OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
October 17,1983 Page4
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 505-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuart-Flint Hall, Lawrence, KS. 69045, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer semester. Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or $27 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $3 for a week outside the county. Student subscriptions are $1 a semester paid through the student activity fee. POSTMASTER. Send us any questions to us at USPS KANSAN PO Box 1100.
MARK ZIEMAN
Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM
Managing Editor
STEVE CUSICK
Editorial Editor
DON KNOX
Campus Editor
PAUL JESS
General Manager and News Adviser
ANN HORNBERGER
Business Manager
DAVE WANAMAKER
Retail Sales
Manager
MARK MEARS
National Sales
Manager
LYNNE STARK
Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN
Advertising Adviser
No peace to keep
The Reagan administration maintains that U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon to keep the peace.
But instead of keeping the peace, six Marines have died in fighting since the Marines were sent to Lebanon a year ago as part of a multinational peace-keeping force.
Two other Marines also have died, one in an accident and one in the April bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.
The compromise reached between Congress and Reagan over the War Powers Resolution doesn't seem to mean much now. One of the Marines was killed yesterday, and others were wounded. Since the Marines went to Lebanon, more than 50 have been wounded.
Many worry that El Salvador will be 'the next Vietnam and that the United States will become increasingly involved in the area. U.S. advisers will soon become participants in the fighting, so this analysis goes, and the United States will pump more money and more arms into the area.
A cease-fire in the fighting supposedly went into effect in the Beirut area Sept. 26. Two Marines have been killed since the ceasefire.
The recent debate in Congress over the Marines' presence in Lebanon seemed to center not on whether the Marines should be there at all, but whether Congress should be able to pass judgment on their presence.
That debate missed an important point. It doesn't really matter how the Marines were sent to Lebanon. The congressional role in allowing them to stay is not of great significance.
What is significant is that U.S. Marines have died keeping the peace in an area that seems instead to be a perennial battleground. Indeed, there appears to be little peace for the Marines to keep.
And until the Marines return home or to other posts around the world, more probably will die trying to preserve a peace that doesn't exist.
After serving nearly four years of a life sentence for the murder of four-year-old Eric Christgen, Melvin Lee Reynolds was released from prison after St. Joseph, Mo., law enforcement officials were convinced they had the wrong man.
St. Joseph city officials are disturbed, to say the least, that city police were convinced they had the right person in jail — twice. Both Reynolds and Charles Hatcher, the 54-year-old drifter convicted of the murder last week, confessed to the crime.
Some officials close to the investigation questioned the validity of
Reynolds' confession. He had no history of violence, no serious criminal record, and was considered susceptible to constant police pressure.
The circumstances that Reynolds confessed under appear questionable at best. Police questioned him for long hours over several months, using a chemical similar to "truth serum" several times during the interrogation.
The case against Reynolds was hazy enough that it appears the police may have sent the wrong person to prison. Nationally, the number of other "wrong" individuals sent to prison for crimes they did not commit is unknown. But as long as there is some doubt, and that doubt is reinforced by people wrongly sentenced like Melvin Lee Reynolds, capital punishment cannot be used with a clear conscience.
If there is just one small chance that a prisoner has been sentenced wrongly to death row, then that is proof enough that capital punishment should be banned nationwide again.
Honoring King
Martin Luther King is proving to be nearly as controversial today, 15 years after his death, as he was in the midst of his extended campaign for racial justice in America.
At issue now, however, is not King's cause - civil rights for black Americans. On that question there exists a remarkable national concensus. Rather, the issue is the desirability of enacting a federal holiday to mark Martin Luther King's birthday.
For millions of Americans who believe that King's appeal to conscience helped narrow the embarrassing gap between American ideals and American reality, the national holiday is fully justified.
The King holiday does merit enactment into law. North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms' criticism about King and his 'action-oriented
The financial objection to a national holiday carries more weight — deficits do matter — but not a crushing weight. The government can absorb the loss in a worthy cause. This cause is worthy.
marxism' is ludicrous on the face. If anyone worked and spoke for American ideals in the 1950s and '60s, it was Martin Luther King — not the FBI that hounded him, and not the right-wing congressmen who denounced him while standing by the bulwarks of segregation.
Both King's achievements and his values are encompassed in the holiday that would bear his name. By honoring him in this way we celebrate a magnificent life and renew our commitment to a fundamental American creed: equality of opportunity for all.
—Concord (N.H.) Monitor
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and should not exceed 300 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan also invites individual students to provide their contact information. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansas office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
Reagan made right decision
President Reagan was right in canceling his trip to the Philippines. With the turmoil in the Philippines growing and antigovernment demonstrations taking an anti-U.S. turn, he would be foolish to risk a visit to the country in hopes of solving its problems.
that a cancellation would drive the Philippines toward a strong tie with the Soviet Union.
If Reagan had decided to back his American ally, there would have arisen anti-American sentiments in the Philippines. But his US allies are not sure probably is hastening the downfall of President Ferdinand Marcos.
Reagan had two choices: to go or not to go. Either way, he would have made an unpopular decision.
While Reagan was faced with two unpalatable choices, the temperamental Marcos tried to press on. He was not ready to leave the country. Marcos even threatened
The United States would not like that.
So, internal political strife in the Philippines could greatly affect U.S.-Philippines relations, and a vital decision has to be made
KALPANA
TRIVADI
Staff Columnist
concerning American interests in the Pacific.
Once a colony of the United States, the Philippines is still home
to two strategic U.S. military bases in the Pacific. Clark Air Base and Subi Bay Naval Base are less than 1,000 miles to the west of Soviet navy and air force bases in the Yangtze and Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam.
From these bases, the United States counter any Soviet military build-up in the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Although the Philippines' economy depends heavily on the presence of these two U.S. bases, Marcos has also used them to blackmail the United States. He threatened to kick out the Americans earlier this year when discussions of human rights abuses in the Philippines were held in the United States.
But to kick out the America.. bases would disrupt the Philippines' economy, and even Marcos would not take such an action,
however piqued he may be over
American criticism of his country.
Moreover, the economy of the Philippines is suffering from rising unemployment, an unsatisfactory trade balance, and increased domestic and foreign debts. Marcos will definitely keep this in mind before he rashly throws out the Americans.
Also, the two bases are the nation's second largest employer, next to the government itself. At least 40,000 Filipinos work at the bases. The United States also has agreed to pay $290 million under a new five-year lease on the installations.
The Philippines owes $13 billion to American banks, and Marcos cannot take any action adverse to it. The United States could affect it could have on the economy.
That the radicals from the opposition want a complete change of government is obvious from the riots in the country. Tired of the nearly 18 years of Marcos' presidency, and frustrated in their attempts to oust him from power, opponents have roused anti-American feelings in the Philippines.
But any move toward solidarity relations with the United States is viewed negatively in the Philippines at present Anti-Marcos demonstrators contend that Marcos's move could harm the United States supports him.
The Aug. 21 assassination of opposition leader, Benigno Aquino, who returned from voluntary exile in the United States, sparked the riots that Marcos is strangling to death. The killing was not responsible for the killing.
On Sept. 28, in a televised address, Marcos also assured the nation that "terrorism and murder and hooliganism" would not set his government in panic or paralyze its operation. But even Marcos may not believe the assurances he made to the public.
Marcos may still wield strong authority with military and police help, but the Philippines have started to return for a return to democratic rule.
Now may be the right time for Marcos to heed those demands.
Courts struggle over civil liberties
There is a little noticeed yet real power struggle being waged by the Supreme Court of the United States against state courts. The battlefield is familiar — civil liberties. But the struggle is unprecedented. For the first time, state judgments are being reversed, because, in the justices' institutional protection is being given to claims of individual rights.
The same Supreme Court that has made federalism and respect for state courts' autonomy the centerpiece of its constitutional philosophy now regularly upsets state decisions protecting individual rights.
As Associate Justice John Paul Stevens recently protested, "I am thoroughly baffled by the Court's suggestion that it must stretch its jurisdiction and reverse the judgment of state courts in order to show 'respect for the independence of state courts.'"
But the same values of decentralization and state innovation in law, in whose names the justices have blocked federal judicial relief for individual-rights claims, are also japwarded when state judgments extending rights are overturned.
A vivid illustration of the emerging tension between federal and state high courts is the justices' eagerness to review a select category of state court criminal justice decisions. For example, last term the Court favorably reviewed nearly four out of every 10 petitions brought by state prosecutors dissatisfied with the judges' sustaining civil liberties claims.
While the Supreme Court has opened its doors to those complaining of state civil liberties activism, it has slammed those doors to individuals seeking judicial vindication of their rights. Last term the justices did not review a single case brought to their regular docket by an individual whose constitution was denied by a state court.
RONALD COLLINS and ROBERT WELSH Professors
The practical effect of the review policy in these cases is to make it a court of final appeal for state officials only. During the past six terms, the court reviewed fewer than 4 percent of all cases brought to
The Court's record contrasts starkly with that of its predecessor. According to a New York University law professor, Lawrence Sager, between 1960 and 1969 the Warren Court reviewed only four cases before officials protected such court judgments sustaining individual rights.
its regular docket by individual rights claimants contesting adverse state court rulings.
The Burger Court's penchant to curtail the scope of constitutional protection has resulted in more state courts assume greater responsibility for protecting individual rights claims concerning access to counsel, police questioning and car searches, among other things.
Such states as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado and Alabama have taken a relatively active role in advancing Bill of Rights causes, only to have the Court upset those decisions.
Still other states have responded by invoking their own constitutions to vindicate civil liberties claims. One vitalizing aspect of federalism is that the national Constitution allows state courts to protect rights under their own laws without being subject to Supreme Court review
and reversal, Accordingly, New Jersey, Oregon, California, Alaska, Massachusetts and Vermont free trade zones, and rights of further civil liberties
How has the Supreme Court responded to this development in federalism? Last July, in a opinion by Associate Justice Sandy Day O'Connor, the court broadened the protections that could make more difficult for state judges to insulate their decisions from federal review.
In another case last term, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger chastised the Florida Supreme Court for invoking the state's search-and-seizure law to safeguard citizens' privacy rights.
Lopsided federalism of the kind that has caught the fancy of a majority of the Supreme Court demonstrates neither respect for state court autonomy nor regard for individual rights.
Copyright 1983 the New York Times. Ronald L. Collins is a professor of law at Willemite University in Salem, Ore. and Robert C. Welsh is assistant professor of political science at the University of California at Los Angeles.
NEW YORK — Juan Domingo Peron has been dead since July 1974. According to most responsible observers, he will be elected president of Argentina on Oct. 30, when the nation votes for a civilian government after more than seven years of military dictatorship.
After Peron's death, in 1975, I questioned Italo Luder, now the Peronist presidential candidate, about what was then being done to
JACOBO TIMERMAN Journalist and author
win the imprinted elections in the province of Misiones — elections even won by the Peronists. He replied, "Most Argentines, for two years now, we will continue voting for Peron despite the candidate's name."
This Oct. 30, Peron will go to the name of the Iloan Luder. Argentines will vote for Peron's magic — for the style, philosophy and other characteristics — become one of the most notable political phenomena of the century.
What was so special about him?
As Argentines will tell you, as if
unere were nothing troubling about it, Peron told each person what he wanted to hear. Each person but also each vested interest, each social class and each religious group.
The documents, writing, and speeches left by Peron are an exercise in contradiction. So are the testimonies by those who enjoyed his confidence, talked with him and participated in the events of the period of history that began with the revolution of June 1943. No two testimonies are alike. No two memories of him are consistent.
Peron did not lie. He respected the reality in the minds of his listeners, and he liberated the fantasies of those to whom he spoke. Peron didn't conceal a truth, but simply distributed truths lavishly, a good deal more lavishly than a mere liar does.
in a few weeks, Peronism may win the right to constitute the new civilian government of Argentina. It is clear to me — it became all too vividly clear as I read the recently published biography by an American professor, Joseph A. Page, the first important biography of the
leader - that Peronism can only repeat itself, repeat Peron.
The new Perison will be without his appeal, without his imagination, without his originality but with all his unscrupulousness
Now, three more generations will vote for Peron, despite his death more than nine years ago.
It was a disastrous encounter in history: Three generations heard Peron say what they wanted to hear, and the police pass on any truths of his own.
Peron began his era by creating workers' unions headed by inexperienced young people who believed in the revolution against capitalism. He concluded that era by manipulating the power of the youths of the same age whom he had imbued with belief in the Peromist revolution.
But the authors who understand him best — and they tend to be Anglo-Saxon — perceive that the phenomenon is not simply Peren. It is Argentina, and Argentine politics; it is Brazil, and Brazilian classical classes, incredible wealth, an inept understanding of its own national interests.
No one was more Argentine than Peron and, in a way, every Argentine is Peronist in some area of his morality, his politics, his magical relationship with the world. This is neither praise nor insult, it is a realization. Peron used to say: "I don't summon them — they come on their own."
Peron used the same idea — a looming international conspiracy — whenever he wanted to repress a strike or curtail freedom of expression. Today it is being used by his antagonists to evade the country's pressing economic plight. Peron must be smiling.
Copyright 1983 the New York Times. Incabo Timerman, who was publisher of the Buenos Aires newspaper La Opinion, is author of "Prisoner Without a Name."