EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
Cliff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
i
Our
VIEW
Witch hunt
or bill?
Stenberg’s stance
on crime is suspect
Nebraska Attorney General Don
Stenberg is at it again.
Stenberg, one of Nebraska’s
strongest, if not the strongest, defenders
of the crime-control model in the prison
system, has developed two legislative
bills, LB 185 and LB 186, along with Gov.
Mike Johanns to further restrict prison
er’s rights.
These bills would limit the opportuni
ties criminals have to appeal a sentence.
This includes any prisoner and any crime.
Stenberg wants to limit the appeals to one
based on state or federal constitutional
issues. The petition has to be filed within
three years of conviction. Otherwise,
tough luck.
This bill seems tailor-made for pris
oners awaiting execution. Randy Reeves
is the first that comes to mind, as his exe
cution was granted a stay after the
Nebraska Supreme Court agreed to hear
an argument on an appeal.
Stenberg, an iron-clad defender of the
death penalty, seems to want to fast-track
the execution of prisoners. It wouldn’t
make sense to direct the bill at normal
prisoners. Stenberg is an advocate of
maximum penalties for criminals, so it
seems illogical that he’d care if criminals
who will eventually leave prison wait
longer to file their appeal.
No, these bills are basically designed
to lessen Nebraska’s value on life and kill
criminals quicker. Too bad for Stenberg
there’s a legislature that must vote on it
and a U.S. Constitution to refer to.
For Stenberg, it’s about getting rid of
frivolous appeals. But when someone’s
life is on the line, is any appeal borne of
frivolity? Hardly. Of course, we must
assume Stenberg has never done any
thing like argue a frivolous point. How
many lawyers do that?
We also wonder what, at this point,
Stenberg has to prove to the state. He’s
running for Senate. His reign as attorney
general will soon be over so he can cam
paign. At that point, this will cease to
become his issue. And it will be plopped
down in the lap of whoever takes over.
Which is why Johanns should be care
ful to side with Stenberg. It might seem
noble to want to lock up criminals and
kill them as soon as possible. But eventu
ally, it starts looking like a personal witch
hunt and revenge for what both consid
ered a personal defeat when Reeves was
granted a stay.
It’s risky to pass a bill for what clearly
is a war on one man. This is in direct
response to Reeves. If the bill is enacted,
he might never be able to appeal again.
Nebraskans should be wary of a policy
that seems to be after one man.
EMnlal Fancy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1999 Daily Nebraskan. They
do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its
employees, its student body or the
University of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is solely the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents serves as publisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by
Are regents, supervises the production
of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student employees.
Letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters to the editor and guest columns,
but does not guarantee their publication.
The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to
edit or reject any material submitted.
Submitted material becomes property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
Horsey’s
VIEW
SiwtmraocEM©
"SMosaMLawT
Hiwsmamm
ToittCHiffJusin..r
_ fflanK-BBT
DN
LETTERS
Honors housing hubbub
Neihardt has been specifically
designated as honors for quite some
time now. Did you ever notice it said
“Honors Housing” in your housing
contract? Historically, there have not
been enough honors students request
ing to live in Neihardt to fill it to
capacity, hence some non-honors stu
dents were allowed to move in as
roommates to honors program mem
bers or just to fill empty space. Now
the demand for honors housing has
increased to the point where the hon
ors program and University Housing
require these spaces (which are
specifically designated as “Honors
Housing”) to satisfy their needs.
In an opinion letter printed
Tuesday, Kylie Wolf and Kevin
Francis said, “We don’t want to be
caught off guard when the honors
board decides to turn our floors into
honors housing.” I’m not exactly sure
where the Honors Program Student
Advisory Board came into play here.
They have absolutely nothing to do
with this policy. Please don’t make
accusatory statements toward a group
of individuals until you at least have a
little more background on the subject
than what you’ve read in the Daily
Nebraskan.
If these individuals really want to
live in Neihardt, why don’t they just
go down to the Honors Office (118
Neihardt, in case anyone cares) and
apply to be in the honors program?
You can apply as upperclassmen, just
in case you didn’t know. Maybe they
don’t have any desire to be in the hon
ors program, but I still feel obligated
to let them know it’s an option.
Wolf and Francis ended their let
ter by calling the university fascist
because it makes “regular” s"~
dents pay for the honors pro
gram book scholarship. JH||
Following their rationale, I’m ||§|§|:
just curious if they think these ILf
so-called “regular” students IfL
should receive credit for the wl
classes Regents’ Scholars take
because the money that pays for J
their tuition comes from the I
university as well. M
Finally, all I want to say ^ \ \
is those people who are \/\* V
being asked to leave have a
whole year and a half. They even
get preferential treatment to
move to any other hall on cam
pus. They can have their room- V
mate move along with them, or if
they are really adventurous, they can
even move into a single. Sure, they
might have to make some new friends
or walk a couple of blocks to see their
old ones, but this policy is definitely
not inhumane.
In the future, I encourage you to
do some research before you start
jumping to conclusions and start
screaming “fire” in the middle of a
crowded theater (or residence hall in
this case).
Brian Oppliger
junior
math / operations management
Honors Program Student
Advisory Board Communications
Chair
In whose interest?
If only the “national interest”
could change positions as easily as
the DN does, (Our View: Quitting
Time, 1/25/99) on the perpetual
bombing of Iraqi citizens, the United
States might have an opportunity to
save face in the Islamic world. Not
even two months ago I was writing an
opinion letter to the DN, criticizing
and re-informing this U.S. ideologic
cal indoctrinating propaganda force,
otherwise known as the popular
press, as represented by our own DN,
on the real nature of U.S. imperialism
in Iraq. Glad to see that such a pre
ponderantly hegemonic force as the
DN Our View has come around to
reason.
As for the rest of the moral major
ity in America, it’s time to take
responsibility for our government’s
“defending national interest” abroad.
Don’t we deserve to know whose
interest is being “defended” exactly?
It’s not my interest. Is it yours? I have
yet to meet someone whose interest is
served by bombing Iraq, but then, I
don’t have any stock in Mobil or
Exxon either. _
How is
^ bombing jjfT djT
mliaqi r
defensive missile sites (which are no
doubt put there to defend the very cit
izens we vaporized this weekend)
considered a defensive military
action? I hope nobody still buys into
that Orwellian doublethink (when
bombing is called “suppression” and
invasion a “defense”). Our govern
ment’s historic, militant tendencies
are still killing relatively defenseless
people for our own national greed for
oil and Middle Eastern land. This is
why the U.S.. more than any other
nation, has recently been such a target
for international terrorism.
Like Lauryn Hill says, “conse
quence is no coincidence.” You reap
what you sow; people do things for
reasons. The U.S. was not selected
out of a magician’s top hat by Islamic
fundamentalists to be terrorized by
the bombings we saw this past sum
mer in East Africa. It’s U.S. econom
ic- and military-sponsored terrorism
that systematically places U.S. citi
zens abroad in danger. Thanks to our
“national interest” abroad, when I go
back to Kenya and Tanzania this sum
mer, I have to put on a dummy out
back Australian accent to help avoid
possible harassment, and that’s just
not worth it.
David Baker
senior
sociology /African studies
Matt Haney/DN