Posted April 5, 2003

Treason

If treason is defined as any act that gives an official enemy comfort, when does an anti war sentiment become a lack of patriotism and at what point does a lack of patriotism become
treason.

~ Ian May

Managing Editor Eric Garris:

In Iraq, what we are doing is treason. In the USA, it is patriotism.

Your definition of treason is one that is not in US law, but one that sounds like a parroting of Saddam's rhetoric.

I should also point out, that under the Constitution, we have not had a state of war since 1945. The President may not declare war, this is technically a police action.

Micro-Antiwar Initiative

A small group of people including myself, started a "micro-" initiative, costing neither time nor money.

The concept is simple: If you and all inhabitants of a house are against the war – you post it to your front door. A kind of silent protest.

If you like further information please go to the site Gaeste-wg.de and click the English flag or contact us by answering this mail.

~ Basti N., A House Against the War, Germany

Letter of Appreciation

I am writing to express my appreciation of the work you're doing on your site to promote what I believe the essence of American culture to be. That is, Americans coming together to have their say on topics that affect our nation as a whole. As an American living abroad, many times I am asked to give an account of my country's actions or policies. A friend of mine here in China showed me your website today. I was interested by what I found.

At this point I should make it clear that on this particular engagement I disagree with your view. But simply from the standpoint that there are nations that have taken out their anger against our government on our people, not the government. For this reason alone, I support the president in this. Usually, however, I am a proponent of the older Monroe, and the earlier ideals of George Washington himself, regarding foreign policies.

I do believe that this is one of the responsibilities, and as you say one of the dangers, of the government.

This is why I appreciate what you're doing here. Even though I don't agree with your position on this matter, it is good to know that there are other people who believe in keeping track of the govt. Hopefully, one day we will again have a nation 'of the people, for the people, and by the people.'

~ Tom D.

Regarding "If This Be Treason" by Justin Raimondo:

As a firearms enthusiast, I regularly visit bulletin boards on the net. Man, they savaged me at the slightest suggestion that this war wasn't a holy one. It doesn't matter though, because I tell them about the dollar v the euro, the Patriot Act(s) and quote the patron saint of the American Patriot movement, Congressman Ron Paul, and you.

Keep it up. Your country needs you. We are going to save America even for those who are too stupid to know what that means.

~ Jim N., Delaware

The Peter Arnett affair illustrates the truth that you can put any fantasy on the air if it supports the official line. Shortly after the commencement of the invasion one of the pro-war television services available to us in Bangladesh – I believe it was BBC Asia – ran a studio-produced piece on the Kurds of northern Iraq and Saddam Hussein's supposed gassing "of his own people" consequent to the war with Iran. Scenes of doughty Kurds displaying their weapons abounded. The narrator asserted that the Kurds of 2003 have taken from the events of the 1980s a lesson in survival under gas attack: don't cluster in cellars or other low places because war gases, being heavier than air, accumulate there.

Days pass. The television channel does another piece on the Kurds of northern Iraq. This time the Kurds are preparing for what the narrator says they believe is an attack by the Iraqis. Only this time the villagers are shown diving into cellars as what the narrator calls a precaution against a gas attack. The lessons that had been learned at such a dear cost not two weeks earlier have flown from the Kurdish mind. Or should we say that two different BBC scenarists independently making it up as they went along managed to get their narratives on the air without going through a consistency filter?

~ Alan Bickley, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Unless I'm mistaken, Peter Arnett is a citizen of New Zealand, so Cronkite's insinuation of treason is doubly stupid. Only an American can be guilty of treason against the United States.

~ Mark Schirber

Thank you for your terrific site and the contribution it is making to antiwar efforts. And thanks, too, for including an occasional article of mine.

I just read your column and I saw that my name and the piece I wrote about demonizing antiwar critics ("Coalition of the Chilling") was mentioned. I have to admit that I was surprised by your charge that I didn't condemn the attacks by David Frum on conservative critics of the war. Actually, by citing all the examples that I did, and by including Frum's attack amongst them, it seemed clear to me that is exactly what I was doing.

I'm not sure where your beef comes from, but I assure you when AG Ashcroft comes looking for the antiwar crowd, it will not matter which part of the political spectrum one dwells. ...

~ Bill Berkowitz

Letter from Turkey

I am a 30-year-old Turkish woman from Turkey, I am married and I have a daughter of 10 months, her name is Ipek that means 'Silk' in English.

Every day, since the starting day of the war, I am watching the news from Iraq. I feel very unhappy for the attitude of America towards the Iraqis. I wish the Iraqi people and the Iraqi soldiers would resist more the American and English soldiers.

I can understand the reason of the war apart from all the rumors that are said and written in TV's, newspapers, etc. There cannot be any excuse, any reason to start this war. We are sure that Iraq is not making any chemical weapons, and it has no plan to make it, either, because, since the year 1991, Iraq has been suffering very much from poverty. The death rate has increased enormously from the 1991 embargo.

The only reason to start the war is for petrol, we are all sure about it. Because you are the most powerful country in the world, it is impossible to stop America. We cannot do anything to stop the war. But, in this world, everybody pays the for sins that he has made during his life. Now you are killing the innocent people in Iraq, and you are losing the confidence and respect of the world. There will be some day that you will pay for the loss of lives of the ancient people. I really wish for it.

~ Olgun A.

Reclaiming the American Right

This is not really "Backtalk" but I hope you can give me an answer. I would like to order a copy of Reclaiming the American Right. When I click on the link to do so, however, I get an error message. On Amazon.com, the book is now listed as "out of stock." Are you out of stock as well?

~ M.S.

Eric Garris replies:

Unfortunately, yes, it is out of print and we have none left.

Canada Stuck to Its Principles

The fundamental difference between Canada and the US, is that the majority Canadians, and their government, since 9/11, have consistently applied logic and intelligence in sorting out what caused 9/11, who the intended recipient of the message was, and how no major threat is or was, posed to Canada.

We get the reason for Canada's ability to stay out of these types of international conflicts from an American, quoted in this paper, 'In Wyoming Canada is just part of Britain,' page A9, last sentence, "You never hear too much of their (Canada) conflicting with other countries."

That is the inherent difference between Canada and the US; Canadians are more than happy to negotiate (diplomacy) with other nations and people. Canada is more than happy to sign international treaties, that benefit all the planets inhabitants, rather than protect the corporate profits of a few (corrupt democracies, won't work under Sharia Law. There's a few Yanks who'd pay top dollar to see Mr Lay and several Enron managers get their heads lopped off).

~ Malcolm G. Ratcliffe, Canada

Motives

I would like to say that I support the American troops in the war in Iraq, but I wonder if the president has other motives besides weapons of mass destruction. The reason being is that Sr. Bush was over the CIA when Saddam was put there as a puppet government in 1979, same year as the Iran conflict with the hostages. We gave him American technology and weapons, after he received all he could he went his own way and turned his back on America.

Bush Sr. wanted to go in and take Saddam out in 1990 but I feel that the other Arab nations that were involved in the Coalition kept America from doing that. We only went over there to liberate Kuwait: once that liberation was accomplished we had no reason to topple Saddam.

Now, Bush Jr. comes up with human rights issues. Why, for the last 25 years of Saddam's rule have we been blind to this issue up till now? Look at the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, it was an American installed and backed regime that was there to support our South American interest. When the Nicaraguan public got enough of his killing and impoverishment of the nation, the FSLN mounted a overthrow in 1979. Then the Iran-Contra affair started.

Now the US government is losing a lot of Points of Presence (South American bases), i.e. Panama, Philippines, Venezuela, anyway we need to establish another base so back to Nicaragua. The Somoza son Somoza-Portecarro is running in the Nicaragua elections again. The Somoza family have mostly become Naturalized American citizens, and American courts are trying to help the Somoza's get back their properties (352 of them), since they are now American citizens. The Nicaraguan Constitution was amended so that any properties seized in the 1979 FSLN uprising can have claims issued against them and the Somoza's can buy them back at 1/3 of the price the present owner paid for them from the FSLN government, and that includes any improvements made to the land including the building of houses, or structures on the property. The Somoza's will get back the property for nothing except paying the 1/3 price to the current owners, who have owned the property for 20-odd years.

Now, we have Saddam who has done the same as Somoza and basically used the wealth of a nation as his own private checkbook and exploited his country, set up his private police forces and killed and tortured private citizens who say anything. America has backed governments in South America, Africa, and the Middle East who have done this for years. Now all of a sudden it becomes an issue. WHY?

Did the Democrats want the president to seek UN approval so this would not be seen as a private war for American interest and we can say Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we want to remove the weapons? If the Arabs think this is a private war they will see it as a religious war and declare a jihad. President Bush would not negotiate with the UN and set a deadline on his own accord to start the war with or without UN approval. So, did he really seek UN approval or just make a gesticular attempt at UN backing and then say the UN failed as a reason to start the war?

In 1974 President Ford signed an Executive order saying we could not assassinate leaders of foreign nations, the first strike of this war tried to assassinate Saddam. Can we violate our country's own laws now? Are we going to try to capture Saddam and have a trial or are we going to just outright kill him ?

Something else that looks funny is that 44 states in America has budget shortfalls for 2004. How is it that the programs being cut are not all state funded programs but some are federal funded or subsidized programs that are being cut for veterans, women and children, and the poor?

To sum it up I support the troops and wish to say I hope everyone comes out of this conflict ok. I just don't like the thought the public may be being deceived because there is another agenda behind the war other than the weapons of mass destruction and the so-called UN failure. The UN did ask for more time to complete inspections, no weapons have been found yet, and the American forces have been all over Iraq for the last few weeks and only found some suits. That's not to say there aren't weapons but are they in such a quantity "the world" was in danger? There could be some from the Iran war left over in small quantities, from experimentation, or some other unknown reason. Does the cause really exist for us to have bombed cities, dead American, and British soldiers and Iraqi citizens to eliminate Saddam and his regime?

~ John Cole

Letter on Letters

Earlier you printed a letter that included the thesis that the 9/11-Saddam link was likely to look less credible to the public over time. Already this is proving true. One respondent was at least aware that there are people out there who are asserting what I believe is the factual position-that either there is no link or (in my opinion) no proven link which is practically the same thing.

It is one thing to be so stupid as to believe something just because somebody said it (superstition). We can never deal with people who are so stupid that they will accept nutty theories for no reason. However, those who accept something as an article of faith – i.e. Saddam is a bad man who must have, or most likely have something to do with whatever are a different story. The half-informed are just people who have not been exposed to enough information. If it turns out that there is no weird stuff in Iraq, these people will most likely start to cease believing that Saddam and Osama planned 9/11 together.

~ Leona Marti

Regarding "Heat in Gulf to Rocket" (The Mirror, UK):

Um, can this be considered biological warfare? The consequences of poor sanitation and large groups of people and heat and waste and the like have been know since when? The Black Plague? Before that? Or am I just thinking in "old" European terms and fresh water is just a "luxury?"

~ Euphorian

Regarding "Shedding No Tears for Iraqi Civilians" by Firas Al-Atraqchi:

I wonder if Corporal Ryan Dupre realizes that the Iraqis are sick people. They are sick because of the Depleted Uranium we have strewn about their country. They are in need of Chemotherapy but they can't get it because of the embargo set on their country by the US. If we were really concerned about the Iraqi citizens we would have never set the embargo in the first place. The liberation of Iraq through war is ludicrous. Unless we are looking to liberate random body parts.

By the way, there are a lot of American Soldiers that are dying because of the "war trophies they decided to pick up in desert storm. They US conveniently forgot to tell the ground troops that all of the stuff we blew up would be radioactive for the next 100 years or so.

~ Julie Houlihan

Regarding Eric S.'s letter posted April 2:

Have you thought through the implications of some of your statements? Such as “…support what it does regardless…” It is impossible to condemn a crime without condemning the criminals. Do you truly believe that we should support mass murder and genocide?

Please explain to us how killing children, just like yours, women no different from you, your sisters, your mother, how killing these people in Iraq, is advancing the cause of freedom in America.

The Iraqis have never threatened our freedom: Dubya Bush has. Iraq didn’t pass the "Patriot" act: Congress did. Iraq is not locking up American citizens without trial, without access to a lawyer, without charging them with a crime: our government is.

We can win this war by wiping out the Iraqi people. Is that what you meant by “giving freedom to EVERYONE”? Do you really want that blood on your hands? If you truly want his safe return, tell your husband to pack his bags and opt out of this war. If he is killed by people defending their homes and families, please remember that if foreigners were invading your home, you would expect your husband to kill to protect you and your children. Those families have just as much right to protect themselves.

~ Carter Mitchell, Gurnee, Illinois