TheJ
distarl
ig all
â– 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
â– 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
â– 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