Letters

U.S. will ignore laws if they attack Iraq The
argument presented by Jonathan Delshad in “Preemptive action
is both valid, necessary against Iraq” (Viewpoint, Oct. 7,
2002), fails to account for the myriad of issues surrounding the
proposed war. The shallow simplification of the question at hand at
the expense of a vigorous search for the truth should be expected
from someone studying to be a lawyer, but the failure to account
for the question of international law in Delshad’s scenario
is flabbergasting. Despite my frustration that The Bruin, along
with most newspapers, has failed to present all the arguments for
and against going after Saddam Hussein, I cannot present such an
account here because no media outlet would commit the proper
resources to such a pursuit. Instead I will try to present just one
issue that. Delshad should consider in his argument, particularly
considering his chosen career. The gaping hole in Delshad’s
argument, is that he fails to account for the rule of law. Iraq
does not pose imminent danger to the United States like a man
waving a gun and screaming poses imminent danger to another man.
Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction since the Gulf
War but has neither used them nor given them to terrorists. And, if
the fear is that he will soon have nuclear weapons, even the most
conservative estimates say it would take him a year to build them.
The question is then not over the justification of preemptive
action, but over the issue of vigilante justice by the United
States. Should we allow anyone who feels they are wronged to punish
the person they believe acted against them before letting the law
run its course? Delshad fails to realize that letting people act
without respect for law would lead to anarchy and widespread
violence. It has clearly been the goal of America, along with a
significant portion of the world, to create a sense of
international order through the United Nations. Can we simply
reject the laws anytime they don’t suit our interests?
Unilateral action by the United States threatens the stability and
authority of international democratic law and makes us no better
than the countries we hope to take down. We cannot flaunt
international law to remove Hussein from power simply because he
has flaunted such laws. President Bush needs to have respect for
laws, and let them run their course. I hope that at some point in
Delshad’s education, he also gains respect for the laws he
will pledge to uphold. Timothy Kudo Former editor in chief
UCLA Daily Bruin

Guerrero allows conflict of interest Dear Dan
Guerrero: Please explain the following: How is UCLA now selling
access to their closed men’s basketball practices? A recent
letter from the UCLA Department of Intercollegiate Athletics on
behalf of the Bruin Hoopsters, a donor group which can be joined
for a fee of $150 to $1,000, offers an invitation for two to a
closed men’s basketball practice. Both the $150 to $499 tier
and $500 to $1,000 tier get one invitation for two to one closed
UCLA men’s basketball practice. Even if staged for the
benefit of donors, one pay-per-view practice a season is one too
many in my book. Either the practices are open or closed. What next
““ a private, high donor game? Over the years, other college
basketball programs have restricted access ““ for instance,
Lute Olson closed practice to restrict agents’ access to his
players. This of course begs another question that I have yet to
answer. Bob Meyers, an ex-UCLA player, works in Arn Tellem’s
office and has served for the last several years as the
UCLA’s color commentator (Tellem, as you know, represents
Coach Lavin as well as just about every player who is playing
professionally that has come out of coach Lavin’s tenure and
Tellem represented the UCLA/Adidas sponsorship). Guerrero, how, if
you intend to run an athletic department that is above such
reproach, do you explain this apparent and obvious conflict of
interest by coach Lavin? It seems like Lute Olson restricts
conflicts of interest by barring agents, while coach Lavin welcomes
them and closes access to the media. I hope you will give these
questions some thought and do what is necessary to make sure theses
issues that sully the good reputation of UCLA are addressed and
corrected.

Alan Elliott UCLA sports fan