Tuesday, June 13,2®
smor
; cntic
Academy Awards, andhelol'
idlessly for directors to film
lassachusetts. A signed pho':
f DeNiro hangs in Cellucd’sc-
ce — a gift from the actor
lusin, a Massachusettsresider
On Monday's appearanceir
Boston's WB in the Morning
ost Stephanie Leydon asks
ellucci briefly about a teadic
■tirement bill he vetoed on St'-
ay — then moved quickly in!;
lore pressing business.
How about that new GMr
lovie?
th the screen labeling R?
ernor Paul Cellucd, Movie G:
ellucci pronounced it"agcw
ler movie."
;day. June 13,2000
Page 5
THE BATTALION
If you want peace, must you prepare for war?
IS. should use diplomacy, but be ready
ir worst-case scenario with missiles
ralization Service on a ffe|
, first served basis,
le to the need for high-!
he first weekend in
June, President
Clinton and Russ-
President Vladimir
in met to discuss po-
tial changes to the
2 Anti-Ballistic Missile
aty. The conference
tered around Gin
's possible buildup of the United States'
tional Missile Defense (NMD) system.
With Russian and international relations
ree to six years. the line, many believe that a buildup of
though these visas do help Ik jsiles should not occur. These arguments
?m school districts in Ameii;4 t nnst missile buildup include the belief that
ring, there are flaws in the pliy "global community" will be threatened
though visas are used as a life the idea that negotiations should be used
, attaining them is difficult Head of force. Yet all of these reasons fail to
IB visas are allocated by Mmter a serious reason for adding to the
d States Immigration ar:|nited States'missile supply: While other
ntries increase their security with nuclear
siles, the United States is the only nation
rried about how its buildup will appear to
ers, the computer indust jthers. It is preposterous that the United
'ed 52.5 percent of visas tlltltes is putting faith and trust into countries
leaving preschool, kindeftt do not return that trust and instead wor-
n, elementary, middle or SK||their own domestic missile defense,
ry teachers with fewer than 1|:|Many critics argue that the United States
nt of the visas, accordingtobHl jeopardize its relations with other nations
n American-Statesman. ay building even a limited NMD. According
hool districts are relativi :othe New York Times, there is fear such an
and lack the legal knowledfMassment will be interpreted as a threat and
id for them to secure the vise begin a Cold War-type arms race among
the time the school distrircountries including China, India and Pak-
i hiring, the majority'o( fc|tan. While this possibility is alarming, it
are gone. They suffer becatshould not deter the United States from pro-
vait for visas starts in Octob tecting its citizens. Currently, the United
he school year is from Aus. States has no agreement with those three na-
jy. This awkward timing left tions to stop augmenting NMD systems.
d1 districts with fewer rf U phis means while the United States does
fied teachers. not build up its NMD because of the fear of
ongress has also put a damp riskirrg internatiqnal relations, these/other
re success of recruiting foreipiations will still do so Without that fear,
lers. In 1998, they passed a la None of those countries have come forward
iring districts to contribute$3|iplomatically to confer with the U.S. gov-
teacher to a fund that traiOTment about their NMD systems, yet the
rican workers. This $500feefeP'ted States seems compelled to do just
d a level of difficulty to smallwt with other nations. The Chinese already
ol districts that are finandalwe a small arsenal of nuclear weapons,
iped. pd there is nothing stopping their govern-
ecognizing this hindraiwipt from adding to it.
dcultural Professionals, f Others hold to the belief that in a "global
d-wide recruitment agenijf nmi -inity,'' there should not be a need for an
h markets Filipino teachers,kFonse in the NMD system. These critics say
e finding teachers easier this is an era of negotiations and diplo-
p er j n f ac ^ freg Hey, not of weapons and violence. Yet the
1 u 1 ticu 1 tu ral Professionals ofel
pective teachers a package del
'6,000 per teacher, and thisscj
is free to the school
pective teachers pay
track record for using diplo
macy instead of war the
past decade alone has been
unimpressive. From Desert
Storm to the recent Kosovo
peace-keeping missions,
the U.S. and other nations
have found that negotia
tions do not always work.
Missiles should not be the
United States' first line of de
fense, but they should be there
for a worst-case scenario. Leaving
its citizens unprotected from rogue
nations would be a worse crime then
being prepared for the unlikely.
While it is admirable that the United
States is trying to keep international rela
tions open, this diplomacy should not get in
the way of protecting the country. The Unit
ed States should save its diplomatic per
suasiveness for explaining to these na
tions that it is in the United States'
best interests to build a limited
NMD system.
With Russia's some 3,000
missiles on hair-trigger alert,
a system where there are
fewer steps in launching a
missile, and other nations
augmenting their missile
supplies, the United States
should not shy away from
building a passive defense system, many of the
missiles the United States already has are be
coming obsolete, and the need to build ones
with newer technology will arise.
While critics whine and complain about
how a limited NMD will still threaten other
countries, the U.S. government needs to real
ize that missiles should be available in case
negotiations with those countries break
down. At the risk of upsetting China, Russia
and others, the U.S. government needs to re
alize its job and protect its citizens.
In the long run, while foreign govern
ments change hands and shift ideals, the
United States and its citizens will be protect
ed no matter what happens. To be
prepared for the worst-
case scenario is better then
trying to stop an incoming
missile with negotiations.
Sufficient protection offered by current
treaties, lack of international threats
Brieanne Porter is a sophomore
chemical engineering major.
TAMARA CUELLAR/The Battalion
T he defense plan for
the United States
has always been a
great debate within Amer
ican politics. Recently,
President Clinton and
Russian President
Vladimir Putin dis-
cussed the U.S. and
Russian defense
pl ans - Clinton and
ijF Putin talked about
D the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile treaty (ABM),
an agreement between the
United States and Russia limit
ing short-range missiles, and the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START III) program, which seeks to
reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals.
Besides ABM and START III, Putin
and Clinton talked about the hair-
trigger response item, which
will take U.S. and Russian nu
clear weapons off the imme
diate-release alert.
During the meeting,
Clinton also empha
sized to Putin that he
wants to build up U.S.
missile supplies, break
ing the original ABM
treaty. Clinton is mistak
en; there is absolutely no
need for the United States to in
crease missile supplies. There is no country
that poses a threat to the United States. Re
cently, China, Pakistan and India have in
creased defensive missile supplies, but this
will have no effect on the United States as it
has a much more advanced defense system
than those countries.
During the meeting/Clinton said, "Unless
Russia agrees to let the U.S. build a limited
missile defense against terrorist attack, then
America will with
draw from the ABM
treaty." However,
America already
has more nuclear
warheads and by
far more missiles
than any other
country. There is
simply no need for America to spend any more
money on weapons.
Clinton contradicted himself during the
meeting with Putin when he said, "America at
taches great importance on enhancing the via
bility of a treaty."
Clinton is the one who wants America to
break the ABM and START III agreements with
Russia if it does not agree with the increase of
American missiles. If America decides to build
up its missiles and break the ABM treaty with
Russia, then there will be no limits to the num
ber of missiles Russia will be able to accumu
late. The ABM keeps the Russian defense sys
tem in check.
Although Clinton is in favor of an augmen
tation of American missiles, he gives no reason
for one. He said, "As we enter this new millen
nium, we should commit ourselves anew to
achieving a world free of nuclear weapons."
While the hair-trigger alert agreement will
do that very thing, Clinton urges that America
should build up its missiles even though he
said "The United States remains committed to
a weapon-free goal."
If Clinton decides to break the ABM treaty,
not only will he create a tense weapon environ
ment between Russia and the United States but
the breakup of the agreement would create in
security for the American people because Rus
sia would have no limitations as to the number
of missiles it could produce. The ABM and
START III agreements are excellent treaties that
offer security to Americans.
Very few consider the effect an American
missile buildup will have on other countries.
The increase of American missiles may cause
other countries to build up their own arms.
They may see America as a threat to their
own security and could possibly act upon this
threat. The American public should not stand
for Clinton's ideal American defense plan. If
Clinton feels a need for America to break its
ABM agreement with Russia, then he needs to
consider the effects of this decision, such as the
creation of a bad relationship between the
United States and Russia.
America has no need for a buildup of mis
siles. The increase of missiles would establish
an insecure relationship with Russia, and
many other countries could feel threatened.
The augmentation of U.S. missiles could be a
major error in governmental judgment.
Sunnye Owens is a junior journalism major.
overnment stock scandal calls for F. Lee Bailey’s disbarment
2-minute video introdudi A dmitit —
iselves to the districts for L \ celebrity
•ict administrators to vie»t jLcriminal
ign transcripts are evaluatsefense attorneys
skills tests are administer® to be slime,
re the teachers, get to Americ'the case of F.
he $500 fee and the cut-off Bailey, this
applications have continued®irstereotype
e a decline in the numberoh-comes a fitting
teachers regardless of Famous for defending the likes
rts made by MulticulwfO.j. Simpson, Patty Hearst and the
essionals. ibn Strangler, Bailey has been in
Maublic spotlight for decades. Al-
he classes seem easier be0#8 h hated by many for defending
of them cover less mate^Hges of society, Bailey is a
are also taking a lighter b 3Werful and res P ected defense attor-
vith less hours, you are able^ Wi * a sim P le act of S reed ' how
mtrate more on ^ Bailey has managed to destroy
iciano said. Campus is a!T red ofcredibi,it y he ever had '
laid back. It is not as chaoW At a disci P lina ry hearin S two
£ „ , „ pks ago, attorneys representing the
g your fall classes. ■, , , r , , ,,
, „ , >onda Bar argued that Bailey should
dy Brown, a sophomore agff ° J
business major, said sheist
ummer school to get ahead.
feel that there is no sen% ■ .. . . . .
ing time it s better Jocker, Knight stories
,i if i am not going jghtfully covered by SI
on taking summer school 1 ’ w ^
ner, too," Brown said.
lose his license to practice law because
he stole millions of dollars in stock
from the federal government. To
make matters worse, Bailey has been
accused of ly
ing about it un
der oath.
Which
would a rea
sonable person
believe — the
word of a
morally ques
tionable de
fense lawyer or
that of the fed
eral govern
ment? It does
not take Judge Judy to figure out
that, in all likelihood, Bailey is
throwing up garbage for defense.
This mess is yet another example
Bailey's alleged
actions give the public
more reason to resent
those in the legal
profession, and
the sooner he is
disbarred, the better.
of how some lawyers go overboard in
milking the cash cow. Obviously, Bai
ley's alleged actions give the public
more reason to resent those in the le
gal profession, and
the sooner he is dis
barred, the better.
At issue are
602,000 shares of
Biochem Pharma,
Inc., a Canadian
pharmaceutical
firm. Originally
owned by narcotics
kingpin Claude
Duboc, the shares
had to be given up
when he was con
victed on federal drug charges in 1994.
In exchange for a plea bargain
arranged by Bailey, Duboc agreed to
give up over $100 million in securities,
real estate and other assets amassed
through illegal drug trafficking.
Two weeks before Duboc was set
to plead guilty, however, he mysteri
ously transferred the stock over to
Bailey. Under the terms of the plea
bargain, the federal government
claimed that the "stock and any pro
ceeds derived therefrom were the
property of the United States." Bai
ley's only role was to manage and
prepare the property for turnover to
the government — a role that Bailey
supposedly understood. Federal
prosecutor David McGee confirmed
Bailey was aware of the federal gov
ernment's intentions before Duboc's
guilty plea was set to take place.
Obviously, Bailey's version of the
story was completely different. He
claimed the $6 million value of the
stock as reimbursement for represent
ing Duboc. He further attested that
he was unaware of the government's
initial court order that froze all of
Duboc's assets. When questioned
about it under oath in 1996, Bailey
claimed the federal government had
approved his activities.
Agreeing with the prosecution.
Federal District Judge Maurice Paul
threatened to place Bailey in con
tempt of court unless he turned over
the stock and its proceeds immediate
ly. The stock's worth had skyrocketed
to a staggering $24 million in the
span of two years — quadruple the
initial amount. Bailey did not comply
with the judge's mandate and was
subsequently put in jail for 43 days.
Federal prosecutors finally agreed
to Bailey's release after drawing up a
loophole-proof repayment contract.
Under the contract, Bailey will give the
government $700,000 within a year
and gradually turn over all significant
income until the balance was paid off.
"Frankly, we do not trust Mr. Bai
ley," Assistant U.S. Attorney David
McGee told Judge Paul. "It has re
quired us to construct a financial
noose through which we think he
could not slip."
It is a no-brainer — Bailey pocket
ed drug money meant for the govern
ment and lied about it to save him
self. Ultimately, he turned his back on
the virtues he swore to uphold when
he became a lawyer. In any other pro
fession, despicable actions along
these lines would warrant serious ac
tion. Accordingly, disbarment is a jus
tifiable action.
David Lee is a senior economics and
journalism major.
•ponse to Mark Passwaters’June 12 column.
what we're saying 1 ce# ,n his ran1; ’ Passwaters insists that
,ort [the resolution! and tf p ' )rt , s fans d0 " ot read 31 for °P'"'°ns.
. f , „ niy for scores and pictures. 1 have to ques-
1 ol u liU ' on that belief because I have always found
ichard Carlson, profes^ J 0 pj n j 0ns expressed in SI to be much
ogy, said that the i ! ‘ tore interesting. Passwaters then ex-
ite is "trying to cast the recessed that the John Rocker and Bobby
so it shows all sides of tonight issues are unimportant and old.
Knight is one of the most well known col-
1 a mock vote to show f^ e basketball coaches, and has long
a . i.doen known as a madman on and off the
,te support for the resol , 1, N() one wgs surprised t0 hear the ac .
enators voted in favor 1 jg^tions that Knight choked a player.
lution, and five voted ^laliy people thought Indiana would finally
resolution.
Mail Call
fire him after years of childish outbursts.
When the university let him off with a
small suspension people became out
raged. The Sports Illustrated cover "Indiana
caves, Bob Knight stays” simply expresses
the disbelief that many people feel.
Rocker used his celebrity status to
speak out about many touchy subjects,
which is wrong to do, on or off the record.
Rocker’s reception at ballparks across the
nation had been reasonable and he was
very lucky to still have a job. However, when
Rocker went off on the reporter who wrote
the original article it showed that he has
not learned his lesson, keep his mouth
shut. Both men are sports figures and their
actions are definitely within Sports lllustrat-
ed’s scope. SI will continue to cover the
soap opera that Knight and Rocker produce
with their words and measures. I suggest if
Passwaters is tired of hearing about these
two topics he should either quit writing
about them or stop reading any news
source such as SI or even Time.
John Purcell
Class of ’00
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 per
son at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters
may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com