If the matters above cited are the only - or even the main offences of Al Halabi, to a majority of people it should appear that he is a man of conscience rather than a rogue.

    A young man from Micronesia or somewhere in the Pacific joined the U.S. army in hope of the best. But he faced the worse and lost both legs and one arm in Iraq. Last week, he was granted American citizenship and hailed a hero on the CNN Lou Dobbs evening programme. By and large, I accept him as such and I respect other people's heroes. I also see heroism in a few that others may condemn. That is the case with the Israeli soldiers/pilots who said to their government last week to the effect:
No…. We are not going to bomb the civilian targets that you have identified in Palestine. Our conscience does not allow us to kill innocent people.

    I grieve for the possible fate of those pilots, real heroes among the Jews.

    Meanwhile, I questioned whether U.S. Citizenship was enough compensation for a foreigner who lost three limbs in a blood-for-oil battle. There was no mention to the effect that Uncle Sam would ensure his welfare for the future. Hope came on the following evening when Lou Dobbs announced that consequent to his remarks the day before, some callers requested an address via which they could send their financial contributions for the benefit of the unfortunate young man.

    AMINA LAWAL of Nigeria was condemned to die by stoning for adultery. She has a child out of wedlock. That disturbed many an international conscience. The outcry in turn may have helped the higher court find its conscience in that celebrated case. But Amina was freed on some technicality. This means that the law was not struck down and there are others who will be tried and may be condemned under it.

    Whether the victims have or have not voluntarily choosen to live under such system, I support the need for the kind of world-wide pressure that must have helped in the acquittal of Amina. But I think that groups like Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union should be more vocal and active when it is their own Western leaders who are trampling other people's rights and taking the property of others for their own selfish, greedy gains.

    LARRY SYVERSON is father of two American soldiers now in Iraq. He is one of three leaders of an organization called WIN WITHOUT WAR (WWW). They were on C-SPAN on September 24, 2003. They said that the USA went to war after the leaders presented "facts" that were not facts. There was too much manipulation and distortion. There was no proper debate. Those who would seriously debate were intimidated by being called "unpatriotic." The Patriot Act has many facets that impinge upon the rights of Americans. The President can suspend civil liberties. Curiously enough, GORE VIDAL said that "the 342 pages of the USA Patriot Act were plainly prepared before 9/11." The bitter irony in all this is not lost on WWW: "You cannot promote and defend democracy in Iraq by trampling democracy in the United States", they said.

    The infamous British Government Dosier on weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq has been thoroughly discredited. Even MI5 has denied it. But the Bush/Blair coalition is still standing by it. BBC is reporting that The Hutton inquiry has done massive damage to the British Government. I wish Blair continuing bad luck.

    Meanwhile, on September 24, it was being reported that the American man (Mr. Kay) charged with the responsibility to find WMDs in Iraq told the CIA Chief that he has "no firm conclusions" about WMDs in Iraq. I interpret this to mean, "There is none, and we cannot plant them vie-ki-vie. This must be planned and executed with caution."

    In the past I cited GORE VIDAL and his book appropriately sub-titled "BLOOD FOR OIL AND THE CHENEY-BUSH JUNTA". (2002). Vidal is himself a veteran of World War II. He reminds us that Bush and Cheney, who are now so delighted to send young people to die were draft dodgers during Vietnam. I do not want you to forget that both men "ran and hide" on 9/11/2001.

    Vidal wrote: "Wars are for nations, not rootless gangs. You put a price upon their heads and hunt them down…Italy has been doing that with the Sicilian Mafia - and no one has yet suggested bombing Palermo." We can also note that England did not bomb Ireland to get rid of the IRA, notwithstanding how many innocent people that the IRA killed.

    "But the Cheney-Bush junta wanted a war in order to dominate Afghanistan, build a pipeline, gain control of the oil of the Eurasian Stans for their business associates…" They hand-picked Mr. HAMID KARZAI, former employee of Union Oil of California, and installed him President of Afghanistan. Then notice how abruptly Saddam replaced Osama as the personification of evil. And having secured the oil of Iraq the junta is now haranguing Iran. Iran is another oil-rich country.

    Vidal made the connection between

• Past President Bush and the Carlyle Group of Companies.
• Present President Bush and Harken Corporation.
• Condoleezza Rice and Chevron-Texaco.
• Rumsfeld and Occidental.
• Gale Norton and British Petroleum-Amoco.
• Cheney and Halliburton.

    There is no conflict, says Cheney. These are gratuities and deferred payments owing to him prior to taking up the Vice President position. He will not share current profits. He has broken no law.

    But would Cheney accept that argument if say, LULA of Brazil, or CHAVEZ of Venezuela had placed themselves in a similar situation of conflict? What prevents Cheney from returning to Halliburton at the end of his Vice-President stint? In my opinion US$2.25 billion is plenty money. It can ensure that Halliburton remains viable to at least continue to make deferred payments to Cheney.

    By the way, something can be legal without being legitimate. Cheney says he did nothing illegal. But the Group Areas Act of South Africa legalized apartheid. That never made apartheid right or legitimate.

    The American media must stop allowing themselves to be used as usual to inflame people and to drum up war. They should poke members of the junta in the eye and demand answers to serious questions. For instance, given the lip service to integrity and corporate governance, what transparent tendering process was put in place before awarding billions in contracts to Halliburton; i.e. to themselves or to their former associates?

    Mr. BERLUSCONI of Italy was one of the few world leaders who, against popular opinion, supported Bush in Iraq. He is a rich man with vast business interests. He is alleged to have used bribery and corruption in his dealings. That includes bribery of court judges. He denies the allegations. But some weeks ago he used his majority in Parliament to make himself immune from prosecution while in office.

    Berlusconi is current Chairman of the European Union. Even as I write a scandal is brewing in the European Commission. In one of its organs, Eurostats, millions of US$ have illegally been appropriated to personal bank accounts. This is not a suggestion that the EC Chairman had anything to do with the Eurostats theft. But it is instructive that some important institutions of the North Atlantic tend to lack integrity. Those very people who dictate terms about corporate governance have none in their organizations. Some of us from the Caribbean can teach them a thing or three on governance.

    About a year ago Mr. Bush went to the United Nations (UN), bullying his way through. The UN must authorize him to go to war or risk becoming irrelevant. In any event, America can go it alone. Serious allies such as France did not want war. (It has long been forgotten that the French fought on the side of the Americans and helped them win their independence against England!!) Criticism of France and Germany was savage.

    But if the junta understands oil it also understands polls. Early September 2003, Mr. Bush asked America US$87 billion mainly to maintain the occupation of and to "rebuild" Iraq. Public opinion as to how well he is doing his job slipped significantly after that address. "Are you mad?" Americans were asking.…. "Why should we pay $87 billion??"

    As a sequel to the polls, on September 23 he returned to the UN inviting nations "of good will" to assist in Iraq. One year ago Mr. Bush and his junta could see lots of oil money beyond their noses; but they could see no further. So last week Mr. VLADIMIR PUTIN of Russia was saying to them "I told you so." And citizens of France, Germany, etc., are saying: You went illegally to Iraq killing, killing and destroying. We warned you it would be messy. You responded with insults. Why should we now give the lives of our young people and our taxes to pay for your insatiable appetite for oil? You needed no help to destroy it. Why do you need our men and our money to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure?

    Watch out for retired General WESLEY CLARK, former supreme commander of NATO allied forces. You may well be hearing a lot of him in future. Speaking at De Pauw University, Greencastle, Indiana last week, he said, "How dare somebody say to the rest of the world if you're not for us you're against us?" Clark got resounding applause. It was as if academia suffered for a couple of years with the question on its chest but lacked the courage to so confess; until now Mr. Clark has articulated it.

    I was impressed with Mr. Clark: it seems as an old soldier he knows that glorious war does not exist; that young soldiers fatally wounded, die crying for their mothers; that in his words, a nation should "use force as a last, last resort."

    General Clark put the UN in historical perspective. USA emerged from World War II with 50% of the world's industrial capacity. All other major countries had been devastated by the war. Yet, even in that position of supreme economic and military power, American leaders determined that America could not go it alone. At that time they led the initiative to form the United Nations to help achieve world peace. Fifty eight (58) years later the US still needs the UN, and America needs to review its strategy and attitude towards the UN.

    Meanwhile, the slaughter continues in Iraq. Last weekend five innocent family members were killed by US soldiers at a check-point in Fallujah. This reminds me: What about the "family values" of families of the members of the Cheney-Bush oil junta. Where is their conscience? Would they have found it if their children were cannon fodder in Iraq?

    By the way, my own son who joined the US army in February 2002 left the US army in April 2002.