Mankiewicz and Braden
The
heroin
P.O.W.'s
Everybody in the states has known for months that there is a
lot of dope -circulating over in Vietnam. But the dope circulating
isn't just weed from Uncle Ho's victory garden.
As twpJU.S. Congressmen reported earlier this week, it appears
10 to of American troops in Vietnam are using high-grade
hero$rFirst of all, those percentages indicate that 30,000 to
401)00 men are regular heroin users. The heroin they are using is
Jhlgh-grade. The significant point is that it is easy to become
addicted to the potent drug.
The Congressmen also reported that heroin is so prevalent that
there is no way of stopping the addiction epidemic. The U. S.
Command seems to agree with the representatives about the
difficulty in controlling sale and use of heroin. Recently the
Command initiated an amnesty program, whereby soldiers who
turn themselves in are not prosecuted. The pitiful aspect is that
the servicemen who admit to their addiction are probably not
cured either.
Obviously then, the problem sooner or later comes back to the
States. Already a large number of Vietnam veterans have returned
home with their drug problems. And few have been cured, mainly
because there is no effective medical cure for heroin addiction.
The increasingly recognized methadone treatment (for heroin
addiction) has had only limited success in curing domestic heroin
addicts. Even the most modern treatment won't combat addiction
for those used to high-grade heroin.
It is little wonder that one of the Congressional investigators
said the drug problem itself provides a "compelling" reason for
speeding up the troop withdrawals.
But the President has yet to acknowledge the problem as a
reason for expediting troop withdrawals. Instead, the President
talks about the need to withdraw slowly and to remember the
prisoners of war. But as we withdraw slowly, the President's
policy only multiplies the number of prisoners of war-the heroin
P.O.W.'s. And they may never be released or freed.
dear editor. . .dear editor. .. .dear editor. . .dear editor. . .dear editor. .dear
editor. . .dear editor. .. .dear editor. .dear editor. . .dear editor. . .dear edi
tor dear editor. . .dear editor. .. .dear editor. .. .dear editor dear editor
, ,. .dear editor. .. .dear editor dear editor. .. ..dear editor. .. .dear editor. .. ..
dear editor. .. .dear editor. . .dear editor. . .dear editor. .. .dear edito
r. . .dear editor. , .dear editor. .. .dear editor. . .dear editor. . .dear editor. . .
Clarifies procedure
Dear editor,
Congratulations to Francis
Olivigni on becoming involved
in the Student Professorship
Award even if he was too late.
The "nominating"
committee he referred to did
indeed exist.-all those living
units that cared to respond
with three nominations to the
letter Builders sent out. The
letter, addressed to "Dear
President" was sent to each
floor in each dorm as well as to
sororities, fraternities, and
co-ops. On checking back I was
able to find a response only
from Burr I West (excuse me if
I missed someone in a hurried
check). If any government
failed to bring their item of
business up at their meeting, or
did you miss that meeting, the
complaint should be registered
with them, not Builders.
Why two Each Campus
Professors? A pat on the back
to East Campus for responding
in significant numbers and in
consistently naming the same
two professors.
It seems a bit ridiculous to
say that City Campus students
had no alternative to Rozman
on the ballot. Two other
professors were nominated,
PAGE 6
and I've never known an
unfamiliar name to stop
anyone from voting against
what they didn't like.
Some "math" should be
corrected, too. Of 1,400 (not
1,500) students caring enough
to vote, well over a third (537)
chose to endorse Rozman. The
other group didn't necessarily
vote against him, they voted
for someone else.
As to the "vote of
confidence" maybe your
phrase applies pitifully to only
a small group of students who
voted. Surely you must admit
that his winning was a vote of
confidence-by a group of
students. No fallacy there.
Since you so violently opposed
his selection 1 can only ask,
where were you and your
friends on voting days?
Your whole outcry boils
down to a criticism of student
apathy; not caring enough to
nominate and not caring
enough to vote. If the whole
situation stinks, that's why!
Sincerely,
Carol Evans
Chr. Builders Student
Faculty Relations
Rog Bonnesen
President, Nebraska
Builders
Discusses fieldhouse
Dear editor,
I wish to say a few words
about the construction of a
fieldhouse for the University.
As you and all your readers are
aware, there's a difficult
situation imposed on the
campus by the budget. I find it
hard to note that you have not
come out strongly against this
project.
It seems stifling to me that
money can be spent on such a
non-academic goal (at this
time), which furthers
Nebraska's place on the
"muscle-map" of the country.
Our football players are the
best, Devaney is the best
coach, but is that all in a
University? Does
academic-exercise take second
place to entertainment?
Are we measured by the
quality (or height) of our
buildings, but not by the
calibre of our students?
Or is the University going to
be the training ground for
twentieth century gladiators
only? If this is so (and it seems
that it is), I say woe to us I
think your editorials will play
an important part, if you plead
for rationality and good
judgment over sentiment.
Sincerely,
A concerned student
5S V
TESS WILL NEVER SUSPECT WE'&E
S77U. l$tf(r 7EFOUANTs! '
mmm iW
MICK MORIARTY, editor
CONNIE WINKLER, managing editor
JOHN DVORAK, news editor
GENE HILLM AN, advertising manager
JAMES HORNER, chairman, publications committee
EDITORIAL STAFF
Staff writers: Gary Seacrest, Jim Pedersen, Marsha
Uangert, Dave Brink, Carol Goetschius. Steve Strasser, Bart
Becker, Mike Wilkins, Charlie Harpster, Marsha Kahm, fcteve
Kadel, lennis Snyder, Ann Pedersen, Koxanne Ropers, Vickl
Fulos. Sports editor: Jim Johnston. Sports writer: Warren
Obr. Photographers: Gail lolda, Bill Ganzel. Entertainment
editor: Larry Kubert. Literary editor: Alan Boye. Last
campus editor: Marlene Timmerman. Artists: Linda Lake,
Greg Scott. Design editor: Jim Gray. Copy editors: loin
Lansworth, Bill Smitherman, Laura Willers. Night editor: Leo
Schleicher. Night editorial assistant: Rodney Wortman.
BUSINESS STAFF
Coordinator: Sandra Carter. Salesmen: Steve Yates, Barry
Niger, Jane Kidwell, Ken Sevenker, Tom Hafel, Hat di Natale.
Business assistants: Janice Stapleman, Charlotte Owens.
2sJow!,!I!'.S:.,edit0r: 472 -2568, news: 258V, advertising:
Z5VO Second class postage rates paid at Lincoln, Nebr.
I'nw tlij' pt ion rates are $5 per semester r $8.50 per year.
?Sl?3 Jition and exam per.ods. Member f the
C.7eRe,&,t,at',,na' ,uti" Averting Service.
Union,
Address: The I kail y Nebraskan, M Nebraska
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68S0B.
WASHINGTON-Now that
Congressional mail on the
Calley verdict has switched
from con to pro, President
Nixon's instant intervention
-appears not simply as blatant
politics, but as bad politics,
too. Mr. Nixon tried to appease
what he conceived as a
majority, but which turned out
to be a largely sectional
minority-which dwindled as
the facts became clear.
But if the President behaved
badly under fire, so did most
of his potential rivals.
LISTEN for example, to "the
words of Sen. Edmund Muskie
(D-Me.) the day the Calley
verdict was announced and
outrage first began to be heard:
"The case is still in the
judicial process and 1 wouldn't
want to comment . He still
has several avenues of appeal
open and I would assume he would
take one or more of them as is
his right. And that's where the
question of his guilt or
innocence is to be resolved.""
While Muskie was ducking,
Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.)
was circling. McGovern said, on
that same day, "I am deeply
troubled by the My Lai
massacre and the subsequent
conviction of Lt. Calley. If
what this young officer did was
wrong, and it doubtless was,
then American bombing and
shelling of villages across
Indochina have been terribly
wrong. Hubert Humphrey
straddled. The 1968 nominee
avoided comment until April 2,
after the President had released
Calley from the stockade.
Humphrey "commended" the
President for his action,
expressed his "great
sympathy" for Calley, then
scrambled back by saying that
a jury of combat veterans had
found him guilty. Humphrey
thus made it to both sides.
Sen. Henry M. Jackson
(D-Wash.), the leading
Democratic choice among
Republicans, came up with the
silliest response of all. Jackson
noted at a news conference on
April 1 that "there was a
surprising outpouring of
feelings," and then added his
bucketful to the flood. Jackson
proposed an immediate review
of the "case, verdict and
sentence"" by a high-level
investigating panel composed
of '"the best people the
President can get.""
"THIS IS THE TIME. said
Jackson, "to be cool and
Kennedy and Bayh alone on Calley response
rational and treat this case in
the best traditions of
Anglo-Saxon law." Not since
Magna Charta had Anglo-Saxon
law been said to call for
appointing new judges when
the populace does not approve
of the verdict.
Sen. Harold Hughes
(D-Iowa) stepped around the
problem. By April 4, he was
saying "mercy" should be
applied, "judging the crime
itself and not the temper of the
country,"" Hughes added: The
President is the only man who
can judge that,"" thus ignoring
the law, which expressly leaves
the President out of the
process. Hughes said he
"couldn't state today"" what
his position would be if he
were President.
Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.),
after some initial waffling from
California ("Here we have a
young military man wearing
the uniform ... willing to risk
his life and yet because of this
battle-type situation he's now
to spend his life at hard
labor."), went on in the same
statement to go against his mail
and state that "If we are a
civilized nation ... I don't want
any decision or policy to give
... the feeling that our country
condones the useless slaughter
of women and children "
Once the President had taken
over the job of judge, Bayh was
clearest of all, strongly
supporting Capt Aubrey '
Daniel's position that Mr.
Nixon had done great damage
to the system of military
justice.
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY
(D-Mass.) came out best on the
issue. To an overwhelmingly
pro-CaHey Alabama audience,
he first said "No" to a question
whether he would join in
asking clemency, then said
there was "no rational
justification" according to the
"facts proved by a
court-martial" and then noted
that the Calley trial "has
perhaps for the first time
demanded that Americans
confront the moral issues of
the war and the fundamental
question of our pursuing it."
And so it has.
William F. Buckley, Jr . .
The unmaking of
amsey Clark
E
During this period,
Presidential hopefuls are
bringing out books; either that,
or else authors are writing
books about them. In the case
of Ramsey Clark, it is not fan
to suppose that someone
else wrote his book, the widely
heralded Crime in America, lt
is a true expression of this
amiable, well-meaning man
who, in the world of thought,
cannot even ride a bicycle.
Every now and again, the
American critical mechanism
really goes to work on
somebody like Ramsey Clark;
and this has now happened.
IN THE CURRENT
Commentary Professor
James Q. Wilson of Harvard
goes through the book and
concludes, pained, that "As a
statement of personal, moral
and political conviction, it
conveys a message mat will
reassure those who wish to
avoid coming to grips with the
crime problem and will
disappoint those who wish to
think seriously about it." A
analysis, he finds that the
book contains individual
r-r 7-, , - a a.
i 'x m j mr & mr-a - mti wh w w it.n b su i i
FHciuizJ
r f.'
n SEtuwrv DUTY. . .
AMD wwtn
a4 kerrv4 -me m
dec. ogs txavc
A
J T J
sentences supportive of a wide
range of mutually inconsistent
positions." And consider:
"Even the question of
whether street or violent crime
is important enough to worry
about is left unclear. On page
49 we are told that since only
one person in 400 was the
victim of a crime of violence in
1967, the average individual's
chance of being a victim was
'once in 400 years. If one
assumes that m-.y half of all
violent crimes are reported,
then the individual's chances
are 'once in 200 years The
implication is clear: what are
we so excited about?
"One thing we should be
excited about," said Professor
Wilson, "is the misrepresenta
tion embodied in these figures.
If the avarage person has each
year a one in 200 chance of
being a victim then his lifetime .
chances of being a victim are
the sum of these annual
probabilities over his life
expectancy. If the average man
lives seventy years, then his
chances of being a victim of a
violent crime at some time are
seven in 20, or about one in
three, not one in 200."
PROFESSOR SIDNEY
Hook, writing in Fortune, is
equally mystified. "Clark
failure to face up to the
necessity for hard choices in
the prevention and control of
crime results in a shocking
absence of common sense.
There is no conflict between
liberty and safety," he
declares. 'We will have both, or
neither That is sheer
balderdash. In many situations,
liberty and safety are inversely
related . , .The safety of a
traffic system depends upon
restriction of motorists'
freedom to drive in any Jane or
at any speed they please."
lt is left lor Professor van
den Haag, in National Review.
to inter this pathetic book,
around which the left-liberals
are forming. 1 give you an
example of what happens when
you analyze Ramsey Clark'.
"Clark. (say van den
Haag), "has mastered
misleading comparisons. He
indignantly denounces '"Spiro
Agnew who supported the
shooting of looters since
'fewer than 250 died in riots."
while 25,000 are killed by
drunken drivers. "Whereupon he
asks sarcastically, why not
shoot drunken drivers? . . .
Why call for shooting looters
when no one is heard to
suggest the same treatment for
the deadlier crime?
"NOW proportionately, 1
think drunken driving leads to
injury less often than rioting
as Clark should have known.
He also knows that this is the
only relevant comparison, since
elsewhere he (rightly) attacks
as misleading, statistics which
state crime frequencies rather
than crime rates (proportions).
However, both drunken driving
and looting are certainly
dangerous criminal acts
Policemen should arrest the
offenders and, if they resist, or
try to escape, use whatever
force is needed to control
them. Nobody advocated
shooting looters after arrest.
The Vice President unlike
Clark, Lindsay et al.) urged
that the necessary force be
used to make arrests and to
prevent continuation of the
criminal action. 1 am sure Mr.
Agnew advocates no less for
any escaping or resisting offender,
driving or walking, drunk or
ober. So do I. lt is the former
Attorney General who
advocates an exemption for
looters not, a e
disingenuously suggests, the
Vice President for drunken
drivers."
Now that, of which there is
much more in the extensive
review, is 24-karat analysis, and
it leave Mr. Clark and his
jejune book quite simply
speechless. Or rather it should,
lt hasn't, of course: At. Clark
is busy reciting his good
sounding cliches
everywhere the college
students go mad, by the way,
mad with pleasure, while, far
away, the muses of rigor and
thought, sulk in their gardens,
despondent as they have not
been since the golden days of
Eleanor Roosevelt.
PAGE 7
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21. 1971
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1971
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN