Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Wednesday, November 26, 2003
'ice must
'al possesslt
oesn'tsell,
(for the 5
early.
Supreme
Deplorable
/
Court must allow Guantanamo
behavior
Bay detainees access to court system
row 35 '•
Wea. obo.tai;
action 236 (i
[979-26679<i
M tu Weis I:
line, Satr:
)-541-7955
112, no Ml
irents. S2M§
lor t.u. gans
I979-575-69;:
Same. Stud
II Andrea 6963
JENELLE
WILSON
.6M vs.
icketslorl«! i 1
1-822-99037'i
lege StaW 111
several w® rf :
or 979-229®
Je. Greaif
T his month, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted an appeal by Australian,
British and Kuwaiti nationals
caught during the war on terrorism and
being held in detention by the United
States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
two cases, A1 Odah v. United States and
Rasul v. Bush, were brought before the
court by the families of the Guantanamo
detainees who have been held for almost
two years without access to lawyers or
their families. Arguments in the cases will begin early next
year, with a decision expected in June.
The sole question before the Supreme Court will be
whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear complaints from
the detainees, not whether the detention itself is constitution
al. If the Supreme Court sides with the government — which
contends that the detainees’ status is “constitutionally com
mitted to the executive branch,” according to The New York
Times — it not only will tip the balance of power between
the two coequal branches of government, it will leave hun
dreds of men, some of them undoubtably innocent, stranded
in small cells without any means of redress.
Just because these men were captured during times of war
should not mean they lose all rights to due process of law.
The executive branch is relying on a 1950 case to justify
denying detainees’ access to courts. In Johnson v. Eisentrager,
the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not grant
rights of personal security or immunity to alien enemies
engaged in hostile service against the United States, according
to the University of Chicago Law School Web site. The case
concerned German nationals held in the custody of the U.S.
Army in Germany after being convicted for crimes against the
United States by a military commission. Because the military
has jurisdiction to punish those guilty of offenses against the
! rules of war, prisoners outside of U.S. territory have no right
to be heard in the U.S. court system.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
applied this precedent to war on terror detainees in March.
However, there are two major differences between the
World War II case and the current one.
First, the naval base at Guantanamo Bay is under the
exclusive jurisdiction and control of the United States, and
has been since 1903, according to the Times. It is like a
small city, with its own schools, power system and trans
portation system, so saying it falls outside U.S. jurisdiction
seems to be stretching the truth. To uphold the Johnson
precedent in the present case would mean that the execu
tive branch could bypass U.S. courts by simply holding
aliens outside U.S. sovereign territory.
Such a policy is ripe for abuse. Anyone held in U.S.
custody deserves the protections afforded by the
Constitution, especially the right to a fair trial.
Second, the war on terror is not an officially declared
war like World War II. To give the executive sole power to
determine the fate of foreign nationals detained by the
United States during a war with no foreseeable end vio
lates inalienable rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness — that Americans hold dear.
It’s true that the war on terror is different from previous
conventional wars. However, just because the world is cur
rently at “war,” does not mean that the U.S. government
should allow those in captivity to rot away in a cell with
out the due process of law they should be guaranteed. To
indefinitely hold someone without charges is to sink to the
level of America’s foes, who care little about human rights
and basic fairness.
The United States has a history of deplorable behavior
during times of war. An obvious example, one closely
associated with the detention of people of Arabic descent,
is the “relocation” of the Japanese to internment camps
during World War II, a policy supported by all branches of
government, even the Supreme Court in Korematsu v.
United States. While it may have seemed reasonable at the
time to contain those the government saw as a threat
because of their national origin, the relocation policy dur
ing World War II is shameful and an embarrassment for
which the United States has had to apologize.
Unless prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are allowed to
challenge their detentions soon, this policy will become
another embarrassing blot on American history. As Jackson
said in his. dissent in Shaughnessy v. United States, which
upheld the Johnson precedent, “(Due process of law) is the
best insurance for the Government itself against those blun
ders which leave lasting stains on a system of justice.”
Jenelle Wilson is a senior
political science major.
Paul Wilson • THE BATTALION
MAIL CALL
hours, so •'
jinlervie*-
3ASH? We fi
(ball. Pay^
me. fiamei ;
424 or 76^'
e assislasi
najors P ,eli j
aroffibGf 6- •'
Applied
PuPlisW
• BCS-HB"
IX 778*
art Par- f
Must Wf'
I Individ
if BUSY
- week
inside a«(.
nust, oif
gar coe' l, ' ,
7-21. ^
23, l<
dlvidira |s ;-
rk. 2^
and
512^
Ileal
> or reia |S
S’# 8
onPH 1
Aggies must respect
each other
The history of universities is one of
principled seeking of truth in the
marketplace of idea. To be principled
and inclusive, campus discussion on
the substantive issues facing Texas
A&M’s future must be conducted
with members of the Aggie family
respecting each other and seeking a
high ground for discourse. To
empower everyone to participate in
our debates on all issues, from bon
fire to core curriculum to diversity,
Aggies should respect Aggies — we
must expect no less from ourselves
or each other.
Williams L Perry
Vice Provost
Affirmative action
has ability to hurt
In response to a Nov. 20 article:
After reading the article on the vice
president for diversity and the YCT
events denouncing his position, my
heart broke, because if I were still a
student and saw those events I
would feel very unwelcome. When I
decided to attend Texas A&M in
1998, I didn’t have “incentives.” I did,
however, have a high GRA and stan
dardized test scores, as well as
transferable AP credit. I don’t tell
you this to brag because my pre-col
lege credentials are nothing out of
the ordinary for A&M students. What
they do say is that, while the YCT
may be sponsoring a pledge drive in
which a white student can voluntarily
give up a spot at A&M to someone
who is more “diverse,” no one gave
up their spot for me. I earned my
spot and I earned my diploma.
Affirmative action, if implemented,
may get you in but it won’t get you
across the stage.
You must remember that affirma
tive action has the ability to hurt
everyone, not just the students who
are unfairly rejected but also the
students it accepts, who are brand
ed with the label “not good enough
to compete.” Instead of dividing the
Aggie Spirit, sponsor a booth solic
iting alternative recruiting ideas to
the controversial affirmative action.
Camille Goodman
Class of 2002
A&M has other biased
admissions policies
I am a minority student, but I am not
in favor of affirmative action. However,
there were several severe mistakes on
YCT’s part that asks us to question its
motives. YCT put large emphasis on
how its demonstration was not about
race; however, at a University that
highly favors student athletes,
prospective Corps members and
multi-generation Aggies, 1 did not see,
nor have 1 ever seen, YCT protesting
against those aspects of admission,
which are clearly biased.
It is publicly known that standards for
student athletes are lesser than the
regular student body. If being in the
Corps had no bearing on the adminis
tration process, it shouldn’t be on the
application, and the same thing goes
for legacy applicants. Clearly, the sys
tem already favors these types of
applicants. While these are race-blind
questions, they do allow admission of
lesser qualified students. YCT wants a
process based solely on academic
merit, which would eliminate some
people, under these categories, from
this University. Where was the outcry
over this?
Gregory Rivera
Class of 2007
Demonstration shows
diversity of ideas
Although I do not necessarily
agree with the platform of the YCT,
its activism should not be criticized.
Regardless of how you feel about
diversity, the group has every right
to lead a non-violent protest as a
way to express its opinions and val
ues. This group has taken a lot of
heat as of late, just because it is so
vocal, but the only group out coun
tering the rally was the Mexican-
American Engineers group. I would
think that a campus that supposed
ly welcomes diversity would support
the relatively peaceful demonstra
tion of any group, regardless of how
much they disagree with its stance.
If nothing else, demonstrations
encourage the diversity of ideas. If we
want to be a diversified campus, then
we have to accept that not everyone
on campus shares the same opinion,
that all groups should be allowed to
demonstrate their opinion and that
conservatism is not the antithesis of
diversity, just a different side of it.
Lindsay Wilhite
Class of 2007
Students have to keep
traditions alive
In response to a Nov. 24 mail call:
It is not the responsibility of the
administration of Texas A&M to keep
the Aggie Spirit and Aggie traditions
alive. Its job is to make sure we have a
good education and that this institution
can compete with the other major uni
versities in the United States. As
Aggies, we have the responsibility to
make sure that future Aggies don’t for
get the traditions that have set this
University apart from the others, and
we have the responsibility to create
new traditions.
Aggie Bonfire was put on hold
because of the tragedy that hap
pened on Nov. 18, 1999. Until the liti
gation is finished, Aggie Bonfire will
be postponed. I, also, would like to
see Aggie Bonfire come back to cam
pus, but don’t blame that on Dr.
Kibler, Dr. Gates or Dr. Bowen,
because it is an issue they have no
control over. We, as Aggies, need to
fight the urge to let traditions die
because of one tragedy and never let
the spirit that those 12 Aggies died
for become a thing of the past.
Allowing the spirit and traditions to
die is an insult to those who died
while working to unite this whole
campus.
Patrick Paschall
Class of 2007
No proof diversity
helps students
In response to a Nov. 25 mail call:
Mr. Carter used the words “diverse”
and “diversity” nine times, but, what
he failed to do was explain why artifi
cially-created diversity is a necessary
or beneficial part of the educational
experience at Texas A&M.
Would higher representations of
minority groups provide a better edu
cational experience for everyone?
Does diversity create a more comfort
able atmosphere for minorities? Does
it create more socially-aware gradu
ates, and does that awareness some
how help graduates succeed? Does it
foster a better sense of community?
Do graduates of more diverse institu
tions get better jobs or make more
money? If the University implemented
every diversity initiative in the world,
would minorities suddenly flock to
A&M in record numbers?
I can simply answer each question
in the affirmative, feel great about
myself and earn the respect of bleed
ing-heart liberals everywhere. But I
cannot support my answers with any
real evidence, other than a gut-feel
ing or a hunch. Apparently, neither
can anyone else.
Proponents of social engineering
trumpet the wonders of diversity
while failing to present any empirical
evidence supporting their claims that,
by altering the natural representa
tions of different racial groups within
a population, students of all races will
be benefited.
Jon Apgar
Class of 1999
Democrats did not
support drug bill
In response to Matt Maddox’s Nov.
25 column:
Mr. Maddox- claims that the
Democrats support the Republican
“prescription drug bill,” when they
really do not. The bill is a slap in the
face to all older Americans. By fur
ther commercializing health care, the
Republican bill denies seniors their
right to affordable health care. It is
especially disappointing that the
AARP sold out its members to sup
port this piece of legislation.
Fundamentally, America’s health
care system is flawed. We are the
only highly developed nation to have
almost half of its citizens without
health insurance. Why is this? It is
because we continue to operate with
a market-driven health care system.
Whereas other nations, such as
Canada and England, are able to
provide health care to all of their citi
zens at a much lower cost, much
more money is being pumped into
the American system, but it is
siphoned out as profits, rather than
actually going towards health care.
This system is headed for disaster if
it is not soon changed. We need to
accept only a real health care solu
tion, and not a pretend one like the
Republicans are trying to offer.
Nick Anthis
President, Texas Aggie Democrats
Class of 2005
The Battalion encourages letters to the edi
tor. Letters must be 200 words or less and
include the author’s name, class and phone
number. The opinion editor reserves the right
to edit letters for length, style and accuracy.
Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed
McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also
may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS
1111, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email:
mailcall@thebattalion.net
T v
* it