MSA ignored lack of information

To the Daily:

Wednesday”s report (“MSA passes resolution in favor of detained local Muslim leader” 1/16/02) regarding Tuesday Night”s Michigan Student Assembly meeting grossly misrepresented my comments during constituents” time. Not only was I not the only constituent who voiced concerns about the wording of the Haddad resolution, I clearly stated that I supported the resolution in principle, but that I could not support it on the merits because it had some factual inaccuracies, much like Tomislav Ladika”s report on my comments. Moreover, I thought the funding was not a necessary component. His report only gives further evidence to my concern that many students rely on misinformation and unfortunately do not have the proper facts to make the decisions the resolution asked the assembly to make.

I would like to add that I am very proud of the event the sponsors put together on Wednesday night on such short notice. A deep discussion and education on civil liberties is greatly needed, and they brought in excellent speakers to do so. I would like to commend the AADC and the American Civil Liberties Union for their hard and speedy work on this excellent program.

Eric Feldman

LSA Senior

This “conspiracy” lacks content To the Daily:

Nick Woomer (“A conspiracy theory worth discussing,” 1/16/02) is suggesting that high-ranking elements of our government were so committed to overthrowing the Taliban that they allowed the Sept. 11 attacks to occur as a means of quashing an ongoing debate in elite policy circles about the best way to secure stable access to the potentially vast Central Asian oilfields. But the evidence he offers, even if taken as completely true and accurate, doesn”t adequately support his assertion.

First of all, it is hardly sinister that the United States, pre-Sept. 11, was committed to the overthrow of the Taliban. Osama bin Laden was already the government”s number one target, and his supporters, the Taliban, had already faced one cruise missile attack, were infamously brutal and were holding two evangelical Americans for possible execution. Casting aside that the Sept. 11 attacks were years in their planning, and granting Woomer”s hypothesis that bin Laden may have been led by reports of a U.S. resolve to attack Afghanistan to launch his own strike on the U.S., why would bin Laden, by no accounts a stupid man, think that “pre-emptively” striking civilians in the U.S. would do anything but make an imminent attack on Afghanistan an accelerated certainty?

Second, the only evidence Woomer offers of prior U.S. knowledge of Sept. 11 is the strange suppression of evidence resulting from the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui. Is there any reason to believe that the evidence in Moussaoui””s laptop would have predicted the Sept. 11th attacks, or even evidence that was contained in that laptop would have made any sense to investigators prior to the attacks?

I understand that there is some credible evidence that the U.S. government may have known of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor before it occurred. At least the geopolitical motives of that era are better understood. Surely Woomer can appreciate the profound internal shift that would have to occur for most of us to accept the notion that our own government would willingly allow the killing of thousands of its own citizens for murky policy goals that could theoretically have been achieved at far less cost and effort. While Woomer may have already made this internal shift, most of us have not and we”re going to need far more compelling evidence than what he”s presented to us to even consider it.

Raja Raghunath

Law student

Pregnancy centers provide alternative

To the Daily:

The Daily”s editorial (“Licensed to ill” 1/15/02) was one of the most stupidly argued opinion pieces that the Daily has written since winter semester began. In this editorial, the Daily laments the fact that the Michigan House of Representatives has passed a bill that would enable citizens to purchase “Choose Life” license plates because the money raised by the sale of the plates would go to crisis pregnancy centers and thus “will effectively fund-raise for a political cause.” Does the Daily even know what crisis pregnancy centers do? They are not political at all. They help women free of charge who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances, such as being unwed. And yes, unlike Planned Parenthood they don”t tell women that they need to have an abortion and ask for $300-$700 as payment. Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteers do whatever is necessary in order to help their clients through their pregnancy and continue emotional, spiritual and material support well after the baby is born. What does Planned Parenthood do? After they sell the vast majority of their clients an abortion and take their money they tell them to “have a nice day.” They could care less about women. And by the way hundreds of millions of dollars go to Planned Parenthood via federal tax dollars, while nothing goes toward crisis pregnancy centers.

The other main problem that I have with the Daily”s editorial is its claim that by promoting “Choose Life” license plates the state of Michigan is tacitly opposing abortion. Is the Daily pro-“choice” or pro-abortion? If you are pro-choice then it should have no problem with the new license plates since “choosing life” is certainly an option that a woman can “choose” according to the laws of the state. But, of course, hard core pro- “choice” supporters, such as the Daily are only for one choice abortion. Choosing life is a valid choice and women who find themselves in difficult circumstances do not always have to kill their unborn child, however much you and the greedy doctors and their affluent supporters want them to.

Andrew Shirvell

LSA senior

The letter writer is president of Students for Life

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.