The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Thanks to Glen to the heads-up on the Geraldine Brooks article in the Guardian. I sent the following letter to the Guardian in response. As a relative newcomer to CASI, I emailed to the discussion list a copy of my letter to the wrong address! Since Peter Brooke also includes Geraldine Brooks' article in his latest news (a great roundup), I'm trying again: To the Editor: In her article "We Must Attack Iraq and Free Its People" (January 9), Geraldine Brooks offers some poignant examples of the tragedies besetting ordinary Iraqis. She is right to call them "crimes." Acts of war would involve open and declared armed conflict between states or nations. At least inside the United States, Americans do not bomb the hometowns of rapists but rather arrest them for the crime of rape and try them in court. Most Americans recognize sadists as sick: the U.S. Government did not level the neighborhood of Jeffrey Dahmer when he was caught torturing hapless boys and eating them. Dahmer was captured, tried and sent to prison. The rule of law is embedded in the Constitution of the United States. Why, then, does not the current Bush administration (and why did not the previous administrations of Clinton and Bush Sr.) make use of the World Court or an International Criminal Court? Because, if the U.S. recognized the International Criminal Court, it would be subject to its laws as well, which means that Iraq could bring the U.S. to court for its crime, for instance, of depriving its civilian population of clean water. Bombing is so much easier. Sincerely, Suzy T. Kane El Prado, New Mexico, USA