Resolution Against the War
International Solidarity Committee, Industrial Workers of the World,
September 24, 2002

Whereas the Industrial Workers of the World rejects the crude concepts of
good versus evil, first strike self-defense and regime change as an
ideological mask for the expansion of Anglo-American imperialist power to
dominate and intimidate all nations and States, enemies and allies alike;
Whereas the Industrial Workers of the World opposes the recruitment and
participation of the labor movement in spying on domestic populations in
search of terrorists as a dangerous and unnecessary expansion of federal
power that puts at risk the privacy of all citizens and especially the lives
and reputations of people of color and Muslim believers; Whereas the
Industrial Workers of the World recognizes the United States and United
Kingdom as makers and users of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of
mass destruction and important exporters of weapons to the world's conflict
zones; Whereas the failure of Western States' foreign policy to prevent the
spread of weapons of mass destruction to non-Western states is evident and
will continue to degrade the prospects for world peace and endanger the
global environment; Whereas the United States sought to counter Iranian
regional influence by providing military and financial support to the Iraqi
regime to prosecute the Iraq-Iran war and continued to do so even after
Saddam Hussein's armed forces gassed the Kurdish people in northern Iraq ...
Be it resolved that the Industrial Workers of the World call on the United
States, United Kingdom and their Western allies to immediately stop the
export of weapons and honor their treaty commitments to destroy their
stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The West must
demonstrate the political and military futility of these weapons to the rest
of the world and reduce their availability or other States will never stop
trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. ...

Resolution on the Crisis in Iraq
<http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/resolution.php?res_id=239>
Board of Directors, Massachusetts Teachers Association, December 7, 2003

Voted that the MTA Board of Directors call for the resolution of the crisis
with Iraq through international diplomacy rather than through armed conflict.
Further, the MTA President will write a letter on behalf of the MTA Board of
Directors to President Bush and to The Boston Globe communicating our action,
and that this letter be published in the MT4 ~. (Rationale: As educators, it
is imperative that we support peaceful resolution to conflicts and prevent
loss of life.)

Statement of the New Jersey Industrial Union Council On War in Iraq
Executive Board, New Jersey State Industrial Union Council, December 13, 2002

The Bush administration's headlong rush to war in Iraq is opposed by the New
Jersey Industrial Union Council. We believe in the war on terrorism and
support all efforts to prevent more senseless and inhumane events such as
happened on 9/11. These efforts, however, must be in keeping with the
Constitutional principles that we hold to be sacred. We do not believe in the
doctrine of preemptive war based on flimsy or non-existent evidence that
another nation is our enemy. Preemptive war has never been the policy of the
United States, and it should not be now. Nothing the Bush administration has
produced warrants the death and destruction that a war in Iraq would bring. A
preemptive war in Iraq has the potential of death, destruction and terrorism
far beyond the borders of Iraq and should not be taken lightly as if it were
a cut and dry process. We have seen American initiatives in the past create
situations which years later we have come to regret. The most prominent
example being the funding of the resistance in Afghanistan that led to the
creation of Al Qaeda. We call on all peace loving people of our country to
resist sending the sons and daughters of American working people into a war
which most people recognize as another step in enforcing the corporate agenda
that globalism has written. ...

Resolution Against War in Iraq
<http://www.madisonteachers.org/Solidarity/solid121602.htm>
Madison (Wisconsin) Teachers Union, Solidarity, December 2002

Whereas, the United States and Britain have been bombing Iraq on a virtually
continuous basis since the end of the Gulf War, and Whereas, the Bush
administration has presented no credible evidence that Iraq has intentions of
harming the citizens of this country or that Iraq presents a threat to the
United States, and Whereas, a war with Iraq would require the redirection of
vital resources and funds to a destructive, senseless, and illegal goal while
further strengthening an administration that has restricted the civil
liberties of its citizens, and Whereas, this administration is using the
so-called "War on Terrorism" to distract the American people from the vital
issues they confront, Therefore, be it resolved that Madison Teachers Inc.
goes on record as strenuously opposing the Bush administration's march toward
war with Iraq. And be if further resolved that Madison Teachers Inc. urge its
members and affiliates to get involved with organizations working toward
stopping the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq.

Labor Activists Are Plaintiffs in Lawsuit Challenging
Bush's Legal Authority to Wage War in Iraq

Labor Activists Nancy Lessin and Charley Richardson are plaintiffs in a suit
bought by 3 US Soldiers, 15 parents of military personnel and 12 Members of
Congress challenging President Bush's authority to invade Iraq without a
Congressional Declaration of War. The suit was originally heard in Federal
District Court on February 24th. While the Federal Court Judge dismissed the
suit, an immediate appeal was filed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals
granted an unusual, expedited hearing that will take place on Tuesday, March
4th at 9:00 AM at the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse in Boston. Nancy Lessin
is the Health and Safety Coordinator for the Massachusetts AFL-CIO and is a
member of USWA 9358 and OPEIU Local 6. Charley Richardson works for the Labor
Extension Program at UMass Lowell and is a member of SEIU Local 254 and USWA
Local 8147. Charley's son Joe - Nancy's stepson - is a Marine and is
currently deployed in the Persian Gulf region. Nancy and Charley are
co-founders of Military Families Speak Out - an organization of people
opposed to the rush to war who have relatives or loved ones in the military.
For more information contact Nancy Lessin and Charley Richardson at
617-522-9323 or on their cell phones (Nancy at 617-320-5301 or Charley at
508-277-9466). You can also go to the Military Families Speak Out website -
www.mfso.org , for more information and to download copies of the legal
filings.

Suit challenges right to wage Iraq war
Six in Congress, soldiers, kin ask for federal stay
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/045/nation/Suit_challenges_right_to_wage_Ir

aq_warP.shtml>
Thanassis Cambanis, Boston Globe, February 14, 2003

Accusing George W. Bush of acting like a monarch, not an American president,
a group of US soldiers, their parents, and six members of Congress sued the
White House yesterday to block any invasion of Iraq unless Congress issues a
declaration of war. ''The president is not a king,'' said John C. Bonifaz,
the lead attorney in the lawsuit filed in US District Court in Boston. ''He
does not have the power to wage war against another country absent a
declaration of war from Congress.'' Both President Bush and Secretary of
Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld are named as defendants in the suit. ...

Lawsuit filed in fed court aims to block Iraq invasion
<http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/suit02142003.htm>
Thomas Caywood, Boston Herald, February 14, 2003

A group of soldiers, parents of soldiers and members of Congress filed a
longshot lawsuit in federal court in Boston yesterday to block an invasion of
Iraq on the grounds that Congress hasn't formally declared war.``We have a
message for President Bush: Read the Constitution,'' lead attorney John
Bonifaz said. ``The president is not a king. He does not have the power to
wage war against another country absent a congressional declaration of war.''
... Plaintiff Nancy Lessin of Jamaica Plain fought back tears as she spoke of
her stepson Joe Richardson, a 25-year-old Marine sergeant stationed in the
Persian Gulf region. She and her husband Charles Richardson are vocal critics
of military strikes against Iraq. ``As a military family, Charlie and I feel
a special need to speak out,'' Lessin said. ``We worry about Joe. We don't
want him to be wounded or die.'' Charles Richardson stressed that he doesn't
speak for his son. He also said his son doesn't yet know about the lawsuit,
although the young Marine knows the couple actively oppose war, Richardson
said. ``We're doing the most supportive and loving thing we can,'' he said.
...

Lawsuit challenges Bush's right to initiate war
<http://www.masslive.com/springfield/unionnews/index.ssf?/base/news-3/10452118

8515661.xml>
Fred Contrada, Springfield Union-News, February 14, 2003

A group of congressmen, soldiers, and parents of soldiers, including some
residents from Western Massachusetts, have filed a suit in US District Court
challenging President George W. Bush's right to initiate military action
against Iraq without a clear declaration of war from Congress. ... The
plaintiffs have also asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction
prohibiting Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld from waging war
in Iraq while it decides the issue. US District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro
has scheduled a hearing on the matter for Feb. 20. ...

US military families protest war with Iraq
<http://www.boston.com/dailynews/046/region/US_military_families_protest_w:.sh

tml>
Verena Dobnik, Associated Press, February 15, 2003

New York - Facing a sea of anti-war protesters, Nancy Lessin offered an
anguished plea for her Marine stepson: ''We don't want our loved ones to be
forced to kill or injure innocent Iraqi civilians!'' On Saturday, she joined
other families with relatives in the US military who are challenging
President Bush's right to send US troops into battle without a Congressional
declaration of war. ... Wearing a jacket inscribed with ''Steelworkers
Union,'' the AFL-CIO employee came to the rally with her husband, Charlie
Richardson, who teaches labor education at the University of Lowell in
Massachusetts. Richardson's 25-year-old son is aboard a ship in the Persian
Gulf. If America goes to war, ''men, women and children will die. My stepson
could be one of them,'' said Lessin, a plaintiff in the case. She said that
she and her husband have told Joe Richardson about the lawsuit. ''He says
only that he loves us,'' she said. ...

Antiwar protesters try new tactics
Activists to flood political leaders with calls, e-mails
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/055/nation/Antiwar_protesters_try_new_tacti

cs+.shtml>
Tatsha Robertson, Boston Globe, February 24, 2003

As a possible war against Iraq draws closer, antiwar leaders are stepping up
their tactics and refocusing their strategy this week toward putting direct
pressure on political officeholders in Washington. Feeling the strength in
the large numbers that turned out earlier this month to protest a US-led
attack on Iraq, but keenly aware that the Bush administration seems to remain
unmoved, protesters are planning other ways to get attention, from clogging
senators' telephone lines and e-mail inboxes to urging voters to lobby
congressional members to revoke the authority they gave President Bush to use
force against Iraq to using civil disobedience. And today, a group of parents
of soldiers who joined with members of Congress in a lawsuit to block an
invasion of Iraq will present their arguments in federal court in Boston.
''As we're coming down to the wire, there are going to be many activities and
actions that those of us opposing this rush to war are going to be involved
in,'' said Nancy Lessin of Jamaica Plain, who is the parent of a Marine and
one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. ...

Lawyers argue war on Iraq will violate Constitution
<http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/national/war03052003.htm>
J.M. Lawrence, Boston Herald, March 5, 2003

Lawyers battling to convince a federal appeals court to find war on Iraq
unconstitutional will file a brief today signed by dozens of law school
professors who say Congress abdicated its authority to declare war. ``We as a
people rely on Congress to make this decision,'' attorney John C. Bonifaz
told a three-member appeals panel yesterday, accusing Congress of
``collaborating'' with the president to hand over its war-making authority.
The suit filed in Boston by three soldiers, 15 parents of soldiers and 12
members of Congress was thrown out last month by a district judge who ruled
the courts have no authority to intervene. Bonifaz yesterday argued the
October congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq
``as he determines to be necessary'' gave the president far more power than
Constitution ever envisioned. ``This defendant,'' Bonifaz said of Bush, ``has
been all over the country saying I'll decide when to go to war. It's clear he
knows what Congress transferred to him.'' ...

Call to Action - for a Labor Day for Peace
Unions organize to bring labor's antiwar message to the workplace.
<http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/index.php?singleItemFlag=1&news_id=182>
US Labor Against the War, February 28, 2003

US LABOR AGAINST THE WAR CALL TO ACTION
Make March 12 a LABOR DAY FOR PEACE

The Bush administration is threatening to launch the war in Iraq by
mid-March, despite massive domestic and international opposition. US Labor
Against War is calling on all unions and trade unionists who are opposed to
this war to engage in workplace-based anti-war activities on March 12. This
should be a broad locally-based protest and educational effort that could
include workplace leaflets, buttons, bumper stickers, lunch-time meetings and
discussions, as well as meetings at union halls and other locations. This
"Labor Day for Peace" will occur just prior to the next large national
demonstrations scheduled for March 15 in Washington, DC, San Francisco and
other cities. Our activities on the 12th can help build labor participation
in those events. USLAW will work with others in the labor movement to develop
materials for these activities. We welcome ideas, suggestions and volunteers.

Unions are joining peace parade
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/060/oped/Unions_are_joining_peace_parade+.s

html>
Steve Early, Boston Globe, March 1, 2003

When peace demonstrators staged mass rallies on both coasts this month, there
were new faces in the crowd and on the speakers' platforms. For the first
time since the Bush administration launched its ''war on terrorism,'' a
significant number of protesters were union members, reflecting growing labor
concern about the pending US invasion of Iraq.

In a little-noted development, local, state, and national organizations
representing 13 million workers around the country have recently adopted
resolutions criticizing military intervention in the Middle East. Among those
challenging the White House are some of the largest affiliates of AFL-CIO,
including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
the Service Employees International Union, and the Communications Workers of
America.

Locally, two AFL-CIO regional bodies composed of unions in southeastern
Massachusetts and north of Boston, have joined the antiwar movement. After
lively internal debate, the Lynn-based North Shore Central Labor Council
declared that America's ''real aim in this war is to control Iraq's oil,
increasing corporate profits at the expense of millions of working people.''

Delegates urged that the billions of dollars now being devoted to
''armaments, domestic repression, and bailouts'' be spent instead on
''retraining and jobs for the 800,000 workers who lost their jobs after Sept.
11 and to plug the $50 billion deficit in state and local budgets that has
resulted in major cuts in essential services.''

Such labor criticism of foreign policy and domestic priorities was slow to
develop in the wake of 9/11. Like most Americans, trade unionists responded
to appeals for national unity after terrorists leveled the World Trade Center
towers 18 months ago. Members of various New York City unions performed
emergency work during or after that disaster. Many died and were hailed for
their heroism. Back then, most of organized labor had little to say about the
resulting government crackdown on immigrants and threats to civil liberties
posed by the USA Patriot Act.

Few questioned US military intervention in Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda and
the Taliban, and some union leaders seemed ready to lead the charge. ''It's
not simply justice we seek,'' declared Tom Buffenbarger, president of the
International Association of Machinists. ''It is vengeance, pure and
simple.''

Union attitudes began to change when it became clear that there was going to
be a war on labor at home as well as on enemies abroad. In the aftermath of
9/11, for example, President Bush sought little or no aid for displaced
workers as part of his airline industry bail-out package. Next, the White
House won congressional approval for ''fast track'' votes on future free
trade deals that threaten manufacturing jobs while putting federal action on
extended unemployment benefits on the slow track.

The president then persuaded Congress to create a Homeland Security
Department staffed by 170,000 federal employees who won't have normal union
rights or civil service protection. According to Bush, collective bargaining
- by workers like the Homeland Security Department's newly hired airport
screeners - would interfere with the ''war on terrorism.''

Seeking additional ''flexibility,'' the president now wants to privatize
700,000 other federal jobs. In Washington, Bush has stacked the National
Labor Relations Board and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
with appointees hostile to workers' rights.

Despite a $70 billion boost in military spending over the past two years, he
is offering little aid to state and local governments facing massive cuts in
their health care programs and other social services. Even workers in New
York City, who were exposed to toxic chemicals at Ground Zero, are having
great difficulty getting the follow-up screening and medical treatment they
were originally promised.

Labor's challenge to these distorted priorities emerged from the grass roots,
not the union hierarchy. Local ad hoc committees around the country began
membership education and debate about the Bush military build-up and its
domestic consequences more than a year ago.

As administration saber-rattling escalated this winter, labor-based peace
campaigners met in Chicago to form US Labor Against the War, or USLAW, which
is promoting union participation in the antiwar movement, here and abroad.
After much USLAW lobbying, the AFL-CIO executive council declared on Thursday
that the president had failed to make the case ''for military action at this
time.''

Not all of American labor agrees with this position. Some unions - like the
Carpenters - have been heavily wooed by the White House, and Teamsters Union
president Jimmy Hoffa is leading the pro-administration ''Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq.'' If and when the shooting starts, other trade unionists
may be reluctant to question government policy for fear of endangering troops
in the field.

But most labor dissenters are likely to stick to their position that peace is
patriotic, too. In the long run, the domestic fallout of invading Iraq will
only make working-class life in the United States increasingly difficult,
forcing more unions to become foreign policy critics sooner or later.

Steve Early is a Boston-based International Representative for the
Communications Workers of America.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company

Central Labor Councils opposing the war on Iraq
Amy Newell, Organizer, USLAW, March 5, 2003

A first-ever nationwide conference call took place today among
representatives of some of the Central Labor Councils that have gone on
record opposing the war on Iraq, less than a week after the AFL-CIO Executive
Council adopted a resolution opposing the war. Represented on today's call
were CLCs from major cities and population centers like Philadelphia,
Cleveland, San Francisco, San Jose, Contra Costa, and Bergen County, NJ;
smaller cities like Madison, Albany, Ithaca and Duluth; and more rural areas
like the Monterey Bay region of California and Washington/Orange counties in
Vermont. (My apologies to those I have omitted from this list - I know I
missed getting the names of some who joined the call late.) The topic of the
call was the March 12 Labor Day for Peace and how the Central Labor Councils
can use this day to build the anti-war movement within labor. These are some
of the ideas discussed and commitments made on the call today: Several CLCs
committed to making copies of the USLAW leaflet 'WHY DOES THE LABOR MOVEMENT
OPPOSE THE WAR ON IRAQ?"
<http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/images/CallToAction2.Mar12.pdf>, handing it
out at delegate meetings and getting it to the affiliated local unions for
distribution to their members on March 12 and beyond. Some CLCs are holding
press conferences with Members of Congress who are opposed to the war. Others
will be approaching their Senators and Representatives to endorse the DeFazio
(House) and Kennedy-Byrd (Senate) resolutions that would repeal the
authorization that Congress gave the Bush Administration last fall to go to
war without further Congressional approval. The San Francisco CLC already has
a plan in place to hold a press conference with anti-war public officials on
March 12. Between now and then they will be distributing "truth kits" of
anti-war materials to the affiliated local unions, then calling to urge them
to hand out the USLAW flyer to their members on March 12. All on the call
agreed that the March 12 day of workplace activity should be used to help
build labor's participation in the March 15 anti-war demonstrations that will
take place in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and elsewhere.
As you firm up your plans for March 12, please send that information (along
with copies of your press advisories or press releases) to
<mailto:info@uslaboragainstwar.org> info@uslaboragainstwar.org so that we can
include examples of local activity in the national press release that we will
issue that day. By the end of this week we will send you a sample press
release that you can use to get local news media coverage of your activities.
And go to <http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org> to order buttons, stickers and
bumper stickers. Momentum against this senseless and disastrous war seems to
be building, both here at home and abroad. Let's do what we can on March 12
to build that momentum within the labor movement!

Building the Anti-War Movement Among Working People
A Dialogue with Michael Eisenscher, USLAW Organizer

Wednesday, March 12 12:30 PM - 2:00 pm
IIR Director's Room - 2521 Channing Way, Berkeley

Michael Eisenscher, a veteran trade union organizer and activist in the
Vietnam era anti-war movement will describe the efforts of the newly formed,
US Labor Against War (USLAW) to build the anti-war movement in the trade
unions and among all working people. Michael will reflect on the differences
between Vietnam and Iraq especially with regard to the labor movement's
stance. He will analyze the recent AFL-CIO Executive Council resolution
against the war and point to the challenges ahead. Join us for a dialogue and
discussion of these extremely topical questions.

Sponsored by the Institute for Labor and Employment and the Institute of
Industrial Relations

For more information, contact:

Peter Olney
Associate Director ILE
510-643-7931
polney@uclink.berkeley.edu

Smallpox Update:

SF General balks on vaccine
Hospital bars staff from smallpox shots due to public safety
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/04/MN220873.DTL>
Sabin Russell, San Francisco Chronicle, March 4, 2003

In one of the strongest challenges anywhere to the Bush administration's
smallpox vaccination plan, San Francisco General Hospital is virtually
barring staffers from getting immunized because of concerns about patient
safety. The move is part of a widening revolt in medical circles against the
White House vaccine program. Coincidentally, that program is led by Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding, who ran the
infection control programs at San Francisco General before joining the CDC in
1998. Initially, federal planners hoped to vaccinate 500,000 doctors and
nurses who would be the first line of defense against a bioterrorism attack.
But because the vaccine itself is an infectious agent - a virus that causes
vaccinia - it is potentially dangerous to those sensitive to that disease.
There is also a risk that newly immunized health care workers, for two to
four weeks after vaccination, can accidentally transmit vaccinia to patients.
Vaccinia typically stirs up a strong antibody response that protects against
smallpox. But vaccinia can sometimes cause a life-threatening, runaway
infection, particularly in people with weakened immunity. Dr. Susan Fernyak,
director of communicable disease prevention and smallpox planning for the San
Francisco Department of Public Health, said the purpose of the policy
restricting vaccinations is to protect those patients. ...

Bush proposes compensation in smallpox shot complications
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/065/nation/Bush_proposes_compensation_in_sm

allpox_shot_complications+.shtml>
Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, March 6, 2003

Washington - The Bush administration, seeking to boost its smallpox
immunization campaign, has agreed to a limited compensation package for
medical personnel and emergency responders injured by the vaccine, health
officials said yesterday. After months of pressure, the administration
acquiesced to demands from unions, hospitals, and public health departments
in hope that providing financial protection would entice skeptical workers to
be immunized. Just 12,404 health care workers have answered President Bush's
call for 500,000 volunteers to be vaccinated. Hundreds of hospitals have
refused to participate. ''This removes the concern that a lot of people had,
and we would expect that the numbers of people that would be vaccinated would
increase,'' said Jerome Hauer, acting assistant secretary for public health
emergency preparedness at the Department of Health and Human Services. ...

Resistance continues to smallpox plan
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/066/metro/Resistance_continues_to_smallpox_

plan+.shtml>
Raja Mishra, Boston Globe, March 7, 2003

The state's largest nursing group yesterday restated its opposition to the
ongoing national smallpox immunization campaign despite President Bush's
recent promise to compensate those sickened by the vaccine. But state health
officials said the president's offer would help persaude some skeptical
hospital workers to submit to vaccination. Smallpox vaccinations, in
extremely rare cases, can cause serious sickness or death, a fact that has
given pause to many of the 500,000 US health care workers Bush has asked to
receive voluntary inoculations in case of a bioterror attack. Only 12,404
have done so. In Massachusetts, fewer than 100 of 10,000 targeted workers
have been inoculated. To increase compliance, the White House two days ago
offered to pay up to $262,100 to those disabled or killed by the vaccine and
up to $50,000 for lesser injuries. The plan came after intense pressure from
unions, including nursing groups, who had lobbied hard for a compensation
scheme. But yesterday, the Massachusetts Nursing (sic) Association,
representing 20,000 nurses, said the new Bush proposal was not enough to earn
the group's stamp of approval. Spokesman David Schildmeier, citing risks that
inoculated workers could infect patients, said, ''There's no need to put
anyone at risk. The [federal government] should support paid furlough for
staff.'' He said all nurses vaccinated should be given 7 to 10 days paid
leave so that their tiny smallpox-infected scabs, a byproduct of inoculation,
could heal. ...

Smallpox vaccination drive comes at a cost
Officials say other services reduced
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/069/nation/Smallpox_vaccination_drive_comes

_at_a_cost+.shtml>
Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, March 10, 2003

As they rush to answer President Bush's call to vaccinate millions of
emergency workers against smallpox, state and local health officials say they
have stopped virtually all other counterterrorism efforts and, in many cases,
have begun trimming services such as prenatal care, AIDS prevention, water
testing, and tuberculosis tracking. In communities such as suburban
Philadelphia and downtown Memphis, public health nurses have put childhood
immunizations, new mother visits, and diabetes screening on hold while they
prepare smallpox vaccination clinics. In the Oklahoma Health Department, all
of the approximately 20 bioterrorism specialists are assigned to the smallpox
program, a requirement that has halted preparations for handling anthrax,
plague, and other deadly germs. ''The entire group of people we've employed
to work on bioterrorism has been diverted to work exclusively on smallpox,''
said Leslie Beitsch, Oklahoma's health chief. ''If we started getting anthrax
letters through the mail again, we would probably not be well positioned to
respond to those.'' In the Seattle area, the Health Department is belatedly
scrambling to control an alarming surge in sexually transmitted diseases.
''We would have been on this faster and more effectively if I could have put
a critical mass of infectious-disease people on this rather than on
smallpox,'' said Alonzo Plough, director of the Seattle and King County
Public Health Department. ''We are stretched as thin as I have ever seen.''
...

Strike Against War

Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought!
Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of
murder!
Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human
beings!
Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction! Be heroes in an army
of construction.

Helen Keller

Some Workingclass Web Sites on the War:

Health Community Against the War
<http://www.healthnotwar.cedant.com>
Health Workers Against Smallpox Vaccinations <http://www.healthworkers.org>
LabourStart Iraq Page <http://www.labourstart.org/iraq>
Massachusetts Labor for Justice with Peace
<http://www.unionwebservices.com/laborfjwp>
Military Families Speak Out <http://www.mfso.org>
New York City Labor Against War
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LaborAgainstWar>
UE: No to War!
<http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/notowar.html>
United for Peace & Justice <http://www.unitedforpeace.org>
US Labor Against the War <http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org>
Veterans Against the Iraq War
<http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php>

Web Directory:

AARN <http://www.aarn.org>
Australian Nursing Federation <http://www.anf.org.au>
California Nurses Association <http://www.calnurse.org>
Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions <http://www.nursesunions.ca>
CCDS <http://www.cofc.org>
Irish Nurses Organisation <http://www.ino.ie>
Labor Party <http://www.thelaborparty.org>
LabourStart <http://www.labourstart.org>
Maine State Nurses Association
<http://www.mainenurse.org>
Massachusetts Ad Hoc Committee <http://www.massadhoc.org>
Massachusetts Green Party
<http://www.massgreens.org>
Massachusetts Nurses Association <http://www.massnurses.org>
MASS-CARE <http://www.masscare.org>
New York Professional Nurses Union <http://www.nypnu.org>
New Zealand Nurses Organisation <http://www.nzno.org.nz>
PASNAP <http://www.pennanurses.org>
PNHP <http://www.pnhp.org>
Revolution Magazine <http://www.revolutionmag.com>
Seachange Bulletin <http://www.seachangebulletin.org>
Southern Arizona Nurses Coalition
<http://SAZNC.homestead.com>
Union Web Services <http://www.unionwebservices.com>
United Health Care Workers <http://www.uhcw.org>

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making
such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 US Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For
more information go to: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/asked/17/107.shtml>. If
you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.