WASHINGTON, March 10 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Twenty-three protesters dressed in black and carrying flower-topped coffins to speak out for the victims of an anticipated war on Iraq were arrested Sunday, March 9, as they crossed a police perimeter around Capitol Hill, where the U.S. Congress meets.

The men and women arrested were part of a group of about 100 who peacefully marched up to the Capitol to pressure lawmakers to stop the march to war.

Those arrested were charged with crossing a police line, which carries a 50 dollar fine, U.S. Capitol police spokeswoman Jessica Gissubel told Agence France-Presse (AFP). expected

The protesters dressed in black and carried flower-topped coffins to speak out for the victims of an anticipated war on Iraq.

"The demonstration was very peaceful. The demonstrators worked with the Capitol Police on what they intended to do," Gissubel said.

"Thousands of human beings will be killed by this war, victims that the United States does not want to talk about," Gordon Clark, a spokesman for the organizers, Iraq Pledge of Resistance, said.

Congress in October gave President George W. Bush the authority to use force against Iraq if the country failed to disarm.

But Clark said there was still time to stop the looming conflict.

"It's never too late," he said.

Hundreds of police officers observed the event, then handcuffed 23 protesters who crossed the police line one by one.

The Iraq Pledge describes itself as a nationally coordinated non-violent group using civil disobedience to oppose the expected war on Iraq.

Bush Threatening UN Standing In The World: Carter

Meanwhile, former president Jimmy Carter has strongly opposed the administration and said Bush was threatening the standing of the United States in the world.

"As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards," said the winner of last year's Nobel Peace Prize.

"With our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations."

Carter said Iraqi civilians would be the first victims and that any war risked destabilizing the Middle East. The standing of the United States had already been badly hit, he said.

"Increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory," he said.

"American stature will surely decline if further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations," Carter declared.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's main ally in the confrontation against Iraq, is also battling to shore up his once-mighty support because of his strong support for war.

Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien, another strong U.S. ally, questioned Sunday why Bush is being so aggressive and said a war without UN backing would set a "dangerous precedent."

Chretien told ABC television that the U.S. leader had already "won" the war.

"He has created a situation where Saddam cannot do anything anymore. He has troops at the door, inspectors on the ground, planes flying over, and he cannot do anything. And he starts to destroy missiles," Chretien said.

"And what I say, it's because the Americans moved strongly with troops there. Otherwise, probably nothing would have happened."

Chretien said he was "not very comfortable" with the U.S. goal of toppling the Iraqi leader, "because where do you stop? You know, if you can do that there, why not elsewhere?"

Bush 's Clumsy Diplomacy

U.S. newspapers have stepped up pressure on Bush over his Iraq policy.

The New York Times said Sunday it opposed a war against Iraq without international support.

"We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing," said a New York Times editorial.

"If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no."

A Washington Post editorial said: "We share the concern of those on the council who spoke of the damage of an enduring rift over Iraq -- damage for which the Bush administration's clumsy and often high handed diplomacy will be partly responsible."