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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] A Clarification - medal of honor,etc.

Dear Colleagues,

   Thanks to  Gabriel and Voices for contributing a stream of humane, reasoned
and evidence-based judgments. .

       . While I don't question the right of Eric and his pal to make strong
claims or counter-claims, I do not understand how their strong claims, e.g.,
their  trashing Scott Ritter or Charlie (Angelo) Liteky or anyone else,  
contribute rather than detract  from reasoned discourse absent  evidence or
replies  to competing claims. In light of their passion, would it not be  
reasonable, for example, if they responded to critiques at least  after a couple
of years?

        I do respect much of Eric's work, but providing this list  with  strong,
but  unproved, instantaneous rebuttals from his friend do little to advance my
understanding of  and efforts to help avoid the killing of even more   civilians
than in the 1991 slaughter.  Yes, that Desert Storm  killed "only "3,000
civilians  directly,  but by  destroying the electrical system of Iraq, led to
the indirect though  eminently predictable  and even inevitable short term  
deaths of 100,000 civilians and a doubling of the infant mortality rate due to
the resulting contamination of the water system of Iraq. See the U.S. Air
Force's  "Contributor's Corner"  in their journal "Air & Space Power Chronicles,
May, 2001.

     Finally, I feel based upon the evidence provided in sources such as M.
"Is there no other way" that the best way to preserve the lives of civilians
such as Kathy Kelly and Charlie Litkey and 22 million Iraq's is to use what
remains of our constitution rights to advocate on their behalf and remind the
U.S. Government and the Air Force of Article Six of the Constitution which
states that International Law to which the U.S. is bound trumps state law,
federal law and even the Constitution itself. And that it is the near unanimous
consensus of international lawyers that the US is bound under customer law to
obey Protocol 1, Article 54, Par. 2 which assert that it is forbidden under any
circumstance to attack, destroy or render useless infrastructure indispensable
to the survival of civilians including  water systems. This provision applies
even to the U.S. which never has signed and ratified it, because 150 states



Voices UK wrote:

> Dear Eric and other List Members,
> Yes it's the same guy - as a moments search on the internet would have
> ascertained (see eg., which contains an
> interesting piece from the SF Chronicle about how Charles returned his Medal
> of Honour to protest the United States' dirty wars in Central America during
> the 80's) - he's out in Iraq with Voices US.
> Of course, the claim that he is a 'pro-Saddam appeaser' is garbage. I
> appreciate that these are not your comments but those of your 'source'
> (whose name and telephone number appear at the bottom of your e-mail by the
> way) but it seems a shame that this sort of mud-slinging should appear on
> the list when Charles is - not for the first time - risking his life for
> others. Warrior or no, Charles' actions' seem a hell of lot more heroic than
> dropping bombs on people from a great height.
> Best wishes,
> Gabriel
> voices uk

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]