Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 26, 2004)
TheJ distarl ig all ■it one. Opinion The Battalion 16 WQd meet, its, k Page 5B • Monday, January 26, 2004 Dead man walking? IS. must heed wishes of global community and not subject Saddam to death 3astS|[; en's M ist. aketo in ae Mettio i while the* md $ nth r, 1 ti ie dirty, destroyed man who had his teeth examined on flickering television screens .hJ :ross the world last month was a streail iH en leader, a shadow of the former eaststJ ' ctator w l lose 40-foot statue U.S. ^ irces toppled last April in Baghdad. The world community has united a mind a single demand that, although not spurred by sympathy for t ie heartless U.S.-trained mass mur derer, comes from a higher convic- t on and faith in humanity: No matter what 1 )mi his trial takes, they ask that Saddam Hussein not be given the death penalty. I This is one area in which world opinion siould not be dismissed. All countries have a stake in ensuring humanitarian jus- i ce for those who challenge and attempt to sjbvert the forward march of ! rac ' | human progress, petes I President George W. Bush anc 11 as said that Iraqis should determine the fate of their deposed leader. Elections are lit to take place in July to meda Fhe i urth[ norrr live the conquered Iraq over - I'fl Id me n'ssioi tot puli y a publicly anointed Iraqi ladership that will draft a l:w constitution to be jjproved in 2005 and, if Bush I deed grants I ruq i s sd f- termination, could decide what punishment r thrt h ft he i .25 in the the 4 4 ... world leaders disagree that 'the ultimate penalty 7 is also 'the ultimate justice.' during invasions, ordering the deaths of political opposition leaders and possibly for leading the Iraqi insur gents who have killed hundreds of American troops since Bush declared an end to major combat in May. Iraq’s courts are operating under a moratorium against the death penalty imposed by the U.S.-led council last fall. But the moratorium could be lift ed after the election of a new Iraqi leadership, clearing the way for a trial and the possibility of Saddam’s death in Iraq, which explains Bush’s support for an Iraqi solution to the Saddam question. Though the United States could claim some form of uni versal jurisdiction reserved for those accused of genocide, so far the Iraqi courts seem the only viable way to see Saddam put to death for his crimes. The question has become one of what the Iraqis, who have been unable to express their will since the l%()s. might do if the trial is delegat ed to them. But the presi dent’s mindset on how best to convict and kill Saddam raises alarms in the minds of human rights activists and peace-lov ing leaders around the world. Other world leaders dis- ^laddam should tace. f 5(H1 B ut in an interview with Diane Sawyer in j e p December. Bush indicated his prejudices aiainst a fair trial for the leader he and the past two administrations have been taking 1 m at. “I think he ought to receive the ulti mate penalty." Bush told Sawyer on Dec. 16. Ifhis is a disgusting tyrant who deserves jus tice, the ultimate justice.” Last week, more than 15,(XX) Shiite uslims took to the streets in Iraq during two W 16-0. 'escbel i mi optics i fimsj eterda 3 in a d asj >u Bej Rouge j : jd iys of protest, waving banners and shouting f|oiit a two-fold demand that aligns with ush’s plan for the Iraqis. The Shiites Bmianded immediate elections and Saddam’s ath. Though the U.S.-led Iraqi Provisional uncil has asked a U.N. team to examine election demand, the council has said ere isn’t enough time to plan elections ear- r than July I. Saddam and his Sunni-dominated govem- ent executed thousands of Shiites, who mprise 60 percent of the nation’s popula-' 3ii, during his 35-year regime. Saddam uld also face trial for killing up to KX).(XX) |urds with chemical and biological weapons the 1980s, killing Kuwaitis and Iranians agree that “the ultimate penalty” is also “the ultimate justice.” The Nuremberg trials that brought a coalition of countries together in post-World War II times to try a sea of Nazi war criminals wouldn’t happen today. Most U.S. allies, including Great Britain, have domestic laws prohibiting the death penalty, and most world leaders would face a firestorm of opposition for getting involved in a trial. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has already faced political pressure for his support of death for Saddam. Coalition ally British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office fielded his country’s domestic legal rejection of the death penalty, saying Britain would accept death only if the Iraqis chose it. Suddenly turning democratic, the Coalition forces responsible for the invasion of Iraq now have fresh incentive to return the coun try to its people. Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations, said the world body opposes the death penalty, calling for the United States to respect international humanitarian law. Annan has precluded the United Nation’s involvement in a trial for Saddam unless the death penalty is prohibited. Most world lead ers have expressed support for that form of trial, which has been used in trials against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and Rwandan war criminals. Milosevic — as well known as Saddam for his genocidal leadership — is on trial for crimes against humanity in Croatia and Kosovo and genocide in Bosnia, yet he won’t face the death penalty in world court. Bush should take a page from the world's book of justice. European Union leaders have aligned themselves with the United Nations on the question of Saddam, vividly expressing their views against the willful destruction of a human life. Trying Saddam with no death penalty would “demonstrate the contrast to the dictator’s system,” Gennany’s top human rights official Claudia Roth told the newspaper Bild. The Saddam question has brought the controversial issue to a head. The world wants a trial that it says would only be fair with no possibility of death, and Bush, the leader of a country ready to exercise its will, is seeking death in an Iraqi court system. If the United States ignores world opinion on this matter, as it has proven in the past that it needs no ‘‘permission slip” from the world, Saddam could face death despite dis approval from the United Nations, the Vatican and coalition allies. For humanitarians, though, a new hope of seeing Iraq finally returned to self-rule springs out of the conflict, though most object at heart to killing the country's former dictator, following the rest of the world’s views on justice. One British news- paper, the left-leaning Guardian, captured the spirit of world resistance to the death penalty for Saddam in its editorial pages: “The last thing Iraq needs is another cofpse — or another martyr.” But the carrot — the possi ble death sentence Saddam could face at an Iraqi trial hinging on the need for Iraqi elections — could end up being the stick that forces the American occupation to grind to a halt in favor of a newly-empowered Iraqi electorate. Sommer Hamilton is a senior journalism major. CC should curb the cursing ACLU suit alarming tandfl t’s time to drop the “f-bomb,” and in this case, “drop” means that the expletive has to go. hile profanities, nudity and vio lence continue to become increas ingly commonplace in popular cul- ure, Federal Communications ■Commission head Michael Powell Bnade it clear that some words have o place on network television. Powell was correct in overturn- ng a decision issued by the FCC Enforcement lureau that virtually gave television networks the o-ahead in airing curse words as long as they were ittered in a “non-offensive” context. A non-offensive vay of spewing offensive words? U2 lead singer Bono’s now infamous reaction ifter winning a Golden Globe award last year was ■uled permissible because he used the f-word as a fleeting” adjective that did not refer to any illicit exual act, according to the FCC Enforcement Jureau. Consequently, NBC incurred no fines for etting the f-word slip through the filters and into nillions of homes nationwide. Bono was quoted as saying “This is really, real- y f—ing brilliant!” But, unlike what Bono was eferring to, the FCC decision seems really, really, -ing ridiculous. Parents’ groups, including the Parents Television -ouncil, were among the most vocal protesters of this ncident, and rightly so. According to a study con- lucted by the organization in 2003, cursing and foul anguage increased 95 percent from 1998 to 2002 dur- ng the hour from 8 to 9 p.m., a time slot generally egarded as family hour. This insidious infiltration is tnacceptable and America should be outraged. While the Parents Television Council and some eligious groups have taken a stand against lax uidelines of television propriety, the irresponsibili- y on the part of networks goes virtually unchecked lue to a collective apathy on the part of viewers and ven the FCC itself. Newton Minnow, former FCC chairman, told The -os Angeles Times that because the panel has a pen- hant for “walking away from the issues,” networks tre able to get away with more. Minnow blames this )n “a combination of our own government’s fault, ndustry’s fault and technological change.” Technological change? By far not the weakest excuse from the pro-Bono camp that, by the way, is anything but pro bono. Proponents of the original FCC ruling argued that much of the music being honored at the Golden Globes contained foul lan guage and, therefore, Bono’s exclamation was hard ly corrupting innocent viewers, according to CNN.com. Critics are right to say that Americans — includ ing children — are certainly no strangers to profani ty on the screen; premium cable channels such as HBO and just about any movie over PG-13 are rife with cursing, including the f-word, the most taboo mono-syllable in the English language. So if Americans want to hear cursing, let them buy premium cable and go to the movies. While excuses for ignoring standards of decency become increasingly insubstantial, it is about time someone accepted responsibility and enacted change. Fortunately, Powell is doing just that. In addition to overturning the FCC’s earlier ruling, Powell demand ed that Congress raise fines as much as 10 times for each indecency violation as an added deterrent for networks. The current maximum fine is $27,500, mere “peanuts,” according to Powell. Bono is not the only star whose potty-mouth has caused a stir. Fox TV faced a similar incident when “Simple Life” star Nicole Richie avoided the censors when she said that getting “cow s— out of a Prada purse” was “not so f—ing simple.” Neither is figur ing out what to do with her use of expletives. However, a solution may be at hand. A new bill has been introduced in Congress that explicitly states eight words and phrases that may never be said on network television without incurring heavy fines. The adjective excuse would no longer be a legitimate defense, as the new law would cover “hyphenated compounds, verb, adjective, gerund, participle and infinitive forms.” Curse words are not defined by part of speech or usage, it is the word itself that brings offense. Whether someone calls someone else a “f— “mother f—er,” or a “f—ing idiot,” this does not change the offensive nature of the word. Network television should be free from such tasteless s— (as should student newspapers). Lindsay Orman is a senior English major. T he American Civil Liberties Union has crossed the line once again. This time, it is suing the city of San Diego over the Boy Scouts! use of the city’s proper ty. Continuing its quest to complete ly secularize American society, the ACLU is using a liberal interpreta tion of the First Amendment to justi fy its argument. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establish ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The ACLU’s case asserts that because the Boy Scouts is a religious organization, its association with San Diego is in violation of the Constitution. The history of legal battles between the two groups goes back almost a decade. The battle centers around the Boy Scouts’ policy toward spirituality and sexual orientation. The Scouts maintain that it may be selective with its membership in requiring members to believe in God and not allowing openly homosexual members. Many in this politi cally correct age disagree and will go to great lengths to stop the selectivity. The most alarming issue in the debate is the classification of the Boy Scouts as a reli gious organization. The Scouts' Web site claims that its mission is to “train young people in citizenship, service and leader ship,” and “offer young people responsible fun and adventure.” Anyone who has been a part of the Boy Scouts organization knows that it is a far cry from a religious worship service. In an interview with Fox News, Boy Scouts lawyer George Davidson expressed the sentiment that the Scouts are open to all faiths and have Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and even pantheistic members. Given the great diversity of the group, it hardly seems plausible that the Scouts pose any threat of establishing a national religion, as prohibited in the Constitution. The Boy Scouts has been an excellent tenant of San Diego’s property throughout its 90 years there. During its tenure at Balboa Park, the Boy Scouts has spent mil lions of its own dollars developing the area, said Eagle Scout Hans Zeiger in his column on www.amer- icasvoices.org. Improvements include a 600-seat amphitheater, a swimming pool and campgrounds for up to 300. In addition, the Scouts has provid ed the city a great service by helping to maintain undeveloped portions of the park at no cost to the city. Zieger calls this “classic public-private partnership.” While the “Church,” if you classify the Scouts as such, and “state” remain separate entities, there is no Constitutional reason that the two cannot work together for mutually beneficial endeavors. The current debate hits close to home, as the decision made in California will set the precedent for what course of action will be taken all over the country against the Boy Scouts and similar organizations. Furthermore, the attack on the Boy Scouts represents an attack on traditional American culture and values that have guid ed our nation from its beginning. This case is only one example of the dangerous power that courts have to interpret the law accord ing to current public opinion. It is scary to see how much freedom the courts have been given to set precedents, and subsequently strayed away from the simplicity laid down in the Constitution for governing the United States. It seems hard to believe that the same founding fathers who wrote the First Amendment could have foreseen it being used to attack the Boy Scouts, an organiza tion that admittedly promotes traditional American values and morals. The majority of Americans support the efforts of the Boy Scouts to raise a consci entious generation of future American lead ers, and it is time that the “silent majority” take a stand against the direction that a vocal minority group is attempting to lead our nation. Josh Langston is a senior biology major. JOSH LANGSTON