then again, there used to be no such
thing as "Internet intoxication,” either. Guess the
side effects could show up at any time.
Melissa Johnston is a senior
English major.
(jJHSTmrmA
uiid the atrocm
I sav. that’s noil
i.
himoto and Takehfi
mer soldiers slat; ‘
the occupation, d’>
hey said other sold ;
cribing systematic?
'.either man wasc
jing.
survivors, someot'
d to denounce thi
television reported,
represent the mass-
iv body, wounds otr
tat?" said Liu Xiutt
pie holding lit white;
ed : “VICTIMS .m
lay of partially ni
ierts also gathered*
Shenyang to expri?
state-run Xinhua'
Buchanan rehashes past mistakes
Putin's rise could bring the
return of cold-war Russia
F
Nicholas
ROZNOVSKY
ujjBfgtaa
: Brazos Valley
Umpires Associatif
people to officiate yw 5
cl adult softball,
pcriencc is not rcquii®
teb clinic wiU btjfl
irdav January 22.
h clinic ojt lamwt) •
: s arc '9-\W per g# 1
.re information call
rrj' I lix 693-2958
76-5062 Tony Scazaoo "^4
CALEB
McDANIEL
9
Buffet
11:00- 2:30, 5:00-
01 Church St.
Ic’t;c Station, TX
Pat Buchanan,
Reform Party
presidential can
didate, has always
been adept at
masquerading
ethnocentrism as
patriotism.
But in a recent
speech in Yorba
Linda, Calif.,
Buchanan’s true philosophy became espe
cially transparent. It is now clearer than
ever that his pride in Americans is funda
mentally linked with a prejudice against
non-Americans.
According to a Jan. 19 Associated Press
report, Buchanan blamed excessive immi
gration for a splintering of American soci
ety. Whereas in recent years 700,000 to
800,000 legal immigrants have taken up
permanent residence in America each year,
he pledged to slash the number of new entry
visas to between 250,000 and 300,000 per
year if elected president.
This radical platform says much more
about Buchanan than the simple fact that he
will now be getting Atlanta Braves relief
pitcher John Rocker’s vote.
These proposals reveal that Buchanan is
still stuck in a long defunct frame of mind.
He claimed that immigration is responsible
for depressed wages, high crime rates in re
gions with high-immigrant concentration and
the Balkanization of American culture. Dis
unity would be prevented, he believes, if im
migrants could more easily “be melded into
the great American mainstream.”
The great American mainstream? That
buzz phrase alone calls Buchanan’s bluff.
Very early in the 20th century, when
unabashed racism was still an unfortunate
ly pervasive reality, social scientists used
to talk about things like an American
mainstream.
Most of them subscribed to the then pop
ular view that the best thing to do with immi
grants was to conform them to conventional
American life. In principle, that meant mak
ing them more like white Anglo-Saxon
Protestants. In practice, that translated into
exclusion, discrimination and harassment.
The great American
mainstream?
That buzz phrase
alone calls
Buchanan's bluff.
Therefore, assimilationism was, from its
very inception, a theory deeply suspicious of
immigration. This kind of sociological theo
ry was in some ways directly responsible for
the passage of 1924 laws to limit immigra
tion from southern and eastern Europe.
Given this history, it should not be sur
prising that the favorite analogy of America
for assimilationists was the idea that the
United States was like a gigantic crucible, in
which diverse ethnic groups must be melted
down into one uniform group. The recipe for
unity was to boil down foreign ingredients,
leaving a product with a distinctly Western
European flavor.
Despite the fact that this metaphor has
long since been scorned by sociologists as
overtly biased, Buchanan lamented that “in
too many cases, the American melting pot
has been reduced to a simmer.”
Judging from his policy proposal,
Buchanan means that the melting pot has
failed to make immigrants more similar to
indigenous Americans, not that it has been
unsuccessful at reconciling disparate ele
ments into a cohesive whole.
Buchanan’s attempt to resuscitate long-
dead ideas is especially dangerous because
he knows how to make them sound attrac
tive to people like himself. Even his small
band of followers is disturbing evidence that
his presentation still resonates with a sizable
segment of the white working class.
Many of Buchanan’s disciples share his
anxiety about the perils of pluralism. They
see ethnic differentiation as a green light for
the erosion of common values, and homo
geneity is a safe harbor for such easily
frightened people.
However, Balkanization is not caused by
the brute fact of diversity but by brutes like
Buchanan. The mere presence of different
groups does not necessarily entail disunity,
but if diversity is coupled with those who
insist on ethnic sameness, then hostil polar
ization is virtually unavoidable.
Besides being odious, Buchanan’s hope
for an iron-fenced America is wildly im
practical. As religious activist Jim Wallis
wrote last year, “Diversity is not an option
for America, it is our reality. The issue about
diversity as we prepare to enter a new centu
ry is whether we will see it as a strength to
embrace or a problem to be solved.”
By holding the latter view, Buchanan is
revealing himself for what he is — a left
over from a time in America that is better
off forgotten.
Caleb McDaniel is a junior
History major.
I or the first
time in the
history of
post-Soviet
Russia, some
one other than
Boris Yeltsin is
sitting behind
the desk of
power inside the
Kremlin. Hand-chosen by Yeltsin as
his successor, former Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin assumed the office of
Acting President of the Russian Fed
eration on January 1,2000. To many
on both sides of the Russian border,
Putin and his political ideologies are
a complete question mark.
Unlike Yeltsin, who had been a
political force in Russia since the
1970s, Putin’s rapidly rising politi
cal career has occurred exclusively
after the death of the Soviet Union
in 1991.
The official Kremlin biography of
Putin contains just four lines of infor
mation and conspicuously leaves out
his whereabouts from 1975 to 1996.
To put it mildly, Vladimir Putin is a
real-life international man of mystery.
For the United States and other
nations, Putin’s new administration
represents either an enormous oppor
tunity for stronger ties or the begin
ning of Russia's retreat into the role
of the confrontational giant it played
so well during the Cold War. Before
the United States assumes that the
Putin-led Russia will be exactly like
its Yeltsin-guided predecessor, Amer
ica should consider its diplomatic
options and think about giving Rus
sia a bigger seat at the table of inter
national affairs.
Because it constituted the bulk of
the former Soviet Union, Russia was
given its place in the international
community by default. Unlike the So
viet Union, however, the new Russia
is only a second-tier player in global
affairs. Domestically crippled by eco
nomic and political instability, Russia
has been forced by the West to sur
render its international influence.
As the first non-socialist leader of
the Russian people in over seven
decades, Yeltsin felt his primary goals
were to guide the former Soviet
Union through the difficult growing
pains of independence and insure the
continued existence of the Russian
Federation.
To keep the reins of power within
his grasp, Yeltsin concentrated on
Russia’s internal troubles. As a result,
the post-Cold War world has been
dominated by the United States and
its Western allies. Since 1998 alone,
American-led alliances have bombed
the streets of Baghdad and intervened
in the Kosovo conflict, both in direct
defiance of strenuous objection from
the Russian government.
Last week, Vladimir Putin put the
nations of the world on notice —
Russia was no longer going to be a
sideline observer in the game of inter
national politics. In a completely un
expected move, Putin introduced
Russia’s first national security doc
trine. Within its paragraphs, Russia
abandoned its 1997 pledge never to
consider using nuclear weapons in a
first strike scenario.
To put it mildly,
Vladimir Putin
is a real-life
international
man of mystery.
Although the United States still
has no reason to fear an imminent
Russian attack, the news of Putin’s
announcement has rightfully scared
many of Russia’s neighbors. After the
breakup of the Soviet Union, the oth
er former Soviet republics were urged
by the United States to relinquish
their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Now, Russia is the lone nuclear pow
er among the former Soviet republics,
leaving others such as Georgia and
Latvia at an extreme disadvantage
concerning border disputes.
Insurgent forces within Russia are
alanned as well. Whereas the rebels
of Chechnya have so far been content
to wage a guerrilla war on their own
mountainous terrain, they now must
consider the possibility that Putin
could elect to end the conflict with a
single massive strike on Grozny
rather than continue to fight a long
and costly campaign.
The most important reaction to
the announcement has yet to come
from the Russian public. Many Rus
sians are still forming their opinions
of Putin and his ability to lead the na
tion. Appointed prime minister by
Yeltsin just over four months ago, the
47-year old former KGB agent still
has much to prove in the eyes of Rus
sia’s citizens before the next presi
dential election later this year. The
Russian reaction to Putin’s policies
will determine whether his adminis
tration will dominate Russian politics
for the next four years or a new
regime will take its place.
With newfound success in the
Chechnya campaign and last week’s
national security policy announce
ment, Putin has captured the faith of
many Russians in his ability to lead
Russia back to a position of power
and international respect. To the peo
ple of Russia, Putin’s apparent un
willingness to flinch in the face of
Western might is a refreshing change
from the West-appeasing policies of
the Yeltsin administration. With each
passing day, Putin’s young adminis
tration looks as if it may receive an
extended lease on life from the Russ
ian electorate.
Regardless of whether Putin re
mains in office or is replaced in the
coming election, it is clear that Rus
sia will be intent on reclaiming some
of the international prestige it lost in
the early 1990s. The United States
and other NATO powers can ill afford
to ignore the reemergence of Russia
as a world power. If America cannot
accept Russia as a legitimate player
in international politics, then this na
tion may find the new Russia to be as
bitter and confrontational as its Cold
War predecessor.
Nicholas Roznovsky is a junior
political science major.
The Battalion encourages letters to the
editor. Letters must be 300 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 submitted in person at 013
Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Let
ters may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 111.1
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com