However, that beauty is quickly coming to an end. Soon, one of the more peaceful and open sections of campus will be replaced by a four-to-five story dormitory and cafeteria that will make one of the few remaining open areas on campus cramped.

Expected to be completed by 2014, the new complex will include two new dormitories and a new cafeteria. Also included in the plans are the closure of the Student Union following the completion of this project.

Most college campuses, especially in the Northeast, show their heritage through the aged buildings on campus. The old brick and mortar buildings stand as a testament to all that the university has accomplished. Some of these buildings date back to the 1700s in the case of the Ivy League. Shouldn’t the older structures be the ones that are most worth preserving?

We’re a young university when compared to others in our area, we’ve just passed the half-century mark. How would it feel to one day bring your children back to this campus, say 20 years from now, and not be able to recognize most of the buildings? It would feel probably as if you had lost a part of your personal history.

Not only will the building of these new dormitories further decrease the open space on campus, but they would also become an eyesore on the skyline. Sitting outside on the patio of the Wang Center, it’s nice to look out and see blue sky and trees. Imagine looking at that same skyline a few years from now, and seeing dormitories instead of that once wide open sky.

It’s sort of ironic in a way. By adding new buildings, we’re actually beginning to destroy the heritage of our own university.

This isn’t to say that modernizing the campus’ structures is inherently bad. It’s important. Even the oldest universities have constructed new buildings in recent years. They’re easier to maintain and some people enjoy walking into a modern building the first time they visit a campus.

There just simply is no need to attempt to condense the entire campus into one very small section of an enormous plot of land. If we really wish to expand our campus, why not venture into areas that aren’t being used? Sure, that would involve removing portions of the larger wooded areas on campus, but it’d be better to have some breathing room.

Stony Brook has accomplished a lot in its short life, and we will continue to do great things in decades to come. Let’s just be sure that the Stony Brook we know now, will be the same decades from now.

Wiz Khalifa, the joint-loving hip-hop artist leading the current generation of post-Kanye West rappers, is currently set to perform at Stony Brook University’s end-of-the-year concert on April 27. The Undergraduate Student Government, under its event-planning wing, the Student Activities Board, has confirmed a bid contract with Wiz for $85,000 and is in the negotiating stages of finalizing a confirmed contract, according to Special Programming Agency Director Jackie Cowles and USG President Mark Maloof. Opening for Wiz will be R&B artist Miguel Jontel, who is set to perform for $15,000, as well as a currently undisclosed opener of Wiz’s choosing for roughly $1,500. The entire show is projected to cost SAB around $215,000, with $100,000 going to production.

The pick of Wiz for the yearly spring show is a very welcome shift from the divisive artists that have filled the slot in previous years to a musician with one of the broadest appeals of any pop star today. In the past four years, USG has brought big-name artists, but never without accusations of having wasted money with intentions driven by misguided tastes and expectations, resulting in disappointing concerts that only remind those students well-versed in the history of the Stony Brook Concert Series that we are failing to live up to a once-glorious musical legacy.

For instance, in 2009 we saw Hellogoodbye, a not-so-relevant indie pop band, and the rapper, Fabolous. It was a failed effort at pulling together two polar opposite artists in the hopes of appealing to the tastes of a vast student body that, in the eyes of the old SAB, was comprised of either rap fans or rock fans—perhaps a racially charged notion. The following year’s Brookfest featured a similar combination of rapper Wale and indie pop duo Matt & Kim. Though they are both college-oriented, and reflect—again—SAB’s catering to vastly different audiences, and the result was an even more discomforting clash of styles and an event that drew a small fraction of what the audience could have been.

Last year’s concert could be—and should be—considered a success, if assessed on attendance alone. Grammy-nominated Bruno Mars and R&B soul musician Janelle Monáe drew lines hours before tickets went on sale, and the show sold out easily. Those chart-topping artists were consistent in genre, and appealed to what is probably the largest demographic of Stony Brook students, if that demographic is simply a generalized group of people that have turned on the radio in the past year and have some semblance of an idea of what modern pop music sounds like. Both artists receive consistent airplay and are, to the average listener, famous enough to warrant a “Wow, we got him?” or “Hey, I’ve heard that ‘Grenade’ song.” But they were not college acts. College acts do not stand in front of the Grammy crowd dressed like an absolute clown—one who is shamelessly bastardizing ‘50s rock n’ roll—and dance back and forth while showcasing a doctored smile and a Jimmy Neutron haircut.

It may have sold out the Sports Arena in record-breaking time, and everyone who attended undoubtedly had one of the more memorable experiences Stony Brook has offered him or her, but judging Stony Brook’s fun capabilities in a broader context would illustrate how limited our campus experience has been. And because Bruno Mars is by no stretch of the imagination a “college act,” last year’s concert left many students—including those who were led to believe that acts like Best Coast and Immortal Technique were setting an appropriate college-geared trend—tremendously disappointed.

But Wiz Khalifa is absolutely and undeniably a college-oriented artist. His appeal begins—not surprisingly—in the rap community and continues into Top 40 territory (see the chart-topping “Black and Yellow”) before settling into the college rap scene. He is also easily one of the most accessible hip-hop artists out there, in that he consistently outshines fame-bathing imitators like Big Sean, stylishly and effortlessly out-rhymes lyrical heavyweights like Lupe Fiasco and stands tall against the hip-hop goliaths of Degrassi and Young Money fame who dominate the airwaves. His lyrical themes, which revolve around an obsessive love of weed and an introspective reflection on fame, simultaneously influence and draw strength from the lifestyle of lackadaisical college students, on top of effectively evolving a hip-hop aesthetic dominated by late teenagers and early 20-somethings.

It would be hard for anyone, even those not well-versed in modern hip-hop, to not appreciate the insight and desire for change exhibited by this year’s USG in making this decision. While the contract is not officially set in stone until Wiz gives his final sign-off in the coming weeks, it is unlikely he will pull out of a confirmed bid contract pending unforeseen circumstances outside USG’s control. That said, April 27 is a day that may finally wear the Stony Brook Concert Series title with pride, and see record-breaking lines weaving through the Academic Mall.

Check out USG’s official Facebook event page here. Tickets go on sale, $5 for students and $20 for non-students, this Thursday, April 19 at 9 a.m. Each student may purchase one student ticket and one off-campus ticket.

Now this year, SAB has a $125,000 surplus of money that they will likely only spend a small fraction of before the end of the year. Punctuating this slew of numbers is the fact that SAB is crippled by disorganization and legally and financially at risk. This is due to its members’ disregard for the democratic process and their audacity to think themselves above the very laws that bind other campus clubs, from trying to use emails to allocate funds instead of doing so at open meetings to losing receipts that now place SAB at risk of having its budget frozen. All of this is detailed in depth in the page 19 article titled “A SAB Story.”

Members of SAB and USG have claimed that the difficulty of booking on-campus venues, like the sports complex and SAC ballrooms, due to not having reserved them last year is the biggest hurdle to spending their increased budget. They have also utilized a defense that forces administration to shoulder some of the blame, claiming that increased security bureaucracy and stricter oversight has made it difficult to freely plan and execute the popular on-campus events that popped up nearly every month of last year, but which have been noticeably absent this spring.

Despite those obstacles, no amount of annoying circumstance diminishes the need for the most heavily funded campus organization, one directly associated with the student government itself, to uphold the law without simultaneously falling victim to rampant disorganization. Members of SAB and USG simply think that because they are running out of time to efficiently prepare for the only two events they cannot forgo—the Roth Regatta and the end-of-the-year concert—that that warrants the use of loopholes and behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

If the members of SAB and the USG officers that oversee its operations have any respect for the campus clubs that productively and responsibly use their student money, they should leave their surplus alone and let it fall into the rollover fund for next year. That would effectively give the money over to campus clubs because, as USG President Mark Maloof explains, excess rollover money becomes part of the event grant fund for clubs to use.

And if the University Senate had enough spine to represent the student body rather than pander to the student government higher-ups, they would send a signal to SAB. They would, at the very least, question on the Senate floor the fact that the organization is receiving the same amount of money despite two years of fiscal irresponsibility, if not actively try to lower SAB’s budget and move some of its funds over to the clubs who so desperately need it to continue fostering the diverse campus life that truly makes thousands of students’ experience at Stony Brook worthwhile.

SAB’s decision to bring Wiz Khalifa for the end-of-the-year concert is undoubtedly a good one, and a choice we at The Press support as the alternate editorial on page four expresses. But no single right, no matter how grand the veiled success of that end result may be, makes up for a series of wrongs. So Wiz Khalifa or not, SAB needs to reform how it operates and hold itself to a higher standard because as an organization that has access to more than one sixth of the entire $3.1 million USG annual budget, it owes it to the students that pay the activity fee to constantly strive to be better.

The NYPD had been monitoring the Internet exchanges and posts of Muslim students from at least 16 different colleges, even going as far as to send undercover agents to actively spy on the MSAs. This represents not only a misunderstanding of fundamental American constitutional rights, but also a misinterpretation of radical religious extremism. To assume that almost every group of college-age, educated Muslim men and women harbors or encourages religious extremism or terrorism is emblematic of deep-seated fears that we are supposed to be combating through education and tolerance.

It’s comforting to think that our law enforcement officials are trying hard to protect us. It would be much more comforting, though, to believe that the highest form of state law enforcement knows the difference between an established member of al-Qaeda—or even those in contact with members of the terrorist organization, as was the case with Jesse Morton— and a member of Yale’s Muslim Student Association. By immediately handling them both within a similar spectrum of intensity, it illustrates a severe disconnect that one could excuse or understand if it was an individual police officer profiling someone on a whim or acting on unrestrained ignorance. The NYPD establishing a program with “Weekly MSA Report” documents prepared for Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, however, represents something decidedly more insidious.

The 9/11 attacks had a profound effect on the public perception of the average Muslim man or woman. College campuses are not immune to the continuation of baseless stereotypes and broad generalizations. Chaplain Sanaa Nadim, the head of Stony Brook’s MSA, put it quite simply “This is college, man. If you don’t walk the walk of who you are, then where else? This is the time when people explore who they are and become the best society has to offer.”

The basic rights of privacy that American citizens deserve cannot be discarded for the sake of public well-being when the program infringes on the very rights the government is meant to protect. Of late, three would-be terrorists represent the spoils of this clearly flawed program and others like it. Legitimate police work and reconnaissance on well-documented al-Qaeda sympathizers and religious extremists appear to bear the same results, without brutally ignoring the rights of American citizens based on their religion or ethnic background.

There’s an underlying bigotry at work here, perpetuated by the ignorant belief that a tiny fraction of a specific population of peaceful Americans represents anything more than a tiny fraction of that population. “Granted, there are a lot of bad apples, but the bushel is good,” said Nadim. Acting as if legitimate religious extremists and terrorists are commonplace and prevalent in Muslim-American society, especially those motivated enough to attend college in a country that suspects every single one of them to be a potential terrorist, is unacceptable.

The MSAs represent groups of students that simply want to be comfortable practicing their religion in a country that has become distinctly hostile. Ignorance is no excuse for poor policy, and the actions of a few radical extremists from a group of 1.6 billion represent nothing more than the criminal percentage found in any population.

Fearing what we don’t understand is acceptable; using that fear to restrict the rights of innocent people is not—especially from government groups that should be enlightened and intelligent enough to understand the not-so-subtle differences between terrorists and college associations.

President Mark Maloof started this trend by issuing an executive order the first week back from break. It called for a review and subsequent revisions to the financial bylaws, which were rewritten over the summer. Maloof said that his decision was based on a number of complaints from student clubs and organizations. The problems some clubs have faced are real and solutions are necessary.

Restrictive caps on how much clubs are able to spend on guest speakers have meant that “mid-sized events,” as Maloof refers to them, have been next to impossible for anyone but the Student Activities Board to hold.

Treasurer Thomas Kirnbauer, who helped write the bylaws, has shown that he is receptive to change. He’s also exhibited his dedication to improving the way USG handles the process in which it assigns budgets to each club by offering to shoulder more work than the previous treasurer did.

The town halls that President Maloof called for were an encouraging sign that USG is actively pursuing better communication with clubs and is genuinely interested in which regulations are causing clubs the most stress.

Unfortunately, the two meetings were sparsely attended, to say the least. At Thursday’s meeting, a Press reporter was the only one to show up besides Treasurer Kirnbauer.

USG certainly could have better advertised the town halls. The dates and times were not posted on their website and if clubs were sent emails containing said information, The Press wasn’t lucky enough to receive one.

Incredibly, USG didn’t shy away after the experience. In a room packed full of club officers, Kirnbauer announced the date of yet another town hall in the hopes that students would show up to this one.

When it was literally a situation of life or death for a few clubs, Kirnbauer and the USG Senate were forgiving and quick to restore clubs’ ability to function. A provision in the financial bylaws, that didn’t exist last year, states that clubs that don’t hold events on campus will be stripped of their funding. When this happened to 15 clubs, the appropriate parties were contacted, a post was made on the USG website and the appeals process was clearly explained.

The senate acted responsibly by realizing that the new bylaws were far from perfect and that newer provisions, like the one affecting these clubs, were not well known. They voted to restore line budget status to each of the clubs, without condition. Kirnbauer helped them apply for new budgets and the senate approved, only opting for a five percent cut to all the clubs they had to restore.

The best idea, proposed by Senator Ryann Williams, would have been a case-by-case examination of why each club was unable to spend money during the fall semester, followed by a determination of if they deserved their full budget back, or if they deserved less. Sadly, the rest of the senate wasn’t interested.

The changes to the budget application process are even more promising, as they offer to systematically improve communication between clubs and the treasurer’s office.

Until this year, USG would meet with clubs once to determine their budget. Clubs would attend a hearing in which they requested a certain amount of money from a committee, and wouldn’t hear back until the final release of the budget for the next year.

Kirnbauer is changing that. His office will be sending clubs a draft budget before their hearings. The hearings wouldn’t be the first time that the two parties would be communicating and it would be a time for them to work out their differences. That’s fairer for clubs, even if it means more work for USG.

Then there’s Campusvine. By replacing Allocate with a far more comprehensive budget management service, USG is setting clubs up for success. The new program is designed to make filling out a voucher like filling out an order form online, complete with drop down menus and all.

What’s more, the program is designed like a social networking site. It has an in-site inbox synced to another inbox of the user’s choice. Club members will be able to communicate more effectively with both each other and USG. They’ll be able to track their vouchers through every step of the process. It’s what clubs needed and now it’s what they have.

A committee of four administrators has adopted a new academic calendar with an assortment of significant changes that are meant to maximize instruction time, equally respect students of all religions and provide more consistency from year to year, according to Vice Provost Charles Robbins. The committee met over the last year and a half, and possibly earlier, to discuss the changes, but did so in complete isolation. Though the changes may be supported with well-founded reasoning on the part of the committee, the secretive process by which the committee drafted the new calendar stripped students and faculty of their right to weigh in on such an important matter.

In the past, a committee that included representatives from the University Senate and the Interfaith Center met every five years to draft the academic calendar. It wasn’t scheduled to meet again until 2015. By drafting a calendar with significant changes that overrode the previously adopted calendar, the administration abused its power and assumed authority without seeking proper input about the impact it would have on faculty and students.

The University Senate did well in passing a resolution February 6 urging the administration to establish a “shared governance committee” that would include members of the University Senate and the Interfaith Center in drafting an academic calendar, as had been done for many years.

So long as professors are required to excuse students for religious holidays and arrange their syllabi so that major exams or assignments aren’t scheduled those days, it seems disadvantageous to cancel classes on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. More concerning was the committee’s plan to schedule finals on Saturday and Sunday. However, administrators in the Provost’s office proved willing to negotiate on that matter after discussions with Undergraduate Student Government President Mark Maloof and Vice President of Academic Affairs Adil Hussein. Robbins said that the provost was likely to finalize a new calendar that added reading days before finals began and limited finals to weekdays, but classes will be held on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur without negotiation.

Though the administration has admitted no wrongdoing in the process by which it drafted the calendar and it hasn’t indicated that it would attempt to gather sufficient input from the campus community before making changes in the future, the fact that it was willing to negotiate on some changes to the calendar is a sign that it does consider student and faculty input important.

However, the fact that the administration did not consider any outside input on its decision to hold classes on Jewish holidays is unacceptable. USG Senator David Adams drafted a resolution rejecting the process by which the new calendar was created and demanded that the changes not be implemented. Without the “appropriate or adequate input,” the resolution says, the new calendar is illegitimate. But the USG Senate voted it down, and in doing so failed to send a message to the administration that it would not tolerate such a front on its right to represent the student body.

According to the minutes of the February 9 USG meeting, there was concern that such a demanding resolution would damage USG’s ability to negotiate with the administration on issues in the future. So long as the governing body that is meant to represent the students panders to the administration rather than demanding a say on important issues, it is a far cry from effective. This most recent breach of trust sets a particularly sorry precedent of cowardly appeasement in place of legitimate representation.

The university’s previous logo, consisting of rays and stars inside a trio of red, green and blue circles, was designed by legendary graphic designer Milton Glaser of “I love NY” fame. It was original, distinctive and, in a field where prestige is closely associated with age and tradition, exceptionally daring. In the entire Stony Brook brand there was nary a shield, a seal or a coat of arms to be found, eschewing design tropes that are ubiquitous in the branding of American universities.

Glaser’s design suggested that the university did not feel the need to try to disguise the fact that, as a public institution that was less than 50 years old when the logo was designed, no one was going to mistake Stony Brook for Harvard. It suggested a university prepared to embrace its youth and diversity and be something different, something unbound by the often-archaic conventions of American higher education, where every institution that isn’t a 400-year-old private university founded by Puritans seems to hope everyone will somehow miraculously believe it is.

The new logo, a red shield that retains a mutilated version of Glaser’s rays and stars – now reduced to a single star and a group of rays that, with their point of origin cropped out of the picture, seem to be shining from nowhere onto nothing – is derivative where its predecessor was daring. This hackneyed mash-up of that most ubiquitous of all university logos, the shield, with a pointlessly altered version of Glaser’s logo manages the astonishing feat of being trite and faddish at the same time. Retaining some of Glaser’s elements means no one is going to mistake the shield for that of Harvard or Yale or any other ancient and venerable institution, yet it lacks the freshness and modernity of his design. It is neither here nor there, the worst of all worlds.

Glaser doesn’t like the new logo, and rightfully so. Designers tend not to like it when other designers, especially lesser ones, mess with their work. Stony Brook took a design by one of the greatest graphic designers of the modern era and had it “tweaked” into near-unrecognizability by an ad agency from, of all places, Alabama. It’s rather like taking a building by a great architect and having it renovated by a company that specializes in designing Hilton Garden Inns (one of which will, of course, soon grace this campus). One suspects the architect in question wouldn’t have nice things to say. And in this case, he would be right.

But Glaser seems to know exactly what the university apparently found wrong with his design. In an interview with the Press he commented, “I have a feeling that in the academic community, there’s a reluctance to be overly assertive.” The old logo stood out. It didn’t look the logos of the universities Stony Brook’s administration now not so secretly wishes to be just like. The new logo may be a terrible piece of design, but it blends in among the vast array of other collegiate shields. That is, no doubt, exactly what the university wants: a logo that is indistinguishable from those of the rarefied institutions it so desperately envies.

It is no coincidence that Glaser was commissioned to design the old logo by his good friend Shirley Strum Kenny during her tenure as president of the university. Whatever one thought of Kenny’s decisions and management style – and she was certainly not without her critics, including at this paper – she was not one to shy away from taking chances. The new logo is likewise a perfect metaphor for the leadership of Kenny’s successor, Samuel Stanley.  Whereas Kenny was a visionary if controversial leader who was unafraid of risk, Stanley is a technocrat with a deep fondness for management consultants. He is not the sort of person one can imagine calling up his good friend the world-renowned designer to create a new logo.

But this is about far more than the contrasting personalities of two university presidents. Since he took office, Stanley has been an enthusiastic cheerleader for the gradual privatization of Stony Brook and public institutions in general. The new logo signifies this vision. Whereas the old logo said, “I’m different and I’m not ashamed of it,” the new one says, “I’m trying to pretend to be an expensive, exclusive private university, even though I’m not one and never will be.”

The new logo will no doubt serve Stony Brook well as it continues down the path of privatization, chasing prestige by jettisoning that which makes it unique and instead emulating its supposed betters instead. But it is also a perfect symbol of the opportunity forfeited by following that path: an opportunity to prove that a great university need not be defined by exclusivity and tradition, but can instead attain greatness by fostering inclusivity and innovation.

President Stanley, who grew red in the face while barely able to maintain his composure, lambasted members of the senate for their refusal to go along with the shared service centers. From his point of view, it is understandable to see this as a huge hurdle in the success of Operational Excellence and a setback in the university’s constant struggle to cut its budget as fast as the State cuts it for them. “The status quo disappeared when we took $82 million essentially in budget cuts,” Stanley said to those who opposed him. But the faculty’s defense of their stance is one with students as the first priority.

“Our clients ultimately are the students. Whatever we do must facilitate the students access to services that meet their demands,” said a professor in the Humanities familiar with the discussions who wished to remain anonymous. This position runs parallel to the idea that many of the administrative processes targeted by these shared support centers are, in the eyes of the University Senate, are not in need of reform, nor should they be tinkered with for risk of doing more harm than good. “There are other things that you can jettison. Why jettison something that works well and helps students?” asked another professor in the Humanities who also wished to remain anonymous.

University faculty have now publically identified the shared support service center as not just a way of coping with budget cuts, but also a plan to alter the fundamental function of the university in areas where those very functioning parts do not feel as if they are inadequate or in need of restructuring. So as tuition rises and the state’s pressure on SUNY rises, the last thing we should be doing is increasing the stress on students and university employees, and finally members of our faculty have stood up to defend that position.

In the last few months, the condition of the Union building has improved considerably. At its low point over the summer, its list of problems included mold, flooding and falling pieces of ceiling. This, says Howard Gunston, a facilities director, was a result of the building being unstaffed from January to August. Though the cleanups have been greatly appreciated by tenants, it’s scary to think the Union building could fall back into disrepair if facilities staffs are cut even more than it already has been. A short walk across the academic mall should be no excuse for neglecting a building, and it should not be treated as such in the future.

No decisions have been made yet, and a number of nervous tenants are eagerly awaiting news about their future. Though there’s still plenty of time to determine temporary and permanent locations for all of the Union building’s tenants, the uncertainty has caused stress for most of the people we interviewed for our two features on the Union. If facilities continues to consult with tenants in meetings as they have, concerns are likely to be addressed in a timely fashion.
Stony Brook University’s history of delayed construction projects is enough to make us uneasy about the scheduled August 2014 start date. Just this semester two projects, the Campus Recreation Center and the improvements being made to the North Entrance, have dragged on long after they were scheduled to be finished.

That’s especially concerning because the Union building’s renovations are predicated on a new dining hall that has yet to find a place on campus, but will be absolutely necessary in alleviating food court traffic now that Benedict has closed its doors. That said, there is a very real possibility that Union tenants will spend even longer than expected in a state of limbo, meaning regular updates from facilities for tenants and the student body at large will only help to clear up any confusion about where on campus features of the Union will end up, or if they will stay at all.

This year has taught younger generations, and at the very least reminded older ones, that we are, as a nation and as individuals, all capable of celebrating the death of another human being. The reasons seem to range from the positive political and sociological effects of his or her death to thoughts of pure revenge. The death of Osama bin Laden lured this fact from hiding, and Gaddafi’s death clinched the kill.

Within minutes of the world reading the bare bones, three-paragraph Reuters’ story, the Internet kicked into high gear. Photo memes detailing Gaddafi’s likeness to Carlos Santana flooded Facebook news feeds, while hundreds upon hundreds of links detailing the mainstream news media’s scramble to keep up overflowed across our other social media extensions.

The events of 2011 splashing front pages and crammed into news alerts are now, for what feels like the first time for the upcoming generation, seemingly more violent, complex and extreme than any cliché Hollywood action movie or video game war-movie replication. The cell phone video detailing Gaddafi’s final breathing moments is still floating around easily-accessible websites, and it exemplifies this moral dichotomy—we have the ability to watch a person die in real time, even someone millions of people hate, forcing us to evaluate both our personal feelings concerning murder and generalized ideals about guilt, crime, punishment and moral responsibility.

The largest looming question being forced upon us now is whether or not it is morally right to celebrate someone’s death, no matter how hated they are or how disgusting their atrocities have been. The obvious argument for the death of Gaddafi, and any other person deemed “evil” by history, is that he deserved his end. One could say that a man like Gaddafi committed actions that warranted the most violent punishment possible, one now epitomized by the video footage of Libyan rebels slamming the butts of their rifles into their ousted leader’s bullet-wound ridden head.

The counterargument is that the world we live in now should promote a system of laws that ascribe to moral codes, that no matter what a human being does, he or she should be subject to an ordered trial and subsequent punishment. That argument was enflamed by the deaths of Bin Laden and Gaddafi, but also by the assassination of American citizen and Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. He outspokenly advocated violence against the United States, posing a threat to our national security, but by putting him to death without a trial, President Obama assumed the role of judge. Legality aside, it’s hard to draw the line between the murder of a human being and the elimination of a threat.

This dilemma is at the core of how the world’s tumultuous tides are interwoven into how we, as onlookers and participants in history, view common threads of right and wrong and draw definitive lines through subjects like crime and punishment.

For Americans, the Libyan civil war is intrinsically tied to how we view our own involvement in one of the most violent chapters of the Arab Spring. United States military action began March 19 after the United Nations Security Council issued a resolution calling for an international effort to protect Libyan citizens. President Barack Obama wrote to Congress on March 21 stating the U.S. military goals in Libya, though not explicitly asking for authorization. He defended the U.S. military strikes as necessary measures in protecting the Libyan people, though they would be limited, he said, and would not work to remove Gaddafi from power. Still, he failed to outline an ultimate goal, and even after the U.S. transferred the responsibility to NATO, U.S. military operations bolstered the rebel fighters, enabling them to prevail. It’s undeniable that without NATO forces, the Libyan struggle would have either crumbled or moved further from resolution.

It is our obligation as global citizens, many say, to prevent atrocities, to protect those that can’t protect themselves. That concept circulates the United Nations under the name Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, and it’s difficult to counter. An international law mandating nation states to act in cases like the Libyan struggle would work to prevent the atrocities of our world’s past from occurring again. But when nations insert themselves into domestic struggles, no matter what the intention, the moral line is blurred. The United States may have accelerated the fight, abating the violence that could otherwise have ensued much longer, but that leaves us, in part, responsible for the brutal murder of a man in the streets who, now infamously, begged for his life.

On Sunday night, the story detailing how Gaddafi now sits rotting on display in Misrata is but a few clicks away, with any physical connection to the events nonexistent thanks to thousands of miles of ocean water and a somewhat-understandable apathy of a country nowhere near the friction of real revolution. However, to think that these events only tangentially effect us is to do a disservice to yourself, and ignoring their importance and the importance of the questions they pose only further downplays how integral and difficult these aspects are to our moral responsibility.

But to say that there is no right or wrong when evaluating these questions, questions of murder without trial and government-bankrolled revolutions, is to ignore the inherent moral responsibility within every individual. While there may be no universal answer, there is certainly one that must be found to help define how we go forward, and it’s our responsibility, as a nation, as individuals and as human beings, to think hard about these questions before celebrating a death, or letting cold rationality trump heartfelt emotion, and moving on to the next necessary evil.