Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
U.S. Plans to Rejoin Project to Develop Fusion Reactor
FDA Urges 'Dirty Bomb' Treatment
Nuclear weapons and pollution linked to 65 million deaths
Terrible legacy
The Unseen Gulf War
Part 2 of special coverage on depleted uranium
Unsafe for friend and foe?
Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
Iraq Renews Reservations on Arms Sticking Points
Blix Says Would Accept Invitation to Meet Saddam
U.S. May Give the U.N. Data on Iraqi Labs
Hints of North Korea Plutonium Output
Satellites Said to See Activity at North Korean Nuclear Site
US, Seeing Activity at Nuclear Site, Warns N.Korea
North Korea Presses Demand for Direct Talks With U.S.
Envoy Says N.Korea Will Boycott IAEA Meeting
U.S. Warns N.Korea on Nuclear Activity
Space forum under scrutiny Groups says UNM helping put weapons in space
Report: Evidence al Qaida has 'dirty bomb'
BBC Says Al Qaeda Produced a 'Dirty Bomb' in Afghanistan
Bush approves nuclear response
California officials to review plan to move old nuclear reactor
Lab Scandal Hurts U. of Calif. Contract
N.M.: Lab Runoff Ups Plutonium Levels
Albany Says It Can't Certify Indian Point Evacuation Plan
Indian Point : la centrale de tous les dangers
Davis-Besse workers claim harassment
A General's Doubts
An Alternative to War
Text: Bush and Blair on Iraq
Deficits, Defense Outlays to Balloon in Bush Budget
Bush to Propose Defense Spending Increase
"If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines"
MILITARY
Mandela Rebukes Bush for Stance On Iraqi Crisis
Board of 17 backs ousting Saddam
Iraq Bombing Softens Air Defenses
Reports: Bush, Blair agree to give inspectors additional 6 weeks;
Iraqi rockets on move: US
A War Crime or an Act of War?
Iraq watch
Armitage says key al Qaida man in Baghdad
U.N. Estimates Rebuilding Iraq Will Cost $30 Billion
Turkey Military Considers Foreign Troops
Feds Building Internet Monitoring Center
U.S. at fault for delegitimizing U.N.
Pentagon stocks up on body bags
Two Marines Arrested In Parachute Sabotage
Silent chiefs
Secretary of State opposes military draft
Bush, Blix Don't Change Newspapers' Positions
Forget about evidence, look at the facts
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Reserve call-ups deplete police, fire departments
Ashcroft touts rise in federal gun-crimes prosecutions
Md. Attorney General Asks For End to Death Penalty
U.S. Lists Guatemala's Anti-Drug Cooperation as Inadequate
Homeland Security Dept. On GAO, OMB Watch Lists
Scent of a germ
I.N.S. Shredder Ended Work Backlog, U.S. Says
State Department Link Will Open Visa Database to Police Officers
Spy Tapes Show Iraqi Deceit, Magazine Says
Close FBI, CIA Links Raise Spy Fears
Al Qaeda Recruiter Reportedly Tortured
ENERGY AND OTHER
US Energy Dept gives details on hydrogen car research
Six Republican Senators Turn Against Bush on ANWR
Court Reverses Mining Ruling
ACTIVISTS
China Jails U.S. Citizen, Alleging Falun Gong 'Sabotage'
Bishop in Bush's Church in New Antiwar Ad
Americans Advised to Avoid German Protest
Forum called off after poets plan to protest
With Antiwar Poetry Set, Mrs. Bush Postpones Event
U.S.: Pakistani newsman possible protester
Anti-war message gains visibility
Pursuing Mideast Peace With the Next Generation
Two Area Women Headed to Iraq With Peace Group
Many Avenues of Protest
-------- NUCLEAR
U.S. Plans to Rejoin Project to Develop Fusion Reactor
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By KENNETH CHANG
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/politics/31FUSI.html
The United States will seek to join a $5 billion international project to build an experimental fusion reactor, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced yesterday.
"Now is the time to expand our scope and embrace international efforts to realize the promise of fusion energy," Mr. Abraham said at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey. "Now it is time to take the next step on the way to having fusion deliver electricity to the grid."
The United States left the same project in 1998, calling it too costly and too ambitious. The design was then scaled back and the budget cut in half. Last month, a committee convened by the National Research Council recommended that the United States rejoin the project, known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER. The participants are considering Canada, France, Spain and Japan as possible sites for the reactor.
Fusion has long been an attractive potential energy source. Using the same process that lights the sun, fusion produces energy by combining hydrogen atoms into helium. Hydrogen is readily available, and fusion reactors would not produce long-lived highly radioactive waste like current nuclear fission reactors.
But progress toward continuous, controlled fusion reactions has been slow, and even proponents believe commercial fusion power plants are decades away.
The United States would contribute about 10 percent of the construction costs of the reactor, or about $500 million over eight years, according to a news release from the Energy Department. That would be a smaller share than at least some of the project's current partners, Russia, the European Union, Japan and Canada. China has also announced it would like to join the project.
Mr. Abraham did not indicate whether the administration's budget proposal for next year, to be released on Monday, would include an increase in financing for fusion research. Fusion research was cut by a third in 1996 and has remained flat since then at about $250 million a year.
In his speech, Mr. Abraham said that joining ITER "in no way means a lesser role for the fusion programs we undertake here at home." He added, "It is imperative that we maintain and enhance our strong domestic research program."
Most American fusion scientists support entering ITER negotiations, but also want to continue design work on a smaller alternative reactor that the United States could build alone should the project hit additional snags.
Energy officials will attend meetings next month in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the ITER participants will discuss where the reactor will be built and how to divide the costs and responsibilities among the partners.
The reactor, even its scaled-back design, would still produce much more power than its predecessors. The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, which closed in 1997, generated a maximum of 11 megawatts of energy for one-third of a second. ITER is designed to generate up to 500 megawatts for up to an hour. That would allow examination of a regime known as "burning plasma" where most of the heating of the hydrogen gas comes from the fusion reactions, not from the electricity powering the reactor.
Construction of the reactor is scheduled to begin in 2006, with experiments starting in 2014.
-------- accidents and safety
FDA Urges 'Dirty Bomb' Treatment
January 31, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dirty-Bomb-Drug.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal health officials say a compound long used as the artist's pigment Prussian blue could be an important antidote to a ``dirty bomb'' attack, and they are calling for drug companies to quickly seek permission to manufacture some.
The Food and Drug Administration action Friday marks a big step toward radiation specialists' call for a stockpile of the antidote -- all but guaranteeing sales approval for manufacturers who meet some fairly simple conditions.
Currently, an Energy Department-funded facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn., has the nation's only supply of Prussian blue in pill form, and that supply is limited.
That facility, the Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site -- known as REACTS -- helps with radiation accidents around the world. REACTS buys experimental Prussian blue pills from a German company, and had urged FDA to approve regular sales of the compound so it would easier to stockpile more in case of a terrorist attack.
Friday, the FDA took a big step toward doing that, by declaring Prussian blue an effective treatment for exposure to certain forms of radioactive cesium and thallium.
Those materials are commonly used, at low doses, in medical treatment and diagnosis. But high levels can be deadly, and they are among the materials that officials worry might be used in a ``dirty bomb'' -- a device that isn't nuclear but that uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material.
The FDA evaluated reports of a 1987 accident in Brazil where 250 people were contaminated with cesium-137 that had been abandoned after use in a cancer clinic, plus a handful of smaller accidental exposures to radioactive cesium and thallium and a toxic but nonradioactive form of thallium.
Prussian blue cut in half the time the body was contaminated, with minor side effects such as constipation, the FDA concluded. The mineral compound, known chemically as ferric hexacyanoferrate, worked by binding to the chemicals in the gut so they could be eliminated instead of absorbed.
FDA's unusual declaration removes a significant burden from any company considering making Prussian blue pills -- they wouldn't have to prove it's a safe or effective treatment. Instead, interested manufacturers merely would have to prove they can properly brew the right dose, steps FDA drug chief Dr. Janet Woodcock called simple for any pharmaceutical company.
Currently, there is only one commonly available medication for protection against radiation, a drug called potassium iodide that people who live near nuclear reactors often keep on hand in case of an attack or accident. It has just one use -- to prevent thyroid cancer by shielding the thyroid gland from exposure to radioactive iodine. It blocks no other type of radiation, and protects no other body part.
-------- depleted uranium
Nuclear weapons and pollution linked to 65 million deaths
By Paul Waugh Deputy Political Editor
31 January 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=374164
Pollution from nuclear energy and weapons programmes up to 1989 will account for 65 million deaths, according to a European scientific committee headed by an adviser to the British Government.
Research published yesterday by the European Committee of Radiation Risk claims that previous figures massively underestimate the nuclear industry's impact on human life.
The ECRR is an international body of 30 independent scientists, led by Dr Chris Busby, a member of the Government's radiation risk committee and adviser to the Ministry of Defence on the use of depleted uranium.
The findings prompted immediate calls for the Government to rethink its support for the nuclear industry or share responsibility for millions of deaths worldwide.
The report came as the European Commission yesterday published two new draft directives setting up the first EU-wide standards on nuclear power plant safety, decommissioning and the management of radioactive waste.
The study by ECRR, whichwas formed in Brussels in 1998, is based on a risk assessment model developed over the last five years, and uses evidence from recent discoveries in radiation biology and from human epidemiology. It found that radioactive releases up to 1989 have caused, or will eventually cause, the death of 65 million people worldwide.
It concludes that the cancer epidemic is a result of pollution from nuclear energy and of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout, which peaked in the period 1959-63. The research cites evidence such as the levels of breast cancer in women who were adolescent between 1957 and 1963, when nuclear weapons testing was at its peak.
Dr Lucas said: "The fact that existing analysis could not account for the abnormally high local levels of illnesses like childhood leukaemia was more a reflection on the research methodology than the acclaimed safety of the nuclear project."
Caroline Lucas, Green MEP for South-east England, said the figures gave the nuclear debate a renewed urgency. "The Government must call an immediate review of its support for the nuclear industry or bear moral, and potentially legal, responsibility for this tragic and avoidable loss of human life."
The ECRR findings challenge the conventional methods of calculating risk of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which has been criticised as being too close to the nuclear industry.
Scientists have fiercely debated claims that radiation causes cancer clusters near plants such as BNFL's site at Sellafield but Ireland and Scandinavian countries have long complained about the risk.
In Brussels, the European Commission adopted two proposals for directives aimed at improving nuclear standards ahead of enlargement, when countries with ailing power plants, such as the Czech Republic, enter the EU.
Britain has previously objected to the proposals and some Government officials are concerned that EU-wide powers may interfere with Britain's nuclear industry.
One of the directives states that nuclear safety "cannot be guaranteed without making available adequate financial resources" and sets up rules on the management and use of decommissioning funds.
----
Terrible legacy
Jan 31 2003
By Staff Reporter,
Birmingham Evening Mail
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=12590197&method=full&siteid=50002
Twelve years after the Gulf War, aid workers in Iraq are still dealing with what they believe is the fall-out from the 1991 onslaught.
There has been a sixfold increase in cancer cases - and all evidence points to the 40,000 depleted uranium coated anti-tank rounds and 940,000 DU rounds fired by US aircraft.
"Cancer cases in Iraq are so common it's like having the flu in Britain," said Shihab al-Mahdawi, Birmingham manager of the Human Relief Foundation, one of the few charities operating in Iraq.
"Mothers have problems sending their children to sleep because everyone is talking about war.
"Families are digging trenches in their gardens and children can see all of this. When night comes the children do not want to go to sleep. They are traumatised."
He added: "Almost all young Iraqi females are suffering from a form of malnutrition. This results in stunted growth and renders the heart susceptible to cardiac diseases.
"Less than 40 per cent of water used is safe to drink, sewage and sanitation are particularly problematic."
"Iraq is ageing, wrinkling and collapsing - its babies are dying."
Quite simply, he says, a US and British war with Iraq would spell humanitarian disaster.
"This war is not going to benefit the people of Iraq. The sanctions have ransacked the country and the environment has been ruined.
"Last time depleted uranium was used but we don't know what will be used this time. The humanitarian cost is going to be unbearable."
The charity hopes to raise awareness of current conditions in Iraq by holding a series of events in Birmingham which will include a video screening, charity bazaar and open discussions.
It is estimated by the UN that more than 500 000 Iraqi children under the age of ten have died as a result of sanctions placed on the country over ten years ago.
----
The Unseen Gulf War
Multimedia
BY Peter Turnley Digital Journalist
December 2002
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_intro.html
Dirck -
As we approach the likelihood of a new Gulf War, I have an idea and it occurs to me that the Digital Journalist may be the place for it. As we all know, the military pool system created then was meant to be, and was, a major impediment for photojournalists in their quest to communicate the realities of war (This fact does not diminish the great efforts, courage, and many important images created by many of my colleagues who participated in these pools.). Aside from that, while you would have a very difficult time finding an editor of an American publication today that wouldn't condemn this pool system and its restrictions during the Gulf War, most publications and television entities more or less bought the program before the war began (this reality has been far less discussed than the critiques of the pools themselves).
I refused to participate in the pool system. I was in the Gulf for many weeks as the build-up of troops took place, and then sat out the "air war", and flew from Paris to Riyadh as soon as the ground war began. I arrived at the "mile of death" the morning the day the war stopped. It was very early in the morning and few other journalists were present. When I arrived at the scene of this incredible carnage, strewn all over on this mile stretch were cars and trucks with wheels still turning, radios still playing, and there were bodies scattered along the road. Many people have asked the question "how many people died" during the war with Iraq and the question has never been well answered. That first morning, I saw and photographed a U.S. Military 'graves detail' bury in large graves many bodies.
I don't recall seeing many television images of the human consequences of this scene, or for that matter many photographs published. A day later, I came across another scene on an obscure road further north and to the east where, in the middle of the desert, I found a convoy of lorries transporting Iraqi soldiers back to Baghdad, where clearly massive fire power had been dropped and everyone in sight had been carbonized. Most of the photographs I made of this scene have never been published anywhere and this has always troubled me.
As we approach the distinct possibility of another war, a thought comes to mind. The photographs that I made do not, in themselves, represent any personal political judgment or point of view with respect to the politics and the right or wrong of the first Gulf War. What they do represent is a part of a more accurate picture of what really does happen in war. I feel it is important and that citizens have the right to see these images. This is not to communicate my point of view, but so viewers as citizens can be offered a better opportunity to consider the whole picture and consequences of that war and any war. I feel that it is part of my role as a photojournalist to offer the viewer the opportunity to draw from as much information as possible, and develop his or her own judgment.
This past war and any one looming, have often been treated as something akin to a 'Nintendo game'. This view conveniently obscures the vivid and often grotesque realities apparent to those directly involved in war. As a witness to the results of this past Gulf War, this televised, aerial, and technological version of the conflict is not what I saw and I'd like to present some images that I made that represent a more complete picture of what this conflict looked like.
War is at best a necessary evil, and I am certain that anyone that feels differently has never experienced or been in it. I have always hoped that true images of conflict give one the opportunity to witness and reflect more fully on the full realities of war. After covering many conflicts around the world in past 20 years and witnessing much human suffering, I feel a responsibility to try to contribute to making sure with my images that no one that sees the brutal realities of conflict, ever feels that war is comfortable and/or convenient.
I would like to propose that we discuss a portfolio of these difficult images now, as a future war in Iraq grows more likely every passing day. I look forward to hearing from you.
My best. Peter Turnley
peterturnley@yahoo.com
Enter The Unseen Gulf War - by Peter Turnley
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt01.html
----
Part 2 of special coverage on depleted uranium
January 31, 2003
Democracy NOW!
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20030131.html
NEWS HEADLINES
PART 2 OF OUR DISCUSSION ON DEPLETED URANIUM, WITH THE SCIENTIFIC SECRETARY WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON RADIATION RISK, AND A U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER
Today we continue with Part 2 of our special coverage on depleted uranium. Yesterday, we spoke in a rare interview, with Dr. Asaf Durakovic, the VA doctor who first discovered DU contamination in veterans after the Persian Gulf War.
Today, we will look at recent findings on the risks of radiation contamination and discuss more about the legality of Depleted Uranium weapons.
Depleted uranium is the most effective anti-tank weapon ever devised. It is made from nuclear waste left over from making nuclear weapons and fuel. As an unwanted waste product of the atomic energy industry, it is extremely cheap. It is also the densest material available on the market, and can smash through all known armor. US gunners say DU rounds save lives on the front line.
But when DU rounds punch through tanks, they create a firestorm of uranium dioxide dust. Those invisible particles are still "hot." As the Christian Science Monitor's Scott Peterson writes, the particles make Geiger counters sing. They stick to the tanks, contaminate the soil and blow in the desert wind as they will for the 4.5 billion years it takes for the DU to lose its radioactivity.
Last Friday, a group of more than 100 legal experts and NGO's led by the Center for Constitutional Rights here in New York, warned President Bush that he and other senior government officials could be prosecuted for war crimes if military tactics in the upcoming attack on Iraq violated international humanitarian law.
"Our primary concern ... is the large number of civilian casualties that may result should U.S. and coalition forces fail to comply with international humanitarian law in using force against Iraq," the group said in a letter to Bush and War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
According to a Reuters news report, the letter, which had more than 100 signatories, said the rules had been broken in other recent wars.
It said air strikes on populated cities, carpet bombing and the use of fuel-air explosives were examples of inappropriate military action taken during the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 Kosovo campaign and the 2001 Afghan conflict that led to civilian casualties and might be used again in Iraq.
Ironically, Bush on Wednesday advised Iraqi officers and soldiers to disobey any orders to use weapons of mass destruction in the event of a conflict. "If you choose to do so, when Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal," he said.
We will be joined today, by Karen Parker, an attorney in Humanitarian law, to talk about the legal implications of using depleted uranium weapons. We will also be joined by Pekka Haavisto, of the United Nations Environmental Program. The UNEP just completed an environmental study on the after-effects of war in Afghanistan.
But first, we go to Dr Chris Busby, Scientific secretary with the European Committee on Radiation Risk, who has been researching the health risks of low-level radiation exposure to human populations. The ECRR has just published a report which you presented in Brussels a couple of days ago. Your report has determined that previous risk-models for depleted uranium exposure are incorrect. Can you explain?
Guests:
- Dr. Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary with the European Committee on Radiation Risk, a group of scientists and risk specialists within Europe who assess the risk of low-level radiation exposure. The ECRR has just published a report which determines that previous risk-models for depleted uranium exposure are incorrect. The report determines that depleted uranium is 100 to 1000 times more carcinogenic than the present risk model suggests.
- Karen Parker, attorney specializing in humanitarian law. She has been working with the UN Commission on Human Rights since 1996 to expose the illegality of DU munitions under international law.
- Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of the UN Environmental Program's Afghanistan Task Force. They published a report on Wednesday which assessed the environmental damage to Afghanistan as a result of war. Says Afghan govt. didn't ask them to do any testing for uranium.
Related links:
- Dr. Chris Busby's website for Low level Radiation Campaign http://www.llrc.org
- European Committee on Radiation Risk http://www.euradcom.org
- UNEP Afghanistan Report http://postconflict.unep.ch/high1.htm
--------
Unsafe for friend and foe?
By JOHN T. EBERTH,
The Times Herald
01/31/2003
Olean, N.Y. 2003
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=386&dept_id=444919&newsid=6891370&PAG=461&rfi=9
ST. BONAVENTURE - Maj. Douglas Rokke loves his country, but he hates its use of armor-piercing depleted-uranium ammunition.
The ammunition cuts through tank armor as easily as you can push a pencil through paper. Maj. Rokke said it does a great job killing the enemy. "Depleted uranium is without a doubt an exceptional weapon," he said.
The problem is, it also kills U.S. troops who use it and civilians living near battlefields peppered with the rounds, he said.
Maj. Rokke spoke out against the use of depleted-uranium ammunition Thursday at St. Bonaventure University. A crowd of more than 130 people gathered for his lecture in the John J. Murphy Professional Building.
Depleted uranium is a dense, hard metal. It also catches fire and turns molten when it strikes other metals at high speed. Those qualities make it ideal for busting tanks and armored vehicles. According to the Pentagon, the ammunition is safe in its solid state.
Maj. Rokke said the Pentagon is ignoring and even covering up evidence of the danger to soldiers and civilians because the weapon has proven so effective. A Vietnam veteran, he's been in and out of uniform since 1967 and now serves with the U.S. Army Reserves. Maj. Rokke is also a nuclear health physicist and the Army's expert on the health effects of depleted-uranium ammunition. He wrote the Army's field manual for responding to chemical and biological warfare and has trained U.S. soldiers in radiation safety techniques. Maj. Rokke blames depleted-uranium ammunition with causing many of the 206,861 cases of Gulf War Syndrome reported by Persian Gulf War veterans. He said more than 8,000 veterans have died from causes related to the ammunition.
The Pentagon denies the ammunition is harmful to those who use it. Maj. Rokke said that denial has cost veterans medical care.
He charged the Pentagon of "willful neglect and dereliction of duty" toward U.S. troops, breaking a sacred covenant between soldiers and the country they volunteered to protect.
"It's a crime against God and humanity" to continue to use the ammunition and deny the danger it poses to troops, he said.
Maj. Rokke said since the Persian Gulf War, the military has developed new, lighter weapons to fire the ammunition, including machine guns used by ground forces. As a result, depleted-uranium ammunition will be everywhere on the battlefield.
The ammunition was first used in combat during the Gulf War. Maj. Rokke was theater senior health physicist with the 330th Army Medical Brigade during the war. He was part of a team directed to clean up U.S. tanks and armored personnel carriers struck by friendly fire with depleted-uranium ammunition during the war.
"I took us three months to clean up 24 vehicles for shipment back to the United States," he said.
The team had to decontaminate the vehicles and recover the remains of U.S. soldiers inside them.
"There was only one thing I could say when I saw the depleted uranium mess, 'Oh my God,'" Maj. Rooke said. "We started finding stuff and it scared us completely."
The team had to bury three Bradley Fighting Vehicles because they couldn't be decontaminated enough to be sent back to the United States, he said.
The ammunition is used in rapid-fire cannons mounted on jets, such as the A-10 Warthog, helicopters and armored vehicles. Maj. Rokke said when fired in gun barrels, the ammunition sheds radioactive dust, filling the air and infecting troops. The effect is worse when the ammunition strikes a metal target. The round melts, shooting geysers of radioactive flame and smoke into the air, saturating the battlefield.
Tests have found that one round of depleted uranium ammunition can spread radioactive material over a 437-yard radius. Maj. Rokke said most vehicles hit with the ammunition were struck three and four times.
He said Gulf War soldiers, including himself, weren't warned the ammunition posed a danger.
"Nobody told them that when you blow up a tank with this stuff, you have a toxicological nightmare," he said.
Maj. Rokke said tests have proven that the radioactive particles emitted by the ammunition are so small, they pass through the gas mask filters issued to U.S. troops.
After the Gulf War, he conducted live-fire studies on the ammunition for the Army and the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm. According to a 1993 report compiled by the General Accounting Office, "the Army was not adequately prepared to deal with depleted-uranium contamination" prior to using it during the Gulf War.
Maj. Rokke asked everyone in the audience to speak out against use of depleted-uranium ammunition by writing local newspapers and contacting their Congressional representatives.
"I must recommend that the world ban DU ammunition forever," he said. Maj. Rokke's lecture was sponsored by the St. Bonaventure University Visiting Scholars Program, the department of political science, the Center for Nonviolence and the Olean Area Coalition for Peace and Justice.
His lecture will appear on BOCE's Cable Channel 6, at a time to be announced.
-------- inspections
THE INSPECTOR
Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By JUDITH MILLER and JULIA PRESTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html
UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 - Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.
In a two-hour interview in his United Nations offices overlooking Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Blix, the chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the administration's campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.
"Whatever we say will be used by some," Mr. Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."
Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.
Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.
He further disputed the Bush administration's allegations that his inspection agency might have been penetrated by Iraqi agents, and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad, compromising the inspections.
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."
More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."
Mr. Blix said he continued to endorse disarmament through peaceful means. "I think it would be terrible if this comes to an end by armed force, and I wish for this process of disarmament through the peaceful avenue of inspections," he said. "But I also know that diplomacy needs to be backed by force sometimes, and inspections need to be backed by pressure."
The decision to disarm Iraq through force was not his, he said, restating what has become a veritable mantra: It has to be decided by the "Security Council, and yes, by Iraq."
Mr. Blix reiterated his report's key finding that Iraq had not provided anything like the wholehearted cooperation he needed to certify that Saddam Hussein was not concealing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. His concern about Iraq's attitude, he said, led him to refrain from explicitly asking for more time for inspections when he reported to the Security Council on Monday.
"I haven't pleaded for continuing inspections because I haven't seen a change of attitude on the part of Iraq," he said.
In the interview, Mr. Blix said that his examination of a liquid-filled warhead that inspectors had discovered in a bunker on Jan. 16 found no signs of any chemical weapons agent. The other 11 warheads found in the bunker were empty, he said, adding that scores of samples his team had taken across Iraq in the past two months had turned up "no trace" of either chemical or biological agents.
Mr. Blix spent hours Wednesday in a closed meeting being questioned about his report by members of the Security Council. Mr. Blix declined to discuss his session with the Security Council. But diplomats said that the United States ambassador, John D. Negroponte, had pressed Mr. Blix to make public the "indications" he referred to in his report that Iraq had made weapons with thousands of liters of anthrax it produced in the early 1990's.
Mr. Blix is said to have demurred, saying that the burden was on Iraq to prove that it had destroyed any anthrax weapons. He also assured Mr. Negroponte that he would probably be able to determine by Feb. 14 whether two missiles Iraq has declared it is developing exceed United Nations range limits. Mr. Blix stated in his report that the missiles seemed to be a "prima facie" case of a violation by Iraq of Council resolutions.
In the interview, Mr. Blix reiterated his longstanding position that "practical problems" prevented him from using the authority he was given to interview Iraqi scientists alone, without Iraqi government minders present, at a neutral place inside Iraq or outside the country. "We will at some point ask somebody if he is willing," Mr. Blix said, noting that inspectors were already "probing" the possibility of such interviews in their discussions with scientists during inspections.
As for Mr. Bush's charges that Iraqi intelligence agents were posing as scientists to be interviewed, Mr. Blix said he had seen scant evidence of it. "There were some occasions where people didn't seem very knowledgeable," he said. "But if it has happened, it's not from the top," and "it's certainly not anything that is common."
Mr. Blix said that the intelligence information being provided by Washington had improved of late. But diplomats and American officials said that tensions lingered over American suspicions that Iraq had infiltrated the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission, known as Unmovic.
Both sides agree that American satellites photographed what American analysts said were Iraqi clean-up crews operating at a suspected chemical weapons site they had identified within 48 hours after the information about the site was shared with Unmovic. But the diplomats say inspectors concluded that the site was an old ammunition storage area often frequented by Iraqi trucks, and that there was no reason to believe it was involved in weapons activities.
"It was a wild goose chase." one diplomat said.
But an administration official said there was "good reason" to believe the site was suspect, and that Unmovic had waited a week before visiting it.
"Whether something was removed, or whether it was ever there remains an open question," he complained. He noted that although the C.I.A. was still providing inspectors with sensitive information, concerns remained about Unmovic's ability to safeguard it.
"Iraqis may have bugged offices or hotel rooms of some Unmovic people," he said, noting there were "several examples" in which Iraqis seemed to have either "advance knowledge, or very good luck in going to places before inspectors."
----
Iraq Renews Reservations on Arms Sticking Points
Reuters
Friday, January 31, 2003
By Nadim Ladki
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6241-2003Jan31?language=printer
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Friday top U.N. arms inspectors might accept an invitation to Baghdad if Iraq conceded on two main sticking points, but Iraq showed little sign of flexibility.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, meanwhile, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to demand the United States hand over immediately evidence of banned Iraqi weapons to arms inspectors to investigate the claims.
He said Washington might plant false evidence to garner support for a military invasion.
Secretary of State Colin Powell is due to present to the U.N. Security Council on February 5 what Washington says is evidence Iraq maintained weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions.
President Saddam Hussein's adviser, Amir al-Saadi, has invited ElBaradei and chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix to visit Baghdad before reporting back to the Security Council on February 14 on Iraq's alleged illegal arms programs.
ElBaradei said they were willing to consider Thursday's invitation if Baghdad showed willingness to allow surveillance flights by U2 spy planes as well as interviews with Iraqi scientists without Iraqi minders.
"We need to make sure before we go that they are ready to move forward on these issues," ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told reporters at Vienna airport after arriving from New York.
But the head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, Hussam Mohammad Amin, showed little flexibility on either issue.
"We can't force the scientists to go abroad for interviews and we can't force them to hold (private) interviews inside Iraq. It remains a matter of personal choice," Amin told reporters in Baghdad Friday. He was speaking before he had heard ElBaradei's comments.
He said Iraq could not authorise the U2 flights as long as U.S. and British warplanes patrolled two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.
OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
Amin said Iraq was proposing "high-level technical talks" that would cover cooperation and disarmament matters raised by the two inspectors' reports to the 15-member Security Council on January 27 "and any other topic that Blix considers important."
Blix said in his January 27 report Iraq had failed to answer outstanding questions on its weapons programs in a 12,000-page declaration submitted in December.
Blix and ElBaradei last visited Baghdad on January 19-20, when Iraq pledged to step up cooperation with the inspectors, who resumed work on November 27 after a four-year gap.
The February 14 meeting is expected to be crucial if Blix again says Iraq has not submitted the information he wanted. With thousands of U.S. troops pouring into the Gulf region to prepare for war, the United States has warned that diplomacy would end in a matter of weeks, not months.
Meanwhile, the inspectors pushed ahead with their hunt. A U.N. spokesman said U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and IAEA teams drove to three sites in or near Baghdad on the Muslim day of rest.
An UNMOVIC biological team performed aerial inspections of five other sites for the first time, the spokesman said.
An UNMOVIC missile team visited 7 Nissan Company in Nahrawan, 30 km (18 miles) east of Baghdad. The facility produces a wide range of shell bodies and fuses for rockets.
A chemical team visited an agricultural equipment company in Waziriya in Baghdad, while a multi-disciplinary team visited an ammunition factory and depot west of Baghdad.
----
Blix Says Would Accept Invitation to Meet Saddam
Reuters
Friday, January 31, 2003
By Irwin Arieff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7112-2003Jan31?language=printer
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said on Friday he would personally meet Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein if asked, and impress on him the need to answer key questions on Iraq's past weapons programs.
Blix also said he would ask the U.N. Security Council for more time for arms inspections in Iraq if he were convinced Baghdad had changed its attitude and was determined to fill in the gaps in what was known about its weapons of mass destruction.
"If I had seen such a determination, I too, like (chief nuclear inspector) Mr (Mohamed) ElBaradei, would have suggested more time," he told reporters.
"And if I do see such a determination, then I think I would also come and suggest that. Until that has happened, I would be pleased to have more time, but I am not pleading for it," he said.
Blix said he was not yet prepared to say whether he and ElBaradei would accept an invitation to go to Iraq in mid-February, just before the two men are to report to the Security Council on the progress of inspections, which resumed Nov. 27 after a four-year hiatus.
An assessment by the inspectors on whether Saddam is cooperating with U.N. efforts to ensure he has no banned weapons is a key element in the U.S. decision whether to go to war against Iraq.
Asked if he would meet with Saddam, Blix said he would do so if invited. "Well, I think that if the Iraqi side were to suggest that, certainly we would be meeting him," Blix said.
He said he would "describe the dangerous situation" that Iraq had placed itself in by failing to fully cooperate "in substance" with inspectors, as he and ElBaradei had demanded.
POWELL TO GIVE EVIDENCE
Blix denied an allegation by Secretary of State Colin Powell that inspectors knew of cases in which Iraq had moved banned items around before inspectors arrived on the scene.
"I am sure that Colin Powell speaks on the basis of notes given to him, but this is not correct. Our inspectors have not seen that the Iraqis were moving anything away from the sites that we are visiting," he said.
Powell is due to come to the Security Council on Wednesday to present what Washington says is evidence that Iraq has maintained weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously by the Security Council on Nov. 8, gave Baghdad a final chance to disarm and threatened "serious consequences" -- diplomatic parlance for possible military action -- if it failed to do so in line with a string of past council resolutions.
Iraq says it no longer has any weapons of mass destruction, but President Bush says it does and says the time for a diplomatic resolution will run out in weeks, not months.
The United States poured cold water on Iraq's invitation to Blix and ElBaradei to visit Baghdad before a Feb. 14 progress report to the Security Council, saying it believed Iraq remained uncooperative about inspections.
"We certainly don't see anything new in this invitation," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said. "My first reaction would be that this is a tactic of some sort on their part and does not represent any fundamental change..."
ElBaradei said in Vienna that he and Blix might accept Thursday's invitation if Iraq showed willingness to allow surveillance flights by U-2 spy planes as well as interviews with Iraqi scientists without Iraqi minders.
But the head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, Hussam Mohammad Amin, showed little flexibility on either issue, saying Baghdad could not force scientists to hold private interviews and could not authorize U-2 flights as long as U.S. and British warplanes patrolled "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.
----
U.S. May Give the U.N. Data on Iraqi Labs
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By JAMES DAO
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31INTE.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 - In his presentation to the United Nations next week on Iraq's concealment of weapons, administration officials indicate, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will provide three major categories of intelligence: on Iraq's mobile biological weapons labs; on its purchase of materials for making chemical, biological and nuclear arms; and on its ties to terrorist groups.
In addition, two senior State Department officials told senators today that there was "clear evidence" that Iraq is hiding biological and chemical weapons, harassing weapons inspectors and harboring members of Al Qaeda.
One of the officials, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, said Mr. Powell was working "feverishly" to have photographs, communications interceptions and other intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons programs and ties to Al Qaeda declassified to make the administration's case more powerful. In particular, Mr. Powell is hoping to present convincing intelligence - possibly satellite photos - that Iraq has been hiding mobile biological weapons labs, Mr. Armitage told the Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. Powell "is going to be showing some new intelligence and some new information," Mr. Armitage said, adding, "No one will be able to evade the absolute conclusion about Saddam Hussein's denial, deception, his absolute lack of willingness to show any sign of a disarmament motive in his mind."
Other administration officials said that Mr. Powell would probably present intelligence, much of it gathered from detainees held at the Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, indicating that Qaeda members had sought training in chemical weapons in Iraq. Some intelligence officials have said they have been unable to corroborate the detainees' reports.
In a remarkably candid moment, Mr. Armitage, a blunt-spoken former Navy officer, also acknowledged that the administration had on occasion tried to build its case against Iraq on ambiguous intelligence, and he pledged that Mr. Powell would bring only the most compelling, clear-cut data available to the United Nations.
As an example of such ambiguous information, Democrats today cited the administration's assertion, repeated by President Bush in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had bought aluminum tubes to restart its nuclear weapons program. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the tubes can just as easily be used to build nonnuclear rockets.
"Clearly, there's a difference of opinion in the intelligence community" on the purpose of the tubes, Mr. Armitage said in response to questions raised by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the committee's ranking Democrat.
"Perhaps we miscalculated," he said. "I take your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, `Keep it simple, sailor,' go with your strong points."
Administration officials have been trying to keep expectations about Mr. Powell's presentation next week from rising too high. While they say the presentation will be compelling, they have also said it will not contain any intelligence as definite as the dramatic satellite photographs of Soviet missiles in Cuba that Adlai E. Stevenson presented to the United Nations in 1962.
Instead, officials said today, the intelligence, some of it clearly incriminating, some more circumstantial, will represent the administration's attempt to "fill in the blanks" in the recent report to the United Nations by Hans Blix, the chief inspector for chemical and biological weapons.
A debate has persisted inside the administration over how much intelligence should be declassified for Mr. Powell's presentation. The information includes intercepted telephone conversations between Iraqi officials, photographs and accounts of defectors and detainees.
Administration officials have expressed concern not only that some of the intelligence is subject to varying, even contradictory, interpretations, but also that revealing it might compromise sources or help other countries learn about American spy satellites. Some officials also worry that if Mr. Powell discloses precisely what the United States knows about Iraqi missiles, the Iraqis will move them before the United States can destroy them in a war.
Previewing what Mr. Powell may present on Iraq's concealment efforts, Mr. Armitage told the committee that the administration had strong intelligence that Iraq maintains mobile labs for producing biological toxins, though it remains highly classified. "I'd be delighted if they were in the desert," Mr. Armitage said, asserting that there, they could be easily spotted and destroyed. "We believe they are hidden in one of these many tunnels or underground facilities, or garages."
In the second category, Iraq's weapons purchases, Mr. Powell will focus on a pattern of buying materials that could be used for manufacturing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, the officials said. The aluminum tubes fit into this pattern, they added, because even if not intended for a nuclear program, they could be used for building long-range rockets - also a prohibited activity.
During the hearing John D. Negroponte, the American ambassador to the United Nations, raised particular concerns about Iraq's acquisition of 380 rocket engines, which had been imported in violation of United Nations sanctions.
"Iraq has casting chambers for solid-fuel missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers and has imported other equipment, including 380 rocket engines," Mr. Negroponte told the senators. "We definitely believe that they are intended for prohibited purposes."
Mr. Powell will also present new information linking Al Qaeda to Mr. Hussein's government, the officials said. This third area could be the most contentious part of the administration's case. Many European diplomats have said that convincing data tying Mr. Hussein to Al Qaeda would make it easier for their governments to support a war. But they have also expressed strong skepticism that such evidence exists.
Today, Mr. Armitage told the senators, "It's clear that Al Qaeda is harbored, to some extent, in Iraq - that there is a presence in Iraq."
One indication of that, he said, was the recent presence in Baghdad of a leading Qaeda chemical weapons expert, Abbu Mussab al-Zarqawi. Some intelligence officials think Mr. Zarqawi masterminded the October assassination of Laurence Foley, an American diplomat in Jordan.
Mr. Armitage also said Mr. Powell would probably present intelligence tying Al Qaeda to Ansar al-Islam, a radical Islamic group that operates in northern Iraq. Kurdish groups allied with the United States have said that 60 to 200 Qaeda soldiers recently trained in Ansar camps in northern Iraq.
But some officials have said many of those soldiers may have already fled the region. Many American intelligence officials contend there is little if any intelligence indicating a clear connection between Mr. Hussein and Ansar.
-------- korea
Hints of North Korea Plutonium Output
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4492-2003Jan31?language=printer
U.S. intelligence satellites have seen signs this month that North Korea may have begun moving nuclear fuel rods from storage in a step that could lead to reopening production of weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons, senior administration sources said last night.
"We are not entirely sure what is going on," one official said in confirming that spy satellites have observed truck movements at Pyongyang's Yongbyon nuclear complex near the pond where the plutonium rods have been stored as part of a 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration. Under the accord, North Korea agreed to freeze its production of weapons-grade plutonium. Word of the satellite intelligence was first reported last night by the New York Times.
If North Korea does go ahead with reprocessing, it could produce enough plutonium from the 8,000 rods in storage to fashion six to eight nuclear weapons, according to government sources. CIA analysts said last month that they expected the government of Kim Jong Il to go ahead with initial plutonium production no matter what diplomatic agreements eventually are worked out.
The agency believes that Pyongyang had already obtained enough plutonium before the 1994 agreement to produce one or possibly two nuclear weapons, but it has never confirmed the weapons were built.
The intelligence is the latest sign that North Korea may be escalating a crisis that began in October when the Bush administration confronted North Korea with information that Pyongyang was bypassing the 1994 agreement by building a new plant to produce enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. When the United States demanded that North Korea halt all its nuclear activities before any discussions could begin, Pyongyang reacted with a series of moves that included threatening to reopen its plutonium reprocessing plant and preparing the rods for production.
It also forced out International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who were there to ensure that the 1994 agreement was honored. Pyongyang then announced its withdrawal from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Since then, the United States -- under pressure from South Korea, Japan and China -- has modified its position. These nations have argued that diplomacy is the only way to solve the problem.
The Bush administration has also faced criticism at home for looking for a diplomatic solution with North Korea, which had expelled the IAEA inspectors, while planning to launch a military attack against Iraq, which had accepted the IAEA inspectors. Administration officials have in the past ruled out a military option, including an attempt to destroy Pyongyang's reprocessing plant, because such a step could cause a military response against South Korea. The South Korean capital, Seoul, is within artillery range of North Korean guns.
The different approaches toward Iraq and North Korea were repeatedly brought up yesterday at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq. Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said the two countries need to be handled differently and that, unlike North Korea, Iraq was already under 16 U.N. resolutions demanding its disarmament.
----
Satellites Said to See Activity at North Korean Nuclear Site
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/asia/31KORE.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 - American spy satellites over North Korea have detected what appear to be trucks moving the country's stockpile of 8,000 nuclear fuel rods out of storage, prompting fears within the Bush administration that North Korea is preparing to produce roughly a half dozen nuclear weapons, American officials said today.
Throughout January, intelligence analysts have seen extensive activity at the Yongbyon nuclear complex, with some trucks pulling up to the building housing the storage pond. While the satellites could not see exactly what was being put into the trucks, analysts concluded that it was likely that workers were transporting the rods to another site, either to get them out of sight, or to move them to a reprocessing plant to convert them into bomb-grade plutonium.
The Bush administration has said nothing publicly about the truck activity, deflecting questions about the subject. American intelligence analysts have informally concluded that the movement of the rods, combined with other activity that now appears to be under way at the Yongbyon complex, could allow North Korea to begin producing bomb-grade plutonium by the end of March.
"There's still a debate about exactly what we are seeing and how provocative it is," said one senior official. "The North Koreans made no real effort to hide this from us."
The satellite photographs of the truck activity have been tightly held by the administration, and not yet shared widely with allies. The administration's lack of public expressions of alarm contrasts sharply with its approach to Iraq, which the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, noted today was years behind North Korea in nuclear ability.
Some administration officials have said they want to avoid creating a crisis atmosphere with North Korea - they believe its leader, Kim Jong Il, is hoping to set off a crisis to extract concessions from Washington - while others say President Bush does not want to distract international attention from Iraq.
But a former nonproliferation official in the Clinton administration, Robert J. Einhorn, said tonight that by moving toward production of actual weapons, "the North Koreans may be taking a fateful step."
The spent fuel rods have been in secure storage since 1994, under a nuclear freeze agreement struck with the United States that year. But after American officials confronted Mr. Kim's government last October with evidence that it was violating the agreement by pursuing a new, clandestine nuclear program, North Korea renounced the 1994 agreement. It threw out international inspectors on New Year's Eve, and now appears to be moving the rods.
Despite the uncertainty, there is a growing consensus in the administration that North Korea is working to produce bombs as quickly as it can, perhaps hoping this will give it more negotiating leverage once Iraq is out of the spotlight.
The satellite evidence may present the Bush administration with an excruciating military choice. Pentagon officials say the North Korean program could be set back for years with a precision strike on the reprocessing plant. The plant is above ground and away from population centers. Such a strike is part of the Pentagon's contingency plan for an outbreak of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. The Clinton administration developed plans for a strike against the complex in case diplomacy failed in the 1994 nuclear crisis.
But such a strike would be enormously risky. American officials and their allies fear that North Korea would retaliate against South Korea or Tokyo, an attack that could result in tremendous casualties.
Mr. Bush has pledged in recent weeks that "we have no intention of invading North Korea." But the word "invading" appears, to some Korea experts, to have been carefully chosen, so that Mr. Bush was not taking off the table the threat of a strike on the plant.
On the other hand, administration officials have said such a strike may not accomplish much, because North Korea has now admitted to a second nuclear program, involving enriched uranium. "We don't know where that program is," said one senior official. "So if you hit the plutonium plant, they would just speed up on the uranium program."
Several American officials said today that there were no indications that the Pentagon was preparing for a pre-emptive strike against the plant, emphasizing that Mr. Bush was still focused on reaching a diplomatic resolution to the crisis.
Nonetheless, military and Pentagon officials say Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is immersed in the crisis, even as he oversees the troop buildup in the Persian Gulf.
Within the last week, Mr. Rumsfeld has taken part in several videoconferences with commanders in the Pacific, including Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, the commander of American forces in South Korea. Mr. Rumsfeld is meeting with General LaPorte this week, while the general is in Washington for a conference.
Mr. Rumsfeld has pressed his top military advisers not only on the options for using force pre-emptively against North Korea, but also on how to ensure that as the United States prepares for a possible war with Iraq, American forces are positioned to deter and, if needed, wage a second conflict on the Korean Peninsula, officials said.
Despite American pledges to use diplomacy, North Korea is interpreting American behavior as threatening. Responding today to the State of the Union address, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement, "This policy speech is, in essence, an undisguised declaration of aggression" against North Korea. The statement referred to Mr. Bush as a "shameless charlatan.'`
Ever since North Korea ejected the international inspectors and stripped seals and cameras away from its nuclear facilities, American intelligence officials have been searching for signs that the country was preparing to reprocess the fuel rods. North Korea is believed to have produced enough plutonium to make about two nuclear weapons prior to 1994; the current stockpile is enough for five or six more, though it is unclear whether Mr. Kim's scientists have the ability to detonate them.
It is unclear whether American intelligence officials will know for certain if North Korea begins reprocessing spent fuel rods. One defense official said that in addition to the truck traffic, the United States has also detected activity "you'd associate with an active weapons facility." The official declined to elaborate.
"They're making the motions to get restarted," the official said. "We're talking about late winter when the reprocessing center could be in operation." Officials say that if the reprocessing goes smoothly, North Korea could produce about one bomb's worth of plutonium a month.
Some in the Bush administration believe that North Korea could simply be conducting the nuclear activity as part of an elaborate bluff, hoping it will bring the Bush administration to the negotiating table.
But that strategy could backfire. "The North Koreans have to recognize what kind of signals they are sending here," Mr. Einhorn said. "Consciously or not, they are sending the signal that they are determined to acquire a significant arsenal of nuclear weapons. If they do that too strongly, there will be little incentive for the U.S. to do anything but isolate them."
----
US, Seeing Activity at Nuclear Site, Warns N.Korea
Reuters
Friday, January 31, 2003; 5:53 PM
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7659-2003Jan31?language=printer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. spy satellites show North Korea is moving fuel rods around a key nuclear complex, including possibly some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods that experts consider a key tripwire in bomb building, American officials said on Friday.
But there is no sign that crucial reprocessing of those spent fuel rods has begun, they added.
Even as they try to keep the North Korea crisis on a diplomatic track, Bush administration officials seem increasingly convinced that Pyongyang is determined to launch full-scale production of nuclear weapons -- an ominous development as Washington moves toward war with Iraq.
As there has been for the last month, "there is still activity around Yongbyon, some of it associated with the reactor, an immediate thing that's not as bad as reprocessing but still isn't good," a senior official told Reuters.
"I don't discount that they might begin reprocessing in the next month, or do another missile launch," but there are no signs of preparations for such a test, he said.
Another official told Reuters Yongbyon is "bustling with activity. There are canisters and vehicles moving about. It's hard to rule in or out that spent fuel rods are on the move but it's certainly plausible."
U.S. officials in recent weeks have detected that North Korea had moved quantities of fresh fuel rods to the area of a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. It is in the reactor where the unused uranium fuel rods are converted to plutonium.
An even more significant step would be for Pyongyang to move 8,000 spent fuel rods -- which have already gone through the reactor -- from a holding pond where they had been mothballed under a 1994 agreement with the United States.
In the nuclear process, spent fuel rods go through a reprocessing facility where the plutonium is extracted to become fuel for nuclear weapons.
SPENT FUEL 'POSSIBLY' MOVED
Fresh fuel rods "probably" have been moved at Yongbyon and spent fuel rods "possibly" have been moved, said one official, noting that intelligence is not clear-cut.
Another official who initially said he believed the spent fuel rods were still in the cooling pond later amended his comment, saying "we don't know" where they are.
Faced with media reports on the Yongbyon activities, the Bush administration -- which has tried to put the issue on the back burner as it concentrates on Iraq -- warned North Korea against taking any steps to reprocess plutonium.
"Any steps toward beginning reprocessing would be yet another provocative action by North Korea intended to intimidate and blackmail the international community," presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters.
He declined to comment on a New York Times report that the stockpile of 8,000 spent fuel rods was being moved.
Absent from the spokesman's comments was any threat of military action if North Korea crosses what experts consider a red line and begins reprocessing the 8,000 spent fuel rods.
The Clinton administration developed plans for a strike against the Yongbyon complex if diplomacy failed during the previous nuclear crisis with North Korea in 1994.
DIPLOMATIC FOCUS
But President Bush, determined to stay focused on Iraq, has instead emphasized a commitment to a diplomatic solution.
Secretary of State Colin Powell took pains to reaffirm that the United States had "no intention of attacking" North Korea and was ready to convey this assurance to Pyongyang in a way "that makes sense and ... is unmistakable ."
Speaking to the World Affairs Council, he said Washington "stands ready to build a different kind of relationship" with the reclusive Stalinist state but "we cannot help easily a nation that is so dismissive of the concerns of the international community."
While Bush has promised not to invade North Korea, experts say he has not ruled out military action.
U.S. intelligence estimates North Korea produced enough plutonium for one to three nuclear weapons before the Yongbyon facility was mothballed as part of the now defunct Agreed Framework signed with the United States in 1994.
The current stockpile is enough for about six more.
Pentagon officials described Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as being "immersed" in the North Korea crisis despite his responsibilities for possible war with Iraq.
This week he held talks with Gen. Leon LaPorte, the commander of American forces in South Korea.
Officials said Rumsfeld has been reviewing military options on North Korea.
"Certainly there's a lot of interest by him and senior leadership in just having the knowledge and knowing what our options are at any stage in the game ... It doesn't mean serious consideration is being given to using them. We plan for a lot of things," one official said.
"In this case, it's been made clear that the administration has decided to handle this diplomatically so any talk of military action has been just that -- talk," he said.
On Friday, Fleischer reaffirmed U.S. support for bringing the North Korea issue to the U.N. Security Council. The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog also said on Friday he would recommend that the security council, which has the power to approve economic sanctions, get involved in the stand-off.
Since December, North Korea has expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, restarted Yongbyon and threatened to resume missile tests.
The crisis was sparked in October 2002 when the United States said Pyongyang admitted to developing a highly enriched uranium program in violation of the 1994 accord, under which North Korea froze its nuclear program in exchange for two nuclear energy reactors and economic assistance.
----
North Korea Presses Demand for Direct Talks With U.S.
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By ERIK ECKHOLM
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/asia/31CND-KOREA.html
BEIJING, Jan. 31 - Blaming the current impasse on deceit and hostility by the Bush administration, a North Korean diplomat today renewed Pyongyang's demand for direct negotiations with the United States on nuclear weapons.
Speaking in Beijing, Choe Jin Su, North Korea's ambassador to Beijing, rejected American proposals to take the issue to the United Nations. "We will never participate in any form of international talks" on our nuclear programs, he told reporters.
The United States wants North Korea's compliance with nuclear agreements to be discussed at the United Nations Security Council, which would have the legal power to impose economic sanctions if violations were found. But the North opposes United Nations involvement and has warned that it would regard sanctions as tantamount to an act of war.
"This issue should be solved through bilateral negotiations between the D.P.R.K. and the United States," Mr. Choe said, referring to North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "If the United States will sign a nonaggression treaty that will have binding force after being ratified by Congress," he continued, then "North Korea has a willingness to prove that it is not making nuclear weapons."
The ambassador scoffed at American fears that the North is pursuing nuclear weapons. But he said that as a sovereign country, North Korea has no obligation to explain its programs.
He said that in the face of American bluster - including President Bush's designation of his country as part of an "axis of evil" and contingency plans for pre-emptive bombing of the North's nuclear facilities - North Korea had the right to withdraw from the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as it recently did to widespread condemnation.
"We can never tolerate United States maneuvering to violate the sovereignty of our country," he said.
The ambassador did not comment directly on new assertions by American intelligence officials that the North was moving stockpiled nuclear fuel rods out of storage, possibly preparing to reprocess them into bomb-grade plutonium.
But he did day that the assertion by American officials last fall that the North had admitted to starting a second covert weapons program, involving uranium enrichment, was "a sinister plot invented by the extreme warmongers in the United States."
The current impasse began in October, when Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly, after a visit to Pyongyang, said that the North had admitted to a secret uranium enrichment program, violating earlier agreements to forego nuclear weapons development in return for energy aid.
Today, Ambassador Choe said that Mr. Kelly had taken "an arrogant attitude during his visit to our country, groundlessly urging us to admit" to the weapons program. "So we took the attitude of neither denying it nor confirming it," he said.
"We do not want to threaten the United States to get any concessions," the ambassador said. "We want the United States not to interfere with or threaten our country."
--------
Envoy Says N.Korea Will Boycott IAEA Meeting
January 31, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north-diplomat.html
MOSCOW (Reuters) - North Korea was quoted as saying it will boycott a key U.N. meeting on its nuclear standoff with the United States, but U.N. officials said Friday that Pyongyang does not have the right to attend the forum anyway.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is expected to hold an emergency session of its governing board to discuss North Korea's nuclear crisis some time in February, but has yet to set a date.
``Pyongyang takes a dim view of the activities of this organization and believes it serves the interests of the United States,'' North Korea's ambassador to Moscow, Pak Ui Chun, was quoted as saying by Itar-Tass news agency.
``North Korea will not take part in the emergency meeting.''
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told Reuters that since North Korea withdrew from the agency in 1994 it did not have the right to attend.
``They can't be at the meeting. They're not a member state and they're not on the board,'' she said.
There are 35 member states on the IAEA governing board, including the United States, Britain, China, France, Japan and Russia.
The crisis developed in October when the United States said North Korea had admitted developing nuclear arms. Pyongyang later ejected U.N. nuclear inspectors, removed seals from a mothballed reactor and pulled out of an international treaty aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at Vienna's airport Friday that he hoped the board session would take place on February 12.
``It's still up in the air,'' Fleming said about the date.
Members are expected to ask the U.N. Security Council, which has the authority to issue economic sanctions against Pyongyang, to take up the matter.
North Korea, which says sanctions would amount to a declaration of war, has lashed out at the IAEA, calling it the ``cat's paw'' of the United States and saying it was in no position to discuss the crisis.
--------
U.S. Warns N.Korea on Nuclear Activity
January 31, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-korea-usa.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific has asked the Pentagon for reinforcements to deter any ``adventure'' by North Korea if the United States goes to war against Iraq, defense officials said on Friday.
Other U.S. officials said that U.S. spy satellites showed North Korea was moving fuel rods around a key nuclear complex, including possibly some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods that experts consider a key tripwire in bomb-building.
But there was no sign that crucial reprocessing of those spent fuel rods had begun, they added.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made no decision on the request for additional forces by Adm. Thomas Fargo, said a senior defense official, adding that they could include several thousand troops, bombers and perhaps an aircraft carrier.
The United States already has 37,000 troops in South Korea, but Fargo had asked for some additional forces along with B-1 and B-52 bombers to let North Korea know that the United States was prepared for any contingency, officials said.
``The admiral (Fargo) wants to be sure that the North Koreans don't launch any adventure to take advantage of what they might see as preoccupation with Iraq,'' said one defense official. ``He feels it would be a prudent step.''
The officials said the request had been pending for weeks but that President Bush wanted to peacefully settle the crisis over Pyongyang's resumption of its nuclear program and was moving carefully.
The U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk is based in Yokosuka, Japan. But the ship could be sent to the Gulf if Bush decides to launch an invasion of Iraq.
The Korean crisis was sparked last October when the United States said Pyongyang had admitted to developing a highly enriched uranium program in violation of a 1994 accord, under which the North froze its nuclear program in exchange for two nuclear energy reactors and economic assistance.
Bush administration officials seem increasingly convinced that Pyongyang is determined to launch full-scale production of nuclear weapons.
As there has been for the past month, ``there is still activity around Yongbyon, some of it associated with the reactor, an immediate thing that's not as bad as reprocessing but still isn't good,'' a senior official told Reuters.
``I don't discount that they might begin reprocessing in the next month, or do another missile launch,'' but there were no signs of preparations for such a test, he said.
Another official told Reuters Yongbyon was ``bustling with activity.'' ``There are canisters and vehicles moving about. It's hard to rule in or out that spent fuel rods are on the move but it's certainly plausible,'' the official said.
U.S. officials in recent weeks have detected that North Korea had moved quantities of fresh fuel rods to the area of a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. The reactor converts uranium fuel rods to plutonium.
An even more significant step would be for Pyongyang to move 8,000 spent fuel rods -- which have already gone through the reactor -- from a holding pond where they had been mothballed under the 1994 agreement.
In the nuclear arms process, spent fuel rods go through a reprocessing facility where the plutonium for weapons is extracted.
Fresh fuel rods ``probably'' have been moved at Yongbyon and spent fuel rods ``possibly'' have been moved, said one official, noting that intelligence was not clear-cut.
Another official who initially said he believed the spent fuel rods were still in the cooling pond later amended his comment, saying, ``We don't know'' where they are.
Faced with media reports on the Yongbyon activities, the administration -- which has tried to put the issue on the back burner as it concentrates on Iraq -- warned North Korea against taking any steps to reprocess plutonium.
``Any steps toward beginning reprocessing would be yet another provocative action by North Korea intended to intimidate and blackmail the international community,'' presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters.
He declined to comment on a New York Times report that the stockpile of 8,000 spent fuel rods was being moved.
Secretary of State Colin Powell took pains to reaffirm that the United States had ``no intention of attacking'' North Korea and was ready to convey that assurance to Pyongyang in a way ``that makes sense and ... is unmistakable.''
Speaking to the World Affairs Council, he said Washington ``stands ready to build a different kind of relationship'' with the Stalinist state, but ``we cannot help easily a nation that is so dismissive of the concerns of the international community.''
Pentagon officials described Rumsfeld as being ``immersed'' in the North Korea crisis despite his responsibilities for possible war with Iraq.
This week, he held talks with Gen. Leon LaPorte, the commander of American forces in South Korea. Officials said Rumsfeld had been reviewing military options on North Korea.
``It's been made clear that the administration has decided to handle this diplomatically so any talk of military action has been just that -- talk,'' one official said.
-------- space
Space forum under scrutiny Groups says UNM helping put weapons in space
by Stuart Overbey
Daily Lobo, New Mexico,
January 31, 2003
http://www.dailylobo.com/news/357063.html
UNM's annual Space Technology and Applications Forum has raised questions about whether the military nuclear research plays a part in the program.
The forum is set to begin Sunday and is sponsored by UNM's Institute for Nuclear Space Power Studies.
It was started 20 years ago, when nuclear space power was in its infancy. UNM professor and institute founder Mohamed El-Genk envisioned a small gathering to encourage the exchange of ideas on the topic. But as the institute became a leader in the field, the forum became "the place to be" for nuclear scientists.
Despite the forum's reputation among researchers in the field, some local and international groups have collaborated to demonstrate against military use of nuclear technology in space and UNM's contribution to those nuclear applications.
"This is a big planning conference for militarization of space," said Bob Anderson, a UNM instructor and member of the local peace group, Stop the War Machine. "They call it exploration and development of space, but all the people from it are people who turn it into military weapons. Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor in the world, is one of their biggest sponsors."
Those who protest this issue locally have often targeted El-Genk for criticism. But El-Genk said that the ethical issue of how his research is applied is not his responsibility.
"I think the ethical part really falls on those who use the technology for something in particular," El-Genk said. "We who are here at the University are not in the political arena."
He compared the military application of his research to the military's appropriation of four-wheel drive technology.
"Would you think we should drive all the SUV's from the market and not build them anymore because the military might use it," El-Genk said. "How convenient would that be to everyone?"
But some say that attitude is reckless and irresponsible.
"I would characterize that as scientists and technologists out of control," said Bruce Gagnon, in regard to El-Genk's stance. "Ethics is not an issue for them."
Gagnon, of Gainesville, Fla., is the founder of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. He will speak Sunday evening, when the Space Technology Forum opens, at the First Congregational Church, 2801 Lomas Blvd. NE.
Monday and Tuesday, as forum presenters speak at the Albuquerque Hyatt Regency Hotel, 330 Tijeras NW, demonstrators will be outside ready to talk with the forum attendees about possible weapons applications of the material presented.
About a decade ago, Gagnon identified the Institute as a major source of nuclear technology that could enable plans to put the technology in space.
Gagnon pointed to two reasons for his opposition -- radioactive contamination from accidents in the laboratory and inevitable launch failures.
"This is not theoretical," Gagnon said, noting a 1996 article appearing in the Santa Fe New Mexican, which documents 244 cases of accidental radioactive contamination at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1995. He also said 34 nuclear cores orbiting Earth have disintegrating orbits which will fall back on the planet, still radioactive.
Military demand for nuclear propulsion technology has funding behind it.
In the January issue of Air Force Magazine, Peter Teets, director of the National Reconnaissance Office and former president of Lockheed Martin, called for the Air Force to develop capabilities that will allow U.S. military control of space. Teets echoes the directives of a 1996 document called "Vision 2020," issued by U.S. Space Command, which is headquartered at Patterson Air Force Base in Colorado. "Vision 2020" also calls for global domination by the United States through the militarization of space.
In a recent press release, Gagnon quotes former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe, now NASA's director as saying, "It's imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA. Technology has taken us to a point where you really can't differentiate between that which is purely military in application and those capabilities which are civil and commercial."
O'Keefe's statement outlines the implementation of "dual-use technologies," in which technology developed for private sector applications will also be used by the military.
Grant sponsors for El-Genk and the Institute for Space Nuclear Power Studies indicate involvement in the dual-use research. From a list provided by UNM's Public Affairs Department, El-Genk's grant sponsors have included the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories, Defense Special Weapons Agency and NASA.
"There is a trick I don't know if you're aware of," said El-Genk in regard to a contract he had had with the Air Force. "The Air Force might come and say, 'We're interested in this technology,' but of course development technologies can't come from their budget. So DOE or another agency will say 'OK, the nuclear part, we'll develop it and you pay for that development.' But most government agencies don't stay around. They want some other agency to develop the technology then they can go and use it.
"The Air Force never came out and said, 'We need this technology and we'll pay to develop it.'"
However, El-Genk's institute is not alone in working for the military.
Fifty-three other UNM professors from various departments have security clearances to enable them to work on military projects. UNM student and Stop the War Machine member Trey Smith asked for a list of the names of those professors, but the Public Affairs Department would not release them citing security issues.
Gagnon said he hopes the upcoming demonstrations will get people thinking and talking about weapons in space.
"We're not saying there shouldn't be any space program," he said, "It's a question of what kind of seed do we carry with us out into space? If we carry this seed of war and environmental degradation, we are doing something morally and ethically wrong."
The Institute for Nuclear Space Power Studies is in the Farris Engineering Center. Media Credit: Laura Mann The Institute for Nuclear Space Power Studies is in the Farris Engineering Center.
-------- terrorism
Report: Evidence al Qaida has 'dirty bomb'
January 31, 2003
UPI
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030131-021832-1548r.htm
LONDON, Jan. 31 -- British officials have reportedly revealed evidence they claim shows al Qaida sought to assemble radioactive material to build a so-called dirty bomb. The British Broadcasting Corp. says it's been shown "previously undisclosed material," including secret intelligence from agents sent by Britain into al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan.
It says the agents posed as recruits, blended in and reported back "that Osama bin Laden's weapons program was further on than anyone thought."
British officials said on Thursday that bin Laden had gained the expertise and possibly the materials to build a crude radioactive bomb.
According to the BBC, the government has said that evidence suggests that by 1999, bin Laden's priority was to develop a weapon of mass destruction. It quotes unidentified officials as saying that he had acquired radioactive isotopes from the Taliban to do this and development work on the "dirty bomb" had been carried out in a nuclear laboratory in Herat, Afghanistan.
It said the government had al Qaida training manuals that "detail how to use a dirty bomb to maximum effect."
The network said it sought a second opinion on the claims from an expert on al Qaida: Mustafa Alani of the Royal United Service Institute, a London security and defense organization. He's quoted by the BBC as saying: "It is credible. This is proof that al Qaida put a lot of effort into collecting information and educating other members of the organization. It is possible to produce this sort of weapon."
The BBC adds: "British military personnel worked with intelligence officers to gather material, which was taken to Porton Down defense research center in Wiltshire. Their conclusion was that al Qaida had a small dirty bomb but probably not a full-blown nuclear device."
--------
TERROR REPORT
BBC Says Al Qaeda Produced a 'Dirty Bomb' in Afghanistan
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/asia/31BOMB.html
LONDON, Jan. 30 - British officials believe that Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, successfully built a crude radiological device known as a "dirty bomb" in Afghanistan, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported today.
British intelligence agents found documents that showed Qaeda members had built a small device near Herat in western Afghanistan, the BBC said, citing unidentified British government officials.
The Foreign Office said the report substantiated expert opinion that Al Qaeda wanted to develop a nuclear weapon.
"The evidence presented in the BBC report speaks for itself," a spokesman said. "It provides proof to substantiate expert opinion that Al Qaeda was interested in developing nuclear weapons."
In Washington, an American official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. bin Laden was no doubt interested in acquiring a "dirty bomb" - a conventional bomb capable of spreading radiation.
But the official said, "We have no evidence to substantiate that he's built such a device."
The British intelligence agents did not find the device itself and it has not since been recovered, BBC reported. But scientists at the British government's weapons research facility in Porton Down concluded that Al Qaeda had succeeded in constructing a small "dirty bomb" in Herat, based on documents and material uncovered by the British military and intelligence, the BBC said.
The scientists did not believe that Al Qaeda had been able to develop a full-blown nuclear device, it said. The report did not say when the device was thought to have been developed or how much radiation it could spread.
British officials showed some of the documents - including diagrams - to the BBC, the report said.
As part of the operation, British agents infiltrated Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, posed as recruits and reported back, the BBC said.
The British officials told the BBC that Afghanistan's Taliban government helped Al Qaeda construct the device by providing medical isotopes.
Computers found by journalists and American troops at a variety of facilities in Afghanistan indicated Al Qaeda had tried to obtain and develop nuclear and other weapons.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Bush approves nuclear response
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 31, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm
A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including potentially nuclear weapons - to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.
A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. However, instead of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the public text says, "including through resort to all of our options."
A White House spokesman declined to comment when asked about the document last night and neither confirmed nor denied its existence.
A senior administration official said, however, that using the words "nuclear weapons" in the classified text gives the military and other officials, who are the document's intended audience, "a little more of an instruction to prepare all sorts of options for the president," if need be.
The official, nonetheless, insisted that ambiguity remains "the heart and soul of our nuclear policy."
In the classified version, nuclear forces are designated as the main part of any U.S. deterrent, and conventional capabilities "complement" the nuclear weapons.
"Nuclear forces alone ... cannot ensure deterrence against [weapons of mass destruction] and missiles," the original paragraph says. "Complementing nuclear force with an appropriate mix of conventional response and defense capabilities, coupled with effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities, reinforces our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats."
Before it released the text publicly, the White House changed that same paragraph to: "In addition to our conventional and nuclear response and defense capabilities, our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats is reinforced by effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities."
The classified document, a copy of which was shown to The Washington Times, is known better by its abbreviation NSPD 17, as well as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 4.
The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces but also to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives.
For decades, the U.S. government has maintained a deliberately vague nuclear policy, expressed in such language as "all options open" and "not ruling anything in or out." As recently as last weekend, Bush administration officials used similar statements in public, consciously avoiding the word "nuclear."
"I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table," White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said on NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that the United States will use "whatever means necessary" to protect its citizens and the world from a "holocaust."
But in the paragraphs marked "S" for "secret," the Sept. 14 directive clearly states that nuclear weapons are part of the "overwhelming force" that Washington might use in response to a chemical or biological attack.
Former U.S. officials and arms control experts with knowledge of policies of the previous administrations declined to say whether such specific language had been used before, for fear of divulging classified information. But they conceded that differences exist.
"This shows that there is a somewhat greater willingness in this administration to use a nuclear response to other [non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction] attacks, although that's not a wholesale departure from previous administrations," one former senior official said.
Even a slight change can make a big difference. Because it is now "official policy, it means that the United States will actively consider the nuclear option" in a military conflict, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
"This document is far more explicit about the use of nuclear weapons to deter and possibly defeat biological and chemical attacks," he said. "If someone dismisses it, that would question the entire logic of the administration's national security strategy against [weapons of mass destruction]."
Mr. Kimball said U.S. nuclear weapons "should only be used to deter nuclear attacks by others."
A senior official who served in the Clinton administration said there would still have to be a new evaluation before any decision was made on the use of nuclear weapons.
"What this document means is that they have thought through the consequences, including in the abstract, but it doesn't necessarily prejudge any specific case."
Baker Spring, a national security fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the classified language "does not undermine the basic posture of the deterrent and does not commit the United States to a nuclear response in hypothetical circumstances. In a classified document, you are willing to be more specific what the policy is, because people in the administration have to understand it for planning purposes."
Both former officials and arms control analysts say that making the classified text public might raise concerns among Washington's allies but has little military significance. On the other hand, they note, the nuclear deterrent has little value if a potential adversary does not know what it can expect.
They agree that there must have been "good reasons" for the White House to have "cleaned up" the document before releasing it. They speculated on at least three:
Although responding to a non-nuclear attack by nuclear weapons is not banned by international law, existing arms-control treaties call for a "proportionate response" to biological and chemical attacks. The question is, one former official said, whether any nuclear response is proportionate to any non-nuclear attack.
Second, naming nuclear weapons specifically flies in the face of the "negative security assurances" that U.S. administrations have given for 25 years. Those statements, while somewhat modified under different presidents, essentially have said the United States will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless that state attacks it together with a nuclear ally.
Finally, publicly and explicitly articulating a policy of nuclear response can hurt the international nonproliferation regime, which the United States firmly supports. That sets a bad example for countries such as India and Pakistan and gives rogue states an incentive to develop their own nuclear capabilities.
William M. Arkin, a military analyst, wrote in the Los Angeles Times earlier this week that the Bush administration's war planning "moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options."
Mr. Arkin quoted "multiple sources" close to the preparations for a war in Iraq as saying that the focus is on "two possible roles for nuclear weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives; and thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction."
He cited a Dec. 11 memorandum from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to Mr. Bush, asking for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options.
NSPD 17 appears to have upgraded nuclear weapons beyond the traditional function as a nuclear deterrent.
"This is an interesting distinction," Mr. Spring said. "There is an acknowledgment up front that under the post-Cold War circumstances, deterrence in the sense we applied it during the Cold War is not as reliable. I think it's accurate."
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- california
California officials to review plan to move old nuclear reactor
By Laura Wides
ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 31, 2003
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20030131-1603-ca-nuclearreactor.html
LOS ANGELES - Environmentalists are fighting a plan to truck a decommissioned, 900-ton nuclear reactor vessel down 15 miles of shoreline roads and beach on grounds that it risks destruction of endangered habitat and radiation leaks.
The owners of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station want to use a 192-wheel tractor-trailer rig rather than a previously approved train to haul the reactor vessel to a barge that will take it to a burial site in South Carolina.
"That's not what Californians had in mind when they enacted coastal protection laws," said Mark Massara, director of the Sierra Club's California Coastal Program.
The California Coastal Commission is scheduled to vote Feb. 7 on the proposal to drive the vessel from San Onofre, on a beach 50 miles north of San Diego, to a dock at the Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton. The commission's staff has recommended that the board approve the new plan.
If approved, transport to Barnwell County, S.C., could begin within the month - before the start of the beach nesting season of an endangered bird, the snowy plover, and the onset of the Atlantic hurricane season.
The nuclear reactor was the first of three at San Onofre, which is majority-owned by Southern California Edison, along with San Diego Gas & Electric and the cities of Riverside and Anaheim. Unit 1 was put out of service in 1992 after operating over more than two decades. Total decommissioning costs are expected to reach $500 million.
Edison received permission from the commission in 2000 to transport the load down the coast by rail, but the company now says that a study found that trucking the concrete-filled reactor vessel in a steel container would cause less disturbance to the environment.
The 450-megawatt reactor is one of only a handful of commercial-size nuclear reactors in the United States to be decommissioned, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The vessel would be the first to be moved in California and the nation's first to be shipped around the tip of South America.
The proposed route to the dock is entirely along the oceanfront of sprawling Camp Pendleton, using about seven miles of Old Highway 101, a dirt road, a quarter-mile of modern Interstate 5, more dirt road and then eight miles of sandy beach to Camp Del Mar Boat Basin. The rig would take about five days to cover the distance.
A rail line spans most of the same route, but would require upgrades to handle the job.
Environmentalists are most concerned about the load being driven over streams and on the beach, which would be covered with giant plastic sheets. The sheets would be "disassembled and reassembled in a 'leapfrog' fashion," according to a Coastal Commission report.
Opponents also say the weight, equal to about two fully loaded Boeing 747s, could cause landslides. They note the proposed route runs through a popular public state beach as well as the snowy plover habitat.
They want the commission to delay its decision until Edison provides more details about alternative routes.
Edison spokesman Ray Golden said the high-density plastic will be able to handle the tractor-trailer and its load.
"We do not believe there could be any situation where landslides or high tides could put this package in any kind of jeopardy," Golden said.
Edison originally considered shipping the reactor across the country by rail. But railroad officials said the huge cargo would have disrupted regular shipments across the country. Edison then sought to ship the container through the Panama Canal, but officials there have refused to accept the cargo, Golden said.
San Onofre's other two nuclear reactors remain in service, providing up to 15 percent of Southern California's energy needs, enough to supply about 2.3 million customers.
-------- new mexico
Lab Scandal Hurts U. of Calif. Contract
January 31, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-University-Los-Alamos.html
BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) -- A fraud scandal at the Los Alamos laboratory is threatening the storied, 60-year partnership between the government and the University of California that produced both the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb.
The university, on the strength of such faculty stars as J. Robert Oppenheimer and Ernest O. Lawrence, has run the Los Alamos, N.M., lab for the government since it was created during World War II as the headquarters of the secret Manhattan Project to build the bomb.
But the scandal has raised questions about UC's management ability and led some members of Congress and other critics to suggest that it may be time to put the contract up for bid. UC's contract expires in 2005, but either side can terminate it at any time.
``I made clear to them that, No. 1, their contract is in jeopardy and, No. 2, one way or another things have to dramatically change with regards to procurement and management of material at the site,'' said Rep. Jim Greenwood, R-Pa., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigations panel, which is investigating the lab.
Los Alamos has been rocked by allegations of $2.7 million in missing computers and other property and widespread misuse of lab-issued credit cards, including an attempt by a lab employee to buy a souped-up Ford Mustang for $20,000.
The allegations were compounded by charges of a management cover-up after two internal investigators who reported the thefts were fired in November. In recent weeks, the lab director has stepped down, and other top officials have been reassigned.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has given his staff until April 30 to evaluate UC's performance.
UC said in a statement that it has taken aggressive action to address the shortcomings, including instituting a management shake-up. University officials spent the week in Washington, trying to restore confidence in their management.
In addition to running Los Alamos, UC has managed the Lawrence Livermore weapons laboratory in Northern California since its creation in 1952, largely on the initiative of Los Alamos scientist Edward Teller. But the Livermore contract does not appear to be as seriously jeopardized.
The relationship between UC and the government has had lots of ups and downs over the years, and the labs have been rocked by scandal before -- the botched espionage case against Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, the $1 billion overrun in Livermore's effort to build a superlaser, the 1950s unmasking of Los Alamos scientist Klaus Fuchs as a Soviet spy.
But the latest furor ``may be the biggest challenge yet,'' said Herb York, a veteran of the labs who headed Lawrence Livermore in the 1950s.
Los Alamos has a budget of $1.7 billion and about 7,500 UC employees. Under its laboratory-management contracts with the Energy Department, UC gets $17 million in reimbursement for costs and up to about $18 million in performance-based fees.
The question of whether UC should remain as lab manager has been coming up for years.
After World War II ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki laid waste by Los Alamos scientists' handiwork, UC was reluctant to continue the partnership. The university has said it manages the labs because the government wants it to, not because UC wants to.
Despite the occasional clash, the contract has never been put out for bid. UC has long maintained that it would not compete if that happened.
With the latest scandal, ``clearly there is a growing sentiment among many of our members to put the contract out for open bidding,'' said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Among potential suitors is the University of Texas, which in December made an unsuccessful bid to run Sandia National Laboratories, and has Bush administration connections.
Removing UC -- at a time when the country is contemplating war with Iraq -- would be a substantial task. The 15,500 UC employees at Los Alamos and Livermore work on everything from ascertaining if aging nuclear warheads still work to defending against biological or chemical attack.
``You have to think about the good of the program and the benefit to the nation of that program and whether you can move all of the expertise, which you can't,'' said UC defender Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
On the Net:
http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2003/jan16art3.htm
--------
N.M.: Lab Runoff Ups Plutonium Levels
January 31, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Lab-Plutonium-Levels.html
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) -- Elevated levels of plutonium have been detected in storm water runoff leaving Los Alamos National Laboratory since a huge fire in 2000, state officials said.
Samples collected after six storms in 2001 and 2002 had plutonium-239 levels of 94 picocuries per liter, or about 100 times the level the lab reported between 1995 and 1999, the state Environment Department said in a written statement.
The Cerro Grande Fire started in May 2000 as a controlled brush burn set by the National Park Service. It raged for two months, destroying more than 43,000 acres and 235 structures.
The fire burned in the upper Pueblo Canyon watershed and created a dramatic increase in the water runoff. That runoff accelerated erosion of contaminated waste sites at Los Alamos dating from before 1960, the department said.
Los Alamos lab spokesman James Rickman said the lab began an intensive monitoring program immediately after the fire and has reported all its findings to the state. Outside consultants have also monitored the levels.
``All of those teams found there was no unacceptable health risk associated with the Cerro Grande Fire,'' Rickman said. ``So the bottom line, these data aren't really new.''
Plutonium-239 is a radioactive, manmade element produced since the 1940s for use in nuclear weapons. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said its particles could cause lung or internal organ damage if ingested.
-------- new york
Albany Says It Can't Certify Indian Point Evacuation Plan
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/nyregion/31INDI.html
New York State said yesterday that it could not approve an emergency plan for the area around the Indian Point nuclear plant, asking the federal government to take the next step in the fierce battle over the two reactors in Westchester County.
Gov. George E. Pataki did not comment on the merits of the emergency plan, which has come under increasing attack since a consultant he hired reported this month that it was inadequate to protect the public from a release of radiation, especially a large release from a terrorist attack. But Mr. Pataki said in a statement that the report "has heightened our concerns about the adequacy of the emergency plans for these communities."
Today is the deadline for New York to issue its normally routine annual certification of the emergency plan, which the state drafts in consultation with federal and local officials and the plant owner. But the state told federal officials yesterday that it could not give that approval because the four counties surrounding the plant, concerned about safety, had refused to issue their own certifications.
In effect, the governor sought to shift the focus to federal agencies, which will decide what happens next and will face pressure from opponents of Indian Point to close the plant, 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan, in Buchanan.
Many of those opponents, including local elected officials, hailed the state's move as an important step in their campaign. But closing the plant would require at least a year of legal and administrative decisions, with the plant's owner, the Entergy Corporation, fighting at every turn. And New York's message yesterday was cast more as a bureaucratic formality than an emphatic statement.
In a letter to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the state said it simply could not give its annual certification to the plan because the four counties had refused to submit required "checklists." Those forms confirm that the counties have performed necessary training and drills and have completed various administrative functions.
Mr. Pataki urged FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which requires a FEMA-approved plan as a condition of the plant's operating license, to heed the counties' concerns and "continue working with us to ensure that these plans will protect our residents in the event of a nuclear emergency."
A spokesman for FEMA, Mike Beeman, said officials were reviewing the letter, which they received late yesterday, and had not determined what their next step might be. For one thing, the spokesman said, it was not clear what if anything the state was asking of the emergency agency, or if it intended to send a letter of certification at a later date.
"It is an incomplete," Mr. Beeman said, adding that the agency planned to deliver a fuller response, perhaps as early as today.
At any rate, he said, a report the agency is completing on the plant, due within a month, would carry more weight than the state's letter in deciding whether the emergency plan is adequate.
Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires a FEMA-approved plan, it has never closed a plant over emergency planning problems; indeed, it has never closed a plant permanently against an owner's will.
Even if it decides an evacuation plan is inadequate, the commission can give the plant owner a chance to show that the plan is adequate or that the owner can address the problems. The commission can also let the owner offer "other compelling reasons for continued operation," and Entergy has often pointed out that Indian Point contributes at least one-fifth of the electricity for New York City and its northern suburbs.
The company, which has defended the emergency plan as realistic, said yesterday that it welcomed the state's move as an opportunity to improve the plan.
Advocates for shutting the plant also took heart in the state's move.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat who has led the fight to close the plant, criticized Mr. Pataki for not explicitly opposing the plan, but he said that even a tacit sign from the state might be good enough.
"It is inconceivable that FEMA can certify the plan over the objections of the counties and the state, even if the objection of the state is in the form of a quiet whine from deep in a bunker," Mr. Brodsky said.
Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper, an environmental organization that has led a coalition of plant foes, said, "It puts us one step closer to closing the plant."
Mr. Pataki's stance suggests that the state cannot or will not play a lead role in emergency planning. That was not the case in 1983, when Gov. Mario M. Cuomo faced a similar dilemma after Rockland County refused to participate in emergency drills for the plant.
The state told the N.R.C. then that it could fill in for Rockland emergency workers, and the commission voted to accept the plan and allow the plant to continue operating.
"The governor assured the plant would stay open by using state resources," said Alfred Delbello, a former Westchester County executive, who as Mr. Cuomo's lieutenant governor organized the state plan. Doing the same for four counties, however, would prove a challenge, he said.
Both supporters and foes of the plant said the Indian Point debate put Mr. Pataki in something of a bind. Although his home in Garrison is within the evacuation zone for the plant, he infrequently addressed the concerns raised about the plant before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks heightened anxiety.
Mr. Pataki hired the consultant, James Lee Witt, the former director of FEMA, in August as Mr. Pataki's opponents in the governor's re-election campaign began making the plant's safety an issue.
Mr. Witt's preliminary report - a final report is due next month - forced Mr. Pataki to balance the concerns of allies in the business community, who want to see the plant operating, and those of many suburban constituents who have taken Mr. Witt's findings as gospel.
"He is really in a box because a lot of his suburban support is concerned about Indian Point," said Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group, which wants the plant shut down. "But he has the other factor of the business community, which would view closing the plant as a negative signal. And he has to come up with the energy."
If Indian Point were to close, much of its power could be replaced by other sources, but independent analysts have warned that that could be costly for ratepayers. "There is a practical reality for him that the plant is a tremendous economic engine for the state," said Gavin Donahue, executive director of the Independent Power Producers of New York.
----
Indian Point : la centrale de tous les dangers
LE MONDE, in French
31.01.03
From: bernard blanc - berblanc@club-internet.fr
[For those who read french language, this is a very important article in the best known french newspaper. Best regards from France. In struggle! Bernard Blanc.]
Indian Point : la centrale de tous les dangers
Jusqu'au 11 septembre 2001, ce n'était qu'une centrale nucléaire un peu vétuste, tout près de New York. Aujourd'hui, elle cristallise la peur et les hantises des Américains.
Le 11 septembre 2001 au petit matin, les terroristes aux commandes de deux Boeing détournés ont suivi dans un ciel sans nuages l'Hudson pour se diriger vers Manhattan. Trois minutes seulement avant de s'écraser à pleine vitesse sur les tours du World Trade Center, ils survolaient sur la rive est un immense bâtiment flanqué de trois dômes gris en béton caractéristiques, la centrale nucléaire d'Indian Point.
Elle se trouve à peine à 40 kilomètres au nord de la ville de New York, dont elle fournit un tiers de l'électricité. Plus de 20 millions d'habitants vivent dans un rayon de 80 kilomètres. Elle est considérée comme la plus dangereuse des Etats-Unis. L'un des deux réacteurs actifs, Indian Point 2, a connu le plus grand nombre d'incidents de toute l'industrie nucléaire du pays. Il y a un an, il était le seul parmi la centaine en service à recevoir une note rouge de la Commission de contrôle de l'industrie nucléaire (NRC). L'autorité fédérale évalue les risques de vert, le plus faible, à blanc, jaune et rouge, le plus élevé. Indian Point 2 est revenu aujourd'hui à jaune, personne n'est rassuré pour autant.
Une étude remise le 10 janvier au gouverneur de l'Etat de New York juge les procédures d'évacuation de la population en cas d'accident ou d'attentat "insuffisantes et inadaptées". Selon de nombreux témoignages, les gardes de sécurité seraient incapables de faire face à une attaque. Les structures de confinement en béton ne résisteraient pas à l'impact d'un avion. Les déchets sont entreposés dans des piscines qui ne sont pas protégées. Les élus locaux, les associations, les écologistes, les riverains se mobilisent pour obtenir la fermeture du site. Fait sans précédent, le comté de Westchester, où se trouve la centrale, se dit prêt à la racheter à son propriétaire privé, le groupe Entergy, pour la fermer. Il pourrait y consacrer trois fois son budget annuel, plus de 3 milliards de dollars.
Pour la NRC, il n'y a aucune raison de s'alarmer. La centrale est sûre, les normes sont respectées. Mais la crédibilité de l'agence fédérale n'est plus très grande. Elle a mis six mois à reconnaître la nature et l'ampleur d'une fuite survenue le 15 février 2000 à Indian Point 2. Ce jour-là, 75 000 litres d'eau radioactive se sont répandus dans l'Hudson. A 7 kilomètres en aval se trouve le réservoir Croton, la principale source d'alimentation en eau de la ville de New York."On nous a affirmé qu'il ne s'agissait pas techniquement d'une fuite car elle avait été contenue", se souvient Marilyn Elie de Citizens Awareness Network (le réseau des citoyens vigilants). L'association regroupe des centaines de personnes se trouvant dans le périmètre de 10 miles (16 kilomètres) autour d'Indian Point, considéré comme le plus exposé."La NRC n'a rien fait pour démentir un mensonge", ajoute-t-elle.
Un rapport interne et des documents publiés par la presse locale six mois plus tard ont révélé que de l'eau en contact avec le cSur du réacteur s'est déversée à deux reprises dans le fleuve à la suite d'une erreur humaine. Il régnait alors une véritable atmosphère de panique dans la centrale. Mais, selon la NRC, la santé publique n'a jamais été menacée. Le réacteur a tout de même été fermé près d'un an. Et le niveau de qualification du personnel reste douteux. En décembre 2001, quatre des sept équipes du centre de contrôle ont échoué à leur examen annuel de qualification. La NRC évaluait en 1982 le nombre de victimes potentielles en cas d'accident grave de l'un des réacteurs à 46 000 morts et 141 000 blessés. Depuis vingt ans, la densité de population a beaucoup augmenté dans la région... Mais avant le 11 septembre 2001, Indian Point ne préoccupait presque personne. Seule une poignée d'écologistes s'opposaient à la centrale, par habitude. La crainte d'un attentat a tout changé. La pression et la mobilisation se font de plus en plus fortes pour fermer les réacteurs. Les scénarios catastrophe entretiennent la psychose.
"Une attaque réussie à Indian Point pourrait propager des radiations sur des centaines de kilomètres", estime Jan Beyea, physicien nucléaire membre du Conseil national de la recherche et de l'Académie nationale des sciences. Il a évalué les risques pour le comté de Westchester et estime à une sur cinq la possibilité de réussite d'une attaque."C'est trop important pour être ignoré. Des milliers de kilomètres carrés seraient contaminés, les habitants ne pourraient plus revenir. Une fois évacués, ce serait pour de bon", ajoute-t-il.
Pour Gordon Thompson, directeur de l'Institut d'études sur les ressources et la sécurité de Cambridge (Massachusetts), "le plus grand danger n'est pas un avion détourné s'écrasant sur les bâtiments mais de simples terroristes armés de seaux et de tuyaux d'arrosage. (...) Provoquer une brèche et vider l'eau des piscines où sont stockés les déchets suffit à provoquer une catastrophe, dit-il avec un sourire. Même une perte partielle de liquide peut mettre le feu au combustible et répandre dans l'atmosphère des matières radioactives. Si une piscine se consume lentement, personne ne peut plus en approcher".
La sécurité autour de la centrale a été renforcée depuis un an et demi. De nouvelles clôtures électrifiées ont été installées autour du périmètre, des barrières en béton mises en place à l'entrée principale, la surveillance vidéo améliorée, les membres du personnel de sécurité sont protégés dans des guérites à l'épreuve des balles. Mais à en croire un rapport interne révélé par le New York Times du 8 décembre 2002, les gardes eux-mêmes ne s'estiment pas capables de défendre le site. Keith G. Logan, ancien enquêteur de la NRC, a interrogé plus de 50 membres du personnel de sécurité d'Indian Point 2.
Ils dénoncent "une atmosphère détestable", "les pressions pour ne pas faire état des incidents et des failles du système". Les comptes rendus sont écrits sur des feuilles volantes. Le nombre de gardes n'a pas été augmenté depuis le 11 septembre 2001, ils travaillent seulement plus longtemps. Cinq à six permanences de douze heures d'affilée par semaine prolongées souvent à seize heures."La moitié des effectifs n'est pas physiquement capable de faire face à une agression. Le système de détection des intrusions ne cesse de tomber en panne. Les clôtures électrifiées et les caméras de surveillance sont parfois rafistolées avec des bandes adhésives..."
Le constat de Foster Zeh, 44 ans, grand gaillard de plus de 1 m 90, est le même. Pendant six ans, cet ancien du FBI a été de temps à autre instructeur du personnel de sécurité d'Indian Point 2."N'importe quel assaillant déterminé peut entrer, affirme-t-il. Les gardes sont fatigués, souvent en méforme, sous-entraînés, sous-payés, trop peu nombreux et démotivés. Leurs exercices sont totalement factices, ils savent à l'avance où intercepter les agresseurs. Ils n'ont pas de pratique régulière des armes à feu. Ils utilisent des sifflets pour simuler des tirs et des pistolets en caoutchouc." Au cours de tentatives d'infiltration l'an dernier, Foster Zeh affirme avoir été capable à cinq reprises d'atteindre le bâtiment du réacteur et trois fois de poser des explosifs factices à côté des piscines de combustible sans être intercepté.
Entergy emploie ses propres gardes à Indian Point mieux formés et mieux payés et sous-traite la sécurité du réacteur numéro deux à Wackenhut, une société spécialisée dans la protection des sites sensibles. Considérée comme intouchable elle travaille depuis des décennies pour des agences gouvernementales. Elle assure, entre autres, la sécurité de Cap Canaveral, des ambassades américaines, les pipelines de l'Alaska... Son nom a été plusieurs fois cité dans des opérations militaires au Salvador dans les années 1980, où elle employait alors des centaines de personnes, et dans la vente d'équipements de défense à des pays où la présence américaine se veut discrète.
"Nous ne cessons de clamer depuis des mois que la centrale n'est pas suffisamment protégée et doit être fermée, il n'y a pas d'autre solution. Elle est dangereuse, la seule des Etats-Unis à se trouver dans une zone aussi peuplée. Personne ne peut assumer un tel risque", affirme Alex Matthiessen, le directeur de Riverkeeper (le gardien de la rivière), une association de protection de l'environnement. Entergy n'est évidemment pas d'accord. La société plaide la bonne foi, affirme avoir fait de grands progrès. Elle se dit victime de l'héritage du passé et demande du temps. Entergy a acheté le réacteur 3 à la New York Power Authority en 2000 et le réacteur 2 à Consolidated Edison quelques jours seulement avant le 11 septembre 2001. Indian Point 1 est arrêté depuis plusieurs années."A Indian Point 2, nous avons trouvé une situation vraiment très dégradée. Juste après l'avoir repris, nous avons dressé une liste de 5 200 dysfonctionnements. Nous parons au plus pressé. Nous ne pouvons pas tout faire en même temps, mais le réacteur est sûr", affirme James Steets, porte-parole d'Entergy.
Andrew Spano, le directeur démocrate du comté de Westchester, pense que la centrale est difficilement défendable. "Elle est trop dangereuse et constitue une cible trop tentante pour une zone aussi peuplée."A défaut de pouvoir la faire fermer rapidement, il demande au moins que la sécurité soit assurée par le gouvernement fédéral. Il a reçu l'appui de ses homologues des comtés de Rockland, Putnam et Orange qui se trouvent tous dans la fameuse zone de 10 miles autour d'Indian Point. Hillary Clinton et Charles Schumer, sénateurs démocrates de New York, ont également réclamé l'intervention de Washington, sans obtenir de réponse.
En fait, le sort d'Indian Point pourrait bien se jouer à Albany, la capitale de l'Etat de New York. George Pataki, le gouverneur républicain, s'est soudain préoccupé de l'existence de la centrale avant sa réélection en novembre. Il a demandé un rapport urgent sur la sécurité de la population. Sa publication s'est fait attendre : son auteur, James Lee Witt, ancien président de la Federal Emergency Management Agency (agence fédérale de gestion des situations d'urgence), avait fait "malencontreusement" appel à un bureau d'études ayant des liens avec Entergy. Sous la pression, M. Witt a changé de consultant. Son étude de 550 pages a été rendue publique le 10 janvier. Elle est accablante."Les autorités sont incapables d'assurer la protection des habitants contre une dose inacceptable de radiations." Le document critique tous les aspects du plan d'urgence : les scénarios, les équipements, les moyens de communication, l'évaluation des menaces, et même la définition des zones à risque.
Le plan stipule que les autorités disposeront d'au moins huit heures pour faire évacuer les 298 000 personnes présentes dans un rayon de 10 miles. Pour y parvenir, il faudra que l'annonce d'un accident ou d'une attaque soit tenue secrète plusieurs heures afin d'éviter la panique et le blocage des routes. Pendant ce laps de temps, la contamination par un nuage radioactif peut être très rapide. Les deux tiers des habitants de la zone de 10 miles autour d'Indian Point ne connaissent pas aujourd'hui les règles à suivre en cas d'évacuation. Près d'un sur deux n'a même pas le souvenir d'avoir reçu une copie des consignes à suivre. Enfin, il n'est rien prévu au-delà de la limite de 10 miles."Ce serait le chaos", résume Alex Matthiessen. Mais, pour la NRC, il n'y a toujours aucun problème. Au terme d'un exercice organisé le 24 septembre 2002, elle jugeait le plan "adéquat" et la répétition "réussie".
George Pataki s'est engagé à décider de l'avenir d'Indian Point en fonction des conclusions du rapport. Il n'a pas l'autorité pour fermer la centrale : seul le gouvernement fédéral peut le faire. Mais il est en revanche de sa responsabilité de gouverneur de certifier tous les ans le plan d'évacuation. Sans cela, la centrale ne peut plus légalement fonctionner. Sans trop y croire, les partisans de sa fermeture espèrent beaucoup de cette astuce juridique. George Pataki dispose de quelques semaines pour prendre une décision.
Eric Leser Gordon Thompson, institut d'études sur les ressources et la sécurité de Cambridge (Massachusetts)
-------- ohio
Davis-Besse workers claim harassment
01/31/03
John Mangels and John Funk
Cleveland Plain Dealer Reporters
http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/business/1044009399150560.xml?cleve
Chicago- FirstEnergy Corp. officials believe that by the end of March they will have hard evidence that the safety climate at the troubled Davis-Besse nuclear plant has improved enough to justify restarting the reactor.
But federal regulators said yesterday the utility's ambitious timetable to have the plant making electricity again by April probably isn't realistic. They also pledged to look into a surprise complaint that several Davis-Besse workers were recently harassed for raising safety concerns - an allegation that, if true, could call into question the significant progress FirstEnergy says it has made.
FirstEnergy officials said they were unaware of any recent incidents like those described by Howard Whitcomb during a meeting yesterday between the company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Whitcomb, a former Davis-Besse employee and NRC inspector, told members of the panel overseeing the repair of the plant near Toledo that he was relaying complaints at the request of several employees who "consider the current work environment hostile."
In the last two weeks, Whitcomb told the panel, some Davis-Besse workers who raised safety concerns or stopped work for safety reasons had their tires slashed, were reprimanded by their supervisors and were verbally threatened by colleagues.
Jack Grobe, who chairs the NRC panel, said that Whitcomb "had no firsthand information" but that the agency will be "following up" on his comments after meeting with him to get more information.
FirstEnergy officials also pledged to investigate. "I'm not aware of any incident in the last two weeks," said company spokesman Todd Schneider, although a Davis-Besse employee's tires were deflated last summer.
"We did a thorough investigation," Schneider said. The victim "asked us not to take it any further. We took corrective action to make sure it wouldn't happen again."
Whether FirstEnergy has been able to improve the eroded safety values that allowed boric acid to chew an undetected pineapple-sized rust hole through the reactor's thick steel lid is perhaps the most important remaining obstacle to winning NRC permission to restart. A major element of a plant's "safety culture" is that workers feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal.
Yesterday's meeting was for FirstEnergy to make its case that Davis-Besse's safety culture is on the mend.
The centerpiece is a series of employee interviews, a plantwide survey, workplace visits and a review of company policies that a four-person team led by industrial psychologist Sonja Haber will conduct. The study, which will gauge the effectiveness of nearly six months of FirstEnergy's efforts to improve the safety culture, should provide a "snapshot" of conditions now and a benchmark for progress.
That work, plus other inspections and a weeklong test to determine whether there are any coolant leaks from the bottom of the reactor, must be done before the NRC decides if the plant is ready to resume operating. FirstEnergy nuclear division president Robert Saunders said yesterday that the company still believes Davis-Besse can be restarted in April.
Grobe said the NRC's pre- restart inspections are "not in the near future." Jim Dyer, who as head of the agency's Midwest office will make the restart decision, said FirstEnergy can't set a realistic timetable until after the reactor leak test in early March. An April 1 startup "assumes zero defects" during the preliminary activities, he said.
Haber underscored the tight schedule when she said her project will be finished by late March. Her team intends to conduct one-on-one interviews with at least 10 percent of Davis-Besse's nearly 1,000 employees beginning next week. After that, as much as 90 percent of the staff will complete written surveys.
Haber said her team will be able to give the plant a 30-page report card showing "how the organization is functioning right now" on safety culture by ferreting out what its workers value and believe. "We have used these methods at 18 different organizations, including 12 nuclear plants," she said.
One immediate sticking point identified by the NRC is whether the company will get the report, and have a chance to challenge its findings, before the agency does. Grobe said he intended to make sure the panel sees the data as they are developed - and not wait until FirstEnergy releases them.
To reach these Plain Dealer reporters:
jmangels@plaind.com, 216-999-4842
jfunk@plaind.com, 216-999-4138
-------- us politics
A General's Doubts
By David Ignatius
Friday, January 31, 2003
Washington Post; Page A27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4006-2003Jan30?language=printer
DAVOS, Switzerland -- As the countdown continues toward war against Iraq, it's worth listening one last time to the arguments against that conflict, as laid out this week by one of America's most distinguished retired generals, Wesley K. Clark.
My own gut tells me that this is a war worth fighting. But I'm bothered that America still hasn't had the kind of broad national debate that would provide a solid foundation of public support for sending U.S. troops into battle.
So when a former NATO commander -- the man who led the 1999 war that rescued Kosovo from Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic -- tells me he's worried about Iraq policy, I pay attention. The other thing that makes Clark's views interesting is that he's increasingly mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential candidate.
Clark, 58 and only two years into retirement from the U.S. Army, clearly feels ambivalent these days -- far more so than last fall, when he first began criticizing the administration's Iraq policy. He doesn't want to second-guess President Bush on the eve of battle.
"I've told all the Europeans, they need to get on the team," he explains. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside." And if war does come, he says, "my heart is with the men and women who will fight. I want them to be successful."
Clark's argument, in simple terms, is that unless the United States can bring a strong coalition into a war against Iraq, it may put itself in greater danger. The chief threat to U.S. security right now is al Qaeda, he argues. Disarming Iraq is important too, he says, but it's not the most urgent task.
The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."
Clark worries that the Iraq policy is fatally flawed because it's likely to create new recruits for America's main enemy -- the Islamic fundamentalists who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. He recalls a military dictum from his days as commander of the Army's National Training Center: "There are only two kinds of plans -- ones that might work and ones that won't work. You have to avoid a plan with a fatal flaw."
The key to NATO's success in Kosovo, Clark says, was that the United States maintained a strong coalition of allies, even at the cost of delay and political bickering in European capitals and Washington.
Clark doesn't doubt that overwhelming U.S. military power would quickly crush Saddam Hussein's relatively weak forces. Indeed, he gave a dazzling briefing for global leaders at the World Economic Forum here this week about how U.S.-led forces will move toward Baghdad.
His concern, instead, is about what comes after -- "the unpredictability of consequences," as he puts it. Clark fears that the new dangers generated by a war in Iraq might outweigh any gains from disarming Saddam Hussein.
Clark cites three tests that the administration must meet before going to war. "First, are you sure you won't destroy the international institutions you say you are supporting, and thereby undermine the war against terror? Second, can you win the war quickly and smoothly, avoiding the collateral damage that would make you lose while winning? And third, in the aftermath, can you prevent the growth of al Qaeda and control the weapons of mass destruction that may be hidden?"
If the Bush administration can answer "yes" to all three, then the Iraq war will succeed, Clark says. But he isn't convinced.
Clark talks with a politician's passion, and he certainly was making the rounds at Davos like a man who is pondering a campaign. He says he supports many aspects of former president Clinton's economic policy, especially "the basic policy of trying to reduce public-sector debt, which produced a lot of confidence in financial communities around the world." And like Clinton, he is a Rhodes scholar.
What separates Clark from both Clinton and Bush is that he has seen the face of war close up. He went to Vietnam in 1969 and came home the next year on a stretcher after being shot in the leg, hip, shoulder and hand. "The mission was to find the enemy, and I was successful," he says.
Clark insists that he is not a candidate. But some Democratic Party insiders regard this contrarian ex-general as an attractive potential challenger to Bush. All such political questions, Clark insists, lie "over the hump" of the looming war in Iraq.
----
An Alternative to War
by Jimmy Carter Former U.S. President,
Nobel Laureate
Friday 31 January 2003
Truthout.org
ATLANTA, Jan. 31 -- "Despite marshalling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.
Recent vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le Carre, although excessive, are echoed in a Web site poll conducted by the European edition of TIME magazine. The question was "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With several hundred thousand votes cast, the responses were: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent. This is a gross distortion of our nation's character, and America is not inclined to let foreign voices answer the preeminent question that President Bush is presenting to the world, but it is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq.
The world will be awaiting Wednesday's presentation of specific evidence by Secretary of State Colin Powell concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As an acknowledged voice of moderation, his message will carry enormous weight in shaping public opinion. But even if his effort is successful and lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed, this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by Iraq to the United States or to our allies.
With overwhelming military strength now deployed against him and with intense monitoring from space surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a neighbor would be suicidal. An effort to produce or deploy chemical or biological weapons or to make the slightest move toward a nuclear explosive would be inconceivable. If Iraq does possess such concealed weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only in the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the destruction of his regime is lost.
In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public.
In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global team effort against international terrorism, there are other major problems being held in abeyance as our nation's foreign policy is concentrated on proving its case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited "road map" that the U.S. and other international leaders have drafted for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the same time, satellite observations of North Korea have indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under international surveillance since 1994, are now being moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives. It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be met with aggressive diplomacy.
Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq's formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran.
Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism."
-- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is chair of The Carter Center in Atlanta, Ga., a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization that advances peace and health worldwide.
For more information, contact The Carter Center Public Information, 404-420-5108.
----
Text: Bush and Blair on Iraq
eMediaMillWorks
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7647-2003Jan31?language=printer
Following is the full text of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair's news conference following their meeting on Iraq.
BUSH: It's my honor to welcome Tony Blair back to the White House.
We've just had a wide-ranging discussion on a lot of issues. I appreciate my friend's commitment to peace and security. I appreciate his vision. I appreciate his willingness to lead.
Most importantly, I appreciate his understanding that after September the 11th, 2001, the world changed, that we face a common enemy: terrorists willing to kill innocent lives; that we now recognize that threats which gather in remote regions of the world must be dealt with before others lose their lives.
Tony Blair is a friend. He's a friend of the American people. He's a friend of mine. I trust his judgment and I appreciate his wisdom.
Welcome.
BLAIR: Well, first of all, can I say how delighted I am to be back in the White House and to see President Bush? And as he's just described to you, we had an excellent discussion covering all the key issues of the day. And I would like to praise his leadership in the world, since September the 11th, particularly, on what I think are the two key issues that face our world today, which are issues of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. And I think both of those issues come together because they threaten the peace and the order and the stability of the world.
And what is essential is that in every respect, in every way that we can, we mobilize international support in the international community in order to make sure that these twin threats that the world faces are dealt with. And I've no doubt at all that we can deal with them. But we should realize those two threats, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, are not different, they're linked. And dealing with both of them is essential for the future peace and security and prosperity of the world. Thank you.
BUSH: Here's what we'll do. I will call upon a reporter, the prime minister will call upon a reporter and we'll do this three different times. We'll start with you.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. First, quickly to the prime minister. Did you ask President Bush to secure a second U.N. resolution and to give the inspectors more time?
And President Bush, the U.N. inspectors say Saddam's not complying; you say Saddam's not complying. Why wait a matter of weeks? Why hold up on the decision?
BUSH: First of all, you violated the two-question rule, as usual.
He's had a bad habit of this. I'll start. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said, and the prime minister has constantly said, this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.
BLAIR: The whole point about the present situation is that when President Bush made his speech to the United Nations, when we went down the United States route, we passed Resolution 1441, and I think it really repays reading that, because we said very clearly that Saddam had what we said was a final opportunity to disarm, and that he had to cooperate fully in every respect with the U.N. weapons inspectors. As Dr. Blix said in his report to the Security Council earlier this week, he's not doing that. And therefore, what is important is that the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable.
And the reason why I believe that it will do that is precisely because, in the original Resolution 1441, we made it clear that failure to disarm would lead to serious consequences. So this is a test for the international community. It's not just a test for the United States or for Britain, it's a test for the international community, too.
And the judgment has to be at the present time that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors, and therefore is in breach of the U.N. resolution, and that's why time is running out.
QUESTION:A question for the president, if I may. What is the status, in your view, of any second resolution? Is it something that you think is worth spending time and energy trying to assemble? And if so, why?
BUSH: Well, first, let me reiterate what I just said. This is a matter of weeks, not months. Any attempt to drag the process on for months will be resisted by the United States.
And as I understand the prime minister--I'm loathe to put words in his mouth, but he's also said weeks, not months. Secondly, I want to remind you, I was the guy who went to the United Nations in the first place. I said, ``Why don't we come together as a world to resolve this issue once and for all? Why doesn't the United Nations stand up as a body and show the world that it's got the capacity to keep the peace?''
So first of all, to answer one part of your question, is this needs to be resolved quickly. Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution, it'd be welcome if it is yet another signal that we're intent upon disarming Saddam Hussein. But 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution. And Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.
QUESTION: Mr. President, is Secretary Powell going to provide the undeniable proof of Iraq's guilt that so many critics are calling for?
BUSH: Well, all due modesty, I thought I did a pretty good job myself of making it clear that he's not disarming and why he should disarm.
Secretary Powell will make a strong case about the danger of an armed Saddam Hussein. He will make it clear that Saddam Hussein is fooling the world--or trying to fool the world. He will make it clear that Saddam is a menace to peace in his own neighborhood. And he will also talk about Al Qaida links, links that really do portend a danger for America and for Great Britain, anybody else who loves freedom. As the prime minister says, the war on terror is not confined to just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror includes people who are willing to train and to equip organizations such as Al Qaida.
See, the strategic view of America changed after September the 11th. We must deal with threats before they hurt the American people again. And as I've said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind.
Colin Powell will continue making that case to the American people and the world at the United Nations. QUESTION: One question for you both: Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
BUSH: (OFF-MIKE) make that claim.
BLAIR: I think that answers your question.
The one thing I would say, however, is under absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form.
Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.
QUESTION: I have a question for the prime minister, if I could, sir.
The arms inspectors made their report on Monday of this week. You've both made it clear that it's a question of weeks, not months, and here we are at the end of the week and the Iraqis are suddenly inviting the arms inspectors back to Baghdad for further consultations.
Could I ask both of you what you make of that?
BUSH: Let's see if I can be polite.
Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to learn how to deceive, and I would view this as more deception on his part. He expects to be able to convince 108 inspectors that he's open-minded. The only way that he can show that he's truly a peaceful man is to not negotiate with inspectors, it's not to string the inspectors along, but to disarm in front of inspectors.
We know what a disarmed regime looks like. We know what it means to disarm. There's no negotiations. The idea of calling inspectors in to negotiate is a charade.
If he is going to disarm, he must start disarming. That's the only thing he needs to talk to the inspectors about is, ``Here, I'm disarming.''
BLAIR: That's absolutely right. If you look back at the history of this, for 12 years he's played these games. And that's why it's so important to realize what the U.N. inspectors were put back in to do. The U.N. inspectors--and this is the crucial point because on this basis that the whole issue of the U.N. authority rests--the U.N. inspectors did not go back into Iraq to play a game of hide and seek with Saddam. They didn't go back in as a detective agency.
They went back in under an authority that said that they had to cooperate fully in every respect. The interview of witnesses, not just access to sites. Honest, transparent declarations of the material they had. They're not doing that.
Now, why are they calling back the inspectors? I think it's fairly obvious. It's because as the pressure grows, they want to play the same games as they've been playing all the way through. That's why it's important we hold to the path that we have set out. They have to disarm. They have to cooperate with the inspectors.
They're not doing it. If they don't do it through the U.N. route, that they will have to be disarmed by force.
QUESTION: Mr. Presidents an account of the White House after 9/11 says that you ordered invasion plans for Iraq six days after September the 11th--Bob Woodward's account. Is that the case that you have always intended war on Iraq and that international diplomacy is a charade in this case?
BUSH: Actually, prior to September the 11th, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein.
After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned. I told you the strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically. And it shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us; that we're vulnerable to attack.
And the worst form of attack could come through somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them on the American people. Or the worst kind of attack could come when somebody uses weapons of mass destruction on our friends in Great Britain.
Recently Tony Blair's government rooted out a poison plot. It should say to the people of Great Britain, there is a present danger, that weapons of mass destruction are a danger to people who love freedom. I want to congratulate you on your fabulous job of using your intelligence and your law enforcement to protect the people of Great Britain.
Today Italy rounded up yet another cell of people who are willing to use weapons of mass destruction on those of us who love freedom.
And so, no, quite the contrary, my vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th, because I now realize the stakes. I realize the world has changed. My most important obligation is to protect the American people from further harm and I will do that.
Thank you all very much.
----
Deficits, Defense Outlays to Balloon in Bush Budget
January 31, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-bush-budget.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's budget for next year will provide a big boost in funding for homeland defense, the military and Medicare, setting the stage for record deficits and a fierce battle over tax and spending priorities before the 2004 election.
Responding to the nation's sense of insecurity since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush's $2.2 trillion budget for fiscal 2004, set to be released on Monday, will devote more than $41 billion to beef up domestic defenses and $380 billion for the Pentagon, substantial increases over the current year, according to administration officials.
Adding to a tide of grim fiscal news, Bush is expected to forecast budget deficits totaling nearly $300 billion in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, possibly surpassing a 1992 record of $290 billion even before the cost of a possible war with Iraq is factored in.
When viewed in proportion to the size of the economy, the projected deficits would still remain well below the record level of 6 percent of gross domestic product during the Reagan administration in 1983.
``This is nowhere near a record. In fact, a deficit of this size as a share of the economy is better than 12 of the last 20 years,'' said Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
But at nearly triple the $109 billion shortfall for 2003 forecast by the White House in July, the new estimates underscore a dramatic deterioration in the nation's fiscal picture since a record surplus in 2000. As recently as 2001, the government was forecasting 10-year budget surpluses of $5.6 trillion.
Besides defense at home and abroad, Bush's top budget priorities in fiscal 2004 will include providing prescription drug benefits to seniors and bolstering the Securities and Exchange Commission to combat a wave of corporate scandals.
To revive the beleaguered economy, Bush is proposing a new round of tax cuts, expected to cost $670 billion over 10 years, though its prospects for passage are uncertain due to opposition from Democrats and some Republicans worried about ballooning deficits.
White House officials say growth in the rest of government would be kept down to 3 percent to 4 percent, though Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee said non-defense, non-homeland security programs would be squeezed.
Republicans defended the need to restrain spending.
``We've got huge needs in national defense and homeland security that are driving a lot of the spending,'' said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican. ``The rest of the priorities need to be left for another day.''
But big deficits could pose political problems for Bush and his Republican allies.
Bush's budget director, Mitch Daniels, has acknowledged that the federal government would post deficits for the ``foreseeable future.'' Though he said the deficits would begin to shrink starting in fiscal 2005, he expects the government to run a cumulative budget shortfall over the next five years.
With an eye on the 2004 presidential election, Democrats have accused Bush of abandoning budget discipline to push through huge tax cuts that would mostly benefit the rich.
White House officials insist that the projected deficits, while unfortunate, are manageable, noting that they would be about half the size of shortfalls recorded in the 1980s as a proportion of the economy.
They blamed the recession, the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism for ballooning deficits, and predicted that a new round of tax cuts would boost economic growth and eventually lead the nation back to surpluses.
Bush has put the onus on Congress to restrain spending. ``We can't do everything for everybody,'' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.
TOP PRIORITIES
As part of the budget, Bush will propose setting aside nearly $400 billion over 10 years to modernize Medicare and provide prescription drug benefits to seniors.
But Bush's plan is already under fire from Democrats and some Republicans who say it would unfairly force seniors to choose between their traditional health-care plan and subsidized prescription drug coverage.
Of $41.3 billion earmarked for domestic homeland security, Bush's budget will include $36.2 billion for the newly created Department of Homeland Security. That compares to an overall homeland security budget of $37.7 billion in 2003, $33 billion of which was earmarked for the department.
Under Bush's budget, defense spending would rise to roughly $380 billion -- from $364.6 billion in 2003 -- or to nearly $400 billion including spending through the Energy Department to maintain and oversee the nation's nuclear weapons.
But the six-year Pentagon spending proposal would also include increases of $20 billion a year in each of the subsequent five years, pushing the military budget as high as $484 billion in 2009.
Bush's budget will also provide a 9 percent increase in federal aid to states, bringing the total to nearly $400 billion. As part of the package, the White House is proposing giving states an extra $12.7 billion over seven years, including $3.25 billion in fiscal 2004, for the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor, health officials said.
Other proposals include:
+ Nearly doubling Securities and Exchange Commission funding to $842 million over fiscal 2002 levels, a move that could help insulate Bush from Democratic charges that he was soft on corporate fraud after a wave of boardroom scandals.
+ Providing $16 billion to combat the spread of AIDS in the United States, a 7 percent increase over current levels. Bush will also ask Congress to triple AIDS spending in Africa and Haiti to $15 billion over five years.
+ Allocating nearly $6 billion over 10 years to develop new vaccines against the most likely germ weapons such as anthrax, ebola, plague and botulinum toxin.
--------
Bush to Propose Defense Spending Increase
January 31, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Defense-Spending.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush will propose an increase of more than 4 percent in defense spending for next year and sees annual military costs topping $500 billion by the end of the decade even without any war with Iraq, according to figures obtained by The Associated Press.
The proposal is expected to continue spending on major programs, such as the Joint Strike Fighter; increase money for missile defense; and pay for seven new ships, compared with five this year. The higher costs also include pay increases ranging from 2 percent to 6.25 percent for military personnel.
No new major weapons programs are expected, and none is likely to be discontinued.
``They did the Crusader last year, and that's as close to the fire as they want to get,'' said Christopher Helena, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information. Bush's decision to eliminate the Army's Crusader artillery program angered many lawmakers last year.
Budget figures specify $379.9 in Defense Department spending for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, compared with $364.6 billion in this year's budget. Overall national defense spending, which includes programs in the Energy Department and other agencies, would rise to $399.1 billion from $382.2 billion.
Factors leading to the increases are:
--The military pay raises, which would cost an additional $3.7 billion.
--Inflation in areas other than pay, which would cost $4.3 billion.
--Spending for shipbuilding would increase by $2.7 billion, to $12.2 billion.
--Missile defense would increase by $1.5 billion to $9.1 billion.
--Spending for special operations forces would increase to $4.5 billion, from $3 billion.
The Pentagon says it would save $7.1 billion through a variety of programs to include early retirement of aircraft and ships, reducing Navy personnel, and ending upgrades on some weapons systems.
The defense spending proposal will be released Monday when President Bush presents his budget. Details of the plan were reported Friday by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the Budget Committee's top Democrat and a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, said he hasn't seen the proposal but questions whether it will advance Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's commitment to transform the military into a more mobile, flexible force.
``This is being justified in terms of transformation, but everything gets justified in terms of transformation, it seems. And we have yet to see transformation,'' he said in an interview.
Defense spending has increased steadily in recent years after a post-Cold War decline in the 1990s. Military spending is expected to continue rising over the next six years, according to the Pentagon figures, and reach $483.6 billion in 2009 for the Defense Department and $502.7 billion overall.
A recent Congressional Budget Office report said it is likely to continue rising over the next two decades, largely because of personnel costs and expensive weapons systems.
Spratt said Congress is likely to approve Bush's proposal this year, but future increases may be more difficult to justify.
``As long as there's a hot war on the horizon, as long as there's terrorism as a real and present danger, then defense will have a strong claim on the federal budget,'' Spratt said. ``But if that moderates and things get worse (economically), it might be hard to sustain this budget through the next decade.''
Bush's budget also will propose more money for the Treasury Department to help the government sever terrorists from their sources of financing and to combat money laundering.
Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which plays a key role in trying to nab terrorists' financiers and money launderers, would receive $57.6 million in fiscal year 2004, a 14 percent increase from a requested $50.5 million for the 2003 budget year, which began Oct. 1.
Congress has not approved a final 2003 budget for the Treasury Department.
The increased 2004 funding would be used to help the government make sure that financial service companies and others are complying with sweeping regulations stemming from the 2001 USA Patriot Act aimed at cracking down on money laundering and terrorists' financiers.
The money also would be used to carry out other requirements under that law and to improve information sharing between the financial services industry and law enforcement, Treasury said.
Bush, who also will renew his proposal to open mineral drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, will project $2.4 billion in oil lease sales there by 2005, said Rebecca Watson, assistant interior secretary for land and minerals management.
She said half the money would be spent on research for solar, wind and other alternative energy.
On the Net: Pentagon comptroller's office: http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/
----
"If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines"
by Thom Hartmann
January 31, 2003
by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm
Maybe Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel honestly won two US Senate elections. Maybe it's true that the citizens of Georgia simply decided that incumbent Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a wildly popular war veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was, as his successful Republican challenger suggested in his campaign ads, too unpatriotic to remain in the Senate. Maybe George W. Bush, Alabama's new Republican governor Bob Riley, and a small but congressionally decisive handful of other long-shot Republican candidates really did win those states where conventional wisdom and straw polls showed them losing in the last few election cycles.
Perhaps, after a half-century of fine-tuning exit polling to such a science that it's now sometimes used to verify how clean elections are in Third World countries, it really did suddenly become inaccurate in the United States in the past six years and just won't work here anymore. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the sudden rise of inaccurate exit polls happened around the same time corporate-programmed, computer-controlled, modem-capable voting machines began recording and tabulating ballots.
But if any of this is true, there's not much of a paper trail from the voters' hand to prove it.
You'd think in an open democracy that the government - answerable to all its citizens rather than a handful of corporate officers and stockholders - would program, repair, and control the voting machines. You'd think the computers that handle our cherished ballots would be open and their software and programming available for public scrutiny. You'd think there would be a paper trail of the vote, which could be followed and audited if a there was evidence of voting fraud or if exit polls disagreed with computerized vote counts.
You'd be wrong.
The respected Washington, DC publication The Hill (www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx) has confirmed that former conservative radio talk-show host and now Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel was the head of, and continues to own part interest in, the company that owns the company that installed, programmed, and largely ran the voting machines that were used by most of the citizens of Nebraska.
Back when Hagel first ran there for the U.S. Senate in 1996, his company's computer-controlled voting machines showed he'd won stunning upsets in both the primaries and the general election. The Washington Post (1/13/1997) said Hagel's "Senate victory against an incumbent Democratic governor was the major Republican upset in the November election." According to Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.com, Hagel won virtually every demographic group, including many largely Black communities that had never before voted Republican. Hagel was the first Republican in 24 years to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.
Six years later Hagel ran again, this time against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. As his hagel.senate.gov website says, Hagel "was re-elected to his second term in the United States Senate on November 5, 2002 with 83% of the vote. That represents the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska."
What Hagel's website fails to disclose is that about 80 percent of those votes were counted by computer-controlled voting machines put in place by the company affiliated with Hagel. Built by that company. Programmed by that company.
"This is a big story, bigger than Watergate ever was," said Hagel's Democratic opponent in the 2002 Senate race, Charlie Matulka (www.lancastercountydemocrats.org/matulka.htm). "They say Hagel shocked the world, but he didn't shock me."
Is Matulka the sore loser the Hagel campaign paints him as, or is he democracy's proverbial canary in the mineshaft?
In Georgia, Democratic incumbent and war-hero Max Cleland was defeated by Saxby Chambliss, who'd avoided service in Vietnam with a "medical deferment" but ran his campaign on the theme that he was more patriotic than Cleland. While many in Georgia expected a big win by Cleland, the computerized voting machines said that Chambliss had won.
The BBC summed up Georgia voters' reaction in a 6 November 2002 headline: "GEORGIA UPSET STUNS DEMOCRATS." The BBC echoed the confusion of many Georgia voters when they wrote, "Mr. Cleland - an army veteran who lost three limbs in a grenade explosion during the Vietnam War - had long been considered 'untouchable' on questions of defense and national security."
Between them, Hagel and Chambliss' victories sealed Republican control of the Senate. Odds are both won fair and square, the American way, using huge piles of corporate money to carpet-bomb voters with television advertising. But either the appearance or the possibility of impropriety in an election casts a shadow over American democracy.
"The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected," wrote Thomas Paine over 200 years ago. "To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery.."
That slavery, according to Hagel's last opponent Charlie Matulka, is at our doorstep.
"They can take over our country without firing a shot," Matulka said, "just by taking over our election systems."
Taking over our election systems? Is that really possible in the USA?
Bev Harris of www.talion.com and www.blackboxvoting.com has looked into the situation in depth and thinks Matulka may be on to something. The company tied to Hagel even threatened her with legal action when she went public about his company having built the machines that counted his landslide votes. (Her response was to put the law firm's threat letter on her website and send a press release to 4000 editors, inviting them to check it out. www.blackboxvoting.com/election-systems-software.html)
"I suspect they're getting ready to do this all across all the states," Matulka said in a January 30, 2003 interview. "God help us if Bush gets his touch screens all across the country," he added, "because they leave no paper trail. These corporations are taking over America, and they just about have control of our voting machines."
In the meantime, exit-polling organizations have quietly gone out of business, and the news arms of the huge multinational corporations that own our networks are suggesting the days of exit polls are over. Virtually none were reported in 2002, creating an odd and unsettling silence that caused unease for the many American voters who had come to view exit polls as proof of the integrity of their election systems.
As all this comes to light, many citizens and even a few politicians are wondering if it's a good idea for corporations to be so involved in the guts of our voting systems. The whole idea of a democratic republic was to create a common institution (the government itself) owned by its citizens, answerable to its citizens, and authorized to exist and continue existing solely "by the consent of the governed."
Prior to 1886 - when, law schools incorrectly tell law students, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons" with equal protection and other "human rights" - it was illegal in most states for corporations to involve themselves in politics at all, much less to service the core mechanism of politics. And during the era of Teddy Roosevelt, who said, "There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains," numerous additional laws were passed to restrain corporations from involvement in politics.
Wisconsin, for example, had a law that explicitly stated:
"No corporation doing business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office."
The penalty for violating that law was dissolution of the corporation, and "any officer, employee, agent or attorney or other representative of any corporation, acting for and in behalf of such corporation" would be subject to "imprisonment in the state prison for a period of not less than one nor more than five years" and a substantial fine.
However, the recent political trend has moved us in the opposite direction, with governments answerable to "We, The People" turning over administration of our commons to corporations answerable only to CEOs, boards, and stockholders. The result is the enrichment of corporations and the appearance that democracy in America has started to resemble its parody in banana republics.
But if America still is a democratic republic, then We, The People still own our government. And the way our ownership and management of our common government (and its assets) is asserted is through the vote.
On most levels, privatization is only a "small sin" against democracy. Turning a nation's or community's water, septic, roadway, prisons, airwaves, or health care commons over to private corporations has so far demonstrably degraded the quality of life for average citizens and enriched a few of the most powerful campaign contributors. But it hasn't been the end of democracy (although some wonder about what the FCC is preparing to do - but that's a separate story).
Many citizens believe, however, that turning the programming and maintenance of voting over to private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their owners, officers, and stockholders, puts democracy itself at peril.
And, argues Charlie Matulka, for a former officer of one of those corporations to then place himself into an election without disclosing such an apparent conflict of interest is to create a parody of democracy.
Perhaps Matulka's been reading too many conspiracy theory tracts. Or maybe he's on to something. We won't know until a truly independent government agency looks into the matter.
When Bev Harris and The Hill's Alexander Bolton pressed the Chief Counsel and Director of the Senate Ethics Committee, the man responsible for ensuring that FEC disclosures are complete, asking him why he'd not questioned Hagel's 1995, 1996, and 2001 failures to disclose the details of his ownership in the company that owned the voting machine company when he ran for the Senate, the Director reportedly met with Hagel's office on Friday, January 25, 2003 and Monday, January 27, 2003. After the second meeting, on the afternoon of January 27th, the Director of the Senate Ethics Committee resigned his job.
Meanwhile, back in Nebraska, Charlie Matulka had requested a hand count of the vote in the election he lost to Hagel. He just learned his request was denied because, he said, Nebraska has a just-passed law that prohibits government-employee election workers from looking at the ballots, even in a recount. The only machines permitted to count votes in Nebraska, he said, are those made and programmed by the corporation formerly run by Hagel.
Matulka shared his news with me, then sighed loud and long on the phone, as if he were watching his children's future evaporate.
"If you want to win the election," he finally said, "just control the machines."
Thom Hartmann is the author of "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights." www.unequalprotection.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
-------- MILITARY
-------- africa
Mandela Rebukes Bush for Stance On Iraqi Crisis
By Reuters
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3482-2003Jan30?language=printer
JOHANNESBURG, Jan. 30 -- Nelson Mandela, the former president of South Africa and an internationally respected statesman, lashed out at President Bush's stance on Iraq today, saying the U.S. leader had no foresight and could not think properly.
Mandela said Bush and Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, were undermining the United Nations and suggested they would not be doing so if the organization had a white leader.
"It is a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing in Iraq," Mandela told an audience in Johannesburg. "What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."
"Both Bush as well as Tony Blair are undermining an idea which was sponsored by their predecessors," Mandela said about the United Nations.
"Is this because the secretary general of the United Nations is now a black man?" he asked, referring to Kofi Annan.
Mandela said he would support any U.N. agreement for action against Iraq but that a confrontation without such an endorsement was unacceptable.
-------- europe
Board of 17 backs ousting Saddam
By Olga Kryzhanovska
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20030131-78962774.htm
With Europe deeply divided over U.S. policy in Iraq, a group of 17 prominent leaders and intellectuals has come forward to express its support for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
The group, which was established as the Advisory Board to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), includes former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, Polish editor and civil rights fighter Adam Michnik, British author Christopher Hitchens and a former president of Bulgaria, Petar Stoyanov.
"These are some of the most distinguished freedom fighters of the last two generations," said CLI Chairman Bruce Jackson, an American and Republican Party activist, in a telephone interview this week.
The group also includes Baroness Emma Nicholson, a British member of the European Parliament and an envoy of the World Health Organization who has frequently visited Iraq and the region.
"I do have knowledge that I'm very willing to share on the genocide committed by Saddam Hussein against southern Iraqis, particularly, those called the Marsh people," Mrs. Nicholson said after she participated in a heated debate on Iraq in the European Parliament on Wednesday.
"We don't seek war," Mrs. Nicholson said, "but we do place the highest value on the rule of international law, on democracy and on human rights. We want those benefits to be brought to Iraqi people as soon as possible."
Asla Aydintasbas, a columnist for the Turkish newspaper Sabah, said she joined the CLI because she had visited Iraq and witnessed the government's abuses of its own people.
"Unfortunately, this war is not perceived [in Turkey] as a war for liberation," she said by telephone yesterday. The United States "was not very successful in countering the Iraqi propaganda machine."
Many members of the CLI support group are from Central and Eastern Europe: Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic states.
According to Mr. Jackson, these countries have been recent victims of tyranny and understand what it means. "They are quite quick to see that there is evil in the world, and that evil probably should be resisted by the alliance of democracy," he said.
Mr. Jackson said he had a chance to contact many Eastern European leaders during a NATO summit that took place in Prague in November.
The CLI was founded in November 2002 to promote the liberation of Iraq and the replacement of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Jackson, a former U.S. army intelligence officer, chaired the Foreign Policy Subcommittee of the Republican Platform Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign.
According to Mr. Jackson, the depth of support in Europe for policies articulated by President Bush is significant, and it is often underreported.
He said people from all over Europe, including France and Germany, continue to voice their support for the liberation of Iraq.
"There are more coming in, even as we speak," he said.
-------- iraq
Iraq Bombing Softens Air Defenses
By Pauline Jelinek
Associated Press Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7720-2003Jan31?language=printer
WASHINGTON -- American bombers are hitting hard inside Iraq, getting a head start toward disabling Saddam Hussein's defenses in the south, while other U.S. forces are on the ground in the north preparing for war.
U.S. and British warplanes bombed three dozen sites in January, most associated with air defense communications in the southeast. That's the route invading U.S. ground troops probably would take if war should come. The Pentagon also has acknowledged it has inserted a small number of troops into the north, although it refuses to describe their mission.
Meanwhile, pilots have nearly doubled the supplies of leaflets dropped over the south to undermine the rule of Iraqi President Saddam, to 3 million this month.
"We're kind of getting a head start," Lexington Institute military analyst Loren Thompson said, speaking of the increasing airstrikes. "We're taking advantage of the situation to reduce Iraqi defenses so we can use the full weight of our air power when the war does come."
The situation he speaks of is the dominance the allies have over a large portion of Iraq's skies. For more than a decade, the U.S.-British coalition has enforced flight-interdiction zones over the north and south in the name of keeping Iraqi forces from harassing Kurdish and Shiite Muslim populations in those regions.
Patrols over the zones have benefited the coalition by facilitating the gathering of intelligence, getting practice in dealing with Iraqi forces and becoming familiar with the territory.
On Wednesday, 11 of the 15 U.N. Security Council members advocated more weapons inspections and peaceful disarmament of Iraq rather than a rush to war. But a Bush administration impatient with Saddam has steadily continued the deployment to the region of tens of thousands of troops for a possible military campaign.
Inside Iraq, meanwhile, the Defense Department has accelerated bombing and dropping propaganda in the decade-old southern flight-interdiction zone. It also has sent the troops into the north, where the CIA has been checking out airstrips and working with opposition groups.
Degrading air defenses in southern Iraq helps clear the way for sending in not only U.S. bombers but helicopters, special operations forces and materiel for the campaign, Thompson said.
Officials say pilots in the U.S.-British coalition strike only in response to Iraqi activity. Thus, increased bombings in recent months result from an increase in such Iraqi actions as firings on coalition planes or flying Iraqi planes into the zone, they say.
Much of the increase in coalition strikes this month, however, owes to the bombing by coalition pilots of as many as eight locations for a single Iraqi action.
Pilots go out with lists of predetermined targets, parts of the air defense system officers want destroyed. Last fall they would hit one or perhaps two targets in response to Iraqi gunners. But of the 12 days in which coalition pilots have bombed so far this month, half have seen pilots bombing three, four, five or eight sites on the basis of one Iraqi move.
Most of the multiple sites targeted were cable repeater sites, stations built at intervals along a fiber-optic cable network to strengthen signals passing through the network.
This cable system, which connects elements of the air defense system, helps Iraqi defenders process a larger volume of communications data and better protect data against eavesdropping by American electronic warfare planes, officials said. It was one of the reasons U.S. and British aircraft conducted a larger-scale attack in February 2001, although their success was limited in part because more than half the bombs missed their mark. A few months after the attack, Iraq had largely reconstituted the network, and the United States protested to China, which officials have said was helping Iraqis build the system.
This month, coalition planes targeted cable repeaters frequently in the southeast, five times near Al Kut, four near An Nasiriyah and twice near Basra, the country's main port, according to U.S. Central Command press releases put out after each mission.
Because the command now refuses to say whether it hits or misses targets in the zones, it was impossible to learn whether pilots flying the repeat strikes were going after missed targets or hitting new targets near the same towns.
Defense officials also have said that pilots frequently have to go back and strike the same areas because Iraqis constantly rebuild or replace what is damaged.
"A lot of it is not terribly sophisticated," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said of parts of the air defenses. He said Iraqis have learned to buy multiple supplies of things to keep replacing what is bombed.
Officials differ on the extent of damage that has been done to the air defense system, with one saying it's been severe, another less effective than that and still another that it has damaged the morale of those who must rebuild it more than the system itself.
From time to time, strikes have focused on wearing down other important Iraqi targets. A spate of bombings in September and October focused on Tallil Air Base, a facility key to Saddam's defense against any invasion. It's also in the south.
On the Net: Central Command: http://www.centcom.mil/
----
Reports: Bush, Blair agree to give inspectors additional 6 weeks;
Special forces operate in Western Iraq
01-02-2003
Al Bawaba
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=240858&lang=e&dir=news
Tony Blair and George Bush Friday agreed to give the UN weapons inspectors and the intelligence agencies as long as six weeks to persuade France and Arab countries to come on board for military action against Iraq, the British media reported Saturday.
In talks at the White House, Blair impressed on the Americans that European public opinion, including in Britain, will not back a war without an explicit second UN resolution. Blair secured support for this longer coalition-building strategy from the US president in a phone call on Thursday.
Meanwhile, The Daily Telegraph reported that British and US special forces have mounted a six-day covert mission into western Iraq to identify key targets in the event of a war.
Quoting defence sources, the British newspaper said that a group of more than 100 men, consisting of the US Delta force and 35 men from Britain's Special Air Service (SAS), flew into Iraq by Chinook helicopter from Jordan.
The operation was the first case of allied special forces operating inside territory controlled by the Iraqi government, according to the Telegraph.
The Telegraph added that the mission was mounted after US intelligence reports that Scud missile launchers had been moved to the western Iraqi desert. The special forces checked that the launchers were not false targets as part of an Iraqi deception plan.
The paper added that the troops set off from a Jordanian air base east of Amman, flying along a corridor in Iraqi air defences opened up by allied attacks on a main air defence command post.
----
Iraqi rockets on move: US
From The Times's Roland Watson, Michael Evans and Greg Hurst
31 jan 03
The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,5914529,00.html
THE White House is preparing to release satellite pictures showing Iraqis removing rockets and other materials from sites before UN weapons inspectors arrive.
A dossier being compiled in Washington also claims Iraqi officials are hiding thousands of documents relating to Baghdad's chemical and biological weapons programs.
It follows US President George W. Bush's assertion in his State of the Union speech this week that fresh evidence against Saddam Hussein would be presented to the UN Security Council next week.
And Washington will insist Iraq is pursuing a nuclear goal even though Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Monday he had seen no such evidence.
US officials challenged Mr ElBaradei's interim verdict, saying yesterday the IAEA had twice mistakenly given Iraq clean bills of health, in 1981 and 1991.
Together with renewed claims in Washington and London of an al-Qaeda link to Iraq, the evidence will be presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell to try to convince sceptical allies that Iraq is cheating the inspectors.
US officials said yesterday Mr Powell would show Hussein's deception to be "active and ongoing" when he appeared before the Security Council next Thursday Australian time. Mr Powell would weave together "interlocking pieces that connect the dots about Saddam Hussein's deception", they said.
The strategy is high-risk for Mr Bush, even though US allies in Europe and the Gulf have been clamouring for Washington to present a better case. US officials conceded yesterday that they did not possess a "smoking gun". So, if Mr Powell's dossier fails to win over countries such as France, Russia and China, three veto-wielding Security Council members, the US's chances of winning explicit UN authority for war will probably be fatally damaged.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Commons yesterday that links had been established between Iraq and al-Qaeda although it was impossible to know their exact extent. Later, his official spokesman said the Government believed that al-Qaeda operatives were being "sheltered" in Iraq.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has previously said that a senior al-Qaeda figure received treatment in a Baghdad hospital about a year ago, although British sources said no one suggested that Hussein even knew of the man's presence.
The only firm evidence of al-Qaeda in Iraq is in Kurdistan.
----
A War Crime or an Act of War? [By Iraq Or Iran?]
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE
[Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war]
January 31, 2003
New York Times Commentary
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions - Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
----
Iraq watch
January 31, 2003
Washington Times
Inside the Ring
Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030131-18129059.htm
U.S. intelligence agencies are closely monitoring Iraq's military forces and the ruling Ba'ath party in Baghdad. Spy agencies are looking carefully for signs that Saddam Hussein will start a pre-emptive attack before U.S. military forces can complete their buildup in the region.
"We suspect he will try to do something," one defense official told us. So far, Iraqi military movements have been limited to some troop deployments that are not considered unusual.
Intelligence reports indicate Iraqi forces recently discussed plans for building up defenses, either through trenches or barriers around key facilities.
Potential pre-emptive attacks could include missile attacks on Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, where U.S. forces are deployed. Iraq is believed to have up to 50 Scud missiles that could be outfitted with chemical or biological warheads.
----
Armitage says key al Qaida man in Baghdad
By Eli J. Lake
UPI State Department Correspondent
January 30, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030130-062637-5289r.htm
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 (UPI) -- The al Qaida operative who orchestrated the murder of a U.S. diplomat in Amman, Jordan, last October is residing in Baghdad, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told a Senate panel Thursday.
"I'll say that it's clear that al Qaida is harbored, to some extent, in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq," Armitage told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He then referred to "a recent assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al Qaida member who's resident in Baghdad."
Laurence Foley was in Jordan with the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The information presented by Armitage clashes with recent statements from the Jordanian authorities regarding the whereabouts of Foley's murderers. After arresting most of the men, the Jordanians in December said the ringleader of the cell that orchestrated the assassination attempt was also wanted by the authorities in Iraq and was currently residing in northern Iraq, a section of the country under air protection from the United States and the United Kingdom and ruled by two Kurdish parties.
Although Armitage did not name the al Qaida member, it has been reported that he is Fadel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, also known as Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. This -- according to U.S. officials -- is the individual President Bush said last December had sought and received medical treatment in Baghdad last year. But, some have said that he has since left Iraq's capital.
Armitage said that the fact that the man who ordered Foley's murder is in Baghdad would be part of the Bush administration's case to the United Nations next week linking al Qaida to Iraq. "This will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They're busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as possible to give him a pretty full case."
On Monday Secretary of State Colin Powell authorized an independent U.S. investigation into Foley's murder. U.S. laws require such panels to be convened six months after U.S. officials are killed or die under unusual circumstances abroad. Leading the panel will be former US ambassador to Jordan Wesley Egan.
--------
THE PRICE
U.N. Estimates Rebuilding Iraq Will Cost $30 Billion
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31NATI.html
UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 29 - The United Nations, stepping up the pace of its contingency planning for rebuilding Iraq after war, has concluded the costs will run to at least $30 billion in the first three years, according to the organization's top development official.
Mark Malloch Brown, head of the United Nations Development Program, appealed for urgent attention to the enormous job of rebuilding Iraq if the United States and its allies go to war there. Despite Iraq's oil wealth, United Nations planners calculate that it will be a far more expensive and complex task to rebuild than Afghanistan, where the world organization is currently leading the reconstruction effort.
The United States will decide in coming weeks whether to undertake military action without the blessing of the Security Council, or to press on with negotiations to garner wider international support. If the Bush administration opts for early war over the objections of France, Germany and other nations that want to give United Nations weapons inspections more time, it will be certainly be more difficult to secure those nations' help with the costs of reconstruction, diplomats here warn.
In an interview today, Mr. Malloch Brown was careful to say that the planning exercise does not mean he has concluded that war is inevitable.
But Secretary General Kofi Annan, watching Washington's confrontation with Saddam Hussein intensify, has quietly urged his organization to accelerate its preparations to handle a major postwar crisis in Iraq.
"I am looking at a situation of potential mass human vulnerability and need," Mr. Malloch Brown said. "I've got to be ready for whatever comes."
Since United Nations economic sanctions were imposed in 1990 to punish the Iraqi government for invading Kuwait, Iraqis have been in a downward spiral on the development chart. Once a rising oil-rich nation with a thriving urban middle class, Iraq is on the dole, with 60 percent of its people dependent on government-distributed food rations and a per capita income of not more than $700 a year.
"This is a very damaged place that needs enormous assistance," Mr. Malloch Brown said. He cautioned that Iraq would not be able to rely on a renewed gusher of oil to pay for its own reconstruction. The Iraqi oil industry is in disrepair after more than a decade with little investment, and will require a huge new flow of capital to restore it to global competitive standards.
But after Mr. Hussein stopped paying most of his debts in response to the sanctions, the country now faces at least $60 billion in commercial and official debt, by United Nations estimates, as well as $170 billion in unpaid reparations to Kuwait stemming from the invasion. Much of Iraq's debt is to countries in the former Soviet Union, with Russia the biggest creditor.
While a new, United States-backed government may be able to renegotiate some of the reparations, it will be politically difficult to achieve debt relief for Iraq without offending many other countries, particularly in Africa, which have been pleading for debt pardons.
Until Iraq straightens out its debts, United Nations planners believe, it will be difficult to get the major investments needed to revive the oil industry. Oil production has dropped from 3.5 million barrels a day before the last war to 2.1 million barrels a day, providing up to $13 billion a year. If production increased under a new government to $16 billion a year, it would still be barely enough to pay for basic needs and repairs after a war.
The effort in Afghanistan is expected to cost up to $6.5 billion for the first 30 months. But Afghanistan was a bitterly poor country whose people lived a self-sufficient subsistence based on farming and herding, in contrast to largely urban society in Iraq.
Even for Afghanistan, where the ouster of the harsh Taliban government drew broad international support, Mr. Malloch Brown said he had to "really go around and shake the can" to raise money.
Aid groups that work in Iraq have warned of a severe relief crisis if bombing damages Iraq's cities. They point out that, during more than a decade of hardship, Iraqis have spent down any financial reserves they once had, and if the food rations are disrupted, people will quickly face hunger.
But besides the United States and Britain, no other nation wants to finance contingency planning for Iraq, officials said, because it makes them appear to be endorsing war. United Nations agencies recently appealed for $37 million to begin planning, and got no response.
-------- mideast
Turkey Military Considers Foreign Troops
January 31, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Turkey-US-Iraq.html
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- In a move that eventually could allow U.S. soldiers to use Turkey as a base for war against Iraq, Turkey's top military and civilian leaders Friday endorsed basing foreign troops in the country.
The decision by the powerful National Security Council also called for government and parliamentary approval to send Turkish soldiers abroad. Turkish generals have said they want to deploy soldiers in northern Iraq to maintain stability if there is a war.
``If a military operation becomes inevitable, Turkey will not hesitate to take measures to protect its national interests,'' the council said in a statement apparently warning that Turkey could move into northern Iraq -- site of a Kurdish autonomous region.
The council decision on foreign troops comes after intense U.S. pressure to base its troops in NATO-ally Turkey.
The council -- which is chaired by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer and includes the prime minister, foreign minister, defense minister and top generals -- made its recommendation after a 6 1/2-hour meeting.
``The National Security Council recommends ... that peaceful means continue to be sought, and on the other hand that parliament take steps in accordance with Article 92 against unwanted developments and activate military measures necessary to protect Turkey's national interests,'' the council statement said.
Article 92 of the Turkish constitution says any decision to send Turkish troops abroad or host foreign troops in Turkey must be approved by parliament.
There is strong opposition in Turkey to any Iraq war and the council's recommendation could make it easier for legislators to approve any basing of foreign troops. Turkey's parliament likely will meet next week to discuss the recommendations.
Council members did not speak after the meeting. The council traditionally issues short statements after its meetings and does not elaborate.
The government has been extremely reticent to allow U.S. troops in and has been pressing for a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis.
Turkey last week hosted a meeting of Iraq's neighbors, who called on Baghdad to cooperate fully with the U.N. inspections regime in the country to search for banned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
Turkish leaders fear that a war will destabilize the region and derail Turkey's fragile economic recovery.
Turkey especially is concerned that a war in Iraq could encourage Iraqi Kurds living in an autonomous region outside of Baghdad's control to try and form an independent state.
Turkey fought a 15-year guerrilla war with Kurdish rebels in predominantly Kurdish southeastern Turkey and fears a revival of the fighting.
Polls show that Turks overwhelmingly oppose a war and the new government is keenly aware that allowing in U.S. troops has virtually no popular support.
But Turkey depends on the United States for political and economic support.
The United States reportedly has asked Turkey for permission to base 80,000 soldiers in Turkey to open a northern front against Iraq. Turkish officials have asked Washington to scale back its request. Newspapers have speculated that Turkey could agree to the stationing of up to 20,000 U.S. troops.
Turkey's support is considered crucial in any war with Iraq. Turkey already hosts some 50 U.S. aircraft that patrol a no-fly zone over northern Iraq.
-------- spies
Feds Building Internet Monitoring Center
By Brian Krebs Staff Writer
washingtonpost.com
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3409-2003Jan30?language=printer
The Bush administration is quietly assembling an Internet-wide monitoring center to detect and respond to attacks on vital information systems and key e-commerce sites.
The center, which has been in development for the past 15 months, is a key piece of the White House's national cybersecurity strategy and represents a major leap in the federal government's effort to achieve real-time tracking of the Internet's health.
The "Global Early Warning Information System," (GEWIS, pronounced "gee-whiz") is being built by the National Communications System (NCS), a Defense agency established in 1962 to ensure that the government has access to adequate communications systems during national emergencies. It is unrelated to the Total Information Awareness program, a planned Defense Department program that would actively mine databases worldwide to uncover terrorist and other threats.
The NCS started building the GEWIS system shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when it began asking major Internet and telecommunications providers to sell "real-time" data about the status of their networks, said NCS Deputy Manager Brent Greene.
The NCS has spent an undisclosed sum of money to buy data from the members of the National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications, an NCS information sharing group established during the Clinton administration that includes some the largest telecom and Internet service providers in the world, including WorldCom, Verizon, Sprint, SBC Communications, Qwest and BellSouth.
Greene said the agency now receives data from several key telecom and Internet service providers, and in the next two months hopes to launch the first stage of its pilot project, which will combine the information into a graphical view of the health of the Internet.
The White House believes the monitoring center is necessary because no single entity in the government or private sector has more than a limited view of the global communications network.
"Nowhere do you see everything that is happening on the Internet," said White House cybersecurity adviser Richard Clarke at a recent public appearance in Washington. "Nowhere do you see the big board."
With Clarke's help, the NCS secured $5 million in 2002 for the GEWIS program.
The NCS is co-managed by the White House and the head of the Defense Information Systems Agency, which is responsible for guarding the communications infrastructures of the military and intelligence communities. On March 1, the NCS will be folded into the Department of Homeland Security, along with four other federal cybersecurity divisions. Privacy Problems Resolved?
GEWIS has proven a tough sell for some ISPs, in part because of the way the government initially pitched its request for data. NCS first asked about the possibility of receiving live feeds from ISPs, with few restrictions on the amount or scope of data requested, according to several providers.
"We were led to believe that some contractors [working on GEWIS] may have gotten a little over-enthusiastic about what kinds of information they could get," said Stewart Baker, a former deputy director for the National Security Agency, and currently an attorney representing several ISPs. "Exactly what will be pulled together by GEWIS and what will be the role of companies asked to participate is all still up in the air."
The program has left other ISPs wondering how GEWIS differs from the "network operations center" outlined in the Bush administration's draft cybersecurity plan. The center, which would be run by the private sector, would link the network security operations of numerous telecommunications providers for the purpose of sharing information on specific cyber threats.
Clarke's deputy, Howard Schmidt, said GEWIS is a far less ambitious program than the network operations center. Instead, GEWIS would give the government the ability to spot cyberattacks before they become a worldwide problem and would use aggregate data to model the effects of a virus or cyberattacks on key systems, Schmidt said.
"GEWIS is merely a tool that would be looking at the Internet from the government's perspective," he said. "The effort mentioned in the cyber plan asks what are the bigger things that government may not need to know about but that the private sector should do a better job coordinating on?"
The NCS's Greene said the government is taking steps to ensure that the center does not collect personal information from ISPs. He said ISPs can use "software tools" to limit the amount of information transmitted to NCS while still allowing the agency to spot major problems with the Internet, such as denial-of-service attacks and computer viruses capable of crippling government and commercial activity online.
"We certainly don't want to get into the level of detail where we create the perception of government getting into stuff that a lot of people don't want the government to see," Greene said. "We think this is very doable, but it can only be done in a partnership with industry, and we have to be careful not to do anything to undermine that."
The NCS already receives real-time data from Verisign Corp., which oversees two of the Internet's 12 root servers that tell computers around the world how to reach key Internet domains. The company gave the government a software tool that allows the NCS to monitor the health of all 12 root servers for free.
The NCS also contracted to receive information from Keynote, a company that monitors the performance of major e-commerce Web sites. In addition, Lumeta Corp., a Somerset N.J.-based Bell Labs spinoff, sold the NCS large amounts of data pinpointing thousands of the most crucial routers on the Internet. Lumeta chief scientist Bill Cheswick helped create the first map of the Internet, which has been used to study Internet routing problems and distributed denial-of-service attacks.
One of the first companies successfully approached by the NCS was Boston-based Akamai Technologies, a company that makes software to monitor Web traffic for suspicious events. The company also sells a product that identifies the geographic location and network origin of visitors accessing customers' Web sites. Akamai CEO George Conrades is a board member of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the company that manages the Internet's worldwide addressing system.
To build on that level of industry cooperation, the NCS has recast its approach and plans to hold a workshop in March to address industry concerns about GEWIS. Greene said that GEWIS's goal is "not to become a secretive place that holds terabytes of data that we're off doing analysis on."
The administration hopes that GEWIS will benefit from the level of trust that the NCS has gained in developing a related project known as the Cyber Warning Information Network (CWIN).
Under construction since early 2001, CWIN will be a separate data network that government and leaders in the telecom and Internet industries can use as a hotline to share information or stay in touch in the event of crisis or attack that takes out the World Wide Web.
Developed under contract by AT&T Corp., CWIN terminals have recently been installed at several major telecom and Internet service providers. NCS hopes to build the network out to small and regional service providers in the coming months.
Many service providers that expressed uneasiness over GEWIS view CWIN as an essential step toward a more cooperative approach between the government and the private sector.
"This boils down to a trust question: How much does the government trust industry to manage these systems effectively, and to what degree does industry trust the government to handle all this data?" said Cristin Flynn, spokeswoman for WorldCom.
"I think there's an inclination on the part of ISPs to participate in that in good faith without setting off the alarm bells that some of the more ambitious proposals set off," Flynn said. "We think CWIN is a good way to build that trust, sort of like dating before we get married."
Mark Rasch, former head of the Justice Department's Computer Crime division, questioned the need for GEWIS. With most Internet attacks, he said, by the time you notice a huge spike in traffic, it's already too late to head off disruptions.
"Slammer made that fact very clear," Rasch said of the Internet worm that infected nearly 200,000 computers within a few short hours early Saturday morning.
-------- un
U.S. at fault for delegitimizing U.N.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
January 31, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030131-69320722.htm#2
I am writing in response to Nancy E. Soderberg's column "Take back the U.N." (Op-Ed, Wednesday). Although she evidently does not see the irony, it truly is ironic that President Bush accuses the United Nations of losing its legitimacy when there is no country that has contributed more to devaluing the organization than the United States, especially under the Bush administration. The United States' damage to the United Nations starts at the top - in the manner in which it manipulates the appointment of leaders of U.N. bodies.
For example, there was the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), for which the United States selected Carol Bellamy to follow James Grant. Mrs. Bellamy almost disabled the world's primary advocate for children. Both in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, UNICEF has remained silent about the plight of children caused by U.S.-backed sanctions because of American pressure to keep quiet.
Then there was the chief of the United Nations itself. The United States prevented Boutros-Boutros Ghali from getting a second term as secretary-general because he had done too much to fulfill the mandate of the organization and too little to cater to U.S. special interests.
Last year, the target was Mary Robinson. While publicly expressing appreciation for her inspiring work for human rights, the United States worked behind the scenes to ensure that she did not continue as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Then, just this week, the United States thwarted the attempt of the most qualified candidate for director-general of the World Health Organization - Dr. Pascoal Manuel Mocumbi of Mozambique, who is both an acclaimed medical doctor and his country's prime minister - to insert another contender, Dr. Jong-Wook Lee of South Korea, whom the United States could order around.
Mr. Bush is right. The United Nations is losing its legitimacy. But he is wrong in blaming others. Nobody is more to blame than the American government itself.
CURTIS FRANCIS DOEBBLER
Washington
-------- us
Pentagon stocks up on body bags
Nearly 10,000 bags were ordered, but officials say they have not been shipped to the Persian Gulf.
By SYDNEY P. FREEDBERG
St. Petersburg Times
January 31, 2003
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/31/Worldandnation/Pentagon_stocks_up_on.shtml
In the last six months, the Pentagon has ordered 9,640 body bags, but they are not immediately headed for the Persian Gulf.
"Right now, we're just replenishing supplies" in military warehouses, said Frank Johnson, a spokesman for the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia. "It's not necessarily an indication of things to come."
But two military suppliers said it is logical to assume that the government is anticipating battlefield casualties.
"The fact is, they are preparing for casualties," said Gerald Kramer, president of Extra Packaging Corp., a Boca Raton-based supplier of body bags. "This is a buildup of bags for a war that may occur."
Year-A-Round Corp. of Mankato, Minn., makes "transfer cases," which are used to transport soldiers' remains home.
In August, the company won a military contract for 80 transfer cases. "Then, in the last month, they sent us an e-mail saying they may need another order of 80," said president Mike Anderson. "In case we go to war, we're going to have to get more."
The military shuns the term body bag, which gained widespread usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 American military personnel died.
Instead, the military began calling them "human remains pouches" during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. They are made of vinyl and cost the government about $38 a pouch.
Jackson noted the black pouches could be used in events other than war: floods or typhoons, or a training accident at MacDill.
Once the bags get to government warehouses, "we don't know where their final destination might be," he said. "Right now, there's no urgency to get new production, but we have the contracts in place to support any future war or natural disaster."
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon ordered 23,000 body bags to prepare for future attacks or American casualties in Afghanistan. At the time, the military said it ordered them to guarantee it did not run out, not because it expected that many deaths.
Forty-four Americans have died in combat or accidents in and around Afghanistan since Oct. 7, 2001.
As of Dec. 31, the Defense Supply Center, which each year buys about $7.8-billion worth of food, clothing, medical and industrial supplies for America's soldiers and their dependents, had 34,000 body bags stored in its warehouses, according to Jackson.
The supply center has ordered another 8,890 bags in the last six months and may soon issue a bid for between 10,000 and 30,000 more, military officials said.
They declined to say how many body bags were ordered in a typical six-month period before 9/11.
In addition, the Pentagon is bolstering its stocks of another type of body bag -- a heavy-duty, olive-green bag known as "human remains pouch type II." The nylon bag is coated with rubber and used to lift remains by helicopter from rugged terrain. It has four nylon handles and costs about $98.
In December, the supply center had 924 type-2 pouches on hand; that same month, it ordered 750 more, all due to arrive by April, Jackson said.
The military also is planning to solicit bids for more heavy-duty bags: 3,500 to be delivered in the first year of a proposed four-year contract, and 1,000 each for years two, three and four.
Body bags are used for the battlefield and its rear areas. When the remains are ready for transport home, the body bag is placed in a transfer case, which is made of aluminum so it can be packed with ice to stay refrigerated. It is used to keep bodies intact at high altitudes, usually while en route to a mortuary.
The transfer case, which is reusable, is about 7 feet 4 inches long and costs the government about $1,100.
Jackson said the supply center had 301 transfer cases on hand as of late last year. It has ordered 156 in the past six months.
Jackson called human-remains containers possibly "the most difficult items you can try to plan for."
In the mortuary, a soldier's corpse is transferred to its third and final government-supplied container -- either a high-quality coffin or a cremation urn. Families may choose a casket with a silvery metallic finish (about $650) or one with a dark-oak finish (about $815.)
The Pentagon is also making plans for handling remains in the event that soldiers are killed by chemical or biological weapons.
It is considering ways to modify body bags so remains may be viewed through a clear screen, preventing contamination of surviving troops or mortuary teams.
According to a Denver Post report, the Pentagon is also eyeing a plan to bulldoze and burn contaminated bodies in mass graves, to save the lives of surviving troops.
-- Times researcher Kitty Bennett contributed to this report.
----
Two Marines Arrested In Parachute Sabotage
Suspects Allegedly Were Angry at Officer
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3313-2003Jan30?language=printer
After 13 parachutes were discovered to have been sabotaged at Camp Lejeune, N.C., last fall, the Marine Corps suspected an inside job. Yesterday, officials said they had arrested two Marines, and that one had confessed and the other had been apprehended as he allegedly was preparing to flee.
Lance Cpl. Antoine D. Boykins, 21, of Baltimore, and Lance Cpl. Julian Ramirez, 25, of Los Angeles, both members of the 2nd Transportation Support Battalion, 2nd Force Service Support Group, were detained on Tuesday evening, the officials said.
No charges have been filed yet, but several people involved in the case, including a civilian lawyer retained by Ramirez, said they thought it likely the two would be accused of several offenses, the most serious being attempted murder.
The two apparently were angry with their commanding officer for bringing minor but formal disciplinary charges against them in a process called "non-judicial proceedings," a Marine official at Camp Lejeune said.
Boykins and Ramirez were detained after a four-month-long investigation. In the Sept. 21 incident, three Marines practicing parachuting at Camp Lejeune were slightly hurt when they jumped from a C-17 military cargo plane at 1,250 feet, only to have their parachutes fail, with the 20-foot-long cords flailing in the wind without a canopy.
The three survived by deploying their reserve parachutes, which hadn't been tampered with. All three were from the same unit as Boykins and Ramirez, a platoon that specializes in air delivery of cargo. The parachutes of two other Marines who jumped in the five-man "stick" operated normally.
A subsequent investigation found that the canopy cords had been severed on 13 parachutes, most of them still in a warehouse. Because the parachutes had been kept under lock and key, and because the cords had been cut so deftly that a routine inspection wouldn't have caught the problem, the matter from the beginning was seen as an inside job. That shook the Marine Corps, which likes to think of itself as a "band of brothers" steeped in camaraderie.
Boykins came under suspicion after his fingerprints were lifted by investigators from a cord on one of the sabotaged parachutes, an official said. His print also was found on a "Post-It" note that listed the 13 parachutes that had been cut, this official added.
On Tuesday afternoon, military investigators took Boykins into custody. Seeing the arrest, Ramirez left the area and "made apparent preparations to flee," most notably changing into civilian clothes, a Marine official said.
Richard T. McNeil, a lawyer representing Ramirez, disputed that assertion, saying that Ramirez simply wanted to go see a lawyer. "Our understanding is that he did switch into civilian clothes, but not with the intent to flee," he said.
Boykins has confessed and accused Ramirez of working with him, Marine officials said. "Boykins has made admissions implicating himself and Ramirez," one said. Boykins hasn't yet retained a lawyer or had one appointed to represent him, officials said.
Ramirez denies being involved, McNeil said. "We believe that the finger is being pointed in a direction it shouldn't be pointed in," he said.
One Marine official noted that Boykins has accused Ramirez of being "the primary perpetrator," but said that has little credibility because of false statements Boykins made earlier in the investigation.
Ramirez also was scheduled to jump on Sept. 21, the day the incident occurred, McNeil said. His jump was cancelled after the problem was discovered with the first three Marines who parachuted, he said.
McNeil said he doesn't know if the chute issued to Ramirez that day had been tampered with, but that appears unlikely, because almost all the other sabotaged chutes were still in storage that day.
Ramirez's only disciplinary charge was a minor one involving an hour-long incident of unauthorized absence, which the Marines call being AWOL, or "away without leave," McNeil said.
He said he expected charges to be filed by mid-February, and that it was "a strong possibility" they would include attempted murder. But the next step in the case, he said, would be a hearing next week about pretrial confinement, the military equivalent of a bail hearing.
One unanswered question in the case is why the lines on the main chutes were cut but not on the reserve parachutes. The defendants in the case could argue that by not touching the reserve chutes, they were trying to scare their comrades but not kill them. But at this point, said McNeil, "I have no idea."
----
Silent chiefs
January 31, 2003
Washington Times
Inside the Ring
Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030131-18129059.htm
It is one of the most momentous eras in U.S. military history. The armed forces are fighting a new kind of war against terrorists globally, and are about to fight an old-fashioned air and ground campaign against Iraq.
Yet, what strikes some of our contacts in the Pentagon is the silence of the chiefs. Except for the recently departed Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James Jones, the other three service chiefs rarely grant press interviews to talk about what their men and women are doing in the war.
One Army official complained that when Gen. Eric Shinseki, Army chief of staff, does talk in public, he focuses on the futuristic "objective force" of 10 years from now. This official would like the decorated Vietnam War combatant to talk more about what is happening now, both in Afghanistan and in the buildup for Iraq.
"His aversion to the press is fatal in wartime," this senior official said. "The Marines, God knows, never stop. They do a great job. And they should. The Army is stuck in the future."
Rumsfeld's warning Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this week sent a warning to commanders that troops are likely to deploy for longer periods because of the war on terrorism and potential conflict with Iraq.
"The president has called the world's attention to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq," the Rumsfeld message states. "He has rallied the United Nations to enforce its resolutions calling for the regime's disarmament.
"To assist this diplomatic offensive and to preserve future options, adjustments to current mobilization, deployment and rotation cycles may be necessary, adjustments that may mean longer tours of duty than you may have expected.
"While the times, places and conditions of deployments cannot now be precisely known, we do recognize the uncertainty these circumstances may create for those in uniform, the civilians who work beside them, and the families and loved ones, without whose support their sacrifices would not be possible.
"I know the secretaries and chiefs of the military services are communicating with you in greater detail about these matters, but I want you to know that understanding the impacts of these deployments is important to us."
Sailors on the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln can take Mr. Rumsfeld's message to heart. They completed a six-month deployment in the Persian Gulf region and were on their way home when the Pentagon ordered the battle group to stay put at a port call in Australia. The Abraham Lincoln is now back in the Gulf, with its new F-18 Super Hornets ready to bomb Iraq.
Job chase The contest for the next secretary of the Navy is near the finish line. Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim and Michael Wynne, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics are the most talked-about candidates inside the Pentagon.
Mr. Zakheim, a budget cruncher who is well-liked by Mr. Rumsfeld, is seen as the front-runner by some officials in the secretive selection process. Gordon England gave up the prestigious Navy post this week to become deputy secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security.
The Bush administration also has considered a top Pentagon job for Wanda Austin, a nationally known expert on military satellites.
Miss Austin is a top executive at the Aerospace Corp., a nonprofit engineering firm. The company's main customer is the Space and Missile Systems Center at the Air Force's Space Command.
Officials tell us she was interviewed two years ago when the new Bush team was assembling its first senior staff. But at that time, she could not leave the Los Angeles area. She did not return phone messages left by us. Her corporate leadership is the kind of job experience Mr. Rumsfeld likes.
Miss Austin has a Pentagon backer, Edward "Pete" Aldridge, who is undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. Mr. Aldridge was Aerospace Corp.'s chief executive officer before returning in 2001 to the Pentagon, where he had served as Air Force secretary in the late 1980s.
--------
Secretary of State opposes military draft
1/31/2003 10:32 PM
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-01-31-powell-opposes-draft_x.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday he opposes a resumption of the military draft, contending that the all-volunteer military has been able to meet manpower needs and has worked "very, very well."
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the chief proponent of restoring the draft, says that with an all-volunteer force, the burden of war falls disproportionately on minorities and lower-income families.
Rangel also said policy-makers would be less likely to support war if their own children might have to fight.
Powell, who spent three decades in the military, commented in response to a question asked by one of a number of area students invited to spend the day visiting the State Department.
"The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard we have now are the best we've ever had - professional young people serving their country willingly, just as patriotic and dedicated as any group of Americans you'll ever find," he said.
Since manpower needs are being met, "I don't see a need to go to a draft, and I think the all-volunteer force is so good that I wouldn't try to go back to conscription," he said. "And I don't think the Congress would approve it now, anyway."
-------- propaganda wars
Bush, Blix Don't Change Newspapers' Positions
'E&P' Survey: Editorials Still Against War
By Ari Berman
JANUARY 31, 2003
Editor & Publisher Online
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1807172
NEW YORK -- Since Hans Blix appeared before the United Nations Monday and President Bush delivered his State of the Union address a day later -- both offering fodder for the pro-war side -- few newspapers have changed their editorial stances.
The majority of leading papers remain skeptical of an early strike and advocate multilateral cooperation and war as a last resort. A much smaller number still argue that Saddam Hussein must go now -- before he attacks or hands his weapons off to terrorist factions.
This new E&P survey follows a similar effort conducted by the magazine one week ago that has been covered by USA Today and others. (National Public Radio interviewed E&P Editor Greg Mitchell on this topic for Friday's "Morning Edition.")
While a number of editorials praised President Bush's speech for outlining concrete evidence against Hussein, the majority of the nation's top 50 newspapers (by circulation) still criticize the administration for failing to answer urgent questions such as "Why Iraq and not North Korea?" and "Why now?"
The updated survey found that 45 of the country's top 50 daily papers published editorials responding to Blix's report and Bush's speech.
The fiercely pro-war camp remained small, with only five clear members and few surprises, as it includes The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Chicago Sun-Times, The Tampa (Fla.) Tribune, and The Dallas Morning News.
Eleven additional papers formed what might be called a cautious pro-war camp that supports President Bush's desire to disarm Hussein unilaterally and forcefully, but with a number of caveats, such as the need for more evidence released to the public and a clear exit strategy. Prominent espousers include the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Oregonian of Portland, Chicago Tribune, Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel, The Denver Post, and The Kansas City Star. The conservative Boston Herald hedged, saying, "This war cannot begin unless and until the American people believe it is a just war." Bush helped to make that case this week, it said, but still needs to present more evidence.
The remaining 29 papers continue to voice skepticism over Bush's war plans, believing he has not provided adequate evidence to justify a full-scale invasion to meet an "imminent threat," as several papers put it.
Few papers dramatically changed their views post-Blix/Bush.
But Melville, N.Y.-based Newsday, a paper that previously maintained somewhat hawkish views, now assails inadequate disclosures of U.S. information. "The question is still: Why does the war have to be fought now? Why can't Hussein be disarmed through inspectors? Why can't he be deterred as other evil actors have been in the past?" Newsday wrote in a Wednesday editorial.
The Detroit Free Press, exemplifying the doubters, wrote Thursday: "Congress, the world, and the American people want to know that war is not only inevitable, but justified." The Philadelphia Inquirer declared, "Mr. Bush appears ready to make the nation pay just about any price" for victory, "the federal deficit and domestic needs notwithstanding."
The Sun of Baltimore and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, representing two rough-and-tumble industrial cities of mainstream America, staked out views resembling the passionate calls of the antiwar movement. "Perseverance suggests at the same time patience, fortitude, craftiness, clear-headedness," the Sun proclaimed Wednesday. "Right now, American policy on Iraq exhibits none of those."
"[President Bush] is likely to take the country to war -- in spite of what the United Nations or our allies or a significant number of Americans believe to be wise," a Post-Gazette editorial warned Thursday.
The surprisingly dove-ish Orange County (Calif.) Register said that Bush "did not convince us that Iraq poses [an] immediate threat" and bluntly announced that its editorial page would continue to oppose a U.S. attack "together or alone, until the Bush administration provides more compelling evidence."
----
Forget about evidence, look at the facts
Jan 31, 2003
Financial Review (Australia),
by Peter Hartcher in Washington
http://afr.com/world/2003/01/31/FFXZH4YJJBD.html
You know their names. You even know their best lines. They are two of the biggest figures in the threat assessment business. And listening to George Bush's State of the Union address, you could almost see them at the back of the room nodding in agreement.
They are, of course, Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf. In particular, they seemed to like the part where the President sought to connect Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, with al-Qaeda terrorists:
"Secretly, and without fingerprints, [Saddam] could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own," said Bush.
"Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.
"But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein.
"It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Bush's direct appeal to the imagination - "imagine those 19 hijackers" - is a fine example of alarmism by the man who seemed to be shaping up as Fearmonger-in-Chief.
But realising that it was probably bad politics to send the kiddies to bed with this terrifying vision, he then offered reassurance: "We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes." Anyone for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq?
When he talks about the danger of terrorism, Tony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington sometimes reminds his audiences of the work of Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf: "I think it is important to remember these as morals when we address this subject," he told a conference, "because both of these experts came to a bad end by exaggerating and mischaracterising the threat.
"Real threats did emerge, but not the ones that these two leading analysts predicted. And the moral of this story is that it is extremely hard to say anything about terrorism that is both moderate and correct."
Cordesman, formerly director of intelligence assessment at the Pentagon, explains why it's easy to fix on the wrong threat: "Very often what we look at is the pattern we have seen to date. And then we try, in Washington, to create the usual artificial crisis that will motivate the government to change its response.
"In doing so, we pick out the part of the problem that we are familiar with and understand. And there are real dangers, I believe at least, in that particular approach to what is called terrorism today."
The uncanny thing about Cordesman's description of this syndrome is that he said it a couple of years ago - shortly before September 11.
Yet it seems to be precisely what the Bush Administration is doing now - in the absence of Osama bin Laden, seizing upon the danger, the enemy, that is most familiar to senior United States officials and most present in the consciousness of the American public.
Indeed, the topmost officials in the Bush Administration locked onto Saddam the moment the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon - not because he had any responsibility for it, but because he was a familiar enemy. And the administration had already been planning to strike him for unrelated reasons.
In Bob Woodward's quasi-official history of the immediate post-September 11 days inside the White House, Bush at War, he tells us that the CIA immediately identified al-Qaeda as the culprit.
But the next day, when Bush convened his war cabinet to craft strategy, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld raised the unrelated question of Iraq. Woodward, who had access to the official transcripts, described Rumsfeld asking "why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?"
Ever since, the Bush Administration has strained to make a connection between those attacks and Saddam Hussein. To date, there has not been any credible evidence of a connection.
But in his State of the Union speech, Bush argued that there is evidence that the connection is real:
"This Congress and the American people must recognise another threat.
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
Now that the President has asserted it so boldly, there is pressure to see the evidence before rushing to war.
An opinion pollster, Carrol Doherty of the Pew Research Centre, says: "What Bush has going for him is that the American people are prepared to believe anything bad about Saddam Hussein."
Professional politicians, diplomats and other sceptics may be a harder sell.
"The President sought to make an emotional connection between the 9/11 tragedy and going after Hussein," editorialised the Los Angeles Times. "The rhetoric worked. But many facts remain to be filled in. Bush built a foundation [on] Tuesday, but he left a lot of hammering, sawing and nailing to be done by Powell."
It has been 16 months since the attacks, and the full resources of the Western world's intelligence, defence and police services have been trained upon the case.
The Bush Administration will need to produce something harder than fact patterns if it wants to persuade the world that the President is acting on more than the pre-occupations of a handful of his officials and the threat assessment firm of Chicken Little & Co.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Reserve call-ups deplete police, fire departments
By Amanda Paulson
The Christian Science Monitor
January 31, 2003 edition
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0131/p01s02-woiq.html
These are a different breed of soldier.
They are drawn from small-town police departments and big-city hospitals, from emergency medical crews and deputies guarding county jails, from the rank and file and the top brass of agencies charged with keeping this country safe.
As the Pentagon begins mobilizing America's 1.2 million reservists and National Guard troops - nearly 95,000 already are active - many are leaving behind not just families and loved ones, but also key public-service jobs that can't easily be filled.
Take Bernard Melekian. He's chief of the 250-member Pasadena, Calif., police force. But at 7:30 a.m. Monday, he'll sling a duffel bag over his shoulder and report for duty with the Coast Guard - a reservist called up in his 18th year of service. "It's not how I was planning to spend 2003, but I've always known it was a possibility," he says.
Listen to Joey Runyon, chief of police in Hannibal, Mo. Four of his 36 officers are gone for a month of reserve training with the 2175th military police battalion. They were activated for 10 months last year, guarding a station in Iowa, and he's sure they'll be called again soon. Chief Runyon sees some irony in the two sets of press calls he's gotten lately. One is about men called to serve, possibly in war.
The other asks what his depleted department is doing to bolster security. "They're taking them just when we're supposed to be beefing up homeland security," he says.
The exodus of reservists at this point is more a trickle than a flood. But for police departments in modest-sized towns like Mark Twain's birthplace, the loss of even a few officers can impact enforcement, especially when they're highly trained supervisors.
The jobs, by law, must be kept until reservists return, and finding a temporary replacement is difficult. With the loss of reservists piled atop tight budgets and unfilled positions, Mr. Runyon has found his task a scheduling nightmare.
"We were getting beat to death here last summer, working 50-hour weeks," he says. "It drained the overtime budget."
Across the country, states, counties, and small towns are facing a similar dilemma: How to keep America safe at home when the men and women who do that job are being called to support a possible war effort overseas:
• In tiny Papillon, Neb., six officers on a 31-man force are reservists, including two of four shift supervisors and Chief Leonard Houloose. Only one has been called up so far, but Mr. Houloose expects the rest may go, too.
• In West Virginia, the state could lose 10 percent of its 560 troopers if all are activated - and the force is already understaffed by more than 100 people. In rural counties, notes Senior Trooper Jay Powers, state police are often the only law-enforcement around. "We'll just have to make sure we take priority on calls," he says. "Before, we might have one person go to a bad traffic crash, while another person is working a murder. Now if we have both situations, the murder might have to come first."
• Texas has had 140 prison employees, mostly corrections officers, already called to active duty. Another 400 could be summoned. "It's a challenge for us," says public information officer Larry Todd, noting that it could lead to a lockdown in some cell blocks.
• In La Grange, Ga., Police Chief Lou Dekmar just welcomed back four men who had been deployed last year after Sept. 11, only to learn at least three have been reactivated. Between training and unfilled positions, he's down another 10 people. "You end up embracing the serenity prayer," he says. "Accept the things I cannot change and change the things I can." Impact in police precincts
Preliminary results from a Justice Department survey show that 48 percent of law-enforcement agencies lost men to call-ups since Sept. 11, according to the Police Executive Research Forum in Washington. A survey by the International Association of Fire Chiefs indicated that 72 percent of departments had at least one member in the reserves, though small departments faced the most devastating losses.
One response said simply, "We have only two paid firefighters. Both have been called."
Part of the problem, explains George Burke, a spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters, is the confluence of tough situations.
"Two-thirds of the nation's fire departments are already understaffed," he says. "And professional firefighters are heavily weighted with reservists and National Guardsmen." Add to that the country's economic malaise, state deficits, layoffs at local departments, and depleted overtime budgets, he says, and "yes, it's a crisis."
For employers, the question isn't always "how many?" but "who?" Reservists include, for instance, South Carolina's newly elected governor, Mark Sanford. He's a member of the 315th Aeromedical Evacuation Squadron. Governor Sanford has said he would serve if called.
In Hannibal, the missing men include two of three watch officers. And Chief Dekmar will be losing three men from La Grange's 12-man tactical team, a special unit for emergencies. "It's a wing and a prayer," says Dekmar. "But that doesn't make for good management or appropriate security." Doctors are being called up, too
Hospitals are also concerned. The activation of physicians tends to come in concentrated groups, usually in cities. When a medical battalion is mobilized, most of its members live and work in a fairly small radius, notes James Bentley, senior vice president at the American Hospital Association. Mr. Bentley cites one hospital that didn't know its head of trauma surgery and its burn therapist were reservists until both were called up after Sept. 11. "Fortunately they weren't away long," he says, "but it was a realization."
And the losses are emotional as well as logistical. The 28-man police department in Goffstown, N.H., has had two officers activated since Sept., 2001. "There's been a lot of schedule juggling, overtime, adjustments to the budget," says Chief Mike French. "There's only so much overtime somebody can work before they themselves need a break." But what's bothering him isn't so much his overworked men and strapped budget. "We miss the guys," he says.
----
Ashcroft touts rise in federal gun-crimes prosecutions
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 31, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030131-90736264.htm
Attorney General John Ashcroft yesterday said federal gun prosecutions increased by 32 percent last year under the Justice Department's 2-year-old Project Safe Neighborhoods program, and vowed a significant jump in funding to crack down on future gun violence.
Speaking to a conference of federal, state and local law enforcement officials in Philadelphia, Mr. Ashcroft said 10,600 suspected offenders were charged with federal gun violations in 2002, compared to 8,054 who faced federal gun charges in 2000, the year before the program started.
The program, which diverts cases from state court to federal court where penalties are stiffer, accounted for 7,747 gun-violation convictions, which Mr. Ashcroft called the largest ever for a single year.
Of those charged, 93 percent were sentenced to prison, 71 percent of whom received terms of three years or more.
Increased arrests and penalties for gun violations have been credited by some law enforcement officials and others for a reduction in the crime rate. Firearms were involved in 12 percent of all violent crimes in 1993, compared with 9 percent last year, according to the Justice Department.
"Enforcing existing firearms laws while creating innovative, effective methods for community involvement are important factors in deterring and prosecuting violent crime," Mr. Ashcroft said in a statement.
Mr. Ashcroft faced harsh criticism during his 2001 confirmation hearings from a coalition of liberal groups that said the former Missouri governor and U.S. senator opposed federal gun-control legislation and questioned whether he would enforce gun laws based on his belief that all law-abiding citizens had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The coalition, led by the Violence Policy Center, sought unsuccessfully to derail his nomination.
Mr. Ashcroft said at the time that existing gun laws needed to be better enforced and proposed what he called a "clear agenda to make America a more secure and safe place" through the stricter enforcement of gun and drug laws and a commitment to every person's civil rights.
His $24.6 billion fiscal budget for 2002 was aimed at reducing gun crime, stopping violence against women, combating drugs and guaranteeing the civil rights of all citizens. He has said there was "no question" the Justice Department needed a "renewed commitment" to the enforcement of existing laws to address gun crime.
The Project Safe Neighborhoods program was created in May 2001 to confront and control what was described as an epidemic of gun violence nationwide that saw 10,000 casualties a year.
The program involves five essential elements, including partnership, strategic planning, training, community outreach and accountability.
Specialized units were created within the 94 U.S. Attorney's Offices across the country to target the most significant gun-crime problems within each district, backed by increased resources and manpower.
In some of the 94 federal law enforcement districts, the program has taken on President Bush's faith-based approach to social problems by involving church groups in violence-prevention initiatives.
Mr. Ashcroft said the Bush administration will increase program funding to about $342 million this year, compared with $558 million over the first two years. The additional money will finance public relations efforts, enhance criminal statistical-analysis capabilities and hire more than 500 state and local prosecutors to handle gun cases in high-crime areas.
-------- death penalty
Md. Attorney General Asks For End to Death Penalty
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4015-2003Jan30?language=printer
Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. urged state leaders yesterday to abolish the death penalty, saying that mistakes are inevitable in the capital murder system and that the prospect of executing an innocent person is an "intolerable risk."
Curran (D), who has long disapproved of capital punishment, said he was moved to call for its abolition when he realized that as many as seven men are to die by injection over the next few months -- more than twice the number that Maryland has executed in the past 40 years.
"In the fractured history of the death penalty in Maryland, this is indeed a watershed moment," said Curran, whose office is responsible for prosecuting capital cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and the highest courts in Maryland. "Despite our best efforts, this system does make mistakes. We catch most of them, but we cannot catch all of them."
Curran said he has no reason to believe that any of the 12 men on death row is innocent. And he said he would do nothing to block upcoming executions, the first of which is scheduled for mid-March. As attorney general, Curran has overseen three executions. So long as the death penalty is on the books, he said, he has instructed his attorneys to follow the law.
But his statement is likely to intensify debate over the death penalty in Maryland, where Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has rescinded a moratorium on executions despite a recent University of Maryland study that found compelling statistical evidence of racial bias.
Just last week, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele expressed his own concerns about the report's findings and suggested further analysis might be warranted.
Curran's remarks could add fuel to a national debate over capital punishment, which intensified this month when Republican Gov. George Ryan of Illinois cleared out death row before leaving office.
David Bruck, a South Carolina lawyer who represents capital murder defendants nationally, said Curran is the first sitting attorney general in a state with active capital punishment laws to push for abolition in the modern era. "For someone still in office, presiding over executions, to recognize the bankruptcy of this system is historic," Bruck said.
Curran made his declaration in front of the State House surrounded by representatives of the Catholic Church and other religious leaders. He also was joined by several lawmakers, including state Sen. Sharon M. Grosfeld (D-Montgomery), who plans to introduce a bill today that would eliminate the death penalty and bar future executions.
Curran expressed support for Grosfeld's legislation, which would leave life without parole as the state's most severe punishment.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, Curran said, 821 people have been executed nationwide and 103 people have been exonerated, including one in Maryland, Kirk Bloodsworth, who was freed from a rape-murder conviction by new DNA evidence.
Death penalty opponents reacted with surprise and delight to Curran's announcement, while supporters were dismayed. Del. Carmen Amedori (R-Carroll), threatened to complain to the state's attorney grievance commission, saying Curran is "supposed to be an advocate on behalf of victims, not criminals."
Few observers expect Curran's statement to have much practical effect. Support for the death penalty is strong among the Democratic leaders of the legislature, and lawmakers said Grosfeld's bill has little hope of passage. "Abolition is a pretty steep hill to climb," said Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.
Frosh said lawmakers may be persuaded to vote to halt executions temporarily while the General Assembly reviews the University of Maryland study. But Ehrlich said yesterday that he would veto any proposal to abolish the death penalty or delay its imposition.
Steele, who opposes capital punishment on religious grounds, said he "can appreciate the sentiment" of Curran's statement. But he accused the longtime attorney general of playing "politics with the death penalty," saying that Curran should have made this move "during a Democratic administration, when you'd think you could get something like that passed."
Local prosecutors who depend on Curran to defend their death sentences before appellate judges said they have known his personal views for years.
"Joe Curran is not coming out saying he has conducted a review of inmates on death row and he personally has doubts about their innocence," said Stephen Bailey, a deputy prosecutor in Baltimore County, which sends more convicts to death row than any other Maryland jurisdiction.
Among them is Steven H. Oken, who is sentenced to die in March for the 1987 rape and murder of a 20-year-old newlywed. Oken has described the humiliation, torture and murder of his victim, Bailey said, and "there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind -- including Steven Oken's -- that Steven Oken is guilty."
Still, Curran's statement and Grosfeld's proposal gave hope to Oken's attorney, Fred Warren Bennett. "We think there is momentum in Maryland for further reflection," he said.
Staff writers Susan Levine and Craig Whitlock contributed to this report.
-------- drug war
U.S. Lists Guatemala's Anti-Drug Cooperation as Inadequate
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/americas/31GUAT.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 - The Bush administration has concluded that Guatemala is deeply mired in corruption and no longer deserves to be listed among allies of the United States in the fight against drug trafficking, officials said today.
In a letter to Congress, President Bush will "decertify" Guatemala's antidrug efforts but waive penalties because of the United States' own vital interests, the officials said.
Although the move is mostly symbolic, it signals growing anger and frustration on the part of the Bush administration toward the government of President Alfonso Portillo. Mr. Portillo, who was elected in a landslide in 1999, has largely failed to stablize his government and curb corruption, undercutting cooperation with the United States.
"We have gone to them repeatedly for a number of months and laid out measures that must be taken to avoid this," an administration official said. "They fell short of our expectations."
The Guatemalan Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment today.
Since peace accords in 1996 brought nearly 30 years of civil war to an end, Guatemala has become increasingly troubled by common crime, murders of human rights activists and jurists, money laundering and other forms of corruption. At the same time, American antidrug officials say, the country has increasingly been used as a transshipment point for Colombian cocaine and heroin heading for the United States.
Administration officials say their law enforcement efforts are stymied by the overall tumult, noting that since Mr. Portillo took office, he has had nine different directors of the government's antidrug unit.
"This constant upheaval makes long-range planning for operations and investigations nearly impossible and working relationships very difficult," Paul E. Simons, the acting assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, said in recent Congressional testimony.
The American officials are surprisingly candid in their criticism of President Portillo and say they have canceled visas for many of his associates because of corruption allegations.
"Narcotics trafficking, alien smuggling, car theft, money laundering and organized crime in general are on the increase in Guatemala," Mr. Simons said. "Some of the leaders of these activities have very close ties to the president and regularly influence his decisions, especially with respect to personnel nominations in the military and the ministry of government."
Pressing for change, the administration helped arrange a trip for 11 influential Guatemalans, including the vice president, to attend a seminar in Prague offered by Transparency International, a group advocating clean government. Despite Washington's aid in creating an anticorruption task force, no high-level figures have been indicted, although there has been some prosecutions of municipal officials.
The judiciary is also compromised, officials say. In a case that exasperated American officials in 2001, Judge Delmi Castañeda accepted thousands of dollars to dismiss a criminal case against narcotics traffickers. The judge, who was observed driving the defendants in her own car, lost her judgeship but was not prosecuted.
The general unreliability of the Guatemalan government has compelled the Drug Enforcement Administration to shift its strategy, said Will Glaspy, a spokesman for the agency. Instead of relying on local prosecutions, American antidrug agents are concentrating on building cases for extradition to the United States.
-------- homeland security
Homeland Security Dept. On GAO, OMB Watch Lists
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4067-2003Jan30?language=printer
Less than a week after its inception, the Department of Homeland Security has already landed on congressional and Bush administration lists of agencies to watch for poor performance.
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, included the department yesterday in its biennial report of "high risk" programs vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement. A few hours later, Office of Management and Budget officials gave the department an across-the-board rating of "red" -- the worst possible grade under the administration's annual management scorecard measuring agencies' performance.
In both cases, officials cited the enormous challenge Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge faces in melding 22 diverse agencies with 190,000 employees into an efficient anti-terror agency that will be the third-largest department in the federal government.
Ridge was sworn in on Jan. 24, the same day the agency officially opened its doors. Less complicated mergers have taken five to seven years to achieve, the GAO said. The new department's success will depend not just on smart management and skilled employees but also on establishing relationships with state and local governments, the private sector and other federal agencies, the GAO said.
"Its unprecedented size, scope, complexity and importance is unparalleled in our history," said Comptroller General David M. Walker of the GAO. "We believe it can be successful, but we believe it is a high-risk endeavor."
Moreover, the low ratings from the GAO and the OMB reflect the management challenges of some of the agencies being folded into the department. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, for instance, has lost track of foreign visitors who have overstayed their visas.
Mark W. Everson, the OMB's deputy director for management, said the ratings reflect the reality of the reorganization.
"We didn't . . . have any illusions that it wouldn't be difficult," he said. "But we've assembled a good team. We think we can manage that risk. The GAO highlighting it for us, that's great. . . . . We use that information as an input into how we develop our program."
The total number of high-risk areas on this year's GAO list is 25 -- nine more than when it was first compiled in 1990.
Also added to the list this year were Medicaid, which pays for the health care of more than 44 million low-income Americans; disability programs within the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs; and real property controlled by more than 30 agencies.
Medicaid is plagued by inappropriate claims by health providers, expensive waivers from Medicaid rules obtained by states, and the exploitation of regulatory loopholes by states that secure billions of dollars in extra federal payments each year, the GAO said.
Meanwhile, the VA and the SSA have not adequately planned for the growth in disability claims, have taken too long to process claims and have overcompensated some individuals while undercompensating others, according to the watchdog agency. The government also controls a lot of property that is deteriorating or unnecessary, Walker said.
The GAO removed from the high-risk list the Supplemental Security Income program, which reduced overpayments, and asset forfeiture programs within the Justice and Treasury departments, which improved controls over seized and forfeited property.
At the OMB, Bush's second annual performance scorecard on various management criteria showed all major agencies making progress, but not enough to escape poor marks overall. The scorecard employs a traffic-light system of green for success, yellow for mixed results and red for unsatisfactory.
Ten agencies, including OMB, Treasury and Justice, received red marks across the board, while 15 others drew poor or mixed results. The National Science Foundation, which earned the lone green light last year, drew the only two green lights this year -- for performance in financial management and in using the Internet to deliver services. Every major department drew poor marks for competitive sourcing -- the administration's attempt to let the private sector compete for at least 425,000 government jobs.
OMB officials also announced that they will rate the effectiveness of about one-fifth of the federal government's 1,000 or so programs every year. The initiative will help Congress and the administration determine funding levels, said OMB Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr.
"The burden of proof is on the program or the program's proponents," he said. "The burden of proof is not on the skeptic to demonstrate something doesn't work."
----
Scent of a germ
EDITORIAL
January 31, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030131-73687256.htm
During his State of the Union address, President Bush pointed out that America is now deploying "the nation's first early warning network of sensors to detect biological attack." Details of that warning system have recently come to light, and while there are a few potential missteps, the administration appears to have set the right course.
Two different systems are now being set up. One, named Bio-Watch, is a nationwide system of environmental monitors under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, which will "sniff" the air for germs of bioterror, such as the smallpox virus or the anthrax bacteria. The other, led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), will serve as a sort of "germ net." It will monitor health databases in eight major cities - probably including Washington, D.C. - for signs of disease outbreaks such as emergency-room visits and physician reports.
Even though these systems are just getting started, there are a number of concerns, both technical and legal. On the technical side, those in charge of Bio-Watch will have to take great care to screen out "false positives" - false detections of biological attacks - before they cause unnecessary alarm. Privacy is the largest concern in the health-monitoring system. While those in charge of the system claim that individuals will be tracked by their symptoms, gender, ages and area codes rather than names or identifiers, privacy rights have not been guaranteed. The "germ-net" system will have to be watched carefully to ensure that the rights of citizens are respected, and the administration's decision to move it from under control of the Pentagon to control of the CDC seems reasonable in that regard.
Regardless, national-security necessities would seem to trump technical and legal concerns. Even under the best conditions, epidemiology is a difficult, time-consuming business, as the outbreaks of Norwalk virus on Carnival Cruise liners so aptly demonstrated last month. Each minute saved in detection is another minute health professionals have to save lives and prevent a national emergency. As the New York Times story that reported the existence of the health data monitoring network noted, "In detecting attacks, a head start of even a day or two can greatly lower death rates by letting doctors treat rapidly and prevent an isolated outbreak from becoming an epidemic." In an extreme scenario, an attack of smallpox, there is only a three-day window of time in which the vaccine can be successfully applied.
Despite this necessity for early detection, no such monitoring networks had previously been set up. While Bio-Watch may be limited to monitoring for possible terrorist attacks, the health-data monitoring network may have additional utility in tracking down outbreaks of natural diseases as well.
It's no wonder that experts at the Heritage Foundation named the building of such an early detection network their top priority in their recommendations for strengthening civil defense against terrorism in a report on homeland security last year. There's little doubt that when both systems are fully operational in scenting germs in the air, Americans will have a reason to breath just a bit easier.
-------- immigration / refugees
I.N.S. Shredder Ended Work Backlog, U.S. Says
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By JOHN M. BRODER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/national/31FILE.html
LOS ANGELES, Jan. 30 - Tens of thousands of pieces of mail come into the huge Immigration and Naturalization Service data processing center in Laguna Niguel, Calif., every day, and as at so many government agencies, it tends to pile up. One manager there had a system to get rid of the vexing backlog, federal officials say. This week the manager was charged with illegally shredding as many as 90,000 documents.
Among the destroyed papers, federal officials charged, were American and foreign passports, applications for asylum, birth certificates and other documents supporting applications for citizenship, visas and work permits.
The manager, Dawn Randall, 24, was indicted late Wednesday by a federal grand jury, along with a supervisor working under her, Leonel Salazar, 34. They are accused of ordering low-level workers to destroy thousands of documents from last February to April to reduce a growing backlog of unprocessed paperwork.
Ms. Randall was the file room manager at the I.N.S. center. Mr. Salazar was her file room supervisor. The Laguna Niguel center handles paperwork for residents of California, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii and Guam and is one of four immigration service centers around the country operated by private contractors under I.N.S. supervision.
According to the federal indictment, Ms. Randall ordered her subordinates last January to count the number of unprocessed papers in the filing center. They reported that about 90,000 documents were waiting to be handled. In February, the government says, she ordered at least five night-shift workers to begin shredding many boxes of papers.
By the end of March, the backlog had been cut to zero, and Ms. Randall ordered her subordinates to continue destroying incoming paper to keep current, the government says.
"There was no I.N.S. policy that required this, nor was she ordered to do it by any superior, as far as we know," said Greg Staples, the assistant United States attorney handling the case. "The only motive we can think of is just the obvious one of a manager trying to get rid of a nettlesome problem."
Mr. Staples said one frustrating thing about the case was that most of the evidence had been carted out with the trash and that it was impossible to identify all of the victims.
"It's like a murder case without a body," he said. "We will never really know what was destroyed."
The shredding was discovered in April by an agency supervisor who witnessed what appeared to be unauthorized destruction of documents. The I.N.S. office of internal audit, the Justice Department's inspector general and the United States attorney's office for Southern California conducted the investigation that led to this week's indictments.
Ms. Randall and Mr. Salazar were each charged with conspiracy and five counts of willfully destroying documents filed with the I.N.S. The conspiracy charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison. Each of the other counts can bring three years in prison.
Their subordinates were not charged because they were low-level workers acting on instructions, the government said.
After the shredding was discovered, the immigration service opened a hotline for people who suspected their paperwork had been destroyed. Agency officials helped petitioners reconstruct their files and gave applicants the benefit of the doubt if they could not replace the documents they had submitted, said Lori Haley, a spokeswoman for the I.N.S.'s western regional office.
She said the agency made an effort last year to publicize the problem and was confident that it had rebuilt most of the lost files. She also said that additional staff members had been hired at the center and that oversight had been tightened.
"Monitoring of the activities of the support services contractor has been enhanced at the service center," Ms. Haley said. "All materials to be shredded or destroyed are reviewed first by I.N.S. personnel to make sure that no unauthorized materials are destroyed."
Ms. Randall's lawyer, Joseph G. Cavallo, said today that he had not read the charges and would not comment. He said, however, that Ms. Randall would plead not guilty at her arraignment on Monday. Mr. Salazar's lawyer, Tom Brown, did not return calls seeking comment.
The four document processing centers are operated under a $325 million contract with JHM Research and Development of Maryland, which in turn subcontracts the operations to two other companies. John Macklin, president of JHM, was unavailable for comment.
Mr. Staples, the federal prosecutor, said the contractors were cooperating with the investigation and would not be charged unless more evidence against them was developed.
"If we had found criminal liability, we would have indicted the companies," he said.
--------
State Department Link Will Open Visa Database to Police Officers
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/national/31COMP.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 - Law enforcement officials across the country will soon have access to a database of 50 million overseas applications for United States visas, including the photographs of 20 million applicants.
The database, which will become one of the largest offering images to local law enforcement, is maintained by the State Department and typically provides personal information like the applicant's home address, date of birth and passport number, and the names of relatives.
It is a central feature of a computer system linkup, scheduled within the next month, that will tie together the department, intelligence agencies, the F.B.I. and police departments.
The new system will provide 100,000 investigators one source for what the government designates "sensitive but unclassified" information. Officials see it as a breakthrough for law enforcement, saying it will help dismantle the investigative stumbling blocks that were roundly criticized after the Sept. 11 attacks.
At the same time, they acknowledge the legal and policy questions raised by information sharing between intelligence agencies and local law enforcement, and critics have cast a wary eye as well at the visa database.
One other effect of the new system is that for the first time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies linked by it will be able to send one another encrypted e-mail. Previously, security concerns about the open Internet often caused sensitive information to be faxed, mailed or sent by courier.
The changes come as the F.B.I. continues working to upgrade its entire computer system, which is so antiquated and compartmentalized that it cannot perform full searches of investigative files. The bureau's director, Robert S. Mueller III, has said that while the technology easily allows for single-word searches, for example for "flight" or "school," it is very hard to search for a phrase, for example "flight school."
For all the ambitious technological proposals being debated in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, the new unified system was cobbled from existing networks and has required little new spending. "These are the networks that people are already using," said Roseanne Hynes, a member of the Defense Department's domestic security task force. "It doesn't change jobs or add overhead."
A primary feature of the system is the State Department's enormous visa database, whose seven terabytes give it a capacity equivalent to that of five million floppy disks. Until now, that database has been shared only with immigration officials.
"There is a potential source of information that isn't available elsewhere," said M. Miles Matthew, a senior Justice Department official who works with an interagency drug intelligence group. "It's not just useful for terrorism. It's drug trafficking, money laundering, a variety of frauds, not to mention domestic crimes."
Local law enforcement agencies seeking photographs have typically had immediate access only to their own database of booking photos. But to get photos of people not previously charged or arrested, an investigator would make a request to a motor vehicle department or the State Department.
So officials emphasize that the State Department database is not making any information newly available to law enforcement, simply making such information easier to acquire. But that increasing ease of accessibility raises some concern from civil liberties groups.
"The availability of this information will change police conduct," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has advocated more Congressional oversight of domestic security operations. "You are more likely to stop someone if you have the ability to query a database."
Or, as Mr. Rotenberg also put it: "The data chases applications."
Critics also point to what they call the unwelcome precedent of foreign-intelligence sharing with local law enforcement, even if the intelligence community's initial contribution to the new system may seem somewhat innocuous. That component is the Open Source Information System, a portal where 14 agencies pool unclassified information. Such material in the new system will includes text articles from foreign periodicals and broadcasts, technical reports and maps.
Two domestic law enforcement networks are also being tied in: Law Enforcement Online, a seven-year-old system established by the F.B.I., and the Regional Information Sharing Systems, six geographically defined computer networks that help local law enforcement agencies collaborate on regional crime issues like drug trafficking and gangs.
Becoming part of a collaborative computer network is unusual for the F.B.I., which has been criticized for its insular nature and technological sluggishness. As some agents joke, the bureau "likes to have yesterday's technology tomorrow." Many agents do not have direct access from their desks to the Internet, because of security concerns. Instead, some field offices have separate areas that agents refer to as "cybercafes," where they can log on to the Internet.
The bureau is now engaged in a multibillion-dollar effort to upgrade its computer system. A recent report by the Justice Department's inspector general cited mismanagement of the project, though Director Mueller gave reporters a sunny assessment today, saying among other things that parts of the upgrade would go online in March as scheduled.
As for the new interagency system, other large security and law enforcement computer networks are scheduled for integration with it within the next year.
These include an unclassified part of the Defense Department computer network, as well as the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System, which is used to disseminate criminal justice information nationwide.
-------- spying
Spy Tapes Show Iraqi Deceit, Magazine Says
Reuters
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8436-2003Jan31?language=printer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell will release National Security Agency spy tapes next week that intelligence officials say show Iraq repeatedly lied to weapons inspectors, Newsweek magazine reported on Friday.
It quotes U.S. intelligence officials as saying the decision to allow Powell to use such secret tapes was extraordinary -- but the evidence was so damning that their release outweighed any potential harm.
"Hold onto your hat. We've got it," the magazine quotes one U.S. intelligence official as saying.
But other officials cautioned that the tapes may not necessarily be the so-called "smoking gun" evidence of banned weapons that the United States has been seeking as it makes its case for war against Iraq, the report said.
A U.S. official told Reuters that some intercepts were likely to be part of Powell's presentation but the final decision on what evidence Powell will reveal at the United Nations had not been made yet.
Newsweek said the NSA had been closely monitoring the conversations of Iraqi officials ever since the United Nations weapons inspectors reentered Iraq two months ago after a four-year hiatus
Chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council on Monday they had found no evidence of illicit weapons programs in Iraq but faulted Baghdad for failing to actively cooperate with their searches.
Iraq denies it has any banned chemical or biological weapons or long-range missiles.
The intercepted conversations prove the Iraqis have been "hiding stuff" from the inspectors, Newsweek quoted the U.S. intelligence official as saying.
"They're saying things like, 'Move that,' 'Don't be reporting that' and 'Ha! Can you believe they missed that'," the official is quoted as saying.
But the magazine quoted other officials as being cautious about what the conversations refer to, saying they may not be about actual weapons.
They "show that there's been a pattern of deception," the magazine quoted a second official as saying. "But does that make the case that you have to go to war?"
The magazine reported that officials at the Central Intelligence Agency, State Department, the National Security Council and Vice President Dick Cheney's office "were said to be 'working shoulder to shoulder reviewing raw data"' to decide how much information can be declassified for use in Powell's report.
Powell is to present the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday what the White House says is evidence that Iraq maintained weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions passed after it was kicked out of Kuwait in 1991.
----
Close FBI, CIA Links Raise Spy Fears
January 31, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terror-Center.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's new counterterror analysis center will mark the closest-ever working relationship between the FBI and CIA, a disconcerting prospect among some civil liberties groups and legal experts who worry that innocent Americans could be spied upon.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said the Terrorist Threat Integration Center will analyze foreign and domestic intelligence and also, in some cases, decide which intelligence should be collected at home and abroad. The center's analysts will report to CIA Director George Tenet, the chief of the nation's intelligence services.
This relationship gives pause to some people, given the checkered past of the CIA and Defense Department intelligence agencies -- as well as the FBI -- in spying on Americans involved in the civil rights movement, 1960s antiwar dissidents and suspected communists.
``There are things in times of war that have to be done that increase the risk of abuse,'' said Robert Turner, associate director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia. ``I am concerned about it. But if there is abuse, it's likely to be identified quickly.''
Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the fear is that Americans could be spied upon with no prior suspicion of criminal intent. The ACLU is urging strict White House oversight of the center, which will be separate from the CIA but a part of the U.S. intelligence infrastructure.
U.S. officials say the center will work within existing legal and jurisdictional boundaries governing intelligence-gathering and law enforcement.
The center will enhance cooperation on terrorist threats, CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said Friday.
``That is the intent and the goal,'' he said. ``It certainly is not to infringe on the rights of our country's citizens.''
Mueller said the FBI likewise will observe constitutional protections carefully in its counterterrorism surveillance and other operations, which are overseen by Justice Department lawyers and the courts.
``There are tremendous constraints on what we do and how we do it,'' Mueller told reporters Thursday. He added that every new FBI agent must tour the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington ``to show exactly what happens when a police agency crosses the line.''
Under the plan announced by Bush in his State of the Union address, the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and other Defense Department intelligence agencies and the Homeland Security Department will funnel terrorism-related intelligence to the new center. The center will comprise analysts detailed from each of these agencies, bringing all of them under one roof to sift through rivers of information from all corners of the globe.
``The collection will remain the same,'' Mueller said. ``It's a sharing of information so it can be analyzed in ways it hasn't been analyzed before.''
Although the just-created Homeland Security Department was sold to Congress as an important new analyzer of intelligence, officials now say it will focus mostly on studying vulnerabilities to infrastructure around the country and strengthening defense where needed.
Bush's decision to create the center comes after months of criticism from Congress and elsewhere about the inability of the FBI and CIA to detect and prevent the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The center does not need congressional approval to begin work.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the move recognizes the magnitude of the terrorist threat and the long-standing problems facing U.S. intelligence agencies. He said it ``will go a long way toward helping overcome the many interagency stovepipes and information-sharing problems we have seen in recent years.''
Senior officials from the affected agencies, headed by Tenet deputy Winston Wiley, will spend the next several months getting the center up and running. It will be headed by a senior official, to be appointed by Tenet in consultation with Mueller, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
Associated Press writer John J. Lumpkin contributed to this story.
On the Net:
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov
FBI: http://www.fbi.gov
CIA: http://www.cia.gov
-------- torture
Al Qaeda Recruiter Reportedly Tortured
Ex-Inmate in Syria Cites Others' Accounts
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 31, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3684-2003Jan30?language=printer
CASABLANCA, Morocco -- In January 2002, Driss bin Lakoul, a 38-year-old Moroccan committed to jihad, was arrested in Syria after unsuccessfully attempting to reach Afghanistan, where he wanted to fight against U.S. forces. For three months, the soft-spoken, bearded man with glasses recounted in an interview here, he was held in Damascus at the Far' Falastin detention center run by Syrian military intelligence.
In the prison, inmates spoke of a German citizen held in the rat-infested basement, a warren of lightless cells each barely three feet long, three feet wide and less than six feet in height, bin Lakoul said. The prisoner was taken out of the cell only for interrogation and torture, according to prisoners.
That German, bin Lakoul said, was Mohammed Haydar Zammar, a Syrian-born naturalized citizen who had lived in Hamburg and, according to investigators, functioned as al Qaeda's prime recruiter there. Investigators say they believe Zammar, 41, played a key role in the formation of the Hamburg cell that led the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.
"There were five brothers in the prison's underground [area] who saw this man, three Saudis and two Yemenis," said bin Lakoul. "They saw him around mid-March 2002. They could talk with him down there; the walls were not thick. A brother from Saudi Arabia was in the cell next to him, and this brother from Saudi Arabia also saw how this [man] was taken away to torture." Bin Lakoul said he never saw the man.
"It's a terrible place," bin Lakoul said of the prison, adding that the cries of tortured inmates were generally audible and that he felt lucky to have been beaten only on the soles of his feet with cable wires.
He said he spent three months in Far' Falastin, then three months elsewhere in Syrian custody. After that, he said, he was deported to Morocco, where he was held for another five months before being released late last year.
Zammar was arrested in Morocco in November 2001, then flown secretly to Syria two weeks later. In Moroccan officials' view, his detention was a triumph of an international counterterrorism alliance, drawing on cooperation between the United States and Syria, a country that Washington officially condemns as a sponsor of terrorism.
But Zammar's fate also exposes the raw underside of the war on terrorism. Human rights groups condemn his transfer to Syria as a "rendition," an extra-legal deportation of a suspect against whom there is deep suspicion but insufficient evidence for a court of law. In some cases, the detainee is sent to countries where torture is common.
Senior government sources here said that U.S. officials took part in the questioning of Zammar during his 15-day detention in Morocco. And U.S. officials knew Zammar was being flown to Damascus, the sources said.
There was no independent confirmation of the account of Zammar that bin Lakoul gave. But human rights groups have documented the use of tiny cells in the Far' Falastin center. Prisoners can never lie down to sleep and, forced to remain upright or hunched, eventually suffer crippling degeneration of the bones, the groups say.
Amnesty International has described the Far' Falastin center as a place of "appalling" human rights abuses. "Torture is routine, especially with political detainees," said Magda Wendorff, a spokeswoman for Amnesty in London. "Many are held incommunicado. Beatings are frequent."
Standing six feet tall and weighing 300 pounds, Zammar once cut a distinctive figure in radical Islamic circles. According to German investigators, he became al Qaeda's prime recruiter in Hamburg. He was a frequent visitor to the walk-up apartment where Mohamed Atta and other hijackers gathered.
Zammar is a loud and arrogant man, acquaintances and investigators said, and his sense of impunity after Sept. 11 cost him his freedom.
In the weeks after the attacks, Zammar was questioned by German police but refused to cooperate, according to documents filed in the Hamburg trial of Mounir Motassadeq, a suspected accomplice of the Hamburg cell who is charged with accessory to murder and membership in a terrorist organization. The lack of hard evidence allowed Zammar to freely leave Germany in October 2001 for Morocco.
In interviews here, Moroccan officials provided the first detailed account of Zammar's itinerary in Morocco and his statements under questioning .
Under interrogation in Morocco, they said, Zammar acknowledged playing a role in the formation and radicalization of the Hamburg cell, but held firm that after the hijackers went to Afghanistan for training and orders for a specific mission, he was shut out of their plans. He said he was as surprised as anyone else when he watched the attacks unfold on television.
Zammar felt sufficiently safe that he traveled openly to Morocco and then Mauritania, according to officials who ordered him followed from the moment he stepped off the plane.
In Morocco, Zammar first wanted to finalize a divorce, his own. A year earlier, he had taken an 18-year-old Moroccan as a second wife in a ceremony performed by a radical Islamic group in Morocco. He already had a wife and six children in Hamburg, and therefore he could not legally move the new wife to Germany as he had promised her and her family. So shortly after arriving in Casablanca, Zammar formally "returned" the woman to her family, according to Moroccan officials.
Zammar returned to Casablanca, stayed a couple of days and attended Friday prayers, then traveled to Marrakech using public transportation.
There he went to the spacious house of the family of Mounir Motassadeq, the Moroccan now on trial in Germany. In the days after the attacks in the United States, Motassadeq had been picked up and questioned repeatedly by German police back in Hamburg. Before leaving Germany, Moroccan officials said, Zammar had promised Motassadeq he would visit the family.
Zammar spent 10 hours in the house, where an upper floor had been converted into an apartment for the expected return of Motassadeq, his Russian wife and two children. Zammar's message to the parents: Don't worry; the authorities have nothing. "Zammar went to make them feel better," said one official.
After visiting the Motassadeqs, he went to the nearby family home of another Hamburg suspect, Abdelghani Mzoudi, a 29-year-old from Marrakech, who was charged last October with supporting a terrorist group. Zammar spent the night with the Mzoudis, delivering the same message of reassurance.
At 5 a.m. the next day, he drove to the neighboring country of Mauritania, where he spent about a week. Moroccan officials say Zammar wanted to set up a new residence for his family in Mauritania, a strict Islamic country. "He wanted to find a fundamentalist state to raise his children and after Afghanistan, he thought Mauritania would be best," an official here said.
Zammar returned to Casablanca the night before his flight home and stayed with a friend. The police swooped in the next morning as the two were driving to the airport. Zammar was interrogated first at the headquarters of Morocco's internal security agency, which is tucked away in a forest on the edge of the capital, Rabat.
There he lauded Hamburg cell leader Mohamed Atta and the 18 other hijackers, the Moroccan officials said. The agents questioning him assumed that some of this bravado stemmed from his belief that as a German citizen he could be deported only back to Germany.
"He praised them over and over again. He said they were soldiers of God, that it was great what they did," said a Moroccan official. "He said, 'Islam will rule the world.' "
During his interrogation, Zammar also claimed to have come up with the idea of using commercial planes as missiles. He told his interrogators that he passed the concept to the senior al Qaeda leadership. Despite this boast, Moroccan officials concluded that Zammar did not know of the attacks in advance. "He knew nothing specific," said one official here.
Zammar acknowledged recruiting Motassadeq and others in Hamburg into Osama bin Laden's organization. "Motassadeq was a member of al Qaeda. Of that there's no doubt," said a Moroccan official. "And as an Islamist, he had to help" the hijackers. Moroccan officials said they believe, based on their questioning of Zammar and other information, that Motassadeq also did not know of the plan in advance.
After 15 days under Moroccan questioning, Zammar was hustled onto a plane for Syria.
The legal pretext, officials said, was a 20-year-old charge stemming from his alleged membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic radical group that operated in many Arab countries and was violently suppressed in Syria in 1982. No public extradition hearing was held. In Morocco, suspects are supposed to be brought before a court for a hearing 72 hours after arrest, according to the Moroccan Human Rights Association.
The Moroccans said that they could not hand Zammar directly to the United States because, unlike Syria, it had not filed charges against him. And Zammar's German citizenship could have become a much greater issue in the United States. So he was sent to his country of origin.
His legal status remains in limbo. U.S., Moroccan and German officials have confirmed that he is being held in Syria. The government there, however, declined to comment on whether it has him.
Special correspondents Souad Mekhennet and Shannon Smiley contributed to this report.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
US Energy Dept gives details on hydrogen car research
REUTERS USA:
January 31, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19636/story.htm
WASHINGTON - The Energy Department said this week that President George W. Bush's plan to spend $1.2 billion of government funds to help develop a hydrogen-fuel car won't all be new money.
In his State of the Union speech to Congress on Tuesday, Bush proposed $1.2 billion in research to build hydrogen-powered automobiles that would be free of exhaust fumes and help reduce oil imports.
In a briefing with reporters this week, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said $720 million will be new funding, spread over the next five years, to develop the infrastructure needed to produce, store and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cells and electricity generation.
Another $500 million was from a program announced last year, which will spend the money over the same five-year period on the administration's "Freedom Car" program to build vehicles that would be fueled by hydrogen.
Abraham said the administration wants parallel programs to build hydrogen-run vehicles and to develop the service stations and other infrastructure to keep the cars running.
Bush will propose funds of $273 million for the program during the government's 2004 spending year, which begins this Oct. 1. He will present his 2004 budget to Congress on Monday.
Abraham said it should be cost-effective to produce hydrogen-fuel cars in large numbers and have them in showrooms by 2020.
The cars could reduce demand for foreign oil by 11 million barrels per day by 2040, according to the department.
-------- energy
Six Republican Senators Turn Against Bush on ANWR
Reuters
Friday, January 31, 2003
By Tom Doggett
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7229-2003Jan31?language=printer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration's plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling suffered a major blow on Friday as six Republican senators said they opposed inserting language into a must-pass budget bill that would give oil companies access to the refuge.
ANWR, which is home to polar bears, caribou and other wildlife, sprawls across 19 million acres of Alaska's northeast corner.
The Republican-led House of Representatives passed energy legislation last year that would have opened ANWR to drilling, but a Democratic-led Senate did not pass similar legislation.
The White House contends that the refuge's potential 16 billion barrels of crude must be tapped to help reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports from unfriendly countries like Iraq.
But many Democrats and environmentalists oppose drilling, saying the administration should cut oil imports by boosting the mileage standards of gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles.
Six of the Senate's 51 Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona, on Friday announced they would not go along with a plan to tack ANWR drilling language onto a massive spending bill this spring that would enact the new 2004 budget for the federal government.
"Because the opening of the Arctic refuge to drilling raises a host of policy concerns, including serious environmental ramifications, we do not believe this issue should be injected in the budget process," the lawmakers said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles.
The letter is the latest twist in a two-year legislative battle over drilling in the Alaskan refuge.
The Democratic-led Senate last year soundly defeated efforts to open the refuge, when drilling supporters fell short of the 60 votes needed to end debate on the controversial proposal and allow a final vote on the measure.
DRILLING BACKERS DON'T WANT A FILIBUSTER
To get around a filibuster this time around, supporters of opening the refuge want to attach drilling language to must-pass legislation to fund the 2004 budget for the federal government. They argue that such language is appropriate for budget legislation because of the fees the government would collect from leasing tracts in the refuge to oil companies.
Under Senate rules, budget legislation cannot be filibustered and only 50 votes would be needed to approve the bill and an attached ANWR drilling provision.
In addition to McCain, the letter was signed by Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, and Mike DeWine of Ohio. The six were part of a group of eight Republicans who crossed the aisle last year to vote against ANWR drilling.
In his State of the Union speech to Congress earlier this week, President Bush urged lawmakers to pass legislation enacting his national energy plan, which includes drilling in the refuge.
Two Democratic presidential hopefuls, Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, oppose ANWR drilling and have promised to filibuster any energy bill that would open the refuge.
A new poll released on Friday by The Wilderness Society showed that by a two-to-one margin, voters reject opening the Arctic refuge to oil drilling, even in the case of impending war with Iraq and a possible cut-off of some of America's oil supplies from the Middle East. Meanwhile, the Senate Energy Committee announced on Friday a series of hearings that will focus on the energy challenges facing the United States and will also guide the development of comprehensive energy legislation.
"My top priorities will be hammering out a robust and diverse energy bill for floor consideration this summer," said panel chairman Pete Domenici.
"Right now, America is faced with energy challenges and opportunities. We are on the brink of war in the Middle East and dangerously dependent on Middle East oil," he added.
The panel will hold three hearings in February on oil and natural supplies, and energy production on federal lands -- which could include drilling in the Arctic refuge.
-------- environment
Court Reverses Mining Ruling
Decision Allows Dumping of Rocks and Dirt in Rivers, Streams
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3759-2003Jan30?language=printer
In a major victory for the mining industry, a U.S. appeals court in Richmond has reversed a lower court ruling that would have ended the practice of using rivers and streams for dumping waste rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations.
The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit late Wednesday reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Charles H. Haden II in West Virginia. Haden had ruled in May that the use of "valley fills" violated the Clean Water Act. That ruling had blocked the Army Corps of Engineers from issuing new permits to mining companies that dump waste in Appalachian waterways and valleys.
The lawsuit, filed by the nonprofit social justice group Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, sought to revoke a permit issued to Martin County Coal Corp., which planned to deposit rubble from its mountaintop mining operations in 6.3 miles of streams at the heads of 27 valleys. While Haden had declined to revoke existing permits, he blocked the government from issuing new ones. He also rebuked the Bush administration for issuing rules removing a legal impediment to mining companies' dumping of the dirt and rock waste into waterways.
Mining officials warned that if the ruling stood, it would seriously harm the region's economy, forcing utility costs up and possibly eliminating 15,000 mining jobs in the next five years. The mining industry and the Bush administration appealed the ruling.
A three-judge appellate panel reversed the district court's declaration that acceptable "fill material" as defined in the Clean Water Act was limited to "material deposited for some beneficial primary purpose." The appeals court found that the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency had properly interpreted their authority under the Clean Water Act by issuing permits for the creation of valley fills.
The appeals court's 55-page decision noted that the case did not turn on the question "of whether mountaintop coal mining is useful, desirable, or wise," but whether the Army Corps' practice of issuing permits to create valley fills is permissible under the Clean Water Act" and whether Haden's ruling was "overbroad."
Jack Gerard, president of the National Mining Association, said, "We are deeply gratified" by the appellate ruling. "The livelihoods of thousands of hardworking people throughout Central Appalachia have been safeguarded by today's decision, and millions of homes and businesses that rely on coal-based electricity are once again assured of reliable and affordable energy."
The plaintiffs said the appeals court used "procedural arguments and administrative wrangling" to subvert congressional intent to protect the nation's streams, and promised to continue to fight on the legal and legislative fronts.
"It is sad and scary that the court could have such a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of people in the coalfields," said Patty Wallace, a member of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. "Strip mining is destroying our mountains and streams and taking away a future for our children."
-------- ACTIVISTS
China Jails U.S. Citizen, Alleging Falun Gong 'Sabotage'
By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3476-2003Jan30?language=printer
BEIJING, Jan. 30 -- Chinese police have arrested a U.S. citizen visiting relatives in China on charges he sabotaged radio and television systems in behalf of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement, U.S. officials said today.
Charles Li, 37, a businessman and Falun Gong activist from Menlo Park, Calif., was arrested Jan. 24 immediately after arriving in the southern city of Guangzhou on a flight from California, friends said. Police transferred him two days later to a jail in Yangzhou, a small city about 100 miles northwest of Shanghai. A U.S. consular official was allowed to visit Li on Wednesday and reported that he appeared to be in good health, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy said. She said Chinese authorities have charged him with "sabotage of radio and television broadcast systems in Yangzhou."
The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Zhang Qiyue, said Li damaged public facilities and disturbed the lives of Chinese citizens. "These facts have shown that Falun Gong is an evil cult, jeopardizing social stability and damaging public order. Anybody who takes actions like these are violating Chinese laws," she said. "Those who damage China's public facilities will definitely be investigated and punished."
Falun Gong members, countering an intense and sometimes violent government crackdown, have interrupted state television broadcasts in several cities over the past year by hijacking cable systems and satellite signals, then transmitting video footage accusing the authorities of torturing and killing fellow practitioners.
The Chinese government, which banned the group as an "evil cult" in 1999, has fought back with more arrests and tougher sentences, including prison terms as long as 20 years. Although China has jailed its nationals who are U.S. residents but have returned to visit, Li is the first known U.S. citizen caught in the crackdown on Falun Gong.
Li's girlfriend, Yeong Ching, denied he was involved in any sabotage of broadcasting equipment and said the Chinese government targeted him because he was listed as a contact person for Falun Gong on an overseas Internet site.
"I'm very worried about his safety. He is a Falun Gong practitioner, and the Chinese government has been persecuting Falun Gong," she said by telephone from California. "He's done nothing wrong. This persecution is evil, and I hope people will help by calling police in Yangzhou and demanding that Charles be released."
Yeong said Li immigrated to the United States in the early 1990s and was employed at Harvard University as a medical researcher before going into the business of importing and exporting Chinese traditional medicine. She said he was visiting China to conduct business and visit his family, which is based in the Yangzhou area.
Levi Browde, a Falun Gong spokesman in New York, said Chinese police first detained Li in Yangzhou in October and found him carrying videodiscs defending the group against the government's campaign. Browde said it was unclear how Li departed Yangzhou after that detention. But U.S. officials have told his friends that Chinese police have also accused him of escaping.
----
Bishop in Bush's Church in New Antiwar Ad
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3764-2003Jan30?language=printer
The National Council of Churches will begin airing a television commercial today in which a bishop of the United Methodist Church, President Bush's denomination, says going to war against Iraq "violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."
The 30-second ad, scheduled to appear several times a day over the next week on the CNN and Fox cable networks in New York and Washington, is part of an accelerating television, radio and print media campaign by Win Without War, a coalition of organizations opposed to invading Iraq.
The choice of a Methodist bishop as a spokesman is intended to emphasize the opposition to war from America's mainstream churches and to convey that the peace movement is middle-of-the-road and patriotic, according to Win Without War's national director, former representative Tom Andrews (D-Maine).
Some national TV networks and local stations have rejected the antiwar coalition's efforts to buy advertising time, citing the controversial content of its ads.
The first spot, which aired in 14 cities beginning Jan. 16, showed a little girl plucking petals from a daisy during a missile launch countdown, followed by a nuclear mushroom cloud. It was a remake of one of the most famous political ads in history, an attempt in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign to portray his Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater, as a warmonger.
Win Without War's second commercial featured actress Susan Sarandon asking, "What did Iraq do to us?" Edward Peck, a U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the Reagan administration, replied: "The answer is nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al Qaeda."
That ad was timed to coincide with Tuesday's State of the Union address, in which Bush said the United States has intelligence linking Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to international terrorism.
In the latest ad, actress Janeane Garofalo says she keeps wondering: Does the United States have the right to invade "a country that's done nothing to us?' "
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, the chief ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, answers: "No nation under God has that right. It violates international law, it violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Iraq hasn't wronged us. War will only create more terrorists and a more dangerous world for our children."
Talbert, 68, also opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War. He said in an interview yesterday he believes there are "more people openly opposed to this war than we had two years into the Vietnam War." He added that he decided to make the commercial only after Methodist leaders failed in several attempts to obtain a private meeting with Bush.
More than 40 bishops and pastors of Protestant and Orthodox churches will issue an open letter today imploring Bush to meet with antiwar religious leaders, according to Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania who heads the 38-denomination National Council of Churches.
"We're asking him to at least listen to us before he makes the final decision to go to war," Edgar said.
Many of the nation's large Christian denominations, including the leaders of the Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist churches, have expressed opposition or strong reservations to war with Iraq. Some Southern Baptist and other evangelical ministers have declared their support for war; most Jewish organizations have not taken a position.
In addition to the National Council of Churches, Win Without War's members include MoveOn.org, an Internet-based group founded in 1998 by Californians who opposed President Bill Clinton's impeachment; True Majority, a group headed by Ben & Jerry's ice cream founder Ben Cohen; the Sierra Club; the National Organization for Women; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.
Andrews said the coalition has spent more than $675,000 on its three commercials, almost all of it coming from individual donations. The total is likely to top $1 million, he added, as the group plans to bring out at least two more ads in the next few weeks urging Bush to work through the United Nations and its weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq.
Nathan Naylor, a public relations executive involved in the ad campaign, said CNN, Fox and NBC declined to sell airtime on their national networks, so the coalition bought time locally from network affiliates and cable operators.
CNN spokeswoman Megan Mahoney said its policy is that "we do not accept international advocacy ads on regions in conflict."
Hilary Smith, an NBC spokeswoman, said she could confirm only that one of the network's wholly owned stations, KNBC in Los Angeles, decided not to air the "daisy" ad. "It pertained to a controversial issue which we prefer to handle in our news and public affairs programming," she said.
Officials at Fox did not respond to repeated calls seeking comment.
----
Americans Advised to Avoid German Protest
January 31, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Germany.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Expecting large anti-war demonstrations in Germany, the State Department on Friday cautioned Americans to stay away from them because the protests could escalate into violence.
Demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn into confrontational situations, the department said in a public announcement.
The demonstrations are anticipated Feb. 7-9 in Munich, which is staging a conference on security policy over the three days. American citizens visiting the city were advised in the U.S. statement to exercise caution.
Germany is stiffly resisting any U.S. attack on Iraq.
--------
Forum called off after poets plan to protest
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 31, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030131-61573.htm
The White House has called off a poetry symposium to have been hosted by first lady Laura Bush after one poet sought to use the event to protest military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The event, scheduled for Feb. 12, was to celebrate the works of Walt Whitman, Langston Hughes and Emily Dickinson. But one poet who declined the White House's invitation sent an e-mail to other invitees and poets asking them to "make February 12 a day of Poetry Against the War."
"We will compile an anthology of protest to be presented to the White House on that afternoon," read the e-mail from Sam Hamill, a poet and editor of the Copper Canyon Press in Port Townsend, Wash.
One of the poets who had accepted the first lady's invitation to the "White House Symposium on Poetry and the American Voice" forwarded the message to the first lady's office, which promptly postponed the event.
"It came to the attention of the first lady's office that some invited guests want to turn what is intended to be a literary event into a political forum," Mrs. Bush's office said in a statement.
"While Mrs. Bush understands the right of all Americans to express their political views, this event was designed to celebrate poetry."
The first lady's office said the poetry event will be rescheduled, but it did not provide a date or say whether the guest list would be revised.
Mr. Hamill - a Zen Buddhist who ran for the California State Assembly in 1968 on an anti-war, socialist ticket and once worked on the Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign - said he was a bit surprised when he received an invitation to the first lady's event.
"I think it tells you a lot about White House intelligence, doesn't it?" said Mr. Hamill, noting that he has been in and out of liberal social activism all his life and "never for things the Republican Party would likely approve of."
"How they got me is beyond me."
The poet said the White House advance team should have known about his background and predicted that "somebody's going to get fired over this."
Mrs. Bush, a former librarian who has made teaching and early-childhood development her signature issues, has held three White House symposiums to salute America's authors. The gatherings in the East Wing are usually lively affairs with discussions of literature and its effect on society.
The symposium on Hughes, Dickinson and Whitman - often called America's greatest Civil War poet - drew little attention until Mr. Hamill sent his e-mail soliciting anti-war poems or statements.
The e-mail to "friends and fellow poets" - sent Sunday afternoon - was titled "An Open Letter from Sam Hamill."
"When I picked up my mail and saw the letter marked 'The White House,' I felt no joy. Rather I was overcome by a kind of nausea as I read the card enclosed: Laura Bush requests the pleasure of your company," said the e-mail.
"Only the day before I had read a lengthy report on George Bush's proposed 'Shock and Awe' attack on Iraq, calling for saturation bombing that would be like the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo, killing countless innocent civilians."
Mr. Hamill said the Iraq crisis can be resolved by letting the United Nations complete its inspections and said President Bush has yet to convince the world that war is the "only possible alternative."
He said he hoped to reconstitute an anti-war movement like the one organized to oppose the Vietnam War. He asked "every poet to speak up for the conscience of our country and lend his or her name to our petition against this war" and to pass along the e-mail to "any poets you know."
Mr. Hamill said he had expected to get a few dozen responses. He has gotten more than 2,000 so far, including contributions from famed beat poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti; W.S. Merwin, Pulitzer Prize winner and the former chancellor of the Academy of American Poets; Hayden Carruth, winner of the National Book Award; and Yusef Komunyakaa, who wrote poetry while serving in the Army in Vietnam and won the Pulitzer Prize for poetry in 1994.
Yesterday, he posted some of the submissions on a Web site (www.poetsagainstthewar.org). All responses will be posted by Feb. 3, he said.
Mr. Hamill said the responses have "honored a long and rich tradition of thoughtful and moral opposition by poets and other artists to senseless and murderous policies, including those of our own government."
In one submission, poet Marilyn Hacker wrote:
"No hope from youthful pacifists, elderly
anarchists; no solutions from diplomats.
Men maddened with revealed religion
murder their neighbors with righteous fervor,
while, claiming they're 'defending democracy,'
our homespun junta exports the war machine.
They, too, have daily prayer-meetings,
photo-op-perfect for tame reporters."
In his own poem - "State of the Union, 2003" - Mr. Hamill wrote:
"I have no god, but have seen the children praying
for it to stop. They pray to different gods.
The news is all old news again, repeated
like a bad habit, cheap tobacco, the social lie."
Marilyn Nelson, Connecticut's poet laureate, said she had accepted her invitation to the poetry symposium and criticized the White House for trying to silence the voice of American artists.
"I had decided to go because I felt my presence would promote peace," she said.
"I had commissioned a fabric artist for a silk scarf with peace signs painted on it. I thought just by going there and shaking Mrs. Bush's hand and being available for the photo ops, my scarf would make a statement," she said.
White House invitations have inspired anti-war protests before. In 1965, poet Robert Lowell refused to attend a White House arts festival, citing opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1968, at a White House luncheon hosted by Lady Bird Johnson, guest and singer Eartha Kitt publicly voiced her opposition to the same war.
At a 1972 White House dinner, a member of the Ray Conniff Singers, Carole Feraci, held up a banner reading, "Stop the Killing."
----
With Antiwar Poetry Set, Mrs. Bush Postpones Event
January 31, 2003
New York Times
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/politics/31POET.html
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 - Laura Bush has postponed a White House symposium on the works of Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes and Walt Whitman after some of the poets invited said they hoped to use the event to protest American military action in Iraq.
Noelia Rodriguez, the first lady's press secretary, said the event, originally planned for Feb. 12, had been designed to celebrate the written word. "While Mrs. Bush respects and believes in the right of all Americans to express their opinions," Ms. Rodriguez said today, "she, too, has opinions, and believes that it would be inappropriate to turn what is intended to be a literary event into a political forum."
The poetry symposium, planned as part of a series of White House literary events showcasing American literature, began to attract attention as an opportunity for an anti-war protest. On Sunday, Sam Hamill, a poet and founder of Copper Canyon Press in Port Townsend, Wash., sent an e-mail message to 50 friends and colleagues asking them to send him anti-war poems or statements of protest action in Iraq. Mr. Hamill, the author of 40 books of poetry, had been invited to the symposium by Mrs. Bush.
In his message, Mr. Hamill said he felt "overcome by a kind of nausea" as he read his White House invitation, and decided the only response would be to reconstitute a "Poets Against the War Movement." Mr. Hamill said that he had not planned to attend the White House event himself but that the submitted poems and statements would be compiled into an antiwar anthology to be presented to Mrs. Bush on Feb. 12.
By Wednesday, Mr. Hamill said he had received 1,500 responses, and had to create a Web site, which he named poetsagainstthewar.org, to handle the e-mail messages that were overloading his system.
That same day, the first lady's office got word of Mr. Hamill's efforts from another guest invited to the event. Mrs. Bush held a meeting with her staff, Ms. Rodriguez said, and decided to postpone the event. A new date has not been set.
Today, Mr. Hamill said that his responses were up to 2,000, and that he had received numerous submissions from some of the nation's most well-known poets. Adrienne Rich, for example, sent a poem entitled "The School Among the Ruins," which Mr. Hamill said included these lines:
Teaching the first lesson and the last
- great falling light of summer will you last
longer than school time?
The poet Marilyn Hacker, he said, sent a poem that included these lines:
The world is howling,
bleeding and dying in banner headlines.
No hope from youthful pacifists, elderly
anarchists; no solutions from diplomats.
Men maddened with revealed religion
murder their neighbors with their righteous fervor,
while claiming they're "defending democracy"
our homespun junta exports the war machine...
Mr. Hamill said he would organize anti-war poetry readings across the country on Feb. 12, billing it as "A Day of Poetry Against the War."
----
U.S.: Pakistani newsman possible protester
By Anwar Iqbal
UPI South Asian Affairs Analyst
January 30, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030130-072224-7090r.htm
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 (UPI) -- Leading Pakistani journalist and Brookings scholar Ejaz Haider, detained by the INS for failing register with them, might have deliberately ignored the rules as a protest, the Justice Department said Thursday.
Haider "stated to the INS officials at Dulles airport he had written several articles about the registration process and was a vocal opponent of the program," Jorge Martinez, a spokesman for the Justice Department, told United Press International.
He made the comments while entering the United States on Oct. 22, Martinez said.
"It is possible his failure to (register as required) was a deliberate effort to challenge the program publicly," he added.
Haider is the news editor and a columnist for The Friday Times -- Pakistan's most prestigious weekly -- and his detention, albeit brief, by the INS has sparked outrage on the subcontinent and a diplomatic row in Washington, where the Pakistani Foreign Minister raised the matter personally with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Haider came to the United States to work the Brookings Institution's South Asia program as research scholar.
Martinez said he was registered at the port of entry and advised to report to an INS office in 30-40 days.
He was also given written material, telling him what he needed to do.
The registration scheme -- introduced on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- calls for all adult males from 25 mainly Muslim countries who are visiting the United States to register with the INS for fingerprinting, photographs and interviews. Green card holders and naturalized U.S. citizens are excluded.
Haider, however, told UPI that a few days after arriving in the country, he checked with INS and State Department officials who told him that there was no need for him to go for a second interview and registration.
"I even called the INS help line and spoke to a woman who told me that Pakistanis do not need to register," Haider said.
When Haider arrived in the United States Pakistan was not on the list of countries covered by the scheme. It was added to the list on Dec. 18, almost two months after his arrival.
Haider says that after making these initial checks, he got busy with his work and did not check with the INS again.
Martinez says airport registration is not just for those who come from the countries on the INS scheme list.
"We have registered people from 148 countries at the airports. That is almost the entire world," says Martinez.
According to him, people coming to the United States after Sept. 11, 2002, should do what the officer at the port of entry asks you to do. "The criteria at the port of entry is not country specific," he added.
As a person who has written critical articles about the registration program, Haider should have known what he was required to do, says Martinez.
Haider says he was detained for four to five hours and released without any money, as the INS officers who arrested him had asked him to leave his wallet at the Brookings Institution.
Martinez said Hiader was detained for only two hours for security checks and he was not handcuffed.
"Although failing to register is a criminal violation, he was not put on the deportation proceedings. We registered him the next day," said Martinez.
However, Haider says that his release and subsequent registration was not easily done. Brookings' president, and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot had to speak to senior State Department officials to arrange it.
"It was shocking for me. It is not the America I had visited before," he added.
Haider is not the only one shocked by his detention.
"I was shocked at what they did and also that they did not apologize," says Stephen P. Cohen, head of the Brookings South Asia program for which Haider worked.
"On four separate occasions -- sometimes publicly, sometimes privately -- I had to talk to the Pakistan government to get journalists released. I never thought I would see the day when I had to approach my own government to have them release a journalist."
Cohen fears that incidents like this may happen again because of political pressure from Congress and the public.
"But there's one thing about the United States, while we do make terrible mistakes, often we correct those mistakes."
Haider agrees. "There have been earlier moments when American governments have tried to curb civil liberties but the American society has fought back, this may happen again," he says.
"This incident is going to mobilize a lot of opinion, not just of minorities, but also of Americans that the system is broken and needs fixed, INS is asked to do a job for which it is not trained," says Cohen.
Haider could not be reached for comment on Martinez's remarks.
----
Anti-war message gains visibility
By PATRICK GIBLIN BEE STAFF WRITER
Bee staff writer Patrick Giblin can be reached at 578-2347 or pgiblin@modbee.com.
January 31, 2003
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/6041208p-6996977c.html
An anti-war billboard sponsored by several churches, a nonprofit organization and a peace committee went up Thursday afternoon on Maze Boulevard.
The billboard had a simple message that wrapped around a picture of smiling children: "No War. War destroys precious lives on all sides."
Visible on eastbound Maze just before Highway 99, the billboard is signed with the names of three churches, a church-sponsored committee and a peace center.
The Rev. Bet Hannon is pastor of the College Avenue Congregational Church, one of the sponsors of the message. She said she's against the United States bombing or invading Iraq.
"What we are proposing to do in Iraq is no different than what Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait 10 years ago," she said. "When I hear the leadership talk, they do not seem to acknowledge the huge collateral damage, how tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of civilians will die.
"It just boggles my mind."
She said the anti-war stance is a long tradition in her church and is based on moral and spiritual beliefs rather than political ones. The charter of the Modesto church, written in 1948, mentions "a longing for world peace," she said.
"We come out of a long history of commitment to peace and social justice and the belief that war may occasionally be a necessary evil, but it's always a last resort and it's something we do when everything else has failed," Hannon said.
Morris Williams, who lives near the billboard, said he agrees with the sign's message. He said he has two teen-age children who could get caught up in the war, and he doesn't want them to have to fight.
"The people who are making these decisions don't have a child who will go to war," he said. "Those who are going over there to fight, I wish them the best of luck and pray that they will all come home alive."
Bob Scott, a volunteer at the Veteran of Foreign Wars Post 3199 in Modesto, said he disagrees with the billboard. He's a disabled Vietnam veteran.
"Two weeks after Sept. 11, I tried to get them to take me back and get me back in uniform," Scott said. "We are being dragged into this."
He asked if the organizations that put up the billboard are willing to give up their rights and hand the country over to terrorists in order to prevent a war.
"I don't believe in war, but sometimes it's necessary and we don't have a choice," Scott said. "I have two children in the Marines, and I know they are going to fight."
The message includes the names of the Modesto Church of the Brethren, the College Avenue Congregational Church, the Delta Friends Meeting (Quakers), the Modesto Peace/Life Center, and the Unitarian Universalist Social Action Committee. The billboard was paid for by those organizations and the Modesto Committee for Peace in the Middle East, said Michael Napp, a member of that committee.
He said the billboard was the brainchild of the churches, which asked the nonprofit organization and the peace committee if they wanted to help.
"I think it's fantastic that the churches have been so active in this," Napp said. "It shows that this country is not united in this war."
He said that if war breaks out in Iraq, it will be a disaster for the Middle East and the United States.
"If anyone is going to stop it, it will be the people of this country," Napp said.
----
Pursuing Mideast Peace With the Next Generation
By Nora Boustany
Washington Post
Friday, January 31, 2003; Page A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4012-2003Jan30?language=printer
A aron D. Miller remains focused -- all 6-foot-3 of this disappointed but not dispirited Middle East peacemaker.
Earlier this month, Miller became the latest retiree among the cadre of State Department officers who've spent careers trying to resolve the conflict between Jews and Arabs. But he didn't abandon the quest. His new life, he announced, would be as president of Seeds of Peace, a nonprofit organization that pursues conciliation on a personal level.
For the last 10 years, the U.S.-based group has brought Palestinian and Arab teenagers from various countries together with Israeli counterparts at a summer camp in Maine and in follow-up seminars. The goal is to overcome inhibitions and prejudices among the young people, and to work out common understandings.
Just back from Jerusalem, Miller said in a conversation at his home in Chevy Chase this week that he'd never encountered such despair and lack of direction on both sides of the conflict there.
As the skies outside were icy gray, Miller maintained a sense of serenity. With brown eyes intense, he spelled out his philosophy. "Without changing the attitudes of the [Middle East] public, we are going to have agreements, not peace agreements," he said.
When the Seeds of Peace president, John Wallach, died last summer, the group's board approached Miller to replace him. Miller said the offer made him look long and hard at the last decade, its successes and lost opportunities. In the end he said yes.
Miller's real fear was that a whole generation of young Palestinians and Israelis was going to be lost to the hatreds and violence of the last 21/2 years. But getting to them would be no easy task.
Miller recalls what Shawk Tarawneh, a Jordanian who had taken part in a Seeds camp, once told him: "In order to make peace with your enemy, you have to make war with yourself."
"This is not about a bunch of kids singing 'Kumbaya' in the woods -- it involves enormous risks," said Miller, 53, as he sat in the foyer of his home, decorated with inlaid boxes from Damascus and cushions embroidered by Yemeni Jews, Jordanian Arabs and Palestinians. "This is not some kind of morality play, with good and bad guys. It is a question of competing injustices where real people with real needs are in conflict."
Born to well-to-do Jewish parents in Cleveland, Miller could have opted for a life of ease and convention.
As a student, he had a passion for 19th-century American history and for years thought he would become a professor. But in 1972, enrolled at the University of Michigan, he began questioning his choices, wondering if they were relevant. He switched to Middle East studies, got married the following year and took off for the region with his wife, Lindsey, and 200 books.
He was already versed in the Jewish experience in the region. His introduction to the other side's perception began with a friendship the couple formed with a Palestinian from the village of Batir, who worked in the snack shop of a youth hostel. On Fridays, they would all take long hikes to other Palestinian townships. Such carefree pursuits were possible in those days.
Then came the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. It was a transformative experience for Miller.
Until then, he'd seen himself as an analyst, dealing in probabilities. After the war, "I wanted to deal with possibilities. I wanted to become part of an active process." Two of his professors, the late Richard Mitchell and Gerald F. Linderman, both retired Foreign Service officers, helped persuade him to make the switch.
The third person who influenced him, he said, was his mother, whose life had demonstrated that once you come to the end of it, you had better say the world was a better place because you were there.
He went into the Foreign Service and figured again and again over the years in U.S. efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. Today, there is no shortage of praise for him from both sides.
"He never allowed failure to have him change course," said Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Fahmi.
Former secretary of state James A. Baker III said he relied heavily on experts such as Miller who knew the nuances of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger described Miller as "the Energizer bunny" of the peace process, who brought "extraordinary institutional memory, creativity and commitment."
His old professor, Linderman, who remained in touch over the years, noted that Miller always rejected history as "the biography of great men." Instead, Linderman said, Miller saw "a broader panorama of the problems of all people's history. He approached problems from the perspective of a shared humanity."
Palestinian teenagers such as Tarawneh who go through the Seeds program expose themselves to criticism and scorn in their communities, as do Israeli teenagers, at a time when bloodshed and killings are the order of the day. Miller knows the kind of pressure these young people feel, because he has been there.
He and former peace negotiators Daniel Kurzer and Dennis Ross were once accused by other Jews of being "Jewish Benedict Arnolds." At the same time, many Arabs assumed their heritage made them biased in favor of Israel.
"Seeds of Peace brings people together on a level so that they see each other as human beings while they are surrounded by carnage," Berger said. "And if there is ever to be a resurrection of some kind of reconciliation, it will build on those ties, person-to-person, kid-to-kid, built by John Wallach and now by Aaron. He is the perfect man for that job."
----
Two Area Women Headed to Iraq With Peace Group
Delegation to Tour '91 Bombing Site
By Manny Fernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 31, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3948-2003Jan30?language=printer
A District documentary filmmaker and a Virginia conservationist joined a delegation of peace activists yesterday to head to Iraq on an eight-day mission to show solidarity with Iraqi families and to oppose any U.S. military strike.
"I think it's my responsibility as an American citizen to go and see who we are aiming our missiles at in this unjustified aggression," Gael Murphy, 48, of the District, said after a news conference yesterday at the Washington offices of the National Organization for Women.
Murphy and Elaine Broadhead of Middleburg are part of a group of a dozen U.S. women -- lawyers, businesswomen, artists and activists from California, Texas, New York and the Washington area -- who boarded flights separately yesterday for Amman, Jordan. From Amman, where they plan to meet tomorrow, they are scheduled to embark on a 12-hour drive to Iraq.
The women have scheduled visits to a children's hospital, an orphanage and the Amiriya shelter in Baghdad, the site of a bombing during the 1991 Persian Gulf War where trip organizers allege more than 400 civilians were killed. The group plans to join women traveling to Iraq from Europe, Australia and other places, and hopes to meet with United Nations weapons inspectors and tour an oil refinery, organizers said.
"We really think that war is a women's issue, and that women's organizations in the U.S. and around the world should be at the forefront of opposing a war," said Medea Benjamin, 50, co-founder of Global Exchange and Code Pink: Women for Peace, both of which sponsored the trip.
The delegation has no intention of meeting with Iraqi government officials and views any U.S. restrictions on civilian travel to Iraq as unconstitutional. Members scoffed at critics who might brand them as unpatriotic. "I have never felt more patriotic in my life," Murphy said. "I feel like I'm standing up for American values about justice and fairness and peace."
The trip is an extension of the Code Pink peace vigils the group has held at Lafayette Square daily since November, Benjamin said. "It was my feeling that we have this vigil going on in front of the White House, and perhaps it was important to show Iraqi women how committed we are to stopping this war," said Benjamin, who boarded a 6 p.m. flight at Reagan National Airport with Murphy and Broadhead. They are due to return Feb. 10.
Benjamin, a San Francisco mother of two, said none of the women came to the decision lightly to enter a country on the brink of war. Murphy discussed the trip with her partner, her mother and other family members and friends. "They're concerned," she said, "but they're supportive."
----
Many Avenues of Protest
by Douglas Herman
January 31, 2003
Antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/herman1.html
On Saturday I stepped onto the busy street corner in my neighborhood with my sign held embarrassingly low. "USAF Veteran For Peace/ Fight For Your Right To Drive Or Stand Up for Your Right To Peace". The horns honked and I waved. Derisive jeers greeted my wave and a few catcalls and gestures followed. I hadn't hoped to change the world, only to change a few motorists perceptions of reality and maybe change a few minds that Saturday.
How effective are we street protesters, I wondered? What other avenues are open to us? Earlier that day I had been reading the very funny book, "Downsize This!" by the Michael Moore. Mike is the mayor of Righteous Indignation. He's the head Indignant in that nation. Moore printed phone numbers or addresses of minor tyrants or major scoundrels in his book. One chapter even included a nationwide list of Secret Service agents. How useful an entire booklet would be, frequently updated, of names, phone numbers and addresses of Power Brokers. Granted, these powerful people have harried secretaries but after only a hundred calls or cards or Emails the system does begin to show some strain. Remember, it took a zillion grains of sand to wear down the Grand Canyon over eons of time, and, yes, Dick Cheney at Vice.president@whitehouse.gov is looking rather worn down in two short years.
First let me say, if you have access to a computer with internet connections you have access to the world. Type three or four key words into a good search engine like Google and you'll find almost anything. Need Bill Gates home address? Type in "Unofficial Bill Gates" on www.google.com and presto you have more than enough information to locate Bill. How ironic that even the richest man in the world-a reclusive, billionaire computer geek-can't escape the intrusiveness of his own creation.
Need to write or call the White House? George, our resident regent can be reached by email at president@whitehouse.gov , or telephone at 1-202-456-6213. Leave a message for Martin Sheen with George, who'll be taking calls until his regime changes in 2004.
How about your friendly Congressman, always ready to listen to a constituent? I spoke with Jim Ennes, at www.USSLiberty.org who served aboard the Liberty when it came under attack by Israeli fighter planes in 1967. He said Arizona Senator John McCain, former Navy flyer, was frosty to their plea for justice but, as an old veteran, I intend to inundate John with calls and cards at 241 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 until I get through to his conscience. I know John's got one in there somewhere.
You too have the power of a senator's ear, however deaf and dumb they may seem to the general public. Inundate yours with precise postcards (they're all afraid of anthrax-laden envelopes) but please, no death threats. That will only bring out those aforementioned Secret Service agents. You may find your senator at www.senate.gov. You can find addresses and phone numbers on this easily navigated site and, who knows, you may speak to the Great Oz himself. Some Congressmen are quite accessible once you get them out from behind the curtain.
Colin Powell may or may not be the most upright citizen in this administration of hawks. Hard to tell. Beneath that uniform may live a very decent man or just another brick in the wall, as Pink Floyd would say.
I wrote to Colin at State Dept., 2201 C Street NW, Washington DC 20520 or you may call him at 1-202-647-4000 or fax at 202-261-8577. The website is www.state.gov. Before the last election most pundits believed Colin Powell would have handily defeated either "W" or Gore for President. Now, if this war becomes a tragic fact, he may be damaged by his proximity to it. Write him a few heartfelt words; I believe he has a conscience.
Should we besiege the Religious Right, a group of people who are rarely religious and seldom right? Rush Limbaugh is at Rush@eibnet.com. EIB, by the way, stands for "Excellence in broadcasting", another oxymoron.
Fax Rush at 1-212-563-9166 but I found his phone, 1-800-282-2882, to be busy a lot. Maybe he's rushing those Christian soldiers off to war. Pat Robertson, another whisperer to heads of states, is at 1-757-226-7000, and when you call you will get the switchboard for CBN. You may leave a message for Pat. I asked the quintessential question: "What Would Jesus Do?" I doubt Jesus would bomb Baghdad but maybe Pat can read His mind on such matters.
Jerry Falwell is at www.falwell.com or you can call 1-434-582-7618. Email Jerry personally at Jerry@falwell.com and ask him a godly question.
I like to believe the best in people and maybe Jerry is wrestling with his soul about war with Baghdad, like Biblical Paul wrestled with his on the way to Damascus. Of course Paul wasn't going to bomb Damascus so what kind of Christian was he by American standards? Probably not worthy of the Religious Right.
Powerful people lurk everywhere. You may find the editor of any national newspaper by typing in the name of the paper on www.google.com. Then scroll down into you find "Contact Us". Don't hesitate to write to foreign papers; www.antiwar.com lists editorials from many international newspapers and you can find the editorial page with a little searching. These newspapers actually may print a letter or essay from you, seeking a foreigner's perspective outside the propaganda mainstream.
Do you remember that phrase: "Think globally, Act locally"? A powerful movement begins in your own neck of the woods. Join other people of like mind or find an organization like www.MoveOn.org and contribute your time and talents. Go to meetings; stand up and speak; then act.
Henry David Thoreau knew something about protest and human nature. He wrote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, to one who is striking at the root". If you cannot yet strike then by all means hack!
Quotes are good, by the way, and you may find one right for you at www.brainyquotes.com Find the one that fits and write it on a postcard to your Congressman or President's secretary. Then add your own thoughts. After several hundred postcards arrive that harried secretary is gonna dump them all prominently on our public servant's desk! Who knows, you may actually change his mind.
Douglas Herman, freelance journalist, former USAF veteran and current Alaska fisherman is working on a book to be published by Viking.
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.