Assessing Iraq’s Sovereignty After the Hand-Over

Re “Hussein Arraignment Set; Iraq Takes Custody Today,” June 30: The Bushies are playing around with the dictionary again. They claim to have turned Saddam Hussein over to Iraqi “control,” but he remains in a U.S.-run prison with U.S. guards.

President Bush also claims to have given Iraqis back their “sovereignty,” but the circumstances do not fit the standard definition of sovereignty. The interim government, chosen by a panel handpicked by the Bush administration, will have no power to amend the constitution that the U.S. occupiers created. American contractors will be exempt from Iraqi laws.

Most egregiously, the U.S.-led coalition will remain in Iraq, and the Iraqi government will be unable to have any say in the operations of this occupying force.

“Sovereignty” at the point of a gun is pure fantasy.

David Holland

Northridge

*

Now that Iraq has “sovereignty,” will any of our 130,000-plus troops return home? Will we turn over control of the oil fields to the Iraqis? Of course not.

The only thing that’s really happened is that John Negroponte has taken Paul Bremer’s place. Bush’s puppet, Iyad Allawi, will have to check with us before making any major decisions. So let’s not be fooled. There has been no transfer of power

Charles Coleman Jr.

Pacoima

*

Iraq, now a sovereign nation again. Who would have thought? After all, the media elites have been telling us for 15 months it would never happen. And, of course, if you listen to how they describe that country at the moment -- rampant crime in the streets, economy staggering, infrastructure decimated, intractable ethnic, religious and political divisiveness -- you might be inclined to despair.

I, however, am very optimistic about Iraq’s future. After all, those are the exact same words the media use to describe the United States. Every day my personal experience contradicts the liberal media’s description of our great country. I can only assume they are lying about Iraq too.

David Holman

Apple Valley