------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
New fear emerges: possible threat of nuclear warfare
Russia Struggles With Kursk Docking
Nuke Panel to Edit Web Site
Shivers in San Onofre's Shadow
Court Rules in Nev. Nuke Case
Brookhaven National Laboratory Meets International Environmental Standard

MILITARY
Opposition split over move on Kabul
U.S. Attacks Kandahar with AC-130 Gunship
Alarm grows over scale of civilian casualties
Sukhoi Aviation Holding Company
Anthrax Available From Many Sources
UPI Hears . . .
DEA chief sees link in fights against drugs, terror
Indian Army Shells Pakistani Posts
Iran faces unrest near Afghan border
Iraq stockpiled anthrax in run-up to Gulf war
200 May Be Dead in Nigeria Riots
Police fire at mob moving on Pakistan air base
Anti-U.S. Sentiment Spreading In Pakistan
Fearing Fallout of Afghan Chaos, Pakistanis Harden to U.S. Strikes
Pentagon split over war plan
Pentagon selects target for a strike

OTHER
Fuel cell cars face obstacles, but said viable in California
Scientists urge more US use of renewable energy
German Green Party expects renewables budget rise
Blocked nuclear data seen lifting US power prices
EPA SAYS CHANGE A LIGHT, CHANGE THE WORLD
Greenpeace to help Nepal disposal of toxic wastes
Spy agency halts flow of information
Guide to handling suspect packages
Why Ben Laden hates the US
Abortion Rights Group Gets Suspicious Letters

ACTIVISTS
Police Photographing & Profiling Peace Activists
A war in the American tradition
Building an antiwar movement
Ten Principles for Social Justice Organizing in A Time of Crisis
WAR FRENZY



-------- NUCLEAR

New fear emerges: possible threat of nuclear warfare

Monday, Oct. 15, 2001,
San Jose Mercury News
BY JIM PUZZANGHERA
http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/world/docs/nuketerror15.htm

WASHINGTON -- The canister found buried under leaves and snow in a Moscow park was not very big, but its contents sent a chilling signal about how easy it might be to spread nuclear terror.

Inside was a small amount of cesium-137, a radioactive isotope used in cancer research and radiation therapy. Television reporters were told of the canister's location in 1995 by the commander of rebel forces in the breakaway region of Chechnya. He later threatened to blow up 167 pounds of such material to contaminate a large area of Russia.

While the possibility of terrorists using chemical or biological weapons has received extensive attention recently in light of the anthrax scare, experts said nuclear terrorism could be just as likely -- and more dangerous.

``If terrorists can acquire the nuclear material, then the delivery and use and consequences would be relatively more predictable and relatively easy compared to chemical and biological,'' said Bruce Blair, director of the Center for Defense Information.

Many of those experts caution that the possibility of nuclear terrorism remains extremely low. But after the boldness and complexity of the Sept. 11 attacks, they warn that nuclear weapons, radioactive material and nuclear power plants hold too much destructive ability and symbolism to be ignored as potential weapons.

``Suddenly nuclear-related terrorism became a vivid and a very real threat,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., as she convened a congressional hearing earlier this month on safeguards against nuclear terrorism.

Terrorists likely would not be able to acquire, build or detonate a sophisticated, high-yield nuclear device, such as a thermonuclear warhead from a missile, according to experts on terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But there are several ways that terrorists could obtain and potentially use nuclear or radioactive material.

Crude, low-yield bombs

Smaller battlefield nuclear weapons -- some believed to be no larger than a suitcase -- could be stolen or bought on the black market from Russia. The collapse of the Soviet Union has reduced the security surrounding the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal. The potential instability of Pakistan's government raises questions about the security of that nation's small nuclear arsenal and weapons-quality fissile material as well.

Terrorist organizations like Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida network could construct a crude, low-yield nuclear bomb if it acquired enough fissile nuclear material, some experts maintain. There is evidence that bin Laden's organization has attempted to acquire uranium and other nuclear material on several occasions in recent years.

The 103 nuclear power plants across the United States also make prime targets for attacks by terrorists using bombs or hijacked airliners. Such an attack could lead to a devastating nuclear meltdown spreading a toxic radioactive cloud. Since Sept. 11, security has been dramatically increased at plants nationwide.

And the easiest means to spread radioactive terror, experts said, would be to do what Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev threatened to do six years ago -- build a so-called ``dirty bomb'' containing nuclear waste or other radioactive material surrounded by traditional explosives.

In a worst-case scenario, such a bomb would spread enough radiation to cause hundreds of deaths and significantly increase instances of cancer for thousands of other people. At the least, it would spread enough low-level radiation to make part of a city or a symbolic location uninhabitable without protective gear for months or longer because of the contamination.

``Imagine if they did it in the middle of New York City. It would make that whole area unusable until they decontaminated it, which could take years,'' said Gary Ackerman, an expert on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

``Imagine the psychological impact of that,'' he said. ``There are two things that people fear: getting sick and getting irradiated. They're invisible.''

Along with the damage and panic, a nuclear or radiological attack would have great symbolism for bin Laden.

In the video released last Sunday, bin Laden referred to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II as an example of the hypocrisy of the United States.

Islam's `nuclear bomb'

In 1998, bin Laden issued a statement titled ``The Nuclear Bomb of Islam.'' It said that ``it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God.''

U.S. officials have publicly warned about terrorists' use of nuclear weapons for several years. In 1996, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Deutch, warned a congressional committee that although there was no evidence that any terrorist group had obtained nuclear materials, ``we are concerned because only a small amount of material is necessary to terrorize populated areas.''

Experts differ on the likelihood of terrorists building or acquiring nuclear weapons. Some dismiss it as improbable. Others say it would not be so difficult.

``Nations have difficulty doing it; nobody expects terrorist groups to,'' said Milton Leitenberg, a senior fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. Iraq spent from $40 billion to $50 billion over 15 years and was unable to acquire enough weapons-quality plutonium or highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear bomb before the Persian Gulf War in 1991, he said.

But David Albright, who helped inspect Iraq's nuclear program in 1996, said terrorists would have an easier task.

Iraq spent most of its time and money trying to make its own plutonium and uranium. Terrorists could try to steal it or buy it, most likely from former states of the Soviet Union, said Albright, a physicist who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

In addition, Iraq was trying to build a sophisticated implosion type of nuclear weapon, which requires setting off a series of highly explosive charges inside the bomb at precise intervals to create the nuclear explosion. Terrorists likely would try for a much simpler ``gun-type'' device. It would produce a much smaller explosion but still would approximate the power of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

``They aren't stupid people, and they recruit scientists,'' Albright said. ``They probably are capable of making a crude gun-type device and probably have a research facility in Afghanistan working on it.''

Russia poses the best potential targets for terrorists to steal or acquire either nuclear weapons or the fissile material required to make them. The United States has spent about $5 billion since the end of the Cold War to help dismantle thousands of Russian nuclear weapons and better secure existing weapons and weapons-grade material.

Estimates vary widely about how much weapons-grade material there is throughout the former Soviet Union -- as much as 1,000 metric tons of enriched uranium and 200 metric tons of plutonium.

``The Russians don't know how much plutonium they have, let alone where it is. That's a matter of some concern,'' said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

Pakistan's arsenal is less of a concern because of its small size and indications that the weapons are stored in pieces in separate, highly guarded locations, said Gaurav Kampani, a research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies who has studied the Pakistani nuclear program.

Threat to U.S. plants

Of bigger concern is the security of U.S. nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has told all plants to go to their highest level of security. National Guard troops have been sent to protect nuclear power plants in New Jersey, while California has dispatched California Highway Patrol officers to guard its two nuclear power plants, Diablo Canyon, near San Luis Obispo, and San Onofre, south of Los Angeles.

On Thursday, the commission shut down its Web site to review the type of material available. The site had included thousands of pages of detailed information about the nation's nuclear power plants, including the exact latitude and longitude of each facility.

``We realize that nuclear plants are a very symbolic potential target for terrorists,'' said NRC spokesman Victor Dricks.

But the biggest threat is the one that experts said would be the simplest: a dirty bomb containing radioactive material. The types of radioactive materials are numerous, ranging from isotopes used by hospitals to nuclear waste produced at power plants.

``These things don't require technical proficiency since you don't have to make anything,'' Leitenberg said. ``You just have to get your hands on something, wrap high explosives around it and blow it up.''

-------- russia

Russia Struggles With Kursk Docking

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 15, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-Nuclear-Submarine.html?searchpv=aponline

MOSCOW (AP) -- The Russian navy is having trouble getting the wrecked nuclear submarine Kursk into a dry dock because of problems with the giant pontoons meant to lift its bulk, officials said Monday.

Northern Fleet spokesman Vladimir Navrotsky said that ``a number of technical problems that need further study'' had slowed down the docking operation.

Navy experts were working to improve the locking devices that must secure the pontoons to the barge that is carrying the Kursk's carcass beneath it, Navrotsky said, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. They were also conducting extra checks on the pontoons' pumps and draining devices.

The Kursk was raised from the Barents Sea floor by a Dutch consortium on Oct. 8, more than a year after it sank during a naval exercise, killing the entire 118-man crew. The submarine was hoisted from the seabed on 26 steel cables attached to a huge barge in an unprecedented naval salvage operation.

The wreck, secured beneath the Giant 4 barge, arrived Wednesday at a shipyard at Roslyakovo, near Murmansk, where preparations started to put it in the Russian navy's largest dock.

The 18,000-ton Kursk was one of the world's biggest submarines. Putting the behemoth in the dock requires both brute strength and delicacy because of fears that any sharp move could destabilize its two nuclear reactors or its 22 supersonic Granit cruise missiles, each of which contains about a ton of explosives.

Officials say constant measurements have shown that the reactors have not leaked any radiation. A screen with continual readouts was erected on a Roslyakovo street to assuage residents' fears of radiation.

During the docking operation, the two huge pontoons must be firmly locked to the barge, then filled with water and afterward drained to create enough force to raise the barge and the submarine about 26 feet.

Officials initially planned to start the docking over the weekend but later postponed it, saying extra time was needed to prepare. Navrotsky did not say when the docking is now scheduled to take place.

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

Nuke Panel to Edit Web Site

October 15, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Nuclear-Plants.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP)-- Worried it might help terrorists, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is overhauling its Web site, removing some details about the nation's 103 nuclear reactors, agency officials said.

The Web site has been out of commission since Friday and a spokeswoman said Monday it probably won't be available for another few days -- and then with less information.

``We took it down to make sure to take off anything that might be of use to an evildoer, a terrorist,'' said NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner. ``We hope for it to be back up in a few days.''

Among the items to be removed from the Web site are the specific longitude and latitude locations of the nuclear power plants, she said. It's uncertain whether more general information about their location will be omitted.

Other things on the Web site being closely scrutinized are maps of the plants, cross-section sketches of reactor vessels and other design details and daily plant status reports. No final decision has been made on many of these items.

``Everything is being looked at,'' said Gagner.

The nuclear power plants -- 103 reactors at 64 sites in 31 states -- have been under heightened alert since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The governors of New Jersey and New York have dispatched National Guard troops to reactors in their states. And the U.S. Coast Guard has established ``security zones'' to protect five nuclear power plants located on Lake Erie and Lake Michigan.

No ships are authorized to transit through or anchor within the zones without advanced permission. The plants are the Perry and Davis Besse reactors in Ohio, the Kewaunee and Point Beach reactors in Wisconsin and the Enrico Fermi reactor in Michigan.

Mitchell Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade organization, said the group has had ``ongoing discussions'' with the NRC on security and about the contents of the NRC Web site.

The institute's own Web site provides an ``interactive map'' giving the general location of nuclear reactors in each state, including the names of the closest community.

``It doesn't give an exact grid location. There are no specific directions,'' said Singer, adding that he was not aware of discussions to remove any information from it.

At a hearing last week, Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, raised concern about the longitude and latitude location of nuclear power plants being readily available on the NRC Web site.

Detailed maps showing locations of nuclear power plants have disappeared ``pending the outcome of a policy review'' from the Web site belonging to the International Nuclear Safety Center, operated by the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory.

Some nuclear industry watchdog groups expressed concern that the NRC might go too far in taking valuable information about the performance of nuclear power plants, including daily plant status reports, out of the public domain.

``This is information that has been in the public realm for years and years,'' said Tom Clements of the Nuclear Control Institute, a Washngton-based advocacy group. ``It's useful for oversight.''

-------- california

Shivers in San Onofre's Shadow
Safety: The continued terror threat against the U.S. gives rise to nervousness and debate in San Clemente, the city closest to the nuclear power plant.

October 15, 2001
By DAVID REYES, L.A. TIMES STAFF WRITER
From: Roger Herried <rogerh@energy-net.org>

For three decades, Nancy Dyer has lived near the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Like other San Clemente residents, Dyer says that most of the time, the plant--its twin, dome-shaped reactors visible from Interstate 5--has been but a small concern in the back of her mind.

Until now.

San Clemente residents, shop owners, even surfers at San Onofre now view the nuclear plant with some trepidation. Dyer takes a fatalistic view: "Look, if terrorists do blow it up and if we're going to go, we're going to go. I worry more for the people in Santa Ana, because that's where the fallout will go."

Keri Reed, 22, a customer in the hair salon that Dyer owns, says one thing is for sure: People are talking about where the next attack might be.

"Some people are saying Vegas, but it could really be a place where nobody's expecting it," she said.

But no one appeared to be packing up the minivan and moving to Montana. San Onofre is one of the nuclear plants that failed Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation tests last fall. Details of the failure, a security breach, were never disclosed. But since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the plant has beefed up security, with guards carrying semiautomatic weapons while patrolling the perimeter, hallways and control room.

The airspace above the plant is restricted because the property is part of Camp Pendleton, said plant spokesman Ray Golden, whose recent statement about the plant's ability to withstand a crash by a 747 jetliner caused anxiety and confusion when he later retracted it.

"I said the plant was designed to withstand a hit by a 747. But I then checked and we are not built to withstand a 747," he said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged that nuclear plants were not built to withstand the impact of such aircraft, and that "detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed," according to a press release.

But because not all area residents were aware of Golden's retraction, some argue that the plant is safe from such an attack and some argue the opposite.

In taverns and restaurants throughout the city of 50,300, there is also confusion about the power plant's superstructure. Some say it's 9 inches thick; some say thicker, some say thinner.

"How fast can you run from fallout?" asked a tavern patron. "Not fast enough," replied another.

According to Golden, the power plant's concrete domes range in thickness from 3 feet, 9 inches to 7 feet. The concrete is fortified with steel rods and quarter-inch steel plates. Additionally, the reactor lies in the center of a containment building shielded by reinforced concrete 3 to 6 feet thick, he said.

Still, many residents, including City Councilwoman Stephanie Dorey, believe that no matter what is done to guarantee safety and security, there's always a chance that something could go wrong, "putting us all in jeopardy."

Dorey is buying cell phones for her entire family, in part for safety, but also after she heard that loved ones called one another from the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11.

In addition, her family is preparing a contingency plan. With her daughter in college at San Luis Obispo, the Doreys would meet in a city north of Los Angeles "just in case" San Onofre is targeted.

"I called my daughter and told her we need to have a plan if we have to evacuate," Dorey said. "We need a city to meet up in. But my daughter said, 'Mom. We have Diablo nuclear plant right up here.' "

Josh Wright, 24, membership manager at the San Clemente-based Surfrider Foundation, has kept his mind on his work. But before Sept. 11, he often daydreamed of moving to Hawaii and surfing the island's famous point breaks.

"I've been toying with the idea of moving to Hawaii," Wright said. "But the closeness of the power plant didn't register until my girlfriend said, 'Josh, if you ever wanted to leave, now would be a good time.' "

After nine years with Surfrider, he has what few surfers can boast: being able to live near the ocean with a good job.

"From what I hear in town, people are worried," Wright said. "But I believe the reactor can withstand a missile attack. Plus, we live so near to Camp Pendleton, and I have a lot of confidence in the military."

As they watched surfers glide across the waves at San Onofre State Beach, Dan Bustos and his brother, John, sat comfortably on beach chairs, nearly in the shadow of the nuclear plant.

"We know of the apprehension the public has about places like that," said Dan Bustos, 54, nodding toward the plant.

In fact, the brothers had talked the night before about a possible terrorist attack on the plant. But both agreed that "we're not going to stop our life, the way we live," Dan Bustos said. Nor would they waste a beautiful fall day that offered Dan, who lives in Oregon, a chance to spend quality time with his brother, 41, a Pasadena firefighter learning to surf.

Geoff Jennings of Newport Beach said people are too worried about the threat of terrorists.

"Having a healthy dose of caution is good," said Jennings, preparing to paddle his kayak out to sea. "But if you're going to be overly paranoid, you'd never leave the house."

A test of nerves may come Oct. 24, when San Onofre tests its emergency siren system from 10 a.m. to noon.

"I don't think people living here feel safer because of Camp Pendleton," said Ole's Tavern owner Mark Secora. "But I feel safer because we're living in a small town and it's not L.A. or San Francisco, for example. . . . But you never know."

-------- nevada

Court Rules in Nev. Nuke Case

October 15, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Waste.html?searchpv=aponline

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A dispute over where to store 77,000 tons of radioactive waste inched forward Monday when an appeals court ruled the lawsuit should be heard by a federal judge.

The federal government sued Nevada after the state refused to issue water permits to run what is being touted as the nation's only proposed repository for spent nuclear fuel. The facility still needs congressional approval.

The water permits are required to operate the dumpsite at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It would store radioactive waste from about 100 nuclear sites nationwide.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a federal judge to hear the government's suit. U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt had said the suit should be heard in state court, but the appeals panel said a federal court should decide the case because the proposed dumpsite is authorized under federal law.

The appeals panel did not dictate how the dispute should be resolved.

Nevada has granted water rights to the federal government, but only for the purpose of studying whether the uninhabited desert location is suitable for a nuclear repository.

The Bush administration has said the dump is necessary because the nation may need to use more nuclear power and because existing nuclear energy and weapons facilities are running out of storage space. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of the nation's electric capacity.

Congress chose Yucca Mountain 14 years ago for a potential nuclear dumpsite under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and no other location has been proposed or studied.

U.S. government attorney Jared Goldstein told the appeals court that Nevada is ``interfering with a congressional mandate'' by refusing to issue a water permit.

Nevada has said it withheld a water permit because of potential safety threats and because Congress has only approved the location for study.

-------- new york

Brookhaven National Laboratory Meets International Environmental Standard

October 16, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-16-06.html

UPTON, New York, The U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory has achieved ISO 14001 registration for the entire site, becoming the first national laboratory to obtain third party registration to this globally recognized environmental standard.

ISO 14001 is an international environmental standard under which independent auditors evaluate environmental processes and system performance. Major corporations such as Ford Motor Company, IBM, Johnson & Johnson and Xerox have received the ISO 14001 designation, but Brookhaven is the first national laboratory to win certification for all its operations.

"In a time of ever increasing appreciation of the fragility of our environment, Brookhaven Lab has set a gold standard of operations for all large institutions," said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. "If we want to continue producing the great science that is the hallmark of the national laboratory system, we must all do our part to ensure we are operating at the highest level of environmental awareness."

The International Organization for Standardization's ISO 14001 includes international standards for manufacturing, communication, trade and management systems. More than 100 countries have national standards bodies that are members of ISO.

A computer generated image of a high energy impact between gold ions in Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (Photos courtesy Brookhaven National Laboratory)

ISO 14001 requires an organization to identify potential environmental impacts and establish controls needed to minimize those impacts, to monitor and communicate environmental performance, and to establish a formal process for continually improving the system.

In 1999, Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider project became the first Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratory and Long Island based organization to obtain third party registration to the ISO standard. In 2000, eight additional Brookhaven facilities were registered to the standard.

In order to achieve registration, Brookhaven National Laboratory underwent an independent audit of its environmental management system to verify that the system conformed to all ISO requirements and that it was implemented effectively. The certification also requires Brookhaven to undergo annual audits by an accredited firm to assure that the system is maintained.

In its recommendation for certification, NSF International Strategic Registrations, Ltd., an independent third party environmental review firm from Ann Arbor, Michigan, singled out14 aspects of Brookhaven's program as being particularly noteworthy. These included Brookhaven's comprehensive use of computer technology to help provide environmental guidance, the thoroughness of the Laboratory's experimental project reviews, and its systems for identifying environmental protection priorities and tracking issues.

NSF reviewers also noted that Brookhaven's environmental management system was the most thoroughly and systematically implemented program they had encountered to date, and that this was particularly noteworthy for such a unique and complex organization. Brookhaven's environmental management system recently received a DOE Pollution Prevention Award for "Excellence in Management," the first organization ever to receive this award.

Brookhaven laboratory director John Marburgur

"People across the DOE complex and at other research institutions are looking at Brookhaven's environmental management system as a model program," said Brookhaven director John Marburger. "This registration demonstrates the progress we have made at Brookhaven, and an understanding that our ability to produce great science is closely tied to our dedication to environmental stewardship."

To gain registration to the standard, an organization must comply with a set of 17 ISO 14001 requirements. These include:

Development of an environmental policy with a commitment to compliance, pollution prevention and continual improvement. Identification of environmental aspects and impacts of an operation and any legal requirements, setting goals and objectives consistent with policy and implementing programs to achieve the goals. Establishment of a support structure to administer environmental training, communication, documentation, operational control and emergency preparedness. Implementation of checking and corrective actions that include monitoring and auditing functions, and senior management review of overall system effectiveness. Completion of annual audits by independent auditors to ensure continued conformance to requirements and to maintain registration.

Brookhaven and the DOE have taken a number of steps over the years to improve environmental performance at the laboratory and on the Brookhaven grounds. In the year 2000, Brookhaven's pollution prevention programs, recycling programs, and conservation initiatives saved more than $2 million and supported the recycling or reuse of more than 1,683 tons of industrial materials. For example, 330 tons of concrete shielding block were reused on site, saving about $1.3 million. The Laboratory also reduced its water use by 63.5 million gallons compared to 1999 levels, and used 26 percent less energy per square foot than in 1985.

In November 2000, the DOE set aside 530 acres of pine barrens at Brookhaven as the new Upton Ecological and Research Reserve, to protect more than 220 species of plants and 162 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

Brookhaven National Laboratory's Morris Bullock (right) and Prasenjit Ghosh prepare for an experiment to test a new class of catalysts which can turn plant wastes into useful industrial materials

In April 2000, Brookhaven installed a state of the art fuel cell power system, including three seven-kilowatt fuel cells. In August 2000, scientists at Brookhaven announced they have devised a way to combine chemical treatment with bacteria to remove cadmium from contaminated soil.

But Brookhaven has also had its share of environmental problems, including allowing radioactive tritium to seep into groundwater beneath the lab for years. A massive cleanup effort is now underway to decontaminate the water around the lab.

Monitoring in 2000 showed that deer and fish on and near the site still contain low levels of Brookhaven related radionuclides.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory conducts research in the physical, biomedical and environmental sciences, as well as in energy technologies. The Laboratory is managed by Brookhaven Science Associates, a limited liability company founded by Stony Brook University and Battelle, a nonprofit applied science and technology organization.


-------- MILITARY

-------- afghanistan

Opposition split over move on Kabul

Telegraph(UK)
By Marcus Warren in Bagram, northern Afghanistan
15/10/2001
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$UCTMAGIAAJK4FQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2001/10/15/wkab15.xml

ANTI-TALIBAN commanders voiced growing irritation at America's military strategy over the weekend as the Afghan opposition acknowledged a split between its generals and politicians over the timing for a move on Kabul.

Northern Alliance troops observe the front line from a tank emplacement near Kabul America's failure to hit the Taliban near the front line outside the capital has provoked dismay among United Front military chiefs impatient to launch an offensive on the city.

After dark, anti-Taliban troops can see the flashes of the bombs exploding in the city. Closer too, they can observe their enemies calmly commuting to the front line by car for a good night's sleep away from the air strikes.

A senior United Front figure denied that there was any political deal with Washington to delay an attack on Kabul. But the lack of air raids on military targets north of the city appeared to be a signal to the opposition not to advance for now.

The commander in charge of Afghanistan's largest military air base, at Bagram 20 miles from Kabul, spoke for many of his comrades-in-arms when he criticised Washington for its caution.

"We are the only military group fighting the Taliban on the ground," Gen Babajan said in the ruined control tower. "If the US wants to find someone stronger, let them try."

The nearest any US bombs or missiles had fallen to his front line positions was about 15 miles away, he admitted. In fact, a concentration of Arab Taliban fighters were targeted in their stronghold on nearby Mount Sefa on Thursday night.

Their control of the mountain helps keep Bagram closed to air traffic, but it cannot be counted as the front line. The only forward Taliban position known to have been hit so far was in northern Afghanistan at a village near Taloqan believed to be under the control of extremists from Uzbekistan.

Gen Babajan expressed frustration with what he complained was a plot between Pakistan and the West - and Gen Pervaiz Musharraf and President Bush personally - to keep his men out of the capital.

He said: "It is a disgrace that George W Bush is preventing the United Front from going to Kabul. Gen Musharraf asked George Bush not to allow us to enter Kabul. The US attacks are the work of Tony Blair, George Bush and Musharraf only. They are nothing to do with us."

United Front commanders insist that their troops are mobilised and ready to advance on Kabul, a city they fled in disarray and left to the Taliban in 1996. But there is little evidence on the ground that an offensive is imminent.

Bagram, an airport which could be equipped to welcome supply flights if the Taliban were pushed back 10 miles, looked the same as it did a month ago. "Nothing has changed in the last four weeks," Gen Babajan admitted.

But planning for an advance on Kabul is well under way and opposition generals have also given thought to how to avoid a repeat of the looting and bloodshed that tarnished their last period in control of the city.

The United Front's chief spokesman and anti-Taliban Afghanistan's foreign minister, Dr Abdullah Abdullah, conceded that there were differences within the alliance over the timing of any attack.

"Some of our commanders in the field might be in more of a hurry than the political leadership," he told journalists after briefing generals on diplomatic developments.

Some generals would have preferred the air strikes to have been targeted at Taliban front line positions first, and only later at assets in the rear and in cities, he said.

But Dr Abdullah denied the existence of any agreement with the US over the timing of an attack on Kabul and said the decision to advance would be "purely military".

For the time being, anti-Taliban troops have to be content with watching the fireworks from the strikes on Kabul from afar. Saturday night's display included eight huge flashes silhouetting the mountains between the city and the Shamali plains. Taliban anti-aircraft defences appeared to be firing blind.

There was no artillery barrage from ground forces on either side, however, and for much of the evening the plains were veiled in almost total darkness.

----

U.S. Attacks Kandahar with AC-130 Gunship

Monday, 15-Oct-01 20:41:02,
Reuters
http://www.pittsburghfirst.com/rc/news/docs/10321503.htm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military on Monday attacked Afghan targets around the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar with an Air Force Special Forces AC-130 gunship, one of the most devastating weapons in America's air arsenal, a senior defense official said.

The official, who asked not to be identified, said it was the first time the four-engine turbo-prop aircraft had been used in the nine-day air campaign against Taliban military and guerrilla training camps in Afghanistan.

``It lays down withering fire,'' said the official, who declined to say exactly what target the aircraft, which is operated by Air Force Special Forces troops, was used against.

The official, who asked not to be identified, said it was the first time the four-engine turbo-prop aircraft had been used in the nine-day air campaign against Taliban military and guerrilla training camps in Afghanistan.

``It lays down withering fire,'' said the official, who declined to say exactly what target the aircraft, which is operated by Air Force Special Forces troops, was used against.

--------

Alarm grows over scale of civilian casualties

Sydney Morning Herald (AU)
By Christopher Kremmer, Herald correspondent in Peshawar
Monday, October 15, 2001
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/15/world/world8.html

One week after United States-led forces began bombarding Afghanistan, disturbing evidence is emerging of unacceptably high civilian casualties and ill-defined military and political objectives.

Afghans reaching the Pakistani city of Peshawar 60 kilometres from the border said the bombing on Friday of Kadam, a small rural community in Surkh Rud district near the eastern city of Jalalabad, had killed scores, possibly hundreds, of civilians.

Yesterday, Mohammed Raja, a bearded 35-year-old farmer from near Jalalabad, lay in the neurosurgery ward of the Hayatabad medical complex recovering from a shrapnel wound in the neck.

Informed sources in Peshawar have told of many casualties arriving from Afghanistan for emergency treatment at the city's hospitals.

Authorities deny the claims: a Hayatabad spokesman said only two people had been treated for war-related injuries, but a ban on doctors speaking to the media has led to speculation about a cover-up to avoid inciting public criticism of the Pakistani Government's support for the air strikes.

Afghanistan's Taliban rulers have no such qualms. Yesterday they dropped a month-long ban on Western journalists reporting from areas they control to bus in a small party representing global media outlets to show them the devastation of Kadam.

The hamlet lies 120 kilometres east of Kabul at the base of a mountain range where Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network used to run training camps for Islamic militants from around the world. But the camps were evacuated weeks ago, when it became clear the US was preparing to strike.

"Nearly all the villagers are dead. The wounded, mostly children and infants, have been taken to hospital in Jalalabad," a correspondent for the Arabic television station al-Jazeera reported. He quoted unnamed Taliban officials as claiming that more than 160 bodies had been recovered from the rubble.

Western aid workers were at a loss to explain the apparent extent of the casualties, as houses in the area tend to be widely dispersed. But Afghans crossing the border said many people from Jalalabad had taken refuge in the hamlet.

As US-led air strikes continued into yesterday, the military efficacy of destroying deserted training camps, civilian airports and the Taliban's minuscule air force was being increasingly questioned by diplomats as well as ordinary Afghans and Pakistanis.

Afghans who have taken refuge across the border in Pakistan in recent days say the bombing is rapidly turning civilians in the ethnic Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan against the US, and bolstering support for the Taliban.

"When we entered Kabul we saw huge fireballs in areas near the airport. These bombs are terrorising the civilian population. Since the strikes began, people are turning against America," said Alozai, a truck driver who helped deliver UN food aid to Kabul last week.

The lack of truck drivers willing to risk the journey has disrupted the UN's delivery of 57,000 tonnes of food that must reach Afghanistan before the onset of winter in about a month if famine is to be avoided. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has called for suspension of the bombing to allow aid deliveries.

Equally worrying for allied military planners must be signs of the civilian population in the south rallying around the Taliban in opposition to the strikes. Unless significant sections of Pashtun opinion can be won over to the anti-Taliban coalition, the US campaign is unlikely to achieve its aim of destroying al-Qaeda and its Taliban protectors.

-------- arms sales

Sukhoi Aviation Holding Company

From the International Desk,
UPI Hears . . .
11/15/2001
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=15112001-113529-9575r

As Lockheed executives congratulate themselves on winning the Pentagon's $200 billion contract for the Joint Strike Fighter, there are indications that Russia's defense industry might be reviving itself enough to produce a worthy opponent. President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree merging three aircraft manufacturing companies into a single entity that will be the nation's largest manufacturer of advanced aircraft. The new Sukhoi Aviation Holding Company will amalgamate AVPK Sukhoi, Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Production Association, and the Irkutsk Aviation Production Association. Business is booming for the new company, with a brimming order book for Su-27 and Su-30MKK fighters for China and Su-30MKI fighters for India. The Russian Air Force, unfortunately, due to funding problems, will see its modernization program for its Su-27 and Su-30 fleet proceed at a snail's pace, despite being described by the air force as "a priority program."

-------- biological weapons

Anthrax Available From Many Sources

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent,
Monday October 15 4:23 PM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011015/sc/attack_anthrax_sources_dc_1.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As common as dirt and simple to grow and store, anthrax is easy to find both inside the United States and from Iraq and other countries hostile to America, experts said on Monday.

Hundreds of people across the nation have been tested for anthrax in the past two weeks since a series of scares and apparent attacks, most evidently letter-borne, against NBC in New York, a tabloid publishing company in Florida and a Microsoft Corp. office in Nevada. One Florida man died from his infection.

And on Monday police said a letter received by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's office contained anthrax.

Bioterrorism experts say anthrax is a top weapon of choice for a biological attack because though not contagious, it is spread by microscopic spores that are deadly when breathed in. They can be spread invisibly and kill victims as serious symptoms are just showing up. And unlike the smallpox virus, which is highly contagious, anthrax is easy to get.

Found naturally in soil and a common killer of to grazing animals, anthrax is cheap to grow, can survive for decades when it takes on a spore form, and can be freeze-dried.

Because it is such a threat to agriculture, hundreds of laboratories around the world study it, searching for a vaccine or treatments for the disease, which if caught in the early stages, can be treated with antibiotics.

Many countries, including the United States, developed anthrax as a biological weapon. The United States closed its program in 1970, but others, including Iraq and the former Soviet Union, continued production.

Legitimate researchers can get anthrax from a variety of sources. The World Federation for Culture Collections has more than 400 members in more than 60 countries where labs store anthrax and other deadly microbes.

Among the labs that will mail samples of bacteria and viruses to researchers is the American Type Culture Collection based in Rockville, Maryland, which was accused in 1997 of sending anthrax samples to Iraq.

Since then and because of the threat of bioterrorism, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites) and the Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Department have tightened procedures for getting samples.

'PROCEDURES ARE IRRELEVANT'

But C. J. Peters, a former CDC expert on viruses who heads a new bioterrorism center at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said those procedures were irrelevant.

``This is an organism that is distributed all over the world. It is in every country. It is in the soil. For example, we had a bunch of deer die from anthrax this year in south Texas,'' Peters said in a telephone interview.

A disaffected laboratory worker could easily smuggle samples out of a legitimate lab, said another bioterrorism expert, Michael Osterholm at the University of Minnesota. Osterholm laid out such a scenario in his book ``Living Terrors.''

``In this country we started to tighten up but there are a lot of biological centers -- biosecurity still is lacking,'' Osterholm told Reuters.

One microbiologist, who asked not to be named and who was working with nonlethal bacteria, said he was able to easily demonstrate how simple it was to smuggle samples out of a lab.

``I used to walk out of the lab with cultures taped to my torso, under my shirt,'' the scientist said.

And then there are international sources.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense (news - web sites) and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, North Korea (news - web sites), Russia, Syria and Taiwan all have developed potential biological weapons, including with anthrax. Such governments could sponsor an attack, or sell an anthrax weapon to the right bidder.

A colony of anthrax could be grown from a single spore, Peters said. ``There are people out there who know how to do this,'' said Osterholm, adding that their skills and knowledge could easily be for sale.

But, he added, not just anyone could produce anthrax for a weapon or a criminal attack.

``To get it is one thing and to grow it in way that can be delivered is another,'' Osterholm said. ``The last is to mesh it with a delivery system that is effective. That filters out a lot of people.''

-------- business

UPI Hears . . .

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 2001
(UPI)
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=15112001-113529-9575r

As Lockheed executives congratulate themselves on winning the Pentagon's $200 billion contract for the Joint Strike Fighter, there are indications that Russia's defense industry might be reviving itself enough to produce a worthy opponent. President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree merging three aircraft manufacturing companies into a single entity that will be the nation's largest manufacturer of advanced aircraft. The new Sukhoi Aviation Holding Company will amalgamate AVPK Sukhoi, Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Production Association, and the Irkutsk Aviation Production Association. Business is booming for the new company, with a brimming order book for Su-27 and Su-30MKK fighters for China and Su-30MKI fighters for India. The Russian Air Force, unfortunately, due to funding problems, will see its modernization program for its Su-27 and Su-30 fleet proceed at a snail's pace, despite being described by the air force as "a priority program."

-------- drug war

DEA chief sees link in fights against drugs, terror

October 15, 2001
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011015-93413465.htm

From his 12th-floor office, Asa Hutchinson has a commanding view of the Pentagon, that stoic symbol of U.S. military might attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11.

While the new head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration was not in his office at the time of the assault, the events of that day left a lasting impression and further motivated a man who two months ago during his swearing-in ceremony said he hoped to bring to the DEA "a sense of urgency" that would relate to deeds accomplished.

"The terrible events of September 11 have reminded all of us here of the role we play in fighting the dangerous battles against drug traffickers," he said in an interview. "It is a supporting role, but one that will have increased importance.

"Terrorism and drug trafficking are entwined. One generates money, the other needs money, and both involve the extraordinary use of violence. They feed on each other," he said.

After a whirlwind tour to visit agents and field offices across the country and efforts to acquaint himself with those at the DEA's twin-tower headquarters in Arlington, Mr. Hutchinson has an unflinching loyalty to the agency's 4,000 agents scattered throughout the United States and in 56 foreign countries.

He is confident they are prepared to wage an aggressive law enforcement effort "to help the country through a new kind of battle it has never faced before."

To the former federal prosecutor and three-term Republican congressman actively involved in anti-drug legislation, law enforcement is key to his still-developing DEA strategy, although he said he "fully supports" President Bush's goal of a balanced approach of aggressive law enforcement, increased treatment and expanded educational programs.

He called the president's plan a "seamless, integrated approach to our drug enforcement efforts."

"The DEA is designed to enforce the law, and that's our mission and that's what we're going to do," he said. "But it also is important to focus on new approaches that include an emphasis on educating our youth for the best life choices and the rehabilitation of those who have become addicted to drugs."

Mr. Hutchinson said that while law enforcement efforts should be aimed at reducing both the flow of illicit drugs into the United States and their illegal use, a balanced approach involving treatment and education is a plan also endorsed by the DEA's street agents.

"They believe in it more than anyone," he said. "They know that law enforcement is critical since it is the door hinge on which treatment and education works. It is an arrest that most often triggers treatment. They work together and that is our approach."

Included in his law enforcement program will be increased efforts to deal with international terrorism. He said the DEA will continue to aggressively identify and build cases against drug-trafficking organizations that contribute to global terrorism and, that while the agency does not have a counterterrorism mission, it does have 400 agents in 56 countries who collect huge amounts of important intelligence data.

"We will limit the ability of drug traffickers to use their destructive goods as a community to fund malicious assaults on humanity and the rule of law," he said.

Secure in his congressional seat from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, a vocal critic of President Clinton during impeachment, ran unopposed in the 2000 election. Hence, some have asked: Just why did he take the job?

"The position was not one that I sought, and it was not an easy decision to make," Mr. Hutchinson said. "But I am old-fashioned enough to believe that you say 'yes' when the president calls.

"I have seen the drug war from all sides - as a member of Congress, as a federal prosecutor and as a parent - and I know the importance of fighting this battle on all fronts. During my service in Congress, I have made the problem of drugs one of my highest priorities, including developing fair sentences for offenders, increasing funds for drug education, working with our South American neighbors, and providing local law enforcement with resources to clean up" methamphetamine labs, he said.

At DEA, Mr. Hutchinson has the final word on the agency's well-established mission and in bringing to the criminal and civil justice systems those individuals and organizations who grow, manufacture or distribute a variety of illicit drugs. He will direct an agency assigned the task of targeting and dismantling the most powerful drug syndicates in the world - many of whom have become more powerful and violent than any other organized criminal group in U.S. history.

The DEA is the only single-mission federal agency dedicated to drug law enforcement.

It operates with a budget of $1.6 billion, an increase of $120.6 million over last year. There are 3,772 agents stationed throughout the United States and at 78 offices in 56 foreign countries.

Mr. Hutchinson, nominated in June by Mr. Bush to head the DEA and confirmed by the Senate in August, is a former U.S. attorney for the western district of Arkansas.

As a member of the House of Representatives, he had an established record as a hard-line drug warrior, taking to the floor of the House less than two months after his first election to Congress in 1996 to vigorously attack the Clinton administration for "retreating" from the drug war.

He also was a leading proponent of laws aimed at attacking the burgeoning methamphetamine business, which by 1999 had established a significant foothold in Arkansas with more than 500 illegal methamphetamine labs. He wrote the "Methamphetamine Antiproliferation Act," which provided additional resources essential in stopping the flow of the drug, and lobbied successfully to include Arkansas among 26 "High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas," where drug manufacturing and sales flourish.

-------- india

IN THE REGION
Indian Army Shells Pakistani Posts

October 15, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-India-Pakistan.html

JAMMU, India (AP) -- A senior army official said Indian forces shelled Pakistani military posts across the cease-fire line Monday in Kashmir, destroying nearly a dozen posts in the heaviest fighting along the disputed border in 10 months. Pakistan said a woman was killed and 25 people injured in the assault.

``We have fired heavily on Pakistani positions,'' Indian Brig. P.C. Das told The Associated Press. Speaking from the army base in Nagrota, near Jammu-Kashmir's winter capital of Jammu, Das said the shelling occurred in the frontier areas of Akhnoor and Mendar.

Das said Indian forces fired artillery, rockets, mortars, grenade launchers and machine guns during the operation.

A statement from the Army Media Center said the shelling had caused ``widespread destruction.''

``The Indian army today launched successful, punitive operations against the Pakistani army's repeated involvement in abetting terrorist activities,'' the statement said.

In Islamabad, a Pakistani army spokesman said Indian forces were shelling Pakistani positions in the Phuklian sector, 18 miles from the border city of Sialkot, injuring one woman and 25 others.

The spokesman, who spoke on condition of anonymity, denied Indian claims that they destroyed 11 Pakistani posts. He accused India of targeting civilians.

The two sides were still trading artillery fire in the Rawalakot sector, 100 miles south of Muzaffarabad, he said.

Earlier, a Pakistani general officer at the army headquarters in Rawalpindi, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he checked all the reports and ``no such incident happened.''

In Washington, President Bush said he was looking into the report.

``I think it is very important that India and Pakistan stand down during our activities in Afghanistan, for that matter forever,'' Bush said.

The Indian offensive came while Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Pakistan to discuss issues related to Kashmir and the U.S.-led attack on the Taliban. Powell is scheduled to arrive in India's capital, New Delhi, on Tuesday evening.

``We have started punitive action. This follows a conscious decision,'' said Das, the brigadier-general staff of the Indian army's 16th corps. ``This is part of the proactive approach adopted by Indian Army.''

He added, ``We have completely destroyed their posts.'' Das said Pakistani soldiers had sneaked into Indian territory in Akhnoor on Monday night and damaged three power transformers.

Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had hinted last week that India would take tough action to stem violence by Pakistan-based Islamic insurgents who have fought since 1989 to separate Kashmir from India. The fighting has killed at least 30,000 people.

The Indian claim threatened to escalate tensions between the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbors. Their territorial dispute in Kashmir has led to two of the three wars India and Pakistan have fought in five decades.

India says Pakistan arms, trains and funds Islamic militants based in Pakistan who carry out terrorist attacks and strikes on Indian military bases in the Indian-ruled port of Kashmir.

Pakistan calls them ``freedom fighters,'' says it has no control over their movement cross the border, and that it provides only moral, not material aid.

Das said a total of 11 Pakistani posts had been demolished in the two areas, along the Line of Control, the 1972 cease-fire line that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

Das said details of Pakistani casualties were not known. He said such attacks could be launched again.

``This action would be taken in future also if they make any attempt to push in infiltrators or plant improvised explosive devices in our territory,'' Das said.

Late last month, five Islamic guerrillas and two soldiers died in fighting near the village of Mendar, 135 miles northwest of Jammu, the army said.

Militants in Kashmir have stepped up their attacks since India and Pakistan failed to agree on a common approach to the Kashmir issue when their leaders held summit talks in July.

-------- iran

Iran faces unrest near Afghan border

October 15, 2001
By Colin Barraclough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20011015-89697656.htm

ZAHEDAN, Iran - Despite unusually tight security, officials worry that growing anger over the U.S.-led air strikes against the Taliban may overwhelm the police and military in this region neighboring the Afghan border.

Authorities were startled by the surge of fury in this provincial capital just 20 miles from the border on Friday, when Iran for the first time allowed its public to vent its anger at the air campaign.

Crowds of angry youths screamed their opposition to the attacks and many proclaimed their willingness to fight a holy war against America.

"If the [clergy] give us the order for jihad, we will take up arms against the enemy," said Gholam Reza Yacubi, a volunteer mosque worker in Zahedan. "If there is a war against Islam, we are ready to fight."

Residents fear that civil unrest could grow as militants from the Baluchi tribe, which sprawls across Iran's borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan, protest against the military strikes.

"There is great danger for the Islamic Republic of Iran," said one resident. "There is so much sympathy for the Taliban here."

Even before the Afghan crisis, this was the most sensitive of Iran's difficult border regions. In addition to its Sunni Baluchi population, the province hosts thousands of Afghan refugees who have lived here for up to 20 years.

Both Baluchis and Afghans poured onto the sun-baked streets Friday morning to protest the deaths of their kin across the border. Their first target was the Pakistani consulate, bombarded with a hail of stones and abuse toward Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

"Musharraf is a traitor. Hang him," screamed the crowd that also carried anti-U.S. banners and burned effigies of President Bush.

Elaborate headdresses identified the Afghans in the crowd as ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Pashtuns, representing all parts of their homeland.

By noon, a crowd of some 20,000 had gathered at the Jameh Maqqi mosque, the largest Sunni mosque in town.

Fired up by an inflammatory sermon blaring from the mosque's 48 speakers, the crowd spotted two Western journalists and quickly grew angry. Explanation turned to accusation, hospitality to hostility. It was only a matter of time before the first stone fell.

The mob began to chant the slogans of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution: "Death to America, death to Israel." Only the timely intervention of security police, who waded into the crowds with batons and shields, saved the foreigners from injury.

This rugged corner of Iran has long been a security problem for Iran's Shi'ite clerical regime. Militant Sunni extremists have clashed with the armed forces in the past, and stand accused of orchestrating bomb attacks on prominent Shi'ite targets.

Baluchi drug traffickers, who transport much of the world's opium, heroin and hashish through Iran to Europe and North America, frequently fight pitched battles with the military in the desolate stretches of desert surrounding Zahedan. Smugglers' vehicles, packed with opium and heroin, are driven across remote border areas at night.

"The drivers travel only in darkness, using night-vision goggles to see their way," said Mohammad Fallah, the head of Iran's Drug Control Headquarters, the country's national anti-narcotics bureau.

Iranian narcotics officials say the gangs are highly organized and armed with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Heavy machine guns, mounted on all-terrain vehicles, protect drug convoys.

Iranian officers say the gangs have even shot down helicopters and warplanes with surface-to-air weapons. At Iran's drug control headquarters in Tehran, a condolence book names some 2,700 law enforcement personnel who have died fighting the traffickers since 1979.

Under international pressure, Iran has stepped up its battle against the smugglers. But the Baluchi gangs, given virtual carte blanche by the Taliban in the late 1990s, have fought back.

Over the past month, Iran has drafted some 30,000 extra police and troops to its eastern provinces, ostensibly to help seal the border with Afghanistan against an expected influx of new refugees.

In key towns like Zahedan, however, riot police and Islamic Revolutionary Guards are now deployed as much to maintain domestic security as to guard against a refugee influx from the east.

If the aerial attacks on Afghanistan continue much longer, police fear they will have much more than a refugee influx on their mind.

-------- iraq

Iraq stockpiled anthrax in run-up to Gulf war
Saddam's supply may have helped keep his regime in power

David Leigh Monday
October 15, 2001
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C574193%2C00.html

Iraq has possessed large supplies of anthrax, processed into a form usable as a weapon of biological warfare, studies of Saddam Hussein's military build-up have found.

On the brink of the US launching the Gulf war against him in January 1991, Saddam is estimated to have had 50 anthrax-filled bombs ready for use. He also had prepared 10 missiles loaded with anthrax warheads dispersed to separate locations.

This was the fruit of a crash six-year biological warfare programme, and it was because the Americans were afraid he might use anthrax at the time, that they may have held back from trying to topple Saddam's rule altogether.

"The assessment was that the Iraqis were likely to use weapons of mass destruction if the survival of the regime was threatened" said Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University.

His recent book, Losing Control, draws on a US document to that effect - the "national intelligence estimate" of November 1990, prepared after Iraq invaded Kuwait but before the US launched its Gulf War counter-attack.

A classified report relating to it was later released in error by the US department of defence in 1996.The report was quickly removed from the website, but not before it had been read by a number of analysts.

The main source of technical information on Iraq's anthrax weapon programme is the series of subsequent Unscom UN inspection reports produced between October 1995 and October 1997.

Iraq started researching anthrax warfare in 1985, at its Muthana chemical weapons centre, as part of its prolonged war effort against Iran, covertly backed by the US.

Large-scale fermenters were used to produce anthrax spores in bulk at a pilot plant, Al Salman, after field trials on monkeys and sheep.

In May 1989, large-scale anthrax production began at a factory constructed at Al Hakam. Unscom estimated that Al Hakam manufactured 8,425 litres of anthrax bacteria during the course of 1990.

A parallel programme began to design weapons that could deliver the spores. Rockets, bombs and spray tanks were all tested netween 1988 and 1990 when Saddam took the decision to invade Kuwait in August 1990.

During the six months of cri sis before the US-led coalition attacked, Saddam greatly speeded up the biological weapons programme.

Iraqi commanders were told the weapons were intended for use as a last resort if Baghdad was destroyed by nuclear attack.

As well as anthrax, other missiles contained chemical agents, and two more biological killers - the food poisoning agent botulinum, and aflatoxin, a rare cancer-inducing toxin derived from a fungus.

After Unscom made these discoveries, Iraq prevented further inspections. However, according to Prof Rogers: "There were credible reports Iraq was continuing work, probably in underground re search and devlopment centres".

None of this proves that the latest anthrax scares can be traced directly to Iraq. But US hawks pressing for an attack on Baghdad have been been strengthened by publication of reports linking Saddam to Osama bin Laden.

The Czech foreign minister, Jan Kavan, is reported to have flown this month to Washington to deliver intelligence files on meetings between Iraqis and Islamist terrorists to the US secretary of state, Colin Powell.

Ex-CIA head James Woolsey has maintained that it was Iraq which provided fake passports for all the 19 US hijackers.

-------- nigeria

200 May Be Dead in Nigeria Riots
Anti-American Protests Engulf Major City in Muslim North

By Dulue Mbachu and Douglas Farah
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 15, 2001; Page A09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59693-2001Oct14.html

LAGOS, Nigeria, Oct. 14 -- At least 200 people died in Kano, northern Nigeria's largest city, during two days of anti-American riots led by Muslims protesting the U.S.-led bombing of Afghanistan, according to residents and police sources.

Residents interviewed by telephone said the streets, littered with smoldering cars, were deserted today as heavily armed troops, using armored personnel carriers and tanks, patrolled the city. Kano, which has about 1 million residents, remained under a 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew, and soldiers have orders to shoot on sight anyone violating that decree.

Nigeria, with 120 million people, is West Africa's most populous country and a crucial supplier of oil to the United States. It is about evenly split between Christians, who live mainly in the south, and Muslims, who dominate the north. Analysts and Muslim leaders said the rioting highlighted the danger faced by President Olusegun Obasanjo, a close ally of the United States, as he publicly backs the U.S.-led raids in Afghanistan.

Obasanjo already faces a series of deep crises, many of which are a legacy of decades of brutal and corrupt military rule that gave way to his elected government in May 1999.

"Muslims here, over 90 percent of them are outraged over the Afghanistan bombings," Sulliman Kumo, a Muslim scholar, said in a telephone interview. "There is definitely a feeling of support for Afghanistan and [Osama] bin Laden across northern Nigeria."

A diplomat in Lagos said that, while there was no sign Obasanjo's government was threatened, "if this continues, added to all the other problems, it could be a rough, rough ride."

The violence in Kano began after a peaceful march by Muslims after Friday's prayers at the mosque, residents said. But then a group of angry Muslims, many carrying posters of bin Laden and anti-American banners, came across a small group of Christians and attacked them.

Kumo said that while anger at the United States ran high, the violence was sparked by a group of "hoodlums" who took advantage of the emotional situation.

Clashes spread across the dry, dusty city, and crowds began to loot and burn buildings, residents said. "Many people were killed last night as Christians or Muslims living in isolated areas of the city were picked off by rival gangs," Charles Ochiama, a Christian banker, said from his sanctuary in a military barracks. "My house in the mainly Muslim Zango area was attacked and burned by rioters. I jumped the fence to escape and would've been killed but for a police patrol that saved me. Hundreds of people were not as lucky."

While police officially put the number of dead in Kano at 13, residents and police officials said at least 200 people were killed.

"I worked this morning with a rescue team taking the dead to the mortuaries and the wounded to hospital, and we handled no less than 80 dead," said a senior police official, speaking on condition he not be identified. "With similar figures from other teams, we are talking of no less than 200 dead."

Augustus Tarosi, owner of a small bar on the edge of the Christian section of town, concurred. "There were so many bodies and so many houses burned with people in them," Tarosi said. "I know the final number will be far higher than the 200 people are saying now. Things are calm now, but everyone is girding themselves for more clashes."

Among the buildings set ablaze was the country home of Foreign Minister Sule Lamido. Lamido, a Muslim, was the government point man in announcing the government's support for the U.S. airstrikes.

A block of buildings serving as the offices of several national newspapers was also burned down, as were five churches and two mosques, residents said.

Farah reported from Abidjan, Ivory Coast.

-------- pakistan

Police fire at mob moving on Pakistan air base
Trouble flares when US air forces start using local base

Luke Harding in Islamabad
Monday October 15, 2001
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,574206,00.html

One person was shot dead yesterday and at least 12 were injured when Pakistani police opened fire on a crowd of between 4,000 and 5,000 demonstrators trying to storm a heavily protected airbase secretly being used by American forces.

In the most violent scenes in Pakistan for a week, the protesters from the radical Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) party converged on the small desert town of Jacobabad, in the southern province of Sindh. They then tried to march to the airport, which had been sealed off by 3,000 police.

Paramilitary rangers fired several shots into the air and also let off teargas to drive away the crowd. The demonstrators responded by throwing stones. Clashes went on all afternoon.

"We have strict orders from the government to deal sternly with the protesters," a Jacobabad police superintendent, Akhtar Ali Shah, said.

Pakistan finally confirmed last Thursday that it has given the Americans the use of two minor airbases for raids into Afghanistan: Jacobabad, and remote Pasni on the Arabian Sea coast. According to officials, these airbases are being used for non-combat logistical support and as "recovery stations" for American planes unable to return to base.

The covert arrival last week of US C-130 transport planes, helicopters, and American personnel has provoked a furious reaction from Pakistan's religious parties. Some 4,000 to 5,000 people gathered in Jacobabad yesterday, shouting "Down with the dog Bush", "American graveyard: Afghanistan" and "Hero of Islam, Osama bin Laden".

"We strongly condemn the handover of bases to Americans by the government," Andul Ghafoor Haideri, the leader of the JUI, a Sunni group that is one of Pakistan's biggest religious parties, said. "This is an injustice to Pakistan and Islam."

The police tried to pre-empt a violent demonstration by erecting roadblocks on all entry points to Jacobabad and installing machine gun posts on the tops of houses near by. At the weekend they also arrested 35 local leaders from hardline Islamist parties. They have been the biggest critics of the decision by Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, to support America.

In normal times Jacobabad is little more than a very hot one-donkey town, where tribal traditions are strong and women - when they do appear on the streets, which is not often - cover themselves completely with a burqa.

"People have seen American aircraft landing and taking off during the past couple of days, and especially yesterday," said Rashid Bijarani, a farmer in Jacobabad, who claimed to have seen them himself. Others in Jacobabad also spoke of seeing US-marked craft.

During the weekend the JUI urged its supporters to advance on the airbase and to stage suicide attacks against any American aircraft they could find. The party's spokesman, Riaz Durran, declared: "Body bags will be sent to America. Then they will realise the misery."

After violent protests in Quetta last week, in which four people were shot dead, Gen Musharraf issued orders to the army and police to deal harshly with demonstrators. Despite some rioting in Karachi three days ago, the situation appeared to be under control and most protests have been modest.

But the presence of American troops remains very controversial. Gen Musharraf has promised America logistical support, intelligence and the use of Pakistani airspace, but has said Pakistani's airbases cannot be used for offensive military actions against the Afghans.

--------

Anti-U.S. Sentiment Spreading In Pakistan
Growing Street Protests Precede Visit by Powell

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 15, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59443-2001Oct14.html

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Oct. 14 -- As Secretary of State Colin L. Powell arrives here Monday to reinforce Pakistan's new anti-terrorist alliance with the United States, anti-American sentiment is growing rapidly across Pakistan, with a wide cross-section of the public expressing concern about the short-term human damage and long-term political consequences of the U.S. military campaign against next-door Afghanistan.

Last week, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf confidently claimed that only an extremist Islamic minority of between 10 percent and 15 percent of the population opposed his decision to side with the United States in its anti-terrorism campaign and airstrikes against Afghanistan. So far, most public protests, including a mob today attempting to storm a Pakistani airfield believed to contain U.S. military planes, have been confined to those groups.

But the mood across this Muslim nation is changing rapidly. Now, opinion-makers who initially supported Musharraf's decision are beginning to voice grave doubts. Moderate Pakistanis, who ordinarily would have little sympathy for either suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden or the radical Islamic Taliban regime in Afghanistan that shelters him, are angrily criticizing the government's policy.

Suddenly, T-shirts emblazoned with bin Laden's image are on sale in every urban market. Business students and postal clerks are joining religious demonstrations and vowing to wage jihad, or holy war, against the United States. In elegant drawing rooms as well as run-down mosques, many Pakistani Muslims insist that Israel must have been behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

The genesis of this radicalization is fast-growing public concern that the U.S. military assault on Afghanistan, now entering its second week, will lead to massive civilian casualties, continue far longer than originally expected, and drag Pakistan into a messy, open-ended conflict and political quagmire in Afghanistan that may last long after Washington has turned its attention elsewhere.

"I'm getting a very uneasy feeling," said Ayaz Amir, a columnist for the Dawn newspaper. "I was convinced we had done a good thing, that only a minority favored the Taliban and good riddance. But now not just the religious extremists, but ordinary Pakistanis, even English-speaking liberals, are asking why this is happening. Now the image is no longer the Taliban against everyone, but America mindlessly bombing a poor country. And the longer this campaign lasts, the stronger and wider that anger will become."

So far, public protests over the past several weeks have been organized and attended mostly by radical minority Islamic groups, with only a few thousand people participating. In most cases the rallies have been peaceful and successfully controlled by police, who are being deployed in increasing numbers and armed strength to prevent violence.

But in the cities of Quetta and Karachi, tens of thousands of protesters rampaged through the streets last week, stoning cars and attacking buildings including movie halls, fast-food outlets and international relief agencies. In Karachi on Friday, the entire city was shut down in response to a strike called by clerics.

Today, one group of religious demonstrators tried to attack an airfield in Jacobabad where U.S. military planes are believed to be stationed, and security forces shot and killed at least one protester. As the U.S. military assault on Afghanistan continues, Islamic groups have vowed to intensify their protests, and thousands of young men have registered to take up arms and fight alongside the Taliban if foreign ground troops enter Afghanistan.

"If [President] Bush and his monkeys want to destroy Islam, we will chase them to their grave," vowed Shayar Khan, 23, a business student at a protest Friday in Peshawar, who said he had recently traveled to Afghanistan with several hundred other students to sign up to fight. "If they send in troops, I will abandon my MBA and go for martyrdom," he said. "Now I am ashamed that I speak English, because the American policies are shameful."

As the U.S. bombing campaign began Oct. 7, Musharraf moved to ensure the support of Pakistan's security forces by replacing three top officers known to have strong Islamic views or ties to the Taliban, including his intelligence chief. His new appointees have been described as pragmatic moderates.

But analysts here said that if the U.S. military attacks continue indefinitely, with increasing civilian casualties in Afghanistan and popular unrest in Pakistan, even moderate officers within the army could break ranks with Musharraf if they see his newfound alliance with the United States becoming a liability for Pakistan's national sovereignty and stability.

"Until this crisis ends, Musharraf will be living week to week," said Rifaat Hussain, a professor of strategic and defense studies at Quaid-I-Azam University. "There is an emerging current of anti-Americanism that is turning people by default into Taliban sympathizers. People do not want Pakistan to act as a proxy for the Americans, and they are not sure if there is an exit strategy for our entanglement in the Afghan crisis. They fear the Americans will leave and we will end up holding the bag."

Powell's visit could prove a double-edged sword for Musharraf at this sensitive juncture, Hussain and others said. On one hand, the secretary of state will have an opportunity to reassure Pakistan of Washington's long-term commitment to its new strategic partner. On the other, his visit could intensify public suspicion that Musharraf is becoming too compliant toward a self-interested superpower.

"Powell could help or hurt," said Hussain. "Musharraf has to keep his distance from Washington. If he stands shoulder to shoulder with Powell, he could be seen as a lackey. The American campaign has lionized bin Laden and given the religious groups more ammunition. But the main issue is Pakistan's national sovereignty."

Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani army general and political moderate, expressed concern that the United States, in its zeal to combat terrorism and eagerness to avoid American casualties, is committing military "overkill" by widely bombing Afghanistan and not adequately considering the political fallout in Pakistan, which shares a long border with Afghanistan and already shelters more than 2 million Afghan refugees.

Many Pakistanis fear that a long and messy conflict in Afghanistan could be followed by a violent struggle to fill a post-Taliban political void that would deeply embroil Pakistan. The last time this happened, after Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the United States abandoned the region and Pakistan inherited a legacy of violence and religious extremism.

"The Americans have to treat this region as a theater, and so far they have not," Masood said. "They want to make sure no Americans come home in body bags, but they could lose their long-term strategic goals for short-term tactical gains. This is a war of hearts and minds, and ordinary people can get Talibanized in the process. If they have to send in troops to get the Taliban out, it could fragment Pakistan and destabilize it."

As a military leader, Musharraf has used his position decisively to shore up support within the army and crack down on religious groups, leaving little doubt that he will use force to quell violent opposition. But he is in a far weaker position to court public opinion because of his hostility toward established political parties and his insistence on rebuilding Pakistani democracy without their help.

So far, most political leaders here have remained silent or faintly supportive of Musharraf's new alliance with the West. With party activity banned and the regional and national legislatures suspended since Musharraf's military coup two years ago, they have no formal outlet for their views. But now, analysts said, Musharraf needs to reach out to them if he is to preserve his rapidly flagging support among moderate and secular Muslims.

"We support the government's position against terrorism, but it owes the people more transparency in its decisions," said Abida Hussain, a dissident leader of the Pakistan Muslim League, the party in power until the 1999 coup. "We don't know exactly what the Americans have asked for or what Pakistan has promised in return. The government needs to take the people into confidence."

Raja Zafar ul-Haq, leader of a rival Muslim League faction, said that at first, the party felt Musharraf had sided with "lesser evil" and refrained from joining religious-led protests. But with the U.S. bombing becoming more controversial by the day, he said, party officials face mounting pressure from young members who want to take to the streets.

"People everywhere are talking openly against the bombing, and against Musharraf allowing Pakistan to become involved," he said. "It is sucking in the entire political spectrum. If the present government collapses, or Musharraf remains hostile to the mainstream political parties, the void could be filled by extremists. That is something we must avoid at all costs."

--------

Fearing Fallout of Afghan Chaos, Pakistanis Harden to U.S. Strikes

Pamela Constable Washington Post Service
Monday, October 15, 2001
International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/35714.htm

ISLAMABAD As Secretary of State Colin Powell arrives here Monday to reinforce Pakistan's new anti-terrorist alliance with the United States, anti-American sentiment is growing rapidly across Pakistan, with a wide cross-section of the public expressing concern about the short-term human damage and long-term political consequences of the U.S. military campaign against next-door Afghanistan.

Last week, President Pervez Musharraf confidently claimed that only an extremist Islamic minority of 10 to 15 percent opposed his decision to side with the United States in its anti-terrorism crusade and unleash air strikes against Afghanistan.

So far most public protests, including a mob attack Sunday near a Pakistani airfield containing U.S. military planes, have been confined to those groups.

But the mood across Muslim Pakistan is changing rapidly. Now, opinion-makers who initially supported President Musharraf's decision are beginning to voice grave doubts.

Moderate Pakistanis, who would ordinarily have little sympathy for either the suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden or for the radical Islamic Taliban regime in Afghanistan that shelters him, are angrily criticizing the government's policy.

Suddenly, T-shirts with Mr. bin Laden's portrait are on sale in every urban market. Business students and postal clerks are joining religious demonstrations and vowing to wage jihad against America. And in elegant drawing rooms as well as rundown mosques, many Pakistani Muslims insist that Israel must have been behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

The genesis of this radicalization is a fast-growing public concern that the U.S. military attack on Afghanistan, now entering its second week, will lead to massive civilian casualties.

And there is concern that the campaign will continue far longer than originally expected, dragging Pakistan into a messy, open-ended conflict and leaving behind a political quagmire in Afghanistan that may last long after Washington has turned its attention elsewhere. "I'm getting a very uneasy feeling," said Ayaz Amir, a columnist for The Dawn newspaper. "I was convinced we had done a good thing, that only a minority favored the Taliban and good riddance. But now not just the religious extremists but ordinary Pakistanis, even English-speaking liberals, are asking why this is happening." "Now the image is no longer the Taliban against everyone, but America mindlessly bombing a poor country," the columnist said.

And the longer this campaign lasts, the stronger and wider that anger will become.

So far, public protests over the past several weeks have been organized and attended mostly by minority Islamic groups, with only a few thousand people participating. In most cases the rallies have been peaceful and successfully controlled by the police, who are being deployed in increasing numbers and armed strength to prevent violence.

But in the cities of Quetta and Karachi, tens of thousands of protesters rampaged through the streets last week, stoning cars and attacking buildings that included movie halls, fast food outlets and international relief agencies. On Friday, the entire city of Karachi was shut down in response to a strike call by religious clerics.

A group of religious demonstrators tried Sunday to attack an airfield in Balochistan Province where U.S. military planes are being kept, and security forces reportedly shot and killed or injured several protesters.

As the U.S. military assault continues, Islamic groups have vowed to intensify their protests, and thousands of young men have registered to take up arms and fight alongside the Taliban if foreign ground troops enter Afghanistan.

"If Bush and his monkeys want to destroy Islam, we will chase them to their grave," vowed Shayar Khan, 23, a business student at one protest Friday in Peshawar city, who said he had recently traveled to Afghanistan with several hundred other students to sign up to fight. "If they send in troops, I will abandon my MBA and go for martyrdom," he said.

"Now I am ashamed that I speak English, because the American policies are shameful."

As the U.S. bombing campaign began last Sunday, President Musharraf moved to ensure the support of Pakistan's security forces by replacing three top officers known to have strong Islamic views or ties to the Taliban, including his intelligence chief, with others described as pragmatic moderates like himself.

But analysts here said that if the American military attacks continue indefinitely, with increasing civilian casualties in Afghanistan and popular unrest in Pakistan, even moderate officers within the army could break ranks with General Musharraf if they see his newfound alliance with the United States becoming a liability for Pakistan's national sovereignty and stability.

"Until this crisis ends, Musharraf will be living week to week," said Rifaat Hussain, a professor of strategic and defense studies at Quaid-I-Azam University.

"There is an emerging current of anti-Americanism that is turning people by default into Taliban sympathizers. People do not want Pakistan to act as a proxy for the Americans, and they are not sure if there is an exit strategy for our entanglement in the Afghan crisis. They fear the Americans will leave and we will end up holding the bag."

General Powell's visit Monday, Mr. Hussain and others said, could prove a double-edged sword for the Pakistani president at this sensitive juncture.

On the one hand, the American secretary of state will have an opportunity to reassure Pakistan of Washington's long-term commitment to its new strategic partner. On the other hand, his visit could intensify public suspicion that General Musharraf is becoming too compliant toward a self-interested superpower.

"Powell could help or hurt," said Mr. Hussain. "Musharraf has to keep his distance from Washington. If he stands shoulder to shoulder with Powell he could be seen as a lackey. The American campaign has lionized bin Laden and given the religious groups more ammunition. But the main issue is Pakistan's national sovereignty."

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

Pentagon split over war plan
Generals at odds with politicians on strategy

Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday October 15, 2001
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0%2C1361%2C574258%2C00.html

The Bush administration is growing increasingly alarmed by the direction of the military campaign in Afghanistan after a week of almost continuous bombing has failed to dislodge either Osama bin Laden or the Taliban leadership.

In the absence of new intelligence on the whereabouts of the Saudi-born extremist accused of masterminding the September 11 terrorist attacks, US generals are under pressure from civilian defence officials to send greater numbers of special forces into Afghanistan to try to accomplish what the bombing failed to do - flush out a target.

But the Pentagon's top brass are reluctant to deploy their best troops in the absence of good intelligence about Bin Laden's whereabouts, and before further bombing has softened expected resistance on the ground.

The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is reported to be increasingly frustrated by the caution of the generals and their inability to come up with a creative battle plan. One of his aides was quoted in today's edition of Newsweek as comparing the attitude of today's Pentagon to the conventional thinking familiar in the Gulf war - a thinking now considered to be out of date and inappropriate for the delicate nature of the war against terrorism. "The media are preparing to cover a second Gulf war," the aide said, "and the military are preparing to fight one."

It was always assumed that the second phase of the military campaign in Afghanistan would involve the deployment of significant numbers of special forces, but as the moment drew closer yesterday differences were becoming more visible over how many should be used and in what manner. Mr Rumsfeld had taken office planning a radical shake-up of the military hierarchy, but did not have time to do so before the US came under attack on September 11. After the suicide attacks on New York and Washington were traced to Bin Laden and his camps in Afghanistan, Mr Rumsfeld gave his top generals the task of drawing up a radical and innovative battle plan.

His aides predicted that apart from a few opening air strikes to destroy the Taliban's air defences, the war would be a largely covert conflict. Instead the first week of the campaign has involved wave after wave of Gulf war-style strikes, and a rising toll of claimed civilian casualties.

The traditionalist generals believe that there are more military targets in Afghanistan which can be hit from the air, and have backed the renewed use of heavy bombers this week, after a weekend in which most strikes were carried out by smaller, tactical strikers launched from carriers in the Arabian sea.

One potential target is the Taliban's 55th Brigade, made up principally of Arab fighters who are thought to constitute the regime's Praetorian guard.

The first week of bombing has not "smoked out" Bin Laden or the Taliban leadership from their strongholds, as President Bush had hoped, and the Pentagon's military planners are said to be still operating in an intelligence vacuum. Some feel the job of finding these elusive targets belongs to the diplomats and the spies. "I hope the military isn't given this to solve," General Anthony Zinni, the former head of the Pentagon's central command, is reported to have grumbled to other officers.

British defence officials were yesterday giving the clear impression that military planners are deeply frustrated by the lack of intelligence about the impact of the air campaign and what next they should do to attack such elusive targets.

They say they are continuing to look at all the options for the deployment of ground troops, including "small units" - a reference to special forces - or "larger numbers" - the prospect of airborne troops gaining a bridgehead inside Afghanistan as a base for raids against Taliban forces.

But sources describe the plans as "paper talk" and say no decision has been made.

Top officers in the Pentagon are leaning away from setting up a base inside Afghanistan on the grounds that it would be vulnerable. Instead the most likely option is that helicopter-borne special forces units will launch their missions from the deck of the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier in the Arabian sea.

Military planners are concerned about the approaching winter and the pressures on the Pakistani leader, General Pervez Musharraf, as well as the immediate tactical problem of knowing where to strike against the forces of an unconventional enemy.

While most of the Taliban's air defences have been destroyed, their light forces and the small open-backed lorries they use to move about the country were reported yesterday to be mostly intact.

The Afghan militia's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, yesterday offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country if the US provided evidence of his guilt. But the offer, a reiteration of previous Taliban proposals, was immediately rejected by President Bush.

A White House spokeswoman said: "The president has been very clear: there will be no negotiations."

--------

Pentagon selects target for a strike

October 15, 2001
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011015-96821434.htm

The Pentagon has selected a target for the first offensive commando mission in Afghanistan and will attack "very soon."

A senior U.S. official says the Bush administration seeks to show the ruling Taliban that it now has the flexibility to attack their forces on the ground after fewer than 10 days of air strikes by U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft.

The administration is debating whether to announce the first attack after it has been completed, perhaps showing the public videotapes of parts of the mission. This would demonstrate to the nation that Operation Enduring Freedom is making progress against the Taliban militia and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization.

"We want to show the American public we can deal a blow on the ground to the Taliban," an administration official says.

Pentagon spokesmen have repeatedly cautioned reporters that most special-operations missions in the war on terrorism will never be disclosed. When commandos do strike, they will go in with the awareness that al Qaeda has the knowledge, training and weapons to shoot down American troop-carrying helicopters.

Bin Laden's network trains terrorists in anti-helicopter tactics, and the curriculum covers portable missiles, truck-mounted artillery and grenade launchers. Al Qaeda is believed to have Soviet-made SA-7 shoulder-fired missiles, and perhaps U.S. Stinger missiles left over from the mujahideen's 1980s rebellion against Soviet occupiers. With a ange of 10,000 feet, portable heat-seeking missiles are particularly lethal against low-flying helicopters.

The next layer of defense consists of artillery guns mounted on trucks.

If helicopters escape the missiles and bullets and descend to a lower altitude, they face small-arms fire and grenade launchers that may have been especially reconfigured to explode as they approach an aircraft. "They are really like a machine for killing," said Daoud Mir, the rebel Northern Alliance's special envoy to Washington. Bin Laden is known to travel with a security detail of about 40 fierce loyalists, and commands his own al Qaeda army of roughly 3,000 troops, some of whom may be guarding him.

Bin Laden loyalists showed an ability to down an American chopper in the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia. When a team of Army Rangers and Delta Force soldiers stormed a meeting place of suspected rebels, a bin Laden-trained Somali downed a Black Hawk helicopter using a grenade launcher. In the ensuing firefight, 18 U.S. soldiers were killed.

It was not known at the time, but subsequent intelligence reporting revealed that shortly after U.S. troops entered Somalia in 1992 to feed the starving masses, bin Laden dispatched a top aide to organize resistance. Today, that man, Muhammad Atef, is accused by the United States of organizing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"In 1992 and 1993, Muhammad Atef traveled to Somalia on several occasions for the purpose of organizing violence against United States and United Nations troops then stationed in Somalia," states an evidentiary "white paper" released by the British government. "On each occasion, he reported back to Osama bin Laden, at his base in Riyadh district of Khartoum [Sudan].

"In the spring of 1993, Atef, Saif Al-Adel, another senior member of al Qaeda, and other members, began to provide military training to Somalian tribes for the purpose of fighting the United Nations Forces," the paper states. "On 3 and 4 October 1993, operatives of al Qaeda participated in the attack on U.S. military personnel serving in Somalia. Eighteen U.S. military personnel were killed in the attack."

Richard Shultz Jr., author of "The Secret War Against Hanoi," says the important thing for the Pentagon is to learn from the mistakes of Somalia before sending American covert warriors into Afghanistan. Mr. Shultz, whose book documents the extensive use of commandos in Vietnam, says the Pentagon failed in 1993 to do an appraisal of how the rebels in Mogadishu would fight once challenged by the Rangers.

"The reason they didn't have that framework is these clans fight in irregular, unconventional ways," he said. "We hadn't studied that."

Army helicopters like the Black Hawk and the Apache attack chopper carry countermeasures that can fend off a heat-seeking or radar-guided missile.

The aircraft dispense flares, for example, that draw the incoming missile to a fake heat source. Some new forms of the Soviet SA-7 missile have the ability to discern between flares and the engine heat of a helicopter.

Army officers say the best defense against missiles and ground fire is good intelligence; with it, commandos can land undetected or away from the threats. "You need very good intelligence and an infiltration route selected based on reconnaissance," said one Army source. "There are countermeasures on our helicopters, but no one wants to count on them unless it's a last resort. Gunship escort is a good idea, too."


-------- OTHER

-------- alternative energy

Fuel cell cars face obstacles, but said viable in California

Story by Allan Dowd,
REUTERS
CANADA: October 16, 2001
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12810/story.htm

VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Fuel cell vehicles can be commercially viable in California, North America's largest auto market, but a focused development effort and government help are needed to get them on the road, according to a study released today.

The study, prepared for a private-public coalition testing the environmentally friendly vehicles, is one of the first detailed examinations of the hurdles faced by a technology that is sometimes hailed as a replacement for the internal combustion engine.

Car designers still faces obstacles, such as creating adequate fuel processing equipment on the vehicles, but if progress continues "all other challenges to (fuel cell vehicle) commercialization can be overcome," according to the study for the California Fuel Cell Partnership.

Fuel cells produce electricity from hydrogen by using a chemical reaction, but developers are at odds over what fuels the cars will reformulate to get the hydrogen. Alternatives range from special gasolines to methanol and ethanol.

The study said commercialization will come faster if developers agree the first cars on the market will use compressed hydrogen, and allow time to develop the equipment needed to reformulate hydrogen from liquid fuels.

"Automakers, fuel providers and government of all level must co-operate to develop an adequate public demand for FCV (fuel cell vehicles)," according to the study.

Automakers have forecast their first fuel cell vehicles would reach consumers between 2003 and 2005, but researchers warn it could take several years to reach a commercialization target of 2 to 5 percent of all vehicles sold in California.

California is seen as the first major market for fuel cell cars because the state's air pollution problems have forced it to push the automobile makers into developing alternatives to the petroleum-burning internal combustion engine.

The fuel cell is considered a green technology because the only direct byproducts of the process are heat and water, but the study cautions the vehicles are not "zero emission" because the fuel reformulating equipment creates pollutants.

GREEN BENEFITS NOT ENOUGH

The study said that while promoters of fuel cell vehicles must increase public awareness of the technology's environmental benefits, they cannot depend on that public support to make the cars a quick commercial success.

"FCV environmental benefits need to be presented as a pathway to long-term future societal benefits rather than early major improvements," according to the study, which noted some of the benefits may take decades to realize.

Government and industry must also recognize the potential non-transportation benefits of fuel cell vehicles, such as their ability to supply electricity to homes when not being driven, the researchers said.

A major obstacle to use of fuel cells in vehicles is the lack of fueling infrastructure. Even the gasoline eyed by some designers as a source of the fuel cells' hydrogen is different from the gasoline now sold, and would require service stations to undergo expensive retrofits.

The study warns government may have to assume some of the financial risk in building the fueling infrastructure. That would avoid a Catch-22 situation with energy firms leery of investing in infrastructure until fuel cell cars are on the road, but with cars unable to be sold until a fueling infrastructure is in place.

Among the suggestions offered by the researchers is that the U.S. federal and state governments could create a public corporation "to build, operate, and eventually sell the FCV fuel delivery infrastructure."

The study did not directly compare the economics of the different fuel types, but the researchers suggested ethanol faced the biggest marketing problems - due largely to the a lack of adequate production capacity.

The researchers did not recommend a preferred fuel type, in part, because the California Fuel Cell Partnership includes private sector members that are promoting competing fuel technologies.

The first cars will likely be those aimed at corporate fleets, but the study said automakers must quickly introduce a wider variety of products such sport utility vehicles to interest consumers.

----

Scientists urge more US use of renewable energy

USA: October 16, 2001
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12811/story.htm

WASHINGTON - The United States could produce at least 20 percent of its electricity from wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy sources by 2020, according to a report released yesterday from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based group urged the federal government to adopt such a goal and require electric utilities to increase their power output from renewable energy from the current 2 percent.

More than half the electricity produced in the United States comes from power plants that burn coal, a source of emissions that pollute the air.

"Adopting a renewable energy standard would diversify electricity generation, as well as reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions," said the report, dubbed the "Clean Energy Blueprint."

The scientific group calls for the renewable portfolio standard to be phased in over time, reaching 10 percent by 2010.

Renewable energy standards have already been adopted in 12 states: Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.

The report also found consumers could save $105 billion annually, or $350 per family, if the government required better energy efficiency in appliances and building codes.

The group said the changes in U.S. energy policies would reduce natural gas use by 31 and by almost 60 percent for coal.

More than 400 million barrels of oil would saved over 18 years, which is more than could be economically recovered from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 60 years, according to the report.

The refuge is currently closed to drilling, but Congress is considering legislation to give energy companies access.

The report said requiring more use of renewable energy sources would reduce the need for 975 power plants, retire 180 coal-polluting plants and 14 existing nuclear power plants.

With fewer power plants and those remaining using cleaner renewable fuels, carbon dioxide emissions from power plants would be reduced by two-thirds, while harmful sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions would be cut by 55 percent, according to the report.

----

German Green Party expects renewables budget rise

REUTERS
GERMANY: October 15, 2001
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12795/story.htm

FRANKFURT - Germany's Green Party said last week it expected parliament to accept its proposal to increase funding for renewable energy in the country's new budget in mid-November.

Together with its Social Democrats (SPD) ruling coalition, the junior Green Party is blocking plans by Economics Minister Werner Mueller, an independent to cut funding for renewables to 170 million marks in 2002 from this year's 300 million marks.

"We are now beyond discussions and at the stage of real negotiations on the budget for renewable energies," Hans-Joseph Fell, the Green Party's parliamentary spokesman on research, told Reuters.

"Nearly everyone in the Green Party and SPD factions want an increase in the budget to 400 million marks next year," he added.

The current 300 million mark funding applies to the solar thermal, biogas and geothermal forms of renewable energies.

The Green Party is also blocking Mueller's plan to cut the research budget for renewables to 65 million marks from 210 million marks next year.

Mueller's proposed cuts apply to funding from the economics ministry only, Fell said, since the research and agricultural ministries have separate funds for renewables.

He said there needed to be a more centralised form of funding for green energies.

"We have started the process for the government to discuss this problem, but we cannot expect any change within this period of government," Fell said.

"We expect that this could be possible though with the new government in the autumn of 2002," he added.

The research ministry controlled the whole budget for renewables until November 1998.

Germany supports renewable energies as environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional sources of fuel, namely oil, gas and coal, as part of its commitment to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

Fell welcomed the European Union's Budget Commissioner Micharele Schreyer's statement on Thursday that she did not expect the European Commission to block Germany's subsidising green energy.

That would run counter to EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti's opposition to such funding.

"The Commission knows that competition law sees environmental issues as more important than competition in cases like this," Fell said.

-------- energy

Blocked nuclear data seen lifting US power prices

USA: October 15, 2001
Reuters
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12794/story.htm

NEW YORK - A federal agency's decision to stop posting potentially sensitive nuclear power plant data on its Web site following the Sept. 11 attacks could push up wholesale electricity prices, traders said last week.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which oversees the use of all radioactive materials in the country, suspended its Web site on Thursday, as part of a general tightening of security nationwide.

"Our site is not operational at this time. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken the action to shut down its web site," the NRC said in a statement posted on the site (http://www.nrc.gov).

"In support of our mission to protect public health and safety, we are performing a review of all material on our site. We appreciate your patience and understanding during these difficult times."

Among information previously shown on the Web site was the plants' locations, including longitude and latitude, and general design specifications for each facility.

Several electricity traders, who look daily to the federal agency's plant status report for fundamental market supply data, told Reuters not knowing whether a plant was operating raised uncertainties that would be reflected in higher prices.

"It's amazing how Sept. 11 has affected things you would never expect," one Houston-based trader said.

The daily plant status report lists the operating status of each of the 103 U.S. nuclear reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the country's electricity.

"If they find some reason this information would be dangerous in the hands of a terrorist, then I'm all for keeping it off the Web site," the trader said, echoing the views of all the power traders Reuters surveyed.

They warned, however, that keeping the information from the marketplace would give reactor owners and the local utilities they supply a big advantage over energy marketers who have no power plants in the area.

Nuclear reactors are among the lowest cost sources of electricity in the United States.

When a nuclear plant shuts, the region's grid operator tells generating companies to fire up more expensive oil-and gas-fired plants to cover the shortfall.

"You take in all the information available, process it and make a best guess at what the price of power will be each day based on what plants are available, what the weather is, what the cost of fuel is. Not knowing where the nukes are is just another unknown that will cost money," one trader said.

----

EPA SAYS CHANGE A LIGHT, CHANGE THE WORLD

October 16, 2001
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2001/2001L-10-16-09.html

WASHINGTON, DC, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is launching a "Change a Light, Change the World" campaign across America to demonstrate to consumers how changing a light bulb or fixture at home can save energy, money and the environment.

Throughout October and November, the EPA's Energy Star program will work in cooperation with retailers, manufacturers and electric power generators to encourage every U.S. household to make their next light an ENERGY STAR product.

"'Change a Light, Change the World' is not just a slogan. It embodies EPA's commitment to building voluntary partnerships and working to make a difference for the environment," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "If every U.S. household looked for the Energy Star label on the next light bulb they purchased, the nation could save up to $800 million annually in energy bills, keep one trillion pounds of global warming gases out of the atmosphere, and get air pollution reduction equivalent to removing 1.2 million cars from American roads every year."

Lighting accounts for 10 to 15 percent of the average household's energy bill, yet 90 percent of the energy generated by the traditional incandescent bulbs found in most homes is wasted in the form of heat. Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), are up to 75 percent more efficient and last up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs.

While CFLs may be more expensive, they will save more than $25 in energy costs over the bulb's lifetime, the EPA said. If used no more than four hours a day, a CFL bulb need not be changed for about five years.

During the "Change a Light, Change the World" campaign, participating partners will promote Energy Star qualified lighting products, such as energy efficient lighting fixtures and CFLs. These promotions, to vary from region to region, will include rebates, sales and other special events.

The Energy Star label helps consumers identify energy efficient homes, offices, buildings, appliances, electronics, lighting, and heating and cooling equipment. For more information about Energy Star and the "Change a Light, Change the World" campaign, visit http://www.changealight.com

-------- environment

Greenpeace to help Nepal disposal of toxic wastes

REUTERS
NEPAL: October 15, 2001
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12792/story.htm

KATHMANDU - Environmental group Greenpeace said last week it would help impoverished Nepal dispose of some of its obsolete pesticides to reduce environmental hazards in the Himalayan nation.

A Greenpeace official Andreas Bernstorff said Nepal had 74 tonnes of old pesticides in unsafe warehouses and that his group would repackage five tonnes for transport back to suppliers.

"The most urgent need is to contain the problem by repackaging the pesticides safely for sea transport to producing industries," he said. "The manufacturing companies must take them back and dispose of them safely."

About half a million tonnes of unwanted pesticides are estimated to be in storage worldwide. These are often poorly stored in leaking containers, posing health dangers, environmentalalists say.

-------- spying

Spy agency halts flow of information

MONDAY OCTOBER 15 2001
The Times (UK)
BY ZAHID HUSSAIN
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001350015-2001355651,00.html

THE United States is becoming increasingly frustrated with the paucity of intelligence provided by Pakistan on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts and his al-Qaeda terrorist camps.

Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's premier spy agency, which was involved in training and arming the Taleban militia, has reportedly told Washington that it has little information about bin Laden and the Arab fighters under his command in Afghanistan.

A Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman said yesterday that Pakistan has already shared all its intelligence information on Afghanistan with the United States and that Islamabad was not a part of all US operations. "The intelligence sharing phase is over," Riaz Mohammed Khan said. Some Western observersbelieve that Pakistan appears hesitant to co-operate fully with the US-led coalition because it fears a hostile Northern Alliance government being installed in Kabul after the fall of the Taleban regime. Others suggest that senior officers in the spy agency do not fully subscribe to President Musharraf's policy of withdrawing support for the Islamic fundamentalist regime.

During years of deep involvement in Afghanistan, the ISI developed strong links with bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. The association, which started in the 1980s during the war against Soviet forces, continued until recently. The agency allegedly also trained al-Qaeda members.

America has told Islamabad in the past that it has evidence of ISI links with bin Laden.

President Musharraf's radical shift after the September 11 attacks away from Pakistan's policy of supporting the Taleban regime shook the spy agency. His decision to remove Lieutenant-General Mahmood Ahmed, the high-profile, ambitious chief of the ISI, was seen as an attempt to purge the agency of the old guard and bring it under his full control. President Musharraf has appointed Lieutenant-General Ehsanul Haq, a known liberal and anti-Taleban officer, as the new head. But it will not be easy for General Haq to change the agency quickly.

Control of the ISI is seen as crucial for General Musharraf, not only for implementation of his more liberal policies but also for his Government's survival in the face of growing and widespread anti-government agitation by hardline Islamic groups.

Control of the ISI has been seen as critical to maintaining a firm grip on power for every civilian and military government in Pakistan. Its various heads have provided contrasting profiles, but have emerged among the most powerful figures in the country's establishment. General Mahmood was the second most powerful member in the ruling military junta.

Set up in the 1950s, the spy agency was charged with gathering intelligence both at home and abroad. Its area of operations remained restricted until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Mujahidin resistance against the occupation forces. The Afghan war placed enormous resources at the ISI's disposal. In collaboration with the CIA, it supervised a decade-long covert operation in Afghanistan. During this period the agency received millions of dollars from the West and Saudi Arabia.

The agency's network expanded in Afghanistan hugely under the Taleban regime. According to reports, many of the Taleban leaders have remained in direct contact with the ISI, even after Pakistan pulled out its diplomatic staff from Afghanistan a few weeks ago.

The ISI's role will be crucial in the war on terrorism. Much, however, depends on whether General Musharraf is able to tame the agency and use it for the implementation of his new Afghan policy.

-------- terrorism

Guide to handling suspect packages

Jill Treanor in New York
Monday October 15, 2001
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,574197,00.html

The US postal service delivers 680m pieces of mail every day, so spotting suspicious packages is no simple task. As Americans grew increasingly concerned about their welfare yesterday, the authorities were offering advice to worried workers about rooting out any potential threat received through the post.

The postal service listed seven pointers it said should cause suspicion, ranging from the letter or parcel being unexpected or addressed to someone no longer at the firm, to being of unusual weight or size or have "protruding wires, strange odours or stains".

It put out a step-by-step guide of what workers should do if they received a suspicious package: contact a supervisor who should call the police; cordon off the package; anyone who has touched it should wash their hands in soap and water, not bleach; a list should be kept of all the people who had contact with the package and all the items of clothing worn by the individuals should be put in plastic bags, ready to hand over to the law enforcement agencies.

The Centre for Disease Control listed an emergency response number and advised that anyone who had contact with a suspicious package should shower as soon as practical, again in soap and water. It even advised that letters or packages marked with threatening messages such as "anthrax" should not be opened, shaken or emptied.

----

Why Ben Laden hates the US

LETTER FROM DR JAY GOULD: Jaymgould@aol.com
To the Editor, New York Times,
October 15, 2001 Letters@nytimes.com

A story in the Sunday New York Times of October 14, entitled "Fears, Again, of Oil Supplies at Risk", states that the US with 5 percent of the world's population consumes 25 percent of the 76 billion barrels available annually. The article also states that Ben Laden has announced "that he wants oil to be $144 per barrel--about six times what it sells for now". Consequently the biggest fear of oil companies is that his followers might "might topple the ruling Saudi family" for selling oil too cheaply, perhaps by destroying Saudi pipelines by sabotage. This appears to be a far more realistic scenario for the immediate future than than continued terror attacks on the US. If so, the silver lining is that most oil companies today have small but strategic investments in photovoltaics, hydrogen cells, geothermal steam and other forms of renewable energy, because as recently announced by Texaco and Chevron, they "are in the business of supplying energy".

If the price of oil does rise , we may be forced to renounce our wasteful desire for gas- guzzling SUVs.. For the past half century we have invested some $4 trillion in subsidies for developing nuclear technology for both reactors and weapons, now seen to be worse than useless for our national defense . If one percent had been spent on developing solar technology, today we would really have "energy too cheap to meter". We could furnish enough photovoltaic shingles to cover the roofs of 4 billion homes worldwide, and give employment to hundreds of millions of third world populations now considered redundant. In such a world, in which both poverty and pollution would be eliminated, no one would hate us.

Jay M. Gould

-------

Abortion Rights Group Gets Suspicious Letters

Monday October 15 8:25 PM ET
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011015/ts/attack_anthrax_abortion_dc_1.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A leading U.S. abortion rights group said on Monday that 90 of its clinics and offices in at least 13 states had received envelopes containing threatening letters and an unidentified powdery substance.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America said some of the letters included messages from a group called the Army of God, a militant anti-abortion group that has advocated violence against medical personnel who perform abortions.

A spokesman for Planned Parenthood, who asked not to be quoted by name, said the letters were delivered to the organization's national offices and numerous local offices and medical facilities those offices operate. Abortions are performed at many of those facilities, as well as various health services for women.

The group said there have been no reported injuries and that law enforcement officials, including FBI investigators, were conducting tests on the powdery substance to determine whether it was anthrax bacterium spores.

The news comes amid a nationwide scare involving the potentially deadly bacteria that could be used as a biological warfare agent.

The spokesman for the group said initial field test on the substance in letters received at two locations had come back as negative for anthrax. One of the letters had been sent to offices in Greensboro, North Carolina. The spokesman said he did not know the location that received the second letter that tested negative.

Planned Parenthood said the envelopes were mailed to Planned Parenthood offices bearing postmarks from four cities: Atlanta; Columbus, Ohio; and Chattanooga and Knoxville, Tennessee. The spokesman said he believed all the letters were received on Monday. The offices and clinics receiving the letters are located in the East Coast and Midwest, the group said.

``All of them are in the hands of various authorities around the country. As far as we can tell, they all came today in regular mail,'' the spokesman said.

Planned Parenthood said the letters had pre-printed return addresses from the U.S. Marshall's Office and the Secret Service. Some had a message stating, ``Time Sensitive -- Urgent Security Notice -- Open Immediately.'' The spokesman said he could not provide a copy of any of the letters.

``With this many incidents and with the similarity of all of the letters, this is clearly a coordinated effort that was designed to terrorize our staff and affiliates. And people have the right to know about it,'' the spokesman said.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt said: ``It is perverse that these individuals here at home, who are themselves terrorists by virtue of their actions, would seek to capitalize on the events of the last days and weeks to further their own extremist agenda. But this will not deter us from our mission of providing essential health services to women in this nation.''

``Whether a hoax or not, these are intolerable acts of terror, and every effort must be made to apprehend the perpetrators,'' Feldt added.

Eric Robert Rudolph, the man charged with carrying out the fatal bombings at Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park during the 1996 Olympics and at a Birmingham, Alabama in 1998, among other bombings, has been linked to the Army of God.

A spokeswoman for the FBI national office had no comment on the investigation and referred calls to the agency's field office that handles Washington. Calls to that office were not returned.



-------- activists

Police Photographing & Profiling Peace Activists

by Seth Sandronsky
Published on Monday, October 15, 2001
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1015-08.htm

As a peace activist calling for a nonviolent resolution to the horrific events of Sept. 11, I know that Big Brother is watching me. How, you ask? Well, I've seen him (and her) taking my photos recently.

The first time a female in a new green van pulled up across from us as we stood on a sidewalk in downtown Sacramento. We held signs that said "Violence only begets violence," and "World court, not world war."

The woman in the van looked directly at us. My eyes and hers met for a second. She then quickly photographed my fellow protesters and me, and sped off.

"Did you get her license plate?" my wife queried.

"No," I replied.

"We should call the police," my wife responded.

"She is the police," I answered. "What's the point?"

Our daughter stood by our side. Her attention was elsewhere at the time.

Later, I told a fellow protester about the stealth photographer.

"What a waste of time photographing peaceful protesters," she remarked.

Maybe, maybe not.

Being photographed by the authorities was the last thing on my mind as I walked our dog on Columbus Day. The feel of fall was wonderful. As I waited to cross a busy street while people were driving to work, a new gold sedan drove from my right to left. It pulled over a block away and across the street from me.

I saw the car stop and wondered what the driver was going to do. I soon found out.

He (I could see that the driver was a male) made a half-turn, stopped with his window down and took my photo with a flash. He then sped off, driving from my left to right, directly in front of me.

Daunted? Yes. Deterred? No?

"Now it's happening to everyone," a Middle Eastern friend said when I told him about being photographed twice in six days. Now I know what it feels like, in small part, to be profiled by the authorities. Not on the basis of my skin color, but on my politics that avenging the loss of innocent victims by inflicting violence on equally innocent people is wrong.

Skin color profiling, of course, was a daily reality for many people of color in America before the Sept. 11 tragedy. Since then, consider the criminal actions in California against Middle Eastern and South Asian people (or those so misidentified), according to preliminary data from the state attorney general's office, reported Oct. 11 by the Associated Press. "Between Sept. 11 and Sept. 30, the Los Angeles police and sheriff's departments reported 167 hate crimes aimed at those groups; San Francisco police, 43; San Jose police, 41; San Diego police, 40; and the Sacramento sheriff's department five."

To what end are the authorities profiling peace activists? To harass and intimidate? To stifle independent thought? Ultimately, to control public opinion?

In relatively free societies such as the U.S., controlling the flow of information is what elites do to mobilize the public to back the military agenda. Simplified repetition about good and evil from the official sources is a main method of journalistic persuasion. This has cast more fog than light on our complex and confusing world.

Then there's official omission, perhaps the leading form of thought control. Take The Sacramento Bee newspaper in my hometown, which failed to write a single word about the Sept. 29 anti-war rally attended by 10,000 - 15,000 people in nearby San Francisco. That's an effective way to keep people's dissent out of the public mind.

Some people can resist war propaganda. They organize with others. Together they work for peaceful solutions. Try to find a mention of this in mainstream history books.

Elites know that the American public is frightened by the murderous attacks of Sept. 11. Count me as one of the fearful, for sure. I and many like me, however, aren't prepared to respond by sacrificing our civil liberties on the altar of national unity.

During the Second World War, my grandfather worked in defense plants and my father served overseas in the army to defeat fascism. Today I continue their struggle for freedom. I demand that the blood of no more innocent victims flows here or abroad.

Where's the democracy when those calling for an end to violence on all sides are subject to government surveillance? Congress is currently considering anti-terrorism legislation to send to the president to be signed into law. How will this bill affect the profiling of peace activists?

What is democracy without the ability to ask public questions about the current crisis? Can there be democracy without legal dissent?

Well, one thing is certain. All people of good conscience must stand up now and speak out for peace with justice, while we still have the chance. -------- Seth Sandronsky is an editor with Because People Matter, Sacramento's progressive newspaper. E-mail: ssandron@hotmail.com

---------

A war in the American tradition

The New Statesman
October 15, 2001
by John Pilger

War on Terror: The Big Picture - The ultimate goal of the attacks on Afghanistan is not the capture of a fanatic, but the acceleration of western power, argues John Pilger

The Anglo-American attack on Afghanistan crosses new boundaries. It means that America's economic wars are now backed by the perpetual threat of military attack on any country, without legal pretence. It is also the first to endanger populations at home. The ultimate goal is not the capture of a fanatic, which would be no more than a media circus, but the acceleration of western imperial power. That is a truth the modern imperialists and their fellow travellers will not spell out, and which the public in the west, now exposed to a full-scale jihad, has the right to know.

In his zeal, Tony Blair has come closer to an announcement of real intentions than any British leader since Anthony Eden. Not simply the handmaiden of Washington, Blair, in the Victorian verbosity of his extraordinary speech to the Labour Party conference, puts us on notice that imperialism's return journey to respectability is well under way. Hark, the Christian gentleman-bomber's vision of a better world for "the starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of northern Africa to the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan". Hark, his unctuous concern for the "human rights of the suffering women of Afghanistan" as he colludes in bombing them and preventing food reaching their starving children.

Is all this a dark joke? Far from it; as Frank Furedi reminds us in the New Ideology of Imperialism, it is not long ago "that the moral claims of imperialism were seldom questioned in the west. Imperialism and the global expansion of the western powers were represented in unambiguously positive terms as a major contributor to human civilisation". The quest went wrong when it was clear that fascism, with all its ideas of racial and cultural superiority, was imperialism, too, and the word vanished from academic discourse. In the best Stalinist tradition, imperialism no longer existed.

Since the end of the cold war, a new opportunity has arisen. The economic and political crises in the developing world, largely the result of imperialism, such as the blood-letting in the Middle East and the destruction of commodity markets in Africa, now serve as retrospective justification for imperialism. Although the word remains unspeakable, the western intelligentsia, conservatives and liberals alike, today boldly echo Bush and Blair's preferred euphemism, "civilisation". Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, and the former liberal editor Harold Evans share a word whose true meaning relies on a comparison with those who are uncivilised, inferior and might challenge the "values"of the west, specifically its God-given right to control and plunder the uncivilised.

If there was any doubt that the World Trade Center attacks were the direct result of the ravages of imperialism, Osama Bin Laden, a mutant of imperialism, dispelled it in his videotaped diatribe about Palestine, Iraq and the end of America's inviolacy. Alas, he said nothing about hating modernity and miniskirts, the explanation of those intoxicated and neutered by the supercult of Americanism. An accounting of the sheer scale and continuity and consequences of American imperial violence is our elite's most enduring taboo. Contrary to myth, even the homicidal invasion of Vietnam was regarded by its tactical critics as a "noble cause" into which the United States "stumbled" and became "bogged down". Hollywood has long purged the truth of that atrocity, just as it has shaped, for many of us, the way we perceive contemporary history and the rest of humanity. And now that much of the news itself is Hollywood-inspired, amplified by amazing technology and with its internalised mission to minimise western culpability, it is hardly surprising that many today do not see the trail of blood.

How very appropriate that the bombing of Afghanistan is being conducted, in part, by the same B52 bombers that destroyed much of Indochina 30 years ago. In Cambodia alone, 600,000 people died beneath American bombs, providing the catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot, as CIA files make clear. Once again, newsreaders refer to Diego Garcia without explanation. It is where the B52s refuel. Thirty-five years ago, in high secrecy and in defiance of the United Nations, the British government of Harold Wilson expelled the entire population of the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in order to hand it to the Americans in perpetuity as a nuclear arms dump and a base from which its long-range bombers could police the Middle East. Until the islanders finally won a high court action last year, almost nothing about their imperial dispossession appeared in the British media.

How appropriate that John Negroponte is Bush's ambassador at the United Nations. This week, he delivered America's threat to the world that it may "require" to attack more and more countries. As US ambassador to Honduras in the early 1980s, Negroponte oversaw American funding of the regime's death squads, known as Battalion 316, that wiped out the democratic opposition, while the CIA ran its "contra" war of terror against neighbouring Nicaragua. Murdering teachers and slitting the throats of midwives were a speciality. This was typical of the terrorism that Latin America has long suffered, with its principal torturers and tyrants trained and financed by the great warrior against "global terrorism", which probably harbours more terrorists and assassins in Florida than any country on earth.

The unread news today is that the "war against terrorism" is being exploited in order to achieve objectives that consolidate American power. These include: the bribing and subjugation of corrupt and vulnerable governments in former Soviet central Asia, crucial for American expansion in the region and exploitation of the last untapped reserves of oil and gas in the world; Nato's occupation of Macedonia, marking a final stage in its colonial odyssey in the Balkans; the expansion of the American arms industry; and the speeding up of trade liberalisation.

What did Blair mean when, in Brighton, he offered the poor "access to our markets so that we practise the free trade that we are so fond of preaching"? He was feigning empathy for most of humanity's sense of grievance and anger: of "feeling left out". So, as the bombs fall, "more inclusion", as the World Trade Organisation puts it, is being offered the poor - that is, more privatisation, more structural adjustment, more theft of resources and markets, more destruction of tariffs. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, called a meeting of the voluntary aid agencies to tell them that, "since 11 September, the case is now overwhelming" for the poor to be given "more trade liberation". She might have used the example of those impoverished countries where her cabinet colleague Clare Short's ironically named Department for International Development backs rapacious privatisation campaigns on behalf of British multinational companies, such as those vying to make a killing in a resource as precious as water.

Bush and Blair claim to have "world opinion with us". No, they have elites with them, each with their own agenda: such as Vladimir Putin's crushing of Chechnya, now permissible, and China's rounding up of its dissidents, now permissible. Moreover, with every bomb that falls on Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq to come, Islamic and Arab militancy will grow and draw the battle lines of "a clash of civilisations" that fanatics on both sides have long wanted. In societies represented to us only in caricature, the west's double standards are now understood so clearly that they overwhelm, tragically, the solidarity that ordinary people everywhere felt with the victims of 11 September.

That, and his contribution to the re-emergence of xeno-racism in Britain, is the messianic Blair's singular achievement. His effete, bellicose certainties represent a political and media elite that has never known war. The public, in contrast, has given him no mandate to kill innocent people, such as those Afghans who risked their lives to clear landmines, killed in their beds by American bombs. These acts of murder place Bush and Blair on the same level as those who arranged and incited the twin towers murders. Perhaps never has a prime minister been so out of step with the public mood, which is uneasy, worried and measured about what should be done. Gallup finds that 82 per cent say "military action should only be taken after the identity of the perpetrators was clearly established, even if this process took several months to accomplish".

Among those elite members paid and trusted to speak out, there is a lot of silence. Where are those in parliament who once made their names speaking out, and now shame themselves by saying nothing? Where are the voices of protest from "civil society", especially those who run the increasingly corporatised aid agencies and take the government's handouts and often its line, then declare their "non-political" status when their outspokenness on behalf of the impoverished and bombed might save lives? The tireless Chris Buckley of Christian Aid, and a few others, are honourably excepted. Where are those proponents of academic freedom and political independence, surely one of the jewels of western "civilisation"? Years of promoting the jargon of "liberal realism" and misrepresenting imperialism as crisis management, rather than the cause of the crisis, have taken their toll. Speaking up for international law and the proper pursuit of justice, even diplomacy, and against our terrorism might not be good for one's career. Or as Voltaire put it: "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." That does not change the fact that it is right.

-------

Building an antiwar movement

by Laurence Cox

It's easy to feel despair, isolation and frustration at what's presented to us as an inevitable drive into an indefinitely long war. The key ingredients of success in building a successful anti-war movement are confidence in ordinary people's potential, solidarity with each other and a long-term view: we have not been able to prevent the first bombs falling, but over time we can reverse the dynamic and stop the war.

Historical experience - desertion and mutinies at the end of World War I, the international movement against the war in Vietnam, the anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s - shows that movements can stop or divert even large-scale processes of militarisation, but only when large numbers of ordinary people are actively involved. The experience of active involvement in turn gives people more confidence in their own capacities to think and act for themselves, which is an important element in building a better world. This means:

1. Making space for a diversity of voices within the movement. To insist on expressing only the most radical line will isolate activists at the very time when many ordinary people are looking for a way out. To insist on being as "mainstream" as possible will stop the movement developing and restrict participation to a small section of the population. So a good "platform" will include as wide a range of anti-war voices as possible. This enables the movement to speak to different people and is part of learning from each other.

2. Making sure that the movement emphasises activities which everyone can take part in. It's important to remember that most actions don't have an immediate chance of stopping the war; but if they give people a chance to learn how to become active, to gain confidence and to develop their own understanding, they can help build a movement that does have a chance.

3. Taking care that the movement isn't run by a handful of experienced people to the exclusion of everyone else. While activists may have particular skills, their job is to share them and pass them on. Stopping this war is likely to be a long campaign, so we will need to develop everyone's ability to take part at every level.

In terms of strategy, it's important for people to mobilise within their own everyday contexts, both to root the movement in the real world and to change the existing social relationships that ultimately give rise to war. While the movement will also need to reach out into public space and develop a "political" face, this shouldn't become separate from the rest of the movement. The point is for ordinary people to politicise themselves, not to develop a separate political élite. In practice, what we need to do is:

1. Start by talking to other people at work, in the shops, at home, on the bus, in school, online - anywhere where people already know us. This may seem challenging at times, but it's becoming clear that far more people are uneasy about the prospect of war than the media leads us to think. By opening up this new space for communication, we undermine some of the usual power relationships and creating space for new kinds of solidarity and friendship.

2. Offer people immediate, practical things to do: signing something, going on a march, coming to a meeting, putting up posters, circulating a letter. We're trying to "push people's boundaries" enough so that they feel they are becoming active, but not so much that they see activism as beyond their reach.

3. Encourage people to take the next step, and support them if they don't yet know how: ask them to speak at meetings or write leaflets, help them to put press releases or websites together, show them how to organise a public meeting or a march. Be careful of patronising people: the trick is to be confident that they can do whatever they set their mind to, and make sure they have the backup they need to do it. The second time somebody does something, we should leave them to it!

4. Educate ourselves: this movement is likely to last a long time, and most of us are going to have to find out more about all kinds of issues, from foreign policy to Islam to international law. This also gives us a chance to build connections by inviting speakers from other groups, from local Muslim associations to college lecturers to development organisations.

5. Make links: although (almost) anyone who opposes war should be welcomed, we should work and argue for making links to other issues, most importantly foreign policy, "development" and world economics, racism and intolerance, and civil liberties. To stop the war and leave the system ready for another war tomorrow is not enough.

6. Try to spread the movement, rather than build little empires. Encourage people to take independent action (and support them when they do); work to create networks between different groups and initiatives, without imposing a single "line" that everyone has to follow.

This war may run for years in various forms, and a movement that can stop it will need to include many different social groups. So there's space for all sorts of different action, and it's important to respect this, because it's how new people will both find their way to the movement and how other people can contribute something we might not have thought of. Different actions also have different purposes (though some overlap):

Convincing ordinary people: meetings, posters, demos, street theatre, leaflets, videos, etc. Building the movement: newsletters, mailing lists, teach-ins, websites, gatherings, benefit gigs, etc. "Stopping the machine in its tracks": 5-minute strikes for peace, occupations, peace observers, supporting deserters, blockades, etc. Influencing governments or the media: petitions, vigils, press releases, photo opportunities, etc.

We learn as movements, not just as individuals, and the dialogue between us is important. There is no book that can tell us authoritatively how we are going to stop this war; it's something we will work out together in practice. We can certainly learn from other movements and past history (several campaigns have produced excellent "how-to" guides that are a real goldmine of ideas), but at the end of the day none of us knows exactly what will work, and we won't know until we've managed to stop the war (if then!) In the process, though, we are also learning something else of immense value: how to treat each other as equals, how to cooperate and communicate without bosses and laws, and how to build the kind of world that we want to live in.

Laurence Cox (Dublin) has been involved in social movements for nearly 20 years, including opposing the Falklands War, the nuclear arms race and the second Gulf War. He's an academic specialist in social movements research, currently studying working-class community politics in Ireland.

-------

Ten Principles for Social Justice Organizing in A Time of Crisis

by Bill Quigley,
Loyola Law School, quigley@loyno.edu

"You are all traitors and should be put in jail!"

That is what a well-dressed woman in her 40s shouted, as she walked out of church, at those of us walking into Loyola's Peace Quad. Wow! Is it so threatening to hold a candlelight interfaith march for peace? Apparently it is. For columnists or writers that might make a good story. For those of us who are trying to work with people to change hearts and minds by organizing for social justice, this woman is an indicator that things have changed.

I write to share ten ideas about social justice organizing in this time of crisis. I was asked to talk about this and I will. I do not suggest I have the blueprint for this task. As far as I can tell, nobody does. But I will share with you my reflections on this and I welcome your ideas.

Before September 11, many of us were already working on social justice issues. For example, I was working with groups that organizing around issues of living wages, labor organizing in the hotel industry, voting rights in our state redistricting process, the destruction of public housing, welfare reform, civil liberties, immigration, national and international human rights, prison reform, peace issues, public education, and criminal justice. All of those issues are still challenging us.

After September 11, I have been fortunate enough to work with many people who are organizing around a just response to the terrorism which has so wounded our country.

In my experience, and the experience of hundreds of others that I have spoken with, our world is a different place since September 11. This is true for everyone but it is particularly true for the world of people working for peace and justice. Those of us who are working for justice and peace face many new issues, and some old ones, in the days ahead.

Psychologically, the tragic events of September 11 reverberate in all our minds on both a conscious and an unconscious level. People are having a difficult time concentrating on their work. Teachers tell me that students have lost their focus. The people we work with in peace and justice organizing are as overwhelmed and as in shock as everyone >else in our country. Someone has described these events as always present background noise. People have less energy to go to meetings and to volunteer for social justice issues. Others have said these events are present like deep bass sounds that you can feel more than hear. But, however you describe them, these experiences are in the forefront of many of our issues and in the background of all of our issues.

Economically, the damage which was already beginning before September 11 has accelerated. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, many others are having their work schedule reduced. As in all economic distress, the working poor are being hurt the most. For peace and justice organizations, fund-raising has been put on the back burner in order to allow people to address the immediate hardships caused by the terrorist attacks.

Politically, justice and peace issues have been submerged as elected officials and the media spend less time on any issues other than those directly related to terrorism and war. Conservatives call us traitors and America-haters if we dare to go beyond condemnation of the injustices of the terrorists. People who condemn the terrorists but also suggest we examine the justice and peace issues in our own country and in our own international behavior, and people that say we should seriously consider responses other than military responses, are n-American, evil, unpatriotic, or even, as Rush Limbaugh said, communists! (I wonder what exactly does it take to be a communist today, when it seems even the communists are not communists? I will leave that to another discussion.)

It is a different world, clearly. But, at the same time, many justice and peace issues remain the same.

The most vulnerable direct victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks are single parent families, those without insurance and pension plans and union support. The first victims of the economic reverberations after September 11 have also been the working poor: the last hired, the least skilled, the least educated, the least organized. The first political victims in our country have been the Arab and Islamic Americans, who have been subjected to racial profiling, threats, assaults and even death.

But there is good news as well. The American people have responded with tremendous generosity to the victims of the terrorists. Our firefighters and police and rescue workers have given all of us inspiration as they courageously and selflessly worked to help all our people in distress. It is a tribute to the progress of those who have labored so hard for civil rights that our president and most of our public officials have called for religious, racial and ethnic olerance. It is a tribute to those who have labored for peace, that the initial calls for horrific and indiscriminate retaliation of anyone even in the vicinity of terrorists have been declining.

Because our world is both quite different and yet in some ways the same, what are we to do as social justice organizers?

I suggest ten principles to guide us as we work in our new landscape.

But first, a note of caution. Each of these principles must be implemented in ways that reflect our commitment to justice and peace. If we do not organize intelligently and in an anti-racist way, as my friend Ron Chisom likes to say, "we will not be organizing, but disorganizing." Simply said, there is no shortcut. We cannot organize for peace and justice if we do not model peace and justice in our organizing.

Here are the ten principles.

#1 Be Humble

We must start by being humble. It is ok to say "I don't know the answer." In fact, it might be the smartest thing to say. Nobody has been here before. So none of us know exactly what to do. That said, we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed into inaction.

#2 Be Quiet and Listen

Don't talk, listen. This doesn't work for television or columnists, but if you believe in real organizing, you should believe that people possess an innate wisdom. We must listen to the people for insight and wisdom. The people help us discover the way for all of us to go forward.

There are times when we must resist the quick response. There are times, as peace activist Daniel Berrigan said, when we should say, "Don't just do something, stand there!"

As an example, when you find yourself in a suddenly darkened room, what do you do? While some might rush blindly to where they think the door is, others stand still, gather themselves, let your eyes get adjusted to the different environment, orient themselves, then cautiously and sensitively, move forward.

Listening is part of our orientation. We listen to pick up clues from our fellow seekers about what is the best path, the best next step.

#3 Be Not Afraid

Courage is critical. There is a concerted effort to try to intimidate and silence people interested in justice and peace. Conservatives challenge the patriotism of all who dare to examine and question the root causes of why all that America does is not universally admired. Conservatives are setting up cardboard liberals who excuse the terrorists, hate America, do not support democracy, and are just as intolerant as Jerry Falwell. Columnists equate pacifism with treason and evil. Those who call for nonviolence or even an international police action are not supporting the Commander in Chief, the troops, and the families of the victims of September 11. Workers who have struck for economic justice since September 11 have been attacked and called selfish and not patriotic.

If working for peace and justice does not meet some conservative's narrow definition of patriotism, then they have created too weak a form of patriotism. By that definition, Sojourner Truth was not a patriot, Abraham Lincoln was not a patriot, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt are not patriots, and Martin Luther King was not a patriot. I want to be what they are. If they do not meet someone's definition of patriot, then I am not interested. True patriotism should allow an appreciation for both what is great about our country and what we need to work to improve. We cannot allow anyone to silence the voices of peace and justice, even if they try to silence them with flag-waving.

We would do well to remember the agonizing efforts of those who fought against slavery, who fought for civil rights, who fought for the right to organize, and who fought for the rights of freedom of speech. Those were tough and scary fights, but there were successes even in the face of fear.

Peace and justice organizers have to maintain courage despite the ongoing attempts to intimidate and silence.

#4 Rediscover the Community of Social Justice and, by all means, Welcome New Seekers

Prior to September 11, our peace and justice communities were separate efforts. The people organizing around welfare reform worked apart from those organizing against the death penalty. People working on living wages were isolated from those working on voting rights and redistricting.

When times get tough, they are tougher when you are alone. It is time to re-connect our justice and peace organizing. As members of a community we are much stronger and wiser than when we are alone.

When the peace community organized a vigil in New Orleans four days after September 11, over 200 people showed up. After the vigil, almost everyone there said, "It was so good to be among people who were interested in peace, because I have been feeling so alone and isolated."

There are also new members in the peace and social justice community: many new people, many young people. We must welcome them and learn from them.

Not all the new arrivals have been welcomed with open arms by the existing peace and justice community. Some new people say the wrong things. Others do things that are hurtful or disruptive. But, even then, the last thing veteran organizers need to tolerate are efforts to marginalize or attack new folks for their newness and lack of sophistication. There are criticisms that the new people are innocents or naive or ill-informed or un-analytical. They are criticized for proceeding in a way that does not take into account...take your pick: racism, feminism, homophobia, they are too interested in religion, or not interested enough in nonviolence, etc.

I say welcome the new people. Learn from them. Be infected by their enthusiasm. Join with them. Share with them. Don't preach at them. Work with them. Help them discover the knowledge that others have learned the hard way. Certainly people have much to learn from people already in social justice work.

We must clearly understand that these new people have much to teach us as well. To go forward in these new times, we need to link up with each other in respectful ways that model the just and peaceful community we seek to organize.

#5 Faith-based Social Justice

There has been an upsurge in people seeking consolation and leadership and direction from their churches. The religious community has a big opportunity as people search for new meaning: linkages between faith and justice and peace. Some churches have spoken eloquently about peace and justice issues. Connecting with faith-based social justice people and organizations represents an opportunity at this time.

For social justice organizing, there is an important distinction to be made between faith traditions and churches. In my experience, all faiths place justice and peace and sacrifice and respect and the common good at the very center of their beliefs. The problem is that many churches preach and practice a very weak form of their faith. They de-emphasize the justice and peace demands of their faith traditions. Work for social justice is replaced by church tithing. Working for peace is replaced by supporting the church school or church suppers. The faith which is meant to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, weakly ends up comforting the comfortable.

We need to work with people whose interests in justice and peace are faith-based. We also need to challenge our church leaders, who tend to mute the justice issues in order to accommodate their congregations. We also, of course, need to respect all varieties of faiths and we need to make sure that the faith-based folks respect those whose dedication to peace and justice is not faith-based.

#6 Prepare for, and Forgive, Mistakes

Any time we try anything new we are going to make mistakes. That is the essence of living a challenging life. Since this is a new environment in which we are organizing, we will make mistakes. We would be smart to be prepared for our mistakes and also be prepared to forgive well-intentioned people who make them.

Some of the most venomous and counter-productive criticism of social justice organizing comes from others of us in the same field. We savage each other in ways that Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal could only dream of.

We need not overlook mistakes. We need to be prepared to learn from them. But we also need to be prepared to support those of us who make them. This is part of the social justice obligation that we owe each other.

#7 Study History

We need to study and understand history, real history, not the myths spun out by the talking heads on tv.

Those who say that in time of crisis, Americans always gather around our leaders do not know the richness of our history. Those who say we historically suspend all questioning of injustice in our country during time of crisis, do not know our history.

A real look at our history will show that while many have exclusively rallied round the flag in times of crisis, many others have maintained their commitments to peace and justice, even in times of crisis. There were demonstrations and draft resistance and even riots among poor and working class men in connection with every war ever fought. In every war some people said "Not in my name."

As Tim Rutten and Lynn Smith said recently in the Los Angeles Times, "Political dissent in wartime is an American tradition."

As part of our understanding of history, we must see the legacy of the civil rights and peace movements already at work in our midst. While some official crazies like our own Rep Cooksey (Diaper and fan belt comment) and Jerry Falwell (gays and lesbians and abortionists and the ACLU and people for the American way) have been hatefully shameful, it is remarkable that numerous officials and leaders have tried to deter hate crimes against Arab or Islamic Americans. Also, the widespread support for saturation-type bombing, even nuclear responses, has seemed to diminish considerably.

We need the historians in our communities to help us re-discover the justice and peace realities of our history, particularly in times of crisis.

#8 Speak to Shared Values

Part of our challenge as organizers is to communicate. In this time, when there is so much official communication about "either you are for our war or you are for terrorism" we need new ways to talk.

I strongly suggest every person interested in social justice organizing look at the web site of the group, We Interrupt This Message. That organization assists progressives in dealing with the media. This discussion of the principle of speaking to shared values is taken largely from materials from their website. www.interrupt.org

In order to communicate, our organizing and media messages should respond to questions that speak to values central to both the peace and social justice movement and the majority of the general public:

Thus, "How can we hunt down the terrorists" can be recast as "How can we be safe?"

"How do we protect America" can be "How can we be strong?"

Instead of "How can we wipe these fanatics out?" we can discuss "How can we arrive at justice?"

Safety, Strength, Respect for Human Life, and Justice are all values shared by the peace and social justice movement and the majority of the North American public. And our communication and media messages should be framed as answers to these questions.

For example, the courage and sacrifice and discipline of the rescue workers shows us a wonderful model for discussing the importance of courage and sacrifice in working for justice and peace.

#9 Make the Social Justice Issue Connections

The current crisis allows us an opportunity to show that all justice is one.

Racial profiling of Middle Eastern and Muslims has to be fought as part of the ongoing struggle against racism, even in the peace movement itself. Racism is like being in the Mississippi river, if you are not actively struggling against the current, you are drifting along with it. The rally in DC was called ANSWER, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. War and racism were linked in their minds for a reason.

Martin Luther King spoke about the three evils of racism, militarism, and materialism, for a reason.

Attempts to blame these tragedies on Islam, Muslims, Arabs, Jews, liberals, and gays and lesbians show us the need to stand up for the civil and human rights of all people.

Generous and fair compensation for victims of terrorism is absolutely the right national response to the tragedies. This can lead to further discussion of the national struggle for just and fair reparations for African-Americans and local calls for assistance to residents of public housing who have been displaced by the demolition of their homes.

Congressional assistance for airline industry of $15 billion that leaves out 100,000 workers shows the need to support the struggle of workers for union organizing, the right to a job and the search for a living wage.

Those who call for revenge and eye for an eye blind retaliation remind us of the need to struggle against the human rights violations of the death penalty in our own country.

All of sudden the USA is interested in international coalitions.

This is a startlingly new focus. We even paid our UN dues! Now, we are all in this world struggle against terrorism together. We are for human rights everywhere. Wonderful. What can we learn from the struggles of our international sisters and brothers? What does the international dimension say to our issues like the death penalty? Environmental justice? Worker justice? Civil rights and civil liberties?

Current developments give us the opportunity to connect the justice issues that are so visible and popular with the ones that are less visible but no less important.

#10 Reconsider Strategies & Go Steadily Forward

I don't know how many of you have had your car stuck in the mud or the snow. I have been stuck in both. When your car is stuck in the mud or snow, often the best response is not to just smash down harder on the accelerator. But I am afraid that many of us are trying to do just that at this point.

Many on the right and left are saying, "Now more than ever....[whatever they said before September 11]." Well, why? Really ask the question, why? We must challenge ourselves to not just knee jerk say what we said before, but to thoughtfully respond to the question, why?

If our only response to the events of September 11 is to do what we did before that, but only harder, I think we will waste a lot of energy. We have to thoughtfully and humbly reconsider our strategies and develop some new ones. Otherwise we will just remain stuck.

Conclusion

These are my thoughts. They may not ring true to others. They may not even prove true to me in the days ahead. But I suggest we resume reflecting, thinking, acting, and organizing in new ways to make social justice a reality.

We may never persuade the woman who called us traitors, but if we can work effectively on social justice issues, we can do our part to make this world a better place for her and for us.

-------

WAR FRENZY

by Sunera Thobani

My recent speech at a women's conference on violence against women has generated much controversy. In the aftermath of the terrible attacks of September 11, I argued that the U.S. response of launching 'America's new war' would increase violence against women. I situated the current crisis within the continuity of North/South relations, rooted in colonialism and imperialism. I criticized American foreign policy, as well as President Bush's racialized construction of the American Nation. Finally, I spoke of the need for solidarity with Afghan women's organizations as well as the urgent necessity for the women's movement in Canada to oppose the war.

Decontextualized and distorted media reports of my address have led to accusations of me being an academic impostor, morally bankrupt and engaging in hate-mongering. It has been fascinating to observe how my comments regarding American foreign policy, a record well documented by numerous sources whose accuracy or credentials cannot be faulted, have been dubbed 'hate-speech.' To speak about the indisputable record of U.S. backed coups, death squads, bombings and killings ironically makes me a 'hate-monger.' I was even made the subject of a 'hate-crime' complaint to the RCMP, alleging that my speech was a 'hate-crime.'

Despite the virulence of these responses, I welcome the public discussion my speech has generated as an opportunity to further the public debate about Canada's support of America's new war. When I made the speech, I believed it was imperative to have this debate before any attacks were launched on any country. Events have overtaken us with the bombing of Afghanistan underway and military rule having been declared in Pakistan. The need for this discussion has now assumed greater urgency as reports of casualties are making their way into the news. My speech at the women's conference was aimed at mobilizing the women's movement against this war. I am now glad for this opportunity to address wider constituencies and in different fora.

First, however, a few words about my location: I place my work within the tradition of radical, politically engaged scholarship. I have always rejected the politics of academic elitism which insist that academics should remain above the fray of political activism and use only disembodied, objectified language and a 'properly' dispassionate professorial demeanor to establish our intellectual credentials. My work is grounded in the politics, practices and languages of the various communities I come from, and the social justice movements to which I am committed.

ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

In the aftermath of the terrible September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration launched "America's War on Terrorism." Eschewing any role for the United Nations and the need to abide by international law, the US administration initiated an international alliance to justify its unilateral military action against Afghanistan. One of its early coalition partners was the Canadian government which committed its unequivocal support for whatever forms of assistance the United States might request. In this circumstance, it is entirely reasonable that people in Canada examine carefully the record of American foreign policy.

As I observed in my speech, this record is alarming and does not inspire confidence. In Chile, the CIA-backed coup against the democratically elected Allende government led to the deaths of over 30,000 people. In El Salvador, the U.S. backed regime used death squads to kill about 75,000 people. In Nicaragua, the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war led to the deaths of over 30,000 people. The initial bombing of Iraq left over 200,000 dead, and the bombings have continued for the last ten years. UNICEF estimates that over one million Iraqis have died, and that 5,000 more die every month as a result of the U.N. imposed sanctions, enforced in their harshest form by U.S. power. The list does not stop here. 150,000 were killed and 50,000 disappeared in Guatemala after the 1954 CIA-sponsored coup; over 2 million were killed in Vietnam; and 200,000 before that in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks. Numerous authoritarian regimes have been backed by the United States including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the apartheid regime in South Africa, Suharto's dictatorship in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, and Israel's various occupations of Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories. The U.S. pattern of foreign intervention has been to overthrow leftist governments and to impose right wing regimes which in turn support U.S. interests, even if this means training and using death squads and assassinating leftist politicians and activists. To this end, it has a record of treating civilians as entirely expendable.

It is in this context that I made my comment that the United States is the largest and most dangerous global force, unleashing horrific levels of violence around the world, and that the path of U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood. The controversy generated by this comment has surprisingly not addressed the veracity of this assessment of the U.S. record. Instead, it has focused on my tone and choice of words (inflammatory, excessive, inelegant, un-academic, angry, etc.).

Now I have to admit that my use of the words 'horrific violence' and 'soaked in blood' is very deliberate and carefully considered. I do not use these words lightly. To successive United States administrations the deaths resulting from its policies have been just so many statistics, just so much 'collateral damage.' Rendering invisible the humanity of the peoples targeted for attack is a strategy well used to hide the impact of colonialist and imperialist interventions. Perhaps there is no more potent a strategy of dehumanization than to proudly proclaim the accuracy and efficiency of 'smart' weapons systems, and of surgical and technological precision, while rendering invisible the suffering bodies of these peoples as disembodied statistics and mere 'collateral damage.' The use of embodied language, grounded in the recognition of the actual blood running through these bodies, is an attempt to humanize these peoples in profoundly graphic terms. It compels us to recognize the sheer corporeality of the terrain upon which bombs rain and mass terror is waged. This language calls on 'us' to recognize that 'they' bleed just like 'we' do, that 'they' hurt and suffer just like 'us.' We are complicit in this bloodletting when we support American wars. Witness the power of this embodiment in the shocked and horrified responses to my voice and my words, rather than to the actual horror of these events. I will be the first to admit that it is extremely unnerving to 'see' blood in the place of abstract, general categories and statistics. Yet this is what we need to be able to see if we are to understand the terrible human costs of empire-building. We have all felt the shock and pain of repeatedly witnessing the searing images of violence unleashed upon those who died in New York and Washington. The stories we have heard from their loved ones have made us feel their terrible human loss. Yet where do we witness the pain of the victims of U.S. aggression? How do we begin to grasp the extent of their loss? Whose humanity do we choose to recognize and empathize with, and who becomes just so much 'collateral damage' to us? Anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements and theorists have long insisted on placing the bodies and experiences of marginalized others at the centre of our analysis of the social world. To fail to do so at this moment in history would be unconscionable. In the aftermath of the responses to my speech, I am more convinced than ever of the need to engage in the language and politics of embodied thinking and speaking. After all, it is the lives, and deaths, of millions of human beings we are discussing. This is neither a controversial nor a recent demand. Feminists (such as of Mahasweta Devi, Toni Morrison, Gayatri Spivak and Patricia Williams) have forcefully drawn our attention to what is actually done to women's bodies in the course of mapping out racist colonial relations. Frantz Fanon, one of the foremost theorists of decolonization, studied and wrote about the role of violence in colonial social organization and about the psychology of oppression; but he described just as readily the bloodied, violated black bodies and the "searing bullets" and "blood-stained knives" which were the order of the day in the colonial world. Eduardo Galeano entitled one of his books The Open Veins of Latin America and the post-colonial theorist Achille Mbembe talks of the "mortification of the flesh," of the "mutilation" and "decapitation" of oppressed bodies. Aime Cesaire's poetry pulses with the physicality of blood, pain, fury and rage in his outcry against the domination of African bodies. Even Karl Marx, recognized as one of the founding fathers of the modern social sciences, wrote trenchant critiques of capital, exploitation, and classical political economy; and did not flinch from naming the economic system he was studying 'vampire capitalism.' In attempting to draw attention to the violent effects of abstract and impersonal policies, I claim a proud intellectual pedigree.

INVOKING THE AMERICAN NATION

In my speech I argued that in order to legitimize the imperialist aggression which the Bush administration is undertaking, the President is invoking an American nation and people as being vengeful and bloodthirsty. It is de rigueur in the social sciences to acknowledge that the notion of a 'nation' or a 'people' is socially constructed. The American nation is no exception.

If we consider the language used by Bush and his administration to mobilize this nation for the war, we encounter the following: launching a crusade; operation infinite justice; fighting the forces of evil and darkness; fighting the barbarians; hunting down the evil-doers; draining the swamps of the Middle East, etc., etc. This language is very familiar to peoples who have been colonized by Europe. Its use at this moment in time reveals that it is a fundamentalist and racialized western ideology which is being mobilized to rally the troops and to build a national and international consensus in defence of 'civilization.' It suggests that anyone who hesitates to join in is also 'evil' and 'uncivilized.' In this vein, I have repeatedly been accused of supporting extremist Islamist regimes merely for criticizing US foreign policy and western colonialism.

Another tactic to mobilize support for the war has been the manipulation of public opinion. Polls conducted in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks were used to repeatedly inform us that the overwhelming majority of Americans allegedly supported a strong military retaliation. They did not know against whom, but they purportedly supported this strategy anyway. In both the use of language and these polls, we are witnessing what Noam Chomsky has called the "manufacture of consent." Richard Lowry, editor of the National Review opined, "If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, this is part of the solution." President Bush stated, "We will bear no distinction between those who commit the terrorist attacks and those who harbour them." Even as the bombing began last weekend, he declared that the war is "broader" than against just Afghanistan, that other nations have to decide if they side with his administration or if they are "murderers and outlaws themselves." We have been asked by most public commentators to accept the calls for military aggression against "evil-doers" as natural, understandable and even reasonable, given the attacks on the United States. I reject this position. It would be just as understandable a response to re-examine American foreign policy, to address the root causes of the violent attacks on the United States, and to make a commitment to abide by international law. In my speech, I urged women to break through this discourse of 'naturalizing' the military aggression, and recognize it for what it is, vengeful retribution and an opportunity for a crude display of American military might. We are entitled to ask: Who will make the decision regarding which 'nations' are to be labeled as "murderers" and "outlaws"? Which notions of 'justice' are to be upheld? Will the Bush administration set the standard, even as it is overtly institutionalizing racial profiling across the United States?

I make very clear distinctions between people in America and their government's call for war. Many people in America are seeking to contest the 'national' consensus being manufactured by speaking out and by organizing rallies and peace marches in major cities, about which there has been very little coverage in Canada. Irresponsible media reporting of my comments which referred to Bush's invocation of the American nation as a vengeful one deliberately took my words out of this context, repeating them in one television broadcast after another in a grossly distorted fashion.

My choice of language was, again, deliberate. I wanted to bring attention to Bush's right wing, fundamentalist leanings and to the neo-colonialist/imperialist practices of his administration. The words 'bloodthirsty' and 'vengeful' are designations most people are quite comfortable attributing to 'savages' and to the 'uncivilized,' while the United States is represented as the beacon of democracy and civilization. The words 'bloodthirsty' and 'vengeful' make us confront the nature of the ideological justification for this war, as well as its historical roots, unsettling and discomforting as that might be.

THE POLITICS OF LIBERATING WOMEN

I have been taken to task for stating that there will be no emancipation for women anywhere until western domination of the planet is ended. In my speech I pointed to the importance of Afghanistan for its strategic location near Central Asia's vast resources of oil and natural gas. I think there is very little argument that the West continues to dominate and consume a vast share of the world's resources. This is not a controversial statement. Many prominent intellectuals, journalists and activists alike, have pointed out that this domination is rooted in the history of colonialism and rests on the ongoing maintenance of the North/South divide, and that it will continue to provoke violence and resistance across the planet. I argued that in the current climate of escalating militarism, there will be precious little emancipation for women, either in the countries of the North or the South.

In the specific case of Afghanistan, it was the American administration's economic and political interests which led to its initial support for, and arming of, Hekmatyar's Hezb i Islami and its support for Pakistan's collaboration in, and organization of, the Taliban regime in the mid-1990s. According to the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, the United States and Unocal conducted negotiations with the Taliban for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan for years in the mid-1990s. We have seen the horrendous consequences this has had for women in Afghanistan. When Afghan women's groups were calling attention to this U.S. support as a major factor in the Taliban regime's coming to power, we did not heed them. We did not recognize that Afghan women's groups were in the front line resisting the Taliban and its Islamist predecessors, including the present militias of the Northern Alliance. Instead, we chose to see them only as 'victims' of 'Islamic culture,' to be pitied and 'saved' by the West. Time and time again, third world feminists have pointed out to us the pitfalls of rendering invisible the agency and resistance of women of the South, and of reducing women's oppression to various third world 'cultures.' Many continue to ignore these insights. Now, the U.S. administration has thrown its support behind the Northern Alliance, even as Afghan women's groups oppose the U.S. military attacks on Afghanistan, and raise serious concerns about the record of the Northern Alliance in perpetuating human rights abuses and violence against women in the country. If we listen to the voices of these women, we will very quickly be disabused of the notion that U.S. military intervention is going to lead to the emancipation of women in Afghanistan. Even before the bombings began, hundreds of thousands of Afghan women were compelled to flee their homes and communities, and to become refugees. The bombings of Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad and other cities in the country will result in further loss of life, including the lives of women and children. Over three million Afghan refugees are now on the move in the wake of the U.S. attacks. How on earth can we justify these bombings in the name of furthering women's emancipation?

My second point was that imperialism and militarism do not further women's liberation in westerm countries either. Women have to be brought into line to support racist imperialist goals and practices, and they have to live with the men who have been brutalized in the waging of war when these men come back. Men who kill women and children abroad are hardly likely to come back cured of the effects of this brutalization. Again, this is not a very controversial point of view. Women are taught to support military aggressions, which is then presented as being in their 'national' interest. These are hardly the conditions in which women's freedoms can be furthered. As a very small illustration, just witness the very public vilification I have been subjected to for speaking out in opposition to this war.

I have been asked by my detractors that if I, as a woman, I am so critical of western domination, why do I live here? It could just as readily be asked of them that if they are so contemptuous of the non-western world, why do they so fervently desire the oil, trade, cheap labour and other resources of that world? Challenges to our presence in the West have long been answered by people of colour who say, We are here because you were (are?) there! Migrants find ourselves in multiple locations for a myriad of reasons, personal, historical and political. Wherever we reside, however, we claim the right to speak and participate in public life.

CLOSING WORDS..

My speech was made to rally the women's movement in Canada to oppose the war. Journalists and editors across the country have called me idiotic, foolish, stupid and just plain nutty. While a few journalists and columnists have attempted balanced coverage of my speech, too many sectors of the media have resorted to vicious personal attacks. Like others, I must express a concern that this passes for intelligent commentary in the mainstream media.

The manner in which I have been vilified is difficult to understand, unless one sees it as a visceral response to an 'ungrateful immigrant' or an uppity woman of colour who dares to speak out. Vituperation and ridicule are two of the most common forms of silencing dissent. The subsequent harassment and intimidation which I have experienced, as have some of my colleagues, confirms that the suppression of debate is more important to many supporters of the current frenzied war rhetoric than is the open discussion of policy and its effects. Fortunately, I have also received strong messages of support. Day by day the opposition to this unconscionable war is growing in Canada and all over the world.

I would like to thank all of my family, friends, colleagues and allies who have supported and encouraged me.

Thobani's orginal speech is available online at http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewNote.cfm?REF=1155


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

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