NEWS
THE BATTALION
plosion
ares 147
olic Philippines for
three decades, denied kt
p was responsible. Hew
ned the attack and s:
p was ready to cooperate!:
ivestigation,
olice said the bomb »i
en inside a backpack pis
i the middle of the aiipoit'i
ing area. The blast»«
.1 three miles away; sonw:
lehris landed on the tail
yards away,
he Southern Baplis
/ention’s Intematios
ion Board in Richira:
confirmed that missioro
am P. Hyde, 59, of Cak
ds, Iowa, died in surperi
head and leg injuries,
yde had gone to the a
to meet American ti
iries Barbara Wallii
ms and Mark Stevens a
family, who were hi
ed from Manila when th
o went off.
O mi
0 km
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Wednesday, March 5, 2003
Pinpointing Saddam's location
Intelligence agencies have no excuse for not locating Saddam when Rather can
\
' •' A t
Explosion injured
two people^
MINDANAO
i
Davao lip
\{
ib blast at airport killed
ast 19 people and
nded more than II
OJOd®
oTooiw
LIPPINES
J ust last week, CBS News anchor
man Dan Rather scored a journal
istic coup. He managed to pene
trate the web of secrecy surrounding
Saddam Hussein and secure a televised
interview with the dictator. Beside the
fact that Bather’s interview was prima
rily used by Saddam to spout propa
ganda, it also meant the Iraqi dictator
had to be in one place for a period of
several hours. His location could possibly be
pinpointed by those with an interest in such
things, such as U.S. intelligence services. The
fact that these services claim that they could
not do so is either a dereliction of duty or a
major discrepancy in technological capabili
ties. Maybe learning Saddam’s location is not
as important a priority as it should be.
As the leader of a potential enemy of the
United States, knowledge of Saddam’s where
abouts is a necessity. In fact, the need for such
information has been apparent since 1991, dur
ing the Gulf War. But in the past 12 years,
such information has proved impossible to
find.
In a 1998 Washington Post article, then-
C1A Director Robert M. Gates (now the Texas
A&M president) said officials in the first Bush
administration would light a candle every
night during the Gulf War hoping Saddam
might be killed by chance. He also said that on
the eve of Operation Desert Fox seven years
after the Gulf War, the odds were about the
same for Saddam's demise. It is unacceptable
lhat the CIA and other intelligence agencies
had no better idea about Saddam’s where
abouts than they did in 1991.
Even today, these agencies still seem to
have only a vague idea of his location. At
worst, he might be in Europe and they don’t
know it. But there are others who seem to
know, or at least know how to find out — peo
ple such as Dan Rather. According to an article
on BBC.com, Rather used former U.S
Attorney General Ramsey Clark as a liaison
with Saddam. Clark met with the Iraqi leader
tjie Sunday before the interview. So it appears
that at least some people with connections to
the U.S. government know how to find
Saddam.
But there are other reasons for the United
States to know Saddam’s location beyond try
ing to bomb his bunker. The United States has
MAIL CALL
DAVID
SHOEMAKER
legitimate security and policy reasons
for knowing Saddam’s location and
should use or develop the means to
find such information. Developing the
ability to gather such information can
also aid in the war against al-Qaida.
The primary use of information regard
ing Saddam’s location would be for
military purposes; in the event of a war
to eliminate his command facilities, if
not bomb his exact location.
Even if the United States does not go to
war. such information serves a purpose. If
Saddam were to be deposed or exiled, he
might try to slip away in secrecy.
Knowing Saddam’s whereabouts
would be vital to preventing
him from escaping prosecu- ^ ^
tion or from causing trou- ffA*
ble elsewhere. A second- „ j,.
ary use of this intelli-
gence might be to use
his location to uncov- J
er the positions of Jr*
others close to him, f
like leaders of
Saddam’s B'aath
Party or his son Qusay,
who, according to
BBC.com, is now in con
trol of the Republican
Guards. Preventing |
their escape, espe- /
chilly in the event
of war, would
also be
important to
securing the
future of a
post-Saddam Iraq. \
But the skills neces- I
sary to penetrate the
“concentric levels of ^
security” that sur- "v
round Saddam, according
to Janes.com, rely heavily on
human intelligence, an area in
which U.S. intelligience services are
at their weakest. According to theat-
lantic.com, former CIA officer Reuel
Gerecht, in an article titled The
Counterterrorist Myth, said the CIA has
very few operatives from Middle Eastern
I*T
I
/
\
/ backgrounds.
Without any
agents who can
even try to get
close to a secular dictator such
as Saddam, is it any wonder
" that the United States has no
hope of predicting what al-
Qaida is doing?
For too long, the United States has
let its ability to obtain valuable informa
tion from intercepted signals obscure the fact
that it has had very poor human intelligence.
Against the Soviets, who were a centralized
and a vast enemy, this wasn’t so much of a
problem. But against smaller or decentralized
enemies, such as Iraq and al-Qaida, the lack
of people on the ground becomes painfully
apparent.
President George W. Bush and Congress are
both responsible for this state of affairs, espe
cially after Sept. 11. The United States doesn’t
need any more foreign policy surprises like
having Saddam pop up in Syria. The time has
come for the U.S. intelligence community to
realize its shortcomings and correct them.
David Shoemaker is a junior
management major.
f, Graphic by Angelique Ford
ES: Associated Press; ESRI
tion:
tr on term
Tanks running through
campus a sign of security
In response to a March 4 mail call:
It's 3:10 p.m. Tuesday afternoon, and I
am working in one of the many labs I
administer. Before proceeding to the
next task of the da V- several of my stu
dent technicians catch my eye. They
waved a copy of Tuesday's Battalion
mail call section before me. Knowing
me as a straight shooting, ex-military,
conservative old Ag, they knew 1 need to
see Mr. Taqvi's letter.
I agree there is no profound or poetic
way to respond to tanks and artillery
pieces being transported down the
College Station tracks. There are several
practical ways to respond. Perhaps the
first that comes to mind is that they
came from Ft. Hood headed to the Port
of Houston via the most economical
and straightforward method.
Curiously though, it makes sense. You
must have been sleeping off the day
instead of attending class, since you
missed all the previous shipments of
military vehicles during the day. When I
see tanks being transported I feel pride,
honor and I sleep a lot better knowing
that we have the big stick.
aining ground in
ministration officials if
j that includes promiK
John Ashcroft, Homel*
Director Robert Mue!
prevention efforts.
- but many questioned^
nd anti-terrorism lawslli
Pakistan of al-Qaidaopd
was “a severe blow”it
worldwide” by provifi
w attacks
ric and an assistant"^
nee al-Qaida. The cW
tyad, personally
ince the terrorist
orism charges have
tacks, Ashcroft said,
:tor Robert Mueller addd
>lots have been
critcism on Capitol I
i terrorism. The conctf
new bin Laden
ilert for a possibly ii
i the state unlawfully^
mselves as "notaries
vhich in Mexico are
d attorneys,
tt said such notariesodf 1
ear with their (
charge high fees forfiW
ssary documents or
>oor-quality services tW
lize immigration cases,
tt said victims who cod'*
I will not be question
:heir country of origin 01
ation status. He iKjp
who believes they 1 ''*
ctimized by such scams 10
0) 252-8011.
We can stand up to tyranny and
oppression. We can stomp a mudhole in
some tinhorn terrorist state and the psy
chopathic dictator that runs it. And we
can feed the poor, heal the sick and aid
the impoverished, because we have the
big stick. Too bad they didn't have "I
fight so you may keep your precious
rights" scrawled on their sides.
Millions and millions before me have
said much more eloquently and diplo
matically what I wish to express, but if
reading a letter like Mr. Taqvi's isn't
enough to piss you off, I am not sure
what is. I am not a cynic, a left wing
satirical socialist or a bed wetting, tree
hugging peace activist.
I too fear the tanks, but not for me and
you; I fear for the screaming Iraqi sol
diers running from them. Let's hope
they all have large white flags ready to
be unfurled.
Your letter, Mr. Taqvi, has affected me,
it has fired me up. I will no longer stand
idle and allow feeble attempts at cyni
cism to go unchallenged. Remember
Sept 11? How about World War II?
Kosovo? Bosnia? Instead of Black Arm
Bands how about good old red, white
and blue!!!
Jim Wilson
Class of 1994
Estrada highly qualified
h CELEBRITY
6ET me out of
HERE!!!
W ho is Miguel
Estrada? Born in
Honduras, he
immigrated to the United
States with his family at age
15, and at 17 he was accept
ed into Columbia College
where he graduated magna
cum laude. He later graduat
ed magna cum laude from
Harvard Law School. He has
clerked for Supreme Court Justice
Anthony Kennedy, and as a constitu
tional lawyer, he has argued 15 cases
before the High Court. Before join
ing the Washington, D.C. firm of
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, where
he is currently a partner, he served as
assistant to the solicitor general
under the Clinton administration. Yet
Miguel Estrada, the man who
undoubtedly possesses the'quintes-
sential immigrant story, is now con
sidered unqualified to judge appel
late cases by New York Sen. Charles
Schumer and the more than 40
Democrats who are presently filibus
tering his nomination to the Senate.
This is an unprecedented, over-politi
cized debate that Democrats are
senselessly spearheading.
The Fox News Web site reported
that Democrats are filibustering
because Estrada has not provided
enough information on his views or
his judicial record to give them an
accurate estimate as to what his per
formance would be if approved for
the federal bench. Clearly, a nomi
nee such as Estrada must provide
sufficient information regarding his
background so that senators may
feel confident in their vote.
However, Estrada has done just
that — regardless of what Schumer
may believe. Schumer’s comments
on This Week with George
Stephanopoulos concerning the
Estrada situation reflect the general
anti-Estrada argument, and were
countered in a letter from Alberto
Gonzales, counselor to President
George W. Bush. He blasted
Schumer’s criticisms one by one.
Schumer is seeking various memo
randums written by Estrada while
working in the Clinton
administration. As Estrada
pointed out in his hearings
and Gonzales in his letter,
these memorandums are
protected under attorney-
client privileges.
Disclosure of such docu
ments could easily lead to
Estrada’s disbarment.
Also, according to
Schumer, Estrada failed to answer
specific questions posed to him by
the Senate Judiciary Committee,
and thus should not be confirmed.
According to Gonzales’ letter, three
of President Clinton’s judicial nomi
nees answered no more than 20
questions and one answered only
three, yet each was confirmed to the
bench. To date, Estrada has
answered more than 100 questions
orally and 25 as written follow-ups.
The questions he refused to answer
related to personal views on ideo
logically-driven judgments such as
Roe v. Wade. Each time he respond
ed that he had not delved into the
specific case as a judge would, but
guaranteed the senators that he
would uphold the law and that his
personal views were immaterial.
Other outspoken senators such
as Ted Kennedy have suggested that
Estrada has a “serious temperament
problem,” according to the Fox
News site. One must wonder, with
such a stereotypical comment com
ing from Kennedy, that if Estrada
were Irish Catholic, would he also
have a serious drinking problem? A
Fox News Web article cited a GOP
source who claimed that Democrats
are “trying to make (Estrada) into
Ricky Ricardo.” Estrada’s legal
background is solid; when one can
not argue facts, one is left to attack
credibility.
Schumer and his colleagues are
playing a dangerous game. They
have before them an Hispanic judi
cial nominee, an immigrant, a gradu
ate of Columbia and Harvard and
successful constitutional lawyer, yet
to them, he is “unqualified.” What
would make him qualified? If he had
said that he was personally against
abortion, he would have been
laughed out of the committee hear
ing as an extremist, regardless of
the fact that Estrada once argued
before the Supreme Court on behalf
of National Organization for Women
and a small group of abortion clinics
in the mid 1990s.
One can have personal views that
inevitably will conflict with legal
precedent. As long as the case war
rants it, one must be willing to sub
vert one’s personal views in the face
of federal law. To suggest otherwise
is to argue that all judges be select
ed based on their political views
rather than their knowledge of the
law. Estrada has guaranteed senators
of his fairness and has proven his
willingness to subjugate his person
al beliefs.
Why Democrats are choosing this
fight is puzzling. Perhaps it stems
from the fact that Estrada would be
a likely choice to succeed a retiring
Supreme Court judge. However, it is
senseless for Democrats to fight
Estrada now. They will gain nothing
and potentially lose the support of a
large percentage of the Hispanic
community. A Fox News article
reported that Republicans have
bought airtime on various Hispanic
stations such as Telemundo to reveal
the injustice that is occurring on the
Senate floor.
Unfortunately, time is waning for
Estrada; he may never be confirmed.
Republicans have the 51 votes need
ed to confirm, but lack the 60 votes
needed to break the Democratic fili
buster. Republicans and Democrats
have a long history of trying to stall
certain judicial appointments for
political reasons; however, this is not
the fight for Democrats. Estrada is
one of the most well-qualified nomi
nees to come before the Senate, and
the fact that he is a conservative
should be irrelevant.
Michael Ward is a senior
history major.