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]
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. Nagler's "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 have. . Sincerely, Tom 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. http://www.mishalov.com/Liteky.html, 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 http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk