[MAPC-coord] Re: [MAPC-action] 5pm Action Protesting Ground

[MAPC-coord] Re: [MAPC-action] 5pm Action Protesting Ground

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-10-21

I think we're all on the same page here.

The CC was well aware of the AC's emergency response plan.  The problem was
that the triggering event -- as you point out -- was not dramatic enough to
trigger the AC's "emergency action" plan.  However, it was a significant
development -- the first U.S. involvement in ground combat and the first
U.S. fatalities -- and we felt a need to acknowledge it in some way.  So we
cast about for other ways to respond, but, largely due to lack of an advance
plan for immediate response to less dramatic developments, ultimately did
nothing.

We discussed this further at the CC meeting today, and agreed that future
developments in the war not constituting "emergencies" should trigger
non-Action responses -- press releases, press conferences, tabling &
leafletting, etc.  I think that will make things go a lot more smoothly the
next time something like this happens.

X


----- Original Message -----
From: "x" <X>
To: <X>; <X>;
<X>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [MAPC-action] 5pm Action Protesting Ground Troops


> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 07:53:59 -0500, action@madpeace.org wrote:
> >  I propose we just have a picket line. The following things need to >
be
> done:
>
> I missed this whole conversation but I have a comment anyway.
>
> With all due respect, the folks on the co-ordinating committee may not be
> aware of this, but I would like to note that the action committee has a
plan
> for emergency actions, including each of us having specific jobs assigned
> for every detail.
>
> If someone unilaterally comes up with a whole new plan at the last moment,
> that means starting over from scratch to (1) discuss the plan and (2)
assign
> people to implement it--all within a few hours. In my opinion: huge waste
of
> time.
>
> If we are to have emergency actions (which I understand is an if) we need
to
> stick to the plan--or make a new one *in advance*--so that the only thing
> left to do when the action is called, is implement it. I am not attached
to
> the existing plan, but whatever the plan is we shouldn't try to alter it
at
> the last second.
>
> Discussion? Disagreement? Pies in the face? My intent is not to offend but
> to be efficient and avoid saddling any individual with an overwhelming
> burden of organizing everything.
>
> Regarding the very concept of emergency actions, I think the AC was
thinking
> about events that would be so overwhelmingly dramatic/traumatic that there
> would be an overwhelming desire to get out there and do something. I
> definitely don't think anyone was imagining that there should be emergency
> actions at every turn. Probably we should remove "invasion" from the list
of
> actions and stick to (1) extension of bombing to a new country, (2) murder
> or arson in our community or (3) another massive violent attack on US soil
> with instant mass casualties. I'm also open to dropping the whole concept.
> Whatever you all think.
>
> X

Sunday, October 21, 2001 7:59 PM

[MAPC-coord] Re: [MAPC-action] 5pm Action Protesting Ground