------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Today's quotes
Bush, Putin agree to deep cuts in arsenals
High - Tech Talk About Nuclear Weapons
Bush and Putin Agree to Reduce Stockpile of Nuclear Warheads
U.S. Arsenal: Treaties vs. Nontreaties
New Allies: One Trusts, The Other's Not So Sure
New Rules for Weapons Cuts
British Energy wants to stop N-fuel reprocessing
UK nukes want higher prices for their CO2-free power
Baltic states' courts, nuclear plant worry EU
NUKE WASTE TRANSMUTATION?
Putin Issues New Appeal on Arms Cuts
Uranium leak forces temporary shutdown of nuclear reactor
How far Americans would go to fight terror
Where Warheads Are Made
Federal government to give money to workers
DOE whistle-blower suit delayed again
Wackenhut disappointed by contract rejection
Y-12 safety system gets good review
Bush signs bill giving Hanford $1.82 billion
Hanford project a runner-up in international contest
Bush, Putin Agree to Slash Nuclear Arms
A Familiar Bush Strategy on Disarmament

MILITARY
President approves trials by military
Text of president's military order
Muslim Peacekeepers in Kabul
Power and politics shaping Afghanistan
War takes positive shift; future hinges on diplomacy
Opposition takes over key posts as Taliban retreats
Reclaiming Kabul
Documenting a Death Camp in Nazi Croatia
Two Pakistanis questioned in anthrax connection
Building the ultimate bioweapon
Alaska
Bombings hit unintended target: European opinion
Likud member arrested for arming Palestinians
Seizure Of Kabul Alarms Pakistan
NASA has selected new chief, reports say
U.S. not set to back U.N. force
Peacekeepers Pulling Out of E. Timor
'With or against us' war irks many UN nations
U.N. Seeks Meeting of Afghans to Fill Vacuum in Kabul
Pentagon and press can both do their jobs
Terrorist tribunals allowed
Use of Military Court Divides Legal Experts
U.S. Troops Must Go In
U.S. Jets Target Retreating Taliban
History, Declassified

ENERGY AND OTHER
Bush Orders Increased Emergency Supply of Oil
Navy plans a pilot project to harness the power of ocean waves
OPEC agrees to cut output if other producers do
DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
As Taliban Withdraws, Relief Workers Return
WTO delegates agree to launch trade talks
Feeling Pressure, Trade Officials Extend Talks in Qatar

POLICE / PRISONERS
States
Administration to divide INS districts
Justice seeks to question 5,000 possible witnesses
Ramsey cites need to share intelligence
After Terror at His Doorstep, Kelly Returns to Police Dept.
Caught by radar?
A Line That Can't Be Moved
Terrorism's Africa link
Freedom fighters or terrorists?
Britain Issues New Evidence of Bin Laden 'Guilt'
North Carolina
All Liberty Fund donations will go to attacks victims
4 Guilty in Fatal 1986 Berlin Disco Bombing Linked to Libya

ACTIVISTS
Environmental Activism
Maine
Victory for the Charleston 5!



-------- NUCLEAR

Today's quotes

Opinion
USA Today
11/14/2001
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/debate.htm

''Security is created not by piles of metal or weapons. It is created by political will of people, nation states and their leaders.'' - Russian President Vladimir Putin, who along with President Bush pledged to slash nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.

---

Bush, Putin agree to deep cuts in arsenals

USA Today
11/14/2001
By Laurence McQuillan and Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/nov01/2001-11-13-bush-putin.htm

WASHINGTON - President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged Tuesday to dramatically cut the nuclear arsenals of both nations by at least two-thirds in the coming decade.

At the White House, Bush called for slashing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads - prompting Putin to say he will "try to respond in kind."

Later, in a speech at the Russian Embassy, Putin said he is willing to reduce his country's arsenal to roughly the same level as proposed by Bush. He did not give a specific number, however.

Wednesday

Putin stops in Houston for a meeting with former President Bush and a speech at Rice University to business leaders. The Bushes welcome Putin and his wife, Lyudmila, to Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, where they have a chuck-wagon picnic dinner and remain overnight.

Thursday

The presidents meet in private at the Bush ranch. Putin visits a Crawford school and addresses the news media at the nearby Waco, Texas, airport on departure for New York, where he tours the ruins of the World Trade Center and takes questions on a National Public Radio call-in show. The Bushes remain in Crawford for a long weekend.

The United States has 7,013 nuclear warheads; Russia has 5,858.

"This is a new day in the long history of U.S.-Russia relations," Bush said. "The challenge of terrorism makes our close cooperation on all issues more urgent."

Said Putin: "We intend to dismantle, conclusively, the vestiges of the Cold War."

They resume talks today at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Still unresolved are differences over U.S. plans for a missile-defense shield. The two presidents said more discussions were needed on the future of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Bush wants to scrap the treaty because it bans development of a national missile-defense system. Putin considers it a key component for U.S.-Russia stability.

Bush said he will ask Congress to grant Putin's request to lift the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment, which links U.S.-Russia trade to Russia's commitment to allowing free immigration for Russian Jews.

---

High - Tech Talk About Nuclear Weapons

Associated Press
November 14, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Russia-Analysis.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For decades, America's nuclear arsenal and the threat of retaliation has been regarded as the nation's best defense against attacks on its cities and population.

But this doctrine of deterrence didn't prevent terrorists from turning passenger planes into deadly missiles in attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed thousands of people. Nor would the national anti-missile shield being sought by President Bush have stopped those Sept. 11 attacks.

Against the background of low-tech terrorist attacks, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the scariest weapons known to mankind -- nuclear bombs atop long-range ballistic missiles -- and possible high-tech defenses against them and ways to stop their proliferation.

With the world's attention riveted to the terror attacks, and conventional warfare in Afghanistan, the Bush-Putin talks, which began on Tuesday in Washington and continued Wednesday on Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, seemed somehow out of sync.

But arms control experts said the talks were crucial.

Just because the worst terror attacks on U.S. soil came in low-tech packages and not aboard missiles, or in suitcase bombs, does not rule out an effort by terrorists or hostile nations to mount a nuclear attack in the future, U.S. officials caution.

``Our highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush said on Tuesday at a joint news conference with Putin at the White House.

Earlier, Bush and Putin agreed to link missile-defense talks to cuts in nuclear arsenals.

On Tuesday, Bush pledged to reduce the United States' long-range nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads, from roughly 7,000 now. Putin, who has earlier proposed cuts to as low as 1,500 warheads, said he would match the offer. Russia has about 6,000 long-range warheads.

But unlike Bush, who said earlier that he did not favor formal treaties, Putin said he preferred relying on them to codify weapons reductions.

``They haven't figured out the other side of the coin, which is missile defense,'' said Tom Collina, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a public policy group which opposes creating a national missile defense system. ``The Russians are still worried about U.S. deployment of a missile defense system.''

A related issue, Collina said, ``is what's going to happen to those warheads in Russia when they're taken off the missiles? Just having these things in storage is not helpful, and may be less than helpful. ``

In Crawford, Bush and Putin intended to hash out their differences on U.S. plans for a national missile defense and the future of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which prohibits such defenses. ``I'm convinced the treaty is outdated,'' Bush said Tuesday. ``We need to move beyond it.''

Bush would like to proceed with construction next spring at Fort Greely, Alaska, of five silos for interceptor missiles and a command and control testing center -- and to set aside the ABM treaty.

But Putin contends the treaty is a cornerstone for maintaining stability, a position he said ``remains unchanged.'' Still, Putin also signaled flexibility, saying he and Bush would ``continue dialogue and consultations.''

U.S. officials believe that Putin might agree to allow testing to proceed, including construction of the Alaska site, but would oppose any move toward actual deployment.

Even if they can reach an agreement, money and scientific shortcomings threaten to keep the missile-defense program stalled for years.

The technology -- often likened to hitting bullets with other bullets -- is not proven. And Congress, trying to balance multibillion-dollar demands for the war on terrorism with shrinking resources, is showing reluctance to shelling out what analysts say could amount to $60 billion over the next 15 years.

Last week, a House Appropriations subcommittee recommended canceling an expensive infrared satellite radar system that the Pentagon considers an integral missile-defense component.

The Pentagon has had mixed results so far on interceptor tests over the Pacific, with two failures and two successes since 1999. A fifth test that had been scheduled for October was postponed because of mechanical problems.

The administration does not have a timetable for deployment. Even top proponents agree deploying an effective system remains years away, perhaps 2007 at the earliest.

EDITOR'S NOTE -- Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.

-------

Bush and Putin Agree to Reduce Stockpile of Nuclear Warheads

New York Times
November 14, 2001
By DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/international/14PREX.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia pledged today to cut their nuclear stockpiles by roughly two-thirds over the next decade, leaving each side with fewer than 2,200 warheads.

But the two nations still seemed far apart on missile defenses, with Mr. Putin resisting American efforts for a quick agreement that would allow Mr. Bush to conduct tests that would violate the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty.

At the start of three days of meetings in Washington and Crawford, Tex., Mr. Bush told Mr. Putin today that the United States would unilaterally reduce its nuclear arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads.

While he did not immediately respond to Mr. Bush's announcement, Mr. Putin stressed in a speech tonight at the Russian Embassy that he, too, planned deep cuts.

"Russia declares and reiterates its readiness to make considerable reductions in strategic arms," he said. "We propose a radical program of further reductions of strategic offensive arms by at least three times, to a minimal level necessary for maintaining strategic balance in the world. We no longer have to intimidate each other to reach agreements."

The cuts suggested by each side, while not in any formal agreement, appeared to mark a milestone in strategic relations between the two countries, swiftly achieving deep weapons cuts that used to take years to negotiate.

Russia's current arsenal contains about 5,800 warheads; the reduction Mr. Putin indicated would cut that to about 1,500. The Russians, who cannot afford to maintain their current nuclear arsenal, have stated that number before.

The Russian president, clearly concerned about verifying cuts and making sure no successor to Mr. Bush reverses course, appeared to insist, however, on written agreements. Russia, he said at the news conference, was "prepared to present all our agreements in a treaty form" - exactly what Mr. Bush wants to avoid.

At the embassy, Mr. Putin reiterated his belief in treaties, while appearing to leave room to agree to let the administration pursue missile tests so long as it does not abandon the ABM treaty outright.

It remained unclear whether the differences reflected a gulf that cannot be bridged, or were part of a choreographed scenario to damp expectations about their meeting in Texas.

In a brief conversation after Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin spoke, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell seemed to acknowledge that the talks on amending the ABM Treaty would take longer than he hoped, and perhaps had hit serious obstacles. He warned against expecting the kind of quick accord that Mr. Putin seemed to hint at in recent days.

"You got the public statement that you are going to get and live with for some time," Secretary Powell said. Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, echoed the sentiment, joining the conversation to say, "Don't expect any particular agreement at a particular time."

Mr. Bush has made no secret of his view that the ABM Treaty - and by implication other arms control treaties - are outdated relics of the cold war. Today, he repeated his distaste for "endless hours of arms control discussions," and suggested that his oral commitment to reduce American arms levels should be sufficient in a new relationship based on trust. With an arch voice, he added, "If we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'd be glad to do that."

Mr. Putin, at the Russian Embassy, took a markedly different tack. "Indeed, today the world is far from having international relations based solely on trust," he said. "That is why it's so important today to rely on the existing foundation of treaties and agreements in the arms control and disarmament areas."

Their first four-hour meeting at the White House seemed somewhat more tense and formal than their last three sessions this year.

Nonetheless, Mr. Bush characterized today's session, the first of a three-day summit meeting, as "a new day in the history of Russian- American relations, a day of progress and a day of hope."

By the time they met with reporters in the East Room this afternoon, the two leaders sought to emphasize that their four meetings this year had turned them from competitors into allies, and they announced steps to tighten economic links and smooth Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization, which China joined last weekend.

Mr. Bush promised to speed through Congress legislation taking Russia and other former Soviet republics off the list of countries that are subject to economic sanctions under the cold-war-era Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was aimed at nations that restricted emigration of Jews and others. "We intend to dismantle conclusively the vestiges of the cold war," Mr. Putin said.

But the show of warmth could not mask the many indications that despite the agreements and a common belief in the need to fight terrorism, the long-awaited meeting here and at the Bush ranch in Crawford on Wednesday and Thursday may fall short of optimistic expectations.

Mr. Putin had talked extensively before his arrival about his willingness to make compromises that might amend the ABM Treaty, or at least find a way around the restrictions that prevent the United States from proceeding with tests of its antimissile systems.

"We have different points of view about the ABM Treaty," Mr. Bush declared after the meeting, though he said the two men planned to discuss it further at the ranch. Other officials said they were unable to resolve impediments that had stymied American and Russian negotiators in long sessions in the last three days.

The United States now has between 6,000 and 7,000 weapons deployed, depending on how the weapons are counted. That is down sharply from more than 15,000 strategic warheads at the height the cold war. The Start II treaty, which has never been fully carried out, mandates cuts to around 3,000 weapons.

But Mr. Bush said his own review of America's nuclear posture, completed last week, had led him to conclude that the United States could eliminate more than two-thirds of its weapons. By giving a range of numbers, rather than one specific figure, he essentially opted not to resolve a dispute with the Pentagon about exactly how many weapons would be required a decade from now.

He also slightly changed the way weapons are counted: A statement issued by the White House referred to operational nuclear weapons - a figure that would seem to exclude the hundreds being refurbished or inspected at any given time.

Not surprisingly, much of the discussion at the White House was dominated by talk of military strategy in Afghanistan, how to contain the Northern Alliance if it continues to sweep south and ousts the Taliban, and how a post-Taliban government could be established in Afghanistan.

The discussion in itself illustrated how far the two countries have traveled since 1989, when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan after a decade of cold war conflict against Afghan warriors financed and armed by the United States.

Today, Mr. Putin suggested that the joint consultation and action of the last two months was a model for a new military relationship, not only with Washington but also with NATO, the organization created to contain the Soviet Union. "We consider that there are opportunities for an entirely new mechanism," Mr. Putin said, that included "joint decision-making, and coordinated action in the area of security and stability."

Mr. Bush agreed that "NATO members and Russia are increasingly allied against terrorism, regional instability and other threats of our age, and NATO must reflect this alliance." But neither leader publicly mentioned the possibility of eventual Russian membership in NATO, something Mr. Putin discussed at their first encounter, in Slovenia earlier this year.

They still had significant divergences over the campaign in Afghanistan.

Mr. Bush warned the Northern Alliance to halt the widely reported executions of wounded and captured Taliban soldiers. Mr. Putin took a different tack, suggesting that the Taliban were getting what they deserved. "We tend to forget now the atrocities by the Taliban," he said.

He suggested that some of the reports of executions by the Northern Alliance in the Kabul area were manufactured, and he noted that the alliance would have little reason to rampage in its traditional strongholds in the north.

The two men moved gingerly on sensitive issues like Russia's military action in Chechnya and Mr. Putin's use of the tax authorities to crack down on some independent - and critical - Russian media.

Instead, the administration convinced Mr. Putin to sign on to a "Russian-American Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue," which they said would involve journalists and media executives in both countries to "explore ways to improve the conditions necessary for media to flourish as a business in Russia." It was cast entirely as a business advisory group, while the White House clearly intended it to focus on press freedom.

"It was as far as they were willing to go," a senior administration official said.

Another statement by the White House concerned American efforts to help Russia improve security for its nuclear material and to dismantle nuclear warheads. Before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the White House had modestly cut those funds.

Now, however, officials fear that Russia and other former Soviet republics are the most likely source of smuggled uranium or plutonium that could fall into the hands of terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, who has often discussed his desire to develop nuclear weapons. Today, the administration turned out a listing of how it wanted to expand assistance soon.

Among the most interesting of today's announcements was one on Russia's plans to pass laws necessary to open its economy in coming months, a major step toward qualifying for membership in the World Trade Organization.

---

MILITARY ANALYSIS
U.S. Arsenal: Treaties vs. Nontreaties

New York Times
November 14, 2001
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/international/14NUKE.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - President Bush did not mention it, but the arms control approach he presented today would undo one of the signal accomplishments of his father's administration: the ban on multiple- warhead missiles based on land.

Throughout the cold war, it was widely assumed that such missiles were particularly destabilizing weapons. NATO was so worried about the Soviet Union's 10-warhead SS-18 that its code name for the missile was Satan, and Reagan administration hard-liners warned darkly that it would be useful for a surprise strike.

Start II, a treaty signed in 1993 by the first Bush administration, banned land-based Mirvs, as the multiple-warhead missiles are known, a move that arms control specialists agreed made the nuclear balance more stable.

But the new Bush administration does not see Russia as a nuclear adversary and, officials say, has no interest in rescuing Start II, which has never taken effect because of disputes about conditions attached by both the United States Congress and the Russian parliament.

By omitting any mention of Start II, the administration signaled that its strategy is to leapfrog over that agreement and move to a more streamlined arrangement in which the United States and Russia separately announce plans for deep cuts.

That means that Start II and its provisions, including the ban on land- based missiles with multiple warheads, becomes an artifact of history, one policymaker said.

Administration officials say there is no need to perpetuate a ban hammered out during the tense days of the cold war. Much of the new American deterrent will be based on submarines, making it almost invulnerable to surprise attack.

But some arms control proponents are critical.

"It means abandoning one of the most hard fought gains for U.S. national security," said Joseph Cirincione, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Multiple warhead missiles are dangerous weapons and will remain in the Russian arsenal long after Putin is gone."

The new administration stance is part of a broad rethinking about arms control that has led the administration to announce reductions in its nuclear arsenal.

In considering how deeply to cut America's nuclear arsenal, President Bush faced a quandary.

The Russians, whose own nuclear force is shrinking by the day because of economic pressures, wanted the United States to reduce the number of warheads to 1,500. But the United States Strategic Command, which oversees American nuclear forces, had been actively resisting such a deep cut, hoping to keep the level at around 2,250 warheads.

Today, Mr. Bush gave them both what they were looking for.

With President Vladimir V. Putin by his side, Mr. Bush announced that the United States would cut the number of its warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 over 10 years, from the current level of more than 6,000.

When Mr. Bush took office, he called for a fresh look at the United States' nuclear posture, taking full account of the end of the cold war competition with the Soviets. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld began a review of the country's nuclear requirements.

Still, there was no consensus on how deep the nuclear cuts should go, particularly because of the hawkish views of Adm. Richard W. Mies, the commander of the Strategic Command, who also resisted the push for deep cuts during the Clinton administration.

While Bush administration officials insist that their review was driven by a hard-headed look at nuclear requirements, no one was oblivious to the foreign policy implications.

A public pledge to slash the number of nuclear arms, officials understood, would help make the case to the Russians, as well as to other Europeans, that the administration's plan to build a missile defense was not part of a drive for strategic dominance.

It might even make the Russians more willing to go along with the administration's plans to conduct antimissile tests. These were not permitted by the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, an accord that is still a bone of contention.

The results of this American promise to cut the arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads over the next decade are significant. It would bring about a two-thirds reduction in the current arsenal. It is also an important advance over Start II, which called for reductions to 3,000 to 3,500 warheads.

"The Bush team are on a positive trend line for the first time toward moving below 2,000 warheads," said Rose Gottemoeller, a senior Energy Department official from the Clinton administration.

Still, the cuts were not as deep as some arms control advocates would have liked. They are only a little lower than the goals President Clinton and President Boris N. Yeltsin set in 1997 - 2,000 to 2,500 warheads each. (The Pentagon assumed that American warheads would be on the high end of that range and Russian warheads would be on the low end.)

In outlining the cuts today, the administration also changed how nuclear weapons are counted, excluding those on submarines and bombers that are being overahuled. This will reduce the count by several hundred weapons without actually eliminating them.

Still, some of the most important shifts had nothing to do with numbers. In addition to quietly walking away from Start II's ban on land- based multiple warhead missiles, the Bush administration says there is no need for formal treaties on offensive nuclear arms.

Instead, the administration's approach is to spell out the reductions the United States is planning while the Russians do the same. The reductions would be verified by provisions for on-site monitoring carried over from Start I, signed in 1991.

Administration officials say that dispensing with treaties will enable them to avoid the lengthy process it takes to negotiate them. But critics say it will also leave the two sides without a solid legal undertaking on nuclear arms that would outlast the Bush and Putin administrations.

Mr. Putin was skeptical as well, saying he was prepared to codify all of the understandings between the United States and the Russians "in treaty form."

Mr. Bush signaled that he did not think that a formal treaty was necessary, but added he would be willing to make a less formal commitment.

"If we need to write it down on piece of paper," he said, "I'd be glad to do that."

---

NEWS ANALYSIS
New Allies: One Trusts, The Other's Not So Sure

New York Times
November 14, 2001
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/international/14ASSE.html?searchpv=nytToday

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - Ronald Reagan used to say about arms control agreements with the Soviet Union: "Trust but verify."

President Bush altered that formula today in a joint appearance with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, describing the new relationship with Russia as one based on "cooperation and trust."

This time, it was the Russian leader who insisted on verification. Mr. Putin told Mr. Bush today that he wanted to see a new arms control deal on slashing strategic nuclear weapons in writing. And he refused to agree to alter the Antiballistic Missile Treaty based on mere promises of cuts in the American nuclear arsenal.

The different approaches underscore how the two leaders are struggling to define the boundaries of a fast-evolving relationship after the terror attacks of Sept. 11.

For Mr. Bush, a personal relationship is in full bloom and what he called a "partnership" has already been forged. Today, at a news conference on the first day of their summit meeting, he said relations between the United States and Russia had been "transformationed." And he indicated that for him a gentleman's agreement on arms control would have been enough.

For Mr. Putin, a marriage contract is necessary before he can commit to a similar reduction in his country's weaponry. "We, for our part - for the Russian part - are prepared to present all our agreements in a treaty form, including the issues of verification and control," Mr. Putin said.

In an effort to preserve the spirit of the summit meeting, Mr. Bush said, although a bit testily, "I looked the man in the eye and shook his hand, and if we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'll be glad to do that."

While Mr. Bush said the two countries enjoyed "a new relationship based upon trust and cooperation," Mr. Putin said cautiously, "We need to, and want to, build a new relationship in the 21st century."

Clearly, the events of Sept. 11 shocked the international system and reordered the priorities of both countries, focusing both leaders on their shared goals and future cooperation rather than their disputes.

Immediately after the terror attacks in Washington and New York, Mr. Putin called Mr. Bush to say that Russia was completely with the United States in its moment of crisis. The gesture was reminiscent of one by Mr. Bush's father who, as president, contacted President Mikhail S. Gorbachev immediately after the coup in Moscow in August 1991 to say that the United States was completely with Russia in its moment of crisis.

Since then, Mr. Putin has cooperated enthusiastically with the United States in its war on terrorism. That has won him effusive praise on Capitol Hill, including a recent statement by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that "No Russian leader since Peter the Great has looked as far west as Putin seems to have."

For its part, the United States has canceled a scheduled test of an antiballistic missile system, overlooked Russia's behavior in Chechnya and avoided criticism of a clampdown on the news media.

The question is whether the cooperation in one area will evolve into a new multidimensional relationship. "Putin is determined to modernize his nation and bring it into the Western orbit, while Bush wants to create new strategic realities that transcend cold war arms control constraints," said Toby Gati, who served as a Russia specialist on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

"Under normal circumstances, these separate agendas would compete with each other. But now, there is a common enemy in the fight against international terrorism, providing a framework - for perhaps the first time since World War II - within which shared interests can overcome differences. The question facing both presidents is whether a common danger is enough to spur further, long-term, positive changes."

For the moment, the two presidents are going out of their way to show just how much they like each other. Mr. Bush led Mr. Putin on a tour of the White House and the two will eat beef tenderloin and pecan pie from a chuck wagon when Mr. Putin visits Mr. Bush at his Prairie Chapel ranch in Crawford, Tex.

At the news conference today, Mr. Putin extended an invitation for Mr. Bush to visit Russia "in any format, at any time convenient."

Paradoxically, Mr. Bush, who once accused President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore of overpersonalizing relationships with Russian leaders, now runs the risk of falling into the trap he once warned of. He may learn the hard way that he cannot count on personal diplomacy - even when there is an immediate shared goal - to overcome differences.

Mr. Putin made that clear today, when he stated that Russia had no intention of abandoning its objection to scrapping the 1972 AntiBallistic Missile Treaty that bars national missile defenses. To make such a sweeping concession would be seen back home as a sign of weakness.

"The position of Russia remains unchanged," he said bluntly.

Which proves that while Mr. Bush has already cast his relationship with Mr. Putin far into the future, Mr. Putin, setting limits, is restrained by the past.

---

New Rules for Weapons Cuts

New York Times
November 14, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/opinion/14WED1.html?searchpv=nytToday

The last time American and Russian leaders stepped into the East Room of the White House to initiate a new round of nuclear arms reductions, in 1987, they signed an elaborate, painstakingly negotiated treaty. Yesterday George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin used the same setting to unveil a very different approach. President Bush announced steep cuts in America's nuclear arsenal, which President Putin later in the day said he would match. No legally binding treaties were presented or signed. This new method has its advantages. Legislative action in Washington and Moscow, for example, is not needed. It also has some disadvantages. These include the possibility that either party will simply change its mind.

Although Moscow says it will be matching Washington's cut, without a treaty it is under no legal obligation to do so, and Washington cannot oblige it to carry out its promised reduction. On the American side, Mr. Bush's plan to reduce long- range nuclear weapons by about two-thirds over the next decade can be readily reversed by the next president or even by Mr. Bush himself.

For now, existing arms treaties remain in force, although some, like the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, face an uncertain future. Mr. Bush is keen to change the way Washington and Moscow manage their nuclear relationship. He hopes to replace the familiar system of arms control negotiations with a much simpler process of independent actions anchored by mutual trust and the verbal commitment of national leaders. That may work as long as the two nations have coinciding interests. If those interests diverge, however, there will be no binding accord that requires America and Russia to honor their commitments.

Nevertheless, Mr. Bush's cuts are welcome and overdue. A decade after the end of the cold war, it makes no sense for the United States to maintain nearly 7,000 nuclear weapons on its missiles, submarines and bombers, or for Russia to maintain nearly 6,000. The oversize Russian arsenal is the more dangerous, since decaying Russian technology poses a risk of accident, poor security arrangements invite theft and high maintenance expenses burden Moscow's strained economy. Realistically, steep Russian reductions still depend on equivalent American reductions, and with the Pentagon assuring Mr. Bush that the nation now needs no more than 1,700 to 2,200 long-range nuclear weapons, there was little reason for delay.

The new American reductions are in line with Washington's negotiating objectives in recent years. Nearly nine years ago, a treaty negotiated by Mr. Bush's father and Boris Yeltsin set limits between 3,000 and 3,500 for each country's arsenal. Regrettably, political disputes in both countries have so far kept that agreement from being carried out. During the Clinton years, Washington and Moscow announced plans to negotiate a new treaty to reduce total long-range warheads to somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500.

Moscow has long advertised its desire to see both countries reduce their totals to 1,500 or less, a goal they will now be approaching.

Over the next two days at Mr. Bush's Texas ranch, the two men will tackle the still unresolved issue of the ABM treaty and American missile defense tests. Mr. Putin has made clear he is willing to accommodate future American testing plans if Washington does not walk away from the treaty. President Bush should accept the Russian offer. Existing treaties that have worked well and helped keep the peace for decades should not be needlessly discarded.

-------- britain

British Energy wants to stop N-fuel reprocessing

Story by Matthew Jones
Reuters
14/11/2001
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13299/story.htm

LONDON - British Energy , the UK's largest power generator, told a parliamentary committee yesterday that reprocessing nuclear fuel from its AGR power stations was uneconomic and should end.

"British Energy is calling for an immediate moratorium on the reprocessing of AGR (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor) fuel. It is uneconomic and adds to the stockpile of plutonium," a company spokesman told Reuters.

British Energy wants the spent uranium fuel to be stored instead of sending it to state-owned British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) for reprocessing at a cost of 300 million pounds a year under contracts set up prior to British Energy's privatisation in 1996.

British Energy argues that storing the spent uranium, a policy favoured by some experts, would not only save it about 250 million pounds a year but also stop the growth of Britain's stockpile of plutonium which results from reprocessing.

British Energy's submission will raise fresh questions about the viability of BNFL which generates around 50 percent of its revenue from reprocessing - the extraction of plutonium from spent uranium fuel rods.

The government says it still intends a partial sell-off of BNFL although no dates have been set.

The first attempt to privatise BNFL was shelved in 2000 following a scandal over falsified nuclear fuel data.

British Energy, which has capacity to supply about 20 percent of the UK's electricity, made the submission to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

The committee is conducting a review of Britain's radioactive waste policy.

A Parliamentary select committee in 1999 recommended burying radioactive waste in deep underground vaults after a 250 million pound project to do just that failed in 1997 when planning permission from a local council was denied.

----

UK nukes want higher prices for their CO2-free power

Reuters:
14/11/2001
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13283/story.htm

LONDON - Britain should pay nuclear power generators extra for their electricity in recognition they do not produce greenhouse gases and to make it economic to build new plants, nuclear power companies argued yesterday.

Companies say as nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), widely blamed for contributing to global warming, they should receive similar incentives to renewable energy generators.

"We need a coherent commitment to a long-term mechanism in the market which will encourage CO2-free forms of electricity generation," Adrian Ham, director general of the British Nuclear Industry Forum told a parliamentary trade and industry committee investigating energy policy.

The committee inquiry coincides with a government review of energy policy which will look at the future for nuclear power.

Nuclear supplies about a quarter of the UK's electricity but this is set to decline in coming years unless new plants are built to replace old ones due to close.

A recent slump in UK electricity prices has made it uneconomic to build new nuclear power stations and, unless the government intervenes, companies will choose to build gas-fired plants, the committee heard.

British Energy , the country's largest generator, said it generated electricity for 1.8 pence/kilowatt hour - on a par with UK forward power prices - but the cost of power from new nuclear power stations was at least 2.2 pence/KWh.

New costs are higher because they include full capital costs whereas British Energy's plants were built by the government and some of the costs were written off on privatisation in 1996.

British Energy said a premium for nuclear power of one pence/KWh would bridge the gap between power prices and new plant costs, and add a 0.25 pence/KWh to consumers' bills.

"This compares to the extra cost of 0.75 pence for renewables. Renewables have a much higher cost for consumers than nuclear," Mike Kirwan, director of strategy and business development at British Energy, told the hearing.

The government, keen to boost the green energy sector, has introduced rules from next year obliging electricity suppliers to buy a certain amount of power from renewable sources.

Nuclear companies also called on the government to make a decision quickly on whether to allow them to build new plants, saying slow planning procedures mean it can take up to 10 years from deciding to build a plant to it coming on line.

Britain's other nuclear generator, state-owned BNFL, operates the ageing Magnox plants and has already started closing its plants and will switch off the last one in 2021, leaving only British Energy's more modern plants running.

-------- europe

Baltic states' courts, nuclear plant worry EU

14/11/2001
Reuters
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/13288/story.htm

RIGA - The European Union pressed the Baltic states - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - yesterdayto bring their ex-Soviet judicial systems to EU standards as part of their efforts to join the bloc as early as 2004.

In its annual report on preparedness to join the union, the European Commission, the EU's executive, said court cases needed to be dealt with more quickly.

In particular, it said the problem was a "serious concern" in Latvia, where backlogs had crowded jails with defendants awaiting their day in court.

"The situation continues to be especially serious for juveniles, who constitute 70 percent of the pre-trial detainees," the Latvia report said.

"The length of pre-trial detention for juveniles is not always in conformity with international standards."

It also said it had concerns about pre-trial detentions in Lithuania. In Estonia, progress had been made to shorten the duration of pre-trial imprisonment, but ill-treatment and use of punishment cells remained "issues of concern".

Despite the criticism, the Commisison praised all three for progress in judicial, economic and other areas, doing little to suggest they would fail to end entry talks in 2002 as planned.

But the Commission reminded Lithuania it must make a final decision on the closure of its Chernobyl-style nuclear power plant before it can conclude membership negotiations.

The EU considers Lithuania's Ignalina atomic plant a safety concern because it was built on the same design as Ukraine's ill-fated Chernobyl plant - site of the world's worst civilian nuclear disaster in 1986.

Under pressure from Brussels, Vilnius agreed to close the first of its two reactors before 2005. The EU has strongly suggested a 2009 deadline for shutting the second.

-------- japan

NUKE WASTE TRANSMUTATION?
Japanese Scientists Corroborate Nuclear Waste Remediation Technology Owned by Nuclear Solutions, Inc.

Wed, Nov 14 9:03 AM EST
BUSINESS WIRE
http://news.excite.com/news/bw/011114/id-nuclear-solutions
From: "Jim Hoerner" <jim_hoerner@hotmail.com>

MERIDIAN, Idaho - Independent research conducted by a consortium of five Japanese organizations confirms the viability of photonuclear transmutation for nuclear waste remediation, Nuclear Solutions, Inc. announced today.

Nuclear Solutions is engaged in the development of a photonuclear-based system for transmutation of nuclear waste and safe, clean generation of electricity.

It has come to my attention that some people, and now myself included, are skeptical of this company's claim. Indeed, at an international free energy, ahem, future energy conference, the VP supposedly did the unrelated demonstration described below.

http://www.mv.com/ipusers/zeropoint/IEHTML/FEATURE/FEATR/cofe1.html

Next came Dr. Paul M. Brown of Nuclear Solutions, LLC, who talked about "Betavoltaic Batteries." These are nuclear batteries that convert energy from a beta source, such as tritium, into electrical power. Dr. Brown's talk was lucid and intriguing, until he got to the theory part, which reflected some confusion about just what energy it is that's being converted. One battery described has as its source of power a strontium-90 sample, good for about 30 milliwatts of output as reckoned by the kinetic energy of the beta particle (electron) emissions. However, the battery itself, which employs passive components, puts out 75 watts of AC electrical power. Brown's explanation accounts for this "extra energy" by suggesting that not only is the emission energy from the nuclear expulsion of beta particles reclaimed, but also the magnetic field energy associated with the moving charged particle. But in conventional analysis, the emission energy is supposed to include the field energy, so the 30-milliwatt figure given for the radioactive source is supposed to be the whole shebang, kinetic energy and field energy combined.

Jim Hoerner

-------- russia

Putin Issues New Appeal on Arms Cuts

New York Times
November 14, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-summit-arms.html?searchpv=reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin issued a fresh appeal to proceed quickly with cuts in nuclear arsenals after differences emerged on arms issues at White House summit talks with President Bush.

Putin told academics and businessmen at the Russian embassy on Tuesday evening that he had ``no doubt that we will secure the understanding of the United States'' in moving ahead with the reductions long proposed by Moscow.

``Today's meeting with President Bush confirmed it. That's why Russia is declaring its readiness to proceed with significant reductions in its strategic weaponry,'' he said.

``That's why we today propose a radical program of further reductions of strategic weapons to at least one third of current levels, to the minimum level necessary to maintain strategic balance in the world.''

Putin sought reliance on ``the existing foundation of disarmament treaties'', a new allusion to Moscow's call to uphold the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile pact. Bush wants to abandon ABM treaty to build a missile shield against ``rogue states''.

Putin's proposals broke no new ground as Moscow, unable to maintain a large post-Soviet arsenal, has sought a level of 1,500 warheads for each side. Washington has roughly 7,000 deployed strategic warheads against Moscow's 6,000.

Putin is to make another address on Wednesday at Houston's Rice University in Bush's home state of Texas. He then heads for an overnight stay at the president's 1,600-acre ranch in central Texas.

Bush had earlier proposed paring the U.S. stockpile to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads over the next decade, an offer Putin said Moscow would ``try to respond to in kind.'' But the Russian president gave no precise figures.

The Russian side also appeared reticent over Bush's contention that no new treaty was needed to entrench the cuts.

Bush said new arms control pacts were obviated by improved ties, embodied by Russian backing for the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan in retaliation for September's hijack attacks on the United States.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Moscow viewed such agreements as vital to international stability.

``Of course, we will cut levels in any event. There is no point keeping offensive weapons in amounts which cannot be justified,'' Ivanov told reporters at the embassy.

``But we have always stood for making the system work more reliably by putting it in a full agreement. This is not because someone doesn't trust someone else. On the contrary, it is meant to reinforce the links of trust.''

Ivanov said details had to be elaborated on whether arms would be destroyed or taken out of service. He also wanted further evidence on why Washington wanted to abandon ABM.

``No one has yet said what is outmoded or just what hurts one side or other in terms of national security,'' he said.

-------- sweden

Uranium leak forces temporary shutdown of nuclear reactor

Wednesday, November 14, 2001
By Associated Press
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/11/11142001/ap_45575.asp

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - One of Sweden's 11 nuclear reactors will shut down for repairs at the end of next week because of a uranium leak, a spokesman said Tuesday.

Claes-Goeran Falk, a spokesman at the Oskarshamn plant, said the leak was minor and the public was not at risk. Falk said the repairs would take about a week and were needed to prevent a stoppage later in the winter season.

Small amounts of uranium may have been leaking from the fuel rods into the reactor water since August, Falk said. Plant officials thought repairs could wait until next summer's annual system overhaul, but the leak increased gradually, he said.

"It's hardly measurable," Falk said. "The risk is that the water spreads the contamination into pipes throughout the system," Falk said.

The Oskarshamn plant, 250 kilometers (150 miles) south of the capital, Stockholm, shut down another of its three reactors for nine days in August for a similar problem. The plant is one of four nuclear generating facilities in Sweden and provides 10 percent of the country's electricity.

Swedish voters decided in a 1980 referendum to phase out nuclear power, but so far only one reactor at the southwestern Barsebaeck plant has been closed.

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

How far Americans would go to fight terror
In a gauge of public values, a majority supports assassination - and 1 in 4 even backs use of nuclear arms.

Christian Science Monitor
November 14, 2001
By Abraham McLaughlin mclaughlina@csps.com
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1114/p1s3-usju.html

WASHINGTON - Americans' support for the war on terrorism is so firmly rooted that a solid majority would now back the assassination of foreign leaders to achieve victory.

A new Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll shows sizeable segments of the public support other "taboos," too: One in 3 could accept government-sanctioned torture of suspects. One in 4 could envision a scenario in which they'd back use of nuclear weapons.

The findings indicate how far sentiment has shifted, especially from the 1970s, when the CIA was denounced for helping to plot assassinations of foreign leaders. More telling, they reveal a nation struggling to reconcile two prominent facets of the American character: a deep respect for human rights versus a historical imperative to be safe and free from fear, at almost any cost.

"The American soul is in turmoil," says Wade Clark Roof, chairman of the religious studies department at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Attacks like those on Sept. 11 are akin to "primitive warfare between tribes," tending to elicit "a forthright, aggressive response," he says. Yet, over time, that reaction tends to be tempered by a more-reasoned approach.

"Most Americans," says Mr. Roof, "still feel caught in the middle."

The depth of commitment to this war, though, does not mean the events of Sept. 11 created a warmonger nation. Even if the terrorist attack untethered an American impulse to strike back, the Monitor/TIPP survey still finds wide disdain for use of chemical or biological weapons, for instance. Gaps exist, too, over what constitutes an acceptable tactic, with the biggest divide between men and women.

Among those who would back the previously unthinkable, the portent of their answer is not lost. "I'd hate to use nuclear weapons," says Judith, a computer programmer and mother of three in Cordova, Tenn., who asked that her last name be withheld. But "if there weren't any children involved, and it was the only way to kill terrorists, then, yes." Likewise with assassinations: "If it's going to stop all the terrorism," she could accept it.

Not surprisingly, the survey found strong support for President Bush's performance in fighting terrorism, with 82 percent calling it "excellent" or "good."

But 87 percent also agreed on this point: If Afghanistan's Taliban government is toppled, but Osama bin Laden and his top aides aren't captured or killed, the US will have failed in its first objective of the war. That clear idea of what constitutes victory may eventually pose a problem for the Bush administration, which has recently begun asserting that its goal is the fall of the Taliban and not necessarily the elimination of Mr. bin Laden.

In presenting four extreme scenarios, the poll provides a gauge for measuring how serious Americans are about winning. The most acceptable: assassinations, with 60 percent saying they "could envision a scenario in which they would support" the tactic; 35 percent could not.

In 1981, by contrast, a Gallup poll found that 82 percent said they could never support political assassinations. That was after a decade of widespread criticism of the CIA for promoting that tactic in Central and South America - and President Ford's 1976 executive order banning US involvement in political assassinations.

Indeed, lack of historical perspective may be one reason younger people are more accepting of government-sanctioned assassinations: Support among 18- to 24-year-olds is 65 percent, compared with 56 percent among those 65 and over.

"I think you have to take these people out," says Keith Malinak, a 20-something Texan, about terrorism supporters like Iraq's Saddam Hussein. He knows there may be consequences. "If that means a wider war, that means a wider war," he says with a resigned air. But "this country has a history of doing what's necessary to win wars."

One difference between the 1980s and today is a more concrete threat. "We disapprove of assassinations in principle," but when a specific opponent - such as bin Laden - becomes sufficiently menacing, "we approve of it right away," says Sheldon Appleton, a political scientist at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich. It's the tension, he says, between maintaining high principles and wanting to protect ourselves.

Yet even today, not everyone is convinced: 53 percent of women and 68 percent of men back assassinations - a 15-point spread. Also, 54 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans could support them.

Next on the most-acceptable list is torture of suspects, which 32 percent support.

Finally, 27 percent could support using nuclear weapons, compared with just 10 percent for use of chemical or biological weapons - even though nuclear weapons are typically far more destructive. Observers attribute the gap to the menacing image of biological and chemical weapons - as used by Saddam Hussein in Iraq or in the recent anthrax attacks here. Nuclear weapons, by contrast, are a more distant memory, having been used in the 1940s in the US attacks on Japan that killed about 200,000 people.

Debates over all the tactics represent a national soul-searching over how to fight a just war.

The question for a nation defending itself and its Western ideals is: "How do you get a good result to come out of a bad thing - war?" says Michael Birkner, a historian at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania. "We have to weigh it all, and ask, 'Do the ends justify the means?' "

Seth Stern contributed to this report.

---

THE NUCLEAR JUNKYARD
Where Warheads Are Made, and Where a Good Pair of Pliers Can Put Them to Rest

New York Times
November 14, 2001
By JAMES GLANZ and DENNIS OVERBYE
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/international/14DISM.html?searchpv=nytToday

Experts on nuclear arms are uncertain how many weapons would actually be dismantled under President Bush's proposal and how many simply placed in some kind of storage, where they would no longer be "operationally deployed," in his words.

But American weapons destined for destruction will end up at the Pantex plant near the Texas panhandle town of Amarillo, the place where warheads are made and where they go to die. The plant, a place of concrete bunkers surrounded by razor wire and patrolled by guards armed with machine guns, has been taking apart thousands of decommissioned weapons for decades.

The final resting place for the plutonium "pits," or nuclear cores, of the disassembled bombs, is less clear. So far, they have simply been stockpiled at Pantex.

The United States has produced about 100 tons of plutonium, the prime fuel for thermonuclear bombs, said David Albright, a defense expert who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

About 32 tons of this is in the 10,000 warheads in the present arsenal. Another 15 tons reside in some 5,000 bomb cores that are stored as a strategic reserve at Pantex.

About 38 tons of weapons-grade plutonium at Pantex has been declared surplus under an agreement with Russia and is scheduled to be converted to a form called mixed- oxide (MOX) fuel to be burned in reactors. But a proposed plant to do the conversion in Savannah River, S.C., has not yet been built. Most of the rest of the plutonium is spent reactor fuel and other non-weapons- grade plutonium.

Russia is thought to have produced about 130 tons of plutonium, Mr. Albright said.

When a weapon is to be dismantled, its warhead is separated from the missile or other delivery system before being sent to Pantex. There, the pits and other parts containing uranium are separated in bunkerlike assembly lines. The pits are stored there in enclosures resembling giant igloos, said Robert S. Norris, a researcher and analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"Literally you are taking out a screwdriver and a pliers and a clippers and you are taking it apart in the reverse process of putting it together," Mr. Norris said.

Dismantling warheads has been going on a long time. "They don't last forever," Mr. Albright said, and the material is often recycled into newer designs.

He estimated that the United States has already dismantled 50,000 weapons. From 1990 to 1997, 10,482 warheads were disassembled at Pantex, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Until 1997 the company dismantled slightly over 1,000 a year; but accidents and other delays that year, the last for which numbers are available, cut the figure in half.

There are many components to a warhead, including high explosives, toxic chemicals, electronics packages, and various radioactive materials, including plutonium.

Mr. Albright said that warheads could also contain explosive switches or security devices that would disable the warhead if the wrong person tampered with it. Typically, the high explosives are burned, and the electronics are smashed, Mr. Albright said. The highly enriched uranium is trucked to Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee. That uranium can be used as fuel in Navy nuclear reactors, Mr. Albright said.

The disposition of plutonium is a worry, say nuclear experts who fear that it could be diverted to produce weapons for terrorists or other states like Iraq. "The warhead is easier to protect than fissile material," Mr. Albright said.

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

-------- colorado

Federal government to give money to workers diseased by uranium exposure

Wednesday, November 14, 2001
By Nancy Lofholm,
The Denver Post
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/11/11142001/krt_45579.asp

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. - Wayne Hill was front and center, proudly sporting a brand-new Colorado Uranium Workers Council cap, when U.S. Justice Department officials came to town last week.

Forty years after he hauled uranium ore from mines to mills in the Four Corners area and just months after his latest round of radiation and chemotherapy for lung and brain cancer, Hill is smiling because he is one of 5,123 former uranium workers who have received a piece of paper from the Justice Department telling them they have been approved for compensation.

Hill's letter tells him that he'll soon be getting a check for $100,000 for the illnesses he has suffered as a result of his work during the Cold War. Hill, 70, is one of the lucky ones, even though he had been waiting for that approval for nearly two years. He almost died several times during that wait. Many others have died waiting.

"I don't think people realize how hard that waiting is. You think he is going to die before he gets it," said Hill's wife, Lucille, who was next to him at the meeting.

There were more than a few satisfied uranium workers or widows and children of those workers who came out Thursday night to hear the latest updates on the Radiation Compensation Exposure Act in a Grand Junction meeting that had been delayed several times by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"We're doing our level best," said Jerry Fischer, director of the radiation-exposure compensation program for the Justice Department, after he spent two hours answering questions about payments. "I know some people have had claims pending for a long time, but we're doing our best. People have seen some evidence of progress."

The compensation program was initially approved in 1990 and amended in July 2000 to increase the one-time compensation amounts from $50,000 to $100,000 and to expand the coverage to some previously excluded workers, such as millers and haulers, such as Hill. The expansion of the program resulted in 250 to 400 claims per week flowing into the Justice Department, rather than the 24 to 40 per week the department used to receive.

More than 4,000 new claims have been sent in since the act was amended. More than $359 million worth of those claims have been approved so far.

Questions at the meeting illustrated why many others have been delayed and snarled in red tape. Records have been difficult to access: Many of the uranium subcontracting companies no longer exist. Some paid in cash, so there are no government employment records. Old medical records and X-rays have been just as difficult to find in many cases, according to Becky Rockwell, a Durango private investigator who specializes in helping claimants find the records they need.

Even with the records, some uranium workers don't qualify because they don't have specified types of cancer. The government has approved differing lists of cancers and a few nonmalignant diseases for each type of exposure: above ground, underground, or in the vicinity of atom bomb tests.

Funding has also been a pervasive problem. The trust fund set aside for the compensation payments was depleted in 2001, and the Justice Department had to send out IOUs. Most of those claims were eventually paid under an emergency appropriation.

The department is still waiting on its fiscal 2002 budget and may run short again. "The last thing we want to do is send out IOUs again," Fischer said. "If we do it, we will be able to communicate to people that their claim has been approved."

Uranium workers now face one more hurdle in this compensation process: anthrax. In the past several weeks, the compensation program mail - including claims and documents relating to claims - has been cut off because of the anthrax cases in Washington.

-------- kentucky

DOE whistle-blower suit delayed again
The Justice Department still hasn't decided whether to join the 1999 suit against previous operators of the gaseous diffusion plant.

Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky
Wednesday, November 14, 2001
By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2001/nn11467.htm

The U.S. Department of Justice has asked for its eighth extension in deciding whether to join a whistle-blower lawsuit against Lockheed Martin Corp. and predecessors that operated the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

The suit claims the companies filed false environmental reports. At stake are hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses paid to Lockheed for meeting environmental milestones the suit claims were never met.

The suit was filed in June 1999 by the Natural Resources Defense Council; Thomas Cochran, nuclear program director for the council; and Paducah plant workers Charles Deuschele, Garland Jenkins and Ronald Fowler. Lockheed operated the plant for the U.S. Department of Energy.

The delay could be another indication the government and plaintiffs are trying to reach a settlement, although a Lockheed Martin spokesman downplays the possibility.

Justice investigators have reviewed thousands of pages of documents and conducted on-site investigations to determine the validity of the claims. Justice's involvement would add the full resources of the federal government to pursue the claims in court.

The latest deadline expired Monday, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Campbell has filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley Jr. to extend the deadline to Feb. 15, 2002. The plaintiffs and defendants agreed to the extension, according to Campbell's motion.

Campbell was not available Tuesday, but said previously settlement talks with Lockheed Martin were one reason for past delays. Campbell said in the motion that Lockheed lawyers "have expressed a desire to meet" with Department of Justice attorneys, and the parties "believe that further discussions will be useful."

Plaintiff attorney Joseph Egan said that as the delays continue, the plaintiffs are continuing to find records and documents to strengthen their case.

In August, Campbell said he forwarded a recommendation to Attorney General John Ashcroft regarding the government's involvement. Sources at that time said government investigators found sufficient evidence to warrant intervention. But the same sources said the Department of Energy disagreed and felt the government should not get involved.

Egan said the plaintiffs will continue the case, even without the government's help. "Every extension of time has provided a wealth of new evidence that has aided our case," Egan said. "It has allowed us to uncover a vast amount of new information that is relevant to our claims."

He also hinted another whistle-blower suit could be filed. "We found enough new material recently that we are considering a whole new case," he said. "I'm not allowed to discuss what we found and what the case would involve."

If Lockheed Martin is ordered to repay funds to the government, or if there is an out of court settlement, those who filed the suit would receive up to 25 percent of the proceeds.

Egan said previously that most of the money received by the plaintiffs would be used to support the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental watchdog agency.

One new element that one source said could entice Lockheed to settle is that Lockheed recently was awarded a $200 billion defense contract to build new fighter jets for the military. Some on Capitol Hill have objected to the contract, the largest ever by the Defense Department, and want the work divided among several companies.

If the government gets involved in a suit claiming Lockheed falsified records while operating the Paducah plant, political opponents could use leverage to discredit Lockheed and force a change in the contract, the source speculated.

James Fetig, chief spokesman for Lockheed, said the fighter jet contract is not a factor in the Paducah case.

"We have been cooperating with the government throughout the course of their investigation," Fetig said. "There have been no negotiations for a settlement, nor do we anticipate any. We don't believe there is any basis for the suit in the first place."

Egan would not comment on settlement negotiations. He said in an interview last summer that a settlement figure was being discussed by Department of Justice attorneys. He would not reveal the figure, but said if the case goes to court, the potential cost for Lockheed "is in the hundreds of millions of dollars."

He also declined to comment when asked if Lockheed might be encouraged to settle in order to prevent the suit from becoming an issue in the fighter jet contract.

Egan expressed optimism this will be the government's final extension request.

Martin Marietta and its subsidiaries began operating the Paducah plant in 1984, merging with Lockheed in 1994 to form Lockheed Martin, and continued to operate until 1999 when the uranium enrichment operations were formally taken over by the United States Enrichment Corp.

-------- tennessee

Wackenhut disappointed by contract rejection

Oak Ridger
Wednesday, November 14, 2001
by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/111401/new_1114010047.html

Despite an unapproved union contract, the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge security provider maintains the local facilities will remain secure.

"We're disappointed," says Lynn Calvert, senior vice president and general manager of Wackenhut Services Inc. in Oak Ridge, regarding the International Guards Union of America's vote Monday night not to approve a new five-year contract.

Calvert said Wackenhut feels the contract offered the guards an "excellent package," adding that he thought negotiations with the union were going well. Around 331 security guards working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Federal Building and the Y-12 National Security Complex are affected by the deal.

However, union officials issued a press release earlier this week citing some inadequacies with the contract, including protection for short-term disability. As of this morning, those officials had not returned calls for comment.

The union voted on the contract Monday night with 93 percent of its eligible voters rejecting the deal. In a separate vote, a proposal affecting 33 ORNL officers was approved by their membership.

The current contracts are set to expire before the end of the year.

"No matter what happens," Calvert said, "We will make sure these facilities are protected."

Calvert pointed out that Wackenhut's guards are currently doing a lot of overtime to sustain the heightened state of security implemented following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Wackenhut is in the process of hiring additional guards. It is rumored that at least 100 extra guards could be added at Y-12, though that figure could not be confirmed.

---

Y-12 safety system gets good review

Oak Ridger
Wednesday, November 14, 2001
by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/111401/new_1114010020.html

BWXT Y-12 has successfully implemented the Integrated Safety Management System, according to a recent review by the Department of Energy.

The system is a process that incorporates safety into management and work practices at all levels, addressing all types of work and all types of hazards, to ensure safety for the workers, the public and the environment.

A 12-person team representing DOE headquarters spent a week and a half looking at a broad range of management activities and work practices including fire protection, chemical safety, project management, environmental management and hazard identification. The team noted that it had found "significant improvement overall."

In June, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board had urged DOE to make safety improvements at Y-12. The independent federal agency indicated inadequate attention had been paid to the storage of hazardous materials, maintenance needs and fire prevention.

When announcing the team's findings this morning, John Mitchell, president and general manager of BWXT Y-12, said the Integrated Safety Management verification is a major step forward for Y-12.

"It is a clear recognition of the tremendous efforts by all Y-12 employees to make safety our first priority and to reflect this in our management processes and our everyday activities," Mitchell said. "The focus of our continuous improvement efforts to fully incorporate ISM into every facet of our company is making a significant difference in the way Y-12 is now and will be in the future."

Mitchell also pointed out that the assessment team left BWXT Y-12 with some "very focused and very effective suggestions" on how the company can improve the Integrated Safety Management System in the future and "stay on the path to continuous improvement."

BWXT Y-12 officially took over as Y-12's manager on Nov. 1, 2000.

Besides Y-12, safety concerns have been a lingering problem at DOE's other Oak Ridge facilities.

Recently, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board pointed out that several Integrated Safety Management System-related deficiencies have yet to be remedied despite the fact that DOE pointed them out to Bechtel Jacobs Co. over a year ago. Bechtel Jacobs is in charge of nuclear cleanup activities at facilities under the jurisdiction of DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office, including the Oak Ridge K-25 site.

Last week, DOE halted cleanup activities at K-25 because of deficiencies in several key safety documents.

-------- washington

Bush signs bill giving Hanford $1.82 billion

Wed, Nov 14, 2001
By John Stang Herald staff writer
Tri-City Herald
http://www.hanfordnews.com/2001/1114-1.html

President Bush signed a federal bill Monday that provides money to keep Hanford cleanup strategies on track through next fall.

The energy and water appropriations bill earmarks $7.13 billion to the Department of Energy's nationwide nuclear cleanup efforts, including $1.82 billion to Hanford. Originally, the administration wanted $6.33 billion for national cleanup and $1.4 billion for Hanford.

The president's action means Bechtel National Inc., lead contractor for the biggest part of the cleanup work, can proceed with its work through the current fiscal year, which ends next October.

Bechtel has added about 1,500 engineers and other workers to its payroll since March, when it took over the project to encapsulate nuclear wastes in glass logs.

The administration previously argued with congressional efforts to increase the cleanup money but did not protest the final amounts.

"This year's budget process did not begin well when the administration's budget recommendations included reductions in nuclear waste cleanup funding. This proposal was unacceptable and was rejected by Congress," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.

"Congress' support for full cleanup funding has prevailed, and the federal government's legal, contractual and moral cleanup obligations will be met at Hanford," he added.

Hastings and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., led caucuses of representatives and senators from states with DOE sites to push for increased cleanup funding.

Hanford's allocation includes $690 million to pay the 2002 bill for building the tank waste glassification complex. Originally, the administration wanted to underfund the glassification project by spending $500 million.

Although the energy and water appropriations bill calls for a total of $1.82 billion for Hanford, DOE traditionally tweaks and juggles Congress' allocations to each site after the president signs the appropriations bill each year.

In slightly more than three months, Hanford's budget debate begins again for fiscal 2003, when Bush unveils his federal budget request to Congress.

Currently, DOE is in the final stages of reviewing its cleanup programs to see if it wants to accelerate cleanup in some cases. That review is to be done by Dec. 31 and likely will affect the 2003 budget request.

----

Hanford project a runner-up in international contest

Wed, Nov 14, 2001
By the Herald staff
Tri-City Herald
http://www.hanfordnews.com/2001/1114-3.html

A Hanford project was one of two runners-up for the Project Management Institute's International Project of the Year award for 2001.

CH2M Hill Hanford Group's successful effort to neutralize a thickening, rising crust of radioactive wastes in central Hanford's Tank SY-101 and then removing the wastes was one of the three finalists in the competition. Construction of an aluminum smelter project in Mozambique won first place.

Past winners included the 2000 removal of Oregon's Trojan reactor vessel, which ended up stored at central Hanford, and the 1998 Mars Pathfinder project.

-------- us nuc politics

Bush, Putin Agree to Slash Nuclear Arms

By Karen DeYoung and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 14, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24766-2001Nov13.html

President Bush announced yesterday that the United States will reduce its arsenal of deployed nuclear warheads by more than two-thirds over the next decade, turning one of the final pages in the Cold War history of the last half-century.

In a speech last night at the Russian Embassy, President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow would reciprocate with similar cuts, bringing the level of nuclear weapons the two countries have targeted at each other down to a level not seen since the 1960s.

The announcements were a stark contrast to the months, and sometimes years, of negotiations that have long marked arms control agreements between the Soviet Union and the United States. Although both Washington and Moscow had let it be known they were contemplating unilateral reductions, and the subject has been discussed on a ministerial level between the two governments for months, yesterday's announcements seemed finally to shatter the arms control stalemate of the past decade.

They followed three hours of meetings at the beginning of a three-day summit between the two presidents that marked what a joint statement they issued called "a new relationship . . . founded on a commitment to the values of democracy, the free market and the rule of law. The United States and Russia have overcome the legacy of the Cold War. Neither country regards the other as an enemy or threat."

Speaking at a White House news conference yesterday afternoon with Putin at his side, Bush said, "The current levels of our nuclear forces do not reflect today's strategic realities." Dropping the number of deployed warheads from their current total near 7,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200, he said, would leave "a level fully consistent with American security."

In his reciprocal announcement several hours later, Putin gave no specific numbers but told an invited embassy audience, "We no longer have to intimidate each other to reach agreements. Security is created not by piles of metal or weapons. It is created by political will of people, nation-states and their leaders."

At the peak of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union each had at least 10,000 nuclear weapons. But as Bush said yesterday at their joint appearance, the world they face today is far different from the one faced by any of their predecessors. The two are working closely together "to meet new 21st-century threats," even as they are "working hard to put the threats of the 20th century behind us once and for all," Bush said.

Despite the momentous announcements, questions of Cold War nuclear weaponry seemed almost peripheral to the pressing issues of international terrorism and the rapidly moving situation in Afghanistan. That emphasis served to overshadow the fact that, to the extent they discussed their nuclear arsenals at all, Bush and Putin encountered ongoing areas of disagreement as well as accord.

The administration had hoped that Putin would accept what amounts to a fig leaf behind which the two could conceal their differences of opinion on the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Russia wants to continue in force and the administration has disdained as an obsolete impediment to its plans for a missile defense system.

But it seemed clear that, even with two more days of discussion continuing today at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex., Putin was not prepared to accept a deal under which the United States would refrain from formally withdrawing from the treaty in return for Russian acquiescence to continued U.S. testing of missile defense components. Questions of actual deployment of a missile defense system -- which all agree falls outside the ABM confines -- would be deferred for later discussions.

"There are issues still to be resolved, otherwise they would have said something" at the news conference, an administration official said. "The whole tone of this summit is not being confrontational about these issues. Everybody has downplayed the significance of agreement on the missile defense issue, and agreed not to make a big deal of it" if, as now seems likely, no agreement is reached.

On the question of cuts in nuclear arsenals, Putin had previously signaled his intent to cut the number of Russian warheads down to 1,500 or less, a planned reduction that has as much to do with the country's inability to maintain and guard the weapons as it does with strategic outreach to Washington.

Putin also indicated yesterday he was not prepared to accept whatever the administration offered in terms of verification of new weapons levels, unless it was on paper. "We are prepared to present all our agreements in treaty form, including the issues of verification and control," he said at the news conference.

"A new relationship based upon trust and cooperation is one that doesn't need endless hours of arms control discussions," Bush countered amiably. " . . . My attitude is, here's what we can live with. And so I've announced a level that we're going to stick by. To me, that's how you approach a relationship that is changed, and different."

"I looked the man in the eye and shook his hand, and if we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'll be glad to do that," Bush said. "But that's what our government is going to do over the next 10 years."

The administration's decision to reduce its nuclear weaponry, and the terms under which it will do it, does not depend on Russian reciprocation or agreement on verification procedures. At the same time, the United States had made clear its determination move forward on missile defense, beyond the confines of the ABM Treaty, whether Moscow agrees or not.

In the best of all possible worlds, an administration official said yesterday, what the White House considers an "evolutionary process" of talks would result in Russia seeing things the U.S. way.

But while that process evolves, there are other issues to talk about. Senior administration officials said discussions yesterday morning were dominated by the startling takeover of Kabul, the Afghan capital, by the U.S.- and Russian-backed Northern Alliance opposition. In their news conference, Bush hastened to emphasize Northern Alliance promises that it would not permanently occupy the city before a government representing all Afghan ethnic and tribal groups could be organized.

Both leaders said they were concerned about reports of human rights abuses by the alliance forces against suspected members and sympathizers of the Taliban militia left behind as the bulk of that force fled the city overnight, although Bush seemed somewhat more concerned than Putin.

"We will continue to work with the Northern Alliance commanders to make sure they respect the human rights of the people that they are liberating," Bush said. "We are particularly mindful of the need for us to work with our Northern Alliance friends to treat people with respect."

For his part, Putin said he found such reports "difficult . . . to imagine" and said that the international media reporting on the liberation of Afghan cities should "pay attention to" the jubilation the Afghan people are showing at their liberation from the Taliban.

Aides said that in their private meetings, Putin told Bush of the importance of completing the mission in Afghanistan. Bush replied, "Until the al Qaeda is brought to justice, we're not leaving."

In one of a flurry of pieces of paper issued after the news conference to document their "joint understandings," the two leaders agreed to place "considerable priority" on accelerating Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization.

They also vowed to redouble efforts to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons, pledging to increase security and controls of biological material in Russia and dismantling infrastructure once used for biological weapons. In addition, Putin and Bush promised to expand commercial ties.

Bush also agreed that he would press Congress to make permanent the perennial presidential waiver of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment that restricts trade with countries that inhibit free emigration. Although the amendment, originally passed as a protest against Soviet prohibitions against Jewish departures to Israel, has not been applied for years, the fact that it remains on the books has long riled Moscow.

During the news conference, both presidents approvingly referred to the informality of their relationship, with Putin describing a tour Bush gave him to look at White House art. In the Oval Office, Bush took time to describe the Texas landscape paintings to Putin, who then asked, "Where are the Texas people?"

Bush replied, "I'm a Texas person."

Aides said Bush, who during the two leaders' first meeting in Slovenia in June said he had looked into Putin's soul and determined he could trust the Russian, yesterday told Putin: "You're the kind of guy I like to have in a foxhole with me."

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

--------

Analysis
A Familiar Bush Strategy on Disarmament

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, November 14, 2001; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24574-2001Nov13.html

Ten years ago this fall, President George Bush broke with military orthodoxy by announcing historic deep unilateral cuts in nuclear arms and was rewarded a week later when the Soviet Union matched him.

Now the son has taken a page from the father's playbook. Abandoning the cumbersome construct of formal negotiations and treaties, President Bush has decided to head down the path to disarmament based on nothing more than a handshake. With Russian President Vladimir Putin promising to reciprocate "in kind," the world will be rid of 8,000 nuclear warheads.

Bush's decision to slash the U.S. strategic arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads over the next 10 years, and the Russian response, reinvigorate a disarmament process that had largely stalled out in the decade since the end of the Cold War. Although no longer locked in a geopolitical death struggle, Washington and Moscow failed throughout the 1990s to transform their new relationship into a strategic balance reflecting the imperatives of the new era. President Bill Clinton left office without enacting a treaty eliminating a single nuclear weapon.

"Bush finally came up with a formula to push us out of the dead end we'd gotten into at the end of the Clinton administration," said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Clinton administration official. "We're breaking what had been an effective sound barrier in the arms control world, which is the 2,000 number. That had always been the holy grail -- if you go below 2,000 [the theory went] you'll lose the strategic triad."

In doing so, Bush muscled past the objections of top Pentagon commanders, just as Putin has brushed aside generals insistent on preserving the arsenal that is the last vestige of real Russian power. But as articulated yesterday, Bush's formula left many questions unanswered.

While Putin previously endorsed cutting Russian forces to 1,500 nuclear warheads, he and his advisers believe such cuts should be subject to a binding agreement in writing, with verification procedures such as those used in past arms control treaties. Bush opposes any such pact on the grounds that it would devolve into "endless hours" of negotiations over the fine print.

In fact, the dispute produced the only moment of discord at yesterday's joint news conference at the White House. When Putin mentioned his preference for treaties, Bush twice tried to interrupt him.

"We for our part, for the Russian part, are prepared to present all our agreements in a treaty form, including the issues of verification and control," Putin said.

Bush insisted that was no longer necessary for two countries that have become partners, especially since the terrorist acts of Sept. 11. But he signaled a willingness to craft a written agreement short of a treaty. "I looked the man in the eye and shook his hand, and if we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'll be glad to do that," he said. "But that's what our government is going to do over the next 10 years."

Although Bush does not want to create a new treaty, the two sides have discussed an agreement in which the verification provisions of the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), such as on-site inspections, would be kept in place to monitor each side's progress. Without such an agreement, several arms control specialists said the "unilateral, reciprocal" cuts would be less credible.

"Whatever happens, they really need to start talking about some new transparency -- it's an absolute must," said Nikolai Sokov, a former Soviet arms control negotiator. "It's very good that the Cold War is over and everyone is friends. But I don't see a foundation for a truly new long-term relationship between Russia and the United States. Afghanistan is not a serious foundation for that."

Other arms control advocates complained that Bush did not go far enough to seize the moment, noting that Clinton had proposed going as low as 2,500 warheads in 1997. The only reason to keep as many as 2,200 warheads, they said, is to wage war against Russia.

"What this represents in my view is a superficial trimming of the old Cold War nuclear targeting list," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "We have to be careful not to overestimate the significance because if we look at the military plan it's still a Cold War plan."

In 1990, as the Cold War was ending, the United States and Russia each maintained about 10,000 strategic nuclear warheads. The START I treaty, signed in 1991, mandated that each side slice that to 6,000, and the deadline for meeting that ceiling is just a few weeks away, Dec. 5.

Russia has already reached that goal, cutting to 5,858 warheads as of July, according to the Arms Control Association. As part of an agreement following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine recently destroyed its final missile silo and Putin announced yesterday that the last nuclear warhead brought to Russia from Ukraine had been destroyed last month. Ill equipped to maintain a superpower arsenal after a decade of economic decline, Russia anxiously wants to cut even deeper to save money.

The United States still had 7,013 warheads in July, but policymakers expect to get to the 6,000 ceiling by next month.

A second treaty, START II, would have cut both arsenals to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads. However, it never completed the ratification process. Clinton and then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed in 1997 to pursue a START III treaty that would go to between 2,000 and 2,500 warheads. But that idea foundered because of Pentagon opposition and a dispute over U.S. missile defense plans.

In proposing a range below that, Bush overrode the objections of Adm. Richard Mies, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, who did not want to go below 2,300 and had the sympathy of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. The White House included a top figure of 2,200 in deference to those concerns but prefers the lower number.

Putin did not give a particular number yesterday but said at the Russian Embassy last night that he was prepared to cut Moscow's arsenal by two thirds, which would put it in the same range Bush cited. In a speech reaching out to the United States on economic, political and military fronts, Putin said the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 had permanently changed the U.S.-Russian relationship.

"Terrorists hoped to intimidate us, to take advantage of our differences, to divide us," he said. "But what they achieved was our consolidation and solidarity -- I would say a solidarity unheard of in modern history."

Bush's approach to the new strategic relationship has its roots in his father's actions a decade ago when the senior Bush announced he would unilaterally withdraw almost all U.S. tactical weapons from Europe and Asia, halt development of two new strategic weapons and take off alert status Minuteman II ballistic missiles scheduled to be dismantled under START I. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev followed with a comparable declaration about withdrawal of tactical weapons from Eastern Europe.

"Things went a hell of a lot faster without [U.S.-Soviet] working groups and negotiations . . . and at the time we agreed we would do it without a treaty," said Robert Gates, who served as deputy national security adviser then.

Not publicized at the time was then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney's role as an active player in the year-long push for the unilateral step. "President Bush kept pushing the Pentagon for more radical ideas, and Cheney pushed the services," Gates said. He "hated long arms control negotiations."

Today, of course, Cheney is vice president.

Staff writers Walter Pincus and Bradley Graham contributed to this report.


-------- MILITARY

President approves trials by military

By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2001
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011114-645152.htm

President Bush yesterday established a framework for the creation of special U.S. military tribunals to try foreigners accused of terrorist attacks and mete out sentences, including the death penalty.

The military order gives Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld the authority to establish the courts, similar to those established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II.

"Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling government interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency," Mr. Bush said in the order.

White House Counsel Al Gonzales said the order gives Mr. Bush an option and a tool besides civilian courts for bringing to justice those directly responsible for attacks like the September 11 assaults on New York and Washington.

"The president would make a separate independent finding that someone was a member of a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and that it was in the interests of the United States that the person be prosecuted," said Mr. Gonzales. "That person would then be delivered to the secretary of defense who would take control of the individual."

But the establishment of the framework for military tribunals does not tie the president's hands.

"There may not be a need for this and the president may make a determination that he does not want to use this tool, but he felt it appropriate that he have this tool available to him," said Mr. Gonzales.

The order specifically names the al Qaeda terrorist group, led by Osama bin Laden, the mastermind in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush said that individuals "subject to this order" include anyone who:

•"Is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaeda."

•"Has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy."

• "Has knowingly harbored one or more [of the above] individuals."

The order gives the secretary of defense broad powers, including the right to seize any suspect "subject to this order" from any state in the nation and commence a military tribunal. The defense secretary also will determine when to establish a military tribunal and will oversee the courts.

The order sets out the punishment those tried by the tribunals face.

"Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death," the order states.

The tribunal will act "as the triers of both fact and law" and both conviction and sentencing require a two-thirds vote of the court's members.

Mr. Bush will stand as the final judge upon conviction, unless he designates the duty to the defense secretary, the order states.

The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the move, saying Mr. Bush should first "justify why the current system does not allow for the timely prosecution of those accused of terrorist activities."

"Absent such a compelling justification, today's order is deeply disturbing and further evidence that the administration is totally unwilling to abide by the checks and balances that are so central to our democracy," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's national office.

"Increasingly they appear willing to circumvent the requirements of the Bill of Rights," she said.

The order also forbids any individual from seeking "remedy" in any other U.S. court or "any court of any foreign nation or any international tribunal."

"These are obviously extraordinary times and the president wants to have as many options available to him as possible," said Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker. "This particular option does not preclude any Department of Justice options that might also be available."

There is precedent for the military tribunals, said Mr. Gonzales, citing the trial of eight German saboteurs during World War II. He said the system also had been used in the 19th century in the Civil War and the Mexican War.

Mr. Bush signed the order before leaving Washington for his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

---

Text of president's military order

November 13, 2001,
UPI
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/13112001-082024-2788r.htm

Text of President Bush's Nov. 13 military order:

MILITARY ORDER DETENTION, TREATMENT, AND TRIAL OF CERTAIN NON-CITIZENS IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Findings.

(a) International terrorists, including members of al Qaida, have carried out attacks on United States diplomatic and military personnel and facilities abroad and on citizens and property within the United States on a scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) In light of grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the national capital region, on the World Trade Center in New York, and on civilian aircraft such as in Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc. 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks).

(c) Individuals acting alone and in concert involved in international terrorism possess both the capability and the intention to undertake further terrorist attacks against the United States that, if not detected and prevented, will cause mass deaths, mass injuries, and massive destruction of property, and may place at risk the continuity of the operations of the United States Government.

(d) The ability of the United States to protect the United States and its citizens, and to help its allies and other cooperating nations protect their nations and their citizens, from such further terrorist attacks depends in significant part upon using the United States Armed Forces to identify terrorists and those who support them, to disrupt their activities, and to eliminate their ability to conduct or support such attacks.

(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.

(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order, I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.

(g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling govern-ment interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency.

Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.

(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or

(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and (2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order.

(b) It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any individual subject to this order is detained in accordance with section 3, and, if the individual is to be tried, that such individual is tried only in accordance with section 4.

(c) It is further the policy of the United States that any individual subject to this order who is not already under the control of the Secretary of Defense but who is under the control of any other officer or agent of the United States or any State shall, upon delivery of a copy of such written determination to such officer or agent, forthwith be placed under the control of the Secretary of Defense.

Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense.

Any individual subject to this order shall be--

(a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States;

(b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria;

(c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment;

(d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements of such detention; and

(e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.

Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of Individuals Subject to this Order.

(a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death.

(b) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, including subsection (f) thereof, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations, including orders for the appointment of one or more military commissions, as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a) of this section.

(c) Orders and regulations issued under subsection (b) of this section shall include, but not be limited to, rules for the conduct of the proceedings of military commissions, including pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, modes of proof, issuance of process, and qualifications of attorneys, which shall at a minimum provide for--

(1) military commissions to sit at any time and any place, consistent with such guidance regarding time and place as the Secretary of Defense may provide;

(2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the triers of both fact and law;

(3) admission of such evidence as would, in the opinion of the presiding officer of the military commission (or instead, if any other member of the commission so requests at the time the presiding officer renders that opinion, the opinion of the commission rendered at that time by a majority of the commission), have probative value to a reasonable person;

(4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of, admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B) the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings;

(5) conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys designated by the Secretary of Defense and conduct of the defense by attorneys for the individual subject to this order;

(6) conviction only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present;

(7) sentencing only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; and

(8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense if so designated by me for that purpose.

Sec. 5. Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of Defense.

Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United States shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to the Secretary of Defense such assistance as he may request to implement this order.

Sec. 6. Additional Authorities of the Secretary of Defense.

(a) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations as may be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this order.

(b) The Secretary of Defense may perform any of his functions or duties, and may exercise any of the powers provided to him under this order (other than under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance with section 113(d) of title 10, United States Code.

Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to--

(1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise authorized to have access to them;

(2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or

(3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this order.

(b) With respect to any individual subject to this order--

(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to offenses by the individual; and

(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or proceeding sought on the individual's behalf, in (i) any court of the United States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii) any international tribunal.

(c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(d) For purposes of this order, the term "State" includes any State, district, territory, or possession of the United States.

(e) I reserve the authority to direct the Secretary of Defense, at any time hereafter, to transfer to a governmental authority control of any individual subject to this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the authority of any such governmental authority to prosecute any individual for whom control is transferred.

Sec. 8. Publication. This order shall be published in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 13, 2001.

-------- afghanistan

Muslim Peacekeepers in Kabul

Christian Science Monitor
November 14, 2001
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1114/p8s1-comv.html

The sudden retreat of the Taliban from Kabul may shorten the war in Afghanistan and could also rule out a large deployment of US troops to that hostile land.

That's the good news. A big unknown is who can govern Afghanistan so it is never again a launching pad for terrorism.

The war has outpaced diplomacy aimed at patching together a post-Taliban government, forcing the US to line up friendly Muslim countries, such as Turkey and Indonesia, to offer troops as "neutral" peacekeepers.

That's a risky move. Much of the tensions in Afghanistan are ethnic, not religious. And the United Nations will need to provide a broad mandate to those forces in being aggressive against Afghan factions fighting one another over blood feuds.

The US has a strong stake in keeping the Al Qaeda terrorist network out of Afghanistan, even if Muslim soldiers soon patrol the streets. Perhaps the commander of the UN-mandated peacekeepers should be an American.

Juggling the interests of Afghan ethnic groups, as well as the interests of neighboring states, still requires the skill and the oomph of a big power like the US, even if it's not perceived as a "Muslim nation." While religion may play a part in US tactics, the goal is to have a world free from terrorism.

------

Power and politics shaping Afghanistan

USA Today
11/14/2001
By Christine A. Saah, USATODAY.com
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanplayers.htm

As events unfold in Afghanistan, the United States and the United Nations seek to create a post-Taliban regime in the landlocked Central Asian country. The United States seeks to create a broad-based coalition government that includes all Afghan ethnic groups, despite the conquest of Kabul by the Northern Alliance. The alliance invited all the country's factions to negotiate a postwar government and has asked the United Nations to help bring stability and peace to the war-ravaged country. This is a quick look at who might be involved in shaping Afghanistan's future.

Northern Alliance

The Northern Alliance is the military wing of Afghanistan's pre-Taliban government, which is still recognized by most countries and by the United Nations. The alliance consists of feuding ethnic groups, including Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara, in a predominantly Pashtun country. After the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the groups fought in a civil war that left the country in ruins. The alliance is believed to have about 12,000 troops, supported by a limited number of Soviet-era tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships.

Groups that make up the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan:

- Jamiat-e-Islami, led by former president Burhanuddin Rabbani and, until his assassination in September, military strategist Ahmed Shah Masood. Most members are ethnic Tajiks.

- Ittehad-e-Islami, led by Abdur Rasool Sayyaf, a close ally of Saudi Arabia. Most members are Pashtuns, like the Taliban.

- Jimbush-e-Milli-Movement, led by former communist Gen. Rashid Dostum. Ethnic Uzbeks.

- Hezb-e-Wahadat, minority Shiite Muslim party led by Karim Khalili. Ethnic Hazaras.

- Harakat-e-Islami, another minority Shiite party, led by Asif Mohsini. Ethnic Hazaras.

Northern Alliance leaders

Ahmed Shah Massood

Ahmed Shah Massood, a longtime commander in the 1979-1989 war against Soviet occupation and a legendary guerrilla leader in the fight against the Taliban, was killed by assassins Sept. 9, two days before the terrorist attacks on the United States. Northern Alliance leaders claim Massood was killed on orders by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. The death of the commander, known as the "Lion of Panjshir," left a major void in the opposition leadership.

Mohammed Fahim

Gen. Mohammed Fahim is the successor of assassinated guerrilla commander Ahmed Shah Massood. Fahim is a Tajik, the major ethnic group in the Northern Alliance. He was a loyal lieutenant of Massood's, but it is not yet clear whether he has the same charisma and battlefield skills.

Rashid Dostum

Gen. Rashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek, commands the Uzbek component of the Northern Alliance, one of the major factions. A commander during the communist regime, he was among the warlords that battled for control of Kabul after the Soviets withdrew from the country. He was driven out by the Taliban four years ago and was in exile in Turkey until recently. He returned to prominence last week when his troops helped capture Mazar-e-Sharif, once headquarters of his northern fiefdom. He recently rejoined the Northern Alliance after a history of bad blood with many other Northern Alliance commanders.

Abdullah Abdullah

Abdullah, the foreign minister of the Rabbani government, has emerged as a key spokesman for the northern alliance. English and French are among several languages he speaks. He was close to Ahmed Shah Massood, the revered military commander who was killed shortly before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

Karim Khalili

Karim Khalili heads a Northern Alliance force primarily made up of ethnic Hazaras. He is a Shiite Muslim and carries the torch for this minority in predominantly Sunni Afghanistan. His forces are believed to have support from Iran.

Deposed Afghan leaders in exile

Afghan leaders who were ousted by the Taliban and maintain some support while in exile:

Burhanuddin Rabbani

A former professor of Islamic theology and an ethnic Tajik, Burhanuddin Rabbani returned to the Afghan capital of Kabul from exile in Pakistan after the communists fell. He became president of the Northern Alliance government in 1992. When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, Rabbani fled the country once again, and he now leads the government in exile. The United States and other Western powers still recognize Rabbani as Afghanistan's legitimate leader, and his deposed government holds Afghanistan's seat at the United Nations. But he has little hold on the hearts of Afghans, who accuse him of atrocities while in power.

Mohammed Zahir Shah

Mohammed Zahir Shah was the last monarch of the ethnic Pashtun dynasty, which lasted 200 years. Today he is in his 87 years old and is living in exile in Rome. Zahir Shah has said he is "ready willing and able" to return to Afghanistan and lead an interim government. He was crowned in 1933 after his father, Mohammed Nadir Shah, was assassinated. He was toppled by his cousin, Mohammed Baud, in 1973 while he was on a trip to Italy. Shah has said he has no desire for the throne but hopes to serve as a neutral, ''grandfatherly,'' figure uniting the Afghan people. His plan for post-Taliban Afghanistan calls for convening a traditional Afghan grand council to choose a new government.

Hamid Karzai

Influential anti-Taliban Pashtun tribal leader entered Afghanistan last month to try to rally Pashtun people behind King Mohammed Zahir Shah or loya jirga, which is a coalition of respected tribal chiefs. Karzai is head of the large Popalzai clan, which has been linked to the Afghan royal dynasty that existed from the mid-18th century until Zaher Shah was deposed in 1973. The United States says it plucked him out of the country a few weeks ago because the Taliban was trailing him. He is well-educated and speaks English fluently.

The Taliban

The Taliban is a group of Islamic fundamentalists, mainly from Afghanistan's Pashtun ethnic group, that formed in the early 1990's after the Soviet withdrawal from the country. The Taliban gained power over most of Afghanistan by 1997 and imposed a hard-line form of Islam on the country that forbids educating women and carries out public executions and amputations. The Taliban offered shelter to Saudi-exile Osama bin Laden, who the United States says is the prime suspect for masterminding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Key Taliban players

Mullah Mohammed Omar

The supreme leader of the Taliban who seized power five years ago and once ruled roughly 95% of Afghanistan, Mullah Mohammed Omar has set himself the goal of transforming the country into the purest Islamic state in the world. The Commander of the Faithful, as he has come to be known, created the Taliban in the early 1990s to overcome what he saw as Afghanistan's descent into warlordism and lawlessness. The elusive cleric is rarely photographed. He is in his early 40s and missing one eye, lost in a gunfight with Soviet troops during the occupation of Afghanistan. Omar recently married one of the daughters of Osama bin Laden.

Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil

The Taliban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil has been the public face of the group while its supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, refuses to be photographed.

Abdul Salam Zaeef

Abdul Salam Zaeef is the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, a key position because Pakistan is the only country that recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate government. Zaeef has held news conferences in Pakistan, calling for negotiations with the United States over its demand for the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden. He also has said that the Taliban needs proof of bin Laden's involvement in terrorism.

------

War takes positive shift; future hinges on diplomacy

USA Today
11/13/2001
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2001-11-14-edtwof2.htm

How quickly circumstances change.

Just a week ago, the news from Afghanistan was that Northern Alliance fighters were pinned down on their front lines, unable to advance. Their commanders were grumbling about the limited nature of U.S. airstrikes. Indications were that the war effort was bogging down.

Today, the same fighters are walking the streets of the Afghan capital, Kabul, along with U.S. Special Forces. They've seized key cities across the northern part of the country, and Taliban troops - described days ago as tough and battle hardened - are in full retreat.

Given the challenges that still remain, the Pentagon was appropriately cautious Tuesday in analyzing the turnaround. But by any measure, the routing of the Taliban is a major victory that will make the rest of the campaign easier.

U.S. forces soon will be able to operate effectively throughout the north. This will make the pursuit of Osama bin Laden swifter and more effective. It also will ease the delivery of relief supplies to starving Afghans, most of whom are in the north - a critical step in the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world.

But success now pivots as much on restraining our newly emboldened Afghan allies as on extending military success. If Northern Alliance fighters occupying Kabul commit atrocities against the country's dominant Pashtuns, who share ethnicity with the Taliban, the resistance in southern Afghanistan will stiffen. That would invite a lengthy, bloody guerrilla campaign.

On the other hand, if the Kabul occupiers resist revenge killing and remain open to a multiethnic coalition government there, Taliban commanders will be more likely to roll with the winners, as happened in several cities in northern Afghanistan.

As of Tuesday, it appeared the outcome could turn in either direction. The United Nations reported that 100 Taliban fighters were executed in Mazar-e Sharif, but the alliance denied the report. The U.S. envoy to the alliance, James Dobbins, quickly scheduled a visit to Islamabad to work on a future, multiethnic Afghan government, and President Bush urged restraint. At the United Nations, where negotiators have made little progress so far, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appears to understand the need to act immediately.

The next 48 hours should say a lot about whether the important military victories in northern Afghanistan will translate into a successful campaign in the south, and ultimately the destruction of the al-Qa'eda terrorist network. Chances certainly look far better than they did a week ago. The need now is for speedy diplomacy to prove as effective as a squadron of B-52s.

---

Opposition takes over key posts as Taliban retreats

USA Today
11/14/2001
http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2001/11/14/attack.htm

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The northern alliance moved Wednesday to consolidate its grip on Kabul, taking over key posts and ministries despite a pledge to support a broad-based government. Forced to retreat south, the Taliban were reportedly struggling to prevent their movement from disintegrating. Pashtun tribal leaders in key areas of the south were reportedly in open revolt against the fundamentalist Islamic militia. In the capital, radio broadcasts resumed and television was promised soon. Northern alliance officials returned to government offices they abandoned in 1996 when the Taliban drove them from power.

Officials portrayed the takeover of key ministries, such as defense and interior, as temporary and said they support a U.N.-supervised political settlement in which all ethnic groups would be represented.

In the south and east of the country, the situation appeared chaotic as local tribal leaders appeared to challenge the Taliban in the ethnic Pashtun heartlands.

Afghan sources in Pakistan, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the airport in the Taliban's southern stronghold of Kandahar was held by about 200 fighters loyal to Arif Khan, a member of a southern Pashtun tribe.

A Taliban official along the Pakistani border at Chaman, Mullah Najibullah, said Taliban fighters were firing on the airport Wednesday from hilltop positions.

The Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press reported that tribal elders took control Wednesday of the town of Gardez, in Paktia province about 60 miles south of Kabul.