Opinion ■
r rav
I ‘Fighting words' policy better forgotten
Id solutions to old problems have been rising from the
I dead throughout Nebraska legislative bodies this week.
I In most cases, there were good reasons the old solutions
H rlipH
A special University of Nebraska-Lincoln committee again
“ will consider adding a “fighting words” policy to the Student
1 Code of Conduct. The policy would set up punishment for the
l use of words that are inherently likely to provoke violent
I reactions. Included would be derogatory references to race,
l ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or other
personal characteristics.
A fighting words policy was introduced last spring. The
• UNL Student Code Review Committee failed to include the
| policy in its recommended student code revisions.
James Griesen, vice chancellor for student affairs, said such
i a policy is needed to “add some teeth” to the student code to
| help prevent verbal harassment on campus.
Griesen said the new committee would consider protection
| of freedom of speech when formulating the policy.
Obviously, drawing lines between free speech and “fighting
1 words” is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. Any
5 vague wording in the policy could result in abuses and injus
I tices far outweighing its attributes.
, By pursuing a fighting words policy, however, it’s obvious
Griesen believes those difficulties can be overcome.
Even assuming he and the committee somehow lay the best
| plans, the implementation — the dealing of punishment —
| could only be arbitrary. The context of all slurs would have to
| be fully understood, the punishment for all slurs necessary for
^ equity.
To assume just enforcement by a college body on an issue so
closely infringing on the First Amendment not only is day
I dreaming, but dangerous. The motives are just, but the solution
| is wrong. The fighting words policy should not be resurrected.
-bn
; Flag-burning ban belongs on slag heap
In the Nebraska Legislature, the flag-burning issue rose
once again this week like a fire-breathing, shell-shocked,
dodo-brained bald eagle from the ashes of Old Glory.
And no matter how fun it is to describe in new ways the
! resolution introduced by Elroy Hefner of Coleridge, the core of
I the issue remains the same:
| The American flag is a symbol for a country great because
of the freedoms given to its people. Burning a flag is a free
expression of an opinion. If you ban flag burning you desecrate
S the flag by undermining the freedoms for which it stands.
If the resolution receives legislative and gubernatorial ap
| proval, the Legislature will petition Congress to propose an
1 amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Please, senators, when voting on such a petition, remember
5 the difference between liberalism and the cloth symbol of that
| philosophy. To do so would show Nebraskans as truly good
I Americans.
— B.N.
War needs support at home
This letter is in response to the so
called peace movements this campus
has experienced since the beginning
of the Persian Gulf war. I’m not too
upon all the demonstrations, but from
those I have seen I conclude they are
peaceful and successful in stirring
emotion.
The cause for this letter is the
painted messages on the sidewalks
throughout the campus. One in par
ticular—“War is Stupid.” I am amazed
that someone could think of such a
revelation and then be smart enough
to use a stencil and can of spray paint
so all campus dwellers could share
this innovative thought. “War is Stu
pid.” Of course war is stupid. Ninety
nine percent of the population be
lieves that.
It would have been great if we
could have averted the gulf war, but
we did not and have now committed
our nation — like it or not— to a long
stay in the gulf area even after the end
of the war. We can argue with 20-20
hindsight that we should not be there
and that if we were in George Bush’s
shoes, we would not be there. But
“ifs” don’t solve the present problem.
The problem at hand is that our nation
is at war (though not by declaration).
Our country has too much ego to
just pull out of a conflict and we could
not do that now in good conscience.
The allies would be crushed without
the United States, and Israel would
most likely be drawn into an esca
lated conflict because of our depar
ture. There are now more interests
involved than just the American inter
est. To have peace you must prepare
for war and sometimes engage in war.
The best way out of this war is to rally
support for our forces in the gulf
region. Saddam is counting on the
American public to be one of his
allies. He is trying to create dissen
sion in our country.
A war in the gulf and a war at
home, like the ones experienced dur
ing the Vietnam War, will cripple our
nation. I despise war and am appalled
that our generation’s war has begun. I
pray that our generation can do a
better job at home than the Vietnam
generation did. I believe in peace, but
I do not believe in painting messages
and causing undue commotion here
in the United States while there al -
ready is too much commotion in the
gulf. These peace movements are not
going to change the fact that we are at
war. They also won ’ t bring our people
home sooner. If we fail in public
support of our men and women in the
gulf, then we may fail to prevail in the
war.
Matt Selingcr
junior
civil engineering
... fcND 1 UEREBI «£0 DENOUNCE. EW SCNERNMENTS ICCTION...
GUEST OPINION
Iraq has poor POW record
By David Forsythe
□ mcrican society, as it did dur
ing the Vietnam War, has
predictably begun to focus on
™..v,..can prisoners of war. If history
is any guide, the issue of the laws of
war and the current Persian Gulf war
is likely to be a controversial subject.
Iraq is very familiar with the Geneva
Convention of 1949, designed to
protect victimsof armed conflict. Iraq
is a legal party to that law, as is the
United States. Iraq has considerable
recent experience with those rules
because of its eight-year war with
Iran.
At the outbreak of hostilities with
Iran in September 1980, Iraq said the
laws of war applied to that situation,
including the law covering POWs,
which is more than Hanoi ever said
during the long Vietnam War. Within
three days of the fighting, Baghdad
authorized the International Commit
tee of the Red Cross, the monitor of
the Geneva Convention, to act in Iraq.
W ithin two weeks, POW visits by the
ICRC had begun.
The situation is already more
complicated today than in 1980. When
Iraqi forces took Kuwait by force in
early August 1990, the ICRC con
tacted Baghdad and requested authori
zation to carry out its normal humani
tarian duties under the law of interna
tional war. Baghdad refused, and to
date the ICRC has not been allowed
to operate in either Kuwait (legally,
occupied territory) or Iraq proper. Such
permission would be the first step in
the direction of limiting the human
destruction from this war, but entry of
the ICRC would not solve all prob
lems.
Back in the first Persian Gulf war,
when the ICRC was active in Iraq,
there was both implementation of,
and violation of, the laws of war by
Iraq. Baghdad eventually set up about
a dozen POW camps, gave the ICRC
access to most POWs, and improved
POW conditions over lime. Some
times sick and wounded POWs were
exchanged with Iran.
On the other hand, Baghdad bru
talized some POWs. Some of them
The United Slates
can only do three
things nom con
tinue to observe the
laws of war, gener
ate pressure on Iraq
to cooperate with
the ICRC in observ
ing the Genem
Qmvgniim. and
hold WQL crimes
trials — preferably
under ILK aus
pices — when this
war is oxen
were kepi away from ICRC visits for
the duration of the war; one can only
guess at the treatment they received.
The ICRC publicly protested not only
these policies, but also the Iraqi
bombing of civilian targets in Iran,
and the use of chemical weapons
against both Iranians and Iraqi Kurds.
Iraq persisted with most of these
violations of the laws of war until the
cease-fire of 1988. Iraq continued to
hold about20,000 Iranian POWs until
September 1990 when they were
exchanged for more than 50,000 Iraqis
held by Iran.
Iranian behavior, however, was
worse. Iraq at least paid some atten
tion to proper POW treatment despite
mostly lack of reciprocity from Iran.
Iran at times refused totally to coop
erate with the ICRC, tried to politi
cally and ideologically indoctrinate
Iraqis under its control, encouraged
one Iraqi faction of prisoners to at
tack another, sometimes with fatal
results, and in many ways violated
the third Geneva Convention cover
ing POWs. Iran also engaged in the
“war of the cities” — attacks on
undefended civilian targets — and
used poison gas itself. All of these
acts the ICRC protested, largely to no
avail. Because of the magnitude of
Iranian violations, the ICRC suspended
most of its activities there between
1984 and 1986.
By contrast to Iran, the United I
States currently occupies the high moral
ground concerning the laws of war,
which is psychologically and politi
cally important to Operation Desert
Storm. It has invited the ICRC to visit
Iraqi prisoners of war it holds, and has
forbidden photographers to get close
to them or to photograph their faces.
The United States is in a good posi
tion to demand reciprocity. Iraq has
been targeting civilian populations in
Israel and Saudi Arabia, while the
United States presumably has been
trying to minimize civilian destruc
tion in Iraq — although evidence on
this point is soft now. The United
States could lose the moral ground
through widespread civilian destruc
tion, as occurred in the Vietnam War.
It is not clear what policy Iraq will
follow in the future as the number of
American and allied POWs mounts.
If Iraq violates the laws of war fur
ther, it will not be because of igno
rance of the law. And the United
States, in fact, bears part of the re
sponsibility.
The United States was so con
cerned to support Iraq in order to
contain the Iranian revolution that it
failed to put concerted and effective
pressure on Iraq on behalf of the laws
of war in the first Persian Gulf war.
Had the United States not looked the
other way when the ICRC tried to
mobilize pressure against both Iraq
and Iran, we would probably not be
witnessing American POWs being
paraded before the television cam
eras, made to denounce their country
and no doubt brutalized. The United
States can only do three things now:
continue to observe the laws of war,
generate pressure on Iraq to cooper
ate with the ICRC in observing the
Geneva Convention and hold war
crimes trials—preferably under U.N.
auspices — when this war is over.
Forsythe is a professor of political science
at the University of Nebraska-Uincoln and a
former consultant to the International Red
Cross.
-LETTER POLICY
Initialed editorials represent offi
cial policy of the spring 1991 Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by the edito
rial board.
The Daily Nebraskan’s publishers
are the NU Board of Regents, who
established the University of Ne
braska-Lincoln Publications Board to
supervise daily production of the
paper. According to the regents’ pol
icy, responsibility for the editorial
content lies solely in the hands of the
newspaper’s student editors.
