4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Wednesday, Oct. 16, 1985
5
Swift, bloodless action
Finally, terrorism met a clear, forceful answer. The United States found a swift, bloodless and justifiable way to capture the hoodlums who pirated the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise liner, and killed a U.S. passenger.
The United States acted
Some people now worry that the United States will pay for this action in strained relations or retaliation. But whatever the price, it cannot cost as much in the long run as the price of ineffective responses to terrorism.
That price - continued terrorism is already history.
Our national pride isn't the main issue; the "We Got 'Em" headlines are too much. What matters is not the vindication of a nation, but the vindication of law.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has demanded a U.S. apology for intercepting an Egyptian plane and negating his promise of safe passage to the pirates. The United States should help Mubarak save face at home and in the Arab world, but does not need to apologize.
In a delicate situation, Mubarak chose a soft line on the terrorists. He made his promise to them under duress and without knowledge that they were murderers.
Besides, the United States had no reason to accept transporting the pirates to the Palestine Liberation Organization, to which the pirates say they belong. The PLO, which denounced the piracy, is not a sovereign state with criminal codes and courts, nor would it have jurisdiction if it were. If the PLO put the pirates on trial, nothing guarantees that the trial would have more justice than propaganda.
Italy, for its part, has a stronger claim of jurisdiction in the piracy and murder than the United States. The Reagan administration will benefit from letting Italy win the argument.
But Italy did err in releasing Mohammed Abbas, a senior PLO official who accompanied the pirates on the intercepted plane. The United States had a warrant for his arrest before Italy released him. In light of that and the reputation of Abbas and the PLO, Italy should not have been in a hurry to let him go.
The whole episode cannot be termed a resounding victory of law over terrorism. But the "Achille's heels" who perpetrated the barbaric act have been captured, and that is a victory to be applauded.
The Nebraskan's role
Cover it up for us, boys
In effect, that was what Bob Devaney, University of Nebraska athletic director, thought the university's student newspaper should do last week.
The paper, the Daily Nebraskan, ran a story that said Moe Iba, Nebraska basketball coach, had been present at an illegal practice. The school's faculty representative to the NCAA is expected to file a report on the incident this week.
Devaney said the Nebraskan should have first talked to him or the university's chancellor and let them fix the problem.
booster publication for the institution.
In other words, the paper should have ignored a possible violation of NCAA rules and then allowed those involved to cover their tracks.
Doing that would help make the Nebraskan something it should not be — an official
A student newspaper, or any newspaper for that matter, does not exist solely to promote the community that it is a part of.
A newspaper's first responsibility is to those who read it. Its goal is to give the reader an understanding about his community, not to protect the status of the few.
Journalists, even budding ones, often defend their actions with the "Public has a right and need to know" excuse. But the public truly does need to know about a university's programs to make intelligent choices about them.
To ask for a reprieve or a cover-up from the Daily Nebraskan or from any other newspaper is to ask it to ignore the readers' needs. And to comply with such a request is to give away the right to fulfill those needs.
A shot of awareness
Goblins and witches will haunt Wescoe Beach today, in an effort to pour alcohol awareness down students' throats.
The folks in the Halloween costumes — staff members of the office of residential programs — will offer non-alcoholic beverages, "responsible drinking" buttons and pamphlets as part of campus activities promoting National Alcohol Awareness Week.
Five movies on the responsible use of alcohol also will be shown this week in University residence halls.
But will anyone take these movies, buttons and booze-free drinks seriously? Is it really possible to instill students with
responsible drinking habits?
Maybe not. But the office of residential program's approach seems to be better than one drowned in heavy-handed morality, and it's certainly better than none at all.
The emphasis of the week's activities is in residence halls, where the majority of the students are freshmen and sophomores. Many of these students come to college giddy with new-found freedom, but ignorant about the effects of alcohol on their bodies.
Spreading the word about responsible drinking — with a shot of non-alcoholic punch on the side — is a positive way to promote alcohol awareness on campus.
Rob Karwath Editor
Duncan Calhoun
Business manager
John Hanna Michael Totty
Managing editor Editorial editor
Lauretta McMillen
Campus editor
Susanne Shaw
General manager news adviser
General manager, news adviser
Brett McCabe Sue Johnson
Retail sales Campus sales
Megan Burke
National/Co-op sales
John Oberzan
Sales and marketing adviser
Sales and marketing adviser
**LETTERS TO THE EDITOR should be typed, double-spaced and less than 300 words. Include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. If the writer's name is typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.**
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer-Flint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 StafferFlint Hall, Lawen, Kan., 6045, daily during the regular school year, except Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and finals periods, and Wednesdays during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, KS, and third-class postage paid at $2 for six months and $27 at one. Also, they cost $18 for six months and $3a student. Subscriptions cost $1 and are paid through the student activity fee.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kanaan, 118
Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, KC, 60454
The pros and cons of Star Wars
SDI won't allow nations to avoid nuclear warfare
We still have time to drop President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. SDI is in the early stages of a five-year, $26-billion research program. If we delay and Congress approves continued financing of SDI research, the program will receive more money than most weapons procurement programs.
The purpose of SDI is to make nuclear missiles obsolete by destroying them in their orbits. SDI appeals to Reagan administration officials, who view the policy of nuclear deterrence as immoral. They oppose a policy of mutual destruction: "T'll wipe out your country if you wipe out mine."
Supposedly, these officials say. SDI will kill only other weapons.
Guest Shot Paul Longabach
not people. But no matter how effective, SDI will not allow the United States to hide from nuclear weapons.
The current SDI research doesn't defend against bombers, cruise missiles and low-trajectory missiles. To do so would require a larger budget than requested. Actual deployment of the system has been estimated to cost hundreds of b'lions of dollars.
The Soviet Union is already working on its own stategic defense system, and both sides would have to step up anti-satellite capabilities at the same time. Where will the money for all this research come from? Most likely at the expense of other defense and non-defense programs. This would weaken our military strength and economy.
As bad as deterrence is, the threat of a nuclear holocaust has tempered superpower relations. In the tense confrontations of the Cold War, such as the Korean War and the Cuban missile crisis, the fear of retaliation prevented both sides from pulling the nuclear trigger.
The existence of SDI could lead the United States to think it was immune from destruction. It could cause us to become more aggressive.
Physicists debate the effectiveness of SDI. Such a defense system needs two things to be successful: the ability to target a large number of attacking warheads very quickly and the ability to destroy nearly all its targets.
Richard Perle, assistant secretary of defense, has told congressmen that SDI probably would not be 100 percent effective. But, he said, SDI could cut down on the number of people killed during a nuclear war because it could reduce the total number of warships that hit the United States.
The Soviet Union, however, has close to 9,000 warheads and is building more each day. So even if a small percentage of weapons hit U.S. targets, we would still suffer tremendously.
Advocates argue that there are measures to counter the countermeasures. Today, the arms race is one of bigger and better spears; now it could turn into a race for bigger and better shields and countershields.
There are several ways to reduce the effectiveness of a strategic shield.
President Reagan and many of his followers think that the benefits from SDI are worth more than the sacrifice and risk it would invite. I do not.
MYTH 1: SDI is too expensive.
The $1 trillion price tag that the media have been quoting is wrong.
Experts put the cost at around $60
Whatever happened to fairness and ethics in journalism? Is it no wonder that the Washington Post, et al., launches complaints against "Star Wars" similar to those of Pravda?
The press has been hostile toward SDI ever since President Reagan first announced the program in March 1983. They labeled it with the negative connotation of "Star Wars" in hopes that the American people would reject such a proposal.
SDI has become a powerful new bargaining chip for the United States in the arms talks and at the summit in November. Why do the media and other liberals want to take away the one thing that has given the United States an edge at this question? It just doesn't make any sense.
The fact is, the Soviets have launched a massive propaganda campaign against SDI. Their task is to spread fear and misinformation about SDI, with which the U.S. press has helped them.
SDI single-handedly got the Soviets to agree on a summit meeting and to continue arms control talks. They seem eager to negotiate. To cancel SDI would be utter madness.
The arguments against SDI are like a two-legged table — they just don't stand.
Misinformation by media spreads Star Wars myths
Whatever the name, this bold new project will launch mankind into a new era, where the guillotine of a nuclear holocaust hangs no more.
Conservatives call it "High Frontier."
President Reagan calls it "Strategic Defense Initiative."
Liberals and the liberal-biased press call it "Star Wars." The Senate on it 0831
Victor Goodpasture Staff columnist
The fact is, the Soviets have been working on a Star Wars-like program for years. They have the only working anti-satellite and anti-ballistic missile systems in the world. The United States is still in the development and testing stages of both.
It brought the Soviets to the negotiating table, didn't it? That's one step toward peace.
billion, which is only 4 percent of the projected defense budget. Also, once SDI is in operation, it could pay for itself by rendering
MYTH 2: SD! will expand the arms race and increase the dangers of nuclear war.
other defense items unnecessary.
The Soviets have been working with laser technology since 1970, yet when the United States starts such a program, the Soviets immediately announce to the world that the United States is trying to expand the arms race. And the press swallows all of it — hook, line, and sinker.
'SDI is a non nuclear shield that kills weapons, not people. No longer will the United States have to live by the sword; it will instead live by the shield.'
Pentagon sources recently disclosed that the Soviets have been using ground-based lasers against low-orbiting U.S. satellites and knocking them out. Now who's the antagonist?
MYTH 3: SDI is technologically impossible.
The press has ignored the scientists who have studied the SDI proposal thoroughly and who have concluded that SDI will indeed work.
Whenever there is a scientific question that needs to be answered, the media turn to the theoretical physicists such as Carl Sagan for the answer. Unfortunately, the Sagans of the world do not know as much about SDI technology as the engineers at Boeing or scientists working in Silicon Valley.
Those who feel that the Soviets will greatly expand their missile force have not taken into consideration the "square root law." If the Soviets expand their missile force by a factor of four, the United States only will have to expand SDI by two. Thus it is economically disastrous for the Soviets to try such a thing.
The same technology that will render nuclear missiles impotent and obsolete also can be used to deploy bombs or bomb bombers and cruise missiles.
SDI is a non-nuclear shield that kills weapons, not people. No longer will the United States have to live by the sword; it will instead live by the shield.
So amidst a tidal wave of Soviet propaganda, President Reagan has decided that the best offense is a better defense.
The American people have to ask themselves one final question: If SDI is an expensive pile of junk that will never work, why are the Soviets so worried about it?
Terrorism: After the brash U.S. capture
We Wanks apprehended four Palestinian terrorists last week after enduring more than five years of imprisonment U.S. citizens in the Middle East.
After years of powerlessness against terrorists, watching them taint, abuse and murder, we all had reason to rejoice in the master stroke that took these four men into custody with no loss of innocent lives.
Several U.S. warplanes hijacked an Egyptian airliner to Italy. Inside were the four men suspected of hijacking an Italian cruise ship and killing one of its American passengers.
In the flush of first victory on Friday, President Reagan got to speak better lines than he ever did as an actor. They were John Wayne lines — strong, bold and full of confidence now that these cowards have been
Guest Shot
Shawn Adav
flushed into the open to fight with men. Unfortunately, in the world this side of the silver screen, his words amounted to braggadocio.
"You can run but you can't hide."
Reagan crowed at the terrorists.
It was neither necessary nor wise for the President to throw our success in the faces of all those fanatics still seething in the Middle East — particularly when as many as six Americans were still held hostage in Lebanon. It was one thing to take decisive action, but quite another to brag about it and thereby dare terrorists to commit more atrocities.
The fact remains that the terrorists blew their mission on board the Achille Lauro and that the Palestine
'It was one thing to take decisive action, but quite another to brag about it.'
"That's for them to go to bed every night wondering." was his answer to whether the U.S. planes would have fired on the Egyptian airliner if it had not cooperated.
Liberation Organization defused the standoff. The circumstances that enabled the United States to catch the terrorists, isolated and vulnerable in the airliner, are not
likely to happen often. The case was not a breakthrough in the prevention or handling of terrorism.
Terrorists who have dedicated their lives to a cause will not be deterred by a failed mission or empty American threats. Those who contemplate suicide bombings are not likely to quake in fear of Italian court proceedings, unless perhaps, they fear it would deny them martyrdom.
Other terrorists will continue to kidnap in chaotic places like Beirut and bomb clandestinely in any crowded city. For the most part, we will be powerless still.
Our fight against terrorism is war. Any old soldier knows that fine speeches are only for the movies. In the real world, you do what must be done and then keep your head down.