------- Index of Articles

Register your vote on retaliation:

NUCLEAR
DOE EXTENDS YUCCA MOUNTAIN COMMENT PERIOD
Nuclear plants are called vulnerable to air attacks
British base prepares for arrival of B-52s
China Stresses Nuclear Energy's Role in Sustainable Development
Worldwide Sympathy Could Bolster U.S. Missile Defense Plans
Senate May Drop Missile Curb
Nuclear submarines to ship cargo in Arctic
BOOKS OF THE TIMES
Meeting to study hazardous waste

MILITARY
Nukes on Afghanistan?
Taliban rebuffs Pakistanis
For Ages, Afghanistan Is Not Easily Conquered
Taliban Threatens 'Holy War'
Defense Contractors' Shares Rise
British Warplanes Hit Iraqi Site
Hijack Suspect Met Iraqi Intelligence, Sources Say
Israel Says It Won't 'Pay Price' of Coalition
Pro-Taliban groups protest Pakistan pledge
U.N. Won't Hold World Meeting
UN Council Tells Afghanistan to Hand Over Bin Laden
Bush seeks bin Laden dead or alive
Wartime presidential powers supersede liberties
Bush: Mobilization a 'symbol of this nation's resolve'
Rumsfeld: Bin Laden is just one step
Bush Warns of Casualties of War
At Fort Bragg, Troops 'Packed Up and Ready to Go'
Afghanistan

OTHER
Tragedy loudens call for Alaskan drilling
Attacks Could Affect Energy Systems
Anti-Terror Push Stirs Fears for Liberties
Inquiry begins into failure to predict attacks
FBI Piecing Together Terrorism Case
Test Site proposed as anti-terrorism training school
Hijackers connected to Albanian terrorist cell
ISIS: First Casuality of War Must Not Be Pakistan
Jennifer Harbury Statement
World War III

ACTIVISTS
INDIGENOUS SOLIDARITY DAY:
Message from WILPF
Dear Friends of the Arms Trade Resource Center
VOICES OF RESTRAINT
Concerns Rise That Peace is Not on Table
Tolerance.org:
The Need for Dissent
88-Year-Old Nun Begins Prison Term
Toronto RTS Lawsuit Update---Tentative Trial Date Set!

---------

Register your vote on retaliation: http://www.sfgate.com/today/0912_chron_main.shtml

From: <Lee2garner@aol.com>
Tuesday, September 18, 2001
Subject: one more thing we can do

I'm passing on an action idea.

An internet poll shows that 57% of the people who answered a voluntary poll want to attack Osama Bin Laden immediately. 34% wanted to wait to find out who attacked us, and 9% do not want to retaliate and perpetuate the violence. And it originated in San Francisco!!

I thought, this is one thing I can do. If I send this link out and those of us who want to create peace instead of war send it to everyone we know, we might change the results of this vote. Then, instead of it saying that almost 2/3 of the Americans who responded to this poll wanted unthinking retaliation, it might say that the Americans polled want a new way to respond to such acts of violence. So, here is the link, and I hope you all will vote and pass it on to every person you know. Find the "Question" near the top and click on "vote"

[The question on 9/20/01: "Should U.S. attack Osama bin Laden immediately?", 47% said no, 34% said yes, and 23% said only if he's proven the culprit. et]

-------- NUCLEAR

DOE EXTENDS YUCCA MOUNTAIN COMMENT PERIOD

September 18, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-18-09.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will go "well beyond what the law requires" in seeking public comments on the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Monday.

"The views and the comments of Nevada citizens on this issue are very important," Abraham said. "I have received requests advocating many different actions for addressing Yucca Mountain from both proponents and opponents. My goal is to ensure a fair and impartial process."

Hundreds of angry people showed up at a DOE public hearing in Las Vegas on September 5 to express their objections to the proposed nuclear waste dump.

"At my direction, Under Secretary Robert Card attended the recent public hearing held in Las Vegas. I had asked him to report personally to me both on the views expressed by citizens of Nevada and on steps that could be taken to ensure Nevada citizens are afforded unfiltered and comprehensive opportunities to share their views on Yucca Mountain," Abraham noted. "Under Secretary Card offered a series of recommendations to increase opportunity for public involvement, and I have directed the Department of Energy to move forward on those recommendations, the first phase of which is announced today."

Abraham said the DOE has rescheduled hearings in the Amargosa Valley and Pahrump, Nevada, which were postponed last week after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Both meetings will now be held Monday, September 24, from 2 pm to 9 pm.

"Time for public comment and the availability of experts to answer substantive questions during the poster session has been expanded to provide the public wishing to participate flexible hours to do so," Abraham said.

The Energy Secretary pledged to hold additional public meetings this year, each of which will be attended by Abraham, Deputy Secretary Frank Blake, Under Secretary Robert Card, or other appointed DOE officials. The DOE will also station an agency official at the Yucca Mountain Science Center in Las Vegas to receive public input at specific times and dates to be announced later.

The DOE has extended the current public comment period on Yucca Mountain until October 5.

--------

Nuclear plants are called vulnerable to air attacks

Bergen Record
Tuesday, September 18, 2001
http://www.bergen.com/morenews/nuec18200109189.htm

VIENNA, Austria -- Haunted by last week's terrorism, delegates from 132 nations opened an annual atomic energy conference Monday with calls for tighter security -- and admissions that little can be done to shield a nuclear power plant from an airborne assault.

Governments, fearing a similar suicide jetliner crash at a nuclear plant, have tightened security outside nuclear power and radioactive waste facilities worldwide in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

But Japan, which is heavily dependent on nuclear energy and has 52 nuclear plants, warned Monday that nothing can shield the plants from a direct hit from a missile or an aircraft.

At the same time, the world must also "ensure that nuclear materials are never used as weapons of terrors," U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told the International Atomic Energy Agency gathering in Vienna.

"We cannot assume that tomorrow's terrorist acts will mirror those we've just experienced," he said.

In a message to delegates, President Bush also urged the Vienna-based agency to keep pace with "the real and growing threat of nuclear proliferation."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the effort "more important than ever in the aftermath of last week's appalling terrorist attack in the United States."

The architects of the world's nuclear plants designed them more with ground vehicle -- not airborne -- attacks in mind, IAEA spokesman David Kyd said.

Most nuclear plants were built during the 1960s and 1970s, and like the World Trade Center, were designed to withstand only accidental, glancing impacts from the smaller aircraft widely used at the time, he said.

"If you postulate the risk of a jumbo jet full of fuel, it is clear that their design was not conceived to withstand such an impact," Kyd said.

In Japan, Takeo Hiranuma, minister for economy, trade, and industry, noted that his country's nuclear plants were built to withstand earthquakes -- not "hits from above by missiles or aircraft."

A direct hit on a nuclear plant by a modern jumbo jet traveling at high speed "could create a Chernobyl situation," said a U.S. official who declined to be identified. The 1986 nuclear explosion in Chernobyl, Ukraine, killed more than 4,000 people. Tens of thousands more were disabled in the cleanup afterward.

However, the buildings that house nuclear reactors themselves are far smaller targets than the Pentagon posed, and it would be difficult for a terrorist to mount a direct hit at an angle that could unleash a catastrophic chain of events, Kyd said.

FROM NEWS SERVICE REPORTS

-------- britain

British base prepares for arrival of B-52s

Steven Morris,
Tuesday September 18, 2001
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,551036,00.html

The plane spotters clearly believed the rumours that the B-52s were on their way. Kitted out with reference books, notepads and cameras they had arrived early to grab the best vantage points at the perimeter fence of RAF Fairford, the Gloucestershire air base from which US bombing raids could be launched in retaliation for last week's terrorist attacks.

Immediately after the attacks, RAF Fairford was put on alert state Delta, one stage down from a full war footing, and US personnel and their families were told to consider themselves potential targets.

Work was halted on a £55m refurbishment and upgrading at the base and 250 civilian workers were sent home. Fortunately for the military planners, work on the 10,000ft runway, one of the largest in Europe, was done and the airstrip is ready for use again.

Yesterday the workers were back and understood to be putting the finishing touches to the "bomber loop", a holding area for bombers.

In the town yesterday the stars and stripes flew alongside union flags. Local people seemed resigned to the idea of American action being launched so close to home.

Shopper June Northwell, 45, said: "I don't doubt for a second that the bombers will be flying soon. But I must say I dread the moment when I hear them coming in."

Back at the base the spotters went on waiting for a glimpse of the B-52s. One of them, John, said: "All the signs are that they will be coming. There's a lot more activity than normal on the base and they are working flat out on the bomber loop. They'll be here."

Special reports:
Terrorism in the US http://www.guardian.co.uk/usterrorism
Afghanistan http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/0,1284,548335,00.html

-------- china

China Stresses Nuclear Energy's Role in Sustainable Development

Tuesday, September 18, 2001
People's Daily (China)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200109/18/eng20010918_80489.html

Nuclear energy should be used more to ensure sustainable development, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should play a coordinating role in developing new technology of nuclear energy, Zhang Huazhu, head of Chinese delegation told an IAEA General Conference Monday in Vienna.

With the deterioration of the ecological environment and the increase in energy demand, it's necessary to optimize energy structure policies and increase the proportion of clean energy so as to cut down pollution and relieve climate change, Zhang said.

He asked the IAEA to do more to "objectively popularize the significance of nuclear power to the reduction of environmental pollution and climate change," so that the general public may realize its importance in sustainable development.

Zhang said more than 40 years of experience proved that nuclear energy is clean, safe and economical. So far, nuclear power accounts for one sixth of the world's total power generation.

As the largest developing country in the world, China supports efforts made by all nations to relieve climate change, Zhang said, adding that the Chinese government has put forward the guideline of "developing nuclear power appropriately" in its 10th Five-Year Plan of national economic development (2001-2005).

China now has eight nuclear power units under construction with a total installed capacity of 6,600 megawatts, and a few more nuclear power plants are under planning or feasibility studies, according to Zhang.

The head of the Chinese delegation also said the IAEA should play a coordinating role in developing new technology of nuclear energy and give more consideration to the practical requirements of developing countries.

Delegations from more than 120 member states of the IAEA, along with the new members -- Yugoslavia and Botswana -- and some other international organizations, opened Monday the 45th Session of the IAEA General Conference.

-------- missile defense

Worldwide Sympathy Could Bolster U.S. Missile Defense Plans

September 18, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-18-06.html

NEW YORK, New York, The massive terrorist attacks on the United States last week have prompted calls for a unified international attack on terrorism, and led to a new emphasis on peace and nuclear disarmament. But within the Bush administration, pressure is mounting to free the U.S. military from financial and treaty restrictions.

President George W. Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington, DC on Monday to encourage Americans not to take their anger out on Islamic Americans (White House photo by Eric Draper)

Condemning the "alarming" terrorist attacks against the United States, the President of Iran Seyed Mohammad Khatami has proposed convening a global summit against terrorism, according to a document released Monday at United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York.

In a letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which was sent on Sunday, the Iranian President stresses that the UN is the "appropriate framework to organize this struggle."

Khatami proposes "comprehensive and inclusive negotiations" on global policies to eradicate terrorism, "followed, at the earliest possible time, by a global summit to register and demonstrate the highest international political will to uproot terrorism and adopt appropriate strategies and measures in this regard."

The proposal would fit well with the Bush administration's desire to build an global coalition that will cooperate in rooting out terrorists. Since hijackers flew passenger jets into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon last Tuesday, President George W. Bush and his officials have formally approached the leaders of many traditional U.S. allies and even some countries less inclined to support the U.S., such as Cuba and Sudan, seeking their participation in the new effort.

President George W. Bush delivers his weekly radio address to the nation from Camp David on Saturday (White House photo by Eric Draper)

Bush has won pledges of support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which last week invoked Article 5, saying that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all NATO nations. The government of Australia told the President that the two countries' mutual defense treaty applies to terrorist attacks, so the U.S. can expect Australian support for whatever actions it deems necessary in its new war on terrorism.

After the U.S. met resistance when it asked Israel to resume peace talks with Palestine and support the embryonic antiterrorism coalition, new hope dawned today when Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat called for a ceasefire with Israel. Israeli forces have reportedly pledged to disengage from their ongoing battles over land in the Middle East, and Arafat has offered to help the U.S. oppose terrorism.

At the opening session of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) annual meeting, which began Monday at the Austria Centre in Vienna, representatives from many of the IAEA's 132 member states expressed their sorrow over last week's attacks.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan sent a formal statement to the IAEA meeting.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan ringing the Japanese Peace Bell at UN Headquarters on September 14, in observance of the International Day of Peace (UN Photo by Eskinder Debebe)

"Making progress in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament is more important than ever in the aftermath of last week's appalling terrorist attack on the United States," Annan wrote. "Looking towards the future, it is evident that broad international cooperation is essential to upgrade the physical protection of nuclear material, to improve capabilities for intercepting and responding to illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and other radioactive sources, and to enhance the protection of facilities against terrorism and sabotage."

Annan emphasized the need for strong measures to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons, noting that the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) agreed last year that "the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons."

"Regrettably, several important treaties aimed at nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament or nuclear reductions still await entry into force," Annan added. "It is vitally important for the world community to continue its efforts to implement the commitments already made, and to further identify the ways and means of achieving nuclear disarmament as soon as possible."

But that may not be a tack that the U.S. is currently willing to take. The Bush administration reportedly informed Russian officials today that the U.S. still intends to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so that it may legally build a missile defense system.

Weapons like this LGM-30 Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, are intended to seek out and destroy nuclear weapons launched at the U.S. by hostile nations or by terrorists (U.S. Air Force photo)

The "Washington Post" quoted an anonymous senior administration official as saying, "Missile defense will not fade as a priority of the administration. These incidents prove that there are people in the world for whom the concept of deterrence doesn't mean a thing."

"This was high-tech terrorism; these people had jet plane pilots," the official told the "Post", speaking on condition of anonymity. "And if these same people had access to ballistic missiles, do you think they wouldn't have used them?"

Facing criticism that the billions pledged for missile defense could be better spent on combating terrorism, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters Monday that the two programs are both crucial to national defense.

Even Congressional Democrats may be prepared to drop their resistance to Bush's missile defense plan. Though the Senate Armed Services committee voted earlier this month to include language in the Pentagon spending bill blocking further missile defense tests, Senate Democrats said Monday they will likely drop that language to avoid a protracted budget battle over military funding.

U.S. moves to step up efforts to create a missile defense program will still meet international resistance. Last week at the UN Conference on Disarmament, speakers repeatedly addressed the United States missile defense plans and the need to preserve the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty.

An unarmed Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, in support of the National Missile Defense Program (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Cherie Thurlby)

Some speakers stressed the need to start negotiations on a legal instrument to prevent an arms race in outer space, while others noted the need for the Conference to start negotiations on a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials used to make nuclear weapons.

Still, the U.S. now enjoys strong support for its plans to defend itself against terrorism. The president of the Disarmament Conference, Roberto Betancourt Ruales of Ecuador, said that these terrorist attacks which had caused the death of thousands of persons as well as substantial material losses should be strongly condemned by the Conference.

Chile, on behalf of the Rio Group; Belgium on behalf of the European Union and associated countries; Australia, on behalf of New Zealand; Canada; Egypt; Argentina; Norway; Hungary; the Republic of Korea; Pakistan; Nigeria; the Czech Republic; Georgia; the Russian Federation; Japan; Switzerland; China; Turkey; India; South Africa; Slovenia; Poland; Romania; Germany and Brazil delivered statements condemning the attacks on the United States. Speakers stressed the importance of fostering international cooperation against terrorism and assured the government of the United States that their countries would do everything possible to help find the perpetrators of these attacks.

----

Senate May Drop Missile Curb
Democrats Don't Want Fight on Defense Bill

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 18, 2001; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46767-2001Sep17?language=printer

Senate Democrats said yesterday they plan to try to drop proposed restrictions on missile defense tests from next year's Pentagon spending authorization in hopes of passing the measure without a divisive fight.

"We figured we didn't need a missile defense debate at this point," said Anita Dunn, spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), referring to Congress's efforts to project a united front in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

Under Senate rules, it will require consent of all senators to drop the provision, and it was not clear yesterday whether all 100 senators would agree. If agreement cannot be achieved, action on the defense measure, which authorizes the largest defense spending increase since the mid-1980s, may be delayed, sources said.

Dunn said that if the Senate agrees to take up the defense bill without the restrictions, they will be considered by the Senate later in separate legislation.

In approving the $328.9 billion authorization bill earlier this month, the Senate Armed Services voted along party lines to block the administration from conducting missile defense tests prohibited by the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without the consent of Congress. Republicans opposed the language and said President Bush would veto the bill if the language was included. A major Senate floor fight over the ABM provision had been widely expected.

The Armed Services Committee also voted to cut $1.3 billion from the Bush administration's $8.3 billion request for missile defense development and use it for other military needs. Dunn said Democrats would not seek to restore the funds cut by the committee.

-------- russia

Nuclear submarines to ship cargo in Arctic

2001-09-18
Bellona News
http://www.bellona.no/imaker?id=20393&sub=1#21931

Novosti-online reports, that the Design bureau Rubin and the Norilsk nickel concern resumed project on construction of the nuclear submarine for cargo shipment on the North Sea route under ice. Approximate price tag of the project is $100 million. The idea of such submarines appeared back in 1993, but was hampered due to the high costs. Maybe this time the project will be more successful. Archangelsk region governor said at the GIS OFFSHORE-2001 exhibition that such a submarine had been already constructed. It is capable to enter rivers and receive cargo right from the ice. Maximum load is 10 thousand ton. Rubin chief construction engineer Sergey Kovalev said that nuclear submarines of Typhoon type will be used for such purposes: "We have to choose whether scrap the submarine or reconstruct it for nickel shipment".

Reconstruction of one submarine requires $100 million. Nickel shipment in this way can go much faster. Norilsk Nickel also plans to use submarines for oil and gas shipment. Cargo shipment in Arctic requires is not possible without nuclear icebreakers. However, all of them were bought by LUKOIL oil company, which demands too high price from Norilsk Nickel. The submarines allow to avoid icebreakers deployment. The only question is whether Norilsk Nickel can afford the project.

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

BOOKS OF THE TIMES
'THE BROTHER'
Of Atomic Secrets, Loyalty and Bitter Deceit

New York Times
September 18, 2001
By JAMES BAMFORD
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/books/18BAMF.html?searchpv=nytToday

High in the frigid, crystalline air off the Kamchatka Peninsula of Siberia, a filter in a specially modified American B-29 began picking up traces of microscopic particles containing disintegrating nuclei. Like cancer cells in their earliest stages, the tiny bundles of atoms would portend devastating consequences.

Scientists later determined that the invisible grains of matter caught in the plane's sniffer were highly radioactive and part of a cloud that was drifting east. Further analysis determined that they were produced by an explosion in a Russian desert about 100 miles south of Semipalatinsk.

On Sept. 23, 1949, President Harry S. Truman announced to the nation the troubling discovery. The Soviet Union had successfully tested its first atomic weapon. The United States' short-lived nuclear monopoly was over, and the cold war suddenly shifted into high gear. Adding to the worry, the device appeared to bear a striking resemblance to the bomb the United States had dropped on Nagasaki four years earlier. Thus began the search for the mole who passed America's deepest atomic secrets to its mortal enemy.

"The Brother," by Sam Roberts, takes a fresh look at the atomic- bomb spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg from the perspective of the man who stole the secrets, and then gave up the Rosenbergs to the F.B.I. - David Greenglass. What makes the story especially poignant is that those whom Mr. Greenglass strapped into the electric chair as a result of his testimony were members of his own family - his sister and brother-in-law.

Mr. Roberts, an editor at The New York Times, doggedly tracked down the elusive Mr. Greenglass in the early 1980's and pursued him for an interview, unsuccessfully, for 13 years. Then in 1996, on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of a failed business, Mr. Greenglass finally agreed to be questioned - for a share in the proceeds of the sale of the book. Thus he went full circle, first selling out his country for cash, then selling out his relatives for a deal with the prosecutors, and finally selling his story for a piece of a book.

While Mr. Greenglass adds some personal detail and a bit of color, most of the key facts have long been known. He testified in court during the Rosenberg trial and gave a shorter interview to authors in the late 1970's. One exception, however, concerns Mr. Greenglass's testimony in which he confirmed a courtroom statement by his wife, Ruth, that Ethel typed up Mr. Greenglass's A- bomb notes. Now he says that he never actually remembered that happening. "I can only assume my wife didn't make it up," he said. But given the climate at the time - for example the jury only deliberated for 7 hours and 40 minutes - it is likely that the jury would have believed Ruth even without confirmation from Mr. Greenglass.

Mr. Greenglass also adds little depth and insight into what J. Edgar Hoover called "the crime of the century." One keeps listening for Kim Philby but hears only Forrest Gump. Luckily, Mr. Roberts made up for the lackluster confession by doing a wonderful job of research. He went through box loads of yellowing archives and newly declassified memos. He interviewed nearly everyone still living who was connected with the case, and he uncovered numerous unpublished notes and manuscripts of key figures. The result is an important and highly readable tale of blind loyalty and bitter deceit, of hysteria and horror.

Today's world of treachery is populated mostly by those who, out of need or greed, sell secrets to rescue a mortgage or buy a speedboat. But in the early 1940's ideology was a key reason for espionage, both in the United States and Britain.

With the United States engaged in a world war, there was great uncertainty about who would eventually emerge as friend or foe. Few would have guessed that western Germany and Japan would become America's great allies, or that the United States would soon be looking down the barrel of our ally at that time, the Soviet Union. This led some Americans to sympathize with the Soviet Union's plight, facing Hitler on its doorstep, and with the utopian ideal of Communism. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were among the few who went several steps beyond sympathy to espionage.

True believers in Communism almost from puberty, they also indoctrinated Mr. Greenglass early on. Like many teenagers David had a paper route, only he delivered The Daily Worker. Bounced from college, Mr. Greenglass married a woman who shared his Communist sympathies and shortly thereafter, in 1943, was drafted into the Army. As chance would have it, he was assigned to Los Alamos and the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb. For Mr. Rosenberg, by then deeply involved in espionage for the Soviets, it was a perfect opportunity, and he persuaded Mr. Greenglass to pass secrets to a courier, Harry Gold.

The F.B.I. finally caught up with Mr. Greenglass in 1950, and he quickly agreed to trade a reduced sentence for himself and freedom for his wife for damning testimony against his sister and her husband. In a truly unusual move for a spy case, the Rosenbergs chose loyalty to the cause and silence instead of selling out anyone else. They were duly rewarded with the electric chair by a judge who maintained that God had told him to impose the death sentence.

After 10 years, Mr. Greenglass walked out of prison with a new name and straight into anonymity, aided by the F.B.I. Eventually he and his family managed to retreat far enough into the background that even his grandchildren still do not know his true identity.

"No. I still don't believe I did anything wrong," Mr. Greenglass replied when Mr. Roberts asked him about his espionage. "Can you imagine if there wasn't mutually assured destruction?" he said, single-handedly taking credit for keeping the world safe from nuclear destruction. "Would you ever say you're sorry to Ethel and Julius?," the author asked.

"Never," Mr. Greenglass replied, adding that the Rosenbergs had an opportunity to cooperate with the government and foolishly decided against it. "To die for something as nebulous as that is stupidity," he said, quoting his and Ethel's mother. In the end, like Forrest Gump, Mr. Greenglass managed to encapsulate the entire case in a single phrase. "All you need is one guy to get caught," he said. "One guy that's not smart."

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

-------- kentucky

Meeting to study hazardous waste
(11/26/01 - Kentucky)

The Nov. 26 public meeting will focus on 15 billion pounds of hazardous material the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant would handle.

By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
September 19, 2001
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2001/nn11410.htm

A public meeting is set for Nov. 26 to study the environmental and economic impact of building a facility to convert about 15 billion pounds of hazardous waste at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant into safer material. The meeting will be from 6 to 9 p.m. at the Paducah Information Age Park Resource Center. In Tuesday's Federal Register, the U.S. Department of Energy announced its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement on the conversion project. Public comments will be accepted through Nov. 26, DOE spokesman Walter Perry said.

DOE is expected to award a contract in late October for the work, which will convert nearly 58,000 cylinders of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into material that may one day have commercial use. Most of the cylinders are at Paducah and the rest are at closed uranium enrichment plants at Piketon, Ohio, and Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Finalists include three groups, one of which includes USEC Inc., the Paducah plant operator.

John Cooper, a lobbyist for the city and county governments, told commissioners at a joint meeting Tuesday that last week's terrorist attacks may delay the contract award.

"There was supposed to be a conversion decision in late October," Cooper said. "The events of last Tuesday changed all that. It has pushed it back, and I don't know how long."

Construction must start by Jan. 31, 2004, according to federal law. Although the law mandates conversion facilities be built at Paducah and Piketon, DOE's notice describes that scenario as the "preferred" plan for purposes of the study under the National Environmental Policy Act. The contract is contingent on completing the study, DOE said.

Other alternatives are building one plant at Paducah or Piketon, using existing commercial conversion plants, or continuing to store the material in cylinders.

The study will assess worker and public health and environmental impacts of the project. UF6 in its normal, solid form resembles rock salt and contains low-level radiation. When released to the atmosphere, it reacts with water vapor to form toxic substances, notably hydrogen fluoride, the department said.

Besides environmental impact, the study will gauge the facilities' construction and operational effect on local employment, income, population, housing and public services. Some past estimates have shown each plant would employ 100 to 200 people, depending on the level of government involvement. Several hundred construction jobs are anticipated in each community.

The notice is available by linking the Federal Register at www.gpo.gov and doing a keyword search.

For information or to send written comments, contact Kevin Shaw, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Site Closure-Oak Ridge Office (EM-32), 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874; fax: 301-903-3479; or e-mail DUF6Comments@em.doe.gov (use NOI Comments for the subject).


-------- MILITARY

-------- afghanistan

Nukes on Afghanistan?
Attack Bolsters Nuke Lite Lobby
"Small Is Beautiful"

September 18, 2001
CounterPunch
By Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn
http://www.counterpunch.org/nukelite.html

Make the desert glow for a thousand years. Wipe them off the face of the Earth. Pulverize them. Such is the unrestrained blood lust that masquerades as military punditry these days. The Washington Times has called on the Bush administration the use of nuclear weapons against Afghanistan and Iraq. Absurd?

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had the question put to them directly and neither would rule out the use of nuclear bombs as an option. Rumsfeld's deputy, the blood-thirsty, Paul Wolfowitz has warned that the Pentagon is poised to unleash "a very big hammer", a hammer capable of "ending states that support terrorism." (Rumsfeld says the Pentagon has identified nearly 60 such states.) "At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan.

To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration." These are not the words of a columnist for the rabidly pro-war New York Post. No. These are the considered sentiments of Thomas Woodrow, a former officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

We now find ourselves closer to the unthinkable possibility of launching a nuclear first strike than at any time since the thawing of the Cold War. What is important to understand is the fact that there are people inside the Pentagon and the nuclear labs who have been urging just such a posture, even before the events of 9/11. The Pentagon has come to a remarkable conclusion with regard to the nuclear weapons: smaller is better.

These days the Wizards of Armageddon are palpably anxious to develop a new class of nuclear weapons, the so-called "deep penetrator" warheads. These are relatively low-yield weapons, packing warheads as small as 10 kilotons. Rear Admiral George P. Nanos excitedly refers to this new breed of nukes as "hard target killers".

During testimony before the House in May, General John A. Gordon, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, groused that for the past decade the Pentagon had not been able to actively pursue new weapons designs. He said he wanted to "reinvigorate" planning for a new generation of "advanced nuclear warheads". "This is not a proposal to develop new weapons in the absence of requirements", Gordon told the committee in a gem of Pentagon doublespeak. "But I am not now exercising design capabilities, and because of that, I believe this capacity and capability is atrophying rapidly". Gordon wasn't being truthful.

Over the past decade the Pentagon and its weapons designers have been quietly busy crafting a variety of new weapons. Indeed, although the Clinton administration generated a lot of hoopla by supporting the comprehensive test ban treaty (which it promptly violated with a string of subcritical tests), the Department of Energy and the Pentagon were busy developing new breeds of weapons.

In 1997, they unveiled and deployed the B61-11, described as a mere modification of the old B61-7 gravity bomb. In reality, it was largely a new "package", the prototype for the "low-yield" bunker blasting nuke that the weaponeers see as the future of the US arsenal. The nuclear priesthood is salivating at the prospect of a new generation of nukes and new infusions of cash under the Bush regime, which has been stockpiled with nuclear hawks, ranging from Richard Armitage and Paul Wolfowitz to Assistant Secretary of Defense Jack Couch, who a couple of years ago wrote that the US should consider dropping a small nuke on North Korea to teach them a lesson.

The Pentagon, of course, isn't the only one pushing new bombs. So are the nuclear labs and their legions of contractors. "There's an overwhelming desire to develop new nuclear weapons and there are a lot of rationales put forward to justify the expenditure and the risks", says Don Moniak, an organizer with the Blue Ridge Environmental League in Aiken, South Carolina. "For example, the nuclear labs have said they make new design weapons if only to maintain design expertise". Moniak monitors weapons production and plutonium storage and reprocessing at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site, which Moniak says is being geared up to begin producing plutonium pits, the triggers for hydrogen bombs.

This spring the labs made a big pitch for the Bush administration to overhaul the nation's nuclear policy. The plea came in the form of a white paper by Paul Robinson, the director of the Sandia National Labs in Albuquerque. Robinson titled his essay Pursuing a New Nuclear Policy for the 21st Century and began thus: "I recently began to worry that because there were few public statements by US officials in reaffirming the unique role which nuclear weapons play in ensuring US and world security, far too many people (including many in our own armed forces) were beginning to believe that perhaps nuclear weapons no longer had value".

Robinson doesn't want to let go a single part of the nuclear arsenal. He even argues that Russia remains a threat, although he inverts the alleged source from that of an opposing superpower to that of a disintegrating nation. As backup for this rationale he quotes US National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice: "America is threatened less by Russia's strength than by its weakness and incoherence". This stretch is used to justify an upgrading of the most destructive and expensive weapons in the US arsenal, the so-called Category I strategic weapons capable of incinerating large-scale cities. Robinson also sees no reason to scale-back the US stockpile of Category II weapons, the kind of all-purpose nuclear missile that Robinson dubs the "To Whom It May Concern Force".

Robinson hedges identifying exactly who the targets of these weapons might be, but he eventually concedes that they include the other nuclear and near-nuclear nations, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and, presumably, France, though definitely not Israel. These weapons, primarily low-yield single rocket missiles, would mainly be an investment in the Navy's submarine-launched arsenal to give the US the all-important "forward-basing" advantage-which mainly means that the US wouldn't have to worry about the touchy diplomatic issue of launching nuclear bombs over the territory of non-combatants. (Apparently, this good neighbor policy hasn't infected the Bush Star Wars team, which is toiling away on a contraption that would, if it works, knock incoming missiles down and onto the fields of the Poland, Germany and France.)

But Robinson's real passion is for the Category III weapon, the bunker-busting nuke that is designed for the assassination of the leadership of "rogue regime", a not so subtle code word for Iraq, although it really does serve as a stand-in for any troublesome non-nuclear nation. Robinson, in a scenario that perhaps even Edward Teller himself may not have envisioned, wants the Bush administration to publicly change its policy to target heads of state with nuclear bombs. "I believe it will be important to make a part o our declaratory policy that the United States' ultimate intent, should it ever have to unleash a nuclear attack against any aggressor, would be to threaten the survival of the regime leading the state", Robinson writes. "Unless that state's leaders are deterred from the acts we are seeking to deter, our war aims would be single-minded-to destroy that leadership's ability to govern".

And now we see the prospect of nuclear weapons being used not against a regime, but against an indistinct enemy, largely untargetable, couched in the forbidding recesses of the Hindu Kush, one the world's most hostile natural landscapes. The only possible objective for their use would be to kill broadly and indiscriminately and to obliterate the distinction between intentional and collateral damage.

----

Taliban rebuffs Pakistanis

September 18, 2001
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010918-218204.htm

A Pakistani delegation yesterday failed to convince Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in last week's attacks in New York and Washington, and the United States moved closer to military action against the regime harboring the Saudi exile.

Although the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, told the visiting Pakistani military officials he would let a national council decide today whether to deliver bin Laden, the State Department said it didn't expect the outcome to be any different.

"The Taliban, of course, is responding in the way that it always has: that bin Laden and his associates are guests in their country," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told reporters. "Well, it is time for the guests to leave."

Another senior State Department official said later, "We are not holding our breath" in expectation of the Afghan council's decision.

The United States yesterday geared up for a massive diplomatic offensive against bin Laden and his terrorist network, Qaeda, with nearly a dozen senior foreign officials about to descend on Washington this week to discuss their respective roles in the U.S.-led anti-terrorist coalition.

Meanwhile, Pakistan said the Taliban had massed up to 25,000 fighters with Scud missiles near its border and thousands of Afghans were reported to have headed toward the borders with Pakistan and Iran.

In Islamabad, the government of President Pervez Musharraf closed the border yesterday, but it faced demonstrations in its own country by pro-Taliban groups opposing any U.S. attack on Afghanistan.

Pakistan's military intelligence service is believed to have more influence on the Taliban than anyone else.

After the delegation's unsuccessful meeting with Afghan leadership, however, Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar said Islamabad's leverage with the Taliban wasn't unlimited.

Pakistan, one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban when it seized power in 1996, announced over the weekend that it would support the United States in its fight against terrorism. According to some reports, it asked for favors in exchange.

The senior State Department official insisted yesterday Islamabad had sought "no conditions" when it offered its backing to Washington, but the United States made clear that the fight against terrorism would be "the most important issue in our relationship."

The Bush administration continued to receive support from foreign governments yesterday, as the State Department announced that the list of countries that lost citizens in last week's attacks had reached 62.

After "positive" and "forthcoming" statements from Iran and Syria, Mr. Powell said yesterday that Yemen had also offered support.

"They have been very helpful recently" in the investigation of last year's attack on the USS Cole, and "now are helping us with respect to leads in this current crisis," Mr. Powell said after a telephone conversation with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The U.S. government has linked bin Laden and his associates to October's attack on the Cole in Yemen, which killed 17 American sailors.

Mr. Powell said yesterday "all roads" in the investigation into the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon led to bin Laden.

"It is becoming clear with each passing hour, with each passing day, that it is the Qaeda network that is the prime suspect, as the president has said, and all roads lead to the leader of that organization, Osama bin Laden, and his location in Afghanistan," he said.

He added that he was "reasonably confident and certain" the Taliban could find bin Laden if it wanted, and that he had seen "nothing to indicate" bin Laden has left Afghanistan.

But Mr. Powell said capturing bin Laden won't be sufficient and Washington's "objective" is to destroy Qaeda.

"It is not enough to get one individual," he said. "It will not be over until we have gotten into the inside of this organization, inside its decision cycle, inside its planning cycle, inside its execution capability, and until we have neutralized and destroyed it."

As part of its coalition-building effort in what President Bush has called "the first war of the 21st century," the administration plans intense talks with allies and other major powers this week, officials said yesterday.

In the next four days, the list of foreign leaders flying to Washington includes British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac and the foreign ministers of Russia, China, Italy, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, as well as three top European Union officials.

Separately, the EU has called a meeting of its 15 members on Friday to discuss the crisis.

In most allied capitals, debate over participation in a U.S.-led military operation has intensified since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and different views have emerged.

Britain, Italy, Canada, Norway and Australia appear ready to commit troops and other military aid, while France and Germany have been much more cautious about making promises and warned Washington against hurried decisions.

Mr. Powell, who has spent much of his time speaking with world leaders on the phone about the terrorism crisis, spoke Sunday night with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Yesterday, Mr. Powell tried to reassure Arab governments that the United States has not forgotten the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"We do have to do something about the situation in the Middle East. I carve out part of my day to press and work on that. I never lose sight of the fact that one of the underlying continuing problems we will have is that we have to get into the Mitchell plan and we have to get back to negotiations in due course. I can assure you I haven't taken the U.S. eye off that ball."

--------

HISTORY
For Ages, Afghanistan Is Not Easily Conquered

New York Times
September 18, 2001
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/international/asia/18AFGH.html

Afghanistan, a poor and landlocked country, appears to be positioned for another round of what 19th-century imperialists called the Great Game, the battle for influence by outsiders, once mostly the Russians and the British, over a defiant land that a British viceroy once called a poisoned chalice.

The country, populated by warrior clans, has for centuries been a mountainous obstruction astride the roads from Persia and the Middle East to the Indian subcontinent and much of Central Asia.

For the British Empire in India and, more than 100 years later, for the Soviet Union, Afghanistan became a killing field remembered for horrific massacres and the vengeance of holy war.

This time, it seems, the Russians and the West, now led by Americans, are on the same side. For the first time after years of disputes over other issues like the Balkans and Iraq, Moscow and Washington have found a common enemy in the Taliban, the radical Islamic movement that now controls most of the country.

Their motives are different. Russia sees links between Afghanistan and rebellions in its own Muslim areas, while the United States is focused on Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of terrorism. But their common cause in reining in and perhaps dislodging the Taliban appears strong for now.

Historic precedent is not encouraging. After Afghanistan emerged from periods of rule by ancient Hellenistic, Greco-Afghan and Buddhist empires, its ethnically and linguistically separated regions and peoples - the dominant Pathans, the Hazara, the Tajiks and the Uzbeks - eventually settled into a kind of collective independence that continued until the age of European colonialism.

An army of the British East India Company, still in charge of imperial India, moved into Kabul in 1839 to checkmate the Russian advances - real and imagined - in Central Asia, the Himalayas and Tibet. In 1841, disaster struck.

Britain's envoy in Afghanistan, Sir William Macnaghten was besieged by a mob and shot by the son of a ruler he had deposed. His garrison was permitted to disband and retreat through the Khyber Pass to what is now Pakistan.

There were about 4,500 soldiers and 12,000 noncombatants, including the wives and children of British officers, according to Charles Allen, in his book "Soldier Sahibs: The Daring Adventurers Who Tamed India's Northwest Frontier" (Carroll & Graf).

All of them - save one Dr. Brydon left to tell the tale - were massacred along the route. It was, Mr. Allen wrote, "the greatest military disaster in the history of British India."

A second Anglo-Afghan war came three decades later and included another massacre. But that time, says Barnett Rubin, a leading American expert on the region, the British were able to achieve their political goals, including drawing a border to separate British India from Afghanistan and ensuring some security for the unruly northwest frontier, a province that newly independent Pakistan inherited in 1947 and has never been able to control.

A century later, the Russians came back - as the Soviet Union. When King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan was overthrown in 1973 by his cousin Mohammad Daud, the new government appeared willing at first to do Moscow's bidding.

Instead, said Mr. Rubin, who is the director of studies at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, the Daud government threw out the pro-Soviet faction and refused to take orders from Leonid I. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader.

"Brezhnev tried to tell him what to do, and Daud basically spit in his eye," Mr. Rubin said in an interview. Afghan Communists overthrew the Daud government in 1978, but the Kremlin was still not satisfied. In December 1979 the Soviet Army invaded.

A decade-long holy war followed, pitting Afghan Muslim warriors, the mujahedeen, against well-equipped Soviet troops, with the fiercely anti- Communist holy warriors sustained by lavish support from the United States and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan, dependent on both countries, had little choice but to become the base for that battle. It has never recovered.

The mujahedeen, when they were finally able to capture Kabul in 1992, three years after the Soviet withdrawal, proved to be as incompetent, corrupt and fractious as the worst of any earlier Afghan regime.

They were not - despite the claims of their leaders, now shrunk to a small armed opposition - supporters of women's rights, and they threatened and sometimes massacred people from minority groups.

In 1996 they were driven from Kabul by the Taliban. Many of the new movement's youthful leaders were born in the refugee camps spawned by earlier war or in small rural villages, knowing nothing of the world and motivated only by a primal orthodoxy learned in religious schools and a determination to take back Afghanistan for the Afghans. The United States has refused to deal with the Taliban except perfunctorily.

But American interest in aiding Afghanistan was strong under the last monarchy. Generous United States grants built airports, roads, schools and other public amenities and services.

In terms of development, that was probably modern Afghanistan's golden age. More recently, America's approach to the country has been characterized by neglect.

As the United States plans a battle strategy against Afghanistan, it can draw many lessons from the country's history, Mr. Rubin said. The Soviet Union bombed, mined and strafed the terrain with helicopter gunships, yet lost the war.

Sending troops into ragged, barren mountains where the opposition is at home would only move the disadvantages of Vietnam to a new and harsher setting, Mr. Rubin said.

"If they're talking about going in and trying to occupy Afghanistan, that's a pretty iffy proposition," he said. "There has to be an alternative Afghan force."

That means a painstaking job of rounding up the remnants of the opposition front - led by Ahmed Shah Massoud until his death on Saturday - along with whatever forces the Afghan royalists might recruit and, most important, Taliban defectors. King Zahir Shah, deposed more than a quarter-century ago, is still alive in exile, waiting in the wings.

--------

Taliban Threatens 'Holy War'

September 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Attacks-Afghanistan.html

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The hard-line Taliban said God would protect it if the world tried to ``set fire'' to Afghanistan for sheltering terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden, and in comments broadcast Tuesday also called on all Muslims to wage holy war on America if it attacks.

Hundreds of Islamic clerics were gathering in the Afghan capital to discuss conditions for extraditing bin Laden to a country other than the United States, a Pakistan government official said. The clerics are expected to meet Wednesday, said Hamdullah Nomani, the mayor of Kabul and host of the gathering.

The conditions, including international recognition of the Taliban government and the lifting of U.N. sanctions, were discussed Monday in Kandahar, headquarters of the Islamic militia that rules most of Afghanistan, the Pakistani official said on condition of anonymity.

It seemed unlikely the United States would agree to have bin Laden extradited to another country. A delegation sent by Pakistan to try to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden went home Tuesday without reaching an agreement, and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf scheduled a televised address to his people on Wednesday evening.

Before leaving Kabul, the Pakistani delegation met with eight detained aid workers being tried on charges of illegally preaching Christianity, the official said. Pakistan asked the Taliban to release the aid workers -- two Americans, four Germans and two Australians -- and the rulers promised to consider the request, he said.

The Taliban, who say bin Laden was wrongly implicated in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States, urged the people of Afghanistan to prepare for a jihad, or holy war, against America, the official Bakhtar News Agency reported Tuesday.

``If America attacks our homes, it is necessary for all Muslims, especially for Afghans, to wage a holy war,'' Mullah Mohammed Hasan Akhund, the deputy Taliban leader, said Monday, according to state-run Radio Shariat. ``God is on our side, and if the world's people try to set fire to Afghanistan, God will protect us and help us.''

Since taking control of most of Afghanistan in 1996, the Taliban have declared holy wars against the northern-based anti-Taliban alliance, Russia and Iran, but never the United States.

The Taliban government is only officially recognized by three countries: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The Taliban's foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, condemned the violence within hours of the attacks in New York and Washington but said it would have been impossible for bin Laden to carry out the assaults. Bin Laden lacks the facilities for such an elaborate operation, he said.

Since then, the Taliban's leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, who has declared himself head of all Muslims, has defended bin Laden and accused the United States of pointing the finger in his direction because its investigators have been unable to come up with a real suspect.

Many Pakistanis living along the 1,500-mile border with Afghanistan promised to join the jihad against America, and possibly their own government, if there are retaliatory strikes.

``America is putting a gun on Pakistan's shoulder to fire at Afghanistan. The Pakistani people cannot accept this,'' said Haji Abdul Razzaq, a mechanic in the western city of Peshawar, near the Afghan border.

On Tuesday, some 3,000 people in the Pakistani city of Karachi demonstrated near a mosque that runs a religious school many Taliban leaders attended, warning of more attacks. Many carried posters of bin Laden portrayed as a hero.

``Until now, only one World Trade Center has been destroyed,'' demonstrators shouted in unison in English. ``But we will destroy all of America. We will die for Taliban. We will die for Islam. We will die for Osama.''

Bin Laden and his alleged network of Islamic militants are the prime suspects in last week's airborne assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The United States believes bin Laden has played a role in a number of devastating attacks, including the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in which 231 people were killed.

Bin Laden, who was stripped of Saudi citizenship and has been living in Afghanistan since 1996, is accused by Washington of running a global terrorist network from his bases inside the war-ruined Central Asian nation.

The Taliban, the hard-line Islamic militia that rules according to a strict interpretation of the Quran, have been placed under economic sanctions twice by the United Nations to press earlier U.S. demand to hand over bin Laden for trial.

The Taliban have consistently refused, calling bin Laden a ``guest'' and saying that to hand him over to non-Muslims would betray a tenet of Islam.

Jordan's King Abdullah recalled on Tuesday that U.S. intelligent services last year helped foil a bin Laden-planned attack on Jordan hotels during Millennium celebrations.

He said on ``Larry King Live'' program that as the weeks go on, the world will learn that ``some of the things that he was up to were quite horrific indeed.'' CNN released excerpts of the interview prior to broadcast Tuesday evening.

The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad said Tuesday that the U.S. government has authorized its nonessential embassy staff members and their families to evacuate Pakistan amid fears of possible violence and terrorist strikes against Americans. Several multinational companies also have evacuated their international staff.

However, the U.S. Embassy and its consulates in Pakistan, an Islamic nation of 140 million people, were to continue their normal operations.

Meanwhile, thousands of Afghans were fleeing the country amid fears of retaliatory strikes on Afghanistan because of bin Laden's presence.

``We are worried that hundreds of thousands of Afghans have left the cities and are headed for Pakistan,'' Riaz Mohammed Khan, a spokesman for Pakistan's Foreign Office, said. Tuesday.

Thousands more have been gathering on islands along a river that marks much of Afghanistan's border with Tajikistan, Russian border officials said Tuesday.

At the United Nations, a representative of the former Afghan government of Burhanuddin Rabbani, which was ousted by the Taliban, said that 15,000 fighters loyal to Rabbani were prepared to assist the United States in any operation against the Taliban.

But the representative, A.G. Ravan Farhadi, said in New York that the United States had not asked for any help from his group based in northern Afghanistan.

-------- business

Defense Contractors' Shares Rise

By Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 18, 2001; Page E01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46774-2001Sep17?language=printer

The peace dividend seems to have come and gone, with many experts predicting yesterday that the defense industry can look forward to a sizable increase in government spending to support the nation's fight against terrorism.

"We are at the beginning of the sixth great military mobilization in American history," said Loren Thompson, a defense consultant with the conservative think tank Lexington Institute.

This year's defense budget stands at$296 billion, but "before it's over we'll be looking at a defense budget well in excess of $400 billion," Thompson said.

Investors clearly believed as much yesterday, swarming to defense stocks and sending them up on a day that the stock market generally took a big hit.

"We've gone through eight years of atrophying the infrastructure of our military," said Paul Nisbet, an industry analyst with JSA Research Inc. in Newport, R.I.

"This is waking up the whole thing, and that's why the defense stocks are doing so well. They didn't do this well in the Gulf War or Kosovo."

Some analysts cautioned that although there is enormous zeal to defend U.S. interests, it remains unclear whether traditional platforms such as fighter jets or battle tanks will be of much use against small, concealed groups of terrorists.

"The nature of warfare has changed. The old models of industrial surge capability aren't terribly relevant to the types of conflicts we have been fighting in recent years," said Jeff Bialos, a consultant who served asdeputy undersecretary of defense for industrial affairs during the Clinton administration.

The Pentagon might need more money for personnel and logistics than for gigantic new weapons systems in the coming conflict, Bialos said. But he added that with the wounds of last week's attacks still so fresh, there will be enormous momentum to fund the military across the board.

"The environment has just gotten harder for cutting any major weapons programs, even if they in fact deserve to be cut," Bialos said.

Industry executives weren't yet ready to predict funding is guaranteed for all their big weapons systems, such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the Crusader artillery piece. But several said yesterday that they are talking with military and political leaders about the potential for increasing production of certain systems, such as surveillance platforms and cruise missiles. None was willing to speak openly because of instructions from the Pentagon to keep quiet about preparations.

"We have been asked to begin to supply information in a number of areas -- reports, data, information on how fast we could ramp up . . . mostly in surveillance, reconnaissance, intelligence, precision strike, situation awareness and so on," said an executive at one defense contractor. "Obviously we're starting to look at those areas right now."

Byron Callan, a financial analyst with Merrill Lynch in New York, said, "I've heard from a couple of companies that they've definitely been asked to be prepared to accelerate spare parts shipments, munitions, those types of things."

One general officer confirmed that senior Pentagon officials are busy taking stock of weapons inventories and considering what they may need to order on an expedited basis.

Experts said the military particularly needs to quickly build up its stock of air-launched cruise missiles, built by Boeing Co., and Tomahawk missiles produced by Raytheon Co.

Spokesmen for those companies would not discuss whether they are preparing to increase production efforts. "We stand ready to meet any urgent customer requirements . . . when they're made known to us," Raytheon spokesman Dave Shea said.

The nation's biggest military contractor -- Bethesda's Lockheed Martin Corp., maker of the F-16 and F-22 fighter planes, Aegis naval warfare systems and the THAAD missile defense system -- said it is too early to know just what President Bush will need to fight this new kind of war.

"[Our] lines of business are broad, and we will be able to meet any change in defense requirements that occur. However, investors should expect no windfall as the result of last week," Lockheed Martin spokesman James Fetig said.

There was no holding back defense investors yesterday, though. Lockheed Martin stock jumped $5.63 to close at $43.95; Raytheon gained $6.65 to close at $31.50; Northrop Grumman Corp., which is the dominant maker of pilotless spy planes, rose $12.86, to $94.80; and tank- and shipmaker General Dynamics Corp. gained $6.93 to close at $82.90.

Among the giant contractors,Boeing lost ground, falling $7.66 to close at $35.80, amid fears that its commercial aircraft business will slump along with that of the major airlines.

Certain small companies shone because they offer types of technology that could play key roles in the grim fight against terrorism.

Shares of BioReliance Corp., a Rockville biological testing and manufacturing company, rose 70 cents to close at $13. Last year, the company won two major contracts to manufacture large quantities of a smallpox vaccine for the Defense Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smallpox is a deadly infectious disease that could be used as a weapon of bioterrorism.

Meridian Medical Technologies Inc.'s stock rose $2 to close at $14. The Columbia company has contracts with government agencies to manufacture and sell drug injection devices called auto-injectors that can administer quick antidotes to victims of nerve gas attacks.

Staff writers Terence Chea and Vernon Loeb contributed to this report.

-------- iraq

British Warplanes Hit Iraqi Site

September 18, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Strike.html?searchpv=aponline

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- British Tornado warplanes bombed a southern Iraqi anti-aircraft missile site Tuesday, retaliating for ``hostile activities'' by Iraq against planes patrolling a no-fly zone, a U.S. Air Force officer said.

The attack targeted a position near Basra, 350 miles south of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, said Maj. Brett Morris, spokesman for the Saudi-based Joint Task Force South West Asia.

``The strikes were in response to Iraq's hostile activities in the past, part of which we also experienced today,'' said Morris without elaborating.

There was no immediate report on damage.

An unidentified Iraqi military spokesman confirmed the Basra attack, telling the official Iraqi News Agency that ``our courageous ground resistance'' returned fire on the planes, forcing them to turn back ``in shame.''

The agency reported no casualties.

In recent months, Iraq has improved its ability to fire missiles at U.S. and British aircraft patrolling a no-fly zone in southern Iraq.

No-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq were established after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Shiite Muslims and Kurdish minorities.

Last week, Iraq said it downed a second unmanned U.S. spy plane. U.S. authorities confirmed the drone's disappearance, but were still investigating its fate.

--------

Hijack Suspect Met Iraqi Intelligence, Sources Say

September 18, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-attack-atta.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mohamed Atta, suspected of hijacking the first plane that struck the World Trade Center last week, had met earlier this year with an Iraqi intelligence official in Europe, U.S. sources said on Tuesday.

Atta, a 33-year-old Egyptian, had studied at an engineering school in Hamburg, Germany, and took flying lessons in Florida. He was on board the first plane that demolished the Twin Towers in New York on Sept. 11.

Recent intelligence information received by the United States showed Atta had met with a representative of Iraqi intelligence this year, sources told Reuters.

The sources said the meeting took place in Europe but did not divulge the exact location, nor who the Iraqi intelligence official was, other than it was not the head of the intelligence services.

It was unclear what Atta and the Iraqi official discussed at the meeting and whether there was any connection to the attacks on New York and the Pentagon near Washington.

``We don't know that it is (connected), there's no evidence that it was, it's something that needs to be looked into further,'' one U.S. government source said.

Some intelligence experts, including former CIA Director James Woolsey, have suggested the United States look more deeply into whether there was Iraqi involvement in the attack.

But one U.S. official said there was no clear evidence any country backed the plot and attack which left the World Trade Center in rubble and the Pentagon damaged, with nearly 6,000 people dead or missing, and prompted President Bush to declare a war on terrorism.

``There's lots of little bits and threads and hints and nuggets out there, however is there some compelling evidence of state sponsorship? Not at this time. Are we looking at that? Sure among a thousand different things,'' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Iraqi intelligence structure is complex with various branches in which President Saddam Hussein's sons, relatives, and clan members are involved, said Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at The Center for Strategic and International Studies.

LOOSE NETWORK

Atta was part of a loose network of militants so it would not be unusual for him to have met with an Iraqi intelligence representative, said Cordesman, a Middle East expert who formerly worked at the U.S. State and Defense Departments.

``The fact that in this sort of loose coalition there is a constant exchange does not in any sense mean that there was common planning,'' Cordesman said.

``It doesn't rule it out, but one indicator and one meeting almost falls in the noise level of how these groups operate. It is not evidence of a conspiracy,'' he said.

Cordesman also cautioned that some in Washington were trying to emphasize potential Iraqi involvement to further their own agendas for lashing out at Saddam's government.

``The set of hidden agendas in Washington is such, so that it makes speculation particularly dangerous,'' he said. Some might try to use the Atta-Iraqi connection ``as a way of broadening what we're doing (in response to the attack), to include Saddam Hussein,'' Cordesman said.

Woolsey has said the high degree of coordination involved in the attacks suggested another country may have backed it.

``There is a reasonable chance and indeed there are ways to find out whether Iraqi intelligence was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,'' Woolsey said.

``And if they were involved in '93 that would certainly suggest that we ought to examine the possibility that they were involved Sept. 11,'' he told Reuters.

If somehow it were proved that Iraqi intelligence was involved in the attack, that would mean the government had backed it, Woolsey said. ``Iraqi intelligence is not a rogue element. If Iraqi intelligence was involved, the government of Iraq was involved,'' he said.

Vice President Dick Cheney was asked bluntly on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday whether there was any evidence that Iraq was linked to the attacks. Cheney responded: ``No.''

-------- israel

Israel Says It Won't 'Pay Price' of Coalition
Sharon Refuses to Relent on Palestinians to Help U.S. Build Support Among Arabs

By Lee Hockstader and Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 18, 2001; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46620-2001Sep17?language=printer

JERUSALEM, Sept. 17 -- As it ushered Arab countries into a multinational coalition against Iraq a decade ago, the first Bush administration persuaded Israel to stay in the background, even to hold its fire when Iraq launched Scud missiles at Tel Aviv.

Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has made it clear that times have changed. In a series of pugnacious pronouncements since the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, he has insisted Israel will not sit quietly as the current Bush administration seeks to build a coalition of Arab and Islamic states against terrorism.

"It is inconceivable to grant [Yasser Arafat] legitimacy because someone thinks that might facilitate the inclusion of Arab countries in this coalition," Sharon told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth, referring to the Palestinian leader. "We will not pay the price for the establishment of this coalition."

As it rages on, with both sides seeking to squeeze advantage from the crisis, the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis may for several reasons impair Washington's ability to assemble an anti-terrorism alliance in the Middle East and beyond.

One difficulty is the U.S. backing for and identification with Israel. The unswerving U.S. stand has long been condemned in the Arab world as unfair, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic. Public opinion in the Arab and Muslim world has been further influenced by months of televised images of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which continue to air on Arab-language satellite television.

That has been compounded by the Bush administration's reluctance to become actively involved in efforts to quell the violence that has shaken the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Israel for a year. Several of the friendly Arab governments to which Bush is now turning -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt -- have been pleading for months for more involvement by Washington.

Foreign Minister Abdul-Illah Khatib of Jordan, for instance, said it will be difficult for the Bush administration to line up Arab support without a commitment to solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute once and for all. "People will need to be convinced that Israel is not taking advantage" of the situation to demonize the Palestinian cause by comparing it to terrorism, Khatib said.

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt said today that the Israeli-Palestinian standoff "may be one of the elements which encouraged" the terrorist attacks. He said President Bush suggested to him in a telephone conversation that the United States will be "very active" in trying to arrange a cease-fire. "But what I'm seeing now is the Israeli government is seizing the opportunity and launching attacks now and then," Mubarak said on "Larry King Live." He added: "This will have terrible repercussions after that."

The United States, hoping to extinguish a fire that threatens the anti-terrorism effort, has urged Sharon and Arafat to make every effort to reach a cease-fire. But the two leaders have vastly different agendas, and both have balked at fully satisfying U.S. requests to cool things off.

"For all sides, everything has changed," said a high-ranking Western source. "The Palestinians simply have to decide which side they're going to be on -- are they going to tolerate the kind of support for terrorism that has characterized the last year? And on the Israeli side, are they going to make it easy for the Palestinians? Or are they going to insist that pressure be kept up to such a level that [Arafat] can't climb down the tree even if he wants to?"

Since the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York, fighting has escalated here. Israel launched a fresh offensive, punching into Palestinian-controlled territory and towns and establishing a new military zone in the West Bank from which most Palestinians are excluded.

Sharon is eager to lump the Palestinians in with terrorists, discredit Arafat and justify the assaults in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that have killed at least 18 Palestinians in the past week. A real war on world terrorism, Sharon has said, must include a war on Arafat.

In that spirit, Sharon refused last week to allow his foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to meet with Arafat to negotiate a cease-fire, despite a direct request from Bush in a phone call to Sharon on Friday. Sharon raised the bar over the weekend, demanding that any cease-fire talks be preceded by 48 hours of complete quiet -- in effect, a pre-cease-fire cease-fire.

"If there was already a cease-fire you wouldn't need talks to discuss a cease-fire," said an annoyed Western diplomat.

For Israeli hard-liners, the decision to hold back during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 is a bitter memory. Many, including Sharon, believe that leaving the war to the United States made Israel appear weak. Afterward, the United States pushed a reluctant Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir into peace talks.

"Sharon doesn't want to open the door to a repeat situation where Israel will be a passive actor in a coalition," said Gerald Steinberg, head of the program on conflict management and negotiation at Israel's Bar Ilan University. "The Americans don't understand the depth of Israeli views on this."

Israelis, who have suffered dozens of casualties from terrorist attacks, were convinced from the first day that they should be charter members of any anti-terrorism coalition. They bristled at suggestions they should help cool the conflict with the Palestinians to help Washington enlist Arab and Islamic allies.

"Terrorist actions against Israeli citizens are no different from bin Laden's terrorism against American citizens," Sharon told the Knesset, Israel's parliament, today. "Terrorism is terrorism, and murder is murder."

Arafat, meanwhile, has drawn his own lessons from the Gulf War, when he took the side of Iraq, the loser, and risked pariah status. He seems determined not to repeat that choice. After months of tolerating or encouraging terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, he is eager to show cooperation with the United States and demonstrate that Sharon is the one responsible for unbridled violence.

Although Bush has not phoned Arafat, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has urged Arafat several times to defuse the clashes and resume talks with Sharon's government. According to his close associates, fear is Arafat's prime motivation in wanting to cooperate. If Washington identifies him with the terrorist camp, it may embolden Sharon to launch an offensive to crush the Palestinian Authority. For that reason, Palestinian officials said, Arafat has dropped all preconditions for cease-fire talks with Peres, insisting he is ready to meet "anywhere, anytime."

"We can make it through this with the United States. We can't make it if left alone with Sharon," said Ahmed Abdul Rahman, Arafat's cabinet secretary. "We are wise enough not to make war with America."

Shortly after news of last Tuesday's attacks reached Gaza, Arafat called an urgent meeting of top political and military advisers to lay out a course of action. He grimly informed the half-dozen officials and the head of his combined security forces that he would immediately announce a pro-American position, said an official who was present.

Because Arafat recognized that many Palestinians who are aggrieved by U.S. support for Israel would show little sympathy for the United States, he ordered police and political parties to suppress anti-American demonstrations. Most dramatically, he warned leaders of militant Islamic groups to launch no terror attacks in Israel. If they did, he pledged to fight the groups ruthlessly, no matter how great the risk of internal Palestinian violence.

"Arafat's position is desperate," said Marwan Kanafani, an adviser to and spokesman for the Palestinian leader. "He is on a tightrope. His problem is how to avoid to being a victim of all this."

However, acceding to U.S. demands for quiet has its limits, Kanafani said. Arafat will not tell Palestinians to stand by and not fight in case of continued Israeli invasions of its territory. "We are still victims," Kanafani said.

Arafat believes he also has something to contribute to U.S. diplomacy: a Palestinian stamp of approval for the anti-terrorism coalition. If even the Palestinians, who are distressed by U.S. political, financial and military support of Israel, are willing to sign on, Arab leaders will find it easier to do so.

Williams reported from the Gaza Strip. Correspondent Howard Schneider in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this report.

-------- pakistan

Pro-Taliban groups protest Pakistan pledge

September 18, 2001
By Ben Barber
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/default-2001918214839.htm

Pro-Taliban Islamic groups in Pakistan called yesterday for mass demonstrations and strikes to protest the pledge by their president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to help the United States arrest Osama bin Laden.

Illustrating the political risks for Gen. Musharraf in cooperating with Washington, the demonstrators burned U.S. flags, shouted their support for bin Laden and warned the government they would take up arms for the Taliban.

Pakistan's major political parties, gathered under the umbrella of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy, endorsed the government's decision to grant "full cooperation" with the U.S. anti-terrorist campaign and plan to capture bin Laden.

But the major Islamic political party, Jamaat-i-Islami, and other Islamic groups rejected such cooperation amid reports that dozens of American agents had arrived in Pakistan.

"The American attacks are a conspiracy, and we should not fall into this trap," Qazi Hussain Ahmed, leader of Jamaat-i-Islami, told a gathering of the heads of all key pro-Taliban groups.

Western and Pakistani sources told Agence France-Presse yesterday that the United States had deployed up to 50 agents, including some from the Special Forces, in Pakistan.

The Americans are involved in advance liaison work and the selection of Pakistani officers who will work with them in any military operations in or against Afghanistan, AFP reported.

The Islamic leaders rejected a request by Gen. Musharraf on Sunday to support his policy of opposing terrorism and joining U.S. efforts to break up the al Qaeda terrorist network headed by bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan under the protection of its Taliban rulers.

Gen. Hamid Gul, former head of the army's intelligence unit, which is held largely responsible for the rise of the Taliban, predicted "Pakistan would be completely destabilized" after any U.S. attack on Afghanistan.

"The Pakistani people would never accept an American presence on their soil. They would revolt," he told the French newspaper Figaro. "The government would have to rely on the army to control the insurrection."

Fazlur Rehman, chief of Jamaat-i-ulema-i-Islam, told Gen. Musharraf at a Sunday meeting, "We will fight against the USA," an aide told United Press International. "The army will be against you. We shall go to the mountains and come back at night to launch hit-and-run attacks."

The split between the military government and the Islamist supporters of the Taliban threatens to tear apart Pakistan, a nation of 140 million people that in 1998 conducted its first nuclear weapons tests.

Pakistan also is developing medium-range missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. The United States has imposed sanctions on Pakistan as well as Chinese firms accused of supplying missile parts and technology.

Pakistan was the first of three countries to recognize the Taliban when it crushed rival warlord militias in 1996 and took power.

The Taliban's radical form of Islam was spawned in Pakistani religious schools and proved popular among many Pakistanis.

Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar said in an interview last week that Pakistan has been trying to confront its own Islamic extremists who have increasingly intimidated journalists, politicians and even the military.

"Our founding father dreamed of founding Pakistan as a modern moderate Islamic country based on democracy," he said.

There is widespread support in Pakistan for a guerrilla war to drive India out of Kashmir, and many of the Islamist groups fighting there are trained in Afghanistan - some by bin Laden's followers.

About 12 percent of Pakistan's 140 million people speak Pashtu, the same language as the Taliban and its followers. They are clustered along the border with Pakistan, where they share cultural and kinship ties with the Afghan Pashtus.

Many of the Pashtus in Pakistan have fallen under the spell of Islamic militants since U.S. and Saudi-armed Afghan guerrillas drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan in 1990.

Even the military government of Gen. Musharraf has been afraid to confront the radical Islamic forces that have spread from the northeast throughout the country in recent years.

About 1 million Pakistani children are attending Islamic schools called madrassas, where they often are taught to hate the West and to prepare to fight a holy war, or jihad, in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya or elsewhere.

The leaders of the Taliban have been educated mainly in the Pakistani madrassas, and their influence over the mostly illiterate and impoverished Pakistanis continues to grow.

When Gen. Musharraf tried to water down a blasphemy law to require more proof of a crime before prosecution, he was forced to back off by widespread Islamic opposition.

In parts of the mainly Pashtu northwest, local officials have been forced, sometimes by mobs, to close video shops and to impose Islamic dress codes.

Newspaper offices also have been attacked. Pakistani politician and former cricket star Imram Khan has said that fear is spreading throughout the country.

Some 100,000 militants of Islamic parties and groups opposing Indian troops in Kashmir have been trained in Afghanistan and armed, said Mr. Khan and others.

Pakistan has a powerful and well-trained army that is expected to be capable of controlling any unrest, said analyst Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution.

But it too has been influenced by Islamist teachings in recent years. The influence spreads even into its officer corps, which once was mainly British- and U.S.-trained.

-------- u.n.

U.N. Won't Hold World Meeting

By Colum Lynch
The Washington Post
Tuesday, September 18, 2001; Page A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47167-2001Sep17?language=printer

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 17 -- The United Nations will postpone its annual meeting of world leaders in New York next week because of concerns that the gathering would strain the resources of local and federal security agencies coping with the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack, according to U.N. diplomats.

President Bush was to deliver his maiden address to the United Nations at next Monday's opening of the General Assembly's general debate. But senior Bush administration officials told the United Nations that the city's law enforcement agencies may not have the capacity to accommodate the dignitaries from more than 150 countries who are expected to attend.

"We've explained the reality of the capabilities that this city and the government can bear in terms of security, which are very, very limited under this circumstance," said James B. Cunningham, the acting U.S. representative at the United Nations.

The world body's five key regional groups agreed today to postpone the event; they will meet on Tuesday to pick a new date, most likely in October or November. The 189-member General Assembly has scheduled a Wednesday meeting to announce the postponement.

The General Assembly decided last week to postpone a global summit on children's rights scheduled for Wednesday through Friday that was expected to draw about 75 heads of state into midtown Manhattan. "Neither the governments nor the U.N. secretariat want to put any additional pressure on the New York City authorities during this time of crisis," U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.

--------

UN Council Tells Afghanistan to Hand Over Bin Laden

September 18, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-attack-un-laden.html

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Security Council members told Afghanistan's Taliban rulers on Tuesday to surrender Saudi-born millionaire Osama bin Laden ``immediately and unconditionally'' as called for in council resolutions.

``There is one and only one message the Security Council has for the Taliban: Implement United Nations Security Council resolutions, in particular Resolution 1333, immediately and unconditionally,'' French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte, this month's council president, said.

That resolution, adopted Dec. 19, imposed a second round of sanctions on the Taliban, including an arms embargo, in an unsuccessful effort to have them surrender bin Laden, under indictment in the United States for allegedly plotting the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa.

Washington now suspects bin Laden, living in Afghanistan as a ``guest'' of the Taliban, of heading a network of militants responsible for the Sept. 11 carnage in the United States.

The attacks by hijacked airliners pulverized the World Trade Center and demolished part of the Pentagon, left nearly 6,000 dead or missing and engendered a sense of insecurity unparalleled since the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

The council's statement came after a briefing from Kieran Prendergast, the U.N. undersecretary-general for political affairs, which included the ``dire consequences of Taliban rule for the Afghan people,'' Levitte said.

In contrast, U.N. humanitarian and refugee officials are worried about any attack on Afghanistan, whose impoverished population is suffering from two decades of civil war and the worst drought in 30 years.

The 15-member Security Council, most of whose decisions are mandatory, reacted immediately last Wednesday with a resolution that condemned the attacks and called on the world to help find the perpetrators and those who sheltered them.

CHIRAC DUE AT UNITED NATIONS

Levitte, diplomats said, wanted a follow-up resolution for a global ``anti-terrorism campaign'' but then decided to delay it for a few weeks so concrete measures could be worked out.

French President Jacques Chirac, now in Washington for talks with President Bush, is meeting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York on Wednesday.

``President Chirac, beyond his meeting with President Bush, wanted to have quiet talk with Kofi Annan,'' Levitte said.

``He also wants to meet the press in the U.N. building to show that, confronted with scourge of terrorism, the world has to act in unanimous way and the United Nations is the body where we can build a unanimous response,'' Levitte said.

Chirac had been scheduled to chair a Security Council meeting on children in war zones but a World Summit on Children for this week was canceled after the attacks.

-------- u.s.

Bush seeks bin Laden dead or alive

September 18, 2001
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010918-38784010.htm

President Bush yesterday went to the Pentagon to get a closer look at developing anti-terrorist plans, as military sources said a war strategy is emerging to bomb Afghanistan to force Osama bin Laden out into the open and into U.S. hands.

Flanked by Donald H. Rumsfeld, his hawkish defense secretary, and other top military advisers, the president was asked how he wants bin Laden captured for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush replied, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'"

The military sources, who are familiar with military options being discussed by Mr. Bush's national security team, said the ruling Taliban government in Afghanistan could defuse the plan by turning over bin Laden -- who is widely suspected of masterminding last week's terrorist attacks. Bin Laden is a welcomed guest of the radical Islamic Taliban rulers. The Saudi-exile millionaire uses the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan as home for a network of underground bunkers and training camps from which to mount terrorist assaults.

Mr. Bush's strategy of getting bin Laden to move, and thus possibly tip off his location, was revealed in the past few days in comments made by the president himself and his national security team.

"They like to hit and then they like to hide out," Mr. Bush said of his terrorist foes. "But we're going to smoke 'em out."

At Camp David on Saturday, the president said, "They find holes to get in. And we will do whatever it takes to smoke them out and get them running and we'll get them."

Vice President Richard B. Cheney, who as secretary of defense under Mr. Bush's father directed U.S. troops in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, said Sunday that countries such as Afghanistan who harbor terrorists face "the full wrath of the United States."

The administration's new terrorism policy says it will deal just as harshly with terrorist-protecting states as with the perpetrators themselves.

The administration is in the early stages of putting together a long-term anti-terrorist campaign.

But one early objective, military sources said, is to capture the biggest prize in the new war -- bin Laden.

Officials said that if a bombing campaign begins, it would be a sustained, punishing attack aimed at terrorists' training camps, bin Laden's known hideouts and Taliban military facilities.

The attack would be carried out by two Navy battle groups in the region, led by the carriers USS Carl Vinson and USS Enterprise. The Air Force would supply long-range B-2 stealth bombers, which would be prepositioned at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The B-2 is armed with Joint Direct Attack Munitions.

The bombers can drop the satellite-guided bombs from 40,000 feet without anyone on the ground hearing the approaching jets.

The United States is known to have attacked bin Laden and his organization in 1998.

Scores of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired after U.S. intelligence agencies learned of a meeting of bin Laden operatives, which perhaps included the dissident leader himself.

The attack killed some followers, but not bin Laden.

The Clinton administration ordered no other follow-up attacks against the elusive terrorist, who had become the prime suspect in the bombings of two American embassies in Africa.

Afghanistan lies in a region for which U.S. Central Command, based at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., oversees U.S. military operations. The commander is Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, a wounded Vietnam War veteran who also fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

"[Gen. Franks] is always fully engaged with the Pentagon leadership regarding his AOR [area of responsibility]," a spokesman said yesterday.

Central Command maintains a list of possible military and anti-terrorist targets in Afghanistan. Planners, along with Pentagon officials, have been updating the list since Sept. 11, when suicide terrorists steered hijacked commercial airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who commanded coalition air forces during the Gulf war, said the problem with bombing Afghanistan is that it possesses few high-value targets such as the ones found in Iraq or Yugoslavia during air attacks on those countries.

"There's nothing in Afghanistan worth bombing hardly, and of course the Afghan people have suffered so much," Gen. Horner said. "It's essentially still a mujahideen military."

But he agreed that one benefit of bombing could be to force bin Laden to move and thus expose himself to eyewitnesses or an intercept of his communications.

"The key to dropping bombs on bin Laden is having someone on the ground observing," he said.

In addition to terrorist-support sites, the Taliban's loose-knit military force does present some targets of value.

It owns 20 to 30 surface-to-surface missiles, Russian-made air-defense missiles and fewer than 100 MiG fighter jets, according to London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.

--------

Wartime presidential powers supersede liberties

September 18, 2001
By Frank J. Murray
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010918-1136.htm

The government arsenal to counterattack U.S.-based terrorists behind last week's "act of war" already includes wartime powers and other Draconian tactics that unsettle civil libertarians.

In "cases of rebellion or invasion [when] the public safety may require it," the Constitution permits a president to suspend the right to be freed from arrest by a writ of habeas corpus -- as Lincoln did during the Civil War. That denies a person jailed even by illegal means recourse in the courts.

On Lincoln's orders, outspoken civilians from secessionist states were jailed at Fort McHenry without formal charges, as were Baltimore's mayor, police chief and police commissioner, 31 members of the Maryland legislature and newspaper reporters, members of Congress and judges.

Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law.

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the Roosevelt administration's use of Executive Order 9066 to place curfews on Japanese-Americans and later intern thousands of them. That legal precedent -- affirming the conviction of Toyosaburo Korematsu, a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent who refused the federal government's order to leave his home in San Leandro, Calif. -- still is law and would sanction military controls over a population perceived as dangerous.

"Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders -- as inevitably it must -- determined that they should have the power to do just this," the justices said.

When the Korean conflict broke out in 1952, however, the high court drew the line on allowing President Truman to use an executive order to seize steel mills absent a declaration of war for a conflict far away.

The FBI said yesterday it has detained 49 persons so far.

Six are reportedly being held as "material witnesses" under sealed warrants, with more sought under a process requiring a judge's sanction for persons otherwise unlikely to be available to testify.

The rest were detained on charges related to immigration status, allowing them to be held for months without formal criminal charges being filed.

"We're going to find those evildoers, those barbaric people who attacked our country and we're going to hold the people who house them accountable, the people who think they can provide them safe havens will be held accountable, the people who feed them will be held accountable," Mr. Bush said at the Pentagon yesterday.

Since last Tuesday's horrific attacks with four hijacked airliners took an estimated 6,000 lives at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Senate has passed legislation to let law-enforcement personnel obtain private e-mails without a court order, to allow U.S. attorneys to approve wiretaps in terrorism cases, and to lift the longtime ban on CIA spying within the United States.

"Maybe what the terrorists have done made us feel a little bit less safe. Maybe they have increased Big Brother in this country," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, who argues against hurried steps to wiretap computers and telephones, as the Bush administration has requested, along with a doubling of the five-year sentence for those who harbor terrorists.

"It is not so difficult to imagine government investigators, engaged in good-faith efforts to protect our safety, beginning to ask, 'Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a pro-Palestinian organization?'" said Tobias B. Wolff, a professor of constitutional law at the University of California at Davis, drawing comparisons to McCarthyism.

House Judiciary Committee member Bob Barr, Georgia Republican and a former federal prosecutor, did not share that view.

"I'll let the Lord worry about justice for them. We ought to take them out, and take them out as quickly as possible. I'm not worried about Miranda warnings for them," Mr. Barr said.

"I don't believe the government should, and I don't believe they would indiscriminately wiretap phones or read e-mails, but they should be allowed to do so when they can document some reasonable suspicion about terroristic activity," said Yarol Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute at Marina del Rey, Calif.

Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national office in Washington, said leaders had insisted the terrorism "not be used to diminish liberty."

"At its very first opportunity, the Senate passed legislation that threatens privacy rights," Mr. Nojeim said.

The White House rejected questions about any "concern that people's civil liberties are being violated."

"Law enforcement agencies are going to act on legitimate law-enforcement considerations, and they will do so in accordance with all of our laws," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act allows a president to deny entry to "any class" of immigrants whose admission "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

E. Joshua Rosenkranz, president of the liberal Brennan Center of Justice, doubts federal judges will be anxious to block aggressive action in the wake of an assault likened to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

"No judge wants to be responsible for another act of terrorism," Mr. Rosenkranz said.

Even if a majority of the Supreme Court found government actions unconstitutional -- as Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney did in a 1861 ruling against Lincoln that Congress negated -- little can be done to stop a president when national security is in jeopardy.

"I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome," Chief Justice Taney said. He dispatched his ruling under seal to Lincoln at the White House "to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced."

Lincoln defied the court and the suspension of habeas corpus was revoked by President Andrew Johnson on Dec. 1, 1865, months after the war ended.

----------

Bush: Mobilization a 'symbol of this nation's resolve'

September 18, 2001
U.S. Newswire
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010918-82067.htm

The following is a transcript of President Bush's remarks to employees at the Pentagon:

First, let me start off by saying to members of the Pentagon press -- the secretary [of defense] told me about how you conducted your business on that fateful day. I want to congratulate you and thank you.

Many of your members of the Pentagon press went out to help in the evacuation, and the aid of the people who work here in the Pentagon, and the country appreciates that very much. Thank you. Pass the word onto your colleagues, as well.

Today, we're talking about the mobilization of Reserve and Guard troops. Such a mobilization is a strong symbol of this nation's resolve.

I fully understand that a mobilization affects the lives of thousands of Americans. I mean, after all, we're talking about somebody's mom or somebody's dad, somebody's employee, somebody's friend or somebody's neighbor. But the world will see that the strength of this nation is found in the character and dedication and courage of everyday citizens.

We are in the process of calling up as many as 35,000 such troops. They will serve in a number of essential roles. They will help maintain our air defenses so they can stay on high alert. They will check shipping in ports. They will help our military with airlift and logistics. They will provide military police. They will participate in engineering projects. They will help gather intelligence. And they will perform work as chaplains.

I know this means a lot of sacrifice for those who will be called up, and their families. But you understand -- the troops who will be called up understand better than most that freedom has a cost, and that we're willing to bear that cost. An act of war has been committed on this country, and the dedication of our Guardsmen and Reservists will serve not only as a strong symbol to all that we're prepared to take the necessary actions, but will be a part of helping define the spirit and courage of America. And I'm grateful.

I want to thank the employers who understand that there is more to corporate life than just profit and loss, that the employee who is getting ready to serve the country is an essential part of winning the -- of defeating terrorism, evil-doers so emboldened that they feel like they could attack the great bastion of freedom.

Before I answer a few questions, I also want to wish the American Jewish community and Jews around the world a healthy and happy new year. As the high holy days begin, I know you'll find strength and determination during this time of reflection.

I'll be glad to answer a few questions.

Question: Mr. President, does the cost of freedom today in this war we're about to wage include the loss of civilian and military casualties? And can you keep us out of a depression-recession, during this crisis?

Mr. Bush: The only thing I can do is to reflect upon the spirit of the U.S. military, and the U.S. military is ready to defend freedom at any cost. The men and women who wear our uniforms, both active duty and reservists, and National Guard people, are ready to respond to the call of the commander-in-chief and the secretary of defense.

In terms of our economy, I've got great faith in the economy. I understand it's tough right now. Transportation business is hurting. Obviously, the market was correcting prior to this crisis. But the underpinnings for economic growth are there. We're the greatest entrepreneurial society in the world. We've got the best farmers and ranchers. We've got a strong manufacturing base.

Thirdly, we've got a tax cut that's still working its way through the economy, as well as a reconstruction plan for New York and the area.

Question: Mr. President, is it the case, based on what you've said now, that war is inevitable? And can you tell me [and] the American people what that war is going to look like?

Mr. Bush: I believe -- I know -- that an act of war was declared against America. But this will be a different type of war than we're used to. This is -- in the past there have been beaches to storm and islands to conquer. We've been able to watch on our television screens sophisticated weaponry find a building; and we've seen dramatic reports from the front where Pulitzer Prize-to-be winning reporters stood up and declared, "the United States is attacked," and all that.

There may be some of that, who knows? But I know that this is a different type of enemy than we're used to.

It's an enemy that likes to hide and burrow in, and their network is extensive. There are no rules. It's barbaric behavior. They slit throats of women on airplanes in order to achieve an objective that is beyond comprehension. And they like to hit, and then they like to hide out.

But we're going to smoke them out. And we're adjusting our thinking to the new type of enemy. These are terrorists who have no borders. And, by the way, it's important for the world to understand that we know in America that more than just Americans suffered loss of life in the World Trade Center.

People from all kinds of nationalities lost -- that's why the world is rallying to our call to defeat terrorism.

-------

Rumsfeld: Bin Laden is just one step

USA TODAY
09/18/2001
The Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/18/terrorist-attacks.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the administration is moving carefully to launch a sustained offensive against not only the terrorists responsible for last week's attacks but also the countries that support them. "This is a very new type of conflict, or battle or campaign or war or effort, for the United States," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference. "As a result, we are moving in a measured manner as we gather information." He said the U.S. response would be aimed at more than just alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network known as al-Qaida.

"We're talking about a very broadly based campaign to go after the terrorist problem where it exists, and it exists in countries across the globe. As I've indicated, this one network, al-Qaida, that's receiving so much discussion and publicity may have activities in 50 to 60 countries, including the United States."

Rumsfeld stressed that once the battle begins, it will be long and difficult.

"It will not be quick and it will not be easy," he said. "Our adversaries are not one or two terrorist leaders, even a single terrorist organization or network. It's a broad network of individuals and organizations that are determined to terrorize, and in so doing to deny us the very essence of what we are - free people."

He made clear that countries that harbor terrorists or support them less directly are vulnerable to U.S. attack.

"The terrorists do not function in a vacuum," he said. "They don't live in Antarctica. They work, they train and they plan in countries. They're benefiting from the support of governments. They're benefiting from the support of nongovernmental organizations that are either actively supporting them with money, intelligence and weapons, or allowing them to function on their territory and tolerating, if not encouraging, their activities. In either case, it has to stop."

Meanwhile, the head of the Army Reserve said numerous U.S. military base commanders are asking the Pentagon for help in strengthening base security and building defensive structures like barriers and fences.

Lt. Gen. Thomas Plewes said in an interview that he expects to assign as many as 150 reservists to assist the Army Corps of Engineers in construction projects at bases. He did not say which bases had requested such help, but he indicated it was widespread in response to last week's terrorist attacks.

Plewes said no members of the Army Reserve had yet been called to active duty under the partial mobilization of reservists authorized by President Bush last week. However, some have been put on two-week duty orders to help with search and recovery operations at the Pentagon, where an estimated 188 people were killed when a hijacked American Airlines jet slammed into the building last Tuesday.

"We're still sorting through the missions we're going to do," Plewes said in his Pentagon office.

Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, a Pentagon spokesman, said no military reservists have been called to active duty yet, although dozens of reserve units have been alerted to be prepared for an activation order.

Also, Pentagon officials said a Norfolk, Va.-based aircraft carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, was preparing to begin a long-scheduled deployment to the Mediterranean. The Navy already has one extra carrier at sea - the USS Enterprise, which was scheduled to return home from the Persian Gulf this month but remains in the region. The USS Carl Vinson is in the Persian Gulf.

Under the mobilization order signed by Bush, the Army expected to call as many as 10,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard to active duty. That calculation was based on two primary missions for the Reserve: assisting in the recovery efforts in New York and at the Pentagon, and "homeland defense," which Plewes said meant using military police to beef up base security.

If the president orders a major military offensive, then larger numbers of reservists likely would have to be activated, Plewes said.

"Quite clearly, 10,000 (reservists) in a large-scale anti-terrorism campaign would be exhausted," he said.

Plewes noted that if sustained military operations are focused on Afghanistan, for example, the Army Reserve's 377th Support Command, based at New Orleans, likely would be called to active duty to support Army operations in that region.

-------

Bush Warns of Casualties of War
President Says Bin Laden Is Wanted 'Dead or Alive'

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 18, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46924-2001Sep17?language=printer

President Bush warned the nation yesterday to prepare for U.S. military casualties in the coming war against terrorism and, in his bluntest language since last week's attacks on New York and Washington, said he wants Osama Bin Laden brought to justice "dead or alive."

"We will win the war and there will be costs," Bush said after a meeting with Pentagon officials that was described as a review of his earlier decision to call up 35,000 military reservists to help in air patrols around major cities, intelligence gathering and engineering projects. He said the military "is ready to defend freedom at any cost."

On a day when Americans went back to work, the stock markets reopened and Major League Baseball resumed play for the first time since the terrorist attacks, Bush described the perpetrators as "evildoers" and "barbaric people." Those harboring bin Laden and his network, Bush said, should be "on notice" that they will not escape the wrath of the United States and the international coalition his administration is working to build.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said "the first round" of the war against terrorism will be aimed specifically at those who launched last week's attacks. He emphasized that it is "becoming clear with each passing hour" that the al Qaeda terrorist network is the prime suspect and that "all roads lead to" bin Laden, the organization's leader, "and his location in Afghanistan."

But Powell said the nation should be prepared for a "long-term campaign" against worldwide terrorism that will include legal, political, diplomatic, law enforcement and intelligence-gathering components -- as well as military action.

"What we have to do is not only deal with this present instance but the whole concept of terrorism, deal with it as a scourge upon civilization and go after it," he said.

U.S. officials continued their intensive diplomatic campaign to build international support for military actions and other moves as they awaited word on a Pakistani delegation's trip to Afghanistan to urge that the Taliban leaders turn over bin Laden.

Powell plans to meet tomorrow or Thursday with Prince Saud Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, as investigators reported that 14 of the 19 suspected hijackers have links to that country. Calling the Saudis friends of the United States, Powell said of the foreign minister, "I expect he will be forthcoming and I expect he will be coming with a message of support and commitment."

As another sign of the growing intensity of preparations, White House officials said Bush will discuss the crisis at a working dinner tonight with French President Jacques Chirac. The president will meet on Wednesday with Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri, who leads the world's largest Muslim nation, and on Thursday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The visits by Chirac and Megawati were scheduled before the current crisis but the visit by Blair, who has been one of the staunchest and most outspoken allies of the administration in the wake of last week's attacks, was a late addition to the president's calendar.

As investigators continued to probe the four hijackings that resulted in the attacks on New York's World Trade Center and on the Pentagon, New York officials revised their estimate of the number of people missing there to 5,422, along with 201 confirmed dead. Combined with the deaths at the Pentagon and on the hijacked airplanes, the possible death toll from Sept. 11 is nearly 6,000.

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft called on Congress to enact new legislation granting law enforcement officials greater powers to combat terrorism. Ashcroft said law enforcement officials urgently need expanded wiretapping powers to track terrorists. He also urged the statute of limitations on prosecuting crimes of terrorism be eliminated and said the legal fight against terrorism must be a greater priority.

"If terrorism has not had a priority in the criminal justice system previously, it's time for us to understand that it needs to be a priority in the criminal justice system now," he said.

Ashcroft pledged that the Justice Department would have a comprehensive package of bills ready for consideration within a few days.

The attorney general said the administration would ask for expanded powers "mindful of our responsibility to protect the rights and privacy of Americans." But he said the legal system must reflect the seriousness of crimes of terrorism.

Ashcroft also announced that law enforcement personnel from across the government would be assigned to the Transportation Department for use as armed sky marshals on some commercial airline flights. He did not say how extensive the program will be.

He said he had ordered the U.S. Marshals Service, whose responsibility is to protect U.S. courthouses around the country, to assign more than 300 deputy marshals to assist FBI field offices in the investigation of the terrorists.

Concerned about reports of violence and intimidation aimed at Muslims and Arab Americans, Bush visited the Islamic Center in Washington yesterday afternoon and called on Americans to show tolerance in these tense times.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said his agency has launched 40 investigations into hate crimes aimed at Arab Americans, including a number targeting Muslim houses of worship and community centers. "I'll make it very clear," he said. "Vigilante attacks and threats against Arab Americans will not be tolerated."

Security concerns continued to ripple throughout the country. The United Nations postponed the opening of the General Assembly scheduled for next week, and the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank canceled their annual meeting scheduled for late September in Washington. One reason cited was that District officials had planned on assistance from law enforcement officials in New York, who are now busy with rescue and recovery efforts there.

Bush spent a busy day monitoring and managing the crisis, including a morning meeting with his National Security Council and an afternoon meeting with his economic advisers about the time the Dow Jones industrial average was posting its largest one-day point drop in history. Early yesterday, he visited the cafeteria in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House. Staff members were evacuated last week when officials feared the White House was a target of terrorists, and they spent a tense week amid heightened security alerts.

Seeking to boost morale among those White House workers, who include many veterans of his presidential campaign, Bush told them, "The best way to fight terrorism is to not let terrorism intimidate America."

At the Pentagon, Bush met with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others to review the status of preparations. Then the president used a brief appearance before the cameras to escalate his rhetoric and sharpen his focus on the alleged mastermind of the terrorist network that is at the heart of the investigation.

"Do you want bin Laden dead?" Bush was asked.

"I want justice," the president replied. "There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.' "

Later, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer was asked whether Bush's comments indicated that the quarter-century ban on government-sponsored assassination had been lifted.

Fleischer said, "That directive is in effect. And I also want to add that it does not limit the United States's ability to act in its self-defense."

Asked repeatedly if the administration would consider the sponsoring of bin Laden's assassination to be an act of self-defense, Fleischer said, "I'm just going to repeat my words, and others will figure out the exact implications of them."

Vice President Cheney said on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he did not believe any U.S. or international law would prevent American agents from killing bin Laden. "Not in my estimation," Cheney said. "But I'd have to check with the lawyers on that, obviously."

Powell later said, "It is not enough to get one individual, although we'll start with that one individual." He said success will come only when "we have neutralized and destroyed" the whole network.

Bush's language at the Pentagon was his harshest yet as he continue to shift toward putting the country on a war footing.

"I know that this is a different type of enemy than we're used to," he said. "It's an enemy that likes to hide and burrow in, and their network is extensive. There are no rules. It's barbaric behavior. They slit throats of women on airplanes in order to achieve an objective that is beyond comprehension."

Calling the campaign ahead "a fight for freedom," Bush said the world "will not allow ourselves to be terrorized by somebody who thinks they can hit and hide in a cave somewhere." He said he was confident that "once we get them running, we have got a good chance of getting them."

The president reiterated his promise to attack both the terrorists and those who harbor them, singling out the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

"The people who think they can provide them safe havens will be held accountable," he said. "The people who feed them will be held accountable. And the Taliban must take my statement seriously."

Bush plans to hold a Rose Garden ceremony with technology executives today to announce an industry-sponsored Web site designed as a clearinghouse for charitable drives and efforts to locate missing people.

--------

At Fort Bragg, Troops 'Packed Up and Ready to Go'
Soldiers Bracing for the Grim Possibility of Ground Combat

By Daniel LeDuc
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 18, 2001; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46901-2001Sep17?language=printer

FORT BRAGG, N.C., Sept. 17 -- In the modern American arsenal of Tomahawk missiles, carrier-launched air strikes, and long-range artillery include Pfc. Jeremy Rinner, who today jumped from a C-130 transport plane at 800 feet and landed hard on the dusty red soil of central North Carolina.

Today marked the resumption of parachute training at America's largest military base, home to the 82nd Airborne Division and the Army's Special Forces, who are likely to be among the initial soldiers deployed in America's new war on terrorism.

The sight of billowing parachutes over the Fort Bragg landing zone was as welcomed by this military community as the sound of the New York Stock Exchange bell ringing was by brokers on Wall Street. It was a sign of normalcy six days after the terrorist bombings in New York and Washington halted daily training and put the base on the highest alert. But for America's fighting men and women, what is normal has changed very much in the past week.

Just after hitting the ground here, still sweating and panting from his jump, Rinner was asked what