Free Speech Fridays

ASUW resolution too hasty

The ASUW (The Daily, Oct. 23-24) is debating a resolution that attempts to speak for all of us about events which few of us truly understand. ASUW Senator Richey Kemmling has drafted a resolution which theorizes that, since we are not screaming in opposition to the war, we must be in support of it. I propose a different explanation.

As a democracy, our ability to make judgments is enabled by our understanding of the subjects we are debating. To pass a resolution that declares that, in the absence of loud opposition, the UW student body "must" be supportive of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan, is to jump to conclusions. After all, what do WE know about this situation?

We know fellow Americans were brutally murdered (with people from many parts of the world), and we are angry. We know Afghan people are now being brutally murdered in their name. We know the U.S. government blames Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for the Sept. 11 attack. We know the Taliban is a repressive and brutal regime. We know the majority of our mainstream media receives a large portion of information about the war from the U.S. government, without the ability to check the accuracy of statements. (Officials denied bombing an Afghan hospital until undeniable evidence surfaced.)

We say we are at war with terrorism, but who has stopped to define terrorism? It would be hard to come up with a valid definition which did not include the U.S. (and Israel, Pakistan, Russia and China). (Maybe Bush will bomb Arkansas to bring Bill Clinton to justice for the attack on Sudan.)

How many in this school have been to Afghanistan, or know an Afghan American? Who can truly empathize with a people and country that have been so obliterated and transformed by war and terror? How many students have driven by a burnt-out bus in a West Bank neighborhood? How many have walked along the beautiful wealthy beaches of Haifa to the Arab section, to be amazed by the drastic poverty these people suffer in the middle of such a wealthy nation? How many understand that since Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel 25 new settlements, composed of thousands of people, have "settled" Palestinian land? That's right, SETTLERS ... they still have those over there. Who in this school can truly claim that they understand the reasons we were attacked?

In good conscience, can the ASUW claim that the UW student body supports such drastic, life-changing action as war, when the majority of the student body is still educating itself? We are in the process of learning. Many don't have time to thoroughly investigate the topic, and those of us who do still have much to understand. Let us not rush into proclamations which condone the opinions of some while marginalizing those of others. Why make such a statement at all? It will only serve to divide the student body rather than facilitate an environment of learning.

Dan Dean

junior, photography, cinema studies

Resolution sponsor replies

As a co-sponsor of this resolution, it seems the biggest problem people have is the clause "most events on campus so far have shown limited opposition to the U.S. government's bombings in Afghanistan." The United States is doing more than dropping bombs on strategic targets (not civilians mind you, terrorist and Taliban strongholds). We are showing terrorists that we are united on fundamental ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hope every person on campus believes in these truths. We are providing Afghan civilians with food as we strike military targets.

We are on a crusade to eliminate racial and religious prejudices that have and may result from the terrorist attack. We are standing up to an organization that wants us to bow before their god and wants to destroy America in the process. We are standing up to a group that does not differentiate between civilian and military targets in their "holy jihad." If you don't believe me, let Osama tell you: "We predict a black day for America and the end of the United States" (ABC News interview May 28, 2001). This is not a man who listens to reason or ideas of tolerance; he has an agenda which he attempts to coerce others into adopting by blowing up embassies, crashing jetliners and slaughtering Americans. Dean argues that we aren't educated enough to make a decision. But if we do not pursue bin Laden, we may not live another day to make a decision. Bin Laden's terrorism has the potential to kill us, our friends and family -- everyone we know. The leaders of our country understand this, and seek to protect all Americans. If we sit by as terrorist acts steal lives across our country, can any of us expect to have any degree of liberty? Dean argues that this will divide the campus. This resolution is not an action, merely a statement saying we support a government trying to defend our best interests.

Why are we proposing this bill? These ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness transcend party lines. They matter to every individual, which is why we must unite. Only though unity can we accomplish anything. This resolution is open to student input, and will be discussed and debated thoroughly in the student senate. We want this to be ASUW approved, so we can stand together in this fight against terrorism.

This war came to us. We must fight back. President Bush did not ask for this violation, nor did any of us. Our president was reading with children when planes slammed into us, killing thousands. I am not a war hawk, but some things are worth fighting for. How many planes must kill Americans? How many Americans must die for us to understand what we are up against? Terrorism will continue whether or not we pursue the people who are committing it. I would rather try to stop it than to try to guess which Americans will die next. We must stand united.

Chris Ramsey

ASUW senator, College Republicans