NucNews - December 8, 2004


-------- NUCLEAR 

Foreign Reactors Get 10 More Years to Return U.S. Fuel

WASHINGTON, DC, December 8, 2004 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2004/2004-12-08-09.asp#anchor3

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has extended by 10 years the period of time for spent nuclear fuel of U.S. origin to be returned to the United States from foreign research reactors.

Abraham said the Department of Energy’s (DOE) decision to extend the period for spent fuel acceptance will provide additional time for research reactors to convert from high-enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium (LEU) cannot.

Under the Atoms for Peace program established in the 1950s, the United States provided reactor technology to further other countries’ research into peaceful uses of atomic energy. Research reactors use nuclear technology for medical, agricultural and industrial applications.

The current acceptance policy established by DOE and the State Department in 1996 permits the United States to accept certain eligible spent fuel that is irradiated by May 2006, and returned to the United States by May 2009.

A revised record of decision, signed by National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Administrator Linton Brooks on November 22 and made public on Monday, extends the irradiation deadline to May 2016, and the acceptance deadline to May 2019.

Some countries with eligible fuel have not used their fuel as rapidly as projected or have made alternative fuel processing arrangements, and there have been technical delays in the development of LEU alternatives, Abraham said.

Since 1996, the acceptance program has conducted 30 shipments involving 27 countries, resulting in the safe return of over 6,300 spent nuclear fuel assemblies.

Abraham said that amounts to nearly 500 kilograms of uranium-235 – enough to build about 20 crude nuclear weapons.

The acceptance policy is a cornerstone of the DOE's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which focuses on minimizing, and, where possible, eliminating the use of HEU in civil applications by converting research reactors to LEU and securing, returning or recovering vulnerable nuclear material. 


-------- accidents and safety

Pending U.S. Advice on 'Dirty Bomb' Exposure Is Under Fire

By Matthew L. Wald,
The New York Times

Wednesday 08 December 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/politics/08nuke.html

    Washington - Antinuclear activists maintain that advice the federal government is preparing to give state and local officials on how to react to the detonation of a radioactive "dirty bomb" would not protect the public from absorbing huge radiation doses in the years after such an event. In fact, they say, those doses might be enough to induce cancer in about a quarter of those exposed.

    The advice is to be offered in a "guidance document" that the Bush administration has been preparing for months, to be used if terrorists set off a dirty bomb, whose conventional explosive would spread its radioactive material. Experts say that in the short term, the blast itself would be far more dangerous than the radiation, but that if an important area was contaminated, officials would face difficult decisions about how much decontamination should be required or how many years should elapse before the radiation was deemed to have died down enough for public access.

    The antinuclear campaigners, led by a Los Angeles-based group called the Committee to Bridge the Gap, has complained in letters to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security that the exposure allowed under the contemplated advice would create almost 100 times as much cancer risk as those usually allowed from other kinds of contaminants, like chemicals, or from radiation in other settings.

    The critics based their letter on two draft versions of the advice, which were posted last year on the Web site of Inside EPA, a trade publication for the environmental industry. The first, from July 2003, reflected wide differences on the issue among the Homeland Security Department, the environmental agency and the Energy Department.

    The second version, undated but posted by Inside EPA in November 2003, appeared to sidestep the issue by citing standards published by other organizations. Those include the International Commission on Radiological Protection, whose guidelines permit higher doses than American standards, for either the general public or workers who must deal with radiation, before protective action is required.

    Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap (the name stems from the generation gap of the Vietnam era), said that using the international commission's standards would allow doses "grossly outside any acceptable risk range." Mr. Hirsch also predicted that if the government's guidance allowed such doses, federal agencies would try to relax exposure rules in other contexts, like cleanup of radioactive wastes.

    A spokeswoman for the E.P.A., Cynthia Bergman, said her agency remained committed to ensuring that "cleanups are protective of public health and the environment." Ms. Bergman said that whatever was put into the guidance document for dirty bombs, it would not change the standards for cleanups at waste sites under the agency's jurisdiction.

    At the Department of Homeland Security, which is leading the effort to develop the advice, a spokesman would say little about the document, because it has not been officially published. But the spokesman, Don Jacks, did say there was no schedule for publishing it.

    A central element in the argument is a dispute about the importance of small doses of radiation. Official government policy has been that all exposure carries risk, however small, and that every small exposure produces some small increase in cancer risk.

    But those presumed effects are too small to measure through observation of the population and are instead extrapolated from known effects on people exposed to higher doses. And many scientists, inside and outside government, say the assumptions of the official policy are too pessimistic. 

--------

NNSA Names Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety

U.S. Newswire
Dec 8, 2004
	
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20041208/pl_usnw/nnsa_names_chief_of_defense_nuclear_safety119_xml	 

To: National Desk, Energy Reporter

Contact: Bryan Wilkes of the National Nuclear Security Administration, 202-586-7371

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Administrator Linton Brooks today announced that James McConnell, a former Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) official, has been named NNSA's chief of defense nuclear safety.

In this newly established position, McConnell will be responsible for the development and implementation of NNSA-wide safety programs. His role is to increase corporate focus on nuclear safety and to coordinate safety issues at the NNSA site offices and headquarters. He reports directly to the NNSA administrator and advises NNSA on its interactions with the DOE, DNFSB, and other federal, state, and local agencies on matters relating to nuclear safety.

"Safety oversight of our nuclear weapons facilities is a major responsibility for NNSA, and it has become clear to me that NNSA needs a senior-level position focused solely on safety," said Brooks. "Jim's expertise and experience with safety issues in the weapons complex make him well-qualified for the job."

McConnell, a former naval officer, has a career of oversight in nuclear safety. Spending 12 years at the DNFSB, he most recently was deputy technical director. In that position, he directed the board's technical staff and provided overall strategic planning to achieve the board's technical safety oversight mission. During his tenure at DNFSB, he also served as a group leader of the Nuclear Weapons Program, a site representative at the Pantex Plant, program manager for the Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge and a technical specialist. A former U.S. Navy (news - web sites) officer, he served as a division officer on the USS Houston stationed in San Diego, Calif.

He holds a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy and masters' degrees from the Catholic University of America and George Washington University.

Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (news - web sites) responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear energy. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad.



-------- australia

Australia:  Olympic Dam plans prompt uranium transport fears

ABC 8 December 2004

http://www.abc.net.au/eyre/news/200412/s1260462.htm

Environmentalists are calling for extensive studies into how a multi-billion dollar expansion of South Australia's Olympic Dam would affect the transportation of yellowcake uranium from the mine.

WMC Resources is seeking state, territory and Federal Government approval to transport yellowcake from Roxby Downs on the Adelaide to Darwin railway.

Friends of the Earth spokesman Jim Green says the amount of uranium being transported could double or even triple with an expansion of the mine.

He says it needs to be proven that rail will be the safest option in the long-term.

"They can't simply go for their preferred option and the cheapest option without doing those scientific studies, but also the risks, say if they're going to take the yellowcake to Darwin ports instead of Adelaide ports, there are obviously increased risks in Darwin and decreased risks in Adelaide," he said.

"So it's a question of what sort of compensation applies and whether territorians will accept those risks."



<a name="du"></a>

-------- depleted uranium

Cleanup at Arden Hills munitions plant goes to the public tonight

Tom Meersman,  Minneapolis Star Tribune
December 8, 2004 RADWASTE1208
  	
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5125216.html

Federal officials will hold a public meeting this evening to discuss radioactive waste cleanup at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant in Arden Hills.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokeswoman Viktoria Mitlyng said a former munitions manufacturing site there has been restored so that it can be used for other purposes. It is part of a 775-acre property owned by the federal government. Parts of the property eventually could be redeveloped.

The cleanup involved depleted uranium, which Honeywell workers machined from bars into munitions from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s. The density of the depleted uranium allows the projectiles to penetrate hard surfaces, such as tank armor. Because the uranium retained some radioactivity, Honeywell had a license from the NRC to handle the material and dispose of wastes.

Alliant Techsystems, the Edina defense contractor spun off from Honeywell in 1990, cleaned up the uranium over the past four years. Dave Gosen, the company's director of environmental remediation, said the contaminated material was in walls, floors and ceilings of the 25,000-square-foot-building where projectiles were manufactured. Most of the structure was demolished, Gosen said, and the contaminated debris and soil were shipped to licensed radioactive-waste disposal sites outside of Minnesota. He declined to answer how much the cleanup cost.

The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m., in Arden Hills City Hall, 1245 W. Hwy. 96. NRC officials will offer an update on the cleanup and take questions and comments, Mitlyng said. In a few weeks, the NRC expects to approve the uranium cleanup as completed.

Other parts of the former Ammunition Plant were contaminated with solvents and other hazardous chemicals. Several sites are being cleaned up under the supervision of the Army, which has leased the land to defense contractors for more than half a century.

Tom Meersman is at meersman@startribune.com.



-------- india / pakistan

Pakistan test fires short-range missile

(AP) 12/8/2004

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-07-pakistan-missile_x.htm

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan  — Pakistan test-fired a short-range nuclear-capable missile Wednesday, the second in just over a week despite a thaw in relations with neighboring India, military officials said.

Pakistan said it had notified its neighbors it would test a Shaheen, a missile with a 435-mile range, and insisted the test would not affect ongoing talks with India.

"It will have no negative impact on our relations," Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan told The Associated Press.

New Delhi had no immediate comment.

Pakistan had said it would conduct more tests after it fired a nuclear-capable, short-range Ghaznavi missile on Nov. 29. India responded with a missile test the following day.

The two countries have fought three wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947.

Pakistan became a declared nuclear power on May 28, 1998, when it conducted underground nuclear tests in response to those carried out by India. It tested its first missile the same year.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has allocated $8 million to strengthen its nuclear watchdog, an English-language newspaper said. The Dawn said 55 nuclear experts would be hired with the new money.

Pakistan tightened its nuclear controls after Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced founder of its nuclear program, admitted in February that he had supplied technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

Although President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has pardoned Khan for his role in making Pakistan the world's first Islamic nuclear power, he is living in virtual house arrest in Islamabad.

Authorities say they have restricted Khan's movement for "security reasons."

-------- 

Pakistan tests 'nuclear' missile
Pakistan and India routinely carry out missile tests

Wednesday, 8 December, 2004 BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4077589.stm

Pakistan has test-fired a short-range nuclear-capable missile, the second in just over a week, officials said.

The latest test came nine days after Pakistan test fired a medium-range missile, and said it would carry out more tests in the coming days.

A day later, India tested a missile in apparent response.

Pakistan said its latest missile test would not have a negative effect on current peace moves with its nuclear-armed neighbour.

Pakistan's Hatf-IV Shaheen missile, which has a range of 700km (435 miles), was launched from an undisclosed location.

Pakistan army spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan told The Associated Press that the test was carried out for "defence needs".
	
A Pakistan foreign ministry spokesman said that the launch was not meant to send any message to neighbouring rival, India.

"It is not a signal to India. Maintaining our nuclear deterrence is a national priority," Masood Khan told the AFP news agency.

"Such tests are conducted periodically to validate technical parameters of our missile tests."

In June, India and Pakistan had their first-ever talks aimed at building mutual trust that could reduce the risk of nuclear conflict.

The two sides agreed to set up a new telephone hotline to alert each to potential nuclear risks.

They also agreed to continue a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing in place since 1998.

But tests could resume if either country believed "extraordinary events" threatened its interests.

The two countries have twice veered close to war since tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998 - over Kashmir in 1999 and again in 2002.

Both countries have limited command and control structures, and neither has developed the technology to recall a nuclear-tipped missile fired in error. 


-------- iran

Iran, EU nuclear talks to start December 13 in Brussels: Tehran

(AFP) Dec 8, 2004 	

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041208/wl_afp/irannucleariaeaeu_041208194720

TEHRAN  - Iran's nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani is to travel to Brussels on December 13 for talks with three European foreign ministers on Tehran's agreement to freeze sensitive nuclear work, an aide said.

The talks are to take place at the invitation of Britain's Jack Straw, Michel Barnier of France and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher, Ali Agha Mohammadi of Iran's National Security Council told AFP.

"The aim of this trip to the headquarters of the European Union (news - web sites) is to start negotiations on implementing the Paris accord", targeting a long-term agreement on the nuclear issue with the EU.

Rowhani, Iran's top national security official, said on Tuesday that the first round of the dialogue was also likely to involve EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, has also asked to take part, he said.

According to an EU source in Brussels, Tehran "asked for the first meeting of the steering committee (overseeing the nuclear agreement with Iran) to take place at ministerial level" in order to give it "better visibility".

Last week the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors decided Iran should not be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions after Tehran agreed in a deal with the three EU states to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.

Iran agreed to the deal amid threats from the United States -- which alleges that the Islamic republic is secretly developing nuclear weapons -- to send the matter to the Security Council in New York.

In return, Iran was promised considerable and wide-ranging rewards by the European trio who would like the freeze to become permanent.

Enrichment has been and remains at the heart of the stand-off.

Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium to low levels, so as to produce fuel for a series of atomic power stations it has yet to build. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) permits enrichment for peaceful purposes.

In return for the suspension, the EU is offering Iran a package of incentives -- due to be hammered out in more detail when negotiations begin -- on trade, security and technology.

Iran has pledged to maintain its suspension while the negotiations with the EU are in progress. 



-------- japan

TEPCO to shut 2nd Fukushima nuclear generator - Kyodo

(Reuters) Dec 8, 2004

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041208/3/1su1l.html

TOKYO,   - Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) , Asia's biggest power utility, will shut down a second nuclear power generation unit at a plant in Fukushima after finding a water leak, Kyodo news agency reported.

The company will shut down the No. 4 reactor at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, Kyodo said, following its announcement earlier in the day that it would suspend operations at its No. 2 nuclear reactor at the same facility after finding a water leak.

Kyodo cited TEPCO as the source for its report.

TEPCO had said it would start shutting the 784,000-kilowatt No. 2 unit at around 6 p.m. (0900 GMT), and stop power generation at around 12 a.m. (1500 GMT).

A TEPCO spokesman had said the water leaked from the No. 2 unit contained radiation, but added that the leak has had no effect on the outside environment. 



-------- korea

Panel Urges U.S. to Sweeten Nuclear Deal for N.Korea

Reuters Dec 8, 2004

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041208/wl_nm/nuclear_usa_korea_dc_3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should use incentives to entice North Korea to scrap its nuclear programs, including a "buyout" pegging aid to the amount of plutonium Pyongyang surrenders, a panel of experts said.

In a report issued late on Tuesday as diplomats worked to persuade the reclusive communist state to return to negotiations, the Task Force on U.S. Korea Policy said Washington should improve proposals to tackle the urgent threat posed by North Korea's stock of weapons-grade plutonium.

The 26-member panel said an aid-for-disarmament plan Washington offered in June, modeled on a deal with Libya, "fails to take into account the deep distrust existing between the United States and North Korea."

"In its present form, the proposal places the burden on North Korea to make major concessions first without a corresponding assurance of reciprocity by the United States," the task force said in a statement.

Formed in late 2002 after the crisis erupted, the task force is made up of prominent American experts on Korea, including former military officers and diplomats. It is chaired by Selig Harrison, director of the Asian program at the Washington-based Center for International Policy.

Washington should heed suggestions from South Korea (news - web sites) and others who have urged more U.S. flexibility on the timetable for a process in which North Korea gains economic and diplomatic concessions in exchange for giving up banned weapons, the panel said.

"North Korea is not likely to move toward complete denuclearization ... unless the United States is prepared to match North Korean concessions with reciprocal steps toward the normalization of political and economic relations," it said.

In a suggestion running counter to the George W. Bush administration's position that the North's bad behavior should not be rewarded, the task force said Washington and its negotiating partners should offer aid "in accordance with an agreed price per kilogram" of plutonium surrendered and removed.

The task force -- which includes critics of Bush's North Korea policy -- challenges other U.S. principles in a crisis that erupted in October 2002 when Washington said North Korea admitted having a secret uranium enrichment program.

That program, which North Korea now denies having in a dispute that has held up six-country talks, should take a back seat to the more urgent task of removing plutonium, it said.

The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Mohammad ElBaradei, told the New York Times he is now certain Pyongyang has converted enough fuel for four to six nuclear bombs. 



-------- u.s. nuc weapons

Who should control the US nuclear weapons program?
UC Regents lose nuclear weapons program

sfbayview.com
by Leuren Moret
12/8/04

http://www.sfbayview.com/120804/nuclearweapons120804.shtml

In November of 1991, Richard Berta, the Western Regional inspector for the Department of Energy at the nuclear weapons labs and the Nevada Test Site, told me: “The nuclear weapons labs exist for the Pentagon … and the Pentagon exists for the oil companies.”

This statement reveals the hidden purpose for transferring the nuclear weapons lab management contract to Texas, where the University of Texas-Texas A&M partnership will formally hold the contract. And it is that contract that enables the Bush-Carlyle Group-oil companies cabal to take control.

It is not the mission of any university to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction, nor to control nuclear weapons research and management. Many members of the University of California faculty have long opposed UC management of the labs, and they are supported by a majority of the students and many citizens. Many Texans also oppose transfer of the nuclear weapons program to the University of Texas and Texas A&M.

WMD at the University of California?

The weapons industry is highly profitable. UC is now in the position of managing, developing, producing, promoting, proliferating, investing in and profiting from Weapons of Mass Destruction - thermonuclear weapons and depleted uranium weaponry. In fact, it is a major academic participant and benefactor of research funds from the military (see Fiat Pax for military funding at U.S. universities).

The institutional dedication and focus of UC to projects of mass and indiscriminate destruction - which may lead to extinction of the human species - rather than to education and new energy sources is hardly exemplary. But their profits and funds are not derived from military research grants alone.

In 1999, UC ranked first in the nation, raking in $61 million from academic patent royalties. In 2001, it received $1.8 billion in gifts, the largest single donation of nearly $200 million coming from the estate of UC alumnus Larry Hillblom, founder of DHL Corp., who died in 1995 in a plane crash.

But that wasn’t enough. Recently UCLA was caught in a scandal, selling body parts from 800 bodies that had been donated for scientific research. The buyers had also sold cadavers to the U.S. Army which were blown up in land-mine experiments (see “The UCLA Body Parts Scandal” and “Donated Bodies Blown Up by Army”).

The U.S. Army paid $10,000 for each body to be used for land-mine research, which may have included the ADAM depleted uranium landmine. The official Army response was that they were just “testing boots.”

The fact that UC is developing, investing in and profiting from depleted uranium (DU) weaponry, which meets the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction under U.S. federal law, makes UC complicit in war crimes. (For a graphic look at war crimes in Afghanistan, see “AC-130 Spectre Gunship video,” a leaked U.S. military combat mission in Afghanistan.)

UC has invested $33,046,370 in Lockheed Martin Marietta, one of the largest military industrial corporations, and $21,471,120 in General Dynamics, one of the two biggest U.S. manufacturers of DU weaponry. Students and faculty should be informed of this.

The University of California investment in war profiteering is small compared to CalPERS, the State of California employee pension fund now worth $177.8 billion (see “CalPERS Pension Fund President Ousted”). CalPERS owns 5.5 percent of the Carlyle Group, with a return on investment of 20-30 percent per year and an option to buy an additional 5 percent within a few years.

As a land grant university, the University of California has a mandate and mission to educate the citizens of California, and it should have special consideration for people of color and people with disabilities. As the state with probably the greatest diversity in the nation, California universities had the chance to provide a vital and creative model for the nation.

Instead, administrators have pigged out feeding at the public trough, giving themselves 25 percent raises while throwing breadcrumbs to the staff – a paltry 2 percent for the workers. This was the pattern I observed at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab, where a secret document revealed that the five top administrators in the Geosciences Department, where I worked, gave themselves 25 percent raises on their $120,000+ salaries.

We were given bad annual job evaluations each year to justify the paltry 1.5 percent raises we received annually. Instead of a model for the nation, the University of California is one of the most corrupt institutions I have ever encountered. As a lawyer representing some of the 500 women who filed lawsuits against UC told me “UC is rotten and corrupt from the bottom to the top and back to the bottom” … and I later found out so was she.

The Carlyle Group - shadow government?

Former Manhattan Project scientist and retired Livermore Lab nuclear physical chemist Marion Fulk warns, “The military should NEVER be in control of the nuclear weapons program; it should be in civilian hands.”

The Carlyle Group, worth about $14 billion in 2001, with vested interests and ties to the Bush crime family and oil companies, cannot be investigated or subjected to any oversight whatsoever because it is a private corporation. For that reason, it should not have any control or influence over U.S. nuclear weapons policy and development.

Admiral Bobby Ray Inman and his associates in the intelligence business have demonstrated their systematic and treasonous abuse of the internet, voting machines and American civil liberties. Should we give them the trigger, the nukes, the budget they want, and the cover of secrecy?

Eliminating resistance to change?

The “old guard” at the nuclear weapons labs is being systematically targeted, scapegoated and run out of the labs to “clear out the old and bring in the new” by those “UC admirals” and Homeland Security folks. Recently, the lab badge of a retired Livermore scientist Marion Fulk was cancelled by Homeland Security without explanation.

Fulk remarked, “This is ridiculous. Hell, I have higher security than anyone in Homeland Security. What does Tom Ridge know about nuclear weapons?”

You can bet Fulk will get his badge back when they call him to one of those “problem meetings.” At the last problem meeting, he discovered that the plutonium canisters in the high security vault at Livermore were puffing up like muffins in a hot oven, which could have led to a major criticality disaster wiping out the Western United States and beyond.

Younger scientists had arbitrarily changed the canister design, which allowed moisture to enter the canisters, dangerously generating hydrogen gas. Eliminating the older and more knowledgeable nuclear weapons experts from the labs is a dangerous practice. It is time to demand some answers from the “UC admirals” in charge now about their motives behind such changes.

National Science Foundation?

Management and oversight of the nuclear weapons labs belongs at a place like the National Science Foundation, a U.S. government agency with the resources to make rational decisions and reign in the planned unlimited proliferation of nuclear weapons on earth and in space.

Nuclear weapons are now obsolete. If the money spent on the nuclear weapons program had been spent on alternative energy development, the U.S. would now be a healthy and wealthy country. Instead, the U.S. economy is bankrupt, with an unhealthy population suffering from the long-term effects of nuclear weapons testing, a radiation contaminated environment and little choice left but to steal oil resources from other countries.

A young student at a San Francisco antiwar demonstration two years ago held up a sign, “Nuke their ass and take their gas.” That sums up the present U.S. foreign policy.

Professor Butler Shaffer of Southwestern University School of Law put it this way: “There is a toxic quality to war that affects the inner life of individuals and, as a collective consequence, the society itself. In the degradation and dehumanization of the individual lies the destruction of all mankind.”

References

“Fiat Pax (Let there be peace): A Resource on Science, Technology, Militarism, and Universities,” http://www.fiatpax.net.

“How Research Turns Into Royalties,” Stanford University Alumni Magazine, March-April 1999.

“Gifts to UC Total $1.8 Billion Last Year,” by Helen Hwang, Daily Cal, Feb. 7, 2002, http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=7600.

“Asian Children Finally Get Part of $550-Million Estate,” by Mary Curtius, Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1999, http://www.wright.edu/~tran.dung/vn_boy.htm.

“The UCLA Body Parts Scandal,” by C. Ornstein and A. Zorembo, March 10, 2004, Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bodies10mar10,1,6780091.story?coll=la-headlines-california.

“Donated bodies blown up by Army” by Stewart Yerton, The Times Picayune, March 10, 2004, http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a856.htm.

“CalPERS Pension Fund President Ousted,” by Ben White, The Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25537-2004Dec1.html.

To read Parts 1 through 8 of this series, go to http://www.sfbayview.com/091504/ucregents091504.shtml, http://www.sfbayview.com/092204/nuclearweapons092204.shtml, http://www.sfbayview.com/092904/nuclearweapons2092904.shtml, http://www.sfbayview.com/100604/nuclearweapons100604.shtml, http://www.sfbayview.com/101304/nuclearweapons101304.shtml, http://www.sfbayview.com/110304/ucregents110304.shtml, http://www.sfbayview.com/112404/ucregents112404.shtml and http://www.sfbayview.com/120104/nuclearcorridor120104.shtml. Leuren Moret, a geoscientist who worked at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab where she became a whistleblower in 1991, has survived 13 years of retaliation from the Livermore Lab and the University of California and has lived firsthand the experiences of Karen Silkwood. A radiation specialist, she works around the world educating citizens, the media and lawmakers about the impact of radiation globally on the health of the public and the environment. She assisted with Al-Jazeera’s recent report on depleted uranium weapons which quickly became one of the most read articles produced by the website. “DU: Washington’s Secret Nuclear War” can be read at http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Secret-Nuclear-War14sep04.htm. She is an independent scientist and an environmental commissioner for the City of Berkeley and can be reached at leurenmoret@yahoo.com.



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

Accuracy of Bid for First U.S. MOX Fuel Challenged

ROCKVILLE, Maryland, December 8, 2004 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2004/2004-12-08-09.asp#anchor2

The first attempt at licensing a U.S. nuclear power plant to use a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides as fuel has hit a snag.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) officials will hold a "predecisional enforcement conference" with the Duke Energy Corporation December 17, to discuss three apparent violations of NRC requirements.

The apparent violations are related to Duke’s license amendment request to allow the use of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at its Catawba Nuclear Station 17 miles from Charlotte, North Carolina. If the request is granted, it would be the first time MOX fuel would be used to power a nuclear plant in the United States, although power plants in Europe and Japan use the fuel.

Two of the alleged violations involve "the completeness and accuracy of Duke’s license amendment request" and the third involves a failure to periodically update the Final Safety Analysis Report for the Catawba plant, NRC officials said.

The conference is an opportunity for company officials to provide their perspective on the apparent violations and to offer any other information that they believe the NRC should take into consideration in making an enforcement decision. No decision on the apparent violations or any enforcement action will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made later by NRC officials.

The proposed amendment would allow Duke to use four MOX assemblies at Catawba. The Duke request is part of a joint U.S.-Russian Federation program to dispose of surplus plutonium from nuclear weapons by converting the material into MOX fuel for use in nuclear reactors.

The Nuclear Control Institute (NCI), an anti-nuclear advocacy group based in Washington, DC, says plans to dispose of plutonium from surplus nuclear weapons by turning it over to utility companies for use as fuel in nuclear power plants presents "grave dangers to the public."

"Converting warhead plutonium into fuel for generating electricity would stimulate commerce in this extremely toxic, weapons-usable material," the NCI says.

"Fifteen pounds of plutonium is enough for one atomic bomb. A few specks of it inhaled into the lungs causes cancer. Commerce in many tons of plutonium raises risks of theft by terrorists and outlaw states, and of aggravating the consequences of reactor accidents," warns the advocacy group.

The enforcement conference will be from 9:00 to 11:00 am in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and will have an opportunity to communicate with NRC officials after the business portion, but before the meeting is adjourned.


-------- idaho

DOE HOLDS MEETINGS ON PROPOSAL TO MAKE PLUTONIUM FUEL IN IDAHO

(AP) Dec 8, 2004

http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcheadlines.cfm&ID=22683

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho  -- The Department of Energy's plan to produce plutonium-238 at its national laboratory in Arco has some people leery.

They spoke up on the proposal at a meeting in Idaho Falls yesterday.

The plutonium fuel would go to power weapons and space vehicles. The D-O-E wants to consolidate production at the lab.

But plutonium-238 is radioactive and could contaminate proposed new buildings at the site.

Paul Bacca, an Idaho Falls resident, asked officials from the national lab if they weren't giving Idaho the -- quote -- dirty part of the process.

Still, proponents say limiting production to a single location would eliminate risky transport, cut costs and boost the region's economy. 



-------- south carolina

FL company plans to hire 800 for new nuclear product plant in New Ellenton SC

AP Dec. 8, 2004

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2666059

(New Ellenton-AP)  - Global Containment Systems says it will create more than 800 new jobs when it builds a nuclear complex in Aiken County.

The company said Wednesday it will spend about $60 million on the 400,000-square-foot plant in New Ellenton.

Global Containment Systems makes filters and custom equipment for use in the containment of airborne nuclear contamination.

The company is a subsidiary of Flanders Corporation, based in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Company officials say the Savannah River Site near Aiken will be a major customer for the filters made at the new plant. Officials say the filters also will be used in facilities around the world.

Company chairman Robert Amerson says the market for nuclear containment is growing and will be worth about $2 billion during the next ten years.

posted 12:52pm by Chris Rees



-------- vermont

Entergy says it won't fight $85,000 state fine

Associated Press
December 8, 2004

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041208/NEWS/412080349/1003/NEWS02

BRATTLEBORO — Entergy Nuclear won't fight an $85,000 fine recommended by the Public Service Board against the nuclear company for starting construction last year on a large building without necessary state permits.

In a letter to the Vermont Public Service Board, Victoria Brown, an attorney for Entergy Nuclear, said the fine wasn't deserved, but that company would not fight it.

"While Entergy VY respectfully disagrees with the proposed decision, Entergy VY has resolved not to challenge the fine as proposed," she wrote.

Brown called the violation inadvertent.

The Public Service Board hearing officer had pointed out that several key managers knew the company needed state approval to construct the building. Documents in the case reveal that Entergy only admitted it had started construction on the building when the Public Service Board announced it was coming to visit the site.

Brown said Entergy "takes seriously its responsibility to meet all its regulatory obligations."

She said that the company was implementing changes to address the concerns raised by George Young, the PSB hearing officer who recommended the $85,000 fine.

The review came after Entergy started construction in the fall of 2003 on a large storage building that it was going to use to retrofit a key component, the turbine rotor, in preparation for its proposed power boost.

The company later dropped its plans to construct the building near the reactor and instead shipped the rotor to a vacant paper mill in nearby Brattleboro.

Under state law, the Public Service Board could have recommended a $100,000 fine, but Young said there were some mitigating factors and recommended less than the full amount.

The $85,000 fine will go to the state's general fund, according to David O'Brien, commissioner of the Department of Public Service.


-------- virginia

North Anna could get more reactors

The Fredericksburg VA Free Lance-Star
By RUSTY DENNEN
12/8/2004

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/122004/12082004/1597793

Environmental considerations won't stand in the way of the possibility of additional nuclear reactors at North Anna Power Station, should Dominion Power be allowed to build them.

That's the preliminary conclusion of a draft environmental impact statement, which will be the subject of a public hearing Jan. 19 in Louisa County. The session will begin at 7 p.m. at Louisa Middle School.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission scheduled the hearing as part of an ongoing review of Dominion's application for an early site permit to allow up to two new reactors at the plant on Lake Anna.

In its announcement yesterday, the NRC said the early site permit should be issued.

"There are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites, and that any adverse environmental impacts from possible site preparation and preliminary construction activities at North Anna could be redressed," according to the NRC.

"It's not really a surprise," said Louis Zeller, administrator and community organizer for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, which opposes any new reactors at the plant. "Many of the major objections that [we] and others have raised have been dismissed out of hand--mostly regarding impacts on human health."

Brendan Hoffman, a spokesman for Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer-advocacy organization in Washington, said yesterday that the agency hasn't had a chance to review the voluminous report.

"What is clear is that the main things that need to be addressed--terrorism, the security situation and the impact of a plant" adding reactors 60 miles from nation's capital--haven't been, he said. Lake Anna forms the southwestern boundary between Spotsylvania and Louisa counties.

The NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled several months ago that concerns over security, radioactive waste and safety issues would not be admissible in an environmental review of Dominion's proposal.

An environmental coalition was allowed to challenge the potential impact on fish and whether plans to cool additional reactors at North Anna were sufficient.

But those issues weren't enough to sway the NRC in its environmental review.

Dominion's early site permit application would allow the utility to resolve site and environmental issues prior to submitting a construction plan and to "bank" a site for 20 years. Dominion is the parent company of Dominion Virginia Power.

The company has said it has no immediate plan to add any new reactors at North Anna, but wants to have that option.

"We're pleased with their conclusion," Richard Zuercher, spokesman for Dominion's nuclear operations in Virginia, said yesterday. "But they're still going to take in public comment on that, and there's still a lot of the process to go here."

If the early site permit is approved, Dominion would have to obtain a combined construction and operating permit before adding any reactors at the plant.

There are currently two reactors at North Anna, though the plant was originally designed for four.

Last month, the Department of Energy announced that two industry-led consortia, headed by Dominion and NuStart Energy of Pennsylvania, will be the first to work through an untested NRC process for licensing the construction and operation of new nuclear plants.

To reach RUSTY DENNEN: 540/374-5431 rdennen@freelancestar.com

-----

NRC APPROVES 40-YEAR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL
STORAGE INSTALLATION AT SURRY NUCLEAR PLANT

NRC NEWS December 8, 2004

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2004/04-156.html

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs 	Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 	E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
www.nrc.gov

No. 04-156 	December 8, 2004

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized the staff to issue a 40-year license renewal to Dominion Generation for its dry-cask independent spent fuel storage installation at the Surry nuclear power plant in Surry, Va., after appropriate license conditions are developed.

This will be the first license renewal granted to a dry-cask spent fuel storage installation. In approving the new license for a duration of 40 years, the Commission approved granting Dominion an exemption from NRC regulations that specify a 20-year license term and directed the NRC staff to explore potential rulemaking to change the license duration in NRC regulations. The Commission also directed the staff to approve the same exemption in its ongoing review of the license renewal application of Progress Energy for its dry-cask spent fuel storage installation at the H.B. Robinson nuclear plant in South Carolina.

The new Surry license will be issued once the agency and the licensee have finalized any needed maintenance and inspection requirements that will be included as conditions in the license.

“We are confident that casks meeting NRC’s strict standards will be able to store spent fuel safely over an extended period,” said Larry Camper, deputy director of the NRC’s Spent Fuel Project Office. “Even so, the license conditions and our inspections of the facility will ensure that the effects of aging do not degrade the casks’ ability to protect the public and the environment.”

Surry was the first commercial nuclear plant to be licensed by the NRC to operate an independent spent fuel storage installation. Its license, issued in 1986, expires next year. There are now 30 such installations in the United States. Typically, spent fuel is moved into NRC-approved dry casks after cooling at least five years in pools of water. Surry’s spent fuel pools are at capacity, making continued use of dry-cask storage essential if the plant’s two reactors are to continue to operate to the end of their current operating licenses in 2032 and 2033.

The NRC continues to view dry casks as an interim or temporary storage method for spent nuclear fuel until a permanent repository for high-level nuclear waste is available. The Commission found in 1990 as part of its revised Waste Confidence Decision that spent fuel could be safely stored in spent fuel pools or dry casks without significant environmental impact for at least 100 years. The Commission reaffirmed its finding in 1999.

The original 20-year license period was a policy decision by the Commission at a time when the Department of Energy was expected to begin receiving spent fuel for disposal in a repository by 1998. Given the need for continued interim storage of spent fuel until a repository is available, the Commission approved granting Dominion’s request for an exemption from the 20-year limit. Progress Energy requested a similar exemption in its February 2004 application to renew the license of the H.B. Robinson storage installation.



-------- MILITARY 


-------- business

Chinese firm buys IBM's PC business

aljazeera.net
By Benjamin Robertson
08 December 2004

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0C5F76CB-D409-4556-9609-0FFCE9D1E4BD.htm

Ending weeks of speculation, Chinese computer firm Lenovo has signed an agreement to acquire IBM's personal computer division.

Started 13 months ago, negotiations have concluded with a $1.25 billion deal that will lift China's leading PC maker to the No 3 spot in the world rankings, and boost its brand image at a time when it is trying to expand into US and European markets.

Paying $650 million in cash and the rest in stock options, Lenovo will also take on $500 million in balance-sheet debt.

The company will acquire IBM's Think product range, (including ThinkPad and ThinkCenter) as well as benefit from IBM's reputation, and global sales and distribution network.

IBM will have an 18% share of the new venture and the current head of IBM's PC division, Steve Ward, will become Lenovo's chief executive.

Greater access

According to a press release issued at the signing ceremony, Lenovo's PC business will expand fourfold. Annual PC revenues will subsequently total $12 billion.

One of the biggest PC makers will now be a service-based company IBM, by selling its PC division, has completed the transition from a manufacturer to a serviced-based company, and at the same time as Lenovo utilises IBM's global network, IBM gains greater access and exposure in China, currently the world's fastest growing computer market.

"I think this is definitely a good link up for Lenovo," said St John Moore, senior associate at APCO, a consulting firm. "It is a unique opportunity to expand their business, product line and technology in both China and abroad."

Questions remain though as to what exactly Lenovo has bought. Figures show that in the third quarter of this year IBM posted a loss in its PC business of $50 million on sales of $2.84 billion.

Cut-throat business

Computer services, on the other hand, made a profit of $1.2 billion off $11.1 billion in sales. To reverse this, Lenovo will need to utilise its low-cost manufacturing base, though some expressed doubts this can be done.

Speaking to Bloomberg, Francis Lun, general manager at Fulbright Securities in Hong Kong, said, "It's positive for IBM because they're hiving off a money-losing division. For Lenovo, earnings will be diluted.

The deal will help Lenovo access markets difficult to break into

"The PC business is cut-throat and Lenovo already has problems meeting Dell at home. It's doubtful they can turn it around with low-cost manufacturing."

Lenovo's share price has fallen 20% this year, mainly due to the intensively competitive market.

But with fierce competition at home, the deal does help Lenovo access markets it was struggling to break into on its own.

A sponsor of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the company is looking to be one of the first Chinese companies to build an international brand.

Japan overtaken

"I think the international perspective is one of the most interesting things about this deal and in the future we will see a lot more of this"

St John Moore, computer industry consultant

The deal also reflects the country's growing role in international outward investment, mergers and acquisitions.

This year, China is expected to become the world's fifth largest outward direct investor, overtaking Japan.

Last month there were reports that the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation was looking to set up a venture with MG Rover, a UK-based car company.

And last year, China's TCL bought the television arm of France's Thomson to create the world's largest TV manufacturer.

"I think the international perspective is one of the most interesting things about this deal and in the future we will see a lot more of this," said St John Moore.



-------- iraq

Rebels Aided By Allies in Syria, U.S. Says Baathists Reportedly Relay Money, Support

Washington Post
By Thomas E. Ricks
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45326-2004Dec7.html

U.S. military intelligence officials have concluded that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognized from Syria, where they said former Saddam Hussein loyalists have found sanctuary and are channeling money and other support to those fighting the established government.

Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency.

In some cases, evidence suggests that these Baathists are managing operations in Iraq from a distance, the officials said. A U.S. military summary of operations in Fallujah noted recently that troops discovered a global positioning signal receiver in a bomb factory in the western part of the city that "contained waypoints originating in western Syria."

Concerns about Syria's role in Iraq were also expressed in interviews The Washington Post conducted yesterday with Jordan's King Abdullah and Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar. "There are people in Syria who are bad guys, who are fugitives of the law and who are Saddam remnants who are trying to bring the vicious dictatorship of Saddam back," Yawar said. "They are not minding their business or living a private life. They are . . . disturbing or undermining our political process."

Abdullah noted that the governments of both the United States and Iraq believe that "foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border that have been trained in Syria."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials have previously complained about Syria's role in Iraq, but officials said the latest intelligence has given impetus to new efforts aimed at curbing the activities of the Hussein loyalists there. The U.S. government recently gave the government of Syria a list of those officials, with a request that they be arrested or expelled, a State Department official said yesterday.

"We're bringing quite a bit of pressure to bear on them, and I think some of it is working," said another official, who works in federal counterterrorism efforts. Like other officials interviewed for this article, he declined to be identified by name or position because of the sensitivity of his specialty.

One briefing slide in a classified summary of new intelligence data also says that new diplomatic initiatives are being used to encourage the Syrian government to detain or expel the Iraqi Baathists. "The Syrians appear to have done a little bit to stem extremist infiltration into Iraq at the border, but clearly have not helped with regards to Baathists infiltrating back and forth," said a senior U.S. military officer in the region. "We still have serious challenges there, and Syria needs to be doing a lot more."

The Syrian ambassador to the United States emphatically rejected the accusations as unfounded. "There is a sinister campaign to create an atmosphere of hostility against Syria," said Imad Moustapha, the envoy. He said his government "categorically" denies that Iraqi Baathists are taking refuge in his country. "We don't allow this to happen," he said. "Iraqi officials were never welcome."

As described by defense officials, new intelligence on the insurgency suggests some other emerging problems, such as how extensively U.S. operations in Iraq have been penetrated by members of the insurgency and by people sympathetic to it.

The Green Zone in central Baghdad, home of the U.S. Embassy and the offices of the interim Iraqi government, is especially "overrun with agents," said one Defense Department official who recently returned from Iraq. One activity that has been noticed is that when major convoys leave the zone, Iraqi cell phone calls from the zone seem to increase, he said. An additional concern is that the insurgency seems to be using some Iraqi companies to get into U.S. bases, he said.

Jeffrey White, a former Middle Eastern analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the Syrian role is part of what many intelligence officials believe are the increasingly organized attacks on U.S. forces. "In the last two months or so, this notion that this is a Baathist insurgency has gained dominance in the [intelligence] community," he said. Coupled with that, he said, "there is an increasing view that Syria is at the center of the problem."

Not everyone with first-hand knowledge of the intelligence is convinced that the United States really has a strong grasp of the nature of the insurgency, especially the idea that the insurgency is being directed from the top down. Some Special Forces officers contend that many of the small-scale roadside attacks with bombs or rocket-propelled grenades are mounted not on orders of a hierarchical organization, but rather by Iraqis working more or less alone who feel they have been humiliated by U.S. soldiers, or who simply dislike the occupation.

"I just don't have the sense that we're getting to where we need to be," said one Defense Department official. "We don't know where the enemy is."

The argument over the nature of the insurgency has also provoked some infighting over a classified briefing given late last month to Rumsfeld about steps U.S. forces could take in Iraq to put down the militants. One of the slides in the briefing, delivered by Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, deputy director for Middle Eastern affairs on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommended actions that would "intimidate the intimidators."

Some U.S. officials in Baghdad resented the briefing, which they saw not only as a form of long-distance micromanagement but also as misguided in its recommendations. For example, some fear that it could lead to a resumption of the tough tactics used sometimes last year as the insurgency emerged, such as taking families hostage to compel an insurgent leader to turn himself in. Subsequent internal Army reviews have criticized such tactics as counterproductive.

One person familiar with the situation said that Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. general in the region, was sent a copy of the briefing and responded by sending a classified cable politely dismissing it and stating that he believes that U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq have the situation in hand. A spokesman at Abizaid's headquarters, the U.S. Central Command, declined to comment on that exchange.

Neither Lawrence T. Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, nor Navy Capt. Frank Thorp, the spokesman for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had any comment for this article.

Staff writers Peter Baker and Robin Wright contributed to this report.



-------- israel / palestine 

Israel Army Probes Teen's Shooting Death

Associated Press
By LAURIE COPANS
Dec 8, 2004

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ISRAEL_ARMY_CONDUCT?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

JERUSALEM (AP) -- The Israeli army confirmed Wednesday it had investigated the death of a 16-year-old Palestinian boy who was accidentally killed by Israeli machine gun fire while working in a Gaza Strip field with his father.

The shots were reportedly fired by a tank accompanying army recruits who had finished training and were marching to the base of their unit in Gaza. In dangerous areas, such as Gaza, weapons fire is sometimes used to protect such army marches, said an army spokesman, Capt. Jacob Dallal.

The Yediot Ahronot newspaper's Web site, Y-Net, said the case was closed for lack of evidence. Dallal would only say that an investigation has been completed and the military's judge advocate general has not yet made a decision in the case.

The probe was the latest in a string of incidents raising questions about soldiers' conduct in more than four years of fighting with the Palestinians. 	 Acknowledging there are serious problems, commanders have promised investigations into the incidents and committed to holding ethics refresher courses within the military, which is one of the central institutions in Israeli society.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a former defense minister and general, defended the military.

"The soldiers are involved in the most difficult battle, day and night. They are dealing with perhaps the most despicable group of murderers, the worst," Sharon said Wednesday. "If there are irregularities, we have to check them. But we can under no circumstances panic and attack the army."

The Palestinian teen, Khaled Madi, was killed in March by machine-gun fire from an Israeli tank as he was working with his father in a field near the Gaza town of Khan Younis, his father said.

The teen's father, Suleiman, said his son was hit seven times in the head, neck and stomach. "They (soldiers) were firing without any reason, they shot to kill," Madi said. "I swear to God that they knew that nothing was going on in the area."

Y-Net said the marchers were accompanied by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and that colored smoke was shot in the air as part of the celebration.

Dallal confirmed that the commander of the unit responsible for the march is being considered for promotion.

In another case revealed this week, soldiers allegedly shot and killed an unarmed, injured Palestinian militant, Mahmoud Kamil Dobie, in the West Bank.

Palestinian witnesses said they were forced during an army arrest operation to bring Dobie, already injured, to soldiers. They then heard shots fired at Dobie. The army said it is investigating the death.

A senior army commander said Wednesday that the army has killed 148 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank this year. He said most of the people were involved in minor offenses such as stone-throwing, but at least 29 people were "innocent." In addition, troops shot and killed 119 Palestinian militants throughout the year, the commander told journalists.

Later, Dallal said the army was certain that 14 of the 29 were innocent but was unsure about the other 15.  



-------- mideast

Mideast Peace Efforts Gain New Momentum With Death of Arafat

Washington Post
By John Ward Anderson
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44245-2004Dec7.html

JERUSALEM, Dec. 7 -- The death of Yasser Arafat four weeks ago has brought a flurry of diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East by Arab, Palestinian and Israeli leaders seeking to strengthen the hands of moderates, repair strained relations among themselves and revive long-stalled peace negotiations on several fronts.

On Monday, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and Mahmoud Abbas, the newly chosen chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, met in Damascus with President Bashar Assad of Syria and vowed to resume high-level contacts and policy coordination after more than 10 years of frayed relations.

Separately, Israel and Egypt conducted an exchange of prisoners on Sunday that leaders from both countries said was a sign of warming relations after more than four years of tension.

On Tuesday, Egypt said it had brokered an understanding to halt Israeli-Palestinian violence and move toward a peace accord with a conference in Washington in July that would bring together Israel, the Palestinians, the United States and the European Union, the Associated Press reported. Responding to the report, Israeli officials said there was no new cease-fire deal.

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is reportedly considering returning his ambassador to Tel Aviv for the first time since withdrawing him in November 2000, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he was considering releasing additional Palestinian detainees as part of the prisoner swap.

At the same time, Syria is seeking to reopen negotiations with Israel over the Golan Heights that have been frozen for four years, and Egypt has offered to mediate. Israel has rebuffed the overture.

Last week, Abbas ordered a halt to anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian Authority-controlled news media, and Sharon said he was "going to make every effort to coordinate" the proposed withdrawal of Jewish settlers and Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip with the new Palestinian leadership that has replaced Arafat, who died Nov. 11 at a hospital outside of Paris. Sharon had previously said that his "disengagement" plan would be implemented unilaterally because there was no partner for peace on the Palestinian side.

"There's a regional buildup of momentum to move ahead and use the opening to try to launch an effort at peacemaking," Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian parliament, said. "In a sense, Arafat's death calls everyone's bluff, because a Palestinian partner was always there, but the Israelis used Arafat as a scapegoat and a convenient excuse to avoid a peace process."

Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, Israel's military chief of staff, told foreign reporters Tuesday in Jerusalem that "we are at an important, strategic crossroad. It is decisive time for Israel and the Palestinians, but also for the entire Middle East. . . . There are signs of the potential for change across the region."

Yossi Alpher, an Israeli political analyst and co-founder of Bitterlemons.org, a Palestinian-Israeli dialogue Web site, also cautioned against "too much euphoria," arguing that Sharon did not want to engage in a peace process that led to relinquishing Israeli-occupied territory in the West Bank or Golan Heights.

He also said that Abbas, a leading candidate for president of the Palestinian Authority in elections scheduled for Jan. 9, has yet to prove he can marshal grass-roots support or control violence.

A more moderate and pragmatic Palestinian leadership has begun to emerge since Arafat's death, but it has yet to win the endorsement of the Palestinian public. Abbas and Qureia are outspoken critics of Palestinian violence and are trying -- so far unsuccessfully -- to persuade Palestinian radical groups to stop attacks against Israel.

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian cabinet minister who has been the lead negotiator with the Israelis, said: "The endgame of the dialogue going on in Gaza, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon is to have all the Palestinian factions adhere to a cessation of violence against Israelis anywhere, as stipulated in the road map, and we hope that Israel will do the same" by ending attacks against Palestinians and stopping the expansion of Jewish settlements. The "road map" is a U.S.-backed peace plan that calls for the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005. It has been dormant for more than a year.

Ziad Abu Amr, an independent member of the Palestinian parliament from Gaza City, said it was not just Arafat's death, but the reelection of President Bush in November and the continuing fighting in Iraq that have combined to give rise to the new initiatives.

Amr suggested that the Bush administration was "trying to balance its involvement in Iraq with some sort of involvement in the other core issue, the Palestinian issue." But he warned that the high expectations the White House is creating had to be matched with action.

Researcher Samuel Sockol contributed to this report.



-------- nato

NATO chief to hold talks on Ukraine with Russian FM

BRUSSELS (AFP)
Dec 08, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041208172302.hflndf72.html

NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov later Wednesday to discuss Ukraine, ahead of NATO-Russia talks that are due to agree a joint anti-terrorism plan.

De Hoop Scheffer wanted to meet Lavrov to discuss "how to approach the debate on the Ukraine", an official with the transatlantic military alliance said on condition of anonymity.

Lavrov clashed with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was to attend a NATO meeting here Thursday, at a conference in Bulgaria Tuesday over tensions between Russia and the West over the political crisis in Ukraine.

Powell and Lavrov were to meet again on Thursday morning when NATO holds regular talks with Russia on the sidelines of a meeting of alliance foreign ministers.

The NATO-Russia meeting is expected to sign a joint action plan on counter-terrorism, pledging cooperation against international militancy, officials said.

The two sides were also expected to formally agree to Russia's participation in anti-terrorism patrols of the Mediterranean Sea launched by NATO after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Russia is due to send two vessels to join the NATO patrols in the first such joint operation between the former Cold War foes.

De Hoop Scheffer and Lavrov were expected to meet Wednesday night after dinner talks between ministers from NATO, Israel and six Arab countries, the official said.

-----

US base move would put up to 3,000 US military in Bulgaria: official

SOFIA (AFP)
Dec 08, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041208182117.x87fbwxc.html

An eventual permanent deployment of US troops to new NATO member Bulgaria would involve up to 3,000 people who would be stationed in one or two bases, Defense Minister Nikolai Svinarov told AFP Wednesday.

He was giving first details about a project that would be part of a historic shift of US forces in Europe from a Cold War posture to a deployment better suited to the current age of terrorism and conflicts in the Middle East.

"The way I see things is we're talking about one or two bases and the total amount of deployed would amount to 2-3,000 people," Svinarov told AFP in an interview.

The US embassy in Sofia refused to comment.

Bulgaria is expecting Washington to decide early next year on setting up US military bases in the former communist country, Svinarov said.

Bulgaria has already set up a working group for negotiations.

"What we are talking about is small bases," Svinarov said.

The bases would be "totally different compared to the US bases that have been located in Western Europe and more particularly in Germany after World War II."

They would not be "base towns and base cities" where tens of thousands of troops stood by for decades until the fall in 1989 of the Berlin Wall to parry a Soviet invasion of Western Europe but rather staging areas with military personnel being rotated regularly.

Svinarov said Bulgaria, which joined NATO in March 2004, was important since it was "the eastern boundary of NATO right now and very soon Bulgaria is going to be the eastern boundary of the European Union," as Bulgaria hopes to join the EU in 2007.

Svinarov said the United States had gained experience in using the Sarafovo airfield near Burgas in the east during the Iraq war last year.

The main task for these bases was "providing support in air-to-air refueling of airplanes in the region of the Black Sea," with only about 500 US military personnel on the ground in Bulgaria, Svinarov said.

He said the relatively small numbers to be involved in a permanent US base would not be a "very powerful economic contribution" to the Bulgarian economy.

But the opportunities it would give for joint training with US forces would be a chance to increase Bulgarian "interoperability" with other NATO troops.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said in Sofia Tuesday that the Bulgarian people should be proud of the sacrifices their country was making in military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Powell said Bulgaria would benefit since it was showing it was a good US ally as well as "a partner in broader alliances such as NATO and soon, hopefully, the European Union."

Parliament said in December that Bulgaria "supports the redeployment of American forces in military bases abroad and approves of the consultations already begun on the issue between the United States and Bulgaria".

-----

Hungary to send 150 troops to Iraq under NATO command

BUDAPEST (AFP)
Dec 08, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041208191854.u95kuc37.html

The Hungarian government has approved sending 150 non-combat troops Iraq the middle of next year, where they are to serve under NATO command, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

"The government agreed to send a military contingent as part of a NATO mission to Iraq, where they will serve from June 1, 2005 until September 30, 2006," Boglar Laszlo was quoted as saying by MTI news agency after a cabinet meeting.

She said the non-combat troops would help provide security to a NATO training base on the outskirts of Baghdad.

The alliance aims to train around 1,000 senior Iraqi military officers a year at the base, but even though NATO approved the mission in June, some of its members -- divided still over the war -- have refused to allow their officers to be sent to Iraq.

Laszlo said the cabinet rejected a NATO request for the troops to also carry out logistics work there.

Hungary currently has 300 soldiers serving in Iraq as part of the US-led coalition, and their mandate runs out at the end of the month.

Parliament in November voted against extending their mission until March 2005, as requested by the Socialist-led government. The government does not need the permission of the legislature to contribute troop to NATO missions.

--------

NATO's move to new headquarters put back three years

BRUSSELS (AFP)
Dec 08, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041208192455.g6s2arzw.html

The NATO military alliance's move away from its grim 1960s headquarters to a new building has been put back three years to 2012, sources said Wednesday.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt signed a memorandum of understanding Wednesday paving the way for the alliance's transfer to the new building.

The memorandum foresees building work to start in 2008 for completion in 2012, three years later than the 2009 target announced by NATO last year when it first announced plans to move.

"This is a major project and we've taken account of the fact that we'll need more time," one source at NATO told AFP.

The new headquarters will be an ultra-modern wave-like structure to replace the unloved barrack-style offices built out of prefabricated concrete in 1967.

The futuristic complex will be built on a 40-hectare (100-acre) belonging to the Belgian defense ministry, just across the road from the current headquarters in the Brussels suburbs.

The United States is to pay slightly more than 22 percent of the cost.

NATO, which was set up in 1949, is still housed in prefabricated buildings thrown up quickly after the transfer of its Paris headquarters to Brussels in 1967 when France withdrew from the organization's integrated military command.


-------- spies

CIA Analyst Cautious About Iraq 
Stronger Government Is Needed to Halt Violence, Report Says

By John J. Lumpkin
December 8, 2004 Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45875-2004Dec8.html

In a farewell assessment of Iraq's security and political situation, the CIA's senior officer there wrote that a stronger government and economy are necessary to avoid descent into wider violence, a U.S. official said yesterday.

The Sunni population must take part in Iraq's Jan. 30 election, the officer wrote in a mixed review of the situation, according to the official.

The official discussed the Baghdad station chief's classified assessment on the condition of anonymity. The chief, whose identity is confidential, is leaving Iraq after completing a scheduled tour, the official said.

The officer's assessment was reported first Tuesday in the New York Times. It was distributed around the government in late November, the official said.

The station chief wrote that Iraq's interim government is getting organized and enjoys more legitimacy in the public's eyes than the former U.S.-appointed Iraqi governing council. The assessment also praised the resilience of many Iraqis in the face of the troubles.

But, according to official, the farewell report said that Iraqi security forces being trained to take over security from U.S. troops are improving, but not quickly enough to keep pace with the increasingly violent insurgency. This, in turn, has prevented the government from projecting authority throughout the country.

A key issue is whether Sunni Muslims will participate in elections. The officer predicted that violence would only increase if they did not.

Arab Sunnis represent one-fifth of Iraq's nearly 26 million people but traditionally have wielded power in the country, especially under former president Saddam Hussein, who was ousted when the United States invaded in March 2003. They fear the election will give Shiite Muslims, with 60 percent of the population, overwhelming power.

U.S. and Iraqi officials worry that a boycott by Sunnis, advocated by several groups representing them, would undermine the legitimacy of a new government. The CIA officer said this will lead to increased violence.

John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, dissented with some aspects of the report and offered a more positive view of Iraqi security forces, the U.S. official said.

--------

Sacked C.I.A. Official Alleges Retaliation for Not Faking WMD Reports on Iraq

  Agence France Presse
  Thursday 09 December 2004

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/usiraqwmdciasuit

  Washington - A sacked CIA official is reportedly suing the agency for allegedly retaliating against him for refusing to falsify his reports on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to support the White House's pre-war position.

  Described as a senior CIA official who was sacked in August "for unspecified reasons," the plaintiff's lawsuit appears to be the first public instance of a CIA official charging that he was pressured to produce intelligence to support the US government's pre-war contention that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a grave threat to US and international security, The Washington Post reported.

  "Their official dogma was contradicted by his reporting and they did not want to hear it," said Roy Krieger, the officer's attorney.

  CIA spokeswoman Anya Guilsher told the daily she could not comment on the lawsuit, adding: "The notion that CIA managers order officers to falsify reports is flat wrong. Our mission is to call it like we see it and report the facts."

  Krieger wrote a letter requesting a meeting with CIA Director Porter Goss due to "the serious nature of the allegations in this case, including deliberately misleading the president on intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction," said the daily quoting from the letter.

  The United States overthrew the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, but has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since then. The US government has acknowledged some of its pre-war intelligence may have been faulty.

  The plaintiff, whose identity is blacked out in the lawsuit as well as any reference to Iraq, is of Middle Eastern descent, worked 23 years in the Central Intelligence Agency, much of them in covert operations to collect intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, said the daily.

  The lawsuit was filed in a US District Court in Washington on Friday and made public Wednesday after it was screened by a judge, said The Washington Post which obtained a copy.

  It alleges that the CIA investigated alleged sexual and financial improprieties by the plaintiff "for the sole purpose of discrediting him and retaliating against him for questioning the integrity of the WMD reporting ... and for refusing to falsify his intelligence reporting to support the politically mandated conclusion" of matters that are redacted in the lawsuit.

  The document states that in 2002 the plaintiff was "thwarted by CIA superiors" from reporting routine intelligence from a contact of his and that later he was approached by a senior officer "who insisted that Plaintiff falsify his reporting."

  When the plaintiff refused, the lawsuit said, the CIA's Counter-proliferation Division ordered that he "remove himself from any further 'handling'" of the contact, referred elsewhere in the document as "a highly respected human asset."

  In 2003, the lawsuit goes on to say, the CIA officer learned of the investigations against him and that he was refused a promotion "because of pressure from the DDO (Deputy Director of Operations) James Pavitt."

  In September 2003, the plaintiff was placed on administrative leave without explanation and in August 2004 he was sacked also "for unspecified reasons."

  The lawsuit requests that the plaintiff be restored to his former position in the CIA and received compensatory damages and legal fees.

-------- 

What spy reforms mean 

The biggest overhaul of US intelligence since World War II formally centralizes authority

By Peter Grier and Faye Bowers
December 08, 2004 Christian Science Monitor

http://csmonitor.com/2004/1208/p01s01-usfp.html

WASHINGTON - If historic legislation to reform the US intelligence community can be summed up in a word, it might be this: centralization.

The bill - which now seems assured of passage - attempts to reorganize the constellation of US spy agencies in a manner that focuses their counterterrorism efforts. It's an effort to integrate the military, covert actions, diplomacy, law enforcement, border security, and other aspects of national power into a seamless protective force.

This kind of cooperation might be easier legislated than done, as the teething problems of the Department of Homeland Security make clear. Nor can Congress pass laws mandating personnel competence and dedication. But in terms of changing the processes of government, the bill is historic, its proponents argue - the biggest change in the US spy business since the end of World War II.

"It really is a framework for American counterterrorism policy in all its aspects," says former Rep. Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.

The often-delayed intelligence bill neared completion following a compromise on Monday. Congressional leaders added one sentence intended to make it clear that the Defense Department will have priority in disputes over how best to use US espionage satellites.

The change convinced powerful Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) of California, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to drop his objections and allow the reform bill to proceed. President Bush has been lobbying lawmakers this week in an effort to win the bill's passage, and Vice President Cheney was instrumental in the final negotiations. "For a bill of this scope, size, and complexity to pass in 4-1/2 months is really extraordinary," says Hamilton.

The central change of the legislation would be the establishment of a director of national intelligence. The new DNI is meant to have enough power to shift dollars and enforce cooperation in an attempt to get US spy agencies to work together.

This new post will assume substantial authority over the National Security Agency, for instance - a largely military organization that runs the nation's electronic intelligence efforts. The bill would also create a new National Counterterrorism Center, which would build on and consume the current CIA-run Terrorist Threat Integration Center. The old organization had no authority to order intelligence operations, while the new one, on paper at least, will.

Taken together, these changes might indeed force a coordination of intelligence efforts that wasn't happening prior to 9/11, says a former US director of central intelligence. "It will prioritize the way we go about collecting and analyzing our intelligence in accordance with what's best for the overall country, and not what's best for the Defense Department," says retired Adm. Stansfield Turner.

In 1998, for instance, India conducted a nuclear test which the US did not detect, says Admiral Turner. The satellite best suited for the task was instead aimed at Iraq, where the US military was then enforcing no-fly zones against the Saddam Hussein regime. "Supporting the no-fly zone wasn't that critical" that it had to be done 24 hours a day, seven days a week, according to Turner. It could have been focused elswhere.

Other centralization-related changes in the intelligence bill require extensive sharing of intelligence and law-enforcement information between the national government, states, and local law groups. The bill would also set new criminal penalties for a number of activities, including receiving military training from a designated terrorist group and giving material support to suspected terrorists.

Among other things, it directs the Department of Homeland Security to pull together a national strategy for transportation security, and adds thousands of Border Patrol and Customs officers in an effort to better defend the nation's borders.

Critics of the bill point out that many of its changes aren't new ideas. They've been kicking around Washington, in one form or another, for years. Centralization per se might not actually improve the quality of the national intelligence product, says Richard Shultz, director of international security studies programs at Tufts University's Fletcher School in Medford, Mass.

It may not hurt to have a national intelligence director, but the real need is to change the culture within the CIA, says Mr. Shultz. The outcry over the recent resignations of a number of top clandestine operations shows how difficult that is.

"I just think what has to change is the way we do business and that is very hard," says Shultz.

The changes may also be too CIA-and NSA-centric. The 9/11 commission itself found out that the intelligence failure prior to the 9/11 attacks was government-wide, says Ellen Laipson, a former CIA official who is now head of the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank.

Yet the commisison's recommendations for change may focus on a narrow slice of that government, and deal with the rest only peripherally. "It should have been equally important to address shortcomings in the FBI.... It's inconsistent with what I think was the diagnosis of the 9/11 commission," says Ms. Laipson.

-----

Kerik's Surveillance Activity in Saudi Arabia Is Disputed 
Cabinet Pick Is Accused of Carrying Out Hospital Chief's Agenda

By John Mintz and Lucy Shackelford
December 8, 2004 Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45175-2004Dec7.html

The autobiography of Bernard B. Kerik, President Bush's nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security, recounts a difficult time 20 years ago when he was expelled from Saudi Arabia amid a power struggle involving the head of a hospital complex where Kerik helped command a security staff.

In the book, Kerik described his discomfort at having to investigate employees' private lives, but said it was necessary because of the Saudis' laws prohibiting drinking and mingling of the sexes in public. "It was challenging, negotiating such a closed, rigid system and trying to find justice in laws that, to an American, were unjust," he wrote. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1984, the book said, after he had a physical altercation with a Saudi secret police official who was interrogating him.

Since he was nominated last week to be homeland security secretary, however, nine former employees of the hospital have said that Kerik and his colleagues were carrying out the private agenda of the hospital's administrator, Nizar Feteih, and that the surveillance was intended to control people's private affairs. Feteih became embroiled in a scandal that centered in part on his use of the institution's security staff to track the private lives of several women with whom he was romantically involved, and men who came in contact with them, the ex-employees said.

Kerik, who as chief of investigations was considered third in command of the security staff, personally surveilled some employees and at times confronted them with the results, several former employees said. He also was a lead investigator in the controversial arrest, for drinking, of a physician who was detained and deported from Saudi Arabia for the crime.

Ex-employees also said the official Saudi investigation of Feteih and the security team was begun in response to hospital employees' complaints to Saudi officials of intimidation by Feteih and the security staff.

After medical personnel at the hospital complained to Saudi officials, the security team helped get one whistleblower jailed overnight, sought to put another into a Saudi mental hospital, and stepped up its surveillance of some members of the medical staff, several of the former hospital employees said. Six members of the hospital security staff, including Kerik, were fired and deported, and Feteih was sacked as hospital administrator after an investigation in 1984 by the Saudi secret police, they said.

Loyalty to Superiors

Kerik, a former New York City police commissioner whom Bush praised as "one of the most accomplished and effective leaders of law enforcement in America," was nominated last week to succeed Tom Ridge as secretary of the sprawling anti-terrorism agency created in 2003. If confirmed, Kerik would run a Cabinet department with investigative units, including the Secret Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. At times they deal with the Saudis.

The former employees said their allegations shed light on the extent of Kerik's loyalty to his superiors. They involve his work from 1982 to 1984 as chief of investigations for the security office at King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, one of the kingdom's premier hospitals, where members of the royal family are treated.

"Kerik was a goon," said John Jones, a former hospital manager, who said he felt harassed by the security team. "They were Gestapo. . . . They made my life so miserable."

"Kerik used heavy-handed tactics in following single men around and keeping them away from some women," said Ted Bailey, who was a doctor at the hospital and now practices in Indiana. Added paramedic Michael Queen: "Men and women had to be careful with security, but Bernie was the one we watched out for the most."

Kerik said that he knows of no improprieties by the security staff, and that he was put in an awkward position in having to enforce the strict Saudi moral code. Alcohol is prohibited under the code, but the government usually allows Westerners to ignore that ban, as well as the ban on intermingling of the sexes, inside the walled compounds of institutions such as the King Faisal hospital and their homes, as long as they do so privately.

Bob Burghardt, who worked with Kerik at the hospital and remains his friend, said in an interview that he knew of no improper surveillance by the security team. "Bernie and I were ostracized [by hospital staff members] for upholding Saudi law," said Burghardt, who is now an auditor.

Gilda Riccardi, then a hospital nurse and now a friend of Kerik's, said that despite strong rumors of wiretapping and impropriety by the security staff, she knows of no proof it occurred. "To implicate Bernie [in any possible misdeeds by the security team], I have a problem with that," said Riccardi, who became friendly with Kerik years later when he was a New York police officer and she was a prosecutor.

Kerik is barred from commenting by the rules governing the confirmation process. A spokesman for Giuliani Partners, the consulting firm for which Kerik works, twice declined to comment. An administration official working with Kerik on his confirmation said Kerik described events at the hospital "with candor and in some detail" in his 2001 memoir, "The Lost Son."

 "As he noted in the book, there was a power struggle among two politically connected figures, and as a result there were rumors about surveillance," the official said. "He didn't participate in those activities, and didn't see anything in his direct experience that would have substantiated the rumors. . . . Part of his job was ensuring Westerners at the hospital understood and obeyed Saudi laws."

Feteih could not be located to comment. The Saudi Embassy declined to comment, but a source familiar with the government probe said officials concluded that Feteih and the security staff were abusive toward staff members and that "management of the hospital was horrendous."

The turmoil at the huge, lushly landscaped King Faisal hospital -- separated from the rest of Riyadh by high walls and with fountains in front -- began when Feteih took over in the early 1980s, the former employees said. Previously, the administrators at the Saudi government-owned facility allowed men and women on the mostly Western staff to date and drink alcohol if they were discreet.

But when Feteih took over, he had the security staff strictly enforce separation of the sexes when it came to some women, according to the medical personnel who worked there. In addition to Jones, Bailey and Queen, the events concerning Kerik and the security staff were corroborated by these former hospital employees: Dan Mackey, a doctor who now lives in Georgia; John Froude, who practices medicine in Upstate New York; former hospital employee Dennis Daughters, who lives in Florida; William Larkworthy, a doctor, and his wife, nurse Maria Larkworthy, who live in Europe; former medical technician Peter Rodenburgh in Canada, and two former hospital employees who did not want to be identified.

Much of the security staff's attention was trained on a number of women whom Feteih knew well and men who came into contact with them, these people said. "They weren't there to provide security as much as to be a spy network for Feteih," William Larkworthy said.

"Bernie Kerik was an enforcer" for the head of the security office and for hospital administrator Feteih, Mackey said. "It was sinister."

Froude recalled that in one encounter with Kerik, "he summoned me to his office and slid a piece of paper toward me and said, 'I want you to tell me what is incorrect in this,' " Froude said. "It was an account of how I'd dated some women. I said, 'Besides the spelling errors, it's correct.' He got out of his chair and said, 'Don't get fresh with me, doc.' " He also recalled Kerik surveilling him from a security car when he left a woman's apartment late one night.

The controversies came to a head in November 1983, when Larkworthy got into an argument with a nurse the morning after he had people over at his home to play bridge and drink homemade wine, said several of those interviewed. Several ex-employees said Feteih intensely disliked the Larkworthys and ordered the security staff to investigate the doctor's behavior that day.

Feteih sent security men to question William Larkworthy, according to hospital documents obtained by The Washington Post. They declared him drunk -- an assertion Larkworthy denies -- and searched his home, finding beer and wine. The security staff handed him over to Saudi security, a move the former employees said was unique in their experience. Within days, the Larkworthys were deported.

Kerik was a lead investigator on the case, according to the hospital documents. The Larkworthys, Mackey and other former employees said the case was trumped up because of Feteih's dislike of them.

The incident prompted doctors to complain about Feteih and the security staff to Ghazi Gosaibi, the minister of health, who began an investigation. Kerik and his defenders say the allegations against the security team stemmed from a power struggle between Feteih and Gosaibi.

Within weeks, Michael Kingston, one doctor who complained, was jailed overnight by police in what the former employees called an attempt to silence the whistleblowers. Feteih and the security staff searched for weeks for another whistleblower, a physician, and told employees they intended to place him in a mental hospital, said Bailey, Mackey and two other hospital employees.

The physician was forced to hide before flying back to England, said Bailey, Mackey and other employees. Bailey said that while the physician was under serious stress and was acting odd, "he did not need to be institutionalized" -- a view echoed by other former employees. The ex-employees cannot recall Kerik's specific activities during those weeks but say he was part of the effort.

Saudi secret police and a royal panel investigated Feteih and the security staff for months on allegations that included not only improper surveillance, but also wiretapping. While they released no report, Saudi officials said then that they concluded that many complaints of Feteih's alleged mismanagement had merit, and he was fired and assigned to attend to a sick princess, the ex-employees said.

When the Saudi secret police questioned Kerik, he wrote in his book, they took him to a nondescript building, and armed guards surrounded him.

They "asked me about what security services I provided for Dr. Feteih. Were we tapping phones? Doing surveillance? The allegations were cryptic, and at the same time ludicrous, but even as I tried to ignore them the scandal grew, and intrigue and treachery multiplied everywhere around us. It was nearly impossible to figure out the angles and who might be playing which side."

He recalled denying the allegations of wiretapping and snooping for Feteih. When a Saudi lieutenant said his wife could be in jeopardy if he lied, he grabbed the man and threatened to kill him, prompting the guards to point their guns at him, Kerik wrote.

"Several stressful minutes later, they were driving me back to my villa. 'You will leave the country,' one of the secret police said to me. To this day, I still can't say . . . where I fit in the various struggles." 

-----

Director's Control Is a Concern

Washington Post
By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45347-2004Dec7.html

The compromise legislation approved by the House yesterday in response to the Sept. 11 commission's findings represents a historic reordering of the $40 billion intelligence community.

But some experts say it is not at all evident how, or even if, the changes would help America's spies obtain secrets and aid analysts in determining the intentions of terrorists bent on striking again or worrisome nations developing weapons of mass destruction.

The most significant changes target the top of the intelligence bureaucracy, rather than the field officers, agents and intercept operators who do the work of recruiting spies, penetrating organizations or finding and disrupting plots in motion.

Proponents of the legislation and their allies among the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had grown frustrated by the lack of accountability within intelligence agencies. That is why the bill designates one person -- a new director of national intelligence -- to be accountable to the president and the American public.

But the new chief would not be directly in charge of any operations -- not covert actions, the CIA station chiefs around the world, the army of analysts whose job is to connect the dots, or the operators of high-tech collection systems that contribute so much these days to finding and disrupting terrorist plans.

The new director also would not have total control over the Defense Department collection agencies, mainly expensive satellite and eavesdropping systems, which provide three-quarters of the country's military and international intelligence.

There are other complications. The new director would have competition for the president's ear. The director of a new national counterterrorism center would be a presidential appointee who would report directly to the president on counterterrorist operations.

This new player is confounding to intelligence experts trying to see how all the new pieces would fit together with the existing system and whether the changes would make anyone safer.

"Have they created a stronger, central, senior person in charge? It is not clear to me that they have," said Winston P. Wiley, a former senior CIA official and terrorism expert. "It's not that budgets and personnel are not important, but what's really important is directing, controlling and having access to the people who do the work. They created a person who doesn't have that."

The bill says the new director would "monitor the implementation and execution" of operations, a vague description that has perplexed intelligence officials scurrying to digest the legislation.

The director would have control over the national intelligence budget, but not the roughly 30 percent that covers military intelligence operations. That would remain primarily under Defense Department control.

The new intelligence director also would be responsible for ensuring that each agency knows what other agencies know and for establishing a list of intelligence priorities The biggest targets of this restructured intelligence system -- al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents -- are stateless enemies who have proved elusive to the traps of traditional espionage tradecraft. Other major concerns most likely will be Iran, North Korea, China and Syria.

Proponents of the legislation argue that, even without direct control, the intelligence director would set the strategic priorities and then ensure the individual departments are on track in pursuing them. "He sets targeting priorities, has the budget power to direct agencies to obtain intelligence and to order the analysis" of priority groups, countries and issues, said one congressional official involved in writing the legislation.

Combined with the changes in human intelligence collection and analysis underway at the CIA, Defense Department and other intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress's intent was to "complete the job that's been done piecemeal" by handing ultimate responsibility to one person, he said.

 The Sept. 11 commission concluded that there had been serious lapses in coordination of U.S. intelligence leading up to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that the current director of central intelligence, who also runs the CIA, is too focused on agency operations and does not exercise the authority needed to coordinate operations throughout the government.

Among the other provisions, the bill establishes an intelligence directorate at the FBI, and mandates training of a cadre of FBI agents dedicated to domestic intelligence. That idea is meant to address the fact that most FBI agents are trained to gather evidence relevant to making criminal cases, rather than information that might lead to uncovering terrorist plans.

The legislation also funds a package of homeland security measures to bolster transportation safety and border security. For example, the bill calls for developing guidance for a biometric identification technology to screen foreign passengers and mandates a new airline passenger screening system.

It also mandates that the federal government -- in most cases the State Department -- undertake a host of measures to address the causes of terrorism abroad. Those measures will include creating a "democracy caucus" at the United Nations, increasing funding for rule-of-law and educational training in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and expanding exchanges with the Muslim world.

Senior intelligence officials and even some legislators who supported the legislation are not sure how the long-delayed measure would work in practice.

"It's a black hole we're looking into," one U.S. intelligence official said.

"There are a lot of questions, and they are inevitably going to be resolved in practice," said a senior administration official who will be involved in melding the old and the new structures.

To ensure a separation from the CIA, the bill permits only the intelligence director to share space at the agency's Langley headquarters, now called the George H.W. Bush Center for Intelligence, until October 2008, when the current president's term is almost up. 

-----

House Approves Intelligence Bill 
Landmark Measure Passes by 336 to 75 Vote; Senate to Consider Legislation Today

Washington Post
By Charles Babington
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44166-2004Dec7.html

The House yesterday approved landmark legislation to restructure the nation's intelligence community, creating a director of national intelligence and a counterterrorism center to better coordinate government assets and avert the type of intelligence lapses that occurred prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The House's 336 to 75 vote puts the long-debated measure on the brink of enactment. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the 600-page bill today. Barring an unforeseen objection, senators appear ready to pass the measure, send it to President Bush's desk and adjourn the 108th Congress.

The bill would create a director of national intelligence, who would replace the director of central intelligence as the president's senior intelligence adviser. The new director would have broader budgetary responsibilities and would be in charge of monitoring and tasking domestic and foreign intelligence operations.

The White House has not signaled yet whether CIA Director Porter J. Goss, the former Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, would become the director or whether he would remain at the agency.

The new national director would be subject to Senate confirmation. If Bush nominated Goss, confirmation hearings could focus on his decision this summer to bring four GOP committee aides to the CIA and their roles in the unexpected retirements of senior officers in the clandestine service.

Although the new intelligence director would have greater authority than the CIA chief does over the budgets of the 15 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, he or she would not direct or control the CIA's operations.

Separating the nominal head of U.S. intelligence from the clandestine service officers who carry out espionage and covert action was a goal of the Sept. 11 commission, which said both jobs would be too much for one person. Some former secretaries of state and CIA directors, however, said the jobs should not be separated.

The bill would write into law the National Counterterrorism Center, which Bush created by executive order in August. Its director now would be a presidential appointee, confirmed by the Senate, who would report on counterterrorism operations directly to the president.

The bill also would create a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, designed to safeguard individuals' rights. It would establish minimum standards for birth certificates and driver's licenses, and tighten the security of Social Security cards.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called the House vote a "giant step closer to enacting this law that will make America safer and the American people proud." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said: "Despite calls from the left and right to either rubber-stamp the report or criticize it, the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission have been properly deliberated, and the result is a stronger bill that will allow us to better fight the war on terror."

The commission cited numerous lapses in U.S. intelligence operations and a lack of coordination in the months leading up to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Yesterday's vote ended weeks of political tension and brinkmanship, during which the bill's prospects often soared and dipped. The key breakthrough came last weekend when the White House helped broker a divide-and-conquer deal aimed at the two House GOP groups that had blocked the bill Nov. 20.

Lawmakers concerned mainly about Pentagon prerogatives were assured that the defense secretary, not the director of national intelligence, would continue to control spy satellites and aircraft. But those mainly seeking crackdowns on illegal immigration fared less well, winning only House leaders' assurance that immigration issues will be taken up early next year.

In a 90-minute closed meeting of House Republicans yesterday morning, the chief advocate of putting more immigration restrictions in the bill -- Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) -- implored colleagues to hold out for a better deal. But with Hastert, DeLay and others urging lawmakers to embrace the White House-supported bill, Sensenbrenner could prevent only 67 Republicans from voting aye. Democrats overwhelmingly supported the measure, with only eight voting no.

Several lawmakers said the Senate would have had serious reservations about the proposed immigration provisions, which might have scuttled the bill. Among Maryland's eight House members, all voted for the bill except Roscoe Bartlett (R). Among Virginia legislators, all voted aye except three Republicans who voted no: Jo Ann S. Davis, Randy Forbes and Virgil Goode.

The House vote and today's expected Senate action will save Bush from the political embarrassment of a Republican-controlled Congress rejecting a major bill he supports. Throughout the fall, lawmakers complained that the White House was sending mixed signals, allowing top Pentagon officials to criticize the legislation publicly and privately even as Bush said he backed it.

After the Nov. 20 revolt by House Republicans, which surprised Hastert and the White House, the administration turned up the heat. Vice President Cheney phoned several House members last weekend and the White House helped shape the compromise language safeguarding the Pentagon's "chain of command" over spy satellites.

"The president and the vice president's interventions with House members were absolutely key in moving this bill forward," said Susan Collins (R-Maine), the Senate's chief sponsor.

Although much of the recent debate focused on protecting Pentagon turf, several House Republicans said the fiercest resistance centered on immigration questions. The original House version -- drafted with no Democratic input -- included numerous provisions to keep undocumented foreigners from entering the country and to make it easier to deport visitors who overstay their visas or break laws.

Sensenbrenner repeatedly noted that the 19 hijackers of Sept. 11 had obtained multiple driver's licenses, which he said helped them open bank accounts and board planes. He urged the House to retain language that would require states to verify the legal status of non-citizens applying for driver's licenses.

Opponents, including businesses that rely on low-wage undocumented workers, state governments and civil liberties groups, said Sensenbrenner's proposal would require extensive scrutiny and national debate. In weeks of House-Senate negotiations over the intelligence legislation, the driver's license provision and others were dropped.

In yesterday's closed GOP meeting, several participants said, Hastert promised to include immigration provisions in a package of "must pass" legislation early next year.

Some members, however, said the promise might prove empty. The White House and Senate, they note, are much less receptive to sharp crackdowns on illegal immigration than are many House members. "There's a real lack of confidence that we'll get a bill to secure our borders," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.).

The House vote was a victory for the Sept. 11 commission, whose hard-hitting 567-page report issued in July became a bestseller and spurred Congress to hold hearings and start drafting legislation. Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean (R), a former New Jersey governor, and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton (D), a former congressman from Indiana, lobbied the public and lawmakers to enact an overhaul this year. 

-----

Great Lakes are Canada's "soft underbelly" terror risk : report

OTTAWA (AFP)
Dec 08, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041208190750.hpdu0tsa.html

Terrorists could exploit a huge security blackspot across the vast Great Lakes system between Canada and the United States, warned a new report by a parliamentary panel issued Wednesday.

The Lakes and the St Lawrence Seaway system, which feeds out of the Atlantic Ocean and separates eastern Canada and the United States, are the "soft underbelly of Canadian coast defense," the report said.

Panel chairman Colin Kenny said smugglers were already known to use the waterway, pointing to potentially dangerous security lapses.

"We don't know who's out there or where they are going; if a smuggler can function there, so can a terrorist," he said.

The report, the first "Canada Security Guidebook" was the work of the Senate National Security and Defence Committee, published on the anniversary of Prime Minister Paul Martin's assumption of power.

Kenny praised the government's decision to streamline national security under Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan but lambasted the lack of progress in increasing defence budgets and recruiting more military personnel.

The committee demanded tighter air and sea port security and expanded surveillance with aircraft and unmanned drones, along Canada's coastlines.

-----

Border security up next, Bush says

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Charles Hurt
December 08, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041208-122554-8619r.htm

President Bush is vowing to help House Republicans enact tighter immigration-security controls "early in the next session" of Congress.

The promise - made in a letter to members of Congress - was part of the final push by the White House to win support for the massive intelligence-overhaul bill, which was stripped of several key immigration reforms so it would pass more easily.

"I look forward to working with the Congress early in the next session to address these [border security] issues, including improving our asylum laws and standards for issuing driver's licenses," Mr. Bush wrote.

But the president's promised immigration reforms could come too late, House Republican leaders said.

"These provisions are not too controversial - they are vital," said F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee and led the opposition to the pared-down intelligence bill. "How could we face grieving families in the future and tell them that while we might have done more, the legislative hurdles were just too high? I, for one, cannot, and I, therefore, oppose this bill."

Still, immigration reformers aim to hold Mr. Bush - and the House Republican leadership - to their promises to address the reforms promptly next year.

"While I am disappointed that Congress - in classic fashion - has squandered this golden opportunity, I am encouraged by the president's commitment," Rep. Tom Tancredo said yesterday. "And I have every intention of making sure he keeps it."

The Colorado Republican and other reformers in the House want major changes in the nation's immigration policies to block the influx of illegal aliens and to hamper their movement around the interior of the country. Specifically, they want to make it more difficult to obtain valid driver's licenses.

"We are here today because on September 11, 2001, 19 men, all of whom entered our country illegally, overstayed their visas or obtained fraudulent visas, boarded four airplanes and used them as bombs to kill thousands of our citizens," said Rep. Nathan Deal, Georgia Republican. "The primary identification documents that allowed them to board those airplanes were state driver's licenses. Nothing in this bill would prevent those hijackers from using those same driver's licenses to board those same airplanes and repeat the events of 9/11."

In the Senate - where the immigration provisions were stripped from the legislation - Republicans voiced support for some of the immigration reforms originally proposed and supported in the House.

"I think there is considerable support for overhauling our immigration laws and taking a look at the driver's license issue, as well as other issues raised by Congressman Sensenbrenner," Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said yesterday. "But the fact is that those provisions, which were highly controversial and several of them were opposed by the administration, would have been poison pills for this bill."

The prospect of revisiting the immigration reforms alarmed others.

During a pointed exchange on the House floor last night, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the reforms "egregious" and "extraneous" and signaled that Democrats would oppose them.

"I have serious concerns," the California Democrat said. "I hope Republican leaders won't tarnish the achievements of today" by bringing up the immigration reforms again after the new year.

Mr. Sensenbrenner said he has heard from many constituents and citizens across the country who support the immigration reforms.

"I want to say to them and to everyone else that is listening: I will not rest until these provisions are enacted," he said. "I will bring them up relentlessly, and the job will be completed. This bill was a chance to complete the job. That chance was missed, but it will come again soon."

----

Victims' families steadfast until the end

USA TODAY
By Mimi Hall
12/8/2004

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-12-07-intel-families_x.htm   

WASHINGTON - Holding a framed photograph of her mother in her lap as congressional aides hustled by, Carie Lemack was on the verge of a bittersweet victory Tuesday after three exhausting years as part of a band of unlikely lobbyists.

Long after their sons and daughters and husbands and mothers were killed, Lemack and other relatives of those who died on Sept. 11 were grabbing a bite in a basement cafeteria between meetings on Capitol Hill. Vigilant to the end, they were making sure that legislation they fought so hard to pass didn't hit any last-minute snags.

"People will say congratulations, but it's still hard. It hurts a lot," said Lemack, 29. Her mother, Judy Larocque, had been a passenger on American Airlines Flight 11, which crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. "After today, I'm just going to go home and feel awful."

The 9/11 families, as they became widely known, turned their grief into activism in a determined effort to change the government's intelligence system and help prevent the next terrorist attack. But they were hardly reveling in the hours before the House of Representatives' vote Tuesday. (Related story: House passes intel changes)

Lemack said she was grateful Congress acknowledged that government intelligence systems worked poorly before 9/11 and took steps to fix the system. But, "I've never done anything in my life without picking up the phone to tell my mum all about it," she said. "No one's going to answer. Closure is not the right word."

During the past three years, these activist relatives have been fighting to win aid for the victims' families, hold the government accountable for its failures and enact changes that could help save lives in the future.

Their work started shortly after the terrorists struck. They lobbied for tax relief and government compensation for the families. They fought for the creation of an independent commission to investigate the attacks. And they demanded new laws to overhaul the government's system of collecting, analyzing and sharing intelligence.

After racking up tens of thousands of miles on airlines, on trains and in cars along the northeast corridor's crowded highways, after endless pleadings to lawmakers and countless congressional hearings, after vigils in the rain and more TV interviews than they can remember, the family members who took on Washington - mostly women - were just ready to go home for the holidays.

"It's so emotional," said Mary Fetchet, whose 24-year-old son, Brad, died in the World Trade Center collapse. "Today, I just can't stop crying."

Sitting with her was Carol Ashley, who lost her daughter, 25-year-old Janice, on 9/11 and has worked non-stop ever since on issues related to the terrorist attacks.

Wearing a color photo of her daughter pinned to the lapel of her dark brown suit, the retired grade school teacher recounted that she didn't know how to e-mail in 2001 but now runs the family members' Web site.

Ashley said she plans to take a break. She might take French or piano lessons, or do some of the other items on her dormant, post-retirement list.

"This has been like a full-time job," she said of the families' efforts. After 9/11, "I told my husband, 'I have to do this.' I don't think I could have lived with myself if I didn't."

Losing her daughter created a "hole in my heart that's never going to close," said Ashley, who has spent part of every week since the end of the summer in Washington, lobbying for the intelligence bill. But Janice "would not want me to go day after day being sad," she said.

Missing from the group was Kristin Breitweiser, a widow from New Jersey who fought hard for the independent 9/11 Commission. She attended virtually every hearing and later earned headlines campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Breitweiser, who spent so much time at the Capitol that a garage attendant once asked for her staff identification card, said she stayed in New York on Tuesday because her daughter is now in kindergarten. She said she wouldn't make another trip to Washington when President Bush signs the bill, either. "I'm not into the 'photo ops,' and the bill signing and self-congratulatory back-slapping," she said. "I will be proud of our work on the day of the next attack - and there will be one - when I realize that some lives were saved and that families stayed intact and a child still has a parent because of the work that the 9/11 families did."

-----

Fmr. Counterterror Chief Richard Clarke on Intel Bill, Iraq and the Threat of Another Attack on the U.S.

democracynow.org

December 8th, 2004

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/08/1519258

As the House approves the biggest overhaul of the country's intelligence agencies in half a century we hear an address by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. [includes rush transcript] The House voted yesterday to approve the biggest overhaul of the country's intelligence agencies in half a century.
The legislation will implement key recommendations made by the Sept. 11 commission and create a new director of national intelligence with strong budget powers to oversee 15 spy agencies. It also creates a new counterterrorism center that would plan and help oversee operations.

The bill passed with a 336-75 vote after being sidetracked by House Speaker Dennis Hastert due to concerns over issues surrounding military intelligence and immigration. The Senate is expected to pass the bill today where it will be sent to President Bush for his signature.

The bill is the second major government overhaul since the Sept. 11 attacks following the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation stalled last month and appeared dead for the year, but found new life under pressure from families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

During the 9/11 hearings last March, controversy swirled over the testimony of former Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke. Clarke was the only person to apologize to the families of the victims of 9/11 and his testimony came amidst a political firestorm over the publication of his book Against All Enemies. The book accuses the White House of ignoring the threat posed by al-Qaeda leading up to 9/11 and that Bush wanted to strike Iraq immediately after the attacks, despite no evidence that Baghdad was involved.

Clarke is widely viewed as a leading figure in national security circles. He held top posts under every president since Reagan and served as both President Clinton and President Bush's top anti-terrorism official.

Yesterday he spoke at the New York Society for Ethical Culture at an event co-sponsored by openDemocracy.net, DEMOS, Democrats.com and Pacifica Radio's WBAI.

    * Richard Clarke, speaking at the New York Society for Ethical Culture on December 7, 2004.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Last night as the House was voting on the bill, Richard Clarke spoke at the New York Society for Ethical Culture. The event was co-sponsored by, among others, Pacifica radio station WBAI.

      RICHARD CLARKE: I have agreed tonight to do the impossible, which is to talk about where we go from here in the war on terrorism and Homeland Security in 15 minutes or less. Since that is impossible, let me instead refer you to this lovely little book which was published a few weeks ago by the Century Foundation, which is called Defeating the Jihadists. This talks about the things that we should do for the next four years in Homeland Security and in the war on terrorism and in the protection of civil liberties. The Century Foundation has this available for download on the Internet at the Century Foundation, www.tcf.org, and if you download it, it's free. Or, you can buy it on www.amazon.com and all the proceeds go to the Foundation. So, in my remaining time, let me comment briefly on things that we have seen in the last few weeks in the war on terrorism and in Homeland Security. First, today, we have seen the unusual, which are press reports on an assessment of the situation in Iraq by the CIA'S Station Chief in Iraq. Normally those things are top-secret and no one ever sees them. But for some reason this one has made it out into the public. And what the CIA's outgoing Station Chief; the man who is leaving the job there after some time in Baghdad, his assessment is that things are going very badly in Iraq and that we could end up with a civil war. Please note this is not what the president has told you. This is not what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said even this week. But within the government, within the classified world, the assessment is things are going very badly indeed. That will not come as a shock to you. Yesterday, we had an attack on the American consulate in jeddah. That indicated two things, I think. First of all, that Al Qaeda, or some variant of it, is alive and well although the president would tell you it is on the ropes. The second thing it told me was some of the motivation, because the group that did the attack yesterday called itself the Fallujah Brigade. You may remember Fallujah; it was the city that we had to liberate in order to hold elections. If anyone has seen Fallujah since we liberated it, and film of inside Fallujah is very hard to get because the United States Military is not allowing journalists in very much. But some film has made its way out of Fallujah. Fallujah might participate in an election in January, but not in January of 2005. In order to liberate the city to hold an election we destroyed the city where 300,000 people had called their home. Again, not exactly what the administration has told you. They have told you we liberated it to have an election but the reality is we have destroyed it. The third thing that has happened recently is the president continues the appointments of his new Cabinet. His new Cabinet, which is, if the old Cabinet was a closed circle, this Cabinet is an infinite dot. They are keeping Donald Rumsfeld. They are appointing as the attorney general someone who participated in drafting memos saying the torture was permitted. So the man who is now protecting our civil liberties believes torture is permitted. They have at the head of CIA a Republican politician. And they have now appointed as secretary of Homeland Security a man who totally failed in his mission in Baghdad to help create a police department. The fourth thing that I would note in recent days is the administration discussing the Iranian Nuclear Program. Now, there may well be an Iranian Nuclear Program. And if there is, that should be a source of concern for all of us. But who in the world, who in a punitive coalition, who in the United Nations, will believe us when we go to them again and say that a country in the Middle East is building a nuclear bomb and we have to do something about it? Nonetheless, word is leaking out of the Pentagon that orders have gone to central command to update the contingency plan for hostilities against Iran. We all need to watch this space very carefully and very closely. Because while we do have to worry about Iranian-sponsored terrorism and Iranian nuclear programs, we also have to make sure that we do not repeat the mistake of Iraq. The fifth thing is actually something more hopeful. Perhaps by the time we leave here tonight the House and Senate will have passed the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. And those recommendations are not merely what the press has told you about, changing organizational designs for the Intelligence community. Also in the bill are some extremely important measures, such as increasing the United States' government's participation in what the 9/11 Commission called the battle of ideas. Secondly, increasing economic support for Islamic countries in need such as Pakistan and Yemen where we need to build schools other than those that teach killing. Thirdly, the bill creates a national commission to preserve our civil liberties. This is very different than what the president signed in his executive order which was an in-house panel made up of people from within the administration who would only comment on civil liberties when asked. This legislation creates an independent commission with the power of subpoena to have oversight on all U.S. Government activities that might infringe on our civil liberties. This brings me to the title of my book. I often get asked at events like this why the title of the book is Against All Enemies. It is because I fear that people are using the threat of terrorism to undermine our civil liberties. And, therefore, I think we need to remind people of the oath of office that the president has taken and that all federal officials have taken. An oath of office written in the constitutional convention in Philadelphia over 200 years ago. An oath of office that requires federal officials to say that they will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We all hope there will never be another terrorist attack in the United States. But there could be, since we have not eliminated the terrorist threat. Instead, we have gone off and made it worse by invading Iraq. There could be, because we are stimulating people to join terrorist organizations by our activities in Iraq. There could be because we are spending money destroying Iraq rather than creating homeland security here at home. And if there is another terrorist attack, there will be people in the Congress who will attempt to use that terrorist attack as a basis for a Patriot Act 2, which will erode our civil liberties if passed. So the one thing I ask all of you tonight, is that if that happens, if there is another terrorist attack, this time let us react differently than we did after 9/11 when we all closed ranks and all shut our mouths and shut our minds. Let us the next time remind federal officials of their oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

AMY GOODMAN: Former Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke speaking in New York last night as the House voted to overhaul the nation's intelligence system.


-------- un

Annan to 'carry on' work, rejects calls to step down

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Betsy Pisik
December 08, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041208-120404-9327r.htm

NEW YORK - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday rejected a new spate of calls in the U.S. Congress for his resignation over the oil-for-food scandal that permitted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to undermine U.S. anti-terrorism efforts at the United Nations.     

"I have quite a lot of work to do, and I'm carrying on with my work," he told reporters prior to his monthly luncheon with the U.N. Security Council.     

"We have a major agenda next year, and the year ahead, trying to reform this organization. So we'll carry on," said Mr. Annan, who has two years remaining in his term as the top U.N. diplomat.     

His remarks came a day after at least 20 members of the House - 19 Republicans and one Democrat - called for Mr. Annan's resignation and a separate group of Republicans circulated legislation that would tie U.S. funding for the United Nations to the organization's cooperation with investigators.     

Outside the United States, Mr. Annan won backing from French President Jacques Chirac and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who telephoned Mr. Annan to offer their support from a meeting in Spain.     

"At a time when some voices whose underlying motives are open to question are trying to call into question the merits ... of Mr. Kofi Annan, all of us in Europe, and indeed in Africa and Asia, consider it legitimate to express our gratitude and our friendship to the U.N. secretary-general," Mr. Chirac said of the call.     

Neither leader addressed the oil-for-food scandal at length. Saddam siphoned up to $21 billion from the U.N.-administered program from 1996 until his ouster in 2003 - and funneled some of the cash to opponents of the United States on the U.N. Security Council.     

A number of European leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, earlier had backed Mr. Annan amid growing U.S. criticism of his handling of the oil-for-food investigation.     

The 53-nation African Union also has issued a letter of support for Mr. Annan, who hails from Ghana and has spent nearly his entire adult life working in the U.N. system.     

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth yesterday declined to offer support for the secretary-general, but he did stress the need for a full investigation, without prejudice for the outcome.     

"An investigation is going on in a very serious manner involving fraud, bribery, and that investigation must be conducted in a very full manner, and it must be conducted with an open mind," Mr. Danforth said.     

"You can't conduct a fair and full investigation, if, before it even takes place, or before it's completed, you're already proclaiming that various people are involved or not involved," Mr. Danforth said.     

President Bush has demanded "full disclosure" from the United Nations, but has declined to address the issue of whether Mr. Annan should resign.     

Some of the U.S. opposition to Mr. Annan, especially among conservatives in Congress, is driven by his resistance to the 2003 Iraq war and his recent insistence that the U.S.-led invasion was "illegal."     

Moreover, the possibility that money skimmed by Saddam could be funding Iraqi insurgents who continue to kill U.S. troops has sparked concern on both sides of the aisle.     

There are least five congressional inquiries into aspects of the oil-for-food program, plus an internal U.N. investigation headed by former U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker.     

Mr. Annan's son Kojo worked in West Africa for a Swiss firm, Cotecna, which inspected goods for the program and is under investigation.     

Washington pays more than 20 percent of the regular U.N. operating budget and has a slightly larger share of peacekeeping assessments. It is also the largest contributor to many of the U.N. aid agencies.     

U.N. officials and Mr. Annan's supporters have fended off calls for Mr. Annan's resignation by urging critics to wait for a report by Mr. Volcker's team.     

Mr. Annan's office has directed all offices and employees to cooperate fully with Mr. Volcker's inquiry. 


-------- us

Iraq-Bound Troops Confront Rumsfeld Over Lack of Armor

The New York Times

By ERIC SCHMITT

December 8, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/international/middleeast/08cnd-rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=2986b1ecda6b4645&hp&ex=1102568400&oref=login&partner=homepage

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait, Dec. 8 - In an extraordinary exchange at this remote desert camp, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld found himself on the defensive today, fielding pointed questions from Iraq-bound troops who complained that they were being sent into combat with insufficient protection and aging equipment.

Specialist Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit scheduled to roll into Iraq this week, said soldiers had to scrounge through local landfills here for pieces of rusty scrap metal and bulletproof glass - what they called "hillbilly armor" - to bolt on to their trucks for protection against roadside bombs in Iraq.

"Why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" Specialist Wilson asked Mr. Rumsfeld, drawing cheers and applause from many of the 2,300 troops assembled in a cavernous hangar here to meet the secretary. Mr. Rumsfeld responded that the military was producing extra armor for Humvees and trucks as fast as possible.

A few minutes later, a soldier from the Idaho National Guard's 116th Armor Cavalry Brigade asked Mr. Rumsfeld what he and the Army were doing "to address shortages and antiquated equipment" National Guard soldiers heading to Iraq were struggling with.

Mr. Rumsfeld seemed taken aback by the question and a murmur began spreading through the ranks before he silenced them. "Now settle down, settle down," he said. "Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here."

He said all organizations had equipment, materials and spare parts of different vintages, but he expressed confidence that Army leaders were assigning the newest and best equipment to the troops headed for combat who needed it most.

Nonetheless, he warned that equipment shortages would probably continue to bedevil some American forces entering combat zones like Iraq. "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Moreover, he said, adding more armor to trucks and battle equipment did not make them impervious to enemy attack. "If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up," he said. "And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up."

It was difficult to gauge the scope and seriousness of the equipment problems cited by the two soldiers and by several others in interviews after Mr. Rumfeld's remarks and the question period. A senior officer in Specialist Wilson's unit, Col. John Zimmerman, said later that 95 percent of the unit's more than 300 trucks had insufficient armor.

Senior Army generals here said they were not aware of widespread shortages and insisted that all vehicles heading north from this staging area 12 miles south of the Iraqi border would have adequate armor. "It's not a matter of money or desire," Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb, the commander of Army forces in the Persian Gulf, told the troops after Mr. Rumsfeld asked him to address Specialist Wilson's question. "It's a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it."

But the complaints voiced by the soldiers here are likely to reinvigorate the debate that the Bush administration failed to anticipate the kind of tenacious insurgency now facing troops in Iraq, and that the Pentagon is still struggling to provide enough such basic supplies as body armor and fortified Humvees and other vehicles.

In October, members of an Army Reserve unit disobeyed orders to deliver fuel to a base in Iraq, complaining that their vehicles had not been properly outfitted. Earlier this month, the Army raised its goal for replacing regular Humvee utility vehicles in Iraq with armored versions, to 8,000 vehicles from 4,000.

The soldiers' concerns here may also rekindle deep-held suspicions among many National Guard and Reserve troops that they are receiving equipment inferior to what their active-duty counterparts get, despite assurances from senior Army officials that all Army troops are treated equitably.

Some 10,000 soldiers, many of whom are reservists from Oregon, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina, are here on their way to one-year tours in Iraq or passing through this camp on their way home after serving their stints. 

That some soldiers would dare confront Mr. Rumsfeld directly on the readiness and equipment issue in such a public setting was highly unusual. In his town-hall style meetings with troops, Mr. Rumsfeld usually gets general policy questions or very specific complaints about pay or benefits.

But in interviews afterward, the equipment issue resonated with many soldiers and commanders here. Specialist Blaze Crook, 24, from Cleveland, Tenn., said he and other members of his Tennessee National Guard felt shorthanded going into their mission in Iraq. "I don't think we have enough troops going in to do the job," said Specialist Crook, who is a truck driver.

In an interview, Specialist Wilson said the question he asked Mr. Rumsfeld was one that had been on the minds of many men in his unit, the 1st Squadron, 278th Regimental Combat Team. "I'm a soldier and I'll do this on a bicycle if I have to, but we need help," said Specialist Wilson, 31, who served on active duty in the Air Force for six years, including in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, before leaving the military, and then re-enlisting in the National Guard after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Col. John Zimmerman, the staff judge advocate for the 278th combat team, said in an interview that the unit's Humvees were sufficiently armored, but that most of its heavy trucks were not. He said that Army supply officials had given the unit 70 tons of steel plates to attach to their vehicles, but that it was not enough.

Colonel Zimmerman suggested that the Army would not have let this happen to an active-duty unit about to deploy into Iraq. "We've got two Armies," he said. "We've got the active-duty and we've got the National Guard. We're proud to serve. We just want what everyone else has. We're not asking for anything more."

When asked about the soldiers' complaints, General Whitcomb's deputy, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, acknowledged in an interview that many vehicles would head north from here into Iraq without the bulletproof windshields or the Kevlar flooring that protect against bombs exploding underneath Humvees or trucks. General Speer said many vehicles were not armored because they would be assigned duties inside headquarters compounds where there was virtually no threat of roadside bombs.

General Speer said a special unit here at Camp Buehring removes the extra armor on vehicles that have left Iraq and re-attaches it to vehicles going into the country. "We've got a lot of work to do," he said. "There's a lot of people working around the clock to meet the concerns those soldiers raised."

Colonel Zimmerman said he appreciated the efforts by Army supply officials here, but he and his troops said they could not help but fume at the sight of the fully "up-armored" Humvees and heavy trucks set out on display here for Mr. Rumsfeld's visit.

"What you see out here isn't what we've got going north with us," he said. 

-----

Secretary Rumsfeld Town Hall Meeting in Kuwait

U.S. Department of Defense
December 8, 2004

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html

SEC. RUMSFELD:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  My goodness.  What a group this is.  Impressive gathering.  General Steve Whitcomb, thank you so much for your kind words.  Sergeant Major Kellman, it's good to see you again.  I appreciate your able leadership as well.  First, I want to say thank you to each of you, to your families for your superb service to our country.  You are doing noble work, it's vitally important work and your country is deeply grateful.

Today's December 8th.  Sixty three years ago today our nation declared war on an enemy that had launched a sneak attack on the United States and killed thousands of people.  I remember the day well.  I doubt that many of you do.  [Laughter]  Some six decades later, America faces another global conflict.  And as it was in 1941, a new generation of Americans has been asked to come to freedom's defense.  In recent times, we've witnessed the advance of freedom in nearly every region of the world.  In the joy of the reunited Germans dancing atop the crumbling Berlin Wall, after it was torn down.  If you think about, in today's papers, the passionate debate that's taking place over free elections in Ukraine.  And certainly, in the determination of the women who braved violence and cast their ballots in Afghanistan in what was the first ever democratic presidential election in the country's history.

Think of it, yesterday, December 7th, the inauguration of the first popularly elected president in Afghan's history.  I was there to see that historic event and I'll never forget it.  And all of you who serve in our military in all the coalition countries that assisted in Afghanistan will look back in five or ten or fifteen or twenty years and know that you were a part of something enormously important.  Twenty five million Afghan people liberated, voting, tears in their eyes, yesterday at the inauguration of Hamid Karzai.  And as you consider your service in Iraq, think also of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have volunteered to risk their lives, as you have to come to the defense of their newly liberated nation - a nation that was liberated by the coalition countries at the risk of their lives.

These pivotal moments in history would not have been possible, had it not been for the determination and the daring of America's founders.  And the generations of Americans who have advanced those freedoms at home and helped to nurture those freedoms abroad.  Now that duty falls to you or more correctly, and I think importantly, you have each volunteered to accept that duty and I know that you are up to the task.

Now I've been told something about who's here today.  Some of you are en route out, some of you are en route in, some of you are en route back in for the second time, I understand.  I'm told that the Task Force Liberty includes the Rainbow Division that broke  [Cheers]  I was told right.  That's the division that broke through the Siegfried Line in World War II and liberated Dachau.  And I believe it was a division that, decades later, came to the World Trade site within hours of the September 11th attacks.

The Swamp Fox Artillerymen [Cheers], they're a little slow on the draw.  [Laughter]  I understand you folks are flexible enough to become experts in military police-style convoy security.  Congratulations.  And the 699th Maintenance Mad Max Shop, is that right?  [Cheers]  Oh, good, it's an echo.  [Laughter]  I understand you folks have up-armored some 6,000 vehicles and we appreciate that a great deal.  And two maneuver brigades from the guard and many others, as well - Active, Guard, Reserve, even some sailors.

ARMED FORCE MEMBER:  Taos here sir.

SEC. RUMSFELD:  Where?  Where's a sailor?

ARMED FORCE MEMBER:  No, I said, "Taos, New Mexico," Sir.

SEC. RUMSFELD:  Oh, good.  Taos, New Mexico.  I know that place very well.  We've got some sailors and airmen and Marines and civilians here as permanent party, all working with the same commitment.  And for those nearing the end of your time in theater, know that you've done a superb job and I wish you the best, as you return home.  And welcome to any of you who've been here before, like the Red Legs of the 42nd Division Artillery from Massachusetts.

And America's fortunate to have some old pros back in the field.  You know, there are those who see the violence taking place in Iraq and there is violence, let there be no doubt.  The beheadings, the slaughtering of innocent men, women, the bombings and they say we can't prevail.  I see that violence and say we must win.  Think of a world - just think of a world in which the butchers and the murderers are allowed to prevail.  Think of what would happen if Iraq were to, again, be run by the extremists.

On this day, 63 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt ended his address on December 8, 1941 to the Congress by vowing that no matter how long it may take, we will not only defend ourselves to the utmost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.  In today's global conflict, the stakes are as high.  As before, it falls to you and to our country to win this test of wills and to see it through to victory.  I ask you all to remember this in the difficult, in the trying moments that you'll face.  There's perhaps no greater calling in life than doing what you are doing:  serving on freedom's front lines.

You know there are doubters and those who say it can't be done.  Well, there have always been doubters who have said it couldn't be done.  Think of Afghanistan only three years ago.  It was described after a few weeks as a quagmire.  People were aware that the Soviet Union had some 200,000 troops in Afghanistan and they lost after decades and thousands of lives.  Well, it's not a quagmire, it's a democracy.  It's a democracy of 25 million liberated Afghans and it's a democracy, thanks to many of you here and all across the globe who didn't listen to the doubters and believed it was possible and understood the important fact that the great sweep of human history is for freedom and freedom is on our side.  [Applause] [Cheers]

There is no finer legacy to bestow on future generations than being a part of the world's forward strategy for freedom and contributing to a safer and a more peaceful world and you are doing just that.  And for that I thank you.  God bless you all.  I am confident that I'll have other chances to say this, but just know this for a fact - there is nothing more important for you than to understand - excuse me - understand how deeply grateful the American people are to you for what you do, indeed, for what you volunteer to do and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.  God bless you all.  [Applause]

Now the General said you can ask tough questions [Laughter] and you can.  And I'll answer the questions that I know the answers to.  And I'll have the General answer the ones that I don't.  [Laughter]  Now this is quite a sight.  I wish all of you could be right up here and look out at this fabulous array of soldiers and sailors and airmen, Marines.  Well, who's got the first question?  Who has a microphone?  Are there any microphones?  There's a microphone, there's a microphone.  There's a couple.  What you might want to do is get near a microphone.  And we could save some time and I can answer some questions.  And when a microphone person has a person with a question, why don't you put your hand up, so I can see you.  There you go.  Yes, sir.

Q:  Good morning, sir.  My name is Staff Sergeant Donald Ross (sp) from Bravo Company 6 of the 7th Signal Battalion.  Yes, sir.  My question is with numerous troops deploying and numerous troops preparing to deploy, what is your plan to maintain a balance between units deploying overseas and units back at home to maintain an adequate fighting force in case of possible terror attacks?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  Well, it's a good question.  And what we do is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the vice chairman and the chiefs review all the deployments in what we call "a tank," which is a room where they meet in the Pentagon and they constantly are looking to see that the United States of America has the capability to fulfill the assigned missions that it has.  And I can assure you that as troops are activated, alerted, activated, deployed, demobilized as active forces are deployed and redeployed, all of that is looked at in the context of the several contingencies that conceivably could occur in the world that the United States would have to be prepared for and that let there be no doubt, we have 1.4 million men and women in uniform in the active force.

We have something like 865,000 in the Active Reserves, the Selective Reserves.  And we have something like 450,000 in the Individual Ready Reserves.  We have in this AOR - Area of Responsibility - today, something in the neighborhood of - for the sake of argument - 200,000.  That's 200,000 out of 1.4 million plus 600,000 and so well over 2.5 million people who we can call on at any given time.  So you can be sure that we have the capability we need.  There are elements of the force, however, that have been stressed and we read a lot about that and we hear a lot about that on television and it's a fact.  And the reason some elements of the force have been stressed is not because we have too few total forces, it's because we have not had the right balance between the Active and Reserve.  We've not had the right skill sets.  And some skill sets and some capabilities have been overused, by my characterization.  That is to say they've been used more than otherwise would have been necessary if we'd had the proper balance.  But no one in the world should think that because of the fact that we have some stresses in portions of the force and that because we have a large number - 200,000 - deployed to the CentCom Area of Responsibility, that our country is not capable of fulfilling any conceivable contingency because, in fact, we are.  Thank you.

Question, right here.

Q:  Yes, sir.  My question is after the January 30th elections and the Iraqi government in place, what is the plan for the U.S. forces in a post-democratic Iraq?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  The president has indicated that his intent and indeed, the other members of the coalition have indicated that what we need to do is to have the appropriate number of forces in Iraq to help create an environment for them to succeed in moving their country off the path of a dictatorship towards a democracy and towards a country that's at peace with its neighbors and that they ought to be there, as long as they're necessary, but not one day longer.  Now that means that the facts on the ground will determine what will happen.  And it's hard to predict precisely what will take place, but there's a strong belief on most of our parts, including this individual, that once the Iraqis begin having their elections, which they're scheduled for next year, that the people of Iraq will see that they have a stake in the future of that country and that they will then begin to assume greater and greater responsibility for the management of their country.

Their security forces, as I mentioned earlier, are - oh, they're now up to something like 110[000], 120,000 -- up from zero.  And they are putting their lives at risk as well.  Indeed, a large number of security forces - Iraqi security forces have been killed.  But they're being trained rapidly, they're standing in line and the goal is to have them prepare to take over the security responsibility.  So one would anticipate that after the elections and as the security forces grow, you'll see a reduction in the forces of the coalition countries and that's the hope and that's the expectation.  The pace of that, however, is dependant completely on what the facts on the ground are.

Thank you.  Yes, sir.

Q:  Yes, Mr. Secretary.  My question is more logistical.  We've had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we've always staged here out of Kuwait.  Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?  [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD:  I missed the first part of your question.  And could you repeat it for me?

Q:  Yes, Mr. Secretary.  Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years.  A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon.  Our vehicles are not armored.  We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat.  We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD:  I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored.  They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed.  I'm told that they are being - the Army is - I think it's something like 400 a month are being done.  And it's essentially a matter of physics.  It isn't a matter of money.  It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire.  It's a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have.  They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.  Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe - it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip.  It's interesting, I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon.  And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.  And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up.  And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops.  And that is what the Army has been working on.

And General Whitcomb, is there anything you'd want to add to that?

GEN. WHITCOMB:  Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I'd be happy to.  That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan.  As the secretary has said, it's not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it.  The 699th, the team that we've got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles.  But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.

SEC. RUMSFELD:  The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees.  They're not there anymore.  [Cheers] [Applause]  They're en route out here, I can assure you.  Next.  Way in the back.  Yes.

Q:  Staff Sergeant Kobeck (sp) with Charlie Company 171 Aviation.  With the recent success of the elections in Afghan, what message will you take back to the States to the people that say we couldn't get it done?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  Well, I guess the short answer is you folks did get it done in Afghanistan.  And it was a breathtaking, thrilling moment to be there yesterday and to see that inauguration and to see the first popularly elected president take his oath of office and to hear the stories that he told - the stories of women who left maternity areas in their homes, having just had babies to go in and vote, people who got up at three in the morning and walked in the cold to get there to vote, individuals who were standing in line in a voting area and 100 meters away there was a explosion where some Taliban were trying to disrupt the elections and the people stayed right in line and voted.  And that says something about the power of freedom.  It says something about the desire on the part of human beings.  And when people constantly look at what's going on and find everything they can say - take Iraq, there's a lot not right in Iraq.  That's a fact and we know that and people are being killed and people are being wounded.

And when you visit with the wounded in Walter Reed and Bethesda your heart goes out to them.  But I can tell you, they're proud of what they've been doing.  They know what they're doing is important.  They believe in what they're doing.  Their families believe in what they're doing.  And it is a - I mean, the other side of the coin is this:  In Iraq, there are 25 million people who were living under a vicious dictator with killing fields, mass graves.  And today the schools are open, the clinics are open, the hospitals are open, the stock markets open.  People have an opportunity.

I was with one of the leaders of a Gulf country and I suppose it's not for me to talk about a private meeting.  But he looked at me and he said:  You know, you Americans have sent the finest young men and women from your country over to Iraq -- this is a neighbor of Iraq - and you've sent them over there to free those 25 million people and you've liberated those 25 million people and you've opened the schools and you've opened the hospitals.  And now it's up to the Iraqi people.  And the Iraqi people are going to have to pick up and grab a hold of their country and make that country work.  In the last analysis, you can't do that for someone else.  All you can do is create an environment that allows them to do that.  And that's what's happening.  That's what's taking place.  And is it perfect, no.  Is it ugly from time to time, yes.  It is dangerous, you bet your life, it is.  But God bless the people who've done it and who are doing and who are giving those 25 million people the opportunity to be free and to be liberated and to have opportunities they never could have thought of under that vicious dictator.  [Applause]  Question.

Q:  Yes, sir.  Specialist Anderson, Alpha Company, 2nd Platoon.  And my question is I was curious to know why I, as a single soldier, cannot enlist in the regular Army, but I can enlist in the National Guard and be deployed with a family care plan?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  Your voice was dropping off on me and I've got an aviator's ear.

Q:  Yes, sir.   I was wanting to know why I cannot enlist as a single parent in the regular Army, but I can enlist in the National Guard and be deployed?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  I don't have the vaguest idea.  But by golly, we're looking for folks in the Army.  You ought to be able to enlist in the Army and I'll try and figure out how in the world you ought to be able to do it.  [Applause]  We want people who want to serve and we've got 'em and God bless you for it.  Yes.

Q:  Mr. Secretary, Specialist McKobiak (sp), 116th Calvary Brigade.  My question is what is the Department of Defense, more specifically, the Army side of the house, doing to address shortages and antiquated equipment that National Guard soldiers, such as the 116th Calvary Brigade and the 278th ACR are going to roll into Iraq with?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  The - now settle down.  Settle down.  [Laughter]  Hell, I'm an old man and it's early in the morning.  I didn't take - just gathering my thoughts here.  In any organization you're going to have equipment and materials and spare parts of different ages.  And I am told - and no way I can prove it, but I'm told - that the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not a differentiation as to who gets what aged materials in the military, in the Army, as between the active force, the Guard and the Reserve.  I'm told that they are, instead, trying to see that the equipment goes to those that are in the most need and who are most likely to be using it - the equipment.  And that varies among the Guard and Reserve and the active force.  So any organization, any element of the Army is going to end up, at some point, with - you characterize it as "antiquated."  I would say the older equipment, whatever it may be, in any category.  Somebody is always going to be at that level as things are constantly replaced.  And things are being constantly replaced.  I mean, I believe them when they tell me that they have made a major effort to see that they're dealing equitably as between the forces and seeing that the ones who are likely to be going into combat and have the greatest needs are the ones that have the best equipment.  Yes, sir.

Q:  Chaplain Malone (sp), the 642nd Aviation Support Battalion.  Mr. Secretary, my job is to support the spiritual fitness of the soldiers that you see in the room today.  I am also here to support the morale of these soldiers.  And the soldiers that you see here today have asked me to ask you this question on their behalf.  Would you be kind enough, sir, to put us on your aircraft today and take us to Disneyland?  [Cheers]

SEC. RUMSFELD:  [Laughter] Oh, Chaplain, you did it.  [Laughter] You asked it, you knocked it right out of the park and the answer is sorry.  [Laughter] We've got more important things for you to do [Laughter] and we appreciate it.  We've got time for a couple more questions right here.

Q:  Yes, Mr. Secretary, Specialist McCullough (sp), Alpha Company 1st of the 112th Infantry.  There's a lot of soldiers here from Western Pennsylvania and we were wondering if we were going to be given the opportunity to watch the Steelers win the Super Bowl this year?  [Cheers] [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD:  I can't answer the question about outcomes [Laughter], but General, they're going to have access to the…

GEN. WHITCOMB:  Absolutely, sir.

SEC. RUMSFELD:  Yes, you'll have access to the television, but you're going to have to figure out a way to encourage that to happen.  [Laughter]  Yes.

Q:  Mr. Secretary, Lieutenant Colonel Alan Kronolog (sp).  I'm the Inspector General for the 116th Brigade Combat team.  We're helping - or trying to help about 150 soldiers get their contingency travel pay.  We've gone through the chain of command; we've tried IG channels.  These soldiers have gone - some since July - without getting travel pay.  Thousands of dollars, they're having creditors call them at home, call their spouses at home, threatening collection action.  We have a big problem.  There seems to be a problem with the Defense Finance Accounting Service.  Can you help us to understand that problem, Mr. Secretary or even better, can you point us to a resource that will help us get these soldiers paid?  [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD:  Can someone here get the details of the unit he's talking about?  That's just not right.  Folks have earned money and are due money, ought to be able to get the money and they ought not to have to put their families under stress while they're waiting for the money.  Thank you.  [Applause]  We'll take a note and see what we can do.  Yes, sir.

Q:  Specialist Skarwin (Sp?) HHD 42nd Engineer Brigade.  Mr. Secretary [Cheers] my question is with the current mission of the National Guard and Reserves being the same as our active duty counterparts, when are more of our benefits going to line up to the same as theirs, for example, retirement?  [Cheers] [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD:  [Laughter] I can't imagine anyone your age worrying about retirement.  [Laughter]  Good grief.  It's the last thing I want to do is retire.  The pay and benefits for the Guard and the Reserve relative to the active force have been going up unevenly at a rate faster than the active force.  If you go back over four years - matter of fact, I just went over this with the senior person in the department who looks at pay and benefits.  And apparently, what's happened is that for a variety of reasons, the incremental changes that are made each year, in terms of pay and benefits and health care and retirement and what have you, have brought the Guard and Reserve up at a faster level than the active force.  And what one has to do in managing the total force and the total force is critically important.  We need the Guard and Reserve as well as the active force.  And we have to see that we have the incentives arranged in a way that we can attract and retain the people that are needed to defend the country.  At the moment, we are doing well in terms of attracting and retaining the people we need.  And if anything, I think the data suggests that the Guard and Reserve forces had been advantaged relatively compared to the active force over the past four years.  Question.

Q:  Sergeant Carr (sp), 3 in the 116 Armored Cav from Oregon.  [Cheers] Mr. Secretary, with the recent re-election of our commander in chief to another term in office, the U.S. people sent a message to the world that we are committed to fight this war on terrorism.  Specifically, in regards to non-NATO countries, how has this message affected their posture or willingness to renegotiate their relationship with the United States?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  You know, you read an awful lot in the paper about different countries disagreeing on various things and there's a tendency, I think, for the press to play up controversy and differences.  But the reality is that since September 11th, the United States of America has put together a coalition of something like 85 or 90 nations, probably the largest coalition in the history of mankind.  We have had somewhere - we've had somewhere between 25 and 30 countries helping us in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  Those are large numbers of nations.

Now, why is that so important?  I think it's important because in the nature of the world today, there are so many things we can - no nation, certainly not the United States, but no nation on the face of the earth can do alone.  We have to have the cooperation of other countries.  You can't deal with, for example, the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the world alone.  You've got work with other countries.  In the case of the global war on terror, you have to share intelligence.  You have to cooperate in terms of the movement of people and money across borders.  If you're going to put enough pressure on the terrorist networks, which are truly global in nature, if you're going to put enough pressure on them, you simply have to cooperate with other countries.  My impression is that your question will be answered as we go through the coming weeks and months in the positive sense, that country after country that I've seen since the election - and I've been in Latin America in six countries, I've been over here since the election - and in every instance, I find countries cooperating, leaning forward, understanding the threat that exists in the world in wanting to work with the United States.  We'll make that the last question.  Right there.

Q:  Good morning, sir.  Staff Sergeant Latazinsky (sp), 1st COSCOM (sp), Fort Bragg, [Cheers] North Carolina.  Yes, sir.  My husband and myself, we both joined a volunteer Army.  Currently, I'm serving under the Stop Loss Program.  I would like to know how much longer do you foresee the military using this program?

SEC. RUMSFELD:  The Stop Loss has been used by the military for years and years and years.  It's all well understood when someone volunteers to join the service.  It is something that you prefer not to have to use, obviously, in a perfect world.  But if you think about it, the whole principle of stop loss is based on unit cohesion.  And the principle is that in the event that there is something that requires a unit to be involved and people are in a personal situation where their time was ending, they put a stop loss on it, so that the cohesion can be maintained.  It's basically a sound principle.  It's nothing new.  It's been well understood.  It's been used as little as possible.  And my guess is that it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used.

Folks, I am very grateful to all of you.  I am so pleased that I was able to come and say hello and to thank you.  I wish you Godspeed, as you do your important work.  Thank you very much.

[Applause]

-----

Former Marine Testifies to Atrocities in Iraq 
Unit Killed Dozens of Unarmed Civilians Last Year, Canadian Refugee Board Is Told

By Doug Struck
December 8, 2004 Washington Post

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/757152961.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&date=Dec+8%2C+2004&author=Doug+Struck&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Former+Marine+Testifies+to+Atrocities+in+Iraq%3B+Unit+Killed+Dozens+of+Unarmed+Civilians+Last+Year%2C+Canadian+Refugee+Board+Is+Told

TORONTO, Dec. 7 -- A former U.S. Marine staff sergeant testified at a hearing Tuesday that his unit killed at least 30 unarmed civilians in Iraq during the war in 2003 and that Marines routinely shot and killed wounded Iraqis.

Jimmy J. Massey, a 12-year veteran, said he left Iraq in May 2003 after a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress. He said he and his men shot and killed four Iraqis staging a demonstration and a man with his hands up trying to surrender, as well as women and children at roadblocks. Massey said he had complained to his superiors about the "killing of innocent civilians," but that nothing was done.

Massey, 33, of Waynesville, N.C., was the chief witness at a refugee board hearing for a U.S. Army deserter, Jeremy Hinzman, who is attempting to win asylum in Canada after he fled from Fort Bragg, N.C., rather than go to Iraq. Hinzman, 25, the first of at least three U.S. military deserters to apply for asylum here, argues that he refused to go to Iraq to avoid committing war crimes.

In Washington, a Marine Corps spokesman at the Pentagon said Massey's charges had been investigated and were unproved.

"We take such allegations very seriously," said Maj. Douglas Powell. "And Jimmy Massey, who is a former staff sergeant, out of the Corps, has made these statements before in the press. They've been looked into, and nothing has been substantiated."

Massey is a former Marine recruiter who served in Iraq as the staff sergeant for a platoon that ranged from 25 to 50 men. He testified that the killings occurred in late March or early April 2003 as his unit, the weapons company of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, moved northward to Baghdad and then beyond.

During one 48-hour period, Massey said under oath, his platoon set up roadblocks and killed "30-plus" civilians. He said his men, fearing suicide bombers, poured massive firepower into cars that did not stop as they approached the roadblocks. In each instance, he said, none of the cars was found to have contained explosives or arms.

"Why didn't the Iraqis stop? That is something that has plagued me every waking moment of the day," he said. He said they may have been confused by the Americans' gestures or thought that a warning shot was celebratory gunfire.

"I don't know if the Iraqi people thought we were celebrating their newfound freedom. But I do know we killed innocent civilians," Massey said. In one case, the driver of a car leaped out with his hands up. "But we kept firing. We killed him," Massey said. In another case, he and other Marines shot and killed four protesters near a checkpoint after a single incoming gunshot from an unknown source, he said. None of the protesters was found with arms.

The testimony of Massey, who was honorably discharged six months after his medical evacuation from Iraq, is the main surviving thrust of the strategy by Hinzman's attorney to put the Iraq war on trial at the refugee hearing. The asylum bids by Hinzman and two other servicemen are a dilemma for the Canadian government, which is seeking to repair relations with the Bush administration. Canada refused to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the war remains highly unpopular in Canada.

The government won a ruling that the legality of the Iraq war could not be an issue at the refugee hearing. But Hinzman's attorney, Jeffry House, has introduced testimonials and human rights reports to support Hinzman's claim that he would have been forced to violate the Geneva Conventions in Iraq.

Some of Hinzman's supporters, including House, are Vietnam-era draft dodgers. They compare Massey's testimony to the disclosure of the My Lai massacre of civilians in Vietnam.

Hinzman, who served a tour in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division, had applied for a transfer to a noncombat position in the Army. When that was rejected and his division was ordered to Iraq, Hinzman drove from Fort Bragg to Canada in January with his wife and infant son.

The family is living in a basement apartment in Toronto while their request is heard. If it is rejected, Hinzman has said, they expect to file appeals in the Canadian courts.

Staff writer Christopher Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

 -----

Air Force 'failed' to deal with assaults

ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 08, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041207-112228-7453r.htm

    The Pentagon's inspector general said a series of commanders at the Air Force Academy failed to recognize and deal with reports of sexual assaults against female cadets on campus, officials said yesterday.

    "We conclude that the overall root cause of the sexual-assault problems at the Air Force Academy was the 'failure of successive chains of command over the past 10 years to acknowledge the severity of the problem,' " Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz wrote in a memo on Friday to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, quoting his own report.

    "Consequently, they failed to initiate and monitor adequate corrective measures to change the culture until recently," Mr. Schmitz wrote.

    Last year, nearly 150 women came forward with accusations that they had been sexually assaulted by fellow cadets from 1993 to 2003. Many said they were punished, ignored or ostracized by commanders for speaking out.

    Mr. Schmitz's full report was not released. A summary blamed - but didn't name - eight Air Force officials for their roles in the program that oversaw sexual-assault reporting at the academy.

    In a press conference, David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the Pentagon would soon implement a militarywide policy protecting the confidentiality of people who report being sexually assaulted.

    "First and foremost, we want victims to come forward for help," Mr. Chu said.

    Outside investigations concluded that the culture of the academy created conditions that contributed to the problem. That included lingering resistance to having female cadets at all: Last year, a survey of cadets found that 22 percent did not think women belonged at the academy, more than a quarter of a century after women first were admitted.

    Academy officials say matters have improved since the assaults came to light.

    The Schmitz report said academy leaders should have been better role models and should have kept a closer watch on their commands.

    The Air Force also released a second report, from its own inspector general, which found that formal investigations of sexual assault at the academy generally were handled properly.

    Mr. Chu, however, said, "The problem is deeper than handling of individual cases."

    Lt. Gen.T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, the Air Force's vice chief of staff, noted that all senior leaders at the academy had been replaced since the accusations became known.

    The military has had to deal with sexual-assault issues across the services.

    In May, a Pentagon task force found that victims of rape and other forms of sexual assault in the military too often have suffered additionally from a lack of support from commanders, criminal investigators and doctors.

    The report, ordered in February by Mr. Rumsfeld after a number of sexual assaults against soldiers in the Iraqi theater surfaced, described inconsistencies throughout the military in the treatment and investigation of such assaults. 

-------- 

Deserters: We Won't Go To Iraq

cbsnews.com
Dec. 8, 2004

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml
	
(CBS) The Pentagon says more than 5,500 servicemen have deserted since the war started in Iraq.

60 Minutes Wednesday found several of these deserters who left the Army or Marine Corps rather than go to Iraq. Like a generation of deserters before them, they fled to Canada.

What do these men, who have violated orders and oaths, have to say for themselves? They told Correspondent Scott Pelley that conscience, not cowardice, made them American deserters. "I was a warrior. You know? I always have been. I’ve always felt that way -- that if there are people who can’t defend themselves, it’s my responsibility to do that," says Pfc. Dan Felushko, 24.

It was Felushko's responsibility to ship out with the Marines to Kuwait in Jan. 2003 to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Instead, he slipped out of Camp Pendleton, Calif., and deployed himself to Canada.

"I didn’t want, you know, 'Died deluded in Iraq' over my gravestone," says Felushko. "If I'd gone, personally, because of the things that I believed, it would have felt wrong. Because I saw it as wrong, if I died there or killed somebody there, that would have been more wrong."

He told Pelley it wasn't fighting that bothered him. In fact, he says he started basic training just weeks after al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington –- and he was prepared to get even for Sept. 11 in Afghanistan.

But Felushko says he didn't see a connection between the attack on America and Saddam Hussein.

"(What) it basically comes down to, is it my right to choose between what I think is right and what I think is wrong?" asks Felushko. "And nobody should make me sign away my ability to choose between right and wrong."

But Felushko had signed a contract to be with the U.S. Marine Corps. "It's a devil's contract if you look at it that way," he says.

How does he feel about being in Toronto while other Marines are dying in Fallujah, Najaf and Ramadi?

"It makes me struggle with doubt, you know, about my decision," says Felushko.

What does he say to the families of the American troops who have died in Iraq?

"I honor their dead. Maybe they think that my presence dishonors their dead. But they made a choice the same as I made a choice," says Felushko. "My big problem is that, if they made that choice for anything other than they believed in it, then that's wrong. Right? And the government has to be held responsible for those deaths, because they didn’t give them an option." Felushko’s father is Canadian, so he has dual citizenship, and he can legally stay in Canada. But it’s not that easy for other American deserters.

Canadian law has changed since the Vietnam era. Back then, an estimated 55,000 Americans deserted to Canada or dodged the draft. And in those days, Canada simply welcomed them.

But today’s American deserters, such as Brandon Hughey, will need to convince a Canadian immigration board that they are refugees.

Hughey volunteered for the Army to get money for college. He graduated from high school in San Angelo, Texas, just two months after the president declared war in Iraq.

What did he think about the case for going to war? "I felt it was necessary if they did have these weapons, and they could end up in our cities and threaten our safety," says Hughey. "I was supportive. At first, I didn't think to question it."

He says at first, he was willing to die "to make America safe." And while Hughey was in basic training, he didn't get much news. But when he left basic training, he started following the latest information from Iraq.

"I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destruction. They were beginning to come out and say it's not likely that we will find any -- and the claim that they made about ties to al Qaeda was coming up short, to say the least," says Hughey. "It made me angry, because I felt our lives were being thrown away as soldiers, basically."

When Hughey got orders for Iraq, he searched the Internet and found Vietnam era war resisters willing to show him the way north. In fact, they were willing to drive him there, and a Canadian television news camera went along.

Hughey had an invitation to stay with a Quaker couple that helped Americans avoid the draft during Vietnam. From Fort Hood, Texas, to St. Catherine's in Ontario, Canada, Hughey crossed the border, duty free.

Pelley read letters about Hughey's desertion that were sent to the editor of a San Antonio newspaper.

"It makes me sad to know that there's that much hate in the country," says Hughey. "Before I joined the Army, I would have thought the same way. Anyone who said no to a war, I would have thought them a traitor and a coward. So, in that essence, I'm thankful for this experience, because it has opened my eyes and it has taught me not to take things on the surface."

However, he adds: "I have to say that my image of my country always being the good guy, and always fighting for just causes, has been shattered."

Hughey, and other deserters, will be represented before the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board by Toronto lawyer Jeffry House.

His clients will have to prove that, if they are returned to the United States, they wouldn't just be prosecuted for what they did -– they would be also be persecuted. How will House make that claim?

"People should have a right to say, 'I'm not fighting in that war. That's an illegal war. There's illegal stuff going on the ground. I'm not going,'" says House. "And anyone who says soldiers should go to jail if they don't fight in an illegal war is persecuting them."

And it’s something House has experience with. In 1969, he graduated from the University of Wisconsin, got drafted, and spent the rest of his life in Canada.

House's legal strategy will focus on his contention that President Bush is not complying with international law. But how will he defend volunteers who signed a contract?

"The United States is supposed to comply with treaty obligations like the U.N. charter, but they don’t," says House. "When the president isn’t complying with the Geneva Accords or with the U.N. charter, are we saying, 'Only the soldier who signed up when he was 17 -- that guy has to strictly comply with contract? The president, he doesn’t have to?' I don’t think so. I don’t think that is fair." The first deserter to face the Canadian refugee board is likely to be Spc. Jeremy Hinzman of Rapid City, S.D. He joined the military in Jan. 2001, and was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne.

He wanted a career in the military, but over time, he decided he couldn’t take a life. "I was walking to chow hall with my unit, and we were yelling, 'Train to kill, kill we will,' over and over again," recalls Hinzman. "I kind of snuck a peek around me and saw all my colleagues getting red in the face and hoarse yelling -- and at that point a light went off in my head and I said, 'You know, I made the wrong career decision.'"

But Hinzman said he didn’t want to get out of the Army: "I had signed a contract for four years. I was totally willing to fulfill it. Just not in combat arms jobs."

While at Fort Bragg, Hinzman says he filled out the forms for conscientious objector status, which would let him stay in the Army in a non-combat job.

While he waited for a decision, he went to Afghanistan and worked in a kitchen. But later, the Army told him he didn’t qualify as a conscientious objector, and he was ordered to fight in Iraq.

Hinzman decided to take his family to Canada, where he’s been living off savings accumulated while he was in the military.

Wasn't he supposed to follow orders? "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it," says Hinzman. "And I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do."

"But you can't have an Army of free-thinkers," says Pelley. "You wouldn't have an Army."

"No, you wouldn't. I think there are times when militaries or countries act in a collectively wrong way," says Hinzman. "I mean, the obvious example was during World War II. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy. I mean, he ranks up there with the bad ones. But was he a threat to the United States?

Still, isn't it worth fighting to free the people of Iraq? "Whether a country lives under freedom or tyranny or whatever else, that's the collective responsibility of the people of that country," says Hinzman. Hinzman and the other American deserters have become celebrities of sorts in the Canadian anti-war movement.

Only a few of the reported 5,500 deserters are in Canada, but House says he's getting more calls from nervous soldiers all the time.

Wouldn't the right and honorable thing for deserters to do be to go back to the United States, and turn themselves in to the Army?

"Why would that be honorable?" asks House. "(Deserters signed a contract) to defend the Constitution of the United States, not take part in offensive, pre-emptive wars. I don't think you should be punished for doing the right thing. What benefit is there to being a martyr? I don’t see any."

Hinzman began his hearing before the Canadian Immigration and Refugee board last Monday. But there's no telling when he'll find out if he'll be allowed to stay in Canada -- or be sent back to the United States to face the consequences.

The maximum penalty for deserting in wartime is death. But it's more typical for a soldier to draw a sentence of five years or less for deserting in wartime.



-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE

No Motive Found in Charles Arsons Eco-Terrorism, Racism Considered

Washington Post
By Michael E. Ruane and Joshua Partlow
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45121-2004Dec7.html

Investigators probing the sodden ruins at a Charles County subdivision where fires destroyed 10 unoccupied new houses said yesterday that they had found no clear evidence of a motive in Maryland's biggest residential arson case in memory.

"Nothing's been narrowed down," said Barry Maddox, a spokesman for the FBI, one of numerous county, state and federal agencies investigating the arsons, which caused an estimated $10 million in damage. The fires broke out about 5 a.m. Monday in the Hunters Brooke development in the Indian Head area and damaged more than a dozen unoccupied houses in addition to those that were destroyed.

Charles County Sheriff Frederick E. Davis said last night that arriving firefighters noticed a blue van heading away from the subdivision on Hunters Brooke Drive. He said investigators were trying to find the van's occupants to question them.

Davis said his office issued a bulletin about the van to sheriff's deputies and to Maryland State Police troopers patrolling in the county. "Right now we're looking at them possibly being a witness to anything that occurred," Davis said, adding that investigators do not consider the occupants of the van to be suspects.

Aaron Speed, 21, a guard with Security Services of America, which was hired by the developer to watch over construction sites at Hunters Brooke, said yesterday that he visited the guard on duty at the site at 3:30 a.m. Monday and saw the van. He said he could only see the driver and is not sure whether anyone else was in the van.

"It basically looked like they were trying to watch," he said, referring to the van. "I saw it lingering around. . . . It kept passing by the construction site entrance."

Officials said they had received no claim of responsibility for the fires, and no "calling card" was left at the scene, which yesterday was a dreary tableau of mud and blackened hulks.

Hunters Brooke, built near an ecologically sensitive bog, has been a focus of dispute between environmentalists and the regulators who allowed the subdivision to be built. Many of those who have settled in Hunters Brooke, or were planning to, are African Americans purchasing homes in the $400,000 to $500,000 range in a county that is mostly white.

Authorities said yesterday that they were unsure whether the fires were set as an act of environmental extremism, as a hate crime or for some other reason.

"We still just remain very open," Maddox said. "We're just conducting a logical investigation, and anything and everything that should be considered is being considered."

While authorities acknowledged that they knew how some of the fires were set, they declined to give specifics. "We will not speak to motive, nor will we speak to suspects or methodology," said W. Faron Taylor, Maryland's deputy fire marshal. "We have no evidence at this point that leads us to any specific individual or group."

Capt. Joseph C. Montminy of the sheriff's office said, "Obviously there were people that didn't want this development here, but who knows who would resort to this type of crime?"

Maddox said he knew of no pattern to the arson and no explanation of why some houses were burned and others were spared. "It's just basically going down a row of homes and maybe they skip one or two" before burning another, he said.

The Maryland state fire marshal's office remained in charge of the investigation, said Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He said the FBI would take over if a "definitive link to eco-terrorism" is found.

No Motive Found in Charles Arsons

Scores of investigators, including more than two dozen ATF agents, were working on the case, as were accelerant-detecting dogs from Anne Arundel and Prince Georges counties and the state fire marshal's office.

Officials had said Monday that 12 houses were destroyed and about 30 damaged, but yesterday they revised their assessment, saying 10 houses were destroyed and 16 damaged. They stayed with the original damage estimate of $10 million.

Investigators look over one of the houses damaged by arson in the Hunters Brooke development in the Indian Head area. (Susan Walsh -- AP)

Lennar Corp., the Miami-based developer of Hunters Brooke, purchased 100 lots in the proposed 308-acre development from the land's owners and was building houses in a planned 74-home section of the subdivision.

Dennis W. Smith, a senior fire expert with Kodiak Fire Safety Consultants of Fort Wayne, Ind., said that Monday's nearly simultaneous blazes constitute mass arson, as opposed to serial arson, in which there is typically an interval between blazes.

Smith, who is not involved in the Maryland investigation, said arson investigators initially look for the spot where the fire originated, then try to determine what part of the structure started to burn first. This can be hard when a house has burned to the ground, and the probe can become what is called a "black hole" investigation.

Ward Caddington Jr., a private fire investigator and arson expert who is retired from the Prince George's fire department, said homes under construction are common targets for arson. They are often in isolated areas, unoccupied and easy to get into, he said.

If the fire-retardant drywall that is used for interior walls and ceilings is not yet in place, a house's wood frame provides "a readily available fuel load," he said.

The motive can be anything. "Sometimes it's just pure vandalism," he said. "Sometimes it's people that like to see the fire department respond. It varies greatly."

Caddington said gasoline is the arsonist's preferred accelerant, because of its availability. It is highly unusual, though, to have so many homes torched at the same time.

He said investigators often check surveillance cameras at local gas stations "to see if somebody is buying gasoline at 2 a.m. in a container." Sometimes, Caddington said, the odor of gasoline can still be detected even after the fire is extinguished.

He said a arsonist working alone with a can of gasoline would not have much trouble starting a mass arson such as Monday's.

"It doesn't take long, if you're using a flammable liquid, because of the combustibility of the building," Caddington said. "Sometimes you can just pour multiple sites, then go back and light them off. . . . If you don't use a whole lot of accelerant, the fire starts small, and it takes a lot of time to grow," making the getaway easier.

Many of the new residents in the Hunters Brooke development are African American, and some wondered yesterday whether race might have been a motive in the case.

"I wouldn't be surprised if racism was really behind this," said Beverly Rowe, an immigrant from Jamaica. She and her husband, Everton, were only weeks away from moving into their new home.

No Motive Found in Charles Arsons

One resident reported that a racial slur was spray-painted on one property before the fires. But the sheriff's office said no report was filed about the alleged incident.

Montminy said that the number of racial, religious and ethnic crimes reported in the county has increased in recent years. But he said that might be attributable to the county's population growth. He also said such graffiti is typical at construction sites.

"Sometimes it's kids spray-painting swastikas or racial things, and a lot of times they don't even really know what it means -- not to discount the seriousness of it," he said.

The subdivision also was the focus of a long-running legal dispute involving environmentalists and developers over a local bog that environmentalists said was threatened by development.

Maddox, of the FBI, declined to say whether investigators were looking into the Earth Liberation Front or other extremist groups that have claimed responsibility for similar attacks.

"We're well aware of ELF and any other group that might have something to do with things like this, and we certainly would follow on logical investigative steps," he said.

Lennar Corp., one of the nation's largest home builders, was founded in 1954 and builds about 32,180 homes a year and has $9 billion in annual sales. Hunters Brooke is one of about 30 projects in the Washington area being built by Lennar.

Staff writers Sari Horwitz, Eric Rich, Hamil R. Harris, Amit Paley, David A. Fahrenthold and Arthur Santana and staff researcher Bobbye Pratt contributed to this report.


-------- courts / tribunals

Government: Evidence gained by torture allowed
Judges could rule soon on Guantanamo detainee suits

Cable News Network
December 8, 2004

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/02/guantanamo.detainees/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of foreigners as enemy combatants are allowed to use evidence gained by torture in deciding whether to keep them imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the government conceded in court Thursday.

The acknowledgment by Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle came during a U.S. District Court hearing on lawsuits brought by some of the 550 foreigners imprisoned at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The lawsuits challenge their detention without charges for up to three years so far.

Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon asked if a detention would be illegal if it were based solely on evidence gathered by torture, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."

Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals (or CSRTs) "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."

Leon asked if there were any restrictions on using evidence produced by torture.

Boyle replied the United States would never adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.

Evidence based on torture is not admissible in U.S. courts. "About 70 years ago, the Supreme Court stopped the use of evidence produced by third-degree tactics largely on the theory that it was totally unreliable," Harvard Law Professor Philip B. Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, said in an interview.
start quoteI don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo.end quote
-- Dep. Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle

Subsequent high court rulings were based on revulsion at "the unfairness and brutality of it and later on the idea that confessions ought to be free and uncompelled."

Leon asked if U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.

Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."

The CSRT panels, composed of three military officers, usually colonels or lieutenant colonels, were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees could ask U.S. courts to see to it that they had a proceeding in which to challenge their detention. They have finished reviewing the status of 440 of the prisoners but have released only one.

The military also set up an annual administrative review which considers whether the detainee still presents a danger to the United States but doesn't review enemy combatant status. Administrative reviews have been completed for 161.

Boyle argued these procedures are sufficient to satisfy the high court and the detainee lawsuits should be thrown out.

Noting that detainees cannot have lawyers at the CSRT proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, attorney Wes Powell argued "there is no meaningful opportunity in the CSRTs to rebut the government's claims."

Leon asked, however, "if the judiciary puts its nose into this, won't that lead us into reviewing decisions about who to target and even into the adequacy of information supporting the decision to seize a person?"

Leon said he thought an earlier Supreme Court ruling would limit judges to checking only on whether detention orders were lawfully issued and detention review panels were legally established.

Leon and Judge Joyce Hens Green, who held another hearing Wednesday on detainees' rights, said they will try to rule soon on whether the 59 detainees can proceed with their lawsuits.


-------- drug war

New York Lawmakers Partially Reform Harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws

democracynow.org
December 8th, 2004

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/08/1520214

Three decades after the state implemented the harshest drug laws in the country, lawmakers approved reworking part of the laws Tuesday. But critics say more needs to be done. Democratic State Senator Thomas Duane from Manhattan said, "It would be an unbelievable stretch to call this Rockefeller drug law reform." [includes rush transcript] The New York state legislature has agreed to partially reform part of the state's harsh Rockefeller drug laws that has imprisoned thousands of non-violent drug users over the past three decades.

While the new agreement reduces the minimum sentences of some drug offenses, critics of the drug laws said the changes in the law do not go far enough.

Critics have argued that judges should be given more discretion in sentencing and that some offenders should be allowed to avoid prison in favor of treatment. But neither of these reforms are included in the new bill.

Democratic State Senator Thomas Duane from Manhattan said "It would be an unbelievable stretch to call this Rockefeller drug law reform."

Currently drug offenders can be sentenced 15 years-to-life. Under the proposed agreement they would be sentenced 8 to 20 years. Roughly 400 inmates serving terms of 15-years or more would be allowed to seek reduced sentences under the new changes.

    * Jennifer Gonnerman, staff writer for the Village Voice and author of the book Life on the Outside: The Prison Odyssey of Elaine Bartlett. The book chronicles the life of Elaine Bartlett, who spent 16 years in prison for a non-violent drug offense. It was selected as a finalist for the 2004 National Book Award.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined now by Jennifer Gonnerman, staff writer for the Village Voice. Her book is called Life on the Outside: The Prison Odyssey of Elaine Bartlett. Some of you may remember when we had Elaine and Jennifer in the studio when the book first came out. It chronicles Elaine Bartlett's life who spent sixteen years in prison here in New York for non-violent drug offenses, and was selected as a finalist for the 2004 national book award. Welcome Jennifer.

JENNIFER GONNERMAN: Thank you for having me on.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response to this, can you call it Rockefeller drug law reform?

JENNIFER GONNERMAN: Well I think you just call it partial reform, and that might be the best phrase, the best way to characterize it. You know it goes sort of halfway, at least it's halfway as far as many activists were hoping, but not all the way there. One of the crucial things that didn't happen which was always the goal of many of the activists was to put the power back in the hands of the judges to decide, judicial discretion. And now still the prosecutors are the ones who are ultimately going to be determining the length of sentences. The sentences are still mandatory in New York State.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the length? Is it alone in the country?

JENNIFER GONNERMAN: Well there was a report that came out earlier this year that state Senator David Patterson put out showing that New York had the harshest, at that point the harshest drug laws in the country, particularly at the B level. That may no longer be true but some these sentences are still very long. First time offenders can still get eight to 20 years. OK, it's better than15 years to life but it's not, I think what a lot of activists had hoped for.

AMY GOODMAN: The New York Times quotes assembly speaker Sheldon Silver crediting a changed political landscape including the election of the new district attorney in Albany county, David Sores, who ran with the backing of the working families party on a platform seeking drug law changes. Has that made a difference?

JENNIFER GONNERMAN: I think that election was crucial to setting the tone for this year's conversation. I mean it was the, - David Sores is a young, he's a 34 year old African American former prosecutor who defeated his boss, in essence. Nobody thought he was going to win. And the fact that he did win, and he won on a campaign running against the Rockefeller drug laws, I mean it's almost unheard of somebody would run to be district attorney by criticizing the Rockefeller drug laws, but he did win and I think it sent a message to prosecutors across the state, to DAs across the state, that you could be vulnerable.

AMY GOODMAN: George Pataki In his State of the State Address has said the Rockefeller drug laws have to be reformed and yet it has taken years and even this we're still talking about putting people away for sentences that in many states do not do this, so extremely harsh sentences. What are some of the families saying of those? I know a few years ago some mothers said no, even if it would release or some family members who fight these drug laws, Mothers of the Disappeared, even if it would release our loved ones it's this tiny percentage of the people behind bars.

JENNIFER GONNERMAN: Right, well some of the people who have loved ones who've done you know 10, 12 years who stand to come home are obviously very happy. But you know there's other people, like I wrote about a woman for the Village Voice, Sharia Donahue, her son Ashley is doing 7 to 21 years in Clinton prison, first time offense, it's a B felony. I don't believe these laws would be retroactive for him, since it is a B level felony. And so he's not going - even though it was his first time offense he's still going to do the whole time. And I think there's a sense, also there's some thinking that's been changing within the reform community I think initially people thought if we don't get everything we want the first time we're never going to get reform. And I think now people have come to think well we have to imagine it in a more incremental way. We're going to get some reform this year, hopefully we will get more next year, and the next year. And if you think this is just a one shot deal I think it could be very disappointing but if you imagine it's the beginning of something. It's a beginning of dismantling or undoing the drug laws then I think that's a different way to think about it a little bit more optimistic.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you Jennifer Gonnerman for being with us. Staff writer for the Village Voice author of the book Life on the Outside: The Prison Odyssey of Elaine Bartlett. 



-------- homeland security / national intelligence

Secret Patriot Act II to give Hitler's Powers to Bush

Infowars.com

December 8, 2004

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/patriot2_hitler_powers_bush.htm

Alex wrote this back in 2003 and it won second place from Project Censored. We're glad that this story is still circulating -- it is as important and timely as ever. Now, the National ID Card and Patriot Act II have passed the house and is in the Senate.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times
that no member of Congress was allowed to read the
first Patriot Act that was passed by the House on
October 27, 2001. The first Patriot Act was
universally decried by civil libertarians and
Constitutional SECRET PATscholars from across the
political spectrum. William Safire, while writing for
the New York Times, described the first Patriot Act's
powers by saying that President Bush was seizing
dictatorial control.

On February 7, 2003 the Center for Public Integrity, a
non-partisan public interest think-tank in DC,
revealed the full text of the Domestic Security
Enhancement Act of 2003. The classified document had
been leaked to them by an unnamed source inside the
Federal government. The document consisted of a
33-page section by section analysis of the
accompanying 87-page bill.

The Patriot Act II bill itself is stamped
"Confidential -Not for Distribution." Upon reading the
analysis and bill, I was stunned by the scientifically
crafted tyranny contained in the legislation. The
Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs
admits that they had indeed covertly transmitted a
copy of the legislation to Speaker of the House Dennis
Hastert, (R-Il) and the Vice President of the United
States, Dick Cheney as well as the executive heads of
federal law enforcement agencies.

It is important to note that no member of Congress was
allowed to see the first Patriot Act before its
passage, and that no debate was tolerated by the House
and Senate leadership. The intentions of the White
House and Speaker Hastert concerning Patriot Act II
appear to be a carbon copy replay of the events that
led to the unprecedented passage of the first Patriot
Act.

There are two glaring areas that need to be looked at
concerning this new legislation:

1. The secretive tactics being used by the White House
and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this
legislation secret would be more at home in Communist
China than in the United States. The fact that Dick
Cheney publicly managed the steamroller passage of the
first Patriot Act, insuring that no one was allowed to
read it and publicly threatening members of Congress
that if they didn?t vote in favor of it that they
would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, is by
the White House?' own definition terrorism. The move
to clandestinely craft and then bully passage of any
legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an
impeachable offence.

2. The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers
that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves.
Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First,
Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously
damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot
Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well
as many areas of state government under the
dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the
Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM
military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement
Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by
its very structure the definition of dictatorship.

I challenge all Americans to study the new Patriot Act
and to compare it to the Constitution, Bill of Rights
and Declaration of Independence. Ninety percent of the
act has nothing to do with terrorism and is instead a
giant Federal power-grab with tentacles reaching into
every facet of our society. It strips American
citizens of all of their rights and grants the
government and its private agents total immunity.

Here is a quick thumbnail sketch of just some of the
draconian measures encapsulated within this tyrannical
legislation:

SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the
Bush administration'?s enemy combatant definition to
all American citizens who may have violated any
provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act.
(Section 802 is the new definition of domestic
terrorism, and the definition is any action that
endangers human life that is a violation of any
Federal or State law. ) Section 501 of the second
Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the
same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that
the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA
Patriot Act isn?t broad enough and that a new,
unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful
activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown
into a van never to be seen again. The Justice
Department states that they can do this because the
person had inferred from conduct that they were not a
US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA
Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or
State law can result in the enemy combatant terrorist
designation.

SECTION 201 of the second Patriot Act makes it a
criminal act for any member of the government or any
citizen to release any information concerning the
incarceration or whereabouts of detainees. It also
states that law enforcement does not even have to tell
the press who they have arrested and they never have
to release the names.

SECTION 301 and 306 (Terrorist Identification
Database) set up a national database of suspected
terrorists and radically expand the database to
include anyone associated with suspected terrorist
groups and anyone involved in crimes or having
supported any group designated as terrorist. These
sections also set up a national DNA database for
anyone on probation or who has been on probation for
any crime, and orders State governments to collect the
DNA for the Federal government.

SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging
in spying operations against the American people and
would place substantial restrictions on court
injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights
across the board.

SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as
foreign powers and again strip them of all rights
under the enemy combatant designation.

SECTION 102 states clearly that any information
gathering, regardless of whether or not those
activities are illegal, can be considered to be
clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign
power. This makes news gathering illegal.

SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use
wartime martial law powers domestically and
internationally without Congress declaring that a
state of war exists.

SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its
straightforwardness. It states that broad general
warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret
judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes
in an undisclosed location) granted under the first
Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that
government agents must be given immunity for carrying
out searches with no prior court approval. This
section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

SECTION 109 allows secret star chamber courts to issue
contempt charges against any individual or corporation
who refuses to incriminate themselves or others. This
sections annihilate the last vestiges of the Fifth
Amendment.

SECTION 110 restates that key police state clauses in
the first Patriot Act were not sunsetted and removes
the five year sunset clause from other subsections of
the first Patriot Act. After all, the media has told
us: this is the New America. Get used to it. This is
forever.

SECTION 111 expands the definition of the enemy
combatant designation.

SECTION 122 restates the government?s newly announced
power of surveillance without a court order.

SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer
needs warrants and that the investigations can be a
giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports
about the Total Information Awareness Network. One
passage reads, thus the focus of domestic surveillance
may be less precise than that directed against more
conventional types of crime.

SECTION 126 grants the government the right to mine
the entire spectrum of public and private sector
information from bank records to educational and
medical records. This is the enacting law to allow
ECHELON and the Total Information Awareness Network to
totally break down any and all walls of privacy.

The government states that they must look at
everything to determine if individuals or groups might
have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now
see, you are guilty until proven innocent.

SECTION 127 allows the government to takeover
coroners? and medical examiners operations whenever
they see fit.

SECTION 128 allows the Federal government to place gag
orders on Federal and State Grand Juries and to take
over the proceedings. It also disallows individuals or
organizations to even try to quash a Federal subpoena.
So now defending yourself will be a terrorist action.

SECTION 129 destroys any remaining whistleblower
protection for Federal agents.

SECTION 202 allows corporations to keep secret their
activities with toxic biological, chemical or
radiological materials.

SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all
their financial dealings secret, and anyone
investigating them can be considered a terrorist. This
should be very useful for Dick Cheney to stop anyone
investigating Haliburton.

SECTION 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected
terrorists. The database will also be used to stop
other unlawful activities. It will share the
information with state, local and foreign agencies for
the same purposes.

SECTION 311 federalizes your local police department
in the area of information sharing.

SECTION 313 provides liability protection for
businesses, especially big businesses that spy on
their customers for Homeland Security, violating their
privacy agreements. It goes on to say that these are
all preventative measures â?? has anyone seen Minority
Report? This is the access hub for the Total
Information Awareness Network.

SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on
the American people and to share information with
foreign governments.

SECTION 322 removes Congress from the extradition
process and allows officers of the Homeland Security
complex to extradite American citizens anywhere they
wish. It also allows Homeland Security to secretly
take individuals out of foreign countries.

SECTION 402 is titled Providing Material Support to
Terrorism. The section reads that there is no
requirement to show that the individual even had the
intent to aid terrorists.

SECTION 403 expands the definition of weapons of mass
destruction to include any activity that affects
interstate or foreign commerce.

SECTION 404 makes it a crime for a terrorist or other
criminals to use encryption in the commission of a
crime.

SECTION 408 creates lifetime parole (basically,
slavery) for a whole host of crimes.

SECTION 410 creates no statute of limitations for
anyone that engages in terrorist actions or supports
terrorists. Remember: any crime is now considered
terrorism under the first Patriot Act.

SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by
death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first
Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or
support of terrorist act can result in the death
penalty.

SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist
financing. This section states that any type of
financial activity connected to terrorism will result
to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.

SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for
anyone engaging in terrorist activities.

There are many other sections that I did not cover in
the interest of time. The American people were shocked
by the despotic nature of the first Patriot Act. The
second Patriot Act dwarfs all police state legislation
in modern world history.

Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots
of wonderful rights on paper, while carrying out their
jackbooted oppression covertly. From snatch and grab
operations to warantless searches, Patriot Act II is
an Adolf Hitler wish list.

You can understand why President Bush, Dick Cheney and
Dennis Hastert want to keep this legislation secret
not just from Congress, but the American people as
well. Bill Allison, Managing Editor of the Center for
Public Integrity, the group that broke this story,
stated on my radio show that it was obvious that they
were just waiting for another terrorist attack to
opportunistically get this new bill through. He then
shocked me with an insightful comment about how the
Federal government was crafting this so that they
could go after the American people in general. He also
agreed that the FBI has been quietly demonizing
patriots and Christians and those who carry around
pocket Constitutions.

I have produced two documentary films and written a
book about what really happened on September 11th. The
bottom line is this: the military-industrial complex
carried the attacks out as a pretext for control.
Anyone who doubts this just hasn?t looked at the
mountains of hard evidence.

Of course, the current group of white collar criminals
in the White House might not care that we?'re finding
out the details of their next phase. Because, after
all, when smallpox gets released, or more buildings
start blowing up, the President can stand up there at
his lectern suppressing a smirk, squeeze out a tear or
two, and tell us that See I was right. I had to take
away your rights to keep you safe. And now it?s your
fault that all of these children are dead. From that
point on, anyone who criticizes tyranny will be
shouted down by the paid talking head government
mouthpieces in the mainstream media.

You have to admit, it?s a beautiful script.
Unfortunately, it?s being played out in the real
world. If we don?t get the word out that government is
using terror to control our lives while doing nothing
to stop the terrorists, we will deserve what we get -
tyranny. But our children won?t deserve it.

HOW THE PATRIOT ACT COMPARES TO HITLER?S
ERMÄCHTIGUNGSGESETZ (ENABLING ACT):

At http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/actpat.htm
you can read the following 4 Articles:

1) How the Patriot Act Compares to Hitler's
Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act)
2) A 21st Century Comparison of The Enabling Act and
The Patriot Act
3) Ten Key Dangers of The Patriot Act that Every
American Should Know
4) Bill Moyers' NOW Comments on the Patriot Act

~~Please tell your congress and senators to repeal the
Patriot Act and to throw out current legislation
advocating a second act.

Thank You, for your support!~~ 


-------- human rights

Top Two Commissioners Resign From Civil Rights Panel

Associated Press
By Erica Werner
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45327-2004Dec7.html

Mary Frances Berry, chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, resigned yesterday after more than two decades of criticizing the administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that she served.

Berry, an independent, and Vice Chairman Cruz Reynoso, a Democrat, sent resignation letters to President Bush a day after the White House moved to replace the two. Both had resisted leaving Monday, arguing that their terms would not expire until midnight Jan. 21, 2005.

The White House maintained that their six-year terms expired on Sunday, and that they had been replaced.

In brief letters to Bush, Berry and Reynoso said that they believethey still have time left to serve but that it is not worth the fight.

"Given that the conclusion of my tenure is only a few weeks away, a legal challenge would be an unwise expenditure of resources," wrote Berry, a civil rights history professor at the University of Pennsylvania. "Therefore, I am resigning my position as commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights effective immediately."

Berry did not mention in her letter her more than two decades on the commission, during which she served for five presidents and criticized them all.

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said Berry's and Reynoso's terms on the commission had ended.

"While we are grateful for the service of Berry and Reynoso, their terms ended, and their replacements have been named, and we're working on an orderly transition," Lisaius said. "The president is moving now to ensure the commission has direction and leadership to continue its work."

First appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Berry became chairman in 1993. She earned plaudits from supporters as a civil rights hero and criticism from opponents as overly divisive.

President Ronald Reagan fired her but had to reinstate her after a lawsuit. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton also came in for criticism.

Most recently, Berry sided with other Democratic-leaning commissioners and kept a report critical of President Bush on the commission's Web site before the Nov. 2 election.

When the commissioners finally voted on the report, the outcome was 4 to 4, a typical division of Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning commissioners that could change with the new Bush appointees.

The newly named commissioners are Gerald A. Reynolds, former assistant secretary for the office of civil rights in the Education Department, and lawyer Ashley L. Taylor of Richmond.

Bush intends to designate Reynolds as commission chairman, succeeding Berry, and to name Abigail Thernstrom, already a commission member, as vice chairman.

The eight-member panel investigates civil rights complaints and publicizes its findings but has no enforcement power.



-------- terrorism

Al-Qaeda on the march

By Ehsan Ahrari,  Dec 8, 2004 Asia Times

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL08Ak01.html

The Islamic militant attack on the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on Monday is evidence that a major showdown with the Saudi government is in the works. The Saudi rulers are now at the receiving end of what al-Qaeda-practiced militant jihadism has in mind: to bring down that dynasty, and an end of the era in which the birthplace of Islam sounded nothing more than the personal fiefdom of the Saudi family.

What al-Qaeda wants to achieve is a contradiction of the compact of 1745 between the Saudi dynasty and Mohammad Abdel Wahhab [1]. Al-Qaeda seems to have concluded that the focus of its objective on the Arabian Peninsula is to bring an end to Saudi rule. Tactically speaking, al-Qaeda appears bent on carrying out such operations periodically, largely to demonstrate to its supporters in the kingdom that it can strike at will and at points of its own choosing. In this sense, the selection of the US Consulate contains a huge symbolic message.

Three powerful forces operate on the Saudi rulers today. The first one is related to Wahhabism. The aforementioned compact of 1745 obligates them to remain loyal to the ideals of Islamic purity delineated by Wahhabism. That is not a problem if the doctrine of militant jihad is not applied on the Saudi government itself. Any attack on the Saudi government and its personnel becomes a violation of the spirit and letter of the compact. The second force operating on the Saudi government is the United States. In this instance, the pressure is on it for moderation and even revision of militant jihadi doctrine in order to make it least hostile toward the US and the West, to put it rather simplistically. The third force is al-Qaeda, which is the product of Saudi political and social milieu. Yet its global vision is heavily influenced by the militant doctrine of jihad promoted enthusiastically by Washington in the 1980s in order to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden received his first practical lessons on Islam's role and place in the world in Pakistan and Afghanistan during that decade.

This was also an era when two other Islamists - Abdullah Azzam and Ayman al-Zawahiri - were formulating and putting into practice their own views of global jihad. To Azzam, the focus of global jihad was winning freedom for his native Palestine. Al-Zawahiri formulated his own views about the necessity of political change in the world of Islam through militant jihad in the dungeons of president Jamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. It was there that he was convinced that all brutal Arab autocracies are motivated by two "dark" objectives: self-preservation and serving the "evil" designs of the West to ensure the subjugation of Muslims. Rightly or wrongly, al-Zawahiri was convinced that the purpose of global jihad had to be not only defeating the West, but also to bring an end to all corrupt Arab autocracies.

Azzam influenced the thinking of bin Laden early in his tenure as a teacher in a Saudi Islamic university, then again by getting involved in the US-led struggle to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. For Azzam, global jihad had to be focused on winning independence for the Palestinians. For bin Laden, on the contrary, the purpose of global jihad was only to glorify Islam once again. All other objectives were of tactical significance. The notion of a caliphate becomes just one objective in this thinking, but not to the extent it has been emphasized in the West. Whereas Azzam may not have been a global jihadi, al-Zawahiri certainly fits that bill, and has remained a profound influence on bin Laden to this day.

Bin Laden's notion of global jihad seems to have fully evolved during his stay in Afghanistan between 1997 and 2001. That was also a duration when Islamist forces were becoming increasingly active in Central Asia, Xinjiang, and even in Chechnya.

Saudi rulers' own perspectives regarding militant jihad were largely focused on expelling the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in the 1980s. After that, the major purpose of their political and religious activities in Central Asia, or even in such countries as Indonesia and the Philippines, was to promote Wahhabi Islam, not necessarily militant jihad. However, they did not have much objection if al-Qaeda harped on it in Central Asia, China or even Russia.

The September 11, 2001, attacks on the US started an era when Saudi Arabia was eventually forced to revisit its lackadaisical approach toward militant jihad. Since the US became a victim of it, it also demanded a major doctrinal revision of it. However, it is easier said than done. The doctrine of militant jihad is not something that can be tinkered with at will, or supported/opposed based on changing political objectives and realities.

The preceding in essence describes the dilemmas of the Saudi government today. Washington thinks Riyadh has the capability to deprive jihad of its militancy simply because it is being used against the US. About the best the Saudi rulers may be able to do is to instruct a group of Islamic scholars who are on their payroll to issue new fatwas (edicts), stating something to the effect that "changed circumstances no longer warrant its applicability, etc". But fatwas along those lines have no papal authority, since no such power exists in Sunni Islam.

As the US and Saudi bureaucrats argue and bicker over these legal issues, al-Qaeda seems bent on operating on the basis of its own version of global jihad, whose two chief purposes are to overthrow the Saudi government and continue to harm the US, its citizens and its assets anywhere and everywhere. The Saudi-al-Qaeda conflict, though it has not yet reached its final stage, has undeniably reached a point of no return. It will have to result either in the eradication of al-Qaeda or the end of the Saudi regime. No one knows that better than the Saudi government.

Note
[1] Cleric Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, the founder of the puritanical Wahhabi movement, arrived in Dar'iya, near present-day Riyadh, and made a bargain with its ruler, Mohammad ibn Saud. The Saud family would provide the generals, and the Wahhabis would provide the foot soldiers.

Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst. 

--------

Workers recall consulate terror

ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Faiza Saleh Ambah
December 08, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041207-095553-4107r.htm

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia — The terrorists stormed into the U.S. Consulate compound's inner courtyard, firing their guns from behind trees, bursting into offices and shouting: "Where are the Americans? Where are the Americans?"

    Later, from their hospital beds, wounded U.S. Consulate workers provided new details about an attack Monday that killed nine and injured at least 10.

    The terrorists "clearly understood how cars entered the compound, and they were conducting surveillance," U.S. Ambassador James C. Oberwetter said yesterday.

    He contended that security measures had largely worked because the attackers' car could not get past the consulate gate, forcing them to enter the grounds on foot. The attackers also never made it to the main consulate buildings, where most Americans worked.

    Still, as Mr. Oberwetter offered condolences to the families of five slain consulate workers, he said, "The events of yesterday show the need for improvement. We will examine what additional steps need to be taken."

    State Department spokesman Adam Ereli warned that there could be more attacks in Saudi Arabia.

    "Our operating assumption is that there are still terrorist elements active in the kingdom, targeting U.S. citizens and facilities, as well as other commercial and civilian establishments," Mr. Ereli said.

    To bolster diplomatic security, Defense Department officials said a Marine Corps counterterror team would go to Jidda. Such teams typically are made up of 50 Marines trained in providing security and conducting raids in urban areas.

    Saudi officials said four of the assailants were Saudis and one remained unidentified.

    None of the three identified by name — Fayez bin Awad al-Juhaini, Eid bin Dakhil Allah al-Juhaini and Hassan bin Hamid al-Hazimi — appears on the kingdom's list of 26 most-wanted militants. Saudi officials did not say whether the al-Juhainis were related, or provide details about them. Four of the five attackers died.

    The five slain consulate employees were from Yemen, Sudan, the Philippines, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The director of King Fahd Hospital said a total of 10 wounded were brought there, and eight remained yesterday. Two American staff members were slightly wounded, but their circumstances were not clear.

    One of the wounded consulate employees, Salah Abdel Qawi Alyafiee, of Yemen, said the militants first stormed into the consulate courtyard, then held people as human shields as Saudi forces rushed in and engaged the attackers in a fierce gunbattle.

    "Each one of the terrorists took a group of us, and they started shooting at the [Saudi] guards," he said.

    Other wounded employees said the attackers burst into a guardhouse looking for Americans after first entering the courtyard.

    "They shot our door and they went into our office," said Abbel Gaber, a Sri Lankan who had been hired by a local guard company. "They asked us, 'Where are the Americans?' We said, 'We don't have any Americans.' "

    He said the attackers then told him and others to put up their hands and say "Allahu akbar" — "God is great." 


-------- torture

A-C-L-U to release records of interrogation techniques

Associated Press
December 8, 2004

http://www.kvia.com/global/story.asp?s=2660027&ClientType=Printable

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The American Civil Liberties Union is releasing documents that it says show conflicts between the F-B-I and the military over interrogation methods used at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In one memo obtained by the A-C-L-U, an F-B-I agent says General Geoffrey Miller apparently supported questioning techniques the F-B-I "not only advised against, but questioned in terms of effectiveness."

Miller ran the Guantanamo camp from October 2002 to March 2004. He left to run Iraq's Abu Ghraib (grayb) prison, the center of many abuse cases.

According to a letter obtained by The Associated Press, a Marine told an F-B-I observer that some interrogations led to prisoners "curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain."

An F-B-I counterterror expert wrote the letter. He said F-B-I officials complained to top Pentagon lawyers about a pattern of abuses at U-S-run prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo, but nothing was changed.

The current commander in Guantanamo says abuse allegations are taken seriously and investigated.

-----

FBI criticizes army's methods at Guantánamo

The New York Times
By Neil A. Lewis 
December 8, 2004

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2004/12/07/news/prison.html

Documents record heated quarrels   WASHINGTON A series of confidential memorandums from FBI officials shows that the bureau repeatedly criticized "aggressive interrogation practices" that its agents had observed being used by military personnel at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

One document among those released Monday and obtained by The Associated Press described a case in which an agent observed a female interrogator squeezing a male detainee's genitals and bending back his thumbs.

Other memorandums were provided by the government in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The memorandums show that relations between FBI agents and senior military officials at the detention facility grew heated as agents at Guantánamo objected to the interrogation techniques, arguing that they were not effective.

It is not clear whether the bureau raised ethical questions regarding the treatment of detainees.

An FBI official whose name was removed from a memorandum dated May 10 wrote that a sharp exchange of views occurred during a meeting with Major General Geoffrey Miller, then the commander of the detention facility at Guantánamo, and Major General Michael Dunleavey, who was in charge of the intelligence operation there.

"Both sides agreed that the bureau has its way of doing things and the DOD has their marching orders from SecDef," the memo said, using abbreviations for the Department of Defense and the secretary of defense. "Although the two techniques differed drastically, both generals believed they had a job to do."

The unidentified agent wrote in the memorandum to his superior that the information obtained by the military in certain cases was no different from what the bureau obtained "using simple investigative techniques."

Most of the memorandums obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union were written in May, shortly after the disclosures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The document obtained by The AP is a letter written by a senior FBI official to a military officer investigating abuses at Guantánamo and elsewhere. According to The AP, the July 14 letter was written by Thomas Harrington, a bureau counterterrorism expert who led a team of investigators at Guantánamo, to Major General Donald Ryder, the head of the army's criminal investigative division.

It said that FBI agents had observed "highly aggressive" interrogations at Guantánamo more than a year before the Abu Ghraib disclosures.

In addition to seeing a female interrogator grab the genitals of a handcuffed detainee and bend back his thumbs, the Harrington letter said, another agent witnessed a prisoner "gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head" because he would not stop chanting passages from the Koran.

In a third incident, it said, agents saw a dog being used to intimidate a detainee.

The incidents occurred in the fall of 2002, the letter said. An army spokesman confirmed the accuracy of The AP report, as did FBI officials.

A spokesman for Brigadier General Jay Hood, the commander of the detention and interrogation operation at Guantánamo, said Monday night, "We investigate any such allegations and take appropriate action."

The spokesman, Major Hank McIntire, said the incidents described letter were under investigation.

Anthony Romero, the executive director of the civil liberties union, said the documents demonstrated that treatment amounting to torture was used over a long period of time at Guantánamo.

Morocco terrorist trial starts

A criminal court opened a trial of five Moroccans who had formerly been held by the United States in Guantánamo Bay, including a man suspected of being a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, The New York Times reported from Rabat, Morocco.

The trial, which opened Monday, is the first of former Guantánamo detainees to be held in an Arab country.

The men, who were all arrested during the invasion of Afghanistan and whom the Americans turned over to the Moroccan government in August, are charged with belonging to or assisting a criminal group that was preparing to commit terrorist acts.

The judge set Dec. 20 as the men's next court date.

The defendants were identified as Muhammad Ouzar, Ibrahim Benchekroun, Muhammad Mazouz, Redouane Chakouri and Abdullah Tabarak, suspected of being bin Laden's bodyguard.

-----

FBI had warned Pentagon on tactics

USA TODAY
By Toni Locy and Kevin Johnson, 
12/8/2004

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-07-fbi-documents_x.htm

WASHINGTON - Early in the Bush administration's detention of foreign terrorism suspects, FBI agents told Pentagon officials that the military's harsh interrogation tactics in Cuba would produce "unreliable results," according to documents released Tuesday.

Another memo, written by the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in June, said that a DIA officer had seen a military interrogator in Baghdad "punch a prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention."

The documents were turned over recently to the American Civil Liberties Union by the Defense Department to comply with a court order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Several civil liberties groups filed suit in New York seeking records of military interrogation techniques in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq. (Related story: FBI letter cites aggressive interrogations in Guantanamo)

The records were heavily censored. Many documents were reconstructions of earlier events and were written this year, when FBI officials sought to distance the bureau from the scandal over allegations that military police had abused detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

The military began taking captives from the war in Afghanistan to the Navy's island base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in January 2002. About 550 suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees are now held there. While the records reflect the FBI's disdain for the military's tactics at Guantanamo, no agents characterized the incidents as misconduct or abuse.

But the DIA memo, written by Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby to Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Cambone, said two unidentified DIA officials were threatened in Baghdad when they objected to prisoner treatment.

In several e-mails, unnamed FBI officials recalled that they engaged in "somewhat heated" battles with defense officials here and at the military prison at Guantanamo about the military's "stress and duress" interrogation tactics, which included sleep deprivation, verbal abuse, forced nudity and chaining detainees in uncomfortable positions in cold rooms.

FBI officials said in the documents that agents preferred the bureau's long-accepted, court-approved interrogation policy of building rapport with detainees to obtain information about terrorism.

The FBI declined to comment. Maj. Michael Shavers, a Pentagon spokesman, said the United States condemns torture. He said several investigations have been conducted or are ongoing into allegations of detainee abuse. Many of the records provided to the ACLU came from those probes, he said.

In an undated e-mail, an unnamed FBI Behavioral Analysis adviser said he observed "aggressive interrogation practices" at Guantanamo. He also said he was aware of "extreme interrogation techniques that were planned and implemented against certain detainees."

But in a May 5 e-mail labeled "high" importance, an unidentified FBI official said, "We need to be careful here. Everyone should pay particular attention to the distinctions between allegations of abuse and the use of techniques which fall outside of FBI/DOJ training and policy. ... I am not aware of any credible allegations of abuse by anyone (at Guantanamo)."

An unidentified FBI official recounted in a May 10 e-mail to Tom Harrington, a top FBI counterterrorism official, how he pressed generals in charge of Guantanamo "early on" about the military tactics. "Both agreed the bureau has their way of doing business and DOD has their marching orders from SecDef," the official said, referring to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The FBI official also recalled a conference call with unidentified Pentagon officials in which he criticized the quality of intelligence gleaned from one detainee.

-----

Britain 'complicit in offences at Guantanamo Bay'

telegraph.co.uk
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
08/12/2004

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/08/nguan08.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/08/ixhome.html

The first British lawyer to visit the American detention centre at Guantanamo Bay accused Foreign Office officials yesterday of complicity in an offence against humanity. 	 Clive Stafford Smith, who also holds American citizenship, was cleared to visit his client Moazzam Begg at the base in Cuba last month. Under American law, Mr Stafford Smith is not allowed to reveal what his client told him until written statements lodged last week with a government censor in Washington have been cleared.

However, the lawyer said that the conditions under which his client was being held were "worse than any death row I have ever seen". Mr Begg had been held in solitary for more than 18 months, said Mr Stafford Smith.

Though unable to say any more about conditions at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Stafford Smith stressed that the US guards were "uniformly polite to me and decent," adding that the naval base in Cuba had US-style comforts such as McDonald's.

Mr Begg, 36, a teacher from Birmingham, claims he has been tortured by US military personnel. He is one of four British citizens detained indefinitely by the Americans following the conflict in Afghanistan; five others were released in March without charge.

In a letter sent yesterday to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, Mr Stafford Smith said that his client had been snatched from his home in Pakistan, leaving behind his pregnant wife and three children, in January 2002.

He is "no more an enemy combatant than I am," said Mr Stafford Smith.

"Every moment he spends in Guantanamo Bay is an offence against humanity and an indictment of our government's inability to help a citizen in need," he said.

Mr Stafford Smith said he was "aghast" to learn this week that a British consular official had advised Mr Begg in October to co-operate with the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals that decide whether detainees should be regarded as enemy combatants.

The hearing has already taken place, although the US authorities refused to disclose the outcome.

-----

Report to Defense Alleged Abuse By Prison Interrogation Teams 

Intelligence Official Informed Defense Dept. in June

Washington Post
By Barton Gellman and R. Jeffrey Smith
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45373-2004Dec7.html

From a classified report five months ago, one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's closest advisers learned of allegations that a clandestine military task force in Iraq was beating detainees, ordering Defense Intelligence Agency debriefers out of the room during questioning, confiscating evidence of the abuse and intimidating the debriefers when they complained.

The June 25 report -- sent by the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone -- is among dozens of documents made public yesterday that allege brutal and sometimes illegal military interrogation methods employed against prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In the documents, government witnesses describe the regular use of violence -- much of it inflicted on prisoners by a top-secret task force devoted to capturing "high-value targets" in Iraq -- more than seven months after a fact-finding mission reported to senior defense officials that the unit was beating prisoners.

There is no record, among the documents made public yesterday or previously, that makes clear whether the abuses -- separate and apart from the highly publicized incidents at Abu Ghraib -- have stopped or whether anyone has been held responsible for them.


The Bush administration, which continues to portray prisoner abuses as isolated events and the Pentagon's response as swift, fought vigorously to keep the new documents from public view. The American Civil Liberties Union released 43 of them after compelling the Bush administration to provide them -- many still heavily censored -- in a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.

The two-page "Info Memo" of the DIA director, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, is the most significant, because he is the highest-ranking official now known to have complained about prisoner mistreatment. His allegations -- both for the intensity of the violence described and the specificity of the evidence of attempted coverup -- are among the most serious levied to date. They are also notable because the agency he runs works closely in the field with the elite Special Operations unit about which he writes.

The Washington Post reported last week that a fact-finding mission for Army generals in December 2003 had warned that the same unit -- then called Task Force 121, and more recently renamed Task Force 6-26 -- was beating detainees and using a secret facility to hide its interrogations. The task force, which is still active in Iraq, is commanded by a two-star flag officer. It is made up primarily of soldiers from two Army "special mission units," whose existence is not officially acknowledged by the Pentagon. Several of its members, all of them Navy SEALS, are under criminal investigation for the deaths of two prisoners in their custody.

Other documents describe heated battles in which the FBI and some DIA intelligence officers objected to harsh interrogation methods in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. One FBI agent, reporting on May 10 to superiors about an earlier conversation with Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller and Maj. Gen. Michael B. Dunleavey at Guantanamo Bay, said the two men cited Rumsfeld as the source of their authority to use techniques that the FBI regarded as potentially illegal and "not effective or producing intel that was reliable." The author of that report, whose name is redacted, said "both agreed the Bureau has their way of dong[sic] business and DoD has their marching orders from the Sec Def."

Miller was commandant at Guantanamo until last spring and, at least four government officials have reported, brought the harsh methods in use there to Iraq last spring. The Associated Press reported that Miller left Iraq yesterday for a new assignment in Washington, with responsibility for Army housing and support operations.

Jacoby told Cambone that a supervisor in a secret military unit seized photographic evidence after a civilian DIA intelligence officer watched uniformed task force members "punch [the] prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention." That DIA officer, and another who worked with him, reported that prisoners taken in the field arrived at the unit's headquarters with "burn marks on their backs," "bruises" and other signs of violence. Jacoby wrote that officers of the elite military unit "threatened" the DIA civilians -- Jacoby did not elaborate -- and warned them not to discuss what they saw. The military officers "informed them that their emails were being screened" and "instructed them not to leave the compound . . . even to get a haircut."

Air Force Lt. Col. John A. Skinner, a Pentagon spokesman, said "there have been more than 50,000 detainees and only around 300 or so allegations of abuse," many of which "turn out to be unsubstantiated once investigated." He added that one "incident of abuse is one too many" and that the department is committed to a "transparent investigation" of all allegations. He declined to answer questions on any specific allegation or to say why the government tried to suppress the documents released yesterday.

The documents describe FBI agents as witnessing the harsh treatment of prisoners at military prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay without making direct attempts to stop it. Some complained to their superiors, and others said they deliberately absented themselves from abusive interrogations. The documents provide no indication whether these protests provoked any intervention by agency officials in Washington.

One special agent, interviewed by FBI Inspection Division officials in May, said he knew as early as November 2003 that the Abu Ghraib prison population included "ghost detainees," a name given to Iraqis imprisoned without being registered according to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.

Several agents who helped conduct interrogations at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 reported seeing naked or nearly naked prisoners in isolation cells; one said he saw a detainee, who was handcuffed to a railing with a nylon sack on his head and a shower curtain draped around him, being slapped by a soldier to keep him awake.

Another special agent said he had repeatedly observed detainees who had been stripped naked and placed in isolation at Abu Ghraib -- a practice the military now says is wrong -- but made no protest because it seemed no different from strip searches at prisons in the United States.

The agent, whose name was deleted from the FBI investigators' reports, said he was aware that sleep deprivation was used to compel prisoners to talk, but that he "was not aware if it was a permissible tactic or not." Defense Department officials, in interviews, have defended the practice. The State Department's annual accounting of human rights abuses by foreign governments has traditionally described sleep deprivation as a form of torture.

The documents can be viewed in full at www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/.



<a name="politics"></a>

-------- POLITICS

Ukraine parliament backs reforms

bbc
8 December, 2004

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4077313.stm

Ukraine's parliament has passed a wide-ranging reform bill, paving the way for a 26 December re-run of the disputed presidential election.

The compromise package includes electoral law changes demanded by the opposition, but also transfers some presidential powers to parliament.

Outgoing President Leonid Kuchma immediately signed the bill into law.

The opposition said it would now lift its blockade of the government's main office, but not Mr Kuchma's residence.

"This is an act of consolidation and reconciliation, an act which demonstrates that Ukraine is united," speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn told the chamber after the vote.

During these 17 days we have got a new country... We will remember these days as the best in our lives Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko

Analysis: Compromise deal

Pro-Western opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko will face pro-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, President Leonid Kuchma's preferred successor, in a re-run of last month's presidential run-off vote.

Mr Yanukovych was declared the winner of the 21 November poll, but Mr Yushchenko - backed by international observers - declared the election fraudulent.

Ukraine's Supreme Court subsequently annulled the election and ordered the re-run.

Thousands of opposition supporters have been on the streets of the capital, Kiev, and other cities since the political crisis began, camping out in freezing conditions.

Mr Yushchenko congratulated many thousands of his cheering supporters with "a great victory", saying that all the demands of the opposition had now been met.

"After 17 days of peaceful civil protest, we have achieved a final victory... It happened only thanks to you," he said.

He said the December poll was now the main target, urging many of his supporters to go home and prepare for the ballot.

But he said Kiev's Independence Square - with its tent city - would remain the opposition's command headquarters until after the elections.

Opposition leaders said they would allow the government - without Mr Yanukovych - to enter the main office in Kiev on Thursday.

Cheered

There was an overwhelming majority in favour of the changes, with 402 of the 450 MPs in Ukraine's parliament backing the reform package.

Lawmakers stood and cheered as President Kuchma signed the measure in the chamber.

"Over the last 100 years, Ukraine has more than once suffered through a crisis, but there was always enough common sense to find a way out and a decision," Mr Kuchma said.

He added that he had accepted the resignation of Ukraine's prosecutor general, one of several opposition demands.

The package of measures include:

    * Reforming the Central Election Commission, dismissing the chairman and some other members

    * Changes designed to reduce possibility of ballot fraud, such as limiting the use of absentee ballots and home voting

    * Reduced powers for the president who may now only appoint the prime minister, defence and foreign minister, subject to legislators' approval

    * New functions for the regions, designed to ease tensions between the pro-Yushchenko west and pro-Yanukovych east.

Correspondents say Wednesday's vote is likely to increase Mr Yushchenko's chances of winning the new run-off, albeit with weaker powers.

The political crisis in Ukraine has provoked diplomatic disagreements between the West and Russia, which has accused the United States and the European Union of trying to install their ally in Kiev.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who has mediated in the crisis, welcomed Wednesday's vote, as did US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

But Russia's mediator, parliamentary speaker Boris Gryzlov, was more equivocal.

"I am deeply convinced that only Mr Yanukovych's victory will allow Ukraine to remain an integral and united country," he said.

'Poisoned'

Meanwhile, the director of an Austrian clinic has denied a report alleging that doctors who treated Mr Yushchenko for a mysterious illness have determined that he was poisoned.

The report was published in London by the Times newspaper.

In the run-up to the disputed poll, Mr Yushchenko's appearance changed markedly, with his face becoming a mass of scars and blisters.

The director of the Rudolfinerhaus in Vienna, Michael Zimpfer, said the clinic had yet to reach a conclusion about whether Mr Yushchenko was poisoned.

"The truth is that we are meticulously investigating that, and we are running entirely new tests in different labs, but there is no evidence so far," he said. 

-----

At Inauguration, Karzai Vows Action On Tough Issues Warlords, Opium Trade at Top of List

Washington Post
By John Lancaster
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42132-2004Dec7.html

KABUL, Afghanistan, Dec. 7 -- Sworn in Tuesday as Afghanistan's first popularly elected president, Hamid Karzai immediately vowed to tackle the daunting challenges ahead, such as curbing the influence of regional warlords and rolling back the country's booming opium trade.

In a brief inaugural address, Karzai expressed his thanks to the Afghan people, who defied threats by Taliban insurgents to vote in largely peaceful national elections in October, and to the United States, which led the international invasion that ousted the Taliban government in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But Karzai, 46, acknowledged uncomfortable truths during his nationally televised speech at a dignified, heavily guarded ceremony attended by hundreds of Afghan and foreign guests, including Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

He vowed to disarm regional militias, root out corruption, overcome obstacles to parliamentary elections tentatively scheduled for the spring and -- perhaps most significant -- eliminate the poppy cultivation that has turned Afghanistan into the world's leading opium producer.

Although the insurgents failed to make good on threats to disrupt the ceremony, Karzai reminded his audience of the continuing challenges of religious extremism and the persistent, low-level fighting that has hampered reconstruction efforts in large swaths of the country, especially in the south and east.

"Our fight against terrorism is not yet over," said Karzai, who wore a flowing green cape and black lambskin cap. "The relationship between terrorism and narcotics and the continued threat of extremism in the world at large are a source of continued concern."

In Tuesday's hour-long ceremony, Karzai and the Bush administration appeared eager to showcase the country's democratic rebirth three years after the fall of the Taliban.

"We gather to mark a historic moment in the life of the nation and in the history of human freedom," Cheney said at a news conference with Karzai beforehand on the grounds of the presidential palace, a turreted stone structure set against distant, snow-dusted mountains. "Now the tyranny is gone, the terrorist enemy is scattered and the people of Afghanistan are free."

Cheney was accompanied by his wife, Lynne, and Karen Hughes, a political adviser to President Bush.

Security for the inauguration was heavy even by the standards of this dust-caked, militarized city. Major roads were closed, U.S.-led multinational troops patrolled on foot and in armored vehicles, and sharpshooters with telescopic sights manned rooftops while helicopters whirred overhead. There are 16,000 U.S. combat troops in the country, according to the Pentagon. NATO oversees 8,500 multinational troops providing security.

But the capital had a festive air. Traffic circles and major thoroughfares were festooned with colored lights and the red, green and black Afghan flag. Portraits of Karzai were displayed on the sides of office buildings. Blue banners declared in English, "Today the Afghan People Celebrate Their First Elected President."

"This is the birth of our nation," Merajuddin Patan, the governor of Khost province, said in an interview several hours before the ceremony. "I believe the real history of Afghanistan -- modern history -- will begin with this."

Patan, who fought the Soviet Union's occupation of the country in the 1980s, became a taekwondo instructor in Arlington and returned to his native land after the fall of the Taliban. "It's a great feeling," he said.

Karzai was born in the southern city of Kandahar and was a leader in the anti-Soviet resistance. The United States chose him as the interim leader of Afghanistan in late 2001, and he was elected to the presidency Oct. 9.

 The inauguration ceremony began at 11:30 a.m. when Karzai entered an ivory-colored reception hall in the presidential palace to a standing ovation from about 600 guests. Gathered beneath the cut-glass chandeliers were government officials, tribal elders in turbans and flowing beards, and about 150 foreign dignitaries, including delegations from Pakistan and Iran, which was represented by Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi.

Karzai was accompanied into the hall by Mohammed Zahir Shah, Afghanistan's 90-year-old former king, who was ousted in 1973 but remains a respected figure in this ethnically divided country of about 28 million people.

After a Koranic recitation, the playing of the national anthem and a patriotic song by schoolchildren wearing embroidered ceremonial dress, Karzai placed his right hand on a copy of the Koran and repeated the oath of office as read to him by Fazl Hadi Shinwari, a white-bearded cleric who is chief justice of the Supreme Court.

"Every vote that was cast in the elections was a vote for Afghanistan, whether I received it or another candidate," Karzai said in his 15-minute inaugural address, according to an English translation distributed before the ceremony. "I am confident, and proud, that this nation is determined to rebuild Afghanistan, and rebuild it fast; to live in security, and to stand on its own feet." Karzai delivered his address in Pashto and Dari, Afghanistan's two main languages.

Before the ceremony, a Taliban leader had warned Afghans to avoid government and military installations during the inauguration, stirring fears of possible rocket attacks on the capital. Although the day passed peacefully in the city, Taliban fighters staged an assault Monday night on an Afghan army post in Khost near the border with Pakistan, killing four soldiers, according to Patan, the provincial governor. Six Taliban fighters also died in the incident, he said.

On Tuesday morning, Rumsfeld reminded soldiers during a visit to Bagram air base near Kabul that their mission was not complete. "There are still groups, extremists, that would like to take this country back -- the Taliban, the al Qaeda -- and use it for a base for terrorist activities around the world as they did on 9/11," Rumsfeld told U.S. Special Forces soldiers. "But it's not going to happen."

Cheney, who also visited Bagram on Tuesday morning, echoed that theme. "Freedom still has enemies here in Afghanistan, and you are here to make those enemies miserable," Cheney told soldiers at the base.

Notwithstanding the successful election and peaceful inauguration, the process of establishing democracy in Afghanistan is far from complete. Within the next week, Karzai is expected to name members of his new cabinet, whose makeup will be scrutinized for evidence that he is moving to curb the influence of regional warlords, who continue to dominate much of the country.

The government also is making plans for the parliamentary elections. Before it can do that, however, it has to draw up voting districts, a process expected to produce tensions, because the outcome will determine the ethnic balance of the new legislature. 

-----

Iraq, Jordan See Threat To Election From Iran Leaders Warn Against Forming Religious State

Washington Post
By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
December 8, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43980-2004Dec7.html

The leaders of Iraq and Jordan warned yesterday that Iran is trying to influence the Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30 to create an Islamic government that would dramatically shift the geopolitical balance between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the Middle East.

Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar charged that Iran is coaching candidates and political parties sympathetic to Tehran and pouring "huge amounts of money" into the campaign to produce a Shiite-dominated government similar to Iran's. 				 The Future of Iraq

Jordanian King Abdullah said that more than 1 million Iranians have crossed the 910-mile border into Iraq, many to vote in the election -- with the encouragement of the Iranian government. "I'm sure there's a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome," he said in an interview.

The king also charged that Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment. Some Iranians, he added, have been trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and are members of militias that could fuel trouble in Iraq after the election.

"It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran," Abdullah said.

If pro-Iran parties or politicians dominate the new Iraqi government, he said, a new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could emerge, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies.

"If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq. I'm looking at the glass half-full, and let's hope that's not the case. But strategic planners around the world have got to be aware that is a possibility," Abdullah added.

Iran and Iraq have Shiite majorities. But modern Iraq, formed after World War I, has been ruled by its Sunni minority. Syria is ruled by the minority Allawites, an offshoot of Shiism. Shiites are the largest of 17 recognized sects in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is a major Shiite political party, with the only active militia.

Abdullah, a prominent Sunni leader, said the creation of a new Shiite crescent would particularly destabilize Gulf countries with Shiite populations. "Even Saudi Arabia is not immune from this. It would be a major problem. And then that would propel the possibility of a Shiite-Sunni conflict even more, as you're taking it out of the borders of Iraq," the king said.

Iran has bonds with Iraq through their Shiite populations. Thousands of Iranians make pilgrimages to the holiest Shiite cities of Najaf and Karbala. Iraq's most prominent Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is Iranian-born and speaks Arabic with a Persian accent. Yet Iran and Iraq fought a brutal eight-year war with more than a million casualties.

Iran has faced charges in the past of meddling in Iraq, but with the election approaching, Iraqi, U.S. and Arab officials have begun to make specific accusations and issue warnings about the potential impact.

"Unfortunately, time is proving, and the situation is proving, beyond any doubt that Iran has very obvious interference in our business -- a lot of money, a lot of intelligence activities and almost interfering daily in business and many [provincial] governates, especially in the southeast side of Iraq," Yawar said in an interview with Washington Post editors and reporters.

The interim Iraqi president, a Sunni leader from a tribe with Sunnis and Shiites, said Iraq's first democratic government must reject pressure to inject religion into politics. "We cannot have a sectarian or religious government," he said. "We really will not accept a religious state in Iraq. We haven't seen a model that succeeded."

The question of Iraq's political orientation -- secular or religious -- will come to a head when Iraq begins writing a new constitution next spring. Jordan's king said he had started to raise a "red flag" about the dangers of mixing church and state.

The leaders of Iraq and Jordan warned yesterday that Iran is trying to influence the Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30 to create an Islamic government that would dramatically shift the geopolitical balance between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the Middle East.

Iraqi President Ghazi Yawar charged that Iran is coaching candidates and political parties sympathetic to Tehran and pouring "huge amounts of money" into the campaign to produce a Shiite-dominated government similar to Iran's. 				 The Future of Iraq

Jordanian King Abdullah said that more than 1 million Iranians have crossed the 910-mile border into Iraq, many to vote in the election -- with the encouragement of the Iranian government. "I'm sure there's a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome," he said in an interview.

The king also charged that Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment. Some Iranians, he added, have been trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and are members of militias that could fuel trouble in Iraq after the election.

"It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran," Abdullah said.

If pro-Iran parties or politicians dominate the new Iraqi government, he said, a new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could emerge, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies.

"If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq. I'm looking at the glass half-full, and let's hope that's not the case. But strategic planners around the world have got to be aware that is a possibility," Abdullah added.

Iran and Iraq have Shiite majorities. But modern Iraq, formed after World War I, has been ruled by its Sunni minority. Syria is ruled by the minority Allawites, an offshoot of Shiism. Shiites are the largest of 17 recognized sects in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is a major Shiite political party, with the only active militia.

Abdullah, a prominent Sunni leader, said the creation of a new Shiite crescent would particularly destabilize Gulf countries with Shiite populations. "Even Saudi Arabia is not immune from this. It would be a major problem. And then that would propel the possibility of a Shiite-Sunni conflict even more, as you're taking it out of the borders of Iraq," the king said.

Iran has bonds with Iraq through their Shiite populations. Thousands of Iranians make pilgrimages to the holiest Shiite cities of Najaf and Karbala. Iraq's most prominent Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, is Iranian-born and speaks Arabic with a Persian accent. Yet Iran and Iraq fought a brutal eight-year war with more than a million casualties.

Iran has faced charges in the past of meddling in Iraq, but with the election approaching, Iraqi, U.S. and Arab officials have begun to make specific accusations and issue warnings about the potential impact.

"Unfortunately, time is proving, and the situation is proving, beyond any doubt that Iran has very obvious interference in our business -- a lot of money, a lot of intelligence activities and almost interfering daily in business and many [provincial] governates, especially in the southeast side of Iraq," Yawar said in an interview with Washington Post editors and reporters.

The interim Iraqi president, a Sunni leader from a tribe with Sunnis and Shiites, said Iraq's first democratic government must reject pressure to inject religion into politics. "We cannot have a sectarian or religious government," he said. "We really will not accept a religious state in Iraq. We haven't seen a model that succeeded."

The question of Iraq's political orientation -- secular or religious -- will come to a head when Iraq begins writing a new constitution next spring. Jordan's king said he had started to raise a "red flag" about the dangers of mixing church and state.

-----

Karzai sworn in before hopeful nation

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Maseeh Rahman
December 08, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041207-095554-1110r.htm

KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghanistan's first democratically elected leader, President Hamid Karzai, took the oath of office yesterday with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and representatives of 50 nations looking on.

With his right hand on Islam's holy book, Mr. Karzai pledged before 600 guests - and a nation watching on television - to bring peace after nearly a generation of war and to ease his nation's economic dependence on opium.

"Nothing makes me more hopeful to the future of this country - and my ability to serve it - than the incredible experience of our people's participation in the recent elections," said Mr. Karzai, dressed in his trademark green robe and lambskin cap.

"So it is with God's blessing, and our people's support, that I resolve to fulfill this great responsibility that has been put on my shoulders today," the 46-year-old leader said.

The enormous challenge facing Mr. Karzai was evident from the extraordinary security measures that left the capital sealed off from the rest of the country to protect the president and 600 guests from a threatened terrorist strike.

"Our fight against terrorism is not yet over," Mr. Karzai warned. "A decisive victory over terrorism requires serious and continuous cooperation at regional and international levels."

Away from the capital, dozens of suspected Taliban rebels attacked an Afghan military base in Khost province near the Pakistan border before dawn, sparking a firefight that killed four Afghan soldiers and at least six militants, the Associated Press reported, citing an Afghan commander.

Mr. Karzai pledged to work toward fulfilling his principal election promises and underlined the need to improve security in the country and reduce poppy cultivation and the export of narcotics.

"With international cooperation, we can root out terrorism from Afghanistan," he said.

"The relationship between terrorism and narcotics, however, and the threat of extremism in the region ... is a source of continued concern," he said, referring to worries over Afghanistan being the world's main supplier of heroin.

Mr. Cheney met with Mr. Karzai and assured him that Washington would maintain its military and financial support to the fledgling democracy.

The United States has about 18,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan and also has pledged $786 million to the anti-narcotics campaign.

Earlier, speaking to U.S. troops at the Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, Mr. Cheney said that thanks to American forces, the Taliban regime that harbored the "most vicious terrorist network in history is now history."

As a result, for the first time the people of Afghanistan "are looking confident about the future of freedom and peace," he said.

But the terrorists are still trying to stage a comeback in Afghanistan, Mr. Cheney added, saying it was up to U.S. troops to "make those enemies miserable."

-----

Russia questions Iraq poll

Aljazeera.Net
08 December 2004

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ACBEDECE-4061-42BB-AC1A-44309B304FCD.htm

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told Iraq's interim prime minister that elections planned for 30 January are unimaginable.

Holding talks with Iyad Allawi in Moscow on Tuesday, Putin said he could not "imagine how elections could be organised under a full occupation of the country by foreign troops".     "I also cannot imagine how you on your own will be able to restore the situation in the country and stop it from breaking up," he said.       Allawi re-affirmed the election date of 30 January, but raised the prospect of troubled regions taking two or three weeks longer to vote.

But his proposal could not immediately be checked with election officials and would break a UN deadline of 31 January for the ballot.     Election difficulties

An election that provides an internationally accepted Iraqi government is a prerequisite for US President George Bush to declare the invasion a success and bring troops home.     But international voting experts plan to meet in Canada this month to find a way of monitoring the election in the likely absence of outside observers, a top Canadian official said.     Plans for monitoring troubled elections come as the Pentagon issued figures for a record monthly US toll in Iraq. It said 136 American soldiers were killed in November, one more than the previous highest of 135 in April.

Since Iraq was invaded and occupied in April 2003, 1276 US troops have died. But in order to protect the election, Bush is increasing US troop numbers by about 10% to 150,000.

Lashing out

With increasing instability in the country despite the election deadline edging closer, Iraq's interim Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih said Iraq's Sunni Muslim neighbours were "playing a direct role in killing Iraqi people".

Meanwhile, Interim President Ghazi al-Yawar focused particular criticism on Syria's role in Iraq.    "There are people in Syria who are bad guys, who are fugitives of the law and who are Saddam remnants who are trying to bring the vicious dictatorship of Saddam back," al-Yawar said.

Also stung by Salih's criticism, Jordan's King Abd Allah II told the Washington Post that Iran would be largely to blame if elections turn out to be a sham.

Abd Allah said more than 1 million Iranians have crossed the border into Iraq, many to vote, and he said they were being encouraged by the Iranian government.

The king also reportedly accused the Iranians of paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to promote pro-Iranian public sentiment.

Vested interest

The king said in an interview with the newspaper that "it is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq ... and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran".

Iraqi officials have previously suggested that Iran, which is overwhelmingly Shia Muslim, is backing Iraqi Shia - who form a substantial proportion of the population.

But Iran has said it has no interest in fomenting instability in Iraq and it tries to block any infiltration into Iraq by fighters - while pleading that its porous borders are hard to police.

-----

Investigative Reporter Greg Palast on the "Apartheid Ballot Counting System in America"

democracynow.org
December 8th, 2004

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/08/1520204

As Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell certified President Bush's reelection on Monday, we hear an address by investigative reporter Greg Palast about the disenfranchisement of black votes in the Nov. 2nd election. [includes rush transcript] President Bush secured his reelection Monday after Ohio's Republican secretary of state Kenneth Blackwell certified the victory by a margin of 119,000 votes. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Monday that the presidential voting was widely perceived as "very free and fair."

But questions remain over the fairness of the Nov. 2nd election. At a forum on Capitol Hill yesterday, voting rights advocates reminded attendees of the more than 414,000 calls made to national hotlines monitoring complaints about the election. Among those calls, according to a new report from the Common Cause Education Fund, were many accounts from Ohio.

Yesterday at the New York Society for Ethical Culture investigative reporter Greg Palast spoke about the fairness of the election.

    * Greg Palast, investigative reporter speaking at the New York Society for Ethical Culture on December 7, 2004.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Well, at the same forum that Richard Clarke spoke at last night at the New York Society for Ethical Culture, investigative reporter Greg Palast also spoke, who has investigated the 2000 election for the BBC and continues to do that work in Ohio. He spoke about the fairness of the 2004 election.

      GREG PALAST: I actually came here tonight to warn you that there are cooks and cranks and crazies out there on the internet who think that John Kerry won. Now, I know because one of those articles on the internet called "John Kerry Won" on tompaine.com, I wrote it. To warn you. But you have to understand, I mean, some things - well, maybe you can explain this to me. See, this is - I got the CNN exit polls, and it said that in Ohio that Kerry defeated Bush among women 53 to 47%, and among men, by - Kerry defeated Bush by 51 to 49%, so who's the third sex that put our president over the top? So I thought I'd investigate, which is unusual. See, I'm a reporter. My reports appear on BBC Television. I'm a mainstream guy, as they say. And for the big newspaper of Britain, I used to have - the Guardian Observer, I have - I used to write George Orwell's old column there, and he'd enjoy this, though that information. And so I wrote a story called, "Kerry Won: Here's the Facts." And I got a - I actually got a letter, an e-mail, from the New York Times. Here it is. They wanted to follow - they wanted to investigate! Cool! And they asked me, question 1, asking BBC investigative reporter, they said, "Are you a conspiracy nut?" Question 2: "Are you a sore loser?" Question 3: there is no question three, that was the end of the interview. And so they ran a story on the front page saying, "Internet Theories of Bush Loss Easily Debunked." Okay, but see, that - remember the subtitle called - of "Kerry Won" - "Here's the Facts." And since they won't tell you, I thought maybe I'd share them tonight. And here's the facts. See, George Bush was declared victor today, by the way, by a Secretary of State of Florida, who - uh, Mr. Blacksick -- and of, excuse me, I said Florida. You know, Florida of the North. I was just in Colu-you know, New Kiev, Ohio, two days ago so I get confused. And, of Ohio, Mr. Blackwell, he certified the election today. It's very convenient for him because he's both chairman of the republican campaign and the person in charge of the vote count, so he's wearing two hats. I understand he has two heads, but I'll investigate. But, see, he certified the vote, but not all the votes. See, 93,000 votes were tossed on the floor, never counted. We're not talking recount here, we're talking never count. 93,000 votes are called spoiled. 155,000 votes called provisional. More absentee ballots tossed. And supposedly George Bush won by 119,000. Folks, now what's going on here? Whose votes were not counted that were twice the Bush margin of victory? Just, you know, was it random? Well, not exactly. Overwhelmingly the votes not counted, not counted, were cast in African American precincts. These are very Black votes, see, and when I use the term "overwhelmingly," the non-counted votes cast into the machines but not counted for technical reasons - when I say "overwhelmingly Black votes," that is not my phrase. That's from Dr. Mark Salling of Cleveland State University who's been investigating this for the ACLU, and the statisticians and demographers say it's overwhelmingly Black votes which are not counted. The technical term is "spoiled" votes. Okay, now, how do votes spoil? Do you leave them out of the fridge? What do you do? These are like undervotes, overvotes - they use those technical terms, and in Ohio it's hanging chads. We're back to that. Dimpled chads, pregnant chads. Because Ohio is the last state in America to use the old punch card system for 75% of the vote. You've heard a lot about the dangers of blackbox voting. I want to talk to you about good old-fashioned punch card voting. 93,000 votes tossed in the garbage out of Black precincts. How? Okay? Because when - just like in - Black voters, Black neighborhoods get the bad schools, they get the bad hospitals, they get the bum voting machines, see? And their votes go in the garbage. And they know it. In fact, it should be against the law. And, in fact, it is. The ACLU sued the State of Ohio for a racist ballot counting system. They sued five states. Okay? Before the election. Before the election, four states said, "Well, gee, we're kind of embarrassed. Yeah, we're losing thousands of Black votes." And they all agreed to fix the machines before the election, but one state. The Secretary of State of Ohio said, "Yes." He said, 'Yes, I know that the machines we use in Ohio eliminate tens of thousands of Black votes on bad machines.' The only -- the only state that said, 'Yeah, we'll fix them after the inauguration.' Now, see, we have to talk about here is when we talk about votes not counted, I just want to -- on radio you're going to have to look at this chart now so imagine with me. There's a big line, see? If you think Ohio is unusual, if you think Ohio is unusual, here's the problem. See this big bar there, that's the number of Black votes which aren't counted in America and the little bar, that's the number of white votes which are not counted in America, see? And if you are a Black person -- now where is this from? Yes, it's true, you can get it on the internet, but it's actually from Appendix 14 of a report, this important information of the U.S Civil Rights Commission that found that if you are a Black person in America, the chance of your vote being tossed in the garbage -- you cast your vote and it's thrown away -- the chance of it being thrown away is 800% higher than if you are a white voter, okay? See, and it kind of adds up with 2 million votes which are discarded in America, half of them by Black voters, 1 million Black votes not counted in America. We have an apartheid ballot counting system in America. And we ain't talking about it. Okay? But now we're going to talk about it, alright? That's not all. There's provisional ballots, see? So the fix this year is supposed to be provisional ballots. The republicans had a plan for that, too. There were 155,000 of them. 2 million votes were not counted in the 2000 election, now we're pushing up maybe towards 3 million votes, because we have something called provisional ballots, back of the bus bogus ballots. Who gets those ballots? No points for guessing Black vote. Overwhelmingly, 30,000 ballots were handed out, provisional ballots were handed out to Ohio. Urban, as they say, in other words, Black voters, who supposedly voted in the wrong precinct, knowing that those ballots would never, ever be counted. Now, how did this happen? How did all these voters end up with ballots. Well, I was going to show you something on a machine tonight. Something our office received one night, Oliver Shykles, our researcher on the elections, received one night something over the internet through our e-mail. And by the way, if you ever have - if anyone ever has any documents someone wants to shred that says "confidential," "secret," whatever, go to gregpalast.com. Don't waste it. We'll use it. Someone sent us lists. By the time we're done, 30-40,000 names. Golly gee, called caging lists. If you go down the caging list, something interesting. They were all names of voters in African American precincts. This list was put together and handed to the chairman of the Republican National Campaigns - of the state campaigns and the Republican National Committee. What are they doing with these names of the Black folk? We asked the Republican National Committee chiefs and State Committee chiefs on BBC Television: what are you doing with these lists of Black voters -- of voters? We didn't tell them it was Black voters. We just showed them the list of voters. "Oh, those are the lists of our donors." Oh, I said. Well, we went through -- Leni von Eckardt is one of our researchers -- went through the list, and golly gee, several of those addresses were homeless shelters. So you get a lot of money for the Bush-Cheney campaign from the homeless shelters. Then they said, "Okay, oh, no, no. We've checked again. We just wanted to check to see if people had changed their address." Every expert told us there was one reason. Because they had a plan, a secret plan, to challenge hundreds of thousands of voters nationwide. That's what those lists were. They were target lists, challenge lists, ok? Now, by the way people that they were going to challenge, just because their address changed, that doesn't remove your vote. I mean, Leni went through and found out there were several of them whose address had changed from Black districts because they had gone to Baghdad. These were Black soldiers who had been shipped out. The republicans planned en masse to remover them from the voter -- to prohibit their votes from being counted. So you had hundreds of thousands of votes thrown in the garbage by this plan. Now is that against the law? It's not against the law to go to Baghdad at the commander-in-chief's command. You don't lose your vote. But you know what is against the law? Profiling Black voters for challenge.

AMY GOODMAN: Greg Palast, investigative journalist with the BBC, made the film Bush Family Fortunes: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. This is Democracy Now! Greg Palast, speaking last night at New York Society for Ethical Culture along with Richard Clarke. 


-------- propaganda wars

In Iraq, 'Lawrence' is a must read

Christian Science Monitor
By Dan Murphy
December 08, 2004

http://csmonitor.com/2004/1208/p01s03-woiq.html

CAIRO - In the spring of 1920, British occupation forces were tied down by an Iraqi uprising that began in Fallujah.

British biplanes had rained bombs down on insurgent- occupied towns while ground forces had gone house to house confiscating weapons at the cost of thousands dead.

By August, British generals said they had the uprising well in hand. But a retired British colonel dissented, writing an article for The Times of London that was sharply at odds with the triumphal tone of officers and civilian administrators.

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour,'' he wrote from the country. "Things have been far worse than we have been told.... We are today not far from a disaster."

The author was Lt. Col. T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia. And his letters are getting a fresh airing as US commanders in Iraq, military historians, and journalists reach for understanding as to the challenges the US is facing in the country.

Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom,'' tells how a 1917 Arab revolt against Ottoman rule - which he helped to organize - crippled Turkish supply lines in Arabia with guerrilla raids. It was No. 2 of 100 recommended books for US commanders in Iraq. The list was compiled in a survey of officers by the Inside the Pentagon newsletter last month.

The rest of the books on the list tend to fall into one of three categories: Accounts of the effort to build empire in the region, general looks at counterinsurgency, and histories of the Vietnam War.

But Lawrence himself was a key player in the British colonial decisions that led to the arrangements of modern Iraq and the establishment of its ill-fated monarchy - decisions that set off the bloody procession of events that eventually gave rise to Saddam Hussein and the current war.

Lawrence's complaint of Britain's lack of candor echoes the continuing controversy over how things are going in Iraq. Confidential US government intelligence assessments, one leaked Tuesday to The New York Times, paint a gloomy picture of the war and of Iraq's future, while US officials publicly cite progress. US officers have described the recent victory in Fallujah as a crushing blow to the insurgency, even as fighters have sought to filter back.

And then there are Lawrence's ideas drawn from having helped to run an Arab insurgency.

"The Turk was stupid and would believe that rebellion was absolute, like war, and deal with it on the analogy of absolute warfare,'' Lawrence wrote in "The Evolution of a Revolt." "Analogy is fudge, anyhow, and to make war upon rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife."

Lawrence understood the maddening task regular soldiers faced when confronting an enemy who hits briefly, then hides, saying frequently that time was on the side of the rebel.

"It seemed a regular soldier might be helpless without a target," he wrote. "He would own the ground he sat on, and what he could poke his rifle at."

How much such comments resonate with current US generals is unclear.

"The enemy is broken,'' Marine Lt. Gen. John Sattler, commander of US forces in Fallujah, said Nov. 14. "We have liberated the city of Fallujah." Since then, about 20 US soldiers have died there.

To be sure, Lawrence was a deeply flawed man by today's standards, an enthusiastic colonialist who viewed the Arabs he worked with as natives to be "handled" rather than as friends and equals. And some of his ideas are downright horrifying. In a letter to a London newspaper while the 1920 revolt raged, he mused: "It is odd that we do not use poison gas on these occasions."

The differences between Britain's imperial past and America's Iraqi present are vast and crucial. But analysts say they may offer lessons as Iraq turns toward elections next month that could be marred by violence and may be boycotted by large elements of Iraq's Sunni minority, who controlled Iraq throughout its history until the American invasion.

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators,'' British Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude said shortly after Baghdad was occupied by the British in 1917, replacing longtime Ottoman Turkish rule. "But you, people of Baghdad ... are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions. It is the hope of the British Government that ... once again the people of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws."

Nevertheless, by 1921 a foreign institution had been placed upon Iraq: Feisal, a member of Saudi Arabia's Hashemite family and who had been the local leader of the 1917 Arab revolt that Lawrence helped arrange, was declared Iraq's king. Weak inside his own country, Feisal and his heirs were essentially British clients until they were swept away by Iraq's 1958 revolution.

-----

Film about Aljazeera strikes a chord

aljazeera.net
08 December 2004

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FA360525-5734-4C2E-A4E6-2BB159FC4E5E.htm

A hit documentary about Aljazeera television has drawn emotional reactions this week in a rare screening in the Arab world where the popular channel is widely banned.

Control Room was a surprise hit at US box offices this year with its look at the channel and its coverage of the US-led war in Iraq.

But the response of Arab viewers to the film, which has yet to be distributed in any Arab country, was one of anger and unease at the Dubai International Film Festival at a screening watched by Hollywood star Morgan Freeman.

Many Arab governments have banned Aljazeera from their countries due to its reporting in a region where the media is mainly state-dominated, while Washington accuses it of provoking anti-US sentiment in the Arab world.

Aljazeera rejects the allegations.

For viewers, the film brought back memories of the huge firepower unleashed on Iraq.

It also includes discussions among Arab journalists as well as US officials on the motives behind a deeply unpopular conflict.

Viewers ridiculed Bush's requests regarding treatment of PoWs

"You're appalling, you son of a dog. May your house be destroyed," one Egyptian woman loudly exclaimed at a clip of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ridiculing scenes of grieving Iraqis and bombed buildings as "stage-managed".

Many laughed bitterly at soundbites from President George Bush requesting that Iraq treat US prisoners of war as well as the US military treats its PoWs.

Revelations of abuse

Revelations of US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail have further enraged Arab feelings towards Washington.

After a year taking the film around the US and the West, director Jehane Noujaim finally brought the film to the Middle East with showings in Dubai and Cairo.

One Lebanese man who lives in Canada said he found it painful to watch the one-and-a-half hour movie.

"I did not like the film. It made me feel sad," Gabriel Bakhazi said at a post-movie seminar. "I didn't see anything to laugh at. Your film made me feel more angry and powerless."

Banned   Hasan Ibrahim, a Sudanese producer at Aljazeera who features in the film, responded: "Why are you afraid of realising the full gravity of the situation? But I thank you for your honesty, it's a beautiful reaction.

"We'll keep on doing what we're doing. What the camera sees, we show"

Hasan Ibrahim, Aljazeera producer "[Former Chinese ruler] Mao Zedong said the journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step and the first step is to realise the gravity of the situation. As a people (Arabs), we have a long journey ahead," he added to applause.

Aljazeera now faces competition from rivals such as Saudi owned Al-Arabiya that have largely avoided run-ins with Arab governments and Washington with coverage perceived as less inflammatory.

Asked about Aljazeera's reporting, Ibrahim responded: "We'll keep on doing what we're doing. What the camera sees, we show."

Aljazeera is currently banned in six Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

-----

Weapons of Mass Deception: New Film Documents How the Corporate Media Muzzled the Truth About Iraq

democracynow.org
December 8th, 2004

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/08/1520209

A new documentary called "Weapons of Mass Deception," by Danny Schechter of Mediachannel.org. documents the media's biased coverage of the Iraq War. [includes rush transcript] An April 2004 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that almost half of the American public still believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq and 57% believe Hussein gave substantial support to Al Qaeda. There's no known documentary or physical evidence to date that these statements are true. So why do Americans believe this?

A new documentary called "Weapons of Mass Deception," by Danny Schechter of Mediachannel.org. documents the media's biased coverage of the Iraq War.

    * Danny Schechter, Executive Director of Mediachannel.org and producer and director of the new documentary "Weapons of Mass Deception."     * Excerpts of Weapons of Mass Deception.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: There's a new documentary that's opening this weekend in Washington DC at the Landmark Theater and in Berkeley in San Francisco at the Oaks in the Embarcadero. It's called Weapons of Mass Deception. It's by that news dissector Danny Schechter, and the award-winning filmmaker who runs mediachannel.org. The film documents the media's biased coverage of the Iraq war. And he joins us in the studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

DANNY SCHECHTER: Thanks Amy. You know those studies are of course only the tip of the iceberg, and there have been other studies as well. 42% of the American people believe there were Iraqi hijackers on the planes that hit the World Trade Center. Again it was intimation, insinuation suggestion. You know if these guys hate us, if Saddam Hussein speaks Arabic, hates America - Osama speaks Arabic, hates America - therefore Saddam is Osama. This is the logic of a lot of the media reporting. The kind of slipping, merging of personalities, the idea that these are our enemies and therefore distinctions cannot be drawn, must not be drawn. This created a big percentage of people in the United States who supported this war based on what they thought was true. Their impressions. Not information. And this is where our media is to be faulted because it's degenerated to the point where it does not challenge media coverage, rather presidential claims and government claims. And significantly, just two weeks ago, the presidents of the news divisions of ABC, NBC and CBS meeting out at Stanford University all admitted their coverage was not critical enough. Simply stated, we let the American people down is what the president of ABC News, David Weston said. Thank you, David for that admission, but it's a little late, don't you think.

AMY GOODMAN: Danny Schechter will be with us after the break. We also want to play a clip of the film, one of the clips will be what happened to un-embedded reporters in Iraq. We're going to talk about a case that we have been investigating over the last few weeks in Madrid, Spain with the family of Jose Couso, the Spanish filmmaker who was killed when he was filming at the Palestine Hotel. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracy now.org, the war and peace report. We're talking about a new film opening in Washington and California, Berkeley and San Francisco this week. It's called WMD, Weapons of Mass Deception. The filmmaker joins us, Danny Schechter. We want to play a couple of clips from this film. The first is about Jose Couso. Set it up for us.

DANNY SCHECHTER: Were journalist targeted during the war in Iraq? There were a number of incidents, friendly fire. Was it deliberate? Were reporters killed who were un-embedded, who were challenging the dominant view that the American military wanted to get out by offering a contrasting narrative? That's the question many people are debating. What happened at the Palestine Hotel on April 8, 2003 is very significant in this respect and we cover it in the film WMD.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I'll say that I think everyone remembers what happened the day after, when the statue of Saddam Hussein was brought down by U.S. troops, because we saw that all day and night on television. This is what happened the day before.

      NARRATOR: Journalists and media workers were targeted in Iraq. Was it deliberate? To keep the story on message by intimidating un-embedded journalists. How did the media in the street challenge these killings? Some were killed by so-called friendly fire. Others victims of calculated attacks, missiles, tank shells, and bombs dropped on or near journalists. Some media critics concluded it was intentional, although the Pentagon denied it. Before the war, the BBC's Kate Adey reported she was told by the Pentagon that independent journalists could be targeted.

      REPORTER: The 15th floor of the Palestine Hotel was the target. A US tank shelled the Palestine Hotel, which was crowded with journalists, killing two cameramen. One works for a Spanish network, and the other one works for Reuters.

      NARRATOR: Now another incident. Look at this. An American tank on the bridge across from the Palestine hotel in Baghdad. A soldier claimed his tank was fired on. Listen carefully. There are no sounds.

      SAMIA NAKHOUL: We moved to the Palestine hotel because the Pentagon asked our organizations to let us leave because it was a target and when we moved to the Palestine Hotel our organization told the Pentagon we were at the Palestine hotel. So did ever news organization.

      NARRATOR: Again, minutes later no sounds were heard, no one firing at U.S. soldiers. Suddenly without provocation -

      SAMIA NAKHOUL: We saw an orange glow, and this was the tank shell that hit our office. And you can imagine the panic, the wounded it was me and another photographer. I can't imagine that they would target journalists. You know, I couldn't believe why would they target us? What have we done to them?

      NARRATOR: After the war press freedom groups were still demanding a real investigation. The Pentagon's Victoria Clark told me there was a report that showed that the soldiers were acting in self-defense.

      NARRATOR: Was there any attempt to find out the facts independently or a thorough investigation?

      SAMIA NAKHOUL: No - the Pentagon never interviewed me personally on it. I don't think any of my colleagues were interviewed by the Pentagon.

      NARRATOR: Samia's organization, Reuters demanded an independent investigation, but most media companies didn't even press on this issue. No one was held accountable. It was all passed off as an accident, the fog of war and all that. 

AMY GOODMAN: WMD, Weapons of Mass Deception, a film opening this weekend in San Francisco, Berkeley and Washington DC. Danny Schechter, the whole issue of embedded versus un-embedded journalists, actually, Jose Couso's family - his mother and brother Javier - are coming to the United States, calling for an investigation. Javier went back to Iraq or went to Iraq for the first time on the anniversary of Jose Couso's death and thanked the doctors who tried to save him and then went to lay flowers at Palestine Hotel. He told us last week on Democracy Now! that the U.S. military put a gun to his head and wouldn't let him lay those flowers.

DANNY SCHECHTER: What's also outrageous is that the American media companies did not demand an investigation of this, did not join Reuters in demanding an investigation. So it just wasn't just complicity and collusion in the coverage of the war but a refusal to get involved in an effort to try to find out what really happened, what the facts were. To try to get at the truth of what happened to their own people. That to me compounds the shock of the way in which the media played the role it did. I'm a former ABC News, CNN producer. I've been working at global vision all these years, I've been trying to cover under-covered and unreported stories. And I felt that the coverage of the war was one of the most under-covered stories and one of the most important stories. Because if we can't have a media we trust and depend on, how do we have a democracy or democracy now. That's why I felt this story is so important. We made this film at 1% of the cost of Fahrenheit 911, it's been a big struggle. The Cinema Libre company that distributed Out-Foxed is distributing this film to theaters. We need support - we need people to come out and see this film this weekend in Washington DC, and in Berkeley and San Francisco.

AMY GOODMAN: For people to understand the politics how a new film coming out works, what really determines it's success, whether it gets out to a larger number of theaters is who comes out in the first or the number of people that come out in the first few days. They're simply counting bodies.

DANNY SCHECHTER: Exactly. When we were in Boston, we're going to be remaining in Boston at the, you know, the theater there in Cambridge and I believe that this film is very very important because it's part of the whole media and democracy movement to get people to recognize we need to keep the media accountable and to understand the role that media plays.

AMY GOODMAN: Danny, set up this next clip that we will go out with and it's about depleted uranium.

DANNY SCHECHTER: One of the things that WMD shows is what wasn't shown in America in the media during the war. I compared and contrasted coverage here with coverage in other countries. And this section is information dominance which basically depends on censorship and suppression of information.

AMY GOODMAN: This is from WMD, Weapons of Mass Deception.

      NARRATOR: Information dominance requires censorship. Little attention was paid to U.S. weapons that caused mass destruction like legally prohibited cluster bombs that target civilians.

      RENE HORN: It was a cluster bomb. The bomb with multiple mini-bombs is dropped from an aircraft focusing on targeted areas.

      NARRATOR: South African viewers learned about how cluster bombs worked and the damage they cause. An under-reported fact, half of Iraq's population is under the age of 15. These young people became a primary target. This is what Baghdad's pediatric hospital looked like - floor after floor of cluster bomb survivors. This was filmed not by a network but by independent filmmaker Patrick Dillon. Human rights watch reported cluster weapons caused several hundred casualties like these. There was extensive use of napalm-like Mark77 fire bombs. It was denied at first but then admitted. But more onerous was the almost total blackout on the use of radioactive depleted uranium, which hardens anti-tank weapons. This is especially ironic in light of Washington's constant claims of an Iraqi nuclear threat. The issue was covered overseas. A German journalist documented this proliferation in an Emmy award-winning report for ARD in Germany.

      INTERVIEWER: [subtitled] Are you aware that this tank is contaminated with radiation?

      SOLDIER: [subtitled] No, it isn't radioactive.

      INTERVIEWER: [subtitled] But we have measured it.

      SOLDIER: [subtitled] No, it isn't radioactive, not this tank.

      INTERVIEWER: [subtitled] It was destroyed by depleted uranium ammunition.

      SOLDIER: [subtitled] Sorry, we have to get back to work.

      BBC REPORTER: In the British back office a list of trouble ...

      NARRATOR: BBC took viewers into a back room at the coalition media center. On the wall, a list of subjects briefers were ordered to avoid. On that list, DU, or depleted uranium. 

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt from WMD, Weapons of Mass Deception. Again, it opens in Washington and San Francisco and Berkeley this weekend. In Berkeley at the Oaks theater, in San Francisco at the Embarcadero, and in Washington on E street at the Landmark. Danny Schechter, the filmmaker, the Emmy award-winning CNN, former ABC producer. 


-------- us politics

Senate prepares for final passage of intelligence reorganization legislation

By Associated Press, 12/8/2004 07:32

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/343/nation/Senate_prepares_for_final_pass:.shtml

WASHINGTON (AP) Four months after the Sept. 11 commission urged drastic changes to protect the nation from another terror attack, Congress neared final passage Wednesday of far-reaching legislation overhauling the nation's intelligence network and instituting new border and aviation security safeguards.

''We have walked a long and winding road to get to this day, but ultimately we've gotten to exactly where we wanted to be, which is on the verge of adopting legislation that will reform America's intelligence assets,'' said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., one of the lead Senate negotiators on the bill.

A compromise bill that seemed to be dead two weeks ago was getting a final vote in the Senate late Wednesday before being sent to President Bush for his signature.

The House passed the bill overwhelmingly on Tuesday, 336-75, after Bush endorsed it and House Republicans satisfied themselves that the measure would not negatively affect the nation's military.

The legislation would:

Create a new national intelligence director.

Establish a counterterrorism center.

Set priorities for intelligence gathering.

Tighten U.S. borders.

It would implement the biggest change to U.S. intelligence gathering and analysis since the creation of the CIA after World War II.

-------- 

Huge Spending Bill Is Sent to Bush

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Washington Post; Page A09

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45179-2004Dec7?language=printer

Congress sent President Bush yesterday a $388 billion legislative package that covers the spending of every federal agency but the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.

Bush is expected to sign the bill before midnight tonight, when a temporary measure expires.

Congress passed the package on Nov. 20. Lawmakers delayed sending it to the White House until after they overturned language that would have made it easier for some members of Congress and their aides to enter Internal Revenue Service offices and examine income tax returns.

Meanwhile, Rep. John E. Peterson (R-Pa.) brought the weather prognosticating groundhog Punxsutawney Phil out of hibernation and up to Capitol Hill to help him defend the bill's $100,000 grant for a weather museum in his district that critics have called pork.

Citizens Against Government Waste, a lobby group dedicated to cutting wasteful spending, included the museum in a long list of pork-barrel projects in the bill.

"To cry 'pork' without knowing anything about the project only serves to undermine the credibility of otherwise reputable organizations," Peterson said at a news conference as the 27-pound rodent sat on the floor in a cage.

-------

Dying in Iraq: It's Not for Offspring of the War Hawks

by William Hughes
08 December 2004

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/11845/

"Michael Moore made the claim that only one family member of the U.S. Congress, who shamefully gave President George W. Bush, Jr. a blank check to invade Iraq, was serving in that war. Actually, there were three out of the 535 members! More importantly, however, not one offspring of a congressional member, the Neocons, or the War Hawks in the Right Wing media, has died in Iraq, although 1275 of our finest sons and daughters have."

The number of American military deaths in Iraq, as of Dec. 5, 2004, stood at a staggering 1275. The list of those brave Americans who will never come home except in a body bag, goes on for pages. You can find it all at: Iraq Coalition Casualties (http://icasualties.org/oif/): the names of the deceased; their home towns and states; their service ranks and the dates that they were killed in combat, via an accident, or by a fatal disease.

What you won't find in that roster are the surnames of any of the offspring of the prominent Neocons, or the War Hawks in the U.S. Congress; or in the Bush-Cheney Gang; or of the raving Right Wing media types, or of the mouthy Hollywood celebrities who helped to push us into this horrific war on March 20, 2003. Their children haven't paid the ultimate price for their parents' ideological folly. Other kids, however, from across America, have. These are the ones, who aren't rich or politically connected. They honestly believed in the flag and, mistakenly, thought that the Congress was doing right by them in giving President George W. Bush, Jr. the green light to invade Iraq under the guise of "exporting democracy." This was only one of many of the Washington-based regime's fraudulent claims leading up to the war.

There are a lot of Hispanic names on the roll call of America's fallen heroes. They dominate this tragic record. In fact, Puerto Rico, alone has lost 11 of her finest sons so far in that conflict. Of course, there is no way to figure out if a deceased soldier is an African American or not by a surname. We do know that African-Americans presently include 15 % of the U.S. combat population, so it would be no jump to say that they also make up about 15 % , or more, of the casualties in Iraq. There are plenty of surname entries that sound Irish, Italian, German, English, Polish and Jewish; and many other ethnic groups, too long to detail here. The surname "Gonzales" seems to come up the most. But, there are no familiar Neocon surnames! I looked, without success, to see if I could specifically find a Perle (Richard); a Wolfowitz (Paul); a Bennett (William); a Bolton (John R.) or a Feith (Douglas). Despite an extensive search, none of those surnames were found (See, for background on the Neocons, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html).

For this discussion, let's not leave out that genius of a pundit, Ken Adelman. He rants for the Washington Post. With the prescience of a man, who has never heard a shot fired in anger, he wrote, "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps." He penned all of this nonsense from the safety of his comfortable office, at 1515 L. Street, in D.C., on Feb. 13, 2002. I found no U.S. casualty with the surname of Adelman. You would think, however, if he was so sure that the Iraqi War was going to be "a cakewalk," that he would have volunteered his own heroic service and the services of any of his military age-eligible children. But, alas, Adelman declined to go that far.

In Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" flick, he made the shocking point that of the 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 members in the U.S. Senate, only one had an offspring fighting in Iraq! Well, it appears Moore was wrong, but not by much. Now, the Moore-bashers are claiming that there were actually three members out of the 535 members of Congress that had a family member in the military in Iraq. Big deal! Let the record now show that the Congress that shamelessly gave the Bush-Cheney Gang a blank check to invade Iraq had three of their own fighting there!

As for that Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), the "Oliver Cromwell" of American politics, was foaming at the mouth pushing for the Iraqi War to start, while on the other side of the aisle, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), was just as anxious to see those blockbuster bombs and missiles lighting up the sky over targets like Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah. These two blood thirsty militarists got their death wish. We now know the lethal results (www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm). Naturally, there is no evidence that any soldier named DeLay and/or Lieberman has paid the supreme price for the reckless warmongering of that duo.

Then, there is that Iraqi War-loving chorus found in the Media. Leading up to March 20, 2003, I personally tracked and challenged these characters and their dubious arguments in favor of the Iraqi War. Some are also Neocons wearing two hats; while others just blab away on Talk Radio. Three are actors: Ben Stein, Ron Silver and ex-U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN). This latter trio has ties to Watergate figure, G. Gordon Liddy, and a pro-Iraq War rally, which was held, in Washington, D.C., on the National Mall, on April 12, 2003. Here is a partial sampling from my list of Media-related warmongers: William Kristol; Bill O'Reilly; George F. Will; Mona Charen; A.M. Rosenthal; Marty Peretz; Zev Chafets; Mortimer B. Zuckerman; Rupert Murdock; Charles Krauthammer; Dick Morris; Ann Coulter; Sean Hannity; Russ Limbaugh; Arnold Schwarznegger; Linda Chavez; Joel Mowbray; John Podhoretz; Laura Ingraham and Jonah Goldberg. And, let's not forget that lonely "liberal" from the Moonie-owned Washington Times, Nat Hentoff! On April 7, 2003, he endorsed the Iraqi war. Some liberal conscience Hentoff is! Well, what do you expect from a guy, who wrote a piece on 11/25/02, apologizing for the excesses of Israel's Ariel Sharon?

Needless to say, none of the offspring of the above cited War Hawks has fallen in Iraq, nor do I expect any of them ever will. These War Hawks are too smart to let their own children go over to that Iraqi hell hole, get shot up and die and/or to suck up all of that toxic depleted uranium. So, what do they really care if somebody else's kid goes over and does the fighting and dying?

Where have the 1275 American dead in Iraq come from, if not from the ranks of the offspring of the War Hawks? To date, California has sacrificed 150 of its gallant citizens; Texas 115; Pennsylvania 64, New York 59; Florida 57; Illinois 55 and Ohio 43. These seven states lead the nation at the moment in the numbers of fatal casualties. My home state of Maryland has recorded 19 deaths so far, four of them coming within a stunning five-day period. The grim results of this totally unnecessary, immoral, illegal and unjust war will continue to hit home in the cities, towns and villages of America, in the months ahead and possibly for years to come, unless stopped by an outraged populace. (If you want to hear one father's heartbreaking anguish over losing a son in the Iraqi conflict, then please take the time to watch and listen to this video of Fernando Suarez del Solar, that I took at an Anti-War rally, in Washington, D.C. It's found at: http://baltimore.indymedia.org/media/all/display/1792.)

There is only one thing we now know for sure: The warmongers, if the past is prologue, will not have to shed any tears over the loss of their own sons or daughters as a result of their dying in the Iraqi War. That predicament will be left only for those whose trust continues to be badly abused by an ultra hawkish regime in Washington, whose serial lies, if linked together in sentences, would probably stretch around the globe.

 
-------- ENERGY 

Bipartisan Commission Issues Strategy to Address Long-Term U.S. Energy Challenges 

The National Commission on Energy Policy
December 8, 2004

http://www.energycommission.org/news/

Detailed Recommendations on Oil Security, Climate Change, Natural Gas, Nuclear Energy, and Other Key Topics the Result of 2 Years of Research and Consultation

Consensus Plan; Group to Spend 2005 Advocating Package

(Washington, D.C.) -- A bipartisan group of top energy experts from industry, government, labor, academia, and environmental and consumer groups today released a consensus strategy, more than two years in the making, to address major long-term U.S. energy challenges.  The report, "Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Challenges," contains detailed policy recommendations for addressing oil security, climate change, natural gas supply, the future of nuclear energy, and other long-term challenges, and is backed by more than 30 original research studies.

"Political and regional polarization has produced an energy stalemate, preventing America from adopting sensible approaches to some of our biggest energy problems," said John W. Rowe, Commission co-chair and Chairman and CEO of Exelon Corp.  "Our Commission reached consensus on effective policies because of a willingness to take on cherished myths from both right and left. We believe that this package of recommendations can be of value to Congress and the Administration in energy legislation next year and beyond."

"Taken together, the Commission's recommendations aim to achieve a gradual but decisive shift in the nation's energy policy, toward one that directly addresses our long-term oil, climate, electricity supply, and technology challenges," said William K. Reilly, former EPA Administrator and Commission co-chair.   "Oil reliance is a fact we will face for some time. So we recommend incentives to spur global oil production, to increase domestic vehicle fuel economy, and to increase investment in alternative fuels. Our climate change plan would both limit greenhouse gas emissions and cap the costs of doing so.  At the same time, it provides incentives for low- and non-carbon sources like natural gas, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and sequestration, as well as for increased efficiency of energy end use. We are proposing programs that can work in the real world."  

"It's essential to take some prudent steps now to avoid intolerable costs and impacts later," said John Holdren, Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University and Commission co-chair.  "The task of energy policy is to ensure the reliable and affordable energy services that a prosperous economy requires while simultaneously limiting the risks and impacts from overdependence on oil, from global climate change, and from other environmental and political liabilities of the available energy-supply options.   Meeting this challenge requires measures to encourage increased use of the best available technologies for energy supply and energy end-use efficiency in the years immediately ahead, as well as increased investments in energy research and development to improve the options available to us in the future."

To enhance US oil security, the Commission recommends:

-  Increasing and diversifying world oil production while expanding the global network of strategic petroleum reserves.

-  Significantly strengthening federal fuel economy standards beginning no later than 2010 for cars and light trucks, giving due consideration to vehicle performance, safety, job impacts and competitiveness concerns.

-  Reforming the 30-year-old Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program to allow more flexibility and limit compliance costs. 

-  Providing $3 billion over ten years in manufacturer and consumer incentives to encourage domestic production and boost sales of efficient hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles.

-  Developing non-petroleum transportation fuel alternatives, particularly ethanol and clean bio-diesel from waste products and biomass.

 The Commission estimates its recommendations could reduce U.S. oil consumption in 2025 by 10-15 percent or 3-5 million barrels per day.   

"Raising CAFE standards and reforming the program go hand in hand," said Holdren.  "The $3 billion package of consumer and manufacturer incentives, together with important program reforms, will enable domestic manufacturers to significantly raise fuel economy by the end of the decade while protecting U.S. jobs."  

Regarding oil supply, the Commission believes the U.S. government should apply diplomatic pressure to encourage nations with significant but underdeveloped oil reserves to allow foreign investment in their energy sectors to increase and diversify global oil production. To the extent that unilaterally imposed U.S. economic sanctions may be limiting investment in foreign energy markets and constraining world oil supply, the oil security implications of these sanctions should be carefully considered. In focusing on world oil supply, the Commission report notes that "reducing vulnerability to high oil prices and supply disruptions are more meaningful and ultimately achievable policy goals than a misplaced focus on energy independence."

"The near-term key to reducing oil price shocks is curbing U.S. demand and increasing world supply," said Reilly.  "We have to do both.  We also have to make big investments in alternatives like bio-fuels made from domestic crops and agricultural waste."

To reduce risks from climate change, the Commission recommends:

-  Implementing in 2010 a mandatory, economy-wide tradable-permits system designed to curb future growth in the nation's emissions of greenhouse gases while capping initial costs to the U.S. economy at $7 per metric ton of carbon dioxide-equivalent. 

-  Linking subsequent action to reduce U.S. emissions with efforts by other developed and developing nations to achieve comparable emissions reductions via a review of program efficacy and international progress in 2015.

"The Commission believes the United States must take responsibility for addressing its contribution to the risks of climate change," said Rowe. "But we must do so in a manner that recognizes the global nature of the challenge and does not harm the competitive position of U.S. businesses internationally.  Our plan meets those goals." 

Under the Commission's proposal, the U.S. government in 2010 would begin issuing permits for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on an annual emissions target that reflects a 2.4 percent per year reduction in the average GHG intensity of the economy (where intensity is measured in tons of emissions per dollar of GDP).  An emissions intensity metric is also the basis of President Bush's plan, which calls for voluntary GHG intensity reductions of 1.8 percent per year from 2002-2012.

Under the Commission's proposal, most GHG permits would be issued at no cost to existing emitters, but a small pool - 5 percent at the outset, increasing gradually thereafter to a maximum of 10 percent -would be auctioned to accommodate new entrants, stimulate the market in emission permits, and fund research and development of new technologies. 

The Commission's proposal also includes a "safety valve" or cost-capping mechanism to limit the total cost of the program to the U.S. economy.  The cost cap allows additional permits to be purchased from the government at an initial price of $7 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent. The safety valve price would increase by 5 percent per year in nominal terms to generate a gradually stronger market signal for reducing emissions without prematurely displacing existing energy infrastructure.

"The Commission's climate change proposal is designed to be a logical next step for the nation, building upon many of the themes and features of the current Administration's program," Reilly said.  "Such a program is entirely compatible with separate legislative efforts by the Bush Administration and the Congress to address nitrogen, mercury and sulfur emissions from electric power generation. The Commission did not study specific legislation, but supports multi-pollutant approaches as a means of improving public health, providing business certainty and accelerating investments in cleaner burning technologies, such as IGCC."

 "The Commission's climate plan explicitly caps the total cost to the economy while reducing emissions.  Even in 2020, the estimated cost of the plan per household will only be $30-100 a year." said Reilly. "This is no Kyoto."

In 2015, and every five years thereafter, Congress would review the program and evaluate whether emissions control progress by major trading partners and competitors (including developing countries such as China and India) supports its continuation. 

Conservative modeling analyses suggest that the Commission's proposal would reduce total emissions in 2020 by approximately 540 million metric tons. Emission reductions could be much higher -as much as 1 billion metric tons in 2020 - if the investments in technology innovation and efficiency proposed elsewhere in this report further reduce abatement costs.  

To improve the energy efficiency of the U.S. economy, the Commission recommends:

-  Updating and expanding efficiency standards for new appliances, equipment, and buildings to capture additional cost-effective energy-saving opportunities. 

-  Integrating improvements in efficiency standards with targeted technology incentives, R&D, consumer information, and programs sponsored by electric and gas utilities.

-  Pursuing cost-effective efficiency improvements in the industrial sector.

Efficiency improvements in buildings and industry are important complements to the Commission's efficiency recommendations for the transportation sector, which include fuel-saving opportunities in the heavy-duty truck fleet, which is responsible for roughly 20 percent of transportation energy consumption, but is not subject to fuel economy regulation, and in the existing vehicle fleet where a substantial opportunity exists to improve efficiency by, for example, mandating that replacement tires have rolling-resistance characteristics equivalent to the original equipment tires used on new vehicles. 

"Absent substantial gains in the energy efficiency of motor vehicles, buildings, appliances, and equipment, it becomes difficult to imagine how energy supplies, and especially clean energy supplies, can keep pace with increased U.S. and global demand," said Holdren.

To increase U.S. energy supply, the Commission recommends:

Natural Gas: To diversify and expand the nation's access to natural gas supplies, the Commission recommends:

-  Adopting effective public incentives for the construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline.

-  Addressing obstacles to the siting and construction of infrastructure needed to support increased imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"Natural gas is the key bridge fuel for electricity over the next several decades," said Rowe.  "We simply must find ways to increase supply to U.S. markets." 

Advanced Coal Technologies:  To enable the nation to continue to rely upon secure, domestic supplies of coal to meet future energy needs while addressing the climate risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions, the Commission recommends:

-  Providing $4 billion over ten years in early deployment incentives for integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal technology.

-  Providing $3 billion over ten years in public incentives to demonstrate commercial-scale carbon capture and geologic sequestration at a variety of sites.

-  Coal gasification holds promise for economically capturing carbon emissions while also reducing emissions of pollutants like mercury and sulfur dioxide. The process is commonly used in the manufacture of chemicals, but - with the exception of a handful of demonstration facilities - has not yet been widely applied to producing power on a commercial scale.

"Coal's abundance in the United States, and in major developing countries like China and India, makes finding clean ways to use it among our highest priorities," said Reilly.  "Coal gasification, when combined with carbon sequestration, has the potential to revolutionize energy production."   

Nuclear Power:  To help enable nuclear power to continue to play a meaningful role in meeting future energy needs, the Commission recommends:

-  Fulfilling existing federal commitments on nuclear waste management

-  Providing $2 billion over ten years from federal research, development, demonstration, and deployment budgets for the demonstration of one to two new advanced nuclear power plants.

-  Significantly strengthening the international non-proliferation regime.

"The contribution of nuclear energy to meeting the nation's electricity needs will decline absent concerted efforts to address concerns about cost, susceptibility to accidents and terrorist attacks, management of radioactive wastes, and proliferation risks," said Holdren.  "Given the risks from climate change and the challenges that face all of the low-carbon and no-carbon supply options, it would be imprudent in the extreme not to try to keep the nuclear option open." 

Renewable Energy:  To expand the contribution of clean, renewable energy, the Commission recommends:

-  Increasing federal support for renewable technology research and development by $360 million annually, targeted at overcoming key hurdles in cost competitiveness and early deployment.

-  Extending the federal production tax credit for a further four years (i.e., from 2006 through 2009), and expanding eligibility to all non-carbon energy sources, including solar, geothermal, new hydropower generation, next generation nuclear, and advanced fossil fuel generation with carbon capture and sequestration.

-  Supporting ongoing efforts by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to promote market-based approaches to integrating intermittent resources into the interstate grid system.

-  Establishing a $1.5 billion program over ten years to increase domestic production of advanced non-petroleum transportation fuels from biomass (including waste).

"The Commission's renewable energy proposals are aimed at finding ways to reduce costs and bring competitive sources to market," said Reilly.  "Any scenario for tackling climate change and developing clean domestic energy resources must involve expanded use of renewable power."

To strengthen energy supply infrastructure, the Commission recommends:

-  Reducing barriers to the siting of critical energy infrastructure.

-  Protecting critical infrastructure from accidental failure and terrorist threats.

-  Supporting a variety of generation resources - including both large scale power plants and small scale "distributed" and/or renewable generation - and demand reduction (for both electricity and natural gas), to ensure affordable and reliable energy service for consumers.

-  Encouraging increased transmission investment and deployment of new technologies to enhance the availability and reliability of the grid, in part by clarifying rules for cost-recovery. 

-  Enhancing consumer protections in the electricity sector and establishing an integrated, multi-pollutant program to reduce power plant emissions.

"There is a national imperative to strengthen the systems that deliver energy," said Rowe.   "Priorities include siting reforms to enable the expansion and construction of needed energy facilities, greater efforts to protect the nation's energy systems from terrorist attack, and reforms to improve the reliability and performance of the electricity sector." 

To promote the development of improved energy technologies for the future, the Commission recommends:

-  Doubling of federal government funding for energy research and development, while improving the management of these efforts and promoting effective public-private partnerships.

-  Increasing incentives for private sector energy research, development, demonstration, and early deployment (ERD3).

-  Expanding investment in cooperative international ERD3initiatives and improving coordination among relevant federal agencies.

-  Providing early deployment incentives for coal gasification and carbon sequestration; domestically produced efficient vehicles; domestically produced alternative transportation fuels; and advanced nuclear reactors.

"Overcoming the energy challenges faced by the United States and the rest of the world requires technologies superior to those available today," said Holdren.  "To accelerate the development and deployment of these technologies, the federal government must increase its own investments in energy-technology innovation as well as its collaboration in this domain with the private sector, with states, and with other nations." 

The Commission notes that investments by both the private and public sectors in energy research, development, demonstration, and early deployment have been falling short of what is likely to be needed to meet the energy challenges confronting the nation and the world in the 21st century.  

 Revenue Neutrality

The Commission proposes that the nation devote the resources generated by the sale of greenhouse gas emissions permits to enhance the development and deployment of improved energy technologies.  The approximately $36 billion that Commission analysis indicates will be generated over ten years by the proposed greenhouse gas tradable-permits program - most of which will come from auctioning a small portion of the overall permit pool - offsets the specific additional public investments it recommends overall. 

The Commission's recommendations were developed in more than a dozen two-day meetings over two years and are informed by over 30 original, Commission-sponsored studies on major energy topics.  The group also met with hundreds of leading stakeholders, including industry; environmental groups; state, local, and federal governmental officials; labor and consumer groups; agricultural interests; and many others.  A full list of consulted organizations, copies of the Commission's report, supporting research studies, and other information can be found on the Commission's website at:  www.energycommission.org

The Commission will spend 2005 advocating for the ideas in its strategy to Congress, the Administration, the States, industry, and other key stakeholders.

"For more than 30 years, Energy has been the graveyard of many a brave policy titan," said Reilly.  "But our analysis shows that these recommended policies can curb U.S. oil use, begin to address greenhouse gas emissions, develop viable new technologies, and put the U.S. in a much stronger energy posture.  We intend to carry that message to the highest levels throughout 2005." NCEP to Release Strategy to Address Long-Term U.S. Energy Challenges

(Washington, D.C.) 12/02/04 -- Strategy to include Detailed Recommendations on Energy Supply, Oil Security, Climate Change, Technology Policy and Other Key Topics. Recommendations the result of 2 Years of Research and Consultation; Consensus Plan; Group to Spend 2005 Advocating Package Read More

Conference 'Global Challenges for U.S. Energy Policy: Economic, Environmental, and Security Risks'

(Washington, D.C.) 03/05/04 -- In an effort to build a national consensus on addressing the global dimensions of U.S. energy policy, the National Commission on Energy Policy, Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, and the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies sponsored a conference entitled "Global Challenges for U.S. Energy Policy: Economic, Environmental, and Security Risks." This bi-partisan conference, broadcast live via webcast, brought together national political leaders, business executives, and foreign policy experts. Read More

NCEP Releases Paper On Two Promising Natural Gas Supply Options

(Washington, D.C.) 10/21/03 -- A bipartisan group of leading energy experts today released a study of two key U.S. natural gas supply issues, finding that an Alaska natural gas pipeline likely would provide significant economic benefits to the U.S. economy due to lower natural gas prices. The report by the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), "Increasing U.S. Natural Gas Supplies," identified and analyzed the market and regulatory conditions currently facing pipeline developers, and concluded that market barriers to the project and the substantial benefits likely to accrue from construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline warrant limited government intervention -in the form of a tax credit-to help spur pipeline construction. Read More

Bipartisan Commission Offers Recommendations to Aid Troubled U.S. Electricity Sector

(Washington, D.C.) 08/22/03 -- The bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) has released a series of specific regulatory and legislative recommendations that would enable electricity market competition to progress, while also calling for regulations and incentive provisions that enhance the security and reliability of the power system, assure affordable service to small consumers and provide flexibility for states and regions. Read More

NCEP holds forum on 'The Future of Biomass and Transportation Fuels'

(Washington, D.C.) 06/13/03 -- While the prospect of using our farm, forest and waste products to produce transportation fuels enjoys widespread political support in Congress, the Administration, and among many interest groups, key questions remain regarding the realistic scale of domestically-produced fuels, costs, and environmental impacts. In response to these questions and uncertainties, the National Commission on Energy Policy sponsored a forum, "The Future of Biomass and Transportation Fuels" on Friday, June 13, 2003 at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The forum featured addresses by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO), Assistant Secretary of Energy David Garman and Under Secretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, in addition to presentations and debate among other notable participants. Read More

NCEP Executive Director Address RFF Audience

(Washington, D.C.) 06/11/03 -- On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, the National Commission on Energy Policy's Executive Director, Jason Grumet, was invited to speak at Resources for the Future (RFF), a Washington, D.C. think tank that specializes in environment and natural resource issues. Mr. Grumet spoke about the origins, aspirations, and progress to date of the NCEP. Read More

NCEP sponsors a forum on 'The Future of Electricity Restructuring'

(Washington, D.C.) 04/01/103 -- With the 108th Congress debating the possibility of including an electricity provision in this year's comprehensive energy bill and FERC continuing to evaluate its Standard Market Design (SMD), the National Commission on Energy Policy held a forum, "The Future of Electricity Restructuring" on Tuesday, April 1, 2003 at the Chamber of Commerce Building in Washington, D.C. Read More

NCEP conducts workshop on 'The Potential Role of Diesel in Improving Fuel Economy'

(Washington, D.C.) 02/04/03 -- Amidst persisting debates about increasing passenger fleet fuel economy, assessing climate change impacts, and lessening our country's oil dependence, the NCEP sponsored a workshop to explore the impacts that a diesel vehicle strategy could have on these issues. Read More 



-------- OTHER


-------- environment

Maryland Firm Gets Extension for Toxic Cleanup in Peru

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
By Sara Shipley and Peter Shinkle
December 08, 2004

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=554

Violence erupted in La Oroya, Peru, this week as Doe Run Resources Corp. of Maryland Heights won an extension on its government-mandated plan to clean up toxic pollution at its metallurgical complex in the Andes Mountains.

The Peruvian government announced a compromise Tuesday after workers stopped production at the La Oroya lead, copper and zinc plant in support of an extension.

Doe Run had threatened to close the facility, which employs about 3,500 people, unless the government gave it five more years to complete $134 million in environmental improvement projects.

The extension would ease financial pressure on the troubled company, but it provoked outrage from health and environmental activists who've demanded a quicker cleanup plan.

American Presbyterian missionary Hunter Farrell of Lima, Peru, called Doe Run's demand for an extension "economic blackmail."

"Everyone wants the company to stay and do business and continue to employ people," said Farrell, who works with a group called the Movement for Health of La Oroya. "But there is an element of human dignity and the right to the health and life of the people."

Doe Run's pollution has been the target of environmental enforcement efforts in Peru and in Herculaneum, Mo., where the company operates another lead smelter.

Doe Run officials have said the company is working hard to clean up the mess it inherited in La Oroya when it bought the plant in 1997 from the Peruvian government. To date, the company has spent $33 million on environmental work mandated under the cleanup plan, called PAMA for its Spanish acronym.

The last major remaining project is a $107 million sulfuric-acid plant designed to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide. Spokeswoman Barbara Shepard said that the company decided to reprioritize its improvements to focus on other needs. In July, Doe Run asked the government to allow the company to delay completion of the acid plant until 2011 from 2006.

Shepard said the company didn't request the change for financial reasons. "We're dealing with priorities. What we need to focus on is health risks," she said.

However, the company's most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, dated Sept. 24, stated that "Doe Run Peru expects that it will not be able to comply with the spending requirements of the PAMA investment schedule in 2005 and 2006 and could be subject to penalties."

The filing also noted that if the Peruvian government refused the request for extension, "Doe Run Peru could be forced to cease or curtail operations at the La Oroya smelter."

Shepard said the company would focus on reducing rampant lead poisoning in La Oroya. A 2002 study by independent public health workers found that nearly 100 percent of La Oroya's 18,000 children have lead poisoning. The company's own tests in 2000 found an average blood lead level of 36.7 micrograms per deciliter in children up to 3 years old.

In the United States, a blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter is considered a concern. Even at low levels, lead has been linked to behavioral problems, decreased intelligence and developmental difficulties.

Shepard said the company has been working in a joint program with the Peruvian health ministry to help children with high blood lead levels through education and better hygiene. Among other things, the program teaches them to wash their hands to reduce the amount of lead they might pick up on their fingers and put into their mouths.

Shepard also said the company has proposed reducing "fugitive" lead emissions that seep from the doors and windows of the plant. A document provided by Doe Run showed that the company proposed to spend about $12 million on reducing dust emissions through 2006. Major investment on the sulfuric acid plant would be delayed until 2007.

Tension over the proposed delay grew this week after workers shut down the plant at midnight Monday. Peruvian media reported street violence and a highway shutdown.

The latest development comes as the man behind Doe Run, New York financier Ira Rennert, wrestles with the bankruptcy of another of his companies, Magnesium Corp. of America, and basks in the glow of success from still another, AM General Corp., which produces Hummer vehicles. Rennert's Renco Group, based in New York, acquired Doe Run in 1994.

Renco, which acquires distressed companies with a method using large amounts of junk bonds, had Doe Run go heavily into debt when it acquired the smelter in Peru in 1997.

In the extension issued by Peru's president, Alejandro Toledo, Doe Run could ask for up to three years for certain projects in the PAMA, and if it has support from the regional government, could receive an additional year. 

--------

Bangor City Hazwaste Violations Settled with Biodiesel

BANGOR, Maine, December 8, 2004 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2004/2004-12-08-09.asp#anchor5

The city of Bangor, Maine has agreed to pay a $59,586 penalty and to convert its entire fleet of vehicles to biodiesel fuel to resolve claims by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that it violated hazardous waste and clean water laws at four of its facilities at the former Dow Air Force Base.

Under the agreement signed Monday, the city will pay $165,432 to convert its fleet to cleaner burning biodiesel made partially from soy beans. The city plans to buy about 458,000 gallons of biodiesel over the life of the project, which will cost $165,432 more than current diesel. The city was able to offset its penalty by that amount in order to pursue this project.

The violations were found after Bangor failed to participate in an environmental audit and self-disclosure initiative offered by EPA in 2001.

The settlement resolves EPA claims that Bangor improperly stored, handled and disposed of hazardous wastes. The EPA claims that Bangor failed to train personnel or have contingency plans at the city's Department of Public Works, motor pool, aviation fuel and Bangor International Airport facilities, in violation of federal and state hazardous waste standards.

The agreement also resolves an EPA claim that Bangor discharged untreated wastewater from its motor pool into a stream that flows to the Penobscot River, in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. Bangor did not have a permit to discharge from the facility.

The city has come into compliance with hazardous waste laws and has disconnected the illicit discharge from the motor pool facility.

In addition to paying a $59,586 penalty, the city's agreement to convert its diesel fleet to biodiesel will reduce emissions of hydrocarbons by 21 percent, of particulates by five to 10 percent and of carbon monoxide by 11 percent.

The project also has the added benefit of replacing non-renewable fossil fuels with a renewable agricultural-based fuel. The federal government's energy and environment policy has put a priority on converting diesel fleets to biodiesel.

The agreement may help encourage a stronger market for the alternative fuel in central and northern Maine, said Robert Varney, regional administrator of EPA's New England Office.

"The settlement also develops a framework for future investigation and cleanup at this important site," Varney said.

The city has agreed to investigate jet fuel contamination of groundwater at the aviation fuel farm and along a pipeline that runs to the airport, under direction from the EPA.

The city is working with Maine Department of Environmental Protection to address potential leaks in the city's jet fuel distribution system and to evaluate cleanup alternatives. 


-------- health

Iraqi Healthcare Given A 'New Look'

(Inter Press Service)
by Dahr Jamail
December 8, 2004

http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=4128

BAGHDAD - The Baghdad Medical City has begun to look nice in its new coat of paint.

It does not look that nice to Dr. Hammad Hussein, ophthalmology resident at the center. "I have not seen anything which indicates any rebuilding aside from our new pink and blue colors here where our building and the escape ladders were painted," he told IPS.

What this largest medical complex in Iraq lacks is medicines, he said. "I'll prescribe medication and the pharmacy simply does not have it to give to the patient."

The hospital is short of wheelchairs, half the lifts are broken, and the family members of patients are being forced to work as nurses because of shortage of medical personnel, he said.

The Yarmouk hospital in Baghdad has been given new desks and chairs. The new desk delivered to Dr. Aisha Abdulla sits in the corridor outside her office.

"They should build a lift so patients who can't walk can be taken to surgery, and instead we have these new desks," she said. "How can I take a new desk when there are patients dying because we don't have medicine for them?"

The U.S.-based Bechtel Corporation was hired to deliver an assessment of all damage following the invasion last year and to identify priority reconstruction projects. Bechtel carried out repair work in about 50 primary healthcare centers before handing the rest over to USAID, the official aid agency of the U.S. government.

In his book Iraq Inc., Pratap Chatterjee says USAID spent nearly a year selecting contractors to rebuild healthcare centers and hospitals before awarding one of the largest contracts to ABT Associates Inc., a large government and business consultancy firm based in Massachusetts.

The ABT contract is worth more than $22 million, according to the USAID Web site.

The contract was to support the Iraqi health ministry with medical equipment and supplies, distribute grants to health organizations for critical supplies, and determine specific needs, particularly those of vulnerable groups like women and children.

USAID says it has provided considerable assistance to the Ministry of Health in providing healthcare for pregnant women and children, supporting immunization programs, and refurbishing local health clinics. More than 100 such facilities have been improved, says USAID spokesman in Baghdad David DeVoss.

The health ministry has provided high-protein biscuits with USAID help to more than 450,000 children and 200,000 pregnant and nursing mothers facing malnutrition, DeVoss said.

But this may not be enough.. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) says the number of children suffering from malnutrition has doubled since the March 2003 invasion. About 8 percent of Iraqi children below five suffer from chronic diarrhea and protein deficiency, it says. UNICEF says that diarrhea caused mainly by unsafe water is responsible for 70 percent of child deaths in Iraq.

Interim health minister Ala-al-Din al-Awan accuses UNICEF of basing its findings on questionable methodology.

The Arab news channel al-Jazeera reports that 40 percent of the water system has been damaged, with supply lines broken or contaminated. A large section of sewage lines also fail to function as a result of power failures, poor maintenance, and damage caused by the invasion.

USAID says that more than 1,700 breaks in water pipes have been repaired over the past year, but admits that more needs to be done.

If the situation is bad in Baghdad, it is much worse in Fallujah. Relief efforts within Fallujah are not getting the assistance they need from the Ministry of Health, local aid workers say. The Iraqi Red Crescent (IRC) estimates that up to 10,000 people remain trapped inside the city, many in severe need of medical care.

The IRC was able to deliver some supplies to Fallujah in recent days, but the U.S. military ordered the IRC out of Fallujah Monday because of ongoing military operations.

USAID spokesperson in the United States Susan Pittman told IPS there were no civilians in the city. "I don't believe that there is anyone in there yet," she said. Rebuilding "assessments" would be carried out once military operations were completed, she said. 



-------- ACTIVISTS

Peace prize winner Maathai lands in Oslo ahead of Nobel ceremony

OSLO (AFP) Dec 08, 2004

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041208171556.jo7q63zo.html

This year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai, arrived in Oslo on Wednesday to receive her award in an official ceremony.

The first African woman and the first environmentalist to have taken the coveted prize, Maathai, 64, was selected by the Nobel committee for her campaign to save Africa's forests, which began with nine trees in her yard nearly three decades ago.

Maathai, who won the prize on October 8, will receive the award, plus 10 million Swedish kronor (1.1 million euros), in an official ceremony on Friday, the anniversary of the death of prize founder Alfred Nobel.

As she stepped off her plane at Oslo's international airport, Maathai stressed the importance of the environment for world peace.

"Many of the wars that are fought in the world are fought over natural resources," she said.

Maathai, Kenya's assistant minister for the environment since 2003, is the founder of the Green Belt Movement, the largest tree planting project in Africa, aimed at promoting biodiversity, job creation and giving women a stronger identity in society.

"Planting trees ... stops soil erosion, it stops the wind erosion, it helps to stabilise the land, so, yes, it keeps the deserts away," Maathai said.

Deforestation has been a major problem in Kenya, exposing millions of people to drought and poverty.

The Nobel Committee's decision reflects environmentalism's extraordinary rise from the wings to the centre stage of politics, and was hailed by ecologists the world over.

Time magazine had already made her "Hero of the Planet" in 1998 and she is a household name in her country.

The latest Nobel laureate is also a human rights activist in Kenya, and her opposition to the one-party rule of former president Daniel arap Moi led to her being jailed, harassed and vilified.

Maathai will receive the Nobel prize at a ceremony in Oslo's city hall from Nobel committee president Ole Mjoes in the presence of Norway's King Harald.

----

Alfred Nobel, biography

December 8, 2004 Nobel Peace Prize website 

http://www.nobel.no/eng_com_will1.html

Alfred Bernhard Nobel was born in Stockholm, Sweden on 21 October 1833. When he was eight, the family moved to Russia, where his father opened a mechanical engineering workshop. His interest in science, especially chemistry, appeared at an early age; in due course he also acquired extensive literary and philosophical knowledge, not least thanks to the ease with which he mastered foreign languages. He did most of his studying on his own, never taking any college or university examination.

He returned to Sweden in 1863 and began work as a chemist at his father's workshop at Heleneborg in Stockholm. Applying the Italian Sobrero's methods, he succeeded in further developing the explosive nitroglycerine, which he began manufacturing in Sweden in 1864. Plants subsequently opened in Germany and Norway, and then in other European countries and America. In 1867, Nobel obtained a patent on a special type of nitroglycerine, which he called "dynamite". The invention quickly proved its usefulness in building and construction in many countries. Production went hand-in-hand with research, energetically carried out at laboratories Nobel established in Stockholm and Hamburg and later also in Paris, at Bofors, and in San Remo. The original form of dynamite was gradually replaced by gelatin dynamite, which was safer to handle. In that development, too, Nobel played a major part.

Alfred Nobel wound up with a total of 355 patents, some more imaginative than useful, others both extremely practicable and valuable. He went on experimenting in pursuit of inventions in many fields, notably with synthetic materials. Income from the many enterprises all over the world in which he had interests made him one of the wealthiest men in Europe.

Nobel took a keen interest in social questions, and is known to have held radical views on many contemporary problems. His scientific and industrial activities took him to most European and American countries. He lived in Paris for a number of years, but planned to return to Sweden and settle down for good at Karlskoga, where he owned property. On 10 December, 1896, before the plans could be realised, he died at his home in San Remo in Italy.

Alfred Nobel was a lonely man and was often in poor health. He was very modest, often appearing shy to other people. Above all, he was engrossed in scientific ideas and in the practical management of his many European enterprises, and devoted himself night and day to his studies and work. His dream was to be of service to mankind.

In January 1897 it was learned that he had left the bulk of his considerable estate to a fund, the interest on which was to be awarded annually to the persons whose work had been of the greatest benefit to mankind. The statutes of the foundation which administered the fund - the Nobel Foundation - were adopted on 29 June 1900.

--

Alfred Nobel's Will

http://www.nobel.no/eng_com_will2.html

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not."

Paris, the 27th of November 1895.

Alfred Bernhard Nobel

--

Nobel's Assets and the Nobel Prizes

http://www.nobel.no/eng_com_will3.html

In his will, Nobel stipulated that his assets should be
invested in safe securities. That involved realizing his
interests in his worldwide industrial enterprises. By the
time Nobel's young assistant Ragnar Sohlman and the engineer
Rudolf Lilljequist had completed the difficult assignment,
some 31.5 million Swedish kroner - at that time a very large
sum - had accrued to the fund.

The Nobel Foundation was established in 1900, and is responsible for financial management. It is headed from a Stockholm office by a Board consisting of six Swedish and (since 1985) Norwegian nationals appointed by the respective award committees. The Board itself elects the Nobel Foundation's Managing Director.

For a long time the capital was held in so-called gilt-edged bonds, but developments in the money market gradually made such papers less satisfactory as investments, while inflation also cut deeply into the value of the fund. With effect from 1953,
amendments to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation permitted
more active asset management: despite a high rate of inflation,
the value of the capital has since been not only maintained
but considerably increased. In 1999, the Foundation's investments were worth about SEK 3.9 billion.

The Nobel Prize amounted to SEK 150,800 in 1901, and fell to a low of SEK 115,000 in 1923. Active asset management has increased it substantially in recent years: from SEK 1 million in 1981 to 2 million in 1986, 3 million in 1989, four million in 1990 and six million in 1991. In 2000, each prize amount to SEK 9,000,000