[sixties-l] Anti-war actions...continued (2)

From: radtimes (resist@best.com)
Date: Fri Sep 21 2001 - 18:20:28 EDT

  • Next message: StewA@aol.com: "[sixties-l] Bush and terror"

    [multiple items]

    A new peace movement emerges

    Students rally Thursday; peace gathering set for Sept. 30

    By Eric Pianin

    Sept. 20 ^ Ending their silence after a week of mourning
    the victims of terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, a broad range of
    religious leaders, social activists, entertainers, student organizations and
    business leaders are publicly beginning to urge President Bush to show
    restraint in his response and to carefully calibrate the use of U.S. military

    'We must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways
    that bring on even more loss of innocent life.'


                AS PART OF the budding peace offensive, over 1,200 members of the
    National Council of Churches and a diverse coalition ^ organized by Harry
    Belafonte, Danny Glover and Rosa Parks ^ issued strong statements yesterday
    noting that, while the attacks' perpetrators should be brought to justice,
    wholesale military action would incite more terrorism, not end it.

            Demonstrations and teach-ins are planned on scores of campuses today,
    and some of the groups that had geared up to protest the International
    Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Washington are joining forces,
    instead, in plans for a peace gathering here on Sept. 30.

            Some protesters bring a special moral force to their argument. Judy
    Keane, whose husband, Richard, was killed in the World Trade Center during
    last week's attacks, spoke out against military retaliation during a prayer
    vigil that she helped organize near her home in Wethersfield, Conn., Sunday
    evening. The event drew more than 5,000 people.

            "The World Trade Center was in retaliation for something else, and
    that was the retaliation for something else," she said in a telephone
    interview yesterday. "Are we going to continue this in perpetuity? We have to
    say at some point, okay, let's find another way of doing this."

            Businessman and CNN founder Ted Turner argued against a military
    solution yesterday at the United Nations as he delivered a $31 million check
    to cover part of the United States' U.N. dues. "We should not, I don't think,
    go around and indiscriminately start bombing countries that we suspect the
    terrorists are in because there are terrorists everywhere, here in the United
    States," he said. "What were [Oklahoma City bombers] Terry Nichols and
    Timothy McVeigh but terrorists?"

            The statement by the National Council of Churches declared: "We must
    not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that
    bring on even more loss of innocent life." The coalition of more than 100
    people organized by entertainers Belafonte and Glover and civil rights legend
    Rosa Parks said in a separate letter: "Our best chance of preventing such
    devastating acts of terror is to act decisively and cooperatively as part of
    a community of nations within the framework of international law."

             Organizers say there is a fast-growing network of peace activists who
    will likely outnumber the demonstrators who rallied during the Persian Gulf
    War a decade ago. Student groups are planning peace demonstrations on 105
    college campuses in 30 states across the country today. More than 1,000
    students and community members from nine Boston-area schools are expected to
    participate in noontime rallies that will converge in a march from Boston to
    Harvard Yard, while close to 3,000 are expected to march and mourn on the
    campus of the University of California at Berkeley.

            "There's pretty much a consensus among students in this group [that]
    we want to prevent the continuation of the cycle of violence by averting
    war," said Brad Hornbake, 22, a senior at Emerson College in Boston.

            Meanwhile, the Washington Peace Center, a pacifist and human rights
    group, is planning a major "peace event" in Washington on Sept. 30 as an
    alternative to the canceled meetings of the World Bank and IMF. Organizers
    stressed that the event will not involve any of the "confrontational tactics"
    that were used during previous meetings of the international agencies.

            "We don't want the violence here to be perpetrated somewhere else,"
    said Maria Ramos, a coordinator of the event. "The U.S. has the moral high
    ground now ... This is a time for building alliances based on law and
    strengthening international tribunals [for] cross-border terrorism."


    Students rally against war

    Sept. 20, 2001
    By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

    Remember the peace movement? It's back on campus. This time it's called
    "Peaceful Justice," and students are swimming against the patriotic tide
    following last week's terrorist attacks. A wave of anti-war sentiment crests
    at noon Thursday on 150 college campuses in 36 states. Organizers expect as
    many as 8,000 people to rally at the University of California-Berkeley and as
    few as several dozen to sign letters to President Bush at Baylor University, a
    Baptist school in Waco, Texas. They are a distinct minority, but these
    students want the nation to hear their argument for "justice without war," and
    their distress at the rapid move to war footing.

    "We should work on a peaceful solution as opposed to continuing the global
    cycle of violence," says Jessica Gould, 20, a Harvard sophomore from
    Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J. "We shouldn't answer the deaths of thousands of innocent
    people with more deaths of innocent people."

    Students at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., originated today's
    national action. "We just really wanted to get an alternative way to react to
    the situation, " says Mary Thomas, 19, a sophomore from Lafayette, Calif.

    The alternative appears to exclude confronting terrorists, however. In its
    mission statement, the group opposes "retaliatory violence" and urges U.S.
    policymakers to study the underlying causes of terrorism.

    Campuses have been holding teach-ins, memorials and other events since the
    attacks Sept. 11. As Bush has tried to prepare the country for a long-term
    war against terrorism, many college newspapers have published dissenting

    A military attack guarantees that "our search for justice will end in the
    slaughter of more innocent civilians," said editors of The Michigan Daily at
    the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "Punish (Osama bin Laden) in our
    federal courts," Chris McCall, a junior at the University of Wisconsin in
    Madison, wrote in The Badger Herald.

    Nick Woomer, 21, a philosophy major at the University of Michigan, says he
    has received one-third positive, two-thirds negative responses to a column in
    which he called for "a strong, broad-based anti-war movement to bring
    everyone back to their senses." He calls Bush's rhetoric "pretty scary."

    Academics who study social movements say students are being taught to
    question and analyze, and that's what they are doing. Peter Kuznick, an
    associate history professor at American University in Washington, D.C., says
    scores of his 180 students say the country should "step back and think"
    before doing anything. He says they are critical of U.S. foreign policy,
    curious about why the United States is so hated and convinced that "a military
    response will probably cause more harm than good."

    Todd Gitlin, a sociologist at New York University, says students have a right
    to be skeptical, but they also a responsibility to suggest realistic
    alternatives. "Bin Laden is not going to walk into a police station to turn
    himself in," he says. "Are they really opposed to armed force that
    accomplishes that end?"

    Gitlin led the leftist Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s and
    protested the Vietnam War. Now he has hung a flag outside his Greenwich
    Village apartment and says the nation has "a right of self-defense," albeit
    "restrained and focused," in the face of attack.

    Jessica Gould's father, Harris, a New Jersey lawyer, also protested the
    Vietnam War. The difference now, he says, is that "we are under a direct
    threat" and must "root out" terrorists. "I would not like to see innocent
    people be killed, although I understand there would have be to some of that,"
    he says.

    The organizers of today's events are not ready to settle for that. "I
    personally feel that war is never the solution," says Andy Ross, 25, of
    Madison. "It's better to sit down and talk and work these things out, rather
    than going into a violent situation which will inevitably harm innocent


    'War Is Not the Answer,' Pacifists Tell Their Fellow Mourners

    Joining a candlelight vigil near Greenwich Village, hundreds plead for a
    nonviolent response.

    by Matea Gold
    Published on Sunday, September 16, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times

    NEW YORK -- The mementos of death are everywhere. Fliers showing the missing
    hang from the fences around Union Square Park; wax from hundreds of candles
    melts onto the stone plaza. Photos of the World Trade Center's twin towers
    are pasted onto the lampposts, and piles of flowers wilt in the warm
    September sun.

    But in this park--which once offered a clear view of the two skyscrapers
    reduced to rubble in Tuesday's attacks--mourning for the dead and missing
    mingles with yet another, more unusual sentiment: a call for peace.

    The base of the tall statue of George Washington is covered with such
    messages as "Pray for Peace." Across the grass, a long cloth banner is strung
    on a wire fence: "Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but of justice
    lived--Gandhi." In this park on the edge of Greenwich Village, one of the
    city's most liberal neighborhoods, a loud chorus of dissent blends with the
    grief. Hundreds have flocked here to voice their pleas for restraint, fearful
    that the Bush administration's vow to take action against both terrorists and
    the countries harboring them will lead to further violence.

    Debora Goldstein knelt on the grass Saturday afternoon and carefully penned a
    message on the banner: "Will no one hear us who are crying for peace?"

    "We cannot honor our dead by killing innocent people," said the 33-year-old
    administrative assistant. "That is not the way to find justice."

    These pleas for peace fall within a tradition of New York dissent. Nearly
    every American military action abroad has met here with protests of one kind
    or another. But in a city reeling from the worst terrorist attack in
    history--widely believed to be at the hands of militants whose goal is to
    destroy everything Americans hold dear--most New Yorkers are loudly calling
    for a tough military response.

    And so on Friday night, it was startling to see thousands of people pack
    Union Square Park for a candlelight peace vigil. To be sure, many came simply
    to mourn. But dozens wore fliers pinned to their backs that read: "Islam is
    not the enemy. War is not the answer."

    Some say they are terrified that U.S. military action will only spark more
    violent attacks against Americans.

    Others argue that the U.S. needs to reassess a foreign policy they believe
    has fed a hatred of America. Many admit to confusion about what the U.S.
    should do to respond to Tuesday's attacks, suggesting an international
    tribunal. They are resolute that bombing is not the answer.

    "There is a really forceful hand winding up to hit somebody, and I don't know
    that it's going to hit the right person," said Kimberly Peirce, a writer and
    director holding up a large banner that read, "NYC wants Justice, Not

    "If we obliterate Afghanistan, who's to say that's going to make a safer
    situation?" she added.

    Hoping to bring calm, peace activists nationwide have held prayer meetings
    and candlelight vigils. They've called the White House and members of
    Congress, begging them not to go to war.

    "Often we counsel other nations that they need to stop and reflect," said
    Mary Lord, a Washington-based lobbyist for the American Friends Service
    Committee, a Quaker group. "We've said that to people in Northern Ireland and
    the Middle East, and now we have to say it to ourselves."

    But those calling for peace acknowledge that they are in the minority. In
    fact, recent polls show that most Americans overwhelmingly favor military

    "I think people are being consumed in this thirst for blood, for immediate
    revenge," said Karen Zraick, 19, a student at State University of New York in
    Purchase. "This is already a horrible tragedy. We have two choices: escalate
    the violence or de-escalate."

    Union Square Park has been transformed into an odd tableau of patriotic
    symbols, memorials and 1960s-flavored symbols. Paper doves bob next to
    American flags. At the vigil, mourners held hands and sang "Kumbaya," "Give
    Peace a Chance" and the national anthem.

    Strangers engaged in passionate arguments about what path to take. Osama
    Chahine, 29, and Dale Britton, 32, stood debating in the park for three
    hours. "My heart so yearns for justice," said Britton, a teacher of English
    as a second language. "I think the only way is to do it through the military.
    But I don't know what the target is."

    "We have to make sure we're destroying terrorism and not just spreading more
    hatred and violence," responded Chahine, a student at Columbia University.

    Around them, candles flickered in the dark as the crowd sang, "I ain't going
    to study war no more." Overhead, fighter jets streaked through the sky.



    Peace vigils planned throughout the US

    Amid talk of war, movement pleads for reconciliation

    By Alice Dembner and David Abel, Boston Globe Staff, 9/18/2001, page A3

    NEW YORK - They are gathering quietly in vigils, not mounting protests. And
    they are largely being drowned out by a feverish tide of war rhetoric.

    But across the country, voices of pacificism and restraint are growing

    Little more than a mile from ground zero of the incinerated World Trade
    Center, a vigil at Union Square for the victims has already evolved into an
    ad hoc center for the budding peace movement. The square's monument to George
    Washington is not only draped in American flags, but also covered with
    antiwar slogans.

    Peace vigils have been held from Portland, Ore., to Cambridge, Mass., and
    hundreds more are planned over the coming weeks.

    More than 100 civil rights and religious organizations plan to gather
    Thursday in Washington to map a larger response to last week's terrorism,
    hoping to moderate the government's support for military strikes abroad and
    expanded law enforcement powers at home.

    Separately, peace groups will gather in New York Friday to plan national
    action against President Bush's declared ''war on terrorism,'' arguing that
    war is not the answer and will only add to the carnage.

    ''We're mobilizing the peace community to call for reconciliation, not
    retaliation,'' said Judith Mahoney Pasternak of the War Resisters League.
    ''The faster we start singing the songs of peace to counter the drums of war,
    the better it's going to be.''

    While the War Resisters League said their organizing efforts have been
    hampered by phone and e-mail failures at their offices only 11/2 miles from
    ground zero, other groups said they had been moving slowly out of respect for
    the victims.

    ''We are committed to building public opinion in our communities and then
    moving in the near future to a national expression,'' said Judith McDaniel at
    the national office of the American Friends Service Committee in
    Philadelphia. She confirmed that the office has received several bomb threats
    since it launched a national ''No More Victims'' peace campaign.

    Meanwhile, some in Congress are questioning whether lawmakers are rushing
    into actions that will harm America. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont
    Democrat, yesterday said he is worried that the push to relax wiretapping
    restrictions could infringe on civil liberties.

    ''We do not intend to tie the hands of the intelligence community, but
    neither do we intend to curb the rights of millions of Americans,'' he said.

    And Representative Barbara Lee, the California Democrat who was the only
    member of Congress to vote against last week's resolution authorizing
    President Bush to use force against terrorism, says there is growing support
    for her stand.

    ''People are beginning to understand that we must show some restraint, that
    we don't want to see this spiral out of control,'' Lee said. ''We've got to
    make sure democracy is upheld and our country is safe.''

    It's not only pacifists who oppose the war rhetoric, but also others who look
    to history and see failures and abuses when the United States moved without
    enough thought.

    In 1998, they note, US forces bombed a suspected chemical weapons plant in
    Sudan that turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory. And in World War II,
    hysteria led the United States to round up Japanese-Americans into internment

    ''I really have a problem with the war analogy,'' said Stephen Zunes,
    chairman of the peace and justice studies program at the University of San
    Francisco. ''This was not an act of war but a criminal act. We need to think
    in terms of police actions in response. But I don't think it would be
    unreasonable to have small-scale commando operations to break up the
    terrorist cells.''

    Longtime pacifist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky opposes even that action.
    ''A call for revenge without thinking about what lies beyond is a gift to the
    terrorists,'' he said. ''It virtually guarantees an escalating cycle of
    violence. An alternative in the short term is to follow the rule of law
    through the United Nations Security Council or the World Court.''

    Retired Boston University historian Howard Zinn suggests that the answers to
    terrorism lie elsewhere. ''We have to move from a war-making nation to a
    nation that uses its resources for constructive purposes ... to get at the
    grievances that feed terrorism,'' he said.

    In the Boston area, peace vigils are planned at noon today at the JFK Federal
    Building and at 6 p.m. tomorrow at Copley Square, with a planning meeting for
    more events to follow. At Tufts University, members of the peace and justice
    studies program are circulating a petition urging that ''the search for
    justice'' focus only on the perpetrators of the crime, avoid targeting entire
    nationalities, and respect civil liberties.

    At Union Square in New York, young and old, Jews and gentiles, blacks and
    whites have gathered around thousands of votive candles, American flags, and
    pictures of the missing to pay their respects and chant such slogans as
    ''Vengeance isn't justice'' and ''Break the cycle of violence: War is
    weakness, peace is strength.''

    ''People need to know that there are other feelings in America, that we are
    not all hawks hoping to exchange an eye for an eye,'' said Josh Torpey, 24, a
    Manhattan teacher who met a group of friends on Union Square Sunday night.

    Ted Lawson, a 31-year-old artist from Boston, was creating a painting of the
    American flag out of thumbprints of passersby to signify American unity, but
    said he wondered whether previous acts of war by the United States had
    encouraged terrorism.

    Heated arguments have erupted throughout the park between those who question
    US policy and those who believe the United States should annihilate any group
    or country who helped organize the attacks.

    But others were frightened about the prospect for war. Lighting a candle next
    to a row of roses arranged to evoke the World Trade Center, Christine
    Andriopoulos said she was scared.

    ''The message should be that the violence has to stop,'' she said. ''Here.
    Now. Forever.''


    Thousands Rally for Peace in Portland, Oregon

    [On Sunday, September 16, there was a massive rally in Portland
    Oregon. It was seriously under-reported by the mainstream media, who
    have also failed to cover many other demonstrations around the world
    against Bush's Crusade of Terror. There have been demonstrations for
    peace (or against the United States) in Germany, the Philippines, the
    Dominican Republic, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and El Salvador as well as,
    unsurprisingly, in Pakistan. In San Salvador, American and Israeli
    flags were burned over the weekend in a student demonstration. ]

    source - Red Emma <redemma13@yahoo.com>

    THOUSANDS march for peace in downtown Portland

    Many thousands of people gathered on the South Park
    Blocks Sunday at noon to rally and march for peace.
    The event, put on by Portland Peaceful Response, had
    three themes: (1) to mourn the victims of Tuesday's
    terrorist attack; (2) to speak out against racist
    scapegoating; and (3) to demand that there be no more
    violence, including no military retaliation by our
    government. The crowd was the largest seen at any
    anti-war demonstration since the Gulf War ten years
    ago. A count taken at one street corner registered
    2,630 people. Estimates of the total number of people
    ranged from 3,000 to 4,500.

    Attendees and speakers ran the gamut from members of
    the local Middle Eastern community, to Native American
    and Christian spiritual leaders, to teachers and union
    activists, to long-time peace activists, and many
    more. We all were very much heartened to see so many
    of our fellow Portlanders coming out and standing up
    for peace. As several speakers remarked from the
    stage, the media accounts saying 85% of Americans
    support war do not seem so believable now.

    There was no counter-demonstration, and I personally
    did not see any harassment or overt hostility from
    passers-by, although there may have been some.

    For a fuller account, with pictures, go to
    www.portland.indymedia.org (give them a few hours to
    get everything loaded up!) Look for us on tonight's
    news--just about every local station was there.
    Listen to KBOO 90.7 FM Monday morning at 7am for audio
    coverage. If there's nothing about this in Monday's
    Oregonian, call them up and ask them why.

    Above all, help spread the word. In this frightening
    and confusing time, those of us who support peace are
    not alone!

    Attendees at the rally signed a letter to President
    Bush, and were urged to make calls to our
    representatives in Congress. EVERY ONE of our Oregon
    congressional representatives voted for Friday's
    resolution authorizing use of force (basically, a new
    "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution authorizing the President
    to do whatever he wants). But they may change their
    tunes, if they hear from enough constituents. This
    could be the beginning of a long war, and it is not
    too late for our congress to change course and
    reconsider. We should tell them: NO declaration of
    war against Afghanistan; the PEOPLE of Afghanistan are
    not our enemy. The Capitol Switchboard number is
    1-888-449-3511 or 202-224-3121. The White House
    comment line number is 202-456-1111 (not that HE's
    going to listen, but heck, we can try.)

    If/when the bombing starts, there is still a standing
    plan for an emergency protest action: 4-6 pm at Terry
    Schrunk Plaza (SW 3rd and Madison, across the street
    from the Federal Building). This will be the DAY OF
    the bombing, if it starts before 4pm; and the DAY
    AFTER, if it starts after 4pm. Portland Peaceful
    Response will continue to coordinate these actions.
    We can be reached at 503-223-1399 (voice mail) or
    <portland911.tripod.com> (website). .


    A New Movement Emerges Against War, Violence


    Anti-War Coalitions Form at College Campuses Across U.S.

    By EVE LOTTER. Contributing Writer
    Tuesday, September 18, 2001

    Alarmed by President Bush's declaration that the nation is headed to a "new
    war" against terrorism, some students at UC Berkeley have already set up a
    coalition calling for an anti-war movement.
    Students from UC Berkeley and at least 30 different schools across the
    country are organizing marches, rallies, and teach-ins to take place on
    Thursday as part of a "National Day of Action Against Scapegoating Arab
    Americans and to Stop the War," organizers said. "I don't think more
    violence will solve the problem," said Brian Marsh, a Berkeley resident who
    has joined the anti-war coalition.
    "I think if we cause violence, it's just going to snowball and get bigger
    and bigger. There's just too much of a
    possibility of creating World War III out of this," said Marsh, a
    photographer for a San Francisco Web site.
    UC Berkeley students had already organized a meeting to gather anti-war
    activists last Friday, after President
    Bush told Americans to prepare for a long, drawn out military conflict to
    attack the terrorists who brought down
    the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon.
    Organizers said 200 students met in Wheeler Hall and approved three points
    for the burgeoning coalition: to stop the war; to defend Arab American,
    Middle Eastern, and Muslim communities against racist scapegoating; and to
    defend civil liberties.
    The UC Berkeley group, called the Stop the War Coalition, began tabling on
    Sproul Plaza yesterday, and had a table at the campuswide memorial service.
    Organizers were handing out green armbands to show support for the Muslim
    and Arab American communities.
    Green is a traditional Muslim color for peace and unity, according to the
    group's literature.
    Within 20 minutes of setting up their table, the coalition had collected a
    page of signatures.
    "These green bands are not only in solidarity with Arab, Muslim, and Middle
    Eastern students, but show that we will come to the aid of and be escorts
    for Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern students facing harassment and
    attack," said UC Berkeley student Ronald Cruz, a member of the Stop the War
    Cruz said UC Berkeley has the potential to become the focus of a national
    peace movement.
    He noted Berkeley's representative in Congress, Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, was
    the only lawmaker to vote against the use of force Friday, and mentioned
    the historical precedent set here in anti-war protests during the 1960s.
    Harvard University, the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin
    at Madison, and San Francisco State are among the many campuses where
    students are organizing for peace, Cruz said.
    Student activists at University of Wisconsin at Madison attended an
    anti-war rally last night.
    Several of those in attendance reported that activists sang an Iraqi song,
    recited poetry, and listened to speakers who echoed the same concerns as
    those at UC Berkeley.
    Robb McFadden, president of the Berkeley College Republicans, said that
    though he has not yet heard much
    about the anti-war movement on campus, his group and the Cal Berkeley
    Democrats believe those responsible for Tuesday's attacks must be punished.
    Campus Democrats agreed with Republicans in saying the country must not
    turn against Americans of Middle
    Eastern descent.
    "We as a country ought to be united. This has nothing to do with race, it
    has to do with those who have attacked our way of life," said Anka Lee,
    president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats. "(But) any American who
    discriminates against Americans of Middle Eastern background are no better
    than the terrorists."


    SAY NO!

    A Call For Conscientious Objection to War and War Preparations

    War Resisters' International, 20 September 2001

    War Resisters' International, an international network of pacifist
    organisations with 80 affiliates in more than 40 countries, calls for
    conscientious objection in view of the war preparations undertaken by NATO,
    Afghanistan and many other countries. Although still shocked by the
    terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11
    September, we are deeply convinced that a war of retaliation will only fuel
    the cycle of violence. Fighting the crime of the terrorist attack with the
    crime of bombing and killing equally innocent people doesn't sum up to
    zero - it only adds to the suffering.
    We call for justice without war. It is the responsibility of each of us to
    resist war and the preparations for war.

    In this situation:
    * War Resisters' International calls on all soldiers - in whichever forces
    they are supposed to fight - to follow their conscience and refuse to take
    part in the preparation of war, or in war: refuse orders, apply for
    conscientious objector status, desert, say No!
    * War Resisters' International calls on everybody involved in war
    preparations in the administration or in factories: refuse orders, say No!
    * War Resisters' International calls on journalists and the media asked to
    support war preparations, and to promote war: refuse to do so, insist on
    writing the truth, say no!
    * War Resisters' International calls on its members and on everybody, to
    support those refusing to participate in war and war preparations, and to
    get involved in direct nonviolent resistance against war!

    War Resisters' International
    5 Caledonian Road * London N1 9DX * BRITAIN
    tel.: +44-20-7278 4040 * fax: +44-20-7278 0444
    email: info@wri-irg.org * http://www.wri-irg.org


    U.S. pacifists speak up as America braces for war


    Wednesday, September 19, 2001
    By Claire Soares, Reuters

    WASHINGTON -- With war rhetoric flying around Washington, pacifists in the
    United States called for restraint Tuesday, saying any U.S. military
    retaliation for last week's attacks in New York and Washington would
    escalate the violence.
    President Bush has said that the United States would win a new war on
    terrorism and that the military was ready to defend freedom at any cost.
    But groups like the Hague Appeal for Peace said war would not be an
    appropriate response to the attacks.
    "An eye for an eye leads to blindness," said Cora Weiss, the group's president.
    "This past century started with a war, and the new century is starting with
    war talk. In between, humanity has learned a great deal about conflict
    prevention and resolution."
    "We abhor terrorism," she said in a telephone interview from her New York
    office. "These people must be ferreted out and brought to justice, but we
    cannot let a justifiable anger lead to unjustifiable action."
    Weiss said existing international legal institutions offered the best hope
    of getting justice for the nearly 6,000 dead or missing after hijacked
    planes demolished the World Trade Center and plowed into the Pentagon. "We
    urge the United States to support the international criminal court, to
    respect and work with and through the United Nations, especially the
    antiterrorism conventions which we have so far refused to join," she said.
    In Washington, Richard Becker of the International Action Center (IAC) was
    organizing a peace march in the capital. The group had planned protests
    against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, but after the
    monetary watchdogs canceled their meetings, the IAC decided to use Sept. 29
    to demonstrate against war plans.
    "The initiation of new military action, open-ended war, is only going to
    escalate the cycle of violence. We have to take a step back to look at what
    has brought us to this point," Becker said, citing sanctions against Iraq
    and intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as issues to be examined.
    Becker said consequences of any U.S. military action would be felt at home
    as well as abroad. "We are going to see ... an escalation in racist attacks
    against Arab-Americans and an erosion of civil liberties and democratic
    rights, such as greatly widened powers for police to conduct wiretapping,
    surveillance, and seizure."
    Pacifists were skeptical of recent polls that showed most Americans favored
    war, even if it meant further U.S. casualties. "There's tremendous pressure
    being placed on Americans, which feeds on people's worst reactions to this
    type of crisis," said Bruce Nestor, president of the National Lawyers
    Guild, which is supporting the peace rally.
    He applauded Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, who was the lone
    dissenter to a congressional resolution allowing Bush to use "all necessary
    and appropriate force" in retaliation for the attacks.
    Weiss, who has received 150 messages daily from as far afield as Israel and
    Hiroshima, Japan, said pacifist voices had remained largely underground,
    hidden away in emails. She said she was confident the peace movement would
    build momentum.


    Building an anti-war movement: what we can do

    by Kim Scipes <sscipe1@ICARUS.CC.UIC.EDU>

    Dear Folks--

    In the aftermath of last Tuesday's (Sept. 11) attacks, there has been
    a tremendous amount of material come across my e-mail address, as I
    suppose it has for many of us. There is no question that those
    attacks were atrocities, and horrible--I cannot even imagine what
    those people who were not killed immediately were to go through
    before dying, and I cannot give thanks enough that me or my loved
    ones (as far as I know) were not in any of those attacks. I also
    feel for all those who were not so lucky as me.

    I am angry at those who perpetrated those attacks--they cannot be
    excused. But my anger is, I must say, somewhat attenuated because I
    understand (at least somewhat) what is behind them. The fact is that
    the United States government (including the CIA, the military, the
    Treasury Department, etc.) and its allies around the world, have been
    carrying out these and other atrocities against peoples throughout
    the "developing" world for a very long time--since, at very least,
    the last part of World War II. The US HAS been at war with many
    peoples of the world for a long time, and not in the war that Bush,
    et. al., are talking about it: whether we want to talk about the
    bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER the Japanese government had
    begun seeking to end the war, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Viet
    Nam ... (ah, the list is too long, and I don't have the time to go
    look up all the details, but suffice it to say, these
    operations--from invasions, war, to overthrowing governments, to
    launching and/or supporting right wing coups and dictatorships, etc.,
    etc.--have taken place in many, many countries around the world. The
    US HAS killed a lot more people--directly and indirectly--than were
    killed in the US on September 11th (incidentally, on the anniversary
    that the US supported the coup in Chile in 1973 against the
    democratically-elected and constitutionally-supported government of
    Salvador Allende). I can understand why this might have pissed off
    some people, and that they might have decided to strike back.

    But I'm even more angry at the politicians and newspaper pundits,
    etc., who are trying to stir the US public to go to war against
    "terrorism." Here the US has attacked people across the world, and
    now we're supposed to go to war because they just happened to strike

    Let us understand one thing out of what is going on: no matter how
    righteous the cause may seem to some, the very reality is that the US
    Government is prepared to and is planning to kill a lot more people.
    Period. Full stop.

    And we all know the US Government has prior convictions for doing
    this, so only someone who has their head buried very deeply in the
    sand can doubt this. And this looks quite clear at this point that
    the scene of the crimes will take place in Southwestern Asia in
    particular--i.e., Afghanistan and probably Pakistan--but probably
    elsewhere as well.

    Well, there's a contradiction here, needless to say. As Holly Near
    put it in a song about the death penalty--and I hope my memory is
    correct here--she asked, "Why do we kill people who have killed
    people to show that killing people is wrong?"


    (1) As pointed out above, the US Government is planning to kill
    people to show that killing people is wrong. Not only that, but the
    overwhelming odds are that they will kill innocent people in their
    efforts, people themselves who are probably opposed to the attacks.
    This will happen if the US launches missiles, rockets, air strikes,
    etc., to try to kill the "terrorists." When the US Government talks
    about "collateral damage," think September 11--there was a lot of
    collateral damage done that day in efforts to strike both the heart
    of the US war machine--I refuse to call it the "defense"
    department--and the heart of the financial system. Collateral damage
    means non-combatants. And there is about a snowball's chance in hell
    that there will not be any collateral damage to a military attack.

    If Bush decides to try to invade Afghanistan--and ironically, if
    anyone fights against that, it will be US military leaders, although
    they'll lie down at the end--then there will be even more people
    killed, both Afghanis and American military personnel, as well as
    many, many civilians. But there is no guarantee that even if Bush
    were to invade that the US would succeed in "rooting out terrorism,"
    because it is not in the land that there is the desire for revenge,
    but in the hearts of real living human beings who can move around.
    Even if the US were to invade Afghanistan and occupy the entire
    country--just even speaking that possibility shows the impossibility
    of the idea--there is no certainty that the US would end "terrorism."
    And that's if the US military won--and as the Soviet military can
    testify, that's not a sure bet!

    To invade and fight in Afghanistan--which would cause turmoil around
    the world and many volunteers from around the world would come to
    fight the "attack on Islam"--would take almost all US military
    forces, and that would tie down the Empire's goon squads, so they
    would be unable to respond to perceived crises elsewhere. Not to
    mention that, for better or worse, there are a lot of Afghanis who
    are experienced fighters, whose last war ended in a victory against
    another superpower, and who would be fighting to defend their
    homelands AND their religion (despite that Islam does not support
    "terrorism)." On the US side, you have troops that have not engaged
    in serious warfare really since at least 1973--they were prepared to
    do so in the Gulf War, but the Iraqi army collapsed on them, denying
    most US troops of the "experience," and probably most of the military
    that faced any combat at all in the Gulf has already left the
    military. Air power and high technology can be helpful, but at the
    end of the day, it's the grunt on the ground that has to win the
    war--and anyone who believes otherwise knows not what they are

    (2) Tied in with this, the whole US trip is based on overlooking a
    small detail, which I've seen come out in e-mail messages, but
    haven't seen in the press: assuming Osama bin Laden and his
    organizations are behind the attacks, who trained them? No less than
    the CIA. In official parlance, this is known as "blowback," where
    something you created turns against you. (Haven't I read about this
    somewhere else?)

    (3) The other contradiction is that, from what I can see, this
    demand for revenge is being media- and government-driven. Yes, there
    are ordinary people who would like to kill bin Laden, and that's not
    surprising. But I don't think this is very deep. I live in
    Chicago--the supposed "heartland" of this country--and in my travels
    around the city, and to the zoo with my kids since the attacks, I'm
    not seeing many people that are seething to seek revenge: hell, I've
    seen much more emotion when the Bulls won their NBA championships!
    (And much scarier then--I can remember feeling ill at ease when I
    didn't show sufficient enthusiasm to other celebrants for such


    As I read e-mail--and no, there's a lot I have not had time to read,
    and I don't pretend to have read it all or know all--I get the sense
    of people being upset about Bush's efforts to lead the country into
    war, and a great deal of information is flowing back and forth to
    those on our similar lists. But I also get the sense that people are
    feelilng that there is little chance of stopping a train that's
    picking up speed....

    I think we need to look at things from another perspective. I don't
    think there is a lot of solid support for war, although the Bushies
    and their buddies in the Democratic Party are trying to build this,
    and they are aided and abetted by the moral nematodes in the media,
    such as William Saffire and many others. There are a lot of people
    who want to send 17-18-19 year olds to get killed. (And where was
    Mr. Saffire during Viet Nam--I can't ever recall him speaking of
    military service during those years....)

    I think there is a LOT that can be done, that this isn't as much as a
    "sure thing" as Bush, etc., would like us to believe.

    First, and because of the simplicity of it, I think it often gets
    overlooked: we've got to challenge the media. How we do it is up to
    ourselves. Certainly, alternative news networks are important, and
    should be used extensively. But I STRONGLY believe that we have to
    challenge the mass media on its own ground--we cannot concede that
    terrain and struggle to them! Many more things can be done, but the
    very least must be efforts to write letters to the editor and call
    and talk with journalists. Even in the Chicago Tribune--which I think
    is a terrible rag--I've already seen a letter asking is our support
    for Israel is worth the damage of September 11th? Yes, that was only
    one letter, and there haven't been many others, but the mass media
    gets to too many people to leave it unchallenged. Even if they don't
    publish our letters, THEY know that a lot of people are looking over
    their shoulders at their coverage, and this tends to smooth off some
    of the rough, go to war, edges. We cannot overlook this simple act,
    while trying to do more: write letters to the editors! (And since
    most TV coverage pulls from the morning newspaper in an area, focus
    on the morning newspapers especially but not exclusively.)

    Second, the moral nematodes in the US Senate and Congress need to be
    challenged and condemned for giving in to their emotional response to
    the events of September 11th. Write them and let them know what you
    think of their votes. And Barbara Lee, Democratic Representative of
    Berkeley/Oakland gets my utmost respect for her unwillingness to go
    against the tide--she was the only one in two houses of congress that
    had the heart to go on the record opposing Bush's war plans.

    Third, we need to think strategically about what we can do. A
    technique I've always found useful is to think of human groups as
    consisting of three parts: one part in favor of something, one part
    against something, and one part not sure and able to go in either
    direction. I don't know what the respective strengths of the three
    parts are today, and it really doesn't matter. If those of us who
    are against Bush's war want to act, here's my suggestion of the way
    to think about mobilization: (1) we need to solidify our own forces,
    through communication, sharing of information (which seems to be
    already taking place), and organizing ourselves to act; (2) we need
    to move those in the middle into our "camp"; and, when possible, we
    need to move those who are against us--i.e., for the war--into the
    middle camp.

    How we do this is up to people and how much time and energy they have
    and/or can put into these efforts. No effort is too small or
    insignificant. But we also must treat people with respect: even if
    they don't agree with us now, if we treat them respectfully, they may
    come over to our side in the future. Our goal must be to build an
    anti-war movement in this country that is too big, and too strong,
    and too willing to disrupt the government's efforts for them to
    ignore us: we must stop Bush from attacking other countries in his
    Ahab-like ambition to stop terrorism by military means. We have to
    seek political solutions, not military ones.

    I'm not a Leninist, but I have always liked the thrust behind Lenin's
    slogan during World War I of "Turn the imperialist war into a civil
    war." No, I am not calling for a civil war in the US--in fact, I'd
    oppose it. But what I am calling for is for us on the left NOT to
    lay down and concede inevitability, but to use this opportunity to
    reach out to Americans across the country, and across every racial
    and ethnic group, every gender/sexual identity group, every class,
    every college and high school campus, and raise the issue of US
    foreign policy and what the US is doing in the world. I think, if
    utilized intelligently, we have the opportunity to challenge our
    "leaders" on these and related issues about how we want the US to act
    in the world--and don't forget the slogan, "Challenge
    authority--verify answers"!

    In solidarity--

    Kim Scipes
    Former Sergeant, US Marine Corps

    Please feel free to pass on widely!


    Peace Signs Amid Calls for War


    September 20, 2001

    The drumbeat for war, so loud in the rest of the country,
    is barely audible on the streets of New York.

    In Union Square Park, which has become an outdoor memorial
    to loss and grief, peace signs, antiwar slogans and pleas
    for nonviolence far outnumber demands for retribution. The
    equestrian statue of George Washington charging into battle
    has been transformed into a monument of antiwar sentiment,
    and although there are a handful of wanted posters
    featuring Osama bin Laden, there are far more that say,
    "Mourn the Victims, Stand for Peace" or "An eye for an eye
    creates blindness."

    In interviews with two dozen New Yorkers, most people said
    the desire for peace outweighed any impulse for vengeance,
    even among those directly affected by the destruction of
    the World Trade Center. Many said they were worried that
    the rest of the country, encouraged by the White House and
    the news media, was driving the nation toward a large-
    scale conflict.

    "I don't want to see more people go through pain and
    suffering," said Shannon Carr, 34, who teaches at St.
    Ann's, a private school in Brooklyn. Several children at
    the school have parents still buried in the rubble of the
    twin towers. "There has to be justice," Ms. Carr said, "but
    I don't think war is the answer."

    While much of the country clamors for martial retribution,
    with polls showing nearly 90 percent supporting a military
    response, many New Yorkers who were interviewed remain
    ambivalent about President Bush's promised war against
    terrorism. Many expressed fear that any strike would spark
    another wave of mayhem in New York.

    "It's easy to call for blood when you live in Des Moines,"
    said Terrance Kincaid, 37, an insurance broker from Queens.
    "We have seen the horrific consequences of aggression. For
    the rest of the country, it's still just a bunch of
    television images."

    Other New Yorkers said they had no wish to inflict misery
    on the civilians who would inevitably become victims of an
    American military assault.

    "A few days ago I was saying, `Bombs away,' but now that
    I've calmed down, I don't want a war," said Jana Crawford,
    29, a photo editor at Advertising Age magazine in
    Manhattan. "I don't want a lot more people to die."

    Some of those opposed to military action say their voices
    are not being heard by Washington or the mainstream news

    "The White House is demanding blood and the television is
    preparing us for war, but no one is considering
    alternatives," said Carol Thompson, a political science
    professor at Northern Arizona University, one of 530
    academics who have signed a petition urging restraint. More
    than 1,200 religious leaders have added their names to a
    similar statement, as have a group of actors, authors and
    other celebrities who plan to publish their "Justice Not
    Vengeance" declaration in newspapers across the country.

    This afternoon, a series of rallies on college campuses
    around the nation will strike a similar theme, and on
    Friday night, a peace vigil will wend its way from Union
    Square to the armed forces recruiting station in Times

    Of course, there are plenty of New Yorkers who believe that
    only war will end terrorism, including many liberals who
    have been surprised by their own emotions. "I've had blood
    lust from the very beginning," said Jackie Bayks, 38, a
    lawyer who has been unable to return to her apartment in
    Battery Park City. "It's strange because I'm not a
    patriotic person, but I've been feeling very patriotic this
    week. I just can't help myself."

    Karen Senecal, a minister at Judson Memorial Church in
    Greenwich Village, said she had been trying to resist the
    temptation to join in the culture of jingoism. "Part of me
    realizes that violence brings more violence, but another
    part of me wanted retaliation," she said. "Many people are
    getting strength in that, and I felt I was missing

    Some say they are reluctant to buck the tidal wave of
    patriotism by speaking about peace. "I feel like I can't
    talk about nonviolence because I'm afraid it will be
    perceived as disrespectful or un-American," said Madeleine
    Bloustein, 40, a voice-over actress from Brooklyn.

    But a large number of New Yorkers are not sure where they
    stand. As shock gives way to anger, their thirst for
    revenge is only growing stronger; others say the opposite
    is true. But many, like Matthew Pack, a student at New York
    University, have been whiplashed by their emotions. A
    self-described pacifist who is "way to the left," Mr. Pack,
    22, said he felt disgusted by his own vengeful fantasies.

    "I'm not used to feeling this way," he said, "and every
    time my head starts to cool off, I see one of those missing
    person posters and all those emotions come back. The only
    thing I can say at this point is that I'll never be the


    Teach-ins spread on state campuses in wake of attacks


    by Mary Jane Smetanka
    Star Tribune

    Published Sep 21 2001

    Noah Kunin's family has roots in the antiwar movement of the 1960s. His
    mother was a protester at the University of California, Berkeley, the
    University of Minnesota student said Thursday. But he's never really been
    interested in such things himself.

    Until now.

    Kunin was among the 100 university students, staff and faculty members who
    jammed into a standing-room-only lecture hall for a teach-in on last week's
    terrorist attacks.

    "On September 11, I was totally shaken," the freshman said. "I thought, wow,
    I need to reorganize my priorities. I want to learn more. I'm finding this
    very informative."

    In an echo of the 1960s, teach-ins, rallies and forums have proliferated on
    Minnesota college campuses since last week. At St. Cloud State University,
    there were sessions on anti-Arab bias and biological terrorism. The College
    of St. Catherine held discussions reflecting on peacemaking. Carleton
    College in Northfield held discussions on Islam, and at Macalester College
    in St. Paul, student groups sponsored community forums.

    At the University of Minnesota, teach-ins are being organized by politically
    active students. So far, the sessions have been decidedly left-leaning.
    Marwa Hassoum, a graduate student in feminist studies, is unapologetic about
    that. She said teach-ins simply balance "pro-war" information.

    "I think we are getting enough rhetoric about going to war," she said. "If
    you want to see the other side, flip on your TV or pick up the newspaper."

    The university's teach-ins, which began last week and have been running
    three days a week, have been standing-room-only. (For space reasons, they're
    open only to students and university employees.) Thursday's talk by
    political science Prof. August Nimtz drew about 100 people.

    Nimtz, who studies African politics, social movements and Marxism, called
    last week's events "dastardly" and said terrorists do not represent the
    interests of oppressed people. But he said the act might be explained by
    U.S. foreign policy, which he said has victimized people around the world.
    "Victims are not always able to distinguish between working people and
    policies," Nimtz said.

    Nimtz argued that the United States has used "state-sponsored terrorism"
    against Vietnam, Korea, Panama and Iraq, among others, and said foreign
    policy is designed to benefit "the ruling rich."

    Koby Nahmias, an Israeli graduate student, challenged Nimtz's premises and
    questioned the worth of teach-ins he called one-sided and socialistic.

    "Are we having a debate, or not?" Nimtz replied with a smile. "I think we
    are -- you were here to disagree with me."

    Nimtz said students invited him to speak. The last teach-ins at the
    university were during the Gulf War, he said.

    Kunin attended this week's teach-ins, and said he plans to attend next week
    as well. Though he said he is open to other points of view, he already has
    an opinion.

    "My mom and I have flipped," he said. "She's pro-war, and I'm antiwar. She's
    saying, 'This is different [from Vietnam].' And I'm saying, 'It's exactly
    the same.'"

    -- A schedule of college teach-ins is available at http://www.startribunecom.

    Staff writer Lucy Her contributed to this story. Mary Jane Smetanka is at
    smetan@startribune.com .


    Calls for Restraint


    Groups Urge Peaceful Alternative to a Military Response

    By Derek Thomson

    Sept. 20 -- As the United States mobilizes its forces around the world for
    a possible military response to last week's terrorist attacks, there is a
    growing number of voices at home urging a peaceful alternative.
    Today, students at colleges and universities across the
    nation held rallies mourning the victims and calling for a nonmilitary
    response. The organizers say they want to see the perpetrators brought to
    justice without the loss of more innocent lives.
    The student groups' calls for "justice rather than revenge" are echoed by
    established pacifist and religious groups, as well as numerous petitions
    circulating on the Internet. At the makeshift memorial in New York's Union
    Square, many signs call for peace and restraint.
    President Bush has said the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks is
    indicted terrorist Osama bin Laden, who has been based in Afghanistan for
    several years. So far, Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia has been
    unwilling to hand bin Laden over to the United States for prosecution,
    raising the prospect of imminent U.S. military action.
    An overwhelming number of Americans support military action. In an
    ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, 86 percent of respondents said they would
    support military action against those responsible, while 69 percent said
    they would support military action even if it means a long war with
    substantial U.S. casualties.
                      Groups Share Common Message
    The groups calling for a nonmilitary response are diverse, but they share a
    number of points.
    All of the groups strongly condemn the attacks on the World Trade Center
    and the Pentagon, and say the perpetrators should be punished. However,
    they warn that a military response by the United States could cost more
    innocent lives and might provoke further terrorist attacks.
    Instead, they urge the U.S. government to bring the perpetrators to justice
    by legal means, preferably under the aegis of an international organization
    such as the United Nations.
    "A violent response will not bring back loved ones, or bring about justice,
    or increase our safety. It may even increase the likelihood of more
    terrorist attacks," said Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary of the
    American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group.
    The groups also warn against "scapegoating" people of any nation, race,
    religion or ethnicity for the actions. Pointing out that the Sept. 11
    attacks were motivated by hatred of the United States, some suggest that
    Americans should look inward and ask how U.S. policies could have generated
    such hatred abroad.
                      Students Hold Rallies Across the Country
    Campus organizers called today a National Student Day of Action for
    Peaceful Justice. Activities at the different campuses ranged from rallies
    to marches and vigils, with speeches and music. The organizers said they
    were trying not to make the events seem like protests.
    An estimated 1,000 marchers turned out at the University of California at
    Berkeley. Berkeley and the surrounding Bay Area have been a center of
    calls for peace in the past week. The area's Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.,
    cast the lone dissenting vote when the House voted in support of an armed
    response on Friday.
    At Harvard University, speakers used megaphones to address a rally of
    several hundred students. At Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore., 300
    students waved banners and sang "Give Peace A Chance."
    The idea for the day of action originated at Wesleyan University in
    Connecticut. Student organizers there say were frustrated by the tone of
    vengeance that seemed to dominate Americans' reactions in the first days
    after the attacks.
    They decided to see whether students on other campuses shared their
    sentiment, and say they were overwhelmed by the response. "We started
    sending out e-mails Friday morning and by Sunday we already had 80
    schools," said sophomore Mary Thomas, who is coordinating the rally at
    Wesleyan. More than 140 campuses ultimately planned to hold events.
                      Other Groups Begin to Organize
    Established pacifist groups are trying to coordinate their efforts, too.
    The Quaker AFSC has pledged to join with "like-minded organizations" for
    public action, and is also reaching out to religious leaders.
    The National Council of Churches is circulating a petition among the clergy
    that reads in part, "We must not, out of anger and vengeance,
    indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent
                      Shift in Rhetoric Seen, But Most Americans Support War
    Advocates of a nonmilitary response say they have felt a shift in the
    national rhetoric in recent days, away from revenge and toward a more
    considered response. They say they are encouraged by the Bush
    administration's efforts to build an international consensus before
    launching any military action.
    The AFSC's McNish said she had seen a change in tone in letters to
    newspapers. She attributed the shift to messages of peace preached in
    churches and synagogues over the weekend. "Every priest, every pastor,
    every minister, every rabbi this past weekend preached a message of peace.
    That is a huge momentum," she said.
    Wilson Powell, national administrator of Veterans for Peace, likened the
    nation's initial reactions to those of a soldier going into battle for the
    first time. "First you have disbelief and horror. Then fear, then deriving
    from fear is anger, then driven by the anger is a desire for revenge. Then
    hopefully somewhere along the line sanity sets in," said Powell, a veteran
    of the Korean War.
    Public opinion polls conducted through Monday show no change in Americans'
    support for military action.


    Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001
    From: "Emilie Nichols" <emilie@ix.netcom.com>
    Subject: Where are the peacemakers?

    Dear WNET:

    First, thank you for the programming showing people helping people.

    Second, where are the peacemakers? I am a Quaker. As I listen to the
    news, all I hear is the roaring of the war machine. Elise Boulding, author
    of "Cultures of Peace"; George Lakey, Training for Change in PA; Sulak
    Sivaraksa of Bangkok, Thailand, Buddhist, jurist; Howard Zinn, "Peoples'
    History of the United States"; Fellowship of Reconciliation; American
    Friends Service Committee; Women's International League for Peace; Witness
    for Peace; Voices in the Wilderness. Is this still America? Can we hear
    from other voices, other points of view? Are we going to relive the "red
    scare" and the McCarthy period? General Haig and Senator Trent Lott have
    already said in the media (NPR) that we shouldn't be squabbling over things
    like civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

    I don't want to kill anyone. I don't want to pay for killing anyone. We
    have heard a cacophany of voices trying, crying, begging to understand why
    "they" (whoever that is) wanted to kill so many "innocents". Are we, the
    US, or NATO, going to kill innocents -- not just the terrorists, "but those
    who harbor them"? Will our soldiers be sent to shoot against the many arms
    we have sold to countries in the Middle East?

    There is talk of a blank check for defense. $40 billion has been okayed by
    Congress. Who will pay this $40 billion? Will the corporations that paid
    zero income taxes in the past 5 year belly up? Will the CEOs and the
    wealthy belly up for this? And what about the money launderers and tax
    havens -- see testimony from Senator Carl Levin's hearings from last year
    forward? Or will only some be accused of a lack of "patriotism" -- i.e.,
    those without health care, the homeless, those without access to education,
    those "bad" welfare mothers, those without jobs, those without full-time
    jobs, those laid off and downsized, those who have seen continuing
    decreases in income since the 1970s (that's about the bottom 2/5s of the
    population. See the latest report by United for a Fair Economy in Boston,

    Statements in the media say that it will take 30+ days to clear, repair the
    damage to the city of New York. How do we sustain all the people involved
    in that massive job -- i.e., the firemen, the counselors, the medical
    people? They have to get relief. They need to pace themselves. How do we
    help people get their lives back in order? When do we grieve? As if that
    pressure were not enough, for the people of New York and the whole country,
    are we now to shoulder going to war? For me, this is insane. It's
    dysfunctional. It would be a dysfunctional, insane act for a single
    family, as it would be for the human family.

    Emilie F. Nichols
    Littleton, CO


    Come to DC on September 29!!!


    Sat., Sep. 29, 12 noon, Lafayette Park

    International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) - a new
    anti-war coalition - has secured permits for Lafayette Park, the
    White House sidewalk and for a mass march to the Capitol for
    Saturday, September 29. Please see the Call and signers below. Email
    back to sign on and get involved!

    Join a New Anti-War Coalition:
    International A.N.S.W.E.R.
    [Act Now to Stop War & End Racism]

    Please join us in signing this call:

    We join with people all over the world in condemning the horrific
    killings of thousands of persons in the September 11th attacks on the
    World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Our most heartfelt sympathies
    and condolences are with those whose loved ones were lost or injured
    on September 11, 2001. At this moment, we would all like to take time
    to reflect, to grieve, to extend sympathy and condolences to all. But
    we believe that we must do more. We must act now.

    We are assembling International A.N.S.W.E.R. to call for worldwide
    rallies against war and racism. On September 29, there will be a
    national march and rally at the White House in Washington DC, as well
    as marches on the West Coast of the U.S. and around the world. We
    call on all people of conscience and progressive organizations to
    take up this call and organize rallies around the world.

    Unless we stop President Bush and NATO from carrying out a new, wider
    war in the Middle East, the number of innocent victims will grow from
    the thousands to the tens of thousands and possibly more. A new,
    wider U.S. and NATO war in the Middle East can only lead to an
    escalating cycle of violence. War is not the answer.

    We must also act against racism. Arab American and Muslim people in
    the United States, in Europe and elsewhere, as well as other
    communities of color, are facing racist attacks and harassment in
    their communities, on their jobs and at mosques. Anti-Arab and anti-
    Muslim racism is a poison that should be repudiated.

    The U.S. government is attempting to curb civil liberties and to
    create a climate in which it is impossible for progressive people to
    speak their mind. The Bush administration is attempting to take
    advantage of this crisis to militarize U.S. society with a vast
    expansion of police powers that is intended to severely restrict
    basic democratic rights.

    On September 29, tens of thousands of people had planned to
    demonstrate against the Bush administration's reactionary foreign and
    domestic policy and the IMF and World Bank. In light of the current
    crisis, with its tragic consequences for so many thousands of people,
    we have refocused the call for our demonstration to address the
    immediate danger posed by increased racism and the grave threat of a
    new war. We call on people to demonstrate around the world on that

    Now is the time for all people of conscience, all people who oppose
    racism and war to come together. If you believe in civil liberties
    and oppose racism and war, demonstrate on September 29 in front of
    the White House and around the world. October 12-13 will be
    International Days of Action Against War and Racism. We urge all
    organizations internationally to join together at this critical time
    and take action.

    Initial Signers:
    -Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
    -Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of
    -Al-Awda, New York and New Jersey
    -Barbara Lubin, Exec. Director, Middle East Children's Alliance
    -Jews Against the Occupation
    -Rev. Lucius Walker, Pastors for Peace
    -Nania Kaur Dhingra, Sikh Student Organization, George Washington
    -Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Nicaragua Network
    -Karen Talbot, International Center for Peace & Justice
    -Committee for a Democratic Palestine
    -Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
    -Howard Zinn, Author
    -Michael Parenti Ph.D., author of Against Empire
    -Ben DuPuy, former Deputy Ambassador-at-Large, Haiti
    -Teresa Gutierrez, Co-Director, International Action Center
    -Martin Espada, Poet
    -Sakhi for South Asian Women
    -Women for Afghan Women
    -Michele Naar-Obed, Plowshares activist, Jonah House, Baltimore
    -Pam Africa, International Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
    -Tom Hansen, Mexico Solidarity Network
    -Michel Collon, author and journalist, Belgium
    -Heidelberg Forum Against Militarism and War, Germany
    -Italian Tribunal on NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia
    -Maryland Green Party
    -Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild
    -Helena Papadopoulos, Center for Comparative Study of Law and
    Society, Lebanon
    -Elmar Schmaehling, Retired Admiral, German Navy
    -Wolfgang Richter, President, European Peace Forum
    -Nino Pasti Foundation, Rome, Italy
    -Information-Post on Militarism, Tobias Pflueger & Claudia Haydt
    -Ricardo Juarez, Pasamontaas
    -New Communist Party of the Netherlands
    -African Immigrant and Refugee Coalition of N. America
    -Dominican Workers Party, NY
    -Ray LaForest, Labor Organizer, 1707 AFSCME
    -Kriss Worthington, Berkeley City Council
    -Leonora Foerstal, Women for Mutual Security
    -Asha A. Samad, Human Rights Center
    -April 25 Movement of the Dominican Republic, NY
    -Njeri Shakur, Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement
    -Michel Shehadeh, Los Angeles 8 Case Respondent
    -Muslim Student & Faculty Association
    -Marco Frucht, Editor and Publisher, Activist Times
    -Leslie Feinberg, Transgendered author, Co-Founder, Rainbow Flags for
    -Kadouri Al Kaysi, Committee in Support of Iraqi People, NY
    -Minnie Bruce Pratt, writer and ant-racist activist
    -Vieques Support Campaign
    -Mitchel Cohen, Green Party USA, Brooklyn Greens
    -Milos Raickovich, College of Staten Island, CUNY
    -Carlos Eden, Raweshrar Project for Indigenous People--Chile
    -Jamie York, Cuba Advocate Newsletter, MT
    -Brian Barraza, Association of Mexican American Workers (AMAT)
    -Justin Vitiello, Professor, Temple University, Philadelphia
    -John Kim, Veterans for Peace, NYC Chapter
    -Mahtowin Munro & Moonanum James, United American Indians of New
    -SAFRAD Somali Association
    -Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, Madrid, Spain
    -Korea Truth Commission
    -Congress for Korean Reunification
    -Struggle Against War Coalition, Italy
    -Trades Union International of Building and Wood Workers, Finland
    -LEF Foundation, St. Helena, CA
    -SEIU Local 1877, Bay Area, CA
    -Vanguard Public Foundation, San Francisco
    -Consuela Lee, musician
    -Bohemian Grove Action Network, Sonoma County, CA
    -Sonoma County Free Press (CA)
    -Susan E. Davis, co-chair, NY Local, National Writers Union, UAW
    Local 1981
    -James Lafferty, National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles
    -Campaign Against Racism & War, Oberlin, Ohio
    -Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist
    -Dr. Pol De Vos, President, Anti-Imperialist League, Belgium
    -Refuse and Resist
    -Klaus von Raussendorff, Anti-Imperialist Correspondence, Germany
    -Dr. Bert De Belder, Coordinator, Third World Medical Aid, Belgium
    -Dr. Jean Pestieau, Professor, Catholic University of Louvain,
    Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
    -Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, California
    -Klaus Hartmann, President of World Union of Freethinkers, Germany
    -California Prison Focus
    -Sally Davis, President, AFSCME 1072
    -Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director, Food First/Institute for Food
    and Development Policy
    -Sandra Robertson, Georgia Citizens Coalition on Hunger
    -Freedom Road Socialist Organization
    -Al-Awda Massachusetts (Palestinian Right to Return Coalition)
    -Radio Arabiyat, Boston, Mass
    -Vanessa Marques, Portuguese-American Relief for Palestine
    -Rima Anabtawi, Al-Awda Coordinating Committee
    -Committee to Defend Amer Jubran and Palestinian Free Speech Rights
    -Steven Gillis, Executive Board, USWA Local 8751, Boston School Bus
    -Falco Accame, former president, Defense Commission, Chamber of
    Deputies, Italy
    -Gerry Scoppettuolo, Director of Education, So NH HIV/AIDS Task Force

    International A.N.S.W.E.R.
    (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism)

    National Office: 39 W. 14 St. #206, NY, NY 10011
    (212) 633-6646iacenter@iacenter.orgwww.iacenter.org
    Washington DC Office: 1247 E St. SE, Washington, DC 20003(202) 543-


    Terrorist Attacks Transform Protest


    Thursday September 20, 2001

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Demonstrators who planned to protest the now-canceled
    meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are still coming
    to the nation's capital this month. Now their protests will be about war and

    The global financial organizations called off this year's annual meetings
    after last week's terrorist attacks. Groups representing most of the
    expected protesters also canceled their demonstrations, many citing a need
    to respect victims of the attacks.

    But the New York-based International Action Center and other groups still
    intend to assemble thousands of protesters across from the White House on
    Sept. 29.

    ``We are demonstrating because of the imminent danger of a wider war, one
    that could result in the deaths of tens of thousands or hundreds of
    thousands more people in addition to the victims of the tragedy on Sept.
    11,'' said organizer Richard Becker.

    He said the protesters also oppose the backlash against Arabs and Muslims
    and the Bush administration's efforts to expand police powers following the

    While Becker said the group has a permit for the rally and march, it is
    uncertain whether increased security around the White House will allow it to
    go forward.

    Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said he had to consult with the National
    Park Service before commenting. The park service didn't immediately return
    calls seeking comment.

    District of Columbia Police Chief Charles Ramsey said he has no problem with
    the protesters as long as they're peaceful.

    ``But it remains to be seen how they would be welcomed if they come to the
    city under the circumstances,'' Ramsey said.

    He said police would be watching for other demonstrators who, angered by
    challenges to the appearance of American unity, might clash with the
    anti-war protesters.

    Police have blamed anarchists for much of the violence at anti-globalization
    protests during the past few years. A Washington-based anarchist group, the
    Anti-Capitalist Convergence, has announced plans for a separate anti-war
    march on Sept. 29.

    Before the terrorist attacks, police had said they expected as many as
    100,000 protesters and wanted help from other jurisdictions, including New
    York City. Ramsey said his force, along with federal authorities, should be
    able to handle the scaled-back demonstrations.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 21 2001 - 19:28:13 EDT