Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 9, 2002)
THE BATTALION 11 Tuesday, April 9, 2002 >n Tuesday i.m. to 3 pJ memorial Fountain at 111 Ps on canif. host a differ;! -e. Peyton, sr religionsim dents. ier perspective ts to show 'ton said, ha nee to m 3mments at must keeptlt hese things Blake Wale be educated s > their childrei erage effort to cleans I regulators * ored malt beve artising them a ar liquor. r y Departmer: and Firearms:’ -growing mad; .ike beer, >ut they areust ndall said Mile Jacardi Silver ae d need to diang aid Smirnoff te ;e, would noil* not suggest te cs editor for tlte rs, was a design- as been involv'd ■ 8 years, i incredible Stan- . “I want to con- ne have done, from Irving, sees VI tradition. Site termination will nonth rionth America’s True Ally It is somewhat unusual for a foreign head of state to give an impromptu speech on a college campus, as British Prime Minister Tony Blair did Sunday at Texas A&M. But to take action against terrorists will require a lot of personal appear ances and persuasion, in his home country and America. The U.S. war on terrorism is poised to enter its most difficult stage, a regime change in Iraq. Blair faces strong opposition toward necessary action in Baghdad, from his own Labour Party, Great Britain and the European Union. He has been a coura geous and valuable ally thus far, and deserves strong support from the United States government and its people. Saddam Hussein needs to go. He has invaded Kuwait and Iran, wreaking havoc in the Arab world. Hussein is a clear threat to political and economic stability in the Middle East, and has a long, bloody record of brutality toward his own people, employing chemical weapons against the Kurdish minority in Iraq. He has fired missiles at Israel. There are cred ible reports of links between Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network. Even worse, he is actively building weapons of mass destruction. United Nations weapons inspectors have not been in the country in several years. No one knows what he has, but his evil intentions have been clear for a long time. Unfortunately, the prime minister has found how difficult doing the right thing can be. Protests against removing Hussein are widespread in Britain and across Europe. Blair's own party is making noise against his active and vocal sup port for America's effort toward global peace and security. Blair should be applauded for standing up to European knee- jerk anti-Americanism. His approval ratings have been in steady decline, but he has held steadfast to doing the right thing. His determination to continue this course of action was made clear during the visit to A&M. Not all American allies can stomach what is necessary. The United States, having experienced the horrors of terrorism, is moving ahead with what must be done. In his speech, Blair said, "To let Iraq develop weapons of mass destruction is to ignore the lessons of Sept. 11, and we won't allow it." It might be too much to ask for Europe's other leaders to transform sympathy into action. But America has at least westeady friend, and for Hussein, that might be enough. THE BATTALION EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in Chief \ Mariano CASTILLO Managing Editor Opinion Editor News Editor News Editor Brian Ruff Cayla Carr Sommer Bunge Brandie Liffick Member Member Member Member Melissa Bedsole Jonathan Jones Jennifer Lozano Kelln Zimmer . The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 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 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com j.cdu/rm^' Student behavior embarrassing f! Was Ve ry disappointed by my , 0W students this weekend 0 en I attended the Dark Side of ^ As a part of the Audience ^cation program, they ° Usly showed a free Thh Wa$ very we ** attended. e behavior at the viewing was r °cious. A well-respected pro- ssor g ave a k r - le f history about ® time period in which the book s written and how it tran ced into the film. 0 ■j Was a unique program and I a c * 1ance to see a piece I p p , cu 'ture in a different light. O f 0p e acted appalled at the idea actually learning something gra- viewing, and possibly enlightening their two-dimensional, egotistical lives. During this time, students were yelling, talking and actually cheered when he asked if they wanted to him to stop. Given, it was midnight on a Friday and not a class, but it was a voluntary program. I was incredibly embarrassed by the behavior of my fellow Ags and want to extend an apology to everyone involved who worked so hard to bring us this program. Is it that hard to extend the respect that our professors and peers so rightly deserve? This is college, people. Learn to grow up or shut up. Courtney Brannon Class of 2004 A political battle Local negative campaigns have proven entertaining T his spring has seen several intense, hard- fought political bat tles. This ends today, at least until the fall. Most students have probably not paid much attention to this election cycle, and even fewer voted in its primaries. But some local races have provided high polit ical theater and good entertainment. Charges and countercharges have flown at high speed and frequency, especially in the Republican primary for LI.S. Congress. Despite its bad reputation, negative campaigning is effective and informative. Very few political ads are unfair personal attacks. Most are issue-based, spreading knowledge about the track record of the opposition in a way beneficial to the other candidate. They sharpen the differences, both personally and professionally, between two similar candidates. And as long as the facts are true, it is good for the democratic process. The two remaining GOP congressional hopefuls, John Carter and Peter Wareing, do not differ much on policy. Both claim to be conservatives who would fit the district well. The winner of today’s runoff is likely to be the next U.S. congressman and hold the seat until scandal or retirement. District 31 is one of the most Republican congres sional districts in the state of Texas. Thus the two candidates have gone negative. Wareing stresses his experience in private business. Only one. State District Judge John Carter, has a public service record ripe for scrutiny. Registered voters were flooded with political mail ings, most of which have been sent by Carter. One mailing, “Peter Wareing: Liberal Washington Values ... Not Our Values,” mentioned Wareing’s contributions to Democrats and his fail ures to vote in Republican primaries. Another mailing accused Wareing of try ing to buy the seat, making an issue of the fact he moved to the district and has not promised to relocate permanently if he loses the runoff. Since the candidates are similar on the issues, experience and char acter are things voters use to make deci sions, and it is only right to examine those. The issues raised in most of the ads speak to these questions, seeking to per suade for one candidate or against another based on prior behavior. Brad Barton, a previous opponent of Carter and Wareing, ran ads describing Wareing’s connection to the biggest investment fiasco in University of Texas history, in which the university lost $10 million in a failed venture with that Houston-based company. Wareing has tel evision ads that ask, “Why is John Carter running a negative campaign?” But the worst thing that could be said of Barton and Carter’s ads is they do not contain any hints of their opponent’s side of the story. That is Wareing’s job. There is, of course, another side to the story. Wareing’s supporters counter that he has a strong record of supporting con servatives, especially in terms of political contributions. They also point out he has never faced any criminal proceedings. Both candidates are correct, and the charges and countercharges have generat ed interest in the race. In fact, there is good reason to believe that negative ads stimulate turnout, according to a study by political scientists Steven Finkel and John Greer. Much more policy information is communicated to voters by ads slamming an opponent’s voting history or business dealings than warm, fuzzy ads. In politics, the straight truth is not easy to determine. Some incidents are high lighted and others swept under the rug. Healthy, energetic exchanges that do not cross the line into personal mudslinging help voters get a full, accurate picture of the candidates. In addition, negative ads are almost always issue based, and only negative in the sense that they recall embarrassing incidents the public has every right to know about. After all, these individuals want to exercise authority and make important, far-reaching decisions on behalf of others. The effort to inform as many people as possible about the nega tive side of those who want power invest ed in them by the people is only right. Jonathan Jones is a senior political science major. JONATHANJONES Capital justice system fails I t sounds like the plot line for a bad John Grisham novel: A man is charged with sexually assaulting and murdering a 17-year-old boy in Virginia and assigned a public defendant. Following a fairly routine trial, the defendant is found guilty and sentenced to death. It is only after the trial concludes that he learns his attorney represented the victim he is accused of murdering. On March 27, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that this obvious conflict of interest was not enough to warrant a retrial for Walter Mickens Jr., even though his attorney, Bryan Saunders, never informed him that he was representing the victim in an unrelated assault case at the time of his murder. Throughout the trial, Mickens never realized Saunders had been the victim’s attorney. Such a ruling undermines the integrity of the American justice system, especially when a conflict of interest as blatant as Saunders’ is allowed in a capital punishment case, where a man’s life is literally at stake. In allowing the conviction to stand, the Supreme Court robbed Mickens of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. In its ruling, the Supreme Court majority concluded that through the course of the trial, Saunders had done nothing to visibly harm his client’s case, and as a result, it allowed the verdict to stand. Despite this, it should have allowed another trial to remove all doubt and ensure Mickens’ right to a fair trial. In a common court case, this might be little more than a waste of taxpayers’ money. In all likelihood, Mickens is in fact guilty of the crimes of which he is accused. However, America is highly regarded throughout the world for the manner in which it treats its prisoners and how it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. In capital punishment cases, it is imperative that the American justice system take every step possible to make certain that all those who are sentenced to death have actually committed the crimes of which they are accused. No matter what one’s stance on capi tal punishment, virtually all would agree that it is better to err on the side of cau tion when it comes to doling out death sentences. Recent studies have shown that many who have been convicted of capital crimes were unjustly executed, and in the 1992 book In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases, the authors examine more than 400 cases in which there is evidence of the defendant being wrongly convict ed of a crime punishable by death. In 1972, when the Supreme Court over turned all the capital punishment cases existing at the time on constitutional grounds, five of those who were on death row later proved themselves innocent. While mistakes are inevitable, the jus tice system must take every opportunity to ensure the basic fairness of capital pun ishment proceedings and prevent such mistakes from becoming a common occurrence. By disallowing Mickens’ request for a retrial, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to send a clear message that mistakes in capital punish ment cases will not be tolerated. Instead, it set a lackluster standard for judicial mediocrity. Richard Bray is a junior journalism major. RICHARD BRAY