%
mntanamo detainees should get military trial due to ‘enemy combatanf status
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 11 • Monday, April 26,
Trying times
h, Cuba. The land of coveted cigars, a
dictator with astonishing longevity and
600 “enemy combatants” confined to a
U.S. military base — combatants “held with
impunity, held without charges” some say.
The disturbing nature in which the Bush
administration has confined these prisoners
without charging them has finally been taken
up by the U.S. Supreme Court, where many
hope the prisoners will be granted the right to a
federal trial.
Though the desire to limit the president’s unchecked power is
derstandable, extending federal rights to these non-citizens may
advertently have severe consequences.
The detainees want the protection of the habeas corpus statute,
hich states that anyone held by the U.S. government has the right
to challenge confinement.
Complicating matters, however, is the precedent set by the court
ter World War II in Johnson vs. Eisentrager, which found that
a-citizens confined outside the United States have no access to
deral courts. Thus, habeas corpus does not apply.
Guantanamo was officially acquired by the United States in a
03 lease with Cuba. And years later, a series of treaties — most
tably one in 1934 — specified that while America had
premacy at Guantanamo, “ultimate sovereignty” remained
iba's and that termination of the lease required the signatories
of both parties.
Opponents of the Bush administration, however, claim that
:ause Cuba has no authority pertaining to the governing of
tiantanamo, the United States truly holds
vereignty, and therefore the courts have
^^■deral jurisdiction.
uitac ■ Though the argument contains legitimacy,
>ini biBere is really no legal way for the court to inter
ne unless it capriciously disregards the lease, the
aties and the precedent of a former ruling.
Recently, some individuals, sympathetic to the
plight of captured terrorists, have touted “prisoners
ol war have the right to a trial.” Yes, they do. But
other technicality remains. These people are not
risoners of war;” they are “enemy combatants.”
Under the Geneva Convention a “prisoner of
jar” is a member of a country’s standing military,
low can anyone identify what standing military al-
§ a ^ a ' ^ amas or an y t * ie ot h er Islamic groups
Ulij Wong to? Answer: They have no affiliation. Hence
J^ename, terrorist “organization.”
Other opponents assert that denying detainees the
it goes against constitutional rights. Such an argument is not only
unfounded but dangerous.
Here’s the harsh truth. These detainees are not U.S. citizens, so
they have no rights, including the right to a trial. If the court
extends rights to non-citizens, especially terrorists, a Pandora’s
box effect could manifest allocating a new weapon to terrorists:
windfall
is to
leaun::|
ntemeu
ens
n tlie I
, spoke!*!
nore e'fj
ive venifif
icrease 1
thepwj
Uin^i
luseofrf
Ime treatment Americans enjoy is inhumane or that
the exploitation of the courts.
How much will it cost taxpayers for these degenerates to obtain
proper council, opportunities for appeals, preparation time, access
to witnesses, etc.? Individual cases could go on for months, per
haps even a year. More importantly, what happens if terrorists get
off on trivial technicalities? How many precedents will be estab
lished in their favor?
Recall, these “enemy combatants” were not picked up at a
shopping mall, the grocery store or a PTA meeting. U.S. soldiers
captured them on the battlegrounds of Afghanistan where they
definitely weren’t helping our troops fight the Taliban. To the
contrary, they desired to kill American soldiers, and they would
love to see many Americans suffer. And now these individuals
demand privileged rights? Too bad! Remember, they declared
war on the United States several times in the 1990s and most
recently on 9-11.
Indeed, these combatants must receive a trial, but not because
they deserve one. These men should be afforded a trial only to
illustrate that America doesn’t imprison people arbitrarily; justice
must be exercised.
Still, federal courts are not the correct venue for the trial.
Neither is an international court. Americans died capturing these
men, and Americans should judge them.
The appropriate measure is to try the detainees in a U.S.
military court, outside U.S. sovereignty. According to an arti
cle published by the Harvard Journal of Law regarding the
Cuban detainees, a military trial is “morally, politically and
legally justified.”
The Bush administration claims it
will hold such trials, but has yet to
establish a time period. This is unac
ceptable. Pressure must be placed on
the president to specify a time period for
military trials to transpire. If it’s a year from
now, fantastic. If it’s three to five years, so
be it. Just set the date. There is no rush,
though, for truly the world does not miss
these men and their debauchery.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
Graphic by Paul Wilson
Eliminating food options
ignores roots of obesity
:tieta.'F
over to
lacing everything from criticism to lawsuits over
the health content of its food, McDonald’s has
announced plans to phase out its “Super Size”
option by Dec. 31, 2004, and other companies are
to be following suit. However, limiting menu
lions does little to address consumers’ actual eating
Cl c j|iabits, laziness and bulging waistlines.
WMH By now, most everyone has heard of them: those
ossly overweight couch potatoes who sue
McDonald’s after a few too many years of loyal
tronage, alleging that the fast-food chain is personal
ly responsible for their obesity. Sadly, there are Americans,
including many who are congenially fit and thin, who actually
believe this conspiracy, completely denying the fact that the
1 1 individuals themselves are responsible for what they ingest. A
Sizable chunk of the country has apparently been sold on the
theory that fast-food chains were founded solely to worsen the
plight of the fat. All of this, of course, is false.
I These conspiracy theorists contend that
poor heavier-set souls can’t help it; they are
11111 b futile to act against the unbeatable force of big
jisiness mind control. For the rest of us, their
excuses look like a poor justification for lazi-
ss and immoderation.
It’s a crazy thought, no doubt, but it seems
infinitely more likely that Ronald and Co. are
more guilty of intellectual thievery — ruth
lessly swiping the common sense of their bil
lions served, if this indeed were possible —
an of forcing their customers to consume
healthy food in overindulgent quantities,
is idea of forcible consumption is the
apegoat for today’s society that exercises
to self-control, is uninhibited and shifts
blame like plate tectonics.
What has been the result of all this fuss? Obvious fast-food
[form has come, which was probably well past due. Trends
siich as the Atkins Diet wraps and low-carb salads have been
Ided to most menus. The pressure, however, has caused
Bier actions, such as the McDonald’s decision to phase out
| its “Super Size” option. To the responsible and healthy
American who, like the best of us, gets a gnawing hunger
nbw and then that only the phrase “Super Size it!” can quell,
this is an injustice.
■ Ironically, as these anti-burger crusaders work to oust part
of the American dream (the ideal of self-made success may
fled the country’s soul, but only the cultural mainstay of a
Super-Sized Extra Value Meal can curb its appetite), what
jally matters — the circumference of the nation’s gut —
tains untouched. For example, a study by the American
ledical Association says that while an average fast-food
hamburger has increased in size by about 18 percent since
1977, the average home-cooked version has increased by
more than 45 percent. So why is the emphasis on fast
food and not on the eating habits of the individual?
Because the latter turns the finger right back around
at the one doing the pointing.
By ignoring the root of the problem, “Super Size”
critics ensure the trend of overeating will continue.
It’s always easier to break the weed off above the
surface and forget about the roots: Forget about that
CLINT obesity cure called restraint. Sure, if everyone
rainey engaged in some sort of physical activity and —
God forbid! — said “No!” before caving in to the
pressure of fast-food establishment “mind control tactics”
that “cause” over-ordering and overeating, this “disease”
that afflicts 30 percent of the country would all but disap
pear. But that’s irrelevant.
The debate shouldn’t even be over the nutritional inade
quacies of “Super-Sizing” something; few will contest such
obviousness, as even those consuming the
fast food are aware they are not eating
Healthy Choice. There is a bigger issue at
hand, and it concerns the true diseases of
American culture: laziness, irresponsibility
and unaccountability.
Americans have forgotten how to have
self-control. It is a dinosaur in this modern-
day culture built around convenience — an
era that has announced moderation and
restraint to be passe. For a country that often
equates laziness with happiness, America has
n’t had its legs cut out from under it; using
them has just become an irritation — an out
dated obsoletism.
This is not to absolve fast-food joints of
all the blame —Austin-founded Schlotzsky’s
Deli offers a pastrami Reuben sandwich with
an unseemly 1,800-plus calories and 78 grams of fat — but it
* Shereisabigger
issue at hand, and it
concerns the true
diseases of American
culture: laziness,
irresponsibility and
unaccountability.
MAIL CALL
Election Commission violated its own rules
In response to an April 23 editorial:
The problems in this year’s election did not result from “gray areas" in
campaign finance. They resulted when the Election Commission violated its
own rules by allowing certain candidates great leeway in their financial
reports. For example, the Election Commission has a rule which states:
“Candidates must list the entire cost ..." However, they allowed Mr.
Hildebrand to prorate, or only list part of the cost, of certain items. This is a
clear violation of this rule as the phrasing leaves no room for gray area, and
in my opinion, can be interpreted no other way.
Contrary to your editorial, the Judicial Court has agreed that the Election
Commission did violate its rules. However they do not feel that there was
enough evidence that the Election Commission created an unfair playing field
by allowing violations of these rules in favor of certain candidates. This put
candidates that followed the letter of these rules and didn’t question the
meaning of words such as “entire" at a disadvantage.
Again, let me state that this court case was never about attacking Mr.
Hildebrand. It was about trying to clear up the numerous violations of the
rules by the Election Commission. The only reason that Mr. Hildebrand’s
name was even mentioned was because his finance report was the only other
SBP candidate's that was audited with the exception of Mr. McAdams.
Therefore I feel that the Election Commission does not function appropri
ately and that drastic actions must be taken to preserve the integrity of the
election process here at A&M. The student body should call for an inde
pendent investigation of this past election in order to prevent these problems
from occurring in the future.
Patrick Boyd
Class of 2004
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. 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 77843-1 111. Fax:
(979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
is to release such places from the absurd contention that they
are responsible for America’s obesity problem. America is
responsible for America’s obesity problem. Decreasing the
country’s ever-increasing girth may not be helped by the
heart-stopping, vein-clogging menu options at many fast-
food restaurants, but unsolicited food rarely sneaks into the
digestive system by itself.
As accustomed as Americans have become to transferring
blame, and as easy a target as big fast-food corporations are, if
this country is serious about getting slimmer, Americans will
have to stop blaming and start claiming responsibility. It is
going to require taking control of the situation, and the only
way to do this is to take control of ourselves.
Clint Rainey is a freshman
general studies major.