Opinion
le 17,2i
must
)0 ssessi
n 't sen,
'the 5
FES
ease, (s
t05. is,
paid, $4i :
The Battalion
Page 5 • Thursday, June 17, 2004
Making a case for torture
Hnding ways around torture legislation a good move in ending war on terror
Mm:
I nformation is crucial. Anyone will
admit this, be it a businessman or a sol
dier. Successful businesses are depend
ent on the best information available, and
wars are won in a similar fashion. This
brings us to a crossroad. During a war, how
far should one go to extract information
from a prisoner? Is torture ever justifiable?
In some cases, it is.
Recently, some documents prepared by
defense department lawyers and the presi
dent’s legal advisors have surfaced, instruct-
jrrlink the president on ways to get around torture laws.
course, many individuals believe this is a crime against
' Mmanity and a breach of American and international law.
However, torture may indeed play a key role in protecting U.S,
Jdiers and this nation.
Still, the Bush administration has tried to downplay and
en deny that the president has ordered the use of torture.
For example, John Ashcroft, in a testimony to the Senate
JTudiciary Committee, stated, “President Bush made no order
it would require or direct the violation of either interna-
mciufeWiial treaties or domestic laws prohibiting torture.”
340 mo * Last week, however, the Wall Street Journal broke the
s|)ry of a classified legal brief to Secretary of Defense
)nald Rumsfeld regarding the difficulties interrogators faced
in obtaining information from prisoners. The brief stated,
imo ♦ “because the president is protecting national security, any ban
074 I torture, even an American Law, could not be approved.”
imu.srl Basically, this implies that the president’s charter to pro-
lls ' 7t tia national security trumps the laws of torture.
■ Other memorandums pertain to using harsh interro-
ga ion techniques while side-stepping the classification
of torture.
■ One such memorandum, reported by The New York
Times, claimed “a defendant is guilty of torture only if
bs. hi acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain
or suffering on a person within his control.”
I Bush claims he ordered interrogators to use methods
compatible with international and American law, but
it’s obvious that a word game is being played. That
is, what constitutes “severe pain" is completely cir-
Frift-jsumstantial.
f 8 ”' 7 * Most likely. Bush has stooped to playing such word
, (games because he realizes torture is indeed useful, and
wa- in ome instances necessary. Nevertheless, he also
state of idealism and naivete and would not reelect a man who
advocates torture.
Unfortunately these people fail to see the big picture.
Remember these “enemy combatants” fight for no national
standing army and have no rights under the Geneva
understands that many American voters live in a constant
Conventions. More importantly, since these individuals fight for
no standing army, it is obvious they are motivated by something
more than nationalism: A sick ideology inspired by a religious
theology.
These terrorists believe they fight for God, so it is nearly
impossible to obtain vital information quickly. After all, it’s easy
to squeal on your government, but not God. This is why more per
suasion is needed.
The international community and many delusional people
here in the United States believe that Americans should treat the
terrorists held as prisoners in a humane and delicate fashion.
Why is this?
The reason offered is, “If Americans torture prisoners, then the
enemy will torture American POWs.”
This is the most important point. Nevertheless, it fails to hold
water. To explain, it seems that only Americans and their allies
hold themselves to the standards of the treaties regarding pris
oner treatment. Does anyone believe our soldiers held as
POWs in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War or the Iraq War were
treated in such a fashion? Absolutely not.
It’s terrible that torture should even be considered as an
option, but Americans must ask themselves, “How much
longer should this war on terror continue. How many more
innocent lives need to be lost?”
Without question, torture is inhumane, but wake up.
These terrorists must not be pampered. They should be so
terrified when captured that they are willing to tell inter
rogators anything they want to know.
Admittedly, this method can be viewed as cruel, but so
can suicide bombings targeting innocent civilians and chil
dren, flying airplanes into buildings or dragging the body
parts of Americans down the streets of Fallujah.
The harsh truth is torture has a place in the war on
terror, especially since nuclear weapons are more
accessible. If prisoners are unwilling to relinquish
vital information that may save a few American lives
or an entire city by thwarting a nuclear attack, then
our interrogators should have no reservations about
starting at the prisoners’ toes and working their
way up.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
Graphic by Will Lloyd
voucher system is the best
olution to finance problem
MAIL CALL
iced k
OM#
Sluder
ioW l:
Vouchers would do away with wasteful spending
;ts
eorge Washington Carver once wrote that
U “Education is the key to unlock the golden
door of freedom.” Because freedom is an
ential principal on which America was founded,
viding quality public education to this nation’s
jildren is a duty of all fifty states. The Texas
gislature and Gov. Rick Perry are still searching
oi key finances that will support the education of
xas’ children, and a voucher system is the best
swer to this problem.
8IRI!! I inadequate planning stalled the efforts to remove
the current Robin Hood system during a special leg
islative session called up by Gov. Perry in late May. In the
«rch for a new plan to guide the education system in Texas,
Boviding more educational freedom to the parents of school
Bildren through a voucher system would end
this crisis.
I The current school finance problem began
en the infamous Robin Hood law found its
y on to Gov. Perry’s chopping block. The
e came about as a result of the Texas
preme Court case “Edgewood ISD v. Kirby.”
this case, the Court decided that the differ-
jces in funding between the richest districts
and the poorest violated the Texas
Constitution’s education clause.
■ Therefore, in 1993 the legislature came up
-^■th the Robin Hood plan to appease the Court
th the complete elimination of this system,
Other funds must be raised to keep in line with
thfe old Court ruling.
I According to the Houston Chronicle, Perry’s
current proposals to make up for the inequali-
ties in funding include increasing the tax on
ciprettes, allowing video slot machines to operate legally in
Texas borders and taxing those that frequent “gentlemen’s”
(cljibs. Relying on people to consistently indulge their vices is
er a good idea, and the idea of increasing the number of
ejuilized gambling establishments along Texas’ borders defies
the traditional values of our state.
I What Perry and the supporters of his plan need to realize is
that Texas already has enough money to provide every single
child in Texas with a decent education. The problem is the
ount of money wasted in the independent districts on non-
ucational projects and high-paid bureaucrats who never set
)t in the schools they administer.
Texas needs sweeping reform to clean up our inefficient
chool districts and provide quality education to every Texas
dent. Creating a voucher system is the best way to achieve
ese lofty but important goals.
In a voucher system, the revenue from property taxes will
JONATHAN
SMITH
... providing
more educational
freedom to the
parents of school
children through
a voucher system
would end
this crisis.
be taken up at the state level and divided evenly
among all the children in Texas in the form of a
voucher. This voucher follows the children to what
ever school they please, even to private schools,
which forces current schools to compete with each
other for funding.
In this system, it doesn’t matter if someone’s chil
dren are in a rich district or a poor district, because
all Texas children will have vouchers of the same
value. In order to provide true freedom of choice, a
certain portion of the voucher should be earmarked
to provide funding for busing so that children are
able to get to any school they please.
Standardized test scores (an area of education where Texas
already leads the nation), magnet programs, location and after-
school programs would be the main criteria on
which parents could base their decision on what
school their child goes to. Inefficient schools
will be shut down because of a lack of funding,
which will fortunately push the other children
who remained at that failed school into more
successful ones.
The most important effect of the reform
would be the disbanding of the hundreds of
school boards that currently decide how the
money raised for education in our state must be
spent. The administration can be centralized,
ending the need for Texas’ taxes to be spent on
hundreds of district superintendents when we
only need one statewide one.
Also, parents will be given veto power over
the decisions of their children’s schools by con-
trolling their purse strings. A school that spends
too much money on non-educationai projects
will find its bottom line depleted by parents removing students
from that school. Competition, the force that drives the vibrant
Texas economy, is just what the doctor ordered for our ailing
education system.
The debate over how to provide for quality education in
Texas will heat up again in another special session or during
the next legislative session which is scheduled to be in
January. Any representative that fights for a voucher system
will find themselves in good company; a recent poll by the
Austin Chronicle indicates that 59 percent of Texans favor
school choice. Hopefully, by then Perry will join these ranks
and open his eyes to a voucher system — a bold plan that
would prove this state’s dedication to education.
Jonathan Smith is a junior
history major.
Blaming Muslims is
‘convenient way out’
In response to David Shoemaker's
June 16 column:
It seems like he puts the blame for
violence in Iraq on "Fanatical
Islamists" and "Baathists." Will people
please wake up? I have lived in Middle
East all my life and I can tell you noth
ing can be further from the truth.
Of course these days blaming every
thing on Muslims seems to be the con
venient way out. Sure don't blame it on
"Iraqis" even though polls show 90 per
cent of Iraqis view the US as an occu
pation force. Just blame it on
"Muslims" because it won't be politi
cally correct to say Iraqis are fighting.
Saying "Iraqis" are fighting would seem
like a national uprising rather than a
small cult of people and of course that
would not play well politically.
Sure, when Serbs kill Albanians, say
"Serbs massacared Muslim
Albanians," but never mention
"Christian Serbs killed Muslim
Albanians" Why the hypocrisy, may I
ask? Clearly, Christians are not to be
blamed, Serbs are. Muslims are not to
be blamed likewise. If someone helps
the coalition forces, they are
"Pakistani” or "Iraqi," but when they
go against it, they are "radical
Muslims" or "Islamists." What kind of
hypocrisy is this, may I dare ask?
Hassan Jaffar
Class of 2004
Embryonic stem cell
research problematic
In response to Mike Walters' June 16
column:
In 1988, President Reagan declared
“the unalienable personhood of every
American, from the moment of con
ception until natural death." We
should remember Reagan’s principles.
While it is true that stem cells exist
in embryos, it often goes unmentioned
that they are also found in adults, pla
centas, and in umbilical cord blood. It
is these stem cells that provide all the
promise of embryonic stem cells with
out the controversy.
Scientific American reported that
advances in adult stem cell research
showed more immediate promise than
embryonic stem cell research. This is
partly due to the fact that since the adult
stem cells came from the patient, there
is a much lower risk of the body reject
ing the tissue. Furthermore, extracting
stem cells from adults, placentas, and
umbilical cord blood does not stop the
development of a genetically unique
being, as it does in the case of embryos.
To say that scientists should be able
to use stem cells from embryos that
would otherwise die is similar to sup
porting experiments on death row
inmates or terminally ill patients with
out consent. Scientists shouldn’t pur
sue medical advances that harm some
while trying to heal others.
Joshua Dwyer
Class of 2006
foKKuz-v
y>( : .
www.boxAndForkum com