AS A regular reader of your letters page I have noted with interest the number of letters supporting the position that the war on Iraq was, in fact, illegal and that it was carried out in breach of international law. I do not pretend to have any knowledge of law, either national or international, but, if what your readers are stating is indeed true, then surely there can be only one possible solution to this gross miscarriage of justice.

Saddam Hussein should be released immediately from internment, as this must surely be the most blatant, and publicised, case of unlawful arrest and imprisonment that the world has witnessed. Legally, he should then be reinstated to his position prior to the illegal invasion - ie, that of president of Iraq - and he should be given the authority to reform and restore his armed forces to their former peace-keeping status before the illegal invasion took place. The list is endless.

I can see Donald Findlay already stroking his sideburns and thinking to himself: ''Aye, and what about compensation for the trauma he suffered?'' Then again that would be silly - Mr Findlay usually only represents alleged murderers, doesn't he?

John Morrison,

7 Gladstone Place, Kirkcudbright.

ON Saturday, October 23, you published a letter from a Richard Watson of Glasgow, which (in defending the Bush/Blair Iraqi expedition) contained the following words: ''The inspectors would have had more time to allow Saddam to demonstrate his compliance with United Nations resolutions. This, we now know, he would have been able to do. But what Hans Blix would not have discovered was Saddam's intention to continue to develop WMD once sanctions were lifted. Thus we would now have Saddam in power, the UN satisfied, and every prospect of oil revenues in full flow to fund WMD production along with the means of their long-range delivery.''

Interestingly, on Wednesday, October 20, a new London-based upmarket tabloid (aka the Times) published a letter from a Ron Osmond of Hinckley, Leicestershire, expressing the following sentiments: ''The inspectors . . . would have had more time to allow Saddam to demonstrate his compliance with United Nations resolutions. This, we now know, he would have been able to do. What Hans Blix would not have discovered, however, was Saddam's intention to continue to develop WMD once sanctions were lifted. Thus we would now have Saddam in power, the UN satisfied, and every prospect of oil revenues in full flow to fund WMD production along with the means of their long-range delivery.''

I wonder - is this a case of great minds thinking alike, or of fools failing to differ? Or could it perhaps be yet another example of the same New Labour cut-and-paste research technique that produced the original lying dossier?

Brian D Finch,

56 Fingal Street, Glasgow.

THERE is a sense in which Thomas McLaughlin's critique (October 26) of Dr Jim Macgregor's reference to ''neo-fascist'' - not fascists, as Mr McLaughlin would have it - is correct. If one accepts the definition provided by Gentile, the so-called ''philosopher'' of fascism - ''The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State'' - then Mr McLaughlin is technically correct in placing this in antithesis to his tenuous claim for the neo-cons as ''tragically over-zealous apostles of liberal democracy''. (When capitalised ''Fascism'' refers only to Italy.) As with all such nouns, meanings may migrate from the particular to the general - hence ''fascism'' as it is more generally used and

understood today - and ''neo-fascist'' in this instance.

Anent this, we were warned by the prophetic President Eisenhower: ''In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.'' Particularly, one might add, if the presidential electoral process is suborned by these same forces.

In this context, I prefer the following definition: ''Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.'' A perfect description, ontologically and practically, one might venture, of the present military-industrial (neo-fascist?) US state.

Its author? Benito Mussolini - and he was in a position to know.

Dr John J O'Dowd,

3 Downfield Gardens, Bothwell.