IoS letters page: an interesting case study in omission

November 6, 2005

Printed version:

Credit to Andrew Buncombe for pointing out that the Bush
administration may yet be engulfed by the scandal of building its case for war upon lies (Bush faces his Watergate, 30 October). But your reporter skirts cautiously around the truth when he says, following Lewis Libby's indictment,that "using false statements and twisted information to mislead a nation and launch that war is a greater crime than orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign against your political rivals".

Initiating a war of aggression was recognised by the Nuremberg prosecutors as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

David Cromwell, Southampton

Submitted version:

Credit to Andrew Buncombe for pointing out that the Bush
administration may yet be engulfed by the scandal of building its case for war upon lies (Bush faces his Watergate, 30 October). But your reporter skirts cautiously around the truth when he suggests merely that "using false statements and twisted information to mislead a nation and launch that war is a greater crime than orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign against your political rivals".

In fact, initiating a war of aggression was recognised by the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The Nuremberg prosecutors also declared against "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements and assurances". A wealth of evidence shows that George Bush, Tony Blair and their advisers did just that. If the mythical role of the fourth estate in challenging power actually meant anything, then the mainstream media, including your newspaper, would not shirk from pointing out such obvious truths.

David Cromwell, Southampton
---

No prizes for figuring out why the end was chopped off.

The corporate-led obsession with "economic growth"

To: letters@independent.co.uk

Dear Sir,
Few rational readers would disagree with any of your proposed measures ('Climate change: 10 ways to save the world', 1 November). But what about the elephant in the room: the corporate-led obsession with "economic growth"? If we factor in the negative impacts of increasing global poverty, disease and inequality; environmental degradation and climate-related disasters; and imperialistic wars waged for strategic dominance and access to natural resources and markets, the global economy has probably been in free-fall for decades. We need to shift to a new participatory and equitable system of economics that values people and planet.

yours faithfully,
David Cromwell