radtimes on Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:51:44 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Anti-war actions...continued (2) |
[multiple items] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A new peace movement emerges Students rally Thursday; peace gathering set for Sept. 30 By Eric Pianin THE WASHINGTON POST Sept. 20 — Ending their silence after a week of mourning the victims of terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, a broad range of religious leaders, social activists, entertainers, student organizations and business leaders are publicly beginning to urge President Bush to show restraint in his response and to carefully calibrate the use of U.S. military power. 'We must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent life.' — NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES AS PART OF the budding peace offensive, over 1,200 members of the National Council of Churches and a diverse coalition — organized by Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and Rosa Parks — issued strong statements yesterday noting that, while the attacks' perpetrators should be brought to justice, wholesale military action would incite more terrorism, not end it. Demonstrations and teach-ins are planned on scores of campuses today, and some of the groups that had geared up to protest the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Washington are joining forces, instead, in plans for a peace gathering here on Sept. 30. Some protesters bring a special moral force to their argument. Judy Keane, whose husband, Richard, was killed in the World Trade Center during last week's attacks, spoke out against military retaliation during a prayer vigil that she helped organize near her home in Wethersfield, Conn., Sunday evening. The event drew more than 5,000 people. "The World Trade Center was in retaliation for something else, and that was the retaliation for something else," she said in a telephone interview yesterday. "Are we going to continue this in perpetuity? We have to say at some point, okay, let's find another way of doing this." Businessman and CNN founder Ted Turner argued against a military solution yesterday at the United Nations as he delivered a $31 million check to cover part of the United States' U.N. dues. "We should not, I don't think, go around and indiscriminately start bombing countries that we suspect the terrorists are in because there are terrorists everywhere, here in the United States," he said. "What were [Oklahoma City bombers] Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh but terrorists?" The statement by the National Council of Churches declared: "We must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent life." The coalition of more than 100 people organized by entertainers Belafonte and Glover and civil rights legend Rosa Parks said in a separate letter: "Our best chance of preventing such devastating acts of terror is to act decisively and cooperatively as part of a community of nations within the framework of international law." Organizers say there is a fast-growing network of peace activists who will likely outnumber the demonstrators who rallied during the Persian Gulf War a decade ago. Student groups are planning peace demonstrations on 105 college campuses in 30 states across the country today. More than 1,000 students and community members from nine Boston-area schools are expected to participate in noontime rallies that will converge in a march from Boston to Harvard Yard, while close to 3,000 are expected to march and mourn on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley. "There's pretty much a consensus among students in this group [that] we want to prevent the continuation of the cycle of violence by averting war," said Brad Hornbake, 22, a senior at Emerson College in Boston. Meanwhile, the Washington Peace Center, a pacifist and human rights group, is planning a major "peace event" in Washington on Sept. 30 as an alternative to the canceled meetings of the World Bank and IMF. Organizers stressed that the event will not involve any of the "confrontational tactics" that were used during previous meetings of the international agencies. "We don't want the violence here to be perpetrated somewhere else," said Maria Ramos, a coordinator of the event. "The U.S. has the moral high ground now ... This is a time for building alliances based on law and strengthening international tribunals [for] cross-border terrorism." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Students rally against war Sept. 20, 2001 By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY Remember the peace movement? It's back on campus. This time it's called "Peaceful Justice," and students are swimming against the patriotic tide following last week's terrorist attacks. A wave of anti-war sentiment crests at noon Thursday on 150 college campuses in 36 states. Organizers expect as many as 8,000 people to rally at the University of California-Berkeley and as few as several dozen to sign letters to President Bush at Baylor University, a Baptist school in Waco, Texas. They are a distinct minority, but these students want the nation to hear their argument for "justice without war," and their distress at the rapid move to war footing. "We should work on a peaceful solution as opposed to continuing the global cycle of violence," says Jessica Gould, 20, a Harvard sophomore from Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J. "We shouldn't answer the deaths of thousands of innocent people with more deaths of innocent people." Students at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., originated today's national action. "We just really wanted to get an alternative way to react to the situation, " says Mary Thomas, 19, a sophomore from Lafayette, Calif. The alternative appears to exclude confronting terrorists, however. In its mission statement, the group opposes "retaliatory violence" and urges U.S. policymakers to study the underlying causes of terrorism. Campuses have been holding teach-ins, memorials and other events since the attacks Sept. 11. As Bush has tried to prepare the country for a long-term war against terrorism, many college newspapers have published dissenting views. A military attack guarantees that "our search for justice will end in the slaughter of more innocent civilians," said editors of The Michigan Daily at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "Punish (Osama bin Laden) in our federal courts," Chris McCall, a junior at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, wrote in The Badger Herald. Nick Woomer, 21, a philosophy major at the University of Michigan, says he has received one-third positive, two-thirds negative responses to a column in which he called for "a strong, broad-based anti-war movement to bring everyone back to their senses." He calls Bush's rhetoric "pretty scary." Academics who study social movements say students are being taught to question and analyze, and that's what they are doing. Peter Kuznick, an associate history professor at American University in Washington, D.C., says scores of his 180 students say the country should "step back and think" before doing anything. He says they are critical of U.S. foreign policy, curious about why the United States is so hated and convinced that "a military response will probably cause more harm than good." Todd Gitlin, a sociologist at New York University, says students have a right to be skeptical, but they also a responsibility to suggest realistic alternatives. "Bin Laden is not going to walk into a police station to turn himself in," he says. "Are they really opposed to armed force that accomplishes that end?" Gitlin led the leftist Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s and protested the Vietnam War. Now he has hung a flag outside his Greenwich Village apartment and says the nation has "a right of self-defense," albeit "restrained and focused," in the face of attack. Jessica Gould's father, Harris, a New Jersey lawyer, also protested the Vietnam War. The difference now, he says, is that "we are under a direct threat" and must "root out" terrorists. "I would not like to see innocent people be killed, although I understand there would have be to some of that," he says. The organizers of today's events are not ready to settle for that. "I personally feel that war is never the solution," says Andy Ross, 25, of Madison. "It's better to sit down and talk and work these things out, rather than going into a violent situation which will inevitably harm innocent people." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 'War Is Not the Answer,' Pacifists Tell Their Fellow Mourners Joining a candlelight vigil near Greenwich Village, hundreds plead for a nonviolent response. by Matea Gold Published on Sunday, September 16, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times NEW YORK -- The mementos of death are everywhere. Fliers showing the missing hang from the fences around Union Square Park; wax from hundreds of candles melts onto the stone plaza. Photos of the World Trade Center's twin towers are pasted onto the lampposts, and piles of flowers wilt in the warm September sun. But in this park--which once offered a clear view of the two skyscrapers reduced to rubble in Tuesday's attacks--mourning for the dead and missing mingles with yet another, more unusual sentiment: a call for peace. The base of the tall statue of George Washington is covered with such messages as "Pray for Peace." Across the grass, a long cloth banner is strung on a wire fence: "Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but of justice lived--Gandhi." In this park on the edge of Greenwich Village, one of the city's most liberal neighborhoods, a loud chorus of dissent blends with the grief. Hundreds have flocked here to voice their pleas for restraint, fearful that the Bush administration's vow to take action against both terrorists and the countries harboring them will lead to further violence. Debora Goldstein knelt on the grass Saturday afternoon and carefully penned a message on the banner: "Will no one hear us who are crying for peace?" "We cannot honor our dead by killing innocent people," said the 33-year-old administrative assistant. "That is not the way to find justice." These pleas for peace fall within a tradition of New York dissent. Nearly every American military action abroad has met here with protests of one kind or another. But in a city reeling from the worst terrorist attack in history--widely believed to be at the hands of militants whose goal is to destroy everything Americans hold dear--most New Yorkers are loudly calling for a tough military response. And so on Friday night, it was startling to see thousands of people pack Union Square Park for a candlelight peace vigil. To be sure, many came simply to mourn. But dozens wore fliers pinned to their backs that read: "Islam is not the enemy. War is not the answer." Some say they are terrified that U.S. military action will only spark more violent attacks against Americans. Others argue that the U.S. needs to reassess a foreign policy they believe has fed a hatred of America. Many admit to confusion about what the U.S. should do to respond to Tuesday's attacks, suggesting an international tribunal. They are resolute that bombing is not the answer. "There is a really forceful hand winding up to hit somebody, and I don't know that it's going to hit the right person," said Kimberly Peirce, a writer and director holding up a large banner that read, "NYC wants Justice, Not Revenge." "If we obliterate Afghanistan, who's to say that's going to make a safer situation?" she added. Hoping to bring calm, peace activists nationwide have held prayer meetings and candlelight vigils. They've called the White House and members of Congress, begging them not to go to war. "Often we counsel other nations that they need to stop and reflect," said Mary Lord, a Washington-based lobbyist for the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group. "We've said that to people in Northern Ireland and the Middle East, and now we have to say it to ourselves." But those calling for peace acknowledge that they are in the minority. In fact, recent polls show that most Americans overwhelmingly favor military retaliation. "I think people are being consumed in this thirst for blood, for immediate revenge," said Karen Zraick, 19, a student at State University of New York in Purchase. "This is already a horrible tragedy. We have two choices: escalate the violence or de-escalate." Union Square Park has been transformed into an odd tableau of patriotic symbols, memorials and 1960s-flavored symbols. Paper doves bob next to American flags. At the vigil, mourners held hands and sang "Kumbaya," "Give Peace a Chance" and the national anthem. Strangers engaged in passionate arguments about what path to take. Osama Chahine, 29, and Dale Britton, 32, stood debating in the park for three hours. "My heart so yearns for justice," said Britton, a teacher of English as a second language. "I think the only way is to do it through the military. But I don't know what the target is." "We have to make sure we're destroying terrorism and not just spreading more hatred and violence," responded Chahine, a student at Columbia University. Around them, candles flickered in the dark as the crowd sang, "I ain't going to study war no more." Overhead, fighter jets streaked through the sky. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VOICES OF RESTRAINT Peace vigils planned throughout the US Amid talk of war, movement pleads for reconciliation By Alice Dembner and David Abel, Boston Globe Staff, 9/18/2001, page A3 NEW YORK - They are gathering quietly in vigils, not mounting protests. And they are largely being drowned out by a feverish tide of war rhetoric. But across the country, voices of pacificism and restraint are growing stronger. Little more than a mile from ground zero of the incinerated World Trade Center, a vigil at Union Square for the victims has already evolved into an ad hoc center for the budding peace movement. The square's monument to George Washington is not only draped in American flags, but also covered with antiwar slogans. Peace vigils have been held from Portland, Ore., to Cambridge, Mass., and hundreds more are planned over the coming weeks. More than 100 civil rights and religious organizations plan to gather Thursday in Washington to map a larger response to last week's terrorism, hoping to moderate the government's support for military strikes abroad and expanded law enforcement powers at home. Separately, peace groups will gather in New York Friday to plan national action against President Bush's declared ''war on terrorism,'' arguing that war is not the answer and will only add to the carnage. ''We're mobilizing the peace community to call for reconciliation, not retaliation,'' said Judith Mahoney Pasternak of the War Resisters League. ''The faster we start singing the songs of peace to counter the drums of war, the better it's going to be.'' While the War Resisters League said their organizing efforts have been hampered by phone and e-mail failures at their offices only 11/2 miles from ground zero, other groups said they had been moving slowly out of respect for the victims. ''We are committed to building public opinion in our communities and then moving in the near future to a national expression,'' said Judith McDaniel at the national office of the American Friends Service Committee in Philadelphia. She confirmed that the office has received several bomb threats since it launched a national ''No More Victims'' peace campaign. Meanwhile, some in Congress are questioning whether lawmakers are rushing into actions that will harm America. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, yesterday said he is worried that the push to relax wiretapping restrictions could infringe on civil liberties. ''We do not intend to tie the hands of the intelligence community, but neither do we intend to curb the rights of millions of Americans,'' he said. And Representative Barbara Lee, the California Democrat who was the only member of Congress to vote against last week's resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against terrorism, says there is growing support for her stand. ''People are beginning to understand that we must show some restraint, that we don't want to see this spiral out of control,'' Lee said. ''We've got to make sure democracy is upheld and our country is safe.'' It's not only pacifists who oppose the war rhetoric, but also others who look to history and see failures and abuses when the United States moved without enough thought. In 1998, they note, US forces bombed a suspected chemical weapons plant in Sudan that turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory. And in World War II, hysteria led the United States to round up Japanese-Americans into internment camps. ''I really have a problem with the war analogy,'' said Stephen Zunes, chairman of the peace and justice studies program at the University of San Francisco. ''This was not an act of war but a criminal act. We need to think in terms of police actions in response. But I don't think it would be unreasonable to have small-scale commando operations to break up the terrorist cells.'' Longtime pacifist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky opposes even that action. ''A call for revenge without thinking about what lies beyond is a gift to the terrorists,'' he said. ''It virtually guarantees an escalating cycle of violence. An alternative in the short term is to follow the rule of law through the United Nations Security Council or the World Court.'' Retired Boston University historian Howard Zinn suggests that the answers to terrorism lie elsewhere. ''We have to move from a war-making nation to a nation that uses its resources for constructive purposes ... to get at the grievances that feed terrorism,'' he said. In the Boston area, peace vigils are planned at noon today at the JFK Federal Building and at 6 p.m. tomorrow at Copley Square, with a planning meeting for more events to follow. At Tufts University, members of the peace and justice studies program are circulating a petition urging that ''the search for justice'' focus only on the perpetrators of the crime, avoid targeting entire nationalities, and respect civil liberties. At Union Square in New York, young and old, Jews and gentiles, blacks and whites have gathered around thousands of votive candles, American flags, and pictures of the missing to pay their respects and chant such slogans as ''Vengeance isn't justice'' and ''Break the cycle of violence: War is weakness, peace is strength.'' ''People need to know that there are other feelings in America, that we are not all hawks hoping to exchange an eye for an eye,'' said Josh Torpey, 24, a Manhattan teacher who met a group of friends on Union Square Sunday night. Ted Lawson, a 31-year-old artist from Boston, was creating a painting of the American flag out of thumbprints of passersby to signify American unity, but said he wondered whether previous acts of war by the United States had encouraged terrorism. Heated arguments have erupted throughout the park between those who question US policy and those who believe the United States should annihilate any group or country who helped organize the attacks. But others were frightened about the prospect for war. Lighting a candle next to a row of roses arranged to evoke the World Trade Center, Christine Andriopoulos said she was scared. ''The message should be that the violence has to stop,'' she said. ''Here. Now. Forever.'' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thousands Rally for Peace in Portland, Oregon [On Sunday, September 16, there was a massive rally in Portland Oregon. It was seriously under-reported by the mainstream media, who have also failed to cover many other demonstrations around the world against Bush's Crusade of Terror. There have been demonstrations for peace (or against the United States) in Germany, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and El Salvador as well as, unsurprisingly, in Pakistan. In San Salvador, American and Israeli flags were burned over the weekend in a student demonstration. ] source - Red Emma <redemma13@yahoo.com> THOUSANDS march for peace in downtown Portland Many thousands of people gathered on the South Park Blocks Sunday at noon to rally and march for peace. The event, put on by Portland Peaceful Response, had three themes: (1) to mourn the victims of Tuesday's terrorist attack; (2) to speak out against racist scapegoating; and (3) to demand that there be no more violence, including no military retaliation by our government. The crowd was the largest seen at any anti-war demonstration since the Gulf War ten years ago. A count taken at one street corner registered 2,630 people. Estimates of the total number of people ranged from 3,000 to 4,500. Attendees and speakers ran the gamut from members of the local Middle Eastern community, to Native American and Christian spiritual leaders, to teachers and union activists, to long-time peace activists, and many more. We all were very much heartened to see so many of our fellow Portlanders coming out and standing up for peace. As several speakers remarked from the stage, the media accounts saying 85% of Americans support war do not seem so believable now. There was no counter-demonstration, and I personally did not see any harassment or overt hostility from passers-by, although there may have been some. For a fuller account, with pictures, go to www.portland.indymedia.org (give them a few hours to get everything loaded up!) Look for us on tonight's news--just about every local station was there. Listen to KBOO 90.7 FM Monday morning at 7am for audio coverage. If there's nothing about this in Monday's Oregonian, call them up and ask them why. Above all, help spread the word. In this frightening and confusing time, those of us who support peace are not alone! Attendees at the rally signed a letter to President Bush, and were urged to make calls to our representatives in Congress. EVERY ONE of our Oregon congressional representatives voted for Friday's resolution authorizing use of force (basically, a new "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution authorizing the President to do whatever he wants). But they may change their tunes, if they hear from enough constituents. This could be the beginning of a long war, and it is not too late for our congress to change course and reconsider. We should tell them: NO declaration of war against Afghanistan; the PEOPLE of Afghanistan are not our enemy. The Capitol Switchboard number is 1-888-449-3511 or 202-224-3121. The White House comment line number is 202-456-1111 (not that HE's going to listen, but heck, we can try.) If/when the bombing starts, there is still a standing plan for an emergency protest action: 4-6 pm at Terry Schrunk Plaza (SW 3rd and Madison, across the street from the Federal Building). This will be the DAY OF the bombing, if it starts before 4pm; and the DAY AFTER, if it starts after 4pm. Portland Peaceful Response will continue to coordinate these actions. We can be reached at 503-223-1399 (voice mail) or <portland911.tripod.com> (website). . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A New Movement Emerges Against War, Violence <http://www.aztlan.net/ucberk.htm> Anti-War Coalitions Form at College Campuses Across U.S. By EVE LOTTER. Contributing Writer Tuesday, September 18, 2001 Alarmed by President Bush's declaration that the nation is headed to a "new war" against terrorism, some students at UC Berkeley have already set up a coalition calling for an anti-war movement. Students from UC Berkeley and at least 30 different schools across the country are organizing marches, rallies, and teach-ins to take place on Thursday as part of a "National Day of Action Against Scapegoating Arab Americans and to Stop the War," organizers said. "I don't think more violence will solve the problem," said Brian Marsh, a Berkeley resident who has joined the anti-war coalition. "I think if we cause violence, it's just going to snowball and get bigger and bigger. There's just too much of a possibility of creating World War III out of this," said Marsh, a photographer for a San Francisco Web site. UC Berkeley students had already organized a meeting to gather anti-war activists last Friday, after President Bush told Americans to prepare for a long, drawn out military conflict to attack the terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. Organizers said 200 students met in Wheeler Hall and approved three points for the burgeoning coalition: to stop the war; to defend Arab American, Middle Eastern, and Muslim communities against racist scapegoating; and to defend civil liberties. The UC Berkeley group, called the Stop the War Coalition, began tabling on Sproul Plaza yesterday, and had a table at the campuswide memorial service. Organizers were handing out green armbands to show support for the Muslim and Arab American communities. Green is a traditional Muslim color for peace and unity, according to the group's literature. Within 20 minutes of setting up their table, the coalition had collected a page of signatures. "These green bands are not only in solidarity with Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern students, but show that we will come to the aid of and be escorts for Arab, Muslim, and Middle Eastern students facing harassment and attack," said UC Berkeley student Ronald Cruz, a member of the Stop the War Coalition. Cruz said UC Berkeley has the potential to become the focus of a national peace movement. He noted Berkeley's representative in Congress, Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, was the only lawmaker to vote against the use of force Friday, and mentioned the historical precedent set here in anti-war protests during the 1960s. Harvard University, the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and San Francisco State are among the many campuses where students are organizing for peace, Cruz said. Student activists at University of Wisconsin at Madison attended an anti-war rally last night. Several of those in attendance reported that activists sang an Iraqi song, recited poetry, and listened to speakers who echoed the same concerns as those at UC Berkeley. Robb McFadden, president of the Berkeley College Republicans, said that though he has not yet heard much about the anti-war movement on campus, his group and the Cal Berkeley Democrats believe those responsible for Tuesday's attacks must be punished. Campus Democrats agreed with Republicans in saying the country must not turn against Americans of Middle Eastern descent. "We as a country ought to be united. This has nothing to do with race, it has to do with those who have attacked our way of life," said Anka Lee, president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats. "(But) any American who discriminates against Americans of Middle Eastern background are no better than the terrorists." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAY NO! A Call For Conscientious Objection to War and War Preparations War Resisters' International, 20 September 2001 War Resisters' International, an international network of pacifist organisations with 80 affiliates in more than 40 countries, calls for conscientious objection in view of the war preparations undertaken by NATO, Afghanistan and many other countries. Although still shocked by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11 September, we are deeply convinced that a war of retaliation will only fuel the cycle of violence. Fighting the crime of the terrorist attack with the crime of bombing and killing equally innocent people doesn't sum up to zero - it only adds to the suffering. We call for justice without war. It is the responsibility of each of us to resist war and the preparations for war. In this situation: * War Resisters' International calls on all soldiers - in whichever forces they are supposed to fight - to follow their conscience and refuse to take part in the preparation of war, or in war: refuse orders, apply for conscientious objector status, desert, say No! * War Resisters' International calls on everybody involved in war preparations in the administration or in factories: refuse orders, say No! * War Resisters' International calls on journalists and the media asked to support war preparations, and to promote war: refuse to do so, insist on writing the truth, say no! * War Resisters' International calls on its members and on everybody, to support those refusing to participate in war and war preparations, and to get involved in direct nonviolent resistance against war! War Resisters' International 5 Caledonian Road * London N1 9DX * BRITAIN tel.: +44-20-7278 4040 * fax: +44-20-7278 0444 email: info@wri-irg.org * http://www.wri-irg.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. pacifists speak up as America braces for war <http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/09/09192001/reu_45011.asp> Wednesday, September 19, 2001 By Claire Soares, Reuters WASHINGTON -- With war rhetoric flying around Washington, pacifists in the United States called for restraint Tuesday, saying any U.S. military retaliation for last week's attacks in New York and Washington would escalate the violence. President Bush has said that the United States would win a new war on terrorism and that the military was ready to defend freedom at any cost. But groups like the Hague Appeal for Peace said war would not be an appropriate response to the attacks. "An eye for an eye leads to blindness," said Cora Weiss, the group's president. "This past century started with a war, and the new century is starting with war talk. In between, humanity has learned a great deal about conflict prevention and resolution." "We abhor terrorism," she said in a telephone interview from her New York office. "These people must be ferreted out and brought to justice, but we cannot let a justifiable anger lead to unjustifiable action." Weiss said existing international legal institutions offered the best hope of getting justice for the nearly 6,000 dead or missing after hijacked planes demolished the World Trade Center and plowed into the Pentagon. "We urge the United States to support the international criminal court, to respect and work with and through the United Nations, especially the antiterrorism conventions which we have so far refused to join," she said. PEACE MARCH In Washington, Richard Becker of the International Action Center (IAC) was organizing a peace march in the capital. The group had planned protests against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, but after the monetary watchdogs canceled their meetings, the IAC decided to use Sept. 29 to demonstrate against war plans. "The initiation of new military action, open-ended war, is only going to escalate the cycle of violence. We have to take a step back to look at what has brought us to this point," Becker said, citing sanctions against Iraq and intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as issues to be examined. Becker said consequences of any U.S. military action would be felt at home as well as abroad. "We are going to see ... an escalation in racist attacks against Arab-Americans and an erosion of civil liberties and democratic rights, such as greatly widened powers for police to conduct wiretapping, surveillance, and seizure." Pacifists were skeptical of recent polls that showed most Americans favored war, even if it meant further U.S. casualties. "There's tremendous pressure being placed on Americans, which feeds on people's worst reactions to this type of crisis," said Bruce Nestor, president of the National Lawyers Guild, which is supporting the peace rally. He applauded Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, who was the lone dissenter to a congressional resolution allowing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" in retaliation for the attacks. Weiss, who has received 150 messages daily from as far afield as Israel and Hiroshima, Japan, said pacifist voices had remained largely underground, hidden away in emails. She said she was confident the peace movement would build momentum. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Building an anti-war movement: what we can do by Kim Scipes <sscipe1@ICARUS.CC.UIC.EDU> Dear Folks-- In the aftermath of last Tuesday's (Sept. 11) attacks, there has been a tremendous amount of material come across my e-mail address, as I suppose it has for many of us. There is no question that those attacks were atrocities, and horrible--I cannot even imagine what those people who were not killed immediately were to go through before dying, and I cannot give thanks enough that me or my loved ones (as far as I know) were not in any of those attacks. I also feel for all those who were not so lucky as me. I am angry at those who perpetrated those attacks--they cannot be excused. But my anger is, I must say, somewhat attenuated because I understand (at least somewhat) what is behind them. The fact is that the United States government (including the CIA, the military, the Treasury Department, etc.) and its allies around the world, have been carrying out these and other atrocities against peoples throughout the "developing" world for a very long time--since, at very least, the last part of World War II. The US HAS been at war with many peoples of the world for a long time, and not in the war that Bush, et. al., are talking about it: whether we want to talk about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER the Japanese government had begun seeking to end the war, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Viet Nam ... (ah, the list is too long, and I don't have the time to go look up all the details, but suffice it to say, these operations--from invasions, war, to overthrowing governments, to launching and/or supporting right wing coups and dictatorships, etc., etc.--have taken place in many, many countries around the world. The US HAS killed a lot more people--directly and indirectly--than were killed in the US on September 11th (incidentally, on the anniversary that the US supported the coup in Chile in 1973 against the democratically-elected and constitutionally-supported government of Salvador Allende). I can understand why this might have pissed off some people, and that they might have decided to strike back. But I'm even more angry at the politicians and newspaper pundits, etc., who are trying to stir the US public to go to war against "terrorism." Here the US has attacked people across the world, and now we're supposed to go to war because they just happened to strike back. Let us understand one thing out of what is going on: no matter how righteous the cause may seem to some, the very reality is that the US Government is prepared to and is planning to kill a lot more people. Period. Full stop. And we all know the US Government has prior convictions for doing this, so only someone who has their head buried very deeply in the sand can doubt this. And this looks quite clear at this point that the scene of the crimes will take place in Southwestern Asia in particular--i.e., Afghanistan and probably Pakistan--but probably elsewhere as well. Well, there's a contradiction here, needless to say. As Holly Near put it in a song about the death penalty--and I hope my memory is correct here--she asked, "Why do we kill people who have killed people to show that killing people is wrong?" THERE ARE THREE MAJOR CONTRADICTIONS (at least) IN THE MOVE TOWARD WAR (1) As pointed out above, the US Government is planning to kill people to show that killing people is wrong. Not only that, but the overwhelming odds are that they will kill innocent people in their efforts, people themselves who are probably opposed to the attacks. This will happen if the US launches missiles, rockets, air strikes, etc., to try to kill the "terrorists." When the US Government talks about "collateral damage," think September 11--there was a lot of collateral damage done that day in efforts to strike both the heart of the US war machine--I refuse to call it the "defense" department--and the heart of the financial system. Collateral damage means non-combatants. And there is about a snowball's chance in hell that there will not be any collateral damage to a military attack. If Bush decides to try to invade Afghanistan--and ironically, if anyone fights against that, it will be US military leaders, although they'll lie down at the end--then there will be even more people killed, both Afghanis and American military personnel, as well as many, many civilians. But there is no guarantee that even if Bush were to invade that the US would succeed in "rooting out terrorism," because it is not in the land that there is the desire for revenge, but in the hearts of real living human beings who can move around. Even if the US were to invade Afghanistan and occupy the entire country--just even speaking that possibility shows the impossibility of the idea--there is no certainty that the US would end "terrorism." And that's if the US military won--and as the Soviet military can testify, that's not a sure bet! To invade and fight in Afghanistan--which would cause turmoil around the world and many volunteers from around the world would come to fight the "attack on Islam"--would take almost all US military forces, and that would tie down the Empire's goon squads, so they would be unable to respond to perceived crises elsewhere. Not to mention that, for better or worse, there are a lot of Afghanis who are experienced fighters, whose last war ended in a victory against another superpower, and who would be fighting to defend their homelands AND their religion (despite that Islam does not support "terrorism)." On the US side, you have troops that have not engaged in serious warfare really since at least 1973--they were prepared to do so in the Gulf War, but the Iraqi army collapsed on them, denying most US troops of the "experience," and probably most of the military that faced any combat at all in the Gulf has already left the military. Air power and high technology can be helpful, but at the end of the day, it's the grunt on the ground that has to win the war--and anyone who believes otherwise knows not what they are talking about. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT THE US CAN INVADE AFGHANISTAN WITHOUT TAKING LARGE NUMBERS OF DEAD AND WOUNDED--AND MENTALLY MESSED UP--AND THAT'S EVEN IF THEY WERE TO "WIN." (2) Tied in with this, the whole US trip is based on overlooking a small detail, which I've seen come out in e-mail messages, but haven't seen in the press: assuming Osama bin Laden and his organizations are behind the attacks, who trained them? No less than the CIA. In official parlance, this is known as "blowback," where something you created turns against you. (Haven't I read about this somewhere else?) (3) The other contradiction is that, from what I can see, this demand for revenge is being media- and government-driven. Yes, there are ordinary people who would like to kill bin Laden, and that's not surprising. But I don't think this is very deep. I live in Chicago--the supposed "heartland" of this country--and in my travels around the city, and to the zoo with my kids since the attacks, I'm not seeing many people that are seething to seek revenge: hell, I've seen much more emotion when the Bulls won their NBA championships! (And much scarier then--I can remember feeling ill at ease when I didn't show sufficient enthusiasm to other celebrants for such success!) TO COIN A PHRASE, WHAT IS TO BE DONE? As I read e-mail--and no, there's a lot I have not had time to read, and I don't pretend to have read it all or know all--I get the sense of people being upset about Bush's efforts to lead the country into war, and a great deal of information is flowing back and forth to those on our similar lists. But I also get the sense that people are feelilng that there is little chance of stopping a train that's picking up speed.... I think we need to look at things from another perspective. I don't think there is a lot of solid support for war, although the Bushies and their buddies in the Democratic Party are trying to build this, and they are aided and abetted by the moral nematodes in the media, such as William Saffire and many others. There are a lot of people who want to send 17-18-19 year olds to get killed. (And where was Mr. Saffire during Viet Nam--I can't ever recall him speaking of military service during those years....) I think there is a LOT that can be done, that this isn't as much as a "sure thing" as Bush, etc., would like us to believe. First, and because of the simplicity of it, I think it often gets overlooked: we've got to challenge the media. How we do it is up to ourselves. Certainly, alternative news networks are important, and should be used extensively. But I STRONGLY believe that we have to challenge the mass media on its own ground--we cannot concede that terrain and struggle to them! Many more things can be done, but the very least must be efforts to write letters to the editor and call and talk with journalists. Even in the Chicago Tribune--which I think is a terrible rag--I've already seen a letter asking is our support for Israel is worth the damage of September 11th? Yes, that was only one letter, and there haven't been many others, but the mass media gets to too many people to leave it unchallenged. Even if they don't publish our letters, THEY know that a lot of people are looking over their shoulders at their coverage, and this tends to smooth off some of the rough, go to war, edges. We cannot overlook this simple act, while trying to do more: write letters to the editors! (And since most TV coverage pulls from the morning newspaper in an area, focus on the morning newspapers especially but not exclusively.) Second, the moral nematodes in the US Senate and Congress need to be challenged and condemned for giving in to their emotional response to the events of September 11th. Write them and let them know what you think of their votes. And Barbara Lee, Democratic Representative of Berkeley/Oakland gets my utmost respect for her unwillingness to go against the tide--she was the only one in two houses of congress that had the heart to go on the record opposing Bush's war plans. Third, we need to think strategically about what we can do. A technique I've always found useful is to think of human groups as consisting of three parts: one part in favor of something, one part against something, and one part not sure and able to go in either direction. I don't know what the respective strengths of the three parts are today, and it really doesn't matter. If those of us who are against Bush's war want to act, here's my suggestion of the way to think about mobilization: (1) we need to solidify our own forces, through communication, sharing of information (which seems to be already taking place), and organizing ourselves to act; (2) we need to move those in the middle into our "camp"; and, when possible, we need to move those who are against us--i.e., for the war--into the middle camp. How we do this is up to people and how much time and energy they have and/or can put into these efforts. No effort is too small or insignificant. But we also must treat people with respect: even if they don't agree with us now, if we treat them respectfully, they may come over to our side in the future. Our goal must be to build an anti-war movement in this country that is too big, and too strong, and too willing to disrupt the government's efforts for them to ignore us: we must stop Bush from attacking other countries in his Ahab-like ambition to stop terrorism by military means. We have to seek political solutions, not military ones. I'm not a Leninist, but I have always liked the thrust behind Lenin's slogan during World War I of "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war." No, I am not calling for a civil war in the US--in fact, I'd oppose it. But what I am calling for is for us on the left NOT to lay down and concede inevitability, but to use this opportunity to reach out to Americans across the country, and across every racial and ethnic group, every gender/sexual identity group, every class, every college and high school campus, and raise the issue of US foreign policy and what the US is doing in the world. I think, if utilized intelligently, we have the opportunity to challenge our "leaders" on these and related issues about how we want the US to act in the world--and don't forget the slogan, "Challenge authority--verify answers"! In solidarity-- Kim Scipes Chicago Former Sergeant, US Marine Corps Please feel free to pass on widely! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peace Signs Amid Calls for War http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/nyregion/20PEAC.html?ex=1002036454&ei=1&en=9923a9c22c188b7d September 20, 2001 By ANDREW JACOBS The drumbeat for war, so loud in the rest of the country, is barely audible on the streets of New York. In Union Square Park, which has become an outdoor memorial to loss and grief, peace signs, antiwar slogans and pleas for nonviolence far outnumber demands for retribution. The equestrian statue of George Washington charging into battle has been transformed into a monument of antiwar sentiment, and although there are a handful of wanted posters featuring Osama bin Laden, there are far more that say, "Mourn the Victims, Stand for Peace" or "An eye for an eye creates blindness." In interviews with two dozen New Yorkers, most people said the desire for peace outweighed any impulse for vengeance, even among those directly affected by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Many said they were worried that the rest of the country, encouraged by the White House and the news media, was driving the nation toward a large- scale conflict. "I don't want to see more people go through pain and suffering," said Shannon Carr, 34, who teaches at St. Ann's, a private school in Brooklyn. Several children at the school have parents still buried in the rubble of the twin towers. "There has to be justice," Ms. Carr said, "but I don't think war is the answer." While much of the country clamors for martial retribution, with polls showing nearly 90 percent supporting a military response, many New Yorkers who were interviewed remain ambivalent about President Bush's promised war against terrorism. Many expressed fear that any strike would spark another wave of mayhem in New York. "It's easy to call for blood when you live in Des Moines," said Terrance Kincaid, 37, an insurance broker from Queens. "We have seen the horrific consequences of aggression. For the rest of the country, it's still just a bunch of television images." Other New Yorkers said they had no wish to inflict misery on the civilians who would inevitably become victims of an American military assault. "A few days ago I was saying, `Bombs away,' but now that I've calmed down, I don't want a war," said Jana Crawford, 29, a photo editor at Advertising Age magazine in Manhattan. "I don't want a lot more people to die." Some of those opposed to military action say their voices are not being heard by Washington or the mainstream news media. "The White House is demanding blood and the television is preparing us for war, but no one is considering alternatives," said Carol Thompson, a political science professor at Northern Arizona University, one of 530 academics who have signed a petition urging restraint. More than 1,200 religious leaders have added their names to a similar statement, as have a group of actors, authors and other celebrities who plan to publish their "Justice Not Vengeance" declaration in newspapers across the country. This afternoon, a series of rallies on college campuses around the nation will strike a similar theme, and on Friday night, a peace vigil will wend its way from Union Square to the armed forces recruiting station in Times Square. Of course, there are plenty of New Yorkers who believe that only war will end terrorism, including many liberals who have been surprised by their own emotions. "I've had blood lust from the very beginning," said Jackie Bayks, 38, a lawyer who has been unable to return to her apartment in Battery Park City. "It's strange because I'm not a patriotic person, but I've been feeling very patriotic this week. I just can't help myself." Karen Senecal, a minister at Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village, said she had been trying to resist the temptation to join in the culture of jingoism. "Part of me realizes that violence brings more violence, but another part of me wanted retaliation," she said. "Many people are getting strength in that, and I felt I was missing something." Some say they are reluctant to buck the tidal wave of patriotism by speaking about peace. "I feel like I can't talk about nonviolence because I'm afraid it will be perceived as disrespectful or un-American," said Madeleine Bloustein, 40, a voice-over actress from Brooklyn. But a large number of New Yorkers are not sure where they stand. As shock gives way to anger, their thirst for revenge is only growing stronger; others say the opposite is true. But many, like Matthew Pack, a student at New York University, have been whiplashed by their emotions. A self-described pacifist who is "way to the left," Mr. Pack, 22, said he felt disgusted by his own vengeful fantasies. "I'm not used to feeling this way," he said, "and every time my head starts to cool off, I see one of those missing person posters and all those emotions come back. The only thing I can say at this point is that I'll never be the same." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Teach-ins spread on state campuses in wake of attacks http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/703775.html by Mary Jane Smetanka Star Tribune Published Sep 21 2001 Noah Kunin's family has roots in the antiwar movement of the 1960s. His mother was a protester at the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Minnesota student said Thursday. But he's never really been interested in such things himself. Until now. Kunin was among the 100 university students, staff and faculty members who jammed into a standing-room-only lecture hall for a teach-in on last week's terrorist attacks. "On September 11, I was totally shaken," the freshman said. "I thought, wow, I need to reorganize my priorities. I want to learn more. I'm finding this very informative." In an echo of the 1960s, teach-ins, rallies and forums have proliferated on Minnesota college campuses since last week. At St. Cloud State University, there were sessions on anti-Arab bias and biological terrorism. The College of St. Catherine held discussions reflecting on peacemaking. Carleton College in Northfield held discussions on Islam, and at Macalester College in St. Paul, student groups sponsored community forums. At the University of Minnesota, teach-ins are being organized by politically active students. So far, the sessions have been decidedly left-leaning. Marwa Hassoum, a graduate student in feminist studies, is unapologetic about that. She said teach-ins simply balance "pro-war" information. "I think we are getting enough rhetoric about going to war," she said. "If you want to see the other side, flip on your TV or pick up the newspaper." The university's teach-ins, which began last week and have been running three days a week, have been standing-room-only. (For space reasons, they're open only to students and university employees.) Thursday's talk by political science Prof. August Nimtz drew about 100 people. Nimtz, who studies African politics, social movements and Marxism, called last week's events "dastardly" and said terrorists do not represent the interests of oppressed people. But he said the act might be explained by U.S. foreign policy, which he said has victimized people around the world. "Victims are not always able to distinguish between working people and policies," Nimtz said. Nimtz argued that the United States has used "state-sponsored terrorism" against Vietnam, Korea, Panama and Iraq, among others, and said foreign policy is designed to benefit "the ruling rich." Koby Nahmias, an Israeli graduate student, challenged Nimtz's premises and questioned the worth of teach-ins he called one-sided and socialistic. "Are we having a debate, or not?" Nimtz replied with a smile. "I think we are -- you were here to disagree with me." Nimtz said students invited him to speak. The last teach-ins at the university were during the Gulf War, he said. Kunin attended this week's teach-ins, and said he plans to attend next week as well. Though he said he is open to other points of view, he already has an opinion. "My mom and I have flipped," he said. "She's pro-war, and I'm antiwar. She's saying, 'This is different [from Vietnam].' And I'm saying, 'It's exactly the same.'" -- A schedule of college teach-ins is available at http://www.startribunecom. Staff writer Lucy Her contributed to this story. Mary Jane Smetanka is at smetan@startribune.com . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Calls for Restraint <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_peacegroups_010920.html> Groups Urge Peaceful Alternative to a Military Response By Derek Thomson Sept. 20 -- As the United States mobilizes its forces around the world for a possible military response to last week's terrorist attacks, there is a growing number of voices at home urging a peaceful alternative. Today, students at colleges and universities across the nation held rallies mourning the victims and calling for a nonmilitary response. The organizers say they want to see the perpetrators brought to justice without the loss of more innocent lives. The student groups' calls for "justice rather than revenge" are echoed by established pacifist and religious groups, as well as numerous petitions circulating on the Internet. At the makeshift memorial in New York's Union Square, many signs call for peace and restraint. President Bush has said the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks is indicted terrorist Osama bin Laden, who has been based in Afghanistan for several years. So far, Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia has been unwilling to hand bin Laden over to the United States for prosecution, raising the prospect of imminent U.S. military action. An overwhelming number of Americans support military action. In an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, 86 percent of respondents said they would support military action against those responsible, while 69 percent said they would support military action even if it means a long war with substantial U.S. casualties. Groups Share Common Message The groups calling for a nonmilitary response are diverse, but they share a number of points. All of the groups strongly condemn the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and say the perpetrators should be punished. However, they warn that a military response by the United States could cost more innocent lives and might provoke further terrorist attacks. Instead, they urge the U.S. government to bring the perpetrators to justice by legal means, preferably under the aegis of an international organization such as the United Nations. "A violent response will not bring back loved ones, or bring about justice, or increase our safety. It may even increase the likelihood of more terrorist attacks," said Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group. The groups also warn against "scapegoating" people of any nation, race, religion or ethnicity for the actions. Pointing out that the Sept. 11 attacks were motivated by hatred of the United States, some suggest that Americans should look inward and ask how U.S. policies could have generated such hatred abroad. Students Hold Rallies Across the Country Campus organizers called today a National Student Day of Action for Peaceful Justice. Activities at the different campuses ranged from rallies to marches and vigils, with speeches and music. The organizers said they were trying not to make the events seem like protests. An estimated 1,000 marchers turned out at the University of California at Berkeley. Berkeley and the surrounding Bay Area have been a center of calls for peace in the past week. The area's Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., cast the lone dissenting vote when the House voted in support of an armed response on Friday. At Harvard University, speakers used megaphones to address a rally of several hundred students. At Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore., 300 students waved banners and sang "Give Peace A Chance." The idea for the day of action originated at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. Student organizers there say were frustrated by the tone of vengeance that seemed to dominate Americans' reactions in the first days after the attacks. They decided to see whether students on other campuses shared their sentiment, and say they were overwhelmed by the response. "We started sending out e-mails Friday morning and by Sunday we already had 80 schools," said sophomore Mary Thomas, who is coordinating the rally at Wesleyan. More than 140 campuses ultimately planned to hold events. Other Groups Begin to Organize Established pacifist groups are trying to coordinate their efforts, too. The Quaker AFSC has pledged to join with "like-minded organizations" for public action, and is also reaching out to religious leaders. The National Council of Churches is circulating a petition among the clergy that reads in part, "We must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent life." Shift in Rhetoric Seen, But Most Americans Support War Advocates of a nonmilitary response say they have felt a shift in the national rhetoric in recent days, away from revenge and toward a more considered response. They say they are encouraged by the Bush administration's efforts to build an international consensus before launching any military action. The AFSC's McNish said she had seen a change in tone in letters to newspapers. She attributed the shift to messages of peace preached in churches and synagogues over the weekend. "Every priest, every pastor, every minister, every rabbi this past weekend preached a message of peace. That is a huge momentum," she said. Wilson Powell, national administrator of Veterans for Peace, likened the nation's initial reactions to those of a soldier going into battle for the first time. "First you have disbelief and horror. Then fear, then deriving from fear is anger, then driven by the anger is a desire for revenge. Then hopefully somewhere along the line sanity sets in," said Powell, a veteran of the Korean War. Public opinion polls conducted through Monday show no change in Americans' support for military action. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 From: "Emilie Nichols" <emilie@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Where are the peacemakers? Dear WNET: First, thank you for the programming showing people helping people. Second, where are the peacemakers? I am a Quaker. As I listen to the news, all I hear is the roaring of the war machine. Elise Boulding, author of "Cultures of Peace"; George Lakey, Training for Change in PA; Sulak Sivaraksa of Bangkok, Thailand, Buddhist, jurist; Howard Zinn, "Peoples' History of the United States"; Fellowship of Reconciliation; American Friends Service Committee; Women's International League for Peace; Witness for Peace; Voices in the Wilderness. Is this still America? Can we hear from other voices, other points of view? Are we going to relive the "red scare" and the McCarthy period? General Haig and Senator Trent Lott have already said in the media (NPR) that we shouldn't be squabbling over things like civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. I don't want to kill anyone. I don't want to pay for killing anyone. We have heard a cacophany of voices trying, crying, begging to understand why "they" (whoever that is) wanted to kill so many "innocents". Are we, the US, or NATO, going to kill innocents -- not just the terrorists, "but those who harbor them"? Will our soldiers be sent to shoot against the many arms we have sold to countries in the Middle East? There is talk of a blank check for defense. $40 billion has been okayed by Congress. Who will pay this $40 billion? Will the corporations that paid zero income taxes in the past 5 year belly up? Will the CEOs and the wealthy belly up for this? And what about the money launderers and tax havens -- see testimony from Senator Carl Levin's hearings from last year forward? Or will only some be accused of a lack of "patriotism" -- i.e., those without health care, the homeless, those without access to education, those "bad" welfare mothers, those without jobs, those without full-time jobs, those laid off and downsized, those who have seen continuing decreases in income since the 1970s (that's about the bottom 2/5s of the population. See the latest report by United for a Fair Economy in Boston, Massachusetts. Statements in the media say that it will take 30+ days to clear, repair the damage to the city of New York. How do we sustain all the people involved in that massive job -- i.e., the firemen, the counselors, the medical people? They have to get relief. They need to pace themselves. How do we help people get their lives back in order? When do we grieve? As if that pressure were not enough, for the people of New York and the whole country, are we now to shoulder going to war? For me, this is insane. It's dysfunctional. It would be a dysfunctional, insane act for a single family, as it would be for the human family. Regards, Emilie F. Nichols Littleton, CO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come to DC on September 29!!! WAR AND RACISM ARE NOT THE ANSWER Sat., Sep. 29, 12 noon, Lafayette Park International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) - a new anti-war coalition - has secured permits for Lafayette Park, the White House sidewalk and for a mass march to the Capitol for Saturday, September 29. Please see the Call and signers below. Email back to sign on and get involved! Join a New Anti-War Coalition: International A.N.S.W.E.R. [Act Now to Stop War & End Racism] Please join us in signing this call: We join with people all over the world in condemning the horrific killings of thousands of persons in the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Our most heartfelt sympathies and condolences are with those whose loved ones were lost or injured on September 11, 2001. At this moment, we would all like to take time to reflect, to grieve, to extend sympathy and condolences to all. But we believe that we must do more. We must act now. We are assembling International A.N.S.W.E.R. to call for worldwide rallies against war and racism. On September 29, there will be a national march and rally at the White House in Washington DC, as well as marches on the West Coast of the U.S. and around the world. We call on all people of conscience and progressive organizations to take up this call and organize rallies around the world. Unless we stop President Bush and NATO from carrying out a new, wider war in the Middle East, the number of innocent victims will grow from the thousands to the tens of thousands and possibly more. A new, wider U.S. and NATO war in the Middle East can only lead to an escalating cycle of violence. War is not the answer. We must also act against racism. Arab American and Muslim people in the United States, in Europe and elsewhere, as well as other communities of color, are facing racist attacks and harassment in their communities, on their jobs and at mosques. Anti-Arab and anti- Muslim racism is a poison that should be repudiated. The U.S. government is attempting to curb civil liberties and to create a climate in which it is impossible for progressive people to speak their mind. The Bush administration is attempting to take advantage of this crisis to militarize U.S. society with a vast expansion of police powers that is intended to severely restrict basic democratic rights. On September 29, tens of thousands of people had planned to demonstrate against the Bush administration's reactionary foreign and domestic policy and the IMF and World Bank. In light of the current crisis, with its tragic consequences for so many thousands of people, we have refocused the call for our demonstration to address the immediate danger posed by increased racism and the grave threat of a new war. We call on people to demonstrate around the world on that day. Now is the time for all people of conscience, all people who oppose racism and war to come together. If you believe in civil liberties and oppose racism and war, demonstrate on September 29 in front of the White House and around the world. October 12-13 will be International Days of Action Against War and Racism. We urge all organizations internationally to join together at this critical time and take action. Initial Signers: -Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General -Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit -Al-Awda, New York and New Jersey -Barbara Lubin, Exec. Director, Middle East Children's Alliance -Jews Against the Occupation -Rev. Lucius Walker, Pastors for Peace -Nania Kaur Dhingra, Sikh Student Organization, George Washington University -Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Nicaragua Network -Karen Talbot, International Center for Peace & Justice -Committee for a Democratic Palestine -Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa -Howard Zinn, Author -Michael Parenti Ph.D., author of Against Empire -Ben DuPuy, former Deputy Ambassador-at-Large, Haiti -Teresa Gutierrez, Co-Director, International Action Center -Martin Espada, Poet -Sakhi for South Asian Women -Women for Afghan Women -Michele Naar-Obed, Plowshares activist, Jonah House, Baltimore -Pam Africa, International Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal -Tom Hansen, Mexico Solidarity Network -Michel Collon, author and journalist, Belgium -Heidelberg Forum Against Militarism and War, Germany -Italian Tribunal on NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia -Maryland Green Party -Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild -Helena Papadopoulos, Center for Comparative Study of Law and Society, Lebanon -Elmar Schmaehling, Retired Admiral, German Navy -Wolfgang Richter, President, European Peace Forum -Nino Pasti Foundation, Rome, Italy -Information-Post on Militarism, Tobias Pflueger & Claudia Haydt (Germany) -Ricardo Juarez, Pasamontańas -New Communist Party of the Netherlands -African Immigrant and Refugee Coalition of N. America -Dominican Workers Party, NY -Ray LaForest, Labor Organizer, 1707 AFSCME -Kriss Worthington, Berkeley City Council -Leonora Foerstal, Women for Mutual Security -Asha A. Samad, Human Rights Center -April 25 Movement of the Dominican Republic, NY -Njeri Shakur, Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement -Michel Shehadeh, Los Angeles 8 Case Respondent -Muslim Student & Faculty Association -Marco Frucht, Editor and Publisher, Activist Times -Leslie Feinberg, Transgendered author, Co-Founder, Rainbow Flags for Mumia -Kadouri Al Kaysi, Committee in Support of Iraqi People, NY -Minnie Bruce Pratt, writer and ant-racist activist -Vieques Support Campaign -Mitchel Cohen, Green Party USA, Brooklyn Greens -Milos Raickovich, College of Staten Island, CUNY -Carlos Eden, Raweshrar Project for Indigenous People--Chile -Jamie York, Cuba Advocate Newsletter, MT -Brian Barraza, Association of Mexican American Workers (AMAT) -Justin Vitiello, Professor, Temple University, Philadelphia -John Kim, Veterans for Peace, NYC Chapter -Mahtowin Munro & Moonanum James, United American Indians of New England -SAFRAD Somali Association -Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, Madrid, Spain -Korea Truth Commission -Congress for Korean Reunification -Struggle Against War Coalition, Italy -Trades Union International of Building and Wood Workers, Finland -LEF Foundation, St. Helena, CA -SEIU Local 1877, Bay Area, CA -Vanguard Public Foundation, San Francisco -Consuela Lee, musician -Bohemian Grove Action Network, Sonoma County, CA -Sonoma County Free Press (CA) -Susan E. Davis, co-chair, NY Local, National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981 -James Lafferty, National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles -Campaign Against Racism & War, Oberlin, Ohio -Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist -Dr. Pol De Vos, President, Anti-Imperialist League, Belgium -Refuse and Resist -Klaus von Raussendorff, Anti-Imperialist Correspondence, Germany -Dr. Bert De Belder, Coordinator, Third World Medical Aid, Belgium -Dr. Jean Pestieau, Professor, Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium -Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, California -Klaus Hartmann, President of World Union of Freethinkers, Germany -California Prison Focus -Sally Davis, President, AFSCME 1072 -Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director, Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy -Sandra Robertson, Georgia Citizens Coalition on Hunger -Freedom Road Socialist Organization -Al-Awda Massachusetts (Palestinian Right to Return Coalition) -Radio Arabiyat, Boston, Mass -Vanessa Marques, Portuguese-American Relief for Palestine -Rima Anabtawi, Al-Awda Coordinating Committee -Committee to Defend Amer Jubran and Palestinian Free Speech Rights -Steven Gillis, Executive Board, USWA Local 8751, Boston School Bus Drivers -Falco Accame, former president, Defense Commission, Chamber of Deputies, Italy -Gerry Scoppettuolo, Director of Education, So NH HIV/AIDS Task Force International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) National Office: 39 W. 14 St. #206, NY, NY 10011 (212) 633-6646·iacenter@iacenter.org·www.iacenter.org Washington DC Office: 1247 E St. SE, Washington, DC 20003·(202) 543- 2777 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Terrorist Attacks Transform Protest http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-1185550,00.html Thursday September 20, 2001 WASHINGTON (AP) - Demonstrators who planned to protest the now-canceled meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are still coming to the nation's capital this month. Now their protests will be about war and racism. The global financial organizations called off this year's annual meetings after last week's terrorist attacks. Groups representing most of the expected protesters also canceled their demonstrations, many citing a need to respect victims of the attacks. But the New York-based International Action Center and other groups still intend to assemble thousands of protesters across from the White House on Sept. 29. ``We are demonstrating because of the imminent danger of a wider war, one that could result in the deaths of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more people in addition to the victims of the tragedy on Sept. 11,'' said organizer Richard Becker. He said the protesters also oppose the backlash against Arabs and Muslims and the Bush administration's efforts to expand police powers following the attack. While Becker said the group has a permit for the rally and march, it is uncertain whether increased security around the White House will allow it to go forward. Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said he had to consult with the National Park Service before commenting. The park service didn't immediately return calls seeking comment. District of Columbia Police Chief Charles Ramsey said he has no problem with the protesters as long as they're peaceful. ``But it remains to be seen how they would be welcomed if they come to the city under the circumstances,'' Ramsey said. He said police would be watching for other demonstrators who, angered by challenges to the appearance of American unity, might clash with the anti-war protesters. Police have blamed anarchists for much of the violence at anti-globalization protests during the past few years. A Washington-based anarchist group, the Anti-Capitalist Convergence, has announced plans for a separate anti-war march on Sept. 29. Before the terrorist attacks, police had said they expected as many as 100,000 protesters and wanted help from other jurisdictions, including New York City. Ramsey said his force, along with federal authorities, should be able to handle the scaled-back demonstrations. _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold