Government wrong to attack\nI have read the papers and followed the polls closely enough to know that I am part of a rather small minority when I object to what our government is doing in Afghanistan. Reading the letters of others, however, I have the distinct impression that many Americans cannot fathom why somebody of sound mind would ever object to fighting terrorism. Allow me to explain my position. \nWhat happened on Sept. 11 of this year was unfathomably evil. American policies of past and present may have fueled some of the hatred that motivated such an act, but we must be careful that giving context to the attack does not distract us into thinking it was justified. Nothing can justify murder. The perpetrators should be made accountable for their crimes. \nMy objection to our involvement in Afghanistan lies in whom we treat as perpetrators. I think most would agree that al Qaeda, and especially Osama bin Laden, should be included among the perpetrators. The Taliban, however, appear to be at most accomplices insofar as they shelter bin Laden and his network.\nThe Afghan people can only be implicated by association: They live under the Taliban and share their country with bin Laden. It would be difficult to argue that Afghanis are perpetrators, regardless of their collective opinion of the U.S. \nThe administration has blurred the lines between perpetrators, accomplices, and bystanders. Official policy defines the world as either black or white -- support us or support terrorism. This may work fine for coalition building, but as a world view it is far too simplistic. We bomb Afghanistan because we no longer recognize who is a perpetrator and who is not. \nShould the Afghan people pay for the crimes of others? When all of this is over, it is they who will be left to clean up our mess. They will be the ones without communication systems, without transportation infrastructure, and without prospects for the future. Dropping a few thousand food packets is no compensation for laying waste to their country. Indeed, our "humanitarian" efforts only mock their suffering. \nJustice, not vengeance or retaliation, is what this situation deserves. When we forget how to seek justice, when we discard constitutional civil liberties, and when we discount the lives of innocent civilians, we have dishonored the memory of those lost on Sept. 11.\nEric Macaux\nGraduate student
Bombing destroys, doesn't bring peace\nEven before Sept. 11, Afghanistan was a humanitarian disaster. Plagued by drought and land mines, it is literally the poorest nation on Earth. The U.S. retaliatory bombing campaign has already directly killed hundreds of innocent civilians, many of them children. These people had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.\nThe indirect threat from our bombs is far greater. Under wartime conditions, humanitarian aid convoys cannot reach their destinations. It does not help that, as reported by MSNBC, Red Cross relief warehouses have been destroyed by U.S. bombs.\nCertainly, our bombing is not the only problem. There is a severe drought, and the Taliban have also interfered with relief convoys. Nonetheless, the bombing is a major factor -- one that we have the power to change.\nAid agencies on the ground in Afghanistan have called for a halt to the bombing. These include Oxfam International, Christian Aid, and Islamic Relief. Doctors Without Borders, winners of the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize, report that "due to the U.S. airstrikes" they have "found delivering aid much more difficult."\nIn a week or two, mountain passes will be closed by snow. It will no longer be possible to bring in desperately needed food. According to the United Nations, 7.5 million Afghans are in danger of starvation. That's 7.5 million people. \nIf our ill-conceived war to "wipe out evil" condemns these innocents to death, we will have committed a crime against humanity so monstrous that Sept. 11 will pale in comparison.\nPeter Drake\nGraduate student
New policies for immigration not the answer\nPresident George W. Bush announced on Monday that loopholes in immigration policies would be tightened up, and international students would be tracked to ensure they are in fact students attending class. This is in response to the fact that one of the Sept. 11 hijackers was in the U.S. legitimately on a student visa. student \nWhile on the surface this seems like a good idea, like all government action on these matters, some careful consideration would show that it makes very little sense. First, there are thousands of international students coming to the United States every year. Tracking all of them would be completely infeasible. If this was side-stepped by tracking only a few, then the tracked group would have to be those most likely to have terrorist connections. Can anyone spell "profiling"? Second, there is no real way to establish whether someone coming into the country has terrorist links by tracking their attendance. The visa application already asks "Are you a terrorist?" Tracking attendance is about as useful as this question. The only way would be to run all visa applications past Federal intelligence services, and no one has mentioned this as a possibility. I'm not even sure if it's legal or plausible.\nI am an international student from New Zealand. I am worried that information about me can be given to any federal law enforcement agency that asks, especially information that is normally protected by privacy laws. I would not be entitled to know that the information had been requested, or what was being done with it -- the two primary concerns of privacy legislation.\nTo the best of my knowledge, this new law does not apply to U.S. citizens. Ashcroft talks about targeting "would-be terrorists", and monitoring for any violations of local law, including visa violations. This implies that "would-be terrorists" will only be looked for among foreigners.\nHowever, the thing that worries me most is the perception that "any action is appropriate action." Tightening student visa controls because one of the hijackers had such a visa, out of the thousands of students who come in every year, has political appeal (it looks like the administration is doing something sensible), but no actual merit.\nAndrew Wilson\nGraduate student
Government taking advantage of crisis\nThe legislation just signed into law to combat terrorism is just the tip of the electronic iceberg that America hit since Sept. 11. The government/corporate powers that be are in the process of imposing draconian security measures "capitalizing" on the peoples fears. They will utilize all kinds of devices as a way to gather information on YOU! \nWhy is this wrong? No one will be free in any sense of the word! Even your thoughts will be read as the "Global Brain," using sophisticated computerized technology, monitors your life, that is if you use their evolving technology. \nIBM is working on a technique called "emotion sensing" using biosensors placed on or in a human! I just lost my job because I confronted my government contracted employer about this stuff!\nDonald Joseph\nCarmichael, Calif. \nWait until break in performance, please\nThe IU Auditorium is to be commended for the variety of excellent programs it's brought our way. Ballet Folklorico, Willie Nelson, Marcel Marceau: What a lineup! (Yes, some classical programming would be welcome, but that's a discussion for another time.)\nBut I take exception to the policy of seating late-comers. It's dreadfully distracting for ushers to seat people in the middle of a number, particularly when in each case there is ample opportunity for people to be ushered to their seats between numbers. The current seating policy is positively reinforcing bad behavior -- that is, late arrival at performances -- and penalizing people who arrive on time. Besides, it's downright insulting to the performers. For 20 minutes or more they have to endure a steady procession down the aisles. I hope the IU Auditorium will reexamine its policy.\nJudy Schroeder\nIU staff member
Whirty gets it wrong\nAnd the award for stupidest analogy ever goes to...\nRyan Whirty ("Quit while you're ahead" Oct. 26) for his ludicrous comparison of a washed-up, unoriginal band that had no talent in the first place (Journey) to a revolutionary basketball player not quite ready to relinquish a game he loves playing (Michael Jordan).\nRyan Whirty has seriously misrepresented Michael Jordan's intentions in returning to the NBA. This isn't a matter of Jordan's ego being inflated. This isn't a matter of Jordan thinking the game will whither without him (He's been nothing but humble in his return). This is a matter of Jordan wanting to do something he enjoys. Frankly, I'm tired of so many media people criticizing Michael\nJordan's comeback. What happened to respecting someone's right to make a personal decision? Even a public figure such as Jordan deserves this.\nFinally, it isn't as if Jordan forced his way back into the league through some great marketing ploy (as Journey returned to the music scene). The guy is in the NBA right now because he can play.\nShane Sanders\nJunior
Dissent is patriotic\nThis has gone far enough. The disrespect and slander of those who hold viewpoints in opposition to one's own must stop. It is extremely unbecoming and at least should be embarrassing to the university and community. I hoped that I would not have to point this out, but dissent in itself can be patriotic. The denigration of those who oppose the bombing of Afghanistan on the basis of the belief that they are somehow less patriotic because they advocate a different response misses the point entirely. \nEvery day I read a letter or an article in the IDS which describes the views of various anti-war advocates as "anti-American" or "unpatriotic." Just yesterday the viewpoint was described as "Blame America." \nPerhaps a definition or elucidation of patriotism is what is needed. Patriotism is NOT an unwavering state of agreement with a government which sets policies contrary to ones own morality. I\'m sure that many anti-abortion advocates would agree with me. Patriotism is NOT an excuse to turn a deaf ear to someone else's argument. No one in America was unaffected by the tragedy of 9/11, and I'm sure that no rational person would blame the victims of the disaster for what happened. Everyone who has taken the time to speak out or do something about the reaction to the bombings deserves the benefit of the doubt. They risk alienation from one side or another because they feel strongly that their view should be heard. And they speak out and care because in one way or another every one of us loves this country. \nI oppose the bombing, and I will have a patriotism contest with anyone, any day, but you might be surprised at what form my patriotism takes. I choose not to drive at all, or even have a license, because of the environmental impact of cars, and I have such patriotism that I am concerned about the environment of our country. I have a 95 percent vegetarian diet for the same reason. I do not watch television because it erodes ones capacity to reason, and I believe that everyone who lives in a democracy has a responsibility to keep their brain in shape and ready to argue and decide their nation's future. And so on. It is a terrible inconvenience not to drive. I genuinely like meat, and there are some good shows on television. But this is the way I do right by my country, and to call it anything else is vile slander. \nYou may not agree with any of the ways I show my patriotism, but nonetheless it is just that, patriotism. Because that is what patriotism is -- the love for one's land and people.\nAndrew De Weese\nGraduate student
