at the country has been invaded and the U.S. is essentially in charge for the moment General al-Saadi has nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth and he says he always has told the truth.

The U.S. is condemning itself. It has not found weapons of mass destruction. Every report is a joke. Journalists are so anxious to support Washington that they claim weapons are mass destruction and then they turn out not to be - or to be fertilizer (as if they couldn't tell the difference) - or one rocket someone forget which doesn't a weapons of mass destruction program make.....

And General al-Saadi's statements must be an embarrassment. He is in custody so they may wear him down. They may offer him enough of a reward to lie - or he may stick to his story, which he says is the truth - in which case this war on Iraq will criticized as unncessary and the leader sof America subject to war crimes (if they were signatories to the World Court, which they are not since George W Bush refused to endorse of sign it .. Do you wonder why? Don't wonder. It should not become clear that perpetrators of crime do not accept judgement for those crimes because they would be proven guilty........).

"Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, an occupying power has a duty to restore and ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. Military commanders on the spot must prevent and where necessary suppress serious violations involving the local population. Ensuring local security includes protecting people from reprisals and revenge attacks, such as those directed against members of minority populations or government officials. This may require that occupying forces be deployed to secure public order until the time police personnel, whether local or international, can be mobilized for such responsibilities." [hindu - Online edition of India's National Newspaper - April 12, 2003]

"This lawlessness is something for which the coalition forces should have been prepared," according to Roth of Humanitarian Watch.

AND the U.S. had the responsibility under international law to ensure the availability of food and medical services. Roth says, "to the fullest extent of the means available to it."

The U.S. can be condemned on all counts. And they have the audacity to talk freedom. What are the sounds of freedom in Iraq?

"They blew off the limbs of women and the scalps of children. Hear their voices on the unedited and unbroadcast videotape: "We shot the shit out of it." Their victims overwhelm the morgues and hospitals - hospitals already denuded of drugs and painkillers by America's deliberate withholding of $5.4bn in humanitarian goods, approved by the Security Council and paid for by Iraq. The screams of children undergoing amputation with minimal anaesthetic qualify as the BBC man's "sound of freedom"." [John Pilger, "War Against Humanity -- Bush and Blairs war crimes" Mirror - April 11, 2003]

"A BBC television producer, moments before he was wounded by an American fighter aircraft that killed 18 people with "friendly fire", spoke to his mother on a satellite phone. Holding the phone over his head so that she could hear the sound of the American planes overhead, he said: "Listen, that's the sound of freedom."" [Pilger]

THOSE WERE THE SOUNDS OF FREEDOM

Hank Roth http://pnews.org/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------