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 popular grassroots peace sites in the US, and its content remains as 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 Blogs have been consolidated and the calendar has been archived for security reasons; all other links remain the same, and virtually all blog content remains intact.THIS SITE NO LONGER REFLECTS THE CURRENT AND ONGOING WORK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.
Letters to US Media
Many such letters have been written. We are starting to compile a few in this space to serve as models and inspiration, as well as to document the history of this effort to prevent this war.
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036-3959
To the Editor:
The debate in the British House of Commons (news article by Patrick Tyler, September 24th) raised a question that has so far remained taboo in the US Congress and media: Could a war with Iraq go nuclear?
Prime Minister Tony Blair's dossier on Iraq -- transparently written to justify war -- alleges that Saddam Hussein has delegated biological weapons to his son and made them available for use on 45 minutes notice. British critics point out that if this charge is false, then Mr. Blair and President Bush have overstated the urgency of war. But if it is true, there is equal reason to worry about the risks in attack.
US strategic doctrine, as outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review, calls for a nuclear strike on any country using biological weapons. It specifically mentions Iraq. Some Members of Parliament asked whether US B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia are being equipped with the B61 earth-penetrating nuclear weapon.
Congress and the public must examine the nuclear question openly. We cannot write a blank check to an administration whose stated strategy calls for breaking the post Hiroshima taboo.
1308 North Maple St. #22
Bloomington, IN 47404-3367
This letter is exclusive to The New York Times.
September 20, 2002
To the Editor:
Publication of President Bush's national security doctrine, which emphasizes preemption, raises an important question: Are we about to attack Iraq because it truly represents an imminent threat -- or because it offers the easiest "test drive" for our new attack policy? (News article, September 20th.)
Iraq is hardly the most dangerous threat facing this country. Its links to international terrorism, if any, are notably weak. Its nuclear weapons program is more a wish than a reality. In biological and chemical weapons, it belongs in the company of a dozen states. If one day the United States is victim of a terrorist nuclear attack, the chances are higher the weapon will have come from Pakistan or a loose weapon in the Russian arsenal.
Iraq's disgraceful record makes it the perfect target of convenience. This is, however, a poor reason to start a war that costs ten thousand lives, brings further turmoil to the Middle East, and invites others to launch preemptive wars at whim. A national security policy that begins by unleashing more insecurity should inspire deep distrust.
This letter is exclusive to The Washington Post.