SPOK
HE BAHAI
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B • Wednesday, April 2, 2003
Depiorabie acts
Iraqi forces in violation of Geneva Convention must be held accountable
IMON * THE BA-.
»sse Madercor
s begin today.
c third in the'
il second in
I women {
t the Ton
in part to i
>ie thr
finishes
j to act
ince tm
r an injury I
,o years in
otentiallyc
icmimiyu
gold met
in the woe
; inches,
competiti
ead Coac
;ry hard)
e her out .
velin teat
the men
Marrs le.
TOO). 1
•egins tct
ing off a'
dua
ng for the pitcl
re that we did «’
effectively,” Pi
lay after the
*al hearing,
iginally was
■ five games,
d had it cut to
veek.
slugger Vlad
uspended for
hanging the m
spring trad
ped his appe.
>r the com mi'
:lilting the pc
s.
U .S. forces in Iraq have
been destroying
organized resistance
rapidly, leading Saddam
Hussein and his followers to
la horrible conclusion: to sur-
Ivive, they must violate the
■ rules of war against Allied
■forces and even their own
[people. Forcing their own
[soldiers to fight at gunpoint, parading
prisoners of war on television and
using terrorist tactics to ambush U.S.
troops all are deplorable and avoid
able acts that Iraq is committing, and
all are being covered by the media.
(The United States and its allies must
Jact now to prevent events such as
■these from happening and to let those
^responsible know they will not
;scape punishment.
The Iraqi regime has undertaken
an array of acts that run counter to
:he Geneva Convention and the nor-
nal conduct of war. For example,
when Iraq paraded American POWs
around on state TV, it violated
Article 13 of the Geneva Convention,
according to The Houston Chronicle.
Article 13 states that prisoners must
ae protected from “insults and public
mriosity,” meaning that they can’t be
humiliated and displayed in front of
the public to show they have been
captured. The United States and its
allies have reportedly captured senior
officers and other Iraqi soldiers,
according to The Chronicle, yet none
of them have been seen on videotape
released to the general public. Iraqis
have perpetrated an even worse
crime, as Marines found four bodies
ear An Nasiriyah dressed in
merican uniforms who appeared to
ave been executed POWs. It is
believed that these are some of the
same soldiers who appeared in tele-
DAVII)
SHOEMAKER
vised interrogations previous
ly, according to The
Chronicle.
This is simply appalling,
showing that Saddam and his
forces, despite all their crow
ing about the United States’
“illegal war,” have even less
respect for international law
than they claim the United
States has. And as if this were not
enough, Saddam is now sending his
troops on suicide attacks against U.S.
troops. The Chronicle reports that
Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri,
claims these soldiers volunteer for
the duty. This may not be entirely
true because, in an even worse inci
dent reported by The New York
Times, Iraqi officers are shooting
their own soldiers in the back for
refusing to fight. U.S. troops found
an Iraqi private who had sustained a
small caliber gunshot to the back of
the head at close range, indicating
that he had been shot by one of his
superior officers. Other soldiers
reported similar behavior in other
areas, where troops who did not want
to fight were forced to do so at gun
point. All of these incidents seem to
fit a pattern of Saddam’s total disre
gard for the conventions of war, and
even for the troops who are fighting
for his survival. Allied forces can no
longer simply sit by; something must
be done to improve the situation.
The Allies should use the media,
diplomatic channels and the troops
on the ground to put an end to
Saddam’s deadly games. First, the
Allies need to make it clear to those
in Saddam’s regime that any further
mistreatment of Allied prisoners is
intolerable. Any treatment of POWs
in violation of the Geneva
Convention should result in those
responsible being tried for war
crimes. Although this threat may not
dissuade Saddam’s lackeys, at least
after the war's end there will be jus
tice for the POWs' families and a
way to keep war criminals out of
post-war Iraq. Regardless of how
these threats are delivered to the Iraqi
armed forces, the U.S. stance must
be made clear.
However, Allied forces need to
reach out to average Iraqi citizens and
soldiers. They must be encouraged to
revolt against officers forcing them to
fight and to turn over Saddam loyal
ists in hiding. But these requests must
be backed up with pledges of protec
tion and of monetary rewards. These
kinds of offers are communicated
well by leaflets dropped from air
planes and by interaction with troops
on the ground. Allied forces must act
now to prevent the spread of illegal
and inhumane tactics by Saddam’s
forces across the rest of Iraq before
more people die needlessly.
David Shoemaker is a junior
management major.
Graphic by Josh Darwin.
Media must remain impartial during war
Anti-war protests seemingly given more attention than those supporting war
Nicholas Teddei
Arianne Thigpei
Carl Thorpe
Cruz Torres
Jennifer Tranlltf
Katie Treadwell
Carol Treece
Amy Trevino
Kimberly Tryce
Annee Tucker
Marco Valadez
Stephanie Villaj#
Marc Wade
Ashley Wagnon
Jessica Walcik
Katie Wall
Rorey Walsh
Claudia Waylanl
Mary Weeks
James Weinman
Bethany Whetsto#
Ryan White
Darrell WigginsJ 1
Genevieve WilW 1
Daryl Williams
Joseph Williams
Veronica Willi3l ,
Elisa Wilson
Natalie Wilson
Jennifer Woods® 1
Melinda Wu
Emily Yendell
Kerri Yu
Monique Ziebr®
T he media have always been criticized for having
some sort of bias, which has become more appar
ent since the war with Iraq has been in the spot
light. Some journalists have seemingly forgotten one of
the basic rules of journalism: objectivity.
For something to be considered biased, it does not
have to come from a newscaster preaching that war with
Iraq is wrong. Bias is sometimes more apparent in an
editor’s decision about what news story to run or in a
reporter’s decision about who to interview. Bias tends to
happen, whether intended or not.
Bias can come from both directions — liberal versus conser
vative or pro-war versus anti-war, depending on the news
agency. Flip back and forth between CNN, Fox News and other
stations and notice the difference.
The success of the war in Iraq could partially rely on public
opinion, especially among American citizens. This is why it is
important for the media to remain impartial and to present both
sides of the issue. It is possible that if more Americans who sup
port President George W. Bush were represented, public opinion
might change.
The fact that the news media have covered so many anti-war
protests around the globe creates the feeling among their audi
ences that practically everyone is against the war in Iraq. This
might mean that some Bush supporters, thinking themselves a
minority, are afraid to voice their opinions.
Maybe members of the media are not necessarily to blame
KATHARINE
MCHENRY
for creating a kind of bias in this particular coverage.
News editors likely consider the protests newsworthy,
biit it is necessary to remind the public that what it is
seeing is only half of the story. Chances are, most people
who are content with America’s foreign policy are not
going to go out and march with signs that say “We’re
happy with the status quo.”
Yes, there have been a few pro-war protests covered
in the media, but anti-war protests have seemingly been
given more publicity. This may have to do with the fact
that there are, on the whole, fewer pro-war protests than
anti-war ones, but is it really necessary to keep showing the
peace demonstrators?
Almost all of the anti-war protests look the same. People
wave signs saying things such as “Bomb Texas too” or “Bush
is Hitler” while they chant in unison, “No to war.” Why is it
necessary to keep bombarding Americans with the same story
day after day? Peace demonstrations have been given more
coverage than they deserve, at least as far as newsworthiness is
concerned.
It has also been difficult to go more than a day or two with
out seeing a well-known — but not necessarily well-informed
— celebrity criticize the Bush administration and the war in
Iraq.
Unfortunately, it is the stars, not average American citizens,
who have automatic publicity to express their views. Award
shows, specifically the Grammys and Oscars, provide a perfect
opportunity for entertainers to rant about the injustices of the
world, the favorite of which is that the candidate whom they
backed was not elected president of the United States.
Because celebrities receive so much media attention from
their statements, some people may be led to believe that these
entertainers’ overwhelming views represent a majority of
Americans, which certainly is not the case.
On the opposite end of the spectrum from the so-called liber
al media, there are such organizations as the ultra-conservative
Media Research Center, which has the goal of bringing “balance
and responsibility to the news media.”
According to the Media Research Center, there are at least a
few stars who support the American policy toward Iraq. Among
this elite few are Kelsey Grammer, Dennis Miller, Kid Rock and
Vince Vaughn.
However, most people probably have not heard about these
entertainers’ views because celebrities who back Bush do not
receive the coverage that other celebrities get when they shame
lessly say, “I’m embarrassed to be an American.” By now,
everyone has probably lost count of the number of stars who
have made that statement.
Maybe the media think anti-war celebrities make for more
interesting stories, but surely the idea of a celebrity actually
supporting the United States should make the front page.
Katharine McHenry is a senior
journalism major.
MAIL CALL
JV, a trainN
►ril 8th, 5:3C
'ompletell 1
(5 UNITS) STAIR,
AMERICA,
© USf\,
®LftnDOF Wt FREE,
SHaTE. OF THE 8RWF-,
(I B&flWH,
<4i8firraM\K
otheBottf klk,
il adstW,
f ttte
the Outback,
<g) POYIK UNDER....
Conoley's words hypocritical
THE CAUTIONS
THAN I
1TOHT...
I find it incongruous that Dean Conoley
can claim to have "immense trust and
respect" for the eight professors who sent a
letter protesting the college policy requiring
that "we all celebrate and promote every
kind of human diversity including homosex
uality and domestic partners," after having
publicly called the letter "rather pompous
and arrogant." Dean Conoley's comment
that "I generally consider distinctions that
call us to love the sinner while hating the
sin to be empty rhetorical gestures at best
and covers for persecution at worst" is tan
tamount to saying that all Christians who
seek to practice this principle are in fact
hypocrites.
Dr. Conoley missed a wonderful opportu
nity to model tolerance in her response to
the professors who disagreed with her, but
chose instead to assume a self-righteous
higher ground with her comment, "I try my
best not to judge others," judging all who,
unlike her, do make moral judgments.
Maybe she might at least acknowledge that
some people believe that "sacred texts" are
divinely inspired, and therefore, give us
objective truth about reality. It is ironic that
in the name of tolerance. Dean Conoley has
chosen to be so intolerant of the faculty
who don't share her radical relativism.
Walter L Bradley
Emeritus Professor of
Mechanical Engineering
Homosexuality not promoted
In response to Matthew Maddox's March
31 column:
to it, Matthew Maddox's Flaming
Conservative Extravaganza)! I'm not sure
how Mr. Maddox continually arrives at the
conclusion that homosexuals are all part
of a massive conspiracy to rob him and
the Christian majority of their privileged
status. Nor can 1 comprehend how Mr.
Maddox understands gay awareness and
tolerance initiatives to be "promoting
homosexual behavior." I certainly don't
see any correlation.
Finally, in response to Mr. Maddox's claim
that "University officials should ... keep indi
viduals who would belittle the religious
beliefs of a majority of students and
instructors out of critical University posi
tions," I certainly disagree, but I'm sure the
American Nazi Party would be more sym
pathetic.
If
It's that time again: Gay Awareness Week
(or as we seasoned Battalion readers refer
Daniel Lewis
Class of 2005