Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Thursday, July 21,2005
.JTHE PRESIDENT'S NOMINATION
OF itSUPREME
court is an OOr/tM&m
msibtf CANDIDATE COULD BE
FURTHER an-OF THFMMRWM
THAN (BijiML# MX THE
JllDICMi RECORD oFiSi&iy)
15 AN fiTRQUIY'' NO American
SHOULD 5WD W J7/ M 1ST
ME TF/i iWMA-tITHINK*F
(MnjNUM wm COURT..,.
7777^Ti
L
JfEOPLt 5
mm,
>
%
r
T OPPOSE 7y,; w/LL
START $0R
ON(£ \fjfftfz £6T
* NAME..
a
A
fUKfmbtik
Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
SHADRA BEESLEY
EDITOR IN CHIEF
GABE BRADLEY
NEWS EDITOR
NICHOl AS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
AJLEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR
WENDY KIEFFER
DESIGN EDITOR
JENNY GERW1CK
COPY CHIEF
BRET FURTWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
ALEX CORBIN
ALAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA L»USI
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KEU.EE KAUFTHEIL
STEPHEN MILLER
KATIE STRINGER
CODV WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORALYNN BASHAM
KAIY GAGNON
KER1 SPANGLER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
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.
■ Guest commentary
Cartoon makes false assumptions
about Guantanamo Bay prisoners
This is in response to a cartoon pub
lished by Bret Furtwangler (ODE, July
14). The cartoon (depicting an Arab
man freed from Gitmo, then killing an
Amnesty International representative
while yelling “Death to Infidels”) is
based on erroneous assumptions. And
this is beside a mention of the obvious
ly stereotypical Arab caricature, remi
niscent of Disney and Looney Times’
“chinamen” and “redmen” that were
abandoned decades ago. You can do
better than that, Furtwangler.
The first assumption falsely made
by Furtwangler is that the prisoners at
Guantanamo Bay are terrorists, eager
to kill any and all Americans. While
some prisoners have been freed (even
some who have later taken up arms)
and others have been brought to
trial, most of the prisoners that have
been held since our invasion of
Afghanistan have never been
charged. Yasser Hamdi comes to
mind. Bush et al. claim these prison
ers are enemy combatants with ties to
terrorism, but if this were the case,
they would have been charged long
ago with a crime. Instead, our govern
ment has brazenly violated several of
the provisions outlined in the Univer
sal Declaration of Human Rights.
Another popular falsehood is that
Amnesty International can’t be taken
seriously, and that its allegations
were irresponsible. This is a classic
“slime and defend” strategy — con
fuse the issue by vilifying the messen
ger (a tactic currently being used
against Joe and Valerie Wilson by the
way). The fact is, AI is an apolitical
organization; when anyone anywhere
violates human rights, AI calls them
on it. AI would have left Gitmo alone
if there was nothing to report. As the
leader of the free world, the U.S. gov
ernment should stand unequivocally
above reproach in these matters. Un
fortunately, the AI report is only a
small portion in the growing body of
reports of abuses resulting from our
war on terror. These include
investigations by several credible
organizations as well as countless
eyewitness reports.
The war on terror is tragically mis
guided at best. Bush took his sights
off bin Laden long ago (remember, “I
don't really think about him much”?)
and misled us into an unjustified war
(the Downing Street memo clearly in
dicates that Bush was seeking to cre
ate conditions that could justify war;
there were no WMDs, no evidence of
WMDs, no sale of nuclear weapons,
no real ties to al-Qaida, no substantial
threat). As many as 100,000 Iraqi
civilians died within the first few
months of our invasion (read the
Lancet report); the humanitarian sit
uation hasn’t improved; violence is
n’t decreasing — it’s increasing; near
ly 2,000 coalition troops have died,
thousands more injured; and a CIA
agent has been outed by someone
with rank in the White House. With
all of this, the Bush administration
has refused to set any concrete stan
dards for success (in criminal con
tempt of congress, according to last
May’s defense appropriations bill),
and has refused to discuss our current
situation is real terms (“it's hard
work,” “we’re winning the war on
terror” and “we're spreading free
dom” aren’t cutting it anymore).
It’s time for all of us to seriously
question the ends, means and motives
of this war. We can no longer afford to
restrict our thought along party lines.
The answers can only be brought
about by open, public and honest de
bate, which our administration has
never been eager to facilitate.
Eric Carman is a University graduate
student in the middle secondary
education program
ecarman@gladstone. uoregon. edu
Cartoon and column wrongly
present Karl Rove's claim
Both Bret Furtwangler’s political car
toon (ODE, July 19) and Ailee Slater’s
opinion piece (” The Rove reprimand:
where is it?,” ODE, July 19) present as
fact the claim that Valerie Plame sent
her husband Joseph Wilson to Niger in
2003 to explore the (false) reports that
Saddam Hussein had tried to buy
uranium there.
However, this claim comes from Karl
Rove, in a clear attempt to discredit
Wilson’s bona fides, and the CIA dis
putes it. A July 14 editorial in the
INBOX
Minneapolis Star Ttibune states:
“It also wasn't true. On July 22
(2004), Newsday reported that a ‘sen
ior intelligence officer confirmed that
Plame was a directorate of operations
undercover officer who worked ‘along
side’ the operations officers who asked
her husband to travel to Niger. But he
said she did not recommend her hus
band to undertake the Niger assign
ment.”’...the CIA always said Plame did
not recommend her husband.”
Whether Plame was instrumental,
incidental, or coincidental in Wilson’s
being given the Niger assignment is
not yet clear. The Emerald’s phrasing
(and political cartoons) should ac
knowledge that uncertainty. What is
absolutely certain is that Wilson was
right in his report that Saddam Hus
sein had not tried to acquire uranium
in Niger, and the Bush administration
was wrong. No attempts to discredit
Wilson can erase that. The American
media, and the American electorate,
should be very wary about any ad
ministration that would rather shoot
the messenger than hear the news
he brings.
Gina Psaki
University professor,
romance languages
■ Editorial
The Court
gets another
white male:
John Roberts
Tliesday night President Bush an
nounced his Supreme Court nominee to
the nation: Judge John Roberts, a Harvard
graduate with law experience within the
White House and the Justice Department.
Unfortunately, Judge Roberts is not the
moderate replacement to retiring Justice
O’Connor many liberal groups thought the
nominee would be.
To begin with, President Bush departed
from the widely held assumption that a
woman would be nominated to keep the
(semi-existent) balance of gender in the
court. Analysts also predicted Bush might
choose longtime friend Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales to ensure some level of
diversity on the court.
If Judge Roberts is confirmed, the U.S.
Supreme Court will consist of seven white
men (six of them with a Christian affilia
tion) out of nine total justices. As a pre
mier maker and definer of laws, the
Supreme Court should be anything but
filled with members who are exactly the
same. It the law will apply equally to all
citizens of the United States, there should
be at least some attempt to give U.S. citi
zens equal representation on the Court.
Bush has accomplished just the opposite.
Further upsetting to many is Judge
Roberts’ empirical position on abortion: In
1990, Roberts helped write a brief claiming
Roe v. Wade should be overturned. This
same document also advocated the ban of
federal funds for counseling related to
abortion. Justice O’Connor was well
known for her continual role as a swing
vote in favor of abortion rights; if her re
placement is in favor of overturning Roe v.
Wade, that’s exactly what might occur.
The American Civil Liberties Union has
also commented that without Roe v. Wade,
there may be no precedent for privacy in
cases involving sexual orientation. When
the Texas law prohibiting sodomy was
overturned in 2003, a main precedent in
the decision was Roe’s definition and guar
antee of privacy.
One of Roberts’ first tie-breaking deci
sions (one of many, considering O’Con
nor’s moderate position) may be at the end
of the year, when New Hampshire's
parental notification law is evaluated. The
notification law states that a minor cannot
receive an abortion without telling her par
ents; liberals and others argue that there is
no health exception in the law, making it
extremely dangerous to young women. It
should also be argued that for young
women with abusive parents, it may not
be possible to notify a parent without the
fear of violence.
When the Senate battles out its decision,
whether to confirm Bush’s nominee Judge
Roberts, Senators ought to give Roberts a
significant evaluation. Although promi
nent politicians are already calling for a
speedy confirmation, these speed monkeys
should remember that a Supreme Court
Justice is for life: One bad decision could
mean a breakdown in the civil rights that
all of us take for granted.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Shadra Beesley Ailee Slater
Editor in Chief Commentary Editor
Tim Bobosky
Photo and Online Editor