The Spectator

Saddam’s ‘parody’ of a trial From Sir Jonah Walker-Smith Sir: When I read the title to Alasdair Palmer’s article, ‘Saddam’s trial shouldn’t be fair’ (11 November), I assumed that it was written with tongue in cheek. By the time I reached the penultimate sentence — ‘the trials of genocidal killers are not, and should never be, fair’ — I realised, to my surprise, that he was in earnest. Doubtless Saddam Hussein is as guilty as sin of the crime with which he has been charged and convicted. So was Milosevic. So was Goering. But Milosevic and Goering received fair trials. Saddam did not.

The US mid-term election results have many lessons, but one of them, as Christopher Caldwell argues on page 14, is that most Americans believe that the war in Iraq is over, and that it has been lost. This reflects a broader, bone-deep fatigue in the West with the war on terror generally: a perception that the price we have paid has been too high, that our governments have systematically misled us, and that the whole enterprise stinks of arbitrariness and illegitimacy. This is why the sentencing this week of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and the jailing of the British al-Qa’eda terrorist, Dhiren Barot, were so significant. True, the two trials could scarcely have been conducted in more radically different circumstances.

Iraq: why the media turned From Jonathan Mirsky Sir: William Shawcross (‘Leaving Iraq would court disaster’, 28 October) rolls out the stab-in-the-back accusation that the media ‘helps only those violent extremists’ trying to destroy Iraq. But the media initially supported the war. Then Bush and Blair were caught lying and the realities of the war became apparent. The same happened in Vietnam. Newspapers and television were once pro-war. For many reporting the war, as I did in 1965 and 1967 (and Mr Shawcross himself did superbly), the realities changed the reporting. Nonetheless, the failed commander, General William Westmoreland, told me, ‘The war in Vietnam is the first war in history lost in the pages of the New York Times.

On Monday the debate over climate change enters a new phase. Sir Nicholas Stern, who heads the Government Economic Service, will publish his review of the economics of climate change, which was commissioned by the Chancellor in July 2005. At last the debate on the environment will shift definitively towards the real choices facing the country and facing the world, and — we hope — away from the token gestures and feel-good rhetoric which have held sway thus far. Until now, economics has been conspic-uously absent from the climate change debate. We have heard a lot of science, much of it badly explained to the public.

Green realism From George Monbiot Sir: I realised long ago that we environmentalists cannot win. When we draw attention to the problem, we are told we are doom-mongers who refuse to accept that markets and human ingenuity can solve any difficulties caused by the overuse of resources. When we propose solutions, we are accused of being utopians who refuse to accept that nothing can be done. In reviewing my book Heat (Books, 14 October) Tom Fort agrees that the changes I propose are necessary to prevent runaway climate change, but claims there is no chance they will be adopted. He sees bus lanes on motorways, offshore wind farms and stronger building regulations as the stuff of science fiction. To me, they seem rather mundane.

Taxing questionFrom Lord Lawson of BlabySir: Pressed to promise tax cuts during the recent Conservative party conference, both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne were anxious to point out that Margaret Thatcher didn’t promise tax cuts in 1979. What the 1979 Conservative manifesto actually said was, ‘We shall cut income tax at all levels to reward hard work, responsibility and success.’ I hope we can now take it that the same non-promise will feature in the next Conservative manifesto.Nigel LawsonHouse of Lords, London SW1 Killer figures from the US From Robert WallsSir: The recent tendency for the British press to admire the American system of law enforcement puzzles me.

Special relationship spatsFrom Stephen GraubardSir: The interview with Senator John McCain (‘David Cameron has what it takes to succeed’, 30 September) is both informative and interesting but I’d like to correct McCain on two points. The Senator’s thought that the ‘special relationship’ has existed for 200 years conveniently obliterates memories of the War of 1812 and the Civil War, when Lincoln worried greatly about the UK’s policies, not to mention serious transatlantic differences during the time of Salisbury, David Lloyd George and Neville Chamberlain. As for the proposition that Cameron is a ‘Tory JFK’ — that is almost as bizarre as the notion, once expressed by too ardent Republicans faithful to George W.

Home is a classroom From Amanda CraigSir: I was interested in Rod Liddle’s article ‘Who is right about home schooling?’ (23 September) because I too have children at top private schools and have noticed large gaps in their general knowledge thanks to the detestable National Curriculum. However, the solution is quite simple and does not necessitate removing them from their friends. Stick a map of the world and a map of Britain up where they have meals, and they will learn geography. Make a time-line with them, and they will learn history. Listen to Radio Three in the car if you do a school run, and they will learn more about classical music than in a hundred music lessons. Teach them, formally, how to draw. Watch familiar DVDs in foreign languages.

Bill’s legacyFrom John O’ByrneSir: Toby Harnden (‘Clinton: Tony and Gordon just have to work this out’, 16 September) states that the former president ‘feels he was cheated of the chance to prove himself while president; so he is anxious to cement his legacy’. What legacy? Bill Clinton is among the most overrated presidents ever. In his eight years in the White House he had plenty of time to ‘prove himself’ but achieved nothing spectacular. For example, his policy of cutting defence-spending left America exposed to terrorist attack (the bill was left to his successor).

Third degree at Heathrow From Andrew HamiltonSir: In my experience the overzealous and politically correct airport security in America (High Life, 2 September) is being replicated in this country. At Heathrow security recently, off to see my son in Shanghai, I couldn’t resist asking the body-searcher whether or not I resembled a Muslim terrorist (I am 59, white, grey-haired and an accountant). The gentleman looked rather embarrassed. But his young Asian colleague said, ‘You shouldn’t have said that, just stay where you are, I’m calling the supervisor.’ The supervisor appeared and after an animated conversation turned to me and said, ‘You are in deep trouble, wait there.