European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - March 2, 1992, Darmstadt, Hesse Monday March 2, 1992 the stars and stripes Page 13 . Rosentha time for finish Job it started in Iraq two Little words seem to fill americans and our government with such terror that we just cannot confront them. They Are what then at Home if we spend a trillion or so More than we earn what then abroad if we allow the russian Republic to collapse what then if we squeeze Israel into militarily indefensible territory and Surprise its enemies try another War to destroy her what then and now we Are paying for not answering last years what then a if we leave Saddam Hussein in Mil political Power after defeating him militarily what will we to about in later that failure brings Washington to the much leaked decision Point on whether to go after him again. From the United nations Ana other International teams come reports making it Retchin Gly Clear that Saddam is still carrying out acts of genocidal murder against the kurd and other groups that might Ever threaten him. And he alone is responsible for any shortages of food and Medicine in Iraq. He refuses to sell some of the oceans of iraqi Oil for supplies that would be distributed by the United nations. The military and political logic is that one Day the United states will try to separate his head from his shoulders. Not just for his crimes a they sat Well enough with the West before the kuwaiti invasion. But his refusal to reveal the size and location of his nuclear chemical and germ War capacity will eventually make him just too dangerous to be allowed to remain on his throne of skulls. In Washington hints cover the ground like the bulbs of Spring that the United states will go after him soon. If so then what what the United states needs is what it did not have before the persian Gulf War precise publicly understood goals of War a no winks and nods nothing left unsaid. Iraqi rebels and others who know the Middle East list three essential goals a create the foundation of political Freedom in Iraq whether the syrian and saudi dictatorships like it or not they wont. Neither americans nor iraqis can be asked to die kill or sacrifice to install a sad Amite fascist regime minus Only the Mustache. Therefore if Saddam escapes death not Only he but the gorings and Himmler around him must face an International crimes tribunal a and his is must be dismantled. Otherwise there will be civil War without end. A As soon As any attempt to remove Saddam starts the United states and the United nations should recognize and help an interim rebel government. Yes there will be divisions and squabbles within the provisional government. Name a rebel movement without either. But who will do the Iob of removing Saddam Hussein and his inner Circle of killers kurd and other iraqi rebels say they and anti Saddam forces in the army can carry it out without foreign round troops. They figure that in the army of about 50,000 there Are at most about 70,000 soldiers members of Security and Republican guard battalions who will fight for him at All. They Hope the first Days of rebellion will finish Saddam. But maybe not. Then the rebels would need supplies and air support against the 3,000 tanks 150 planes and 600 helicopters that the United states left to an astonished Saddam As a Golden handshake. A and before going ahead Washington has to Tell americans that there is the Chance that some american troops will be involved. Probably they would be limited to intelligence units. The possibility that Saddam could Long survive a rebellion Well planned and Well supplied is Small. But if he does More . Ground forces conceivably could be needed. That should be said. By confronting what then now the United states could quickly finish the Job left undone after the military Victory m the desert. Without Candor there will be another political and moral disaster. Americans will not and should not support action until Washington has the courage to make its full goals clean and Clear. If it fails the truth will be that the administration left a marauding dictator indefinitely in the desert Loose armed an preparing a and now cannot do better than wait for him to choose his own next target at his own time. C th0 now York Olmos George f. Will jailers justices were a bit excessive in Case the supervisor of the Louisiana prison guards told them a a not to have too much tune As they punched and kicked the handcuffed and shackled prisoner. It was the sort of stomach turning scene that even when described nearly a decade later in court papers loses none of its Power to provoke civilized people to reach for any remedy to redress the wrong. But a provocation is not necessarily a justification for invoking the Constitution. Constitutional rulings require reasons relating actions to principles and precedents. Such reasons were lacking when the Louisiana Case wound up in the supreme court and divided it. The prisoner charged that the guards violated his constitutional Protection against a cruel and unusual last week the court ruled 7-2 for the inmate. What gives the Case special interest is that the dissent was written by Justice Clarence Thomas who May be the conservative his supporters hoped for and his opponents feared. On oct. 30,1983, the inmate got into an argument with a guard who summoned assistance and put the inmate in restraints. While marching him to a detention area the guards punched him in the Mouth eyes Chest and stomach and kicked him. The inmate suffered minor bruises swelling of his face Mouth and lip several loosened Teeth and a cracked dental plate. The inmate sued the guards citing the eighth amendment Protection and seeking compensatory damages. A magistrate held that Force was used unnecessarily and awarded him $800. But an appeals court reversed holding that for the use of excessive Force to constitute cruel and unusual punishment it must result in serious injury. The appeals court ruled that the Force used was objectively unreasonable because no Force was necessary but that the inmates Case nevertheless failed because All sides conceded that the injuries were the question at Issue in the supreme court concerned just that can Force against an inmate constitute cruel and unusual punishment when the inmate suffers no serious injury Justice Sandra Day of Connor wrote for the majority joined by William Rehnquist Byron White Anthony Kennedy and David Souter with John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun concurring separately. Of Connor says an objective test of a prisoners serious injury is not necessary to establish cruel and unusual punishment if there is the subject ingredient of a malicious and sadistic state of mind by the in Lictor of Force. A otherwise a of Connor says a the eighth amendment would permit any physical punishment no matter How diabolical or inhuman inflicting less than some arbitrary Quantity of to this Thomas joined in dissent by Antonin Scalia responded a diabolical acts Are by definition serious and thus would satisfy the threshold test for eighth amendment relevance. Thomas called the majority a position an unwarranted break with eighth amendment jurisprudence. Actually it is a second break. The first occurred in 1976. Until then for 185 years the a cruel and unusual punishment clause had the limited role of regulating Only punishments meted out by statutes or sentencing judges. The authors of the eighth amendment thought it governed punishments As parts of sentences not episodes concerning treatment of inmates during confinement. In 1976, the court applied the amendments protections to an inmates complaints about experiences in prison. However to limit the amendments role in regulating prisons the court then held that for a prisoner to Appeal to it successfully he must establish a a a serious injury. When the amendment was Cut Loose from its historical mooring and applied to a Broad Iange of prison administration matters the serious injury requirement was thought necessary to prevent the amendment from becoming excessively elastic. That happened in this Case. Thomas says that abusive behaviour by prison guards is contemptible and May be tortious or criminal. But the inmate could have sought redress under state Law or even under the due process clause of the Constitution. Instead the court has made the eighth amendment even More elastic by allowing the inmates claim that his injuries although concede Day minor nevertheless constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This is evidence of the impatience and institutional Short cutting that accompany what Thomas identifies As the fallacy that the Constitution a must address All ills in our such supreme court decisions deepen the widespread misconception that people Are helpless unless they can a a constr Tuti Onalie their legitimate grievances. As the judiciary both Fosters and responds to that misconception courts Are drawn deeper into giving the Constitution whatever meaning serves the judges problem solving desire of the moment. C Washington Post write i g our
