Constitutional protection applies to all American citizens, residents too

I'm writing in response to Silas Montgomery's letter yesterday, "INS registration program increases national security." I must say that I'm deeply saddened by the seemingly prevailing attitude that is summed up in Mr. Montgomery's one statement, "The Constitution only applies to American citizens, not foreigners."

As a point of fact, this isn't strictly true. The constitutional due process protection applies to all American citizens and legal residents or visitors. Further, and this is the part that I have the most difficulty with, I don't understand why it is that so many people seem to think that just because they have citizenship, they deserve to be treated better than the rest of the world. It seems to me that this kind of attitude will be more likely to spawn greater anti-American sentiment than already exists. Not only that, but it violates some of the founding principles of this country. (Recalling words such as "We hold these truths to be self-evident...")

If we hold ourselves up as better than the rest of the world, we are inviting our own demise. Lasting peace will come from joining together, not segregating ourselves.

Geoffrey H. Wathen
physics doctoral student

Park Union closure inconvenient, exhibits misguided focus of funds

A top worry of this school is the low budget and the need to constantly be closing out classes. However, this school still finds the time and money to close down Park Student Union and make it bigger and better to try and make our school that much more glorious. This area has the most crowded residence halls, Arizona-Sonora, Coronado and Kaibab-Huachuca. With the closing of Park, all freshmen must walk across campus whenever they find the need for food or any simple necessities that you can get from the U-Mart. I never knew that when you were hungry it was such a hassle to get food. As a girl myself, it makes it that much worse because there is no walking alone in the dark, so you must always have an escort. Another problem with the closing of Park Student Union is that at eight in the morning, construction constantly wakes up many of the students that live in the Kaibab Residence Hall. Now, isn't college supposed to better your education? My thoughts are, how is that at all possible if you can't concentrate on schoolwork due to the noises coming from the bulldozers right outside of your window? When you need a quick nap to power your brain, there is no sleeping because of the unrelenting noise that lies right below our dorm. This construction is not right; it is an inconvenience to all of the students that surround what used to be the Park Student Union, and something needs to be done!

Erica Folkoff
undecided freshman

Arts reporter should acknowledge merits, influence of ÎThe Simpsons'

Any college student reporting on the arts who bashes "The Simpsons" in her article should be banished to Itchy and Scratchy Land without a fully charged flash camera. "The Simpsons" have been so successful in their thirteen seasons that other sardonic satires (like "South Park" and "Seinfeld") have had to write episodes dedicated to that end. Commenting that "the Simpsons have sucked the last few years · " affirms that Ms. Suarez's opinions are out of touch with reality. She must not realize that "The Simpsons" are so popular and successful that they were on weekday TV three times a day (5:30 p.m. KMSB, 6 p.m. KTTU, and 9 p.m. KMSB) in 2002. Kudos to Paul Iams in yesterday's letter for noting that TV's longest continuously running cartoon should have been up for two categories.

Christopher Marcum
sociology junior

Bush administration fails to provide sufficient evidence to justify invasion

Before we all jump on the war wagon with Mr. Peterson and Mr. Campbell, let's review some of the facts about Bush's heroic attempt to protect the American people. The administration defends its need for war with the argument that Iraq is somehow a threat to us, as if they're going to start lobbing ICBMs full of sarin any day now. Let's think about this. Your average dictator will do whatever is needed to stay in power, right? Attacking us or our allies means swift annihilation, and Saddam knows this. Why would he attack us? He wouldn't. "But he's used those weapons before, on his own people!" Sure did, with hardware we gave him, and our blessings and continued support afterward. The rules have changed; Saddam knows this too and wouldn't dare deploy such weapons again, unless of course Baghdad was being invaded by US troops ... assuming he has the weapons in the first place. "But he's working with al-Qaeda!" Recall that much of al-Qaeda's scorn for the U.S. stems from their desire to kick Iraq out of Kuwait instead of us. It's unlikely that they are all buddies now. Furthermore, Saddam knows he'd be the primary suspect and likely wouldn't risk it (see above).

Bush says he has proof of the al-Qaeda connection, as well as proof of Iraq having WMDs. Oh really? Show us. Why not give that info to the weapons inspectors or the nations that are skeptical of the war effort? Surely that would get them on board. Ah yes, perhaps it, much like the non-existent satellite photos of Iraqi troops on the Saudi border before Desert Storm, is simply a fabrication intended to lasso the weak-minded onto the wagon. In that case, well done Mr. President. I'm not saying Saddam is a good guy, but if Mr. Bush wants to protect us, perhaps he should show similar resolve towards North Korea, which most will agree is both more willing and able to dish out some carnage than Iraq.

Christopher Haney
environmental science graduate student

ÎLiberated' anti-war activist now sees Bush administration is Îalways right'

Wow, Steve Campbell really has turned me around after reading yesterday's column! I didn't realize that the United States is always right and has always been right. I now agree with him that as citizens of the world's most respected democracy, we should allow our president to do whatever he wants in spite of what we the people believe is right. Isn't it reassuring that the Bush administration will not let public opinion influence decisions made in Washington?

I am relieved to know that our leadership is never evil. No, not American leaders. Mr. Campbell convinced me that we should hand over all decision making to the Pentagon and the president.

Finally, all of us anti-war activists can quit thinking and trying to learn about what is really going on in the world. From now on, we can spend more time watching TV, going to movies, and yes, shopping! I feel so relieved. When I want information about the world, I will wait for President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to inform me. Furthermore, if our country continues to violate human rights, kill innocent people and dominate the world's resources, I will remain convinced it is always for us Americans that we can continue to live a charmed life. Why should we care about the rest of the world? Thank you, Mr. Campbell. You have really liberated us all!

Carrie Brown
president, Alliance for Peace and
Justice in the Middle East
Near Eastern studies graduate student

Peace movement transcends political lines, questions war's repercussions

I take issue with Charles Peterson's letter yesterday, "Protesters ignore double standards between parties," where he accuses the peace movement of being a political weapon against Republicans. The peace movement is not politically motivated, but Mr. Peterson's letter is. He has obviously chosen to ignore the facts and ignore the issue with his baseless accusations. Protests against the possible war against Iraq spread beyond the borders of the United States. Perhaps Mr. Peterson's conspiracy theories would lead him to believe that the entire world is working to get a Democrat elected.

The issue is not about liberals vs. conservatives or Democrats vs. Republicans; it is about the cost of the illegal attack that the current American government is planning. It is about the loss of innocent lives and the potential humanitarian disaster that will result from such an attack. It is about further damaging the image of the United States as an arrogant superpower. It is about questioning the motives and inquiring about personal gains that people like Vice President Dick Cheney would make if America attacked Iraq and took control of the oil fields. More importantly, it is about questioning the right of a country to determine the fate of another country.

It sounds as if Mr. Peterson would be happy if everyone just shut up, let the president do anything he wants, and ask no questions, despite the growing opposition inside and outside the country, and the suffering it would cause to the people of Iraq, and the damage it would cause to the United States, not to mention the loss of American lives. Instead of childishly throwing out insults like "filthy, brainwashed, America-blaming, peacenik," perhaps you should look at the issue instead of blindly following and defending your beloved president. Perhaps you'll be surprised to learn who is really brainwashed.

Arman Navabi
computer science senior