September 10, 2002

9:50 PM

Not In Our Name. "The signers of this statement call on the people of the U.S. 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. . . . 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."
posted by fold_and_mutilate (47 comments total)

So are we to do nothing?

I don't personally like how Shrub's going about what he's doing, but I can't conceive of any better course of action. I am a pacifist. I despise war. I believe violence only begets violence. Even when successful, war only postpones more violence.

Yet I am also an American, and though I didn't vote for this cowboy, I see no benefit to turning my back on him now.

Negotiation has been attempted in the middle east for decades and nothing has been resolved. We're dealing with societies who have waged war with one another for so many centuries, they may simply know no other course of action. They may simply understand no other language but force.

They have called us weak cowards before for when we chose not to act. When we do choose to act they call us infidels.

If there's a third option, I'm all ears.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:07 PM on September 10, 2002

how about this for a third option: lets leave the decision over who gets to run Iraq to the Iraqis themselves?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:13 PM on September 10, 2002

fold_and_mutilate :We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety.

Hmmmm, interesting. Where is the FILTER in MetaFilter anyways?
posted by matrix77 at 10:16 PM on September 10, 2002

Here is my answer to your petition: I refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. I will not give up my right to question your motivations for advocating the appeasment of and leniancy toward terrorists and dictators like Sadam Hussein and Al Q'uaida. I will not hand over my conscience in return for a hollow contrarianism and moral relativism. I say NOT IN MY NAME.

Signed, Evan Michel Izer

I think my petition will get more signatures. At least, I hope, for all our sake's, it will.
posted by evanizer at 10:17 PM on September 10, 2002

It's not about which petition gets more signatures. Mindless vengeance and flagwaving will always get more signatures. This petition is about preserving the constitutional backbone of America and looking for better ways of operating internationally. I applaud the creators of the petition and every person who signed it.
posted by neuroshred at 10:23 PM on September 10, 2002

what evidence do you have that Mr Husain of The Bunker, Baghdad is an actual threat? A threat that requires war?

I haven't seen any evidence yet.

this war will cause irreparable damage to relations with the muslim world, will inspire another generation of terrorists and will do nothing to bring regional security.

i am appaled at the ignorance displayed by the pro war faction, but then again the average american had no idea where afghanistan was a year ago.....

the answer lies in jaw jaw not war war as a more noble politician than Bush put it.

we need a solution to the israel palestine conflict as well as offering hope and a way out of poverty for millions.

bush wants international support over terrorism whils remaining the most isolationist and inward looking government the US has had. you can't have it both ways.
posted by quarsan at 10:31 PM on September 10, 2002

Your middle name is Michel? Hee hee. ;) Mine's Arthur.

Once again: the Leftist branding problem rears its ugly head. The very imperious tone of writings such as this link make me crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only one turned off by that.

To translate the document: it says the Bush Administration has overstated its bounds with both civil liberties and foreign policy. It says that the administration has taken on authority beyond the checks of the legislative and the judiciary branches. Most importantly, it condems the current administration's crude attempt to divide Americans in simple, inapplicable terms.

I wouldn't want us to buy into that divisiveness.

So if I have to stand with someone, as Bush has said I have to, I'd guess I'll stand nearer the people that said "I'd rather the President didn't launch us into a vaguely-presented war. I'd rather that we retained our rights to consultation with a lawyer, and the privacy of our communications, and I'd rather the White House concern itself slightly more with the welfare of its citizens than the financial benefits we reap from controlling the rest of the world."
posted by RJ Reynolds at 10:33 PM on September 10, 2002

I've got great news for the petitioners! No one is holding them accountable for President Bush's actions. President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder will not be denying visas to John Abbick, Hamdiya Fatimah Abdul-Aleem, Kim Abeles, Anna Abend, Jennifer Abod and the rest of the signees. They'll all be thrilled to know that the legal issue they're so worried about, that they will personally be held responsible in a court of law, is actually not a concern. Phew.
posted by gsteff at 10:38 PM on September 10, 2002

McSweetie: "how about this for a third option: lets leave the decision over who gets to run Iraq to the Iraqis themselves?"

Uhm, that's not a third option. That would be doing nothing. Which we have done. It doesn't work. The Iraqi people have no choice who is in charge. Anyone who tries to speak against Saddam Hussein just gets assassinated. All that's left are yes-men and those who live in fear. We can no longer stand idly by and allow Saddam to rule with fear and bloodshed.

Doing something is apparently not working because it's turning America into a pariah of the international community. I love the absurdity of this. There's some sick poetic justice to it. The UN wanted America to act as planetary police on their behalf. We actually start policing for real by stopping terrorist regimes like Saddam and the Taliban, and they're still unhappy. There's no pleasing some people.

Now, in regards to preserving the constitution, I'm all for that part. Shrub's executive actions have sought to undermine the constitution in the name of national security. I despise that. If we weren't already at war, I'd want to see Shrub impeached for not adhering to the oath he gave at his inauguration.

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend, the constitution of the United States."

He has obviously not protected the constitution to the best of his ability. He's sacrificing freedom in the name of security, and what irks me is there's a lot of Americans who are behind him in regards to that because there's a lot of scared people.

However, for the moment I must stand behind the bastard. I see no other choice. United we stand and all that rot. Divided, America could fall, not by foreign interests but due to our own fears.

Saddam has made it clear and still makes it clear: he wants to see the civilized world fall and if he could get his hands on weapons of mass destruction he's made it clear he would threaten to use them. He'd be like a two bit thug putting a gun to an innocent person's temple. Only his gun would be a nuclear weapon, and the innocent person would be the entire planet.

This simply cannot be tolerated.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:42 PM on September 10, 2002

fold_and_mutilate : How I missed you.....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:44 PM on September 10, 2002

how about this for a third option: lets leave the decision over who gets to run Iraq to the Iraqis themselves?

Fine.. if Saddam is willing to submit to totally democratic fair elections. Why not try it? Of course, that isn't gonna happen.

Why go with the option that doesn't involve us sitting on our hands and start putting the heat on Saddam?

I figure the US would beat Iraq in about 10 days or so since their army is weaker now than in 1991.
posted by RobbieFal at 10:50 PM on September 10, 2002

I haven't seen any evidence yet.
Here you go, make sure you actually read it too!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:18 PM on September 10, 2002

I am a signatory: small word and small deed.

We need many more words (words like those in the "Not In Our Name" act of conscience) and many more deeds to end violence and injustice. More words...more deeds...from me, and from each of us.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:38 PM on September 10, 2002

what evidence do you have that Mr Husain of The Bunker, Baghdad is an actual threat? A threat that requires war?

Well, given the last few decades, I'd ask: what has he done to NOT be a threat? Are you saying that you actually TRUST this person? And if so, based upon what?
posted by HTuttle at 11:49 PM on September 10, 2002

It should be possible for people to stand up and say they want peace, not war, without being accused in such shallow terms of being "appeasers". What kind of a crazy world is it in which people are criticized for wanting peace? For not wanting to engage in war? For _not_ wanting more people to die?

Among a lot of people I talk to here in England, there is the sense that we as citizens have no power to prevent our Prime Minister Tony Blair from leading our country into a war, ostensibly with the aim of protecting us all. This is a man that many of us voted for, but increasingly it feels like our democratic control over him is almost non-existent. That is why people say "Not in Our Name". Like Rita Lasar, whose brother's heroic death at WTC was praised by George Bush but who opposes war and mourns the deaths of Afghan citizens. It's one of the few ways in which we can tell our leaders that, though the 9/11 disaster was a tragedy of the highest order, we still favour peace over war.
posted by skylar at 12:17 AM on September 11, 2002

It should be possible for people to stand up and say they want peace, not war, without being accused in such shallow terms of being "appeasers".

I want peace and I feel that eliminating those who don't is a great start. Saddam Hussein wants peace right now for one purpose only and that is so that he can advance the methods by which he can cause violence. That is unacceptable. Historically what has leaving Saddam in "peace" achieved? Death. War. Violence. His goal is the conversion of all persons on the face of this planet to HIS way of thinking - there is no other option in his mind. In what fantasy world do you feel that words are going to change his deep-seated religious beliefs? Have you heard the songs they broadcast on the radio in Iraq praising him like he is the second coming of Muhammed? Please - words have already FAILED. They have FAILED several times. Limited intervention has FAILED. The UN has failed miserably - as it usually does. Options? There is one left...

This is a man that many of us voted for, but increasingly it feels like our democratic control over him is almost non-existent.

If Clinton, whom I voted for, had backed up his harsh rhetoric five years ago, we would most likely not be having this discussion. I hope that the president I voted for this time does the job that needs doing.
posted by RevGreg at 12:39 AM on September 11, 2002

RevGreg said: "I want peace and I feel that eliminating those who don't is a great start"

And therein lies the stunning, almost poetic paradox.
posted by skylar at 12:49 AM on September 11, 2002

In what fantasy world do you feel that words are going to change his deep-seated religious beliefs?

Hussein's only deep-seated religious beliefs are in himself. He is a secular ruler, not an Islamist. He had no interest in Islamic fundamentalism until he came into conflict with the US over Kuwait. He has since tried to exploit Islamic fundamentalist belief and Arab anti-semitism to further his own ends, but no one seriously believes he cares deeply about Islam.

Just so we know what fights we're fighting here. Hussein is a petty despot, who wishes to extend his despotism over his neighbors. al Qaeda is a world-wide network of relgiously-driven individuals with a millenarian vision of the triumph of Wahhabist Islam over all other faiths. Both are problematic, but present different sorts of problems.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 1:13 AM on September 11, 2002

And, of course, it doesn't seem like there is much of a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda after all.

If Clinton, whom I voted for, had backed up his harsh rhetoric five years ago, we would most likely not be having this discussion. I hope that the president I voted for this time does the job that needs doing.

Hey, wasn't it Bush the Elder that failed to oust Hussein during the Gulf War? If he'd backed up his call to the people of Iraq to rise up against Hussein, we would most likely not be having this discussion. Oh, and if Reagan, Rumsfeld, etc hadn't supported Hussein in the war against Iran, we might not be having this discussion. And if we hadn't backed the Shah... And if we weren't so dependent on oil...
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:51 AM on September 11, 2002

Have to agree, Joey - where was Bush Sr. after he told the Iraqis to "rise up?" Ah yes... as I recall, Shia rebels were prevented from taking the arms and fuel they needed by the America military. Because it's not just any old regime change we want here. No siree. It has to be _our_ choice of regime change. Because we know what's best for the Iraqis.
posted by skylar at 2:03 AM on September 11, 2002

Evan Michel Izer, welcome to democracy. Democracy affording a place you can speak your mind as can anyone. I'm certain you don't agree fold_and_mutilate should have those perks, but there you have it. Democracy. Lots of people. Lots of thoughts. Lots of needs. A few people calling others fuckwits and "refusing" to have (f&m) speak for the American people and whatnot. Democracy. How you must secretly wish, along with many other conservative reactionaries, democracy was not so.

Moral relativism? Ha. . .
posted by crasspastor at 3:02 AM on September 11, 2002

ZachsMind, thanks for being one of the people who's conflicted. I'm starting to think that anyone who thinks they're right or who has an answer is probably wrong and has no clue.
posted by anildash at 3:53 AM on September 11, 2002

It should be possible for people to stand up and say they want peace, not war, without being accused in such shallow terms of being "appeasers".

How arrogant of you to assume those who deem war necessary don't want to go to war either.

When would you go to war? Specific examples, please. If you knew that Iraq was 6 months away from having A-bombs? Two weeks? Or do you think that, since SH is not fundamentially different than us, than President Bush, we should never go to war unless attacked.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:56 AM on September 11, 2002

Um, isn't this a kinda sorta double-post?
[/meanie]
posted by mediareport at 4:18 AM on September 11, 2002

Listen guys and gals! Even if saddam was 2 seconds from having the "A-bomb"(what a quaint 1940's way to describe it ParisParamus) How in the world would he deliver it to American soil??? Even the bigger countries that have HAD the bomb for years(Israel,Pakistan,India and even China)don't have the means(well china has in a limited way) to deliver a warhead at those distances(the US and soviet block countries have a lock on ICBM's) So basically dubbya is using the A-bomb(giggle) as a hammer to beat congress over the head with so they will approve his war plans. As for suitcase nukes WE cant make the reliably so saddam is about 30 years from those. For all those in favor of war JOIN THE ARMY..see ya bye bye
posted by hoopyfrood at 5:09 AM on September 11, 2002

To add an important thought....saddams nukes are Israel's(and to any of his friends in the middle east's) problem let Israel deal with it!
posted by hoopyfrood at 5:11 AM on September 11, 2002

umm, war , yes. By all means we can start this foolish venture and go to war and possibly igniting the tinder box that is the middle east, the outcome being a much wider war that could have so easily been avoided. Even in the most ludicrous eventualities this does happen at the very least we can rely on the moral, logistical and military support of the western world ensuring that we do not end up out of our combined depth ( after all the military might of the united kingdom must be of great comfort to those planners in the pentagon). Or you could avoid needless bloodshed, hold back from anatagonising a large portion of the human race and try for a diplomatic solution.
posted by johnnyboy at 5:23 AM on September 11, 2002

quarsan: "bush wants international support over terrorism whils remaining the most isolationist and inward looking government the US has had"

Let me guess...you slept in the day they talked about the pre-WWII US government...ahhh but that turned out OK...right?

Thankfully...fold_and_mutilate represents just a tiny, mouthy, and unimportant part of the US population. He reminds me of that little rattle under the dash of my car...annoying, but really not enough of a nuisance to bother to crawl under there to fix.
posted by cyclopz at 5:54 AM on September 11, 2002

Hahaha, a petition!

About as worthwhile as a vote!
posted by dfowler at 6:36 AM on September 11, 2002

i wonder, if someone other than f&m had posted this, would people be so quick to attack the poster?
posted by tolkhan at 7:14 AM on September 11, 2002

The missle handicap is not one, since a nuke can be put on a boat, or rail container, or in the back of a truck.

Yes, a little parasitic rattle under the dash. Like a lot of the stuff in this post.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:25 AM on September 11, 2002

according to mediareport's link, it seems not.
posted by tolkhan at 7:30 AM on September 11, 2002

Thank you, fold_and_mutilate, for the reminder that I am not alone, especially on a day like today when the sabre-rattling, I fear, will reach a fever pitch.
posted by mapalm at 7:35 AM on September 11, 2002

mapalm: you are alone. VERY alone.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:42 AM on September 11, 2002

Ahhhh, Paris, you must really be a sad and bitter old man. Where does all that vitriol come from?
posted by mapalm at 7:52 AM on September 11, 2002

I went through college and briefly comingled with lots of leftist naives whose real MO was that they couldn't stand authority, and got their jollies bashing authority as an end in itself.

And I realized that everyone to the right of Jessie Jackson wasn't the anti-Christ.

Also, I lived in Europe for about three years and got really disgusted with French and EU political-economic BS.

I'm still left of center, but not your left of center.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:59 AM on September 11, 2002

Finally, some insight into the puzzling enigma that is ParisParamus. More! More! Like, how do you do that amazing "I read the minds of 'leftist naives' " trick?

Don't be shy. Today is your day.
posted by Skot at 8:15 AM on September 11, 2002

It's pretty obvious that if you're willing to stridently argue against deposing Saddam Hussein, you have a problem. Psychologically, that is.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:21 AM on September 11, 2002

dfowler: "Hahaha, a petition! About as worthwhile as a vote!"

ROTFLMAO!

Oh! Dfowler! Stop it! I can't breathe!

[clutches chest]

Oh, this is the big one! You hear that Elizabeth? I'm comin' t'join ya honey!
posted by ZachsMind at 8:53 AM on September 11, 2002

It's pretty obvious that if you're willing to stridently argue against deposing Saddam Hussein, you have a problem. Psychologically, that is.

Assertion instead of argument, plus ad hominem? You must have been sucking especially deeply on Ariel's crackpipe today.
posted by riviera at 9:10 AM on September 11, 2002

"It's pretty obvious that if you're willing to stridently argue against deposing Saddam Hussein, you have a problem. Psychologically, that is."

First off, you conflate deposing Saddam with military action, even though our Fearless Leader hasn't ruled out non-military methods of reaching this goal (at least that's what he says, and we all know how foolish it is to question our elected Republican officials.) Then you dismiss as mentally unstable anyone who would question Bush (and you,) whereas I can see a very sane argument against invasion that goes like this: SH won't hold back this time on whatever WMDs he has; he'll slap nerve gas into the middle of Tel Aviv. Sharon has already said they won't pull punches, and Isreal *IS* a nuclear power (albeit undeclared.) Presto, nuclear war in the Middle East. Are you happy now?


Rattles under the hood tend to cost you more the longer you ignore them. An apt metaphor, really
posted by trondant at 9:15 AM on September 11, 2002

Nerve gas in Tel Aviv today is less dangerous than a mushroom cloud next week. Your argument borders on appeasement.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:18 AM on September 11, 2002

mapalm - contrary to PP's statement you are not, in fact, alone.

fold_and_mutilate - thank you for the post.

**another rattle under the dash**
posted by Fezboy! at 9:43 AM on September 11, 2002

I said the same thing when this petitioned was posted on another user-submitted news site (*cough*fark*cough) a couple of months ago.

A more effective statement from the signers of this petition, and a more effective way for them to ensure nothing was done "in their name" that they weren't happy with, would be to renounce their US citizenship and get the hell out.
posted by KiloHeavy at 10:08 AM on September 11, 2002

KiloHeavy is one of those americans who feel that the first amendment "goes to far". One of those americans who thinks plurality is "dangerous for homeland security". One of those americans who the current government loves because he lives in fear and is thus easily controlled.

Renounce *your* citizenship and move to Iraq or some other totalitarian state. Then you can really live in fear.
posted by sic at 10:26 AM on September 11, 2002

gsteff said: I've got great news for the petitioners! No one is holding them accountable for President Bush's actions.

I guess terrorists made a mistake when they killed civilians for government actions then.
posted by agregoli at 10:29 AM on September 11, 2002

Listen guys and gals! Even if saddam was 2 seconds from having the "A-bomb"(what a quaint 1940's way to describe it ParisParamus) How in the world would he deliver it to American soil???

Interesting. Why should I care WHERE such a weapon is used? I hope they are NEVER used against people ANYWHERE in the world EVER. Maniacs like Saddam having them is not a good place to start moving in that direction.

saddams nukes are Israel's(and to any of his friends in the middle east's) problem let Israel deal with it!

I'm sure they'd have no problem with that. The resulting war would outshine anything we are planning on doing - how is that a win for the world?

And therein lies the stunning, almost poetic paradox.

The true paradox skylar is in believing that one can attain peace through diplomacy with someone who only recognizes war as a means of meeting his goals.

<sarcasm>I guess it's worked so well in the past...</sarcasm>
posted by RevGreg at 10:30 AM on September 11, 2002