Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 29, 1984)
Monday, October 29, 1984 Pago 4 Daily Nebraskan o Imffomation rissMdioBS tolimdlf old watcMogs ats, foiled again. The U.S. military hasn't only been wasting its money on $600 hammers, $200 screws and $7,500 coffeemakers. It has been giving yes, for free, no charge mil itary information to the (gasp) Russians! At least that's what the Pentagon thinks, and it plans to put a stop to it. According to an article in Sunday's Omaha World-Herald, the Pentagon has begun to restrict information about new technol ogy in weapons testing, evaluation, pro duction and operation and evaluation of defense contractor performance. It was not always classified information it was available to the public before the sudden change. The change began a year ago, when Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger complained that the Soviets were having too much information about new U.S; mil itary technology spoon-fed to them. In stead of having to resort to sordid and expensive tactics to sniff out U.S. military secrets, the Soviets could find informa tion wherever they looked. This "saved them millions of dollars in research and development costs and helped them develop countermeasures to U.S. weapons systems " Weinberger said in the article. Good thing the Pentagon is putting a stop to these freebies, right? Wrong, for two reasons. First, while the Pentagon's information restrictions may cut off the Soviets' supply, it also puts a blindfold on the groups who are supposed to watch for military goof ups on defense programs and budgets. The World-Herald article brought up a good point: If the Pentagon restricts even non-classified information, how will Con gress ever discover the ridiculous expen ditures the Pentagon seems to love so dearly? In the article, one officer was quoted as saying some Pentagon officials have begun to refuse even the most rou tine requests for information. Certainly, if they refuse those kinds of requests, they won't want to disclose to Congress, the General Accounting Office or the Con gressional Budget Office such embarrass ing items as the reported $7,500 coffee makers. The second reason the Pentagon is wrong for restricting information may be a mere technicality that officials have overlooked. It's called the Freedom of Information Act, passed in July 1967. It's basic premise is that federal government agencies cannot withhold information from the public solely because they think its release would be contrary to the pub lic interest. Unless the information falls under one of nine exemptions in the act, federal agencies cannot refuse to give Joe Public information from its records. Some may argue that the information the Pentagon is restricting falls under one of the exemptions because of "nat ional security" reasons. However, the exemption clearly states that informa tion can be refused only if it is properly classified because of potential harm to national security. The Pentagon seems to have a case of McCarthyism. It is a ridiculous overreac tion to the fear of Soviet dominance and military prowess. Lauri Hopple Daily Nebraskan Senior Editor IT 2Ut Letters Reader questions plight of Palestinians In answer to Abdullah Ham ad's letter (Daily Nebraskan, Oct. 19) regarding the plight of the Palestinians, let's look at a few of the other tWhy's" he fails to men tion. Why did the Palestinians only turn to the United Nations for answers after losing two wars in 1948 and 1967? Why did they reject the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan that divided the area, giving Israel a much smaller parcel than exists today, preferring war instead? Why did they reject the 1948 U.N. resolution declaring statehood for Israel, instead initiating war the morning after the declaration in which all Arab nations partici pated? Why haven't the Palestinian people been accepted by fellow Arabs by being allowed citizen ship, by being supported for edu cation and improving conditions instead of weapons, by using Arab wealth to eliminate refugee camps instead of letting hatred and frustration ferment from genera tion to generation? Why are Palestinians, who share an Arab language, religion, cul ture and history, still refugees in the Arab Middle East after three generations, while World War II European refugees are now Americans? Look to your own, not Israel, and don't make excuses for kil ling civilians, especially children. Barbara Steinfeld ' Lincoln Voters must know weed hoard plan The weed board has asked the County Board, both privately and publicly, to answer some ques tions. The public has a right to know why it is being asked to make this decision. The citizens of Lancaster County shouldn't have to pay for a ballot question that is a result of a personal whim of one or two County Board members, not to mention absorb the cost of abandoned vehicles, supplies and other related mate rials that result from passage from one department to another. Neither the public nor the weed board know what will happen to the present office and staff. The public language of some County Board members is full of "probab hs"; the private language con tains a lot of "unlikehs" (as in, unlikely to retain staff andor program). On Nov. 7, if this proposition passes, the County Board will assume the authority of the weed board by law. There absolutely is no coherent transition policy in place. If these people don't know what they are going to do with this law enforcement task then they should not have asked for a vote of the people. Their judgment should be questioned. If they do have a secret plan then the citizens de serve to know what it is so they can make an informed decision. If present and past weed boards had been abusive and corrupt, which we most definitely have not been, then the chaos we are now experiencing would be justi fied. Frankly, we do not deserve the treatment we are suffering at the hands of the County Board. Our dedicated staff does not de serve the stress and indecision they are being subjected to. And personally, I want answers; it is as if the nearly eight years, the hours and hundreds of hours, the nights I have spent away from my home and family, and ridicule and verbal abuse I have endured, will have been in vain. La Rue Wunderlich Roca I w iA, ') I 't it gl--! I I i sPX ki-v-l m tes f , f-; I I i ; uff J : I XSYTAMPA u NO, NO... WH6M 5A0 68T RlO Of TH GUV WHO PUT OUT TH Columnist pioks Monciale-Ferraro; he's not Reagan, she's a Catholic I raised my right hand, swore to tell the truth, signed my name by the little x, and I was in. Thursday morning, I reg istered to vote for the first time since it became legal for me to do so. I felt a little guilty, registering for the first time at age 23, but there is a very simple cure for guilt...rationalization. I had some X a, r Chris urbach Student rebuts Hoeh 's campaign claim Recently I noticed a sign on a bulletin board in my residence hall with Nancy Hoch's name written prominently across it. The sign urged readers to attend a rally for Hoch, who it claimed was the candidate for students. Nancy Hoch, in the two years she has been a regent for the Uni versity of Nebraska has voted to .increase student tuition every time this issue has came up. In this period student tuition has gone up 20 percent. Nancy Hoch also claims she will be an effective voice in the Senate. Again, her record fails to support this statement. As a regent she voted with the major ity constantly, never taking a strong or independent stand on any issue. Her actions support the claim made by Sen. Exon that she would be a rubber stamp for every last policy of the Reagan administration. Because of these most obvious reasons, I encourage other stu dents to think of these issues before they cast their ballot on Nov. 6. 1 am proud to say that Jim Exon has my vote. Wendy Steinke sophomore pretty darn good reasons for not voting in the 1980 presidential election and some pretty darn' good reasons for casting a ballot this year. In 1930,(1 was very busy exer cising my new found civil liberty of imbibing alcoholic beverages. At that time, beer after beer was considerably more important to me than who became president. No matter who w&3 in the Oval Office, I could still drink, courte ously, responsibly and consistent ly. My country needed me, and I was there. Now, however, my affinity for beer has decreased in importance; my country is in greater need of my vote than my belch; although the way the polls are looking, itH get plenty of the latter the day after the former. The polls were another reason I didn't vote in 1980. Jimmy Car ter didn't have a chance. "Why vote?" I thought. I really didn't want to participate in an election that sent Ronald Reagan to Wash ington, even if I was throwing in token resistance to the mandate of Reagan's public. I figured, that, when my grand children asked, "Granpappy, did you vote for that schmuck from California who used to do soap commercials?", I could tell them all about how I got blasted with a fire hose while leading a rally against Big Ron and couldn't get out of jail to vote. But this year I'm going to vofe, even though Walter Mondale doesn't have a prayer, in or out of school. Because even token res istance is resistance, and I want to be able to say I voted against Reagan. It won't make any more difference than voting against winter would the schmuck from California will get his way and it will snow but 111 try anyway. Besides, my grandkids are going to be stupid, but I wont be able to fool 'em all of the time. Yet the biggest reason I didnt vote in 1980 and I will vote this year is Geraldine Ferraro's can didacy. No, it's not because she's a woman, and it's not because she's a liberal; it's not even because her ticket is the only alternative to the incumbent dyspeptic duo. I'm casting my vote for Walter Mon dale and Geraldine Ferraro be cause Ferraro is a Catholic. ' Every Catholic weVe ever had for president has been good look ing, wealthy, forceful, imaginative, concerned with the plight of com mon people and fun to watch. Geraldine Ferraro is potentially another in that long line of presi dents. She's not gorgeous, but shes not chopped liver either. She's got quite a bit of money, probably not as much as the last Catholic in the Oval Office had, but enough to classify her as wealthy. She can put her foot down when she has to she likes to get her own way. She cares about those with lesser means and would try to improve their status. Thi3 year, nothing's going to keep me from voting for Walter Mondale and his Catholic run ning mate. The beer will have to wait until alter the election, when IH probably drink plenty. And 111 just have to hope that my grand children and I will be around to tell tales.