tern her 26, 200'
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 11 • Friday, September 26, 2003
process
ever seen this mucli
■y, it was during the
ra, those involved in
must keep foremost
hey serve.
,&M administrators
:nt input and use the
an impact on the
Ve students, like the
iesire and motivation
v Aggies. We should
t an administration is
as A&M in the hands
taff can work togeth-
unimagined heights.
I Association Pmulm:
is Mabaffey is a saw
iv il engineering mp’
s the use of any
i, but made the use
id Watts Hymnal
ave this would now
“excessive tangle-
i."
study of the
ause is enough to
is now being pro-
titutional Law has
what the original
authors were.
Timothy Cook
Graduate Student
s or less and include the
’hi to edit letters for
cDonald with a valid stu-
A&M University,
•iittalion.net
Getting away with murder
Colombian president granting impunity to death squads who killed thousands
E i
t
JENELLE
WILSON
artier this month, Colombian
President Alvaro Uribe announced
plans to grant impunity to right-wing
death squads and leftist guerrilla forces in an
attempt to stop a conflict that has plagued the
country for 39 years, according to The New
York Times. This proposal, which is supported
by the Bush administration, was formally pre
sented to the Colombian congress on Sept. 21.
Uribe’s proposal to free these groups from
punishment has been rightly denounced by
international organizations, such as the United Nations and
Amnesty International, as a travesty. Instead of prose
cuting the massacre of thousands of innocent civil
ians, Colombia is condoning the brutal tactics of
paramilitary groups that have been labeled as ter
rorist organizations by the U.S. State Department.
If Colombia is serious about protecting human
rights, the proposal must not be passed. The killers of
thousands must not be allowed to go free by paying a
meager fine. States have a responsibility to their citizens
and to the world to prosecute such atrocious human rights
violations such as those that have taken place in Colombia.
The United States must also rescind its support. The Bush
administration’s support for this proposal — when so much of
its foreign policy is dedicated to eliminating terrorism — sim
ply does not make sense. This bill is rewarding groups labeled
by the United States as terrorist for their activities.
The administration’s support is also in conflict with its dedi
cation to the war on drugs. Last year, three leaders of
the Self-Defense Forces, one of the right-wing
death squads that will benefit from the bill, were
indicted in a federal court in Washington for trafficking
cocaine, according to The New York Times.
According to Human Rights Watch, the impunity
bill allows Uribe to designate which paramilitaries
qualify for a suspended sentence. The convicts will
have some limitations placed on his personal liberty,
such as not being able to leave Colombia, carry weapons
or run for public office. Convicts may also pay a fine or
transfer some assets to a government fund for victims to remain
out of jail.
The bill fails to contain any provision allowing victims to
challenge the president’s decision on who should be granted
impunity. This lack of appeal only serves to victimize
Colombian citizens for a second time. First their family mem
bers were raped, tortured, murdered or “disappeared.” Now the
Colombian government does not seem to care even to ensure
they get justice.
According to Amnesty International’s 2002 report on Colombia,
60,000 people have been killed since 1985. Eighty percent of them
were civilians. Hundreds of thousands more have been displaced,
tortured, kidnapped or disappeared.
And now, those responsible for this cycle
of violence and death are being given a
chance to walk away.
Carlos Castano, commander of the Self-Defense Forces, is
likely to benefit from this plan. According to Human Rights
Watch, Castano has been sentenced to multiple jail terms for
his crimes: 22 years in 2001 for murdering a presidential candi
date, 40 years in April 2003 for the massacre of 15 people and
40 years the next month for the killing of another 10 people.
Castano is also suspected of being
involved in other massacres. In 2000, 300
armed men from Castano’s groups tortured,
garroted, stabbed, decapitated and shot resi
dents of the village of El Salado, Bolivar. A 6-
year-old girl was tied to a pole and suffocated with
a plastic bag. Thirty-six people were confirmed
> dead, with another 30 missing from the village.
By handing some money over to the government,
Castano will be able to ensure he nevers spends one
day in jail, and the United States is supporting this.
The proposal may also prevent leaders such as
Castano from having to face legal repercussions of
ij using child combatants. More than 11,000 children are
| fighting in the Colombian conflict, in direct violation of
i the Geneva Conventions, which forbid soldiers under
the age of 15.
According to Human Rights Watch, paramilitary and
guerrilla leaders take advantage of poor children who are
desperate for food or protection or are seeking to escape
domestic violence. Some children are not given a choice
— it’s join or die.
Forcing children to kill in order to survive is exactly
the kind of human rights violation that needs to be
severely punished.
Allowing these death squads to go free is unac
ceptable, and the United States should not be party to this
policy. Not punishing those responsible for the deaths of
thousands is the same as condoning the behavior. Those
involved in the violence have no motivation to stop if
nothing happens as a result of their actions. The hope
that this policy will bring peace to Colombia is only
wishful thinking.
Seth Freeman • THE BATTALION
Jenelle Wilson is a senior
political science major.
New policy will have dire results on U.S. court system
C onsidering recent
developments in both
state and national
j government, it seems that when
i the United States entered the
21st century, its courts sudden
ly lost all prior accountability.
Juries are no longer capable of
| distinguishing a frivolous law-
j suit from a genuine one, as the
| recent passage of Proposition 12 in Texas sug-
j gests. And now, according to Attorney General
I John Ashcroft, prosecutors can no longer be
j trusted to seek appropriate sentences for convict-
) ed criminals.
Ashcroft released a policy directive Monday
I stating that prosecutors must seek the most
\ serious, readily provable offense in every case
and not employ plea bargaining unless there are
| overriding circumstances, according to The
\ New York Times. The intent of the directive, as
stated by Justice Department spokesman Mark
Corallo, is to “make sure that someone who is
j] convicted of a crime in California is treated no
j differently than a person who is convicted of
j the same exact crime in Massachusetts.”
Parity of sentences in similar crimes among
| the several states is to be desired. However, this
j directive requires parity of sentences without
| the court’s consideration of the unique circum
stances each case brings. Traditionally, prose
cutors have taken into account a criminal’s per
sona, background and the intensity of the situa
tion in which the crime was committed, as well
as several other mitigating circumstances when
seeking proper sentences.
The policy overlooks the effect a limitation on
plea bargaining will have on the court system. Not
only does plea bargaining allow prosecutors to
obtain cooperation from defendants and make the
trial process faster and more cost efficient, but sig
nificantly reducing plea bargains is impossible
without “collapsing the entire court system,”
according to David Burnham, co-director of the
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at
Syracuse University.
The directive stipulates that if prosecutors
become “particularly overburdened, the dura
tion of trial would be exceptionally long, and
proceeding to trial would significantly reduce
the total number of cases disposed of the
office,” then they may negotiate pleas. Philip B.
Heyman of Harvard University also foresees a
“huge revolt” as a result the new directive,
according to The New York Times.
These two consequences of the directive
introduced further burden and hamper justice
and fairness as known in today’s courts. What
the consequences mean is that one criminal
who goes to trial when prosecutors are current
ly overburdened does not receive the same trial
process as those who are tried during relatively
slow times. Furthermore, whether an accused
criminal gets a lawyer who follows this direc
tive influences the sentence he will receive.
If anything, this directive will cause dispari
ty among sentences, instead of equality.
Another objective of this policy, according
to Corallo, is to get an accurate reporting of
how the sentencing guidelines are being
applied. This policy goes beyond the gathering
of information about the application of sentenc
ing guidelines. It enforces sentencing guide
lines among the courts, pushing them to be
harsher and more extreme.
If the sole goal of Ashcroft’s policy is to
bring uniformity to sentencing, why must it be
a uniformity of harshness? Perhaps it’s because
the true motive behind this directive, according
to Gerald D. Lefcourt, former president of the
National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, is a “tough-on-crime attorney general
pandering to the public.”
Providing security to the American people
has been a popular excuse used by the Bush
administration to pass controversial acts, such
as Ashcroft’s own Patriot Act, which restricted
the civil liberties of many resident aliens sus
pected of terrorism. The same administration
made duct tape essential to surviving terrorist
attacks and orange alerts common practice.
Ashcroft is once again pouncing on the fear of
the American people, this time the fear of
criminals, in order to gain political ground
through an initiative which deals out harsher
criminal punishment.
Despite the political ground such an initia
tive might gain for Ashcroft, political gain is
not worth losing good prosecutorial practice.
Considering Ashcroft’s last three years as
attorney general, this policy should not come
as a great surprise. His distrust of the deci
sions made by prosecutors is best highlighted
by the fact that he has already pushed for the
death penalty in 28 cases when the prosecu
tors had already found this to be an unwar
ranted punishment, according to the St. Louis
Post. However, the prosecutors should be
trusted to seek fair sentences as the courts
provide every person tried with the correct
punishment for his particular crime. Justice
might be blind to race, gender and creed of
the accused, but not to the significant realities
of each individual case.
John David Blakely is a sophomore
political science major.
JOHN DAVID
BLAKELY
Aggies dishonoring
the code
In the early morning hours of
Sept. 7, after the Texas A&M-Utah
football game, some unknown
Aggie came by my RV at Lot 100 in
Reed Arena and stole two Aggie
chairs from the four folding chairs I
had left under the canopy when we
went to sleep. The thief left a 5-by-7
note with the following message:
TJTA SUXS, ATM RULES.”
When I came to Texas A&M
College in 1954, I learned a basic
rule: Aggies do not lie, cheat or steal.
If you had such a need for those
chairs, you should have come to us
and asked for them I would have
probably given them to you.
On Sept. 27, we will again be at
Lot 100 for the Pittsburgh game. I’ll
be parked close to Reed Arena to
minimize the distance I must walk to
Kyle Field. You should have no prob
lem recognizing me — lam the one
with the grey hair, a cane and a pro
nounced limp.
I would appreciate if the two
chairs you stole were returned, no
questions asked.
Raul G. Villaronga
Class of 1959
Misinformed opinions
on scientific theories
In response to a Sept. 24 mail call:
There is no scientific conspiracy
or subservience to dogma concern
ing evolution. The prodigious vol
umes of molecular, anatomical, fos
sil and simulation data stifle any
doubts of those willing to properly
investigate them. Irreducible com
plexity is an artifact of a prejudiced,
MAIL CALL
uncreative mind.
The day that vacuous nonsense
like Intelligent Design is included in
curricula is the day that the Stork
Theory is taught as an alternative to
biological reproduction. The conse
quences wrought on our nation’s
future students are grim, guarantee
ing perpetual entertainment of their
present, august echelon near the
bottom of industrialized nations.
Neil Aschliman
Class of 2005
Graduating early is
beneficial to students
In response to Lindsay Orman’s
Sept. 24 column:
High school’s main purpose is to
prepare students for college, and if
the students finish their prerequi
sites and display exceptional poten
tial, they should have the option to
matriculate early. I agree that fast-
tracking is not for everyone but it
should be an option for the most
stellar of students.
Students who are scholastically-
inclined tend to take larger course
loads, compared to their peers, thus
leaving them bored their senior year
as only electives are left to be com
pleted. I assume that you all fin
ished high school, thus you and I
know what electives are comprised
of. Why have the student fill a seat
in these overcrowded schools tak
ing classes that he does not need
when his mind can be better utilized
elsewhere: college?
The fast-tracking option is helping
to relieve the overcrowding issue
and releasing exemplary minds into
our society.
Brian Vu
Class of 2004
Not all students
attend college
Ms. Orman has forgotten a key
ingredient to good reporting: look
ing at all sides of the story. Her
focus on only those students bound
for college has led her to ignoring
the many students who never go to
college. Contrary to popular opin
ion, not everyone has to go to col
lege to meet their life goals.
Many students in the public educa
tion system are not college material
and will be able to succeed without
the “piece of paper.”
I don’t like the Florida fix, but make
sure that all parties are represented
when you focus on students in public
education.
Kevin LaFollett
Class of 1997