I agree with Cal about the suitability of last year’s statement for 2002 and the value of rethinking it for 2003. I’m not sure what it would mean to also honor veterans in this event. Veterans, as well as those in service now, deserve to be honored and respected – yet adding them to this mission changes the tenor of the event. There are, of course, other ways we could expland the mission: we could honor victims of terrorism everywhere, or we could honor all noncombatants killed in political and religious violence. These are worthy missions, but my gut reaction is to stick closer to theme of the first event. I am interested in hearing more about what other people, including Cal, think.
I think its also important that this event be neither pro or anti-war. We could honor veterans without going pro- or anti- war (and the same for honoring noncombatants or victims of terrorism), but it might require some care and thought to strike a suitable balance.