fUftTMNGLrit.
Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
SHADRA BEES LEY
EDITOR IN CHIEF
('.ABE BRADLEY
NEWS EDITOR
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
AI LEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR
WENDY KIEFFER
DESIGN EDITOR
JENNY GERW1CK
COPY CHIEF
BREF FURTWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
IUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
ALEX CORBIN
A IAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MEUSSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
STEPHEN MILLER
KATIE STRINGER
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORALYNN BASHAM
KATY GAGNON
KERI SPANGLER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541)3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
The Oregon Dally Emerald is pu6
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 pnvate property
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
■ Guest commentary
Putting terrorists on trial could
compromise U.S. intelligence
There is discussion surrounding
whether our government should give
terrorists at Guantanamo Bay a trial
to prove their innocence, thus requir
ing the release of vital intelligence
that would harm the United States’
war on terrorism.
The answer to the question of pro
viding a trial should be: absolutely not.
First of all, the prisoners are guilty un
der Geneva Conventions for fighting
without a uniform; this discredits any
of their pleas for innocence.
When the United States was in
World War II fighting the Nazis, releas
ing prisoners in an ongoing war would
have been asinine. No assurance can
be given that the terrorists will not kill
again upon release. Although the Unit
ed States has already released terrorists
deemed not dangerous, this is no rea
son to give heinous terrorists trials. It is
not likely that they have learned any
thing from their atrocities.
Militant Islamists have brainwashed
people into following their misinterpre
tation of the Quran. The end result is ji
had; the killing of innocent people. It
would be no different if we let serial
killers walk from prison. The only way
to stop them from killing over and over
is to re-imprison them.
In war, the biggest domestic dilemma
is that Americans will die. However, we
as Americans cannot have our cake and
eat it too. Releasing terrorists will only
compound the dilemma, because it will
impede our military’s progress, cause
more chaos, and (most importantly) cre
ate more military casualties.
We have to give support to our
troops in any way possible. In wanting
terrorists to have their day in court,
people are taking away our military’s
greatest tool: intelligence. This is be
cause prosecutors would have to put
vital intelligence that the U.S. govern
ment has on these terrorists on the
table in order to convict them. Thus, a
trial would show our enemies, includ
ing Osama bin Laden, exactly what the
United States knows about al-Qaida.
If the extreme leftists want to push
for these trials, they have the right to
do so. However, they should not then
have the audacity to complain about
our numerous military casualties
in Iraq.
Kyle Smith lives in Eugene
■ Guest commentary
A society without money would vastly
improve this world's way of life
Economists concede that economics
is an inexact science. What does that
mean? Perhaps it means their econom
ic forecast is better than yours or mine.
Recently, economists have given us
reason to hope that the job market will
improve and that the stock market will
continue on a steady climb.
Yet, the newspapers continue to re
port more layoffs and more jobs going
overseas. Our economy is getting more
and more complex. We associate com
plexity with progress, but the following
problems have become too inherent in
our economy: needless poverty, unem
ployment, inflation, the threat of de
pression, taxes, crimes related to profit,
health being a matter of wealth, being
a nation of litigation, fear of more En
rons, materialism and, of course, the
social problem of the “haves” vs. the
“have nots.”
We Americans love our freedom, yet
we have allowed the use of money to
completely dominate our way of life.
We are no longer a free people. We are
about $7.4 trillion in debt. We live in
fear of depression, inflation, inade
quate medical coverage and losing our
jobs. Our freedom is at stake if not our
very survival. And we put our collec
tive heads in the sand.
There is something we can do. We
can look into ourselves for an answer.
We may find that we have the strength
to carry out our internal economic af
fairs without the need to use money.
A way of life without money will al
leviate if not completely eliminate all of
the previously mentioned problems.
Yes, we scoff at the idea. We are totally
convinced that money is a necessity.
We cannot imagine life without mon
ey. Perhaps the time has come to think
otherwise, as our present economy no
longer satisfies our present day needs.
A way of life without money de
mands only that we, as individuals, do
the work we love to do.
We can learn to distribute our goods
and services according to need rather
than by the ability to pay, eliminating
poverty and materialism. Our sense of
value will change. Wealth will no
longer be a status symbol. A man will
be judged by what he is, not by what
he has.
Since cooperation will replace com
petition, government, industry and the
people can learn to work together as a
team to meet the economic needs of
our nation as well as each individual.
Also, consider the fact that perhaps
millions of people will be freed from jobs
associated with the use of money. Mil
lions more that are now unemployed or
on welfare will also be available to help
fill the labor needs of our country. Thus,
we will have the work force necessary to
do the work which is not economically
feasible in our present economy, such as
cleaning our environment (land, sea and
air), conservation, recycling, and
humanitarian work,
The advantages of a way of life with
out money stagger the imagination; but
they are real and cannot be disputed.
Perhaps it is time for us to grab the
brass ring.
John Steinsvold lives in New York.
■ Editorial
Individuals'
land rights
challenged
by ruling
This week, in a 5-4 decision, the United
States Supreme Court ruled that local
governments have the authority to
seize private property if that property
can best be used to benefit the public and
the economy.
Before this decision, the U.S. Constitu
tion limited government seizure to taking
private property for public use. With the
new ruling, local governments can buy up
houses and land, then use that space for
strip malls or other private interests that
will eventually generate more taxes. The
Supreme Court has put into place an eco
nomic incentive for local governments to
seize their citizens’ property.
Although the government is required to
compensate home and land owners, apply
ing a value to real estate is never that easy.
It takes time, energy and money to evacu
ate a residence, especially if that residence
is home to a large or economically under
privileged family. Furthermore, home
owners choose their residence based on a
number of factors, making it so that gov
ernment money can never completely
compensate those citizens. Residents may
have purchased a home for its proximity to
schools and grocery stores or for its acre of
exceedingly fertile land. There is no way to
justly compensate the physical and emo
tional toil put into homes.
Also, tearing down residential neighbor
hoods and replacing them with urban
sprawl in the form of businesses is harmful
to citizens in a number of ways. Land and
home owners who retain the rights to their
property will have economic develop
ments springing up in their own back
yards, where neighbors’ houses used to be.
A drop in the value of surrounding homes
will likely result when businesses move
into what was once private property.
Besides the literal problems of uprooting
homeowners, Americans must also
consider what kind of precedent the
Supreme Court has set with its ruling. The
job of a government should be to keep citi
zens from harm and make sure that laws
are correctly made, implemented, and
followed. Governments should not be
seizing private goods in order to create
what they assume will be an economically
beneficial transaction to all, especially
when that land could be going toward
private interests.
U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio of
Springfield made an excellent point in a re
cent press release, calling attention to the
fact that in upcoming elections nation
wide, corporate developer will now fund
the candidates most likely to seize private
property. The Supreme Court’s ruling
could easily create locales wherein “gov
ernment” is just a facade for the monetary
interests of our highest governing officials.
The United States was created to depart
from a totalitarian government; more and
more, it seems that this great country is
falling into the same traps that our forefa
thers worked so hard to escape. America
was supposed to stand for the power of the
individual and the erasing of invasive gov
ernment — with the Supreme Court’s rul
ing that the interests of Government
should be valued above the interests of the
Individual, it is obvious that those found
ing values have crumbled.