Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 12, 2002)
ELP WANTED in Advertising OHi ce 9 for a typesetter lor J 3uark experience vetyJ tudents should visit Rr laid Bldg. id kitchen positionsTT tion call ClementinejJ nstruction ScienceTifi istin is looking | 0 r a [-■ a project in CS. AjJ estimating position n |j < resume to 512-24M5- herriOpremierfiberglasi; he lp neededTpuITo attempt to work aroim;. employment drug : ly in person, Bill Cmt- t.151. )TORCYCLE EX 500R, runs J all Jesse 676-0245. Opinion The Battalion Page 7 • Monday, August 12, Clinton also deserves blame Time Magazine article blaming Bush for Sept. 11 ignores Clinton y s failures on. 1995 YamahaYZ- :mi. S3200, (903)814-3;;' PETS Brazos Animal I ww.shelterpets.org 1 white tabbies, firsi trained, $15,820-05^, idle has a great seteL for adoption! 97M2t-;i; DOMMATES asap. Beautiful 3lx)r'.;, bills. Great location, m d, large bdrms. Pegc,J >-6238. 3/2 duplex, close to crl util. Its Cool!! 832-724;3{; i/2bth new house. rc-I tbills, 2-blocks from caT tales needed. 4bdr'| an. all appliances. )0/mo. +1/4 bills. 696i;|: others in great houst; | S350/mo +util. -1904 needed, 3ix)rmi* umished, walk to a r J util. (979)575-2439 If, new 2-story duple*. 3(4 own bath. Fenced, »:| shuttle route, $3Si|; e-in 8/30, can nego rvey. Ashley 764-4316 j eeded, new 3/2/2, s’l ternet, S375/mo. +13^ 10)383-8524. lrm/1 bth in 3bdrm taj ampus. $375/mo. 97S ;, no rent August. 2S| +1/2bills. Separate f’/ )-1421. asap. 4bdrm/4bth t a appliances, Non-smcf)? 3 deposit, cable W^J;' lease. University Pp 193-8550. RICHARD BRAY I n the Aug. 12 edition of Time Magazine, the cover proudly proclaims it has uncovered “the secret history” of the Sept. 11 ter rorist attacks, thanks to exclusive interviews from members of the Clinton administration. In the article, former President Bill iClinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger says a formal specific plan had been created by the Clinton administration in the months prior to President George W. Bush’s tenure to elim inate al-Qaeda cells and Osama bin Laden. Berger said this plan had been presented to Bush’s new National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice but was ignored until Sept. 11. While this article might make it appear the Clinton administration was tough on terror ism, only to be thwarted in its efforts by the incompetence of its successors, Clinton’s record in fighting terrorism leaves much to be desired. The Time article does its best to make the Bush administration the bad guy. One unnamed Clinton administration official said had it not been for the transi tion in leadership, the aggressive plan to eliminate bin Laden would have become a presidential directive by late October or early November. The author, Michael Elliott, even goes so far as to say no other world power has such disorganized transitions of power as the United States. However, to blame Sept. 11 solely on the change of leadership and the priorities of the Bush administration is to avoid giving Clinton his due. According to reports which first came out in the British newspaper The Sunday Times, Clinton declined at least three offers involving foreign governments to seize bin Laden after he had been determined a terrorist threat to the United States. According to reports, in 1996, the Clinton administration received an offer from Sudan (where bin Laden was then residing) to turn bin Laden in to U.S. authorities. The United States declined. One month later, bin Laden responded by destroying the Khobar Towers, a U.S. military installation in Saudi Arabia, with a 5,000 pound truck bomb, killing 19 American soldiers. The Clinton administration received two more similar offers in 2000, but both were declined. Clinton’s administration also has a weak record when dealing with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, a nation the Bush administration has recently been concerned with due to its suspected stockpil ing of biological and chemical weapons and its affiliations with terrorism. For example, according to Fox News, when Iraq stopped U.N. inspectors from examining Iraqi warehouses, the Clinton administration was forced to give in. Later, when Iraq stopped all international inspections, the United States again acquiesced. Admittedly, the Bush administration had eight months to prepare against an enemy which it knew existed. It also appears the change in White House leadership delayed progress on a plan which might have brought down al-Qaeda, though the White House has denied several points in the article. However, the Clinton adminis tration certainly deserves as much, if not more, blame for the events which occurred in the eight years previous to Bush’s taking office. Terrorist attacks against the United States, such as the bombing of the Khobar Towers and the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000 in which 17 Americans were killed, aroused fears the United States might be vulnerable to terrorist attacks for the first time. The Clinton administration had plenty of oppor tunity during its tenure to react powerfully against bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network before Bush became the president. According to The Sunday Times, shortly after Sept. 11, Clinton was at a private dinner party when he told a friend the decision not to get bin Laden when he had the chance was probably the biggest mistake of his presidency. He was probably right. RUBEN DELUNA • THE BATTALION Richard Bray is a senior journalism major. needed ASAP. Bea; luse, 1-mi from cairfilg ills. Emily 979-695-647! late needed 3bdmV2%. !,furnished, very nW i/mo +1/3 utilities. V -5457. 220-0567. J nate needed ASAF . :5/mo +utilities. Contac info, 229-8127. late needed for fal ; >bth, Cripple Creek C Double standards new international for court ate needed. Lookirc t. No smoking/#* 315/mo., includes uti share bea. e entrance, d. dishwa? odrm/2bth house, I 10 +bills. 694-1539. ;AP. 3/2 house, on'■ bills. 695-0027. needed. House, sf- L, $325/mo. 1/4bfc MICHAEL WHITLOW WICES ig. LoH missal#; i-9pm), ' ri(6pm- 6 ( 5^-2:301 alk-ins »; = allow 60 : 846-61 L ast week, the Bush adminis tration announced its intention to sign a bilateral agreement with Israel not to hand over peace keepers from either country to the jurisdiction of the newly opened International Criminal Court (ICC). This agreement, following closely on the heels of an identical agreement with Romania, is the latest step in the government’s efforts to cripple the newly founded ICC. The ICC was created in a 1998 multi-national treaty called the Rome Statute for the purpose of investigating and trying individuals for international crimes of genocide, crimes of war, and other human rights abuses such as apartheid and the selling of women into sexual slavery. According to the provi sions of the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction over these crimes when committed by individuals who are members of nations that have ratified the treaty or commit the crime within the borders of a nation that has ratified the treaty. Over one hundred nations have contributed to the negotiations of the exact terms of make-up, and the Court officially opened on July 1. Bush has repeatedly called for a permanent exemption from ICC jurisdiction for American sol diers and diplomats, and his efforts to secure immu nity began with the threat to exercise the United States’ veto power on the U.N. Security Council a gainst renewing U.N. peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia. Only after the Security Council granted a one-year suspension of ICC jurisdiction over American personnel did the United States assent to the continuation of U.N. peace efforts in Bosnia. After this compromise was brokered, Congress passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA), which includes several provisions that are little more than veiled threats against the United States’ allies. The first of these provisions allows the resident to use any means necessary to liberate American nationals held by the court, which currently Asides in The Hague, Netherlands. . Tfie ICC was modeled after the American judi cal system during the sculpting of the Rome tatute. All legal provisions in the U.S. judiciary are included except a trial by jury, due to the diffi- Cu lty of defining an acceptable set of peers for the accused. Instead, the accused will be tried before e panel of 18 judges. Rights of accused include Presumption of innocence, right to counsel and the n gnt to remain silent. In regards to national sovereignty, the ICC tries to °rk with local judicial systems, helping only in ases where national courts are unable or unwilling o try the cases, due to political or military pressure, is not designed to replace local courts. Considering merica’s legal system was the basis for the ICC’s ructure , and because America has a military court ^^ ern > through which it vigorously watches its own 0 diers for misconduct, the likelihood of the ICC tind: - mg such cause to step in is all but non-existent. However, by threatening to invade the Netherlands if any American is brought before the court, America is infringing on the sovereignty of other nations. If an American breaks the law in another nation, that individual is tried in that nation’s courts. Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national, is being tried in America for con spiring in the Sept. 11 attacks. France has not called for America to turn him over to French courts. Similarly, if an American were to conspire in a ter rorist attack in France, America would allow him to be tried there. Members of the Rome Statute have the option to turn individuals over to the ICC. If the United States were to free that individual through military force, it would amount to an attack on that nation’s judicial process as well as an attack on the sovereignty of the Netherlands. Perhaps the administration’s only complaint is not that the court can be guided by a single nation, but that it cannot be guided by a single nation, namely America. If the prosecutor and half the judges were American, or America had the same veto power it has on the U.N. Security Council, the court would be little more than an international extension of American law, and, as a result, an American puppet. If there is ever to be a single international code of ethics and means of enforcing those ethics, the existence of the ICC is a very important and necessary first step. Americans cannot expect to be exempt from such a system. It they were, it would violate the entire purpose of the ICC’s creation. The world's cultures are too diverse to agree on purely American interests, and Americans should not demand they do so. America, as the world’s most powerful nation, must be careful of the example it sets. By ratifying the existence of the ICC, America makes a powerful statement that no one is above the law, and there are universal rights of human beings no nation, regard less of its military and economic strength, can impugn. By ignoring the court and refusing to partic ipate in it, America does two things. First, it says to the world it thinks it is above reproach and is not responsible to other members of the foreign commu nity with which it must live and do business. Second, it loses its opportunity to shape the ICC’s future. As it stands, the court does not yet have jurisdiction over crimes of aggression because such crimes have not been defined. If America joined, it would have the opportunity to help shape this definition. If the United States does not take this opportu nity to assist in the ICC’s formative years, then the United States’ influence in the future will be mar ginal at best, or militarily enforced at worst. Such a state of affairs would be truly pitiable for the nation that has, in the past, been hailed as the champion of democracy. Michael Whitlow is a senior English major. Military provides no training for marriage (U-WIRE) DEKALB, Ill. - While learning how to operate a standard-issue clamor mine, I learned the side that released its explosive charge was branded with the phrase “this side toward enemy” in capital letters. Things with simple and obvious instructions like these are affectionately referred to as "idiot- proof.” Everything Uncle Sam issues to mili tary men has simplistic instructions concern ing its operation and maintenance. Everything except wives. The recent concern about military men and their wives having problems reminds me of my own observations of the tragic fact that some soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines never understood the operating pro cedures of marriage. As budding Marine recruits, sweating on a parade deck under the blazing San Diego sun, drill instructors would spend hours forc ing upon us the “idiot-proof’ way to teach us to “present arms” during a rifle drill. But I do not recall a minute of training invested on how to ignore the flight departing from the airport visible from our barrack's windows. The flight that a fellow recruit weeping in the rack above me wished he was on so he could escape boot camp hell and return to the comfort of his wife and child. Perhaps training for dealing with being away from one's family is not necessary. He chose to be there. And to return home early and without honor would be far worse. When I met him again two months after our graduation, he did not speak as warmly of his wife as he did when we walked our posts late at night. “She left me,” he said. “She has taken my son and gone away.” I wondered why. “Wasn't she proud of you?” I asked. “Didn't she think you looked sexy in your uniform?” “Yeah,” he said, forcing a grin, only to make me think what I said was funny. “But when I told her I would be leaving again, she changed.” In the valleys of southern California, the corps taught us “idiot-proof’ ways to disas semble, clean, reassemble and operate the lethal weapons we used to fight. But they never explained to a young corporal I befriended years later how to put down the bottle of whiskey, close the cap and fight the urge to pour another glass. It would have been nice to have that instruction when he heard the news that his newlywed wife no longer wished to sleep in a bed alone while her husband was in Okinawa. Instead, she would share it with another. Since that day, he avoids being sober for any great length of time. Up the mountains that enveloped those valleys, we would march with heavy packs and the blistering sun on our backs. We learned endurance through the unbearable, but the lesson did not cross over to the mar riage of a staff sergeant I would meet during my final years in the Marine Corps. A brilliant Marine, he had mastered his craft. On his dress-blue uniform, he wore ribbons and medals earned from service around the world. However, in his eyes you could see a sense of bitterness worn inside, where the love for his wife once rested. The many years and the four children, each arriv ing nine months after his return from an overseas tour, helped tarnish his once-shin ing vision of her. Besides her physical change, she no longer sat quietly at his side upon his return to listen to his stories of self- sacrifice and heroics. Now, wrapped in her own thick skin developed to deal with life as a military wife, she would be the one to lecture him on his responsibility to his children and her sacri fices to provide them with a proper upbring ing. When he spoke of her to me once, he expressed how much he had grown to despise her. “Why don't you leave her then?” I asked, falling back on what I considered the obvi ous answer. “I can't,” he responded, turning his head to look past me at the plain,white wall. “I wouldn’t know what to do without her.” Before my tour ended, she took the initia tive (something the Corps tried to instill in us) and divorced him. These specific relationships I witnessed had unfortunate endings. So, does that mean a military man shouldn’t get married because wives do not come with “idiot-proof’ instructions? The military has an issued reply to that question. During the final phase of our basic train ing, we spent a day learning how to heal bat tle wounds. We were confronted with ghastly images of amputations, bums and bullet wounds. Finally, a corpsman demonstrated the “idiot-proof’ techniques to treat each injury. When he finished, one of my fellow recruits asked how to deal with someone when they think they are going to die. The corpsman's answer seemed simple: “If he feels like he can’t hang on, tell him to live for his wife. If he isn’t married, tell him he needs to live to have one.” An “idiot-proof’ answer. PaulMikolajczk is a columnist at Northern Illinois University.
