OPINION

Page 5
Vol. XCV, No. 24-S
95 Years of Editorial Freedom
Managed and Edited by Students at
The University of Michigan
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the
Daily Editorial Board
No exceptions
T HIS NATION'S system of checks and balances has
triumphed once again with the Supreme Court's
decision that an attorney general of the United States is not
absolutely immune from a lawsuit for violating an in-
dividual's legal or constitutional rights in the name of
national security.
"The danger that high federal officials will disregard
constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national
security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording
such officials an absolute immunity," wrote Justice Byron
White.
The justices added' at the security of the nation will
not be threatened if officials are given incentives to abide
by clearly established law.
In the light of Watergate, the nation has learned that
Federal officials sometimes see themselves as absolute
rulers of this nation. They'll do anything it takes to bring
criminals to justice, even break the law. They must be
reminded that the ends do not justify the means.
It is ironic to note that this decision was prompted by a
lawsuit filed against former Attorney General John Mit-
chell. He authorized a wiretap in 1970 on the telephone of a
member of an anti-war group, the East Coast Conspiracy.
The FBI believed the group was planning to blow up tun-
nels that connect Federal office buildings. Mitchell did not
obtain a warrant for the wiretap.
rThe Justice Department argued that the attorney
general of the United States should just be concerned
about the national good and not about personal liability.
The Supreme Court's decision will force the attorney
general to pause and rethink his actions in light of the laws
he is empowered to enforce.
However, Mitchell will be let off the hook because
warrantless wiretaps for national security reasons were
not ruled unconstitutional until 1972. Another fish of the
Watergate era got away, but it is still comforting to know
the system works.

Friday, June 21, 1985

The Michigan Daily

Shifting alliances fuel tensions

By Peter Wiley
MEXICO CITY - The worst period
in U.S.-Mexican relations in recent
memory has led many Mexicans to
ask whether the United States is
changing -its policies toward their
country - even, some say, working to
destabilize its political system.
The most visible signs of difficulty
between the two governments have
been the bitter confrontation over the
murder of U.S. Drug Enforcement
Agent Camarena Salazar and con-
tinuing clashes over Central
America.
BUT MANY Mexicans see hostility
from the north taking a less obvious
form. They suggest that a conser-
vative political party - the National
Action Party, PAN - is benefitting
greatly from a close relationship with
the Republican Party.
PAN will be the center of attention
in July's election to the Chamber of
Deputies. Defying the Institutional-
Revolutionary Party, PRI, which has
controlled the government for more
than half a century, PAN has done
well in areas of northern Mexico that
are heavily influenced by the United
States - electing mayors in 12 cities
and towns, and offering serious
challengers in contests for governor
in two states.
Many Mexican journalists and
political figures fear the Reagan ad-
ministration so favors PAN that is it
distancing itself from the PRI. These
observers point out that PAN
representatives attended the 1914
Repuhlican National Convention and
that U.S. Ambassador John Gavin
met with PAN leaders later that year.
MOREOVER, they note that PAN
shares Reagan administration at-
titudes on the government's role in
the economy and the threat of com-
munism in Central America. They
conclude that conservative
Republicans are supporting PAN's ef-
forts to establish a two-party system
in Mexico - which could, some
suggest darkly, destabilize the
political system.
These fears may account for a
steady rise in anti-American rhetoric.
Mexico's United Nations amhassador
Porfirio Munoz Ledo recently
denounced the United States for
engaging in "a strategy to discredit

our institutions, our history, our prin-
ciples, our system of life, of gover-
nment and our representatives."
Even the conservative mass
publication Impacto accused Gavin of
exceeding the limits of protocol by
"imposing demands and norms of
behavior" on Mexico.
For his part, the ambassador has
said, "Some elements here have tried
to tar us with the brush of 'interven-
tion in the internal affairs of Mexico.'
Such lies fall of their own weight."
IN FACT, as many Mexicans have
perceived, there has been a shift in
U.S. policy toward Mexico, but it is
more a matter of degree than a com-
plete about-face. The Reagan ad-
ministration is not ready to abandon,
or even undermine the PRI, but it has
decided to press President Miguel de
la Madrid in specific areas.
This tactic was spelled out in part
more than a year ago in National
Security Decision Directive 124,
which called for "a communication

and diplomacy masterplan" to con-
vince de la Madrid of the virtues of
U.S. policy in Central America.
Mexico has displeased the ad-
ministration by maintaining relations
- though uneasy, with Nicaragua, at-
tacking U.S. interventionism, op-
posing aid to the contras, and pushing
for a region-wide negotiated set-
tlement through the Contadora
process.
The July elections could well raise
tension to a new level. If PAN makes
significant gains, there will be
renewed charges that the party has
U.S. backing. If it loses, there will be
more charges of PRI corruption and
unwillingness to share power.
In either case, if PAN is seen as tied
to the Republican Party, however
tenuously, U.S.-Mexican relations
will suffer.
Wiley wrote this for Pacific
News Service.

LETTERS TO THE DAILY
Skeptical about costs

To the Daily:
A story on the proposed ban on the
use of pets in research reports that
state Sen. DiNello is sceptical about
the University's estimates of cost in-
creases (Daily, June 13). Maybe he
has reason for his scepticism.
According to the story, the Univer-
sity spent $161,000 last year to buy
dogs and cats for research. If the
legislation passes, then it would cost
the University $1.5 million to raise
these animals itself, according to Dr.
Bennet Cohen. And vice-president
Alfred Sussman is quoted as saying
that the increased cost would "in-
crease the cost of bio-medical resear-
ch ten fold."
Now, if we use a little arithmetic on
these figures, we discover that the
total cost of bio-medical research

here last year cannot have been more
than $149,000. But that is less than was
spent just on buying animals, with
nothing at all left over for the salaries
of the researchers, or for any other
expenses. It is amazing.
And that's not all. Apparently the
University bought about 2,700 dogs
and cats last year. Dr. Bennett says it
would cost $1.5 million annually to
raise those animals. That amounts to
more than $555 per dog or cat.
Doesn't that figure look a little
strange, considering the prices which
breeders regularly sell pedigreed
animats?
So maybe Sen. DiNello does have
something after all.
-George Mavrodes
June13

Unacceptable photograph

BLOOM COUNTY
TAKE A tOOK! *6K/&
4V5 AN C / RECOfVCIlURRO1.~
JOHNAX 77/4. JOHN POEGOR'AN, 0,NO...
A/M '5 FMKR A4OMAKER, POWN
M/t6TON65" W/TH RMERWIF FR if
IWIV/N G'6G(;,W5;FORMER /
MO M P--
l10t1-
6 '-41

by Berke Breathed
"IN5TTUT10NAL/1EP-"""
P ICK VUlANAN, A1Etl NY
fOAM1/ WHILT NO... SQ/IP. t1 '0
moux COMMV-"° gr I PROUD.
*6#6
401/06 ~ 945/

To the Daily:
The University of Michigan Com-
mission for Women is a group, af-
filiated with the Affirmative Action
Office, that advocates in the area of
women's issues on campus. In ad-
dition to addressing specific problems
or issues, the Commission is concer-
ned with the general environment on
campus and with attitudes that are
detrimental to women students, staff
and faculty.
Several Commission members ex-
pressed concern over a photograph
published in the newspaper (Daily,
June 11). The picture, which took up
nearly half a page, focused on the legs
and crotch of a woman sunbathing.

This photograph exemplifies a
societal attitude that condones
reducing women to the sum of their
anatomical parts, and invites us to be
voyeurs and to invade their privacy.
This type of sexism supports a view
that women may be harassed or ex-
ploited because of their gender.
The Commission would like to
suggest that the Daily carefully
examine that attitudes is is suppor-
ting by publishing such photos. We
hope you will find them as unaccep-
table as we do.
-Jeanne Miller
Laurie Burns
The Commission for Women
June 17