NUCLEAR
Osama said acquisition of nuke weapons his right
Greens launch legal case to stop UK nuke plant
Slovak nuclear plants remain under increased security
Rain of Depleted Uranium over the Little Girl Island
More than 100 join French Chernobyl cancer claim
Why the Israelis revealing all US nuclear secrets?
Crew successfully raises sunken Russian submarine
NRC INVESTIGATES MISSING SPENT FUEL RODS
Northeast Util says missing nuclear fuel rods safe
Former TVA engineer claims radiation records are missing
MILITARY
Taliban bases attacked
U.S., Britain Launch Airstrikes Against Targets in Afghanistan
Reports: At least 20 dead from strikes
Missile Strikes, Drought, Disease, and Hunger
Bin Laden terror group thought to have Stingers
Kabul and Kandahar Hit In Attacks Through Night
U.S. Looks to Detect Bio Attack
U.S. strikes in Afghanistan stoke defense stocks
Iranian Soldiers Offer Grim Glimpse
Iranian Security Forces Trying to Block Fleeing Afghans
Congressmen consider targeting Iraq
Israel braces for unwanted part in war
In Pakistan Leader Purges Top Ranks Of Military, Spy Services
Mobs Storm Pakistan City
Tajikistan Will Open Airspace, Bases to U.S.
Syria Wins U.N. Security Council Seat
Precision bombing is weapon of choice
Deploying Stealthy B-2's
OTHER
GRANT PROMOTES ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY
Doctors Without Borders calls U.S. food drops 'propaganda'
Aid Agencies Reject 'Risky' US Air Drops
U.S. tightens security to guard against retaliation
Security at the cost of liberty?
To Pin Down Terrorists, Gnats, Spies and Predators
The Pot Calling the Kettle Black
Inventions to Counter Terrorism
Europe awakes to Islamist 'sleeper' cells
Nations Across the World Bolster Defenses
Foreign Policy in Focus
ACTIVISTS
Two Palestinians killed in protests of U.S. action
INDIGENOUS SOLIDARITY DAY
Violent Anti-U.S. Protests Sweep Pakistan
War of Lies
Peace groups protest against strikes on Afghanistan
Anti-war protestors gather in London
In Three Languages, Urgently Chanting for Peace
Interviews Available As Bombing Proceeds: Now What?
-------- NUCLEAR
[Editor's Note: In these days of war rhetoric, it's sometimes difficult to figure out what the truth is. One big truth is that George W. Bush has launched a war which he wants "fought in secret." Legislators aren't being informed unless they're friends of George. We public are filtered a few facts, but they're heavily distorted. If you listened carefully for the first few days after 9-11, even mainstream news anchors were cautioning compassion. The producers have had time to dictate the slant, now, but the internet allows those with time to hear other voices than US media.
A piece of advice for those who believe the rhetoric: It is instructive to tour the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, which shows how Hitler propagandized his people into a war frenzy via the radio. How he would have drooled at the audio-visual tools available today! Use those video cameras, folks, and bring out the drums. See http://prop1.org/history/drumslv.htm.
Some sent messages to President Bush suggesting that he should bombard Afghanistan with food, medicine, VCR's, tapes with statements from other Islamic leaders, generators and fuel, instead of bombs. He's not following the spirit of the suggestion. If you agree, please tell him so: mailto:president@whitehouse.gov. And I hope you write letters to the editor of all these news agencies which inspire you to think and take a stand. Loving you all, et in dc]
---
'Osama said acquisition of nuke weapons his right'
Times of India,
October 8, 2001
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1975797385
LONDON: In an interview given three years ago, excerpts of which were published on Sunday, terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden said it was his right to acquire nuclear weapons in his battle against Americans. "At a time when Israel stocks hundreds of nuclear warheads and when the western crusaders control a large percentage of such weapons, we do not consider this an accusation, but a right and we reject anyone who accuses us of this," Bin Laden had told Qatari channel Al-Jazeera in 1998, excerpts of which were published in The Sunday Telegraph. Asked specifically how true were newspaper reports that he sought to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, he said: "We are seeking to drive them (the US) out of our Islamic nations and prevent them from dominating us. We believe that this right to defend oneself is the right of all human beings." To a query on the bombings of US embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania for which Washington holds him responsible, he said those who follow the international news would have worked out how much support there is in the Islamic world for attacks against Americans, even though people were saddened by the deaths of some innocent civilians of those countries. "But it was clear that there was huge rejoicing and satisfaction in the Islamic world," he said.( PTI )
-------- britain
Greens launch legal case to stop UK nuke plant
Planet Ark
UK: October 8, 2001
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12683/story.htm
LONDON - Environment groups Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have started legal action to stop Britain from opening a controversial nuclear fuel manufacturing plant at Sellafield in northwest England.
The groups said they were seeking judicial review of the government's decision last week to allow British Nuclear Fuels to begin operations at its mixed oxide (MOX) plant.
"The government's decision to allow the MOX plant to open is dangerous, uneconomic and perverse," said Charles Secrett, director of Friends of the Earth in statement.
"It makes the world an even more dangerous place."
The decision prompted a storm of protest in Ireland where Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern promised last weekto raise the issue with his British counterpart Tony Blair and to take legal action to halt the plant.
Ireland fears a nuclear accident at Sellafield, some 60 miles (96 km) from the Irish coast, and since the suicide attacks on the United States on September 11, the threat of a similar assault on the plant has been raised.
Britain said it gave the go-ahead to the project because the economic case for opening it outweighed the social and environmental detriments.
The plant takes plutonium from BNFL's neighbouring THORP reprocessing plant to make MOX fuel for nuclear power stations.
The MOX plant was completed in 1996 but has lain idle ever since. There have been five reviews of its fate in the last four years.
Green groups argue the economic costs of the project have been distorted as the government has disregarded construction costs. They say there is insufficient evidence that potential customers will materialise.
-------- czech republic
Slovak nuclear plants remain under increased security
October 8, 2001
Source: TASR web site, Bratislava, in English
http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=displaynews&doc_id=NR20011008670.2_ab4700058a4dafab
Bratislava, 8 October: Slovakia's nuclear power plants and other facilities of Slovak Electric (SE) are under increased security, an SE spokesperson told the TASR news agency on Monday [8 October], a day after the US launched attacks against Afghanistan."Since 11 September, SE has been cooperating with the Defence Ministry and Interior Ministry in all areas" said the spokesman. Following the 11 September terrorist attacks in America, Slovakia has stepped up security around all strategic sites. Flight corridors have been closed directly above the nuclear plants Bohunice, near Trnava, and Mochovce, near Levice, and all non-work visits to the plants have been banned.
Gas utility (SPP) has not taken additional security precautions for gas pipelines in response to the airstrikes in Afghanistan."Intensive surveillance has been introduced since 11 September. Checks of regulatory stations are more frequent and a full emergency staff is on duty" an SPP spokesperson told the TASR news agency. As of 12 September, the SPP suspended all maintenance and special works on the pipeline that carries Russian gas to Western Europe, and focused resources on monitoring the gas network.
-------- depleted uranium
Query re "Rain of Depleted Uranium over the Little Girl Island
(Vieques, la isla nena)"
From: John Lindsay-Poland <forlatam@igc.org>
Monday, October 08, 2001 6:04 PM
Hi. I would be interested in responses to this article from folks in the DU network who are well informed. The article makes some assertions that I am not sure about - and would be important if confirmed. Can you verify or refute the information here?
Thanks!
John - mailto:forlatam@igc.org -- Fellowship of Reconciliation Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean 2017 Mission St. #305, San Francisco, CA 94110 Tel: 415-495-6334 Fax: 415-495-5628 Web: http://www.forusa.org/
_
Rain of Depleted Uranium over the Little Girl Island (Vieques, la isla nena)
August 26, 2001
by Marta Villaizán Montalvo
(English translation by Déborah Berman Santana)
"We will persuade our allies that this has been a responsible thing to do, and we intend to continue to use this depleted uranium". William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense DefenseLINK, 11/enero/2001
http://www.viequeslibre.addr.comhttp://www.viequeslibre.addr.com
The US Navy has for years conducted weapons tests with "depleted uranium" (DU) projectiles in Vieques, without warning the Puerto Rico government nor the people of Vieques about the danger that this type of practice represents.
Notable among the tests and experiments with DU weapons in the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training (Testing) Facility (AFWTF), is the technical evaluation of the "Navy's Phalanx Block 1B" which was conducted from February 3-12, 1999.(1) This system, designed to defend the naval fleet from possible enemy missile attacks, is capable of shooting 4,5000 DU projectiles per minute. A second system test, known as OPEVAL (Operational Evaluation), was programmed to commence april 19, 1999, precisely the date that David Sanes was killed (in Vieques). In its September 2000 edition the official magazine Sea Power (Navy League of the United States) the success of this second test. (2) An official press release of the Naval Sea Systems Command Wire Service (NAVSEA) on March 5, 1999, described te tesst conducted in February:
"The Navy's Phalanx Block 1B weapon system recently completed a highly successful surface mode technical evaluation (TECHEVAL) aboard USS Underwood (FFG 36) at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (AFWTF) in Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico between Feb. 3 and Feb. 12. The operations consisted of day and night tracking operations against high-speed boats, helicopters and light general aviation aircraft. Day and night firing operations were conducted against remote controlled surface craft and remote controlled half scale aircraft. All weapon system requirements were exceeded with the Underwood's Block 1B operating well above specifications. Testing demonstrated that there was no degradation to Phalanx's primary anti-ship missiles defense mission.(3)"
But the news that both tests were conducted in Vieques is not the most important fact in this official comunique.What is tryly important,and even "covenient" for the Navy, is that the document says nothing about the projectiles used. The absence of information about munitiions in the official documents, whether by design or by carelessness, is much more important than it appears on first glance.According to the "Navy Fact File" (official publication), the Phalanx cannon is a Gatling M-61A1 Vulcan which shoots 4,500 projectiles per minute in its most advanced model.(4) Its caliber is 20mm and the munitions are MK149 (Depleted Uranium sub-caliber penetrator). Nonetheless, the specifications add that DU was substituted with tungsten in 1988. Well, just like nearly all of the Navy's "official" data, the Tungsten issue should be viewed with some skepticism.
In 1999, Vladimir S. Zajic, Doctor of Nuclear Medicine who worked with radioactive tests for Brookhaven National Laboratory, writes about both mateirals in his essay Review of Radioactivity, Military Use, and Health Effects of Depleted Uranium. In Chapter 3 Dr Zajic writes the following:
"In the early 1970's, the US Army began researching the use of depleted uranium metal in kinetic energy penetrators and tank armor. High density materials such as tungsten were considered, however, DU was ultimately selected due to its availability and pyrophoricity. While 50% of tungsten has to be imported, mainly from China, DU is provided for free to arms manufacturers. Tungsten also has much higher melting point (3410ºC) than uranium (1132ºC) and lacks pyrophoricity. Consequently, a tungsten projectile becomes blunt on impact and is less effective in piercing armor.(5)"
The idea here is that DU is "cheaper" than tungsten, and we all know that that word is very much appreciated by the US weapons industrial complex. If something is "cheaper" in their own territory, who could believe that they would prefer to buy the raw material from CHINA?
Dr. Zajic isn't the only one that that is trying to prove that the use of DU in weapons and munitions built in the US is a question of dollars and cents. Dozens fo pages can be found in the Internet from support groups, environmentalists, scientists, etc., who have done excellent studies on this theme. Nonetheless, one of these caught my attention:the group of professors and students from the School of social Ecology of the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Their Internet page An Inquiry into the Use of Depleted Uranium in Weapons, says the following:
"The development of DU weapons by the US Military began in the 1970's, with Britain starting test firing of DU weapons in 1980. The most important quality of DU is its extreme density. DU is two and a half to three times as heavy as steel. This density allows DU to easily pierce through the armor in tanks and other military vehicles. An additional attraction of DU is its cheapness. The stockpiles of DU built up by the nuclear industry provide cheap material for munitions production, sparing the nuclear industry the headache and expense of long-term storage. Instead they are able to dump their nuclear waste on a third world country.(6)"
However (and please forgive me, cited scientists!) we must honor the truth. The US Defense Department has replaced DU with tungsten in the Phalanx. what has happened is that the replacement is only for a specific model (7). that is to say, for a model that has barely begun to be marketed. This leaves out the 192 US ships that have 372 installed systems, and many ships from 20 other countries, who have 288 systems.(8)
On the other hand, and just as important, there exists (or they try to make us bleieve exists) a problem of inventory excess, and that that is the reasong that they still use DU. For example, the page for the Commander Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, (undated archival notice) says that even though DU for Phalanx was replaced by tungsten, the inventory for DU projectiles in the US arsenal will last until 1996.(9) This is false. DU munitions and projectiles are being made every day in the US. This is proven by General Dynamics, one of the most important weapons industrialists, which states in its Internet page that they have 20,000,000 "rounds" of MK149 munitions for the exclusive use of the U.S. Navy's Phalanx Anti-Ship Missile Defense System.(10)
The following is copied from the commercial page of General Dynamics:
"20MM MK149 Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot The 20mm MK149 was developed with a significant anti-armor capability, optimized exterior ballistic performance and short time-of-flight. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems has produced in excess of 20,000,000 rounds of MK149 ammunition for the U.S. Navy's Phalanx Anti-Ship Missile Defense System.(11)"
Now, companies like General Dynamics generate millions in profits in production of DU projectiles. In view of this reality, who can believe that this economic benefit is due only to direct sales to the Defense Department of a few thousand projectiles for the Phalanx Block System? The answer is NO. DU is one of the arms and systems components that the US military complex and its allies use daily in their wars, tests, and exercises. Production is, of course, constant. According to the magazine The Economist, in its june 3 2000 editorial, there exists today a great quantity of DU munitions available for sale.(12) and if this wasn't enough, many of the large weapons and missiles have a "DU penetrator" in the nose to stabilize them during flight.(13) Among others are noted the Tomahawk Land-Attack Cruise Missile (TLAM) (the following cited website shows a test of this missile in California's San clemente island:(14)
As can be observed upon seeing this missile launch, when the missile is fired the DU particulates are dispersed. even if the objective is not destroyed. the DU particulates remain in the environment. About the particulates The Economist says:
These particles can also be transported over long distances, up to 30 miles, in moderate breezes. There are examples of such transport in the military and civilian literature. Once DU dust has been released it cannot be controlled nor can its subsequent distribution be predicted. It presents a hazard to combatants and non-combatants, military and civilian, friend and foe alike. It will remain a continuing hazard, in the environment, for many years (tens, hundreds, thousands?) to come.(15)
Therefore, friends, we must ask, what is happening here with all of the DU? On one hand the military says that DU will be replaced with something less dangerous, while on the other hand (their corporate allies) continues large-scale production of DU weapons and munitions. Who is deceiving - or trying to deceive - whom? the answer is obvious, friends. All this confusion is nothing more or less than an attempt to silence the voice of international public opinion.
Because of the controversy arising last year due to the death of allied soldiers, both the US and NATO agreed to demonstrate to the world that DU did not have anything to do with the deaths of these soldiers. (16) As part of their strategy they conducted "studies", nearly all signed and supported by "prestigious" scientists and institutions in the US. (17) Of course, international reaction to their arguments (some as ridiculous as saying that DUU is 40% less radioactive than natural uranium, which we live with every day) was complete rejection of this version. (18) One of the groups that most strongly criticized the US posture as inhumane, was the group Ecologists in Action, located in Spain. (19) For this organization " there exist sufficient indications that demonstrate the negative effects for the civilian population and the environment of this type of DU weapons, as well as for the soldiers on the side that used them. the US Defense department's response to the objections of such groups was not long in coming. In a January 11, 2001 press conference, Defense Secretary William Cohen (days before losing his job in the change of administration) declared that the US armed forces had for decades been using DU weapons in combat planes and ships, and that their intention was to continue using them. (20) so , nothing new, the old song: if public opinion hardens, we harden as well." and we Puerto Ricans know this song all too well.
But what does this whole discussion have to do with DU use in Vieques? The answer is that it has much more to do with the the "little girl island (Isla Nena)" than we imagine.
To begin: during my research what grabbed my attention was the fact that the discussion of the use and danger of DU arms and munitions had been limited to the official documents about the cases of the Gulf War and the Balkans. (21) I should state that I recognize the importance of these two cases, in which so many innocent people died or are dying from the effects of this poison. But what about places such as Vieques, which for 60 years has had to put up with test after test of the weapons which get used in the wars? What about Vieques, the place where clients of the Defense Department can "Try before Buy"?(22) Total silence.
Nonetheless, other Internet pages, especially those dedicated to environmental protection, have much valuable information. in one of them I found the article "Depleted Uranium: Radioactive Residue in the Desert", whose author, John J. Miller, Coordinator of the International Clearinghouse on the Military and the Environment, discusses DU contamination "at home." (23) Of course, "at home means the US (the 50 states) and the military bases there. Vieques is not mentioned, but it still is a good point of departure for our cause. Says pero es un buen punto de partida para nuestra causa. Dice John J. Miller:
In the United States, DU shells are regularly used in training and tested after production, threatening the health of not only soldiers, but civilians, livestock and wildlife. According to Geoffrey Sea of In Vivo, a radiation health research group, "Depleted uranium munitions have caused serious contamination problems in every community in which they have been tested."(24)
Later Miller mentions contamination in testing places in the US:
In the U.S., groundwater contamination has been found near a test site in Minnesota. In Socorro, New Mexico, at another test site, U-238 has contaminated a pond used to irrigate a golf course. The Stillwater, Nevada wildlife refuge, sits next to Bravo 20, a Navy bombing range. A high radionuclide count was measured at the refuge recently. In 1986, the entire area was flooded causing any contaminants from Bravo 20 to have entered the refuge. In 1980, workers at a Jonesboro, Tennessee plant which handles only DU had the highest radiation exposures of any nuclear workers in the nation. A similar plant near Albany, was forced to close in 1980 by the state of New York because it regularly exceeded its radioactive emission limit.(25)
Finally, I want to share with you Miller's words that describe the damage that this material causes in the human body, especially in children:
DU is especially dangerous when inhaled, or enters the body through a wound or by swallowing. While U-238's alpha radiation does not travel far (a piece of paper or the skin can stop it), it can cause great a deal of damage once in the body, where it can cause cancer and genetic defects. Unlike an X-ray, which provides a brief exposure, the radiation from uranium continues to assault the body's cells and their nuclei. Children are especially vulnerable, because their cells are dividing rapidly as they grow. In addition to its radioactive dangers, uranium is chemically toxic like lead. The body deals with uranium like calcium. Large doses can cause heavy metal poisoning; lower doses can damage kidneys or the lungs. The uranium is permanently deposited in the bones and can cross the placenta.(26)
Final considerations
This investigation represents a new challenge for all of us. Of course, it is only an introduction to the theme of depleted Uranium in Puerto Rico, and there remains much to investigate, much to addS but the fact that we already have some ducuments that corroborate that DU has been used in Vieques, and that the practice is being continued, provides sufficient motive for our struggle to take on a new path. A path, if we wish to see it this way, that is much more aggressive and conscious of what is happening, and that the Navy should know that it is unacceptable to keep putting in danger the lives of so many people and their future generations.
I believe - and this is a very personal opinion - that the time has come to stop playing the aggressor's game. that we do not permit them to keep deceiving us with the myth of National Defense and the so-called use of 'inert' bombs. It's time for analysts, politicians, reporters, religious leaders, environmentalists, and all people who in one form or other have access to the media and othe rmeans of communication, to confront the Navy with the evidence in our hands, and that we should say with one voice that we no longer believe their lies. Vieques is in danger of dying, friends, and it is time to stop the rain of Depleted Uranium over the Isla Nena.
PEACE AND HEALTH FOE VIEQUES!
Notes
1.See http://www.navsea.navy.mil/wire/wire9909.html
2. "RAM and Phalanx: System of Systems Testing", in, http://www.navyleague.org/seapower/sept00/frick.htm
3. NAVSEA, op.cit.
4.see http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wepphal.html
5. Recomiendo leer el ensayo completo en, http://vzajic.tripod.com/
6.see, http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/8777/index.html
7. the advanced model is 20MM MK 244 Mod 0 ELC. see announcement in : http://prmx.com/mca.html
8. Sea Power, op.cit.
9. See, http://www.spear.navy.mil/ships/1hd5/nociws.htm
10. Page, prmx.com, op.cit. As a curious data, see the contributions of General Dynamics Corp. to the two principal parties in the US in, Soft Money Laundromat, http://www.commoncause.org/laundromat
11. Copied from, prmx.com, Ibid.
12. Published en, http://prop1.org/nucnews/2000nn/000603nn.htm
13. Ver, "Applications", en, http://www.ratical.org/radiation/vzajic/3rdchapter.html
14. Foto tomada de la página oficial NAVSEA, http://www.navsea.navy.mil/news/features/splendid.html
15. The Economist, op.cit.
16.various article in, NATO Information: Depleted Uranium, http://www.nato.int/du/home.htm
17.in theis theme see, Gulf War and Health, publicado (texto completo) por National Academy Press, en, http://books.nap.edu/books/030907178X/html/index.html
18. News Articles, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug1999/n08131999_9908131.html
19. Uranio Empobrecido / Ecologistas en Acción, http://www.nodo50.org/ecologistas/accion/energia/du-6.htm
20. "Cohen: Handled Properly, DU Poses No Risk", http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2001/n01112001_200101111.html
21. for a good list of links see, http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_index.htm
22. announcement in pages of Raytheon, http://www.raytheon.com/es/esproducts/dsssram/dsssram.htm
23. "Depleted Uranium: Radioactive Residue in the Desert", http://www.kakarigi.net/pnews/mun.htm
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
___________________________________
other DU arms and munitions
LINKS
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html
http://www.tacom.army.mil/gcss/pmabrams/index1.htm
http://www.cs.net/panzer/panzergruppe/jan96.htm
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/A_10_OA_10_Thunderbolt_II.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/index.html
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-25mm.html
http://www.rocket.com/1ca.html
-------- france
More than 100 join French Chernobyl cancer claim
Planet Ark
FRANCE: October 8, 2001
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12700/story.htm
PARIS - More than 100 people filed lawsuits against the French government last week accusing it of failing to warn them of the risks following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster which they say caused cancer and other illnesses.
The 125 plaintiffs joined an existing investigation into the effects in France of radioactive fallout from the world's worst nuclear disaster.
The Paris prosecutor's office ordered an investigation in July after a group of 51 plaintiffs with thyroid ailments filed a suit against the government for involuntary physical injury and wilful disregard of duty to ensure public safety.
They alleged French authorities failed to warn the public of the health risks after a radioactive cloud drifted west from Chernobyl in Ukraine when a reactor exploded in April 1986.
Under French law, a probe is one step short of charges.
A lawyer for the new plaintiffs said they were mostly from Paris, eastern France and Corsica, the regions worst affected.
The plant in Ukraine shut down for good last December.
Last year a 31-year-old Frenchman suffering from thyroid cancer, Yohann van Waeyenberghe, lost an attempt to have criminal proceedings launched against French officials for alleged bodily harm in connection with Chernobyl.
Radioactivity from the explosion in Ukraine drifted across France between April 27 and May 5, 1986.
-------- israel
Why the Israelis revealing all US nuclear secrets?
By Nusrat Javeed,
October 8, 2001
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/oct2001-daily/08-10-2001/main/main5.htm
ISLAMABAD: Some Islamabad-based diplomats from countries actively supporting the US-led 'war on terror' are not willing to confirm or refute reports that US forces now located in Central Asia and ready to jump into Afghanistan, have already been armed with "tactical nuclear weapons."
But Debka, an Israel-based news and intelligence analysis portal, is already claiming that "US nuclear weapons have been deployed in four former Soviet Central Asian bases: the military air facility at Tuzel, 15 km (10 miles) northwest of the Uzbek capital, Tashkent; at Kagady in the Termez region; in Khandabad, near the city of Karshi; and at the military air base in Dushanbe (the capital of Tajikistan)."
Without specifying the mark, design and calibre of the said weapons, the Israeli news portal only described the supposedly deployed weapons as: "small neutron bombs, which emit strong radiation, nuclear mines, shells, and other nuclear ammunition suited to commando warfare in mountainous terrain."
Analysts and strategists are wondering whether America was again on the verge of becoming the first country to use neutron bombs, after it acquired the infamy of dropping the first atom bomb in Japan, something it finds embarrassing to live with even today.
Debka also claimed that the decision to deploy the tactical weapons, before the US and its allied forces really move to get Osama and his Al-Qaeda, had been agreed during the 70-minute conversation, the US president had on phone with his Russian counterpart on September 23. The News had already reported Thursday that as a consequence of the said talk, Pushtu and the Dari speaking troops of Russia joined the Delta and Seal commandos of the USA in crawling up to the heights of Pamir, where the US and its allies are getting convinced Osama and his diehard loyalists are maintaining a hi-tech and state of the art command and control center.
But Debka seems to believe that the Russian role in 'war against terror' is not limited to sharing intelligence on Osama and his possible hideouts in Afghanistan. Lending some of its Pushtu and Dari speaking troops for reaching these sites is not the end of the story either. The "strategic partnership" between the arch-rivals of the cold war rather appears growing on multiple fronts.
As quid-pro-quo to Russia's agreeing on the deployment of tactical weapons in areas, Moscow jealously considers its "sphere of influence," Putin also got "no objections" from President Bush for encircling independence seeking Chechnya with ready-to-use tactical weapons. Debka even claims that parallel to the deployment of tactical weapons by the USA in Central Asian territory, Moscow had also completed putting the same kind of the lethal material around Chechnya.
They are reported to have been deployed at "Stavropol, northwest of Chechnya, the Codowta base in the Georgian south, and Mozdok in northern Osetia." Moscow and Washington are not willing to discuss a thing with journalists, regarding their collaborative moves in 'war against terrorism.' Yet, Debka could claim to have it from unnamed "military sources" that the USA would not be the first to use the nuclear weapons in Afghanistan.
They are deployed for use, "only in certain extreme circumstances," which have been described like this: (1) To counter a move by bin Laden's men to bring out nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against the US forces fighting inside Afghanistan. (2) In case of a chemical or biological assault "by the Taliban against Pakistan." (3) Should groups of bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network -- either in Central Asia or the Balkans -- wield these weapons of mass destruction against US military targets or US nuclear arms in other parts of the world. And (4), if using them is the only way to save heavy American combat casualties.
With the condition of not named, a respected defence analyst of Pakistan agreed with the claim that the US would only use the "tactical weapons" in case of the "extreme circumstances" described above. Though, he wasn't very sure that the US had already completed the deployment of "the nuke-related goodies" so close to Afghanistan. "Hawks around Dick Cheney (The US Vice President) are dying to nuke Afghanistan, no doubt. They ask for it for assuaging the blind ire of the US public over the suicide-hijack attacks of September 11, which the jingoistic media is fuelling every minute.
But the use of the neutron bomb at Osama-related sites in Afghanistan may only come in dismal circumstances," explained the expert. The US has a variety of air-to-surface "smart bombs," which can eliminate the smallest concentration of the enemy troops without destroying the physical structures and buildings around.
"But the radiation wouldn't stop after elimination of the enemy troops," stressed the expert. In simple terms that means, the expert went on, "the US ground forces can't land at spots where the smart bombs have been dropped. At least for many months to come. Till, you get very sure that radiation had completely stopped."
Some other defence sources, The News talked to Sunday agreed with our expert. "After bombing the suspected hide outs of Osama and his group in Afghanistan, the US needs to quickly land its ground troops at the bombed spots. To check out whether Osama, or any of his dreaded lieutenant, is really dead. The use of nuclear bombs, how 'smart' they may be, would cancel out the option of physically verifying whether Osama is really dead by sifting through the dead bodies at the bombed spots," they all believed.
To insist that the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan for getting Osama was not the preferable option, some experts also referred to the Sunday edition of The Observer, London. After briefed by the "sources in the intelligence community," the paper reported: "An absolute priority (for the US and its allied troops in Afghanistan) had to be placed on his (Osama's) delivery for trial in the US, or else production of a forensically verifiable corpse."
Instead of widespread military strikes against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, the Observer maintains, the US prefers to focus its act on getting Osama. "Officials in the Justice Department and intelligence services believe that the bin Laden network, still operative in cells across the globe, would implode if he were beheaded. Cut off the snake's head and the body shrivels up," reports the paper.
The focused moves of getting Osama, "Dead or alive" as the US president had declared like a true Texan, do not cancel out the possibility of deploying tactical weapons as part of the military build up in Central Asia, however. Though the USSR is no more for almost a decade, almost each leader of the newly liberated Central Asian states runs his country through the Stalinist methods of "total control." The notions of transparency and free press are still too alien to these countries.
The governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are still not willing even to officially confirm the news stories, reported by The Washington Post and CNN, that over 1,000 American light infantry troops had already landed in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan for the ultimate objective of crossing into Afghanistan.
No journalist should expect them to discuss reports, claiming the deployment of tactical weapons on their soil, therefore. Yet, the eyes trained to get solid hints to "real stories" by reading the fine print of the news and articles printed in the Soviet press during the cold war days, may get a sort of confirmation to reports that Osama-specific tactical weapons had been deployed in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan through analyzing a "comment."
Talking to Russian Public TV on October 2, Rustam Jumaev, the press secretary of the Uzbek president denied "rumours" that the US Special Forces had landed in Uzbekistan. But 'denying' the said 'rumors' he also revealed: "The men mistaken for special forces were, in fact, US customs officers who were training Uzbek border troops in ways to prevent the smuggling of nuclear weapons and radioactive material." He did not bother to tell as to when, how and from where "the US custom officers entered Uzbekistan." The CIA-financed Radio Free Europe also made fun of the 'denials,' the Tajik government keeps issuing regarding the presence of the US troops on its soil.
"In the process (of denying the troop deployment stories)," said one of its commentators in the weekly report on Central Asia Sunday, "unwittingly highlighted (are) the questions whether the (military) airport in (Dushanbe), the largest in the country and host to a squadron of Russian jets, was actually under Tajik control or joint Russian-Tajik jurisdiction, as some Russian sources have indicated."
The Radio went on: "Last week Russian military officials in Tajikistan made no bones about the fact that they were firmly in control of the republic's security, with announcements that 1,500 Russian soldiers were being transferred from the Volga-Urals Military District to serve with the 201st Motor-Rifle Division based in Tajikistan, and that the Afghan-Tajik border was being reinforced."
Altogether 7,000 servicemen of the 201st Division have been present in Tajikistan for many months. Coming of another 1,500 to this country almost confirms The News story of Thursday that Pushtu and Dari speaking troops of the same division had been detached to enter Afghanistan and crawl up to the Pamir mountains, for reaching the suspected hideouts of Osama.
-------- russia
Crew successfully raises sunken Russian submarine
USA TODAY
10/08/2001
The Associated Press
http://usatoday.com/news/world/2001/10/08/kursk.htm
MURMANSK, Russia (AP) - A daring effort to raise the Kursk nuclear submarine from the Barents Sea floor ended successfully Monday when a Dutch consortium pulled it to a giant barge for transportation to a dry dock more than a year after it sank.
The lifting began shortly before 4 a.m. Moscow time, and it took the Dutch Mammoet-Smit International Consortium about 15 hours to complete the operation. The submarine was lifted on steel cables lowered from the Giant 4 barge and put in clamps under the barge, its protruding conning tower and tail fins tightly fitting into niches carved in the barge.
Vice Adm. Mikhail Motsak, the Russian naval commander overseeing the recovery operation, said the Kursk should arrive in harbor of the town of Roslyakovo, near Murmansk, midday Wednesday provided the weather stays calm, allowing the salvage team to take the shortest route possible.
"We know the weather forecast and will go directly to the Kola Bay," Motsak said.
If the seas get rough, the barge may take a longer journey, allowing it to wait out a storm near the coast. Weather showed a trend toward worsening on Monday evening, with snow flurries covering Murmansk with a thin, white film.
The lifting went on exceptionally smoothly and trouble-free in the background of repeated technical problems and delays throughout the preceding three-month preparatory work. Experts feared it would be difficult to overcome the force of the sediment on the sea bottom, but that posed no difficulty.
Larissa van Seumeren, a spokeswoman for Mammoet-Smit, said the submarine was less deeply embedded in the seabed than believed. "We started to pull and there was almost no suction," she said. "It was lifted up easily."
Throughout the lifting, remote-controlled cameras and divers inspected the submarine, checking gauges monitoring radiation and the vessel's angle in relation to the barge, said Capt. Igor Babenko, a spokesman for the Russian Northern Fleet.
"The lifting has gone without a hitch. The divers have inspected the submarine and found no flaws in the salvage equipment," Babenko said.
While the submarine was still being lifted, the barge pulled up its eight anchors and began drifting slowly to choose the optimum position to minimize roll. The Kursk will now be towed to the dry dock in Roslyakovo at a speed of about 3 knots per hour, Motsak said.
The lifting was originally set for Sept. 15, but delayed repeatedly because of storms and technical difficulties. The Dutch consortium previously severed the submarine's mangled forward section, which will be left on the seabed because of concern that it might have broken off and destabilized the lifting.
Each of the 26 cables lowered from the barge and plugged into the holes cut in the Kursk's hull is a bundle of 54 super-strong steel ropes. A central computer was controlling every inch of lifting, neatly balancing the required effort between lifting cables.
No holes were cut in the Kursk's reactor compartment housing twin nuclear reactors. The Russian Navy and the salvage team say the reactors have been safely shut down and posed no threat to the salvage effort.
"The radiation situation has remained normal," van Seumeren said.
Other submarines have been lifted in the past, but none has been comparable in size to the giant, 18,000-ton Kursk. Five other nuclear submarines - two American and three Russian - that have sunk in the past remained buried at depths of up to 16,000 feet because raising them would have been enormously expensive.
The Kursk sank just 356 feet below the surface. The salvage operation is costing the Russian government about $65 million.
The government said the Kursk must be raised to avoid any potential danger to the environment from its nuclear reactors and to shipping because of its position in shallow waters. The navy also hopes to determine the cause of the Kursk's sinking, which remains unknown.
The Kursk, one of Russia's most modern submarines, exploded and sank in August 2000 during naval maneuvers, killing its entire 118-man crew. Once it is put in dock, the navy will remove the remains of the crew and 22 Granit supersonic cruise missiles.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- connecticut
NRC INVESTIGATES MISSING SPENT FUEL RODS
October 8, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-08-09.html
WATERFORD, Connecticut, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is sending a team to the Millstone Unit 1 nuclear power plant to evaluate the comprehensiveness of Northeast Utilites' investigation into the circumstances surrounding the loss of two fuel rods.
The NRC team will arrive at the Millstone plant on Tuesday. The four member team will spend about two weeks on site and also will evaluate the company's analysis of the root cause of the loss of the rods.
Northeast Utilities had been the operator of the three nuclear units at Millstone Station until the plants were sold, and the operating license transferred to, Dominion Nuclear last spring.
On December 15, 2000, Northeast Utilities informed the NRC in writing that it could not account for two spent fuel rods which had been stored in the Millstone Unit 1spent fuel pool. Records indicate the rods were last verified to be in the pool in 1980; however, there was no documentation of their presence in the pool beyond that time.
A report sent to the NRC by Dominion this week showed that, although the exact location of the rods could not be determined, it is likely that they are at one of four sites, including two low level waste disposal sites and two spent fuel pools, one of which is at Millstone 1.
Neither the companies nor the NRC believe the material was stolen. There are radiological security controls at nuclear power plants such as Millstone that make theft dangerous, difficult and "highly unlikely," the NRC said.
The NRC does not believe that a public health and safety problem exists based on the probable locations of the spent fuel rods. The rods would not pose any risk of creating nuclear weapons due to their low uranium and plutonium content, the agency said.
The NRC team will issue an inspection report about 30 days of the completion of the inspection.
-------- new york
Northeast Util says missing nuclear fuel rods safe
Planet Ark
USA: October 8, 2001
Story by Scott DiSavino
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12682/story.htm
NEW YORK - After failing to locate two missing fuel rods from the Millstone nuclear station in Connecticut after a 10-month search, Northeast Utilities said last week the rods are safe at one of four possible U.S. locations.
The company also emphasized the rods could not have been stolen and, in any case, could not be turned into nuclear weapons.
"Our investigation shows the two (rods) are safely stored," Northeast Utilities spokeswoman Deborah Beauchamp told Reuters.
In a statement, Northeast Utilities of Berlin, Conn. concluded the rods are safely stored in one of four locations: radioactive waste disposal facilities in either South Carolina or Washington state, at a General Electric Co. nuclear facility in Pleasanton, Calif., or still in the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel pool.
The company emphasized the rods would not pose a threat to public health and safety or the environment at any of the four locations.
"Due to radiation levels and other security measures, the fuel (rods) could not have been removed from the spent fuel pool in anything other than a specially designed shipping container," said Frank Rothen, Northeast Utilities' vice president for nuclear services.
"Any removal other than by authorized personnel using a heavily shielded container would have been detected by a variety of means," Rothen added.
In a separate statement, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which oversees the safe operation of the nation's nuclear reactors, said: "The rods would not pose any risk of proliferating nuclear weapons due to their low uranium and plutonium content."
HOW THE RODS WERE LOST
The missing rods are about 1/2 inch in diameter and 158 inches, or about 13 feet long, and are filled with uranium pellets that trigger the atomic reaction that produces heat and powers a reactor's turbines.
When spent fuel is removed from a reactor, it is stored in steel-lined cooling pools.
From 1972 to 1980, Northeast Utilities' records show the rods, which were slightly damaged, were stored in the pool at Millstone's now-shut unit 1.
By September 1980, however, the rods had disappeared from the records, and were no longer where old records said they should have been.
Northeast's Beauchamp said it was possible the pins may have been mistaken for another piece of equipment, cut up and removed from the pool and sent to one of the other three locations.
She said the rods are similar in size and shape to low power range monitors, which are also stored in the spent fuel pool.
"These are the only locations that nuclear material from Millstone was sent to, so it must be safely stored in one of these locations or still in the spent fuel pool," Beauchamp said, noting there were about 167,000 rods and other material in the spent fuel pool.
Northeast Utilities sold the Millstone station to Richmond, Va.-based energy giant Dominion earlier this year and turned over its report on the missing rods to Dominion this week.
Dominion, in turn, forwarded the report to the NRC for further investigation.
The NRC said in its statement it will send a team to Millstone next week for about two weeks to evaluate Northeast Utilities' investigation into the missing rods.
Millstone unit 1 was a 660-megawatt (MW) boiling water reactor that began commercial operation in December 1970. The plant ceased operations in 1995.
Two other units at the Millstone station are operating - the 870-MW unit 2 and the 1,154-MW unit 3 - making Millstone the largest nuclear station in New England.
-------- tennessee
Former TVA engineer claims radiation records are missing
October 8, 2001
By Duncan Mansfield,
Associated Press Writer
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/100801/stt_1008010028.html</A>
KNOXVILLE-- A former Tennessee Valley Authority engineer claims radiation exposure records for thousands of TVA nuclear workers dating back to the 1970s could be missing or wrong.
"The problem existed but everyone ran from it," said Ronald Grover, who discovered discrepancies and gaps in the data when he was assigned to co-manage a massive inventory of the personal dose records in 1999.
According to Grover, the inventory of records scattered among paper files, microfilm and computer databases found:
-- Conflicting dose records for as many as 11,320 TVA workers or contractors for the period 1970 to 1984.
-- Missing documentation for as many as 2,088 workers known to have "exceeded dose limits."
-- A pattern of missing records from critical times, including a 1975 fire at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Decatur, Ala., and a major pipe break at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant near Chattanooga in the early 1980s.
The federal utility says all records are in order.
"His allegations are either untrue or only tell part of the story because whenever a dose record (with a problem) was identified it was corrected," TVA spokesman Gil Francis said.
But the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington watchdog group, on Monday formally asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to investigate, saying the allegations suggest "a very serious violation of federal regulations created to protect the health of nuclear workers."
"It has entered our allegation process, so we will be reviewing it," said Ken Clark, a spokesman for the NRC's regional office in Atlanta. He wouldn't elaborate.
Grover, 47, didn't ask for the inventory project. He contends it was a no-win assignment for supporting another TVA whistleblower.
Grover has sued TVA for discrimination over his firing in April. TVA alleges he "misused TVA property (and) conducted personal business on TVA time" while on loan to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations in Atlanta in 1996 and 1997.
Grover claims this amounted to phone charges and business expenses he either repaid or fully reported, and an interest in some rental homes in Connecticut and Kansas City, where his mother lives, that he fully declared.
The 1999 assignment to co-manage the records inventory project, which had been dragging on for three or four years at that point, was a setup to get rid of him, his discrimination complaint alleges.
"TVA management wanted Mr. Grover to 'take the fall' for the project if he went along with the ongoing cover-up, or, alternatively, to appear as the person responsible for the failure to complete the program in a timely manner," the complaint said.
Francis countered that "over the course of this project, we briefed the NRC and we conducted routine and special inspections on this thing. Contrary to (Grover's allegations), we allocated additional time to make sure it was done and done right."
A U.S. Naval Academy graduate and veteran of the Navy nuclear program, Grover was chemistry manager in corporate engineering at the New York Power Authority before he arrived at TVA's power offices in Chattanooga in 1994 with high hopes of climbing TVA's nuclear ladder.
But his future at TVA apparently began to fade two years later after Grover testified on behalf of whistleblower Gary Fiser, a subordinate who claimed he was passed over for promotion because he raised safety concerns. The NRC believed Fiser and levied a $110,000 fine against TVA in 2000. TVA is appealing.
The radiation records inventory project began in the mid-1990s after NRC inspector Eldan Testa asked to see TVA's chart on his personal radiation doses. Testa found the numbers wrong and ordered the inventory.
On June 8, 1999, Testa met with TVA officials for an update. Jim Flanigan, TVA's primary numbers-cruncher on the project, told Testa progress was being made in cleaning up the data.
"As an example, he pulled up Mr. Testa's dose history to show him," according to Grover's notes of the meeting. "After reviewing the information presented on his dose record, Mr. Testa stated to Jim Flanigan that it was still incorrect."
At that point, Testa questioned if there was '"willful misconduct' on the part of TVA in falsifying or not representing the dose records properly," Grover's notes said. Flanigan said none was found.
Flanigan referred The Associated Press to Francis for comment. Testa did not a return a call to his Atlanta office.
"I can't say there was willful misconduct," Grover said in an interview. "But there was a willful intent not to fully disclose to the NRC what you had."
Grover said TVA's top nuclear managers -- Chief Nuclear Officer John Scalice, Senior Vice President Karl Singer and Vice President Jack Bailey -- were aware of the problems with the inventory project but wanted it closed, regardless, by the end of 1999.
To do so, TVA had to make assumptions, Grover claims. Zeros were entered for radiation doses of some workers with missing records; others were given the dose numbers of co-workers, he said.
On Jan. 11, 2000, TVA filed the results with the NRC. Previous reports "may not have been complete," TVA wrote. "Therefore, TVA is providing this updated occupational radiation exposure information to allow the NRC to update (its own records)."
"My dictionary tells me there is a big difference between incomplete and being in error or missing or wrong," Grover said. "And that was my point to them. Just be honest and straightfoward to the NRC.
"But nobody wanted to really address the root cause, to get into it and really fix it. They didn't want to. Why? (Because) some of these people (workers) are dead and gone," Grover said. "(Others) don't care about doses and they'll never ask."
On the Net:
Tennessee Valley Authority: http://www.tva.gov/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission:http://www.nrc.gov/
Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/
-------- MILITARY
Taliban bases attacked
October 8, 2001
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011008-79724793.htm
The United States and Britain yesterday unleashed a "sustained, comprehensive and relentless" attack against the Taliban, raining missiles on the regime 26 days after terrorist attacks against the United States.
"On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan," President Bush told the nation from the White House Treaty Room.
As Vice President Richard B. Cheney was moved to a secure location away from the White House, allied planes and warships - led by the United States - lobbed missiles at targets in Kabul and Kandahar, Afghanistan. The allied strikes are expected to continue for several days.
"These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime," the president said.
While military strikes were being conducted on Afghanistan, the allies also air-dropped humanitarian aid to starving Afghan civilians.
The White House said yesterday that Mr. Bush had told congressional leaders Saturday he had given the go-ahead for strikes on Afghanistan. "He called the congressional leadership last night. He notified them of impending military action," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who declined to specify when Mr. Bush made the decision to order the attacks.
The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, called the raids a "terrorist attack" and warned that America "will never achieve its goal."
In a tape shown on Egyptian television, Osama bin Laden denounced Americans as "sinners" and "infidels" who shrug off the deaths of Iraqis and Palestinians, only to cry "when the sword falls on the United States."
The White House dismissed the tape as propaganda.
"They obviously released it after the military strike to create an impression," said Mr. Fleischer. "But it was a rather false picture, given the fact that it's the middle of the night in Afghanistan, yet the tape shows him in broad daylight."
The assault came one day after Mr. Bush warned that "time is running out" for the Taliban, which refused U.S. demands to deliver bin Laden and shut down terrorist camps. Early yesterday morning, the president ignored a last-ditch offer by the Taliban to put bin Laden on trial in an Islamic court.
The president arrived at his office at 10:45 yesterday morning to look over his speech.
"He did say to me in the Oval [Office], 'I gave them fair warning and they chose not to heed it,'" Mr. Fleischer said. "He never saw any indications from the Taliban that they were going to do that. No American president undertakes a military mission with anything other than a full understanding of the seriousness of it. But I can tell you - having traveled with the president on September 11th - he very firmly, right away from the beginning, recognized that this was war, and that he was going to steel the nation for it because our country had been attacked."
Mr. Bush seemed a bit more solemn than usual, although not grim, after paying tribute to fallen firefighters at a ceremony in Emmitsburg, Md., yesterday morning. Returning earlier than expected to the White House, he recalled the list of demands he had issued to the Taliban regime, which has been harboring bin Laden and his al Qaeda network widely suspected to have masterminded the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"None of these demands were met," Mr. Bush said in his 1 p.m. address to the nation. "And now, the Taliban will pay a price.
"By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places. Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice."
But even as the United States hammered the Taliban with bombs and missiles, it also air-dropped food, medicine and supplies to starving Afghan refugees. The humanitarian aid was designed in part to counter claims by the Taliban that America seeks to wage war against Islam.
"The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies," Mr. Bush said. "The United States of America is a friend to the Afghan people, and we are the friends of almost a billion worldwide who practice the Islamic faith."
In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair called yesterday's U.S.-led assault a "moment of utmost gravity." Mr. Blair said British submarines joined American warships in firing missiles at targets in Afghanistan yesterday. In the next few days, he pledged British warplanes would enter the fray.
American and British military forces are expected to be reinforced soon by troops from Canada, Australia, Germany and France.
"More than 40 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and across Asia have granted air transit or landing rights," Mr. Bush said. "Many more have shared intelligence. We are supported by the collective will of the world."
Yesterday's offensive came less than four weeks after Mr. Bush began assembling his global coalition against terrorism. By comparison, his father spent 51/2 months building a coalition before attacking Iraq in 1991.
But that was a conventional military coalition, unlike the multifaceted patchwork of overt and covert allies stitched together by the younger Mr. Bush.
"This military action is a part of our campaign against terrorism, another front in a war that has already been joined through diplomacy, intelligence, the freezing of financial assets and the arrests of known terrorists by law-enforcement agents in 38 countries," Mr. Bush said.
It was the first time the United States lashed out at bin Laden since August 1998, when President Clinton ordered a single day of failed missile strikes in Afghanistan and the Sudan. That attack came less than two weeks after terrorist strikes against U.S. embassies in Africa.
Mr. Bush yesterday promised not to abandon his anti-terrorism offensive after the first wave of bombing.
"Given the nature and reach of our enemies, we will win this conflict by the patient accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination and will and purpose," he said. "In the months ahead, our patience will be one of our strengths."
He added: "The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."
Although the Taliban has always been the first target in the president's anti-terrorism effort, he promised to hit others. "Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader," Mr. Bush said.
"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.
Historically, presidents have given televised addresses to the nation from the familiar surroundings of the Oval Office. But Mr. Bush chose to speak from the Treaty Room, with the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial visible in the distance through a window, because he said it is "a place where American presidents have worked for peace."
"We're a peaceful nation," Mr. Bush said. "Yet, as we have learned, so suddenly and so tragically, there can be no peace in a world of sudden terror. "In the face of today's new threat, the only way to pursue peace is to pursue those who threaten it," he added. "We did not ask for this mission. But we will fulfill it."
Yesterday marked the second time in less than a month that Mr. Cheney was moved out of the White House for security reasons. The first movement came on the day of the attacks against America, as Mr. Bush was hopscotching around the nation aboard Air Force One amid reports that the White House would be targeted.
By contrast, Mr. Bush remained in the White House yesterday as Mr. Cheney was moved to a secure location in the afternoon. With the Taliban warning of retaliatory strikes, the White House did not want the top two members of the administration in the same building.
"The American people need to be alert - threats do remain," Mr. Fleischer said. "And the government and the law-enforcement agencies are taking all necessary precautions. But threats do remain. This is a war."
Yet Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, when asked about possible retaliation by terrorists for the allied assault, said the mass-casualty attacks like those on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were planned months and even years in advance.
"So, the idea that any attack that could occur now would conceivably characterize as in retaliation for something I think would be a misunderstanding of the situation," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
Still, the United States is postured in a "state of heightened awareness" for some type of attack. "And the armed forces around the world are on a state of higher alert than is normal," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
The State Department yesterday issued a warning to U.S. citizens abroad telling them to "limit their movement" because the allied strikes could lead to terrorist attacks against Americans and U.S. interests.
Mr. Bush, who recently asked governors to call up National Guardsmen to patrol airports, made it clear that the danger to the United States is far from over.
"I know many Americans feel fear today and our government is taking strong precautions," the president said. "All law enforcement and intelligence agencies are working aggressively around America, around the world and around the clock."
To help coordinate this vigilance, the president today will swear in former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge to head the Office of Homeland Security, a Cabinet-level post created in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. A White House spokesman said last night that Mr. Ridge would have 100 employees, a West Wing office and significant input into the security aspects of various Cabinet budgets.
Since those attacks, which are believed to have killed 5,637 persons in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, Mr. Bush has received high marks from Democrats and Republicans alike for playing the first of many roles expected of a president at such a time - consoler of the nation's shocked psyche.
But with the commencement of military action yesterday, the president enters a much more perilous phase of the post-Sept. 11 era. Having essentially promised to eradicate all vestiges of terrorism, Mr. Bush has set a high bar for himself. By his own admission, the president has performed best when measured against the low expectations of his detractors.
Moreover, yesterday marked the first time Mr. Bush has sent American troops into war. He urged them "to be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives."
"A commander in chief sends America's sons and daughters into battle in a foreign land only after the greatest care and a lot of prayer," the president said.
• Bill Gertz contributed to this report.
--------
U.S., Britain Launch Airstrikes Against Targets in Afghanistan
'We Will Not Falter. And We Will Not Fail,' Bush Pledges
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 8, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22725-2001Oct7.html
U.S. and British forces launched airstrikes at terrorist training camps and military targets throughout Afghanistan yesterday, opening what President Bush pledged would be a "sustained, comprehensive and relentless" campaign against those responsible for the worst terrorist attacks in American history.
Using sea-based cruise missiles, long-range bombers and fighter aircraft, the allied strikes hit their first targets about 12:30 p.m. Eastern time -- about 9 p.m. in Afghanistan -- and continued throughout the night, pounding antiaircraft sites, military headquarters, terrorist camps, airfields and a concentration of Taliban tanks.
Speaking from the White House Treaty Room barely half an hour after the strikes began, Bush promised a tireless assault against the threat of terrorism. "The battle is now joined on many fronts," he said. "We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter. And we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."
With the threat of additional terrorist attacks in the wake of the military strikes, federal and state authorities stepped up security precautions at home and abroad. The FBI ordered law enforcement agencies across the country to move to their "highest level of vigilance."
Bush said the "carefully targeted actions" were aimed at disrupting the al Qaeda terrorist network of Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden and the military capacity of the Taliban militia ruling most of Afghanistan. He said that the campaign was aimed at "the barbaric criminals who profane a great religion by committing murder," and that it was not against the Muslim world.
Shortly after the first missiles hit Afghanistan, bin Laden, who has been in hiding since the Sept. 11 attacks, appeared in a video exulting over the destruction of the World Trade Center and calling on Muslims to join a war against the United States. The video appeared to have been prepared before the strikes began.
Dressed in camouflage fatigues with a rifle at his side, bin Laden branded Bush as an "infidel" and delivered a chilling warning to the United States. "Neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad," he said.
The strikes included the use of 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 15 land-based bombers and 25 carrier-based fighters. They hit targets around four cities, Kabul, the capital; Kandahar, the center of the Taliban movement in southeastern Afghanistan; Jalalabad, near the border with Pakistan; and Mazar-e Sharif, near the border with Uzbekistan. Administration officials said the initial phase of the military campaign, called Operation Enduring Freedom, was likely to last two to three days.
The strikes were launched from submarines and aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and Whiteman Air Force Base near Kansas City. They included B1, B2 and B52 bombers, F-14 Tomcats and F-18 Hornets. The pilots used precision weapons guided by satellites. They also used old-fashioned, unguided "iron bombs."
In the Arabian Sea, Navy pilots on the USS Carl Vinson, whose launches shook the deck of the huge carrier during the first wave of attacks, reported only limited resistance from Taliban antiaircraft fire. Their biggest concern, they said, was running out of fuel during a mission that took them more than 600 miles each way and lasted 4 1/2 hours.
"Tonight was about giving America back the confidence and letting them know, hey, we're out here and can take care of whatever we need to," the commanding officer of the carrier's F-14 squadron said after returning from a bombing run near Kabul. The officer spoke on condition he not be identified.
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said the first wave of strikes was designed to cripple Taliban antiaircraft weapons and aircraft and create the conditions necessary for a more sustained campaign to root out the terrorists, which is expected to include covert or Special Forces action.
"Our objective is to defeat those who use terrorism and those who house or support them," Rumsfeld said.
Pentagon officials said U.S. aircraft also began dropping humanitarian assistance -- food and medical supplies -- into Afghanistan as part of the administration's campaign to divide the Taliban from the Afghan people. Officials said they also planned a leafleting campaign aimed at encouraging defections among the Taliban militia and information about bin Laden's network. They added that U.S. C-130 aircraft flying near Afghanistan borders would broadcast the same message on various radio frequencies.
The strikes came 26 days after 19 terrorists, using hijacked commercial airliners, destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and smashed into the Pentagon, killing more than 5,000 people. The attacks delivered a severe blow to a weakened U.S. economy and left many Americans fearful about a new round of terrorism.
The strikes also came two weeks after Bush issued an ultimatum to the Taliban and after the United States rejected a last-minute proposal by the Taliban to have bin Laden tried under Islamic law.
Shortly after the strikes began, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, accused the United States of launching "a terrorist act" against Afghanistan and vowed that his government would fight "to the last breath."
The strikes drew swift support at home and among U.S. allies around the world. Canada, Australia, Germany and France pledged military forces for later phases of the campaign. And Bush said that more than 40 countries were offering overflight and landing rights for allied aircraft and that more still were sharing intelligence.
"We are supported by the collective will of the world," he said.
The bipartisan leadership of Congress -- House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) issued a rare joint statement saying, "We stand united with the president and with our troops, and will continue to work together to do what is necessary to bring justice to these terrorists and those who harbor them."
Americans gave Bush overwhelming support for yesterday's military strikes. A Washington Post-ABC News Poll found that 94 percent said they supported the retaliatory strikes and that 8 in 10 said they favored deploying U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been the most visible and staunchest ally of the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks, described the opening of the military campaign as "a moment of the utmost gravity for the world," but said the United States and its allies had no choice but to respond.
Blair restated his assertion that there is "no doubt in my mind" that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorist attacks and that by refusing to heed Bush's ultimatum to deliver bin Laden and break up his training camps, the Taliban was equally culpable.
"They were given the choice of siding with justice or siding with terror, and they chose to side with terror," he said.
About an hour before the strikes, Bush called French President Jacques Chirac, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin to say that action was "imminent."
Earlier, Putin had approved the use of his country's airspace for the delivery of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and the Russian foreign ministry later issued a statement in support of the strikes.
U.S. officials also alerted the Northern Alliance, the principal opposition group to the Taliban, before the strikes.
Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell called foreign leaders as the administration continued to press its campaign to hold together an international coalition now that the military response has begun. As part of that effort, Powell will visit Pakistan and India later this week.
Bush alerted congressional leaders Saturday night that he had given the order to the Pentagon to launch the strikes. Hastert was pulled out of memorial service in Wheaton, Ill., for Todd Beamer, who was killed in the crash of the hijacked plane in Pennsylvania. Gephardt was at Oriole Park at Camden Yards for Cal Ripken's last game as a Baltimore Oriole. Bush urged him to continue with a planned trip to New York with Hastert today to meet with business executives.
Bush returned to the White House yesterday morning after spending the weekend at Camp David and attending a memorial service for firefighters. In his radio address on Saturday, he had warned the Taliban that "time is running out." That declaration came after a final round of diplomatic and military preparation, including a Rumsfeld trip to five countries in the region that produced pledges of cooperation and a mission by Blair to Russia, Pakistan and India. In Islamabad on Friday, Blair gave Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf a 48-hour heads-up on the planned attacks.
Bush appeared on television shortly after broadcast networks announced that the airstrikes were underway. He said the strikes were aimed at destroying the camps and disrupting the communications that allow the terrorists to recruit members and coordinate their activities. He said the Taliban "will pay a price" for continuing to protect bin Laden.
Bush said although the strikes initially may drive the terrorists deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places, the campaign eventually would force them into the open. "Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice," he said.
He warned that victory will not come quickly and urged Americans to have the patience to persevere. He also made clear that other countries that harbor terrorists put themselves at risk in the war on terrorism.
"Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader," he said. "Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves and they will take that lonely path at their own peril."
Bush also sought to calm a jittery nation about the possibility of new terrorist attacks at home, saying, "I know Americans feel fear today, and our government is taking strong precautions." Last week, administration officials told members of Congress there was a high likelihood of attacks once military action began.
In addition to the FBI order, the State Department issued a "worldwide caution" to travelers and shut the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia. The Coast Guard ordered round-the-clock surveillance of more than 300 ports. The Federal Emergency Management Agency said it planned to raise its state of readiness to respond to possible terrorist activity.
The Federal Aviation Administration was alerted before the military strikes but did not order additional security measures at facilities already operating under strict new procedures. Still, many airports added more police and National Guard in terminals.
The White House also announced that Cheney had been moved to an undisclosed location as a security precaution. The National Football League played its full schedule of games yesterday, but with tighter security around many stadiums. The telecast of the Emmy Awards, postponed once after the Sept. 11 attacks, was again put off.
At the games, spectators chanted "USA! USA!" at news of the military strikes. The game between the Arizona Cardinals and the Philadelphia Eagles started nine minutes late to allow the crowd in Philadelphia to watch Bush's remarks, and when he finished, the audience rose and cheered.
Staff writers Mike Allen, Juliet Eilperin, Steve Mufson, Eric Pianin, T.R. Reid, Thomas E. Ricks, Vernon Loeb, Alan Sipress and Steve Vogel contributed to this report.
-------- afghanistan
Reports: At least 20 dead from strikes
October 8, 2001
By Aamir Shah
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/default-200110811279.htm
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Oct. 8 (UPI) -- Official media in the region reported at least 20 Afghan deaths from the first day of U.S. and British air strikes but other sources on Monday were reporting as many as 37 killed in the attacks on some 30 sites in Afghanistan.
The official Afghan Islamic Press, based in Pakistan, quoted a Taliban envoy who said at least 20 people were killed in the attack, but Radio Shariat claimed there were no casualties or damage in Kabul. Another Taliban source in Chaman near Quetta on the Afghan-Pakistan border, said at least 37 were killed.
AIP said 10 people were killed near Kabul airport and another 10 near the building occupied by official radio Shariat. AIP quoted its sources in the city as saying the death toll could rise.
Radio Shariat, also state-run, reported, "There has not been any human or material damage yet," before praising the country's army, which, the radio report said, had its morale boosted by the attacks.
A Taliban official in the western Pakistan city of Chaman said at least 37 people were killed and 81 others wounded in Afghanistan's four cities during the Sunday attacks by the United States and its allies, an independent news agency, NNI, said.
A Taliban official in the Ministry of Information, Maulana Abdullah, said at least 20 people were killed and 50 others wounded in the capital while nine died and 11 were injured in Herat. Four people were killed and 11 wounded in Kandahar while four others lost their lives and nine were injured in the attack on Jalalabad.
He said reports the residence of Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar had been destroyed were erroneous.
Thousands of people evacuated the city since the strikes. A large number of people had started moving toward the Pakistani borders in buses, taxis and trucks and on donkeys.
----
Missile Strikes, Drought, Disease, and Hunger
October 8, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-08-03.html
QUETTA, Pakistan, The United States has launched a second night of air strikes against selected military, Taliban and terrorist targets in Afghanistan, says Air Force General Richard Myers, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Military strikes inside Afghanistan began yesterday evening. Missiles launched by the United States and the United Kingdom struck Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Mazar-e-Sharif.
The Quetta office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) was stoned by a crowd of angry demonstrators today in the most serious security incident of the Afghan conflict to date. Later, the demonstrators set fire to the nearby office of the United Nations Children's' Fund (UNICEF) also in Quetta, capital of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.
The tense security situation is hampering work by UNHCR and its partners who are trying to prepare for a large influx of refugees fleeing Afghanistan. Border monitors were unable to deploy on Monday.
Demonstrations were also reported from the city of Peshawar in northern Pakistan. A UNHCR team travelling to tribal areas near Peshawar to look for additional refugee campsites was turned back in the town of Landikotal because of demonstrations.
New arrivals at a refugee camp (Photo by C. Shirley and L. Boscardi courtesy UNHCR)
UNHCR workers say they are facing enormous challenges trying to prepare for a possible influx of refugees into Pakistan and Iran amid increasingly precarious security conditions. Water is expected to be a major problem in the arid Quetta area, hit hard by a four-year drought.
In Pakistan, more than 30 possible refugee campsites have now been identified but only a handful of those sites can be made operational within the next 10 days, according to UNHCR.
All the sites are located in Pakistan's border zone tribal areas. Any work in those areas is subject to approval by the local authorities, with aid workers having to ask daily for permission to access the campsites in order to pre-position shelter materials in them. The sites are located in rugged and barren areas where UNHCR workers say there is no grass or trees.
In Quetta, the UNHCR now has 4,000 tents, 10,000 plastic sheets and 6,000 blankets, which could provide temporary shelter to tens of thousands of people, but not to hundreds of thousands who may flee Afghanistan. The commission is estimating that initially 300,000 Afghani refugees will arrive in Pakistan and 80,000 in Iran.
Red Crescent volunteers in Pakistan unload relief items from the Spanish Red Cross (Photo courtesy International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent)
Eight people in Quetta have died, and at least another 67 are ill from a tick-borne virus known as Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever. Similar to the ebola virus, both diseases damage blood vessels and lead to the collapse of major organs.
At Fatima Jinnah hospital, an isolation ward surrounded by barbed wire has been established to deal with the disease.
The World Health Organization (WHO) Country Office in Pakistan and its team in Quetta, and the WHO Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Region report that all the cases were from Pakistan, had disease onset within the past week, and were not linked. Samples have been collected and sent to the National Institute of Health in Islamabad.
U.S. military cargo planes dropped 37,500 humanitarian food packages into remote areas of Afghanistan, just north of Kabul, last night. The packages were dropped from a very high altitude without parachutes. Each package, wrapped in heavy yellow plastic, contains a two pound humanitarian daily ration, which includes rice, vegetables and fruit. They also carry a message to explain that the packages are "a gift from the people of the Unites States of America."
At a forum on Afghan refugees and displaced persons in Geneva October 5 and 6, donor pledges of over $600 million were announced.
Afghan refugees at the UNHCR Shamshatoo camp (Photo by C. Shirley and L. Boscardi courtesy UNHCR)
Over 50 percent of the total $600 million in new funding has been pledged by the United States, according to Kenzo Oshima, United Nations under secretary general for humanitarian affairs. He also said the Afghan Forum agreed that the group should continue to act as a "humanitarian coalition" in responding to the crisis in Afghanistan.
Speaking October 6 in Geneva, Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, emphasized that "durable solutions" need to be found inside Afghanistan which will allow refugee populations to return home.
Lubbers said he had made a plea to Pakistan and Iran to provide temporary protection and assistance for the most vulnerable, and had received "positive reactions" from them. Although the borders are formally closed, they remain open to the most vulnerable. No Afghans will be forcibly returned.
"I am glad to report that although the borders are formally closed," said Lubbers, "they are open for the most vulnerable, and they will be open if there are bigger numbers and a real necessity, but with the intention to make this temporary."
Working through the night into Saturday morning, a team of Pakistani workers in Peshawar offloaded a Russian Ilyushin 76 transport plane carrying 35 tons of Spanish Red Cross relief items. The flight is the first of many which will preposition relief and medical stocks in case of a refugee influx from Afghanistan.
Before the air strikes, overland food deliveries into Afghanistan by the World Food Program were averaging about 500 metric tons per day. The World Food Program aims to increase these deliveries to up to 52,000 metric tons per month - enough to feed the six million people identified as the most vulnerable inside Afghanistan.
----
Bin Laden terror group thought to have Stingers
October 8, 2001
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011008-5256390.htm
The allied military strikes on Osama bin Laden are operating under the assumption that his al Qaeda terrorist network owns U.S.-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, a Pentagon official says.
The possible presence of the shoulder-fired weapon, used in Afghanistan with deadly accuracy against Soviet aircraft in the 1980s, makes the job of catching or killing bin Laden all the more difficult for helicopter-borne U.S. commandos.
"We are convinced there are a lot of Stingers out there that may still work," said the official, explaining that "out there" means both Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia and their ally - bin Laden's well-armed al Qaeda terrorist organization.
"We think about it day in, day out," the official added. "You always, from a military perspective, prepare for the worst."
Bin Laden, whom President Bush wants "dead or alive" for masterminding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, controls a personal army of more than 3,000 Arab warriors. The fierce foot soldiers are known to brandish anti-aircraft guns and grenade launchers, say Afghanistan rebel sources and American officials.
"They are armed to the teeth," said a second Pentagon official. "Of course in Afghanistan, nearly everyone is armed to the teeth."
Within bin Laden's cadre of combatants lies an inner layer of about 30 to 40 bodyguards. They are his best graduates from his terrorist camps, methodically screened for loyalty to bin Laden, who is said to control a fortune of over $300 million.
"He has many hiding places in the mountains," said Daoud Mir, Afghanistan's former ambassador to France who now represents the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Washington. "I don't think he has the possibility to move without the whole of his bodyguards."
Mr. Mir also said that for security reasons, "bin Laden doesn't allow any non-Arabs to approach him." Afghanistan's 29 million population is made up of various ethnic groups dominated by the Pashtuns (38 percent) and the Tajiks (25 percent). Bin Laden was disowned by his billionaire father and exiled by Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban militia, which controls about 75 percent of Afghanistan, including the capital of Kabul, maintains close ties to bin Laden's paramilitary cadre. The Taliban owns an undetermined number of anti-aircraft missiles that could shoot down U.S. helicopters.
Pentagon officials say there is evidence that the Taliban's arsenal includes deadly heat-seeking Stingers. The U.S. Army developed the weapon to knock down low-flying aircraft, such as helicopters and jets that swoop down to fire canon rounds or other munitions at troops and armor targets. The system launches five-foot, supersonic missiles with a range of 10,000 feet.
In one of the biggest national security decisions of his administration, President Reagan authorized the CIA to secretly transfer Stingers to the Afghan mujahideen forces that at the time were fighting an occupying Soviet army.
The gambit worked. The ragtag Muslim alliance effectively shot down scores of Soviet attack helicopters that had been targeting the rebels in the country's mountain encampments. The Soviets retreated from Afghanistan in 1989, a defeat that helped lead to the collapse of the communist empire.
But the CIA was never able to recover all of the Stingers. There are reports the weapons were used sporadically in the ensuing 12 years as tribal Afghans fought for control of the country.
The intelligence agency is believed to have handed out about 1,000 Stingers. The mujahideen forces fired about 400. The CIA collected some, but hundreds remained in Afghanistan, distributed among the various ethnic groups that still fight each other for control today.
Mr. Mir said the Northern Alliance did own "a few" Stingers, but turned them in several years ago. "I don't believe right now the Taliban or bin Laden have too many Stingers," he said.
The security wall wrapped around bin Laden will make the job of catching or killing him dangerous for American commandos now deployed in the region. Army teams typically enter a country on Black Hawk helicopters. The choppers are equipped with flares that can throw heat-seeking missiles such as the Stinger off course.
One administration official said there is a theory that after 12 years none of the Stingers left in Afghanistan work. Specially designed battery packs are, by now, nonfunctioning, and there are no reports that the Afghans were able to obtain spare parts, the official said.
--------
In Afghanistan
Kabul and Kandahar Hit In Attacks Through Night
Opposition Prepares To Move on Capital
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 8, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22711-2001Oct7.html
TOBDARA, Afghanistan, Oct. 7 -- U.S. and British warplanes and cruise missiles streaked across a clear, moonlit sky tonight to deliver strikes on Taliban military targets in the capital, Kabul, the southern Taliban stronghold of Kandahar and two other locations, focusing on antiaircraft defenses, command centers and air bases.
The white flash of explosions and red traces of artillery fire could be seen from this mountainside village of mud houses overlooking the front line north of Kabul. The artillery fire came from opposition fighters aiming at Taliban positions near the air base at Bagram, 25 miles north of the capital.
Louder explosions echoed from beyond the mountain in the direction of Kabul, and the sky was illuminated with red sparkles resembling fireworks as Taliban antiaircraft batteries attempted to shoot down U.S. and British jets.
The opposition, a loose coalition of often fractious ethnic groups known as the Northern Alliance, received warning of tonight's attacks and was preparing to move on Kabul in the coming days. Opposition forces began evacuating two small villages near the front line north of Kabul tonight in anticipation of fighting Monday morning. Several dozen people were gathering their belongings and heading up the road to the next town, Charikar, in a middle-of-the-night escape.
Following the first wave of bombs and cruise missiles, Taliban ambassador Abdul Salam Zaeef told reporters in Islamabad, Pakistan, that Taliban leader Mohammad Omar and suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden were still alive. Bin Laden and his al Qaeda network have been identified by the United States and Britain as the organizers of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
Tonight's aerial assault began after dark, about 9:20 local time. U.S. and British planes and cruise missiles aimed initially at targets in Kandahar, the heart of the Taliban movement in southern Afghanistan. The first explosions to hit Kandahar destroyed the city's electrical grid, plunging the city into darkness and chaos, according to Pakistani authorities monitoring events through witnesses.
Within minutes, the streets erupted in gunfire as hundreds of armed residents and Taliban soldiers began firing indiscriminately, apparently believing a ground assault had been launched against the city, they said. Missiles also hit a guesthouse compound used by Omar, the Taliban leader, to receive official visitors, the witnesses said.
Also targeted in the early strikes was the Kandahar airport, where U.S. and British forces destroyed the control tower and radar facilities. The airport complex includes housing built for bin Laden's fighters. A second wave of attacks struck the Taliban military headquarters in the center of Kandahar as well.
The airport in Kabul was also a target. The private Islamabad-based Afghan Islamic Press agency quoted the Taliban as saying U.S. planes had hit areas near the airport in the northern part of the capital. The agency said "huge smoke is rising near the Kabul airport." Electricity was cut off in Kabul for several hours, and the Taliban radio station went off the air. The Taliban's official Voice of Shariat radio reported that there had been no casualties in Kabul, but the Afghan Islamic Press said there had been 20 deaths in the capital, and Kabul residents, interviewed by Reuters, also said there had been casualties. Taliban officials said two people were killed and at least four others injured in the strikes on Kandahar.
There were also reports of explosions near Jalalabad, close to the eastern border with Pakistan. Witnesses said there were loud explosions near the area of Farmada, site of a bin Laden training camp 12 miles south of the city, the Associated Press reported.
In an effort to help the Northern Alliance, U.S. forces attacked a concentration of Taliban tanks near the northern battleground city of Mazar-e Sharif, where a key opposition commander, Gen. Abdurrashid Dostum, has been fighting the Taliban, according to a Pentagon official. Rebel leaders said they captured the city of Samangan in northern Afghanistan this evening, and that Dostum's forces had surrounded Mazar-e Sharif.
In Tashkent, Uzbekistan, Mohammad Hasham Saad, a top Northern Alliance official, said U.S. attacks were launched against several targets in Mazar-e Sharif, including the airport and the headquarters of two Taliban divisions, and that Dostum was preparing a major offensive against Taliban positions in the coming days.
The attacks left unclear the fate of eight aid workers -- two Americans, two Australians and four Germans -- who have been held by the Taliban since August on charges of trying to convert Afghan Muslims to Christianity. In Islamabad, relatives of the two Americans said they had no comment. The State Department vowed to continue to press for their release.
The attacks may be a serious setback for Yvonne Ridley, a 43-year-old reporter for London's Sunday Express newspaper. She was captured by the Taliban as she sneaked across the border last week from Pakistan, dressed as an Afghan woman. Ridley was not carrying a passport. She has been held prisoner, but the Taliban ambassador in Pakistan said Friday that she would be released, either Sunday or Monday. Whether the Taliban will honor this pledge is now uncertain.
Tonight, the streets of rebel-held cities north of Kabul were eerily empty and dark, with little movement other than the procession of guerrilla vehicles making their way from Charikar to the air base at Bagram. Checkpoints were set up to keep civilians from wandering south of Charikar. A few people lingered outside their homes into the middle of the night, but with no electricity and no televisions, their only news came by word of mouth or battery-powered radio.
In the hills overlooking the Shomali Valley, some Afghans witnessed developments for themselves. Mohammed Fazum, an opposition fighter, watched the initial blitz from the dusty rooftop of a mud house, where flashlights were turned off to avoid attracting attention from Taliban soldiers perched not far away.
After years of civil war, Fazum was delighted to see what he believes will be the beginning of the end of the Taliban. "I'd like to destroy my enemy," he said.
Commanders in the Northern Alliance were put on alert today and told to be ready to drive toward Kabul in the event that the U.S. assault forced the Taliban to retreat. After the bombing began tonight, a convoy of headlights were seen heading south along the road toward the front line.
Abdullah, one of the top officials of the Northern Alliance, said it would move into Kabul to secure the city if the Taliban withdrew. "My expectation is in a matter of a few days after the first strike, the Taliban will lose total control," he said before the attacks began.
Rebel fighters were eager to advance on the capital. Abdullah Rakhim, commander of an important regiment originally from Kabul, has bridled at the fact that a high-ranking Taliban official occupied the house where he was born and cut down his father's trees. "If my commander orders me to go, I'll go," Rakhim said, echoing the official line espoused by every rebel officer. But, he added, departing from the usual script, "If they don't order me, I'll go anyway."
The alliance has built its strategy on the premise that the U.S. assault would prompt a popular uprising against the Taliban and massive defections from its ranks. In preparation for tonight's strike, rebel commanders this morning began calling their Taliban counterparts on shared radio frequencies, telling them that time had run out and they should switch sides.
Rakhim, for example, estimated that he had at least 400 fighters in Kabul ready to rise and fight on the side of the rebels once the alliance reaches the capital.
Abdullah said others were evidently rattled, noting that a few distraught Taliban commanders were overheard talking by radio this morning and blaming Pakistan for their woes.
But at least some Taliban officers remained defiant. "A Taliban commander told me yesterday, 'The jihad has started again,' " said Khademudin, a regimental commander at the front. "I told him, 'You may say you are Muslim, but you are not Muslim.' " Abdullah, who has consulted with U.S. officials and provided target information against the Taliban, predicted the air attack would be massive and effective. "Any Taliban position, any stronghold anywhere in Afghanistan, will be attacked," he said. "It will depend on the priority which one will come first. But the strike will not spare any significant target."
In recent weeks, the Taliban concentrated its forces around three key cities: Kabul, Kandahar and Jalalabad. After an initial period of panic among Taliban ranks, the militia regrouped and fortified its defenses around the capital in anticipation of an attack. While religious police rounded up young men and forced them to the front, the Taliban established two lines of defense north of the city, digging new trenches and bomb shelters.
The fate of the capital will depend on the fighting around Bagram, the air base north of the city. Once a launching pad for the Soviet invasion of 1979, Bagram has been captured and recaptured repeatedly by opposing forces in the Afghan civil war. Finally demolished by artillery and tank fire, it has not been used since 1999 and will remain unusable as long as the Taliban holds the hills overlooking it.
Rebel forces who now control the air base appeared to be firing at Taliban positions tonight, in an effort to dislodge them and perhaps find a way to make the base operational again. The rebels control no working air base in the vicinity of Kabul to use for supply missions and humanitarian flights from the international community.
Five days ago, the rebels began building a new landing strip in Golbahar, not far from Bagram, and expect to complete it within a day or so, they said today.
The fighting may touch off a flood of refugees for which the rebels and the international community are poorly prepared. Thousands of people have already fled Kabul, Kandahar and other cities, only to find the borders to Pakistan, Iran and Tajikistan sealed.
Abdullah said the rebels will house refugees in mosques and schools but are unprepared to handle another large influx of people, although he sympathized with those trying to escape. "Civilians in Kabul are like prisoners in the hands of the Taliban and the terrorists, like hostages," he said.
The beginning of hostilities tonight renewed fears of a wider war among the Central Asian nations that border Afghanistan to the north. Those concerns were most acute in Uzbekistan, the United States' newest and most significant ally in the region, which on Friday agreed to allow U.S. use of a military air base, but stipulated that no offensive action against Afghanistan was to be launched from Uzbek territory.
Even before today's strikes, Uzbek leaders expressed alarm at reports from the Taliban that it had moved thousands of troops to the Uzbek border and was prepared to attack if Uzbekistan participated in the U.S. strikes. No such troop movements could be confirmed, although Russia's Interfax news agency quoted sources as saying that the Taliban had moved long-range artillery and multiple rocket launchers toward the Uzbek border.
Correspondents Susan B. Glasser in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, Molly Moore and Kamran Kahn in Islamabad, Pakistan, and staff writer Thomas E. Ricks in Washington contributed to this report.
-------- biological weapons
U.S. Looks to Detect Bio Attack
October 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bioterrorism-Tech.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Unseen, a terrorist dumps a mystery chemical into the reservoir that supplies drinking water to a large city. He doesn't notice a suitcase-sized device in the water, which alerts officials and gives them options to counteract the poison.
The device is just a prototype right now, but defense officials and scientists are scrambling to finish its development and invent other high-tech gadgets to protect Americans from biochemical attacks.
They range from flying machines that would monitor the air to new chemical suits that could protect soldiers from lethal agents on the battlefield.
A Pentagon study released several months ago examined nontraditional warfare, including biological and chemical attacks, and concluded the United States was well prepared to respond after the fact and to retaliate, but was lacking in detection and prevention.
Technology has been a major hurdle.
``Our traditional way of detecting biologicals is to catch them and culture them,'' said Michael Wartell, a chemistry professor and the chairman of the Defense Intelligence Agency's science board. ``It's a very slow process, three to four days. By that time, you're dead.''
Dr. Guenter Gross of the University of North Texas is developing, with government funding, a device that promises a new approach to detection.
He starts by taking cells from mouse embryos and squishing them between two glass plates in a five-centimeter square, loaded with tiny electrodes.
The network of cells is attached to a life support unit and monitored with a laptop computer. The cells respond to harmful chemicals in the same way cells in living animals do.
In short, the device quickly identifies the nature of an attack by reacting just like a human would when exposed to a chemical or biological agent. It alerts scientists to the danger and helps suggest an antidote.
``It's really a physiological detector,'' Gross said. ``It responds to compounds that interfere with the normal function of the nervous system, because it happens to be a little part of the nervous system.''
It's like the birds that miners used to send into mine shafts to detect poisonous gases. If the bird died, miners knew there was danger.
But the new device is better than a bird, Gross said. ``A parakeet, as it falls down, can't tell you which parts of the nervous system are affected. This network can,'' he said.
The network doesn't just check for known chemical and biological agents, but identifies unknown ones too, allowing scientists to work on antidotes.
Gross' invention is in the testing phases, and has been used successfully to detect hundreds of harmful compounds.
The Defense Department is spending $2 million on it, and Gross expects the suitcase-sized unit to be available in six months. A handheld version would come next.
Wartell says it would be the Holy Grail of detectors.
``For the last 20 years, folks have been talking about those types of sensors,'' Wartell said. ``As things get bounced around, as it's exposed to the air, all the challenges you can imagine make it a very difficult thing to do. It would be revolutionary if that could be made to work.''
Gross' project is just one of many biological and chemical defense projects getting taxpayer money. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency recently awarded $6 million dollars for two contracts to create Organic Air Vehicles.
The small flying machines could be used to detect harmful agents and perform traditional battlefield surveillance, relaying images to a soldier's handheld computer.
In DARPA's Unconventional Pathogen Countermeasures program, scientists work on new environmental suits, genetically engineered ``super immune cells'' that would resist chemical attacks, and ways to speed up the development and delivery of vaccines.
Gross' device is already getting a lot of attention. In addition to the military contract, he said, Israeli scientists have toured his laboratory and the State Department has asked for information.
Gross said U.S. embassies, frequently the lone piece of American real estate in an entire nation hostile to the United States, wanted to protect their air and water supplies.
``A chemical or biological attack is difficult over a large area, but not so against an individual building,'' he said.
-------- business
U.S. strikes in Afghanistan stoke defense stocks
Monday October 8, 2001,
Baltimore Sun
http://baltimore.bcentral.com/baltimore/stories/2001/10/08/daily6.html
Local defense stocks are getting a boost today from U.S. military strikes against Afghanistan. Investors are bidding up Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, based in Falls Church, Va., as well as Arlington, Va.-based CACI. Raytheon, which is based in Lexington, Mass., but has a large presence in the D.C. area, is also attracting investor interest.
In midday trading, Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is up $1.48 a share, or 3 percent, to $49.21; General Dynamics (NYSE: GD) is up $2.48, or more than 2 percent, to $95.08; CACI is up $1.03, or 1 percent, to $59.29; and Raytheon is up $1.86, or more than 5 percent, to $36.83.
Not all defense firms are joining in the party, however. Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman is down fractionally, as is Plano, Texas-based EDS. Both firms have a large contingent of local workers.
Most defense stocks have already enjoyed substantial gains since Sept. 11, and of the six mentioned, all except EDS are at or very near new 52-week highs.
-------- chemical weapons
Iranian Soldiers Offer Grim Glimpse
October 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Attacks-Chemical-Veterans.html?searchpv=aponline
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Animals wobble and collapse. Birds drop lifeless from trees. People scratch wildly at blinded eyes and shudder with their dying gasps. Survivors stagger away, wheezing and vomiting blood.
It's a scene the world dreads: terrorists striking with a chemical weapon. It's also the memory of Iranian soldiers still suffering from the grip of poison gas more than a dozen years after exposure on the battlefield.
Even amid the horror of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, there are worries of something potentially worse -- terrorists lashing out with chemical or biological agents. The worries are so acute that U.S. authorities temporarily grounded crop dusters after learning some of the hijackers inquired about the planes. Some Americans have rushed to buy gas masks and books on surviving a chemical attack.
Books and research papers describe the immediate killing potential of chemical weapons. Thousands of Iranian veterans from the 1980-88 war with Iraq display the long-term consequences: chronic respiratory troubles, skin that won't heal, ravaged digestive systems and an agonizing slide toward death.
``He suffered so much. He never lived without pain. When I hear the words `chemical weapons,' I have fire in my heart. Damn these things,'' sobbed widow Golbas Negati, whose husband, Dawoud Taqavi, was exposed to mustard gas near the end of war and spent nearly half the years afterward in the hospital. He was buried Saturday, dead at 49.
Iraq, backed by the West during the war, unleashed dozens of attacks using chemical weapons, according to international monitors. Two main Western-developed formulas were verified by U.N. investigators: mustard gas, an oily liquid first used in World War I whose vapor can remain deadly for days; and tabun, a nerve gas that causes violent convulsions and paralysis before death.
Compared with the estimated 1 million killed or injured in the war, the toll from the chemical attacks were modest, partly because most Iranian forces had gas masks and other anti-gas equipment. Estimates of battlefield deaths range from several hundred to as many as 5,000.
The blow to unprepared civilians has already been chronicled.
In 1988, an estimated 5,000 Iraqi Kurds were killed in the town of Halabja when Saddam Hussein's military bombed with poison gas. In 1995, in the Tokyo subway, 12 people died in a sarin nerve gas attack carried out by the Aum Shinrikyo cult.
``The greatest immediate danger arises from a non-state group -- or even an individual -- acquiring and using a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon,'' U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said earlier this month.
U.S. investigators say one of the key Sept. 11 hijackers met with an Iraqi intelligence agent earlier this year.
Iraq says it dismantled its chemical and biological weapons program after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But the former head of the U.N. weapons inspection team, Rolf Ekeus, said in 1997 that he believed Saddam sought to preserve a ``strategic capability'' of chemicals.
``The West invented and produced these dirty weapons and now they are scared of their own creation,'' said Rezal Mohammadi, 52, caught in a mustard gas attack in 1985.
He is now a patient on the ninth floor of Tehran's Sasan Hospital, the main treatment center for chemical attack veterans. There, he uses an oxygen tank because of severe respiratory troubles and dabs antibiotic solution on chronic skin boils.
Akbar Salimi, another ninth-floor patient, lightly touched the stitches closing an incision across his abdomen. It was the 32-year-old's third operation to stop intestinal bleeding that doctors attribute to mustard gas exposure in 1987.
``I saw animals -- sheep, cows -- dying all around me. Birds fell right from the trees,'' he said. ``We were vomiting blood. It was horrible.''
-------- iran
REFUGEES
Iranian Security Forces Trying to Block Fleeing Afghans at the Porous Border
New York Times
October 8, 2001
By NAZILA FATHI
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/08/international/middleeast/08IRAN.html
ZAHEDAN, Iran, Oct. 7 - Two weeks ago, Abdolnassir Ghiassi, an Afghan surgeon in Kabul, sold his house and paid the equivalent of $4,000 to a smuggler to take himself, his wife and four children to Istanbul. From there, they hoped to reach a European country and seek asylum.
Instead, the journey ended in the Arbabi detention center in this Iranian town one hour from the border with Afghanistan. The smuggler simply turned over the Ghiassi family and 23 others to the authorities in Iran, which has officially sealed its border and is deporting any Afghans caught sneaking over the frontier.
"We had a decent life in Afghanistan, but could not stay there as another war loomed over the country," said Dr. Ghiassi's wife, Soheila, a teacher, weeping as she thought of the 22 years of almost continuous war that began in her country with the 1979 Soviet invasion. "What is there left for us now if they deport us back to Afghanistan?"
Even after the American attacks on Afghanistan began today - attacks condemned by Iran's Foreign Ministry as unacceptable - the border will stay shut, said Safar Islami, the regional official in charge of refugees.
"We know conditions in Afghanistan are unlivable, but we are by no means capable of hosting the huge numbers of Afghans who would arrive," Mr. Islami said.
Iran, whose Shiite Muslim rulers are bitter opponents of the Sunni Muslim Taliban who control most of Afghanistan, is already host to 1.4 million Afghan refugees. Here, in the so-called Golden Triangle where Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan meet, the poor, drought-parched province of Sistan-Baluchestan holds almost one-third of them.
Since the terror attacks on America on Sept. 11, Iran says it has increased to 300,000 the number of security forces patrolling the 560- mile border with Afghanistan. Roadblocks and checkpoints dot the border area.
But the rugged mountains and the skills of hardy and nomadic Afghan traffickers mean that it is impossible to seal the border tight. Drought has dried up the bed of the Hirmand River that used to separate the two countries, making crossing the border as easy as stealing across a street.
Security guards say the number of illegal immigrants arrested since Sept. 11 is three times the normal rate. The Arbabi detention camp, where the Ghiassi family landed, holds up to 200 people a night these days, with refugees deported after 48 hours.
At Ghargharook, a main gateway in Sistan-Baluchestan, some two dozen Afghans waited on a dusty dirt road in intense sunlight for their deportation this weekend.
"I will try again and will make sure to get in," said a 26-year-old who gave his name only as Sangin. He had trekked three days through the mountains with his wife and child with hardly any food or water.
Locally, Afghan refugees are unpopular, seen as tough workers ready to toil for very meager wages and stealing jobs from locals. Afghans also have a reputation for lawlessness and involvement in the drug trade. Iran is the major route to Europe for Afghan opium and heroin.
The Iranian authorities, who voiced unusual sympathy for the United States after the attacks on Sept. 11, have said they will help foreign aid organizations establish two camps at unspecified locations on the Afghan side of the border.
The only official refugee camp in Iran is near here, at Niatak, close to Zabol, and was built 13 years ago. It can house 10,000 people, and although it now has fewer than 5,000, the authorities say they will not allow newcomers.
Muddy houses contain up to 10 people in every 10-by-10-foot room.
And yet, especially compared with the likely future of the Ghiassi family, the Niatak camp offers a security of sorts: the World Food Program distributes a monthly ration of almost 10 pounds of rice and other necessities like flour and sugar to every person. There are five mosques, a health center and an elementary school.
-------- iraq
Congressmen consider targeting Iraq
October 8, 2001
By Joyce Howard Price and Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011008-4276244.htm
"Somewhere down the line, we're going to have to deal with Iraq. Clearly, they do have their own form of terrorism, and they still have Saddam Hussein. So we're going to have to contend with that problem a little later down the line," Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said on "Fox News Sunday."
He added: "One adviser that we have met with says to remember that revenge is better eaten cold. In other words take your time, have a plan, go after your first target, second target."
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, told Fox he believes it will be necessary to "go after" Iraq if the trail leads to that country in terms of "contact with the attacks of Sept. 11 or with terrorism generally."
Interviews with members of Congress on Sunday morning news talk shows were conducted shortly before U.S. and British forces began their attacks on targets in Afghanistan. But all were prepared for such action.
Sen. Bob Graham, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said on ABC's "This Week": "This is not a war that we can win by playing on the defensive we've got to go on the offensive. We have got to eliminate these pools of terrorism around the world, and the place to start is with the terrorist who has already indicated his greatest enmity towards the United States, [Osama] bin Laden."
Later in the show, Mr. Graham said, "I believe taking out bin Laden is a very significant step." Asked to define what he means by "taking out," he said, "It probably means death."
Lawmakers' reaction to the military air strikes, once they occurred, was effusive.
The top four leaders of the Senate and House issued a joint statement supporting the action.
"We strongly support the operation the President ordered our military forces to carry out today. We stand united with the president and with our troops and will continue to work together to do what is necessary to bring justice to these terrorists and those who harbor them," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat; Mr. Lott; House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican; and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, also expressed support.
He said he has the "highest confidence" in President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the "men and women risking their lives to defend freedom by striking elements of the international terror network."
"The president can act with patience and deliberation because the American people are united behind our duty to vindicate freedom," he said in a statement.
Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, a member of the Senate intelligence committee and ranking member of the Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, said: "The goals of this effort are clear: to wrest the Afghan people from the violent and oppressive hands of the Taliban government and to bring justice to those who took the lives of thousands of our fellow citizens. The Taliban government had been warned, and the warnings were not heeded."
Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, who is also a member of the intelligence committee, was being interviewed on CNN's "Late Edition" when the first news broke that attacks on targets in Afghanistan were under way.
In a statement he issued later, Mr. Edwards said: "We are prepared to do everything in our power to get bin Laden, and I am confident that we eventually will bring him and his organization to justice. We are prepared to do whatever is necessary to stamp out these terrorists."
Said Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat and Budget Committee chairman: "The terrorists and the regime that harbors them face the resolute forces of a mighty nation and those of our allies throughout the world. They will pay a heavy price for their crimes."
Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas Republican, said, "I don't know exactly how long this war will last, but I do know that America is right, and those who attacked us are terribly wrong, and I know that the storm unleashed today will continue until the evil is eradicated."
Sen. George F. Allen, Virginia Republican, condemned the "vile acts" terrorists "perpetrated against defenseless men, women and children" and hailed military action as the "best strategy" to prevent future terrorist assaults.
Members of Congress strongly backed yesterday's allied attack on Taliban military sites and guerrilla training camps in Afghanistan, while some lawmakers said Iraq also should be a target.
-------- israel
Israel braces for unwanted part in war
Washington Times
October 8, 2001
From combined dispatches
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20011008-73449571.htm
JERUSALEM - Israel reiterated the country's offer to provide "all help possible" to the United States, following the onset of U.S.-led strikes against Afghanistan yesterday.
"The United States have launched their offensive tonight against the bases of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization in Afghanistan following the horrible terror attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States," said a statement issued by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office.
"Over the past three days, Secretary of State [Colin L.] Powell has kept Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon informed of the preparations for the U.S. attack and of the measures which have been taken to that effect," the statement added.
"Israel helps and will provide its help but is not taking part in the war," the statement also said.
The statement said all necessary measures had been taken to ensure the Israeli population's security, without elaborating on these measures.
Over the past several weeks, Israelis have rushed to gas mask distribution centers, from fear of a replay of the 1991 Gulf war, when Iraq launched missiles against Israel in revenge for the U.S.-led strikes that followed Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
Some 40 conventional warhead Scud missiles hit Israeli territory, killing two persons, and the population braced for chemical attacks.
The U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan came hours after a Palestinian bomber blew himself up and killed one Israeli, marking the first suicide attack in nearly a month and dealing another blow to a tattered truce.
Also, a Palestinian was shot dead and three were injured in the volatile West Bank city of Hebron. Palestinians blamed Israeli troops, while Israel said it was part of an internal Palestinian dispute. Israeli troops entered two Palestinian neighborhoods in the city on Friday and have remained there for the past three days.
Neither Israel nor the Palestinians want to be seen as abandoning the cease-fire, but the violence has not abated since the truce was declared Sept. 26. More than 30 Palestinians and seven Israelis have been killed since the truce.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Cabinet issued a sharply worded statement Friday telling Palestinian militants that attacks on Israel were undermining the truce and worked against Palestinian interests.
Also, Palestinian security forces said they have detained at least six suspected militants in recent days. Those taken into custody include two activists from the Islamic Jihad movement, detained Sunday in the wake of the suicide bombing.
However, Israel has named more than 100 suspects it wants arrested, and the actions by the security forces have not halted the attacks.
In northern Israel, a Palestinian bomber approached the Israeli agricultural settlement of Kibbutz Shluhot on foot. When an Israeli in a car drove up to confront the Palestinian, he detonated his bomb, killing them both, said Israeli police spokesman Gil Kleiman.
Palestinian security sources said the bomber was a 17-year-old high school student, Ahmed Daraghmeh, and a member of Islamic Jihad.
Islamic Jihad did not comment on the attack. The Islamic Jihad and the Hamas movement have carried out more than 20 suicide bombings during the past year of Mideast fighting.
Meanwhile, Israeli tanks and troops maintained their hold on two Palestinian neighborhoods in Hebron for the third day in a row yesterday, making it the longest Israeli presence in Palestinian territory since Israel started handing over parts of the West Bank and Gaza in 1994 under interim peace accords.
-------- pakistan
In Pakistan Leader Purges Top Ranks Of Military, Spy Services
By Kamran Khan and Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 8, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22795-2001Oct7.html
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Oct. 7 -- Seeking to preempt threats to the stability to his government on the first day of U.S.-led attacks on Afghanistan, President Pervez Musharraf today purged key senior officers in the Pakistani military and intelligence services, agencies that helped to create and support the Afghan Taliban militia, according to military sources.
Musharraf's sudden overhaul, which included pushing the country's intelligence chief, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, into "premature retirement," was intended to rid his security agencies of top officers unwilling to abandon their support of militant Islamic groups and to prevent them from undercutting orders to sever Pakistan's ties with the Taliban, the sources said.
Musharraf's decision last week to aid the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism has angered militant Muslim groups here, many of which have long-standing ties to Pakistan's military and intelligence services. Reflecting concern that Islamic clerics and senior officers could try to destabilize his two-year-old military government, the self-appointed president pushed out at least five prominent officers.
"General Musharraf clearly said that those who want to accompany him in this new journey can stay aboard, while others may leave," said one senior military official. "In every army of the world, either you follow the commander or leave."
Musharraf also ordered the house arrest of one of the most vocal religious leaders in Pakistan, Fazlur Rahman of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Islami party. Rahman was released later in the day. Meanwhile, leaders of 24 religious groups called for rallies in Pakistan's largest cities on Monday to protest tonight's attacks in Afghanistan.
Some senior military officers, including Ahmad, the intelligence services chief who led two unsuccessful delegations to Afghanistan to ask the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden, have argued strongly against Musharraf's decision to support U.S.-led attacks against the Taliban.
In addition, some members of the intelligence services reportedly balked at orders to provide intelligence information to the United States as it prepared for military attacks against bin Laden and the Taliban leadership.
Now some of those top commanders, including three who helped Musharraf overthrow Pakistan's elected civilian government in October 1999, have been forced out of key positions, allowing Musharraf to recast Pakistan's most crucial new foreign policy and national security goals.
Musharraf, who was given 48 hours' notice of the start of the U.S. operations in Afghanistan by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday, negotiated this rapid power shift using a deft combination of promotions and unexpected "early retirements," replacing hard-line senior members with moderates more compatible with his new policies.
He curtailed the power of Lt. Gen. Mohammad Aziz Khan, a strong supporter of Pakistan's radical Islamic groups, by promoting him from his key decision-making role as the army's vice chief of staff to the largely ceremonial position of chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Unlike his counterpart in the U.S. military, the Pakistani joint chiefs chairman is little more than a figurehead.
At the same time, two hard-line officers who have resisted Musharraf's demands for compliance with U.S. requests to attack the Taliban -- intelligence chief Ahmad and the Army deputy chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Muzzaffer Usami -- privately submitted "premature retirements," according to military officials.
Musharraf named Lt. Gen. Ehsanul Haq, a moderate with an extensive background in Afghan issues, as new head of the intelligence services. Haq is also an ethnic Pashtun -- the same background as most members of the Taliban and about 40 percent of the Afghan population.
"By all standards, a moderate has replaced a hard-liner in this key job," one former intelligence official said.
The president also appointed new commanders in two strategic provinces on the Afghan border -- Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province, volatile tribal areas where many leaders and residents have strong ties to the Taliban. The original members of the Taliban were trained in religious schools in Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province, and those schools have remained active recruiting grounds for the Afghan movement.
The tough U.S. demands on Musharraf have given the Pakistani president the chance to redirect a military that has become increasingly supportive of hard-line religious groups in recent years. His efforts to curb the military's involvement with religious organizations and discourage the intelligence services' support of the Taliban had met little success until the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
U.S. officials warned Musharraf soon after the attacks on New York and Washington that they expected him to silence public dissent in the ranks of his military and intelligence services in the buildup to military action against the Taliban. But from the first days of Musharraf's efforts to coordinate intelligence and military operations, some of his commanders offered stiff resistance and showed little resolve in supporting the president.
Pakistan's intelligence services have played a critical role in financing, arming and training the Taliban throughout its rise to power in Afghanistan in 1994-96. Although Musharraf had come to believe that the Taliban had become too extremist in the last two years, the radical Islamic movement retained many avid supporters within Pakistan's intelligence services and military.
Many military officers also have expressed discontent with Musharraf's willingness to cooperate with the exiled king of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir Shah, in organizing a government to succeed the Taliban. The Pakistani military has long distrusted the ex-king and is particularly riled that he has agreed to include the Northern Alliance, a rebel coalition fighting the Taliban, in discussions on forming a new government.
Musharraf's efforts to replace some of the most recalcitrant of the officers cuts deeply, however. Three of the men who lost their influential positions were the officers most important to the success of Musharraf's military coup in October 1999 and were his longtime personal associates.
But with the onset of military action that could continue over several days or weeks and the possible need to establish a new government in Afghanistan after a collapse of the Taliban, Musharraf would have faced increasing pressure from officers with only lukewarm commitment to meeting U.S. demands.
To solidify his position, Musharraf on Saturday quietly extended his three-year term as Pakistan's army chief of staff, the most powerful position in the government. His claim on the position expired that day, but in his role as president he could reappoint himself to the job.
--------
Mobs Storm Pakistan City
October 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Attacks-Pakistan.html
QUETTA, Pakistan (AP) -- Mobs stormed this city by the Afghan border Monday, lobbing firebombs while chanting glory to Osama bin Laden and hatred for America. Police shot one man dead in the tear gas-shrouded confusion.
From daybreak to late afternoon, in a huge rally downtown and in street-corner clusters, Muslims shouted support for Afghanistan's Taliban leadership. Compared with the scattered and sporadic protests elsewhere in the country, this was the worst sustained unrest to hit Pakistan over Sunday's U.S.-British attacks.
Thousands surged through the streets in running skirmishes with police, setting ablaze the U.N. Children's Fund compound, the central police station, movie theaters, a bank and other buildings in the city of 800,000.
At least six rioters suffered bullet wounds and 24 others were injured by police batons or tear gas canisters, doctors at Civil Hospital said. Two officers also were hospitalized.
Tear gas hung over parts of Quetta, and gunfire echoed across the old city as police fired repeatedly into the air. Columns of smoke were visible in every direction. Two fire trucks were torched in the street.
``Look what they did,'' wailed Chaudary Umedali outside the smoking ruins of his movie theater, the Imdad. He had been showing a Hollywood film: ``Desperado.''
Umedali said 1,000 people swarmed around the Imdad, smashed in its door and threw firebombs inside. ``They didn't like our showing American and English films,'' he said.
Outside, a huge felled tree lay smoldering on the road. Part of the nearby city market was a charred ruin.
A few shop owners opened their shutters in the morning, but hastily slammed them shut when rioters approached. Several people were beaten badly for trying to do business as usual.
At midday, Maulana Noor Mohammed, local leader of a national religious party, told a shouting crowd of 4,000: ``If there is no peace in Afghanistan, there will be no peace anywhere in world.''
He warned Muslims everywhere to prepare for holy war in support of the Taliban.
Many of the rioters were bearded and looked like students of religious schools, but there were also thousands of others, from fresh-faced teen-agers to graying men.
As tear gas wafted through the heavy gates of the Serena Hotel, one of Pakistan's leading lawyers, dressed in well-cut suit and black tie, picked glumly at his grapefruit.
``I fear this begins the process of Talibanization of Pakistan,'' said Abdul Basit, 65.
Basit said President Pervez Musharraf had made ``the greatest blunder'' by backing Western allies against a neighboring Islamic state. That, he said, undermined his own position and infuriated much of the army.
``All over the Muslim world people would like to make heroes out of people who had no chance before,'' he said. ``The Taliban has a hideous face, but we made them into heroes.''
He said he expected Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons capacity, to shift toward leadership of militant Islamic states.
``Too many people are fed up,'' he concluded. ``If you want to see the future of Pakistan, look at Afghanistan.''
His 26-year-old colleague, Amjad Pervaiz, added his agreement. ``I think we will see a religion revolution in Pakistan,'' he said.
Others dismiss this analysis as too dire. They note that in Karachi, the country's largest city with 14 million people, only a few hundred protested.
Quetta, on the other hand, is in the heartland of pro-Taliban religious leader Fazl-ur Rehman, whose followers had vowed to wage a holy war against the United States if it attacked neighboring Afghanistan.
By afternoon, two dozen international U.N. employees crowded into the Serena Hotel after their headquarters declared a security alert.
A mob stoned the U.N. refugee agency and two women employees still in the building barely escaped out the back.
Rupert Colville, a U.N. spokesman, said relief operations for Afghan refugees in Quetta were paralyzed because of the threat. ``It would be foolhardy to the point of madness'' to run trucks through the city, he said.
-------- tajikistan
Tajikistan Will Open Airspace, Bases to U.S.
October 8, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-attack-tajikistan.html
DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (Reuters) - Tajikistan said Monday it was prepared to allow U.S. forces to use its air bases for military actions in Afghanistan, some 24 hours after their first strikes in the country.
``The Republic of Tajikistan has declared its readiness to open its airspace to the U.S. airforce and, should it prove necessary, its airports for carrying out measures against terrorism,'' a government statement said.
This was the first such declaration by the central Asian republic, which has an 815-mile border with Afghanistan. Tajikistan had previously said only that it was ready to help the fight against ``terrorism,'' without any specific measures.
Japanese envoy Muneo Suzuki had said earlier Monday, after meeting Tajik President Imomali Rakhmonov, that agreement had been reached to allow U.S. forces to use the bases.
``We, Tajikistan and Japan, have one and the same position toward the fight against terrorism, and we ... support the U.S. action,'' Suzuki said.
``Tajikistan confirmed that it would allow the use of airspace for the Americans and also the use, if necessary, of aerodromes for American troops,'' Suzuki told a news conference.
Tajikistan was swift to support Sunday's air strikes against Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
``Tajikistan has more than once suffered from terrorism and supports ... the U.S. government and its forces in dealing with the fight against international terrorism,'' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
``The Tajik government noted ... that it would cooperate with countries in the spheres of exchanging information on terrorism, extremism and radicalism.''
The impoverished Central Asian state, racked by civil war fueled by an Islamic fundamentalist uprising in the 1990s, had previously said it could not get involved in another country's conflict.
``The (Tajik) army will not get involved in any kind of conflict or military action in other countries... The military is only used for the country's defense,'' a Defense Ministry spokesman told Reuters.
He said the border with Afghanistan was quiet.
Neighboring Uzbekistan, like Tajikistan a Muslim former Soviet republic, has also made an airport available to U.S. forces but said it would only be used for humanitarian or rescue missions in Afghanistan.
-------- u.n.
Syria Wins U.N. Security Council Seat
October 8, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Security-Council.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Syria won a seat on the U.N. Security Council on Monday with overwhelming support from the nations of the world, despite being on the U.S. list of countries sponsoring terrorism.
The General Assembly elected Syria to the powerful U.N. body for a two-year term on the first ballot. It received 160 ``yes'' votes from the 177 nations voting.
Guinea, Cameroon and Bulgaria were also elected on the first ballot. Mexico defeated the Dominican Republic for a Latin American seat.
Syria was the unanimous choice of Arab and Asian nations for the Asian seat on the council being vacated by Bangladesh on Jan. 1. Candidates that have unanimous regional support are almost always elected.
Last year, the United States led a successful campaign to keep Sudan, also on the U.S. list of terrorism sponsors, off the council.
But this year, despite opposition from Israel and a last-minute appeal from 38 members of the U.S. Congress to President Bush to oppose Syria's candidacy, the U.S. administration has remained silent.
U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham, arriving for Monday's election, said: ``It's a secret ballot.''
Israel's U.N. Ambassador Yehuda Lancry said Syria's election went against the ``spirit and letter'' of the U.N. Charter, which stipulates that every candidate for the Security Council ``should prove its adequacy in terms of its contribution to international peace and security.''
``Syria indeed backs terrorist groups inside Syria and outside Syria,'' Lancry said. ``It is really a sheer absurdity and a sheer nonsense to have Syria as a member of the Security Council.''
But Saudi Arabia's U.N. ambassador, Fawzi Shobokshi, countered Monday that ``Syria deserves to be a member of the Security Council ... because they represent a responsible government and the world's people, and play an important role in our part of the world.''
In an editorial Monday, Syria's state-run Al-Baath newspaper said Syria wanted to join the council out of its ``real concern to see the world enjoy peace and security on the basis of international legitimacy.'' It said that with the start of the air strikes against Afghanistan, there was ``an increasing need for a voice that calls for the importance of consolidating peace, security and cooperation in this world.''
One major difference between last year's election and this year's is that Syria was running unopposed while Sudan was running against Mauritius in a hotly contested race.
Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Elfatih Mohamed Erwa, said Monday that there were differences between his country and the United States last year.
Washington declared its position and ``pressed everybody'' to vote for Mauritius, a small Indian Ocean nation, he said. ``But Syria is opposed only by Israel, not by anybody else.''
The political climate is also different, especially following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The United States has been trying to enlist Syria's help in its global anti-terrorism campaign, and Syrian President Bashar Assad has condemned the attacks.
But Rep. Eliot L. Engel, a New York Democrat who collected 38 congressional signatures Friday in a letter to Bush, said allowing Syria to join the council would send ``precisely the wrong signal to the international community at this critical time and would be counterproductive to America's efforts to put a halt to global terror.''
The Security Council, the top U.N. decision-making body, is made up of 15 members. Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States hold permanent seats. Ten nonpermanent members are elected to two-year terms -- five every year.
Guinea and Cameroon won two African seats being vacated by Mali and Tunisia, and Bulgaria defeated Belarus for an East European seat held by Ukraine.
-------- u.s.
Precision bombing is weapon of choice
October 8, 2001
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011008-910179.htm
U.S. aircraft and warships used precision bombing and missile strikes in yesterday's opening round of allied operations against terrorist bases and other targets in Afghanistan with the aim of defeating the al Qaeda network and its supporters in the ruling Taliban militia.
Defense officials said the attacks were carried out by about 15 long-range bombers, including Air Force B-2, B-1 and B-52 bombers based in the United States and in areas near Afghanistan.
A group of about 25 U.S. Navy strike aircraft, F-14 and F-18 fighters from the aircraft carriers USS Carl Vinson and USS Enterprise, took part in the bombing raids, and four U.S. guided-missile warships and two submarines - one British, one American - fired a total of 50 cruise missiles.
The first strikes began at 12:30 p.m. EDT yesterday, or 9 p.m. in Afghanistan.
Defense officials said the attacks were targeted on Taliban military and defense-related facilities in Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Mazer-e-Sharif.
A senior defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity said the targets included early-warning radar, airfields and aircraft, some terrorist training camps, fixed surface-to-air missile sites and a concentration of troops and tanks near Mazer-e-Sharif
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the goal of the raids, which also included a British surface ship, was to "create conditions for sustained anti-terrorist and humanitarian relief operations in Afghanistan."
"That requires that, among other things, we first remove the threat from air defenses and from Taliban aircraft," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon as the attacks were under way.
"We also seek to raise the cost of doing business for foreign terrorists who have chosen Afghanistan from which to organize their activities and for the oppressive Taliban regime that continues to tolerate terrorist presence in those portions of Afghanistan which they control."
The attacks come less than a month after terrorists struck the World Trade Center and Pentagon with hijacked commercial airliners, killing more than 5,000 people.
Crews returning from their missions yesterday reported little or no resistance over Afghanistan.
"It all came together like a finely oiled machine," one B-52 pilot told Agence France-Presse after his mission yesterday.
"We face much more challenging sorties in our routine training," a B-1B bombardier said in a post-attack conference call with reporters, according to the Associated Press.
"I felt proud. It's like being a football player on Super Bowl day," the bombardier said.
The allied goal is to attack the Taliban military forces until they are unable to protect terrorist Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in Afghanistan.
The campaign also seeks to weaken the Taliban so that the Northern Alliance forces, now located about 20 to 40 miles north of Kabul, can take power.
The sources said the U.S. government has told the alliance to hold its positions until the U.S. military strikes have weakened the Taliban military sufficiently.
Defense officials said the military operations would continue for several days and humanitarian air drops were to begin immediately to help Afghan refugees, many of whom are spread out in makeshift camps near Afghanistan's borders.
The initial attacks took place against several terrorist training bases scattered throughout Afghanistan, Taliban-controlled surface-to-air missile sites, several early-warning radars, and air bases where the Taliban operates a small number of MiG-21 fighters.
The Taliban is known to operate a small number of SA-2 missile batteries as well as three types of anti-aircraft artillery.
The Taliban also is believed to have shoulder-fired SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles and some U.S. Stingers, which were supplied to Afghan rebels for use against Soviet forces in the 1980s.
"We need the freedom to operate on the ground and in the air," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "And the targets selected, if successfully destroyed, should permit an increasing degree of freedom over time."
Overall, Mr. Rumsfeld said: "Our objective is to defeat those who use terrorism and those who house or support them. The world stands united in this effort."
Mr. Rumsfeld said the strikes are "not about a religion or an individual terrorist or a country."
"Our partners in this effort represent nations and peoples of all cultures, all religions and all races," he said. "We share the belief that terrorism is a cancer on the human condition, and we intend to oppose it wherever it is."
The initial attacks are intended to eliminate the threat to U.S. aircraft and part of the Pentagon's strategy of creating "air dominance" - controlling the skies over a location as part of various military attacks.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the attacks included both overt and covert operations, suggesting that special- operations commandos are working on the ground inside Afghanistan.
Commandos are expected to play a major role in the war on terrorism, conducting intelligence and ground-attack missions against terrorists and their infrastructure.
"I want to remind you that while today's operations are visible, many other operations may not be so visible," Gen. Myers said.
"But visible or not, our friends and enemies should understand that all instruments of our national power, as well as those of our friends and allies around the world, are being brought to bear on this global menace."
Mr. Rumsfeld said the missile and bombing raids did not try to hit bin Laden himself. U.S. officials say his al Qaeda network masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks.
"This is not about a single individual," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It's about an entire terrorist network and multiple terrorist networks across the globe."
For the first time, the Pentagon stated that it would work with the opposition Northern Alliance, which controls parts of northeastern Afghanistan.
Mr. Rumsfeld said there are "a number of elements on the ground" in Afghanistan that oppose the Taliban, including the Northern Alliance, tribes in the south and elements within the Taliban itself.
These elements "do not favor [Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed] Omar and do not favor the al Qaeda and would wish they were no longer in the country.
"Certainly our interest is to strengthen those forces that are opposed to al Qaeda and opposed to the Taliban leadership that is so intimately connected to them, and to strengthen all of those forces so that they will have better opportunities to prevail and to deal with what obviously is a regime that is enormously harmful to the Afghan people and poses threats to people all across the globe" including Americans, Mr. Rumsfeld said.
Mr. Rumsfeld said the attacks were not directed against Afghanistan or the Afghan people. "We support the Afghan people against the al Qaeda, a foreign presence on their land, and against the Taliban regime that supports them."
The humanitarian aid included initial drops of about 37,000 packaged meals and medical supplies.
Gen. Myers said most of the weapons fired were "precision" guided weapons, although non-precision bombs also were used, depending on the types of targets.
"We are using or essentially have at hand all our conventional munitions," Gen. Myers said.
Special-operations forces also dropped propaganda leaflets over Afghanistan explaining the bombing and missile strikes.
Radio broadcasts in local languages also were initiated from aircraft in the region.
A large number of support aircraft also took part, including intelligence, reconnaissance and command-and-control aircraft, and aerial-refueling tankers.
The U.S. missile ships involved in the attacks were the cruiser USS Philippine Sea, the destroyers USS O'Brien, USS John Paul Jones, and USS McFaul. The one British and one U.S. submarine were not identified by name.
The B-1 and B-52 bombers were based at the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia and the B-2 stealth bombers flew from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo.
The B-2s landed after the raids at an undisclosed base in the region, officials said. There were no losses of allied aircraft or casualties, the Pentagon said early in the operation.
• Rowan Scarborough contributed to this report.
--------
THE PENTAGON
Deploying Stealthy B-2's, Military Promises Day-and-Night Bombing Campaign
New York Times
October 8, 2001
By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/08/international/08MILI.html?searchpv=nytToday
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - The strikes on the Taliban government opened what senior Pentagon and military officials said would be a weeklong, nearly day-and-night bombing campaign carried out by supersonic jets from aircraft carriers and heavy bombers flying from air bases as far away as Missouri.
In a sign of the intensity and duration of the planned campaign, the Air Force's stealthy, bat-winged B-2 bombers did not return to their hangars at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., after striking their targets halfway around the world, but rather flew on to Diego Garcia, a British island in the Indian Ocean, where they will reload for more bombing runs. It is the first time the stealthy, sophisticated B-2, built at a cost of $2 billion each, has been based overseas for a combat mission.
Today's strikes opened with a synchronized barrage of 50 cruise missiles fired from British and American ships and submarines, and continued through the clear, moonlit Afghan night, senior military officials at the Pentagon said.
The attacks hit airfields where the Taliban military has a modest air force, air-defense gun and missile batteries and command centers across Afghanistan, including targets in the capital, Kabul, and in the center of the Taliban's political power, Kandahar, they said.
The first attacks also apparently devastated a concentration of Taliban tanks and armored vehicles near Mazar-i-Sharif, in the north, where Taliban forces had recently battled opposition forces, the officials said.
Another primary target was the Taliban's defense headquarters on the outskirts of Kabul, they said. "You don't attack the Pentagon and not expect your defense ministry to be destroyed," one official said.
A wave of B-52 bombers dropped streams of huge unguided bombs across several training camps in the Baghlan Province north of Kabul that the officials said had recently been used by terrorist groups, including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. Though terrorists are likely to have fled in advance of the strikes, one senior military official said the camps had buildings and equipment worth destroying and military commanders chose a tactic intended to create widespread devastation.
As the attack planes returned, it was too early to say how successful the attacks had been or whether there were many casualties on the ground. Officials said they could better access the damage once reconnaissance aircraft were able to survey the targets after sunrise in Afghanistan on Monday.
Significantly, the strikes did not specifically target Mr. bin Laden, according to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials, because intelligence services are not certain of his location.
The initial attack involved 15 American bombers, including heavy B-1 and B-52 bombers, also based on Diego Garcia. There were also 25 F- 14's and F/A-18's from the aircraft carriers Carl Vinson and Enterprise, both in the Arabian Sea, and scores of aerial refuelers and reconnaissance aircraft, both American and British, operating from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
Many of the bombs were guided by satellite, a tactic that does not require flying so low or involve special forces on the ground to shine lasers at individual targets.
Even as the first air strikes continued, two C-17 cargo planes left Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany and lumbered this evening toward Southwest Afghanistan, dropping 37,500 packets of food and medicine in an area where thousands of refugees have fled.
In a sign of the Pentagon's wariness of the Taliban's air defenses, the C-17's flew at altitudes so high that their crew members risked suffering the bends.
Mr. Rumsfeld said that the Taliban military had a limited number of surface-to-air missiles, as well as hand-held rockets that could destroy aircraft overhead. Other officials said the Taliban forces appeared to put up little significant defense. Aging aircraft at several air bases in Afghanistan made no effort to scramble, one official said.
A B-52 pilot who took part in the mission said tonight that he and his crew did not encounter any air defense threat for which they were unprepared, though he declined to discuss specifics. "There was nothing that put us unduly at risk," the pilot said in a telephone interview, speaking on condition he be identified only by his call name, Woodstock. By late this evening, no American aircraft were reported damaged, missing or downed in the first strikes.
While the Pentagon deployed nearly 1,000 soldiers to an airfield in Uzbekistan to guard search-and-rescue teams, the initial phases of the war plan did rely on any sizable use of American forces on the ground in Afghanistan, beyond small squads of commandos searching for targets, senior officials said.
The attack began just after 11 a.m. Eastern time - nearly two hours before President Bush spoke from the Treaty Room of the White House - when four American cruisers and a submarine, joined by one British submarine, began firing cruise missile after cruise missile toward Afghanistan. Crew members aboard some tankers even listened to the President's speech as they took part in the operation.
The first blasts - from the cruise missiles - were reported in Afghanistan at 12:27 p.m. Eastern time, or 8:57 p.m. in Afghanistan.
They were followed by several hours of strikes by bombers and fighters, many flying over Pakistan, which had allowed American aircraft to fly over its territory.
The B-2's unloaded their satellite- guided bombs, called Joint Direct Attack Munitions, used against targets that must be demolished with precision. The B-52's carried payloads of 500-pound gravity bombs, called Mark-82, which are more traditional explosives intended to kill massed troops, to destroy tanks or other weapons or to level structures like those found at military training camps or to gut airstrips.
Appearing with Gen. Richard B. Myers, the newly installed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Rumsfeld said the American military had already begun psychology operations to undermine the Taliban's grip on Afghanistan, including radio broadcasts. In addition to food packets, the Pentagon also plans to drop leaflets, imploring Afghanis to oppose the Taliban.
-------- OTHER
-------- alternative energy
GRANT PROMOTES ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY
October 8, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-08-09.html
WASHINGTON, DC, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded $50,000 to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) of Washington, DC to educate state and local governments, trade associations and the public about the benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, such as wind power.
Reducing energy consumption by using more efficient equipment and manufacturing processes and adopting renewable energy technologies can reduce the threat of global climate change, prevent air pollution, decrease fossil fuel use and ease the strain on electricity providers.
Under the grant, EESI will meet with policymakers and industry officials to identify ways to promote existing energy efficient and renewable energy technologies as stimulants to local community economic growth and as opportunities for small business. The Institute will use methods such as hosting expositions, participating in panels and providing keynote speakers at trade meetings.
As an example of the initiative, EESI will be coordinating an energy technology exposition in Washington, DC in May 2002.
EESI is a nonprofit organization that carries out education and analysis projects in energy efficiency and renewable energy, transportation, water quality and conservation, global climate change, fiscal policy and military base cleanup.
==
DOE FUNDED RESEARCH WINS 25 AWARDS
WASHINGTON, DC, October 8, 2001 (ENS) - Department of Energy-funded researchers have won 25 of the 100 awards given this year by R&D Magazine for the most outstanding technology developments with commercial potential.
Examples of their work include: a tough, sprayed on metal coating with extreme wear and abrasion resistance; a heat pump water heater that uses one third the electricity of a conventional water heater; a way to recharge lead acid batteries that extends their life by 3-4 times; and a method for processing computer chips using supercritical carbon dioxide with the potential of saving the semiconductor manufacturing industry tens of millions of gallons of water per day.
"I'm proud of the award-winning work done at DOE national laboratories and facilities," said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. "These accomplishments clearly demonstrate the value of government funded research to our nation."
The researchers winning the R&D 100 Awards work at 13 of the department's laboratories and facilities across the country. One company whose research was funded by the department will also receive an award.
Eleven of the awards are joint awards with companies or universities. The winning technologies were selected by an independent panel of some 70 experts and the editors of R&D Magazine.
Among the products recognized by the awards are the Autothermal Reforming Catalyst for Fuel project at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Illinois. This technology is the key component of a fuel processor (or reformer) that has converted methanol, ethanol, natural gas, gasoline and diesel into hydrogen that can be fed to a fuel cell to produce electricity.
The laboratories and facilities whose researchers are receiving awards, along with descriptions of their projects, are listed on the DOE's Office of Science website at: http://www.science.doe.gov/index.htm
-------- human rights
Doctors Without Borders calls U.S. food drops 'propaganda'
Nando Media
October 8, 2001
The Associated Press
http://www.nando.com/special_reports/terrorism/impact/story/126782p-1334784c.html
PARIS - Nobel Peace Prize winner Medecins Sans Frontieres, known in English as Doctors Without Borders, condemned the humanitarian operation accompanying the U.S.-led strikes on Afghanistan as "military propaganda" designed to justify the strikes.
On Sunday, the United States dropped 37,500 food packages from two planes, destined for starving Afghans. Medicine is also expected to be dropped.
In a statement, the French humanitarian group said the operation "isn't in any way a humanitarian aid operation, but more a military propaganda operation, destined to make international opinion accept the U.S.-led military operation."
"What sense is there in shooting with one hand, and giving medicine with the other?" the group asked.
The United States has a stockpile of some 2 million food packets that each provide at least 2,200 calories per day.
Afghanistan is among the world's poorest countries and has the lowest per-person food intake in the world, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Medecins Sans Frontieres won the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize for its medical relief work in more than 80 countries. Like many international aid groups, it suspended its work in Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
--------
Aid Agencies Reject 'Risky' US Air Drops
Plea for borders to be reopened after air strikes
by Jonathan Steele and Felicity Lawrence
Monday, October 8, 2001
Guardian of London
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1008-01.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/
The launch of military attacks on Afghanistan will worsen the humanitarian crisis in the country and plans for air drops of aid will be "virtually useless" as an aid strategy, leading British aid agencies warned yesterday.
Instead America and Britain should assign clear corridors on the ground and ensure safe passage for aid to flow in and for refugees to return home without any danger of being hit by air strikes, senior aid workers said.
Most of Britain's aid agencies were unwilling to comment on the wisdom of yesterday's attacks because of their non-political status, although they believe that fears of the action against Afghanistan greatly exacerbated the country's humanitarian crisis.
They urged that Pakistan and other neighboring countries be persuaded to reopen their borders to refugees if disaster is to be averted.
Will Day, chief executive of Care International, said yesterday: "Air drops make great TV but they often represent a failure to respond to a food crisis."
Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's director, said all aid should be channeled through the UN "to be seen as impartial and separate from military action. Trucking of food is cheaper and is tried and tested. Air drops are risky, random, expensive, and likely to meet only a fraction of the need. Aid workers would be put in a difficult position if food aid came to be viewed as part of a military effort".
Mohammed Kroessin, the director of Muslim Aid, which has already raised £500,000 in aid, said the military action "will cause immense suffering to millions of starving people. Air drops will not be useful". The director of the Catholic charity, Cafod, Julian Filichowski, said: "It is a matter of fact that even the threat of military action has made the humanitarian situation worse. The start of military attacks on Afghanistan, even if limited, will exacerbate problems."
Save the Children's director-general, Mike Aaronson, said it was not the charity's job to say whether military action should have taken place.
But he added that his organization had urged restraint on the grounds that military action inevitably results in civilian casualties and suffering, and all possible alternatives should be explored first. The threat of military action has already had serious consequences, causing many people to leave the urban areas of Afghanistan.
All of the dozen agencies contacted by the Guardian yesterday wanted Afghanistan's borders to be reopened immediately.
"States in the region must honor their obligations under the refugee convention and ensure that those seeking refuge from Afghanistan are allowed to enter their borders," Mr Aaronson said.
Cafod said the launching of air strikes while the borders were still closed would leave people who were already starving stranded without access to aid. "We would remind the international community that international humanitarian law obliges those who take armed action to make sure that civilians have access to humanitarian aid."
Pakistan, Iran and the former Soviet republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan closed their borders in line with an American request early in the crisis.
Their governments were willing to go along with Washington because of fears of a massive refugee influx which they could not control.
The executive director of World Vision, Charles Clayton, said: "As a Christian humanitarian organization we never advocate the use of military force. But we remind western forces of their obligations to civilians under the Geneva convention."
Christian Aid said military force "could only be justified as a last resort as a means of bringing guilty men to justice" but "in the short term it will inevitably make the humanitarian situation worse".
Secure conditions were essential for the transport of supplies, which meant open borders and agreement by those inside and outside the country that aid convoys would move unmolested.
"Any offensive military action or threat of military action makes it impossible to deliver these conditions," said director Daleep Mukarjee.
"The most vital need is to prevent people becoming refugees by getting humanitarian aid to their home areas and remove the fear of conflict which is combining with hunger to drive people from their homes."
Tearfund's international services director, Ian Wallace, said a delay in military action would give more time for relief infrastructures to be established.
Every agency was keen to separate humanitarian aid from the military, arguing that provision of aid was not a job for armies and air forces during a conflict.
Humanitarian crisis
Population 20.9m
Under-five mortality one in four (fourth worst in the world, highest outside Africa)
Children under five with malnutrition 35% (before current crisis)
Maternal mortality 1,700 per 100,000 (worst in world after Sierra Leone)
Life expectancy at birth 40-45 years
Access to basic health services 29% of population
Access to safe water 12% of population
Sources: WHO 1998, UNICEF 1998, Afghanistan field guide, ed Girardet
-------- police / prisoners
U.S. tightens security to guard against retaliation
October 8, 2001
By Jerry Seper and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011008-19243048.htm
Law-enforcement authorities nationwide have upgraded already heightened security measures to guard against possible renewed attacks on America in the wake of yesterday's strike by allied forces on military targets and terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
In response to an FBI request yesterday for state and local authorities to move to the "highest alert" for possible terrorist activities, security tightened around hundreds of locations throughout the country, particularly government buildings, sports stadiums and entertainment centers.
The enhanced security focused on possible attacks by truck and car bombers who would target what authorities have called "exposed infrastructure."
"All law enforcement agencies have been asked to evaluate whether additional local security measures are warranted in light of the military operations and the current threat level," the FBI said in a statement.
The nation's airports also remain on "heightened alert," with National Guard units walking perimeter duty. The U.S. Coast Guard is boarding and searching ships at several locations, including New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Seattle, and security has been increased at nuclear power plants and oil refineries.
U.S. fighter jets have been assigned to combat patrols over major cities.
"At my request, many governors have activated the National Guard to strengthen airport security. We have called up reserves to reinforce our military capability and strengthen the protection of our homeland," President Bush told the nation in announcing yesterday's military strikes.
"In the months ahead, our patience will be one of our strengths - patience with the long waits that will result from tighter security, patience and understanding that it will take time to achieve our goals, patience in all the sacrifices that may come," he said.
The increased security comes after yesterday's strike by U.S. and British warplanes and sea-launched missiles at air-defense sites, air bases, communications and training camps of al Qaeda, the terrorist organization founded and funded by Osama bin Laden.
In New York, where more than 5,000 people died when two hijacked jetliners crashed Sept. 11 into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, additional police officers and National Guard units were deployed at sensitive sites around the city, including airports and at all entry and departure points into New York.
But no major public buildings, bridges or roads would be closed, said Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.
"Life goes on as normal in New York," Mr. Giuliani said. "Yes, we have heightened security; we've had that for some time. It has been increased as a result of the action that's being taken in Afghanistan."
U.S. embassies and other American targets abroad also have come under increased security. The State Department issued strong warnings to U.S. citizens that the strikes could spur terrorist retaliation.
"The U.S. government instituted military action today pursuant to its inherent right of self-defense. This act may result in strong anti-American sentiment and retaliatory acts against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world by terrorists and those who are sympathetic to or otherwise support terrorists," the State Department said in a statement.
The increased security also was evident in the Washington area, where the region's myriad police departments deployed additional officers to guard government buildings and the surrounding roads.
A number of trucks coming into the city were being stopped and searched, a plan Metropolitan Police are expected to keep in operation over the next several days. Police in Maryland and Virginia also were stopping "suspicious" trucks.
As news of the attacks spread, Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening ordered extra state troopers to PSINet Stadium for the Baltimore Ravens-Tennessee Titans game. The governor said in a statement he had raised the state's emergency preparedness "to a heightened level of alertness and we have deployed additional state troopers to large events, to the airport, and to other potential targets."
In the District, hundreds of Harley-Davidson bikers who were marching on the western grounds of the U.S. Capitol to raise funds for the 194 Pentagon victims were ordered to leave the grounds as a safety precaution.
D.C. police, who are operating from a 24-hour command center, announced that 21st Street NW will be closed in front of the State Department through Tuesday's rush hour, and police were considering other street closings around the U.S. Capitol.
Lt. Dan Nichols, spokesman for the U.S. Capitol Police, said additional officers have been deployed to patrol the Capitol and House and Senate office buildings - in addition to buildings and adjoining parks in a 40-square-block area around the Capitol.
Although traffic during today's Columbus Day federal holiday is expected to be lighter than usual, D.C. police said they expect the same sort of tight security checks that caused congestion around military installations and government buildings in the first days after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Last week, U.S. intelligence officials told members of Congress there was a high probability that Islamic extremists associated with al Qaeda and bin Laden could try a new round of attacks - either in this country or against U.S. targets overseas. Officials at the FBI and the CIA have rated the chance of a new attacks as very high, based on what the intelligence officials described as credible new information.
"We have to believe there will be another attempt by a terrorist group to hit us again," said Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "You can just about bet on it. That's just something you have to believe will happen."
Sen. Bob Graham, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on ABC's "This Week" program there was "ample unclassified evidence" showing that the events of Sept. 11 were "to be part of a series of events, inside the United States and elsewhere, and that there is no all-clear signal yet."
Attorney General John Ashcroft also warned against the "likelihood of additional terrorist activity" during several briefings and television appearances last week, a message he has steadfastly delivered since the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. He also said that "risks go up" once the United States responds with military action.
Meanwhile, the FBI continues to follow the money trail in tracking down those who planned, financed and assisted in the Sept. 11 attacks of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Agents have focused on the specific relationships the 19 hijackers aboard the four commandeered jetliners had with bin Laden and al Qaeda.
The FBI, according to federal law-enforcement authorities, believes that Mohamed Atta, identified as the plot's ringleader and the pilot aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the World Trade Center's north tower, was a key player in the transfer of funds for the attacks - including at last two wire transfers from Egypt to Florida. The FBI said the transfers went to Atta on Sept. 8 and 9 from Mustafah Ahmed, whom authorities believe is one of bin Laden's chief financial operatives.
-------- security
Security at the cost of liberty?
Washington Times
October 8, 2001
Nat Hentoff
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20011008-23429308.htm
Rarely has a Supreme Court justice, outside the courtroom, warned us that "We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." The Justice was Sandra Day O'Connor, and she said it in New York on Sept. 28.
But she took care to add - quoting former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher - "Where law ends, tyranny begins."
As we see the beginnings of government restrictions on our freedom in the indeterminate war against a largely invisible enemy, I thought of a familiar description of tyranny - in history and science fiction. Tyranny is when the state can - whenever it wants - know where you are, what you're doing, and from collateral information, what you're thinking.
Justice Louis Brandeis warned of that kind of government omniscience in his dissent in the first wiretapping case to reach the Supreme Court - Olmstead vs. United States (1928).
The majority of his brethren ruled that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by this new surveillance technology because no government agent had actually trespassed "upon any property of the defendant." The "insertions were made in the basement of a large office building" elsewhere.
Brandeis, a deep thinker, predicted, "Ways may someday be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home."
Two nights after the terror attacks, the Senate, after a mere 30 minutes of debate, attached an amendment to an appropriations bill making it much easier for the government to wiretap computers without having to go to individual courts to get multiple search warrants.
The government will now be able to access suspects' bank records, credit card purchases and whatever information they search for on the Internet. Also, through the attachment of its Carnivore computer to Internet servers, investigators will be able to search e-mails for suspicious contents. In view of the broad definitions of terrorism in likely legislation - particularly "support of terrorism" - the number of suspects may well be huge.
And if certain kinds of denunciations of government tactics in this war are regarded as "support" of terrorism, the range of suspects could include Libertarian conservatives and pacifists who were "persons under suspicion" in previous American wars.
Moreover, as justified fear of the murderous self-appointed defenders of the "one truth faith" increases, we may find ourselves ordered to carry a national ID card, equipped with the ability to provide the government with extensive information on you and where you go.
In England, the initial source - after much struggle - of some of our liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Labor government is thinking seriously of mandating that everyone carry a national ID card as a shield against terrorist attacks not only by the Irish Republican Army but also by this new conspiracy of fanatical terrorism with roots around the world.
John Wadham, director of Liberty, a civil liberties organization in England, has told the New York Times that the advent of a national ID card "means you have to use the police to stop vast numbers of people on the street, to detain large numbers who aren't carrying a card or in some way are deemed to arouse suspicion." In this country, that may mean Sikhs or people of mixed ancestry, or scruffy anti-government demonstrators in public parks.
Since England does not have a written Constitution, a government with a strong majority in Parliament - as is presently the case - can institute a national ID card, whatever courts may say. The British, after all, have been conditioned to certain incursions into their liberties as a result of the killings by IRA "freedom fighters."
We do have a written Constitution, but now when we are told by the administration that the terrorists may well strike again in unexpected places and ways, I expect that a majority of Americans would not resist being intimately and continually connected to the government by this powerful tribute to information technology.
I know that this is decidedly unlike any other war we have had to fight. But I also know, as Judge Learned Hand said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no court, can even do much to help it."
Nat Hentoff is a columnist for The Washington Times. His column runs on Mondays.
-------- spying
THE HUNT
To Pin Down Terrorists, Gnats, Spies and Predators
New York Times
October 8, 2001
By TIM WEINER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/08/international/08INTE.html
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - The United States has been scouring Afghanistan for weeks, looking for military targets and members of Al Qaeda network, using pilotless planes and spy satellites, seeking intelligence from foreign services and a handful of special-operations forces.
The precise coordinates of the military structures attacked today were mapped during the last three weeks by spy satellites and small pilotless planes, or drones, called Gnat and Predator, according to United States officials and intelligence experts. Those coordinates were programmed into the missiles that struck Kabul, Kandahar and Jalalabad today.
The Gnat, operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, is a 24-foot-long plane carrying a radar called the Lynx. The manufacturer, General Atomics, and intelligence analysts say the commercially available radar can detect objects as small as 4 inches at a distance of 16 miles, day or night, rain or shine, relaying still photos or videos via satellite.
The Gnat's presence over Afghanistan became public when one of the planes crashed on Sept. 22 about 150 miles northwest of Kabul. Taliban commanders said their troops shot it down, but that is extremely unlikely, officials said. The Gnat flies, quietly, at an altitude of four to five miles; the best missiles the Taliban are believed to possess fly no higher than three miles. It can stay aloft for 48 hours without refueling.
The Predator, operated by the Air Force, flies about as high and can stay aloft for 40 hours at a time. Seven exist; two were lost over Iraq in the last month. It, too, can carry the Lynx.
The initial wave of bombing today showed that buildings and airfields are relatively easy to hit. But trying to find fugitives hiding in Afghanistan is like conducting a manhunt on the moon.
The new technology can track small bands of armed men on foot or in vehicles and relay their location to fighter pilots, missile crews and special-operations forces. But finding members of Al Qaeda sheltering in caves, deep defiles and well-fortified underground bunkers is a tougher task. The surveillance craft cannot see through walls or into a mountain.
In days to come, according to United States officials, special-operations forces are likely to re-enter Afghanistan. They can form a triangle with a plane like the Gnat and missile crews, using a hand-held laser pointer to direct an attack on a moving target.
For months, the Pentagon and the C.I.A. have sought fresh intelligence on hideouts used by Al Qaeda and the Taliban's military leadership from Afghanistan's neighbors, especially Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that they would continue to "use overt as well as covert activities to improve target information, to gather intelligence that will enable us to be more precise in what we do."
Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the head of the United States Central Command, which covers the Middle East and South Asia, said recently that "intelligence information is shared on a continual basis" between the United States and Uzbekistan, where United States troops are now based, "against this terrorist threat."
Pakistan's intelligence service, closely allied with the Taliban in recent years, and with the C.I.A. during the cold war, is a crucial if sometimes unsteady source of information for American officers.
The military has also stepped up efforts to pinpoint the locations of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces by listening to every form of telecommunications - satellite phones, cellphones, even walkie-talkies - using an airborne listening post, the RC-135 "Rivet Joint" aircraft, over Afghanistan. It has also sent small units of special-operations commandos into Afghanistan for in-and-out reconnaissance missions in recent days.
Some of the camps Mr. bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan have used have been photographed by American reconnaissance satellites repeatedly during the last three years. One cluster of camps was destroyed by American cruise missiles in August 1998.
Those camps are in steep mountains in Paktia Province, near the Afghan border with Pakistan. They were used by Afghan resistance fighters and their leaders during their nine-year-long, American- backed war against the Soviet military, which occupied Afghanistan from December 1979 to February 1989. During that war, Mr. bin Laden provided heavy construction equipment and the United States provided an estimated $3 billion in covert military assistance to the Afghans.
Thousands of Afghan resistance fighters used the camps, which contemporary Soviet military accounts described as "the last word in NATO engineering techniques."
--------
The Pot Calling the Kettle Black:
The USA and International Terrorism
by Philip Agee,
October 8, 2001
http://www.counterpunch.org/agee1.html
[Philip Agee is a former CIA officer and author of "Inside the Company: A CIA Diary," and "On the Run." This is article is adapted from the text of a speech Agee gave at ABF House, in Stockholm on 24 September 2001.]
I would like to begin by citing a well-known observation of A. J. Liebling, a U.S. journalist and media critic who was active during the mid-1900s: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one," he said.
In a sense, this has always been true. News media in general, except for state-funded organizations, are part of the private sector. I know that, here in Sweden as in Britain, you have state television and state radio. But generally speaking, and certainly in the United States, the press has always been in the private sector.
The Power of the Word
The United States - that is, the political class of the United States - has known about the power of the word for a very, very long time. A personal experience may serve to illustrate how powerful the written word can be.
For legal reasons, I stayed away from the United States for about seventeen years-- from the time I started work on my first book, in the early 1970s, until my autobiography was ready for publication in 1987. The publisher of the latter was very eager for me to return to the States for the promotion of the book, but my lawyers all warned me not to take a chance. They suspected that there could be secret criminal indictment, as there could have been all those years, and argued that the risk was not worth it.
My wife and I decided that we would take that risk. We went back, and they didn't touch me. I did the promotion of the book, and that began ten years of frequent travel to the U.S. for lectures at universities and speeches at political rallies, civic centres, churches, even out in the street. Altogether, and must have spoken at more than 500 events in the United States.
One of my trips, around 1989 or 1990, was to the University of California at Santa Cruz. When the organizers told me that the event was scheduled to take place at a civic centre with room for about 3000 people, my reaction was: "Oh,my god! We are going to look like we're all alone in there. We will never attract more than a couple of hundred people." But they said, "Don't worry. You'll see."
Sure enough, on the night of the meeting the arena was packed. During the discussion period after my talk, which was about the war in Central America still going on at the time, a man stood up way in the back. He was a very large person, with a lot of long hair, a bushy beard, and a plaid lumberjack shirt. He paused for a moment, and then said my name in an enormous, booming voice: "Philip Agee!" He said, "Philip Agee, I want to thank you for saving my life!"
With that, the place became as quiet as you could imagine. You could have heard the proverbial pin drop. He went on to tell the story of how he was seriously wounded in Vietnam, and had to spend several years in a veterans' hospital in the United States. While in hospital, he became despondent: He thought there was no hope, and decided to commit suicide. But then someone gave him a copy of my first book.
He said: "When I read that book, it changed my life." He said that he decided then not to end his life, but to spend the rest of it helping Vietnam War veterans who had problems like his own. From that point in the mid-1970s until the time of this meeting some fifteen years later, he had made a career of social work among Vietnam War veterans suffering from mental problems because of the things that they had done and seen in Vietnam.
This is merely one personal story, but it indicates the strength of the written word. Possibly, one life was saved-- possibly.
Covert Action
The CIA, as you probably know, was founded in the years following World War II-- supposedly, to prevent another Pearl Harbor, the Japanese surprise attack which brought the United States into that war. In that sense, the events of September 11th represent a terrible failure on the part of the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence establishment.
There are at least twelve or thirteen different intelligence agencies in the United States, and they are spending on the order of thirty billion dollars per year-- the CIA being simply the foremost among them. Of course, the CIA was not only established to collect information and to anticipate attacks.
From the beginning of the CIA's existence, it was also used to intervene secretly in the internal affairs of other countries. Virtually no country on earth was exempt.
This secret intervention-- as opposed to the collection of information-- was called covert action, and it was used in a variety of ways to influence the institutions of other countries. Interventions in elections were very frequent. Every CIA station, that is the undercover CIA office inside a U.S. embassy, included agents who were involved in covert action. In addition to intervention to ensure the election of favoured candidates and the defeat of disfavoured candidates, the CIA also infiltrated the institutions of power in countries all over the world. I am sure that Sweden is no exception, and was not an exception during all the years of the Cold War.
There was electoral intervention, propaganda via the media, and also the penetration and manipulation of women's organizations, religious organizations, youth and student organizations, the trade-union movement-- very important-- but also the military and security services and, of course, political parties. All of these institutions were free game for penetration and manipulation by the CIA.
In short, the CIA influenced the civic life of countries all around the world. It did this due to a lack of faith in democracy in other countries.
There was a desire for control. The secret U.S. policy was to not leave things to "chance", that is to the will of the people in whatever country it might be. They had to be tutored, they had to be "guided" in such a way that they would be safe for U.S. control. Control was the key word. None of this was done for altruistic or idealistic reasons.
Three key factors
Where the media are concerned, there are three important factors involved: sources, selection and the slant. With regard to sources, it is my understanding that Swedish news media have very few of their own people working abroad. That means that they are dependent on what they get from other sources, for example the Associated Press, Reuters, BBC or CNN.
Those huge organizations which have people all over the world are, of course, selling their products here.
So you receive those products here, and an editor takes uses them in any way he chooses. What seems to be happening with globalization is that the treatment of news is becoming more and more homogeneous. Sweden, of course, is a unique society with a unique history, culture and language. You would surely have a unique way of viewing and interpreting world events-- a vision of the world that is Swedish, in contrast to that of the U.S., Germany or any other nationality.
But how do you maintain this cultural identity with regard to international news, if the media here are dependent on foreign sources? These sources are, of course, becoming fewer and fewer, as the process of monopolization continues. Consider the mergers that have occurred just during the past ten years or so-- for example, Time merging with Warner, then taking over CNN and now merging with AOL. Or General Electric, another giant corporation, taking control of NBC. This is a process that has been going on for a long time, resulting in fewer and fewer independent sources.
Selection may be the most important factor of the three, because what is most important in the news is what is left out. It is a form of censorship.
There is a lot of news out there; but editors determine what is news and what is not. Whatever is overlooked, not reported, says a lot about the media.
Invisible background
This has been very well illustrated during the past two weeks. I imagine that we have all seen the same reports over and over again, on what happened in New York and Washington, along with the demonization of Osama bin Ladin.
There has been some reporting, but not very much, about the fact that bin Ladin is a product of the United States. He is a creature of the CIA, having gone to work for it in Afghanistan. It was the largest operation ever carried out by the CIA, and its purpose was to bleed the Soviet Union.
Bin Ladin was one of thousands who volunteered to fight with the mujihadin against the Soviets. As I recall, there were seven different groups. All seven were basically fundamentalist Islamic forces, who felt that the Soviet invasion defiled an Islamic country. Bin Ladin was among those who did not stop fighting after the Soviets were expelled. In fact, he started laying plans for the future while the war against the Soviet Union was still going on. He was able to develop a world-wide network which today is operating in sixty countries or more.
Very little of this background on bin Ladin as a creation of the United States has been brought to public attention during the past two weeks. Most of what we have seen and heard is related to the "solution", which is war.
How much have we read or heard about those voices calling for alternative solutions to the problem of international terrorism? How much reporting have we seen on analyses of what has driven these people to such desperation that they carried out those attacks on September 11th?
I have not seen very much of that. This may be due to the fact that I am living in Cuba at present. But I do read the New York Times on the Internet every morning, for example, and have access to quite a lot of other news.
When it comes to alternative solutions to the problem, such as a re-examination of U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I don't think I have seen anything. The only thing we get is Bush saying "this is war, we are at war, this is the first war of the 21st century, this is a question of good versus evil, whoever is not with us is against us", and so on.
That is pretty much the attitude we had in the CIA during the 1950s. When we analysed the operational climate and all the political forces in any given country, we had our friends and we had our enemies. There was no one in between. The friends were centre and right-wing social democrats, conservatives, liberals, in some cases all the way over to neo-fascists.
The enemies were left-wing social democrats, socialists, communists, all the way to those advocating armed struggle.
This is the way we saw the world. It was a strictly dualistic view of the political climate in any given country where we were operating. It was very much like what we are hearing today from Washington.
The Uses of Journalists
The third important factor affecting the news is, of course, the slant or bias. It reflects the moral, social and political values of the person doing the writing, or at least the editor. This is where the CIA played a very fundamental role in years past, and I cannot imagine that it suddenly stopped when the Cold War came to an end.
In fact, like many others, I believe that the Cold War never really ended.
It did so along the east-west axis. But the Cold War always had a north-south dimension-- the war against forces of liberation in Third World countries. That never ended, and it continues today.
I also believe that the CIA's media operations have continued. They involve the recruitment and payment of editors and reporters who take the CIA's material and publish it as if it were their own. Taken all together-- the sources and selection of material, and the point of view or slant-- the result is essentially what is known as propaganda, but which passes for "unbiased news".
Journalists are also very important to the CIA for non-journalistic activities. They serve as very convenient agents of access for the Agency.
Particularly since they come from a country with a neutral tradition, Swedes in general have always been of great interest to the CIA. This is because they do not carry a lot of political baggage, as do people from most other countries. I am aware of the ongoing debate here concerning just how neutral Sweden has or has not been. But in the rest of the world, the neutrality of Sweden has created a special attraction for U.S. intelligence agencies, because Swedes have readier access to certain target individuals than, say, an American or a German would.
The fact is that journalists are used for non-journalistic purposes-- as collection agents for intelligence, and for making contacts, because a journalist can approach practically anyone and ask for an interview or develop some type of relationship. Of the hundreds of journalists who have come to me over the years, I have no idea how many have been sent by the CIA. I get some idea when I read what they write. But I learned to be cautious, early on.
Education in Injustice
The covert action operations to which I referred earlier were carried out all over the world, and certainly in Latin America where I was posted. I spent three years in Ecuador, then three more in Uruguay. In both cases, my cover was as a political attachÃ(c) in the U.S. embassy.
I then returned to Washington, pretty disillusioned with the work. I was a product of the U.S. education system of the 1950s, which provided me with a very good liberal education, but no political education at all. I was simply brought up to believe that whatever the government did was good, and that it was doing these good things in the name of us all.
It was not until I got down to Latin America that I began to get a political education. Whatever my ideas when I went down there, I saw things around me every day that influenced me. I saw the terrible economic and social conditions, and the injustices that could not be ignored.
The two most fundamental, interrelated problems were the grossly unequal distribution of land and the unequal distribution of wealth. In the early years of the Kennedy administration-- I had gone down to Latin American toward the end of the Eisenhower period-- there was much talk about land reform as a way of dealing with those problems.
But with the success of the Cuban revolution, and its success in surviving U.S. attempts at invasion and other hostilities, land reform in the rest of Latin America was put aside. "Stability" was the order of the day. The view in Washington was that, if reform programmes were pushed, it could lead to instability and create openings for liberation forces all over Latin America that were inspired by the Cuban revolution.
So, the aim of our programmes was to support the status quo, to support the oligarchies of Latin America. These are the power structures that date back centuries, based on ownership of the land, of the financial resources, of the export-import system, and excluding the vast majority of the population.
With all of our programmes, we were supporting these traditional power structures. What first caused me to turn against these people were the corruption and the greed that they exhibited in all areas of society. My ideas and attitudes began to change, and eventually I decided to resign from the CIA.
It is widely believed that, once you have joined the CIA, it is likely being in the mafia, that you can never leave. But that is actually not the case.
The CIA does not want people working within the organization who are not happy and do not want to be there. They are security risks, for one thing.
So, people are coming and going all the time in that large organization of some 18,000 employees.
Maddening Diary
I decided to start a new career in teaching, and enrolled as a Ph.D. student in a programme of Latin American studies at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. In the course of those studies-- of the Spanish Conquest, the colonial period, and all the horrors that have occurred over the centuries in Latin America -- I gradually came to the conclusion that what my CIA colleagues and I had been doing during the 1950s and '60s was nothing more than a continuation of nearly five hundred years of exploitation and political repression.
It was then that an idea entered my mind which had previously been unthinkable -- to write a book that would show how all this works. The research required me to spend a year in Paris, and then another year in London where the British Library's newspaper archive proved to be invaluable. There, I was able to read all the news reports relating to the places that I had worked in Latin America, in many cases dating back to the 19th century.
When the book finally came out-- the title was Inside the Company: CIA Diary-- it was reviewed in the CIA's classified in-house journal, Studies in Intelligence. I managed to get a copy of the review, which speculated that I had kept copies of all the stuff I had worked on while I was in the CIA, because they could not believe that I was able to reconstruct all those thousands and thousands of details from memory. It drove them absolutely crazy. But, in fact, most of the maddening details were gleaned from the newspaper archive of the British Museum.
The book had a tremendous effect on the Agency's effectiveness, its ability to continue its standard operations. The most gratifying result was that many Latin Americans told me how important the book was for defending themselves and their organizations from destruction by the CIA. In the broadest sense, the purpose of the Agency's various activities was to prop up those forces that were considered to be friendly to U.S. interests, while penetrating, dividing, weakening and destroying those forces that were regarded as unfriendly to U.S. interests-- the forces of the political left that I mentioned earlier.
Thus, for Latin American revolutionaries to come to me and say how much they appreciated the book, with all its details on how the CIA works to subvert institutions in other countries, was extremely gratifying.
Suitable enemy
Since the events of two weeks ago, there has been much comment and speculation about the new era we may now be entering. Looking back, there was a long Cold War that had already begun during World War II. An important turning point occurred in 1950, when it was decided to start an arms race that would serve the dual purpose of forcing the Soviet Union into bankruptcy while stimulating the U.S. economy. Since the Soviet Union was still recovering from the devastation of World War II, it would never be able to catch up; but it would be compelled to make the effort, nevertheless. Meanwhile, military spending in the U.S. would keep going up and up, which in turn would stimulate the U.S. economy through a sort of "military Keynesianism". This continued through the Reagan administration of the 1980s.
But in the decade since the end of the Cold War until September 11th, the U.S. security establishment-- the political class, the CIA, the people who fought the Cold War-- had no real enemy to focus on. True, they had Saddam Hussein for awhile, and they might have had a minor enemy here, another one there. But there was no real world-wide threat similar to that of the Cold War. Well, now it seems that they have one again.
What this means is that the United States is going to be in this for quite some time. I have feeling that it is going to go on for ten or fifteen years, because they are not going to wipe out international terrorism or something like bin Ladin's group overnight. During this period, they are going to be doing the same things they did in the Cold War. We can already here it in such expression as, "Whoever is not with us is against us." They are going to be trying to use every bit of power they have to bring countries in line behind the United States.
It also means important changes within the United States, because the war on terrorism will serve as the justification for restraints on civil liberties.
They are building a huge crisis in the United States. They are building the psychological climate for broad-based acceptance of an ongoing war, for which there will be no quick resolution. There will be no great battles, either.
Little Room for Alternatives
During this period, there will be very little room for alternative views and alternative solutions in U.S. news media. What are the alternatives? Well, one is obviously to address the question of why these people are doing these things: What are the roots of international terrorism? How does U.S. foreign policy create this type of reaction? How does U.S. support of everything that Israel does, including the oppression of the Palestinian people, influence fundamentalist Islamic groups?
In other words, a feasible alternative would be a reconsideration of U.S. foreign policy, to see if it would not be possible to create a more just situation in the Middle East. But the United States is stuck. It is stuck with an authoritarian regime in Egypt, which is one of the really shaky countries at the moment. Algeria has gone through a horrible period, and the fundamentalist movement there has not died away at all. In Pakistan the government could fall; fundamentalists there could take over, and they would then have nuclear weapons in their hands. So, a lot of things can happen in the months and years ahead.
Unfortunately, I suspect that there will be greater self-censorship by U.S. media in order to line up behind the government, however its policy of war may turn out. There is already talk of a personal identification system of some kind for the entire country, together with large-scale surveillance of the population-- especially immigrants, and Muslim immigrants in particular.
There will be some opposition to this; but historically, the courts have usually gone along with the government, even though they are theoretically supposed to be the guarantors of civil liberties. For example, the courts went along with the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
So, it will be possible to restrict, and even infringe upon, civil liberties and human rights in the U.S.
It is early days to draw any conclusions about how all this is going to develop, since it is still in the planning stage. But in my opinion, if they carry out this military solution-- with an attack or a series of attacks, or the establishment of military bases in Islamic countries-- they will be doing exactly what bin Ladin wants them to do. It would turn more and more people to fundamentalism and to his organization. They could kill him tomorrow, but the organization that he has established will live on, and it will be nearly impossible to penetrate.
My reading of the situation is that there have been a few defectors from bin Ladin's organization who have provided valuable information. But the U.S. has not been able to have anyone working in these clandestine groups around the world and reporting from the inside. It has had to make do with whatever it can learn from a few defectors. Certainly, the CIA and the other components of the U.S. intelligence apparatus will be using all available technical means to locate and attack these groups, wherever they may be.
They should certainly know where all the training bases are located, since they were established by the CIA, itself. But that will not be nearly enough.
--------
PATENTS
Inventions to Counter Terrorism
October 8, 2001
By SABRA CHARTRAND
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/08/business/08PATE.html?searchpv=nytToday
Over the last few weeks, the country has heard suggestions for preventing terrorist attacks like those on Sept. 11, including increased airport security, impenetrable cockpit doors and aircraft that can land on automatic pilot. Some goals are achievable right now, and automatic landing technology has been around since before World War II, although it is not used in commercial flights.
In any case, inventors are probably already working on counterterrorism innovations. And under a five- year-old Patent and Trademark Office provision, an inventor seeking a patent for devices, methods or technologies aimed at counterterrorism can petition to jump to the front of the patenting line. The special status is designed to expedite inventions that are critical to health and security, by shortcutting an approval process that usually takes an average of 18 months.
Similar hurry-up provisions are in place for inventions relating to H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; cancer; superconductivity; recombinant DNA research; and nuclear energy. Counterterrorism inventions were added to the list in 1996, after T.W.A. Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island, and investigators initially suspected that a terrorist's bomb was responsible.
Investigators eventually concluded that the T.W.A. flight crashed after an explosion in the center fuel tank, with damaged wiring suspected as a cause, but the disaster heightened awareness of terrorism. The Patent Office added a section to the dense, jargon-filled "Manual of Patent Examining Procedure" to alert patent examiners that applications relating to counterterrorism would be given "special" status.
"The types of technology for countering terrorism could include, but are not limited to, systems for detecting/identifying explosives, aircraft sensors/security systems, and vehicular barricades/disabling systems," the manual instructs examiners.
To be considered under this provision, applicants must file a petition for accelerated examination along with a statement explaining how the invention would contribute to countering terrorism. Beyond the usual $740 patent filing fee for large organizations or companies, there is also an additional $130 fee for filing under the expedited procedures.
Among several hundred thousand patents of all sorts awarded since 1996, fewer than 100 have involved inventions related to terrorism. Many of those are for communications technologies, identification systems, firearms and other weapons, and blast-resistant construction materials.
Several are meant to thwart the hiding of bombs on airplanes (and they assume that a would-be bomber is unlikely to board the same aircraft as his explosives.) Shalom Ohayon, of Brooklyn, won patent 5,929,323 in 1999 for an armored chamber used to test luggage for bombs that would be triggered by changes in altitude. Suitcases would be loaded into the chamber and the air pressure would be adjusted to mimic a high-altitude atmosphere. Any bombs would then explode inside the chamber, while still on the ground.
Guenter Schaefer, from Pompano Beach, Fla., won patent 5,911,688 that same year for a system of matching baggage to passengers. He attached a microprocessor with radio circuits to each bag. When a passenger checked in, his identity and itinerary would be printed on his boarding pass and loaded into the microprocessor. At the gate, the information on the boarding pass would be scanned and the information transmitted to the device on the bag. Only then would luggage be loaded on the plane.
Patent 5,862,882 was awarded in 1999 for a ladder that can be used during counterterrorism and hostage rescue operations. Geoffrey M. Mullin, from Stafford, Va., and Ronald N. Brady, from Covington, La., covered one side of a ladder with bulletproof material. Security or rescue personnel would hold the ladder by its rungs and use it like a shield as they approach their target, and then climb with it once they arrived.
Last June, David A. Monroe, of San Antonio, won patent 6,246,320 for an audio-video surveillance system to monitor an empty aircraft parked for cleaning, maintenance, or boarding preparation. His patent points out that aircraft access doors are often left open, and are designed so they cannot be locked from the outside for flight-safety reasons. His system would monitor the plane and its surroundings, and set off an alarm if the craft was breached by unauthorized people.
Three other inventors from San Antonio - David J. Stevens, Kirk A. Marchand and Thomas J. Warnagiris - won patent 6,029,558 last year for a system that can detect an an approaching "concussive shock wave or ballistic projectile." An air bag would instantly inflate to protect people in the line of fire from blast fallout.
Of course, none of these patented inventions would have stopped the hijacking of the planes that were deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.
It is possible, though, that inventors have already developed other antiterrorism technologies that have not been made public because that are subject to a federal secrecy order. The Patent and Trademark Office has the power to suspend patent applications if the government decides that publication of the patent would threaten national security. Under the order, inventors are barred from making their invention public in any way, but are not prevented from continuing research or testing the technology.
The Patent and Trademark Office does not say how many patent applications receive such secrecy orders each year. But patent examiners are taught to routinely screen every application for components that might be a threat to national security if they were made public.
High on their list are patents involving atomic energy, nuclear science, space and weapons technologies. Such applications are referred to a special examining group, which sends a copy to the relevant federal agency - NASA, for example, or the Department of Energy. If an agency says the information is too sensitive to publish, the commissioner of patents and trademarks can issue a secrecy order.
Such orders are good for a year, and can be renewed until the government deems the security threat is gone. Until then, the patent application is in limbo. Once the secrecy order is lifted, the patent can be issued (assuming the invention qualifies for a patent in the first place).
Because atomic energy devices or Star Wars-style weapons systems are rarely cobbled together in someone's garage, many of those kind of inventions come from within the government itself - like scientists at NASA or researchers who work for the Army or Navy. In that case, the specific agency is supposed to notify the commissioner that the work requires a secrecy order.
Inventors can appeal the secrecy order by contacting the agency that requested it, or formally petitioning the patent commissioner. But the rules make it clear that "secrecy orders apply to the subject matter of the invention, not just to the patent application itself." That means the inventor cannot reveal his invention in a magazine or a public lecture. According to the rules, the secrecy order "restricts disclosure or publication of the invention in any form."
-------- terrorism
Europe awakes to Islamist 'sleeper' cells
By Charlotte Edwardes
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
October 8, 2001
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20011008-86278244.htm
LONDON - Investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States have uncovered a network of militant Islamist "sleepers" in major cities across Europe.
A month after the atrocity, investigators are coming to terms with the chilling prospect that as many as 300 operatives of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network may have been planted in Europe.
Members of this secret army - many of whom do not know each other - may have been in position for up to five years.
Security services now believe that the Sept. 11 attacks were planned in Europe and were only the first in a series of intended strikes against Western targets.
Police have identified sleepers and terror cells in London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Hamburg and Oslo. Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service is examining claims that the terrorists have assumed identities of dead persons.
"We call it The Day of the Jackal factor," said a spokesman, referring to the assassin in the Frederick Forsyth novel who adopted the identity of a dead person.
Secrecy is further maintained by a network of front companies and fake charities that channel funds and help cover tracks. One company at the center of police inquiries has used at least three false addresses.
The cells use the Internet, maintaining contact through encrypted messages. "We're talking about across-the-board infiltration of Europe," said a security contact.
Lotfi Raissi, 27, an Algerian pilot in British custody, is regarded by U.S. officials as a classic sleeper. He spoke English without an accent, wore Levis, drank Coca-Cola and watched satellite television. He kept his hair short and his goatee trimmed. His Western tastes and presentation were such that most acquaintances thought he was English.
Two weeks ago, Mr. Raissi, known to neighbors in England as "friendly, chatty and pleasant," was accused by the United States of conspiracy to commit mass murder. He is said to have given flying lessons to four of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
As many as 200 Britons are now thought to be the subject of investigations by Scotland Yard and the FBI. Of them, 40 are believed to have had contact with the hijackers - consciously or inadvertently.
It has also been established that five of the hijackers used a series of safe houses in Britain in the two years leading up to Sept. 11.
French counterterrorist officers discovered a key clue last week. During a search of the apartment of Kamel Daoudi, 27, a computer student, officers uncovered a scribbled notebook apparently containing electronic decyphering codes.
This has convinced FBI officials that terrorist cells scattered around Europe have been using such codes to disguise their e-mail and to hide maps and instructions on sports and pornographic Web sites and in photographs. Mr. Daoudi was deported to France from England last year.
French police also have discovered plans to set up an Internet cafe in either Paris or London, which could have been used to reinforce links with al Qaeda. It is believed that the idea was that the heavy volume of online activity at a cybercafe would camouflage any suspicious e-mail traffic.
The cafe was to have played a crucial role in an attack on the American embassy in Paris, which was foiled when an Algerian, Djamel Beghal, 35, was arrested in Dubai with a false French passport in June. He has confessed to being a key figure in bin Laden's Europe operation.
British officials are looking into claims that he spent time visiting mosques in Leicester, England, and London to recruit volunteers. His testimony has led to arrests in Belgium, Holland and Spain.
Germany was heavily infiltrated by the hijackers. Mohamed Atta, believed to be the ringleader, was responsible for the German side of the operation before moving to the United States.
By 1999, Mr. Atta, through a German-based Islamic student group, had met up with fellow hijackers Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Samir Jarrah. In the United States, he reveled in his undercover persona and frequented strip clubs.
Most people who met him found him rude and humorless, but his links with al Qaeda were impeccable. In 1999, he visited a training camp in Afghanistan and met fellow Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, formerly the head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and now bin Laden's deputy.
Mr. Al-Zawahiri has been accused of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks, in addition to two 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in which 224 persons died.
--------
SECURITY
Nations Across the World Bolster Defenses Amid Fears of Retaliatory Attacks by Militants
New York Times
October 8, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/08/international/08SAFE.html?searchpv=nytToday
PARIS, Monday, Oct. 8 (Reuters) - Fearing possible reprisal attacks by Islamic militants, countries across the world tightened security after the United States and Britain launched powerful air and missile strikes on targets in Afghanistan on Sunday.
The United States urged Americans abroad to keep a low profile, shut its diplomatic missions in Saudi Arabia until further notice and warned its citizens living in Yemen to limit their movements and avoid crowds.
"The American people need to be alert," said Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, on Sunday.
Security was bolstered by a slew of countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East that have backed President Bush in his war against terrorism.
In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, foreign schools closed indefinitely and one American resident said that the United States Embassy in Jakarta had told Americans to prepare for a possible evacuation because of fears of anti-Western protests.
The leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, a small but active group, called today for "all Muslims" to join in a siege of the American Embassy this afternoon in protest of the strikes in Afghanistan.
The front has also warned it will call on Muslims to hunt foreigners and destroy foreign interests if Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri does not sever diplomatic relations with the United States and its allies.
On Sunday, Britain closed its embassy in Cairo for 24 hours and the police in London, already on the highest peacetime alert in its history, said they were stepping up security in "potentially vulnerable areas."
Several countries had already increased security after the attacks on Sept. 11 in New York and Washington, including France, where the authorities have activated a plan first used after bombings by Algerian Islamic militants in 1995 and 1996.
Many governments took additional precautions on Sunday.
Japan, South Korea and Turkey, all close allies of the United States, said security had been boosted at key installations.
Germany deployed more police to guard airports and increased security at the landmark skyscrapers in Frankfurt, the country's financial capital. Denmark and Sweden also bolstered security, including at Israeli embassies.
In Israel, there were no signs on the ground of any special security, although Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met top military officials this evening.
The United States Embassy in Yemen, where a suicide bombing of the warship Cole last year killed 17 American servicemen, strongly urged Americans in the country to keep a low profile.
"We cannot predict what the popular reaction here will be," an embassy statement said. "The mere fact of a U.S. military strike may be enough to incite certain individuals or groups in Yemen to retaliate against American citizens."
United States diplomatic missions in Saudi Arabia said they were closing indefinitely to review security and advised American government personnel not to send their children to school today and to restrict movements to "essential travel only."
On Saturday, an American and another foreigner were killed in a bomb blast in the eastern city of Khobar, site of a suicide bombing five years ago that killed 19 American servicemen.
United States officials said they saw no immediate links between the incident and the Sept. 11 attacks. Some diplomats, however, said that it was an example of what foreigners in the gulf could expect following the air strikes on Afghanistan.
--------
Foreign Policy in Focus
Bombing Will Not Make U.S. More Secure
By Stephen Zunes
October 8, 2001
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0110catharsis.html
The use of military force for self-defense is legitimate under international law. Military force for retaliation is not. The magnitude of these initial air strikes raises not only serious legal and moral questions but political concerns as well, as it will likely set back the fight against terrorism.
The use of heavy bombers against a country with few hard targets raises serious doubts about the Bush administration's claim that the attacks are not against the people of Afghanistan. His father offered similarly reassuring words that the U.S. had "no quarrel with the people of Iraq," yet thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed outright during the Gulf War from U.S. air strikes and hundreds of thousands--mostly children--have died from malnutrition and preventable diseases as a result of the postwar sanctions.
It's certainly true that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has given Osama bin Laden and his supporters sanctuary. But this is not a typical case of state-backed terrorism. As a result of Bin Laden's personal fortune and elaborate international network, he does not need and apparently has not received direct financial or logistical support from the Afghan government. Destroying the limited government resources in Afghanistan, therefore, will not cripple Bin Laden and his cohorts.
The Afghan people are the first and primary victims of the Taliban--perhaps the most totalitarian regime on earth. It is tragic that the U.S. has chosen to victimize them still further through a large-scale military operation that will almost certainly lead to widespread civilian casualties. The Taliban regime has had little concern for the welfare of the Afghan people. As a result, there is widespread hatred of this reactionary theocracy.
The Afghan population has already suffered through a 23-year nightmare of communist dictatorship, foreign invasion, civil war, competing war lords, and fundamentalist rule. The recent bombing adds to this long history of destruction. Indeed, attempting to destroy the country's infrastructure will accomplish little, since that destruction has, in large part, already happened.
The Taliban leaders will likely escape harm in their bunkers or in remote mountain outposts. The victims are likely innocent civilians or unwilling conscripts already suffering under fundamentalist rule. Indeed, it will likely solidify support for the regime and even Bin Laden himself, as people under attack tend to rally around their flag.
The real enemy is Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, which is a decentralized network of underground terrorist cells that operate throughout Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. They do not have much in the way of tangible targets that can be struck--as if Washington were at war with a government. To target Afghanistan seems to be more an act of catharsis than a rational strategy to enhance U.S. security.
To break up these terrorist cells and bring the terrorists to justice, the U.S. needs the cooperation of intelligence services and police agencies in a number of Muslim countries. If the ongoing attacks are seen to be excessive and innocent lives are lost, it will be politically difficult for these regimes to provide the U.S. with the level of cooperation needed.
If there is any logic to Bin Laden's madness, it was probably the hope that the U.S. would overreact militarily, creating an anti-American backlash in the region that would play right into his hands.
To win the war against terrorism, we need to reevaluate our definition of security. The more the U.S. militarizes the Middle East, the less secure we have become. All the sophisticated weaponry, all the brave fighting men and women, and all the talented military leadership we may possess will not stop terrorism as long as our policies cause millions of people hate us.
President George W. Bush is wrong when he claims we are targeted because we are a "beacon for freedom." We are targeted because the support of freedom is not part of our policy in the Middle East, which has instead been based upon alliances with repressive governments and support for military occupation. We would be much safer if the U.S. supported a policy based more on human rights, international law, and sustainable development--and less on arms transfers, air strikes, and punitive sanctions. (Stephen Zunes <stephen@coho.org> is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as a senior policy analyst and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, online at www.fpif.org.)
-------- activists
Two Palestinians killed in protests of U.S. action
USA TODAY
10/08/2001
The Associated Press
http://usatoday.com/news/attack/2001/10/08/palestinian-support.htm
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - The Palestinian leadership rushed to distance itself Monday from Osama bin Laden while its police forces opened fire on university students protesting the U.S.-led military strikes on Afghanistan. Two Palestinians, ages 13 and 21, were killed in a gun battle between police and students in Gaza, police said. The worst internal fighting in several years also left 45 people wounded, Palestinian police commander Ghazi Jabali said. The Palestinian Authority has tried to quell expressions of support for the Saudi exile accused of leading the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
Several demonstrators shouted "Bin Laden, bin Laden." Police forced journalists to leave the area.
In videotaped remarks, Bin Laden sought to draw a parallel between his confrontation with America and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"In these days, Israeli tanks infest Palestine - in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jalla, and other places in the land of Islam, and we don't hear anyone raising his voice or moving a limb," bin Laden said in apparent criticism of the Arab world.
Later in his speech broadcast on Qatar's Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden said that "neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine."
Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said the Palestinian issue should not be used as an excuse for extremist political or religious positions.
"We don't want crimes committed in the name of Palestine," he said.
Bin Laden has called for driving Israel out of the Middle East before. However, his main emphasis has been on forcing U.S. troops out of his native Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest shrines.
Rabbo said the Palestinian leadership had not decided whether it supports the U.S.-led attacks against Afghanistan. He said he expected the topic to be discussed during a meeting of Arab foreign ministers. No date had been set.
"It's true that there is an unfair situation and continuous crimes and killings exerted against the Palestinians," he said. "This does not justify or give cover for anyone to kill or terrorize innocent civilians."
The official Palestinian response stood in marked contrast to the position adopted in 1990 when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said he was waging war with the United States on behalf of the Palestinians.
At the time, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat sided with Saddam against the United States, a decision Palestinian officials have privately acknowledged was a mistake.
Arafat and several of his ministers were scheduled to travel to Cairo on Monday for talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on events in Afghanistan.
The radical Islamic movement Hamas, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings in Israel and has condemned U.S. support for the Israelis, was relatively restrained in its response to the campaign against Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia, which has been protecting bin Laden.
"We should boycott all American products and raise our voices against this new aggression against Islam," said Ismail Abu Shanab, a Hamas leader in Gaza.
Israelis, meanwhile, were told by their leaders they would probably not become a target of retaliatory strikes.
"There's no need to worry. We're not in this war," Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said.
----
INDIGENOUS SOLIDARITY DAY NATIVE AMERICAN LIBERATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Friday, October 12, 7:30PM
Plymouth Congregational Church
5301 N. Capitol St.
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001
From: John Steinbach <jsteinbach@igc.org>
• Rev. Graylan Hagler, Senior Pastor Plymouth Congregational Church • Dacajeweiah (Splitting the Sky) Founder of the League of Indigenous Sovereign Nations of the Western Hemisphere(LISN), Author of "From Attica to Gustafsen Lake," Organizer of the U.N. Rally on October 12, 1992 • Penny Williams, Writer and artist; Sachem(spiritual leader) of the Chappaquiddick Band of Wampamnoag Indians; Producer & Host of WOL's Indigenous Circle, • Bob Brown, Director, Kwame Ture Work-Study Institute and Library, delegate to the World Conference Against Racism • Billy Redwing Tayac, Hereditary Chief of the Piscataway Indian Nation, Co- Founder, Mid-Atlantic American Indian Movement(AIM), Co-Founder, LISN • Margarito Esquino, U.S.A. Representative of the National Association of Indigenous Salvadorans (ANIS) (Sally Hanlon, translator) • Teresita Jacinto, Emcee, Committee for Indigenous Solidarity (CIS)
Information Contact John Steinbach 1-703-369-7427 jsteinbach@igc.org
----
[Note how people shooting from rooftops are described as "demonstrators"? See the false seed planted in fearful minds? et]
Violent Anti-U.S. Protests Sweep Pakistan
By John Fullerton
Reuters
Monday, 08-Oct-01 06:06:30.
http://www.pittsburghfirst.com/rc/news/docs/10258195.htm
QUETTA, Pakistan - Pakistani police opened fire on anti-U.S. demonstrators who brandished placards of Osama bin Laden and shouted ``Death to America'' in several cities Monday to protest against U.S.-led strikes on Afghanistan.
Chants of ``Bush is a terrorist'' also echoed through the streets in several major cities on the morning after the bombing in neighboring Afghanistan.
A pall of smoke hung over the western city of Quetta as police battled thousands of pro-Taliban demonstrators who set ablaze two cinemas, several shops, a bank, a truck and an office of Pakistan's Central Investigations Agency.
Police fired into the air to disperse unruly crowds in the city center and used teargas and batons in another part of Quetta, which lies close to Afghanistan's southern border and the stronghold of Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar.
The demonstrators fired from rooftops and at least 10 people were hurt, included one hit by a bullet, witnesses said.
Protesters burned tires and hurled stones at security forces, witnesses said.
Police also fired teargas to break up several protests in the northwestern city of Peshawar, near the Afghan border, where angry students and some Afghan refugees tried to demonstrate against the attacks that pounded most Afghan cities with bombs and missiles.
Students tried to block a road in one part of the city. In another, police fired teargas to force several hundred protesters back into a mosque where they had gathered.
Up the Khyber Pass in Landi Kotal, eight km (five miles) from the Afghan border crossing at Torkham, local militia opened fire to control about 5,000 Pashtun tribesmen burning an effigy of President Bush. Three protesters were injured.
The crowd chanted ``Long Live the Taliban'' and threw stones at the militiamen.
In the volatile port city of Karachi, pro-Taliban protesters blocked streets leading to the main business center and angry crowds burned tires and threw stones at passing vehicles along Bunder Road, a main artery in the southern part of town.
``All markets along Bunder Road are closed and many youths chanting anti-U.S. slogans are forcing shopkeepers to close down their shops,'' said a Reuters photographer at the scene.
Armored personnel carriers with mounted machine guns were parked opposite the U.S. consulate in Karachi. Hundreds of police and paramilitary rangers were deployed at key installations.
``Requisitioned vehicles have been parked across the roads leading to the U.S. consulate and other offices and we are not allowing anyone to cross the barbed wire barricades,'' one policeman on duty said.
Security forces in other cities were also on high alert, with key installations heavily guarded and police and paramilitary forces stationed around diplomatic compounds and other sensitive areas, witnesses said.
SECURITY TIGHT
One police official said security had been further tightened at airports, ports, railway stations, power stations and government offices.
In the capital Islamabad, United Nations staff were asked to stay at home and not go to their offices.
About 1,000 protesters, some armed with sticks or swords and chanting Islamic slogans, marched to the capital's American Center chanting anti-U.S. and pro-Taliban slogans.
Police in riot gear surrounded the protesters from the capital's International Islamic University, keeping them from reaching the building in central Islamabad which has been the target of previous anti-American violence.
``If helping poor Afghanistan is terrorism, then we are all terrorists,'' one student shouted. Another student said: ''America should distinguish between jihad (holy war) and terrorism.''
Security forces in Karachi were braced for expected anti-American protests near the central Empress Market later in the afternoon, while one company of soldiers had been positioned at the airport, a security official said.
In Quetta, hundreds of anti-riot police with helmets, shields and batons cordoned off some intersections. Many shops were shuttered and foreign reporters were locked inside their hotels.
``It's difficult to say how many demonstrators are out there -- you have maybe 4,000 in one place and 1,200 in another and so on,'' a police superintendent said.
Some protesters carried placards denouncing Pakistan's military leader General Pervez Musharraf, saying: ``Musharraf is a dog'' -- a major insult in the Muslim world.
--------
War of Lies
by Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1008-08.htm
A war that is supposed to help feed the desperate people of Afghanistan will in fact help starve them.
A war supposedly brought on by Taliban intransigence was actually provoked by our own government.
A war that the majority of the American people believe is about their grief, anger and desire for revenge is really about the cold-blooded calculations of a small elite seeking to extend its power.
And a war that is supposed to make us safer has put us in far greater danger by increasing the likelihood of further terrorist attacks.
Let¹s take those points in order.
Our undeclared war on Afghanistan is the culmination of a decade of U.S. aggression with a humanitarian façade.
Once the natural sympathies of the American people were touched by the plight of the long-suffering Afghan people, public opinion swung toward helping them. In response to this, the administration concocted the most shameless and cynical cover story for military strikes in recent memory. The idea, leaked last Thursday, went like this:
-- The Afghan people are starving, so we need to do food drops. (Never mind that all those experienced in humanitarian aid programs are opposed to food drops because they are dangerous and wasteful, and, most important, preclude setting up the on-the-ground distribution networks necessary to making aid effective.)
-- We need to destroy the Taliban's air defenses before doing food drops. -- The transport planes may be endangered by the Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that the United States supplied the mujaheddin in the 1980s when they were fighting the Soviet Union, and some of which ended up in the Taliban¹s hands.
-- We have to destroy the Taliban¹s air defense. Because so much of it is mobile, we have to bomb all over.
The bombing will seriously hinder existing aid efforts. The World Food Program operates a bakery in Kabul on which thousands of families depend, as well as many other programs. A number of United Nations organizations have been mounting a major new coordinated humanitarian campaign. These efforts were not endangered by the Taliban before, but the chaos and violence created by this bombing -- combined with a projected assault by the Northern Alliance -- will likely force UN personnel to withdraw, with disastrous effects for the Afghan people.
To add insult to injury, in the first day the United States dropped only 37,500 packaged meals, far below the daily needs of even a single large refugee camp. With 7.5 million people on the brink of death and existing programs disrupted, this is a drop in the bucket compared to the damage caused by this new war.
Those who starve or freeze will not be the only innocents to die. It should finally be clear to all that "surgical strikes" are a myth. In the Gulf War, only 7 percent of the munitions used were "smart," and those missed the target roughly half the time. One of those surgical strikes destroyed the Amiriyah bomb shelter, killing somewhere from 400 to 1,500 women and children. In Operation Infinite Reach, the 1998 attacks on Afghanistan, some of the cruise missiles went astray and hit Pakistan. Military officials have already admitted that not all of the ordnance being used is "smart," and even the current generation of smart weapons hit their target only 70 to 80 percent of the time.
Contrary to U.S. propaganda, civilian targets are always on the list. There are already reports that Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, was targeted for assassination, and the Defense Ministry in Kabul -- surely no more military a target than the Pentagon -- and located in the middle of the city, has been destroyed.
This is standard U.S. practice. In the Gulf War, virtually every power station in Iraq was destroyed, with untold effects on civilians. A correspondent for al-Jazeera TV reported that power went out in Kabul when the bombing started, although it was restored in some places within hours. Targeting of any pitiful remnants of civilian infrastructure in Afghanistan would be consistent with past U.S. policy.
George Bush said we are not at war with the Afghan people -- just as we were not at war with the Iraqi people or the Serbian people. The hundreds of thousands of Afghans who fled the cities knew better.
Military analysts suggest that the timing of the strikes had to do with the weather. Another possible interpretation is that the Taliban¹s recently-expressed willingness to negotiate posed too great a danger that peace might break out. The Orwellian use of the term "diplomacy" to describe the consistent U.S. policy of no negotiations -- accept our peremptory demands or else -- helps to mask the fact that the administration always intended to launch this war.
The same tactic was used against Serbia; at the Rambouillet negotiations in March 1999, demands were pitched just high enough that the Serbian government could not go along.
In this case, the Taliban's offer to detain bin Laden and try him before an Islamic court, while unacceptable, was a serious initial negotiating position and would have merited a serious counteroffer -- unless one had already decided to go to war.
The administration has many reasons for this war.
-- The policy of imperial credibility, carried to such destructive extremes in Vietnam. In perhaps the last five years of direct U.S. involvement there, the goal was not to "win," but to inflict such a price on Vietnam that other nations would not think of crossing the United States.
-- The oil and natural gas of central Asia, the next Middle East. Afghanistan¹s location between the Caspian basin and huge markets in Japan, China and the Indian subcontinent gives it critical importance. A U.S-controlled client state in Afghanistan, presumably under the exiled octogenarian former king, Zahir Shah, would give U.S. corporations great leverage over those resources. Just as in the Middle East, the United States does not seek to own all those resources, but it wants to dictate the manner in which the wells and pipelines are developed and used.
-- The potential to push a radical right-wing domestic agenda. War makes it easier to expand police powers, restrict civil liberties, and increase the military budget.
This war is about the extension of U.S. power. It has little to do with bringing the terrorists to justice, or with vengeance. Judging from initial polls, the war has been popular as the administration trades on people¹s desire for revenge -- but we should hardly confuse the emotional reaction of the public with the motivation of the administration. Governments do not feel emotions.
This war will not make us more secure. For weeks, many in the antiwar movement -- and some careful commentators in more mainstream circles -- have been saying that military action was playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden, who may have been hoping for such an attack to spark the flames of anti-American feeling in the Muslim world. Bin Laden¹s pre-taped speech, broadcast on al-Jazeera television after the bombing started, vindicates that analysis.
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists," Bush said on Sept. 20. Bin Laden¹s appeal to the ummah, the whole Islamic world, echoed this logic: "The world is divided into two sides -- the side of faith and the side of infidelity."
The American jihad may yet be matched by a widely expanded Islamic one, something unlikely had we not bombed. Remember, we have seen only the opening shots of what many officials are calling a long-term, multi-front war in which the secretary of defense has told us there will be no "silver bullet." The administration has clearly been preparing the American people to accept an extended conflict.
Bin Laden's world is Bush¹s, in some strangely distorted mirror. A world divided as they seem to want would have no place in it for those of us who want peace with justice.
All is not yet lost. The first step is for us to send a message, not just to our government but to the whole world, saying, "This action done in our name was not done by our will. We are against the killing of innocents anywhere in the world."
The next step is for us to build a movement that can change our government's barbaric and self-destructive policy.
If we don¹t act now to build a new world, we may just be left with no world. --------- Rahul Mahajan serves on the National Board of Peace Action. Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas. Both are members of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com). They can be reached at rahul@tao.ca
--------
Peace groups protest against strikes on Afghanistan
Mon, 8 Oct 2001
http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newslink/weekly/newsnat-8oct2001-95.htm
As the US-led coalition against terrorism began strikes on Afghanistan, small groups of protesters have condemned the violence. In Melbourne, a coalition of anti-war groups held a peace vigil in City Square. The church, environment and peace groups are calling for an end to the military strikes, which they say could provoke further terrorist retribution. About 300 protesters attended the vigil, saying while they condemn the attack on the US, any strikes against Afghanistan will only see civilian casualties rise. They are calling for negotiations, not war between the United States and the Taliban.
Sydney In Sydney, another coalition of peace and environment groups protested in Martin Place. The protesters described the attacks as a "racist war". "What do we say to war? No," they chanted.
Germany Spontaneous demonstrations also took place in numerous German cities. At Cologne, about 100 pacifists and leftists lit candles in front of the American cultural centre. About 100 more gathered in Hamburg, another 100 in Bonn, 50 in Muenster and 50 at Dresden. In the capital Berlin, more than 120 leftists lit candles at the large square of Alexanderplatz, the traditional site of demonstrations on the east side of the city, before marching to the Brandenburg Gate.
-------
Anti-war protestors gather in London
From AP
08oct01
ANTI-WAR protesters gathered outside the gates to Downing Street as Prime Minister Tony Blair announced Britain's involvement in the US-led strikes on Afghanistan.
Extra police were deployed to maintain security less than 100 metres from Blair's No.10 office today, as the noisy crowd of about 100 people shouted slogans and called for an end to the military action against the Afghan regime that harbors terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden.
Chants of "welfare not warfare!" and "we don't want this war!" blared through loudspeakers.
"Stop the war, feed the poor!" they shouted.
"I am opposed to a war because it is going to cause more problems than it will solve," said 55-year-old Londoner Jamie Ritchie.
"We have had these wars in the past and they create more terrorism than they prevent. I would like to see a big change in the policies of what they call the international community."
Kate Hudson, vice-chairman of peace movement Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, described the military attack as "rash".
"I am very concerned that innocent civilians will be killed or injured," she said. "We are not aware that due procedure has been carried out through the United Nations Security Council."
------
THE MARCH
In Three Languages, Urgently Chanting for Peace
October 8, 2001
By ROBERT WORTH
Just hours after United States and British forces began military strikes in Afghanistan, several thousand people attended a peace rally yesterday in Union Square Park and marched to Times Square, singing antiwar protest songs and carrying candles and banners announcing their opposition to military action.
The protest, scheduled well before the strikes yesterday, was the first major demonstration to take place in New York since the Sept. 11 attacks. Its timing - coinciding with the outbreak of news about the military strikes in Afghanistan - gave the rally's speakers a new theme and urgency. It also gave critics of the rally more reason to oppose an event that some saw as fodder for Taliban propaganda.
"We gather as bombs are falling in Kabul," said the Rev. Peter Laarman, senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village and the moderator of a series of prayers and speeches by religious leaders that led the rally.
The protesters gathered in the north plaza of Union Square Park at 2:30 p.m. and then marched uptown, chanting "peace, salaam, shalom" as they went. The crowd was seven city blocks long and ultimately swelled to close to 10,000 people, the police said. As the marchers arrived at 42nd Street and Broadway, another series of speakers, including two winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, addressed them.
About 50 counter-demonstrators followed the marchers, holding up placards that read "Traitors: Welcome to New York" and other slogans. A number of cars honked and held up traffic, responding to signs reading "Honk if you love America." One man held up a sign reading "Smile! You're starring in the next Taliban propaganda film."
Speakers at the rally expressed a range of emotion about the strikes, some voicing a fierce anger at the decision for military action, while others merely expressed hopes for a peaceful end to the conflict.
David Klein, a Vietnam veteran who now represents a group called Vietnam Veterans Against War, wore camouflage as he addressed the crowd.
"I don't want to see more Americans die because of a militarist cowboy, or be dragged into a war, a long land conflict," he said. "That's where I think Bush is taking us."
Margarita Lopez, a city councilwoman from the Lower East Side, shouted into the microphone: "Not in my name, not in the name of New York City, not in the name of my district, you're not going to kill anyone in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or anyone in the Middle East."
Other speakers seemed defensive about the possibility that their message would be viewed as unpatriotic.
"I don't think anyone here is sympathetic with the Taliban, or with bin Laden or the terrorists," said Ronald Daniels, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Everyone here condemns what happened, but people feel that there must be an alternative policy, that war cannot be the only answer."
But others disagreed. "Although I think they have a First Amendment right to speak, in a time of war you have a responsibility not to provide a propaganda opportunity for our enemies," said Marc Wontorek, who stood just beyond the crowd at Union Square, holding up a banner critical of the march.
A group of Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Hindu religious figures began the rally with an interfaith service, reciting prayers from the Bible, Koran, and other holy texts and adding their hopes for peace.
"My greatest fear, as our country goes to war, is that we will kill thousands of noncombatants," said Rabbi Ellen Lippmann of Temple Kolot Chayeinu in Brooklyn. "We don't have a clear target."
Other speakers included people who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks. Reuben Schafer, 87, spoke about his grandson Gregory Rodriguez, who worked at Cantor Fitzgerald and died in the trade center collapse. He read a letter from Mr. Rodriguez's parents addressed to President Bush: "Your response to the attack does not make us feel better about our son's death. It makes us feel worse. It makes us feel our government is using our son's memory as justification to cause suffering for other sons and parents in other lands."
The march and rally were organized by New York Not in Our Name, a coalition of more than 100 groups, many of them formed in the past three weeks, said Leslie Cagan, one of the event's organizers.
As the marchers made their way toward Times Square, they were led by two Nobel Peace Prize winners, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who was awarded in 1980 for highlighting human rights abuses in Argentina, and Mairead Maguire, who was awarded in 1976 for her work with the peace movement in Northern Ireland.
"We feel this conflict can be solved peaceably; we don't need to use more violence," Ms. Maguire said. "As I saw in Northern Ireland, it only begets more violence."
Asked about alternatives to war, she said: "We have international standards. We don't need to attack the Afghani people."
But others, following the marchers, expressed another view.
"There's 5,000 people down there in the rubble, and they want justice," said James E. Bancroft, a former Marine. He carried a sign declaring "Peace is one Pentagon; one U.S.S. Cole, two embassies and two towers too late."
------
Interviews Available As Bombing Proceeds: Now What?
Monday, October 8, 2001
JIM JENNINGS, conscience@usa.com
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building,
Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020
http://www.accuracy.org
ipa@accuracy.org
President of Conscience International, a humanitarian aid organization, Jennings was in Afghani refugee camps in Pakistan this May. He has been involved in humanitarian work for the past 20 years around the world. Jennings said today: "The conditions of the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan earlier this year were the worst I have ever seen -- and I have seen a lot. The camps inside Afghanistan are in even worse shape; for example in Herat there are 600,000 people on the verge of starvation. Food drops from high altitudes alone absolutely cannot provide sufficient and effective relief that is urgently necessary to prevent mass starvation. If you provide one pound of food per day, the minimum for bare survival, it would take 500 planeloads a month to supply the one camp in Herat alone, and Afghanistan is the size of Texas. The administration has stated that two aircraft are being used for food relief so far -- for all of Afghanistan. Three weeks ago the head of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Islamabad said that the food would run out -- in three weeks." [In response to the U.S./U.K. attacks, the World Food Program today suspended food convoys to Afghanistan.]
AS'AD ABUKHALIL, abukhali@toto.csustan.edu Author of the forthcoming book "Bin Laden and Taliban: The New American War Against Terrorism" and associate professor of political science at California State University at Stanislaus, AbuKhalil is a fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. He said today: "Both Bin Laden and Bush say that you are either with them or against them; yet much of the Middle East stands in opposition to both. Al Jazeera [http://www.aljazeera.net] is showing demonstrations in Oman against the U.S. strikes, which is very rare -- protests are illegal there. Bin Ladin clearly is attempting to reach out to an audience well beyond a small community of followers."
STEPHEN ZUNES, stephen@coho.org, http://www.fpif.org Associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, Zunes is senior policy analyst and Middle East editor at the Foreign Policy in Focus Project and author of the articles "U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam" and "International Terrorism." He said today: "The use of heavy bombers against a country with few hard targets raises serious doubts about the Bush Administration's claim that the attacks are not against the people of Afghanistan. The Taliban has allowed Bin Laden and his followers sanctuary, but there is little evidence that they have provided the kind of direct financial or military support that can be crippled through air strikes."
JOHN QUIGLEY, quigley.2@osu.edu Professor of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley said: "We have to ask, 'Will this protect the U.S. from further attacks?'.... Military action should have been done through the Security Council at the United Nations. As it is -- a U.S. and U.K. military action -- it is illegal under international law."
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020 or (202) 332-5055; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!