The key organizer of the action was Marie Bruan of the Twin Cities Campaign to Lift Sanctions. At Senator Paul Wellstone's office, where over twenty citizens gathered, Marie read a press release to a local news team, part of which said: "In the event that the representatives or senators are not forthcoming with a public commitment to vote against a war with Iraq, some members of each of the delegations are committed to remain in the offices as long as necessary to get such a commitment."
The statement went on to say that "A new war against Iraq will not fight terrorism or make the world a safer place. A new war will only unleash more horrors on a population already decimated by over twelve years of economic sanctions and war, and would put at risk thousands of American men and women serving in the U.S. military. We believe that it is urgent that Minnesota representatives and senators speak out forthrightly against a war against Iraq, and we are willing to stay in their offices, if that is what it takes, to get them to say no to war."
On the evening of Wednesday, September 25, I recorded the following in my journal:
Tonight I'm in Senator Mark Dayton's Minneapolis office with Sarah Standafer. We're staying the night--bunking down on chairs in the office's conference room. Our "sit-in" is part of the ongoing "congressional vigil against war on Iraq."
Last night four people spent the night at Wellstone's office. Marie [Bruan] and Carol [Masters] are back there again tonight--along with two or three others. Across the state people have been occupying congressional offices--though only at Wellstone's and Dayton's office have such actions extended into the night. At these two places we've been treated very well--indeed, been invited to stay as long as we want.
It's been a different story elsewhere. At Martin Sabo office, people have been locked out, while at Betty McCollum's office in St. Paul, four people where arrested on trespassing charges yesterday after they refused to leave the office at 5:30 p.m. Those arrested were Betty McKenzie, CSJ, Mary Eloff, Judith Pryor and John Landgraf.
56. Janelle Holmvig at Senator Paul Wellstone's office - September 24, 2002.
57. Carol Masters reads a statement to the press at the conclusion of the "congressional vigil against war on Iraq" - Friday, September 27, 2002.
58. Macalester College professor Mahmoud El Kati--photographed in March 2000.
"There are two groups of people here in North America that know a lot about terrorism because they have been the object of sustained terror," noted Mahmoud in September 2002. "I represent the second group. The older group, the First Americans, American Indians, know the story of terrorism. And my people, African people who arrived before the formation of the United States, before the creation of the Department of Immigration and Naturalization, before the Emancipation Proclamation also know about living in terror as a way of life."
The psychology of George W. Bush, Mahmoud said, is Napoleonic. "When you want to divert attention from domestic failure, you point the finger outward. You cultivate hatred for 'the enemy' out there. Then we won't look at Bush's cronies and the deals that went on twelve years ago. This is a diversion because Bush fears another Watergate. Too many powerful people are raising too many questions, doubting him. Everyday somebody questions him."
59. On Monday, October 7, 2002, as many as one thousand people--including Minneapolis mayor R.T. Ryback and actress Jessica Lange--came together at the Federal Building in downtown Minneapolis to protest the Bush regime's plans to attack and/or invade Iraq.
One of the organizers of the rally was Alan Dale of the Minneapolis -based Iraq Peace Action Coalition. Two weeks earlier, Alan wrote an article for the newspaper Pulse of the Twin Cities, in which he noted that "An endless war for oil is what the Bush administration is preparing. But the developing conflict is more than just oil. What is really developing is a war to complete the installation of the U.S. as the world's sole superpower."
Elaborating on this point, Alan drew attention to a 33-page document entitled, "The National Security Strategy of the United States," released by the Bush administration on September 20. "As the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in Australia pointed out," said Alan, "the essence of this strategy is to 'enforce America's global domination, insisting it will allow no other power to challenge its military and economic supremacy'."
"The genesis of the plan," Alan reports, "can be found during the waning days of the first Bush administration when the Pentagon issued a Defense Planning Guidance paper. David Armstrong, an investigative reporter for the National Security News Service, writing in October 2002 Harpers's magazine, traces the development of the plan. He writes that the plan for the U.S. is ' . . . to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for domination of friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful'.
"The events of September 11," says Alan, "have created a political and military climate in which the United States government can now try to complete the construction of what the first Bush called a 'New World Order.' This order allows only the U.S. at the top. Carrying out this plan will require an almost endless series of wars and interventions around the world.
"The role of oil as the prime mover for instigating war in Iraq becomes clearer in the context of this strategy. A key to maintaining world dominance will be determining who decides how the world's supply of oil is distributed and by whom . . . An Indo-Asian News Service article on September 23 reports: 'The U.S. is talking of war with Iraq not because Baghdad has allegedly amassed weapons of mass destruction, but to control the country's huge oil reserves, says Indian analysts and oil industry sources . . . The move, analysts say, is an effort to "reconstruct" the Middle East'.
"On September 15, The Washington Post reported that 'A U.S.-led ouster of Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France, and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets'.
"Already," notes Alan, "the Bush administration is using the threat of a U.S. installed government in Iraq to get other countries in line to support the war. The Iraqi National Congress (INC), the group that the United States would like to install as a new government in Iraq, has said that [it would] review all oil contracts signed by the Hussein government and cancel those that [it] does not like."
60-62. Signs of the Times - October 7, 2002.
"I'm disturbed by the way our President--one appointed by the Supreme Court--is carrying out policies that are embarrassing to me," said Brian (center). "I have to do business in countries around the world and I think it's ridiculous the way the U.S. is trying to manhandle the rest of the world."
Commenting on his sign, Brian said: "It really is an oil mafia that put George W. Bush in office. It was corporate oil sponsors that paid for his campaign and pay for the political system to work. It's nothing but a legalized mafia. And it's this same mafia that's behind the push for war with Iraq."
63. When asked what motivated them to participate in the October 7 rally at the Federal Building, Kari and Matthew Braley responded, "Partly a moral obligation and partly the absurdity of Bush pursuing this line of action without any kind of support and without looking for avenues of peace."
64. Along with the colorful flag which he received from his mother in Arkansas, Tony also likes to participate in peace rallies dressed in both tye dye and camouflage fatigues so as "to get a nice paradox".
"I'm here like everyone else, to come together. We're all one," says Tony. "It's important for people to come out simply to raise awareness . . . This war has nothing to do with anything good or honest. It all has to do with oil. This war could also signal the first move towards [establishing] America's empire. We truly are unchallenged. Iraq has done nothing more to us than it has in the last twelve years, so this is our first opportunity to exercise unchallenged power.
"The world's only hope is in Americans waking up internally and changing [this situation]. The rest of the world can't do anything. We have to do it here."
65-67. Signs of the Times II - October 7, 2002.
"I disagree with the Bush administration's war for oil," said Matt (center). "[This administration is] ignoring protests of hundreds of thousands all across the country and the world. [This country is] not a democracy anymore."
"This war is a bad idea," remarked Robyn (right), who was one of approximately seventy students who marched to the Federal Building from the campus of the University of Minnesota.
68. "I'm here because I'm tired of the war-mongering," said Kathleen (right). "The American people don't support it. This war-mongering is basically all about supporting corporate control and imperialism. We have to stop terrorizing people in other countries."
Joel (left) was more succinct in his criticism of the Bush administration's targeting of other countries as terrorist states: "Bush can take his Axis of Evil and shove it," he said.
69. "I'm for peace, not for war," said Todd Lippert who participated in the October 7 rally with his wife Sara. "We can't fix this situation with violence. We have to find some other way."
Todd noted that "This is the first time I've been motivated enough to come out and protest. I'm very angry about the rush to use violence to solve our problems, angry at the lack of creativity to try and find a solution. I needed a way to speak out. It's extremely frustrating to see our representatives scared to speak out. The American people on a whole seem very uneasy, and many Americans are very upset. And yet that isn't reflected in what's going on in our government."
70. "I'm here because I needed to feel the energy of all the people here," said Tara Van Laren (right). "I need to know that other people feel the same way. It's like a big community. And if we can keep it going and spread it, it'll be great."
Observed Monica Travis (left): "I haven't seen anything in the media about [October 7] being the first anniversary of our bombing of Afghanistan [and the launching of the so-called 'War on Teror']. We missed that point after all the hype of September 11, 2002."
"There is solidarity [here today]," said Scott Travis (center). "There really is an anti-war movement. It's time to speak out for no war."
71. "I just don't believe the war is going to solve anything," said Bob. "It's just going to make matters worse."
On his participation in the October 7 rally, Bob said "I guess it's my responsibilty to be here. It's frustrating that we're so far removed from the decision-making process. It's really sad to think that even though we are out here and that people are out across the country and all over the world . . . [this war's] probably going to happen anyway."
72. Dean Zimmerman, the Minneapolis 6th Ward Councilmember was one of several speakers at the October 7 anti-war rally in Minneapolis.
The war being pushed by the Bush administration is not really about oil, said Dean, but about making profits from oil: "What we need to do is take the profit out of oil. How many of you drove here today, like I did? We need to find alternative forms of transportation." Gesturing around him to the blustery weather, Dean declared that "We need to find alternative forms of energy. We should be harrnessing this wind. These are some of the things we should be working on."
73. One of the most energized speakers at the October 7 rally in Minneapolis was Sang Pham, an Asian-American high school student.
"I'm against the war on Iraq," said Sang. "I mean, what good does it do to bomb Iraq when the U.S. is already bombing them? What good [are the] sanctions do[ing] but kill[ing] . . . people? Why are . . . children orphans? Why . . . can't [they] get proper food or clean water? Why? Why? Why are innocent children dying? Why do we kill people to show that bombing people is wrong? The only thing this war is gonna do is get a few filthy rich people in the U.S., like George W. Bush, more filthy rich. No war on Iraq! No war on Iraq! No war on Iraq!"
74. Rita Laser, resident of New York City and co-founder of September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows - Northfield, Minnesota, October 8, 2002.
Rita lost her younger brother, Abe, in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. "After George W. Bush mentioned my brother's heroic act [in a speech]," said Rita, "I realized that he was going to use my brother's name to kill people on the other side of the world. This made me angry, so I wrote a letter to the New York Times."
"My brother Abe Zelmanowitz," wrote Rita, "was on the 27th floor of One World Trade Center when the first plane hit. Although he could have gotten out of the building he chose instead to stay with his friend, a quadriplegic, who could not get out. President Bush mentioned his heroism in his speech at the National Cathedral . . . It is in my brother's name, and mine, that I pray that we, this country that has been so deeply hurt, not do something that will unleash forces we will not have the power to call back."
"I wrote this letter," recalled Rita, "because I hoped that if I, someone who had lost a dear brother in the disaster called for reflection rather than impulsive retaliation, those who read it might also speak out. I still hope that will happen . . ."
The advocacy organization she co-founded with others who lost loved ones on 9/11 is committed to turning grief into action for peace. The organization's mission is "to seek effective non-violent responses to terrorism, and to identify a commonality with all people similarly affected by violence throughout the world."
September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows believes that "by conscientiously exploring peaceful options in our search for justice, we hope to spare additional innocent families the suffering that we have experienced--as well as to break the endless cycle of violence and relaliation engendered by war."
Rita was part of a January 2002 Peaceful Tomorrows delegation--organized by the San Francisco-based Global Exchange--that traveled to Afghanistan and visited people who had lost loved ones as a result of U.S. bombing. Since her return from Afghanistan, Rita has shared her experiences and insights to audiences across the U.S.
"What we saw in Afghanistan is something that President Bush needs to see," says Rita. "It is a country of rubble. To look at their world just breaks your heart. Hospitals with no medicine. Schools that have been shattered--no electricity, no books, no pencils. But the children sit on the bare floors because they want an education.
"Everyone in Afghanistan knew about what had happened in America [on 9-11]," she said. "But Americans seem to have very little awareness of conditions in Afghanistan." The delegation, for instance, met Afghan farmers who no longer can work their fields because of the presence of U.S. cluster bombs.
In Kabul, they visited the U.S. embassy where they met an Afghan woman who had lost eight relatives to U.S. military attacks. "She went to the embassy to ask for help from the Americans," recalled Rita. "She was told to go away because 'we don't accept beggars'."
This experience in particular led Rita and others to lobby the U.S. Congress on behalf of the Afghan victims. Yet only 40 members of Congress agreed to support the Afghans Victim Fund.
"Meanwhile, Bush seemed to have lost interest in finding Osama Bin Laden," said Rita. "Instead, he began looking for another scapegoat. He found one in Iraq. [In reality] we are going to war over oil and gas pipelines."
At one point in her presentation in Northfield, Rita remarked that "We are being called unpatriotic [for speaking out against war], but the real patriots are the people in this room." Her words were greeted with enthusiastic applause. "Whatever religion people might have," she continued, "all [these religions] say `Don't kill people'."
"Americans are not beloved by the rest of the world, I assure you," Rita said. The impression she was left with after a recent visit to Japan is that "they think the actions of the United States are endangering mankind."
"You won't read about any of this in any paper," she said. "There is a deadening silence in the U.S. media. By their silence, they are complicit in the killing that is taking place around the world."
"We are considered the bully." she said, referring to the American government. "We don't follow the U.S. Constitution. We don't follow the U.N. Charter. Our country was funding Al-Qaida when they were fighting against the Russians."
"Peace groups need to bombard the media with letters so that they cannot ignore us," she said. "Write letters, attend the vigils, do what you can do. If you only convince one person a month, it's worth it."
Off-site Link: September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows and Global Exchange.
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, the day after Rita Laser's talk in Northfield, the United States Congress voted to give George W. Bush authority to unilaterally attack Iraq--without a UN Security Council Resolution and without notifying Congress in advance. The Senate voted 77 to 23 in favor of the "war resolution," while hours earlier the House of Representatives passed the measure 296-133. Both Minnesota senators--Mark Dayton and Paul Wellstone--voted against the resolution.
Of Congress's abandonment of its constitutional duties, writer William Rivers Pitt remarked: "The step has been taken, the die cast, and the structure of governmental power has been forever altered. War is now in the hands of one man, George W. Bush, and not in the deliberative body that is Congress. This is unprecedented, and profoundly disturbing."
In a similar vein, Susan B. Thistlethwaite, professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary, wrote: "President Bush has gotten his congressional mandate to launch a war on Iraq. America will, for the first time in its modern history, attack someone who has not attacked us or our allies first. We will exercise a first-strike option, something the United States did not do even at the height of the Cold War."
Within hours of the vote, the New York Times reported that the White House was developing a detailed plan--modelled on the post-World War II occupation of Japan--to install a U.S.-led military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam Hussein. A U.S. military officer would be put in charge of the Arab nation for "a year or more." The U.S. would also maintain control of Iraq's oil fields--the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world.
On the evening of Sunday, October 13, 2002, I recorded the following in my journal:
Bush's obsession with Iraq, supposedly motivated by concerns of "weapons of mass destruction," seems increasingly foolish in light of the increase in terrorist acts being perpetuated by individuals and groups connected with known terrorist group Al-Qaida. Last week, attacks were launched on U.S. marines in Kuwait and on a French oil tanker off the coast of Yeman. The most recent and horrific attack, however, occured yesterday in Bali, Indonesia, where close to 200 people were killed when a bomb exploded outside a Kuta Beach resort club. An extremist group called Jemaah Islamiyah, allegedly linked with Al-Qaida, is thought to be responsible. News reports speak of the horrific carnage at the popular tourist destination, and the Indonesian government declares it the worst case of terrorism in the country's history.
It seems that Indonesia's 25-year-long, brutal U.S.-backed occupation of East Timor does not figure in its understanding of terrorism. This type of selective defining of what constitutes terrorism is very frustrating and disturbing.
The attack in Bali is sickening and tragic, and I wish that it had never happened and that future attacks of this kind will be prevented. Yet can any of us who live in the West, any of us whose lifestyle benefits from the exploitation of others in the so-called Third World, be really considered "innocent"? This is not to say that anyone, anywhere, deserves to be attacked in such a deplorable way. But ultimately, how successful will our efforts at addressing the problem of global terrorism be when we remain blind or indifferent to our own role in an oppressive global economic order? It seems like a hopeless cycle of violence. I pray that there will be an increase in the number of people who--like Rita Laser and others--have the courage to say, "Enough!"