To the Indy:

POOWI (People Opposed to those Opposed to War in Iraq, pronounced POO-wee) is an organization that strives to increase the understanding of the IWU student body in regards to the war in Iraq. Please kill the referendum to voice the collective IWU opposition to the war. Vote in support of US action in Iraq.

I'm so sick and tired of these POWI (People Opposed to War Iraq, and IWU student group) assholes who think they know everything there is to know about international relations. They showed gross disrespect for our speaker on Thursday, who is the former head of the Nuclear Weapons Program in Iraq for 20 years. They organized an assault on him, trying to prove his credentials and points as incorrect. These arrogant asshole conspiracy theorists need to shut the f#%$ up and listen to those people who know what they are talking about. If you see a POWI, please rearrange his/her face. Thank you, that is all.

You guys are fucking morons. Shut the fuck up and pay attention to what is happening.

John R. Haugen

Dear Indy:

I am an IWU student and a member of IWU POWI (People Opposed to War with Iraq). I'm writing to address both the rude and expletive-filled letter previously received by the Indy from a member of the other illustrious war-related group on campus, POOWI (People Opposed to those Opposed to War with Iraq), and the accusations levied by this anonymous organization (which has never done anything other than paper our campus with anonymous, rude, and often incorrect signs) that members of POWI "showed gross disrespect for our speaker on Thursday, who is the former head of the Nuclear Weapons Program in Iraq for 20 years. They organized an assault on him, trying to prove his credentials and points as incorrect."

First of all, the letter states that POWI members are "assholes who think they know everything there is to know about international relations." Now, I would never even hope to claim that I know all there is to know about international relations. I'm not a government official, I'm not very well traveled, I'm not even a poli sci or international studies major. I do, however, keep myself well informed through several reputable news organizations (which do not include CNN and Fox News, but rather NPR and the New York Times), and activist group press releases. As I care about world events and thus endeavor to keep myself informed about them, I would venture to guess that, just because I take the time to read/listen to the news, I am better informed than the majority of students on my campus. All members of POWI are similarly, and probably better, informed than I, because we feel that being informed and active are a large part of our obligation and duty as voting citizens, not to mention rights that should be vigorously exercised by all as they were won at the highest cost-blood and grief-in previous wars (which is one of the reasons I hear so often as to why we SHOULDN'T be active.)

Now, I was present at Mr. Hamza's talk on the evening of April 3, and I saw nothing of the "gross disrespect" towards Mr. Hamza that was supposedly there. What I saw was a speech by Mr. Hamza which I felt was directly geared towards what he probably felt was his audience, an almost completely white group of Central Illinoisans and students immersed in the Wesleyan bubble. It was a speech full of vague references to technologies over the majority of the audience's heads, conveniently left-out information, attacks on Europeans, and plays on the culture of fear we have in the United States right now. It was also a speech followed by a respectful question and answer session in which MANY people, including several students who are not POWI members and faculty members, asked difficult questions of Mr. Hamza.

Yes, Mr. Hamza's credentials were called into question, because his credentials are questionable. Our Student Senate knew about the questionable aspects of Mr. Hamza's background and the many high ranking and knowledgeable people who have denounced Mr. Hamza. These people include Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, and David Albright, president of the Institute of Science and International security, Mr. Hamza's former employer, who stated just last fall as Mr. Hamza was testifying before Congress that "I must apologise that we no longer can in any way recommend Dr Hamza. I unfortunately now believe

he is deliberately distorting both his past credentials and his statements about Iraqi nuclear capabilities then and now." As is my understanding, there was a debate in Student Senate about bringing Mr. Hamza to campus at all because of his background, and that he was brought here against the advice of Dr. Narendra Jaggi, the chair of our

Physics department, IWU's Professor of the Year, and former scientific officer with the department of atomic energy in India.

And yet, no mentions of these arguments or of Mr. Hamza's questionable credentials were made to the student body, at least not as I am aware. Posters were plastered all over campus advertising his talk, with leading and slightly propagandist phrases such as "the terrifying inside story," and a picture of a sign with a flame graphic and the words "the Iraqi threat." Now, call me crazy, but were I listening to a talk given by someone with questionable credentials brought to my campus by my Student Senate with my tuition dollars, I would want to know that high ranking people have publicly stated that his words can't be entirely trusted.

This is what POWI members did: they informed the student body of this fact. Moreover, they did it in a respectful way. By respectfully mentioning David Albright's words in a question form and asking for a response from Mr. Hamza rather than accusing him outright of being a fraud, Mr. Hamza was able to respectfully respond to the words and give his side of the story. Now, I didn't personally find his side of the story very convincing, but nevertheless, he was able to provide an answer and to defend himself. Might I also add that Mr. Hamza didn't seem to be terribly put out by the question: indeed, he almost seemed to be expecting something of the sort, as he mentioned before his talk even started that there were those in the audience who had issue with him and that they would be given their chance to speak and ask questions. As his name can't even be typed into Google without numerous sites relating to the questionable aspects of his credentials and his story popping up, I'm sure he's been asked questions in this same vein before.

Now, all this aside, one did not really have to know Mr. Hamza's background to be able to tell from his speech that he was giving one-sided information. He attacked Europeans, France in particular, as giving Iraq nuclear material. Only when asked by a non-POWI student in the question and answer session about the US role in providing Iraq with weapons of mass destruction did he admit that the US had provided aid to Iraq's biological and chemical weapons program, and only after being asked by a faculty member about the terms of France's sale of nuclear material to Iraq did he mention that the sale was legal and provided for under international treaty. Mr. Hamza repeatedly mentioned very specific timetables for the war progress, ex- two weeks before the war is over, two years before Iraq is a full democracy, never mentioning from where he got his figures or that the timetables for the war had already stretched beyond expectation (as evidenced by stories from embedded reporters about the grumbling of commanders in the field that they had been severely misled as to the war's timetable). Later on, answering a question, he stated that we Americans are "not safe here, not safe anywhere," clearly playing on the culture of fear now so present in America, even as he was saying that the US invasion of Iraq would prevent another 9-11 from occurring.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hamza stopped taking questions before these inconsistencies could be addressed.

Maybe the person who wrote such a rude and angry letter to the Indy, calling POWI members "arrogant asshole conspiracy theorists [who] need to shut the f#%$ up and listen to those people who know what they are talking about," should have listened more carefully himself to Mr. Hamza's speech. Then he could have joined the many people who questioned Mr. Hamza, mostly on inconsistencies in his speech and information conveniently left out...maybe he could have even questioned Mr. Hamza himself, or, if he still believed every single word Mr. Hamza was saying, could have come up with something to say or ask at the talk that would have backed up Mr. Hamza's words. At least, had he listened more carefully and taken notes like the people who actually had the guts to get up in front of the audience and ask a question, he could have written a more coherent letter.

Thanks,

Elizabeth Myers

John R. Haugen wrote this apology to POWI:

Dear members of POWI and to whomever else it may concern:

It has recently been called to my attention that remarks I made have offended most if not all people in your organization, students and faculty alike. I would like to apologize for offending anyone with my comments. I strongly feel my opinion is valid, but that is no excuse for the ways in which I went about voicing my opinion. I made a mistake, and I am sorry for any and all harm it has done. When Khidhir Hamza came to IWU, I was offended by some questions POWI members asked him. Though I know the audience of this letter may disagree, these questions frustrated me. This sparked (but in no way caused) the feelings that led to my most offensive statement. I have no wish or will for any harm of any sort to be inflicted on anybody, especially fellow classmates here at IWU. Please disregard this statement as what it is: an immature, unintelligent, and harmless way for me to vent my anger. Of course, I should have chosen a much better venue to voice my opinion. I have no, nor did I, nor will I ever have any semblance of an intention to harm, abuse, or fight anyone, including any member of POWI, no matter how different our beliefs may be. I am sincerely apologetic for any fear or anxiety incurred by anyone due to these thoughtless remarks. I accept full responsibility. At a time of war, strong feelings are to be expected. The way in which I expressed my opinion was intended to be disregarded as a meaningless and petty. I assumed the forum to which I made the comment (an organization about which I knew virtually nothing) would understand this and accept the comment for what it was-an opinion. However, because they do not personally know me, the words were understandably taken to be threatening. I assure you it was intended to be nothing more than a way to express my contrasting opinion. But many found too much meaning in it, and for that I also accept responsibility. Please accept this heartfelt apology. This action has shown an uncharacteristic compromise of my moral and ethical standards. Although I feel that, of all places, the university is the best place to share opinions and varying opinions are valuable and necessary for growth, I realize it is futile to attempt to change someone's opinion, especially through ill-directed channels and inappropriate language. I do not stand by my actions or words, but I do stand behind my opinion. I accept everyone's right to an opinion, applaud those who share their opinion, and support one's constitutional and humanitarian rights. Once again, please accept my apology. I will be sure to censor any further comments and go through the proper channels in the future.

Sincerely,

John Haugen