SPOKj
'TTaJ
art
ivo
the Hoi
new nant
the 3-yea.'|
.stros Fie!;|
naming
Corp.
erythingi
>eforethfl
st the Oil
lame d;||
n.
Astros 1
f logos plj
roofbal*
of the vkl
id Park.' |
in whileâ– 
orange, M
id name /I
en, yellovB
he logo,/B
je.
ges ofErep
;y giani i.il
e Astros*
Opinio
The Battalion
Not ready yet
World not prepared for female U.S. president
CAYLA CARR
U.S.
6
5
18
3
ly goal but [
th a
Both
t-placeto
id round
H istory was made this year in
Congress. Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D., Calif.) became
the highest-ranking woman in U.S.
politics when she was elected
house minority whip. Since then,
the thought of a woman president
has been on the mind of many Americans. The June 2
issue of Parade magazine suggested it is only a matter
of time before a woman becomes America’s com
mander in chief.
As preparation for the 2004 presidential election
begins, a new initiative is presented. According to
Parade magazine, an organization known as The White
House Project plans to promote women as political
candidates in the 2004 campaign. Parade reported that
since the 1960s, voters who say they would vote for a
woman president have increased from 45 percent to 75
percent.
That being said, the vulnerable state of this country
would only be more vulnerable if a woman candidate
made it on the ballot in 2004. The United States is cur
rently in turmoil, and to bring a woman to power
would prove even more disastrous. Not only would she
be faced with a cynical opposing party, but she would
also have to defend her status abroad.
The International Women’s Democracy Center
reported that of the 1 19 heads of government, only 1 1
are women. Many countries including Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia and United Arab Emirates still do not have uni
versal suffrage for women. Countries such as
Afghanistan gave women the right to vote in 1967. Iraq
did the same in 1984.
Many of these countries have been accused of har
boring terrorists and since Sept. 1 1, have been threats to
American freedom. If a woman took office in 2004, she
would likely face criticism from foreign leaders and
would not be given the respect she demands as a leader
of the most powerful nation in the world. A man is
needed in 2004, not because a woman cannot
handle the position, but because the rest of the
world will not allow her to.
Parade reported that the presidential race in
2004 will focus on issues of security and
defense against terrorism. Post Sept. 1 1,
women came out from behind the scenes and
proved their competency. Many women politicians
took initiative and made strides in the \var against ter
rorism. Parade reported that women leaders have
served important post-9/1 1 positions. Condoleezza
Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security
adviser, has proposed policies. Christine Whitman,
head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has
overseen efforts to combat bioterrorism. Pelosi has
even served on foreign policy, defense and intelligence
committees.
According to the International Women’s Democracy
Center, the America's are second only to Nordic coun
tries in the number of women in parliament. This sta
tistic shows that women are a significant part of the
backbone of the United States and this number will
only increase. Women have the leadership and intelli
gence needed to run the country one day, but for now
are more productive behind the scenes.
The Top of the Ticket campaign proposed by The
White House Project is a step in the right direction.
However, 2004 is still too soon for a woman to take the
spotlight.
With the record number of women in the political
arena rising steadily, the hope will not diminish after
2004 and perhaps in the next decade, society will gra
ciously welcome a woman president.
In the meantime, women can only continue to prove
their abilities by holding key government positions.
Cay la Carr is a senior
speech communications major.
RUBEN DELUNA • THE BATTALION
econd-roiil
>r an Irei-
linatedSaii
eded a W
e on.
Poor attorneys hurt capital defendants
. “We’d I
i the sand
here was
)ff tear
y limit i>
serve as
nt athleif
T he Constitution grants each
United States citizen the
right to a fair and impartial
trial. Unfortunately, the exact def
inition of a fair and impartial trial
is somewhat vague.
A case that exemplifies this is
Cockrell v. Burdine. In 1984, Calvin Burdine
reportedly admitted to the Houston police that
he stabbed W.T. Wise to death (although
Burdine now claims his innocence). Joe
Cannon, the Houston court appointee who rep
resented Burdine, seemed to have passed the
case off as open and shut due to Burdine’s out
right confession, and was reported to have slept
during the trial for up to 10 minute intervals,
according to CNN.
Burdine’s case has created a great deal of
controversy in the federal and state court sys
tems about what exactly the definition of an
adequate lawyer is. Lawyers representing the
state of Texas stood behind their court
appointee and insisted that Cannon’s lack of
concentration was not enough to deem the trial
unfair. Ultimately, Texas took their appeal
directly to the Supreme Court.
On June 3 the Supreme Court rejected the
appeal altogether, tossing the case and its deal
ings directly back into Texas' lap. Perhaps sim
ply side-stepping the case was the best way for
LINDSYE FORSON
the Supreme Court to deal with a
serious problem that belongs mostly
to Texas.
In Texas, the defendants facing a
potential death penalty who cannot
afford to hire their own legal repre
sentation are assigned an attorney
by a district judge. Even theoretically, this sys
tem has several potential flaws. According to the
American Bar Association (ABA), judges that
preside in 32 of the 38 states that exercise the
use of the death penalty are elected, and are
therefore highly susceptible to the influence of
political pressure. Lawyers are dependent on
judges to receive an appointment, giving lawyers
who need work strong incentive to behave a cer
tain way in order to win the favor of a judge. In
addition, Houston court appointed lawyers are
often so grossly underpaid that finding compe
tent lawyers who will work for this little
becomes nearly impossible. The Houston
Chronicle recently cited well-known defense
attorney Mike Ramsey as saying that he, and
many other qualified Houston lawyers do not
accept court appointments simply because they
cannot afford to do so.
These difficulties make it a difficult decision
for the Supreme Court. Upholding the findings
of the first trial might seem to condone such
poor court behavior, but granting Burdine a new
trial could possibly absolve a convicted murder
er from his punishment. Regardless of who
decides how to deal with this case, the fact
remains: a man who confessed to a brutal mur
der is still alive today after 18 years of being on
death row due solely to the personal activities of
his court appointed lawyer.
Texas is not alone in facing this problem.
Oklahoma, the state with the most executions
per capita, also struggles with insufficient fund
ing and other shortcomings in their capital pun
ishment system. The Death Penalty Institute of
Oklahoma (DPIO), a non-profit organization that
seeks to provide the public with information
regarding capital punishment, maintains a web
site listing many instances in which attorneys
appointed to serve in capital cases acted insuffi
ciently on behalf of their clients. The state of
Oklahoma entrusted one man’s life to a lawyer
who had never before defended a criminal case;
another man’s attorney chose not to call any wit
nesses to testify, nor did he make any opening or
closing statements on behalf of his client in the
fight for his life. Both of the above defendants
were executed.
There are perhaps as many problems in
Texas’ current capital punishment system as
there are proposed solutions. Some think that the
county commissioners should be given the
power to decide whether to sustain the status
quo and let the judges continue to appoint attor
neys, or modify the system. Creating a public
defender’s office is also a long-standing, popular
idea. Some have proposed that only a predeter
mined list of approved lawyers should be able to
serve in capital cases. The American Civil
Liberties Union and several other interest
groups, in conjunction with the ABA, have gone
as far as to advocate a national moratorium on
executions until the system is reformed.
The ABA has declared that no state offers
adequate legal representation in capital cases,
according to its standards. Although the extent
and type of change necessary is widely disputed,
it is clear that the current system desperately
needs renovation of some sort. And though it
may be true that hiring talented attorneys in
criminal cases requires bigger bucks than the
state has available, surely Texas can find the
resources to ensure the poor at least get repre
sentation that is not woefully inadequate; sleep
ing when one has been appointed to defend a
man’s life is simply not acceptable.
The right to a fair trial is paramount in main
taining the structure of American society. The
mere possibility that innocent people are being
legally executed in America is intolerable. In the
words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “Injustice any
where is a threat to justice everywhere.’’
Lindsye Forson is a sophomore
journalism major.
Airport security still flawed
MAIL CALL
T
at
A
I t has now been six months since Sept. 11, and the
airline industry is still struggling to work the
kinks out of its intense security system. On May
29, 1st Lt. Greg Miller, a combat medic and a Purple
Heart recipient from College Station, learned this the
hard way when security personnel at San Francisco
International Airport refused to allow him on board
with wire cutters.
While serving in Kandahar in April, Miller was shot in the jaw,
severing nerves and leaving him without feeling in his mouth. His
jaw was wired shut in Germany, and the doctor there provided him
with a pair of wire clippers with a one inch, rounded blade to cut
the wires in case he became sick and needed to open his jaw to
avoid choking. . ,
Miller previously had the wire cutters inspected at Easterwood
â–  Airport, where personnel tagged the cutters with a security code
that identified the wire cutters as a non-prohibited item. However,
when Miller wanted to fly back home from San Francisco, he
found the tag useless in preventing security personnel from confis
cating the cutters. As a result. Miller flew back to College Station
without anything to open his jaw if he became sick.
The cause of problems such as this are two-pionge . ns f air
line security personnel must have a uniform po ic> icgait
restricted items and must have the capabilities to make exceptions
which all airports will acknowledge. Airline personnel must also
be willing to carry items, such as Miller’s, which present obvious
exceptions to safety regulations. The problem would have been
averted had the wire cutters been kept in the cockpit or wit a
er airline employee on the flight. „
Secondly, and most importantly, the public must be aware of
how tight airline security is right now. Individuals cannot bung t
RICHARD BRAY
same items on board a plane now that they might
have been able to carry on a flight last summer. As a
result, when packing for their flight, individuals
should make arrangements for items which are ques
tionable. As San Francisco airport spokesman Mike
McCarron said. Miller’s problems may have been
averted had he presented a doctor’s note. Calling
ahead to both the Easterwood and the San Francisco airports
would have been a good idea as well.
While airport security should have had the common sense to
recognize that Miller needed the wire clippers for medical reasons,
it is better that they erred on the side of caution. It is certainly
preferable that Miller had difficulty getting on his flight rather
than have an individual fool security personnel with a dangerous
item that seems to have an equally legitimate use.
Although six months have passed since the airline industry was
forced to tighten its policies, the system still needs work in order
to prevent embarrassing instances such as Miller’s. The only way
airline security can work more smoothly is if security personnel
and customers both recognize items which may present safety haz
ards well before the flight is scheduled to depart and make proper
arrangements to ensure customer satisfaction and safety. This can
only occur if passengers take the time to provide security person
nel with ample warning and if security personnel create a uniform
policy which provides reasonable solutions for exceptions such as
1st Lt. Miller’s.
Richard Bray is a senior
journalism major.
Cross burning is an
act of violence
In response to Luke Alsobrook's
June 6 mail call:
I was disappointed to read
Luke Alsobrook's mail call yester
day endorsing cross burning. He
says on one hand that he detests
cross burning, but then also says
he thinks it should be made legal
in all 50 states. He asserts that he
is a Christian and cross burning
personally pains him, yet I was
always taught that standing up
and promoting love and toler
ance was a Christian value.
Alsobrook uses the First
Amendment to justify his warped
view. The First Amendment does
guarantee free speech without
government interference; howev
er, burning a cross in someone's
front yard or on his or her prop
erty, in my opinion, is not an
expression of someone's beliefs.
Alsobrook stresses a bigot's
constitutional right to burn a
cross, but what about a victim's
rights? It is an assault against
their constitutional right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happi
ness. Could it be that minorities
are typically the victims of this
assault and that Alsobrook does
not concern himself with their
freedoms?
Alsobrook says he knows "peo
ple demonstrate their opinions
on everything from politics to reli
gion in different ways." His state
ment grossly trivializes burning a
cross. It is more than just "two
sticks of wood nailed together." It
is a vicious symbol of hate and
intimidation.
Alsobrook says a cross being
burned in no way guarantees vio
lence. That is absurd. Obviously,
Alsobrook does not have a clear
concept of what a cross burning
in his front yard would mean. It
would mean he is now a mark of
whatever group put it there and
they know where he lives.
Perhaps if Alsobrook was on
the receiving end of racial slurs or
bigotry he would feel differently
about endorsing a historically
hate-filled act.
Alsobrook insults everyone
who has fallen victim to this out
rageous demonstration of igno
rance.
Joseph Pleasant
Class of 2003