Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 2, 2004)
15 applicai ons. ^ Mon, be able 1 ited. < MWF • Please ct.com #' vo posfc tail. G» 113 Wat: TS: US. must not ignore ge TE iooo d h, $6s| :h cond jth COIKt ne to' i/2btli, ! JUS, pi i/1btli 1 tt [|QS»S| ;S male n» f Democrats are unwisely associating with loose cannons mate nee / 189 oi 12. 3/2 '■■■ townte H. $3?S Ambeni U-WIRE IOWA CITY, Iowa — The Democratic National Convention began Monday, full of con- omitant fanfare and self-indulgent pomp. This year’s guest of honor appears to be Michael Moore, the ilmmaker whose animosity for the Bush administration and all things Republican is matched by his illingness to play fast and loose with facts. Moore’s trafficking in highly suspect (to put it generously) conspiracy theories, cobbled together with le ethics of an ad executive, managed to score him an Oscar for the best documentary from the fawn- ig masses in Hollywood, despite the fact that documentaries generally presume to use some degree of bjectivity in examining subjects. Despite this “acclaim,” Democratic insiders were always leery to ac- judest nowledge Moore’s existence in public, particularly after Moore did most of the work in sinking Wesley lark’s presidential campaign, namely by referring to President Bush as a “deserter” while onstage at a ampaign event with Clark. Well, times have certainly changed. The Democrats have ceased treating Moore and his ilk with the isdain that his spurious politics merit and instead have welcomed them into the folds of the party’s iiainstream. Even establishment Democrats have picked up on Moore’s shtick in surreal displays of spittle-flying age. A1 Gore, in a June speech at Georgetown University, made reference to “the network of rapid-re- ponse digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for undennining support or our troops.” The Brown Shirts, it should be noted, were Nazi soldiers who paraded through Munich arrying swastika flags to inspire fear in political opponents. This comparison, which prompted a swift and public rebuke from the Anti-Defamation League, ap- ears to have netted Gore his prime-time speaking engagement on Monday night. For good measure, ore has also referred to Abu Ghraib as “Bush’s gulag,” thus proposing that the president is personally esponsible for the actions of any and all American military personnel. In typical liberal calculus. Bush accountable only for the atrocities; we do not hear about “Bush’s newly built elementary school” or 9^ ‘Bush’s refurnished hospital.” Not to be outdone, the Democrats also trotted out another party embarrassment on Monday: Jimmy ouse i" 13-1639' house ;all 0‘ 1-5713. jm « ,: JlSf 2-2551 JONATHAN SMITH eirly 2003 the violence reached new heights when a rebel group b;gan attacking civilian targets in Darfur, the eastern farming region of Sudan. I This Islamic group, called the Janjaweed, has been ac- cised of “killing thousands and using mass rape against mn-Arabic groups,” according to the BBC. More an 50,000 people have died in the conflict, Hfid more than a million people have fled ,eir homes to live in refuge camps. Yet, the option of fleeing is not avail- le to every victim. One 15-year-old rl, who was raped by five Janjaweed en for more than a week, said “when e Janjaweed were not raping me, iey tied my arms and legs together so ould not run away.” J The Sudanese government has tried 1 separate itself from the Janjaweed. ■The Sudanese government ... never imed or encouraged the Janjaweed,” Bid Sudanese Foreign Minister Mus tafa Ismail. Ismail also said Sudan lad arrested “100 of the Janjaweed |aders and will put them in court.” Yet a group called Human Rights atch said it has four documents that nnect the rebels with the Sudanese overnment. Even in the circumstance at the Sudanese government is not ding the Janjaweed, it is still part of e problem since it cannot prevent the 'uses done by this group. To make matters worse, Arab newcomers have arrived to till the Ibandoned land once owned by the African Fur, Masalit and Za- Ihawa ethnic groups. This action has led many to believe that the /actions taken in Sudan amount to genocide. I In fact, on July 23, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimous ly adopted a resolution to call the events “genocide.” The resolu- ionalso advises the Bush administration to consider “multilateral or ven unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Page 5 • Monday, Aug. 2, 2004 ecessary assistance D uring this election year, President Bush has clearly stated that Americans should be proud of their country’s role in removing a harmful govern ment that hurt the Iraqi people. Yet the same Bush administration has avoided action against the more pressing genocide of peaceful people in a Sudanese civil war. This crisis requires a smart, swift solution. The civil war in Sudan is not a new prob lem, but has waged on for 20 years. Yet, in Nations Security Council fail to act.” So what is the response so far from Bush’s administration? U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and the rest of the administration have been careful to avoid the word “genocide.” This is because a 1948 U.N. convention obligates the international community to prevent and punish genocide in the world. Yet, Powell does recognize the problem in Sudan. He insists that “not enough is being done to break the hold of the Janjaweed.” Yet, instead of direct action, currently the administration is proposing a U.N. resolution that would bring eco nomic sanctions against Sudan. Unfortunately, economic sanctions have a bad record of curbing human rights’ abuses. Econom ic sanctions forced the people of Cuba to suffer economically while their communist leader, Fidel Castro, used the animosity created by these U.S. ac tions to stay firmly in power. Larry W. Yarak, African history professor at Texas A&M, said that “sanctions are no way to respond to the immediate humanitarian crisis in the region.” There are, however, options available to the United States and the international community, the best being an “African Solution.” The BBC reported that leaders of the African Union are going to work out a solution to the situation in Darfur during a special summit in Ghana, called by the African Union chairman, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria. The international community should back the efforts of the Af rican Union and encourage an expanded military and humanitar ian presence of African personnel as much as possible. If any international organization has the right to curb vio lence in Africa, it is the African Union. Supporting the AU is a far better idea than sanctions. Sanctions will not move all the displaced peoples back into their homes. In fact, sanctions might actually increase the violence by escalating the compe tition for resources in the country. This is an African problem that should be dealt with by African leaders, and the United States should fulfill its humanitarian responsibility by providing the funding and equipment that will be needed to end the conflict. The United States and the world cannot ignore the violence in Sudan. The international community, under the direction of the African Union, must take swift action. The United Nations and the White House must call this con flict what it is: Genocide, and act accordingly. In the war against terror, those who wish to harm in nocents in Sudan perfectly fit the description of a terror ist. Nowhere in the world should anyone be allowed to murder and rape innocents. The U.S. Agency for Inter national Development predicts that up to one million people may die in Sudan if nothing is done. History is not forgiving to a superpower that sits on its hands while thousands of families are being systematically eradicated. Jonathan Smith is a junior history major. Graphic by Rylie Deyoe Carter. You will recall that Carter (whose glowing reputation speaks to the power of a liberal media after being crushed in the 1980 election by Ronald Reagan) was the man who, in a 1994 negotiating trip to North Korea, declared, “I don’t see that it is an outlaw nation.” Diligent students of history will also recall that on this same trip, after wringing numerous concessions from the United States out of Carter in exchange for abandoning their nuclear ambitions, the North Koreans happily resumed processing for these weapons while Carter’s plane lifted off the Pyongyang runway, creating a foreign-policy crisis for the current administration in 2002. But these widely acknowledged disasters do not prevent Carter from propagating the “Bush lied” canard, a claim that has become so ubiquitous and entrenched in liberal parlance that it is, anymore, unclear what exactly Bush lied about. Was it the uranium/Niger claim in the State of the Union ad dress? No, Joseph Wilson has been exposed for the lying partisan hack that he is. Perhaps the claim that Bush inflated intelligence on Iraq? No, David Kay took care of that one, when he testified to a congressional committee that “I actually think the intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the president owing [one to] the American people.” But these conclusions fall by the wayside as the left, convinced by their passion but not by pure facts, continues to slander the president for political opportunism. Mainstream Democrats cavalierly shrug at their party’s newly minted association with these loose cannons. Stricken with the anti-Bush fever that is the party’s unofficial platform, prudence and circum spection have been abandoned in favor of winning. So as Moore is feted by Terry McAuliffe, and Carter, without a hint of irony, delivers pedagogical lectures on foreign policy, voters are subject to a daily barrage of outlandish conjectures that represent the Democrats’ best chance for winning the presidency. By completely succumbing to their thirst for office, liberals have managed to do a disservice not only to themselves, but to the American public as well. Robert Schneider is a columnist at The Daily Iowan. Insufficient punishment egal system failed by letting Stewart off too easily y giving her star treatment bdriP jari* (alf ok P'*' lie. , s# lieno 1 '. : call*' still ^ i481. roontf 1 ivIHeS! 11 . PS-6 (U-WIRE) AUSTIN — On Wednesday, Martha Stewart offered to begin the house arrest portion of her sentence in her Bedford, N.Y., home while awaiting the results of her appeal. Stewart was convicted for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators about her sale of ImClone Systems Inc. stock in December 2001. The sale occurred the day before the FDA denied approval for a cancer drug, causing stocks to drop. The drug has since been approved, and the stock is higher than the value Stewart sold them for. Stewart has been sentenced to five months in prison, five months of house arrest, two years of probation and a $30,000 fine, the minimum sentence allowed by federal guidelines. U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum said that she gave Stewart the minimum sentence because she felt that Stewart had “suffered and will continue to suffer enough.” It seems as though the judge has construed bad press as legally punitive. Since the creation of the Justice Department’s Corporate Fraud Task Force in 2001, at least 25 former chief executive officers have been charged or convicted of fraud through federal prosecution. This has led others to feel that Stewart has been treated harshly, a victim of the department’s prosecution of white-collar crime. Congress has asked the task force to pursue obstructive conduct, indicating a pres sure to prosecute Stewart. However, many feel that Stewart has received star treatment, with 16 months in prison as the maximum sentence for her con viction. This is why sentencing guidelines exist: To help prevent spe cial treatment. Stewart’s sentence falls within the range man dated, but five months of house arrest on a 153-acre estate in Bedford hardly seems to be more than a slap on the wrist when compared to five months in prison. Stewart's sentence falls within the range mandated, but five months of house arrest on a 153-acre estate... hardly seems to be more than a slap on the wrist. Sentencing guidelines exist to ensure that defendants receive roughly equal sentences nationwide, without regard to personal status. However, a 153-acre estate that cost almost $16 million when purchased is not the same as a prison, or even a three- bedroom home. Stewart will either be required to wear a bracelet with a set radius or have check-in times; but the area surrounding her will be nicer than the average American neighborhood. The quality of life Stewart will live is markedly different from the average American, either at home or in jail. The existence of house ar rest creates an inequality which sentencing guidelines have not remedied. In the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Congress noted that the sentencing guidelines for white-collar crime needed to be made harsher. In January 2003 the sentencing commission voted to increase penalties for both corporate fraud and obstruction of justice related to corporate fraud investigations. The use of house arrest for white-collar criminals seems to go against this public directive. This is not to say that house arrest does not serve a purpose in society: It is sometimes necessary to order murder suspects to remain under house arrest while awaiting trial. It makes sense to require this when a suspect is potentially dangerous. However, once a conviction has been established, the use of house arrest creates an inequality in punishment, as not every one’s home is the same. Richard Valenty is a columnist at The Colorado Daily.