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.