Palash Biswas
(Contact: C/o Mrs arti Roy, Gosto Kanan, Sodepur,
Kolkata- 700110, India. Phone: 033-25659551)
Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death in Baghdad by
hanging after being found guilty of crimes against
humanity.Saddam was president of Iraq from 1979 to
2003, when his Sunni-dominated government was deposed
by a US-led invasion.Iraq war protagonists the United
States and Britain have led the applause after justice
was meted out to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein may
not executed by hanging until the start of next year,
as there is no time limit set for the appeals process,
the chief investigative judge Raed Juhi said today.Mr
Juhi said:"There is no specific time limit for the
appeals process. But after they have made their
decision, the punishment must be implemented within 30
days." President Jalal Talabani has said he will
refuse to sign a death penalty, but would delegate
that job to one of his deputies. The old Iraqi law
gave the president of Iraq the authority to commute a
death sentence, but in this case that provision is
made redundant by an article in the special law
established for the tribunal, which says "no
authority, including the president of the republic,
may grant a pardon or mitigate the punishment issued
by the court." But before any sentence is carried out,
the convicted men - and indeed the prosecution - have
the right to lodge an appeal against the verdict, the
notification of which must be made within 15 days.Even
if an appeal has not been lodged, if the court has
issued a sentence of death or life imprisonment, then
it must send a file on the case to the Court of
Cassation, within 10 days of the judgment, for review.
The world has to witness more dramas and more
screaming headlines and sensational newsbreaks in
coming months , it appears.If saddam should be hanged
for hundreds of shite people, how many times Bush has
to be hanged for invading Iraq telling lies that the
Iraq has nuclear war heads.
Respected lawyers give their views on the outcome of
the Saddam trial. Experts say that the trial is full
of flaws and bias. The world is divided on this issue.
Even the Muslims residing in Indian subcontinent are
divided. Dr subodh Chandra Roy argues that death
penalty itself is illegal and that is a cold blooded
murder. American Imperialism is opposed worldwide ,
even in America. The Americans themselves compare the
Iraq crisis with Vietnam War. The White House called
the verdict handed down to former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein Sunday a good day for Iraqis and
evidence of an independent judiciary in Iraq."It's a
good day for the Iraqi people," White House spokesman
Tony Snow said in a brief statement. At this juncture
Indian polty is in deep trouble as UPA partner Left
has demanded that the government of India should
intervene to stop hanging of Saddam Hussain, while the
government categarily declined.
The decision to execute Saddam is outrageous. The
verdict is rigged, the trial is a farce. We want the
UPA government to categorically condemn this
assassination - Prakash Karat, General Secretary,
CPI(M) .Ruling Left Front in west Bengal has delared
detailed progrramme to oppose the verdict. Kolkata has
to witness a massive left protest rally on 16 th
November.
There was a mixed reaction from Muslims across India
on the death sentence awarded on Sunday to Saddam
Hussein with some denouncing the verdict terming it as
unfair, while others saying the former Iraqi president
deserved the punishment.Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama
Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari said the verdict was planned
much earlier and was announced by a puppet tribunal of
the United States."We denounce the verdict which was
planned by the invader (the United States). The
judgement has been announced by a puppet tribunal of
the US," he said."Instead of Saddam Hussein, Bush
should have been put on trial for his crimes in Iraq
where more than seven lakh people have been killed
since US-led forces invaded the country," Bukhari
said.A member of the All India Muslim Personal Law
Board, Qasim Rasool Ilyas termed the trial of the
deposed leader as unfair.
When the judge announced the sentence, Saddam appeared
shaken.However he soon recovered and shouted: "Allahu
Akbar!" [God is greatest] and "Long live the nation!"
Saddam was found guilty by the Iraqi High Tribunal on
Sunday for ordering the killing of 178 Shia civilians
in the town of Dujail in 1982.The court said that he
and his fellow defendants had ordered the villagers'
murder after members of Dawa, a Shia political party,
tried to kill Saddam in Dujail in 1982.Saddam's
sentence will be automatically appealed and reviewed
by a panel of appeal judges, who will decide whether
or not to allow a retrial.If the judgement stands,
however, Saddam must be executed within 30 days of the
appeals panel delivering its verdict, the chief
prosecutor has said.
Saddam, 69 said that he wants to be executed by firing
squad. However Iraqi law states that he will be
executed by hanging.Al-Dulaimi, Saddam's lawyer, told
AP his client called on Iraqis to reject sectarian
violence and called on them to refrain from taking
revenge on U.S. invaders."His message to the Iraqi
people was 'pardon and do not take revenge on the
invading nations and their people'," al-Dulaimi said,
quoting Saddam. "The president also asked his
countrymen to 'unify in the face of sectarian
strife.'"
The completion of the Dujail trial does not mean that
Saddam's days as a defendant are over. He and six
other former Baath party officials, including Chemical
Ali, are also on trial on charges of genocide relating
to the killing of at least 50,000 people during the
notorious Anfal operation against the Kurds in 1988.
Dujail was chosen as the first and most
straightforward of a dozen dossiers being prepared for
trial by the Iraqi High Tribunal. In addition to the
Anfal, they include the gassing of Kurds in Halabja,
the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, the suppression
of the 1991 Shia uprising, the draining of the
southern marshes, the ethnic cleansing of ethnic
Persians from Iraq to Iran, and the unlawful killing
of political opponents.Senior Shia government figures
in particular have said they want to see Saddam
Hussein and others stand trial for the brutal quelling
of the 1991 Shia rebellion.
Amnesty International deplores the decision of the
Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) to impose the
death sentence on Saddam Hussein and two of his seven
co-accused after a trial which was deeply flawed and
unfair. The former Iraqi dictator was sentenced today
in connection with the killing of 148 people from
al-Dujail village after an attempt to assassinate him
there in 1982. The trial, which began in October 2005
almost two years after Saddam Hussein was captured by
US forces, ended last July. The verdict was originally
due to be announced on 16 October but was delayed
because the court said it needed more time to review
testimony.
The case is now expected to go for appeal before the
SICT's Cassation Panel following which, if the verdict
were to be upheld, those sentenced to death are to be
executed within 30 days.
Amnesty International will now follow closely the
appeal stage, where the evidence as well as the
application of the law can be reviewed, and the SICT
has therefore an opportunity to redress the flaws of
the previous proceedings. However, given the grave
nature of these flaws, and the fact that many of them
continue to afflict the current trial before the SICT,
Amnesty International urges the Iraqi government to
seriously consider other options. These could include
adding international judges to the tribunal, or
referring the case to an international tribunal -- an
option indicated by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention last September.
Dr Subodh Chandra Roy writes this mail
E-mail: drscroy@vsnl.com
The study reveals a shocking fact: No death sentence
can ever be executed without violating provisions of
law. Before executing Mr. Suddam Hussain let this
point be resolved first.
With full responsibility I call upon anyone having a
mind of reson to discard the contention of my book. It
is high and appropriate time that the whole world
takes notice of this vital information and act
accordingly.
My cellphone no. 09830431430.
Please read immediately:
"Death Sentence : A Legal Contradiction"
Royal Publishers,513, Kamalalaya Centre,156A, Lenin
Sarani,Calcutta-700013.West Bengal,
India.Telephone: (033) 3022 9657,
The final court session and verdict today were fast,
direct and clear, but not clear at all.In less than 10
minutes, Saddam Hussein was told he was guilty of
crimes against humanity, but never exactly how or
why.Was it the witness testimony that proved Saddam's
guilt?
Was it Saddam's own acceptance in court of overall
responsibility for the draconian punishment his regime
carried out of the villagers of Dujail after a 1982
assassination attempt in the town? Was it documents
the prosecution said Saddam signed ordering the deaths
of Dujail residents that ultimately swayed the judges?
We still do not know.
The full verdict, a document of several hundred pages,
explaining how and why today's judgment was reached
was not released. U.S. officials said it should be
ready by Thursday. So why issue the verdict today?
U.S. court advisors told reporters today it was
delayed mainly for technical reasons. All insist the
verdict was not politically timed and that it was an
Iraqi decision; there is no reason to doubt their
word.
The furthest the chief judge went today to explain why
Saddam was sentenced to death was to say Saddam was
found guilty of Article 12 A, through Article 15 B, of
the Iraqi High Criminal Court Law (the tribunal trying
Saddam's constitution). All that means, examining at
the law, is that Saddam was guilty of "willful murder"
because he had "ordered, solicited or induced the
commission of such a crime, which in fact occurs or is
attempted." Saddam Hussein was found guilty of
ordering murders. Who he murdered, how, when and what
proved his guilt, we are told, will be explained on
Thursday.
It was not sufficient for the International Center for
Transitional Justice, an NGO that has been monitoring
the trial since the beginning. In a statement tonight
the group said, "Today's verdicts were delivered in a
40-minute session that gave little indication of the
judgment's detail and reasoning."
On the "Today" Show this morning Michael Scharf, one
of the leading experts on the Saddam trial, said the
Dujail case was easy to prove and that his guilt was
clear. I believe Scharf is correct. There was an
assassination attempt on Saddam in 1982 and the Iraqi
dictator oversaw a massive revenge campaign, even
awarding medals to some of his henchmen for punishing
his enemies and their families and neighbors. But the
lack of clarity today adds fuels to critics who say
Saddam's trial was politically motivated and that the
verdict was rushed to meet American political
deadlines -- the very accusation Saddam Hussein's
lawyer made today.
"This trial should have been a major contribution
towards establishing justice and the rule of law in
Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the
massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam
Hussein's rule," said Malcolm Smart, Director of the
Middle East and North Africa Programme. "In practice,
it has been a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws
that call into question the capacity of the tribunal,
as currently established, to administer justice
fairly, in conformity with international standards."
In particular, political interference undermined the
independence and impartiality of the court, causing
the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the
appointment of another, and the court failed to take
adequate measures to ensure the protection of
witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were
assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam
Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for
the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his
lawyers throughout the trial relating to the
proceedings do not appear to have been adequately
answered by the tribunal.
"Every accused has a right to a fair trial, whatever
the magnitude of the charge against them. This plain
fact was routinely ignored through the decades of
Saddam Hussein's tyranny. His overthrow opened the
opportunity to restore this basic right and, at the
same time, to ensure, fairly, accountability for the
crimes of the past. It is an opportunity missed," said
Malcolm Smart, "and made worse by the imposition of
the death penalty."
Saddam Hussein is currently being tried by the SICT,
together with six others, on separate charges arising
from the so-called Anfal campaign, when thousands of
people belonging to Iraq's Kurdish minority were
subject to mass killings, torture and other gross
abuses in 1988.
Much has been said for and against death penalty from
time immemorial. But one vital question has never been
asked: Can death penalty be lawfully executed anywhere
in the world? This question has been dealt with in
details in the following book, recently published by
Royal Publishers and authored by me, citing various
judicial decisions and provisions of substantive laws.
Ken Hurwitz, an international lawyer with the US-based
Human Rights Firstwrites in
'Guardian Unlimited ',London:
"I think it is difficult to see there has been a fair
trial when we have defence lawers and judges
threatened and murdered and behind the scenes it is
apparent that this is a product of the Green Zone, the
US occupation forces. It may be there was a fair trial
but it is very difficult to see one way or the other
because of the armed conflict and lack of security and
overwhelming control of a foreign power. It is
unfortunate that the decision was made to go ahead
recklessly with the trial under the circumstances that
prevailed. It has been widely reported that access [by
Saddam] to lawyers was made extremely difficult and an
overwhelming number of documents were given to the
defence at the last minute for review, making it
almost impossible. The appearance of justice is
undermined, even if justice is being done. In an
international trial of this importance, the appearance
of justice is as important as the reality."
Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University
College London and a barrister at Matrix Chambers:
"It was right that Saddam Hussein should be prosecuted
for international crimes. But if not done properly
there were bound to be questions about the legitimacy
of the process. It was a mistake to proceed then with
an exclusively Iraqi tribunal rather than an
internationalised effort. So was the decision not to
prosecute for some of his actions, including the use
of chemical weapons against Iran and the invasion of
Kuwait. Missed opportunities, a much diminished
legitimacy."
Sonia Sceat an Australian international lawyer, and
associate fellow on international law at the
London-based foreign affairs think-tank Chatham House:
"Although there have been irregularities in the
conduct of the trial - there is no doubt about this -
much hinges on the tribunal's treatment of the
evidence put before it, and the quality of its
reasoning. The dramatic images we have seen, in
particular the sensational exchanges between the
defence and the judges, are selective. And observers
have confirmed that in between there has been much in
the way of a proper process. Enormous amounts of
evidence, much of it very compelling, have been
presented to the tribunal.
"The real problem lies in the dire security situation
which has formed the backdrop of this trial. Acute
concerns about the security implications of the trial
have pushed leading political figures to meddle in the
process, in the hope that a speedy resolution and the
execution of Saddam will undermine the insurgency. The
chief judge in this trial resigned in January, citing
unbearable political pressure, and in the last couple
of weeks, the Iraqi prime minister has confidently
announced that Saddam will soon be put to death. This
is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the political
interference that has occurred.
"Many critics have objected from the beginning that
the tribunal is illegitimate. Under the laws of war,
occupying powers are not permitted to establish
extraordinary courts, and of course this tribunal was
established during the US occupation, albeit by the
Iraqi governing council. Within a few days of the
trial commencing, the Iraqi parliament passed a new
law to reconstitute it as a bona fide Iraqi
institution. The defence has continued to challenge
its legitimacy but for practical purposes at least,
the argument has become academic."
Writing about Vietnam in his book "My American
Journey," Gen. Colin Powell made it abundantly clear
that U.S. policymakers had almost no understanding of
what they had gotten themselves into. Woodward makes
the same point about President Bush and his advisers,
and in excruciating detail. Vietnam was a quagmire; so
is Iraq.But after Vietnam, if you listen to people
such as Powell, we weren't supposed to find ourselves
in such a mess ever again.Powell wrote that officers
of his generation vowed that when it was their turn to
call the shots, they would not bow to self-censorship
or uncritical acceptance of groupthink. Powell said
that the career captains, majors and lieutenant
colonels seasoned in the Vietnam War would, when they
became generals, talk straight to their political
superiors, including the secretary of defense and the
president.No more halfhearted warfare for half-baked
reasons that the American people could not understand
or support, Powell declared. When they got their
stars, his generation of officers would make good on
that promise to themselves, the civilian leadership
and the country, Powell said. To do otherwise would
mean the sacrifices of Vietnam were in vain.
Well, they got their chance with Iraq.
As "State of Denial" reveals in accounts so
embarrassing you want to look away, key military brass
in the Pentagon and on the ground in Iraq who knew
things were going badly would not, when given the
opportunity, stand up to Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. Worse still, they wouldn't even stand up for
their own opinions. Finding themselves face to face
with President Bush, senior officers put their careers
first and kept up the pretense that the war was going
well, just as their predecessors had done 40 years
ago.
Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card "put it
on the generals -- Myers and Pace in the Pentagon,
Abizaid and Casey in Iraq," Woodward wrote. "If they
had come forward and said to the president 'It's not
worth it' or 'The mission can't be accomplished,' Card
was certain the president would have said, 'I'm not
going to ask another kid to sacrifice for it,' " wrote
Woodward.
AToday's war, though fought without a draft, still
allows the healthy sons and daughters of Washington's
powerful to stay home and leave the fighting to
others. Ivy League enrollment hasn't taken a hit since
the 2003 invasion of Iraq. So much for the notion that
all Americans owe equal allegiance to their country.
As was the case with Vietnam, a small fraction of
Americans still carry the burden of war in Iraq.
There is, however, one aspect of today's war that sets
it light-years apart from Vietnam: the abdication of
congressional responsibility.
The Republican-led Congress has given President Bush a
blank check on the war. With few exceptions, for the
past three years GOP House and Senate leaders have
shown little interest in learning how the war has been
going or what Bush has been doing, as measured by
congressional oversight. It's almost inconceivable
that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as
Woodward reported, had to clamor for nearly a year to
get Condoleezza Rice to testify about Iraq. That the
Senate's premier committee for national foreign policy
debates could allow itself to be so humiliated speaks
volumes about congressional obeisance to the Bush
White House.
Vietnam was debated in Congress after an aroused
public helped lawmakers find their voices and courage.
Today, Iraq is debated on talk shows, on editorial
pages and at rallies -- everywhere but in the halls of
the pliant Republican Congress. Unfortunately, this
particular difference only underscores the erosion of
our honored system of checks and balances.
Meanwhile, in Iraq the improvised explosive devices
and the suicide bombers keep taking their toll, and
sectarian violence rages on -- even as the campaigning
president keeps sugarcoating the situation like mad
Eleven-month trial
Saddam's half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti, former head
of the Iraqi secret police, and Awad Hamed Al-Bander,
Saddam's chief judge were also sentenced to death by
hanging by the court.Saddam's eleven-month trial was
marked by theatrics by both his defence council and by
Saddam and his seven co-defendents.Taha Yassin Ramdan,
the former Iraqi vice president was sentenced to life
in prison.The court also sentenced three of Saddam
co-defendent to 15 years in prison for their part in
the Dujail killing and acquitted one minor Baath party
official.
Lawyer ejected
Ramsey Clark, Saddam's most outspoken American
defender and a former US attorney general, was thrown
out of the trial on Sunday and accused of insulting
the people of Iraq. Clark, a member of Saddam's
defence team and a strident critic of the conduct of
his trial at the Iraqi HighTribunal, attended the
start of the session but was ejected before Saddam was
sentenced to death by hanging.
"Get him out of the hall. He came from America to
ridicule the Iraqi people and ridicule the court,"
Judge Raud Abdel Rahman said. "A bad arrow returns to
the chest of its shooter."
After the hearing, chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Mussawi
told reporters that the court would file a complaint
against Clark with the American bar association, and
also accused him of contempt.
Since Saddam's arrest, Clark has strenuously argued
that the trial constitutes victor's justice and is an
abuse of legal principles.
It remains unclear whether any of the outstanding
cases will make it to court, or whether Saddam will be
around to see them. Chief prosecutor Jaafar
al-Moussawi told reporters that the Anfal trial now in
progress for Saddam and others alleged role in gassing
and killing Kurds would continue while the appeals
process is underway. But if the appellate judges
uphold the death sentence, the Anfal proceedings and
other cases would be halted and Saddam hanged.
Saddam's trial had from the outset appeared to reflect
the turmoil and violence in Iraq since the 2003
U.S.-led invasion.
One of Saddam's lawyers was assassinated the day after
the trial's opening session last year. Two more were
later assassinated and a fourth fled the country. In
January, chief judge Rizgar Amin, a Kurd, resigned
after complaints by Shiite politicians that he had
failed to keep control of court proceedings. He, in
turn, complained of political interference in the
trial. Abdul-Rahman, another Kurd, replaced Amin.
Hearings were frequently disrupted by outbursts from
Saddam and Ibrahim, with the two raging against what
they said was the illegitimacy of the court, their ill
treatment in the U.S.-run facility where they are
being held and the lack of protection for their
lawyers.
The defense lawyers contributed to the chaos in the
courtroom by staging several boycotts
The ruling Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, on
the other hand, condemned the death sentence on
Saddam, recalling the help the deposed Iraqi leader
gave to the Palestinian people.
Highly popular in the Palestinian territories, Saddam
gave money to the families of people killed by Israeli
forces and relatives of suicide bombers when the
intifada, or uprising, broke out in September 2000.
QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer writes
from BAGHDAD: Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites
poured into the streets of the capital to rejoice at
the death sentence for Saddam Hussein, but the
former dictator's fellow Sunnis paraded through his
hometown chanting, "We will avenge you Saddam."
Both Saddam and the Shiite prime minister who has
sought his execution called on their countrymen on
Sunday to end the sectarian violence that has pushed
Iraq to the brink of civil war, but the starkly
differing reactions to the verdict and sentence
throughout the country — though largely peaceful on
Sunday — stoked fears that worse was to come.
In Sadr City, the Shiite stronghold of northeast
Baghdad, youths took to the streets dancing and
singing, despite a curfew declared for Sunday over the
most restive parts of the country."Execute Saddam,"
they chanted. Many carried posters of Muqtada al-Sadr,
the radical anti-American cleric whose Mahdi Army
militia effectively runs the district."This is an
unprecedented feeling of happiness," said 35-year-old
Abu Sinan. "The verdict declares that Saddam is paying
the price for murdering tens of thousands of Iraqis,"
he said.
Police said at least three people, including a
two-year-old child, were killed and eight wounded in
clashes between gunmen and Iraqi police in Baghdad's
dominantly Sunni Azamiyah district. Residents said
rockets and mortars began falling on the area
beginning Saturday night and blamed Mahdi Army
fighters.
"This is the fate of all those who violated the
sanctity of the citizens and shed the honest blood.
This is the disgraceful end to the person who brought
ordeals, pains and reckless wars to this country,"
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in a television
address to the nation following the verdict."I say to
all deluded remnants of the previous regime: The
period of Saddam and his party is gone as did other
dictators' like Mussolini and Hitler," said al-Maliki,
who was forced into exile during Saddam's rule.
In Tikrit, deep in the Sunni heartland north of
Baghdad where support for Saddam runs hand-in-hand
with deep distrust of Iraq's new Shiite-dominated
government, gunshots rang out from rooftops and street
corners as Saddam addressed the court. Sunni
insurgents with AK-47s and heavy machine guns paraded
in scores of vehicles in defiance of the curfew. A
crowd about 1,000, including some policemen and many
people holding aloft pictures of Saddam, chanted: "We
will avenge you Saddam."
"The violence will only rise in the area after the
hanging of Saddam, but the Americans care nothing
about spilled Iraqi blood," said Mohammed Abbas, a
60-year-old retired teacher. "We are tribal people ...
when any ordinary member of our tribe is killed, we
will kill one from the enemy tribe, to say nothing of
an important person like Saddam," Abbas said.
The U.S. military announced the deaths Saturday of a
soldier in fighting in western Baghdad and a Marine
assigned to Regimental Combat Team 7, who died from
non-hostile causes Saturday in Anbar province. At
least 13 U.S. troops have died in Iraq this month.
Celebrations were heady but mostly peaceful throughout
the predominantly Shiite south, where Saddam's elite
Republican Guard massacred thousands during a failed
uprising in 1991. A line of cars festooned with
plastic flowers wound through the streets of the holy
city of Najaf, and crowds burned portraits of Saddam
and his family. Salih Mahdi said Saddam's sentencing
would help heal the loss of his brother Ali, who was
22 when he was arrested in Saddam's 1982 crackdown on
the Dawa party, then an underground opposition and now
linked to the prime minister. Ali Mahdi has not been
seen since.
Mahdi, a retired civil servant, cursed Saddam and
sobbed, saying: "You are cruel and cowardly and it was
our misfortune that you ruled and terrorized us."
Celebratory gunfire also rang out in Kurdish
neighborhoods across the northern Iraqi city of
Kirkuk, where 40-year-old Khatab Ahmed sat on a
mattress in his living room to watch the trial
coverage with his wife and six children.
"Thank God I lived to see the day when the criminals
received their punishment," said Ahmed, a taxi driver.
palashcbiswas,
gostokanan, sodepur, kolkata-700110 phone:033-25659551
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
***NEW: DESI TALK!! The Shout box in the group home page***
Comments, suggestions or just plain chatting... you can do it right here!
Homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dilsedesigroup
***DIL SE DESI GROUP***
You can join the group by clicking the below link or by copying and pasting it in the browser bar and then pressing 'Enter'.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dilsedesigroup/join
OWNER/MODERATOR : rajeshkainth003@gmail.com; {Rajesh Kainth}
MODERATOR : a.amitkumar13@gmail.com; {Amit Kumar}
MODERATOR : manisha.hatkar@gmail.com; {Manisha Hatkar}
MODERATOR : preeti.hande@gmail.com; {Preeti Hande}
MODERATOR : immortally69@yahoo.com {Rahul Joshi}
MODERATOR : kaustubh.basu@gmail.com {Kaustubhshobhan Basu}
MODERATOR : planetofprince@yahoo.com (Prem)
MODERATOR : abhijeet-bhurke@bridgestone.co.in (Abhijeet)
To modify your list subscription, please send a blank email to:
SUBSCRIBE : dilsedesigroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE : dilsedesigroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
INDIVIDUAL MAILS : dilsedesigroup-normal@yahoogroups.com
DAILY DIGEST : dilsedesigroup-digest@yahoogroups.com
VACATION HOLD : dilsedesigroup-nomail@yahoogroups.com
FOR POSTING MESSAGES : dilsedesigroup@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dilsedesigroup/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dilsedesigroup/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:dilsedesigroup-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:dilsedesigroup-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
dilsedesigroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: