Bush rejected ‘dictatorial’ expansion of powers

Justyn Dillingham’s March 5 opinion “”Bush Administration proposed a ‘presidential dictatorship’ “” claimed that recently-released Justice Department memos granting President Bush enhanced military powers are evidence of Bush’s “”dictatorial ambitions.”” Aside from making the laughable inference that the brush-clearing, pickup-driving, nickname-giving Dubya (of all people) secretly harbored an ambition to become the next Pol Pot, Dillingham’s piece totally ignores a key point made by the Los Angeles Times: “”The Bush [Office of Legal Counsel] eventually rejected [the] memos… and they were right to do so.””

The closer the memos got to Bush himself, the more resistance they apparently encountered, so it’s intellectually bankrupt to imply that some Justice Department memo (which the president himself never even acted on) is evidence of nefarious “”dictatorial ambitions”” on George W. Bush’s part.

Instead of focusing on the last president’s anti-terror policies (which the new president seems conspicuously slow to reject), why not talk about President Obama’s newfound fondness for executive power? Obama’s fellow Democrat Robert Byrd recently opined that the administration’s appointments of aptly-named “”czars”” to further bungle its response to the economic crisis “”threatens the constitutional system of checks and balances. White House staff have taken control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.””

I’ll wait for Justyn to cry foul on this administration’s expansion of executive power like he still does the last’s, but I won’t hold my breath.

David Francis

business management senior

DSO’s moratorium on travel to Mexico misguided

Recently, the Dean of Students Office (DSO) put a large effort into strongly advising “”students to avoid travel to Mexico.”” I think it is irresponsible on the part of the DSO to have issued this advisory. I sent a strongly-supported letter to the DSO seven days ago expressing my disappointment in their actions. I have not received a reply from the DSO.

The DSO is basing their advisory on the State Department’s Travel Alert to Mexico. The State Department does not strongly advise U.S. citizens to avoid traveling to Mexico; rather, they say “”millions of U.S. citizens safely visit Mexico each year (including thousands who cross the land border every day for study, tourism or business)”” and that “”common-sense precautions … can help ensure that travel to Mexico is safe and enjoyable.”” Recently, Mexican officials have even assured the UA that travel within Sonora is safe. There is no university ban on travel to Mexico. The State Department, as well as UA Risk Management, simply encourages people to inform themselves before making a decision to travel to Mexico.

Thus, in an attempt to influence what students do over Spring Break on their own time, the DSO has effectively banned university travel to Mexico because of the weight their advisory carries. Educating and informing the UA community is admirable; coercing the UA community is unacceptable. By making this an advisory, rather than a mandate, the DSO alleviates themselves of the responsibility for any negative repercussions resultant of their advisory. By making this advisory, the DSO is disempowering department and program heads. Due to this ill-supported advisory, I will personally lose over 10 percent of my annual income as a university employee. Furthermore, many other UA students will now be denied exceptional educational experiences in Mexico.

The DSO’s irresponsible actions have provided a significant disservice to the UA. While some people have the character to sleep in the bed that they made, other people leave farts under the covers for someone else to unwittingly discover. Even pig-farmer David Lee would be offended by the stench surrounding the Dean of Students Office.

Seth Davis

science education senior