------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Most Britons oppose new nuclear power plants - poll
U.K. Officer Who Criticized Nukes Dies
India Tests New Missile
India Tests Long - Range Version of Prithvi Missile
Kazakhstan: Experts Report Progress On Safeguarding Nuclear Site
2 Nuclear Experts Briefed Bin Laden, Pakistanis Say
Russia PM Says Would Regret U.S. Withdrawal From ABM
Sweden sees Barseback reactor closure by end - 2003
Cold War fears are revisited
The First Line Against Terrorism
clear Experts Briefed Bin Laden, Newspaper Says
U.S. to pull out of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
U.S. to Pull Out of ABM Treaty, Clearing Path for Antimissile Tests
US nuclear plants face downtime for reactor cracks
Colorado Radiation Cleanup Will Leave Overly Contaminated Soil
Nevada will ask court to stop Energy Department decision
Nuclear response team is suddenly silent
Memo renews concerns about Hanford cleanup
Military tribunals hearing

MILITARY
Tribal Commanders Make New Offer for Al Qaeda Surrender
Lobbyists Are Boeing's Army, Washington Its Battlefield
Panel Passes Iraq Resolution
Palestinian Militants Attack Israeli Bus and Gaza Settlement
Cuban Spy Gets Life in Prison
Bush touts high-tech military to Citadel cadets
Panel OK's Defense Base Closings

POLICE / PRISONERS
Wolfowitz defends tribunals to Senate
69 charged in pre-Olympics airport sweep
U.S. says tribunals just for terror leaders
FBI Probe of Scientist Wen Ho Lee Found Flawed
American in Taliban: Biological strike on U.S. near
Videotape shows bin Laden laughing at fate of hijackers
F.B.I. Arrests Chairman of Militant Anti-Arab Group
Defense Dept. Not Consulted on Indictment
Somalia Terror Activity Concerns U.S.

ENERGY AND OTHER
Chrysler offers fuel cell van with soapy twist
Think big, Europe's offshore wind farms urged
Environmental Group Sues for Records Of Energy Task Force
Energy security illusions
Gulf War researcher welcomes decision on U.S. vets

ACTIVISTS
Write/Fax/Email Bush, Congress Now
Vieques mayor, jailed for bombing protest, freed



-------- NUCLEAR

-------- britain

Most Britons oppose new nuclear power plants - poll

Reuters:
12/12/2001
http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=13673

LONDON - Two thirds of Britons oppose the construction of new nuclear power stations during the next decade, according to a survey published yesterday.

The poll, commissioned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), also found that 82 percent of the public would not want a nuclear power plant built within three miles of their home.

"Nuclear power is the least popular of power station types," said the RSPB in a statement as it published the findings of the survey, carried out by BRMB International between 27 September and October 3, 2001.

The findings come as the government prepares to publish the results of a review of energy policy for the next 50 years.

The review, by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), considers the future role of all energy sources including nuclear, fossil fuels and renewable energy such as solar and wind power.

The RSPB sits on a committee advising the PIU, which is due to deliver the review to Prime Minister Tony Blair by the end of the year.

Nuclear plants, which produce radioactive waste but emit no greenhouse gases, currently account for about a quarter of electricity supply in the UK.

The RSPB survey showed high levels of support for renewable energy sources. Only three percent of those surveyed were opposed to the construction of onshore wind farms, although 14 percent did not want wind farms built within three miles of their home.

"The RSPB is firmly behind renewable energy, which is environmentally friendly and socially sustainable. This polling shows that the British public is behind us on this," said John Lanchbery, the RSPB's climate change policy officer, in the statement.

--------

U.K. Officer Who Criticized Nukes Dies

December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Obit-Carver.html?searchpv=aponline

LONDON (AP) -- Field Marshal Lord Carver, who rose to become Britain's top military officer and was a persistent critic of nuclear weapons, has died at age 86.

Carver died Sunday at home in Wickham, southern England, his family said.

He began moving up the ranks with a commission in the Royal Tank Corps in 1935 and went on to become chief of the defense staff -- equivalent to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff -- from 1971 until 1973.

Carver was chief of staff in Kenya in 1954 during the Mau Mau rebellion, which led to Kenya's independence from Britain in 1963. He commanded U.N. peacekeeping forces in Cyprus in 1964, but later criticized them as impeding progress toward a political settlement. He was Britain's resident commissioner in 1977-78 in the then-British colony of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.

As a member of the House of Lords, Carver opposed Britain's decision to buy Trident submarines with nuclear-armed missiles.

In a House of Lords debate on Britain's nuclear weapons in 1997, Carver tartly asked a government minister ``who is supposed to be deterred by the deterrent to which she referred, and from doing what?''

Carver was a member of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, created by the Australian government, which released a report in 1996 outlining a plan for nuclear disarmament.

``The destructiveness of nuclear weapons is so great, and their use so catastrophic, that they have no military utility against a comparably equipped opponent other than the belief that they deter such an opponent from using his nuclear weapons,'' Carver said at the time.

``Therefore, their elimination would remove that justification for their retention. Their use against a non-nuclear opponent is politically and morally indefensible, as history has shown,'' Carver added.

He was also a critic of NATO. In a Lords debate in December, Carver urged abolition of the NATO command, saying it existed only to camouflage the reality that the United States commands the allied forces.

NATO, Carver said, was ``manned by inflated allied staffs, most of whom have nothing significant to do, and every expansion of NATO makes that worse.''

He is survived by his wife, two sons and two daughters.

-------- india / pakistan

India Tests New Missile

December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-India-Missile-Test.html?searchpv=aponline

NEW DELHI, India (AP) -- India tested an improved version of its nuclear- capable, surface-to-surface Prithvi missile from a remote testing center off the east coast, the defense ministry said Wednesday.

The improved version of the medium-range missile was fired over the Bay of Bengal from India's testing range at Chandipur, 750 miles southeast of New Delhi, said P.K. Bandopadhyaya, defense ministry spokesman.

The five-ton missile, whose name means ``earth'' in Hindi, has a range of up to 155 miles, Bandopadhyaya said. It can be fitted with a nuclear warhead.

``The test was flawless and the missile impacted at the intended target point accurately,'' he said.

The missile tested Wednesday was an advance on an earlier version tested in March with a range of 93 miles.

India conducted five nuclear tests in 1998, prompting its neighbor and longtime rival Pakistan to set off its own test bomb.

--------

India Tests Long - Range Version of Prithvi Missile

December 12, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-india-missile.html?searchpv=reuters

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India test fired for the first time on Wednesday a longer-range version of its Prithvi surface-to-surface missile from a launch site off the eastern coast.

The Defense Ministry said the 155-mile range Prithvi blasted off from the interim test range at Chandipur-on-Sea in the Bay of Bengal at 10:41 a.m. (12:11 a.m. EST).

``The flight was flawless and the missile impacted at the intended target point accurately,'' the ministry said in a statement. A naval ship tracked the flight of Prithvi, which means earth in Hindi, before it touched the waters.

The longer-range version of the Prithvi, which Western experts believe to be nuclear capable, is intended to be used by the air force. A 93-mile version of the missile has already entered service in the army.

``It is a forerunner of missiles for the air force,'' said retired Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak.

India, which conducted nuclear explosions in May 1998, has been developing a range of missiles including its ballistic intermediate range missile, Agni.

Neighbor Pakistan, which answered India's nuclear tests with explosions of its own, too has been pursuing a missile development program. Both nations have resisted international pressure and committed themselves to developing nuclear weapons.

``Too much should not be read into this test, an air force version has been a reality for quite some time now,'' said Kak. ''But I do expect the Pakistanis to use this opportunity to make some noise.''

A government official told Reuters that two more tests of the longer version of Prithvi were planned before it was introduced into the air force. A shorter naval version of the missile was also under development.

Islamabad in the past has expressed concern over Indian missile tests including the Prithvi which it sees as targeting Pakistan.

``They might see it that way, and why not,'' said Kak. ``But there is a certain inevitability about security imperatives, nations perforce do what they have to.''

Tensions between India and Pakistan have remained high, despite the two supporting the U.S. military campaign to hunt down Islamic militants in neighboring Afghanistan.

India, which blames Pakistan for fomenting the revolt in Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir, has been seeking to widen the global war to include the rebels fighting its rule in the disputed Himalayan region.

Islamabad denies direct involvement but says it gives moral and diplomatic support to what it calls Kashmir's freedom struggle.

-------- kazakhstan

Kazakhstan: Experts Report Progress On Safeguarding Nuclear Site

By Nikola Krastev,
Radio Free Europe,
December 12, 2001
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/12/11122001090708.asp

The U.S. Department of Energy is reporting progress in its efforts to provide for the safe shutdown of the BN-350 nuclear breeder reactor in Aktau, Kazakhstan. At a time of heightened concern over the proliferation of nuclear materials, experts say the U.S.-led program is on track to eliminate a major source of weapons-grade plutonium production, while at the same time avoiding any possible environmental incident on the eastern shores of the Caspian Sea.

New York, 11 December 2001 (RFE/RL) -- The BN-350 fast-breeder reactor in Aktau, in western Kazakhstan, was commissioned in 1972 for the dual purpose of producing plutonium for the Soviet nuclear arsenal and providing electricity, heating, and water desalination.

After a 1998 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) criticized safety at the reactor, Kazakhstan announced it would shut down the plant and secure it. It requested technical and financial assistance from the United States, which earlier in the 1990s removed a large quantity of weapons-grade uranium from another site in the country.

The U.S. State and Energy departments in May 1999 initiated a project to provide assistance to Kazakhstan. This past summer, U.S. and Kazakh officials marked the completion of one phase of the project -- packaging spent fuel from the reactor. An international team of technicians placed the last of 478 canisters of spent fuel in the BN-350 water storage pool under the seal of the IAEA, completing one of the largest such efforts ever undertaken.

Other key accomplishments recently announced include the installation of extensive fire-safety equipment, the design and fabrication of "cesium traps" to decontaminate the reactor's radioactive sodium coolant, and the start of procedures for sodium coolant draining and processing.

Douglas Newton, the project's manager, recently discussed the program at New York's Columbia University. Speaking later to RFE/RL, he praised the cooperation of the Kazakh government: "I don't think we can ask for very much more in terms of cooperation at a national level. On the individual day-to-day basis, the people at the Nuclear Technology Safety Center have been absolutely invaluable in organizing the various Kazakhstan organizations that have worked with us."

The U.S. concerns about these kinds of old-fashioned nuclear reactors are as much about safety as they are about the ability of these reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium. During its lifetime, Newton said, Aktau's BN-350 has produced several tons of so-called "ivory-grade," premium plutonium.

Paul Josephson is an associate professor of Soviet history at Colby College in Maine and has written a book on Russian nuclear programs. He tells RFE/RL that the BN-350 type of reactor was long ago abandoned in the United States: "Breeder reactors were abandoned under President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s because he recognized that reactors that produce as part of their operation more plutonium than they start with contribute directly to proliferation. They make more plutonium available throughout the world. It's much easier to make a nuclear weapon out of plutonium than it is out of uranium."

To make sure that Aktau's nuclear facility will never be able to restart plutonium production, the U.S. engineers have devised a plan that calls for "irreversible shutdown." Under this plan, the radioactive molten sodium coolant of the reactor will be gradually decontaminated (of Cesium-137) and then drained. Once the bulk sodium is drained, pockets will remain throughout the reactor's body. These pockets will be filled with an inert gas to corrode the steel and prevent the reactor from being used again.

Newton tells RFE/RL that the U.S. Energy and State departments are discussing with Kazakh officials where to store the plutonium that has already been produced: "The Kazakhs have signaled their intention to store the fuel in northeastern Kazakhstan. But the [U.S.] State Department is still working with them in conjunction with the Department of Energy. And there are several options, and [there has been] a series of options studies. And, of course, our primary concern is the nuclear safety and security of the material that's coming out of the reactor."

Professor Josephson, who has visited nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union, tells RFE/RL that from a geographic and economic point of view, the best place to store the produced nuclear fuel would be in Russia: "Kazakhstan recognizes this, that it's best not to have any plutonium within your borders, but to have it somewhere where it can be safeguarded. And I would think that Russian facilities are the best place, given the geographic location and the long-term experience."

The U.S. Department of Energy and other agencies have also been active in helping to secure Russian nuclear facilities but acknowledge there are still many sites that require safeguarding. One difficulty at a number of formerly secret sites is the unwillingness of Russian officials to give U.S. technicians access.

But experts on nonproliferation issues say the experience in Kazakhstan has been very positive. Shutting down Aktau's BN-350 reactor has been a collaborative effort involving technical personnel and financing from the United States, Kazakhstan, the European Union, Japan, and Britain. The IAEA has been instrumental in organizing much of the international cooperative effort.

Andrew Weiss is a fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York and former director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs at the U.S. National Security Council. He tells RFE/RL that the Aktau shutdown project could serve as a model for international cooperation on nonproliferation issues: "The work at Aktau, I think, is just an illustration of the kind of cooperation that's developed. We've seen even in more sensitive circumstances -- like Operation Sapphire, where the United States helped secretly airlift a load of very sensitive material out of Kazakhstan -- that they are willing to do the right thing. I think that this kind of cooperation is something that's going to be enduring and hopefully continuing into the future."

Operation Sapphire involved the removal of 600 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium from Kazakhstan in 1994. Aside from collaborating on improving its nuclear facilities, Kazakhstan has also turned over all of its nuclear weapons.

Since declaring independence in 1991, Kazakhstan has returned to Russia all 1,410 nuclear warheads stored on its territory and closed the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, where 456 tests had been performed in the previous four decades.

-------- pakistan

2 Nuclear Experts Briefed Bin Laden, Pakistanis Say

By Kamran Khan and Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 12, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28540-2001Dec11?language=printer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 11 -- Two Pakistani nuclear scientists reportedly have told investigators they conducted long discussions about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons with accused terrorist Osama bin Laden in August in the Afghan capital of Kabul, according to Pakistani officials familiar with the interrogations of the men.

Pakistani intelligence officials said they believe that the two retired nuclear scientists -- who have been under questioning for more than two months -- used an Afghan relief organization partially as a cover to conduct secret talks with bin Laden.

The Pakistani officials characterized the discussions between the scientists and bin Laden as "academic" and said they have no evidence the information resulted in the creation or production of any type of weapon.

The reported admissions by Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, who held key appointments in each of Pakistan's three most important nuclear facilities, and his associate, Abdul Majid, represent a turnabout from their earlier claims that they met with bin Laden only to discuss their charitable endeavors in Afghanistan, according to the accounts provided by Pakistani intelligence authorities.

Mahmood and Majid, who are being detained at an undisclosed location, could not be reached to confirm the purported statements described by Pakistani officials. Because the interrogations are being conducted in secrecy, it is impossible to determine the nature of the investigatory techniques being used. Neither of the men has been charged with a crime.

Officials here said the Pakistani government is considering charging Mahmood and Majid with violating the national official secrets act, a crime that carries a seven-year jail term. It would be the first known case of a nuclear official charged with that offense, officials said.

Pakistani officials said Mahmood -- who had experience in uranium enrichment and plutonium production but was not involved in bomb-building -- had neither the knowledge nor the experience to assist in the construction of any type of nuclear weapon. The scientists were not believed to be experts in chemical or biological weaponry.

Pakistan has been under pressure from the U.S. government to pursue the investigation of the scientists' relationship with bin Laden at a time of heightened concerns by U.S. authorities that bin Laden may have acquired nuclear, biological or chemical materials, or weapons. The investigation was a major issue discussed during CIA Director George J. Tenet's recent visit to Pakistan, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

Though neither U.S. nor Pakistani officials say they have evidence that bin Laden has obtained any such material, intelligence agencies for both countries have indicated they believe he has sought it.

Pakistani officials familiar with the investigation said representatives of the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency are in contact almost daily concerning the investigation.

Pakistani authorities said Mahmood and Majid changed their accounts recently after they were presented with compelling evidence of their relationship with bin Laden. The evidence was provided to authorities here by the CIA, but Pakistani intelligence officials declined to describe it.

Mahmood and Majid reportedly met with bin Laden; his top lieutenant, Egyptian Ayman Zawahiri; and two other al Qaeda officials several times over two or three days in August at a compound in Kabul, the Pakistani officials said.

The scientists described bin Laden as intensely interested in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Mahmood and Majid said bin Laden indicated that he had obtained, or had access to, some type of radiological material that he said had been acquired for him by the radical Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The scientists said they left the meetings believing that bin Laden had some such material, but Pakistani officials said they have been unable to verify those claims.

The scientists reportedly said bin Laden asked how the material could be made into a weapon or something usable. They also said they told him it would not be possible to manufacture a weapon with the material he might have.

Pakistani officials noted that organizations and individuals throughout South and Central Asia have frequently approached Pakistani officials offering to sell nuclear materials smuggled from nuclear facilities in former Soviet republics.

The scientists have insisted they provided no material or specific plans to bin Laden, but rather engaged in wide ranging "academic" discussions, Pakistani officials said.

"They spoke extensively about weapons of mass destruction," one Pakistani official said. The official described the scientists as "very motivated" and "extremist in their ideas," but added they were "discussing things that didn't materialize, but fall under the breaking secrets act."

U.S. officials recently have expressed concerns that bin Laden could have access to radiological materials that could be combined with conventional explosives to create a "dirty bomb." Though far less potent than a nuclear weapon, such a device could nonetheless contaminate several city blocks with radiation if exploded, according to experts.

Mahmood, who received one of Pakistan's highest civilian honors for nearly three decades of work in the country's nuclear programs specializing in uranium enrichment, was largely forced out of his job through a demotion in 1999. Officials were concerned about his vocal advocacy of producing an extensive amount of weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium to help equip other Islamic nations with nuclear arsenals.

After his departure, Mahmood continued to espouse his views in public speeches, and one friend recalled that Mahmood said his knowledge about Pakistan's nuclear program was a state secret, but not his expertise on enriching uranium and producing weapons-grade plutonium.

Majid worked for Pakistan's Atomic Energy Commission until 1999.

After Mahmood was forced out, he helped start an organization called Ummah Tameer-e-Nau (Islamic Reconstruction), which he described as a relief agency dedicated to construction and redevelopment projects in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government gave Mahmood and some of his associates, including Majid, permission to travel to Afghanistan three times this year, including one visit after the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and on the Pentagon, according to Pakistani officials.

Mahmood reportedly told investigators he met several times with Mohammad Omar, leader of the Taliban militia that then ruled Afghanistan, during a long visit to Kandahar in mid-summer. He is said to have discussed a flour mill his agency operated in Kandahar, as well as the need for alternative agricultural programs to persuade farmers to stop growing poppies for opium production. At one point in that visit, Omar introduced Mahmood to bin Laden, officials said.

Mahmood said he did not discuss any issues related to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in his first meeting with bin Laden, describing it as an introductory encounter in which he discussed his relief program.

Mahmood and Majid returned to Afghanistan in August, traveling to Kabul, where they held extensive meetings with bin Laden and his associates, the officials said. Omar was not present at any of the sessions, they said.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the two scientists returned to Kandahar, where they met with Omar, but not with bin Laden, they said. The scientists said they never discussed nuclear, chemical or biological issues with Omar.

Pakistani authorities have detained or questioned at least seven members of Mahmood's relief agency in connection with the investigation, including two air force general officers, an army one-star general, a third nuclear scientist, a well-known Pakistani industrialist and at least one financial officer of the organization, according to Pakistani officials. The two air force officers, the third nuclear scientist and the industrialist have been released. The others remain in detention.

U.S. officials have long raised concerns about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear program and the reliability of some of its scientists. Pakistan is believed to have the materials to assemble between 30 and 40 warheads, and has test-fired intermediate-range missiles that potentially could be used to launch the warheads, according to intelligence reports and nuclear experts. Both Pakistan and neighboring India tested underground nuclear devices in 1998, and the two countries are viewed by many security experts as the globe's most worrisome nuclear flash point.

Khan reported from Karachi. Researcher Robert Thomason in Washington contributed to this report.

-------- russia

Russia PM Says Would Regret U.S. Withdrawal From ABM

December 12, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-arms-russia-usa.html?searchpv=reuters

BRASILIA, Brazil (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov said on Wednesday his country would ``very much regret'' if the United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty.

The White House told congressional leaders the United States plans to withdraw from the pact viewed by Russia, European allies and Democrats as a cornerstone of international arms control, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said.

Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said congressional leaders were informed of the decision at a meeting with President Bush and other White House officials.

A formal announcement could come as early as Thursday, a U.S. official said.

Kasyanov, who was visiting Brazil, said his government's position on a possible U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is well known.

``We would very much regret if they left the treaty,'' Kasyanov told journalists in Brasilia. ``What worries us is strategic stability.''

The Bush administration has said the time is near to move beyond the ABM treaty, which bars the kind of multibillion-dollar national missile defense system it wants to develop to protect the country and its allies from states such as North Korea and Iraq.

In Moscow on Wednesday the Interfax news agency quoted a senior Russian Foreign Ministry official as saying Moscow was aware of the U.S. intention and that it was ``not dramatizing this situation and will keep an attentive eye on the development of events.''

A formal U.S. move to withdraw requires six months' notice, so any announcement would signal the start of this period.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Russia and the United States ``still have disagreements'' on ABM after talks in Moscow this week.

-------- sweden

Sweden sees Barseback reactor closure by end - 2003

Reuters:
12/12/2001
http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=13672

STOCKHOLM - The Swedish parliament decided yesterday that the time was not yet ripe to close the Barseback 2 nuclear power reactor, but said the conditions required for its closure ought to be in place by the end of 2003.

The single-chamber legislature's decision was in line with the Social Democratic government's proposal to extend the life span of the 600-megawatt facility.

Sweden has earlier committed itself to phase out nuclear power and one of the two reactors at the Barseback plant was shut down in 1999.

Wednesday's decision not to close Barseback 2, yet, was based on conditions set by the house in 1997 stipulating that a closure must not raise electricity prices, reduce the supply of electricity to Swedish industry or harm the environment.

"The conditions are expected to be fulfilled at the latest by the end of 2003," the parliament said in a statement.

Denmark, where nuclear power is prohibited and whose capital Copenhagen lies in the immediate vicinity of Barseback across the narrow Oresund strait, has often criticised Sweden's repeated delays in closing the second reactor.

-------- terrorism

Cold War fears are revisited
'Dirty' bombs could spread radiation over wide area

By Ralph Ranalli,
Boston Globe
Staff and Michele Kurtz Globe Correspondent,
12/12/2001
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/346/metro/Cold_War_fears_are_revisitedP.shtml

By the time the Cold War ended in 1989, the billions of dollars that taxpayers had spent preparing for nuclear war seemed good for one thing: a few good yuks.

Cambridge Emergency Management director David O'Connor, in fact, maintains a sort of museum of the absurd from the age of fallout shelters, those rooms stocked with materials that once passed as preparation for the ultimate disaster. There's the 1960s-vintage protective tin hat, canisters of sodium bicarbonate for burns or upset stomachs, and his personal favorite: tin cans of pineapple-flavored candy sour balls labeled as emergency ''carbohydrates.''

Yet, amid news that terrorists have tried to obtain and use so-called ''dirty'' bombs that could spread radiation across entire cities, officials such as O'Connor aren't finding talk of radiation so funny anymore.

Local emergency planners across Massachusetts are now drawing up new disaster strategies, replacing 40-year-old Geiger counters, meeting with community groups and, in general, starting to take the threat of nuclear attack seriously again.

''It's a very serious situation we're in now,'' said Anthony Siciliano, acting director of Quincy's Emergency Management Agency. ''People are calling up all the time and asking, `Where is my bomb shelter?' and, `Where do I buy my mask?'''

Siciliano last week said he met with dozens of day care operators, who were anxious to know how to protect their children in case of a nuclear attack. In Newton, Mayor David Cohen this month ordered his emergency planning committee to rework the city's disaster plan to include new contingencies for radiological attack.

''We will develop a plan ... and come up with a thorough response,'' Cohen said.

Unfortunately, officials said, even with their renewed focus on mitigating the effects of a radioactive assault, the words they can offer residents aren't particularly comforting. Part of the reason that the nuclear preparedness in the past seems so inadequate, they said, is that there is so little that actually can be done in the event of a nuclear attack.

Of the two nuclear terrorism scenarios, the one city officials are most concerned about is the so-called ''dirty bomb'' - a relatively crude device that combines conventional explosives with radioactive material such as plutonium, uranium, or cobalt.

While far less dangerous than a fission explosion, such a bomb would spread radiation that could cause death, long-term illness, and genetic damage, depending on a victim's proximity to the blast and level of exposure.

If such a bomb were to go off, some communities no longer even have their own equipment to detect the radiation, and would have to rely on state hazardous materials teams instead.

Newton is one of those places, Fire Chief Edward J. Murphy said. For years, his department had an annual ritual of sending its radiation detector to US Army experts at Fort Devens to be recalibrated. When the facility closed, the machines had to be sent to a facility in the Midwest instead.

One year, they never came back, Murphy said, and since they were never used, nobody bothered to track them down.

Siciliano said a dirty bomb blast would be treated like other localized toxic disasters. The immediate area would be cordoned off, triage stations would be set up for the injured, and residents within a designated danger zone would be relocated to above-ground shelters on the other side of town.

The problem, officials said, would be the aftermath. Unlike other toxic spills, an area heavily contaminated with radiation might be unusable for tens, hundreds, even thousands of years.

If terrorists got hold of even a small nuclear bomb, the scenario would be exponentially bleaker, the experts said.

Though good-humored, O'Connor's impromptu museum - the remnants of what was once a vast system of hundreds of Cambridge fallout shelters tucked away in old subway tunnels, schools, and the basements of Harvard and MIT - is a study in the futility of nuclear disaster planning.

When he became director in 1984, O'Connor discovered tons of supplies, unused medical kits, even a small portable hospital - amassed in the 1950s but stored for decades. The pineapple sour balls alone weighed 21/2 tons.

Built in the '50s and '60s, the underground shelters in Cambridge could accommodate a total of 120,000 people. They were stocked with 30-pound drums of crackers, aspirin, penicillin, and 5,000-tablet bottles of phenobarbital, a sedative for citizens stressed out by a nuclear war.

By the mid-'70s, fallout shelters were no longer in vogue. Scientists found that they actually offered little more protection than buildings above ground.

Cities such as Cambridge stopped replacing old supplies. The shelters became dusty storage areas and were eventually cannibalized by city departments hungry for office and storage space. Eventually, the city donated most of the sour balls to nursing homes and fire departments. A local pig farm got the crackers to use for animal feed and the medical supplies went to Ecuador.

Officials think they recovered most of the medical kits, but warn people who might stumble upon one to call the Fire Department because they may contain ether, which could explode.

In the late 1970s, the government began pushing ''relocation plans'' which called for entire Boston-area municipal populations to pick up and move en masse to small towns in New Hampshire and Western Massachusetts - and were virtually guaranteed to produce instant gridlock and chaos, O'Connor said.

As the joke went, he said, it would be the responsibility of Cambridge officials to alert their citizens to flee, while the town fathers in Greenfield would rally citizens there to ''bomb all the bridges leading into town.''

Now, officials say that - in the unlikely event of a nuclear bomb threat - people should stay put in whatever shelter they can find close to home rather than trying to flee and create chaos. Or find a municipal shelter, but those are all gone, officials said.

In fact, the only nonmilitary, working, hardened shelter in Massachusetts is the state's own emergency bunker in Framingham. But only high-ranking officials can count on getting in.

In the end, the best preparedness for a true nuclear attack is to prevent one from happening in the first place.

''It's one thing we're not planning for much,'' said Murphy, the Newton fire chief. ''Really, what would you do?''

----

The First Line Against Terrorism

By Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin
Wednesday, December 12, 2001; Page A35
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28777-2001Dec11?language=printer

In the spring of 1946, J. Robert Oppenheimer was asked in a closed congressional hearing room "whether three or four men couldn't smuggle units of an [atomic] bomb into New York and blow up the whole city." The father of the atomic bomb answered, "Of course it could be done, and people could destroy New York."

When a nervous senator then asked how such a weapon smuggled in a crate or even a suitcase could be detected, Oppenheimer quipped, "With a screwdriver." A few years later, he persuaded the Atomic Energy Commission to write a top secret study on the dangers of nuclear terrorism. The document, known as the "Screwdriver Report," remains classified to this day. Our leaders realized then that there was no defense against such an attack and, because we were defenseless, chose to play down its possibility.

But on Sept. 11 Islamicist terrorists used knives and box-cutters to turn commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction. And then there was anthrax. The next time they could use spent nuclear reactor fuel wrapped in explosives. And if they are determined to sacrifice their own lives, the assassins will achieve a high degree of success.

Oppenheimer understood a half-century ago that by unlocking the power of the atom he and his colleagues had suddenly made the world a smaller place. That's why in 1946 he proposed banning nuclear weapons.

The globalization of science and technology has now reached a point where weapons of mass destruction really can be wielded by a handful of individuals. In such a world, our military prowess is our very last line of defense.

To our own peril in this interdependent world, we are foolishly squandering our first and strongest line of defense: the imponderable that the venerable World War II secretary of war, Henry L. Stimson, called our reputation for fair play. In this sense Sept. 11 was the ultimate failure of a foreign policy that has systematically sullied our reputation.

For a half-century our foreign policy establishment complacently assumed that America could act with impunity in the Third World. We fought the Cold War on Third World battlefields; the list of our interventions is staggering: Iran, Korea, Guatemala, Congo, Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua and, of course, the entire Middle East. Millions died.

In the decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union, our policymakers have pursued a "triumphalist" stance based on America's invincibility as "the world's only superpower." They told us that the smoldering ethnic and tribal conflicts in Bosnia, Rwanda, East Timor, Congo, Sudan, Chechnya, Afghanistan and dozens of other places were not America's business.

They were wrong. America needs a radically new foreign policy. The artificial Cold War dichotomy between realism and idealism must be abandoned. No foreign policy devoid of sound moral principles is realistic today. Even a "victory" in Afghanistan will do little to protect us from terrorists if we once again become complicit with authoritarian regimes that abuse their own people.

We need a smart foreign policy that addresses the underlying grievances that foster suicidal rage. We need to go back as a nation to where we were in 1945 -- before Hiroshima, before we took the road to a permanent national security state. Most Americans have no memory of the designs Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Dealers had for postwar American foreign policy. Human rights, self-determination, an end to colonization in the developing world, nuclear disarmament, international law, the World Court, the United Nations -- these were all ideas of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

We need to return to this Rooseveltian vision of a foreign policy based on human rights. We need to encourage the weak and afflicted to take their grievances to the United Nations, the World Court and the new International Criminal Court. And that means we too must abide by U.N. and World Court decisions.

We desperately need to engage with the world -- and not just dominate it with dollars, cruise missile diplomacy and secret military courts. The billions we contemplate spending on missile defense should instead be invested to promote peace agreements and meet basic human needs in the world's poorest societies. And right now, we need to end our long illicit affair with nuclear weapons.

In 1948 Oppenheimer observed that nuclear weapons -- born in secrecy and designed as "unparalleled instruments of coercion" -- were by definition antithetical to a free society. And so paradoxically he insisted that even a nuclear-armed America must nevertheless remain loyal to two mutually interdependent ideals, the minimization of secrecy and coercion: "We seem to know, and seem to come back again and again to this knowledge, that the purposes of this country in the field of foreign policy cannot in any real or enduring way be achieved by coercion."

Kai Bird, a fellow at the Smithsonian's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and Martin Sherwin, a professor of history at Tufts University, are writing a biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

--------

Nuclear Experts Briefed Bin Laden, Newspaper Says

December 12, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-attack-pakistan-scientists.html?searchpv=reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two detained Pakistani nuclear scientists have admitted they held wide-ranging discussions on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons with Osama bin Laden, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing Pakistani officials.

The officials characterized the talks between the two retired nuclear scientists and the Islamic extremist as ''academic'' and said they had no evidence the discussions resulted in the production of any weapons, the newspaper reported.

The scientists, who have been undergoing questioning for more than two months, had earlier claimed they met with bin Laden only to discuss Afghan relief efforts, the newspaper said, citing Pakistani intelligence authorities.

The newspaper cited Pakistani authorities as saying Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Abdul Majid changed their story recently after being confronted with compelling evidence of their relationship with bin Laden, the chief suspect in the Sept. 11 suicide aircraft attacks on the United States.

Mahmood and Majid reportedly told authorities bin Laden indicated he had obtained or had access to some type of radiological material. But Pakistani officials said they have been unable to verify those claims, the newspaper reported.

Pakistani officials told the Washington Post the scientists insisted they provided no materials or specific plans to bin Laden, but did hold wide-ranging ``academic'' discussions.

According to the report, the officials also said Mahmood had neither the knowledge nor the experience to assist in building any kind of nuclear bomb. The scientists were not believed to be experts in chemical or biological weaponry, the newspaper said.

Mahmood and Majid reportedly met with bin Laden and several of his top lieutenants over two to three days in August in the Afghan capital of Kabul, the newspaper said.

Neither of the men has been charged with a crime, but the Pakistani government is considering charging them with violating the national official secrets act, the Post reported. The two men were being held at an undisclosed location and could not be reached for comment, the newspaper said.

Pakistan has been under pressure from the U.S. government to investigate the scientists' relationship with bin Laden amid concern that the al Qaeda leader may have acquired nuclear, biological or chemical material or weapons.

-------- treaties

U.S. to pull out of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

December 12, 2001
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20011212-668152.htm

President Bush soon will give Russia a required six-month notice that the United States will withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bans missile-defense systems, administration officials said yesterday.

Mr. Bush vowed in a speech at The Citadel military academy in Charleston, S.C., to "move beyond" the accord to clear the way for robust testing, and administration officials said the president's announcement could come as early as the next few days.

"The time is coming when we will need to move beyond the ABM Treaty," a National Security Council spokesman, Sean McCormack, told reporters traveling with Mr. Bush. "The president will let you know. The time is near."

Reports of imminent U.S. withdrawal from the pact were first circulated yesterday by the Russian Itar-Tass news agency, which quoted anonymous Russian sources as saying the United States would make the announcement as early as tomorrow.

Moscow, the reports said, had been informed of the decision by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell during his visit to the Russian capital Sunday. Mr. Powell said after meeting with President Vladimir Putin that the two sides "still have disagreements" on the treaty's future but would continue working on the issue.

Separately, Republican Senate sources told the Reuters news agency that Mr. Bush would give formal notice of abandoning the ABM Treaty in January.

Administration officials didn't deny those reports but cautioned against expectations of an official announcement tomorrow, saying it could happen in the next few days.

Mr. Bush pledged to scrap the accord during his election campaign last year, and his advisers repeatedly have called the treaty a relic of the Cold War. Russia has termed it "the cornerstone of strategic stability."

In his speech yesterday, the president said the treaty "was written in a different era, for a different enemy."

"America and our allies must not be bound to the past," he said. "We must be able to build the defenses we need against the enemies of the 21st century."

He argued that the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States have made the need for missile defense even more urgent and vigorous testing more important.

"Last week, we conducted another promising test of our missile-defense technology," Mr. Bush said. "For the good of peace, we are moving forward with an active program to determine what works and what does not work."

Russia, China and other countries, including U.S. allies, have warned that abandoning the ABM Treaty and building missile defenses would jeopardize the results of decades of arms control and trigger a new arms race. Critics of the plan also question its effectiveness and enormous cost.

But Mr. Putin has indicated that he is willing to work with Mr. Bush on reaching a broad agreement on a new strategic framework, which also would include reductions of both countries' nuclear stockpiles. The two leaders announced during Mr. Putin's visit to the United States last month that they would slash their arsenals by two-thirds over 10 years.

Unlike Washington, Moscow insists on a formal agreement in the form of a treaty. Such an accord is expected to be signed when Mr. Bush visits Russia next year.

According to some administration officials, Mr. Putin assured Mr. Bush during their November talks in Washington and in Crawford, Texas, that U.S.-Russia relations would not suffer even if Washington pulled out of the treaty.

In yesterday's speech, Mr. Bush called for enhanced cooperation with Moscow on nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Russia has become an important U.S. ally in the war on terrorism since September 11.

"Our two countries will expand efforts to provide peaceful employment for scientists who formerly worked in Soviet weapons facilities, and the United States will also work with Russia to build a facility to destroy tons of nerve agents," Mr. Bush said.

--------

INTERNATIONAL
U.S. to Pull Out of ABM Treaty, Clearing Path for Antimissile Tests

December 12, 2001
By DAVID E. SANGER and ELISABETH BUMILLER
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/12/international/12CND-MISS.html

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 - President Bush is expected to announce before the weekend that Washington will withdraw from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty in six months, the first time in modern history that the United States has renounced a major international accord.

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said today that Mr. Bush had informed him and three other Congressional leaders of his decision at a breakfast meeting.

The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, noted today that "the president has said multiple times that he believes very strongly . . . the best way to promote the peace is to move beyond the A.B.M. treaty."

Mr. Fleischer offered no insight on the timing of an official announcement. "I expect you will hear from the president about that when the president is ready to say something," he said.

But he did nothing to discourage speculation that it is imminent, as other administration officials said on Tuesday.

The decision came after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, visiting Moscow in recent days, was unable to bridge differences with Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, on how to deal with an arms control accord that Mr. Bush has called a "relic" of the cold war, and "dangerous." But Mr. Bush concluded last week that Secretary Powell's last effort would likely fail, and it appears that he gave warning of his intentions in a phone conversation with Mr. Putin on Friday.

The decision ends a raging debate within the administration over the wisdom of withdrawing from the treaty, and marks a major policy defeat for Secretary Powell. He has long maintained that it was still possible to negotiate an agreement with Russia that would allow the Pentagon to move forward with the kind of tests it insists are necessary to develop an antiballistic missile system initially capable of handling the launch of a handful of nuclear weapons at the United States.

At the same time, Mr. Bush's decision was a major victory for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, fresh from the success of the military campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Mr. Rumsfeld has countered that there is no technologically satisfying way to amend the accord that President Richard M. Nixon signed with the former Soviet Union nearly three decades ago.

In the end, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, sided with Mr. Rumsfeld, several administration and congressional officials said.

Mr. Bush made no mention of his decision when he gave a speech on the future of the American military on Tuesday at the the Citadel, the military college in Charleston, S.C. But he forcefully repeated his contention that the treaty is outdated, noting that last week the Pentagon conducted another "promising test" of missile defense technology.

"For the good of peace, we're moving forward with an active program to determine what works and what does not work," Mr. Bush told a cheering crowd of cadets. "In order to do so, we must move beyond the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, a treaty that was written in a different era, for a different enemy."

The treaty allows either signatory to withdraw with six months' notice. If Mr. Bush goes ahead with his announcement this week, it would mean that the administration would be free to conduct any type of test it wants by mid-June. The Pentagon plans to start construction on silos and a missile defense command center at Fort Greely, Alaska, in late April or early May. The silos and center would initially be used for testing allowed by the treaty. But Russian officials note that part of the plan is for the "test bed" to become part of an operational missile-defense system. For that reason, some ABM experts contend that the work would violate the treaty.

Pentagon officials have also said they want to schedule tests in which ship-based radars track long-range missiles early next year. Such tests are not allowed under the treaty.

Aides say Mr. Bush hopes his announcement will prompt discussions with Russia on what kind of agreement should become the successor to the ABM treaty. Presumably that will be the focus of his expected trip to Moscow, his first, sometime next spring. Ms. Rice said after the last meeting between the two leaders, at Mr. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex., that the relationship between the two countries had been so strengthened that it could glide past the difference of opinion about the value of the treaty. "This is a smaller element of the U.S.-Russia relationship than it was several months ago and certainly than it was before Sept. 11," she said in Crawford.

At a meeting in Washington that preceded the Crawford summit by a day, Mr. Putin and his aides made it clear that while they were inclined to allow the United States to conduct antimissile tests despite the treaty, they wanted the right to approve each test of the system. "It was something we couldn't live with," a senior administration official said. "It would mean subjecting each test to separate scrutiny, and sooner or later they were going to say `no,' " one senior official said.

A senior administration official said on Tuesday that "the Russians won't like it, but the calculation is that they will learn to live with it, and they will quickly get beyond it. They've certainly known it's coming."

Another official later said, "In a way, the bigger question is how the Chinese will react." While China is not a signatory to the treaty, its arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons is so small - only 20 or so weapons can reach American shores - that Chinese officials fear that the arsenal would be neutralized by a modest American antimissile system built in Alaska or deployed on ships in the Pacific. That could prompt China to speed the modernization of its nuclear forces, something the White House believes it will do anyway.

In contrast, even when Russia reduces its nuclear arsenal to 1,500 or so weapons, a goal Mr. Putin has set, Russia would be able to overwhelm any antimissile system now on the Pentagon's drawing boards.

While White House officials maintain that strategic concerns, not politics, have always been at the heart of Mr. Bush's decision on the ABM treaty, it seems likely some major political calculations went into the timing.

Mr. Bush's approval ratings are as high as ever - nearly 9 out of 10 Americans say they approve of how he is handling his job, a New York Times/CBS News poll released late Tuesday reports - and 75 percent say they approve of how he is handling foreign policy. In the spring, only about half of those polled said they approved.

Other polls show that since Sept. 11, more Americans believe in the need for missile defense, even though the attacks three months ago used airplanes, not missiles. Mr. Bush has argued that the next attack could well come in a missile attack from a rogue state or terrorists.

But the critics of his plan are not persuaded. Many say that Sept. 11 proved that America's major vulnerabilities have little to do with missile attacks. And Senator Joseph R. Biden, Democrat of Delaware and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement Tuesday evening warning that "unilaterally abandoning the ABM treaty would be a serious mistake. The administration has not offered any convincing rationale for why any missile defense test it may need to conduct would require walking away from a treaty that has helped keep the peace for the last 30 years."

European leaders have also criticized American discussion of abandoning the treaty, saying before Sept. 11 that the administration's treatment of the treaty was a prime example of a worrisome move toward unilateralism. But now administration officials appear to be calculating that the European reaction will be muted, especially if European leaders do not want cracks to appear in the coalition against terrorism.

Mr. Bush's speech at the Citadel on Tuesday was, in many ways, a reprise of a 1999 address on military policy that he delivered there as a presidential candidate. The remarks served as both a marker of the three-month anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and a call for a more agile, modern military.

The White House also used the event as a kind of "I told you so" about the threat of terrorism, a large theme of Mr. Bush's earlier speech. He warned Tuesday that "rogue states" were the most likely sources of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and said that they would be regarded as "hostile regimes" if they aided terrorists. "They have been warned, they are being watched, and they will be held to account," the president said.

Mr. Bush cited the American military campaign in Afghanistan as a model for future wars, and said the United States needed to further develop unmanned planes, like the Predator, and precision-guided bombs. Both have been used in Afghanistan.

He also called for rebuilding "our network of human intelligence" as well as new intelligence-gathering technology. "Every day I make decisions influenced by the intelligence briefing of that morning," Mr. Bush said. "The last several months have shown that there is no substitute for good intelligence officers, people on the ground...

-------- u.s. nuc facilities

US nuclear plants face downtime for reactor cracks

Story by Leonard Anderson
Reuters
12/12/2001
http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=13685

SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified 13 atomic reactors that are developing tiny cracks that could seriously damage plant equipment and cause lengthy shutdowns for repairs.

The NRC, which licenses and oversees the nation's fleet of 103 nuclear plants, doesn't believe the cracks in gear that controls the rate of atomic fission in the reactors could release poisonous radiation into the atmosphere, said Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the NRC.

Instead, the chief headache is an economic one for the plant owners because complex inspections and repairs could idle a reactor - and shut off sales of electricity - for weeks, according to utility officials. Nuclear plants produce about one-fith of the nation's electricity.

The hairline cracks in the reactor heads are believed to be caused by stress and corrosion triggered by high temperatures and pressure inside the reactors combined with years of producing electricity, according to the NRC.

Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp.'s 935-megawatt Davis Besse nuclear plant in Ohio was one of the 13 units the NRC identified as having the cracks or being "highly susceptible" to them, said Dricks.

The plant was scheduled to shut in April for refueling and maintenance work, but the work was moved up to February at the NRC's request.

Richard Wilkins, a spokesman for FirstEnergy Nuclear Operations, said the company hoped to complete the work in 35 to 40 days.

CRACKS IN REACTOR NOZZLES

The NRC investigation focused on metal alloy nozzles on 69 pressurized water reactors. Equipment known as control rods pass through the nozzles atop the "head" of the reactor.

By raising or lowering rods of neatly stacked cylindrical uranium pellets, the control rods regulate the intensity of the atomic reaction taking place inside the reactor core.

Pressurized water reactors typically have from 50 to 100 nozzles atop each reactor head.

Cracks have appeared in the past along the length of the nozzles, but the NRC did not consider they needed immediate attention. Inspections and repairs usually were made during routine maintenance outages.

Earlier this year, however, circular cracks around the nozzle width began to show up, raising a "potentially significant" safety concern, the NRC said in a bulletin sent to plant operators in August.

Circular cracks are difficult to find, and plants may need to do inspections with the help of fiber optic cameras to pinpoint all of them, according to the NRC.

The regulators' main worry is that a nozzle with circular cracks could separate from the reactor head, causing debris to fall into the fuel core and rupture cooling tubes and damage other power equipment, in turn allowing water to escape from the main plant cooling system.

"It's like a leak in your car radiator. The system is under high pressure, so a break will cause coolant to leak out. You have to shut down the plant to find out what's going on," said a utility official.

Exelon Nuclear's 786-megawatt Three Mile Island 1 unit in Pennsylvania, one of the 13 plants, had to extend a refueling outage expected to be finished in mid-November by about three weeks for more work, inspection and tests on the nozzles and two steam generators.

Three Mile Island owner AmerGen Energy is a joint venture between Exelon Corp. , of Chicago, and British Energy Plc of Scotland.

The NRC's list also includes Virginia Power Co.'s 800-megawattt Surry 1 and 921-megawatt North Anna 2 plants in Virginia. Virginia Power, a unit of Richmond, Virginia-based Dominion , is making the repairs, Dricks said.

-------- colorado

Critics Say Colorado Radiation Cleanup Will Leave Overly Contaminated Soil

Wednesday, December 12, 2001
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.sltrib.com/12122001/nation_w/157501.htm
http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/12/12122001/ap_45864.asp

WASHINGTON -- The government is spending $7 billion to decontaminate a former nuclear weapons plant in Colorado and turn it into a wildlife refuge. But critics said Tuesday that the cleanup will still leave the soil too polluted.

Legislation before Congress would officially designate the Rocky Flats site, 15 miles northwest of Denver, a wildlife refuge after cleanup is completed.

Rocky Flats is contaminated with tons of plutonium and other radioactive materials, in buildings and in the soil, after years of weapons work. The Energy Department and its civilian contractor will decide early next year how clean the site should become.

A report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research contends that the residual contamination levels being considered by the government are 40 times greater than what would be allowed if the land is used for something other than a wildlife refuge.

The report by IEER, a research group long involved in nuclear watchdog activities, contends that designating the area a wildlife refuge will allow the cleanup to be less stringent.

Whatever the final standard, "We will provide a safe and effective cleanup of Rocky Flats," said Jeremy Karpatkin, spokesman for the Energy Department.

The government already has spent nearly $3 billion on the cleanup, and will spend another $4 billion over the next five years, he said.

-------- nevada

Nevada will ask court to stop Energy Department decision on nuclear waste site

Wednesday, December 12, 2001
By H. Josef Hebert,
Associated Press
http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/12/12122001/ap_45862.asp

WASHINGTON - Nevada officials will ask the federal courts to block a decision on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site, claiming the Energy Department has abandoned a congressional mandate that the site's natural geology must protect the public from radiation.

Instead, the Nevada officials say, the latest design for the waste burial ground, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, relies "nearly 100 percent" on engineered barriers to assure the waste's isolation.

The design amounts to "a glorified waste package" that could be deemed scientifically suitable "even if sited on the shores of Lake Tahoe," Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, wrote Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

The salvo is only the latest in the increasingly bitter confrontation between Nevada officials and the Bush administration over the proposed nuclear repository. It is supposed to hold thousands of tons of used reactor fuel now kept at nuclear power plants in 31 states. If given the go-ahead, it is scheduled to open in 2010.

Early next year Abraham is expected to recommend to President Bush that the site be approved, although department officials emphasized Tuesday that no decision has been made by Abraham so far.

Robert Loux, the Nevada governor's top adviser on the nuclear waste site, said in an interview that Nevada will file a lawsuit next week, possibly Monday, and ask the court to block Abraham from making a recommendation.

The Nevada lawsuit will argue that the Energy Department has failed to follow the legal requirement that the waste site rely almost exclusively on its natural geology to safeguard the waste, including radioisotopes that will remain highly radioactive for more than 10,000 years.

Instead, the state argues, the Energy Department is incorporating numerous engineered barriers to counter shortcomings in the site's geology. "The notion that geological features must be the primary form of containment is ... explicitly required" by the 1982 law that is the basis for developing a nuclear waste repository, Guinn wrote.

Energy Department officials dismissed the state's latest threat of legal action and strongly defended the use of both geology and engineered barriers. "We're not relying specifically on engineered barriers to meet the regulations. We are looking at the scientific evidence of both the geological and engineered barriers together to determine the site's suitability," said DOE spokesman Joe Davis. "One doesn't outweigh the other. They both work hand in hand," said Davis. The department contends that Congress in 1992 cleared the way for use of a "total system performance" approach to safeguarding the waste.

But Loux said that Congress also envisioned that the site's geology "be the primary barrier" to isolate the waste and that the approach by the Energy Department "does not even come close to being in compliance the law."

In recent years, the scientists and engineers working on the Yucca Mountain project have incorporated more human-made protective devices. For example, after concern was raised about the possible effect of water moving through the rocks, stronger and more corrosion-resistant canisters were added to the design. Drip shields were added to keep water from hitting the waste once the containers begin to disintegrate hundreds of years from now.

An alternative design spreads out the canisters to deal the impact of high temperatures on surrounding rocks.

These improvements only add to the site's safeguards and do not detract from the fact that "the mountain performs pretty well" in protecting the waste, said Marvin Fertel, a vice president for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association.

-------- tennessee

Nuclear response team is suddenly silent

By Frank Munger,
News-Sentinel Senior writer
December 12, 2001
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/opinion_columnists/article/0,1406,KNS_364_905404,00.html

In the three months since Sept. 11, much has been written about the future of terrorism - with speculation that the next big threat may come from crudely fashioned nuclear weapons or explosives that splatter radioactive debris all over the place.

If there is a nuclear terrorism attack, you can bet the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REACT) will be integrally involved in the response. But the Oak Ridge institution has been unusually low key this fall and that's by design, not wishing to draw attention to its work or potential role in terrorism response.

Whatever discussions are taking place behind the scenes regarding strategies or preparations, the folks at REACTS aren't sharing those publicly.

"Because of the heightened security, we're just being extra cautious," spokeswoman Pam Bonee said.

The radiation experts have turned down interview requests from a number of major news organizations, including such notables as "60 Minutes" and - ahem - The Knoxville News-Sentinel.

REACTS is a part of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education and is funded largely by the U.S. Department of Energy. It also collaborates with the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"The center's specially trained team of physicians, nurses, health physicists, radiobiologists and emergency coordinators is prepared around the clock to provide assistance on either the local, national or international level," according to info on the Web site for Oak Ridge Associated Universities, which manages the institute for DOE.

In the event of an accident or attack, the Oak Ridge center would provide a medical response in support of other emergency units - such as NEST (Nuclear Emergency Search Team), RAP (Radiological Assistance Program) and FRMAC (Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center).

The Oak Ridge staff, headed by Dr. Robert Ricks, has taught radiation-response courses for hundreds of physicians and other medical specialists at hospitals in the United States and many other countries.

FEAR OF FLYING: Gene Hoffman, a retired Energy Department official, is concerned that DOE hasn't evaluated the potential consequences of a large airplane crash at sites where thousands of containers of depleted uranium hexafluoride are stored.

About 14,000 cylinders of depleted UF6 are stored outdoors at DOE's K-25 Site in Oak Ridge, and even greater numbers are housed at facilities in Paducah, Ky., and Portsmouth, Ohio.

Hoffman is pushing the government to include such a worst-case scenario in the environmental impact statement for a project that will convert the uranium compounds to a more stable chemical form for long-storm storage or disposal.

He said he first raised the issue a couple of years ago and those concerns were amplified by the events of Sept. 11.

An airplane crash would likely rupture many of the thin-walled containers and result in a massive release of fluorides and other toxic materials into the atmosphere, Hoffman said.

"It would be a very serious problem," he said.

BADGE OF COURAGE: Among the winners at Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Awards Night was Kathy Rosenbalm, executive secretary for the Spallation Neutron Source.

Rosenbalm received the Secretarial Support Award for "unparalleled administrative competence, strong leadership and an unfailing cheerful attitude."

I can testify to Rosenbalm's cheerful attitude because she's even pleasant to members of the news media, and that can be thankless effort.

Here's an example:

A couple of years ago, while I was visiting the SNS project office for an interview with then-Executive Director David Moncton, Rosenbalm inadvertently gave me a partial copy of a draft report - a report I apparently wasn't supposed to see. I returned that draft report in order to get the rest of another report I had actually requested, but I later - of course - requested the full draft report I had seen only briefly.

This didn't sit well with the SNS leadership, and Moncton argued mightily that I shouldn't have access to a draft report on the project's progress. But eventually, after some prodding by DOE, he released the report.

I don't know this for a fact, but I have every reason to believe that Rosenbalm got chewed out for the mix-up which led to a news story some folks didn't want to see.

Whether she did or did not, her demeanor never changed in subsequent encounters. She was pleasant as ever, and it's hard not to applaud that kind of professionalism.

I add my congratulations for the deserved award.

-------- washington

Memo renews concerns about Hanford cleanup

By Linda Ashton
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=hanford12m&date=20011212

YAKIMA - A U.S. Department of Energy memorandum on the treatment of radioactive waste has raised questions again about the federal government's commitment to cleaning up the Hanford nuclear reservation.

"I think the jury's still out on this one," Sheryl Hutchison, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Ecology, one of Hanford's regulators, said yesterday.

The Nov. 19 memo from Energy Department cleanup chief Jessie Roberson to the agency's budget officer was distributed last week at a meeting of the Hanford Advisory Board in Portland.

In it, Roberson recommends eliminating plans to turn into glass - or vitrify - at least 75 percent of the high-level radioactive waste targeted for vitrification at Energy Department complexes.

It goes on to suggest that at least two "proven, cost-effective" solutions be devised for treating high-level radioactive waste.

But it's not clear exactly what that would mean for Hanford, where the Energy Department is to begin construction next year on a huge complex to turn radioactive waste into glass cylinders for permanent storage.

The Energy Department's Office of River Protection, which oversees the vitrification project at Hanford, referred questions to agency headquarters.

Plans and deadlines for cleaning up 25 percent of radioactivity in the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in underground tanks at Hanford already have been negotiated, Hutchison said. But the idea of having the 177 tanks emptied and all the waste vitrified by 2028 is still to be negotiated, she said.

"So we're looking at this memo with a lot of questions," she said. "It could be the Energy Department is starting the planning process on the other 75 percent of waste. It might be a good thing, or it's a start of the war over that remaining waste."

Vitrification is an important issue at Hanford because 60 percent of the nation's high-level radioactive waste is stored at the 560-square-mile desert site, where plutonium was made for nuclear weapons for 46 years.

The lethal waste is stored in aging tanks that have leaked more than 1 million gallons, contaminating groundwater and threatening the Columbia River.

Hutchison said if the Energy Department is considering some other technology for treating the high-level radioactive waste, the Ecology Department needs more information on it.

Nationally, the Energy Department wants to cut $100 billion and 30 years from current estimates that it would take 70 years and $300 billion to clean up the waste at its nuclear sites.

Just last month, President Bush signed a bill that would keep Hanford's cleanup plans on schedule through next fall. The $1.8 billion allocated for Hanford is an increase from the administration's original budget proposal of $1.4 billion.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., was "just absolutely livid" last week when she learned the Energy Department might try again to cut funding for Hanford cleanup after she fought this year to preserve the $400 million the administration wanted to cut out of the new budget, said her press secretary, Todd Webster.

"This memo indicates that they are back at it," Webster said.

In a subsequent statement, Murray said: "The people living near Hanford made a sacrifice to win World War II and the Cold War. Now, this administration wants to sacrifice the people living near Hanford. It is morally reprehensible."

U.S. Rep. Richard "Doc" Hastings, R-Yakima, said he had been assured by senior Energy Department officials that the administration is committed to seeing Hanford's vitrification plant built and ready for processing waste by 2007.

Hastings said he had "made clear to DOE officials that any delay is unacceptable and would violate the federal government's legal obligations in the Tri-Party Agreement," the 1989 pact by the state, Energy Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency governing Hanford cleanup.

-------- us politics

Military tribunals hearing - 9:30 a.m. -

December 12, 2001
Washington Times Daybook
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011212-549099.htm

Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on the Defense Department's implementation of the President's military order on detention, treatment and trial by a military commission of certain noncitizens in the war on terrorism. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld or Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz will testify. Location: 325 Russell Senate Office Building. Contact: 202/224-3871.


-------- MILITARY

-------- afghanistan

Tribal Commanders Make New Offer for Al Qaeda Surrender

New York Times
December 12, 2001
By JOHN KIFNER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/12/international/12CND-AFGH.html

TORA BORA, Afghanistan, Dec. 12 - Afghan tribal commanders set a new deadline today for the surrender of Osama bin Laden's embattled fighters trapped in the snowcapped mountains here after efforts to arrange a turnover of weapons this morning broke down.

They also demanded that the top terrorist suspects turn themselves in, a demand that has been consistently pressed by United States military officials.

As American bombers continued to pound a desolate canyon where Al Qaeda fighters are hiding out, leaders of the tribal eastern alliance gave Mr. bin Laden's men until noon on Thursday to surrender.

The alliance said any surrender would be rejected if it did not include Al Qaeda leaders, which would include Mr. bin Laden and others on Washington's list if they are indeed somewhere among the caves and tunnels of Tora Bora.

"But we don't know where Osama is," said Ghafar, the mayor of the nearby city of Jalalabad, who like some Afghans uses only one name.

He said Mr. bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, might be hiding in thick alpine forest along the nearby border with Pakistan. Other leaders might have escaped during the failed cease-fire attempt overnight, he said.

The Pentagon has said many times that it does not want to see a deal that lets Al Qaeda leaders go free. "We have made it very clear what our intents are," the Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, said today.

A senior military officer in Washington said on Tuesday that United States intelligence had intercepted radio communications among Al Qaeda forces talking about Mr. bin Laden's location in the Tora Bora area.

"He's in a shrinking area," the officer said, "and the sense is, he's going higher and deeper into his complex of caves and tunnels." But his exact whereabouts today were clearly not known.

Although a turnover of weapons had been scheduled for 8 a.m. local time, the morning began in confusion as opposition fighters, at first resting on the hillsides, began racing up and down the dirt tracks in pickup trucks stuffed with weapons.

Cmdr. Hajji Mohammad Zaman frantically waved back international journalists who had gathered near forward positions to witness the supposed surrender.

Al Qaeda fighters holed up around Tora Bora demanded to be handed over to the United Nations in the presence of diplomats from their respective countries, the Afghan Islamic Press reported.

As the bombing resumed this morning, the first big plume of dirty smoke appeared over the mountain peaks. Quickly, the sky was streaked with the white contrails of B-52 bombers and other high-flying American planes.

Afghan tribal forces backed by American bombs and commandos had forced their way up the slopes of the mountain redoubt of Al Qaeda on Tuesday, driving the besieged troops to negotiate a surrender and apparently pushing Mr. bin Laden deeper into retreat.

With the breakdown in negotiations, mujahedeen fighters moved back south up the valley toward their old positions.

American bombing and strafing by AC-130 gunships had continued through Tuesday night. As morning broke, a B-52 bomber circled lazily overhead, but by 9:30 a.m. it had dropped two loads of bombs.

At least some of the foreign fighters recruited by Mr. bin Laden could be heard pleading for mercy over their radios after a morning of heavy shelling on Tuesday and fierce ground combat in the bare brown hills. The fighting left parts of the area once held by Al Qaeda a shambles of shattered stone bunkers, gaping shell holes and scraps of military equipment.

Dozens of Al Qaeda fighters were killed on Monday when the Americans dropped a huge 15,000-pound bomb near entrances to the caves, a senior military officer said in Washington. The bomb explodes just off the ground and sends fire and shards laterally over a wide area.

Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have been deployed on the mountains, which soar to 15,000 feet, and in valleys along the border in a bid to cut off escape routes for Mr. bin Laden and his fighters, Pakistani military officials said on Tuesday.

The Pakistan Army normally maintains a very low profile on the border, which is governed by semi-autonomous tribal authorities. But the government has negotiated an agreement with tribal leaders to increase border security.

In a sign that the American military command fears that Al Qaeda leaders may try to flee into Pakistan, AC-130 gunships teamed with unmanned Predator reconnaissance drones prowled the mountainous border on Tuesday.

At Tora Bora, tank, rocket and machine-gun fire echoed through the valleys on Tuesday until a cease-fire was called over the radios just after noon to begin surrender negotiations. "They said, `We don't want to fight with you; we surrender,' " said Commander Zaman, the defense minister of the region around Jalalabad, the main city in eastern Afghanistan.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on Tuesday that the United States expected to take custody of a relatively small number of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, if they are captured alive. "Not hundreds" was how he characterized the number of such potential prisoners.

"Whether we hold these detainees in Afghanistan, as we may in some cases; put them aboard ships at sea, as we may in some cases; return them to their countries of origin for punishment, as we may in some cases; or whether we bring some back to the United States, which we may well do, we will in every case attempt to do it the right way," Mr. Rumsfeld said. He did not elaborate.

The attack by the Afghan tribesmen began early Tuesday morning and was backed around 10 a.m. by a heavy American barrage from the air. There was little return fire from Al Qaeda troops, who had repulsed earlier attacks by the tribal forces with well-aimed mortar fire. There were no casualties known on the Afghan side and apparently only a few among Al Qaeda troops.

The fighting on Tuesday appeared to have been joined by a small force of Special Operations commandos. Helicopters were heard flying low over the area on Monday night, apparently to land troops or equipment.

An Afghan tank crew member named Safaiullah said he saw a helicopter land and unload a number of armed Americans, who got into a convoy of six pickup trucks. Several other people also reported seeing Americans in the truck convoy.

One result of the American bombing could be seen on the strategic ridge line above the valley that the tribal fighters captured on Monday, at the start of their offensive.

For several hundred yards around a bomb crater, the trees were mere black stubs, scorched and limbless. A bullet-riddled pickup truck had its paint burned off to the gray metal. Scraps of clothing and a few shredded pieces of paper with Arabic script indicated that this had once been the site of some kind of Al Qaeda camp.

At midday Tuesday, the local warriors picked apart the half-destroyed pickup truck with jacks, wrenches and makeshift tools, ripping it up for spare parts. Others rooted through the rubble near the crater with sticks, searching, quite successfully, for unexpended cartridges.

-------- business

Lobbyists Are Boeing's Army, Washington Its Battlefield

New York Times
December 12, 2001
By JAMES DAO with LAURA M. HOLSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/12/business/12BOEI.html?searchpv=nytToday&pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 - Staggered by the loss of the largest military contract in history and the collapse of the commercial airline market, Boeing (news/quote) has sharply intensified its efforts in Congress and the Pentagon to win an array of other big-ticket military contracts.

Mobilizing an armada of well-connected lobbyists, sympathetic lawmakers and Air Force generals, the company argues that by financing its contracts Congress would reduce the need for thousands of layoffs and help keep Boeing, the second-largest military contractor, healthy in a time of war.

"You've got the nation's leading exporter, and one of its leading military contractors, who has been hit hard," said Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington State Democrat who has led the charge for Boeing on Capitol Hill. "We can really help them."

The push underscores a broader trend for Boeing, company officials and analysts say. The company, with most of its production in the Seattle area, has suffered a sharp downturn in commercial aircraft business, which last year generated two-thirds of its $51.3 billion in sales. Boeing is expected to announce this week that production of its 717 commercial airliner will be cut by half, to as little as one plane a month from two, company executives said. As recently as a month ago, analysts predicted that the company would end all 717 production, in part because the Sept. 11 attacks have slowed demand for commercial jets.

As a result, Boeing is looking more than ever to its military and space divisions to bolster sagging revenue.

Last week, it won a big lobbying battle when the Senate approved a sharply contested plan for Boeing to lease to the Air Force 100 new 767 wide- body jets for use as refueling tankers and reconnaissance planes. The proposal next goes before a House-Senate conference committee.

At an estimated cost of more than $20 billion over 10 years, that plan has been attacked as a costly corporate bailout by critics led by Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona. But supporters say that it would not only significantly offset Boeing's loss of orders from ailing commercial airlines but also help the Pentagon by accelerating the replacement of aging midair refueling tankers and reconnaissance aircraft that both have been worn down by heavy use in the war in Afghanistan.

"Near term, it's a very nice financial salve to an immediate wound," said Howard Rubel, a military industry analyst at Goldman Sachs (news/quote).

The 767 plan is just one of several major Pentagon programs that Boeing is prodding Congress to sustain, expand or accelerate. The company is the lead contractor on more than a dozen major contracts accounting for well over $10 billion in the 2002 Pentagon budget alone. Those include the F/A-18 fighter jet for the Navy, the V-22 Osprey tilt- rotor aircraft for the Marine Corps, the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter for the Army and the airborne laser for the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

In addition, Boeing has been trying for years to become the dominant player in an array of new businesses, including unpiloted aircraft, battlefield and cockpit communications, surveillance technology and precision-guided munitions. The war on terrorism has only underscored the Pentagon's need for more of those systems, Boeing and its allies assert.

"What we're about to see was the reason for the merger with McDonnell Douglas in the first place," said Gerald E. Daniels, president of Boeing's military aircraft and missile systems division. "With the cyclical nature of the commercial business, building strong military and space units serves to tamp down those gigantic swings."

In 1999, two years after the merger with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing delivered 620 commercial aircraft, for revenue of $38.5 billion. By next year, analysts estimate, deliveries are expected to tally only 367, with revenue down to $26 billion.

The collapse in the commercial market resulted, of course, from the suicide hijacking attacks of Sept. 11. Air travel plummeted and airlines canceled dozens of jet orders, prompting Boeing to announce plans to lay off 30,000 workers over the next two years.

Just when it seemed Boeing's fortunes could not be worse, in October the Pentagon awarded a $200 billion contract for the Joint Strike Fighter to Boeing's larger rival, Lockheed Martin. The stealthy jet is expected to become the mainstay fighter for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps in the next two decades, raising doubts about Boeing's future in the tactical fighter business.

Those events sent Boeing reeling. But like battle-tested generals on the retreat, Boeing executives swiftly moved to recover their losses in a time-tested Washington way: wooing Congress and the Pentagon to support other contracts.

Few companies can rival Boeing's influence in the capital. Its Washington office, headed by Rudy F. de Leon, the deputy secretary of defense in the final year of the Clinton administration, employs 34 in-house and more than 50 outside lobbyists.

One of the Boeing lobbyists' first moves after Sept. 11 was to prod the Air Force to reconsider the 767 lease deal, which had stalled months before. Though the Air Force has said it plans to replace its 40-year-old KC- 135 tankers in the next decade or two, it has preferred to spend its money on elite fighter jets like the F-22.

But the war in Afghanistan has kept dozens of KC-135's in the air almost constantly, putting pressure on the Air Force to accelerate its replacement program. James Roche, the secretary of the Air Force, and Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air Force chief of staff, signed onto the lease-purchase idea because it would spread the cost out into the future, Pentagon documents show.

Boeing next had to break down resistance to lease arrangements in Congress. According to one internal Pentagon study, a lease-purchase deal for 100 767's would cost 15 percent more than simply buying the planes. Moreover, federal rules discourage such deals by requiring that most of the entire contract cost be paid in the first year. To get around that, Boeing proposed having the Air Force simply lease the aircraft without a purchase option. But that would not cover the cost of adapting them for refueling and surveillance, or of ultimately buying them, as the Air Force is expected to do.

The company recruited the Congressional delegations from Washington and Missouri - the two states where it assembles most of its aircraft - to support the plan. And in the Senate, it found a powerful ally in Ted Stevens of Alaska, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, who is a fan of lease- purchase deals for the military.

Boeing lobbyists with Congressional experience - including Mr. de Leon, who also was a staff director for the House Armed Services Committee, and Denny Miller, a former chief of staff to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington - helped negotiate the lease language.

With Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, the Boeing president, Philip A. Condit, has repeatedly met with senior lawmakers like Daniel Inouye, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the military, and the Senate majority leader, Thomas Daschle. Last week, Mr. Condit returned to discuss the deal with several leading skeptics in the House, including the speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, and Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the influential chairman of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations.

A spokesman for Mr. Lewis, Jim Specht, said the congressman remained undecided on the lease deal, but added: "There is the concern that because of the Joint Strike Fighter contract, something has to be done to make sure we support all of our industrial base."

All that work, however, did not win over Senator McCain, who last week accused Boeing of "playing victim, blaming its own job cuts, many of which occurred before Sept. 11, on the tragedy itself."

Boeing seems to have won Congressional support for accelerating purchases of C-17's, the all-purpose cargo planes it builds in Long Beach, Calif., at a former McDonnell Douglas plant. Last spring, Boeing formally asked that the Pentagon buy 60 more planes at a cost of about $150 million each. Without that increase, the Long Beach production line is scheduled to close later this decade.

Boeing has also tried to wiggle its way into the strike fighter deal. The company has quietly hinted that it could urge Congress to buy more unmanned aircraft or its F/A-18 to take the place of Navy and Air Force versions of the Joint Strike Fighter if Lockheed did not agree to give it a substantial piece of the work.

It has urged Senator Christopher S. Bond, a Missouri Republican, to continue promoting legislation requiring Lockheed to split the strike fighter work with Boeing. Senator Bond withdrew his bill for lack of support, but on Friday he won Senate funds for a study into whether the Pentagon should have two manufacturers of tactical fighter aircraft.

"I want to make sure we maintain that production line in St. Louis, because it's in the national interest," Mr. Bond said in an interview.

Lockheed, however, notes that it already has two major partners, the British military contractor BAE Systems (news/quote) and Northrop Grumman. "There is only so much work to go around," said Charles Thomas Burbage, director of the fighter project for Lockheed.

Boeing, with the help of Senator Bond and Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House Democratic leader, who comes from the St. Louis area, is also pushing the Navy to replace its aging EA6-B Prowler radar-jamming planes with an electronic-warfare version of the F-18, a move that could help keep Boeing's St. Louis plant open longer.

Unmanned aircraft are another focus of Boeing lobbying. Last month, Boeing organized a new division headed by a senior executive from its strike fighter program, Mike Heinz, to help it expand into a market the company estimates will top $1 billion a year.

Boeing is already building a prototype unmanned fighter for the Air Force, a project that many industry officials say is Boeing's to lose. At a recent meeting of industry executives, Darleen A. Druyun, the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition and management, spoke glowingly about the future of unmanned aerial vehicles.

"I see a very bright future for Boeing when it comes to aviation," she said, "particularly in the areas of UAV's and in sales of C-17's."

-------- iraq

Panel Passes Iraq Resolution

December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Congress-Iraq.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country presents a mounting threat to the United States and its allies, according to a House International Relations Committee resolution.

The committee vote Wednesday came days after President Bush warned Iraq it would be held accountable if it developed weapons of mass destruction, and amid public debate over whether Saddam should be the next target in the war against terrorism.

The resolution, now headed for the full House, said Iraq should allow U.N. weapons inspectors ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access'' and refusal to do so ``presents a mounting threat to the United States, its allies and international peace and security.''

Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said there is every reason to believe that Saddam has rebuilt his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs since he stopped allowing inspections in 1998.

The events of Sept. 11 ``demonstrate the severity of this threat to the United States,'' Hyde said.

Time was running out for the Iraqi leader, said Rep. Tom Lantos of California, the top Democrat on the committee. ``Saddam Hussein has one last chance to comply,'' he said.

The resolution writers toned down original language that said keeping out weapons inspectors ``should be considered an act of aggression against the United States,'' and stressed that they were not authorizing the president to use military force against Saddam.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the single holdout in the 32-1 vote, said it still went too far. ``It's jingoistic, it talks about confrontation,'' he said, asking why the United States singles out Iraq for attack when it tries to promote dialogue in other world disputes.

The Iraqi government agreed to weapons inspections as part of its acceptance of terms ending the Gulf War in 1991. The United States accused Iraq of withholding documents and otherwise impeding the inspections until they were finally halted in 1998.

The bill is H.J. Res. 75
On the NET:
International Relations Committee: http://www.house.gov/international--relations/

-------- israel

Palestinian Militants Attack Israeli Bus and Gaza Settlement

New York Times
December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Palestinians fired on an Israeli bus in the West Bank, and suicide bombers set off their explosives in the Gaza Strip in near simultaneous attacks outside Jewish settlements Wednesday, killing eight people and wounding at least 25.

Israel was expected to respond harshly for the attacks.

``We are facing a campaign of terror,'' said Israeli Cabinet Minister Tsipi Livni, adding that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has done little to stop the attacks.

The eight were killed in the bus attack, which took place at about 6 p.m., as the unarmored vehicle was on a winding uphill road approaching the Jewish settlement of Emmanuel in the West Bank, about 25 miles north of Jerusalem.

Police said a roadside bomb exploded as the bus passed, causing casualties among the passengers. Capt. Jacob Dallal, an Israeli army spokesman, said gunmen then opened fire from surrounding hills, both on the bus and on rescue crews that rushed to the scene in the darkness.

Dallal said eight people were killed and between 25 and 30 were injured in the attack.

At virtually the same time, two suicide bombers blew themselves up near the Gush Katif settlement bloc in the Gaza Strip, wounding several people, the army said. The assailants jumped on a car leaving the Ganei Tal settlement and detonated the explosives, TV reports said. The passengers in the car escaped with minor injuries but the assailants were killed, the reports said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for either attack.

The attacks came amid a day of violence that raised questions about a peace mission by U.S. envoy, Anthony Zinni, who had asked both sides to observe 48 hours of calm.

After the double attacks, the White House said Zinni was undeterred in his attempt to push forward security talks. ``The president remains hopeful that the talks can begin,'' White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. He urged Arafat to ``take every step possible to reduce the violence and bring an end to the terrorism.''

Israeli helicopter gunships attacked a Palestinian refugee camp Wednesday morning in response to mortar fire on nearby Jewish settlements. Four Palestinian militiamen were killed and 20 bystanders wounded in the airstrike.

Earlier Wednesday, five Israeli tanks drove into the center of the West Bank town of Jenin, triggering a firefight with hundreds of Palestinian activists. Fourteen Jenin residents were wounded by Israeli fire before the tanks left, doctors said.

In truce talks Tuesday, Zinni requested that Israel refrain from targeted killings of suspected militants and from shelling Palestinian Authority targets, said a Palestinian security official. The Palestinians were asked to stop mortar fire and round up more suspected Islamic militants, the security official said.

Yarden Vatikay, an adviser to Israel's defense minister, denied that Zinni made specific demands of Israel. ``His request of Israel was to act in a responsible fashion, but there was no demand to stop actions which are meant for self defense,'' Vatikay said.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in a statement that Israel was acting responsibly. He said Israeli troops would continue to respond to Palestinian mortar fire and to strike against militants suspected of planning attacks on Israelis. Last week, three Palestinian suicide bombers killed 26 people in Israel in a series of attacks by the Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups.

Tuesday's truce talks were stormy, as were two previous rounds in recent days, and Mohammed Dahlan, the Palestinian security chief in the Gaza Strip, left abruptly after a loud argument with the head of Israel's Shin Bet security service, Avi Dichter, said Palestinian officials close to the talks.

Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, meanwhile, described the Palestinians' crackdown on suspected militants as a ``very serious battle we have never experienced before.''

Israel has dismissed the arrests as insufficient, saying many of those taken into custody were minor activists, not planners of terror attacks. The Palestinians say more than 180 suspects have been detained, including 17 on a list of 33 names of wanted militants submitted by the United States.

Late Tuesday, Palestinians fired four mortar shells at Jewish settlements in the southern Gaza Strip. The mortar shells caused no damage or injuries.

In retaliation, Israeli helicopters fired missiles at the Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza overnight, killing four Palestinians and wounding 20, including four who were in serious condition, Palestinian doctors said.

The first air strike targeted a hiding place of members of a local militia, the so-called Abu Rish group, which has tentative links to Arafat's Fatah movement, camp residents said. Two of the militiamen were killed immediately and two more in another Israeli strike an hour later, witnesses said.

Israel's military said those targeted in the air strike had been involved in firing mortars at Israeli settlements. It said members of the Islamic militant group Hamas were also involved in the shelling. The Palestinian police chief in the Gaza Strip, Brig. Gen. Abdel Razek Majaida, accused Israel of attacking civilian areas.

-------- spy agencies

Cuban Spy Gets Life in Prison

December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Cuban-Espionage.html

MIAMI (AP) -- The leader of a Cuban spy ring was sentenced to life in prison Wednesday for trying to infiltrate U.S. military bases and conspiring in the deaths of four Cuban-Americans whose private planes were shot down by Fidel Castro's government in 1996.

Gerardo Hernandez, 36, received the maximum sentence after a 20-minute speech in which he denounced his federal trial as a ``propaganda show'' and blamed his prosecution on the political clout of Miami's Cuban exile community.

Hernandez was one of five men convicted June 8 of operating as unregistered foreign agents and conspiring to do so.

``This was a crime against America,'' prosecutor Caroline Miller said. ``The threat was to the country at large and to this community.''

Hernandez was the only one convicted of murder conspiracy in the deaths of four Brothers to the Rescue members whose planes were shot down nearly six years ago by Cuban fighter jets in international airspace. The exile group patrols the sea between Florida and Cuba, looking for refugees.

Prosecutors accused Hernandez of knowing about the plot to shoot down the planes because he warned two agents who infiltrated the group not to fly during a four-day period that included the day of the attack.

``Every night and every day, I have been praying for justice,'' said Eva Barba, mother of Pablo Morales, one of the four pilots.

Hernandez denied he played a role in the attack or plotted espionage against the United States.

Relatives of the spies called them patriots, and the Cuban government insisted in a radio report Monday that the men were protecting their country from terrorism by Cuban-Americans.

Hernandez and two others also were convicted of espionage conspiracy for trying to penetrate U.S. military bases, though they never obtained classified information. Those two, Ramon Labanino and Antonio Guerrero, also could face life in prison. Labanino's sentencing began Wednesday afternoon and was expected to continue Thursday.

Fernando Gonzalez and Rene Gonzalez, who are not related, face up to 15 years for failing to register as foreign agents and conspiracy. All five men have said they will appeal.

The prosecution's case was based largely on 2,000 pages of decrypted communications seized when the agents were indicted in 1998 as part of the 14-member spy network.

Five others pleaded guilty in exchange for reduced sentences, and four are fugitives believed to be in Cuba.

-------- us

Bush touts high-tech military to Citadel cadets

By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 12, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011212-868669.htm

CHARLESTON, S.C. - President Bush yesterday said defending America against "the enemies of the 21st century" requires a revamped, high-tech military, a streamlined intelligence-gathering community and an all-out effort to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Addressing 2,000 cadets at The Citadel military college, Mr. Bush said the U.S.-led war against terrorism has offered a glimpse into the future.

"Afghanistan has been a proving ground for this new approach. These past two months have shown that an innovative doctrine and high-tech weaponry can shape and then dominate an unconventional conflict," he said to cheers from the gray-and-white-clad cadets.

The use of the unmanned Predator aerial vehicle for surveillance is one example of the future, the president said.

"Our special forces have the technology to call in precision air strikes, along with the flexibility to direct those strikes from horseback in the first cavalry charge of the 21st century," Mr. Bush said, drawing a standing ovation.

A new focus on intelligence gathering has led to the sweeping victories in the war against Afghanistan's ruling Taliban and its terrorist ally al Qaeda, he said, adding that America has never before had such an opportunity to shape the future of the military.

"This combination - real-time intelligence, local allied forces, special forces and precision air power - has really never been used before. The conflict in Afghanistan has taught us more about the future of our military than a decade of blue-ribbon panels and think-tank symposiums."

The U.S. military post-September 11 - "three months and a long time ago" - should learn the lessons of World War II, Mr. Bush said. After Pearl Harbor, the armed forces swiftly transformed into a lethal machine using amphibious vehicles and strategic air power.

"To win this war, we have to think differently. America is required once again to change the way our military thinks and fights. And starting on Oct. 7, the enemy in Afghanistan got the first glimpses of a new American military that cannot - and will not - be evaded," Mr. Bush said to cheers.

But the president warned Congress, which soon will debate military spending, against "micromanaging the Defense Department," adding every service branch "must be willing to sacrifice some of their pet projects."

Still, Mr. Bush warned that balancing "the need to build this future force while fighting a present war [is] like overhauling an engine while you're going 80 miles an hour. Yet we have no other choice."

The "enemies of the 21st century" are unlike those the United States military faced in previous wars because many seek to develop and use weapons of mass destruction.

"I wish I could report to the American people that this threat does not exist, that our enemy is content with car bombs and box cutters, but I cannot," the president said.

To handle the new threat, Mr. Bush said National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge will develop a comprehensive strategy on proliferation.

The president also said gathering intelligence - which has been given short shrift since the Cold War with the former Soviet Union - is once again of paramount importance.

"The United States must rebuild our network of human intelligence. Now, when we face this new war, we know how much we need them."

--------

Panel OK's Defense Base Closings

December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Defense-Bill.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Armed Services Committee's leaders cajoled reluctant colleagues Wednesday into endorsing a round of base closings, as demanded by President Bush, to enable the $343.3 billion defense authorization bill to move ahead.

The round would not occur until 2005, two years later than the administration requested. The compromise reached by leaders of the Senate and House Armed Services committees late last week was intended to get the bill moving and erase the possibility of a Bush veto.

The legislation authorizes spending for the Defense Department and military efforts of the Energy Department for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

``With our men and women putting their lives at risk, they need all of the resources that we can give them, and it's inexcusable that we would maintain bases that are not needed when we've got people putting their lives on the line,'' said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate committee.

The defense bill agreed to Wednesday by House negotiators -- and Tuesday by their Senate counterparts -- contains important programs for service members: minimum 5 percent across-the-board pay raises, with up to 10 percent increases for some; new housing benefits; more help with moving expenses.

Bush won not only his demand for a base closings round, but full funding of his $8.3 billion request for his prized missile defense plan, a $3.1 billion increase over 2001. Of the $8.3 billion, the president can use $1.3 billion for anti-terrorism instead, as the Senate had authorized.

Separate anti-terrorism spending totals $7 billion, a $1 billion increase from 2001.

The full House and Senate must pass the final version before it can go to Bush. The House was expected to consider the bill Thursday.

The administration contends up to one-fourth of base structure is not needed, and closing excess facilities would save about $3.5 billion a year. Some lawmakers are skeptical about touted savings.

It was unclear if the administration accepts the 2005 round.

Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, asked if Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld might still recommend a veto over it, said Wednesday: ``I can say they're working hard on the issue right now.''

The issue caused a monthlong standoff between House and Senate negotiators reconciling their two versions of the defense bill. The Republican-led House adamantly opposed a 2003 round of base closings the administration sought, the Democratic-led Senate endorsed it.

Yet over the course of a half-dozen meetings involving the chairmen -- Levin and Rep. Bob Stump, R-Ariz. -- and the top minority members -- Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo. -- the House leaders came up with a compromise of one round in 2005.

``Everybody's expressed concern that we should not be doing this while we're at war,'' Stump said, explaining how he sold the deal to House colleagues. ``The economy is down, but by 2005 it might improve somewhat. I laid it out, gave them the facts. I think everybody realizes we were putting passage of the bill in jeopardy.''

Ultimately, Stump said, only a few did not sign on.

The president, in consultation with congressional leaders, would appoint the nine-member base closing commission in March 2005. That May, the defense secretary would submit a list of facilities to be closed.

It would take seven members to add a facility to that list, but just a simple majority to remove one. The president could approve that list and send it to Congress, or reject it and send it back to the commission. Neither Congress nor the president could make changes to the list.

Previous closing rounds -- in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 -- led to closure or realignment of 451 installations, including 97 major ones.

As the administration requested, the negotiators canceled the January referendum in Vieques on future use of that Puerto Rican island for military training. Anti-Navy protests broke out after off-target bombs killed a civilian guard in 1999. Bush has promised to end the maneuvers by 2003.

The bill would bar the Navy secretary from closing it until he certifies a site or sites providing ``equivalent or superior'' levels of training will be available.


-------- POLICE / PRISONERS

Wolfowitz defends tribunals to Senate

By P. Mitchell Prothero
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
December 12, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/12122001-010520-8501r.htm

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Senate committee Wednesday that military tribunals offer better security for civilian judges and jurors and reduces the risk of retaliatory terrorist strikes.

He also testified that tribunals allow the use of classified intelligence without risk of illuminating sources and methods used to obtain it.

"Do we really want to be in the position of choosing between a successful prosecution of an al Qaida terrorist, and revealing intelligence information that, if exposed, could reduce our ability to stop the next terrorist attack -- at a cost of thousands more lives?" Wolfowitz said, repeating arguments made by the administration. "A military commission can permit us to avoid this dilemma. We can protect national security, including ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, while at the same time ensuring a full and fair trial for any individuals designated by the president."

Since the Bush administration suggested that some suspected terrorists could be tried by military tribunals, critics have expressed concern that this could discourage allied nations from helping with the investigation because of concerns about the fairness of the tribunal system and the possibility of death sentences for the convicted. Wolfowitz said that, while tribunals are not a normal part of the nation's justice system, these are not ordinary times.

"But those responsible for our national defense must not lose sight of the fact that these are not normal times," he said. "We have been attacked. We are at war. The people who planned and carried out these attacks are not common criminals -- they are foreign aggressors, vicious enemies whose goal was, and remains, to kill as many innocent Americans as possible."

The Defense Department is expected to develop guidelines for trial by tribunal and forward these recommendations to President Bush for final approval.

Members of Congress have been generally supportive of the tribunal proposal, but several have noted that they do not expect either citizens or residents of the United States to face such trials.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., took this thinking a step further and suggested that Zacarias Moussaoui, a 33-year old French citizen indicted on six counts of conspiracy related to the Sept. 11 events, should face a tribunal.

Moussaoui was indicted by a federal grand jury and is expected to receive a trial in Northern Virginia.

Wolfowitz replied that the final decision on whether anyone will face trial by tribunal was the president's alone to make.

----

69 charged in pre-Olympics airport sweep

December 12, 2001
UPI
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/12122001-125716-8508r.htm

SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 12 -- Authorities in Salt Lake City hoped to complete the arrests Wednesday of 69 airport workers who allegedly gave false information to conceal their criminal records or illegal immigration status in order to get jobs in secure areas of the airport.

The officials who announced the sweep late Tuesday said that while there was no evidence any of the workers had ties to terrorism, they did have access to airplanes, runways and cargo areas.

"These people were able to obtain security badges that put them one swipe away from access to the most secure areas of the airport," said U.S. Attorney Paul Warner.

Police and federal agents Tuesday swept through Salt Lake City International Airport -- the airport that will handle the bulk of the people flying in for the 2002 Winter Olympics -- looking for the 69 workers that were primarily charged with using falsified documents such as Social Security cards to obtain security clearances giving them access to secure areas of the airport.

Around two-dozen of the suspects were in custody by late Tuesday with the remainder expected to be picked up Wednesday.

"None of the individuals arrested that we know of are involved in any terrorism activity. This was a pre-emptive strike ... to ensure the people who work in secure areas are who they claim to be," said Robert Flowers, head of the Utah Department of Public Safety.

Warner said that the suspects included six U.S. citizens who allegedly hid criminal records; the others were from Latin America and apparently were only trying to land a job. All of the suspects worked for sub-contractors that provide security screening, aircraft cleaning and refueling, catering and construction.

"We think we had people who wanted to work and didn't have the proper documentation," Warner said.

The sweep comes in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States and prior to the Winter Olympics scheduled to begin in February.

Warner said the seven-week investigation, dubbed "Operation Safe Travel," was a priority due to the impending Olympics. Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson boasted to reporters that Salt Lake International was now "the safest (airport) in the country."

----

U.S. says tribunals just for terror leaders

December 12, 2001
By Frank J. Murray
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011212-462945.htm

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that only the leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban will face U.S. military tribunal trials.

He also said the United States had received assurances that Osama bin Laden and his top aides will not fall into the hands of allies who oppose their execution.

"It's not hundreds or thousands" who would be tried in military tribunals, Mr. Rumsfeld said as he disclosed the first details of how the Bush administration intends to deal with enemy forces in postwar Afghanistan amid prospects of imminent mass surrender by al Qaeda forces.

Ordinary al Qaeda troops will face prison sentences, perhaps in their home nations if those states will treat their crimes with the severity sought by Washington. Rank-and-file Afghan Taliban troops will be left for their new Kabul government to deal with, he said.

"Senior level of Taliban are quite different. They need to be punished, and they need to be taken care of by somebody," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Before any trials begin, U.S. and allied troops will question all prisoners where they are captured, not for law-enforcement purposes, but to obtain intelligence that Mr. Rumsfeld said would protect American lives in the United States as well as on the battlefield.

Prisoners will be moved to prison camps under U.S. control until their identities and fates are sorted out. None is expected to be brought to the United States.

Trials of noncitizens violating "the laws of war" may be held wherever defendants are found.

Officials may impose security procedures to protect state secrets or shield identities of the officers who sit as judge and jury and decide verdicts and sentences by two-thirds majority.

"With respect to al Qaeda, from the top to the bottom, they're bad folks doing terrible things," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It would be just a crime if they are let loose in any way to go to the neighboring countries or to other countries, our country, or anywhere in the world to continue the terrorist acts that they've been engaged in.

"The senior al Qaeda leadership we obviously hope to get control over and have a very deep involvement as to what their ultimate disposition might be," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

He said the group facing U.S. military tribunals would be small and that no decision has been made to close those trials to the public.

"My guess is it would be handled differently with respect to different individuals," said Mr. Rumsfeld, who was placed in charge of the process by President Bush's Nov. 13 order authorizing military commission trials.

Mr. Rumsfeld said allies have assured him of a free hand on what he called the U.S. "idiosyncrasy" that military trials must include the possibility of death sentences.

"The response we've received is 'not to worry,'" Mr. Rumsfeld said when asked whether Britain or other European Union nations with troops in Afghanistan might not turn over captives charged with plotting or aiding the September 11 terrorist attacks because of objections to the death penalty.

He told reporters that military forces from nations that do not agree to U.S. trials will not be allowed in areas where bin Laden or other al Qaeda leaders might be captured.

Debate about Mr. Bush's order to use military trials for civilians - not done since World War II - has swirled over charges that it is un-American.

Michael Nardotti, a former Army judge advocate general, defended the fairness of military commissions and said their disuse since World War II "doesn't make the proposition any less valid."

He said military commissions after World War II had an 85 percent conviction rate in war-crime trials of some 1,700 people in Europe and almost 1,000 from the Japanese theater. That meant acquittals were achieved at twice the rate now common in federal courts and military courts-martial, where 93 percent of defendants are convicted.

"These were U.S. military officers who sat in judgment of their enemy," Mr. Nardotti said.

The fact that 2,700 people among the millions from all theaters of war were tried after World War II seems consistent with Mr. Rumsfeld's statements yesterday that military courts will be highly selective.

Specific cases for trial under the current authorization must be approved by the president, and a White House spokeswoman said yesterday that Mr. Bush must do so in writing specifying each defendant and court member by name as President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in setting up a 1942 court.

Defenders of Mr. Bush's order say military justice is good enough for young Americans in uniform who risk their lives to defend their country, so it should be good enough for bin Laden and his aides. But military-law experts say courts-martial do not follow the guidelines Mr. Bush prescribed for the tribunals' rules of evidence, appeals or death sentences by two-thirds vote.

"There's consternation among military lawyers about the potential for confusion between military commissions and courts-martial," said Eugene R. Fidell, a highly regarded specialist in military law and president of the National Institute of Military Justice, which has taken no position on the order.

Mr. Fidell said military courts-martial allow a broad range of appeals through military courts, then to a special appeals court with civilian judges and on through the civil courts to the Supreme Court.

--------

FBI Probe of Scientist Wen Ho Lee Found Flawed

December 12, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-crime-lee.html?searchpv=reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI conducted a ``deeply and fundamentally flawed'' investigation from 1994 to 1999 of nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was suspected of spying for China, according to a Justice Department report released on Wednesday.

The full, 779-page unclassified report, two chapters of which had been previously released, said the FBI's National Security Division and its Albuquerque office never made the investigation a high priority.

``The investigation was never accorded the resources which the underlying allegations warranted and should have dictated,''

the report found. ``Frequent, unnecessary and inappropriate delays characterized the Wen Ho Lee investigation.''

Lee, a Taiwan-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was fired from his job at the Energy Department's Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico in March 1999 amid the spy allegations.

After the spy allegations collapsed, Lee was arrested and charged in December 1999 on 59 counts of mishandling classified nuclear data. He pleaded guilty last year to one count of downloading nuclear weapons design secrets to a non-secure computer, and the government dropped all remaining charges.

While the case was pending, Lee was held in solitary confinement.

The report was completed in May 2000, and its general findings -- sharply critical of the FBI, and to a lesser extent of the Justice and Energy Departments -- were made known at the time.

Then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 1999 named federal prosecutor Randy Bellows to head the internal review into whether mistakes were made in the Lee case beginning in 1982, when his name first surfaced in a separate espionage case at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

In the investigation in 1982-84, the FBI failed to formally tell the Energy Department of specific derogatory information about Lee that might have led to the revocation of his security clearance, the report said.

In the investigation in the late 1990s, the FBI's National Security Division initially showed an ``unreasonable reluctance'' to get involved, and then inappropriately deferred to Energy Department judgements, it said.

The heavily redacted report said the FBI could have searched Lee's computer files at any point during a preliminary investigation in 1994 or 1995 or during the full-scale investigation in 1996 through 1998.

The failure ``permitted Lee to download in 1997 some of our nation's most prized nuclear weapons secrets,'' the report said.

The report also blasted the FBI and the Energy Department for failing to restrict Lee access to sensitive, classified nuclear weapons secrets during the full investigation.

In one of two chapters that previously had been released in August, the report rejected claims that Lee had been singled out for investigation because of his race.

-------- terrorism

American in Taliban: Biological strike on U.S. near

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 12, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011212-85319822.htm

An American Taliban fighter held captive by Marines in Afghanistan has told American officials that al Qaeda's next attack on the United States will take place in days and involve biological weapons, U.S. intelligence officials told The Washington Times.

John Walker Lindh, the Taliban guerrilla captured near Mazar-e-Sharif, said in intelligence debriefings at the U.S. Marine Corps base near Kandahar that "Phase II" of al Qaeda's war against the United States will occur at the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which ends Sunday.

Mr. Lindh told U.S. intelligence officials that the Ramadan attack will involve the use of biological weapons.

A third phase of al Qaeda's war on the United States will result in the destruction of the entire country, the Islamic convert stated.

The officials said they have questioned the credibility of Mr. Lindh's claim because of his relatively low-level position.

Still, the information was among other intelligence reports that led the Bush administration to issue a public warning last week about a possible terrorist attack, the officials said.

No other details were available about Mr. Lindh's debriefing. However, the intelligence about the impending attack is an indication Mr. Lindh may have been part of the al Qaeda network in addition to fighting on behalf of the Taliban militia.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Sunday that Mr. Lindh was providing information.

"He's been pretty close to the action, and he has provided from the Afghan perspective some useful information," Gen. Myers said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I think the evidence is pretty strong that he was right in the middle of it."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told reporters the American had provided information that has been "very helpful" to the United States, including information on the prisoner uprising at Mazar-e-Sharif that led to the death of CIA officer Johnny "Mike" Spann.

"Obviously the people who really have the information that we really want to get are those top al Qaeda leaders and maybe some of the Taliban leaders and maybe we'll find it in documents in places we are now able to get into," Mr. Wolfowitz said Sunday.

"But I think anyone who knows anything about that organization is a potentially valuable source of information."

The Pentagon has not decided how to handle Mr. Lindh and whether he will be charged with treason.

The U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said in a statement that Mr. Lindh was being treated as an enemy prisoner of war.

Mr. Lindh, 20, was videotaped as he was interrogated by the CIA officer hours before his death at the hands of rebelling Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners at a fortress near Mazar-e-Sharif. He initially gave his name as Abdul Hamid.

The Marines are using a large green metal shipping container to hold Mr. Lindh at their base in southern Afghanistan, according to pool reports from the base.

Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Stewart Upton said he had no information about Mr. Lindh being held in the container, which is surrounded by barbed wire and Marine guards.

A second Marine spokesman, Capt. David Romley, said later that the only detainee at the camp was Mr. Lindh.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters that valuable intelligence is being collected as U.S. and Afghan opposition forces take over areas once ruled by the Taliban.

"There's documentation being found and discovered and analyzed and translated, so that each day we learn more and know more," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "As more address books are found and phone books are found and computer hard drives are found as people have left areas, clearly our knowledge base is going up."

----

Videotape shows bin Laden laughing at fate of hijackers

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 12, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011212-4163052.htm

Osama bin Laden cynically chuckled as he revealed on videotape that some of his terrorists did not know they were going to die until they boarded planes they were about to hijack on September 11, officials said yesterday.

The videotape, which was expected to be made public as early as today, leaves little doubt that bin Laden is the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks that killed more than 3,000 people, according to administration officials and members of Congress who have screened the footage and read the transcript.

Vice President Richard B. Cheney said bin Laden was "smiling" with "a certain amount of cynicism" as he described his unwitting followers.

"I mean, he talks about young men who were part of the hijacking crew who did not know they were going to die, that they may not all have been as committed to suicide as were the pilots," Mr. Cheney told Jim Angle in an interview with the Fox News Channel.

"So there's a degree of evil that comes through when you think about what he's saying and sort of the juxtaposition of that with his appearance," he added.

The 40-minute tape was shown yesterday to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, was chilled by the experience.

"Some of these terrorists did not know until literally the moment they got on the airplane what their role would be and that they would die," Mr. Kyl told Fox. "And he [bin Laden] was chuckling during some of this commentary."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon: "I am very proud that I was not the person being taped saying what he said."

The tape, which was obtained by the Central Intelligence Agency, was translated by a variety of Arabic linguists to ensure that bin Laden's message was not distorted in any way. A transcript was compiled only after the translators reached a consensus on the English meaning of bin Laden's words.

That transcript was provided to senior administration officials and selected members of Congress, who were also provided with an oral translation as they screened the footage.

It was unclear which translation would be provided to the public when the tape is released.

"Clearly, the administration wants to get this translation exactly right because anything short of that would be a public relations disaster," said one TV news official. "But we do have our own translators and I think we would probably feel more comfortable just having a second translation."

The White House, which had warned TV news officials against airing previous videotapes of bin Laden, now appears anxious to see the new tape aired because it is so incriminating. Mr. Cheney said it shows bin Laden talking about "how he was surprised, for example, at the extent of destruction. He did not think the trade center would collapse."

Mr. Rumsfeld said there was almost no chance the tape was a fake.

"That is so remote, so unlikely from what I've seen, I think I would rule it out," he said.

Mr. Kyl said that as long as the tape was not doctored, it leaves no doubt that bin Laden was behind the September 11 attacks.

"What it shows is he is very comfortable with the bad deed that he's done," the senator said. "He's actually bragging about it to a person that he wants to make an impression on. He laughs."

At one point on the tape, bin Laden recounts how he first received word that the September 11 attacks had been successfully executed.

"He turned the radio on before it was supposed to happen, waiting for the reports," Mr. Kyl said. "After the first one came in, he was pleased, he thanked Allah and told the friend who he was with, 'Wait, there's more to come.'"

----

F.B.I. Arrests Chairman of Militant Anti-Arab Group

December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-JDL-Arrests.html

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The chairman of the Jewish Defense League was arrested in connection with a failed bombing plot, federal authorities said.

Irv Rubin, 56, and a member of the militant group, Earl Krugel, 59, both of Los Angeles, were booked early Wednesday at the downtown federal Metropolitan Detention Center, detention center spokeswoman Donna Davis said.

The arrests late Tuesday were in connection with a bombing plot, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office. He would not describe the alleged scheme except to say, ``The bombing was not carried out.''

Criminal charges were expected to be filed later Wednesday.

``Irv Rubin never had anything to do with explosives,'' said Rubin's attorney, Peter Morris. ``It seems to us that, given the timing ... the government's action is part of an overreaction to the Sept. 11 events.''

Law enforcement agencies raided a Reseda home Tuesday night. Footage showed officers carrying out weapons and cardboard boxes.

A neighbor, Rod Colson, said Krugel had lived there more than 20 years. He said he heard Krugel's dog barking at about 10 p.m. and went outside, where he saw people carrying out boxes.

``I saw a lot of agents in the back yard taking photos,'' he said.

The screen door of the red brick home was broken and part of the fence had been knocked down. A menorah, the Jewish candelabra used for Hanukkah, was visible through a window and there was an American flag on the mailbox.

Matthew McLaughlin, an FBI spokesman in Los Angeles, declined to discuss the alleged target but said physical evidence was found.

``The tools might have been in place to do this thing,'' he said. ``We don't put people in (custody) just for superficial impressions. We put people in place for their physical actions.''

Rubin's wife, Shelley, said in a telephone interview that her husband and Earl ``are completely innocent of anything. They are law-abiding, good people.''

Originally formed by Meir Kahane to mount armed response to anti-Semitic acts in New York City, the JDL gained notoriety when its members were linked to bombings, most of them aimed at Soviet targets in retaliation for the way that country treated its Jewish population.

Kahane left the JDL in the 1980s. A power struggle ensued, with Rubin among the contenders for its leadership.

Kahane was assassinated in New York in 1990. El Sayyid Nosair, 36, an Egyptian-born Muslim, was convicted in connection with the shooting.

Rubin has made a career out of confrontation, challenging white supremacists to fistfights, or burning a Confederate flag outside a courthouse. By his own count he has been arrested more than 40 times. In 1980, he was tried and found innocent of soliciting the murders of Nazis in the United States.

A suit filed by Rubin resulted in a court decision last year banning prayer during Burbank City Council meetings.

---------

Defense Dept. Not Consulted on Indictment

December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Military-Tribunals.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Department officials say that they were not asked by the Justice Department whether Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person indicted so far in the terrorist attacks, should face a military tribunal rather than be tried in civilian courts.

``To the best of my knowledge there was not a discussion with the Justice Department,'' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Service Committee Wednesday.

Senate Democrats criticized the decision, saying Moussaoui was a perfect case for at least consideration for a military tribunal.

``It's hard to imagine that in a matter that fits the military tribunal order the way that Mr. Moussaoui's case apparently seems to fit it that you weren't consulted,'' said committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. ``I'm kind of amazed you weren't consulted.''

``It's wrong not to have consulted with the Department of Defense, because we are at war,'' added Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. ``Moussaoui is a war criminal. He was a solider who attacked American civilians.''

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that Moussaoui will be tried in a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., although he would qualify under the president's order to be tried in a military tribunal as a non-American accused of terrorism.

Moussaoui is charged with six conspiracy charges, four of them carrying the death penalty. Though jailed Aug. 17 in Minnesota, the attorney general alleges that Moussaoui had worked in concert with bin Laden associates to carry out the attacks.

The indictment said Moussaoui's activities mirrored those of the 19 hijackers -- he attended flight school, opened a bank account with cash, joined a gym, purchased knives, bought flight deck videos and looked into crop dusting planes.

Lieberman said sending Moussaoui -- ``a big fish'' in the investigation -- to a civilian court would set a bad precedent on who goes before a military tribunal, considering that he was indicted for conspiring in the deaths of the people who died in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

``What greater violation of the laws of war could there be?'' he said. ``If we will not try Zacarias Moussaoui before a military tribunal ... who will we try in a military tribunal?''

Wolfowitz said military tribunals have an advantage over civilian courts in their ability to use classified evidence without it being made public, evidence that might not be allowed in civilian courts.

``Presumably the decision by the Justice Department to indict Mr. Moussaoui in a civilian court is an indication that they did not have the problems ... of important evidence that might not be admitted under normal rules of procedure, or the problem of relying on classified evidence,'' Wolfowitz said.

Defense Department officials also said senators should take comfort in the decision to send Moussaoui to a civilian court. Senators have been probing Bush's order to possibly send suspected foreign terrorists or war criminals to military tribunals instead of federal courts since the president issued it last month.

``This is an illustration on how carefully the president plans to employ this tool he has created,'' Defense Department lawyer William J. Haynes II said.

---------

Somalia Terror Activity Concerns U.S.

December 12, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Attacks-Somalia.html

PRETORIA, South Africa (AP) -- The United States is concerned about possible terrorist activity in Somalia and is intent on ensuring the East African country does not become a haven for terrorists, Washington's top official on Africa said Wednesday.

``The possibility of terror cells being in Somalia is real,'' visiting Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner told reporters in Pretoria, the last stop on his four-nation tour that also took him to Ethiopia, Kenya and Zimbabwe.

A Somali faction leader opposed to that country's transitional government acknowledged Wednesday that he met this week with a U.S. military delegation to Somalia.

``We have been continuously consulting since the September terrorist attacks on the United States with representatives of the U.S., the Ethiopian and Kenyan governments on the terrorist networks run by Al-Itihaad and al-Qaida,'' Hussein Mohamed Aidid told reporters. ``The visit by the American delegation is a continuation of that consultation.''

Aidid is a member of the Ethiopian-backed Somali Reconciliation and Restoration Council, a group of faction leaders who oppose the transitional government of President Abdiqasim Salat Hassan and accuse it of having ties to Al-Itihaad Al-Islamiya, a Muslim fundamentalist organization that appeared on a Bush administration list of 22 terrorist organizations issued Dec. 6.

Kansteiner did not comment about the U.S. delegation's trip to Somalia and did not say whether the United States was considering strikes against the war-wracked nation as part of the anti-terror campaign begun in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Kansteiner said Washington believes there are links between Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida, blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks, and Al-Itihaad, a militant Somali group, and that Washington wanted those links severed.

In 1992, the United State sent troops into Somalia to protect food deliveries to Somalis caught up in the factional fighting that erupted after the ouster of longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.

The last of the American troops were hastily withdrawn in late 1993 after 18 were killed in a botched operation to capture aides of a faction leader.

Al-Qaida is also believed to be operating in Sudan and Kansteiner said cooperation between U.S. and Sudanese officials had increased since the attacks.

Kansteiner, who arrived in South Africa after four days in Zimbabwe, said there was still time to make sure that upcoming presidential elections in the troubled country would be free and fair.

He warned, however, that ``time is running out.''

Zimbabwe has been plagued by political violence since March 2000, when militants began violently seizing white-owned farms -- a program sanctioned by the government in a bid to shore up its waning popularity.


-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

Chrysler offers fuel cell van with soapy twist

Story by Justin Hyde
Reuters
12/12/2001
http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=13671

DETROIT - A chemical cousin of laundry detergent could make clean-running cars and trucks a reality, if a new fuel cell concept vehicle from the Chrysler side of DaimlerChrysler AG proves its worth.

Chrysler said its Natrium concept minivan pairs a hydrogen powered fuel cell with a novel fuel storage system that uses borax, the active ingredient in many detergents. The setup offers a way around some vexing problems that have hindered the development of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles, which hold the promise of pollution-free transportation.

"The most important unresolved issue with fuel cell vehicles is not the fuel cell - it's the fuel," said Thomas Moore, head of Chrysler's Liberty research and development group, in a statement released Tuesday.

Fuel cells use hydrogen to produce electricity with only heat and water as byproducts. Automakers are spending billions of dollars on the theory that fuel cells will eventually replace polluting internal combustion engines as power sources in cars and trucks.

But most automakers have also said it would be at least a decade before fuel-cell vehicles are common, in part because of the problems with storing and using highly flammable hydrogen. Concepts from General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and several other companies either use "reformers" to extract hydrogen from liquid fuels or try to store pure hydrogen in large, high-pressure tanks.

Both methods have drawbacks in cost, weight and size. Reformers require either gasoline or methanol, and produce some pollution on their own. And the driving range of fuel cell concept vehicles so far has been about half or less of similar production vehicles.

To solve those problems, Chrysler's system stores hydrogen in sodium borohydride powder, which is nonflammable and nontoxic. After mixing with water, the solution is passed through a catalyst which separates the hydrogen gas and leaves only sodium boride, or borax, as a residue. The borax can then be recycled into sodium borohydride.

Unlike gasoline, the chemicals in Chrysler's system are readily available in North America and much of the world. A tank of sodium borohydride solution about the size of a regular gas tank can power the concept vehicle about 300 miles - much further than other fuel-cell vehicles.

There are several problems Chrysler hasn't solved yet, the major one being how to deliver the chemicals and recycle borax once it's used. Chrysler and its partner on the Natrium, Millennium Cell Inc., said they also needed to develop a better method for putting hydrogen back into the chemicals; the current process uses natural gas and produces some pollution.

Chrysler said the Natrium would be provided later next year as a test vehicle to the California Fuel Cell Partnership, a government and industry joint venture aimed at testing fuel cell vehicles and speeding their development.

----

Think big, Europe's offshore wind farms urged

Reuters
Story by Birgitte Dyrekilde
12/12/2001
http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=13674

BRUSSELS - Offshore wind farms are poised to take off in northern Europe in the coming years, but experts urge developers to think big, make costly offshore parks cheaper and place them far off the coast.

"Offshore projects today are not big enough. We have to look into gigawatt projects not megawatt ones," said Andrew Garrad, partner in British consulting group Garrad Hassan, yesterday during a three-day offshore wind energy conference in Brussels.

So far Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Britain have installed offshore wind turbines generating around 100 megawatts, a fraction of the total 17,000 onshore megawatts windpower installed worldwide.

"Towards 2005 we will see small-scale 100-150 megawatt offshore wind farms in a water depth of less than 20 metres (60 ft), said Ruud de Bruijne, spokesman for Collaboration on Offshore Wind Energy Development (COD).

"By 2010 we will see units of more than 500 megawatt on water depths of more than 20 metres," he added.

Countries around the world, notably in Europe, are striving to develop green energy sources, of which wind power is the cheapest next to biomass and solar power, in a move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, said to be one of the main causes of global warming.

The European Union aims at generating 12 percent of total energy consumption from renewable energy by 2010 compared to a minimal percentage today, when coal is the main source for power generation followed by gas.

VAST OFFSHORE POTENTIAL

Denmark, Germany, Spain and the U.S. are the largest wind power nations in the world, accounting for more than 80 percent of total installed wind power capacity.

"There is a shortage of good onshore wind farm sites in Denmark and northern Germany. Onshore growth is deteriorating and offshore wind farms are a natural way out," said Jos Beurskens, vice president for the European Wind Energy Association.

"Spain is really the only European country which has the potential, like the U.S., for onshore wind farms," said Andrew Garrad.

Denmark plans to build offshore wind farms with a total capacity of 750 megawatts by 2008, Belgium plans to install 325 megawatts over the coming years and Europe's windiest country.

Britain earlier this year granted 13 licences along its southern coastline for wind farms generating a total of 1,000-1,500 megawatts.

Germany is currently nursing a plan for a 1,000 megawatt offshore farm and all in all European offshore plans for a capacity of 5,300 megawatts are in the melting pot.

"Studies indicate that 2,500 offshore megawatts will be in operation by 2005, generating an amount of electricity equivalent to the needs of two million European households and creating some 50,000 jobs in the sector," EWEA said in a statement.

The organisation predicts that in 2010, European offshore parks will account for 5,000 megawatts out of total installed windpower of 60,000 megawatts. In 2020, offshore plants are seen generating 50,000 megawatts with onshore wind power producing 100,000 megawatts.

COD's Bruijne said the North Sea and the Baltic have 90 percent of offshore potential in Europe.

In southern Europe, particularly in the Mediterranean, water is too deep, making offshore projects too expensive.

-------- energy

Environmental Group Sues for Records Of Energy Task Force

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 12, 2001; Page A33
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28623-2001Dec11?language=printer

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) yesterday filed suit in federal court to force the Department of Energy to produce documents relating to the development of the Bush administration's energy policy.

The left-leaning environmental group now joins the conservative watchdog organization, Judicial Watch, in an effort to gain access via the courts to information they say should be public.

Judicial Watch filed suit in May against the Energy Department and other agencies, and in July against the National Energy Policy Development Group chaired by Vice President Cheney, demanding that the administration release records on who met with the task force and when.

The two groups are keeping the heat on the administration at a time when the General Accounting Office, led by Comptroller General David M. Walker, has put on hold its own legal challenge for the records. Energy legislation is pending on the Hill, and the groups say that now is the time to see who had a role in influencing it.

Both organizations see the administration's effort to withhold the records as part of a larger pattern of secrecy and as an abuse of executive power. The NRDC first requested the information in April under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It sued yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

"The public has a right to know who's trying to buy government policy. We've waited long enough. So we're going to court to get it," said Sharon Buccino, an NRDC attorney.

The administration contends that the Cheney task force is not a federal agency and therefore not subject to FOIA. However, the group is made up of the heads of various federal agencies directly subject to FOIA. So NRDC is suing the agency that has the most documents, the Energy Department.

The Energy Department has provided NRDC with "many of the documents" it has requested, is looking for the rest and has "fully complied" with all similar requests, department spokeswoman Jeanne Lopatto said.

But Buccino said all the Energy Department has provided is a form letter sent out before the task force met. The agency has been saying for months that it is trying to find the rest of the documents, Buccino said.

White House deputy press secretary Claire Buchan disputed the secrecy charges. "The administration is forthright and will continue to be forthright while ensuring it is acting in a deliberative manner," she said.

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives last summer passed a comprehensive bill that reflected the task force's recommendations, including drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Last week, Senate Democratic leaders introduced a bill that did not include such a provision, instead focusing on conservation, efficiency and developing new energy sources. The legislation is expected to be debated next year.

-------

Energy security illusions

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Washington Times
December 12, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20011212-20073202.htm

When I read Patrick J. Michaels' scurrilous attack on the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and me, I immediately thought of that famous line by Ronald Reagan, "There he goes again" ("Energy supply illogic," Commentary, Dec. 6).

Mr. Michaels is one of a handful of industry-funded people who believe global warming is a good thing. Now Mr. Michaels is trying to pass himself off as an expert on the potential for oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other parts of Alaska. He believes Alaskan oil, "coupled with coal and nuclear" energy, would "dramatically" reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Hardly.

Americans consume 25 percent of the world's produced oil, but our nation holds less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. The amount of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic refuge, according to U.S. Geological Survey estimates, would increase world reserves by just 0.3 percent - not nearly enough to make a significant dent in our imports and too little to influence petroleum prices. Over the Arctic refuge field's 50-year life, it likely would produce just 3.2 billion barrels - less than what our country consumes in six months and less than 1 percent of the oil we are projected to consume over those 50 years.

Meanwhile, getting more energy from coal and nuclear power, which present their own environmental problems, would not reduce our oil consumption. They both generate electricity, and oil-fired power plants generate less than 3 percent of the nation's electricity.

Notwithstanding Mr. Michaels' glib use of the oxymoron "clean extraction," drilling is not an environmentally benign activity. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that the state-of-the-art oil-rig technology in use in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, (which also would be used in the Arctic Refuge) is "leak-prone and vulnerable to explosions." Each year, more than 400 spills occur in the Prudhoe Bay fields, involving tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil and other hazardous materials, which damage sensitive tundra for decades.

NRDC is not opposed to drilling in areas that already are producing oil, but we do not support new drilling in wildlife refuges or other environmentally sensitive areas. Fortunately, we have the technology to dramatically reduce our oil use. Over the next decade, we could increase average fuel efficiency to 40 miles per gallon, which would save more than 50 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years - more than 15 times what could be extracted economically from the Arctic refuge. For more information about how we can best ensure our nation's energy security, I urge your readers to go to www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp.

Finally, Mr. Michaels attacked me personally, claiming I said the heinous events of September 11 were triggered by our dependence on foreign oil. On the face of it, that statement is ludicrous, and I never said it. Mr. Michaels twisted my words for his own ends, choosing to ignore my clear messages in support of our president and our war on terrorism. It is sad that he felt the need to set up a straw man to advance his misinformed opinions.

ALAN METRICK Communications director Natural Resources Defense Council New York

-------- health

Gulf War researcher welcomes decision on U.S. vets

Wednesday, December 12, 2001
By Maggie Fox,
Reuters
http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/12/12122001/reu_45861.asp

WASHINGTON - An admission by federal officials that a link, long-suspected by veterans, exists between service in the Gulf War and a deadly disease may mean more dollars for research into the poorly defined syndrome, an expert said Tuesday.

The Department of Veterans' Affairs announced Monday night that a study had shown a clear link between service in the 1990-91 war against Iraq and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, better known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. It said 40 Gulf War veterans had been affected and would be compensated.

ALS is a progressive and deadly neurological disease that eventually paralyzes its victims. There is no cure.

"In today's battlefield, we need to recognize that nontraumatic illnesses and injuries can be as deadly as a bullet wound,'' Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Anthony Principi told a news conference. "And where we can show scientific evidence of an association between service and illness, we must compensate veterans with that illness.''

Veterans have long complained that their service in Iraq and Kuwait left them suffering from an illness come to be known as "Gulf War Syndrome.'' But Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defense reports are the first to show any sign that Gulf War veterans suffer from any one illness more than the general population. Last year the Institute of Medicine said not enough research had been done to show whether Gulf War Syndrome existed.

Principi said research into the possible links and treatments for ALS, also known as motor neuron disease, would be stepped up. "I intend to fully focus our medical resources and research capabilities on this issue,'' he said. "We will now turn our expertise to ALS. We will work with others to pursue a cause, a treatment, and a cure.''

Dr. Robert Haley, a researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas who has done much research about Gulf War Syndrome, said the announcement may mean more funds for labs such as his.

'VERY COURAGEOUS'

"I think this was very courageous and the right thing to do,'' Haley said in a telephone interview.

The VA said it had done a new study that showed a link. The study has not been published in a scientific journal yet, so details are not available. Also, it has not been subjected to peer review - the process by which experts analyze and often tear apart work by other experts - so the VA stressed that the results are preliminary.

"This study, begun in March 2000, involved nearly 700,000 service members deployed to Southwest Asia and 1.8 million who were not deployed to the Gulf during the period Aug. 2, 1990, to July 31, 1991,'' the VA said in a statement. It found 40 cases of ALS in the Gulf War veterans, when 33 would have been expected in a general population that size.

Haley, who has become an advocate for Gulf War veterans who say they have the syndrome, said the results matched a study his lab did, which is also being submitted for publication. He said he believed the change of government in 2000 allowed the VA to change its stand that Gulf War Syndrome did not exist. "By giving over our government to new parties from time to time we bring in new players. They are free to make conclusions on the basis of emerging evidence and are not tied to the honor of the people going before,'' Haley said.

He thinks more evidence of Gulf War Syndrome will come out. "Our studies show Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome have brain cell injury in the basal cell ganglia, deep structures in the brain,'' he said. Between 20,000 and 100,000 veterans could be affected, he said.

In the case of ALS, Haley believes a combination of genetic susceptibility and exposure to a poison were to blame. "What horrible environmental toxin did they come in contact with?'' he asked. The most likely culprit, he thinks, is sarin gas - although Haley stresses that no studies have shown this link.


-------- activists

Write/Fax/Email Bush, Congress Now - phones and emails below

From: FoE Sydney
Nuclear Campaign <nonukes@foesyd.org.au>

This is to urge you to write immediately to US President, George Bush who can be faxed at the numbers attatched to the enclosed sample letter, and to the US Senate leaders whose fax numbers are also at the head of the letter. Best is to adress the letter as below, or you can write separate letters to Bush and congressional leaders.

I suggest that you make sure you write also to your own member of Congress. if you are not from the US, DO write to Bush, Senator Tom Daschle, and Senator Joseph Biden as below.

Should you with to email your letter to the entire US Senate, a list of Senate emails is appended below. Be aware that you will recieve a large number of meaningless autoresponses for up to a week after sending.

Time is short - the letter as written is designed to be sent either before OR AFTER a decision has been announced. Do not be put off just because a decision has been announced.

You are urged to handwrite these letters rather than type them, and to use your own words as much as possible. Please do not copy what is here word for word.

Very simple, short letters (much shorter than these) are just fine.

Do let the leaders of the US know that you do not want the ABM treaty trashed.

John Hallam
Friends of the Earth Sydney

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, 1-202-456-2461, 1-202-456-2883,
SENATOR TOM DASCHLE 1-202-224-7895
SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN, CHAIR, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 1-202-224-0139
SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIR, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 1-202-224-1388
US SENATE EMAIL LIST (sample letter below)

email@murkowski.senate.gov, Senator_Stevens@stevens.senate.gov, senator@sessions.senate.gov, senator@shelby.senate.gov, senator.hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov, blanche_lincoln@lincoln.senate.gov, info@kyl.senate.gov, senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, senator@feinstein.senate.gov, administrator@campbell.senate.gov, sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov, senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov, senator@biden.senate.gov, bob_graham@graham.senate.gov, Senator_Max_Cleland@Cleland.senate.gov, senator@akaka.senate.gov, senator@inouye.senate.gov, chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov, larry_craig@craig.senate.gov, dick@durbin.senate.gov, senator_fitzgerald@fitzgerald.senate.gov, senator@bayh.senate.gov, senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov, sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov, pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov, jim_bunning@bunning.senate.gov, senator@mcconnell.senate.gov, senator@breaux.senate.gov, senator@landrieu.senate.gov, senator@kennedy.senate.gov, john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov, senator@mikulski.senate.gov, senator@sarbanes.senate.gov, senator@collins.senate.gov, olympia@snowe.senate.gov, senator@levin.senate.gov, senator@stabenow.senate.gov, senator@wellstone.senate.gov, kit_bond@bond.senate.gov, senator_carnahan@carnahan.senate.gov, senator@cochran.senate.gov, senatorlott@lott.senate.gov, max@baucus.senate.gov, conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov, Senator@Edwards.senate.gov, jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov, senator@conrad.senate.gov, senator@dorgan.senate.gov, chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, opinion@smith.senate.gov, senator@torricelli.senate.gov, senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov, senator@ensign.senate.gov, senator_reid@reid.senate.gov, senator@clinton.senate.gov, senator@schumer.senate.gov, senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov, senator_voinovich@voinovich.senate.gov, jim_inhofe@inhofe.senate.gov, senator@nickles.senate.gov, oregon@gsmith.senate.gov, senator@wyden.senate.gov, senator_specter@specter.senate.gov, senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov, jack@reed.senate.gov, qmail@hollings-cms.senate.gov, administrator@thurmond.senate.gov, tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov, tim@johnson.senate.gov, senator_frist@frist.senate.gov, senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov, phil_gramm@gramm.senate.gov, senator@hutchison.senate.gov, senator@bennett.senate.gov, senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov, senator_allen@allen.senate.gov, senator@warner.senate.gov, vermont@jeffords.senate.gov, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov, maria@cantwell.senate.gov, senator_murray@murray.senate.gov, russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov, senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov, senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov, senator@rockefeller.senate.gov, senator@enzi.senate.gov, craig@thomas.senate.gov

SAMPLE LETTER re ABM Treaty Withdrawal:

Dear President Bush, Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Joseph Biden, and Senator Carl Levin,

I am writing as one of thousands of ordinary people, as well as non-governmental organizations and governments throughout the world who are horrified by your seemingly imminent decision to scrap the ABM treaty and deploy a system of Missile Defence.If, by the time this letter has reached you, you have already announced a decision to scrap the ABM treaty, I urge you to reconsider that decision.

If the terrible events of September 11th showed anything, it surely was that missile defence systems and nuclear weapons would have had no impact whatever on the security threat posed by terrorists.

At a time when the US must work with the broadest possible coalition of nations in the fight against terrorism, withdrawal from the ABM treaty sends a terrible signal to those whose help the US needs, particularly to Russia.

As the Russian ratification of the START-II nuclear weapons agreement was dependent on the ABM treaty remaining intact, the scrapping of the ABM treaty will mean that START-II also no longer exists.

Russia could well re-evaluate its recent agreement to reduce its nuclear arsenal to below 2000 warheads in the light of the elimination of the ABM treaty. Already, there are reports of voices in the Russian Duma calling for the fitting of multiple warheads on their heavy ICBMs. This would be hazardous for the American people and the people of the world.

The world as a whole does not need a system of missile defence.

What needs to be done in the immediate term, is to implement the cuts agreed to between you and President Putin at Crawford, and to take US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons off Launch-on-warning status.

What the nations and people of the world have demonstrated they want, over and over again in the votes of the UN General Assembly, is the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear weapons as agreed in the last NPT Review conference.

I urge you not to scrap the ABM treaty, and to reconsider if you have already announced an intent to do so by the time you recieve this letter,

Yours Sincerely, (your signature)

--

ABM Treaty Withdrawal Talking Points

According to recent press accounts, the Bush Administration is expected to give formal 6-month notice of its intention to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the very near future. Below are some talking points on ABM withdrawal.

President Bush should not withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Such a unilateral action could negatively affect relations with our allies, could cause Russia to reconsider previous arms control agreements, and is an unnecessary risk.

Unilateralism in a Multilateral World

At a time in which we are working with a broad-based coalition of nations in the fight against terrorism, unilateral withdrawal from an international treaty sends a bad signal to the rest of the world. Now, more than ever, we should be working with the international community to confront global security threats, not walking away from our treaty obligations.

Russia

Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty could hurt our relations with Russia. While the Bush Administration should be praised for its past efforts to improve U.S.-Russian relations, withdrawing from the ABM Treaty could wipe out all of the progress we have made. President Bush's decision on the ABM Treaty may cause Russia to re-evaluate its commitment to previous arms control agreements, including its recent statements on reducing its strategic nuclear arsenal to below 2,000 warheads. If, by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, we encourage Russia to maintain more warheads than they can safely manage, the American people will be less safe.

An Unnecessary Risk

Withdrawing from the ABM Treaty at this time is simply an unnecessary risk and won't get us any closer to a working National Missile Defense System. The ABM Treaty does not keep the United States from continuing to research and test a missile defense system. In fact, the biggest impediments to a national missile defense system are unproven technologies and cost, not the ABM Treaty. National missile defense--the last line of defense against a nuclear threat--should not be allowed to undercut the first line of defense, namely, the reduction of the threat itself. No decision to deploy a missile defense system should be made until that system has been proven to be reliably effective against realistic threats, including countermeasures.

---

Text of letter to fax

Wednesday, December 12, 2001

Senator The United States Senate Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator

I ask you to urgently express support for the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Together with other members and supporters of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR): doctors, nurses, public health professionals and others, I am urging your support for this vital Treaty. It has been key to the prevention of nuclear war for thirty years. President Bush has reportedly decided on unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in the near future. Now is the time to speak out in opposition to such a move.

Opposing withdrawal, Senator Carl Levin said "To rip up a treaty with Russia at this moment against the advice of our allies could have an unsettling effect on the whole coalition and the need to stick together against terrorism." Further, Senator Joe Biden said "Unilaterally abandoning the ABM treaty would be a serious mistake. The administration has not offered any convincing rationale for why any missile defense test it may need to conduct would require walking away from a treaty that has helped keep the peace for the last 30 years."

A unilateral move to abandon this key Treaty would endanger Americans and reduce American security. The administration will be abandoning a key part of the structure of arms control, trashing yet another treaty and putting others including the Non-Proliferation Treaty at risk. This at a time when the risk of the spread of terrorist nuclear weapons has shown us we need all the non-proliferation tools available and more. This move risks all the arms reductions achieved to date. Russia has said it will aim new, more sophisticated weapons at the US even as their early warning system fails. Such a development would make the threat of an accidental launch more likely and more deadly. Deployment of NMD will likely spark a Chinese arms buildup, in numbers of warheads and in sophistication of delivery methods. This could cause a further arms race between India and Pakistan.

In short, the President will destroy the ABM Treaty to deploy a system that does not work, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. The President himself is increasing the proliferation threat we face, and thus the threat of a catastrophic nuclear war will increase. He is then telling America the world is dangerous and this justifies the deployment of NMD. This is truly politics through the looking glass. President Bush is moving ahead with a highly questionable and controversial policy at a time when he should be building unity in a nation at war. Please speak out for the preservation not just of the ABM treaty, but of all arms control and non-proliferation measures. Oppose the President's plan ­ tell him to stop and think before it is too late.

Sincerely,

----

Vieques mayor, jailed for bombing protest, freed

Wednesday, December 12, 2001
By Reuters
http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/12/12122001/reu_45860.asp

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - To cheers from hundreds of waiting supporters, Vieques Mayor Damaso Serrano walked free from a federal prison Tuesday after spending four months behind bars over his protest against U.S. Navy war games on the Puerto Rican island.

Serrano vowed that protests against the Navy's actvities on Vieques would continue until it left the island. "My incarceration was for a just cause, and today I feel stronger than ever to continue our struggle,'' said Serrano, pale and unshaven after his stay in the prison in San Juan.

Serrano was mobbed as he left the facility. Protest music and chants of "Vieques, yes; Navy, no'' accompanied him on a walk to a camp established by anti-Navy groups to show solidarity with those inside the jail serving time for acts of civil disobedience.

Serrano was one of more than 100 protesters who snuck onto the Navy's bombing range on the east end of Vieques last April in an attempt to interrupt military maneuvers. He managed to hide out on the range during the Navy's entire five days of training and was arrested on the last day.

The four-month sentence handed down to Serrano was the harshest given to a protester arrested for the first time on the misdemeanor trespassing charge. "I served an unjust sentence of four months for defending the best interest of the Vieques people,'' Serrano said.

When Serrano entered prison back in August, several U.S. mainland politicians - notably New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and New York Gov. George Pataki - championed the cause of the 9,600 Vieques residents. The tiny island became an obligatory stop for New York politicians wooing the Latino vote back home.

But that was before the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Afghanistan, which have diminished the calls for an immediate Navy exit from its Vieques training ground. Even protest groups in Vieques called for a moratorium on protest incursions on to the range during a round of military maneuvers after Sept 11.

Serrano acknowledged that "the panorama has changed'' but said the protest movement would continue. "Civil disobedience is the only thing that will stop the bombing and get the Navy to leave Vieques,'' Serrano said.

Other protest leaders expressed hope that his release will energize the Vieques movement.

Jose "Che'' Paralitcci of the group All Puerto Rico With Vieques acknowledged the Sept. 11 attacks had dampened support for the cause on the mainland, which made it all the more important for local politicians like Serrano to carry on. "We can't turn our backs on the people of Vieques. This is like the civil rights struggle in the United States during the 1960s,'' he said.

The Bush administration has said that it plans to look for alternatives to Vieques in order to end Navy training there by May 1, 2003, but there are no guarantees that will happen.

Congress is expected to overturn a law this week that calls for a referendum among Vieques residents to vote on whether they want the Navy to leave by May 1, 2003 or continue training indefinitely for a $50 million economic aid package. The new legislation would also eliminate an exit date and allow the Navy to continue training on Vieques until the heads of the Navy and Marine Corps certify they have found viable alternative training sites.

The protest movement was galvanized by the April 1999 death of a civilian security guard in a botched bombing run.

Puerto Rico Gov. Sila Calderon wants the Navy to end training as soon as possible, but since Sept. 11 officials have said that the May 1, 2003, date is the best they can hope for.


-------

------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)

------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!