Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesday, January 30,2002
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Editorial
We should stay
open-minded
about detainees
The 158 detainees being held on suspi
cion of terrorist activity have received a
lot of media attention regarding their
treatment by American military forces at the
Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba. But details
of how American officials are treating the cap
tives are ambiguous at best. Secretary of State
Colin Powell addressed this issue Jan. 27
when he publicly entertained the idea of al
lowing the captives prisoner of war protec
tions outlined under the Geneva Convention.
The detainees are neither prisoners nor con
victed terrorists until they have been proven
guilty by the American justice system.
The captives need to remain classified as de
tainees because the United States needs time
to conduct thorough investigations. The White
House should refrain from officially labeling
detainees “terrorists” and “killers,” as Presi
dent George W. Bush told reporters at a joint
news conference earlier this week. Marking
them terrorists assumes the detainees are
guilty until proven innocent, a decidedly un
American form of justice.
Concern that the United States may appear
shockingly arrogant about the situation to oth
er countries is valid. White House spokesman
Ari Fleischer epitomized American insolence
when he said the detainees in Cuba were
“lucky” to be captured rather than killed.
“They’re being treated well, because that’s
what Americans do,” he said.
With this latest opposition to complying
with the POW treatment demanded by the
Geneva Convention, the White House is re
vealing a frightening trend of resistance to in
ternational treaties. In August, Bush broke
away from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile
Treaty with Russia, and in March 2001, the
White House refused to implement the Kyoto
Protocol, sending shock waves as the world
reacted to Bush’s blatant disregard for envi
ronmental treaties.
Powell made the right move to break with
the White House’s stance on the rights of the
captives in Cuba. There are too many ques
tions concerning the treatment and guilt of
the detainees to impose any protections on
them. No one is positive of where the captives
came from, although there are reportedly cap
tured combatants'from about 30 countries.
What’s worse, it has not been clarified
whether al-Qaeda terrorist network members
or Taliban soldiers are part of the same vili
fied group, or whether one of the groups
holds more clout than the other.
The detainees being held in Cuba should
remain there, without POW status, until
more information about their possible in
volvement in the attacks on the United
States is found. The White House should
heed Powell’s suggestion to remain open
minded to the possibility of adhering to in
ternational rules governing the treatment of
the captives. No one can make assertions
about the guilt or innocence of the captives
at this point, but inflammatory remarks
about their treatment or guilt will only con
tribute to the world view that the rules apply
to everyone but the Bush Administration.
| „ M. «■
itor and
Guest Commentaries Policy
Letters are i i mitedto 250 words and guest commentar ies
to 550 words. Please include contact information.
The Emerald reserves the right to edit
< ■ > ■ - - ■ ■
Hard road to Roe
even years before I was bom, the
U.S. Supreme Court assured me
one of the most important rights I
have as a U.S. citizen — the right to
make decisions about my own body.
Now, 29 years later, the same legal body
is poised to try to take that right away.
The decision I am talking about is of
course the infamous Roe v. Wade case.
However, if the small but vocal minority
of anti-choice activists in this country
get their way, Roe v. Wade, along with
any chance of my equality as a woman,
will be history.
The connection between a woman's
control over her body and a woman's
status in society has even been recog
nized by the Supreme Court. In Planned
Parenthood v. Casey, the opinion of the
court was that “the ability of women to
participate equally in the economic and
social life of the nation has been facili
tated by their ability to control their re
productive lives.”
The danger of abortion laws being re
pealed is ever-present but covert. In a re
cent survey by Lake Snell Perry, 58 per
cent of women under the age of 30
reported they would be worried if Presi
dent Bush tried to overturn Roe vs.
Wade by appointing conservative jus
tices to the Supreme Court. Even the re
tirement of one justice could upset the
very tenuous 5-4 balance.
But being worried is not enough. In
this day and age, when a woman's right
to make decisions about her own body
is being rapidly reduced by ridiculous
and punitive court decisions, it is of the
utmost importance for young women
and men to work to preserve that right.
Roe vs. Wade was not a decision
about abortion or morality; rather, it was
about believing that women are human
enough to make up their own minds
about their own bodies.
In a perfect world, where everyone re
gardless of gender, economic status or
race receives honest education about
sex, has access to free contraceptives
that work 100 percent of the time and
where rape is nonexistent, abortions
would not be necessary. But there is no
such place.
Abortion is a hard and important de
cision for a woman, but it must remain
her decision.
A fundamental belief in democrat
ic societies is in the right to self-de
termination. To deny a woman the
right to control all aspects of her
body is the same as saying that she is
not an equal human.
Indeed, the influences of societal at
titudes that deny women the right to
choose are far-reaching. If a woman is
n't allowed to decide what stays in her
body, then a society feels more justi
fied in taking control over what enters
her body and what action occurs to
her body.
The statistics bear this out. The U.S.
Department of Justice reports that one
woman is raped in the United States
every 90 seconds, and according to the
United Nations Study on the Status of
Women, one woman in America is beat
en every 15 seconds.
Our attitudes toward reproductive
freedom and equality for women go
hand-in hand with our societal toler
ance toward violence against women.
Along with this, though, is a very po
tent solution that we as young adults
can use to ensure our rights and the
rights of the next generation. We must
not take for granted the work of our
predecessors. It is the responsibility of
all people in this country who believe in
individual freedom to become informed
of the issues and to translate that knowl
edge into active advocacy and change.
The path will not be an easy one, and
the victory will not be won by passive
recognition of the problem. It will take a
lot of voices and even more coinage, but
it is perhaps the greatest challenge that
we must meet.
This column, by Kasia Rutledge, is courtesy
of the University of Missouri at Kansas City’s
student newspaper, the University News.
Emerald opinions too hypocritical
The Emerald has once again
proven that their meek intellectu
al capacities are rivaled only by
their moral weakness. Not only has the
editorial board come down on the
wrong side of the growing Commentator
funding controversy, but it has also sold
out its journalistic integrity.
The Emerald, in its infinite wisdom,
has decided that the Oregon Commenta
tor should change its mission statement
for the sake of not making waves. The
only problem is every single argument
the newspaper made in its editorial was
wrong in assumption and conclusion.
The worst argument is misunder
standing the need for viewpoint neu
trality. It is the process by which stu
dent groups are funded that must be
viewpoint neutral according to federal
law, not a publication funded by stu
dents. The editorial hoard should un
derstand simple but important legal is
sues before basing entire editorials on
faulty knowledge.
The outcome of the recent Southworth
Supreme Court decision is not that stu
dent groups cannot have opinions. After
Guest Commentary
Bret
Jacobson
all, from where would the much bally
hooed notion of diversity originate if
there were no dissenting voices? The
shortsightedness of believing every
group should remove from their mis
sions their inherent philosophies — in
the Commentator's case, a political phi
losophy — would have a crippling effect
on the campus “war of ideas. ”
A critical point in this concern is that a
publication cannot consider itself to be
faithful to its mission if it changes its mis
sion statement to supplicate a governing
body comprised of those who clearly
aren't capable of fulfilling their duties.
And to the dismay of the editorial
board, the Commentator will continue
to fight to keep its mission statement
intact, as it has every legal right to do.
It has never been the position of this
magazine, or that of any respected pub
lication, to fold just because a govern
mental organization has run afoul of
the law or a weak daily paper has
urged acquiescence. So while the illu
sory ivory tower of University publica
tions may feel it proper to prescribe
aristocratically gentile notions of keep
ing the peace, those who have firm be
liefs must fight for them.
There is also a great deal of hypocrisy
in the editorial. The Emerald has been
extremely critical of the Programs Fi
nance Committee in the past, especially
last year when the newspaper was hit
significantly in the student fees it re
ceived after a PFC decision.
At one time, I had the good fortune
to work at the Emerald on its editorial
board. I saw then that only the most
careful examination of issues and
strongest adherence to critical journal
istic values makes for respectable
opinions. The editorial failed on both
those counts, and it is unsurprising
that the opinion is that of arrogant,
petulant children.
Bret Jacobson is publisher
of the Oregon Commentator.