Clinton’s recent order to bomb Iraq’s military targets was widely reported to have been in defense of (the) Kurds’ basic human right: the right to life. This news is just another reminder to me of what the U.S. government has been actually doing in various parts of the world. Is defending human rights really the first (priority) in the President’s head?

If so, why the many secret deals with third world countries to suppress their democratic movements? U.S. presidents not only have full knowledge of the many oppressions and mass killings in these countries; under secret deals, U.S. presidents have been supplying money, weapons, and military trainings to many dictatorial regimes around the world, in exchange of favorable treatment and support in international community, and regional military cooperation.

Under which law is massacring people and concealing the truth from public is justified? Under which law is providing arms and military training to oppress popular movement, killing innocent people, women and children, is justified?

Under which condition should the President be justified in covering up the truth from the American public?

Isn’t it contradictory to say the President was ordering the Iraqi bombing in defense of human rights, while the massacre of innocent people is still going on with U.S. money, weapons, and military advice?

Why should we support the President when he is concealing the truth from us? Don’t we have any rights for more decent news, and not only lies??

Yunus Hidajat

Senior

Chemical Engineering