| OCR Text |
Show 4 Thursday January 31, 2013 OPINION www.dailyutahchronicle.corn `Zero Dark' intensifies torture debate SET STEVENSON SMITH Opinion Columnist K atheryn Bigelow's new film "Zero Dark Thirty" causes us to question our moral beliefs on torture, leaving some people upset. It depicts torture as an essential tool in the eventual capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden. Senators John McCain and Dianne Feinstein have led the fight against "Zero Dark Thirty" by sending a letter to Sony Pictures Entertainment, deploring the studio and the movie by saying it is "grossly inaccurate and misleading" and "has the potential to shape American public opinion in a disturbing and misleading manner." "It's wrong. It's wrong. I know for a fact, not because of this report — my own knowledge — that waterboarding, torture, does not lead to reliable information ... in any case," McCain said. However, Hatch's claims dodge the question of the morality of torture in general and instead focus on whether or not it is effective. These are two completely different subjects, and the senators hurt their argument by confusing the two. In a moment of honesty, Huffington Post columnist Dan Froomkin explained his outrage to "Zero Dark Thirty" was in part because "if tor- LUIGI GHERSI/The Daily Utah Chronicle ture did work, then we would need to have an argument over whether the ends justify the means." But this is exactly what the argument should be about. "Zero Dark Thirty" opens the door for such a discussion. It paints a picture of torture working and serving as an effective method of interrogation. It changes the debate RESULTS Cast your vote online at: www.dailyutahchronicle.com NEWPOLL If torture were deeTed iffec ive — in obtaining information from detainees, would you support it? surrounding the controversial interrogation technique, demanding the opponents of torture hold true to his or her convictions even if it means we would never have been Last week respondents voted on the poll: What do yothink of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's order to permit women to service in combat roles for the first time in the • •AllommAnor military s history? It's long overdue (47%, 27 Votes) 01' ake a difference — women already uc •OSitions unofficially (38%, 22 Votes) able to capture Osama Bin Laden or that we would have had to live in a more dangerous world. See SMITH Page 5 Marshall's legacy a reminder of freedom LAUREN KEOGH Opinion Columnist an. 21 was significant for the progress of our country as a whole. Our president was sworn in for a new term on a holiday that celebrates one of the great civil rights leaders of our time, Martin Luther King Jr. MLK, however, is only one of many great black civil rights leaders. Thurgood Marshall is another. Marshall's efforts and successes are not as celebrated as MLK's, but perhaps they should be. Marshall grew up and lived the duration of his life in the Northeastern United States. His geographical origin gave him a unique perspective on civil rights that contributed to his lifelong advocacy for racial equality. Marshall's most well-known achievement is being the first black Supreme Court justice. Prior to being appointed to the bench, Marshall was a lawyer who fought for desegregation in public schools. Norma Marshall, Thurgood Marshall's mother, introduced him to the injustices black people faced in schools through her career as a school teacher. She was not given equal pay and young Marshall took notice. Moreover, he felt the effects of segregation in schools more personally when he was not admitted to the University of Maryland on account of his race. In the 19405, Marshall successfully challenged the primaries that were preventing black people from voting in Southern states. He ended the enforcement of restrictive covenants, which banned black people from living in white-only neighborhoods. Marshall therefore made it his life mission to eradicate segregation from public schools and to fight for justice in the court system. The Supreme Court validated Marshall's work when it decided j Hatch's fiscal-cliff legislature loophole unfair, unacceptable en. Orrin Hatch reacted unacceptably when his aide slipped in a provision to the "fiscal cliff' legislation, which will greatly benefit a campaign contributor. The provision delays price restraints on Medicare payments on a specific class of drugs for kidney dialysis patients. Amgen, a pharmaceutical company that has contributed millions to representatives of both political parties — including more than $59,900 to Hatch in campaign contributions since 2007 — is the maker of Sensipar, a costly drug that, thanks to the fiscal cliff bill and Hatch's underworked work, will now be exempted from cost-cutting reimbursements from Medicare. Kevin Sack and Eric Lipton of S KYLE R KEN BOWERS Opinion Columnist the New York Times exposed Section 632, buried deep within the fiscal cliff legislation. The provision specifically exempts end-stage renal disease drugs from cost-cutting measures written into the Affordable Care Act for two additional years. This provision is projected to cost Medicare $500 million during those two years. Essentially, this legislation lines the pockets of Amgen shareholders at COLLUSION AT ITS WORST IN WASHINGTON: • Since 2007,Amgen, a pharmaceutical company, has give $59,000 to Sen. Orrin Hatch • Amgen makes Sensipar, an expensive drug that treats kidney failure • Hatch wrote in sSection 632 of the so-called "fiscal cliff bill," which exempts Sensi par from Medicare reimbursements • Section 632 is estimated to cost taxpayers $500 million the expense of U.S. taxpayers. Hatch represents all that is wrong in Washington today. Already one of the most conservative members of the Senate, Hatch, fearing a primary challenge like the one that ousted his former colleague Bob Bennett, shifted his voting to appear even more conservative in the lead up to the 2012 election. Now, primary and victory behind him, he is free to serve out the remainder of what he claims will be his final term without fear of retribution from voters. Hatch was the only member of Utah's delegation to vote in favor of HB 8, the law that averted the fiscal cliff. In a cagey statement following the bill, Hatch said, "This isn't legislation I would have written ... I reluctantly supported it because it sets in stone lower tax rates for roughly 99 percent of American taxpayers." He conveniently forgot to mention the half billion-dollar corporate handout he snuck into the bill. Hatch's actions are by no means unique, and are part of a systemic failure of our campaign finance system, which has been weakened by the 2010 Citizens United ruling. Thanks to Citizens United, Washington now, more than ever, operates on a system of legalized bribery. However, the routine corruption in Washington is not a justification for Hatch's wasteful $5oo million giveaway to Big Pharma. Utahns have no reason to appreciate Hatch's disingenuous support of the fiscal cliff bill, except perhaps for the fact that it provides a rare opportunity for a semblance of bipartisanship. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, Tea Partier or bleeding-heart liberal, anybody with a conscience can agree Hatch acted deplorably, both in his role in writing the loophole into law, and in his evasive explanation of his vote in favor of the bill. Hatch's transgression also serves as a reminder, before we blame Congress en masse for our nation's problems, that we should first scrutinize Utah's own 36-year veteran of legislative misconduct. letters@chronicle.utah.edu See KEOGH Page 5 |
