[sixties-l] Anti-war news...(# 9) (fwd)

From: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Sat Oct 13 2001 - 20:41:44 EDT

  • Next message: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu: "[sixties-l] Hell no, they wont go yet (fwd)"

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:19:51 -0700
    From: radtimes <resist@best.com>
    Subject: Anti-war news...(# 9)

    [multiple items]
    (Anti-war links are now at the very end of this page.)

    Worldwide protests against US bombing of Afghanistan


    By Julie Hyland
    10 October 2001

    Anger at the US bombing raids on Afghanistan has unleashed protests in many
    countries, sometimes leading to violent clashes.
    In Pakistan, crowds of about 15,000 fought for more than three hours with
    police in Quetta, in western Pakistan near the Afghanistan border. A police
    station was attacked and the headquarters of the UN children's fund was
    badly burnt, along with several shops and cinemas. Police opened fire on
    the crowd, killing one and injuring several others. Approximately 75
    people were arrested.
    Three people were killed in the nearby town of Kuchlak, including a 12-year
    old boy, when police opened fire on a crowd of some 1,500, mainly Afghan
    refugees, protesting the US air strikes.
    Police also fired into crowds in Peshawar, injuring at least 10
    people. Effigies of Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair were burned. In a
    series of running battles with protestors in the Khyber bazaar, riot
    police, backed by soldiers with machine guns, fired tear-gas canisters and
    mounted baton charges. Armoured personnel carriers were used to block roads
    around the US Consulate to prevent demonstrators approaching. Following a
    smaller demonstration led by students, all the city's students were ordered
    home indefinitely and all government schools in the northwest province
    closed for week.
    At Landi Kotal further north, at least three people were wounded when a
    local militia fired upon some 5,000 tribesmen who had gathered to burn
    effigies of US President George W. Bush. Sporadic violence was also
    reported in the southern city of Karachi. In the tightly guarded capital of
    Islamabad, several hundred protestors demonstrated near the UN headquarters
    building and the American Cultural Centre. The city's American and British
    Embassies have been placed under heavy guard.
    Pakistan's President General Musharraf, whose support for the air raids has
    been crucial to the US war drive, dismissed the protests as the work of
    extremists and said they were "very, very controllable". On Monday,
    Pakistani authorities had arrested three leading Islamists allied to the
    pro-Taliban Afghanistan and Pakistan Defence Council, a coalition of 35
    parties pledged to oppose the US attacks. Azam Tariq, Fazlur Rehman and
    Samiul Haq were all placed under house arrest.
    Violent protests also erupted in Srinagar, the capital of
    Indian-administered Kashmir, causing large parts of the city to be closed
    down. At the Kashmir University campus hundreds of students demonstrated
    against the attacks, throwing stones and chanting anti-US slogans. Thirty
    people were injured when police fired tear gas at the protestors, many of
    whom denounced Musharraf for supporting the US.
    In Calcutta, 1,000 anti-war protestors from the Socialist Unity Centre of
    India (SUCI) demonstrated near the American Centre, and burnt an effigy of
    President Bush. SUCI leader Prabash Ghosh said that the US had not offered
    proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the terror attacks. A joint
    statement by the country's four Stalinist and Maoist communist parties
    warned India's ruling coalition, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya
    Janata Party, not to aid the US-led war drive.
    In Bangladesh, the third largest Muslim country in the world, Islamic
    organisations protested in the capital, Dhaka. Chanting slogans such as
    "Bangladesh soil is not for America" and "Laden is the defender of Islam",
    several hundred protestors listened to Fazlul Haq Amini of the Islamic
    Oikya Jote, a partner in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led four-party
    alliance, which assumes office today, threaten war against the US.
    Bangladesh had offered the US use of its airspace and other key facilities
    to conduct its military strikes, but Amini warned that more than three
    million students in the country could be called upon to support a holy war
    against the US.
    In Egypt, more than 20,000 students from nine universities in Cairo and the
    north protested the air strikes, and condemned the government's support for
    the US attack. President Hosni Mubarak has been America's most stalwart
    ally amongst the Arab countries, but has not issued a statement since the
    bombing began. Security forces stood guard outside the campuses as 4,000
    students protested at the Islamic University of Al-Azhar, 3,000 at the
    Alexandria University and a further 2,500 at Zagazig University to the north.
    In Jordan, security forces carried out a major clampdown against potential
    protestors as soon as the US raids began, arresting at least 10 Islamic
    students from the University of Jordan.
    In the Sultanate of Oman, where British forces are engaged in a major
    military exercise, police broke up a small anti-war protest, mainly
    involving students.
    Elsewhere in Asia, there have been violent clashes in Indonesia, the
    world's largest Muslim nation. In the second day of protests by
    fundamentalist Muslim groups some 500 demonstrated near the US embassy in
    the capital Jakarta. Indonesian police fired warning shots, tear gas and
    water cannon to try and disperse the crowd. At least four people were
    reported injured in the clashes. The US embassy has been closed, and sealed
    off with barbed wire barricades. A small group of protestors managed
    briefly to gather outside the British Embassy. A separate group of 200
    members of the Indonesian Muslim Student Action Unity also protested
    outside the United Nations building in the capital, chanting "America, the
    real terrorist".
    US and British officials called on all foreign nationals to remain indoors
    after the Association of Indonesian Ulemas (clerics) issued a joint
    statement on behalf of 40 Islamic organisations, criticising the Indonesian
    government's support for the US and demanding that it "suspend diplomatic
    relations with America and its allies until the attacks stop".
    There were reports of protests in Makassar, Sulawasi Island and in the
    Javanese city of Bandung where 2,000 people marched.
    In Japan, there were small anti-war demonstrations outside the US Embassy
    in Tokyo, whilst the country's 370,000-strong Teachers Union condemned the
    US bombing raid and called for an immediate end to the attacks.
    In Europe, there have also been small demonstrations in all the major capitals.
    A total of 15,000 people participated in anti-war demonstrations in Geneva,
    Amsterdam and Barcelona at the weekend. Following the US air strikes,
    protests have also been held in Stockholm and Helsinki, whilst in Rome,
    several hundred demonstrated outside the United Nations. Sit-down protests
    were held in Turin and Milan.
    In Greece, more than 2,000 marched on the US Embassy in Athens, which was
    sealed off by hundreds of riot police.
    In Dublin, a group of anti-war protestors demonstrated outside the US
    Embassy to condemn the air strikes and protest the Irish governments offer
    of assistance to the Bush administration. And in France, a few hundred
    protestors gathered in Paris and Strasbourg.
    There have also been a series of protests across Britain. In London, a
    small group of 100 demonstrators gathered outside Downing Street as the
    bombing raids began on Sunday evening, chanting, "Stop the war, feed the
    poor". In Birmingham, hundreds demonstrated under the auspices of the "Stop
    the War" coalition the same evening. Both incidents passed off peacefully.
    However in Glasgow, six people were arrested following a protest outside a
    Ministry of Defence building. Three men and three women were taken into
    custody after scaling the first floor ledge of the building to unfurl a
    banner saying asking, "What do the dead eat?"a reference to the US bombing
    raids being followed up by so-called humanitarian food drops. Another two
    people were also arrested during the same protest. A spokesman for the
    Faslane Peace Camp, which organised the protest, said, "Bush and Blair are
    nothing short of murderers themselves. If they have proof against Osama bin
    Laden they should bring him to trial through the international law courts."
    Some 400 people also gathered at a two-hour vigil in the city's Glasgow
    Square, whilst in the Scottish capital, Edinburgh, 200 rallied in
    Parliament Square, chanting slogans such as, "Terror is no antidote to


    A minority of Americans calls out - loudly - for peace


    The country's long tradition of antiwar activism resurges after attacks on
    the Taliban.

    By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
    October 10, 2001

    NEW YORK - Katharine Roberts was out campaigning for her candidate for
    mayor, when she heard about the US attacks against the Taliban and an
    antiwar rally in Times Square. She raced home, as best she could with her
    cane, got her peace button, and then joined several thousand others to
    protest the US military response.
    "I'm a lifelong activist, and what's happening here is breaking my heart,"
    she says. "We are becoming them, and that's the wrong thing to do."
    Wrapped in a white shawl, with white hair and pink glasses, the retired
    business-systems consultant is part of a long tradition of antiwar activism
    in America - stretching back to the Quakers, who gave up control of
    Pennsylvania rather than fight in the French and Indian War for the British
     From "ban the bombers" to anti-Vietnam War activists, pacifists in America
    have never shied from going against the grain and paying a price for it.
    Now, the nascent movement - converging on Times Square and in cities across
    the country from Boston to San Francisco, and made up of people of all ages
    and ethnic backgrounds - is no different.
    As Ms. Roberts and other protesters marched toward the heart of Broadway,
    some onlookers booed, while others called them un-American and as well as
    some unprintable things. "I just let it roll off my back," Roberts says.
                             Fueling the movement
    Historically, the Quakers' pacifism has had deep spiritual roots that still
    resonate on the protest lines. But in this century, a myriad of ideological
    and other religious impulses have fueled the antiwar movements.
    That has led to dissent and a range of views within the community itself.
    For instance, Todd Gitlin, a former leader of the Students for Democratic
    Society and anti-Vietnam War protests, believes nations have a right to
    self-defense. Although he's not sure bombing Afghanistan is the right
    course, for now he's sitting out the protests.
    On the other hand, radical historian Howard Zinn, professor emeritus at
    Boston University, headlined one of the first protests in Boston after
    President Bush declared war on terrorism. He's confident that there is no
    moral justification for bombing an impoverished country when the
    perpetrators are terrorists spread over 30 nations.
    "Terrorism has much deeper roots, and they lie in American foreign policy,
    particularly in the Middle East," he says. "This is something that
    Americans don't like to face or think about, but just because the enemy is
    evil, that doesn't mean we're good."
    The variety in the movement is reflected in the Times Square marchers as
    well. Economist Laksham Parmal, his hand shaking as he carries a sign
    saying, "Islam, Arabs and Immigrants are not the enemy!" is a follower of
    Mahatma Gandhi. Gloria Bletter, an attorney and advocate of international
    human rights law, was passing out leaflets calling the US to take its case
    to the United Nations, where the perpetrators could be tried and punished
    according to international criminal law. Osage Bell was decked in a black
    sweatshirt proclaiming her membership in the Revolutionary Communist Youth
    "It's ideological, it's emotional," she says, explaining her reasons for
    protesting. "We want a better world for people."
    Roberts, who walks cautiously through the crowd, doesn't have a religious
    or ideological base for her lifetime of activism. She says she just knows
    her own mind and maintains that violence only begets more suffering.
    "Whether I'm right or wrong, I have these strong feelings, and I'm not
    going to give them up," she says.
    Like many in the crowd, Roberts is proud to stand up for what she believes
    in, rather than for what the government would like her to.
    To her, that's real democracy and patriotism. "The FBI has a long dossier
    on me, and I'd be ashamed if they didn't," she says, laughing as she merged
    into the crowd.
                             Wide-ranging concerns
    But for others, there is a growing sense of unease. Beatrice Nava is clear
    that a dreadful act was committed against the people at the World Trade
    Center and Pentagon. But as a mother of four who were draft age during
    Vietnam, she doesn't believe a military response is appropriate. She's also
    concerned about the "circumscription of rights" here at home.
    "I fear it's going to become increasingly unacceptable to say what I think
    is very true, which is that the US has engendered hate and righteous
    indignation with its foreign policy," she says. "It doesn't justify an
    attack on innocent people, but explains why fanatics are able to gain
    support and can identify some of their pain coming from this most powerful
    and richest country in the world."


    Dead Civilians and Other Minor Risks of War


    Accidents Can Happen

    by Cynthia Cotts ccotts@villagevoice.com

    Around 2 p.m. Sunday, as I sat down to write a column that was due the next
    morning, my boyfriend turned on the TV for the latest on the mayoral
    race^only to find out our country was carpet bombing Kabul. So much for
    advance planning. We spent the next two hours glued to the tube, his
    reaction ranging from a sudden,fleeting desire to enlist to a denunciation
    of Israel for its "deadly silence" in the face of this war. Across the
    street an American flag snapped in the wind, and several networks adopted
    "America Strikes Back" as their news banner.
    "I gave them fair warning," Bush had said that morning, upon returning from
    Camp David. He obviously meant Bin Laden and company, but some pols and
    pundits seemed to have gotten notice as well. Tony Blair gave an incredibly
    rousing speech, and Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings were on hand
    to emcee another day that was guaranteed to disrupt our lives forever. A
    Pentagon press conference held at 2:44 p.m. was packed with reporters who
    had come out to hear Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld's delivery
    was cocky, but his red tie hung askew as he assured us that this was a war
    on terrorism, not on the Afghan people.

    CNN had the coolest special effects, ranging from satellite imagery that
    showed how the pilots identify their targets to a simulated cartoon of a B-2
    that had departed from Missouri and stopped in the Arabian Sea to refuel
    before embarking on its zigzag course to Kabul. A "CNN exclusive" showed
    continuous footage from a nightscope looking south on Kabul. At first
    glance, the view was a pea-green haze, but over time, it proved that Kabul
    was shaking all night long. Rather than a handful of flyovers, it looked
    like we were bombing myriad targets^at the very least a comprehensive
    approach, and just possibly overkill.

    Now don't get me wrong: The Taliban are vicious barbarians. But that
    afternoon, I got queasy hearing all the talk of B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, and
    cruise missiles. There was retired general Wesley Clark on CNN, propped up
    in front of a map of Afghanistan, stiff and steely-eyed, declaring the
    strikes to be "carefully choreographed," the psychological-ops
    "well-coordinated." There was Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff, promising that "visible or not . . . all instruments . . . are being
    brought to bear on this global menace," and finally Rumsfeld, who declared
    that even lacking a "silver bullet," we will fight this war "until we're
    convinced that those terrorist networks do not exist."

    Unfortunately, this is the rhetoric of the drug war, which has proved to be
    a long, costly failure. If we can't arrest our way out of the drug problem,
    does anyone really believe we can bomb the terrorists out of existence? Once
    again, questioning the military attack doesn't mean I'm pro-Taliban. In
    fact, if I ever doubted the evidence linking the Taliban to the World Trade
    Center attack, that changed when I saw the so-called Osama bin Laden video
    news release, which CNN, ABC, and the Al-Jazeera TV channel began
    broadcasting Sunday afternoon.

    In the tape, which seems to have been made before the U.S. struck back, Bin
    Laden appears in a camouflage jacket, with rocks behind him and a rifle by
    his side. First, a henchman predicts that America's "collapse will be
    directly connected to its attack on Afghanistan," then Bin Laden explains
    that the Muslims have suffered for decades, and now the U.S. must get a
    taste of its own medicine. "The United States will have no peace until every
    sinner, every Israeli, leaves the Palestinian lands." Talk about infinite

    The pundits' reaction to the video was mixed. While some found it
    "surprising" and "chilling," one expert called it Bin Laden's "common litany
    of complaints." Still others saw a smoking gun, proof that Bin Laden's goal
    in launching the events of September 11 was to provoke what Muslims would
    consider an "indiscriminate attack" and that having succeeded, he no longer
    had to dodge responsibility for WTC. After the special forces saw the
    Al-Jazeera video, one of their kind told ABC, they would no doubt be "lining
    up" for the opportunity to get Bin Laden. But if Bin Laden is a fanatic who
    enjoys sparking new rounds of violence, even against his own people, what
    are Bush and Rumsfeld? I couldn't help wondering what the Muslim radicals
    would do Monday morning, when they woke up to the news of the American-led

    Around 4 p.m., my boyfriend went out, and I began to hear sirens every 10
    minutes. Channel-surfing for an anthrax alert, I noticed that CBS and NBC
    had returned to football and NASCAR, respectively, and that only ABC and CNN
    were still covering the war. ABC had dug up a report on historical attempts
    to invade Afghanistan, which the correspondent called "the graveyard of

    Around the same time, CNN's Jamie McIntyre was reporting that our planes had
    dropped about 37,000 units of humanitarian aid over Afghanistan, as well as
    leaflets and (possibly) single-channel transistor radios, all of which are
    intended to persuade Afghans to turn against the Taliban. On the same
    subject, ABC showed footage of U.S. military drops over northern Iraq in
    1991, in which boxes of food were kicked out of airplane doors from an
    altitude of 30,000 feet. Jennings questioned the effectiveness of these
    drops, noting that some people in Iraq were killed when the boxes hit them.
    By evening, MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell was holding up one of this year's food
    drops^a slender bag in which, she said, there was peanut butter, but no

    If there was one piece of propaganda I found hard to swallow, it was the
    claim that these strikes would not kill any civilians. Tony Blair had
    stressed the point, and Dan Rather reported dutifully that the attack was
    "designed with care and precision to avoid civilian casualties." But as the
    day wore on, it became clear that we had hit Kandahar, Jalalabad, and
    Kabul^an airport here, an oil depot there^and it was still impossible to
    know exactly where the bombs fell.

    By 4:30 or so, CNN's Judy Woodruff was on air, perfectly coiffed and ready
    for battle. When she asked CNN's resident generals Wesley Clark and Don
    Shepperd to explain how a strategy of "carpet bombing" could be expected to
    spare innocent lives, the hype began to unravel. "I am confident" that we
    are not targeting civilian areas, said Clark, and Shepperd agreed: "In no
    case will the U.S. attack civilians intentionally." When Woodruff pressed,
    Clark finally caved, saying, "Accidents can happen."

    Around the same time, CNN was broadcasting footage that appeared to show
    return attacks by the Taliban, and an interview with a Taliban spokesman who
    claimed that his troops had shot down one of our planes. The Pentagon denied
    any U.S. lives had been lost, but the next day, the Taliban claimed that
    about 20 civilians had died^a small number, but blood on our hands
    nonetheless. And that, as MSNBC's Brian Williams explained Sunday night, is
    to be expected during wartime, until they invent a missile that hurts only
    buildings and leaves people standing.


    Terrorism takes all sides


    Every nation that kills innocents deserves the 'terrorist' label

    by Robert Scheer
    Creators Syndicate

    For three weeks now, ever since the horror of the World Trade Center, I
    have been tempted but have lacked the courage to question the use of the
    label "terrorism." The parsing of language seemed inappropriate in a time
    of profound national mourning.
    Yet, now that we are in a full-blown international war against what our
    President defines as "terrorism," it's appropriate to ask what it is we're
    talking about. Clearly, terrorism applies to acts of violence aimed at
    innocent civilians, an extension of war beyond its proper boundaries, and
    therefore the deserved subject of universal contempt.
    However, while such acts are obviously deeply despicable, they cannot be
    simply defined as exclusively the work of stateless maniacs and never the
    work of recognized governments. Indeed, President Bush has recognized the
    possibility of state terrorism when he committed to punish those
    governments that harbor or sponsor terrorists.
    Are not all bombings of civilians, even by armies of a state in times of
    war, acts of terror? What of the tens of thousands of civilian dead in Iraq
    as the result of our much celebrated success in "Operation Desert Storm?"
    Was that not an act of real-life carnage despite its movie marquee
    name? Or the million civilians killed by the U.S. with napalm and
    anti-personnel bomblets in the "carpet-bombing" of Vietnam? And that other
    million dead civilians in Afghanistan whose blood was on the hands of the
    Soviet communists, one of whom is now the elected leader of Russia and our
    ally in the war against terrorism? Or the tens of millions of civilians
    systematically killed during World War II in acts of genocide by armies
    loyal to the Russian motherland and German fatherland?
    What of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which
    resulted, in the death of more than 300,000 people a decision earning
    President Harry S Truman Time magazine's Man of the Year award in 1945?
    By its very design, the nuclear weapon must be thought of as an instrument
    of terror because the purpose of what its makers call "city busters" is to
    disorientate, demoralize and destroy large numbers of civilians. In the
    bombing of Hiroshima, with one atomic bomb, pathetically small by today's
    standards, cutely named "Little Boy" as opposed to the "Fat Man" that
    obliterated Nagasaki, less than 10 percent of the dead were by any
    definition, combatants.
    Ironically, abandoning our already limited concern about the proliferation
    of these ultimate terror weapons has been a major, if barely noticed, cost
    of the alliance against terrorism that the U.S. has assembled. Pakistan and
    India are involved in the most virulent nuclear arms race in the world
    today, and our government has dropped all sanctions aimed at ending that
    dash for oblivion.
    It would be healthy for a world transfixed by the scene of devastation in
    lower Manhattan to glance at the photos of the miles of destruction of
    family homes and the limbs of babies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Healthy,
    because it is inevitable that somewhere, someday, a terrorist cell will be
    able to lay waste to a major population center unless we get the evil
    nuclear genie back in the bottle. Healthy because evil does not fester
    only in the schemes of the obviously deranged but rather, in the case of
    nuclear weapons, was the product of the most refined thought of our best
    and apparently, at the time, most balanced thinkers.
    It is important to be reminded of the terror committed by governments run
    by those who paid lip service to the virtues of Western Civilization, the
    Enlightenment, Christianity, capitalist freedom and socialist justice at
    time when Islam is all too easily held accountable for such acts of barbarism.
    No one is invulnerable to the grip of madness, not of the left or right,
    religious or secular, educated or illiterate, rich or poor, and sometimes
    they manage to get the power of a state to endorse their grievances, real
    or imagined.
    How easy to hold the obviously evil Taliban responsible for the Saudi Isamu
    bin Laden when he is in fact all too common a byproduct of the religious
    extremism flourishing in his native nation. The hijackers were educated in
    and traveling on the passports of the very states whose monarchs and
    dictators now act so perplexed over their citizens' evil behavior.
    How convenient to forget that it is Saudi Arabia, which owes its existence
    and wealth to our military intervention, that spews the most vituperative
    version of the Islamic religion and, indeed, exported it with missionary
    zeal to the less benighted lands like Afghanistan. Just another caution
    that the war against terrorism will not end with the rout of the Taliban.
    Robert Scheer's national column appears weekly on WorkingForChange.


    India: US-UK bombing on Afghanistan decried


    ATNA: Various political parties and other organisations have flayed the
    continuing bombing of Afghanistan by the US and British planes.

    In a joint statement, the CPI, CPM, Forward Bloc, RSP and SUCI condemned
    what they called US aggression in Afghanistan and announced that they will
    take out processions and hold rallies on October 12 to press their demand
    for immediate stopping of the war. The left parties stressed that the war
    would hit the people of Afghanistan most and that thousands of innocent
    people would be killed.

    The left parties said that the war threatens to spill over the entire south
    Asia and that the USA should have reacted to the September 11 attacks under
    the UNO rules and guidelines. They demanded that the BJP-led government
    should not drag India into the war as it will prove "dangerous" for the
    independence of the country.

    CPI-ML (New Democracy) MLA Umadhar Prasad Singh said the US attack on
    Afghanistan has heralded the beginning of the end to American imperialism.
    Accusing the USA of destabilising a number of democratically elected
    governments, killing communists and patronising military dictators, Singh
    held America responsible for the rise of international terrorism. He
    alleged that the governments of India and Pakistan are following the
    dictates of the USA, warning that these two countries are backing a sinking
    ship. He recalled how the invasion of Afghanistan had led to the downfall
    of USSR.

    The state unit of the All India People's Resistance Front (AIPRF) flayed
    the police raid on its central office in Delhi and the arrest of its
    workers for distributing pamphlets against the US attack on Afghanistan.
    The AIPRF, while demanding immediate release of its workers, alleged that
    the police action was repression and an attack on fundamental rights. The
    Union government wants India to participate in the US war, it maintained.
    Jan Abhiyan also flayed the police raid on the AIPRF office. It said every
    citizen has the right to oppose the US war against Afghanistan.

    The All India Backward Muslim Morcha called the US attack as unfortunate.
    Its president, M Aziz Ali, stressed that the whole world should evaluate
    who the real terrorists are and who is responsible for the rise of
    terrorism. He, however, flayed the fatwa issued by Imam Bukhari asking
    Muslims to participate in the "Jehad" against America, stressing that
    the issue is not related to religion.


    Anti-war activities

    Dateline: 9 October 2001

    Ten thousand rally against war in Berlin. Five thousand school students take
    strike action

    A demonstration of more than 10,000 marched through Berlin against the war
    on October 8, reports comrade Sascha from SAV, German section of the CWI.
    The broad anti war coalition, which we are a part of, called it.

    During the opening rally three SAV members were amongst the seven speakers.
    Comrade Daniel chaired the rally, Nelli, a young school student, spoke for
    the school students' anti war committee, and I spoke for SAV. We sold 22
    papers and raised 70 Deutschmarks for the fighting fund.

    We distributed many leaflets for a SAV public meeting on Thursday and a
    school students' meeting on Friday.

    After the demonstration more than ten comrades intervened in a protest
    against a fascist NPD demonstration "against the war". As we were the only
    ones with a megaphone we could set the tone. The fascists' demo broke up ten
    minutes after we arrived.

    All the comrades here are extremely enthusiastic about today's successes.
    Now we have to concentrate on recruitment and building International
    Resistance out of it.

    Earlier on October 8 5,000 school students struck in Berlin against the war
    on Afghanistan. The strike was called by a committee 'School Students
    against the War', which was formed by International Resistance and German
    CWI members. We organised school students from over 20 schools in the last
    few weeks. This has been the biggest school students' demonstration for a
    long time. Several young CWI members gave speeches, which were regularly
    interrupted by strong applause.

    The SAV got a very good reception at the demonstration and we sold 50
    papers, and collected 170 Deutschmarks for the fighting fund. A further 220
    Deutschmarks was raised for the school students' committee.

    There were many attempts by some teachers and Head masters to intimidate
    school students. In one school the headmaster locked the doors to keep the
    school students inside the school. In another school students were forbidden
    to leave the school even if they had no courses! A teacher threatened two
    young comrades, saying they would be put on trial for manslaughter (!) if
    something happened to a school student on the demo!

    The demo was supported by the PDS group in the Berlin Federal State
    parliament and we received some practical support (such as megaphones) from
    trade unions. The Berlin mayor said that the actions of the school students
    were an " unexcused absence from school, but nothing more" which can be
    interpreted as a signal to the headmasters not to take action against

    All over Germany demonstrations took place yesterday and are also taking
    place today (October 9).

    1000 on anti-war demo in Stockholm
    On Monday October 8 there were anti-war protests in around ten cities in
    Sweden against the bombings, writes Marcus Kollbrunner. Most had around 200
    participants, and in Gothenburg there were 400. In Stockholm 1,000 people
    joined the protest called by the Coalition Against War and Terrorism, which
    was initiated by us. We had two speakers and one of the two chairs. The
    Coalition in Stockholm is now made up of 30-40 organisations, Left and
    immigrant groups. The coalition is calling for a demo next Saturday, which
    could be quite bigger than today's demo. There will be anti-war demos in
    several other cities on that day.

    Over 1,000 rally in SF Bay Area
    On October 7 the SF Bay Area Branch of Socialist Alternative (SA) mobilised
    its forces for a teach-in, reports comrade Carlos. It organised by the SF
    Town Hall Committee Against War and Hate (4 members of SA sit on its
    14-Member steering committee). Our two big banners calling for 'NO War, No
    Racism, Defend Civil Liberties' were the only banners at the event together
    with a banner of the coalition with the same slogans. There were several
    speakers, including comrade Carlos who spoke about the effect of the war
    amongst immigrant communities and making the concrete motion to mobilise all
    the forces of the coalition to support the Immigrant Rights Movement's March
    on October 13. There were about 1,700 people present.

    After the teach in, all the people organised into a contingent and joined
    another 800 people from another coalition in a three hour march throughout
    the working class neighbourhoods of the City. Our banners were among the
    most prominent ones. We sold/distributed about 1,500 newspapers/SA
    statements; 3,000 leaflets with our positions; 2,000 leaflets inviting
    people to the October 13 march. The demo was joined by hundreds of other
    people and swelled to 5,000. We got 120 new names of people interested in

    On October 8 the SF Bay Area Branch helped to mobilise around 600 students
    for a rally at noon in UC Berkeley. Comrade Carlos was one of the featured
    speakers and he was very well received. Journalists present interviewed him
    and he is now scheduled to appear as the only guest in a half hour TV Show
    about "Terrorism, War and Immigrants."

    'Not in my name' - thousands on NY anti-war demonstrations
    On Sunday, October 6th, the SA branch participated at a larger rally at
    Union Square and a march to 42nd Street. About 3,000 people attended the
    rally. This a very positive event because it signalled that even at the
    start of the conflict there would be opposition to the war in NYC. There was
    a much more pronounced presence of young college students at the rally. We
    distributed 600 copies of a special flier that we produced and sold 50
    Statements and a small number of newspapers. The mood was good and it
    represented a certain revival for the crumbling NYC liberal Left.

    SA comrade Eljeer was prominently displayed in Newsday, a daily metropolitan
    newspaper with a large circulation. He was photographed at the Oct 7 rally
    on Sunday having a heated discussion with a pro-war Zionist youth. He was
    also interviewed by Channel 4 station, but it never made the air, probably
    because of its radical message. The anti-war rally in Times Square yesterday
    (Oct 8) was the first in New York since the bombing began on Sunday, and the
    crowd was fairly small probably 100-150 strong. There was quite a large
    rally of thousands the day before, and perhaps this was the reason for
    Monday's small turnout. The anti-war demo was heckled and jeered at by a
    rowdy group of pro-war types.

    We sold 15 copies of our statement, 'End The Cycle Of Terrorism' and
    distributed 100 leaflets and collected names on our sign-up sheet. One
    demonstrator gave us $5.00 for the statement. Today we will be intervening
    in a meeting of the Hunter Coalition against War and Racism. We will also be
    fly posting for our public meeting this Wednesday at the Hunter College
    Socialist Club.

    Significantly, the healthcare workers union 1199 has come out against the
    war and a large number of union officials have signed an anti-war statement.

    Comrades are reporting some very good discussions at their workplaces as
    well as an increase in anxiety and fear about what is going to happen.

    Since September 11 despite the difficult mood that existed, comrades
    intervened quite successfully raising issues about why the bombings took
    place and what was behind the tragedy.

    Among some workers there was a mood of quiet scepticism about the situation
    and a thirst to understand. For many people this was the first time that
    they had to consider international policy and the world situation. There was
    a period of three weeks when discussions were taking place about the
    situation in the Middle East, terrorism, US foreign policy, etc.

    We intervened with the SA statement, 'End the Cycle of Terrorism', the CWI
    statement, Socialism Today magazine and the SA newspaper at Hunter College
    teach-ins, which were attended by a couple of hundred people.

    On Saturday, September 29, several comrades intervened with the same
    material at a small rally / march (about 300) at 42nd Street against the war
    preparations. Three people said they were interested in joining us. We sold
    about 30 copies of the US Statement, about 10 newspapers and 3 copies of
    Socialism Today. (NY reports by comrades Alan and Margaret).

    Chicago protests
    The Chicago SA branch intervened in two anti-war protests of thousands on
    8-9 October.

    Student walk-out planned in Boston
    In the wake of the US bombing of Afghanistan, students from five UMass
    (university) colleges will walk-out of classes and gather at central spots
    on their respective campuses in protest, reports comrade Chris.

    Three thousand march in Melbourne
    The Socialist Party (Australian CWI section) made up a contingent on Monday'
    s emergency anti-war rally and a march in Melbourne, which attracted around
    2-3000 people, reports Jim O'Connor.

    We distributed an updated colander of anti-war events. We raised A$58 in
    paper sales and fighting fund. We are finding that our large and artistic
    banner is attracting people to our stall. We are participating in the
    broader movement and simultaneously reaching out to high school students by
    leafleting schools. We are setting up a group called 'Youth Against the War'
    and received ten names of people interested in joining the SP in less than
    an hour during the city street stall last Friday. We are also setting up
    local anti-war groups in selected suburbs.

    We are gearing up for the federal election campaign on November 10. The
    major parties, Labour and Liberal, are pro-war. We are standing comrade
    Steve Jolly and will be making the war an election issue.

    We are attempting to put forward our socialist ideas on platforms at the big
    anti-war rallies. Groups such as the ISO (SWP) and Democratic Socialist
    Party (DSP) tend to have strident rhetoric and slogans that are out of touch
    with the current consciousness of the working class.

    Weekly anti-war meetings and rallies continue. The next big one is on

    London Socialist Party members on the first protests against war
    Socialist Party members in Britain were out on a demonstration within 30
    minutes of the bombings starting on Sunday 7 October, reports Ken Smith. Out
    of a hastily organised demonstration of 200 we had nearly 40 comrades.

    We got a good response and sold over 30 papers. One comrade sold eight
    papers to passers-by alone. Two comrades, Lois Austin and Nancy Taaffe, were
    also quoted in the national press the following day.

    Lois was recognised as the leader of the demonstration. Dave Nellist,
    Socialist Party councillor in Coventry and national chair of the Socialist
    Alliance also issued a press release and was interviewed on two regional
    radio stations.

    At present, Dave is also likely to be the Socialist Alliance speaker on the
    big anti-war demo, which is scheduled for this Saturday, 13 October.

    The following day (Monday) there was an anti-war protest of over 2,000 in
    London. We sold over 150 papers on this and got hundreds of names for our
    anti-war campaign. Three people joined the party on the demo.

    Again we got good press coverage out of this, and Dave Nellist was described
    in The Independent (London) the following day as being the organiser of the
    Stop the War protests.

    There has generally been a good response on our paper sales and public
    meetings. Although some areas reported a flat mood just before the bombings
    started. But, nevertheless there have been some very good successes,
    including in Coventry, where comrades sold 67 papers. Bristol also sold 120
    papers over two days.

    Almost all of our public meetings so far have had new people at them and new
    people have joined the party in most areas as a result. Also, in some areas
    comrades are playing a leading role in the anti-war coalitions and some
    comrades have been platform speakers at their public meetings.

    Five hundred outside the US embassy in Brussels
    On October 8 there was an anti-war activity in Brussels initiated by a
    Flemish peace organisation called 'Vrede' (it is mainly a study circle that
    was originally linked with the Communist Party but which now works
    independently and is attracting some). Comrade Els explains that many other
    organisations were involved in this activity, as well as the Flemish
    Christian Union. Between 400 and 500 people attended the rally outside the
    US embassy. Twelve comrades sold between 25 and 30 papers. We had a
    two-language International Resistance leaflet, which advertised the national
    school student strike on 19 October. The strike was announced at the
    protest. We called for protests at the EU summit not only to campaign
    against neo-liberal policies but also against the war.

    Building the anti-war movement in the Czech Republic
    Immediately after bombing started we sent out a public statement in the name
    of our organisation and called for a demonstration in the centre of Prague,
    reports Vasek Votruba, (Socialisticka Alternativa Budoucnost).

    Today (8 0ctober) we collected around 20 signatures against war, gave out 50
    leaflets and sold 20 issues of our paper and 30 special statements,
    including a history of Afghanistan.

    On the most recent anti-war demo there were around 50 to 100 people. We had
    Socialisticka alternativa Budoucnost banner - 'Poverty, War, Terrorism =
    Capitalism'. We collected 30 signatures, sold 30 issues of paper and more
    than 40 statements.

    Unfortunately there is very strong pro-War propaganda by the government and
    media. Most people think there is not alternative to the "bombing of
    terrorists". But around 20% in polls stand against this. We try to show them
    an alternative with our slogans and propaganda: No to war! No to terrorism!
    which have been quite successful slogan. We have seven names of people who
    want to help us with this campaign. We have to give the real facts, stand
    against government and media propaganda and build support for another
    protest/demo. The Humanist Movement plans a demo for 19 October.

    Globalise Resistance just collected signatures under the vague petition
    'Stop the War' at the last rally. They do not talk about a solution to
    Afghanistan, they have no leaflets, and they have no papers. It shows us the
    importance of the CWI, and to have reports from US, Britain and other
    sections and how serious our approach is, even if in an unfavourable
    situation. People who meet us now know this.

    We got an e-mail message from a young student who visited our web page,
    agrees with our statements, and want to help with our campaign against
    school fees.

    Four thousand rally in Tokyo
    The international press reports that around 4,000 people rallied and
    demonstrated in Tokyo, Japan in protest against terrorism and a possible
    U.S. retaliatory war. The rally was organised by the National Confederation
    of Trade Unions (Zenroren) and peace organisations.

    Protests in five Dutch cities
    On Sunday there were hastily organised pickets and demos in five cities,
    reports Patrick from Offensief, Dutch section of the CWI. On Monday, they
    took place in twelve cities, such as Rotterdam and Amsterdam. The turnout
    included 300 in Amsterdam, and 500 in the northern town of Groningen. Other
    demos were smaller.

    There will be a big national demo at Saturday 20 October in Amsterdam,
    organised by the same broad committee (now including 165 groups) that held
    the 7,000 strong rally on 30 September.

    Offensief was mentioned in a special article in a rightwing/liberal national
    quality paper. It discussed the relationship between the anti-capitalist and
    peace-movement. Ronald was quoted as a member of Offensief, saying that if
    the war were still on at the time of the Brussels demo, it would turn into
    an anti-war-demo.

    Portuguese Left fails to seriously organise anti-war protests
    Neither the Portuguese Left parties nor the trade union movement have been
    taking initiatives against the war, reports Francisco from Alternativa
    Socialista. Up to now, only an organisation inspired by the Partido
    Comunista (communist party) has done anything, advertising a rally in front
    of the Israeli embassy to mark the first anniversary of the Intifada.

    We in Alternativa Socialista have translated of the CWI statement on the US
    bombings, as well as the statement of Socialist Alternative in the USA and
    we will also publish Trotsky's article on individual terrorism. We have also
    sent a statement to Left Bloc (a broad Left party) members, union members
    and others on the Left.


    Indian Anti-US War Protesters face severe repression

    Statement by the All India Peoples Resistance Forum (AIPRF)

    The Delhi Police raided the residence (also all India office) of G N
    Saibaba, the All India General secretary of All India Peoples Resistance
    Forum (AIPRF) at 11am today i.e. on 8th October at Pitampura, Delhi for
    taking a campaign against US War against Afghanistan. They confiscated
    leaflets of the campaign saying those who are against US war are against
    Indian national integrity because India Government is supporting US war
    against Afghanistan.
    The Police arrested on the morning of 8th six activists of AIPRF, who were
    distributing leaflets in residential colonies in the Jamuna Area of Delhi.
    The journalists, other activists and lawyers who went to enquire at
    Bhajanpura police station were not allowed to meet our activists in the
    station. The police produced the six activists in their custody before a
    court the in the evening. The court remanded them for 14 days of judicial
    custody. They were sent to Tihar Jail.
    Now the BJP-led NDA government is extending their crackdown on all those who
    are protesting against US war on the people of Afghanistan. In this context,
    AIPRF calls upon all democratic organizations in the country to come
    together to protest by forming A Committee Against US War.
    However, despite this swift crackdown on the organization in Delhi, AIPRF
    resolves to organize countrywide protests against US imperialist war on the
    people of Afghanistan and on the whole oppressed world in the name of
    fighting terrorism. AIPRF has been taking up several anti-war actions in
    various states.
      AIPRF also continues to support the religious and national minorities in
    all parts of India at this crucial juncture of time when they are persecuted
    by the Hindutva forces in complicity with the ruling NDA Government in the
    name containing terrorism and supporting US imperialist war for oil and more
    military bases in the Middle East.

    Whole article:


    For Immediate Release


    Saint Petersburg, FL -The American Indian Movement of Florida (Florida
    AIM) joined the Peace and Justice Coalition of Saint Petersburg, FL and
    joined their opposition to the unmeasured responses of the United States
    government to the heinous attacks of September 11, 2001 upon the World
    Trade Center in New York City, New York.

    Florida AIM is the state chapter of the international Indigenous peoples
    civil, human, treaty, and sovereignty rights movement founded by Clyde
    Bellecourt, Dennis Banks, George Mitchell, Eddie Benton Banai, Patricia
    Bellanger, Mary Jane Wilson and others in Minneapolis, MN-where AIM has
    maintained its National offices since.

    Our hearts go out to the victims and their families, and we mourn with
    them the loss of their loved ones. As a people who have historically
    suffered similar crimes against humanity perpetrated against peaceful
    Indian villages in North America, and continuing today against Indian
    civilians in several countries of North, Central and South America, we
    nonetheless at this time grieve and join our prayers and spirits with the
    families of the innocent victims of these acts of violence in New York
    City, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.

    Florida AIM condemns and opposes all acts of terrorism and opposes the
    initiation of violence. We believe this must include the attacks of
    September 11th, but also the actions of the infamous School of the
    Americas, Central Intelligence Agency and the United States government
    against Indigenous peoples throughout the Western Hemisphere and many
    other people in the so-called "third world." We applaud United States
    President George Bush's pledge to "root out terrorism." We wish we could
    believe him, but the first act to root out terrorism would be to denounce
    U.S.-inspired terrorism and bring it to a halt. Instead we see efforts by
    congressional and governmental leaders to increase U.S.-inspired terrorism
    throughout the world by authorizing U.S. operatives to assassinate
    governmental and non-governmental leaders. Florida AIM calls on the United
    States to act sincerely in opposing all forms of terrorism and bring to an
    end U.S.-inspired terrorism by closing the School of the Americas and
    similar terrorist training grounds as well as bringing to an end U.S.
    intelligence terror operations-such as the ones that trained Osama Bin
    Laden in the first place.

    The acts of September 11, 2001 were not acts of "war". War is defined as
    "a state or period of armed conflict between nations." Calling such a
    reprehensible act an act of war brings to it a level of justification that
    is not warranted. What occurred on September 11th was instead a crime, a
    violation of both United States and international law. Florida AIM
    supports and joins the call of several nations and non-governmental
    organizations that the perpetrators of this crime, after evidence is
    gathered and presented, be apprehended and tried before an international
    court. A militaristic response resulting in the deaths of more innocent
    people will neither serve the cause of justice nor prevent future attacks
    against the United States of America by other terrorist groups or

    Florida AIM is deeply concerned by actions and proposed actions by the
    United States government that will deeply impact the constitutional and
    civil rights of both United States citizens, and those legally residing
    within the United States. While there is unquestionably a desire to impose
    more rigorous security at a variety of locations, these measures need not
    extend to areas which will infringe upon the civil and human rights of
    both citizens and legal residents of the United States.

    As both an Indigenous rights organization and simply as an organization
    working for human rights, the American Indian Movement of Florida has a
    responsibility to oppose terrorism against human beings in all its forms
    and to speak out to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and all human
    beings. We therefore must stand opposed to any US response which results
    in the unwarranted deaths of innocent people, and to measures which will
    infringe upon the human and civil rights of people living in this great
    Turtle Island.

    136 4th Street N., Suite 308
    Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
    Phone 727-826-6960
    Fax 727-550-2207
    Email: AIMFL@aol.com
    Web Page:http://members.aol.com/Aimfl
    National Web Page http://www.aimovement.org
    Contact: Sheridan Murphy or Mark Madrid At 727-826-6960


    October 8, 2001

    In Three Languages, Urgently Chanting for Peace



    Just hours after United States and British forces began military strikes in
    Afghanistan, several thousand people attended a peace rally yesterday in
    Union Square Park and marched to Times Square, singing antiwar protest
    songs and carrying candles and banners announcing their opposition to
    military action.

    The protest, scheduled well before the strikes yesterday, was the first
    major demonstration to take place in New York since the Sept. 11 attacks.
    Its timing ^ coinciding with the outbreak of news about the military
    strikes in Afghanistan ^ gave the rally's speakers a new theme and urgency.
    It also gave critics of the rally more reason to oppose an event that some
    saw as fodder for Taliban propaganda.

    "We gather as bombs are falling in Kabul," said the Rev. Peter Laarman,
    senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village and the
    moderator of a series of prayers and speeches by religious leaders that led
    the rally.

    The protesters gathered in the north plaza of Union Square Park at 2:30
    p.m. and then marched uptown, chanting "peace, salaam, shalom" as they
    went. The crowd was seven city blocks long and ultimately swelled to close
    to 10,000 people, the police said. As the marchers arrived at 42nd Street
    and Broadway, another series of speakers, including two winners of the
    Nobel Peace Prize, addressed them.

    About 50 counter-demonstrators followed the marchers, holding up placards
    that read "Traitors: Welcome to New York" and other slogans. A number of
    cars honked and held up traffic, responding to signs reading "Honk if you
    love America." One man held up a sign reading "Smile! You're starring in
    the next Taliban propaganda film."

    Speakers at the rally expressed a range of emotion about the strikes, some
    voicing a fierce anger at the decision for military action, while others
    merely expressed hopes for a peaceful end to the conflict.

    David Klein, a Vietnam veteran who now represents a group called Vietnam
    Veterans Against War, wore camouflage as he addressed the crowd.

    "I don't want to see more Americans die because of a militarist cowboy, or
    be dragged into a war, a long land conflict," he said. "That's where I
    think Bush is taking us."

    Margarita Lopez, a city councilwoman from the Lower East Side, shouted into
    the microphone: "Not in my name, not in the name of New York City, not in
    the name of my district, you're not going to kill anyone in Afghanistan,
    Pakistan, or anyone in the Middle East."

    Other speakers seemed defensive about the possibility that their message
    would be viewed as unpatriotic.

    "I don't think anyone here is sympathetic with the Taliban, or with bin
    Laden or the terrorists," said Ronald Daniels, executive director of the
    Center for Constitutional Rights. "Everyone here condemns what happened,
    but people feel that there must be an alternative policy, that war cannot
    be the only answer."

    But others disagreed.

    "Although I think they have a First Amendment right to speak, in a time of
    war you have a responsibility not to provide a propaganda opportunity for
    our enemies," said Marc Wontorek, who stood just beyond the crowd at Union
    Square, holding up a banner critical of the march.

    A group of Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Hindu religious figures began the
    rally with an interfaith service, reciting prayers from the Bible, Koran,
    and other holy texts and adding their hopes for peace.

    "My greatest fear, as our country goes to war, is that we will kill
    thousands of noncombatants," said Rabbi Ellen Lippmann of Temple Kolot
    Chayeinu in Brooklyn. "We don't have a clear target."

    Other speakers included people who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks.
    Reuben Schafer, 87, spoke about his grandson Gregory Rodriguez, who worked
    at Cantor Fitzgerald and died in the trade center collapse. He read a
    letter from Mr. Rodriguez's parents addressed to President Bush: "Your
    response to the attack does not make us feel better about our son's death.
    It makes us feel worse. It makes us feel our government is using our son's
    memory as justification to cause suffering for other sons and parents in
    other lands."

    The march and rally were organized by New York Not in Our Name, a coalition
    of more than 100 groups, many of them formed in the past three weeks, said
    Leslie Cagan, one of the event's organizers.

    As the marchers made their way toward Times Square, they were led by two
    Nobel Peace Prize winners, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who was awarded in 1980
    for highlighting human rights abuses in Argentina, and Mairead Maguire, who
    was awarded in 1976 for her work with the peace movement in Northern Ireland.

    "We feel this conflict can be solved peaceably; we don't need to use more
    violence," Ms. Maguire said. "As I saw in Northern Ireland, it only begets
    more violence."

    Asked about alternatives to war, she said: "We have international
    standards. We don't need to attack the Afghani people."

    But others, following the marchers, expressed another view.

    "There's 5,000 people down there in the rubble, and they want justice,"
    said James E. Bancroft, a former Marine. He carried a sign declaring "Peace
    is one Pentagon; one U.S.S. Cole, two embassies and two towers too late."


    The Greatest Argument Against War

    By Brian Dominick

    On Wednesday, September 12, I was witness to the greatest argument
    against war the North American Left has ever had.

    I've never liked New York City. I've only gone there for the most
    compelling of reasons. When I awoke to the horrifying news of the
    incidents there on Tuesday morning -- still occurring, unbeknownst to
    anyone -- I already knew I would be going again. As a certified
    emergency medical technician, and a radical activist with street
    experience in mass casualty scenarios (through my involvement in the
    little-known field called "action medical"), it wasn't a matter of
    weighing options. The only questions were how? and how soon?

    I have told my story in great detail elsewhere. It isn't a story about
    my own heroism. It isn't a story about life-threatening or life-saving
    adventure. I wish it were. If I'd had any opportunity for heroism, any
    opportunity to save lives, that would mean so too did thousands of
    others. We already know thousands of lives were saved. My story begins
    at a point when there was little remaining success in such endeavors. It
    is a story about tragedy.

    My partner, Rachel, and I spent most of the day Wednesday working in the
    decontamination area at St. Vincent's Trauma Center, one of the main
    hospitals where blast victims and injured rescuers had been and were
    being taken. We had the opportunity to meet dozens of emergency workers,
    and treated several of them for minor injuries and contamination
    resulting from their participation in this most massive of rescue

    What we did not see is even more depressing. Our job was to strip and
    scrub victims when they were first brought in, so the soot they'd arrive
    covered in would not contaminate the rest of the hospital., then deliver
    them to the ER. Unfortunately, despite rumors (even over official
    channels), these rescued victims simply weren't showing up. While the
    rest of the world was hoping and praying more rescues would be made, it
    was becoming ominously obvious at St. Vincent's that there would quite
    simply be few more survivors, if any.

    In all, I would meet and talk to dozens of EMTs, hospital staff,
    firefighters, and other emergency workers. There was by now more
    exhaustion than dust in the air. Both tasted identical. One doctor who
    sat down near us was literally surprised by how it felt to actually sit
    down. It had been 24 hours, he announced, since he hadn't had his full
    weight on his feet. One nurse complained that her feet were so sore she
    was having trouble standing, much less walking -- I could only imagine.

    What I didn't hear, at all, were emergency workers of any kind clamoring
    for retaliation or war. In fact, it occurs to me that one of the only
    groups of people in this country which isn't demanding vengeance are the
    very people tasked with taking care of survivors, and recovering the
    thousands of bodies left in the mess.

    Among rescue and medical personnel in New York, the focus was on saving
    lives, not on taking more. This is certainly due in part to the
    necessity of staying focused on the job at hand, even during much-needed
    breaks. However, I think this restraint is also being shown because few
    people involved in the rescue efforts can bring themselves to wish upon
    others what they are currently going through.

    That night, we milled around for a while, checking in with some EMTs to
    see how they were holding up. We actually engaged in a very normal,
    generic medical conversation with one EMT. Anything for a distraction...

    It was during such a conversation that Senator Chuck Schumer passed by
    us while we sat on the steps to the ER. He stopped and turned to us. "I
    know what you've all been doing," he said. "You're all heroes." Four or
    five of us just stared back at him. I'm not sure about our newfound
    friends, but Rachel, Meredith and I didn't feel like heroes. It was odd
    to be referred to as such. We didn't know what to say. No one spoke. He
    didn't seem to mind. He turned and left.

    After a little discussion, and a few cups of coffee handed over by
    smiling volunteers, we decided to go deeper into the security zones with
    us. We headed down on foot. We wouldn't need to consult a map -- smoke
    still rising skyward marked our heading for us.

    It was well over a mile to Ground Zero. Halfway there, a police officer
    put us in a DPW truck and told the drivers to deliver us to the site. I
    was no longer surprised that, for this moment in time, not only were
    cops uninterested in bashing my head, they would go out of their way to
    help us try to be helpful. The oddities were piling up with the rubble.
    Many of them were welcome.

    What we found at The Site was an incredible scene. A light grey ash was
    met by reflections and glares of floodlights overhead, giving every
    still surface the appearance of having been lightly snowed upon. Where
    water from fire hoses or water main leaks had come in contact with this
    substance, it created small pools that resembled slush. I almost
    shivered by association, but alas we had had beautiful weather all day,
    and it remained quite warm even after dark. In fact, it felt oddly
    warmer near the site than it had at the hospital.

    Here the National Guard presence was quite obvious. We hadn't seen many
    Guardsmen before arriving at The Site. After asking around, we made our
    way to a place where dozens of ambulances were stationed in front of a
    school building. Here again we had the sense of being useless. Not
    because we weren't official or connected or skilled enough to help --
    but because there was simply nothing for EMS to do. Few if any survivors
    were being recovered. The scene was a grim convention of chauffeurs
    awaiting passengers who were simply not going to arrive.

    It was at The Site that the extent of this tragedy finally began to
    settle in on me. Until then, as for most people in the country and
    around the world, this monumental event had been a story, just like any
    other major piece of news. Granted, I had come all this way, expecting
    to experience the tragedy for myself, but it was difficult to accept
    that out of so many thousands of people known to have been in or around
    the buildings, so few were going to emerge. EMS workers milled about
    everywhere, attempting to ignore the fact that we were being ignored by
    those excavating the site, who simply didn't require our specialized

    Fire crews marched into the misty air floating over the rubble, toward
    the flood lights and away from us. I wanted to follow them, but there
    was a limit to where my EMT credentials would allow me access. Most of
    what they were pulling out was concrete. That which was organic was far
    more likely to be a corpse or a body part than a living human being.

    One of the things I noticed about Ground Zero was that pretty much the
    only people not wearing respirators or masks of some kind were the
    firefighters themselves. Nearly all EMS, National Guard and police
    personnel were covering their faces for protection from the dust. It was
    no secret that all sorts of horrible chemicals and substances were
    floating around in all that particulate debris. Yet almost none of the
    firefighters seemed to be wearing respiratory protection.

    After thinking long and hard about that, I decided it might well be a
    demonstration of solidarity for their brethren trapped below. All day
    one got the impression that, for the firefighters, the sense of urgency
    was higher than for most everyone else. They all knew people buried
    beneath the rubble. Additionally, they identified with them very
    strongly. It reminded me of the bond among action medics, and the way
    I've seen my fellow action medics behave in the streets when medics were
    injured or in trouble.

    We wandered into the command center -- the school cafeteria -- and made
    one last attempt to get involved through official channels. There the
    EMS dispatch officer expressed more gratitude, but explained that
    "freelance EMS people" were being told to go home. He saw our St.
    Vincent's security passes and inquired about the status there. I knew he
    didn't want to know "how many" patients were being brought in, like
    everyone else did. He knew that number all too well. We just told him
    St. Vincent's was running smoothly, and he seemed glad to hear it.

    I sat down at a table, and noticed a piece of paper with a color photo
    attached to it. The picture was of a young woman in her early twenties.
    It had her name and other identifying information on it. Her family had
    managed to pass it along this far. She was missing. And like everyone
    else who was missing, she was presumed dead.

    We didn't want to leave New York, but staying there had become too
    painful for me. Being unable to help kept me acutely aware of just how
    terrible this tragedy was. I didn't think I could stand it anymore.

    The drive home was as fast as the drive down. It was more silent,
    though. We alternated between listening to the news -- which we'd hardly
    done all day -- and listening to music CDs. A million thoughts stewed
    around in my head. It felt good to have been able to do something, but
    in context, it seemed we'd done almost nothing at all. For medics, there
    simply wasn't enough to be done.

    We listened to irate voices on the news, trying to reconcile the
    attitudes of those calling for vengeful murder, with those rescue
    workers struggling for life. This new wave of bloodlust, it occurred to
    me, is more a result of feeling helpless, than of anything rational or

    When we cry out for violence, we are indeed asking our leaders to do to
    other civilians and rescue workers precisely what has happened to us
    here. Let us use great caution and prudence in our solutions to this
    horror. We owe that to our counterparts the world over -- people who by
    no means deserve to suffer the way we are now.

    I think most people, having seen what I just have, would be hesitant to
    call for an expansion of this horror. Our country's first-hand
    experience with the reality of warlike violence will prove, in the end,
    our best leverage against engaging in yet another senseless bloodbath.
    Now that we have felt the pain our nation has continually and
    relentlessly dealt other nations, we have a unique opportunity to learn
    the lessons of the images and ravages of war even before we start.
    [Brian Dominick is a street first aid instructor and an active street
    medic, affiliated with the NorthEast Action Medics Association (NEAMA)
    and the Radical Emergency Squad (RESQ). Besides being a medic, Brian is
    a political commentator, a website developer/editor for ZNet
    (www.zmag.org), and a community activist.]


    Not Everyone Wants War


    Trying to voice dissent without seeming unpatriotic

    By Arian Campo-Flores
    NEWSWEEK, Oct. 1 issue

    These seem to be lonely days for the Birkenstock-and-beads set. As Old
    Glory proliferates across the country and rhetoric grows more bellicose by
    the day, America appears to be marching inexorably toward war. But despite
    the displays of unity, dissent is spreading. Last Thursday at the
    University of California, Berkeley, roughly 2,500 students and supporters
    rallied against war and racism in Sproul Plaza. In Boston and Cambridge,
    students carried candles as they walked for peace. At New York University
    that night, 250 students packed an auditorium and whooped in support as
    Sherry Wolf of the International Socialist Organization shouted, "We have
    every right, as they beat the drums in a war hysteria, to ask questions of
    this government."
    THESE ARE the early scenes of a nascent antiwar movement. Activists have
    quickly mobilized behind several causes: averting war against the already
    afflicted people of Afghanistan, fighting the erosion of civil liberties
    and protecting U.S. Arabs and Muslims against hate crimes. Protesters are
    organizing teach-ins, vigils and demonstrations. Last Thursday's rally at
    Berkeley was part of a nationwide effort involving 146 campuses in 36
    states. At Union Square in New York City, a spontaneous memorial blossomed
    into a monument to peace before it was taken down by the Parks Department.
    Getting the message out has been tricky. In these times of patriotic
    fervor, when even Todd Gitlin, former '60s
    radical and now an NYU professor, has a flag unfurled on his balcony, many
    people find the dissenters distasteful at best and traitorous at worst.
    Activists have been grappling with a knotty question: how do you voice
    dissent without seeming to minimize the horror of the attacks and the
    obvious need for greater security? "We avoided any political analysis in
    the first few days out of respect," says Scott McLarty, 43, of the D.C.
    Statehood Green Party. "What we're saying now is that the objective has to
    be justice and not vengeful retaliation."
    The anti-globalization crowd has had to shift gears. Some have adopted the
    battle cry of the antiwar demonstrators. Others have simply canceled their
    plans for protests later this month in Washington aimed at the
    International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; somehow, that cause seems
    less pressing.
    It remains to be seen whether more traditional peace
    groups will find new strength. At Peace Action in Washington, D.C., a
    descendant of antinuke groups, members are getting fired up, mobilizing
    local chapters, raising money, recruiting new members. "We're a little
    older and stodgier, at least that's how the young bucks of the
    anticapitalist movement see us," says communications director Scott Lynch.
    Yet the neopeaceniks are likely to find plenty of young converts among the
    globalization protesters, and draw on their organizational infrastructure.
    Are we about to witness the resurgence of flower power? "It's not going to
    be '60s peace and love," says Lynch. "I think the younger generation is
    going to be coming at it from a more pragmatic point of view." At this time
    of inflamed passions, they hope, appeals to the mind will prevail.


    Anti-war activists continue protests

    By Valerie Richardson

    While most Americans were applauding President Bush's decision to strike at
    terrorists in Afghanistan yesterday, clusters of peace activists were doing
    their best to shift public opinion in favor of peace.

    Bands of demonstrators held noisy but peaceful protests yesterday in a
    dozen U.S. cities, including Boston, New York, Washington, Los Angeles and
    Berkeley, Calif., calling on the Bush administration to stop fighting and
    start listening to the grievances of anti-American factions in the Middle East.

    "Killing Afghan people and bombing Afghanistan that doesn't change
    things," said Barbara Lubin, executive director of the Middle East
    Children's Alliance, who participated in an anti-war rally in Berkeley

    "The real hope for us as Americans is to say we really have to start
    behaving justly in the world," she said. "That means not spending $6
    billion every year on Israel. You cannot expect Arab and Muslim people not
    to be enraged."

    At the forefront of the anti-war rallies was the International Action
    Coalition, an anti-capitalism group founded by former Attorney General
    Ramsey Clark. The coalition, which has started a protest movement called
    ANSWER, or Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, yesterday called for a
    national student walkout and an "emergency response against war" in eight
    U.S. cities and in Australia.

    The group argued that war would only lead to more casualties. "If President
    Bush gets his way, instead of thousands of people being killed, the number
    of victims at home and abroad could grow to the tens of thousands and maybe
    more," the organization said on its Web site. "A new war against the people
    of the Middle East will only lead to an escalating of violence."

    At the coalition's protest in San Francisco, about 1,000 demonstrators
    chanted, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, we don't want your racist war," while speakers
    blamed the war on capitalism and the influence of corporations, according
    to the San Francisco Examiner.

    "This war is another war to extend the domination of corporate America,"
    Richard Becker of the International Action Center told the crowd. "And to
    that, we say no."

    By comparison, the Green Party was downright moderate. Although the Greens
    echoed the coalition's opposition to the military strikes, national
    spokesman Scott McLarty said the pro-environment political party had no
    plans to organize protests, and even praised Mr. Bush for saying he would
    try to avoid civilian casualties.

    "We maintain the position that the U.S. should deal with this as an
    international crime against humanity, instead of a war," Mr. McLarty said.
    "There was the possibility of further attacks against the U.S. anyway, but
    this ups the ante quite a bit."

    Most elected officials threw their support behind the military strikes, but
    Berkeley's were the exception. A majority of the nine-member City Council
    has come out against the bombing, and Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek was the
    featured speaker at yesterday's protest rally.

    "It's just machoism," said Berkeley City Council member Dona Spring. "Bush
    has got to prove he'll do something militarily, regardless of where Osama
    bin Laden is."

    The Daily Californian, the University of California at Berkeley's student
    newspaper, quoted activists at Sunday's anti-war rally in San Francisco,
    who called for a U.S. defeat in Afghanistan. "It's one of the most
    disgraceful days in American history. I wish the people of Afghanistan
    victory against the forces of U.S. imperialism," said Russell Bates of

    Rep. Barbara Lee, California Democrat and the only member of Congress to
    vote against the Sept. 14 resolution giving the president the authority to
    wage war against international terrorism, was more diplomatic. She issued a
    statement that stopped short of condemning the attack, but warned that the
    military strikes could result in the deaths of civilians.

    "I pray for the safety and the well-being of the brave men and women in our
    armed forces who find themselves in harm's way," the Oakland Democrat said
    in a statement. "We can only hope that the loss of life of innocent men,
    women and children in Afghanistan is minimized as much as possible."

    So far, those protesting the war are far outnumbered by those supporting
    it. Even peace activists agreed the anti-war rallies number no more than a
    few thousand.


    Speak No Evil


    How patriotism is trying to silence voices of dissent.

    by Daryl Gale, Frank Lewis and Gwen Shaffer
    October 411, 2001

    This is not the time.

    Over and over we've been hearing this phrase in recent weeks. It's not the
    time for Democrats in Congress to question President Bush. Not the time to
    make jokes, however dark, however grimly fitting. Not the time for any of us
    to appear doubtful about the course that our president has set us on since
    that recent, long-ago day when a handful of men armed with box cutters and
    motivations we'll never understand executed a plan almost sublime in its
    brutality and changed the world.

    Not the time. Some use exactly those words. Like when Bush's spokesman, Ari
    Fleischer, reacted to comments from comedian Bill Maher about America's
    cowardice in "lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away," by saying: "It
    's a terrible thing to say and it's unfortunate. There are reminders to all
    Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and
    this is not the time for remarks like that; there never is." With two
    sentences, Fleischer seemed to extend President Bush's challenge to the
    nations of the world ^ "Either you are with us or you are with the
    terrorists" ^ to Americans as well. And as of press time, his only attempt
    to modify his statement had been to claim he was speaking only of Maher and
    a particular member of Congress.

    Others, however, don't bother to present their contempt for others' views as
    admonishments, but rather skip right ahead to the threats. Often, these are
    threats of violence, sometimes veiled, sometimes not.

    Predictions of the death of irony were premature, it seems; chief among the
    freedoms for which our enemies supposedly hate us is our freedom to express
    ourselves, in art, in music, in politics, but most or all, in the written
    and spoken word. And it is in the name of protecting these freedoms that
    many among us would like others to shut up. They seem shockingly oblivious
    to the fact that censorship is supposed to be anathema to us. As writer
    Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. put it in 1860: "The very aim and end of our
    institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we

    But now is not the time.

    And sadly, not all of them are partisan political operatives or the armchair
    philosophers who have made talk radio so successful. Some of them work
    within or have some influence over the news and entertainment media, meaning
    they play a role in what the rest of us read, see and hear. And in their
    patriotic zeal, or their fear of those gripped by the patriotic zeal, they
    are censoring themselves. Even Saturday Night Live has gone all gushy,
    promising to avoid humor that, as producer Lorne Michaels put it, "is in any
    way disrespectful" to Bush, who before Sept. 11 was routinely portrayed on
    SNL as a squinting, adolescent buffoon. Presidenting just got a whole lot
    easier, because now is not the time.

    But we're in this for the long haul, right? So if not now, when? In the wake
    of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, there has been a growing intolerance for
    expressions of dissent over the latest additions to American dogma: that
    terrorists associated with Saudi exile Osama bin Laden were responsible for
    the attacks; that said attacks were utterly unprovoked; and that the best
    way ^ the only way ^ to respond is to visit grievous bodily harm upon these
    people, regardless of the cost in dollars and innocent lives.

    If this were an election, we could report that the votes are tallied, the
    final precincts have reported and the results are in: Free speech lost.

    California Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the lone "nay" vote on Sept. 14
    when Congress authorized the use of military force in response to the
    terrorist attacks. For voting her pacifist conscience, Lee has been vilified
    and excoriated in the court of public opinion. Lee's press secretary, Andrew
    Sousa, says that his boss has received 45,000 e-mails and faxes, most of
    them negative.

    "In the first days following the vote, the calls and e-mails were very angry
    and passionate," Sousa says, "and yes, there were threats and horrible,
    horrible things said. I should also say that now there are more calls and
    e-mails coming in from people who may disagree but respect Congresswoman Lee
    's vote as one of conscience. But more people are urging restraint now than
    there were two weeks ago."

    In defending her vote against the use of force, Lee writes, "I could not
    support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it
    would put more innocent lives at risk. I do not dispute the president's
    intent to rid the world of terrorism but ^ measures that spawn further acts
    of terror or that do not address the sources of hatred do not increase our

    Sousa, for his part, sees more danger in the tone of the correspondence his
    office has received than in his boss setting herself up as the sole voice of

    "Dissent, debate and discourse are the basis of our democracy, and it's
    ironic that while Americans rally 'round the flag to protect our way of
    life, we also happily trample on the tenets that way of life was based on,"
    Sousa says. "Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the First
    Amendment, and that means listening and giving due respect to opinions that
    may be unpopular at the moment."

    Tell that to Les Daughtry Jr. The editor and publisher of the Texas City
    Sun, Daughtry commadeered a portion of his paper's front page on Sept. 23 to
    apologize for a column, penned by city editor Tom Gutting and published the
    previous day, that sharply criticized Bush for taking so long to return to
    Washington on Sept. 11.

    And in a rebuttal titled "Bush's leadership has been superb," Daughtry
    called his city editor's words "offensive," "outrageous" and "so absurd that
    they don't even merit a response." He ended the fawning rebuttal with "May
    God bless President George W. Bush and other leaders, and God bless

    Reached at his office for comment, Daughtry admits that the paper was
    inundated with negative phone calls, faxes and e-mails Saturday after
    Gutting's piece ran, but says he was moved to write a rebuttal because he
    was personally offended by the column. He won't explain why Gutting was

    "I'm not going to comment on the matter past what I said in my rebuttal and
    apology," Daughtry says. "I'm a supporter of the First Amendment, and I
    think reporters and editors have the obligation to be voices of dissent at
    times, but this was beyond the pale."

    Daughtry refused to say whether the paper's advertisers threatened to pull
    out, and even refused to link Gutting's column with his being fired. He did
    admit that the Sun hasn't hired a new city editor yet, but plans to do so
    soon. He wouldn't speculate on whether the new editor would be restricted in
    what he writes for the paper.

    In Grants Pass, Ore., the Daily Courier fired columnist and copy editor Dan
    Guthrie for writing that after the attacks, Bush "skedaddled" and that,
    against the courage of the passengers who allegedly thwarted the fourth
    hijacking by ditching the plane in western Pennsylvania, "the picture of
    Bush hiding in a Nebraska hole becomes an embarrassment."

    The Daily Courier ran an apology to its readers the next day and handed
    Guthrie his walking papers.

    Philadelphia Daily News editor Zack Stalberg was alarmed when he heard that
    journalists were being fired for being critical of the president, and he
    vowed that no such action would ever be taken against a writer at his paper.

    "I'm just appalled that people are being fired for being the voices of
    dissent," Stalberg says. "But there really is a newfound sensitivity out
    there for George Bush in the wake of the attacks, and a tendency to see any
    criticism as a personal attack on the symbol of our country."

    Stalberg says that the recent Daily News editorial demanding "Blood for
    Blood" was almost unanimously embraced by readers, while at the same time he
    's heard flak from readers for even the mildest of criticisms of the

    "It's as though in times of crisis the president can do no wrong, which is
    bullshit. Public figures need to be called on the carpet when they're wrong,
    and it's our job to be the thorn in the side of politicians and point out
    the flaws in the political process."

    David Rolland was carrying on this tradition when he wrote an editorial
    titled "The politics of fear and anger" for the alternative newsweekly he
    edits, the Ventura County [Calif.] Reporter. Rolland accused Bush of
    manipulating the nation's fear and suggested that the president had
    "dangerously oversimplified a very complicated situation" by casting the
    U.S. as the good guy in a war on "evil."

    The first reader to call sounded friendly at first, but then claimed to have
    lost two people close to him in the attacks. "Then he said 'Watch your back
    walking to and from work,'" Rolland says. Another employee took the call, so
    it wasn't clear whether the threat was intended for Rolland or for everyone
    at the Reporter.
    Another caller asked if Rolland were still alive. Informed that he was, the
    caller said, "He shouldn't be."

    "It kind of left me a little weak in the knees," Rolland admits. His first
    concern, he says, was for the other employees. Later, his girlfriend pointed
    out that he, too, could be in danger.

    "It even made me second-guess what I had said ^ a little bit, momentarily,"
    he adds. But after re-reading the editorial, he decided it was valid, and he
    was glad he'd written it.

    "The publisher asked if this was a battle I really wanted to fight," Rolland
    says (Ventura County is "a fairly conservative place," he notes). "I said,
    'This is definitely a battle I want to fight.'"

    The complaints and vague threats of violence, he says, came from a few
    people "who are angry. Very patriotic and very angry." On Sept. 24, the
    guests on CN8's news show It's Your Call With Lynn Doyle included
    Congressman Jim Greenwood, a Republican from Bucks County, and Burton Caine,
    a law professor from Temple University.

    Greenwood and Caine mixed it up over the nagging question of civil rights
    versus national security. Caine raised the issue of declaring war; the
    Constitution gives this power to Congress, not the president. Greenwood,
    however, said Caine was missing the point.

    "Yes, there are some academics out there who would like to question that,"
    Greenwood said, "but with all due respect, sir, you're a tad out of step
    with where this country wants to go."

    In other words, get with the program.

    To his credit, Greenwood repeatedly made the point that civil libertarians
    should be part of the dialogue over protecting rights while increasing
    safety. But just as frequently, he suggested that if Caine and his ilk had
    nothing constructive to offer, they should keep quiet. "This is not a time
    for [a cynical] approach," he said.

    Later, in an interview, Caine says he is not surprised. "People who assert
    civil liberties are now considered disloyal," he says. After his appearance
    on CN8, he received several hostile phone calls: "Why don't you care about
    the civil rights of the people who got killed?" "Why don't you get out of
    your office and see the real world?" And so on.

    In his First Amendment classes, students are willing, even eager, to limit
    rights. Each semester he asks them to cite what they consider to be
    reasonable exceptions to protected speech. One year, they came up with 32.
    Even today, his students ^ future lawyers ^ are no more concerned with
    losing rights than the rest of the population.

    Now is not the time.

    But now is the time when voicing and listening to dissent is most crucial.
    Unity does not mean looking together in the same direction; it means looking
    together in all directions, because none of us, from the president on down,
    knows for sure where we're headed, or from whence the next threat will come.


    Two Who Voted Against War, 60 Years Apart

    No: The lonely stand against giving President Bush the
    power to act against terrorism recalls Rep. Jeannette
    Rankin, who was the one in December 1941.

    By Theo Lippman Jr.
    October 7, 2001; Baltimore Sun

    ONE IS THE loneliest number, especially when it's a
    high visibility congressional vote against a measure
    practically the whole nation supports - as was the case
    Sept. 14, when the House of Representatives voted 420
    to 1 to give the president power to retaliate against
    the terrorist attacks on America. California Democrat
    Barbara Lee defended her lonely stand by saying that
    authorizing military force to stop terrorism wouldn't
    work, and "I felt let's not do anything that could
    escalate this madness out of control."

    Being that out of step with public opinion can ruin a
    political career, but it can also be immortalizing.
    Take the case of Jeannette Rankin. Rankin was the
    lonely one in the House's 1941 vote of 388 to 1 for a
    declaration of war against Japan the day after the
    attack on Pearl Harbor.

    It was the most dramatic of her many acts in support of
    pacifism, feminism and social justice in four years in
    Congress and seven decades as a lobbyist, advocate,
    organizer and protest leader.

    Politically speaking, the 1941 vote was a disaster for
    Rankin, as had been her vote against the declaration of
    war against Germany in 1917. But today two private
    organizations bearing her name work for peace and the
    well-being of women, and a statue of her is on very
    prominent display in her home state.

    Jeannette Pickering Rankin was born to a well-to-do
    Republican family near Missoula, Mont., in 1880. After
    stints as teacher and social worker, she worked for the
    National American Woman Suffrage Association. She rose
    in its ranks, and when Montana gave women the vote, she
    won a seat as the first woman in the U.S. House of

    The day she joined the House, President Woodrow Wilson
    asked for a declaration of war against Germany. The
    measure was sure to pass the House. Friends and family
    tried to talk her out of opposing it. Her fellow
    suffragists feared such a vote by the only woman in
    Congress would hurt the effort for an amendment to the
    U.S. Constitution giving women the vote nationally.

    After a 14-hour debate, in which she did not
    participate, she said at roll call, "I want to stand by
    my country, but I cannot vote for war. I vote no." The
    measure passed 374-50. She did not return to Congress
    after the 1918 election.

    After the war, she became a delegate to the Women's
    International Conference for Peace and Justice, of
    which she became an officer. She spent much of her time
    in Washington, lobbying for her causes - for the
    Women's Peace Union and National Council for the
    Prevention of War, but also for such things as child
    labor laws for the National Consumers League.

    She decided she needed an East Coast base. Tired of
    Montana winters, she settled in Georgia, near the state
    university and Brenau, a woman's college that gave her
    an appointment to a "Chair of Peace." Opponents labeled
    her a communist. She sued a newspaper that ran a story
    to that effect, winning a public apology and $1,000.

    As the 1930s rolled on toward that famous date which
    lives in infamy, Rankin became involved with other
    pacifist efforts, including the Emergency Peace
    Campaign, which counted the Quakers among its principal
    patrons. She testified frequently before congressional
    committees, opposing military preparedness legislation.

    In 1940, she announced she would run for Congress again
    back in Montana, as a Republican. She campaigned in
    high schools, urging students to ask their parents to
    oppose the nation's involvement in a new world war. She

    Eleanor Roosevelt tried to get her to support Franklin
    D. Roosevelt. She refused. In February, May, June,
    October and November of 1941, she pushed unsuccessfully
    for legislation that would, among other things, require
    congressional approval for moving troops out of the

    On Dec. 8, the House rushed through a declaration of
    war in less than an hour. She tried to speak against
    the measure on the floor, but she was blocked until the
    roll call vote reached her. "As a woman, I can't go to
    war," she said, "and I refuse to send anyone else."

    She was booed - in the House that day, later in press
    and pulpit. Only a few voices saluted her "courage."
    Rankin was not re-elected in 1942. (Barbara Lee is
    unlikely to suffer that fate. Her district includes
    Oakland and Berkeley. Even critics of her vote have
    called it "heroic" and "an act of conscience.")

    Throughout World War II, Rankin spoke against Roosevelt
    and his policies. She accused him of provoking the
    attack on Pearl Harbor. She traveled and spoke in the
    post-war years, but there was no peace movement to

    Vietnam changed that.

    In 1968, at age 87, she accepted a request to lead a
    Women's Strike for Peace march on Congress. The
    marchers called themselves the Jeannette Rankin

    She remained active in her causes until her death in

    Her spirit abides at the Jeannette Rankin Foundation in
    Georgia, which gives education grants to "mature,
    unemployed women workers," and at the Jeannette Rankin
    Peace Center in Missoula, which works "to teach the
    fundamental skills of peacemaking."

    And she is one of the two Montanans chosen by the state
    to be honored with a statue in the Capitol's Statuary
    Hall Collection.
    Theo Lippman Jr. is a retired editorial writer for The


    UW mall rally draws 20,000


    By Aaron Nathans
    September 15, 2001

    The massing of students on the UW Library Mall brought to mind the Vietnam
    War-era protests on campus. But few in this crowd got wild, chanted
    slogans, or even knew the words to "We Shall Overcome."

    There was the sea of red, white and blue, but the gathering didn't have the
    jingoism of a Persian Gulf War rally.

    In a mass moment of release and a sober display of grief, an estimated
    20,000 students and others packed the central square of the University of
    Wisconsin-Madison campus Friday to take part in the national day of
    remembrance after Tuesday's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

    The event was full of calls for restraint; despite national polls urging
    retaliatory strikes, no one made similar suggestions from the podium.

    "I've taught on this campus for quite a few years, and I've never seen a
    gathering like this," said Joe Elder, a UW sociologist who was a member of
    UW Faculty Against the War during the Vietnam era, addressing the noon-hour
    crowd. "We can understand why some of us are calling for war. At times like
    this we must remember that nothing kills innocent civilians like war."

    Disrupting Elder's speech were three Christian fundamentalists from Eugene,
    Ore., sisters who described themselves as from the "Kingdom of God." One
    shouted: "What happened in New York is nothing compared to what is coming
    on the day of judgment."

    They taunted the puzzled crowd with claims that they were going to hell.
    Outraged students pulled down their banners, which read "Jesus soon to
    judge" and "All that matters - you are headed for hell." A man hauled away
    one of the protesters in a firm bear hug, as the crowd clapped, until
    campus police got there to arrest the demonstrators. The man disappeared
    into the crowd.

    University Police charged Sarah Woroniecki, 20, Ruth Woroniecki, 19, and
    their unidentified 16-year-old sister with disorderly conduct, said Capt.
    Dale Burke. They were booked and released from the Dane County Jail, Burke

    Elder never stopped talking.

    "Perhaps from this tragedy we can develop effective means of discovering
    the root causes of terrorism," he continued.

    Burke said university officers needed Friday's event as much as everyone
    else to mourn and be part of the community.

    "Unfortunately, we were denied that opportunity halfway through the
    ceremony. I'm sorry that had to happen. But we don't get to take off,"
    Burke said in an interview. He added later: "We need a weekend. We need a
    weekend of not doing anything, to go home, relax. We need to recover. We've
    been so busy this week that we haven't had time to decompress."

    Interim Provost Gary Sandefur spoke at the vigil for Chancellor John Wiley,
    who was stranded in California on a fund-raising trip when the airlines
    shut down. Sandefur urged students to do whatever they needed to do to deal
    with the tragedy, but to be respectful of others.

    Jessica Miller quoted Martin Luther King Jr. saying: "An eye for an eye
    leaves everyone blind." Miller, chairwoman of Associated Students of
    Madison, gave an impassioned address, urging that students treat each other
    fairly despite ethnicity. "I have seen what we can do when we come
    together," she said.

    Soloist Jackie Colbert brought many in the crowd to tears as she sang
    "Amazing Grace."

    After the event, students exchanged hugs and comforted each other.

    Katey Salm of Appleton said the World Trade Center tragedy was an event
    that everyone can relate to.

    "It puts a little fear into everyone. I have not stopped watching the news.
    Yesterday was just the killer. It was just about stories. I think I cried
    every 10 minutes," Salm said. "Trying to find live people in there is like
    trying to find needles in a pile of shredded glass that you can't touch."

    Students are gathering in small groups all over campus, said Dean of
    Students Alicia Chavez. Some are starting a relief fund for the victims and
    their families. Others are volunteering to drive students home to New York.

    "People want to do something. They're feeling helpless," Chavez said.


    World's People Say "No" To War

    A simultaneous international poll conducted by Gallup International
    provides a surprising picture of the world's people in substantial
    agreement with one another, while world leaders are distinctly
    out-of-step with a more militaristic attitude. Concerns about the
    economic future and the impact of US foreign policy were also

    In the US corporate media, virtually all discussion of responding to
    the terrorist attacks of September 11 is phrased in military terms.
    However, there's another alternative: responding to it as what it
    actually is, a crime against humanity. Taking the approach of
    international law has barely been mentioned in the corporate media,
    yet 30% of Americans support this option, compared to 54% who support
    a military response (with 16% undecided), according to a Gallup poll
    conducted last week.

    It seems quite likely that a majority of Americans would support the
    international law approach, if only they heard it talked about
    seriously, had it explained, and heard its pro's and con's contrasted
    with those of a military response. As it is, the US is one of only 3
    countries out of 35 surveyed by Gallup International in which more
    people favor a military approach. The other two, Israel and India,
    both have experienced decades of conflict with Islamic neighbors and
    are far more militaristic in their response.

    Elsewhere, landslide majorities favor a non-military approach.
    Support for a non-military approach ranges from 67% to 88% among
    NATO/Western European nations, from 64% to 83% among Eastern European
    nations, and from 83% to 94% in Latin America.

    This held true even in countries with the highest levels of support
    for military action. In Western Europe, France and the Netherlands
    show the strongest support for a military approach, but this position
    is outnumbered by 2-to-1. In Eastern Europe, the 22%-64% breakdown in
    the Czech Republic is nearly 3-1 against a military response. In
    Latin America, Ecuador's 19%-83% breakdown is over 4-1 against
    military action.

    In short, aside from the US, Israel and India, the overwhelming
    majority of people around the world favor treating this terrorist act
    as the crime it is, rather than the act of war the terrorists want it
    to be.


    Say what you want, but this war is illegal

    Tuesday, October 9, 2001
    The Globe and Mail (Toronto)

    A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on
    Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates
    international law and the express words of the United
    Nations Charter.

    Despite repeated reference to the right of
    self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does
    not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to
    repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a
    temporary measure until the UN Security Council can
    take steps necessary for international peace and

    The Security Council has already passed two
    resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and
    announcing a host of measures aimed at combating
    terrorism. These include measures for the legal
    suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for
    co-operation between states in security, intelligence,
    criminal investigations and proceedings relating to
    terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee
    to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution
    and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.

    Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize
    the use of military force. True, both, in their
    preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of
    self-defence, but they do so "in accordance with the
    Charter." They do not say military action against
    Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence.
    Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral
    self-defence does not include the right to retaliate
    once an attack has stopped.

    The right of self-defence in international law is like
    the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows
    you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but
    it does not allow you to take the law into your own

    Since the United States and Britain have undertaken
    this attack without the explicit authorization of the
    Security Council, those who die from it will be
    victims of a crime against humanity, just like the
    victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Even the Security Council is only permitted to
    authorize the use of force where "necessary to
    maintain and restore international peace and
    security." Now it must be clear to everyone that the
    military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with
    preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more
    likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush
    administration concedes that the real war against
    terrorism is long term, a combination of improved
    security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S.
    foreign alliances.

    Critics of the Bush approach have argued that any
    effective fight against terrorism would have to
    involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington conducts
    its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has
    promoted violence for short-term gain, as in
    Afghanistan when it supported the Taliban a decade
    ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein against
    Iran, and Iran before that when it supported the Shah.

    The attack on Afghanistan is about vengeance and about
    showing how tough the Americans are. It is being done
    on the backs of people who have far less control over
    their government than even the poor souls who died on
    Sept. 11. It will inevitably result in many deaths of
    civilians, both from the bombing and from the
    disruption of aid in a country where millions are
    already at risk. The 37,000 rations dropped on Sunday
    were pure PR, and so are the claims of "surgical"
    strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We've
    seen them before, in Kosovo for example, followed by
    lame excuses for the "accidents" that killed

    For all that has been said about how things have
    changed since Sept. 11, one thing that has not changed
    is U.S. disregard for international law. Its
    decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999
    bombing of Yugoslavia were both illegal. The U.S. does
    not even recognize the jurisdiction of the World
    Court. It withdrew from it in 1986 when the court
    condemned Washington for attacking Nicaragua, mining
    its harbours and funding the contras. In that case,
    the court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting
    under Article 51 in defence of Nicaragua's neighbours.

    For its part, Canada cannot duck complicity in this
    lawlessness by relying on the "solidarity" clause of
    the NATO treaty, because that clause is made expressly
    subordinate to the UN Charter.

    But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case
    like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is
    no limit to international violence but the power,
    ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without
    the international legality of the UN system, the
    people of the world are sidelined in matters of our
    most vital interests.

    We are all at risk from what happens next. We must
    insist that Washington make the case for the
    necessity, rationality and proportionality of this
    attack in the light of day before the real
    international community.

    The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral
    equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept.
    11. We may come to remember that day, not for its
    human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong
    plunge into a violent, lawless world.
    Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law
    School in Toronto, specializes in international
    criminal law.

    Anti-war resources:


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Oct 13 2001 - 20:53:46 EDT