------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Russian mafia giving bin Laden weapons
Brazil nuclear plant accident discovered by media
India's nuclear installations are well-protected
Alaska Antimissile Site
"Space Wars,"
US warned on security of nuclear plants
Security of Nuclear Power Plants Under Review
MARK FREI WILL LEAD DOE IDAHO OPERATIONS OFFICE
Security fears delay nuclear waste transfer
Oak Ridge contractor resumes shipping low-level nuclear waste

MILITARY
Anti-Taliban alliance gains ground
Bush urges Afghans to help
U.S. Unprepared for Bioterrorism
Bin Laden terror group tries to acquire chemical arms
Beijing's troops train for war on Afghan border
Pakistan Warns U.S. on Afghan Role
Moscow Eager to Tie Rebels In Chechnya to Bin Laden
Russia Says U.S. May Use Facilities in Tajikistan
U.N. says attacks show need for global court
Senate Backs Plan to Close Military Bases

OTHER
New Homeland Defense Plans Emerge

ACTIVISTS
Korean women's activities against war and for peace
IF THIS IS PATRIOTISM, KEEP IT



-------- NUCLEAR

Report: Russian mafia giving bin Laden weapons

09/26/2001
By Christine A. Saah,
USATODAY.com
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/26/russianmafia-terrorists.htm

WASHINGTON - Suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group, al-Qaeda, are acquiring components for weapons of mass destruction from the Russian mafia, The Washington Times reports.

Bin Laden, the key suspect in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, is also believed by U.S. intelligence to have a secret nuclear weapons laboratory inside Afghanistan, officials said speaking on the condition of anonymity.

There is no hard evidence that bin Laden or al-Qaeda have actually produced chemical, biological or nuclear wapons. A CIA spokesman declined to comment.

A U.S. official said contacts between bin Laden and the Russian mafia could not be ruled out because of Afghanistan's porous borders, The Times reports. The official suggested that the reports about the contacts could not be confirmed independently by U.S. intelligence agencies.

U.S. intelligence agencies have information that bin Laden is operating a secret nuclear weapons laboratory somewhere in Afghanistan, according to The Times. The laboratory is believed to be where bin Laden associates are working on developing nuclear or radiological weapons. Radiological weapons are bombs that kill by spreading radioactive material. This is believed to be one of the sites sought for U.S. military strikes in Afghanistan.

A recent foreign intelligence service report stated that al-Qaeda has obtained some type of nuclear device, but U.S. intelligence officials said they could not confirm that report. The new intelligence report on bin Laden's contacts with the Russian mafia provides new details on al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

Intelligence officials say classified analysis of the types of chemicals and toxins sought by al-Qaeda indicate the group is probably trying to produce the nerve agent Sarin, or biological weapons made up of anthrax spores.

The FBI has obtained specific threats since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that terrorists plan to retaliate for any U.S. strikes on Afghanistan or terrorists around the world by using chemical or biological weapons, the officials said.

Russian crime groups also have provided bin Laden's extremists with small arms, the U.S. intelligence officials say. They also are believed to help bin Laden launder the proceeds from drug trafficking.

At its height during the Cold War, the Soviet biological weapons programs employed about 65,000 people, and U.S. weapons officials have feared for years that some of the scientists would sell their expertise to terrorists.

-------- brazil

Brazil nuclear plant accident discovered by media

BRAZIL: September 26, 2001
Story by Andrei Khalip
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12533/story.htm

RIO DE JANEIRO - Safety issues at Brazil's controversial nuclear power program came into the spotlight yesterday after a local magazine reported a four-month-old accident at a beachside nuclear reactor.

Government officials played down the gravity of an internal leak of radioactive water at the Angra I plant, 80 miles (130 km) west of Rio de Janeiro in May, saying there had been no need to inform the public;

However, environmentalists and the media took the government to task for hiding facts of the accident.

"Radiation spills in Angra and the government conceals," said a front-page headline in Jornal do Brasil. O Globo daily said: "Information about Angra delayed by four months."

Epoca weekly magazine broke the news earlier this week.

For international environmental watchdog Greenpeace, the spill, which was apparently caused by a human error, and the "hiding of information" only confirmed its fears and concerns about the nuclear program.

"The government is judging for the population what kind of information is important," said Marijane Lisboa, executive director at Greenpeace Brazil. The accident yet again confirms that the nuclear program is extremely dangerous."

Greenpeace has previously expressed concerns about what it calls "a dangerously high level of shutdowns" at Angra I.

On May 28, thousands of gallons (litres) of slightly radioactive water that cools the oldest of Brazil's two reactors, leaked from the main system but was mainly contained by an emergency tank. The plant was shut down for a week.

Officials said the accident, ranking 1 on a 7-point gravity scale, has never posed any danger to the workers or population around the two-reactor Angra complex, which is surrounded by lush tropical forest and a popular bay resort area.

Claudio Avila, head of federal power holding Eletrobras whose Eletronuclear nuclear energy arm runs the Angra complex, said he knew nothing about the accident and complained at "a serious lack of communication" in the sector.

Still, he said that such accidents are only announced immediately if there is a leak outside the plant. "In case of an internal problem, (the) population should be informed later."

NEW OBSTACLES TO EXPANSION?

Although the accident may not have been serious, it is likely to fuel a debate about whether to expand the Angra nuclear complex.

Earlier this year, the government's National Energy Council failed to come to an agreement on whether to build a third reactor there due to objections from the Environment Ministry, which asked for more analysis of the project, saying Brazilians needed "to form an opinion on the subject."

Greenpeace said this could signal a possible moratorium on new reactors. "We understand that a moratorium is being prepared and that it would paralyze all discussions on new reactors for at least two or three years," Lisboa said.

The discussions coincide with an international debate on whether atomic power plants should be phased out, and also with an acute energy crisis in Latin America's largest country.

Advocates of Angra 3 say the complex is safe, clean and insist that a new reactor would reduce the country's dependence on water resources, which triggered this year's power crisis.

Opponents argue the first reactor, built in the 1980s under the nuclear program drawn up by Brazil's military rulers, has a high level of shutdowns, the reactors are too expensive and there is little space to store nuclear waste.

-------- india / pakistan

India's nuclear installations are well-protected: Chidambaram

Sept 26, 2001, IRNA
http://www.irna.com/newshtm/eng/04132235.htm

Mumbai, India-- The former chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, R. Chidambaram, has said the country's nuclear installations have the highest standards of safety and are well protected.

Chidambaram said on Wednesday in Mumbai, in the Western Indian state of Maharashtra, that in the context of imminent U.S. military operations in the region there was no need to panic on the issue of nuclear-installation safety. Reacting to the lifting of U.S. trade sanctions, imposed after India's nuclear tests in 1998, Chidambaram said: "The sanctions had no effect at all. In fact, during the first year of the sanctions the capacity factor of our nuclear plants increased by five percent.

Our nuclear program has completely matured and has trained people. It is totally indigenous and on a fast track."

Chidambaram, who is considered one of India's foremost authorities on nuclear power, defended the 1998 nuclear test blasts at Pokhran in Rajasthan, saying "They were necessary for our security. The entire attitude of the world has changed towards us. In fact, sanctions gave us the strength in our resolve to become self-reliant. In the field of nuclear power, we are now dubbed a developed country.

Today, India is too big a country not to be present in any mega science project."

Chidambaram revealed that India's Department of Atomic Energy is investing in a $2.5 billion hydron collider project in Geneva by providing high-tech equipment.

"It is global recognition of Indian technology. Part of the funds given by us would be used as an India Fund to support our scientists to have access to this project," he added.

Chidambaram, who is now chairman of the Indian government's Technology Information Forecasting Assessment Council, added: "Today, technology is power. Globally, there is donor fatigue among countries which have the best (technology). We must become self-reliant, instead of self-sufficient. India must develop immunity against technology denial to progress on our own."

-------- missile defense

Alaska Antimissile Site: Too Close for Russians' Comfort?

New York Times
September 26, 2001
By JAMES DAO
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/international/26MISS.html

FORT GREELY, Alaska - In a patch of fire-scorched forest in central Alaska, under the shadow of towering peaks, construction crews have been carving the outlines of a 135-acre missile field at an Army base here, 100 miles south of Fairbanks. They are laying the foundations for a rudimentary missile defense site.

But as those crews rush to beat winter's subzero temperatures and pounding snows, their work may complicate the Bush administration's efforts to keep Russia in an international coalition to fight terrorism in the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington.

The Pentagon plans to build a command center and five silos at Fort Greely for launching rockets that could demolish enemy missiles high above the earth.

Though the site would initially be used for antimissile testing, the Pentagon has said it might declare Fort Greely a working national missile defense site as early as 2004.

More immediately, the construction holds the potential to become an irritant in the cooperation between Washington and Moscow to combat terrorism that has already seen Russia open several doors to an American presence in central Asia.

Russian officials have said they would view the construction of missile silos at Fort Greely as a violation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, signed in 1972 by the United States and the Soviet Union to prohibit national missile defense systems. Moscow considers the treaty the cornerstone of current arms control policy.

For that reason, any moves by the United States to withdraw from the pact - which the Bush administration might have to decide in two or three months - could undermine the administration's efforts to maintain Russian help in the war on terrorism, experts said.

The United States has won Russia's support for using its airspace for relief missions and gained backing for the possible basing of American troops or jets in the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan on the Afghan border.

"If we move ahead to do something the Russians very clearly object to, it cannot help but impact their attitude on our requests," said Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. "They will be less supportive, less enthusiastic."

But some experts contend that if the administration succeeds in forging close ties with Russia in fighting terrorism, it may smooth the way to winning Moscow's endorsement for missile defenses later.

"The Russians themselves will have to worry about terrorism, perhaps terrorism involving long-range ballistic missiles," said Stephen P. Rosen, director of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard.

Outside the Army base here, a coalition of antinuclear, antiwar, church and environmental groups has demonstrated from time to time against the project. On Kodiak Island, hundreds of miles south, concerns have been voiced about disruptions to the fishing industry. "The fishermen are furious about this," said Vikki Jo Kennedy, a local tour guide in Kodiak. But in Fort Greely itself, people see the construction as a boon to the local economy.

Since hijackers attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration has not backed away from its missile shield program, which calls for beginning silo construction in the spring of 2002. The administration has held to its position even though such a shield would have done nothing to prevent the two attacks.

Indeed, some officials have gone as far as to suggest that the attacks prove the extraordinary lengths to which terrorists will go to harm the United States. Clearly, if terrorists obtain the technology to launch a missile attack they will not hesitate to use it, those officials contend.

It appears that there are divisions within the administration, pitting State Department officials against the Pentagon, over how quickly to move ahead with missile defense and whether Washington should avoid antagonizing the Russians now.

"There's a group in the State Department who believe Russian support and participation in what's coming is absolutely critical," said a person familiar with some of those discussions. "If we abrogate the ABM," which might be done as early as November or December, "it will be extremely difficult to work with them."

Pentagon officials say they will put Fort Greely into operation only if the threat of a missile attack seems imminent, and only if the system is ready for use. Even an imperfect system would be better than nothing if an enemy threatens the nation with nuclear missiles, they argue.

Though opposition to missile defense remains strong among arms control advocates, the recent attacks have muted Congressional critics. Last week, Senate Democrats withdrew measures to cut the administration's missile defense budget by $1.3 billion and to place restrictions on any spending that might violate the ABM treaty.

Under the treaty, Washington would be required to notify Moscow of its intention to withdraw from the pact six months in advance - this November or December - if the Pentagon is to begin silo work next spring.

As the clock ticks, the question in Washington has remained: is Fort Greely really for testing, or a veiled project to build a working missile shield?

Administration officials argue that Fort Greely will be part of a new range in which test-rocket trajectories will simulate those of missiles fired from Asia more realistically than earlier tests, something even Democrats have urged.

But in a paper published in Arms Control Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists argues that much of the work planned for Alaska has little testing value. It might make sense, though, as part of a working missile defense system, the authors argue.

For example, the Pentagon wants to upgrade a Cobra Dane early warning radar on Shemya Island in the Aleutians for tracking test missiles. But the radar points northwest toward the Kamchatka Peninsula, where the Russians once conducted missile tests.

The radar unit cannot rotate and therefore cannot track missiles coming from California or Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific, where the military is likely to launch most of its test rockets. But it could be used to track missiles fired toward the United States from North Korea, the report says.

The report also questions why silos need to be built at Fort Greely at all. The Pentagon has no plans to launch test rockets from the base, because it is close to populated areas. Instead, test missiles will be fired from a state-owned site on Kodiak Island off the Alaskan coast.

"It becomes more and more clear that there is no justification for having Fort Greely as part of a test program," said Lisbeth Gronlund, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Pentagon officials dispute that. Test missiles would be stored at Fort Greely, allowing crews to practice maintenance procedures and testers to check whether rocket fuel deteriorates in Arctic temperatures. The officials also say the Cobra Dane radar could be used to track test missiles fired from aircraft over the Bering Sea.

The debate has only recently begun to touch Alaska itself. Many residents of Kodiak Island are worried that test launchings will disrupt fishing, the island's major industry. But in Delta Junction, outside Fort Greely, many of the 3,500 residents have welcomed the plan.

The town has been reeling since the Army closed most base operations after 1995, and silo construction could pump $400 million into the local economy over five years.

"I'd say about 99.9 percent of the people in Delta Junction support it," said the mayor, Roy Gilbertson, who owns a building supply company.

--------

"Space Wars,"

by Sen. Robert C. Byrd
Congressional Record,
September 26, 2001, pp. S9826-28
From: David Culp <david@fcnl.org>

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, during the August recess, The New York Times Magazine ran a cover story entitled "The Coming Space War" The article caught my interest, as I am sure that it intrigued many other readers. The author's contention is that the U.S. military is considering a campaign to achieve military superiority in space similar to the kind of military superiority that U.S. forces seek in the air, on land, and from the sky. Military superiority in space is deemed critical in order to protect our increasing dependence on satellites for communications, surveillance, commercial and military purposes. On August 24, President Bush named Air Force General Richard Myers, a former chief of the U.S. Space Command and of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Myers' selection as Chairman is in keeping with President Bush's strong support for building a national missile defense, NMD, the follow-on to President Reagan's Star Wars Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI.

It is certainly true that our dependence--and that of other developed and developing nations--on these winking, blinking objects winging through the night sky has increased exponentially over the last decade. It has rapidly become almost impossible to imagine a world without the Internet, the World Wide Web, electronic mail on handheld computers or cellular phones, automated teller machines, instantaneous worldwide credit card use, and other forms of global telecommunications and electronic commerce. This expansion and its dependence on satellite links will continue to increase in future decades. We are all dependent, and, therefore, we are all vulnerable, to the seamless and uninterrupted access to satellites. Most people, however, do not understand these technologies. I certainly do not. Like most people, I can understand that I may be vulnerable in ways that are new to me, a boy from the Mercer County hills in southern West Virginia. But how best to address this new vulnerability?

The author of The New York Times Magazine article describes three fundamentally different philosophical approaches to this brave new realm of space. The first is a military approach, which opens up a Pandora's box of weapons in space. The military, it is reported, has looked into the future and come to the conclusion that space represents the "ultimate military `high ground,' "requiring the military to develop and deploy whatever technology is necessary to achieve what has been termed "Global Battlespace Dominance," or "Full Spectrum Dominance." The tools needed might include everything from National Missile Defense to antisatellite laser or high-powered microwave weapons, or clusters of microsatellites to hyperspectral surveillance satellites and other space sensors--or all of these things. Some of these systems are under development now or due for testing soon, according to the article, already undercutting the author's assertion that the weaponization of space is coming, when, in fact, it may already be upon us. Already--already--additional funding to the tune of $190 million is being sought in the defense authorization and appropriations bills for space weapons.

Now, if I, like most people, do not really understand the technologies behind satellite communications and cell phones, it is even harder to understand the technologies behind hyperspectral surveillance satellites or space-based lasers. And that lack of technical expertise means, like most Americans, I must depend on the Pentagon to explain why these new technologies are needed, why no other alternatives will work, and what new questions and challenges might be unleashed by these choices. That is not, I suggest, the best way to perform oversight, but, unfortunately, there are few good alternatives.

The second philosophical approach to space outlined by the author is that of the purist, seeking to unilaterally ban weapons from space and seeking to return the heavens to an earlier, unsullied era--an earlier unsullied era. This is not, in the author's view, a realistic hope. The final philosophical approach, the one seemingly favored by the author, is that of the "pragmatist"--the "pragmatist." This approach recognizes the inevitable migration of commerce and the military to space, but hopes to hold the line at surveillance. Weapons for space would, in this view, remain in the research and test phase, to be launched only in response to another nation's attempt to put weapons in space. This launch-on-warning approach would come in conjunction with further diplomatic efforts to establish operating rules for space modeled on those in place for blue-water ships on the open ocean.

In the pragmatist's scenario, existing space treaties would be retained: the 1967 Outer Space Treaty banning nuclear weapons in space and the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which, in addition to establishing the surveillance system to avoid nuclear conflict, also forbids most antimissile testing.

One way of reducing competition and tensions in space proposed in the article is by "mutually assured awareness" in space. The U.S. would develop and make globally available direct video access to space, so that anyone could confirm any hostile action in space, as opposed to mishaps from natural causes. I am not sure that this is technologically feasible, but who am I to question it. The concept of greater openness is the point. It is interesting, in this light, to note that the 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, operated by the United Nations, has not been very successful. In fact, the nation with the largest number, if not percentage, of unregistered payloads is the United States. The United States has failed to register 141 of some 2,000 satellite payloads. Only one nation is in full compliance--Russia. And, of course, it is the Bush Administration advocating the abrogation of the ABM Treaty in order to commence construction on the first National Missile Defense ground site in Alaska.

I cannot say at this point what philosophical camp that I might find myself. The author, Jack Hitt, closes his article by pointing out that if the United States is not successful at holding the line at surveillance, if we "plan, test, and deploy aggressively as the lone superpower, we make certain that after a brief respite from the cold war's nuclear competition, we will once again embark on a fresh and costly arms race. And with it, assume the dark burden of policing a rapid evolution in battlespace." This specter rings true. It should concern us, and it should be debated by the people and the people's representatives. As it stands now, the U.S. military is moving ahead on a trajectory that is both costly and one that carries with it a kind of philosophical imperialism with dangerous ramifications.

Now, what do I mean by philosophical imperialism? The military's plans for "full spectrum dominance," and space superiority, if fully realized, would mean that in some not-so-distant future, the United States would be in a position to (in the words of the Air Force Strategic Master Plan) "operate freely in space, deny the use of space to our adversaries, protect ourselves from an attack in and through space and develop and deploy a N[ational] M[issile] D[efense] capability." The U.S. would presumably, then, have information dominance in this arena as well. Thus, the U.S. would be in a position to know if a conflict between two nations, say India and Pakistan, was about to explode into open, even nuclear, warfare. The U.S. would also be in a position to act, but how? Would we shoot down the missiles from one side or the other, or both? If we shot down the missiles that each nation was firing at the other, what would happen if we missed one and it destroyed a city? What is our responsibility? What if we chose not to act because the conflict did not involve us, and tens of thousands or millions of innocent people died? What is our responsibility?

If the United States achieves, at enormous expense, space superiority, how could we avoid becoming the space marshal on this dangerous new frontier? If we detect a threat against a third party, do we warn the third party? If we provide a warning, and are asked to interdict the attack because only we can, how do we say no? How do we avoid making our military personnel and our commercial enterprises overseas the targets of reprisals from those whose attacks we thwart? It is difficult for me to envision a future in which we could avoid such an imperialist, if benevolent, dictatorship in space.

The role of global policeman and space marshal would not come cheaply, either, and in this period of shrinking or perhaps vanishing surpluses, we cannot ignore those costs. Space dominance would not replace air, land, or sea dominance, but would be additive. In fact, dominance in space might conceivably add to the cost of protecting forces on ground by making them targets for the kind of retaliation I mentioned previously. Gaining and maintaining a robust presence in space is technologically challenging. An airborne laser, reportedly operational sometime around 2010, is budgeted at $11 billion. It will cost still more to build and deploy a space-based laser. The estimated cost for a working space laser test is about $4 billion--that is $4 billion merely to get to a test of a laser in space. A test is expected as early as 2010.

The defense budget already consumes a bit over half of the domestic discretionary budget that Congress must allocate among programs ranging from health research to agriculture, education to highway and air traffic safety, environmental protection to diplomacy. How much more are we willing to trade between guns and butter? How much must we trade, or might alternatives be found in the course of free and open debate?

As most people are now well aware, those large budget surpluses so optimistically predicted just a few weeks ago--it is not funny--while the economy was booming--and so irresponsibly paid out in the form of vote-buying "tax refunds" before the actual surpluses materialized--are now gone, gone. Indeed, the Administration has had to employ a few green-eyeshade accounting tricks just to find a few dollars beyond the Social Security surplus to spend on other priorities. And the administration's No. 1 priority seems to be the defense budget--well, that might be all right--but more particularly, the defense budget for National Missile Defense and space weapons.

The President wants an additional $39 billion for defense--more, perhaps, now--including more than $8 billion to research and test his missile defense plan.

I am troubled that this Administration's number one priority is a project whose scientific feasibility is in doubt. That is the problem.

We could very well be rushing down a path that leads to spiraling costs and lengthy delays. In the 1960s, Congress was told that research of a Super Sonic Transport plane was essential to U.S. competitiveness in future decades. I was here. We spent nearly a billion dollars developing this aircraft before cancelling it in 1973, a billion dollars then would be much larger now. I do not think we have lost one whit of competitiveness because of the cancellation of that program.

We traveled down the same path again when we considered funding the Superconducting Super Collider. The $8 billion program was supposed to fulfill a supposedly vital role in basic scientific research, but we learned that the true cost was nearly fifty percent greater than expected, and we were not even sure it could ever work. Congress had to step in to end this program in 1993. Again, I do not think that we have lost any crucial advantage by not going forward with that project.

I can think of no one who believes that a national missile defense system will be deployed on-time and under budget.

I am troubled, not because such weapons might be needed, but because we are spending huge sums on them without being sure in our own minds that the weaponization of space is the best course of action to ensure our security.

If the United States builds a missile shield to shoot down enemy missiles as soon after they launch as possible, a smart adversary would attempt to shorten the amount of time that our defenses have to react, in addition to taking measures to fool our defenses. One way to shorten the time between launch and impact is to launch closer to the target--either from a submarine offshore, or, as the seas become more transparent to new technologies, from space. Another alternative for a wily adversary would be to switch gears entirely and employ other forms of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical or biological weapons, that could be dispersed without using long range or intercontinental missiles whose launch points make determining the adversary a simple exercise in geometry. We must be aware that our actions produce reactions.

We can assume that if the United States deploys weapons in space, even in a purely defensive posture, even in a global policeman role, not all of our friends, allies, and competitors will see this as benign. We have only to consider the reaction of the world to the recent statements by the Administration concerning National Missile Defense and the potential abrogation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Just what would we do when some other nation--friend or competitor--threatens our space superiority by deploying their own weapons there, even if for avowedly defensive purposes? Again the vision of a space marshal comes to mind, this time facing off another gunman down the dusty main street of space. Does the U.S. Marshal fire first, second, or is it a long, tense stand-off with weapons cocked? None of the alternatives sounds particularly promising.

Though it is difficult to conceive, would a military competition in space weaponry deter commercial satellite growth or the growth of e-business that depends on global satellite networked communications? Once weapons are in space, does the cost of doing business in space go up to the point that global commerce is stifled? That would be very bad news for business, for consumers, and for the prospects of returning our national budget to surplus or even to balance.

These are all ramifications of our current course of action that merit discussion--broad, open, public discussion and debate. I do not wish for the United States to be left undefended--far from it--but neither do I wish for the military to be left, in the face of public silence, to make decisions that spend our treasure and which may create new problems for us in arenas yet unconsidered.

In his farewell address on January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower looked upon the rising power and influence of armament producers and at the increasing share of technological research that is performed for the federal government. He warned the councils of government to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex .....," and to "be alert to the ..... danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Mr. Eisenhower was concerned that, among other things, "democracy ..... survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow." He urged that "[O]nly an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Coming from a former supreme commander of the Allied military forces during World War II, President Eisenhower's words carry the weight of his experience. They are also uncomfortably prophetic. Just forty years after President Eisenhower gave his warning, President Bush proposes to invest many billions of dollars to achieve military superiority in a new realm, where there currently is no threat, jeopardizing the economic health of the nation and creating instability and mistrust in the hearts of other nations. This will occur unless the citizenry--and its elected representatives--we members of the House and U.S. Senate--especially us--consider and agree upon this course of action. Silence does not equal assent. We must talk, and learn, and consider.

Again, I am admittedly a layman when it comes to high-tech gadgetry on earth, let alone in space. But it seems to me that we must set aside the whizbang and drama of lasers and satellites to consider the real, age-old questions--those that have plagued the great generals throughout time. We should be taking stock of what we have to gain and what we have to lose by moving the lines of battle. We must consider whether or not we have the necessary weapons to protect ourselves and our land before we send our military into new and vastly different frontiers.

We should assess the real, known threats to our Nation, and gauge whether we have the weapons and the resources to remain secure, and whether our time, talent, and treasure would be better spent fending off those most likely threats or devising new unproven plans of attack and fabulously expensive means of battle. And we should ponder the awesome responsibility of militarizing space and then being the world's space cop before we rush headlong into the twilight zone called national missile defense.

Madam President, I believe that it would be both wise and prudent to back off just a little bit on the accelerator that is driving us in a headlong and fiscally spendthrift rush to deploy a national missile defense and to invest billions into putting weapons in space and building weapons designed to act in space. That heavy foot on the accelerator is merely the stamp and roar of rhetoric. The threat does not justify the pace. Our budget projections cannot support the pace.

Let us continue to study the matter. Let us continue to conduct research. But the threat, as I say, does not justify the pace at which we are traveling.

Our budget projections cannot support the pace, so let us slow down a bit, look at the map, and consider just where this path is taking us.

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

US warned on security of nuclear plants

SAUDI ARABIA: September 26, 2001
Story by Alan Elsner and Tahir Ikram
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12535/story.htm

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD - The United States moved to bolster its vulnerable home front yesterday as it prepared to strike against Afghanistan's Muslim rulers, winning a diplomatic success when Saudi Arabia cut all relations with the hard-line Taliban government.

Two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon which left almost 7,000 people dead or missing, President George W. Bush urged Congress to give law enforcement officers expanded powers to tap telephones, conduct searches, seize assets and detain suspected terrorists.

"Now that we're at war we ought to give the FBI tools to track down terrorists," the president said during a brief appearance at FBI headquarters.

Two watchdog groups said the nation's 103 nuclear power reactors were vulnerable to acts of terrorism and the government should immediately station soldiers and missiles around each plant for protection.

"It is prudent to assume, especially after the horrific, highly coordinated attacks of Sept. 11, that (Osama) bin Laden's soldiers have done their homework and are fully capable to attack nuclear plants for maximum effect," Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, told a news conference.

Washington considers the Saudi-born bin Laden the prime suspect in the suicide attacks by hijacked airliners.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said suspects who may be connected to the hijackers had sought licenses to transport hazardous materials.

"Our investigation has uncovered several individuals, including individuals who may have links to the hijackers, who fraudulently have obtained or attempted to obtain hazardous materials transportation licenses," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The president of the largest U.S. airline pilots union proposed that commercial airline pilots carry guns.

"The cockpit must be defended," Duane Woerth, chief of the Air Line Pilots Association, told a House of Representatives hearing, saying air crews faced a new kind of threat after hijackers armed with knives and box cutters seized four airliners, overpowered the pilots and flew three of them into the landmark buildngs.

FORMIDABLE COALITION

Bush has built a formidable coalition behind his stated intention to wage a war against terrorism and those states that support it and has succeeded in virtually isolated Afghanistan's Taliban rulers.

Saudi Arabia's decision to cut ties left only Pakistan keeping diplomatic relations with Kabul, which shelters bin Laden. The United Arab Emirates cut ties with the Taliban three days ago.

For the first time in its history, the Taliban face enemies wherever they look. Russia, China, Iran, and India all want the Taliban hard-liners out. With the overt approval of Moscow, the former Soviet Republics of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are also cooperating with the United States.

Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, in a message addressed to the American people and faxed to Reuters, appealed to the American people to "use your sense" rather than blindly follow their government's policy to attack his country.

"You should know whatever incidents and sorrow you suffer ... are a result of the erroneous policies of your government," he said.

Bush met Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, the latest in a procession of world leaders to make a pilgrimage to the White House in the past two weeks. Koizumi said Japan would help politically, diplomatically and economically but would not join the fighting.

Bush called on Afghan citizens disenchanted with Taliban rule to help the United States. He said the United States was not interested in engaging in nation-building." suggesting he was not looking to topple the Taliban regime outright in punishing it for harboring bin Laden.

WORLD HOLDS ITS BREATH

But he clearly was trying to stoke anti-Taliban fervor in Afghanistan.

"Now, the mission is to root out terrorists, to find them and bring them to justice," he told reporters.

"And the best way to do that and one way to do that is to ask for the cooperation of citizens within Afghanistan who may be tired of having the Taliban in place or tired of having Osama bin Laden, people from foreign soils, in their own land willing to finance this repressive government."

Earlier Yesterday, Bush briefed leaders of Congress on the extent of the U.S. military deployment within striking distance of Afghanistan, telling them not to expect conventional warfare like the 1990-91 Gulf conflict.

Moving to repair damage to Muslim sensibilities, the Pentagon changed the code name of its military buildup to "Operation Enduring Freedom."

The change was made after the initial name - "Operation Infinite Justice" - last week ran into objections from some Islamic scholars on grounds that only God, or Allah, could mete out infinite justice in their view.

The crisis has entered a strange twilight zone as the world waits for the U.S. military campaign to begin. In New York, in a sign of growing normalization, voting began in Democratic and Republican primaries to choose party nominees to replace Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The primary was under way two weeks ago when the hijackers struck.

On a tragic note, Giuliani said that many of the more than 6,000 people still buried in the rubble of the World Trade Center would never be found.

"We are going to end up with a situation where we do not recover a significant number of human remains," he said.

WALL STREET SLIGHTLY UP

Wall Street markets ended their calmest day since the attack, closing slightly up. A strong rally on Monday made up around a quarter of the ground lost last week when the market had its largest fall in almost 70 years.

Meanwhile, Interpol issued an arrest warrant for bin Laden's right-hand man at the request of Egyptian police authorities, the international police organization said.

It said Aiman Al Zawahri, born in Giza, Egypt in 1951, was the leader of the Al Jihad group and was emerging as one of the key figures in bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

U.S. defense officials have put a tight lid on information about the deployment of forces, including exactly how many aircraft and elite Special Operations troops are being moved to within striking distance of Afghanistan.

The United States has won crucial support from the former Soviet Central Asian states near land-locked Afghanistan.

Kazakhstan has offered airfields and bases for a potential strike and Turkmenistan's President Saparmurat Niyazov in a televised address said his country would grant air corridors for U.S. humanitarian flights to Afghanistan.

Kyrgyzstan said it had agreed to a U.S. request to grant air corridors for planes involved in possible operations in Afghanistan, but did not specify if they would be for military or humanitarian purposes.

Tajikistan and another Afghan neighbor, Uzbekistan, have so far denied media reports that the U.S. military has already arrived there. But Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying Tajikistan may offer the airport at its capital city of Dushanbe to the U.S. Air Force for possible use against Afghanistan.

Bin Laden's whereabouts remained a mystery. The Taliban said they had been unable to find him to deliver a notice asking him to leave the famine-wracked country.

--------

Security of Nuclear Power Plants Under Review

By Peter Behr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 26, 2001; Page A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25485-2001Sep25?language=printer

The security of the nation's 103 nuclear power plants is under an intense review after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with hijacked jetliners, a threat that the industry and its regulators were not prepared for, company and government officials say.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard A. Meserve said yesterday that a top-to-bottom evaluation of nuclear plant security was underway at the agency. "There will have to be a much broader review involving the entire government," he added.

"Nobody conceived of this kind of assault," said William M. Beecher, spokesman for the NRC, which oversees the nuclear power industry.

The comments followed warnings from two watchdog groups about the potential vulnerability of U.S. plants and the threat to people if attackers breached reactor vessels and caused a meltdown that released large amounts of radioactivity. About 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply comes from nuclear reactors, located in 31 states.

Although the most common nuclear power plants enclose reactors in thick domes of reinforced concrete, those structures could be penetrated by a direct hit from a commercial airliner, said Edwin Lyman, scientific director of the District-based Nuclear Control Institute, one of the watchdog groups. "Any nuclear power plant is conceivably vulnerable," he said yesterday.

Paul Leventhal, the institute's president, said the government should station National Guard troops and U.S. antiaircraft units at nuclear plants until the terrorist threat is controlled.

In government-run tests, concrete structures used in reactor domes have withstood battering by heavy steel rods traveling at several hundred miles an hour and, in one instance, a deliberate crash by a military jet fighter, said Robert Henry, senior vice president of Fauske & Associates, a research group in Burr Ridge, Ill.

But the impact of a fully loaded jetliner on containment domes had not been evaluated before the Sept. 11 attacks, he said.

Nuclear plant operators said their security forces are on high alert.

At the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on California's central coast, for example, state highway patrol officers help guard the entrance, the plant's armed security force has been increased and more concrete vehicle barriers have been added, said a spokesman for the plant's owner, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Public tours were canceled.

The U.S. Coast Guard has ordered vessels to stay at least a mile away from the plant and is patroling the area, while plant guards monitor detection equipment to spot intruders.

Leventhal and colleagues yesterday criticized the NRC's program for testing nuclear plant security against potential armed attack on the ground.

The NRC stages simulated "force-on-force" raids by small assault teams against nuclear plant security forces. In the past year, intruders succeeded in penetrating reactor areas in six of 11 plants tested and could have destroyed enough systems to cause a release of radioactivity, Lyman said.

Meserve said the tests reveal problems that then are remedied. "It would be a mistake to suggest these are soft targets," he said.

Leventhal and colleagues called on the NRC to halt a pilot project in which reactor operators would take on more responsibility for testing their own security forces, subject to NRC review. The proposal, made by the nuclear industry, would permit more testing than the NRC budget now permits, the commission said.

Meserve said that program also is under review. "All of this is going to have to be reevaluated," he said.

-------- idaho

MARK FREI WILL LEAD DOE IDAHO OPERATIONS OFFICE

September 26, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/sep2001/2001L-09-26-09.html

WASHINGTON, DC, Mark Frei has been designated as the acting manager of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Idaho Operations Office.

Frei now serves as deputy assistant secretary for project completion in the DOE's environmental management program, with cleanup responsibility of the Hanford, Idaho and Savannah River sites.

"Mr. Frei's background in nuclear engineering, spent nuclear fuel management, repository waste acceptance, the Idaho settlement agreement, waste management, and site cleanup and closure make him ideally suited to lead the department's Idaho Operations Office," said DOE assistant secretary for environmental management Jessie Roberson.

The Idaho Operations Office is one of eight DOE operations offices located around the country to oversee the operations of our nation's research, defense and environmental laboratories. The Idaho Operations Office oversees the operations of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, one of ten major DOE national laboratories.

The current manager of the Idaho Operations Office, Beverly Cook, will report to headquarters as acting director for site operations in the DOE's environmental management program. Warren Bergholz, the current deputy manager at Idaho, will lead the office until Frei assumes his position on October 15.

Frei began his government career as an Atomic Energy Commission engineering intern at the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project. He then worked in positions of increasing responsibility in the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management for over a decade in: systems engineering, repository facility design and development and repository site characterization and licensing. He developed the repository waste acceptance process for DOE high level waste and spent nuclear fuel still in use today.

Since 1989, Frei has worked for the DOE environmental management program. He was a key player in the enactment of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project land withdrawal legislation and subsequent opening of that facility for transuranic waste disposal. He managed the department's spent nuclear fuel Program and led the DOE to agree on a policy of accepting spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors that got their fuel from U.S. sources.

-------- illinois

Security fears delay nuclear waste transfer

September 26, 2001
BY DAVE MCKINNEY
Chicago SUN-TIMES
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-nuke26.html

SPRINGFIELD--A train that was to carry nuclear waste through Illinois has been postponed indefinitely by the federal government because of the terrorist attacks, state officials said Tuesday.

Until Sept. 11, state nuclear regulators had been preparing for a train shipment of spent radioactive fuel rods that was to have cut through central Illinois on its way from New York to a federal storage facility in Idaho.

"With the uncertainty that existed in the few days right after the attack, I think we thought it would be better if they waited a little bit until it got sorted out,'' said Patti Thompson, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Nuclear Safety Department, which was going to monitor the train's passage through the state.

The decision to keep the radioactive material at a nuclear facility south of Buffalo, N.Y., was made by U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham as part of a nationwide halt on nuclear shipments after attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

"We will consider releasing the hold on transportation of nuclear materials. But until we make an announcement to that effect, the shipment of nuclear materials remains halted,'' Abraham said in a statement issued following the attacks.

The federal government had planned on the 2,300-mile cross-country trip since 1999 and deliberately steered it away from Chicago or the suburbs, opting instead for a less populated route Downstate. It was to have been the first rail shipment of nuclear waste in Illinois in a decade.

Going no faster than 35 mph, the train was to have gone through Champaign, Decatur and Springfield, passing only two blocks away from the historic home of Abraham Lincoln in the state capital.

David Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service, said the federal move to ground the shipment is wise and underscores safety qualms raised long ago by his group and anti-nuclear activists.

"It is smart given the current context, and it does highlight the concerns that we've been raising about nuclear waste transports and what we have to do and put in place before we start launching this whole industry on wheels,'' he said.

Thompson said the state has not been notified when the shipment will come through Illinois.

"It hasn't been canceled,'' she said.

When the state does find out when the shipment will pass through Illinois, it will keep that information secret because of security concerns. State teams will escort the train through Illinois when it comes.

-------- us nuc waste

Oak Ridge contractor resumes shipping low-level nuclear waste

September 26, 2001
Las Vegas Sun
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2001/sep/26/092610410.html

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) - Shipment of low-level nuclear waste from Oak Ridge National Laboratory has resumed, but officials say other restrictions remain because of heightened security caused by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. U.S. Department of Energy spokesman Steven Wyatt said BNFL Inc., a cleanup contractor, initiated waste shipments to Utah and Nevada on Monday and Tuesday.

Wyatt said Bechtel Jacobs Co., DOE's environmental manager, also was expected to send wastes to a Western site for disposal. However, he said the transportation of special nuclear materials, such as highly enriched uranium used at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, remains on hold.

In other action, DOE decided to cancel Wednesday's full-scale testing of the Oak Ridge emergency communications systems, including the sounding of sirens and other alarms.

Wyatt said federal officials were concerned the tests would frighten citizens already on edge because of the recent attacks.

"We decided it was not a very smart thing to do," he said.


-------- MILITARY

-------- afghanistan

Anti-Taliban alliance gains ground

September 26, 2001
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010926-17104930.htm

Afghanistan's opposition Northern Alliance, bolstered by a rush of international offers of support, yesterday stepped up its offensive in three provinces held by the country's ruling Taliban regime.

The motley, often-divided alliance, whose charismatic leader Ahmed Shah Masood was assassinated earlier this month, has suddenly emerged as the global focus of the U.S.-led campaign to pressure the Taliban and undermine the terrorist network of Afghan-based Saudi financier Osama bin Laden.

Although its successes could not be verified independently, Northern Alliance spokesman Moham-med Ashraf Nadeem told reporters that opposition forces had gained ground on several fronts in sustained fighting in Afghanistan's northern regions.

Fierce fighting was reported yesterday around the northern provincial capital of Mazar-i-Sharif, which has been a Taliban stronghold since the late 1990s.

A spokesman for the increasingly isolated Taliban regime conceded yesterday that the opposition had made gains in two days of sustained fighting, but not as much as they claimed.

"They exaggerate too much just to raise the morale of their fighters," the spokesman told the Agence France-Presse news service in Kabul.

Despite its recent advances, the Northern Alliance still controls less than 10 percent of Afghanistan's rugged territory, and its 10,000 troops are outnumbered by the estimated 45,000 better-armed Taliban forces.

The Taliban - which has refused President Bush's demand to surrender bin Laden - suffered a major diplomatic setback yesterday when Saudi Arabia announced it was cutting its ties to the regime, leaving Pakistan as the only nation in the world that recognizes the Kabul government.

Pakistan itself has watched the accelerating support for the Northern Alliance with mounting alarm, fearing a destabilizing crisis on its doorstep that could inflame radical Islamic opinion at home.

"We fear that any decision on the part of any foreign power to give assistance to one side or another in Afghanistan is a recipe for great suffering for the people of Afghanistan," Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar warned yesterday in a press conference in Islamabad with a visiting delegation from the European Union.

"Those who have intervened in Afghanistan and tried to plant their own preferred leaders paid a very high price for that blunder," Mr. Sattar added.

Stepped-up contacts with the Northern Alliance have emerged as a critical component in the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

President Bush yesterday appealed directly to Afghans unhappy with the Taliban's toleration of bin Laden.

"Our mission is to root out terrorists, to find them and bring them to justice," Mr. Bush said after a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

"And the best way to do that is to ask for the cooperation of citizens within Afghanistan who may be tired of having the Taliban in place or tired of having Osama bin Laden," the president said.

The State Department acknowledged Monday that U.S. officials have been in "close contact" with Northern Alliance leaders. Russian President Vladimir Putin has promised the rebel force arms and military equipment. Regional power Turkey is increasing its offers of equipment and training aid, Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said over the weekend.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher also revealed yesterday that William Pope, the U.S. charge d'affaires in Rome, met with exiled Afghan King Mohammed Zahir Shah yesterday to discuss events in the country. A previous meeting took place in December.

Many see the 86-year-old monarch as a potential unifying force for anti-Taliban groups.

With U.S. forces assembling in the region for a possible strike, the Northern Alliance could play a role similar to the Kosovo Albanian guerrillas in the 1999 NATO war against Yugoslavia.

The prospect of ground attacks by the Kosovo guerrillas drew regular Yugoslav forces into the open, leaving them vulnerable to NATO air strikes.

Much of the land controlled by the Northern Alliance also borders on Central Asian states that could become staging areas for any U.S.-led strikes inside Afghanistan, and the alliance could provide important logistical and intelligence aid.

But, as in Kosovo, a close identification with the Afghan opposition group could pose longer-term problems in the region.

U.S. Afghan specialists say the elements of the loose confederation that makes up the alliance have been linked to drug trafficking, while bitter feuding among the warlords who still dominate the Northern Alliance helped the Taliban seize power in Kabul in 1996.

The Northern Alliance also has close ties to Moscow. Although Mr. Putin has pledged to aid the U.S. military buildup, Russian officials view with deep suspicion any suggestions of a long-term U.S. presence in Central Asia.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reacted warily yesterday to suggestions of closer military ties between the U.S. force and the Northern Alliance, noting there were divisions within the Taliban regime, the opposition and throughout the country as the Pentagon weighed its options.

"It's a little like a billiard table trying to figure out exactly how it might happen," said Mr. Rumsfeld.

--------

Bush urges Afghans to help

September 26, 2001
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010926-58722375.htm

President Bush yesterday called on the citizens of Afghanistan to help the United States oust the Taliban, which he described as foreign oppressors, as the administration began to draw distinctions between good Afghans and bad Afghans.

"The mission is to rout terrorists," Mr. Bush told reporters in the Rose Garden. "And one way to do that is to ask for the cooperation of citizens within Afghanistan who may be tired of having the Taliban in place, people from foreign soils in their own lands, willing to finance this repressive government."

The president also moved swiftly to shore up support for Attorney General John Ashcroft's plan to give law-enforcement authorities broad new powers, which has come under fire from civil liberties groups.

During a visit to FBI headquarters, Mr. Bush said the new powers would be constitutional.

"Ours is a land that values the constitutional rights of every citizen, and we will honor those rights, of course," the president said. "But we're at war, a war we're going to win. And in order to win the war, we must make sure that the law- enforcement men and women have got the tools necessary, within the Constitution, to defeat the enemy."

As the administration continued to assemble a global coalition against terrorism in general and the Taliban in particular, the president reached out to the people of Afghanistan as possible allies in toppling a regime that harbors Saudi-born terrorist Osama bin Laden.

"We have no issues and no anger toward the citizens of Afghanistan," said Mr. Bush, flanked by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. "We have obviously serious problems with the Taliban government. They're an incredibly repressive government, a government that has a value system that's hard for many in America - or in Japan, for that matter - to relate to. Incredibly repressive toward women."

While Mr. Bush dismissed the entire Taliban as "evil," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sketched a more complex picture, saying some members oppose the Taliban's spiritual leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, al Qaeda.

"There are people in the Taliban who don't agree with Omar and they don't agree with creating a hospitable environment for al Qaeda," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.

Neither does the Northern Alliance, a group of rebel fighters who control a small portion of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld noted. He also suggested that various tribes in southern Afghanistan would welcome the eradication of terrorism.

"There are many Afghan people who are being starved, who are fleeing for their lives, and it's just a terrible shame," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "And we have to do everything possible we can from a humanitarian standpoint to see that their lives are made better than they currently are by the Taliban government."

But the White House was loath to talk about how it might replace the Taliban if and when the regime is deposed.

"We're not into nation-building," Mr. Bush said. "We're focused on justice."

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said any military action against Afghanistan "is not designed to replace one regime with another regime."

He also placed new emphasis on preserving the "stability" of the region, even as the sweeping war against terrorism is prosecuted.

"But that's not to say the Taliban will be given a free pass," said Mr. Fleischer. He cautioned that it would be a mistake for the Taliban to believe it can "encourage terrorism, harbor terrorism, and then, because we have to worry about issues involving instability, we won't take action. The president's made clear we will."

Still, the new emphasis on preserving the stability of the region was unmistakable. While there was a conspicuous absence of qualifiers to the administration's previous pronouncements against terrorism, yesterday's statements were more circumscribed.

"We will take whatever actions necessary - with our eye always on stability - to protect people from terrorism that is sponsored by the Taliban," Mr. Fleischer said. "Stability is always an objective."

The presidential spokesman, like Mr. Rumsfeld, took pains to distinguish between the Taliban and ordinary Afghans. He said the administration would support any elements within Afghanistan who are willing to "end terrorism."

Such statements from the administration recalled the 1991 urgings of the president's father to the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam Hussein in the wake of the Persian Gulf war. The elder Mr. Bush was later criticized for abandoning the Kurds and Shi'ites of Iraq.

"The Afghan people are not synonymous with the Taliban; they are different," said Mr. Fleischer. "And the Taliban, to a significant degree, has come in from the outside, from other nations, from different regions of the world.

"And they've taken advantage of the turmoil that existed in Afghanistan and the lack of a powerful central government in Afghanistan to make Afghanistan the breeding ground for their international terrorism," he added. "So there is a difference between the Afghani people and the Taliban."

While administration officials strained to make such distinctions, Mr. Bush went to FBI headquarters to bolster Mr. Ashcroft's proposals to broaden police powers in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

"We must give the FBI the ability to track calls, when they make calls from different phones, for example," the president said. "We're asking Congress for the authority to hold suspected terrorists who are in the process of being deported until they're deported. That seems to make sense."

He added: "The only alternative is to let suspected terrorists loose in our country. I don't think anybody wants to do that. I certainly hope not." Mr. Bush yesterday canceled most stops on what was scheduled to be a 10-day trip to Asia next month.

While he will still take a two-day trip to Shanghai for the annual meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group, he has postponed a stop in Beijing and visits to Japan and South Korea.

Tomorrow, the president plans to make his first trip outside the Washington region since the terrorist attacks more than two weeks ago. He will travel to Chicago's O'Hare airport to meet with airline workers to discuss safety and the troubled economy.

Those topics were covered during a White House meeting yesterday morning between Mr. Bush and congressional leaders of both parties. The president discussed airline safety further in an afternoon meeting with Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta.

-------- biological weapons

U.S. Unprepared for Bioterrorism

New York Times
September 26, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Bioterrorism.html

Stashed in secure government warehouses around the country are 400 tons of antibiotics and other medical supplies ready for what seemed until two weeks ago to be an unimaginable catastrophe -- a terrorist germ attack.

The stockpile is already packed in hundreds of air freight containers, which can be shipped on 12 hours notice. There are enough pills, IV solution and other supplies to fill eight 747s, enough to treat thousands of victims of an intentional release of anthrax or plague or other germ.

The medicines are the most tangible centerpiece of federal preparations for a bioterrorist attack on the United States. But reassuring as they are, many health experts fear the country has hardly begun to get ready for such a disaster.

``How prepared are we? We are more prepared than we were two years ago. A lot of efforts are under way. But we are woefully unprepared,'' says Bruce Clements, associate director of St. Louis University's Center for the Study of Bioterrorism and Emerging Infections.

The possibility -- or probability -- of a bioterrorist attack was already near the top of some experts' worry lists long before Sept. 11. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published its strategic plan for dealing with one last year.

``Many experts believe that it is no longer a matter of 'if' but 'when' such an attack will occur,'' said Dr. James M. Hughes, the CDC's chief of infectious diseases, in congressional testimony seven weeks before the attacks in New York and Washington.

After those attacks, however, many say the risk is being taken much more seriously. The government has twice grounded crop dusters because of fear they could be used to spray germs or chemicals over large areas. While some experts maintain that relatively advanced technology would be needed to make and release large batches of germs, others say resourceful terrorists can almost certainly find ways to do it on a shoestring.

Dr. Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota, author of ``Living Terrors,'' argues that launching a smallpox epidemic, for instance, could be as easy as leveling the World Trade Center using planes hijacked with box cutters: Intentionally give the virus to 40 or 50 suicidal terrorists, wait a few days until they are highly infectious and then send them out to walk through airports, ride subways or go to ballgames.

Thousands of people would catch it and pass it on. Scientists say the protection many people had from their childhood smallpox vaccine has largely worn off.

Osterholm doubts the country could competently deal with a medical disaster of that scope or even one less catastrophic. ``We are just not ready for even a moderate-size event,'' he says.

The CDC leads government planning for the medical effects of such terrorism. Over the past two years, besides stockpiling drugs, it has underwritten state and local bioterrorism planning and education, strengthened communications among health officials and improved labs' ability to identify unusual bugs.

However, many experts say that on the local level, preparation has been scattershot, and doctors, nurses and hospitals are simply untrained and unprepared to deal with tens of thousands of patients with a deadly infection.

First, how long would it take to realize an attack occurred? Who would get the first limited doses of antibiotics? Who would count out and distribute the pills? And where would all the sick be hospitalized?

Many involved in local planning say such questions have no answers yet. ``Until now, we haven't even looked at the fact there are weaknesses, let alone how we might fix them,'' says Dr. Kathy Rinnert of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, medical director of Dallas' metropolitan medical response system.

The first problem will be recognizing that a germ attack has even taken place. Bugs could be sprayed, invisible and odorless, through buildings, into train stations and across entire cities, but they cannot be detected with any monitoring equipment.

The first hint of disaster might come days later, when unusual numbers of otherwise healthy people turn up at emergency rooms with aches and fever.

Most doctors have never seen a case of anthrax, smallpox or plague. The early signs of many bioterror infections could easily be mistaken for the flu.

Bioterrorism training programs, aimed especially at emergency room doctors, encourage them to report odd clusters of common ills. ``We need a system where a physician who sees a flu-like illness doesn't just say, 'Go home and rest. It's the flu,''' says Dr. Ronald Atlas of the University of Louisville, president-elect of the American Society for Microbiology.

Identifying an attack quickly is critical. Once symptoms start, the outlook is grim, even with plenty of medicine. But prompt doses of antibiotics can keep outwardly well but infected people from falling ill. Most of the bacterial threats, such as anthrax and plague, can be treated with ordinary antibiotics like Cipro and doxycycline.

But who will get treated first when demand will far outstrip hospital supplies? Probably hospital personnel, since they need to stay healthy for everyone's sake, as well as police, firefighters and ambulance crews. Many will demand it for their families, too. City officials will argue they also deserve protection.

``Where will it end?'' ask Rinnert. ``Are there enough doses to even take care of the responders?''

Stockpiled drugs could arrive a day or two later, depending on how long it takes the CDC to acknowledge the crisis and get moving. But distributing them will be a herculean job.

The medicines are divided around the country into eight lots, called push packages. One or more would be sent, depending on the situation. Each weighs 50 tons and takes up more than 100 air cargo containers. They include more than 900 cases of pills and 2,500 cases of intravenous medicines, as well as catheters, breathing equipment, intravenous fluid and bandages.

Most of the antibiotics -- 432,000 Cipro tablets and 5 million doxycycline -- would be in bulk bottles. Somehow they would have to be sorted into handfuls of individual doses in plastic bags. And these would somehow have to be distributed to hundreds of thousands of people frantic that they are infected.

Osterholm says the stockpile is useless without the manpower and plans to distribute the drugs quickly, and ``those plans are not in place throughout most of the country.''

There are fears of shortages.

``The concern is there won't be enough ventilators and enough antibiotics, so we will have to decide who gets treated and who doesn't,'' says emergency physician Nicki Pesik of Emory University in Atlanta.

And after a decade of downsizing, hospitals wouldn't have room for all the patients, nor would they have enough nurses.

What if the infection is highly contagious, like smallpox? In the entire Washington-Baltimore area, by one count, there are just 100 beds in rooms equipped with air flow systems that keep germs from escaping.

And finally, those who think about the unthinkable ponder this: What if the strain of anthrax or plague released by terrorists has been genetically altered? What if it is resistant to common antibiotics? Then those 400 tons of government medicines could be worthless.

-------- chemical weapons

Bin Laden terror group tries to acquire chemical arms

September 26, 2001
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010926-945878.htm

U.S. intelligence agencies have uncovered new information that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group, al Qaeda, are acquiring from the Russian mafia components for weapons of mass destruction.

Bin Laden, the key suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, also is believed by U.S. intelligence to have a secret nuclear weapons laboratory inside Afghanistan, say officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

There is no hard evidence that bin Laden or his followers have actually produced chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. A CIA spokesman declined to comment.

But a U.S. official said contacts between bin Laden and the Russian mafia, and efforts to obtain materials used to make weapons of mass destruction, could not be ruled out because of Afghanistan's porous borders. This official suggested that the reports about the contacts could not confirmed independently by U.S. intelligence agencies. Bin Laden has worked with Russian mafia groups in obtaining chemical and biological weapons materials and nuclear components, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports on the contacts.

"There are signs they have been supplying [bin Laden] with chemical and biological materials and nuclear components," said a second official familiar with the reports.

Transporting and then using weapons of mass destruction is difficult, though al Qaeda's use of suicide attackers makes the use of deadly chemical, biological or nuclear weapons somewhat easier, those familiar with terrorist tactics and capabilities say.

U.S. intelligence agencies have information that bin Laden is operating a secret nuclear weapons laboratory somewhere in Afghanistan. The laboratory is believed to be where bin Laden associates are working on developing nuclear or radiological weapons. Radiological weapons are bombs that kill by spreading radioactive material. This is believed to be one of the sites sought for U.S. military strikes, expected in the next several weeks.

A recent foreign intelligence service report stated that al Qaeda has obtained some type of nuclear device, but U.S. intelligence officials said they could not confirm that report. The new intelligence report on bin Laden's contacts with the Russian mafia provide new details on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

An FBI court document made public in 1998 in New York stated that al Qaeda has tried to purchase enriched uranium since 1993 "for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons." The State Department's latest report on international terrorism says that al Qaeda "continued" to seek chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear capabilities.

Intelligence officials say classified analysis of the types of chemicals and toxins sought by al Qaeda indicate the group probably is trying to produce the nerve agent Sarin, or biological weapons made up of anthrax spores. Sarin can be produced from the components used to make fertilizer and kills by disrupting the central nervous system. Anthrax is a highly lethal biological weapon that causes death after spores are ingested.

At its height during the Cold War, the Soviet biological weapons program employed some 65,000 persons, and U.S. officials have feared for years that some of the out-of-work biological weapons scientists would sell their expertise to terrorists like bin Laden.

The FBI has obtained specific threats since the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that terrorists plan to retaliate for any U.S. strikes on Afghanistan or terrorists around the world by using chemical or biological weapons, the officials said.

Russian crime groups also have provided bin Laden's Islamic extremists with small arms, the U.S. intelligence officials say. They also are believed to help bin Laden launder the proceeds from drug trafficking.

Larry Johnson, a former State Department counterterrorism official, says contacts between the Russian mafia and bin Laden could be related to drug trafficking and that cooperation between the two is not surprising.

"There has been evidence in the past of links between the Taliban militia and the Russian mob on opium," Mr. Johnson says, noting that the Taliban has been a major patron of bin Laden.

The Russian crime groups purchase opium from Afghanistan and refine it into heroin that is sold in Europe and the United States, he says.

-------- china

Beijing's troops train for war on Afghan border

WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 26 2001
Front line
The Times (UK)
FROM OLIVER AUGUST IN KASHGAR
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001330017-2001333233,00.html

BEIJING'S elite troops are practising guerrilla warfare near the Afghan border in expectation of attacks by Islamic extremists inside China.

A unit of the People's Armed Police, usually based in Urumqi and believed to be among the best-trained in China, was moved last week to Kashgar in response to events in the US and Afghanistan.

Several hundred members of the unit were rehearsing tactics yesterday for close-quarter combat, including techniques for killing an enemy without a weapon. The troops have set up a temporary base at a sports stadium in Kashgar where dozens of olive green lorries used to bring in the troops are lined up.

A locally based soldier said: "The People's Armed Police were sent here because of the attacks in America. The Government believes they are needed to keep order."

At a military exercise ground near Kashgar airport, a second group of troops has set up a new base. Two-storey mock façades with large, blown out windows are used to simulate house-to-house fighting.

The troop movements are the clearest indication so far that China has intensified a long-running crackdown on its Islamic minority that uses the death penalty. The western province of Xinjiang is part of China, but local people - many, but not all, are Muslim - would like to see an independent state of East Turkistan. In recent years, Beijing has tried to contain separatist violence, including bombings and assassinations.

The current confrontation between Afghanistan and the West has boosted local support for Islamic causes. One Muslim said: "The US should have proof of who is responsible for the attacks before they do anything. The Taleban are true believers. Here, we are governed by (Chinese) rules, not the Koran."

A Western diplomat said: "We expected a troop deployment to the area by the Chinese but have to emphasise that it was in no way requested by us."

The crisis in Afghanistan has left Beijing with a complex diplomatic balance sheet. On the one hand, China's leaders hope that anti-Islamic feelings in the West will make it easier to crack down in Xinjiang. On the other, Beijing is concerned at the possibility of an American military adventure in Afghanistan.

One Beijing-based diplomat said: "We assume that Beijing will take opportunistic actions, knowing the world will not object at the moment." In the near future, he added, human rights groups were unlikely to find much of an audience for their reports about police brutality and colonial exploitation.

But Beijing fears a marked loss of influence in the region, according to analysts. An influx of US troops in the former Soviet republics on China's western border would destroy the notion that Russia and China have exclusive rights to a Central Asian sphere of influence. Since the mid-1990s, Beijing has carefully nurtured this notion in the hope of deterring any American involvement. Plans to build pipelines from Central Asian oil fields to China were aimed at keeping out US business interests.

What China fears even more than US troops, however, is extensive Nato involvement in the area, amounting to an eastward enlargement all the way to China's border. Robert Karniol, Asia Editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, said: "What would really worry the Chinese is if Nato got involved in Central Asia."

In addition to the countries on China's western border, the US military is planning to use bases in Japan, South Korea and Thailand for its missions in Afghanistan, further adding to Beijing's woes. A member of the British Government told The Times last week: "There is a lot of talk of encirclement in China."

But all these diplomatic considerations might be dwarfed by the problems arising from an Afghan refugee exodus to China. A Kashgar resident said: "The Government fears that lots of people will come across the border, even bin Laden himself."

According to local tour operators, border traffic with Pakistan has come almost to a standstill in the past two weeks. Nevertheless, Pakistani newspapers reported that Osama bin Laden was travelling down the Wakhan corridor to the Chinese border in hope of finding refuge.

China is believed to have had regular contacts with the Taleban in recent years, making it vulnerable to US charges that it has aided terrorists.

Following the US attack on bin Laden in 1998, the Chinese military was apparently invited to inspect unexploded cruise missiles. Beijing's main aim on the diplomatic stage at the moment is to come out of this crisis unscathed.

In return for its tacit support of the US, it expects to be rewarded by Washington. However, it does not want to be seen as an outright supporter of the war on terrorism to protect its strong relations with assumed terror sponsors such as North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Hence, China has been less supportive of the US than lukewarm friends of America such as Yassir Arafat, the Palestinian leader. While public gloating at the World Trade Centre attack was quashed in Gaza, Chinese websites continue to serve up Schadenfreude. At the same time, a Chinese government spokesman has given warning that military intervention would only "aggravate terrorism and violence".

Beijing's diplomatic manoeuvring may seem perplexing to observers but it is not new to the region. For decades, Kashgar was host to the players of the Great Game, the imperial tug of war between Britain and Russia in the 19th century for influence in Central Asia, India and China. Operating from their respective consulates, diplomats, generals, adventurers and agents of the East India Company struggled for mastery in the same rugged land that once again occupies world attention. The old consular buildings in Kashgar are still standing but their owners are now Chinese, the new participants in this replay of the Great Game.

-------- pakistan

Pakistan Warns U.S. on Afghan Role
Alliance With Anti-Taliban Forces Could Bring 'Disaster,' Official Says

By Molly Moore and Kamran Khan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 26, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25809-2001Sep25?language=printer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sept. 25 -- Pakistan warned the United States today against forging an alliance with rebels fighting the Taliban movement in northern Afghanistan, signaling the first public rift between Washington and Islamabad as plans move ahead for a possible attack on Afghanistan.

In a statement clearly intended to warn the Bush administration not to adopt an Afghan strategy based on toppling the Taliban and replacing it with a rebel coalition known as the Northern Alliance, Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdus Sattar told reporters: "We must not make the blunder of trying to foist a government on the people of Afghanistan.

"We fear that any such decision on the part of foreign powers to give assistance to one side or the other in Afghanistan is a recipe for great disaster for the people of Afghanistan," Sattar added.

The warning threw into high relief the obstacles facing the United States as it attempts to build support here for military action in Afghanistan, a country long splintered by ethnic divisions and meddlesome neighbors.

In Pakistan's military leadership, there is strong resistance to any moves by the United States that would dislodge the Taliban. Pakistan provided much of the money and military assistance that supported the Taliban in their campaign to conquer most of Afghanistan in 1994-96. The Taliban is composed mostly of members of the Pashtun ethnic group, the largest in Afghanistan and dominant in northwestern Pakistan.

Pakistan has continued to support Taliban efforts to defeat the Northern Alliance, a loose collection of Afghan warlords from other ethnic groups. The rebels include some elements of the Afghan government that the Taliban toppled in 1996.

The military's reservations came even as Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has pledged overall support for the United States in its confrontation with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the Saudi fugitive who is chief suspect in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States. President Bush has demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden and has ordered military preparations for a possible strike if they do not.

Pakistani military officials are particularly angry, sources said, that the United States reportedly is making military and diplomatic contacts with the Northern Alliance, because the militias have been funded and armed by Pakistan's bitter rival, India, as well as Iran and Russia, both of which Pakistan views as competing influences in Afghanistan.

Leaders of the alliance have offered to assist the United States in dislodging the extremist Islamic militia from Afghanistan, a proposal U.S. officials are debating.

In a televised speech Thursday night, President Bush called on the Taliban to surrender bin Laden and other terrorists "or share in their fate."

Bush, answering questions in Washington today, said the United States was not interested in engaging in "nation-building" but was more concerned with fighting terrorism. "And the best way to do that," he said, "is to ask for the cooperation of citizens within Afghanistan who may be tired of having the Taliban in place or tired of having Osama bin Laden, people from foreign soils, in their own land willing to finance this repressive government."

However, officials from the United States, United Nations and European Union have begun exploring the possibility of creating a temporary Afghan government that could include the northern militias, as well as other leaders inside the country and in exile, should the Taliban be toppled.

Pakistani officials here said U.S. authorities have told them any assistance Washington gave to the Northern Alliance would be limited and said the United States has no intention of replacing the Taliban with the militias. But that has not appeased Pakistani military officials, according to government authorities.

"Pakistan's military strategy cannot afford a hostile government in Afghanistan that will force us to make crucial realignments in troop deployments," said retired Lt. Gen. Salahuddin Tirmizi, a former corps commander. "Even a semblance of the Northern Alliance's dominance over Afghanistan would make us uncomfortable."

Pakistan today remained the last country to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government after Saudi Arabia severed its ties with the Taliban. The Saudi decision came just days after the United Arab Emirates broke relations with the Taliban, further isolating it even among Islamic states. Sattar said today that his government will not break diplomatic ties with the Taliban, even though the United States has urged it to do so.

Saudi officials issued a statement blaming the Taliban for turning Afghanistan into a center for terrorists and acknowledging that Saudis were among those participating in "criminal acts" around the world. Bin Laden, the estranged son of a Saudi billionaire, has continued to draw both financial support and manpower from Saudi Arabia, according to intelligence reports.

A four-member U.S. team headed by Air Force Brig. Gen. Kevin Chilton, the Pentagon's director of planning for the Near East and South Asia, is in Islamabad discussing details of Washington's requests to Pakistan for assistance in launching military action into Afghanistan. But Pakistan's military is raising concerns over some issues.

"Things from the U.S. side on the diplomatic front are not moving the way we initially expected them to move," said a senior Pakistani official familiar with the discussions. "As for crucial operational decisions that relate to Afghanistan, there seems to be some confusion in Washington." U.S. officials declined to comment on the discussions.

In addition to Sattar's comments at a news conference, Pakistani military officials privately expressed concern that the United States will raise the issue of the Kashmir border dispute between India and Pakistan. Militant Pakistani Islamic groups, with the approval of the military, are deeply involved in supporting Muslim guerrillas fighting Indian security forces in the portion of Kashmir that India controls.

The Pakistani military leadership, most of whom are Muslims, sympathize and have close associations with some of the country's most radical religious groups.

Two Pakistani organizations with links to the Taliban and guerrillas in Kashmir were on the list of organizations whose financial assets President Bush said Monday would frozen in the United States because of connections to terrorism.

One was Harkat ul-Mujaheddin, one of Pakistan's most militant religious groups. Before changing its name from Harkat ul-Ansar several months ago, the group had been designated a terrorist organization by the State Department. When the Harkat ul-Ansar was implicated in a 1997 plot to stage an Islamic revolution in Pakistan, a dozen military officers, including two generals, were arrested and court-martialed for involvement. The two generals were later pardoned.

The second Pakistani group on the list was Al-Rashid Trust, described by its officials as a charitable organization that supports a bakery project that distributes 300,000 pieces of flatbread a day inside Afghanistan. The trust is believed to be associated with Lashkar-i-Taiba, one of the most active organizations involved in the fighting in Kashmir.

In contrast with the reservations of many of Musharraf's general officers, most of his civilian advisers argued that any U.S. efforts to dislodge the Taliban from Afghanistan would ease Pakistan's internal political problems by reducing the influence exerted by radical religious groups, some with close links to the Taliban.

"This is an opportunity to call the bluff of the radical religious parties," said a retired military officer who continues to serve as an adviser to Musharraf. "The country was in a state of drift toward the radical elements."

Musharraf has grown increasingly frustrated with the Taliban in recent months for harboring terrorists sought by Pakistan in connection with bombings and other attacks inside the country, according to some advisers. This year Pakistan has recorded about 75 bomb attacks in busy city markets, buses and other locations that have killed more than 750 people.

Khan reported from Karachi. Correspondent Howard Schneider in Cairo contributed to this report.

-------- russia

Moscow Eager to Tie Rebels In Chechnya to Bin Laden

By Sharon LaFraniere
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 26, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25760-2001Sep25?language=printer

MOSCOW -- Two years ago, in the green hills of Chechnya near an old Soviet children's camp, 24-year-old Zamir Ozrokov studied what was described to him as pure Islam.

The Koran readings came with an unusual military twist. An Arab instructor taught him and about 100 other youths how to assemble and take apart AK-47 assault rifles, how to shoot and how to lay mines. After three weeks, he returned to the neighboring Russian republic of Karbardino-Balkaria, where he was later arrested and told his story to the police.

The camp in Serzhen-Yurt no longer exists, but Ozrokov's account of his May 1999 stay there, published in his republic's newspaper, is one small sign of the role of radical Islamic groups in the bloodshed that has reduced much of the southern Russian republic of Chechnya to abandoned ruins.

The camp was run by a man known as Khattab, a mysterious Arab in his mid-thirties who emerged several years ago as one of Chechnya's most powerful rebel commanders. Russian intelligence and military officials identify him as the main link between the Chechen rebels and Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan-based terrorist organization.

The strength of that link is in dispute. Sergei Yastrzhembsky, a spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, said in an interview last week that bin Laden is by no means the only foreign backer of Chechen rebels, and maybe not even the main one. "But he is a real sponsor," he said. "That is a fact."

At least it is a fact to Russian officials, who are eager to tie Chechnya's stubborn revolt to an international terrorist conspiracy, and so win sympathy among critics of Moscow's merciless prosecution of the war there.

In an address to the German parliament in Berlin yesterday, Putin said Russia was committed to the "complete ideological and political isolation" of terrorists and he called the war in Chechnya a harbinger of what the West now faces.

He warned that "international terrorists [have] made clear their wish to set up a fundamentalist Muslim state between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea."

"We don't recognize the real dangers," said Putin, the first Russian president to address the Bundestag.

"This shows that we are well-advised to work with Russia as a partner in combating worldwide threats," said Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. "That wasn't so clear everywhere. Now it is."

But proof of bin Laden's involvement is hard to come by, and some more dispassionate experts are far less certain of it. "I think it's a kind of misinformation sent to the mass media by Russian secret services to make it seem they are not fighting a small separatist movement, but against the world's radical Islamic community," said Alexei Malashenko, an expert on Chechnya at the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow Center.

The guerrillas deny any ties. "When I hear that the Taliban fights in Chechnya . . . this sounds stupid," said Aslan Maskhadov, Chechnya's former president and now the leader of a key rebel faction, referring to Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia in an interview transmitted through an intermediary.

"Why do we need weapons from abroad? There are plenty of weapons here, and much cheaper too. We don't need military or other training from abroad either."

What is apparent, however, is that Islamic extremists have taken partial command of the Chechen revolt since 1996, and many have come from Arab countries, flush with money, weapons and four-wheel drive vehicles that the impoverished region's indigenous guerrillas could only dream of.

Estimates of bin Laden's influence over Chechen rebels range from simple moral exhortation to providing squadrons of guerrilla fighters and millions of dollars. Russian intelligence officials, citing intercepted radio conversations, insist bin Laden plays a key role in the ongoing military conflict.

Russian Interpol chief Vladimir Gordiyenko asserts that bin Laden maintains "direct contacts" with Khattab and another key commander in Chechnya, Shamil Basayev.

Intelligence officials in Moscow contend that bin Laden trains Chechen fighters in a half-dozen military camps in Afghanistan and provided Chechen fighters with 36 anti-aircraft missiles in 1999. Thirteen months ago, they have said, he sent $34 million to Khattab. Col. Gen. Valery Manilov, former first deputy chief of the Russian general staff, later offered a revised figure of $5.5 million, and said bin Laden promised to train as many as 5,000 fighters.

Many experts on Chechnya believe these are exaggerations -- maybe vast ones. One recent arrest of a Saudi man identified as a courier for Khattab suggests much lower sums. The man, nabbed crossing the Azerbaijan border into the neighboring Russian republic of Dagestan, said he had $10,000 for the rebels.

One former high-ranking Chechen official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that in 1996 he saw two checks totaling $300,000, drawn on a Malaysian bank, that were funneled to the rebels from a Philippine terrorist group called Abu Sayyaf -- "Father of the Sword." Abu Sayyaf was founded by a man who fought with bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan and supposedly was financed by bin Laden's brother-in-law.

For Russian officials, such information about Chechen rebel connections is rare.

"It's most difficult to determine connections between Chechens and the Islamic world," said Nikolai Kovalyov, former head of the Federal Security Service, the domestic successor agency to the KGB, in a recent interview. "Even if you capture a person, to extract anything from him is almost impossible. They prefer death with the head raised high."

Yastrzhembsky said estimates of the number of Arab mercenaries among the Chechen rebels range from dozens to thousands. The highest government estimate, he said, puts Arabs as 70 percent of the rebel force. But Chechen administrators and journalists estimate that Arabs make up no more than 5 percent to 15 percent of Chechen fighters, who are believed to number at least several thousand.

The Arab fighters, they said, come from many countries, including Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Who dispatched them remains in question. During an interview a year ago in an Afghan village, a man named Abu Daud, identified as a bin Laden associate, told the Associated Press that 400 fighters who were trained at bin Laden's camps had been sent to help the Chechen separatists.

Islamic extremists figured hardly at all in Chechnya's first war for independence from Russia, from 1994 to 1996. That was clearly a nationalist movement.

But when that war ended with no clear winner, Chechnya lay in ruins, presenting fertile ground for Islamic militants. Urus-Martan, Chechnya's third biggest city with about 100,000 people, became their base, and Khattab their military leader.

Shervanik Yasuyev, the pro-Russian Chechen administrator of the city, said in an interview that Arab "strangers, all strangers," began arriving one by one in 1997, until they numbered 500 or more. They were bearded, wore green or black shirts and longrobes over their pants, and were armed with expensive pistols, according to Yasuyev and other residents.

They were known as Wahhabists, a fundamentalist branch of Islam that is dominant in Saudi Arabia, although they came from all over the Middle East.

"They went to the market and they paid with dollars," said Yasuyev. "There was no power here; there was disorder everywhere, and their influence was very strong."

Their professed goal was to turn Chechnya into an Islamic state. Freeing Chechnya's Muslims from the Russian yoke was deemed a worthy first step.

The Arabs appealed especially to the young men of Urus-Martan. "The poor Chechen people were already suffering so much and our young guys simply couldn't think," Yasuyev said. "They were ready to accept any ideas."

The Arabs augmented their influence by forming an alliance with Basayev, a powerful rival rebel commander.

The Wahhabists recruited young men from Urus-Martan to undergo three months of military and religious training at the Serzhen-Yurt camp, about 24 miles outside the city. Khattab visited them there.

Khattab, fluent in Russian, is often described as coming from Jordan, where he studied to be a physicist. But Yastrzhembsky said he came from Saudi Arabia, trained in bin Laden's Afghan camps and fought against the Soviets during their disastrous war there.

He is now believed to be hiding in Chechnya's southern mountains with the other rebels.

--------

Russia Says U.S. May Use Facilities in Tajikistan
Former Soviet Region's Role Is Still Emerging

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 26, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25635-2001Sep25?language=printer

MOSCOW, Sept. 25 -- Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said today the United States could use military facilities in Tajikistan to launch strikes on neighboring Afghanistan "if the need arises," marking the first time Russia has publicly approved what would be an unprecedented U.S. military presence in former Soviet Central Asia.

Leaders of several Central Asian countries in recent days have publicly offered use of their airspace and military facilities to the United States.

Before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the United States was trying to encourage the Central Asian nations to assert their independence from Russia's sphere of influence. But now, the United States is targeting Afghanistan and needs to base forces in Central Asia. The Bush administration has openly acknowledged Russia's role in the region and paid deference to Moscow.

As the United States mobilizes to take retaliatory action against Afghanistan's Taliban rulers, Russia has pledged to assist what President Vladimir Putin called "the war on terror" that could erupt on its southern borders. But until this week, Putin had yet to spell out how cooperative he was willing to be on the issue of basing U.S. forces in Central Asia, where Russia continues to play a dominant role, both politically and militarily, a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In a televised speech Monday, Putin declared that Russia is firmly on the side of the U.S.-led Western alliance while stopping short of pledging his own military forces. Instead, he vowed to step up Russian aid to the opposition forces inside Afghanistan, agreed to allow "humanitarian" flights over Russian airspace and said Russia would participate in "search and rescue" missions stemming from an Afghan conflict.

Indirectly, Putin gave approval for a new U.S. military presence in Central Asia, saying leaders of those countries "do not rule out" use of their air bases by the Americans.

But it fell to Ivanov to make clear just how far the Russian position has shifted. A little more than a week ago, Ivanov categorically ruled out use of Central Asia as a staging ground for an Afghanistan campaign. "I see absolutely no basis for even hypothetical suppositions about the possibility of NATO military operations on the territory of Central Asian nations," he told reporters.

But today, according to the Russian news agency Interfax, he said the U.S. military could use facilities in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, "if the need arises." The only caveat he offered this time was a practical one: It hasn't happened yet, he said. "No one is flying anywhere at the moment."

Since Ivanov's first statement, Putin has held lengthy consultations with leaders of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev said on Monday he was ready to allow U.S. warplanes to launch strikes from his airspace. Today, he was joined by Kyrgyzstan's President Askar Akayev, who said, "We are ready to provide our airspace." The decision, he said in a statement, was made after consulting with Russia.

But the three Central Asian countries that border Afghanistan have been less forthcoming. Turkmenistan's leader Saparmurad Niyazov said today his country would open airspace to the United States, but only for humanitarian flights. Uzbekistan has pledged cooperation, without saying what kind. Tajikistan, which is the most reliant on Russian military support as it recovers from a civil war, has also been vague.

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

U.N. says attacks show need for global court

September 26, 2001
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010926-31414837.htm

NEW YORK - Legal experts converging on the United Nations this week to hammer out details of a global criminal court said yesterday that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks demonstrate the need for a tribunal to prosecute the worst humanitarian crimes.

"We emerge more convinced than ever of the need to strengthen the international legal order and the fight against universal crimes," said Dutch Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen, referring to the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers.

"Where better to begin our renewed effort than in that, the same city of New York?" he said.

Legal experts attending a long-scheduled meeting about the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which would hear charges of atrocities committed around the world, said the attacks on New York and Washington would fit the definition of "crimes against humanity."

The proposed ICC would not be created until at least 2002, and its jurisdiction will not be retroactive. Nonetheless, Mr. van Aartsen said, "Universal crimes deserve a universal answer."

On Monday, the participants in the preparatory commission meeting stood for a moment of silence, and individual speakers offered their condolences from the podium.

The United States opposes the court, fearing it would be used to target American soldiers who participate in international peacekeeping missions and other operations.

Prospects of U.S. military strikes in the war on terrorism, sparked by the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, appear likely to stiffen U.S. opposition to the court.

Nevertheless, lawyers at yesterday's conference spoke enthusiastically of the court as a potential weapon against the spread of global terrorism.

"The bombing, and subsequent calls for a global alliance against terrorism, has shaken Washington off its anti-multilateral course," said David Donalcattin, a lawyer with Parliamentarians for Global Action.

"The great news for us [is] that American isolationism is finished," Mr. Donalcattin said. "This attack has shown, and the White House seems to hear, that no nation can do it alone."

President Bush has rejected the treaty, and proposals in Congress would prevent the United States from cooperating with it.

Various U.N. bodies are grappling with terrorism this week, with the Security Council beginning to discuss a separate U.S. anti-terror initiative, and the General Assembly preparing for a public debate on terrorism Monday.

In addition, the secretariat is weighing the value of helping states draft an umbrella anti-terrorism treaty combining elements of the 12 existing conventions and treaties.

Legal experts say there is a widespread recognition that whoever planned and executed the Sept. 11 attack has committed a crime against humanity, as defined under the Rome Statute creating the ICC. More than 139 nations have accepted that definition, which includes in part:

"Murder and other inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population in furtherance of a state or organizational policy."

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

Senate Backs Plan to Close Military Bases

New York Times
September 26, 2001
By ADAM CLYMER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/national/26BASE.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 - The Senate narrowly endorsed another round of military base closings today, overcoming opponents who argued that because of the uncertainty of terrorist threats, this was no time to cut back defenses.

Backed by a majority of Democrats, the Bush administration won a 53-to-47 vote to establish a new commission to call for base closings and transfers of military units to save money.

The measure is part of the $343 billion military authorization bill, and because the companion House bill has no such provision, the issue will have to be settled in a House- Senate conference.

The House passed its version of the defense bill tonight on a 398-to-17 vote after diverting some money from missile defense to counterterrorism.

Under the base-closing procedure, which has been used several times in recent years, a commission proposes closings and Congress votes up or down on the entire package without amendments.

Thirty-one Democrats, including Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, 21 Republicans and one independent backed the provision. Twenty-eight Republicans, including Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the minority leader, and 19 Democrats opposed it.

Although no senator mentioned the bases in his or her state by name, many of the 47 senators who opposed the plan have major installations in their states. Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican whose state, Kentucky, is the home of two major Army bases, Fort Knox and Fort Campbell, said, "None of us know for certain that we need to downsize our military structure under these extraordinary circumstances."

The new homeland security cabinet office, Mr. Bunning said, "may decide that they need these bases to keep our homeland secure."

Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat whose state has Air Force bases at Minot and Grand Forks, argued that establishing a new base-closing commission, even though it would not act before 2003, would "stunt the economic growth" of any community with a military installation.

But Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who leads the Armed Services Committee and who voted to set up the commission, said it was "imperative to convert excess capacity into war-fighting capacity."

Michigan is a major military contracting state but does not have significant bases.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, argued, "There is not a single military expert in this country of any credibility that doesn't believe that we need a base-closing round." And Mr. McCain voted for the commission.

Arizona has Fort Huachuca, an intelligence and testing center, and two major air force bases.

In midafternoon, the Senate quickly passed a stopgap spending measure that will allow the federal government to continue to operate through Oct. 16, while Congress struggles to complete action on the appropriations bills that are supposed to be completed by Sunday. The House passed the stopgap bill on Monday, so the Senate action will send it to President Bush for his signature.


-------- OTHER

-------- police / prisoners

New Homeland Defense Plans Emerge
Fearing Ridge Lacks Clout, Lawmakers Float Proposals for Super-Agency

By Eric Pianin and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 26, 2001; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25470-2001Sep25?language=printer

Proposals for creating a super-agency to oversee intelligence, law enforcement and domestic security activities are gaining support on Capitol Hill as an alternative to President Bush's plan for a White House homeland defense office headed by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R).

Many Republican and Democratic lawmakers fear that without statutory authority over the budgets and operations of agencies related to anti-terrorism, Ridge will lack the clout essential to mount an effective nationwide effort to quash further terrorist threats and put in place improved security and emergency response measures.

Bush last week vowed to give Ridge a strong hand to coordinate the activities of more than 40 federal agencies and departments, including the CIA and the FBI, and to forge domestic policy to defend the public against terrorists much the way national security adviser Condoleezza Rice shapes U.S. foreign policy.

"Ridge is a great appointment . . . but he's got to have the authority to dictate the administration's policy, to make sure that everybody is falling in line with the administration's policy with respect to anti-terrorism," said Rep. C. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism and homeland defense.

The White House said that Bush intends to create the new, Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security by executive order, probably before Ridge is scheduled to take up his duties Oct. 8. While lawmakers agree there would be no attempt to force legislation on the president in the midst of the current crisis, some said they would push for legislation later this year if it becomes clear Ridge is unable to take control of anti-terrorism policy.

"My feeling is the best way we should assure the job gets done is to put him in a new Cabinet department, giving him both budget and direct-line authority," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), chairman of the Government Affairs Committee. "The president's announcement . . . was a significant step forward, but we need more to make sure the job of homeland defense gets done."

Ridge, a moderate Republican and close friend of the president's, met yesterday at the White House with Bush and key administration aides to begin working out the details of his new assignment, 14 days after attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon left more than 6,500 dead or missing. The talks covered "substantive policy issues and the structure and staffing and budget needs of the [new] office," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

While the president intends to consult closely with Congress on the new anti-terrorism office, McClellan said, "The president is moving forward to create the Office of Homeland Security by presidential action."

At least three congressionally sponsored commissions in recent years have looked at how to improve coordination of the many government entities involved in protecting against terrorism. While all agreed on the need for some sort of new, high-level mechanism, they offered widely differing prescriptions for what that mechanism should be, ranging from a White House coordinator to a separate agency.

These conflicting prescriptions were reflected in several bills introduced in Congress before the Sept. 11 attacks. One measure sponsored by Rep. William M. "Mac" Thornberry (R-Tex.) would establish a national agency that would consolidate border security functions spread among the U.S. Coast Guard, Customs Service and Border Patrol and more generally oversee the government's homeland defense.

But fearing the creation of yet another large federal bureaucracy, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) has pushed legislation calling for a single coordinator to manage domestic security programs. Still another alternative is contained in a bill by Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.), which would elevate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, assigning it primary responsibility for responding to terrorist attacks.

In the Senate, intelligence committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.) has offered a bill that would make Ridge's position permanent and give the director substantial authority over the budgets of the FBI and other agencies responsible for anti-terrorism activities.

"I would describe it as an extension of what the president has proposed," Graham said. "I think this agency should also be developing a comprehensive plan for homeland defense and anti-terrorism protection, including whether there should be some statutory realignment of agencies."

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the intelligence committee, said that while Ridge was a good choice for the assignment, "He's got to have power to do things -- budgets, demand accountability [from agencies], everything." Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), another prominent conservative, said, "As we get more involved in it, you're going to see that the office is going to need more capability than I think has currently been allocated to it."

Senate and House leaders and aides said they are still awaiting more details of the president's plan and pledged close consultation with the White House before undertaking any legislative action. "We're still evaluating that," Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said yesterday. The latest blue-ribbon panel to weigh into the debate -- a three-year, bipartisan effort led by former senators Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.) and Gary Hart (D-Colo.) -- backed the idea of a separate agency in a report released last January. Unimpressed by experiences with White House czars -- whether in the areas of energy, education or drugs -- the commissioners concluded that it was not enough this time just to appoint a senior White House official, no matter what his relationship with the president was at the outset.

But critics of the consolidation approach say it would encounter too much bureaucratic resistance. James S. Gilmore III, the Virginia governor who chaired another federal commission that last year recommended setting up a national office for combating terrorism, said a new agency would simply end up competing with other agencies.


-------- activists

Korean women's activities against war and for peace

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001
From: Gyung-Lan Jung <jglan21@yahoo.com>

Dear friends,

I would like to send some info on Korean women's activities against terrorism and war and for peace.

First, 36 women's organizations made the Women's Position Statement for an End to the "War" and for Peaceful Resolution of All Problems(see below). Second, over 100 women, members of 36 women's organizations including Women Making Peace, held a silence demonstration on September 20, 2001. Third, Women Making Peace started a "Peace Flier Campaign" to demand the suspension of terrorism and war in favor of peaceful resolution of differences 0n September 17, 2001. This campaign was organized by Women Making Peace and Ohmynews. This is a campaign to collect expressions for peace from all people who are against terrorism and war. Websites of Women Making Peace (www.peacewomen.com)and Ohmynews(http://www.ohmynews.com) are gathering messages. Over 3,000 people joined the "Peace Flier Campaign" till September 22.

I hope we work together for peace.

Sincerely,
Gyung-Lan Jung Women Making Peace

Women's Position Statement for an End to the "War" and for Peaceful Resolution of All Problems

September 18th, 2001

"We oppose terrorist attacks and retaliative war."

We extend our sincere condolences to all those who have experienced loss due to the terrorist attacks in the US.

The people of the world are deeply shocked and in fear of the acts of terror in the US which killed many people on September 11, 2001. The unbelievable acts of terror have stunned and pained peace-loving people everywhere. We, Korean women, who have suffered tragedy and pain since the division of Korea and the Korean War, understand the psychological trauma and fear of all those who have lost family members, friends, and property in this catastrophe, and we extend our sympathy to those in mourning.

We stand firmly opposed to terror, violence and war. We, peace-loving women, believe that acts of terror should be eradicated. At the same time, we believe the means to eradicate terror cannot be violent. Any retaliatory warlike act will surely bring pain to innocent victims. We believe the causes of terrorist acts and wars originate from hatred and thoughts of revenge. Therefore, we should punish terrorists on the one hand and look for peaceful means to reduce or eliminate hatred and vengeful thoughts on the other. We believe that the roots of terrorism should be exterminated. Various conflicts can best be resolved through peaceful means such as dialogue, understanding, negotiation and mediation based on justice and trust.

We are anxious about hasty and excessive retaliation on the part of the United States. People who support peace and justice around the world are anxious about any hasty and excessive retaliation since the US President George W. Bush has declared war. If the US government attacks the terrorists and other targets with new high-tech weapons including possibly nuclear weapons without caution, those in the Middle East who have condemned the acts of terror in the US will be forced to enter the violent cycle of retribution. The US government should not commence any warlike acts where civilians will be sacrificed. Rather, the path of negotiation, building consensus in the international community, and other legal steps must be the course taken.

We are concerned that any retaliative warlike act by the US will trigger another arms race and a rise in global militarism.

We are anxious about the possibility that the US might use the war as an excuse to justify military expansion and experimentation with new high tech weapons in Afghanistan. We worry that the world will be divided between countries who join any such war efforts and others who do not. We stand at the beginning of the 21st century. What will we hand over to our descendants? Are we going to bequeath lands wasted by war or lands where peace, equality, and prosperity flourish? We ask the US government to look for some means to eradicate acts of terror other than military methods. Discussion with people, other countries, and international organizations that support peace and justice is the route to take.

We do not want the South Korean government to support any retaliative warlike actions. The South Korean government must stand for peace and build peace on the Korean peninsula and in the world. We urge the South Korean government to support humanitarian aid to the US but not to take part in any military moves. We urge the governments of North and South Korea to make unsparing efforts to build peace on the Korean peninsula and in the world.

We, women who know about wars, are convinced that violence and military force can never bring peace. In this belief, we are strongly united against any acts of war, and demand peaceful resolution of all conflict. We are working hard to create and maintain peace in the world. We are joining hands with other Korean peace groups and civil organizations and with like-minded organizations around the world.

In closing, we wish to state again that we stand in sympathy and understanding with US citizens at this time of great loss.

Women Making Peace
Korean Church Women United
Goodfriends
Korean Federation for Environmental Movement
The Korean Council For the Women Drafted for Military
Sexual Slavery by Japan
Minkahyup human rights group
Korea Women's Associations United
Kyungki Korea Women's Associations United
Kwangju and Chonnam Korea Women's Associations United
Taegu and Kyungbuk Korea Women's Associations United
Pusan Korea Women's Associations United
Chonbuk Korea Women's Associations United
Kyungnam Women United
Christian Women Minjung Association
Taegu Women's Association
Taejon Women's Association
Pusan Sexual Violence Counselling Center
Pusan Women's Social Institute
Korean Catholic Women Association
Saewoomtuh
Suwon Women's Association
Korean Women's Center For Social Research
Ulsan Women's Association
Korean Women Farmers Association
Cheju Women's Association
Chonbuk Women's Association
Pohang Women's Association
Korea Daycare Center Teacher's Association
Korea Sexual Violence Relief Center
Korea Women Worker Association
Women Link
Korean Women's Studies Institute
Korean Women Theologian Association
Korean Women's Hot Line
Korean Differently Abled Women's United
Taegu Housewives Association For Environment

---------

IF THIS IS PATRIOTISM, KEEP IT
Bush and Company's Grab for a Blank Check

Wednesday September 26, 2001
By Ted Rall
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/uctr/20010926/cm/if_this_is_patriotism_keep_it_1.html

NEW YORK -- We've been treated to some astonishingly vile images over the last two weeks: office workers hurling themselves into a hundred-floor-high abyss. A gaping, smouldering hole in the financial center of our greatest city. George W. Bush passing himself off as a patriot, even as he disassembles the Constitution with the voracious glee of piranha skeletonizing a cow.

"There is no opposition party," Republican congressional leader Trent Lott chillingly announced as Democratic counterpart Tom Daschle watched in silent, cowed assent after Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress. And even if it's mainly the result of our pathetic desire to follow someone -- anyone -- in the aftermath of Sept. 11, there's little opposition out in the cities and towns across our vast continent: Bush's job-approval rating is hovering up there with puppies and sunny days.

It may have seemed meaningless at the time, but now we know why 7,000 people sacrificed their lives -- so that we'd all forget how Bush stole a presidential election. And as it turns out, national amnesia was only the beginning.

"War" was declared against America Sept. 11, Bush told us, and we're declaring "war" right back. War against whom? Afghanistan (news - web sites)? Iraq? Canada? You declare war against a nation-state, not against terrorists living inside a country. You can ask a foreign government to extradite accused terrorists for trial, but you're not likely to get very far if you don't share good diplomatic relations. According to the Constitution, the president doesn't declare war -- Congress does.

Without so much as an invocation of the Constitution-bending War Powers Act -- which would allow the president to commit troops for a limited time -- here we are at "war." Troops are being mobilized and allies are being gathered to fight ... whomever. Whatever. Wherever. Wallowing in a level of cynicism unseen since Lyndon Johnson conned Congress into the Vietnam War based on a Tonkin Gulf incident that never happened, Bush has capitalized on a nation's grief, confusion and anger to extort a political blank check payable in young American blood.

Oh, right. First we have to "get" -- read, murder -- alleged terrorist mastermind and perennial bugaboo Osama bin Laden. We rule out the possibility of his handover to America without substantial evidence," Taliban spokesman Abdul Hai Mutmaen said Sept. 24. This demand is nothing more than any country, not least the United States, would insist upon before extradition; the Bushies call this adherence to basic international law "a stalling tactic." But even if you don't believe that the Afghan government deserves this courtesy after all they've done (whatever that is), how about us? After all, we live -- or lived, before the Supreme Court subverted it last December -- in a democracy. Aren't we entitled to see some definitive proof tying bin Laden and/or the Taliban to the hijack attacks before we send our sons and daughters off to die in the Hindu Kush?

JFK showed us surveillance photos of Soviet missiles in Cuba. TV cameras followed troops into battle in Vietnam. But according to an anonymous defense official quoted by Reuters, "There is a new way of doing business here, and it's not in the sunshine." And the "war" itself will be waged far away from prying journalists. "It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations -- secret even in success," smirks Bush.

We're at war with whoever Bush decides is our enemy. Not only won't he tell us how or why they're our enemies, he won't tell us how or why we're attacking them or how or why our citizens are getting killed trying to do it. Welcome to 'cause-I-said-so-ocracy. "Operations like those mounted by special forces are played out in the shadows," Edward Turzanski, a LaSalle University national security analyst, told Reuters. "It is not even clear that operations in which troops might be killed will be disclosed, at least right away."

"It's important as this war progresses that the American people understand we make decisions based upon classified information, and we will not jeopardize the sources," Bush arrogantly announced Sept. 24. "We will not make the war more difficult to win by publicly disclosing classified information."

For a man who hired goons to physically threaten Florida election officials, Bush is asking an awful lot of us in his one-man war against the world. Let's get this straight: We're supposed to believe this guy's account of "classified" information -- even while he tells us that, from now on, he'll be lying to us for our own good?

If ever there was a classic naked-emperor moment, it was the morning after Bush's address to Congress. A competently delivered, committee-written hack job was breathlessly equated by liberals and conservatives alike to FDR's and Churchill's soaring oratorical highlights. Such is our craving for leadership that we're annointing a doltish daddy's-boy who still won't come clean about his DWI record with the mandate of heaven.

Pacificism is no way to run a superpower. If concrete proof can be presented that a group or individual directly participated in the massacre of thousands of New Yorkers and Washingtonians, those people deserve to be brought to justice or killed in the attempt to apprehend them. I, for one, would shed no tears for the inhumane scum who caused so much misery to so many. But the memories of our dead will be poorly served if we let right-wing extremists bring about the imperial presidency Bush is shoving down our throats. Blank-check democracy, if you stop to think about it, is no democracy at all.



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

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