'
( editorial piffefi
-3
.-'1
8
i
usted
Police arrest 26 after weekend drug raids.
Police drug raids net 28 offenders.
News items.
The headlines above are not direct quotes,
but some items quite similar to them recently
have found their way onto the front page of
the local dailies. Some said it wouldn't
happen here, but the long-anticipated law
enforcement crackdown on drug offenders is
all too apparently under way.
Lincoln citizens, perhaps because of their
historic exposure to the University
community, generally have been willing to
accept most of the unorthodox (by Nebraska
standards) events that are likely to happen in
the midst of 20,000 students. However, the
use ot controlled substances has not been
recognized as an acceptable deviation.
Because it is students, or student-aged
persons, who seem to be the primary targets
of police suspicion in these matters, a need
has arisen for summary information of legal
rights and procedures in police confrontation
situations. Today the Daily- Nebraskan has
published the first of a two-part series
("Busted") which, it is hoped, will at least
partially clear up the ambiguities surrounding
what is, and what is not,, proper procedure
when that unfamiliar knock on the door turns
out to have come from the long arm of the
law.
The discomforting fact is that too many
people, by their ignorance, have consented to
procedures which lead to official verdicts of
officials and
certain legal
their criminality. Knowledge in this matter
will probably not prevent the implementation
of these procedures, but it could enable an
accused person to challenge their validity in
court.
Anyone who has ever played host to an
official visit of law enforcement officers
knows the tremendous psychological
disadvantage he is placed under in such an
pnntuntpr. Anoer. resentment and fear can
cause reluctance to question
ultimately, the forfeiture of
rights.
There is no necessity for any citizens,
including students, to offer any law
enforcement agency an open door policy to
either their homes or their lives. Any person
who finds himself in the situation described
above need not allow himself to be
psychologically intimidated into
unquestioning acquiescence.
When an agent enters a citizen's home,
there should be no ambiguity as to whether
he has done so with or without the permission
of that citizen, especially when entry is made
at the discretion of the agent. Even if a
warrant of some kind is produced, the
document should be carefully examined by
the citizen involved.
Except in extraordinary circumstances, the
only information a citizen is required to give
law officers is his name, age and address. The
citizen is under no obligation to dispell any
suspicion that he may have something to hide.
Even if the suspicion were justified, it is the
responsibility of the law officers to confirm
it. ,
In the event of an arrest, the accused
citizen should remember the familiar
American Civil Liberties Union admonitions.
The arrested person does not havj to answer
any questions or sign any document. He has
the right to telephone a lawyer and to have
legal counsel present both before and during
-any -qu6stionirig"t)y law"6nforc6meht'6ff icialsV
Most citizens are aware of their post-arrest
rights. It is regretable that so few realize that
their right to due process applies to any
action which may lead to an arrest.
An effort to increase citizens' awareness of
their rights during any dialogue with a
policeman should not be interpreted as
interference in police business. Policement
have the right and duty to enforce the law.
But the citizen has an equal right to prevent
violation of his constitutional protections.
Tom Lansworth
Congress'
multinational
dilemma
john
vhstad
As was its predecessor, the 93rd
Congress will be concerned with the
impact of giant multinational
corporations (companies that operate in
many countries). Because the United
States serves as home for the largest
multinationals, (General Motors, Exxon
and Ford Motor Co. are the top three),
with a combined overseas investment of
$107.2 billion in plants and equipment,
knowing about these global corporations
is politically and economically necessary.
What effect do the multinationals have
on currency flow and world trade? How
much do they influence government
foreign policy? Do they benefit the
foreign countries where they are located?
U.S. international corporations with
foreign tubsidiaries are now under
fashionable fire from big labor and a
scattering of well-meaning liberals. The
multinationals allegedly "export" jobs to
get cheaper labor and then import
products that underprice American-made
goods, which contributes to domestic
unemployment.
Sen. Vance Hartke, D-lnd., and James
Burke, D-Mass, have introduced
legislation to repeal tax deferments and
credits on U.S. corporations' overseas
investments and impose new import
quotas. The senators intend, of course, to
curb exports of private capital and
technology to stop the movement of
industry and jobs out of the United
States.
But just how helpful to the American
consumer and working person is this
protectionist proposal going to be? In a
1972 address to the Machinery and Allied
Products Institute seminar, Sen. Charles
Percy, R.-lll., asserted that "far from
depriving Americans of jobs or acting as a
haven for investment capital, our
multinational corporations are a positive
force both in creating new jobs here and
in keeping the United States strongly
competitive in the world market."
These companies do not export jobs,
rather they out perform other companies
in creating better jobs with better pay
and backed by higher investment.
Multinational corporations enlarge the
market for U.S. exports, providing a
stimulus, not an impediment, to U.S.
industry and employment.
The more money a company invests
overseas, the greater its domestic growth
rate in both exports and employment. As
Sen. Jacob Javits of New York said in a
March 1972, debate with Hartke, the
multinationals are "the most important
and growing high-wage employers of the
worker in the private sector of our
economy."
According to several estimates, the
Hartke -Burke bill would reduce the
profitability of many multinationals by
one-half. Even the ultraliberal Orville
Freeman, secretary of agriculture under
the Kennedy and Johnson
administrations, says that "if American
companies were deprived of their foreign
earnings the effect on our economy
would be devastating. Many companies
might not be able to survive (New York
Times, March 5, 1972)."
Furthermore, by calling for more
import quotas, the Burke-Hartke bill is a
legislative attempt to turn back the clock.
It would almost provoke a new round of
protectionist trade measures on the part of
other countries, sending the world into a
devastating trade war far more
catastrophic than were the retaliations of
the '30.
We must remember that freer trade has
contributed to the longest period of
sustained and rapid economic growth in
history. Import restrictions will lock out
new products, thus narrowing the
consumer's choice, and will "subsidize"
domestic goods, thus raising prices for the
average citizen. The Burke-Hartke bill
must be junked.
Congress will also be investigating the
multinationals' impact on foreign policy,
especially in response to allegations that
the International Telephone and
Telegraph Corp. (ITT) had meddled in
Chile's internal politics during and after
the 1970 election of Marxist President
Salvador Allende. While admittedly ITT
did initially engage in certain political and
economic workings to weaken the
Allende rule, incidences like this are few.
F urthermore, the N ixon
Administration rejected any ideas of
thwarting the Chilean constitutional
process following the '70 elections. The
new subcommittee on multinational
corporations, chaired by Sen. Frank
Church, D-ldaho, is unlikely to turn up
evidence of influence in foreign policy by
multinationals because there just isn't
any.
We trust that the multinational
corporation comes out of the 1873
Congress looking the better fnr it.
examination.
daily nebraskan
thursday, february 1, 1973
-i
f
page 4
