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