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 Blogs have been consolidated and the calendar has been archived for security reasons; all other links remain the same, and virtually all blog content remains intact.THIS SITE NO LONGER REFLECTS THE CURRENT AND ONGOING WORK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.
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036-3959
To the Editor:
After months of intelligent and courageous challenge to the Bush Administration's rush to attack Iraq, you apparently capitulate by endorsing its draft resolution before the United Nations Security Council (Editorial, October 27). This draft -- far from being a good faith effort to restart inspections -- aims to provide a trigger for war.
Other Security Council members, including France and Russia, rightly fear that the Bush Administration draft says that Iraq is in "material breach" of previous resolutions so that the United States can attack without further authority from the Security Council. Administration officials have suggested they would use future Security Council sessions not to seek a decision on war -- as required by Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations charter -- but simply to give other countries an opportunity to join our foreordained attack. The Bush Administration is thus asking the Security Council to wink at its own disempowerment.
Nor are the draft proposals a serious effort to restart effective inspections. As a former inspector observed, inspections might be used to stage a provocation (news article by Steven Weisman, October 21). Former chief weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus and former inspectors Aake Saellstroem and Scott Ritter have testified to the U.S.'s misuse of earlier inspections for spying not related to hunting weapons. This danger -- sharpened by the Administration's stated willingness to use even minor Iraqi violations as grounds for war (news article, October 24th) -- shows why the full Security Council must retain full authority to review any incident.
Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld have made no secret of their contempt for inspections and their eagerness for war. It is sad to see Secretary of State Powell and now you endorse an inspection proposal that is more a pretext for war than an alternative to it. The Security Council should vote it down.
Page created October 26, 2002 by Charlie Jenks