Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Oregon Daily Emerald
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
El DITO RIAL.
Announcing
plans for Iraq
will help ease
public doubt
If bad news items were family holiday spats, then it would
be Christmastime at the in-laws' in Iraq.
rI\vo soldiers were killed in Al Anbar province Monday, up
ping the American military death toll to 786 (573 in hostile
action).
And according to a report by Seymour Hersh in The New
Yorker, "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not
in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a
decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had
been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation
of prisoners in Iraq."
Monday, a suicide bomber killed Izzedine Salim, the pres
ident of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. Salim
isn't the first council member to die in an attack; Aquila al
Hashimi also died in one September 2003.
President Bush lamented, "The terrorists know that a free
Iraq will be a major defeat for the cause of terror, so they are
trying to shake our confidence and will."
However terrorists would view a free Iraq aside, these at
tacks are certainly aimed at shaking coalition forces' "confi
dence and will." But what's increasingly murky is what ex
actly a "free Iraq" would actually look like, or how the
coalition is going to build it.
Still unclear is who will receive what governing powers
several weeks from now during the much-touted transfer of
power to local control.
Worse, more than a year after "major combat" operations
have ended, the Bush administration has announced no
long-term Iraq strategy, including the conditions for pulling
out.
The United States, at least has some medium- to long
range plans for the region; the Pentagon announced recently
that it would transfer 3,600 troops from the Korean border
— about 10 percent of the standing American force there —
to Iraq.
If nothing else, reassigning soldiers from the last front of
the Cold War to the principal front of the increasingly loose
ly defined war on terrorism, and from one 'Axis of Evil' na
tion to another, exemplifies a shift in military priorities.
But if obvious inferences are the best indicator that the
American public — not to mention the world — has of the
American objective in the region (at least, in terms of any
thing more specific than "the freedom of the Iraqi people"),
it's no surprise that the Iraqi occupation seems like an in
creasingly disenchanting proposition.
So, the coalition should announce to whom they'll trans
fer power several weeks from now immediately, and then an
nounce a long-term plan for Iraq. This plan will serve several
purposes to benefit coalition forces and Iraqi civilians alike.
At the least, it will provide a psychological certainty for every
one in the region. The present vacuum of ambiguity is a
breeding ground for the fear and cynicism that terrorists feed
on. (And given the recent troubles in Iraq, there's little space
for more of either.)
But more broadly, the clarity of specificity might quell
some of the international community's concern about the
United States' military policy, not to mention doubt about
the future of the 21st century's foreign policy powderkeg.
X CAN'T 6ET NO
T06,ANt> IT SaiMtft
LivX the BEsrm!
i secerns is in
l the
■^TT^HTHERE IS no
S,JJL|lBSET TIMELINE!
SIAM in hB we will six-i
Wj! % pi THE COURSE!
L0N& 'J.J
VIE. KKM€T0l
MWvm
t- A >>
iK^U
m * v"'
**»
Steve Baggs Illustrator
Birth Rights
Imagine you are a 54-year-old homeless
man addicted to cocaine. Imagine your sig
nificant other, a 35-year-old homeless
woman with her own drug problems, is the
mother of four children, three of whom
you fathered. All four children have been
placed in foster care because you have no
ability to care for them.
And now, you may not have any more
children under penalty of law.
In a March 31 ruling made public last
week, Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Con
nor of Rochester, N.Y., issued a startling de
cision: Rodney Evers, the gentleman in
question, and a woman identified in court
documents as Stephanie P., may not pro
create until they prove they can look after
their children.
The case reported in an article by The As
sociated Press that ran in The Register
Guard, raises an interesting and important
question: Is the right to procreate absolute?
Certainly, the facts of the case are dispir
iting. Evers and Stephanie have problems
so intractable that it is difficult to imagine
the couple ever pulling out of them.
They have shown no ability to help
themselves in order to better their future.
They rely on the foster care system to sort
out the results of their irresponsibility.
And yet, if the ability to have children
isn't one of those "unalienable rights"
Thomas Jefferson wrote about in the De
claration of Independence, then what is
an unalienable right?
Granted, the right to procreate isn't ex
plicitly mentioned in the Constitution,
but neither is the right to bake cookies or
any of the other rights we exercise with
Chuck Slothower
Taking issue
nary a thought. A right to procreate also
runs consistent with the history of judi
cial interpretation regarding the 14th
Amendment, especially given the
Supreme Court's ruling in Eisenstadt v.
Baird. In the 1972 case, Justice William
Brennan wrote, "If the right of privacy
means anything, it is the right of the in
dividual, married or single, to be free
from unwarranted governmental intru
sion into matters so fundamentally af
fecting a person as the decision whether
to bear or beget a child."
If you are going to have a constitution
al democracy that gives its citizens basic
rights, you must accept the fact that some
will use those rights irresponsibly. Gun
owners will kill people, criminals will get
away with crimes and racists will spout
hate speech.
Learning to deal with these problems
in a way that doesn't infringe on citizens'
rights is part of having a mature society
based on freedom. Though it might an
noy Judge O'Connor, Evers doesn't forfeit
his right to procreate simply because he
is homeless and addicted to cocaine.
Interestingly, the article notes that O'
Connor's ruling has "outraged civil liber
tarians," as well it should. But Americans
should view the concept of an American
civil libertarian as redundant, like so
called "free speech zones." Just as all of
the United States is one big free speech
zone, so should every American proudly
wear the label of "civil libertarian."
Thankfully, O'Connor stopped short
of ordering the couple to use contracep
tion or obtain an abortion should
Stephanie become pregnant. To do so
would have sparked valid comparisons to
China's one-child policy or Oregon's
own deplorable history with eugenics.
Unfortunately, Stephanie did become
pregnant two weeks before the judge's
order, family members said, and O'
Connor could potentially jail Stephanie
for contempt.
This would help no one. The state failed
Evers and Stephanie — and Evers and
Stephanie failed themselves — far too long
ago for intervention to do any good.
Whether or not Stephanie goes to jail for
a few days, she will likely become pregnant
again. Such is the frustration of dealing
with the poor. They often fail to help them
selves and even continue self-defeating be
havior, whether due to poverty, a lack of ed
ucation or simple helplessness.
In any case, violating the right of Evers
and Stephanie to procreate isn't the best
way to solve this problem.
Contact the columnist
at chuckslothower@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
All Americans
are responsible for war
Writing of the Abu Ghraib atrocities, The
Washington Post's Philip Kennicott said on
May 5: "Armies are made of individuals. Na
tions are made up of individuals. Great na
tional crimes begin with the acts of misguided
individuals; and no matter how many people
are held directly accountable for these crimes,
we are, collectively, responsible for what these
individuals have done. We live in a democra
cy. Every errant smart bomb, every dead civil
ian, every sodomized prisoner, is ours."
We really have to get this. Not only the de
cision to start this war, but all its revealed
atrocities, are our responsibility. The buck
stops with each and every one of us who has
ever voted or paid taxes.
So what will your response be? Can you do
just one proactive thing today, to help correct
our abhorrent collective course?
Vip Short
Eugene
United States should take
steps to regain credibility after
abuse of Iraqi prisoners
The Iraq "detainee/prisoner" abuse scandal
and abuse scandals at other United States de
tainee facilities have yet to be totally deter
mined. These "detainee/prisoner" abuse situ
ations would not have mushroomed as they
have were it not for the arbitrary and secret en
vironments they are cast into.
In contrast consider our criminal system where
"suspects/prisoners" are given a Miranda warning,
allowed a phone call, get legal representation and
can have visitors. Here, our rule of law system
works because a humane system of transparency,
respect and openness discourages dark and secret
environments.
The United States can regain our moral high
ground by prosecuting those who aid and abet de
tainee abuse; adapting our rule of law systems for
"all" detainees, reaffiliating with the International
Criminal Court treaty and more truly interacting
with other nations.
John Bauer
Martinez, Calif.