Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (April 25, 2005)
Oregon Daily Emerald Monday, April 25, 2005 NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 JEN SUDICK EDITOR IN CHIEF STEVEN R. NEUMAN MANAGING EDITOR [ARED PABEN AY1SHA YAHYA NEWS EDITORS MEGHANN CUNIFF PARKER HOWE1X SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS MORIAII BAI.ING1T AMANDA BOLSINGF.R ADAM CHERRY EMILY SMITH EVA SYLWESTER SHELDON TRAVER NEWS REPORTERS CLAYTON JONES SPORTS EDITOR JON ROETMAN SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER STEPHEN MILLER BRIAN SMITH SPORTS REPORTERS RYAN NYBURG PULSE EDITOR AMY EIGHTY SENIOR PULSE REPORTER JOSHUA L1NTEREUR PULSE REPORTER CAT BALDWIN PULSE CARTOONIST AILEE SLATER COMMENTARY EDITOR GABE BRADLEY ANNF.MARIE KNEPPER CHUCK SLOTHOWER JENNIFER MCBRIDE COLUMNISTS ASHLEY GRIFFIN SUPPLEMENT FREELANCE EDITOR DANIELLE HICKEY PHOTO EDITOR LAUREN WIMER SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER NICOLE BARKER TIM BOBOSKY PHOTOGRAPHER KATE HORTON ZANER1TT PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS BRET FURTWANGLER GRAPHIC ARTIST DUSTIN REESE SENIOR DESIGNER ELLIOTT ASBURY WENDY KIEFFER AMANDA LEE JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS SHADRA BEESLEY JEANN1F. EVERS COPY CHIEFS KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD JOSH NORRIS SPORTS COPY EDITORS GREG BILS1AND AMBER LINDROS NEWS COPY EDITORS JENNY GERWICK PULSE COPY EDITOR ADRIENNE NELSON ONLINE EDITOR WEBMASTER (541)346-5511 JUDY RIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHYCARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER LALINA DE G1USTI RECEPTIONIST JERED NAGEL PATRICK SCHMERBER HOLLY STEIN JANA SWANSON ROB WEGNER CAROLYN ZIMMERMAN DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING _ (541) 346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR TYLER MACK SALES MANAGER MATT BETZ HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN MEGAN HAM1JN KATE HIRONAKA MAEGAN KASER-LEE KELLEE KAUFTHEIL MIA LEIDELMEYER SHANNON ROGERS SALES REPRESENTATIVES CLASSIFIED (541) 3464343 IRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KORALYNN BASHAM ANDO KAIY GAGNON KERI SPANGLER KAHE STRINGER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541)346-4381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER TARA SLOAN PRODUCTION COORDINATOR JEN CRAM LET KRISTEN DICHARRY CAMERON GAUT SABRINA GOWEITE JONAH SCHROGIN DESIGNERS The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lished daily Monday through Fri day during the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. “THERE HE IS, BOYS .. . PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE!” Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist ■ In my opinion The /w justice of U.S. justice I am a serious fan of the U.S. legal system. Those who stand accused of crime are innocent until proven guilty, citizens have a right to trial by jury and there are rules against cruel and unusual punishment. Of course, in re ality, these staples of American justice don’t always pan out so well. Genetic evidence indicates that more than a few citizens have been wrongly exe cuted, police brutality and issues such as racial profiling are still present in many areas and access to a legal sys tem that works for you depends more on your annual income than your in nocence or guilt. However, the biggest problems plaguing the U.S. justice sys tem right now are two intertwined fac tors: hypocrisy and patriotism. Zacarias Moussaoui is a French citi zen who was planning to fly a plane into the White House on behalf of none other than Osama bin Laden. Af ter Sept. 11, Moussaoui never got a chance to complete his mission, and he now sits poised to be the only per son prosecuted for involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. If U.S. lawyers get their way, he will pay for that involve ment with his life. Moussaoui has been charged, in essence, with planning to hurt Ameri can citizens, and for this our govern ment believes he should die — a prob able, acceptable conclusion of our government, until one considers the myriad of U.S. soldiers escaping even the most menial prosecution for then heinous crimes on foreign soil. The Bush administration is once again proving itself to be rampant with hypocrisy. You want harm against hu manity, let me give you two words: Abu Ghraib. Is considering harm to ward American citizens worse than actually harming an Iraqi life? Appar ently so. Whereas U.S. citizens are people to be protected at the utmost cost, foreign citizens are acceptable ca sualties of war and the rash thinking AILEE SLATER FURTHER FROM PERFECTION that accompanies it. Luckily, Human Rights Watch rec ommended this week that a special prosecutor be assigned to look into the role of senior defense officials within the Abu Ghraib abuses. In deed, it seems obvious that any inves tigation into the questionable actions of subordinates should include an analysis of their superiors. Moussaoui is slated to receive the death penalty, so one can only imagine that the offi cial under whom he was working (i.e. Osama bin Laden) would receive a sentence of at least the same magni tude if apprehended. If the United States is willing to sentence Mous saoui and bin Laden to death for con spiring to harm people, Donald Rums feld and then-commander of U.S. troops Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez should at least be investigated for their orders to use “painful stress situ ations” and myriad other tactics that broke the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps Rumsfeld and Sanchez were too far up on the chain of com mand. Perhaps they had no idea their orders would be magnified to induce the horrific abuse at Abu Ghraib. But what about the other commanding of ficials who were physically present at the scene of the abuse? One, just one of those commanders was given any sort of reprimand. The other superior officers, Sanchez included, were re lieved of blame for “mitigating circum stances,” such as the fact that “U.S. military command was short of senior officers.” I guess we’re left to assume that lower rank officers thought put ting prisoners into grossly inappropri ate sexual positions with each other was the only way to bring in more army officials. The real mitigating cir cumstance is the U.S. government’s apparent core belief that authorizing harsh treatment of prisoners and breaking international war codes is OK, as long as the welfare of America remains stable. On the other side of this debate is a somewhat logical argument that the soldiers actually committing the abuse deserve the harshest punishment; af ter all, they were the human beings physically executing torture. But once again, to charge only these lower-level soldiers is hypocritical of the U.S. gov ernment. Rumsfeld, Sanchez and the other exonerated officials may have not personally tortured Iraqis; but, like the conspiring of Moussaoui, Ameri can officials’ orders and planning still ultimately led to the abuse. The United States should not op erate itself legally under the pretense of patriotism; what benefits America is acceptable, what harms America is not. The ends should not justify the means, especially when those means are just a facade of national security based on homeland affilia tion. Our country is in a state where “terrorism” is designated the ulti mate evil and anyone working for terrorism is deemed worthy of the harshest treatment. Those working “against terrorism” (such as the offi cials in charge at Abu Ghraib) are granted extreme leniency because of their job description. One of America’s biggest buzz words is and has always been justice. Unfortunately, as a buzz word and in general, justice is being swiftly re placed by terrorism. aileeslater@ dailyemerald. com OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic submissions are preferred Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month Submissions should include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the rigfit to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald. ■ Editorial Bush should acknowledge party unity on Bolton Last week, President Bush made an inter esting request to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the group in charge of con firming his chosen U.N. ambassador, John Bolton: Bush asked the panel to “put aside politics,” indicating his opinion that a rejec tion of Bolton would simply be a factor of De mocrats versus Republicans. However, in the case of Bolton’s confirmation, Bush is serious ly mistaken. The problems with Bolton as po tential ambassador to the United Nations are myriad, and they are being discussed by both Democrats and Republicans alike. The first strike against Bolton is his widely published statement in which he was quoted as saying there is no such thing as the United Na tions. No wonder members of the committee are reluctant to confirm this man; it’s a danger ous game to hire someone for the purpose of in teracting with an organization that, in the per son’s mind, may or may not exist. Can our nation expect that Bolton would be experienced or knowledgeable about the inner-workings of the United Nations with respect to his earlier comments on it? strike two is tne disparity between Bolton s qualifications and the needs of the job he is slat ed to fill. Issues of peacekeeping and worldwide diplomacy are especially important to the Unit ed States at a time when we have already alien ated so many countries with cries of “with us or against us.” As ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton would be filling a primarily diplomatic job, yet Bolton’s personality and work tactics have been descried repeatedly as tough-minded and bullying. There is nothing wrong with politicians who stay firm to their beliefs, but in the case of a U.N. diplomat, it seems obvious that a bully is exactly what the United States does not need handling its inter national relations. Ex-State Department official Carl Ford has even testified that Bolton was abusive toward his junior staff. Interestingly, Bush made a valid point when asking that party politics not come into play while the panel makes its decision. Un fortunately for Bush, some members of his own party are just as reluctant as Democrats to approve Bolton. The Senate Foreign Rela tions committee is made up of eight Democ rats and 10 Republicans. As of now, at least one Republican had indicated he may side with Democrats and vote against the nomina tion of Bolton. After hearing witnesses called by committee Democrats, Republican Senator George Voinovich said he didn’t “feel comfort able about voting for Mr. Bolton.” If disagreement over President Bush’s nomi nation of John Bolton has crossed party lines, chances are good there is a real issue here, not just another Republican/Democrat squabble. President Bush should recognize this fact. In stead of asking the parties to put aside politics, Bush needs to take a second glance at the sur rounding political world and recognize that Bolton is not the best choice for ambassador to the United Nations. It is a diplomatic organiza tion; if the United States hopes to maintain friendly ties with that organization and the countries involved in it, Bush must choose a different nominee. EDITORIAL BOARD Jennifer Sudick Editor in Chief Ailee Slater Commentary Editor Steven R. Neuman Managing Editor Shadra Beesley Copy Chief Adrienne Nelson Online Editor
