Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 27, 2004)
Opinion The Battalion f )1( Lillies Noe 'tsl lias | Page 9 • Wednesday, April 28, 2004 A time to kill msidering threat of terrorism, assassination must be accepted as political tool tswonij ds u const he recent assassi nations of Hamas leaders Sheik med Yassin and del Aziz Rantisi have en met with passion- , if mixed, feelings m people around the rid. It’s no secret that mike th men led a terrorist WALTERS Jganization responsible for the deaths of thousands of [nocent victims, but with Israel ■tting its sights on Yasser Arafat “xt, many are questioning the itimacy of assassination in the fifst place. But assassination is a cessary evil, a political tool gat is sometimes necessary to ing down evil rulers, and rid leaders should start bracing it. “I can understand that Israel criticizing Hamas and attack- [g Hamas, but we can never icept these executions,” ISlvedish Prime Minister Goeran rsson told The Associated ess. “They are extrajudicial tions, illegal and disgusting.” His three criticisms form the sis of the outcry against these sassinations. Webster’s fines “extrajudicial” as “done -—contravention of due process ett '. or law.” However, given that anoirn dencetij licit!} J will t*] illbecJ io;\J tests, J lid no::I IT I es 3f:| nen-l to bJ to Ion Irrorists are engaged in an act of war against a state, their jsassinations fall into rules of far rather than that of the ourt. Are assassinations an ille- al act of war, then? According to the U.N. char- tlr’s provisions for self-defense aid the Articles of the Geneva ronventions, the answer is “no.” loth allow the targeting of com manders of a hostile force, which Hamas obviously is. “Disgusting” is obvi ously an aesthetic mat ter, but it’s not one that can form the basis for a moral condemnation. Most surgery and child- births could be described as “disgust ing,” yet mark the con tinuation of human life. Assassinations are obvi ously meant to end human life, yet the implementation of jus tice by the forces of good against evil can certainly be a beautiful thing. Many Americans have a problem making that distinction, but this is a problem that must be solved if the United States is to successfully wage a war against terrorism. The fact is, if Americans cherish their way of life and love the values that make it good, then anyone who seeks to destroy it through mur ders and bombings must be properly recognized as evil. In his speech at Texas A&M this past Friday, Hans Blix spoke of counting the costs of the war in Iraq and measured both the lives of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis together as negatives. This type of equivocation — the lives of U.S. soldiers and those of the men who killed them — is a dangerous land of moral grayness that renders one inca pable of identifying who the enemy is. If one cannot first identify evil, then he is power less to combat it. The Israeli assassinations are legitimate methods of fighting the evil men who prey upon their innocent civilians for their own terrorist goals. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Israel’s Haaretz newspaper that “anyone who kills a Jew or harms an Israeli citizen or sends someone to kill Jews, is a marked man. Period.” Sharon has a clear vision of who he must fight and recog nizes his right to defend himself against those who seek his death and the death of the people he has sworn to lead and protect. While many Palestinians believe they are merely doing the same thing, the dis tinction between the deliberate targeting of civilians by terror ist means and the surgical strike of terrorist leaders must be made. And since Israel allows for freedom of speech and of the press, religion and the right to private property, Americans should stand by Israel as a country that shares their own values. Israel must be allowed to defend itself, and assassination is a valid instrument of doing so. And while terrorists groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are crying for blood over the recent incidents, people should keep in mind that when the bad guys get mad, something’s being done right. Mike Walters is a senior psychology major. Graphic by Chris rnierv is—ii 3am I vho ted that nJ men.Kl raioer, 1 fJniversity handled editorial improperly Confiscating papers a poor decision ON! ON! m ORE $ jet / J r he extent to which a person’s free speech rights extend is often a subject of debate.On ftpril 18, La Roche College, a private ■toman Catholic college in Pittsburgh, Pa., with an enrollment of less than ,2,000, hosted an open house event for Barents and prospective students. fWhat made this event more exciting Khan usual was that the day before, lecurity personnel removed approxi mately 900 copies of The La Roche Courier, jjthe college’s newspaper, to keep parents from leading an editorial in the current issue. I This act has been decried as “censorship” by some, but this is too harsh a label. The actions of the college were, however, thoughtless and Innecessary. So what was the col- jliinn about, and why did the ichool wish to keep parents Irom reading it? Editor in thief Nicole Johnson was Ipset that, even though lamphlets could be found In campus giving instruc- lions on where to drop off Inwanted children so that Ihey could be taken care of by others, the school had lone nothing to prevent unplanned pregnan cies via means of condoms and other contra- leptive methods. La Roche officials were afraid the column might send the wrong impression in regards to the university’s stance on the use of contra- leptives since the column is at odds with the fchool’s religious values. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Ken Service, vice president for institutional relations, said, “On lampus, people are familiar with the student newspaper and would recognize that this par ticular column was an individual’s opinion fcnd not reflective of an institutional position. IThere was concern that parents of prospective Itudents might not recognize that.” Was Johnson being “censored?” Jkbsolutely not. First of all, the column had Ibeen available for three days prior to the ■■emoval of the papers. About 600 students had already picked up a paper and could have read the article. So, had the school not wanted anyone to read it simply for what it said, action would have been taken sooner. However, just like Service said, the goal was to avoid sending prospective students and their par ents the wrong impression about the school. Although students would still be able to read and dis cuss the article, the school’s image would be protected. Despite all of this, the school’s actions were not justified. It is true that Johnson should have known she was entering danger ous territory when she decided to write a column that challenges Catholic moral teachings at a Catholic school, but rather than confiscating unread newspapers, a statement could have been made at the open house. According to the La Roche Web site, the open house began with a wel come by David McFarland, assistant vice president for academic affairs. At that time, when all attending were gathered, the issue could have been addressed. This would have prevented the resulting controversy and could have sparked discussing among parents and their children. It is ironic, though, that the school’s administrators’ actions have probably hurt the school’s image more than they protected it. The leaders of the Catholic church have made mistakes in the past by trying to censor books and the theater. Time and again such actions have proven to cause the opposite of the desired effect. Discussion and reason must be the means by which truth is ascer tained; covering up issues never does any thing to solve them. Cody Sain is a junior philosophy major. CODY SAIN ... rather than confiscating unread newspapers, a statement could have been made at the open house. MAIL CALL There are legitimate reasons for inconsistency in drop fees In response to Mike Walters April 23 column: As an owner of one of the referenced “tow com panies in College Station,” I feel the need to clarify misinformation in Mr. Walter’s article. As stated in the College Station Code of Ordinances, a “drop” is when a tow truck that has connected to a vehicle for towing releases the vehicle to its owner upon payment of the drop fee, except when the vehicle is being taken into cus tody by an officer. A vehicle is connected if it is at least partially attached to the tow truck or when skates/dollies have been placed under the vehicle. A vehicle is not connected if the tow truck is mere ly backed up to the vehicle. The article stated that the two companies involved were contacted about their policies. What about the other 16 in town? Did you contact them to see if all of their policies are the same? Tow companies who provide non-consent tows are regulated by the city ordinances of both College Station and Bryan. The maximum fees listed in the ordinances are just that, maximum fees. There is nothing in the ordinance that states we have to charge the maximum. As for the differ ences in “drop fees,” since a majority of the local tenants are students, I’ve made arrangements with management companies to offer discounted fees as in a $20 drop fee versus the $40 unless the owner becomes belligerent, then I have every right to charge them the “maximum” fees allowed. This may be the reason for the difference in prices, but not many companies offer this type of discount. Would you rather pay a $20-$40 drop fee or the $111.24 if it is taken to the storage yard? The ordinances also state that a receipt must be provided to owners at the time of payment. If you do not receive a receipt, ask for one. If they don’t give you one, you can contact Code Enforcement and voice a complaint with the officer who is in charge of wrecker service enforcement. This requirement also takes care of the driver pocketing money comment when the tickets and money have to be turned in and accounted for. As for only being parked for five minutes, we for the most part, are unaware of how long you are parked in a location. Companies are contracted to tow any and all vehicles that are parked without stickers or in the wrong area. It is our job to ensure that there is parking for their tenants. It is the ten ants’ responsibility to ensure that their guests are parked in their designated areas. Jennifer A. Swartz Owner, J.A.G.S Rescue & Recovery, LLC & PETE office assistant 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 sub mitted 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 & K3c.a>m -VM