Letters to the Editor, October 19, 2005

Saddam Hussein's Trial

Saddam's trial brings to mind the word show.

Saddam will not be allowed to speak in his defence, because the US say they want to avoid a Milosevic situation. The real reason is because they are afraid of what Saddam will say about the US.

If the US were as Democratic as they say they are, Saddam would be allowed to speak at his own trial particularly when the death penalty is involved. To deny him the opportunity is a violation of Human Rights which makes the trial a hypocrisy as Saddam is being tried for alleged crimes against humanity.

The trial is illegal because the invasion was illegal. If anyone should be on trial, it's George W Bush.

Janice Keenan

Saddam RIP?

Will Saddam survive his trial? Even with the precautions of a partial and secret judiciary, with restricted press access etc, the trial is certain to reveal much that his captors wish to conceal. Therefore, it is unlikely that the trial will commence.

How they will stop it: The old 'sudden heart attack ploy' is just too bloody obvious, as are the plane/ car crash, concealed cyanide pill, and the armed, lone nutter routines. What I would do is organise for sympathisers to attempt his rescue- say whilst he is being moved between court/ prison, then shoot down the whole lot- bingo, problem solved and no witnesses.

If THEY are going to do it, they will do it soon or not at all Watch this space.

John Bayldon

George H. Bush is not my president, he is not my leader, and he has no authority derived from me.

My “elected” representative and senator are no better, and do not represent me.

I am an American. The government in Washington D.C. is not mine. Nobody in Washington is representing me in the nation’s capitol, or before the world. The person that occupies the President’s office currently is not my leader, nor do I condone the way his political machine put him into the office. He is a demonstrated liar ... that has not done a single thing in his life to make the world a better place for humanity. He has without fail, done things to improve the lives of his political cronies to the detriment of the rest of the citizens that he purports to represent, as well as the rest humanity. His lies have led to an uncountable number of deaths around the world, both of US Citizens and residents of other countries. The one thing leaders must have to be going for them is integrity, and this one has none. The evidence of this is irrefutable. From small things like his refusal to testify under oath for his own whitewash commission investigating the singular defining event of his presidency to blatant lies that catapulted our nation into a war with a country that was no threat to us. George H. Bush is not my president, he is not my leader, and he has no authority derived from me. I specifically repudiate any and all actions that he has taken in my name as an American. He does not represent me, my views, and does not have my interests at heart. I disown and disavow that he has any authority to take any action in relation to me, as he gave up any rights he may have had by repeatedly lying to me and the rest of the nation.

My “elected” representative and senator are no better, and do not represent me. They do not speak with my voice, or the voices of any of their constituents. If they did, they would be shouting from the rooftops against the illegal actions of George Bush. They would be demanding answers to the unanswered and officially “unasked” questions in regards to the events of 11 September, 2001. To say there are no questions remaining in regards to this single event is to deny reality and the facts that are freely available to anybody that cares to look. That they allowed George Bush to order our forces into other countries and commit acts of war based on lies without calling him to account is another proof that they are not representing the people they are supposed to be serving. I also repudiate any and all actions that these individuals have taken in my name. They also do not represent me, my views, or my interest. I hereby specifically retract any authority they may assume to speak for me, or represent me before the nation and world.

I am an American. The executive and legislative branches of the government are supposed to represent and serve me and my fellow citizens, a job that they are not doing. As long as they lie, and allow lies to go unchallenged, they are not serving our collective interest. As with all servants, those that lie should be fired for cause. As far as I am concerned, the office of President is vacant, as are the offices of the legislators that were supposed to represent me.

Regards,

Steve Lackey Waynesboro, VA, USA.

Global warming information

I had a letter published at aljazeerah.info in February. It was related to climate change and I am following the letter up with a press release on the CAUSE of global warming.

Kyoto is well intended but will fail as they are dealing with symptoms of global warming, not causes and the difference between our information is that we have applications to see temperature increase. Go to www.thermoguy.com and see the press release on global warming as well as the Body Burden-Pollutants in Newborns link.

The article on fetus pollutants speaks of the mercury poisoning which is caused by electrical generation and the global warming press release speaks of what has been missed and the results will be more mercury emissions. Hurricanes are being contributed to by a building design problem. Thanks for your work, it is appreciated that there is objective reporting.

Curtis Bennett

Engineering Tech

How many Americans are Democrat, Republican, Independent, and Other Party Affiliates?

Thanks to the office of George Will I found out the following information:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as:

Democrat Republican Independent Other

9/11/05 31 27 34 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There it is ... the majority of the people are "independent" just like me!

Now this is "news you can use."

Steve Moyer

Independent Candidate for U.S. Senate

http://stevemoyer.us

References:

http://tinyurl.com/ao7ys

http://tinyurl.com/d6gfc

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Open Society Institute Present:

Open Forum: Iraqi Referendum—Context and Outcomes

What will the future hold now that Iraqis have voted on the constitutional referendum on October 15, 2005? Will the country spiral further into violence and sectarian strife, or will the new constitution create a framework for continued debates on religion, federalism and the role of women in Iraqi society?

With Dr. Nathan Brown, Senior Associate with the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Mr. Yahia Said, Director of the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch project and a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics and Ambassador Peter Galbraith, Senior Diplomatic Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non- Proliferation and participant in negotiations over the Iraqi Constitution as a consultant to the Kurdistan Regional Government.

What: Open Forum: Iraq Referendum—Context and Outcomes

Lunch will be served.

When: Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 11 :30 – 1:00 p.m.

Where: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Choate Room, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC 20036

(Conference call participation available upon request)

RSVP: To ensure a spot please RSVP to wsefsaf@osi-dc.org

Wendy Feliz Sefsaf

Communications Liaison Officer
Open Society Institute/Open Society Policy Center
1120 19th Street, N.W., 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036

Phone: 202.721.5642

Fax: 202.530.0128

www.osi-dc.org

www.opensocietypolicycenter.org

Bush to Blair: First Iraq, then Saudi Arabia

The British Independent had the courage to expose this horribly orchestrated sham pulled off by Tony Blair and George Bush.

Unfortunately (perhaps the expression "as usual" would be more appropriate), this story still has not made it to U.S shores where, our media who've been bludgeoned into submission by the far right and moral courage has become non-existent!

It took over one month before U.S media sources would comment on The Downing Street Memo, let's see what happens with this one.

Sincerely,

Timothy Stinson

Miami Lakes, Florida

Bush to Blair: First Iraq, then Saudi

George Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows. The US President told Tony Blair, in a secret telephone conversation in January 2003 that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq".

He implied that the military action against Saddam Hussein was only a first step in the battle against WMD proliferation in a series of countries. Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation", says the letter on Downing Street paper, marked secret and personal. No 10 said yesterday it would "not comment on leaked documents". But the revelation that Mr Bush was considering tackling other countries over WMD before the Iraq war has shocked MPs. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been close allies of the US in the war against terror and have not been considered targets in relation to WMD.

The confidential memo recording the President's explosive remarks was written by Michael Rycroft, then the Prime Minister's private secretary and foreign policy adviser. He sent the two-page letter recording the conversation between the two leaders on 30 January 2003 to Simon McDonald, who was then private secretary to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary. Mr Rycroft said it "must only be shown to those with a real need to know ". The revelation that Mr Bush told the Prime Minister Iraq should be seen as a first step comes in the American edition of Lawless World, a book by the leading international lawyer Philippe Sands QC, who is also a professor of law at University College London and senior barrister at Matrix chambers, which he shares with Cherie Blair.

"The conversation seems to indicate that Iraq was not seen as an isolated issue but as a first step in relation to a broader project," he said. "What is interesting is the mention of Saudi Arabia, which to the best of my knowledge had not at that time been identified particularly as a country with WMD. An alternative view is that the mention of Saudi Arabia indicates that the true objectives were not related exclusively to WMD." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319993.ece