9-11peace.org

September 18, 2001 10:10 AM

9-11peace.org
Working for peace in the wake of September 11.
For those who have wondered just what exactly they can do besides flying the US flag or posting on MeFi (myself included in the latter).
This comprehensive site offers all sorts of concrete actions for those who believe that war is not the answer. You can email your elected officials; sign petitions; browse a list of suggested actions (from donating supplies for rescue dogs to flying the UN flag); and find out about upcoming events.
posted by mapalm (48 comments total)

I appreciate the efforts for peace, but what is the answer to mass murder if not a military response? We brought the last WTC bombers to justice in our courts and the Lockerbie bombers are being tried in a Europe through an international judicial process. What did it get us? Tuesday.
posted by rcade at 10:18 AM on September 18, 2001

bah. you're making a logical fallacy in calling the absence of military action the CAUSE of new terrorism. sorry, but this is not a known causation. in fact, i think most of us would guess precisely the opposite -- bombing a country all to hell would cause MORE terrorism. the one precedent we seem to have for this is Israel, who has always made an effort to retaliate for terrorist attacks, and recently, has increased frequency and scope of retaliation (ie, now targeting leaders, etc.) guess what? terrorism has GONE UP. if your ultimate goal is to end terrorism, I'm guessing the solution is multifaceted, and may not necessarily mean war -- we need to consider ALL avenues. if you just want to callously blow people up for some sense of vengence, well, by all means, do so, just understand what you're doing is unlikely to mean a more peaceful world for the rest of us.

fishfucekr.



fishfucerk.
posted by fishfucker at 10:32 AM on September 18, 2001

I posted this link as a resource for those who believe that war is not the answer. For those who are advocating a military response, I only ask that you think about the long term implications of an endless war waged against a nebulous enemy in unspecified locations (which is the situation currently), not to mention the increasing talk of limiting certain first amendment rights at home in order to achieve those vague aims.
posted by mapalm at 10:33 AM on September 18, 2001

The answer, rcade, is justice coupled with intelligence and understanding. Not more killing of innocent civilians.

I guess I wrongly assume that by now everyone has read Arab-American Tamim Ansary's passionate, but elegant and cogent email to his friends, which has been widely distributed, here on Mefi and everywhere, with good reason. It's a worthwhile read.
posted by mirla at 10:38 AM on September 18, 2001

mapalm: I haven't heard a damn thing about limiting "certain" 1st Amendment rights? I have no idea what you're talking about.
posted by raysmj at 10:39 AM on September 18, 2001

raysmj: I am talking about the legislation which Ashcroft wants to present to Congress that woud give broader powers to the FBI and CIA allowing them to wiretap and surveil with much fewer restrictions. Illegal wiretaping would, in my book, fall into the restriction of free speech category.

Sure, I may not be targeted by the FBI today, but what guarantees that I (or you) won't one day wind up on some arbitrary list of "Un-Americans" that the FBI would liike to track? It's happened many times in our recent past.

As Ben Frankiln said (paraphrase): Those who would give up certain liberties for a little security deserve neither.
posted by mapalm at 10:45 AM on September 18, 2001

Those of us that don't favor a military solution have a few p.r. problems to deal with:

--We need to have a positive program of alternatives. If it's between military action and no action at all, it's going to be military.
--We need to state the case for non-violent action in an entirely hard-headed way, always arguing in terms of America's interests. The people we're trying to convince are going to be turned off if they think we're a bunch of peaceniks.

I'm sure there will be some kind of military response, but hopefully we can make it limited in scope and duration.

Note that I'd support military action if I heard a proposal that sounded likely to do more good than harm; I just haven't heard one yet.
posted by lbergstr at 10:47 AM on September 18, 2001

I haven't heard a damn thing about limiting "certain" 1st Amendment rights? I have no idea what you're talking about.

from CNN:
new war to be fought in secrecy

America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, Pentagon sources said Monday.

In addition, the Pentagon currently has no plans to allow reporters to
deploy with troops, or report from warships, practices routinely carried out in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

---
from CDT:
Already, on September 13, the Senate adopted legislation giving government agencies broader authority to conduct certain kinds of electronic surveillance. There is concern that serious erosions of liberty could follow. We have created a special page at which we will post legislative proposals, analyses and other information about the response to the September 11 attacks.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:49 AM on September 18, 2001

Good point, lbergstr, and that's why I posted this link. I think it presents some concrete suggestions for actions and language we can use to stave off war.
posted by mapalm at 10:49 AM on September 18, 2001

posted by rebeccablood at 10:51 AM on September 18, 2001

in fact, i think most of us would guess precisely the opposite -- bombing a country all to hell would cause MORE terrorism. ... if your ultimate goal is to end terrorism, I'm guessing the solution is multifaceted, and may not necessarily mean war -- we need to consider ALL avenues.

Except war, right? I'm not sensing among peaceniks any desire to respond militarily to mass murder.

There are some things in this world that require a military response. If you don't think this is one, I'd really like to hear what you would take up arms for.

if you just want to callously blow people up for some sense of vengence ...

Of course I do -- and I also want to "bomb a country all to hell." You've got me pegged. All that talk about how I appreciate the efforts for peace was just a cover.
posted by rcade at 10:52 AM on September 18, 2001

did that work?
posted by rebeccablood at 10:52 AM on September 18, 2001

mapalm: So far, what I've heard is this. People suspected of terrorist activities can now be legally wiretapped under the federal wiretapping law. The latter already existed, now it extends to terrorism. Why had this not happened before, I don't know. But, again, this is really an extension of an existing law. Which can be bitched about, justifiably, but that's an entirely different story.

Complaints, for the record, would fall under "violation of privacy rights," and not the 1st Amendment. This right is said to come from the "penumbras" of amendments, including the 1st. But a violation would not be considered a strict 1st Amendment violation. Make it clear what you're talking about, thanks.
posted by raysmj at 10:54 AM on September 18, 2001

Correction: Or will be wiretapped under federal law, if the bill wins final approval, that is.
posted by raysmj at 10:54 AM on September 18, 2001

mapalm, you and I have had our differences since 9-11 (the flag debate), and I apologize for our petty bickering. My previous ranting as a "rambling idiot" (your words) was not well constructed. Though I stick to my beliefs about the U.S. flag and my country's beliefs, actions and symbolism, as the days pass my fervor for military (re)action to this attack recedes. Thanks for posting this link. My wife (a fellow MeFi-er) and I discuss the alternatives to military attacks often now, and we sincerely hope our country's search for justice does not find us in World War III.
posted by msacheson at 11:06 AM on September 18, 2001

In all seriousness, I STRONGLY suggest nobody reading this in the United States try something as stupid as flying a UN flag in front of their house, especially if you don't already live in an overwhelmingly liberal area, and double secret especially™ if you try to fly it in lieu of an American flag instead of next to one. There are millions of people out there right now that already consider us to be at war, many of whom are angry enough to be potentially violent. And they are not the types that would comprehend your display of said flag as "supporting an international law approach to bringing the terrorists to justice" as that site indicates. All you're going to go is put yourself at a high risk of having someone come to your front door ready to punch you in the face, if not try to burn your house down for literally being a member of The Enemy in their eyes. If you have a strong desire to make such a statement, do it on your web site where the worst that can happen is that someone tries to hack you.
posted by aaron at 11:11 AM on September 18, 2001

Following up on lbergstr, I would say that any antiwar argument has to:

1) separate the CIA/FBI investigation of the attack from "retaliation" or "response" on Afghanistan. Criticize offensive military action, but only that (for now).

2) similarly separate security measures, even those using the military e.g. Air Force patrols, from military response. Criticize the latter for now.

3) Affirm realism. If no one speaks up, there will most likely be more innocent loss of life in the next 3-6 months than on September 11. Even if this is portrayed as a necessary, proportionate, or defensive response, it is wrong under any ethical measure.

4) Muzzle (for now) antiglobalization rhetoric. Patriotism overflows. I think Bush has done a good job not ignoring concerns like racism and civil liberties. I really think he wants everyone to be inside the tent. But he has done so in the context of a constant drumbeat of war patriotism, which he will attempt to maintain over the course of any war. Hence, anything colored pink is an internal enemy in the eyes of most for a year or more. (I'm sorry if anyone objects to my compliments or criticism of Bush. Take this as analysis.)

5) Be sincere. I don't doubt that everyone is coming to know their sincere feelings about the attack and what to do. Yet, there's a risk of muddying the waters with other issues. I don't want a stick to beat right-wingers and Democrats, I want peace now.

PS. Send Barbara Lee an e-mail to say thanks for speaking up.
posted by rschram at 11:11 AM on September 18, 2001

rcade: if we had a clear enemy in this (ie someone who admitted guilt, or whose guilt we could clearly demonstrate to US citizens and the international community) I would support some action; hopefully one that would remove the man, not the innocents around him.

it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that the perpetrators of 9.11 might all have died in that plane; I keep hearing that it would take a large support network to carry this out, but I'd like someone to explain to me why that is true.

can you make a plausible scenario in which those who hijacked those planes were the only ones involved? I'd like to know why that's not plausible, and why this operation supposedly took tons of money, and why anyone thinks that the hijackers used their real names, and lots of other questions.

in other words, this looks like a foregone conclusion to me; maybe with the best of intentions, like the OJ cops planting evidence because they were sure they were right and they wanted to "prove" it, but it still looks very sketchy to me.

I want some facts.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:13 AM on September 18, 2001

In all seriousness, I STRONGLY suggest nobody reading this in the United States try something as stupid as flying a UN flag...

...because if they can't stop you legally by stealing your civil liberties, they'll stop you by brute force and intimidation....

I'm afraid Aaron's right, but not in a good way....
posted by briank at 11:36 AM on September 18, 2001

Hey aaron, maybe they would accept the "disapproval balloons" on the front page of somethingawful.com. No, that's too insensitive I suppose.
posted by revbrian at 11:40 AM on September 18, 2001

revbrian, I'm not trying to tell you what your rights are or aren't. You do indeed have every right to go fly any flag you want, even a swastika. I'm just trying to warn you and everybody else that tensions are very high right now, and thus flying a UN flag is probably going to lead to you getting as much shit from your neighbors and other locals as you would if you really DID start flying a swastika flag. I'm speaking purely in terms of safety; I think you'd be putting yourself in danger, for an especially needless reason since practically nobody would know the real message you were trying to send and the misinformed message they would infer is so obvious. If you're willing to risk that just to be stubborn, then go for it, and I hope my predictions turn out to be 100% wrong.
posted by aaron at 11:59 AM on September 18, 2001

The answer, rcade, is justice coupled with intelligence and understanding. Not more killing of innocent civilians.

I guess I wrongly assume that by now everyone has read Arab-American Tamim Ansary's passionate, but elegant and cogent email to his friends, which has been widely distributed, here on Mefi and everywhere, with good reason. It's a worthwhile read.
posted by mirla at 12:01 PM on September 18, 2001

The answer, rcade, is justice coupled with intelligence and understanding. Not more killing of innocent civilians.

I encourage everyone who advocates an all-out war to read Arab-American Tamim Ansary's passionate, but elegant and cogent email to his friends, which has been widely distributed, here on Mefi and everywhere, with good reason. It's a worthwhile read.
posted by mirla at 12:02 PM on September 18, 2001

aaron

1) no demands have been made. none. no one has even identified themself as the attacker.

2) I still want to see proof or even a shred of evidence that bin Laden is behind this. I'm not saying that he's not, but if all we have to go on is him saying that he wanted to take the US down, well, quite frankly, that's not enough. I'm not asking for an iron-clad case, just a preponderance of evidence. or even one piece of evidence would be a good start.

with two hijackers mis-identified so far, I don't see how you can say that they all used their real names, it's looking less and less to me as if they did,

even the US isn't saying "bin laden did it"; the most they will say is "bin laden is our primary suspect". surely starting a war against a country that houses your "primary suspect" is un-american. or do our principles apply only to US citizens?
posted by rebeccablood at 12:03 PM on September 18, 2001

[revbrian, I'm not trying to tell you what your rights are or aren't. ]

Why exactly are you telling me this!? If the UN did what it was created to do I would support it but it doesn't/hasn't for some time. I personally wouldn't fly a UN flag for any reason.
posted by revbrian at 12:04 PM on September 18, 2001

i found this slate explainer on How Do Terrorist Cells Work? informative:

"Osama Bin Ladin's role in these operations was probably limited to serving as front man, financier, and publicist."
posted by kliuless at 12:06 PM on September 18, 2001

["Osama Bin Ladin's role in these operations was probably limited to serving as front man, financier, and publicist."]

If true that would be something you would punish, no?
posted by revbrian at 12:16 PM on September 18, 2001

Except war, right? I'm not sensing among peaceniks any desire to respond militarily to mass murder.


read this thread: i think we've already heard from plenty of people who will support war if it is done in a manner that will achieve particular goals -- namely, increased safety for the american people. but, at this point, i think many people (myself included) are suspicious of the likelihood of the war currently being proposed to achieve these ends. what most people seem to be against is simply beginning a war to exact retribution.


oh -- but i guess they're not PEACENIKS -- which, for the record, means what? besides being a linguistic strategy for dismissing anyone's opinion if it calls for some sort of hesistance before war, or no war at all?
posted by fishfucker at 12:18 PM on September 18, 2001

Hey, fishfucker: Peacenik was not meant as a pejorative. We're not on opposite ends of the spectrum. I just think the "peace at any cost" crowd -- epitomized by 9-11peace.org -- is just as wrong as the "let God sort 'em out" crowd.
posted by rcade at 12:27 PM on September 18, 2001

With regard to "donating supplies for rescue dogs", the link supplied at 9-11peace.org is for a breed rescue organization. They take in dogs that are no longer wanted or able to be taken care of and place them with families. The text implies that these dogs are being trained for rescue operations which they are not. This is more like canine foster care.

For a site that trains dogs to find people during disasters, try this. It is the National Disaster Search Dog Foundation. They have a link where you can donate money electronically. They are located in California, but they have 6 teams currently working in NY.
posted by nickonomicon at 12:32 PM on September 18, 2001

yes, aaron, my last post was a response to your response on the other thread. sorry that I didn't make that clear.
posted by rebeccablood at 12:35 PM on September 18, 2001

So what we have is this: physical danger to individuals who would dare to fly a UN flag outside their house. Unbelievable. I think it's time for America to wake up and realize it is part of the world community, not above and beyond it.
posted by dydecker at 12:53 PM on September 18, 2001

msacheson - hope you see this. i appreciated the integrity and honesty of your post, and if i really did call you a "rambling idiot", i apologize.

i sense that the level of rhetoric in MeFi discussions from last week compared to this has subsided somewhat. i for one know that i myself was guilty of heated words, as many of us (understandably) were. onward...
posted by mapalm at 12:59 PM on September 18, 2001

mapalm, thanks for accepting my olive branch. Our reconciliation makes me feel better. onward indeed
posted by msacheson at 1:22 PM on September 18, 2001

What would y'all think about a mixture of peace and war?

Various people here and elsewhere have suggested dropping food to the Afghani people.

I love this idea and carrying it a few steps forward. Indelibly dye the food with USA, the flag, and any other symbol which would identify the food as being from America. Wrap the food with packaging which basically states in no uncertain terms that the Taliban cannot feed you but the United States can. Saturate the country with this food, dropping it in substantial numbers near every city, every camp, every place a settlement can be found.

This would force the Taliban to either interfere with the distribution of food and cause the hungry to look on with shock as the redemption is destroyed before their eyes, or they would be forced to let the people eat and know that the food was provided by a country previously identified as their enemy.

Meanwhile, while saturation food bombing is occurring, US Special Forces can be engaged in looking for Bin Laden and any other necessary activity, the enhanced counter-espionage activities can continue, etc.

I think the propaganda value would be overwhelming and could go a long ways to gaining the long term goals.
posted by pandaharma at 1:31 PM on September 18, 2001

yep. I call this response Xtreme Creativity.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:36 PM on September 18, 2001

[I think the propaganda value would be overwhelming and could go a long ways to gaining the long term goals.]

I'm all for this. The people of afghanistan have suffered under the taliban long enough.
posted by revbrian at 1:56 PM on September 18, 2001

here's what I wrote about this this morning:

"a plan like this would effectively set the world on its ear, if only for its nuttiness. And it would certainly reframe the debate on our own terms, not that anyone seems to be interested in doing that at the moment. But I've been thinking for since this happened that the most effective response would be the most off-the-wall response; Xtreme Creativity would put the ball back in our court, and as long as we talk about war, as far as I'm concerned, the terrorists have prevailed."

what about *us* deciding the terms of the engagement?
posted by rebeccablood at 2:02 PM on September 18, 2001

I would love to have this idea somehow presented to the public in a way that would make the administration at least consider the possibility.

But I personally would be quite horrid at publicizing it and don't have much of an idea where to start. A friend of mine took the idea and fired off letters to Orrin Hatch (he's unfortunately our local senator) and letters to the local media but my expectations are low on that front.

We're probably going to do a webpage but, again, this might get lost in the general white noise of this moment.

Any suggestions / gameplans would be welcome.
posted by pandaharma at 2:08 PM on September 18, 2001

fire off letters to sympathetic and influential columnists. they shape people's thinking and politicians read what they say.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:18 PM on September 18, 2001

"peacenik" means someone who is advocating peace as the only response to this attack, who believes that the only correct response is to do absolutely nothing.

I have not heard one single person in the last week say that the correct response is to do absolutely nothing.

I've heard lots of people say that to kill more innocent people would be more wrong as a response than anything else we could do. And I agree with them.

Please, aaron, watch the straw-man attacks. They aren't constructive at all.
posted by Sapphireblue at 3:25 PM on September 18, 2001

fishfucker: It seems to me that in this thread at least, "peacenik" means someone who is advocating peace as the only response to this attack, who believes that the only correct response is to do absolutely nothing.

my problem with this is it equivilates "peacenik" with "apathetic" or "doing nothing". the opposite of war is not inaction. this is a distortion of the situation. calling for peace (or, in this case, refusing to call for war -- which i think might be a better description) is not "no response at all" and i think this needs to be understood. no-one, i think, expects that we can carry on as we have been and prevent attacks in this manner -- instead, many of these 'peaceniks' believe that a war will not fix these problems, but rather a) exacerbate them, and b) cause many more casualties -- on both sides. i've yet to hear anyone say "let's just not do anything." ... have the 'peaceniks' loudly announced their solutions? sure, some of them have, but they've been met with great hostility. i won't bother to repeat them here -- you'll find some of them in links posted on the front pages, in threads, etc. possibly people will be more ready to hear them after we lose another couple thousand americans -- which, you'll notice, all the news sources, "liberal/peacenik/commie/pinko" (which is pretty much a myth, my friend) or not, are saying is quite possible -- even probable -- if we enter into a full-fledged war.
posted by fishfucker at 3:28 PM on September 18, 2001

Sapphire: I strongly object to the tone of your comment. My post was neither a straw-man nor an attack of any sort. All I was doing was defining the meaning of the word as I perceived it being used in this thread. (When rcade says they're the "peace at any cost" crowd, what else could it mean?) I didn't even state an opinion about whether I think such a belief is right or wrong. And I have personally dealt with several dozen people making exactly that argument over the last week - that we should do absolutely nothing, either because they think any response at all "will only start a circle of violence," or because they "think the US had it coming."
posted by aaron at 4:38 PM on September 18, 2001

People whose sole aim is peace get war. And yet they will never understand this. Hence war comes at regular intervals as good intentions give rise to weakness.

Liberals are linear thinkers. They rarely consider secondary effects, instead elevating primary ones to levels of moral prominence not to be ignored.

So, in Orwellian fashion they label those with different opinions as "ignorant". Sometimes they even spell it correctly.
posted by Real9 at 6:22 PM on September 18, 2001