Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!gt
From: gt@umich.UUCP (Gus Teschke)
Newsgroups: net.college
Subject: Re: Re: E.g. Student Gov't Project.
Message-ID: <498@umich.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Mar-86 11:58:32 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.498
Posted: Sat Mar  1 11:58:32 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 19:00:30 EST
References: <449@umich.UUCP> <45400002@trsvax>
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 64

In <45400002@trsvax> johnb@trsvax writes:

     >If you are going to ban the CIA because you object to their
     >activities then you might as well ban the following from
     >your campus:

     >The United States Air Force, ROTC, Navy, Army, Marines.

     >You also might as well ban any company that is responsible
     >for any kind of pollution or toxic waste.

     >Why not ban automobile companies from your campus, they
     >are responsible for a great waste of natural resources
     >and carbon monoxide never did anyone any good.

     >Don't forget defense contractors, oil companies (if you don't
     >like the CIA then you must hate oil slicks also), nuclear
     >industries (might as well ban all utility companies).
     >Chemical industries (chemicals can be more dangerous than the CIA)
     >How about alcohol and tobacco industries?
     >The list could be endless.

     >One of the best things about college is you have all types there,
     >from the CIA to Save the Seals. Each one has an equal right to
     >be there. If you ban one then ban them all!

John, you could extended this line even futher.  Why not ban the British 
because they once were at war with the U.S.?  And why not ban poverty
because it's rough being a poor student?  And why not ban death because
no one wants to die?
			NO DEATH ON CAMPUS!!!

But I'd just like to remind you that the idea of the resolution(*) was
that, as a matter of general principle, that a univerity might
reasonably deny access to a group that practiced or supported TERRORISM.

Don't you think that killing teachers and doctors in an attempt to
bring down a fairly elected government (**) is a little different from,
for example, the struggle between polluters, the US government, and
environmentalists to clean up pollution?  I think you wander from the topic.

The resolution in question is not specific to the CIA just because the
CIA would fail it in a second.  It is against terrorism.  If the CIA
would just stick to gathering intelligence (does anyone have a copy of
their charter?), they would not have any problem.  President Reagan has
stated time and again how unacceptable terrorism is.  You don't agree?

						Gus Teschke
						..!ihnp4!umich!gt

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) I'll post it for reference.

(**) I of course refer to the contra terrorists in Honduras and Costa
Rica who were formed, financed, and led by the CIA to attack
Nicaragua.  Their tactics are well documented.  The CIA was also
responsible for breaking international law by mining harbors in
Nicaragua, among other things.  And the last Nicaraguan elections were
found to be fair by many international observers, much fairer than the
elections in the Philippines that were condemned by a similar
international group.  Unfortunately for the principles of democracy,
President Reagan accepted the Philippine results as "showing the
existance of a strong two party system" until public and Congressional
outrage forced him to back down.