4 - The Michigan Daily - Friday, February 17, 2006 OPINION c7hb rtot 14*a ialv DONN M. FRESARD Editor in Chief EMILY BEAM CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK Editorial Page Editors ASHLEY DINGES Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE I think ... there will be a need to close the Guanta- namo (camp) ... and hopefully to do it as soon as is possible." -United Nations Sercretary-General Kofi Annan, speaking about the conclusion of a report from a U.N.-appointed independent panel about the U.S.prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as reported yesterday by the Associated Press. GEOFF SILVERSTEIN MIII5R NMAYQRAND iRIENDS Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their author. Having the right doesn't make it right IMRAN SYED DEMAGOCU3E-S DEB iU:NKED W e Ameri- cans value free speech above any other right. Overriding the tyran- nical inclinations of governments before it, our American republic recognized this right at its founding, with- out which our democ- racy couldn't exist. But does it have to be so for everyone else? Is our perception of what is right and just the only correct one? To begin with, we must take note here of the entire scope of the cartoon controversy. The cartoon published by Denmark's Jyl- lands-Posten and then republished by sever- al other papers is certainly offensive - not even the strongest proponents of free speech will deny that. Yet it is no more deplorable than the response generated by radicals in the Muslim community, which in many cases has been a far larger embarrassment to the peace- ful notions of Islam. Muslims feel offended by the cartoon because it depicts their prophet and faith as a violent one, yet they only fur- ther this perception if they react violently. The ugliest of responses to the cartoon have come from some radical Islam's own exercise of free speech. In a tit-for-tat move, an Ira- nian newspaper announced a contest seeking cartoons mocking the Holocaust, calling it a test of the West's love for free speech. If Mus- lim cries to respect their precious religious symbols are to be taken seriously, they must condemn such actions by the most radical among them. Mocking Judaism, Christianity or any other faith is no more acceptable than mocking Islam; claiming to value religion while insulting all forms but your own has an inherent air of hypocrisy that works to nullify the Muslim cause. As has been pointed out several times throughout this controversy, Muslims have no right to expect other cultures to live up to their notions of right and wrong. Yet does this rule not also apply to Western cultures? The inexcusable, violent reactions of a misguided minority aside, why do we expect the Mus- lim world to value our beloved free speech when we laugh at their notion of prohibiting all depictions of the prophet? James Pinkerton of Newsday seemed to have an uncharacteristically astute under- standing of the situation. He said: "It's time for all of us to recognize that different cul- tures have different values ... To draw such a distinction between West and East is not to endorse cultural relativism; it's simply to take note of cultural reality." But Pinkerton's perception of reality leads him to conclude the Muslim world is inher- ently the enemy of the West and must be held at bay at any cost. A contradiction arises again when he goes on to say speech that incites violence is not to be tolerated. Isn't this the very argument for avoiding the publication of the inflammatory cartoons in question? Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should. Behind the cartoon controversy lies a lack of under- standing between cultures that, regardless of Pinkerton's delusions, can no longer afford to remain secluded. The editor who origi- nally published the cartoon has confessed a lack of understanding of the values of Islam. In Norway, the second paper to publish the cartoon has apologized, its editor admitting, as the Detroit Free Press reported, "he failed to foresee the pain and anger the drawings would cause." Don't get me wrong - the Danish paper does have the right to portray the prophet Muham- mad with a bomb on his head, but then the cartoon of Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hit- ler is also perfectly within the bounds of free speech. Yet both are disgusting and counter- productive depictions that serve no purpose and have no reason to be printed. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune said: "Offense should always have a point ... the Muham- mad cartoons seem to do nothing more than provoke Muslims, including the vast majority of law-abiding Muslims." Even free speech's greatest champions must admit that there are some things that should not be said, even if they can be. In the clamor over the concept of free speech, we must remember that it is an abstract construct which serves a purpose - to prevent the breakdown of society and the spread of tyranny. While refusing to print something because it may be offensive is the first step down the ill-trod path to censorship, publishing depictions whose only purpose is to offend and inflame is but a different path to the same societal deterioration that free speech seeks to avoid. A better understanding of our own notion of free speech will reveal that while it is our favorite right, it is also the most misunder- stood one. Without free speech, democracy is dead, but unless exercised properly, democra- cy will die at its hands. Alas, like every right, this is one that comes with responsibilities. In our world, that can only mean its failure. Syed can be reached at galad@umich.edu. Our dirty big secrets JESSE SINGAL STEM THE TIDE No aid for you Federal funds should go to most deserving student wakes atop a moun- tain of beer cans and brushes cocaine powder out of his beard. What a crazy Tuesday night that was! A cloud of marijuana smoke follows him to the mailbox. With syringe-tracked fingers he fum- bles to open an envelope containing his taxpayer-subsidized financial aid check. Of course, most drug users are at least somewhat responsible and don't live their lives constantly high. It is also unlikely that a signifi- cant portion of federal financial aid money goes toward student-run meth labs or drug cartels. Regardless, it is reasonable to expect that students receiving federal financial aid make the most of their education. Using illegal drugs contradicts this simple expectation. The Higher Education Act, which was recently amended to be more lenient, bars students from receiving federal financial aid if they are convicted of possessing illegal drugs. This does not include infractions made before col- lege, and aid is only pulled indefinitely after the third offense. While this may adversely affect drug users who hon- estly want to better themselves and are in need of higher education, the truth is that most heavy drug users are poor students. Little sympathy should be afforded to those who squander the generosity of others at a time when financial aid is in such high demand, as the Daily recently suggested (Your financial aid on drugs, 02/16/2006). Current implementation of the act is flawed, however, because it does not make the distinction between mari- juana and other illegal drugs. While this argument will not delve into the legalization debate, marijuana and cocaine simply cannot be compared. The only possible (and hypothetical) type of exception might be a student caught growing 40 kilos of marijuana in his dorm room and selling it to a 12-year-old. He probably should lose his aid, since that does constitute a felony. Also, cultivating that much marijuana is very time-consuming and leaves little time for study. In a perfect world, anyone would be able to afford a college education. But realistically, many prospective yet underprivileged students are unable to pay for college, and many of them will not receive the federal aid they need. It is a disservice to the taxpayer and the greater good to fund the "educa- tion" of a heavy drug user when there are far more dedicated and legitimate candidates who will never receive the same opportunity. Gavin Stern is an LSA sophomore and a member of the Daily's editorial board, Have you ever heard of Marer Arar? In 2002, Arar, a resident of Canada who holds citizenship there and in Syria, took a vacation to Tunisia. His return trip included a stop in New York City, but he ran into some trouble there. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website, "U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he has links to al-Qaida, and deported him to Syria, even though he was carrying a Canadian passport." Arar wouldn't return to Canada for a year. In the meantime, he claimed, he was tortured while in Syrian custody. A public commis- sion set up to investigate his claims asserted their veracity, and culminated with the pub- lishing of the Toope Report (named after the fact-finder, Stephen Toope) in October 2005, which can be read at www.ararcommission. ca/eng/ToopeReportfinal.pdf. It's not light reading. Here's how Arar described some of his treatment: "They used the cable on the second and third day, and after that mostly beat me with their hands, hitting me on the stomach and on the back of my neck, and slapping me in the face. When they hit me with the cables, my skin turned blue for two or three weeks, but there was no bleeding." Arar was never formally charged with any- thing. The process by which he was deport- ed to a country that tortures is known as "extraordinary rendition" and was started in the mid-1990s under the Clinton administra- tion. Its use has exploded since Sept. 11; sus- pected terrorists are now regularly kidnapped from one country, flown to another and tor- tured there. This is our government. It would be nice to say that things have gotten better, that the horrors described in the Toope Report were the result of immediate post-Sept. 11 zealousness, but that's not the case. We now know that the Central Intelligence Agency has set up secret prisons in Eastern Europe for the purpose of detaining and interrogating al-Qaida suspects. But scarier than what we do know is what we don't know. Who decides who gets detained? What happens to detainees? Is there any logic to the process? We also know that at least some of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were innocent bystand- ers swept up in raids - then left to rot or be tortured - without any due process. The typical response from a Bush admin- istration apologist is some amalgamation of "post-9/l1 world," "take the fight to them" and "terrorists." This can no longer suffice as an explanation for so much secrecy. There has yet to be a convincing argument made as to the connection between winning the war on terror and secretly detaining and torturing people. The fierceness with which the admin- istration clings to the "right" to torture people is puzzling. Again, though, what's most scary is that we don't know what's being done in our name. The American people never granted the Bush administration the power to detain people without due process and torture them. None- theless, it's happening, but nobody knows where, when or how often. It's so common- place for critics of this president to take cheap shots at him - Bush is a fascist, Bush is rac- ist, etc. But what really matters - what really is an affront to a democratic system and, more importantly, is a moral outrage - is lurking below the surface, out of sight from tradition- al means of critique or investigation. "No one knows": They're just three words, but when you take a step back and think about it, it's terrifying. We have no idea what's being done to those who come under the eye of our government, nor the power to stop it. We, the people, are supposed to be the ultimate arbi- ters of what should or should not be done in our name. Where's our voice? Some answers are definitely in order here. Imagine if American citizens began ran- domly disappearing from the streets of our cities, reemerging months or years later with stories of torture. There would, to say the least, be an outcry. Until we begin to demand a basic level of explanation from our govern- ment, our role in cases such as Arar's can only be seen as one of complicity. As citizens, it's our responsibility to demand better from those in charge. 0 0 0 Singal can be reached at jsingal@umich.edu LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Send all letters to the editor to tothedaily@michigandaily. com. Charges of 'nepotism' against Fox baseless To THE DAILY: I would like to respond to MSA votes down $4 student fee to fund yearbook (02/15/2006). First, let's be clear that the proposal was to allow the student body to vote on whether or not it wanted to be charged a $2 fee per semester so that every- one would get a yearbook. MSA was not voting to impose a $2 fee - only to put the question on tion and not 300 others. I am against preferential treatment." This makes no sense. Paul sets up a false choice by claiming that supporting one orga- nization means discriminating against others. It is the responsibility of MSA representatives to represent their constituents and advocate for students. Supporting proposals by student groups is not discriminating against other groups - it is MSA's job. Fox stands up for students. She is a tireless pro- moter of student financial aid; you'll see her at the University Board of Regents' meeting today argu- Birth control pill has a medical use; Viagra doesn't To THE DAILY: I just wanted to applaud your editorial Pro- Life and Pro-Choice (02/15/2006). Being a female with a medical condition that can only be managed using birth control, I spend about $50 every three weeks. It is not covered by my insurance company, even though I have had my doctors write numerous letters testifying "In Dissent" opinions do not reflect the views of the Daily's editorial board. They are solely the views of the author.