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