-Caveat Lector-
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny
October 7, 2002
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
We are entering a crucial week and an extremely serious period in the
political arena. This essay is one of many that appeared today - all
pleading with us to call - call - call our representatives and tell
them not to sell out on America.
[START]
Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help us to stop the war
As a US Republican, I reject George Bush's illegal and
unconstitutional plan to attack Iraq
Scott Ritter
Monday October 7, 2002
The Guardian
As a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and as a registered
member of the Republican party who voted for George Bush in the last
presidential election, I have to admit to a certain trepidation and
uncertainty when I was asked by Labour MPs to participate in the
massive anti-war rally in London on September 28.
In my way of thinking, mass demonstrations, regardless of the
righteousness of the cause, were the theatre of the political left,
and not something with which I should be associated. I was proven
wrong on all counts. The outpouring of democratic will that occurred
on that day came not only from the left, but from across the breadth
of mainstream British society. It sent a message to a Blair
government that had grown increasingly isolated from public opinion:
UK support for an American unilateral war on Iraq would not be
tolerated. That message met a response a few days later from the
Labour party at its annual conference in Blackpool. Democracy in
action is a wonderful thing.
Across the Atlantic, in the United States, a debate is about to begin
in the US Congress over the granting of sweeping war powers that
would enable President Bush to wage war against Iraq, even if such
action were unilateral and lacking in authority from the United
Nations.
To many Americans, myself included, the granting of such powers
represents a breach of constitutional responsibility on the part of
Congress, which alone under the constitution of the United States is
authorised to declare war. There is at least one US senator - Robert
Byrd of West Virginia - who recognises this, and has indicated his
willingness to launch a filibuster of the debate. Senator Byrd is
famous for carrying a copy of the US constitution in his breast
pocket, and pulling it out on the floor of the Senate to remind
fellow senators what American democracy is founded on. One man
fighting in defence of the basic foundation of American society.
Where are the large-scale US demonstrations in support of this
struggle? Where are the voices of outrage over what amounts to a
frontal assault on the constitution of the United States? Democracy
silenced is awful.
The constitution has always guided me in my actions as an American
citizen. It establishes the US as a nation of laws, and sets high
standards for the ideals we Americans strive to achieve as a nation.
As an officer of Marines, I took an oath to defend the US
constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is an oath
I take very seriously and I am willing to give my life in defence of
this document - something I demonstrated during my time in uniform,
including service in Operation Desert Storm.
I am no pacifist, but I am opposed to President Bush's rush towards
war with Iraq this time around. As signatories to the UN charter,
Americans have agreed to abide by a body of international law that
explicitly governs the conditions under which nations may go to war.
All require authority of the security council, either through an
invocation of article 51 (self defence), or a resolution passed under
chapter seven of the charter (collective security).
President Bush's case for war simply has not been demonstrated to
meet any of these criteria. The president repeatedly announced that
Iraq has failed to comply with its obligation to disarm, and as such
poses a threat to international peace and security. The president
declared that Iraq must allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq,
without conditions, with unfettered access to all sites. Iraq's
failure to allow inspectors to return to work since their withdrawal
in December 1998 has prompted fear in many circles (recently
demonstrated by the UK government's dossier on Iraqi weapons
programs) that Iraq has taken advantage of the intervening time to
reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs dismantled
under UN supervision. With no inspectors in Iraq, it was impossible
to know for certain what the regime of Saddam Hussein was up to; and,
given Iraq's past record of deceit over these weapons, the US and
others were justified in presuming ill intent.
But now Iraq has agreed to allow the inspectors to return,
unconditionally, and to be held accountable to the rule of law as set
forth in existing security council resolutions governing Iraq's
disarmament. The opportunity finally exists to bring clarity to years
of speculation about the potential threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction, as well as an opportunity to resolve this ongoing
crisis of international law peacefully.
B ut President Bush refuses to take "yes" for an answer. The Bush
administration's actions lay bare the mythology that this war is
being fought over any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. It has made it clear that its objective is the
elimination of Saddam Hussein. And this is where I have a fundamental
problem. The UN charter prohibits regime removal. The US constitution
states that international agreements entered into by the United
States carry the force of law. The US has signed the UN charter.
Regime removal is not only a violation of international law, it is
unconstitutional.
There is a way to deal with the need to change a regime deemed to be
a risk to international peace and security, and that is through the
UN. If President Bush truly wanted to seek regime removal in Baghdad,
then he would push for an indictment of Saddam Hussein and his senior
leadership in the international court for crimes against humanity,
something that should not prove hard to do, given the record of the
Butcher of Baghdad (and something other members of the UN would
clearly support as an alternative to war). But seeking judgment
through the international court requires a recognition by the US of
the primacy of international law, something the Bush administration
has been loath to do.
The fact of the matter is this crisis between Iraq and the US goes
beyond even the issue of regime removal. It represents the first case
study of the implementation of a new US national security strategy,
published last month, which sets forth a doctrine of unilateralism
that capitalises on American military and economic might to maintain
the US as the sole superpower, to impose our will on the rest of the
world, even through pre-emptive military action. This strategy is a
rejection of multilateralism, a turning away from the concepts of
international law.
This new Bush doctrine of American unilateralism reeks of imperial
power, the very power against which Ameri cans fought a revolution
more than 200 years ago. The streets of Washington DC are empty of
demonstrators protesting at this frontal assault on American
democracy. Will the streets of London be filled again with protesters
against this assault on the rule of international law? I certainly
hope so, because the people of Britain could lead by example, sending
a clear signal to fellow practitioners of democracy in America that
when it comes to determining what actions a government takes in the
name of the people, the will of the people cannot, and will not, be
ignored.
=====
Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991-98 and chief
of the concealment investigations team. His interview with William
Rivers Pitt forms the core of War on Iraq (Profile Books)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[end]
==============
How to call your representative:
Go to http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
Scroll to the bottom of this article. Type in your zip code. You
will find convenient links to the people who are there to do the
people's bidding. Tell them to vote accordingly.
This upcoming war is unworthy of America and those who love this
country. Please let your senators and congressmen know where you
stand.
I spent all afternoon doing exactly that.
Ingrid
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
