Lincoln Warrant Article 38: Opposing the War in Iraq

Speech given by Peter Pease at Town Meeting

Final Wording of Warrant Article 38

Letter of support for Warrant Article 38

include Sharon, Bush or Putin. How do we decide who to confront, how, and when?

The Catholic Church wrestled with this question for centuries, and enunciated the principles of the "Just War." The reasoning began with the recognition that all war is evil, because it always causes grave harm to innocents, is unpredictable and often uncontrollable, and unleashes the demons of murderous fury and destruction, in the moments of war, and in newly strewn cluster bombs of hatred which will arise and destroy anew in the future.

Nonetheless, the reasoning was that there were circumstances in which war could be just, and the church would not condemn those who took up arms. First, the reason must be just, to reverse a grave public evil, such as aggression against other states. Second, the war must be waged by a legitimate governmental authority. Third, it must be for right intention, not self-interest. Fourth, it must have a probability of success. Fifth, the means must be proportional to the threat. And sixth, all peaceful alternatives to war must have been exhausted.

Pres. Bush has gone to war without justification, and can find no comfort in the doctrine of a "Just War." Even if we credit the honorable intentions which underly this war, to lift the yoke of oppression under which the Shiites, Kurds and Iraqi citizens generally have lived, and to interdict the development and use of chemical or nuclear weaponry, it cannot be said that the threat was imminent, or that peaceful means were exhausted. Indeed, they were increasingly successful in the month before the war began.
Instead, in his haste to make war, the President blew up the U.N., its inspectors in the field, and our relations with other nations, especially "Old Europe."

Another major casualty of the President's push towards war has been truth. The President's rationale for the war shifted over time. First, it was to destroy weapons of mass destruction, and then only "regime change" would avoid war. In making our case, we trumpeted the fact that key Iraqi defector Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel told us in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tons of nerve gas and anthrax. We did not disclose that Kamel also told us that the weapons had been destroyed. We relied upon documents allegedly proving that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. But the U.N. determined that the documents were forged, and we acknowledged this was so, and the source was untrustworthy. We were found to have misrepresented the uses of high-strength aluminum tubes. We alleged that a drone prototype was being prepared to deliver chemical and biological weapons, but the pathetic solitary "drone" would have failed as a high school science project.

The President has never come out and directly said that Saddam Hussein had any role in the tragic events of September 11, 2001, but he has repeatedly linked Saddam to terrorists, in support of his case for war. We know for a fact that Saddam had nothing to do with September 11. All information from our intelligence agencies confirms this. And yet more than half of the American people believe it. They have been cleverly and deliberately mislead by the President.

When it became clear that we could not rely on the votes of Security Council members Angola, Chile, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea and Mexico, regardless of the threat of a French veto, we fled from the U.N. We've swarmed the world waving our fat checkbook to buy up the willingness of South Sea island kingdoms to sign on as members of our "coalition of the willing." We've threatened allies unwilling to support the war. We no longer care what anyone thinks, not the French, the Germans, the Russians or anyone else. As the President is fond of saying  “you’re for us, or against us.”

Electronic bugging devices, said to be American equipment, were found on February 28 in the Brussels European Union offices of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Britain and Austria. We don’t know who planted them  yet. This March the London Observer reported that a US National Security Agency memo showed that the US was monitoring the phones and email of UN delegates in New York. The White House declined comment.

The preemptive strike against Iraq in accordance with the new National Security Strategy is a triumph for Richard Perle, who has advocated this new aggressiveness for years. In a recent article in the Spectator in England, he delights in this “new world order” and exclaims “Thank God for the death of the U.N.”

I can only pray that he is crowing too soon.

On February 27, 2003 the New York Times published a letter from John Brady Kiesling, Political Counselor in the U.S. Embassy in Athens, to Colin Powell. Mr. Kiesling resigned his position, ending over 20 years of service as a career diplomat. He noted that his faith in his country and in its values was the most powerful weapon in his diplomatic arsenal, but he could not carry on. He said that “we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Viet Nam.” He wrote:

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America’s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

Your opinion matters. There is no issue in this world more important than the National Security Strategy formulated by Perle and Wolfowitz. Today, I am asking for your vote in favor of this Article, to say that this will not be done in our name, to let our elected representatives know where we stand, and where they should stand, as Americans, and citizens of our Earth.

Thank you.
 

Moved that the Town vote to adopt the following resolution: Now be it resolved that the citizens of Lincoln, through their elected representatives, wish to inform the U.S. government that:

1. We strongly oppose:

   a. Unilateral and/or preemptive invasions of any nation, except in self-defense against the clear and immediate danger of an attack on the U.S.

   b. The use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, or biological) by any nation or group.

2. In conducting our foreign relations, we urge the U.S. government:

   a. To abide by U.N. Security Council resolutions and the treaties we have ratified; to achieve our goals by diplomacy rather than by military force; and to apply the principles of international law and multilateral cooperation in the peaceful resolution of disputes.

   b. To collaborate proactively and respectfully with other nations to promote the welfare of all peoples with the goal of building sustainable world peace.

3. In the case of Iraq, we oppose the war initiated on March 19, 2003, and we urge the U.S. government:

Be it further resolved that the Selectmen of the Town of Lincoln shall send copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the U.S. Secretary of State, the U.N. Secretary General, the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, and our State representatives.

  Support for Article 38

    This warrant article is the latest in Lincoln's long tradition of voicing its concerns as a member of the interdependent, global community. We voted for a nuclear freeze in 1981, a nuclear test moratorium in 1987, and the abolition of nuclear weapons in 1999. We have the opportunity today to join 141 United States cities and towns, including Chicago and New York City, that have already passed resolutions opposing or questioning the legality of this war against Iraq.

2. We care deeply about the safety of our men and women serving in Iraq and appreciate their patriotism, but we deplore President Bush’s decision to wage war without immediate provocation. Saddam Hussein and his evil regime must be eliminated, but we believe that this should be done without the brutal bombing of innocent Iraqis.

3. We believe that a pre-emptive, unilateral invasion of any country breaks international laws and our commitment to the United Nations Charter. It may also establish a very dangerous precedent. Such an action increases human suffering, weakens our moral standing in the world, and alienates many of our allies and other nations, while possibly undermining the collection of anti-terrorist intelligence, motivating more terrorist attacks, and seriously damaging our faltering economy.

4. In the particular case of Iraq, we challenge the morality of attacking a small nation in which, according to UNICEF, 50% of the population is under the age of 15, and we urge a just and swift end to the war.

5. We recognize the moral and political desirability of improving the quality of life of all peoples, and we further recognize today's expanding opportunities for multi-national action to promote world peace and prosperity through economic, technological, and diplomatic means.

6. Since we are now at war with Iraq and U.S. forces are in harm's way, we urge our government to assure adequate, long-term medical care and services to the veterans of this war.

to Lincoln Independent