November 5, 2007: This website is an archive of the former website, traprockpeace.org, which was created 10 years ago by Charles Jenks. It became one of the most populace sites in the US, and an important resource on the antiwar movement, student activism, 'depleted' uranium and other topics. Jenks authored virtually all of its web pages and multimedia content (photographs, audio, video, and pdf files. As the author and registered owner of that site, his purpose here is to preserve an important slice of the history of the grassroots peace movement in the US over the past decade. He is maintaining this historical archive as a service to the greater peace movement, and to the many friends of Traprock Peace Center. Blogs have been consolidated and the calendar has been archived for security reasons; all other links remain the same, and virtually all blog content remains intact.THIS SITE NO LONGER REFLECTS THE CURRENT AND ONGOING WORK OF TRAPROCK PEACE CENTER, which has reorganized its board and moved to Greenfield, Mass. To contact Traprock Peace Center, call 413-773-7427 or visit its site. Charles Jenks is posting new material to PeaceJournal.org, a multimedia blog and resource center.
FOR INDIVIDUAL SENATOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION, GO TO
See below, Letter by Senator Kennedy
SEN. RES. RESOLUTION 32
Senator Kennedy and Bryd have introduced the following Resolution to bring before the Senate.
Senator Frist has expressed opposition to raising the issue and Daschle is going along with that position.
CALLS are needed from all over the country to Daschle and Frist and to your own senators.
ACTION: Contact Daschle and Frist, they can be reached through
THE MAIN SWITCHBOARD: (202)224-3121, OR TOLL FREE: (877) 762-8762.
Text of Resolution 32
Expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to the actions the
President should take before any use of military force against Iraq
without the broad support of the international community.
Whereas more than three months have passed, and circumstances have
significantly changed, since Congress acted in October 2002 to authorize
the use of military force against Iraq;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved
Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) requiring Iraq to cooperate with strict
weapons inspections and give United Nations
weapons inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted
access" to all suspected sites involving such weapons;
Whereas United Nations weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq on November
18, 2002, submitted their 60-day report to the Security Council about Iraq's
cooperation with weapons inspections on January 27, 2003, and will report
again on their activities on February 14, 2003;
Whereas the President has not yet made a compelling case to Congress,
the American people, or the international community that the use of armed
force is the only alternative to disarm Iraq; and
Whereas Congress and the American people are increasingly concerned
that the President is prepared to use armed force against Iraq without broad
support by the international community, and without making a compelling case
that Iraq presents such an imminent threat to the national security of the
United States that unilateral action is justified:
Now therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that before the President
uses military force against Iraq without the broad support of the
international community, the President should -
(1) provide full support to the United Nations
weapons inspectors to facilitate their ongoing disarmament work; and
(2) obtain approval by Congress of new legislation
authorizing the President to use all necessary means, including the use
of military force, to disarm Iraq.
Bush's talk of first-strike use of nuclear weapons in Iraq carries seed of
By Edward M. Kennedy, Senator for Massachusetts
January 29 2003
A dangerous world just grew more dangerous. Reports that the
administration is contemplating the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in
Iraq should set off alarm bells that this could not only be the wrong war
at the wrong time, but it could quickly spin out of control.
Initiating the use of nuclear weapons would make a conflict with Iraq
President Bush had an opportunity Tuesday night to explain why he
believes such a radical departure from long-standing policy is justified or
necessary. At the very minimum, a change of this magnitude should be
brought to Congress for debate before the U.S. goes to war with Iraq.
The reports of a preemptive nuclear strike are consistent with the
extreme views outlined a year ago in President Bush's Nuclear Posture
Review and with the administration's disdain for long-standing norms of
According to these reports, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has
directed the U.S. Strategic Command to develop plans for employing nuclear
weapons in a wide range of new missions, including possible use in Iraq to
destroy underground bunkers.
Using the nation's nuclear arsenal in this unprecedented way would be the
most fateful decision since the nuclear attack on Hiroshima. Even
contemplating the first-strike use of nuclear weapons under current
circumstances and against a nonnuclear nation dangerously blurs the crucial
and historical distinction between conventional and nuclear arms. In the
case of Iraq, it is preposterous.
Nuclear weapons are in a class of their own for good reasons -- their
unique destructive power and their capacity to threaten the very survival
of humanity. They have been kept separate from other military alternatives
out of a profound commitment to do all we can to see they are never used
again. They should be employed only in the most dire circumstances -- for
example, if the existence of our nation is threatened. It makes no sense to
break down the firewall that has existed for half a century between nuclear
conflict and any other form of warfare.
A nuclear bomb is not just another item in the arsenal.
Our military is the most powerful fighting force in the world. We can
fight and win a war in Iraq with precision bombing and sophisticated new
conventional weapons. The president has not made a case that the threat to
our national security from Iraq is so imminent that we even need to go to
war -- let alone let the nuclear genie out of the bottle.
By raising the possibility that nuclear weapons could be part of a first
strike against Iraq, the administration is only enhancing its reputation as
a reckless unilateralist in the world community -- a reputation that
ultimately weakens our own security. The nuclear threat will further
alienate our allies, most of whom remain unconvinced of the need for war
with Iraq. It is fundamentally contrary to our national interests to
further strain relationships that are essential to win the war against
terrorism and to advance our ideals in the world.
This policy also deepens the danger of nuclear proliferation by, in
effect, telling nonnuclear states that nuclear weapons are necessary to
deter a potential U.S. attack and by sending a green light to the world's
nuclear states that it is permissible to use them. Is this the lesson we
want to send to North Korea, Pakistan and India or any other nuclear power?
The use of nuclear weapons in Iraq in the absence of an imminent,
overwhelming threat to our national security would bring a near-total
breakdown in relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world. At a
minimum, it would lead to a massive rise in anti-Americanism in the Arab
world and a corresponding increase in sympathy for terrorists who seek to
do us harm. Our nation, long a beacon of hope, would overnight be seen as a
symbol of death, destruction and aggression.
In the introduction to his national security strategy last fall, the
president declared: "The gravest danger our nation faces lies at the
crossroads of radicalism and technology." On that he was surely right --
and the administration's radical consideration of the possible use of our
nuclear arsenal against Iraq is itself a grave danger to our national
interests, our nation and all that America stands for.
His email is: email@example.com
Page created February 3, 2003 by Charlie Jenks