Editorial
I Daily
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Eric Pfanner, Editor. 472-1766
Victoria Ayotte, Managing Editor
Darcie Wiegert, Associate News Editor
Diane Brayton, Associate News Editor
Jana Pedersen. Wire Editor
Emily Rosenbaum, Copy Desk Chief
Lisa Donovan, Editorial Page Editor
Look at the facts
is the same by any other name
There’s been a lot of talk lately about whether President
Bush single-handedly should be allowed to take the
country to war.
Some advisers say Bush’s constitutional power as com
mander in chief of the armed forces gives him that right.
But congressmen — both Democrats and Republicans —
point to the exclusive power of Congress to declare war. They
want Congress to return to Washington for a special session
after Thanksgiving to keep an eye on the president’s steward
ship of the Constitution.
But the Constitution won’t provide much help. It was
\ | adopted in 1789, when gentlemanly governments went about a
j | war as if it were a business deal. They shook hands, declared
war and came out swinging.
These days, technology, rapid deployment and the need for
surprise make formal declarations of war ridiculous. And that
takes away from Congress a power the Constitution intended it
to have: the power to determine — not just to declare — when
the country goes to war. That’s why in 1973, Congress passed
the War Powers Act.
i ne act requires mai me prcsiaent get congressional ap
proval to keep U.S. forces in a situation where war could be
triggered by their presence.
Clearly, U.S. troops are in such a position now. And yet,
advisers and congressmen still argue about the president’s
rights under the Constitution and the War Powers Act.
Maybe they should stow the harangue and look at the facts.
After the latest deployment, authorized last week, the U.S.
force in the Middle East will total more than 4(XJ,(XX) — almost
as many soldiers as were in Vietnam at the height of that war.
On Wednesday, Bush extended the activation of the Reserves
another 90 days.
When that many Americans arc stationed on foreign soil
opposite a belligerent dictator, Congress should be in on the
| decisions affecting their lives, even if the president acts within
his constitutional power.
Cool reasoning, the kind found in constitutional debates, is
the last thing that comes into play when tempers flare. If
Saddam Hussein’s army starts firing, U.S. commanders aren’t
going to wait for a declaration of w ar. They’ll do the natural
thing that’s done when diplomacy is conducted at gunpoint —
fire back.
1 A flaw in the White House’s handling of the Middle East
situation is that it won’t recognize that its own forces are
S trained to do the same thing.
Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwatcr opposed calling a special
session of Congress, saying Tuesday, “There is no war.”
\ When the war starts, Marlin, it will be loo late to call
Congress back into town. It won’t matter if Congress issues a
belated declaration of war once U.S. tanks roll into Kuwait —
\ even if they move in retaliation for an Iraqi strike.
For that matter, it won’t make any difference whether the ad
ministration calls any further escalation of its Middle East pres
ence a war or not. Thai’s why Congress needs to be allowed to
do its job now, before the shooting starts.
Unfortunately, some senators want a special session of Con
gress not to hold the president in check but to issue him a blank
i one.
Robert Dole, R-Kan., told The Associated Press he would
support a “declaration of support and willingness to commit
whatever resources it takes to fulfill the mission ”
If Congress gave Bush such a mandate for war, it ought to
use a more concise euphemism than Dole’s. It could let the
president call an attack on Iraq a “police action,’’ a “conflict” or
a “strike.” Any word would work, as long as it wasn’t spelled
IW-A-R.
Well, maybe not. Somehow, “police actions arc hell,” just
doesn’t have the right ring.
— Eric Pfanncr
for the Daily Nebraskan
Signed staff editorials represent
the official policy of the Fall 1990
Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by the
Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its
members are: Eric Pfanncr, editor;
Lisa Donovan, editorial page editor;
Victoria Ayotte, managing editor;
Diane Brayton, associate news editor;
Darcie Wiegert, associate news edi
tor; Emily Rosenbaum, copy desk
chief; Jana Pedersen, wire editor.
Editorials do not necessarily re
flect the views of the university, its
employees, the students or the NU
Board of Regents.
Editorial columns represent the
opinion of the author. The Daily Ne
braskan’s publishers arc the regents,
who established the UNL Publica
tions Board to supervise the daily pro
duction of the paper.
According to policy set by the re
gents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its students.
CNN stooped to sensationalism I
Network’s questionable ethics might cost Noriega a fair trial 9
With the help of the U.S. gov
ernment, Cable News Net
work may have helped guar
antee Gen. Manuel Noriega an unfair
trial. And all it took was a signature.
The deposed leader of Panama has
been imprisoned outside Miami since
December, when he surrendered to
U.S. troops after they invaded Pan
ama.
When Noriega entered the correc
tional center, he signed a release written
in English and Spanish, so he knew
his phone conversations might be
monitored by prison officials.
But last Friday night, CNN, in
defiance of U.S. District Judge Wil
liam Hoevcler, broadcast several
conversations Noriega made from his
prison cell.
Noriega’s head defense lawyer,
Frank Rubino, said CNN obtained the
tapes from a high-ranking Panama
nian official, who got them from the
U.S. Slate Department.
How thoughtful it was of CNN to
make up the American public’s mind
by portraying Noriega as a criminal.
CNN may be able to offer the First
Amendment as its legal right to air
the material, but the producers broke
an ethical code when they decided to
jeopardize Noriega’s right to a fair
trial.
CNN, as well as other news agen
cies, says it should let the public in on
important stories and issues if it has
such knowledge. If the media don’t
serve as public watchdogs, who will?
Certainly not the government.
But CNN can’t take the moral high
ground. Its reasoning was for more
than just the sake of hard news. Pro
ducers had dollar signs in their eyes.
We can assume CNN’s producers
wanted to report news to the public.
They also wanted to make money. By
broadcasting tapes of Noriega, CNN
sold out to sensationalism. With higher
viewer numbers they can increase
advertising rates. That, in turn, means
more money in producers’ pockets.
On the surface, that causes no
problem^ But, as a result of the net
Robert
Richardson
work’s actions, the public will be
even more biased against Noriega.
Many of the negative thoughts Ameri
cans had in December when Noriega
was captured were brought back.
CNN should have thought about
the possible effects of its actions on
Noriega.
On Saturday, the Justice Depart
ment issued a brief with the appeals
court in Atlanta. It staled that because
of the publication of tapes by CNN,
selecting an unbiased jury for Nori
ega’s trial as well as providing effec
live counsel would be difficult.
In effect, CNN may already have
handed down a guilty verdict against
Noriega. A court should be able to
decide innocenccorguilt based solely
on evidence brought up during the
trial.
So, who’s at fault if the general
gets screwed?
The government, for allowing the
tapes to get into CNN’s hands? Or the
network for taking the tapes and run
ning with them?
A news giant like CNN had the
chance to set a precedent for other
new agencies to follow. Although it
was not CNN’s job to make sure
Noriega got a fair trial, it also shouldn’t
have been the network’s job to ensure
him an unfair one.
The government has the responsi
bility of protecting
Noriega and making sure he doesn’t
escape. But it also should have made
sure tapes recorded on sensitive is
sues didn’t end up in the wrong hands.
Still, when the tapes got into those
hands, the network had no right to
make the damage worse.
In December, when Noriega signed
the statement allowing his phone
conversations to be recorded, he didn’t
know he might, in effect, be signing a
guiity verdict. He also didn’t know
that that verdict would be broadcast
on national television.
Richardson Is a Junior broadcasting and
English major, a Daily Nebraskan columnist
and Arts and Entertainment reporter.
Vegetarians should quit eating meat
Message 10 vegetarians: Get a life.
I’m sick and tired of hearing about the
vices of meat production from unedu
cated neo-hippies who think they are
out to save the planet. Meats and meat
by-products are an important part of
our diets arid represent one of the
mostefficientnaturalresourcesavail
able to us.
Paul Koester, an apparently igno
rant natural resources major, asks in
his letter to the editor whether it is
moral to waste and water on “... an
inefficient and luxurious food source
when thousands starve daily on this
planet.” You miss the point. People
are starving because they live where
the food isn’t, not because McDonald’s
serves Big Macs. You’d belter brush
up on your studies, because animals
help to utilize land that would have
no other use. And since every part Qf
the animal has a use, many products
dial animals provide for us like leather,
medical products and pet food.
“But it’s immoral to eat animals.”
I ask you this: Would it be moral to let
them suffer at the hands of their other
natural predators, suffering starva
tion and a bloody painful death when
we can provide them with a happy life
and humane death? 1 think not.
How about this: Why don't you
vegetarians continue your life with
out meat? I won’t complain. But when
you start jumping on the Granola
Bandwagon of the Month and con
demn meat production, you’re out ol
your territory. Don’t force your mor
als on the public. People can decide
for themselves without being sub
jected to your guilt trips.
Malt Larsen
junior
broadcasting
Scott Curtis
sophomore
computer science
Greg Hallman
sophomore
architecture