Professors offer perspectives as U.S.-Iraq conflict progresses
By Lance Dwyer
Professors from several departments took a strong stance on the United States' involvement in Iraq last week at a panel conference in the Arts and Sciences Building.
The panel was hosted by the Bannan Center for Jesuit Education and moderated by the center's director, William Spohn. Four professors from four different disciplines were invited to speak on different aspects of the war.
Panelists included political science professor William Stover, history professor David Skinner, law school professor Margaret Russell and anthropology and sociology professor Mary Hegland. Each professor wrote an article for the fall issue of Explore, a publication produced by the Bannan Center twice a year.
Stover began his talk with two criticisms of U.S. policy: the motives for going to war and the motives for fighting it.
According to Stover, the invasion of Iraq could be justified under three conditions: first, if Iraq posed an imminent threat, second, if Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and finally, if all peaceful remedies had been exhausted.
Stover said that none of the three conditions were fulfilled before going to war.
Several officials in the Bush administration misrepresented the circumstances of the war, often exaggerating the Iraqi people's capability of creating weapons of mass destruction, according to Stover.
Russell brought the legal aspect of the war into consideration and highlighted changes in federal statutes since the War on Terrorism and the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
"Our very structure of government is exalted as being the best and the brightest democratic system that we can uphold in the world," said Russell. "We have separation of powers, each branch has its function, each branch has existed in respect to the constitution of the United States, and that has altered quite a bit with invocations of national security and concern about terrorism."
A member of the audience asked Russell how changes in civil liberties could affect the average citizen. Russell said that the USA Patriot Act, passed in 2001, could essentially allow for what we consider private information to be lawfully exposed to the government.
"[Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act] involves increased power to the executive branch and the FBI, allowing them to engage in surveillance including electronic techniques without ever letting you know," said Russell.
Russell cited Internet usage, files in one's office and home and even library borrowing habits are areas that are available to the government to be searched. The audience of roughly 35 people continued to ask questions regarding the USA Patriot Act, as well as bringing up other factors of the war.
Senior Diana Mah said she enjoyed the panel and thought it was helpful to hear different perspectives on the war and how it has affected people from both sides, but it also forced her to consider unresolved issues.
"The panel made me see how the war was initiated by the threat of weapons of mass destruction but now that there was no evidence found to substantiate the threats, to what end is the war serving now?" said Mah.
û Contact Lance Dwyer at (408) 554-4546 or ldwyer@scu.edu