On the wings of a lie

February 28, 2003

‘Military Families Speak Out is an organisation of people who are opposed to war in Iraq and who have relatives or loved ones in the military. We were formed in November of 2002 and have contacts with military families throughout the United States, and in other countries around the world. As people with family members and loved ones in the military, we have both a special need and a unique role to play in speaking out against war in Iraq. It is our loved ones who will be on the battlefront. It is our loved ones who will risk injury and death. It is our loved ones who will return scarred from having injured innocent Iraqi civilians.’

I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don’t take the country to war on the wings of a lie.

— Thomas Friedman, New York Times, February 19, 2003.

I stand here today as a member of Military Families Speak Out. We are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters and other relatives of military men and women on active duty who will be in harm’s way if the United States launches an illegal and immoral first strike war against the people of Iraq. I have two points to make today. The first has to do with feelings about my stepson. The second has to do with the true roots of this proposed war with Iraq.My stepson is in the U.S. Army and will be a participant if war is launched. I am of course concerned about his safety. While he will be assigned command and control duties in Kuwait in support of ground combat troops, away from front lines, he still may find himself under attack with biological or chemical weapons, and may be carrying one of those defective suits we have been talking about today.

But even more than that, deeper than that, I am concerned about the defective mission upon which President Bush is sending him. His dedication to country is being abused by a President hell-bent on an unjustified, unnecessary and – it is fair to say – a triumphalistic religious war being waged by a fundamentalist Commander in Chief who seems to believe he is on God’s own mission to save the world from the evil doers and heathen.

So I am concerned that this patriotic young man willing to sacrifice for his country, along with many other honourable soldiers, will see his military career squandered and corrupted.

I am also concerned because I know – from the evidence of history, from the past Gulf War and the slaughter of 400-1,500 women and children at the Amariyah bomb shelter in Baghdad – that if we go to war in Iraq, the loss of innocent civilian lives will be high and horrific, and that our government will never tell us the whole truth about that. They are basing this war on a big lie that Iraq threatens us now, and they will surely lie as to its consequences for the innocent. However, the soldiers in the area will know what they have done. They will see it with their own eyes, or they will see it in the eyes of their fellow soldiers.

So I pray every day. I pray for my son’s safety, for his family, his wife and three children. I pray for the safety of Iraqi children and their families. I pray that this war can be averted. I cry out to God to grant all these prayers, because I fear that my son, if this war goes forward, may carry in his heart for the rest of his natural life the burden of innocent lives he helped to destroy. And he has such a good heart.

That’s my first point. Secondly I want to say there is something I fear for more than the dangers our soldiers face from a government throwing them into a war with faulty equipment.

My deepest fear is for America, as we have known it, as it has been handed down to us and protected and defended by people like my father and many millions who fought a true threat of tyranny in World War II. I fear for America and its hard-won democracy, its precious freedoms, because our government has been seized by far right zealots who wish to impose upon the rest of the world what they call a "benevolent global hegemony." They won’t call it "empire" because that’s not good PR. They are zealots who are willing to run roughshod over American freedoms to get their way. They are willing to push aside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights if necessary to achieve their agenda. They are right now cooking up Patriot Act II – which as an executive order, not even a law, could strip any one of us of our citizenship and send us into a "disappeared" status as terrorist sympathisers if the Attorney General decides to call us such.

When they were out of power, these people pushed their ideas though a think tank called the Project for the New American Century. The white papers of that think tank have formed the basis of our current national security policy that calls for a worldwide "constabulary" role for the American military. It was within the Project for the New American Century that the doctrine of pre-emptive war was first hatched. Who are they? They are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Jeb Bush, among others – and of course George W. Bush, although he is not the leading intellectual light of this group by any means. To these we can add a bevy of Iran-Contra principals who participated in illegal acts and human rights abuses in Central America: Admiral Poindexter, who sits in the Pentagon still working to launch fully a Total Information Awareness Program to watch over us all; Elliott Abrams, also of the New American Century group, whose professional contempt for and assault upon human rights has earned him a position inside President Bush’s inner circle; and even our ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte. These are people willing to destroy the UN to get their way. They are willing to destroy historic alliances, bribe and coerce small nations, and do whatever else is needed to achieve a war in Iraq that will set the terms for their New American Century.

I’ll tell you this. It outrages and saddens me that my son and many others are being called to duty to carry out the agenda of these right wing zealots, and I will not stand by silently and let that happen. It outrages me that as they are thrown into harms way they are being told to duct tape the cracks in their suits. It saddens me that fear has gripped our land to the point we are asked to duct tape ourselves into our homes and cower there.

I share the view of an Italian peace activist who said on February 15, "You fight terrorism by creating more justice in the world." For me that starts with fighting this unjust war, and the fight will not end until we have removed from power the people who are ruining my beloved America.

(Stephen Cleghorn is a member of military families speak out).
http://www.mfso.org/

‘Our voice will not be silenced’

NACY LESSIN AND CHARLEY RICHARDSON

(Statement at a press conference at the National Press Club on January 15, 2003.)

Charley and I are here today to speak out against war in Iraq. Speaking out against war is not new for us. What is new is the very personal stake we have in this current conflict.

My stepson, Charley’s son Joe, is 25 years old and in the Marines. I helped to raise this extraordinary young man since he was five years old. He shipped out at the end of August 2002. He is now in the Persian Gulf, being prepared for battle.

As military families we have both a special voice and a special need to speak out against the rush to war. For this reason, Charley and I were co-founders of Military Families Speak Out, an organisation of people who are opposed to war in Iraq, who have loved ones in the military.

We notice that those who say, "We gotta go to war" aren’t going anywhere – nor are their loved ones. It’s other people’s children who are being sent – our loved ones.

We invite others across the country in a similar position to contact us, to help build the voice of Military Families against this war. Together we will not feel so alone; collectively, we can make a difference. Visit our website at www.mfso.org or call us at 617-522-9323.
We worry about Joe. We don’t want him to be wounded or die. We don’t want him to be forced to wound or kill innocent Iraqi civilians. That would kill a part of him – and a part of us.

We are not pacifists. As Joe’s grandfather, a World War II veteran, said when talking about his own opposition to this war: "War is never a good thing, although sometimes it is necessary. This is not one of those times." Those who say war in Iraq is necessary, is defence of the US, is a blow against terrorism, need to look harder at the facts and think again. The cost will be high. Despite the talk of drones and smart bombs, there will be men, women and children dying.

If the United States engages in a unilateral war on Iraq (or a war with a few, arm-twisted allies), the Marines (including Joe) will not be defending this country. They will be there serving the interests of oil companies, financiers and power brokers.

They tell us that this war is about making the world safe from terrorism. What we know is that if tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are killed or injured, we will not be safer. If the U.S. leads the way into Iraq, we will be more, not less, of a target.
Some say that opposing this war is unpatriotic, and unsupportive of Joe and the others who are preparing for battle. But we know that the epithets "unpatriotic" and "unsupportive" are being used to silence voices of protest. Our voice will not be silenced.

We know that the most loving and supportive thing we can do for Joe is to keep writing him, sending him cookies and brownies, and fighting to stop this war from ever happening – to keep yet another generation from being put in harm’s way for the wrong reasons.
So we will continue to protest. And we will love Joe, hold him close in our hearts, and anxiously await the day when we can hold him close in our arms.

(http://www.mfso.org)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 5

There is no honour in murder

February 28, 2003

Statement issued by veterans of the US armed forces which represents a variety of different political perspectives and experiences.

We are veterans of the United States armed forces. We stand with the majority of humanity, includ- ing millions in our own country, in opposition to the United States’ all-out war on Iraq. We span many wars and eras, have many political views and we all agree that this war is wrong. Many of us believed serving in the military was our duty, and our job was to defend this country. Our experiences in the military caused us to question much of what we were taught. Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the US armed forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions will be for humanity. We call upon you, the active duty and reservists, to follow your conscience and do the right thing.

In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were ordered to murder from a safe distance. We destroyed much of Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of thousands, including civilians. We remember the road to Basra—the Highway of Death—where we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed trenches, burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left the battlefields radioactive. Massive use of pesticides, experimental drugs, burning chemical weapons depots and oil fires combined to create a toxic cocktail affecting both the Iraqi people and Gulf War veterans today. One in four Gulf War veterans is disabled.

During the Vietnam War we were ordered to destroy Vietnam from the air and on the ground. At My Lai we massacred over 500 women, children and old men. This was not an aberration, it’s how we fought the war. We used Agent Orange on the enemy and then experienced first hand its effects. We know what Post Traumatic Stress Disorder looks, feels and tastes like because the ghosts of over two million men, women and children still haunt our dreams. More of us took our own lives after returning home than died in battle.

If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a people that hate you to your core? You should think about what your "mission" really is. You are being sent to invade and occupy a people who, like you and me, are only trying to live their lives and raise their kids. They pose no threat to the United States even though they have a brutal dictator as their leader. Who is the US to tell the Iraqi people how to run their country when many in the US don’t even believe their own President was legally elected?

Saddam is being vilified for gassing his own people and trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. However, when Saddam committed his worst crimes the US was supporting him. This support included providing the means to produce chemical and biological weapons. Contrast this with the horrendous results of the US-led economic sanctions. More than a million Iraqis, mainly children and infants, have died because of these sanctions. After having destroyed the entire infrastructure of their country including hospitals, electricity generators, and water treatment plants, the US then, with the sanctions, stopped the import of goods, medicines, parts, and chemicals necessary to restore even the most basic necessities of life.

There is no honour in murder. This war is murder by another name. When, in an unjust war, an errant bomb dropped kills a mother and her child it is not "collateral damage," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a child dies of dysentery because a bomb damaged a sewage treatment plant, it is not "destroying enemy infrastructure," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a father dies of a heart attack because a bomb disrupted the phone lines so he could not call an ambulance, it is not "neutralising command and control facilities," it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a thousand poor farmer conscripts die in a trench defending a town they have lived in their whole lives, it is not victory, it is murder.

There will be veterans leading protests against this war on Iraq and your participation in it. During the Vietnam War, thousands in Vietnam and in the U.S. refused to follow orders. Many resisted and rebelled. Many became conscientious objectors and others went to prison rather than bear arms against the so-called enemy. During the last Gulf War many GIs resisted in various ways and for many different reasons. Many of us came out of these wars and joined with the anti-war movement. If the people of the world are ever to be free, there must come a time when being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being the soldier of a nation. Now is that time. When orders come to ship out, your response will profoundly impact the lives of millions of people in the Middle East and here at home. Your response will help set the course of our future. You will have choices all along the way. Your commanders want you to obey. We urge you to think. We urge you to make your choices based on your conscience. If you choose to resist, we will support you and stand with you because we have come to understand that our REAL duty is to the people of the world and to our common future.

SIGNERS, name, branch, years; Updated February 1, 2003.

Terry Scott Adams, Army, 1964-1966
Kelly A. Allison, Navy, 1975-1979
Arvid Antonson, Air Force, 1942 – 1945
Ed Armas, Army, 1962-1965
Beatrice Arva, Army, 1985-1986, 1991-1993
Stephanie R. Atkinson, Army, 1984-1990
Paul L. Atwood, Marine Corps, 1965-1966
Niall Aslen, Royal Air Force, 1962-1986
and 400 others.
(www.calltoconscience.net)

Remember Nuremberg

Veterans For Peace has sent an open letter to fifteen generals and admirals in the top ranks of the US military advising them of their possible liabilities, under international law, to criminal prosecution for being part of a pre-emptive war against Iraq. Veterans For Peace, headquartered in St. Louis, MO, is an organisation of men and women who have served in peacetime and in most of the wars of the last century, with 92 chapters nationwide.

Open letter to America’s top military commanders:

General Richard B. Myers, Chairman, USAF;
General Peter Pace, Vice Chairman, USMC
Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations
General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant USMC
General John P. Jumper, Chief of Staff, USAF
General Erick Shineski, Chief of Staff, USA
United States Unified Combatant Commanders:
General James L. Jones, USMC, US European Command, Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, USN, US Pacific Command, Admiral E.P. Giambastiani, USN, US Joint Forces Command, General James T. Hill. USA, U Southern Command, General Tommy R. Franks, USA, US Central Command, General Ralph E. Eberhart, USAF, US Northern Command,
General Charles R. Holland, USAF, US Special Operations Command, General John W. Handy, USAF, US Transportation Command, Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr., USN, US Strategic Command,

February 13, 2003

Dear Gentlemen,

Veterans For Peace is an organisation whose members have served with honour in the armed forces of the United States of America. Among our members we count decorated veterans of WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. Many served during two, and in several instances, three of these wars. Two of our members are recipients of the Medal of Honor, dozens received Silver and Bronze Stars for valour in combat, and hundreds were awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received in action. One of our members was a POW for over seven years in the Hanoi Hilton.

We learned the horrors of war through our military experience and we want the killing stopped. We believe it is not just enough to be against war, we must also work against war and that is the purpose of our organisation.

We, like you, know the world is a dangerous place and that our military forces are necessary for our defence. We realise that you too have seen and do not want war. War must only be the option of last resort.

We believe the war against Iraq that the US government is planning and preparing for is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and customary international law. The judgement of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg noted, "Resort to war of aggression is not merely illegal, but is criminal."

The principle of renunciation of the use or threat of force is now one of the fundamental principles of international law and, as such, is stated with the utmost clarity in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which imposes definite obligations on states participating in international affairs. States are bound in their international relations to renounce "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN".

The US seeks to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iraq on the basis of self-defence. Article 51 of the UN Charter permits the use of force by a state to repel an armed attack or a substantial and immediate threat to the national security of the state until the Security Council exercises jurisdiction. A threat which permits the use of force must be an immediate, specific threat to US national security and not a general threat to the Gulf region or a possible future threat. The legality of pre-emptive self-defence has been rejected on the basis that use of force to deter future use of force constitutes punitive rather than defensive action. If the US fails to gain Security Council approval for war, the US is bound by Article 51 and may not lawfully, unilaterally take military action.

It is clear that the planned massive attack on Iraq is not based upon self-defence. Iraq has not attacked the US nor does Iraq constitute an immediate and specific threat to US national security. We are not apologists for Saddam Hussein but we believe there are ways to deal with his regime without the resort to a war of aggression. Other countries and many Americans have suggested reasonable and safe alternatives.

We members of VFP remember well our military service. We swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We were informed of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the conviction and punishment of soldiers for following illegal orders. We were taught that we must not follow an illegal order. US military leadership must not only know and teach the obligations of international law but must respect and follow them.

You are in high military positions and you have awesome responsibilities under our Constitution and international law. We believe you are honourable men. We respectfully urge that you do the right thing in this terribly difficult situation. Clearly your duty is to not engage in the political leaderships’ illegal war. Many veterans will support you if you refuse to participate in an illegal war and we believe that you can successfully use your high positions to warn the American people and you will be supported.

If you fail your sworn duty to the Constitution and international law by engaging in an illegal war against Iraq, we fear the US will become a rogue nation that will believe in and act on the principle that might is right to the great dishonour of all our professed values and to the great discredit of all who served in the armed services of the US so that their children and future generations could live in peace and freedom.

With great urgency,

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 6

Not in our name

February 28, 2003

Let it not be said that people in the UnitedStates did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression.

The signers of this statement call on the people of the US to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world.

We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers. We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the United States government should have the same rights of due process. We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for.

We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do — we must first of all oppose the injustice that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to RESIST the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world.

We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage — even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.

But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of "good vs. evil" that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home.

In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and any time. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine, where Israeli tanks and bulldozers have left a terrible trail of death and destruction. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq – a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the US government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins and bombs wherever it wants?

In our name, within the US, the government has created two classes of people: those to whom the basic rights of the US legal system are at least promised, and those who now seem to have no rights at all. The government rounded up over 1,000 immigrants and detained them in secret and indefinitely. Hundreds have been deported and hundreds of others still languish today in prison. This smacks of the infamous concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in World War II. For the first time in decades, immigration procedures single out certain nationalities for unequal treatment.

In our name, the government has brought down a pall of repression over society. The President’s spokesperson warns people to "watch what they say." Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed. The so-called USA PATRIOT Act – along with a host of similar measures on the state level – gives police sweeping new powers of search and seizure, supervised if at all by secret proceedings before secret courts.

In our name, the executive has steadily usurped the roles and functions of the other branches of government. Military tribunals with lax rules of evidence and no right to appeal to the regular courts are put in place by executive order. Groups are declared "terrorist" at the stroke of a presidential pen.

We must take the highest officers of the land seriously when they talk of a war that will last a generation and when they speak of a new domestic order. We are confronting a new openly imperial policy towards the world and a domestic policy that manufactures and manipulates fear to curtail rights.

There is a deadly trajectory to the events of the past months that must be seen for what it is and resisted. Too many times in history people have waited until it was too late to resist. President Bush has declared: "you’re either with us or against us." Here is our answer: We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. We say NOT IN OUR NAME. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed.

We who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together to rise to this challenge. We applaud and support the questioning and protest now going on, even as we recognise the need for much, much more to actually stop this juggernaut. We draw inspiration from the Israeli reservists who, at great personal risk, declare, "there IS a limit" and refuse to serve in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

We also draw on the many examples of resistance and conscience from the past of the United States: from those who fought slavery with rebellions and the underground railroad, to those who defied the Vietnam war by refusing orders, resisting the draft, and standing in solidarity with resisters.

Let us not allow the watching world today to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.

From:

James Abourezk Michael Albert Mike Alewitz, Labor Art & Mural Project, Aris Anagnos Laurie Anderson Edward Asner, actor Russell Banks, writer Rosalyn Baxandall, historian Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange Jessica Blank, actor/playwright William Blum, author Theresa & Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas Fr. Bob Bossie, SCJ Leslie Cagan Kisha Imani Cameron, producer Henry Chalfant, author/filmmaker Bell Chevigny, writer Paul Chevigny, professor of law, NYU Noam Chomsky Ramsey Clark David Cole, professor of law, Georgetown University Robbie Conal Stephanie Coontz, historian, Evergreen State College Kia Corthron, playwright Kimberly Crenshaw, professor of law, Columbia and UCLA Culture Clash Kevin Danaher, Global Exchange Barbara Dane Ossie Davis Mos Def Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, professor, California State University, Hayward Bill Dyson, state representative, Connecticut Steve Earle, singer/songwriter Eve Ensler Leo Estrada, UCLA professor, Urban Planning Laura Flanders, radio host and journalist Elizabeth Frank Richard Foreman Terry Gilliam, film director Charles Glass, journalist Jeremy Matthew Glick, editor of Another World Is Possible Danny Glover Leon Golub, artist Juan Gómez Quiñones, historian, UCLA Jessica Hagedorn Sondra Hale, professor, anthropology and women’s studies, UCLA Suheir Hammad, writer Nathalie Handal, poet and playwright Christine B. Harrington, Director of the Institute for Law & Society, New York University David Harvey, distinguished professor of anthropology, CUNY Graduate Center Tom Hayden Edward S. Herman, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Susannah Heschel, professor, Dartmouth College Fred Hirsch, vice president, Plumbers and Fitters Local 393 bell hooks Rakaa Iriscience, hip hop artist Abdeen Jabara, attorney, past president, American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Fredric Jameson, chair, literature program, Duke University Harold B. Jamison, major (ret.), USAF Erik Jensen, actor/playwright Chalmers Johnson, author of "Blowback" Casey Kasem Robin D.G. Kelly Martin Luther King III, president, Southern Christian Leadership Conference Barbara Kingsolver Arthur Kinoy, board co-chair, Center for Constitutional Rights Sally Kirkland C. Clark Kissinger, Refuse & Resist! Yuri Kochiyama, activist Annisette & Thomas Koppel, singers/composers David Korten, author Barbara Kruger Tony Kushner James Lafferty, executive director, National Lawyers Guild/L.A. Ray Laforest, Haiti Support Network Jesse Lemisch, professor of history emeritus, John Jay College of Justice, CUNY Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, TIKKUN magazine Barbara Lubin, Middle East Childrens Alliance Staughton Lynd Dave Marsh Anuradha Mittal, co-director, Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First Malaquias Montoya, visual artist Tom Morello Robert Nichols, writer Kate Noonan Rev. E. Randall Osburn, exec. v.p., Southern Christian Leadership Conference Ozomatli Grace Paley Michael Parenti Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter Jerry Quickley, poet Margaret Randall Michael Ratner, president, Center for Constitutional Rights Adrienne Rich David Riker, filmmaker Boots Riley, hip hop artist, The Coup Matthew Rothschild Edward Said Susan Sarandon Saskia Sassen, professor, University of Chicago Jonathan Schell, author and fellow of the Nation Institute Carolee Schneeman, artist Ralph Schoenman & Mya Shone, Council on Human Needs Mark Selden, historian Alex Shoumatoff John J. Simon, writer, editor Michael Steven Smith, National Lawyers Guild/NY Norman Solomon, syndicated columnist and author Scott Spenser Nancy Spero, artist Starhawk Bob Stein, publisher Gloria Steinem Oliver Stone Peter Syben, major, US Army, retired Marcia Tucker, founding director emerita, New Museum of Contemporary Art, NY Gore Vidal Anton Vodvarka, Lt., FDNY (ret.) Kurt Vonnegut Alice Walker Rebecca Walker Naomi Wallace, playwright Immanuel Wallerstein, sociologist, Yale University Rev. George Webber, president emeritus, NY Theological Seminary Leonard Weinglass, attorney Haskell Wexler John Edgar Wideman Saul Williams, spoken word artist S. Brian Willson , activist/writer Jeffrey Wright, actor Howard Zinn, historian. Organisations for identification only – representative list as of July 17, 2002. n

Since then, 30,000 others have added their names.
To add your name, and for additional information:
(http://www.notinourname.net/all_to_Conscience.html)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Editorial 2

War crime in Iraq: Vatican

February 28, 2003

March 18, 2003

MILITARY intervention against Iraq would be a crime against peace demanding vengeance before God, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has said.

"War is a crime against peace which cries for vengeance before God," said Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, speaking on Vatican Radio.

He stressed the deeply unjust and immoral nature of war, saying it was condemned by God because civilians were the worst sufferers.

Martino, formerly Vatican permanent representative to the United Nations, strongly denounced the determination of the United States and its allies to disarm Iraq by force.

"Do not reply with a stone to the child who asks for bread," he said. "They are preparing to reply with thousands of bombs to a people that have been asking for bread for the last 12 years."

Stressing the Roman Catholic church would continue to insist on the need and the urgency of peace, he said: "As always, it will be the Good Samaritan who will bind the wounds of a wounded and weakened people."

Pope John Paul II, one of the most prominent opponents of war on Iraq, urged UN Security Council members yesterday to continue negotiations on the disarmament of Iraq and avert a looming military conflict.

"I want to remind UN members and particularly those who make up the Security Council that the use of force is the last resort after having exhausted all peaceful solutions, as stipulated by the UN charter," the Pope told tens of thousands of worshippers gathered in St. Peter’s Square.

"I lived through World War II and I survived the Second World War. For this reason, I have the duty to say ‘Never again war’. We know that it is impossible to say peace at any price, but we all know how important our responsibility is."

(From correspondents in Vatican City)
(http://www.theaustralian.news.com)

‘Illegal, unwise, immoral’

(A statement from religious leaders in the United States and United Kingdom)
November 26, 2002

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4)

As the calls for military action against Iraq continue
from our two governments, despite the new opening for UN weapons inspections, we are compelled by the prophetic vision of peace to speak a word of caution to our governments and our people. We represent a diversity of Christian communities — from the just war traditions to the pacifist tradition. As leaders of these communities in the United States and the United Kingdom, it is our considered judgement that a pre-emptive war against Iraq, particularly in the current situation would not be justified. Yet we believe Iraq must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction; and that alternative courses to war should be diligently pursued.

Let there be no mistake: We regard Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as a real threat to his own people, neighbouring countries, and to the world. His previous use and continued development of weapons of mass destruction is of great concern to us. The question is how to respond to that threat. We believe the Iraqi government has a duty to stop its internal repression, to end its threats to peace, to abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and to respect the legitimate role of the United Nations in ensuring that it does so.

But our nations and the international community must pursue these goals in a manner consistent with moral principles, political wisdom, and international law. As Christians, we seek to be guided by the vision of a world in which nations do not attempt to resolve international problems by making war on other nations. It is a long-held Christian principle that all governments and citizens are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

We therefore urge our governments, especially President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, to pursue alternative means to disarm Iraq of its most destructive weapons. Diplomatic cooperation with the United Nations in renewing rigorously effective and thoroughly comprehensive weapons inspections, linked to the gradual lifting of sanctions, could achieve the disarmament of Iraq without the risks and costs of military attack.

We do not believe that pre-emptive war with Iraq is a last resort, could effectively guard against massive civilian casualties, would be waged with adequate international authority, and could predictably create a result proportionate to the cost. And it is not clear that the threat of Saddam Hussein cannot be contained in other, less costly ways. An attack on Iraq could set a precedent for pre-emptive war, further destabilise the Middle East, and fuel more terrorism. We, therefore, do not believe that war with Iraq can be justified under the principle of a "just war," but would be illegal, unwise, and immoral.

Illegal

Whether we oppose all war, or reluctantly accept it only as a last resort, in this case the U.S. government has not presented an adequate justification for war. Iraq has not attacked or directly threatened the United States, nor is it clear that its weapons of mass destruction pose an immediate and urgent threat to neighbouring countries or the world. It has not been credibly implicated in the attacks of September 11. Under international law, including the U.N. Charter, the only circumstance under which individual states may invoke the authority to go to war is in self-defence following an armed attack. In Christian just war doctrine, there are rigorous conditions even for an act of self-defence. Pre-emptive war by one state against another is not permitted by either law or doctrine. For the United States to initiate military action against Iraq without authorisation by the United Nations Security Council would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the foundations of international security. And under our domestic governance, the US Congress and the UK Parliament must also play a key role in authorising any contemplated military action.

Unwise

The potential social and diplomatic consequences of a war against Iraq make it politically unwise. The US and the UK could be acting almost entirely alone. Many nations, including our European allies and most of the Arab world, strongly oppose such a war. To initiate a major war in an area of the world already in great turmoil could destabilise governments and increase political extremism throughout the Middle East and beyond. It would add fuel to the fires of violence that are already consuming the region. It would exacerbate anti-American hatred and produce new recruits for terror attacks against the United States and Israel.

A unilateral war would also undermine the continued political cooperation needed for the international campaign to isolate terrorist networks. The US could very well win a battle against Iraq and lose the campaign against terrorism. The potentially dangerous and highly chaotic aftermath of a war with Iraq would require years of occupation, investment, and a high level of international cooperation — which have yet to be adequately planned or even considered. And the Iraqi people themselves have an important role in creating non-violent resistance within their own country with international support.

Immoral

We are particularly concerned by the potential human costs of war. If the military strategy includes massive air attacks and urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad, tens of thousands of innocent civilians could lose their lives. This alone makes such a military attack morally unacceptable. In addition, the people of Iraq continue to suffer severely from the effects of the Gulf War, the resulting decade of sanctions, and the neglect and oppression of a brutal dictator. Rather than inflicting further suffering on them through a costly war, we should assist in rebuilding their country and alleviating their suffering. We also recognise that in any conflict, the casualties among attacking forces could be very high. This potential suffering in our own societies should also lead to prudent caution.

We reaffirm our religious hope for a world in which "nation shall not lift up sword against nation." We pray that our governments will be guided by moral principles, political wisdom, and legal standards, and will step back from their calls for war.

United States

Philip A. Amerson, president, The Claremont School of Theology.
David Beckmann, president, Bread for the World.
Peter Borgdorff, executive director of ministries, Christian Reformed Church in North America.
Ronald Brugler, president, The Swedenborgian Church.
John A. Buehrens, past president, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
Tony Campolo, professor emeritus, Eastern University.
John Bryson Chane, bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Washington.
Canice Connors, OFM.Conv., president, Conference of Major Superiors of Men .
John P. Crossley,director, School of Religion University of Southern California.
Robert Edgar, general secretary, National Council of Churches.
Joseph A. Fiorenza, bishop, Catholic Diocese of Galveston – Houston.
Jim Forest, secretary, Orthodox Peace Fellowship.
Robert Franklin, president, Interdenominational Theological Center.
Linda C. Fuller, co-founder and president, Habitat for Humanity.
Millard Fuller, founder and president, Habitat for Humanity.
Michael J. Gorman, Ph.D., Dean, The Ecumenical Institute of Theology.
St. Mary’s Seminary & University.
Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, general secretary, Reformed Church in America.
Richard L. Hamm, general minister and president, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the U.S. and Canada.
Stan Hastey, executive director, The Alliance of Baptists.
Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., bishop, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.
President-elect, National Council of Churches.
William C. Imes, president, Bangor Theological Seminary.
Thomas H. Jeavons, general secretary, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
Holly H. Johnson, president, Blanton-Peale Institute of Psychology and Religion.
Norman J. Kansfield, president, New Brunswick Theological Seminary.
Michael Mata, director, Urban Leadership Institute.
Felton Edwin May, bishop, Baltimore-Washington Conference United Methodist Church.
A. Roy Medley, general secretary, American Baptist Churches USA.
John W. Oliver, coordinator, Orthodox Peace Fellowship in North America.
Glenn Palmberg, president, Evangelical Covenant Church.
Robert M. Parham, executive director, Baptist Center for Ethics.
Judy Mills Reimer, general secretary, Church of the Brethren General Board.
David Robinson, national coordinator, Pax Christi USA.
Cheryl J. Sanders, professor of Christian Ethics, Howard University School of Divinity Senior Pastor, Third Street Church of God.
William J. Shaw, president, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
Carole Shinnick, SSND, executive director, Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
Ronald G. Sider, president, Evangelicals for Social Action.
Glen Stassen, Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics Fuller Theological Seminary.
Walter F. Sullivan, bishop-president of Pax Christi USA , bishop, Catholic Diocese of Richmond.
John H. Thomas, general minister and president, United Church of Christ.
Joe Volk, executive secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Jim Wallis, executive director/editor, Sojourners.
Barbara G. Wheeler, president, Auburn Theological Seminary.
Mary Ann Zollmann BVM, president, Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

United Kingdom
Peter Price, bishop Of Bath and Wells.
Michael Langrish, bishop of Exeter.
Stephen Venner, bishop of Dover.
Michael Dunelm, bishop of Durham.
Michael Scott-Joynt, bishop of Winchester.
Colin Bennetts, bishop of Coventry.
Keiran Conry, bishop of Arundel and Brighton (RC).
Peter Selby, Bishop of Worcester and Bishop to HM Prisons, Church of England.
Jonathan Bailey, bishop of Derby.
John Perry, bishop of Chelmsford.
John Hind, bishop of Chichester.
Tim Stevens, bishop of Leicester
Keith Sutton, bishop of Lichfield.
John Saxbee, bishop of Lincoln.
Anthony Pierce, bishop of Swansea & Brecon.
John Gladwin, bishop of Guilford.
Christopher Herbert, bishop of St. Albans.
John Stewart Davies, bishop of St Asaph.
The Rt Rev’d Dr Barry Morgan, bishop of Llandaff.
Most Rev Andrew Bruce Cameron, bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney.
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Michael Hare Duke, retired bishop of St Andrews.
Maurice Taylor, bishop of Galloway, Scotland (RC).
Alan D McDonald, convener, Church and Nation Committee
Church of Scotland.
Dr Nigel Goring Wright, president of the Baptist Union of Great Britain.
C Rosemary H Castagner, clerk, Ireland Yearly Meeting’s Committee.
Canon Andrew White, coventry Cathedral Reconciliation Centre.
Pat Gaffney, general secretary, Pax Christi UK n

(http://www.sojo.net/action)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Editorial 3

Plea to the Pope

February 28, 2003

Dear Friends,

The world needs a miracle. The Iraqi people need a miracle. There is a new plan to bring about this miracle and we need everyone’s help! We need to ask some very high profile people to go to Baghdad and stay there until the threat of war is withdrawn (meaning the troops leave the Persian Gulf).

Please e-mail, fax, or call Pope John Paul II (even if you’re not Catholic!) and ask him to go to Baghdad on behalf of the innocent Iraqi people who will suffer from a US military attack. Below is a letter from Dr. Helen Caldicott explaining this new anti-war campaign and some sample letters.

Thank you,

Sue Gray
webmaster@rfpeace.org.

An appeal from Dr. Helen Caldicott

I write this appeal for your help as a paediatri
cian, a mother and a grandmother — and I am writing about the lives of tens of thousands of children. Although the current administration has demonstrated it has no reservations about slaughtering up to 500,000 innocents in Iraq, there is one person whose life they absolutely will not risk.

That person is Pope John Paul II. While the Pope has already formally denounced the proposed war, calling it a defeat for humanity, as well as sent his top spokesperson to meet with Saddam Hussein, he now must take a historically unprecedented action of his own and travel to Baghdad.

The Pope’s physical presence in Iraq will act as the ultimate human shield, during which time leaders of the world’s nations can commit themselves to identifying and implementing a peaceful solution to this war that the world’s majority clearly does not support.

To persuade the Holy Father to take this unusual but potent action, he must hear from you and millions of others around the world who have already been inspired to stand up and speak out for peace. A mountain of e-mail, faxes and phone calls are our devices to inspire him. Please understand that your taking just a few minutes right now to communicate with him may ultimately spare the lives of thousands of innocent people who at this moment live in complete terror from the threat of an imminent U.S.-lead military strike on their homeland. So here is what you can do to be a part of this powerful final action to stop the march to war in Iraq.

At the close of the letter, type in your name, city and state—no need to include your address.

Suggested draft of letter:

Your Holiness,

It is out of a sense of great urgency that we are writing this letter. At this very moment the United States of America is on the verge of launching what may be the most cataclysmic war in history, using weapons of mass destruction upon the Iraqi people. Conservative estimates are that such a war will result in the death of 500,000 Iraqis; fifty per cent of their population are less than 15 years of age. It seems clear that, at this time, you are the only person on Earth who can stop this war.

Indeed, your physical presence in Baghdad, will prevent the impending slaughter of hundreds of thousands of human beings, and force the international community to find and implement a peaceful way to prevent this unprecedented, pre–emptive aggression.

We implore your Holiness to travel to Baghdad and to remain there until a peaceful solution to this crisis has been reached. The lives of the people of Iraq rest in your hands as does the fate of the world.

Signed.

(Email of Pope John Paul II:
accreditamenti@pressva.va)

Note: Please pass this original e-mail on to as many people you can so as to assure a critical mass is reached in this action.

Note that as you and others begin sending your letters, faxes and e-mails, there will be a simultaneous effort to alert the media of this action, so as to be sure it is publicly known throughout the world.

Thank you for participating in this formal request of the Pope. We just may stop this war in Iraq – and save these childrens’ lives.

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 7

Stars war with Bush

February 28, 2003

Martin Sheen, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood stars speak out against the American administration’s war on Iraq

Dear Friends,

March 17, 2003

The fictional president of television’s The West Wing wants the respect of the American people. Martin Sheen wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times Monday that Hollywood celebrities opposed to the potential war with Iraq are not getting enough respect and are merely being taken to task because of their "celebrity status."

"Although my opinion is not any more valuable or relevant merely because I am an actor, that fact does not render it unimportant," Sheen wrote. "Some have suggested otherwise, trying to denigrate the validity of this opinion and those of my colleagues solely due to our celebrity status. This is insulting not only to us but to other people of conscience who love their country enough to risk its wrath by going against the grain of powerful government policy."

Sheen added, "Whether celebrity or diplomat, cabdriver or student, all deserve a turn at the podium."

The veteran actor and frequent protester’s piece ran next to an opinion piece by a woman whose family fled Iraq 11 years ago. She singled out Sheen, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Barbra Streisand as those she says don’t speak for the people of Iraq. Sheen – who formed the activist group Artists United to Win Without War in December – recently claimed that top executives at NBC fear his outspoken opposition to the war will hurt his show, The West Wing.

An NBC spokeswoman, however, responded that network executives have expressed no such concerns. The claim resulted in the Screen Actors Guild recently raising the spectre of the Hollywood Blacklist era of the 1950s, and issued a statement that warned the entertainment industry that it better not punish people who speak out against war with Iraq.

"It is the fundamental right of citizens to express their support or their fears and concerns," the SAG statement read. "While passionate disagreement is to be expected in such a debate, a disturbing trend has arisen in the dialogue."

(http://www.wral.com)

February 6, 2003

Double Oscar winner Dustin Hoffman on Wednes day accused US President George Bush’s administration of "manipulating the grief of the country" post-September 11 to win backing for a possible war with Iraq.

Hoffman, speaking as he picked up the life-time achievement prize at the Empire magazine film awards in central London, added that he believed America’s motives for going to war included power and oil.

He said, "I believe, though I may be wrong because I am no expert, that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil."

Other Hollywood stars who have already attacked President Bush over Iraq include Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon.

But actor Tom Cruise, who starred alongside Hoffman in Rain Man, has come out in support of the US president.

(http://www.channelnewsasia.com)

December 15, 2002

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP): UN inspectors hunted for
weapons of mass destruction at missile plants and nuclear complexes Sunday, while an unusual visitor — Hollywood star Sean Penn — spoke out in Baghdad against a US attack and in support of the Iraqi people caught up in an international crisis. Penn issued his comments at the end of a three-day visit to Iraq which was organised by the Institute for Public Accuracy, a research organisation based in San Francisco, California.

"Simply put, if there is a war or continued sanctions against Iraq, the blood of Americans and Iraqis alike will be on our (American) hands," Penn said at a news conference in the Iraqi capital Sunday.

October 8, 2002

As Washington rattles its sabre at Saddam Hussein,
a constellation of Hollywood megastars has come out to do public battle against President George W Bush’s policy towards Iraq.

In a town with a strong liberal tradition and long history of political activism, there is an increasing rumbling over Iraq coming from some top celebrities — although not all are opposed to war with Baghdad.

However, with their names alone able to generate headlines and huge press coverage, many have chosen to throw their weight into the political debate surrounding a possible US and British led war with Iraq.

Diva Barbra Streisand led the attack on Bush, telling a star-studded audience today that she found his administration "frightening" and slamming its alleged bellicose stance and failure to protect civil rights.

"I find bringing the country to the brink of war unilaterally five weeks before an election questionable — and very, very frightening," the singer and actress told the Democratic party fundraiser in Hollywood.

Streisand is the biggest Tinseltown personality to take aim at Bush’s eagerness to oust Saddam by force, but a growing list of stars is joining the movement.

On Friday, several hundred celebrities and intellectuals published a manifest entitled "Not in our Name" in the Los Angeles Times, a tract which urged Americans to resist their government’s policies.

We "call on the people of the US to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world," they wrote.

Among the signatories were JFK movie director Oliver Stone, Gosford Park filmmaker Robert Altman, British-born Terry Gilliam, actress Jane Fonda, Lethal Weapon star Danny Glover and Susan Sarandon, star of Thelma and Louise.

Oscar-winning Sarandon and long-time partner Tim Robbins went even further during the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, publicly voicing their fears about a war with Iraq and saying they were opposed to "military expansion."

"I don’t think that a military expansion of violence is the solution," she said. "No, I don’t think I would want to go to war against Iraq."

Tootsie star Jessica Lange weighed in while in Madrid last week, saying military action on Iraq was "wrong, immoral and basically illegal. "It makes me feel ashamed to come from the United States. It is humiliating."

But while many stars have come out against military action, some have backed it, creating something of an ideological divide in usually superficial Tinseltown.

Superstar Tom Cruise and movie magnate Steven Spielberg backed Bush’s stance during a publicity tour to Italy last month.

"If Bush, as I believe, has reliable information on the fact that Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction, I cannot not support the policies of his government," Spielberg said, adding that Bush’s policies were "solid and rooted in reality."

Cruise also came down on Washington’s side, saying that he believed "Saddam has committed many crimes against humanity and against his own people."

The sudden re-emergence of the strident brand of "star activism" reminiscent of the Vietnam War era has caused some critics to question the competence of Hollywood movie stars and filmmakers to get involved in politics.

But political science professor Sherry Bebitch Jeffe disagreed, saying they were as entitled as anyone else to express themselves.

"Just because a person is a celebrity, he or she does not have to give up his or her first amendment rights, it’s as simple as that," she said.

"I think that actors have always been activists, there’s more attention paid to them," she said, adding that the tradition went back to the 1950s era of the McCarthy anti-communist "witch-hunts" and World War II.

However, the University of Southern California academic warned that stars’ power to influence policy may be more limited than people like Streisand would like to think.

"Hollywood does not have much influence on public opinion, but (Streisand) raises enough money for the Democratic Party that people have to at least listen to what she has to say." (AFP)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 8

What does Hollywood know about the upcoming war with Iraq?

February 28, 2003

February 7, 2003

With the USA about to launch a war against Iraq any day now, what will trigger the war? Obviously, Colin Powell’s revelations before Congress didn’t set in motion an immediate attack. Americans sit and wait for convincing evidence. But maybe Hollywood knows…

I previously reported on Hollywood’s uncanny foreknowledge when production of war films began prior to Sept. 11, 2001. (www.lewrockwell.com Feb. 20 and June 4, 2002) Now there is talk that a TV series called "24" may provide clues to what might set off public sentiment to attack Iraq.

In the script for "24," Kiefer Sutherland plays the part of federal agent Jack Bauer who has been called back into service in a counter terrorism unit because of the threat of a nuclear bomb hidden somewhere in Los Angeles. According to the script, a Middle Eastern terrorist cell called the "Second Wave" places the dirty bomb in Los Angeles which would put 2.5 million residents at risk for casualties.

In the TV series, "the President vows to retaliate against an unnamed Middle Eastern country that has harboured the group in much the same fashion that President Bush has done with anyone giving shelter to those behind 9/11." (BBC News, Entertainment Section, Oct. 30, 2002) Mark Armstrong, writing for E! Online News, says the "24" series story line "hits a little bit too close to home for viewers." [E! Online News July 1, 2002]

The TV series has aired in the USA and is scheduled to air in Britain soon. Oddly, the entire series was sponsored on US television by Ford Motor Company, instead of multiple sponsors.

Even if a terrorist organisation had a "dirty nuclear bomb," it wouldn’t produce a mushroom cloud over Los Angeles or any other city. A "dirty bomb" is simply a regular explosive device that disperses radioactive material. So the TV series is inaccurate and spreads inordinate fear. The American Institute of Physics reports that radiation emitted from a "dirty bomb" is likely to be too low to calculate and that the greatest risk from such a weapon is panic. [American Institute of Physics, March 12, 2002] Furthermore, Iraq has no nuclear weapons of fissionable materials according to the UN nuclear inspection agency. [Toronto Sun, Sept. 15, 2002] So don’t look towards Iraq as a possible nuclear terrorist.

Whether Hollywood productions predict reality is of course open for discussion. Certainly Hollywood has been involved in producing war and propaganda films for decades if for nothing else than helping to recruit troops. Of course America didn’t witness the detonation of a "dirty nuclear bomb" at the recent Super Bowl in San Diego, even though this was the central theme in the movie The Sum Of All Fears (Paramount Pictures) based on a Tom Clancy novel.

But maybe Hollywood scripts that contain terrorist threats from foreign groups continue to keep American citizens on edge. There is already criticism that the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and help elevate President Bush’s approval ratings. (Capitol Hill Blue, Jan. 3, 2003).

Of course the President hasn’t been waiting for any evidence, or even a "dirty bomb," to go to war. The Washington Post recently revealed that President George W. Bush planned to go to war against Iraq only days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (Wash. Post Jan. 12, 2003) And why would Iraq sponsor a terrorist attack on the US knowing full well it would prompt horrific retaliation?

Last January, the Los Angeles Times ran a story about the lies that were told to get the US into its first war with Iraq over a decade ago, such as over-exaggerated claims of Iraqi troop strength and stories of Iraqi soldiers yanking new-born babies out of hospital incubators. (Jan. 5, 2003) Television news agencies certainly played a part in disseminating the misinformation leading up to the Gulf War and no American news agency today has ever apologised for airing the false "Iraqi incubator" story. Will the same kind of misinformation be used to get Americans behind this new war effort?

The White House needs something to get the stalled war effort off the ground. Time magazine recently conducted an online poll asking Americans which country, North Korea, Iraq or the USA, posed the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? Out of more than a quarter million votes cast, 83.4% picked the USA as the greatest threat to world peace. (Time magazine, Jan. 22, 2003).

Government sources continue to warn of an impending smallpox terrorist attack. But why wouldn’t a terrorist organisation have released such a terrible bio-weapon before the US had its vaccine ready? The mass vaccination programme promoted by federal authorities would offer little or no protection unless the exact strain of smallpox virus was known ahead of time. The federal government apparently had prior knowledge of the anthrax threat. The White House continues to dodge questions about its foreknowledge of an anthrax threat evidenced by administration of the antibiotic drug CIPRO to White House staff on the same day as the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (World Net Daily, Jan. 11, 2003).

What does the federal government know about the alleged smallpox threat? The strain of anthrax used in US mail envelopes was traced back to the US army labs at Fort Detrick in Maryland, the same place where the only known stores of smallpox virus outside of Russia are housed. To date, US efforts to apprehend the anthrax terrorist appear to have dwindled. If that terrorist had access to bio-weapons at Ft. Detrick in the past, what would stop him now?

(Courtesy Bill Sardi. Sardi is a health journalist who dabbles from time to time in current affairs. His website is www.askbillsardi.com).

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 9

Facing our fears

February 28, 2003

The Bush administration wants us to be afraid, but remain quiet about it. Our power will come not from denying the fear but in confronting, and overcoming, it. So, we must speak of it, not to scare others but to bring us closer together.

March 17, 2003

I am finally ready to admit what for months I have kept hidden: I am terrified. I am more scared than I have ever been in my adult life. For weeks now I have felt a new kind of free-floating terror at what has been unfolding, as the Bush administration has made it clear that nothing would derail its mad rush to war.

Until now, I have not spoken of it. In organising meetings or talks to community groups or rally speeches, I held back. The task was to build the antiwar movement, and I worried that talking too much about my fear might undermine that. People need to feel empowered, hopeful, I told myself; we should be talking about the potential of the movement.

That hasn’t changed. We have to continue to build the movement, which has enormous potential over the long-term to turn this society away from war and profit, toward peace and the needs of people. We cannot abandon our commitment to the people of the world, the work of education and organising that we all must do if we are to make good on that commitment.

But I no longer think we can build such a movement by suppressing or keeping quiet about this fear we feel. In the past few weeks I have seen this fear so clearly in the eyes of my friends, heard it in the nervous comments of strangers, and been surprised by it in the unease with which even many supporters of the war talked.

I knew it when this past weekend my father — a conservative, Republican small-town businessman and World War II-era veteran — tried to convince me that Bush wouldn’t really start a war, that he was bluffing, just being cagey. Even my father was scared of the plans of the man he voted for.

I think people all over the world whose capacity to feel has not been occluded by power or hate are feeling something like this. It is not a fear of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction or even necessarily of this particular war, as frightening as all those things may be. I believe it is a fear of something more difficult to pin down, a fear of the forces that will be unleashed when the United States defies the world and launches a war that — while couched in talk of protecting people from threats — is so obviously about projecting US power to achieve a kind of world domination that was never possible before.

Bush and his advisers proudly announce that they have cast aside any commitment to collective security, real diplomacy, and international law. Will the United Nations survive? Will there be anything left of an international system when Bush and his gang are finished? Will there be any hope for the peaceful settlement of disputes? Of course none of these concepts has ever been fully implemented, and we all know that the international institutions have flaws. But will anyone feel safer in a world in which the law comes only from the blade of the American sword, permanently drawn?

This fear I feel is not just of power-run-amok but of an empire with the most destructive military capacity that has ever existed — an empire with thermobaric bombs and cruise missiles, cluster bombs and nuclear "bunker busters." No matter how hard the government works to try to keep us from seeing the results of those weapons — and no matter how much the news media cooperate in that project — we understand how many civilians could die under the onslaught of these horrific weapons. They can censor the pictures, but not our imaginations.

This fear I feel is not just of the unchecked power of the United States but of the fact that Bush and his advisers seem to think they understand their own power and can control it. It is the arrogance of virtually unlimited power married to lifelong privilege. It is hubris, and in a nuclear world there is no sin that is potentially more deadly.

This is the fear that I feel, that I think so many of us feel. The Bush administration wants us to be afraid, but remain quiet about it. Our power will come not from denying the fear but in confronting, and overcoming, it. So, we must speak of it, not to scare others but to bring us closer together. Our only hope against the fear is in each other, in our organising, in our resistance. And if we can confront our fears, we can confront this empire.

If you feel this fear and aren’t sure that, in the face of it, you can remain involved — or get involved for the first time — in the antiwar movement, all I can say is, "Where else will you go?" If we retreat into our private spaces, thinking we can hide, we will find out quickly that this fear will follow us everywhere.

Our only way out is together, in public, facing not only our fears but the fears that others will project onto us, and inviting them to join us. It will be painful. It will carry with it certain risks. But it is the only way we can hang onto our own humanity.

I am scared, and I need help. We all do. Let us pledge not to let each other down — for our own sake, and for the sake of the world.

(Robert Jensen is a founding member of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com), a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 10

1...2,6632,6642,665...2,698 Page 2,664 of 2,698

On the wings of a lie

‘Our voice will not be silenced’

There is no honour in murder

Not in our name

War crime in Iraq: Vatican

‘Illegal, unwise, immoral’

Plea to the Pope

Stars war with Bush

What does Hollywood know about the upcoming war with Iraq?

Facing our fears

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT