------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
War Without End
Chemicals found near Acton wells
Strong Quake Strikes Northern Japan
2nd missile test postponed, had sought data, confidence
Missile Defense Test's Value Questioned
Bid to Bury Nuclear Waste in Nevada Faces 2 Hurdles
For the Record

MILITARY
Allies want SAS to lead assault
U.S. Planes Pound Taliban Positions Around Kandahar
Rumsfeld opposed to any U.S. role in nation building
Help Wanted
Secret US plan for Iraq war
Robertson says NATO must expand further
NATO Allies to Take Look at Russia
Allies in War, Not in Perspective
Bull's-Eye War: Pinpoint Bombing Shifts Role of GI Joe
Tribunal Comparison Taints Courts-Martial, Military Lawyers Say

POLICE / PRISONERS
Broader powers for anti-terrorism agents weighed
Americans OK on liberties curb
FBI agents rebel over new powers
Ashcroft and Leahy Battle Over Expanding Police Powers

ACTIVISTS
Neo-Nazis protest Berlin war exhibit



-------- NUCLEAR


-------- depleted uranium

War Without End

by A.C. THOMPSON
December 2, 2001,
The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=thompson20011202

In early November, as American B-52s pummeled Taliban positions, a team of United Nations scientists surveyed the wreckage of the world's last major bombing campaign, the 1999 siege of Kosovo. Since the seventy-eight-day NATO bombardment, researchers with the UN Environment Program have scoured the fractured Balkan landscape, checking shell fragments for radioactivity, sampling well water and testing the soil of bomb-pocked corn fields.

The results of these studies are grim. The battle created severe "environmental hotspots" that pose "acute health risks" to the residents of four major cities, reports UN team leader Pasi Rinne. In the eyes of Rinne and his fellow researchers, a "new type of complex humanitarian emergency" is unfolding in post-war Kosovo. A key concern for the UN is the use of depleted uranium (DU) shells, 30,000 of which were fired during the battle for Kosovo. The UN fears that DU rounds, which unleash clouds of toxic, mildly radioactive uranium particles--and have been dubbed "the Agent Orange of this era" by greens--may be contaminating drinking water in the region.

Just as the ecological damage done to Kosovo has been largely ignored by the American media, few have considered the long-term environmental consequences of the conflict in Afghanistan. Military analysts expect the Pentagon to employ DU in the Afghan theater, but in lesser amounts than in previous wars. "You won't see that much depleted uranium used because there just aren't the targets," says Philip Coyle, a senior adviser at Washington, DC's Center for Defense Information.

But that doesn't mean this war is an eco-friendly affair.

Just ask Charles Cutshaw, a former Army intelligence officer and Vietnam vet. "A lot of the chemicals in these weapons are toxic," explains Cutshaw, who now works as a consultant for Jane's Defence Weekly. "I've seen battlefields and they are very dirty places." Even purely conventional munitions, good-old fashioned bombs and missiles, are packed with toxins that will be cast to the wind on detonation. The metal components include heavy metals like lead, a neurotoxin, and cadmium, which causes lung disease and organ damage. Then you have the explosive charges, compounds like cyclonite, a probable carcinogen used in a wide range of ordnance. And don't forget perchlorates, a family of thyroid-damaging chemicals used in rocket propellant.

The most significant threat, however, is probably posed by the targets hit by these weapons. In Yugoslavia, NATO bombs obliterated dozens of industrial facilities--oil refineries, electrical transformers, chemical plants, a car factory--located along the Danube river and its tributaries. The strikes sent up plumes of noxious smoke and spilled hundreds of tons of hazardous chemicals into waterways. Here, culled from a 1999 report by Pristina's Regional Environmental Center, is a brief index of the poisons dumped into the Danube: several hundred tons of oil, 1,000 tons of ammonia, 330 tons of caustic hydrochloric acid and 1,400 tons of ethylene-dichloride, a chemical that causes cancer in lab rats. Unsurprisingly, the result of all this was catastrophic. Dead fish were strewn along the banks of the river for miles. Scientists think the water contamination reaches all the way to the Black Sea.

The city of Pancevo, ten miles outside Belgrade, suffered a Bhopal-type disaster when NATO planes incinerated a major petrochemical complex. The complex, which included a fertilizer factory, an oil refinery and a chemical plant, burned for five days, as 80,000 tons of oil and 460 tons of dioxin-laden liquid plastic went up in smoke. Rain the color of coal fell on the town of 80,000 people. The air was filled with an array of lethal chemicals, one of which, a liver poison, clocked in at 10,000 times above safe levels. The horror continues. According to a grisly dispatch from Pancevo that ran in the British Guardian this May, eating root vegetables is now banned because of soil contamination, dogs are coming down with a rare bone cancer, young people are reporting heart problems and about 100 of the emergency workers who rushed to the fire are ailing from permanent, disabling lung damage.

Wracked by twenty years of conflict, Afghanistan doesn't have the modern infrastructure of pre-war Yugoslavia--but the United States is going after the the country's remaining industrial targets. In early November the BBC reported that American bombs knocked out one of Afghanistan's biggest power plants, and in press briefings the Pentagon has said it is aiming for Taliban oil reserves and fuel depots.

"The cleanup problems will be extreme," says Saul Bloom, executive director of Arc Ecology, a San Francisco-based group focused on the military-environment nexus. "Afghanistan as a country has no capacity to deal with the environmental impacts of this campaign, and as a result, people who aren't yet born will be paying the price. This war will create second- and third-generation victims."

--------

Chemicals found near Acton wells
EPA will begin sampling ground water [for d.u.] on Starmet property

By Davis Bushnell,
Boston Globe Correspondent,
12/2/2001
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/336/northwest/Chemicals_found_near_Acton_wells+.shtml

ACTON - A recent disclosure that a plume of vinylidene chloride and other chemicals has been discovered near town wells on W.R. Grace & Co.'s 200-acre Superfund site here is reigniting concerns among some residents.

While local health officials say the chemicals are no threat to the wells, members of Acton activist groups like Mary Michelman assert that there can be no letup in the scrutiny of the site, which went on the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List in 1983.

The chemical company received notoriety for its property near two contaminated wells, referred to as G and H, in Woburn. That property also went on the Superfund list in 1983.

The Woburn case, in which four other companies were also found to be culpable, spawned the movie, ''A Civil Action.''

James Murphy, an EPA spokesman in Boston, said ground-water cleanup efforts are continuing at the Woburn site.

Grace used vinylidene chloride, or VDC, to manufacture a plastic product at its South Acton plant, the company said. High concentrations of this toxic chemical now cover a large portion of the site. In 1978, chemicals from Grace's battery-separator plant seeped into two town wells, which were subsequently closed.

''Our wells are now protected because they're treated,'' said Douglas Halley, Acton's public health director.

''But there's still a need to be diligent and to make sure that ground-water remediation is done,'' said Michelman, coordinator of the Acton Stream Team group.

''And the Assabet River could possibly take a double hit [from chemicals] with Starmet [Corp.] being on the other side,'' she said.

The Grace property and the Starmet site, which was placed on the Superfund list nearly six months ago, are located near each other, off Route 62.

The EPA is awaiting evaluations of materials taken from a holding basin and underground drums on the Starmet property, said Melissa Taylor, an agency project manager.

In the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, Starmet's predecessor, Nuclear Metals Inc., produced $45 million worth of uranium-tipped bullets each year for the Army. Starmet is still battling the Army over total cleanup costs, which have yet to be determined.

Consultants for Grace, whose site cleanup costs are estimated to be between $3 million and $5 million, identified the chemical plume, which was the subject of a recent meeting in Acton on the company's cleanup efforts.

It could take two years or more to determine ''whether other ground-water remedial measures are needed,'' said EPA spokesman James Murphy.

Grace, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, will submit a report to the EPA next June ''on all field work done in 2000 and 2001,'' said Maryellen Johns, a spokeswoman in the company's Cambridge office.

A recommendation to the agency on further measures to rid ground water of contaminants will be submitted in early 2004, she said.

Meanwhile, the EPA will begin sampling ground water on the Starmet property ''in the next month,'' project manager Taylor said, adding that remedial investigative work is expected to begin next spring.

Notice has been served on the Army, she said, that ''they are among the parties responsible for conducting'' that work.

Starmet, which also is a responsible party, is still trying to get more money from the Army for cleanup costs, president Robert Quinn said. ''But the Army is not communicating with us.''

In June, the Army rejected a $50 million claim from Starmet for cleanup costs, saying that it had provided all it was going to, $6.6 million.

Stephanie Roeder, president of a Concord grass-roots group Citizens' Research and Environmental Watch, said she and other members are relying on the EPA to get the job done. ''It's good to have them on board.''

-------- japan

Strong Quake Strikes Northern Japan

The Associated Press
Sunday, December 2, 2001; 9:58 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45261-2001Dec2?language=printer

TOKYO -- A strong earthquake with a magnitude of 6.3 struck the northern tip of Japan's main island of Honshu on Sunday, but there were no reports of injuries or damage in the sparsely populated region near the epicenter, authorities said.

Bullet train traffic in northern Honshu was suspended due to the tremor, according to national broadcaster NHK. But local power companies reported that nuclear reactors in the region were functioning normally after the quake, according to Kyodo News agency....

-------- missile defense

2nd missile test postponed, had sought data, confidence

ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 2, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011202-28664057.htm
See also http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44058-2001Dec1.html

Military officials postponed a planned missile defense test yesterday because of bad weather over Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, where a dummy warhead was set to be launched over the Pacific to be hit by an interceptor rocket.

Officials plan to try again tonight, the Pentagon said in a statement. The weather could have made the test unsafe, the statement said.

The test is part of the Bush administration's plan to develop a system that can shoot down an enemy's intercontinental missiles before they reach U.S. soil.

On Friday, the head of the U.S. missile defense program said the test would be considered a success even if the interceptor and dummy warhead failed to smash into each other 144 miles above the South Pacific.

"This is not a pass-fail test," said Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. "Success would be if we learned a lot and gained confidence for the next step."

Supporters say America needs a missile defense system to protect against long-range missiles fired by "rogue states."

Critics say that risk is very low because such missiles are expensive and easily can be traced back to their source.

Russia also opposes the U.S. missile defense drive, saying the effort will violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

That pact bans such missile defense systems to keep one nation from developing a missile shield that enables it to safely attack its enemies.

Missile defense proponents say the treaty is a Cold War relic which should be discarded. President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to agree on scrapping or changing the ABM treaty during their recent summit.

The latest test would not violate the ABM treaty, Gen. Kadish said. Three planned parts of the test, such as using ship-based Aegis radar to track the dummy warhead, were dropped because of concerns about violating the pact.

The test planned for yesterday was nearly identical to one performed in July, in which the interceptor destroyed a dummy warhead.

Critics, however, say the current tests are rigged - so tightly controlled that they do not prove the anti-missile system would work during a real attack.

"This test is meaningless," said retired Navy Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll. "It doesn't prove anything. If it succeeds it proves only that a Hollywood script, carefully drawn, will create a compelling scene."

Gen. Kadish said such criticism misses the point of the tests, which are designed to evaluate various key parts of the system so they can be perfected before final, realistic tests are done.

----

Missile Defense Test's Value Questioned
Stormy Calif. Weather Delays Fifth Trial

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 2, 2001; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44058-2001Dec1?language=printer

Cloud cover, lightning and high winds over California forced the postponement last night of a fifth test of a prototype national missile defense system amid fresh argument over the value of the tightly scripted experiment in determining the weapon's feasibility.

A Pentagon official said a range safety rule requiring continued visual tracking of a missile in flight, as well as concern about static interference arising from the stormy weather, prevented the launch of a target missile. The test was rescheduled for tonight, but with more poor weather expected, the official said that a further delay was likely.

The test is due to follow the same scenario used in the past four trials. The target missile will be launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base northwest of Los Angeles and will arc across the Pacific, releasing both a mock warhead and a single balloon decoy. Twenty minutes later, an interceptor missile is supposed to blast off from Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific about 4,500 miles away. Once in space, a "kill vehicle" -- a 120-pound, 5-foot-tall device resembling a telescope with a jet pack -- is to separate from its booster and home in on the imitation 5 1/2-foot-tall warhead.

If all goes according to plan, the kill vehicle will ram into the warhead about 140 miles over the Pacific, demonstrating a concept that defense officials have dubbed "hit to kill."

With a record of two hits and two misses in four previous intercept attempts, the Pentagon is avoiding any major changes in the target, interceptor or test course that might add risk this time. A new critique by the Union of Concerned Scientists released on Friday called attention to the lack of operational realism in the test, citing a continued heavy reliance on surrogates and artificial elements. But Pentagon officials defended the simplified measures as part of a step-by-step approach that is normal in the early development of a complex weapons system.

Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), told reporters on Friday that a hit would give him confidence enough to move on to more complicated and realistic test scenarios, including the use of more and different decoys. A miss, depending on the cause, could stir renewed questions about the Bush administration's ambitious development plan, which many Democratic lawmakers, scientists and arms control advocates regard as unworkable, unaffordable and unnecessary.

The land-based interceptor system is only one of several technological approaches that the Bush administration is pursuing in a broadened program of experimentation. Others involve sea-based interceptors, airborne lasers and space-based weapons. But the land-based interceptor design has received the most funding and attention, having been accelerated by the Clinton administration in 1999.

In its 28-page critique, the Union of Concerned Scientists said artificial test conditions such as the use of a single decoy mean that the results will reveal little about the proposed system's ability to operate under real combat conditions.

The report noted that the booster used to launch the kill vehicle travels at only a third of the speed intended for the actual weapon, whose new and faster booster is more than a year behind schedule.

Additionally, it said that each of the mock warheads used in the tests has carried a transponder and that the transponder data have been designed to provide the initial guidance to the interceptor for when to launch and where to fly. Pentagon officials have said that the transponder is necessary to compensate for the lack of a high-precision X-band radar in the proper location in the testing range. And they have said that data from the transponder have not factored in the final homing of the kill vehicle. But the report of the scientists' group said the transponder has served to get the kill vehicle to a location in space that has minimized the amount of maneuvering it has had to do.

The report also observed that all the tests -- including the planned fifth one -- essentially have been the same, with no change in the trajectories of the missiles, the target complex, the time of day of the launches and the intended intercept point.

"We find that the current test program is still in its infancy, and that the United States remains years away from having enough information to make an informed decision on the deployment of even a limited nationwide missile defense system," the report concluded. "Hit-to-kill has been demonstrated, but not under conditions that are operationally relevant."

Kadish himself emphasized several times on Friday that the purpose of these initial tests was not to prove the system's ability to operate under real-life conditions but to identify weaknesses and acquire confidence in the approach. "We are testing to learn; we are not testing as pass-fail for some operational reason," he said. "There seems to be confusion on this every time I discuss these types of tests."

Kadish said that artificialities are inherent in much developmental testing but that the plan is to eliminate them in the missile defense program over time. To this end, the administration has proposed such changes as launching interceptors from Alaska and using ship-based tracking radars.

But some of these moves, as well as plans to test other kinds of antimissile technologies, threaten to bring the United States into conflict with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bans some kinds of experimentation as well as the deployment of a nationwide missile defense. President Bush has declared his desire to set the treaty aside, but he and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is intent on preserving the treaty in some form, were unable to work out their differences during meetings last month.

To avoid a confrontation over the treaty, the administration decided to forgo the use of a ship-based Aegis radar and a land-based radar planned for the latest test.

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

-------- nevada

Bid to Bury Nuclear Waste in Nevada Faces 2 Hurdles

New York Times
December 2, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/02/national/02NUKE.html

LAS VEGAS, Dec. 1 - A plan to bury tons of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has suffered two setbacks: a law firm hired in 1999 to advise the Energy Department quit, and Congressional investigators said a decision on the plan should be postponed indefinitely.

The law firm, Winston & Strawn, based in Chicago, came under fire in recent months after the disclosure that lawyers working on the federal contract also worked for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is lobbying the government to approve the Yucca Mountain project.

Opponents of the proposed nuclear waste repository, including Nevada's two senators, Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, called the relationship a conflict of interest.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has accepted the firm's withdrawal, said Joe Davis, a spokesman for the Energy Department.

Winston & Strawn issued a statement on Friday denying a "legal conflict of interest," but said it withdrew to protect the Energy Department from "extraneous arguments and public debate."

Also on Friday, the General Accounting Office recommended that the Bush administration indefinitely postpone a decision on the Yucca Mountain project, in which the nuclear industry is seeking to bury 78,000 tons of used reactor fuel.

The office, which is the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, said at least 293 technical issues should be resolved before the Energy Department decided on the waste dump.

"Making a site recommendation at this time is premature," the report concluded.

Mr. Abraham said the report was "fatally flawed" and "assembled to support a predetermined conclusion." The review had been requested by Senator Reid.

After almost two decades of study, Mr. Abraham is on the verge of making a recommendation to President Bush on whether Yucca Mountain, a volcanic ridge about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is a suitable site to entomb the nation's radioactive waste.

The nuclear power industry is eager to find a permanent disposal site for the waste and is pushing the government to open Yucca Mountain. Under a 1982 law, the department was supposed to begin accepting nuclear waste from the utilities in 1998. But the project is already 12 years behind schedule and faces more technical and legal challenges.

Mr. Davis, the Energy Department spokesman, said there was no connection between Winston & Strawn's quitting and the recommendation by the General Accounting Office.

It was unclear whether the firm's withdrawal could delay the Energy Department's effort to obtain a license for the repository from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In explaining the withdrawal, James Thompson, Winston & Strawn's chairman and a former Illinois governor, said, "We thought the controversy has been a burden and a distraction to the client."

Mr. Thompson estimated that his firm had received "a little more than $1 million" of the $16.5 million Energy Department contract.

Senator Ensign said that Friday was an important day for opponents of the Yucca Mountain project.

"Between Winston & Strawn and the G.A.O. report, we have been given more ammunition than we've ever had before to be able to realistically kill Yucca Mountain," he said in Las Vegas. "The odds just improved dramatically in our favor."

-------- us politics

For the Record

Sunday, December 2, 2001; Page LZ09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42410-2001Nov30?language=printer

Here's how some major bills fared recently in Congress and how local congressional members voted, as provided by Thomas's Roll Call Report Syndicate. NV means Not Voting.

DEFENSE BUDGET

For: 406 / Against: 20

The House passed a bill (HR 3338) appropriating $317.5 billion for the Department of Defense in fiscal 2002, an increase of more than 6 percent over the comparable 2001 figure. The bill funds a 4.6 percent military pay raise. It provides $7.9 billion for advancing the National Missile Defense; $827.4 billion for deploying troops against drug traffickers; $936.8 billion for procuring 11 more of the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey aircraft; $3.1 billion for 48 additional F-18E/F fighters, and $1.6 billion for adding a Virginia class attack submarine to the U.S. fleet.

The bill also appropriates $20 billion in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, including $7.3 billion for the Department of Defense; $4.9 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) spending, mainly in New York City; $2 billion for combating bioterrorism; $1.5 billion for dislocated workers; $1 billion for airport screening; $539 million for the FBI; and $410 million for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

A yes vote was to pass the bill. [All MD and VA Reps voted YES]

...

HOMELAND SECURITY

For: 216 / Against: 211

On a procedural vote the House blocked a Democratic bid to add $6.6 billion for homeland security to $20 billion already included in HR 3338 (above) for fighting terrorism. The procedural vote was decisive because GOP leaders had denied Democrats a direct vote on the substance of the issue.

In part, Democrats sought to add $322 million to help health departments and hospitals deal with bioterrorism threats such as anthrax or smallpox; $500 million for systems to sanitize mail; $200 million for airport safety; $250 million for strengthening cockpit doors; and $191 million for securing nuclear material in the former Soviet Union.

A yes vote was to advance the bill without the Democrats' requested funding. [All MD and VA Democrats voted NO, all Republicans voted YES.]


-------- MILITARY

Allies want SAS to lead assault

By Sean Rayment
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
December 2, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20011202-19136666.htm

LONDON - Allied commanders want Britain's Special Air Service to provide one of the lead assault teams for the attack on the Tora Bora, the mountain cave complex where Osama bin Laden is expected to make his final stand.

Gen. Tommy Franks, the operational commander of U.S. forces involved in the Afghan campaign, made the decision after a series of spectacularly successful operations conducted by British special forces in the past two weeks.

Military planners at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., working alongside a British contingent of senior officers led by Air Vice Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, from the Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood, Middlesex, have planned assaults on Kandahar and Tora Bora, probably within the week.

U.S. military chiefs were hoping to bring together the Pushtun tribes controlling areas of southern Afghanistan to form a force capable of assaulting Kandahar, but so far that has failed to materialize. U.S. Marines now occupy several airstrips in southern Afghanistan from where special forces are conducting operations against the remaining Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds.

But before any attacks are undertaken, thousands more troops will need to arrive in the region, probably from either the 101st "Screaming Eagles" or 82nd Airborne divisions, both on standby to enter Afghanistan.

The decision to give the SAS a key role in the assault on Tora Bora came at the end of last week when an SAS squadron, up to 70 men, launched a "deliberate attack" on an al Qaeda complex in southern Afghanistan.

Although four soldiers were wounded, one seriously, the operation resulted in the capture of prisoners, the gaining of intelligence and the deaths of at least 20 al Qaeda terrorists.

According to London's Mailnewspaper today, the British special forces missed capturing or killing bin Laden by two hours.

"We were within a whisker of getting him. It was a hard battle and will have put the fear of God into his people," said a source close to the regiment, quoted by the paper.

The assault on Tora Bora will also include elements of the Australian and New Zealand SAS teams. It will be supported by U.S. troops, attack helicopters and fighter aircraft.

It is understood that at least one SAS squadron, with possible support from the Special Boat Service and Royal Marines based at Bagram airport, will be involved in the operation to "clear" tunnels of al Qaeda fighters, as other forces close in on bin Laden. Other British special forces will call in air support and provide laser target guidance.

MI6 and CIA officers have been interrogating hundreds of Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, and the intelligence collected points towards bin Laden's hiding in Tora Bora, in the White Mountains 35 miles southwest of Jalalabad.

Recent reports have stated that bin Laden has built a fortress 1,150 feet beneath the mountains, equipped with water, electricity and ventilation and guarded by hundreds or thousands of fighters ready to die for their leader.

Meanwhile, Britain has been asked by the United States to help prepare military strikes against Somalia in the next phase of the global campaign against terrorism.

Mr. Bush indicated last week that Somalia, Yemen and Sudan were likely to be the next targets in the war on terrorism because of their links to al Qaeda.

A team of senior British military officers who visited the U.S. Central Command last week was asked to prepare the strategy for attacks on sites in Somalia.

The request was made as it emerged that Saddam Hussein is funding a number of terrorist training camps in Somalia used by a militant Islamic group with close ties to al Qaeda. Bin Laden's network is known to have several training camps in southern Somalia and it has been reported that he might seek sanctuary in Somalia if forced to flee Afghanistan. Pentagon officials have confirmed that U.S. naval ships have been stationed just off the Somali coast to prevent bin Laden from trying to enter by sea.

-------- afghanistan

U.S. Planes Pound Taliban Positions Around Kandahar

By ELIZABETH BECKER with STEVEN ERLANGER
December 2, 2001
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/02/international/02MILI.html

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - With relentless bombing and the checkmate positioning of their military forces around Kandahar, the United States military and sympathetic Afghan forces continued today to send the Taliban's beseiged defenders the message that surrender is the only way out of an otherwise hopeless plight.

American B-52's and other warplanes continued to bomb the city's outskirts, including its airport, in some of the most concentrated attacks of the war, according to Afghan witnesses quoted by news agencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A senior Pentagon official, describing how the Taliban forces have been pinned down, said today: "There was no sign of movement whatsoever. Afghan opposition groups control the major roadways to the north and the south. The U.S. marines have the ability to interdict all Taliban lines of communication out of Kandahar - roads, trails, whatever."

Marines who have established a forward operating base in the area finished building their defensive perimeter and were reinforcing it. As the number of troops on the ground there increased somewhat, they continued sending out armored patrols into the surrounding countryside today, as their Cobra attack helicopters flew sorties overhead.

A New York Times reporter accompanying the Marines said that they reported no engagements with enemy forces during the day, but that not all the patrols had returned to the base by early evening.

To the northeast, in an area where Osama bin Laden is suspected of hiding, American bombers struck three villages, killing or injuring scores of civilians, witnesses and local officials said. [Page B5.]

In Bonn, negotiations on a new, post-Taliban government for Afghanistan proceeded fitfully, with the Northern Alliance, the largest of the four factions, making a proposal that could break Friday's impasse.

On Friday, the Northern Alliance, which holds effective power in Kabul, had not gotten authorization to submit its list of candidates for a large governing council, blocking completion of the formal talks, sponsored by the United Nations.

But the Northern Alliance delegation in Bonn wanted to move ahead, despite opposition from its titular leader, Burhanuddin Rabbani, in Kabul, and on Friday night entered informal talks with the other factions about a temporary cabinet. Mr. Rabbani, who was ousted from Kabul by the Taliban in 1996, remains Afghanistan's recognized head of state by the United Nations.

Today, the Alliance, with Mr. Rabbani's concurrence, proposed that the four factions in Bonn negotiate only to name a temporary executive, a kind of cabinet of some 20 to 25 people, to administer the country until the spring.

An emergency constitutent assembly, called a loya jirga, would then be called to name a provisional executive and legislature that could serve for another two years until a constitution is written.

This idea emerged when the United Nations special envoy to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, who is heading these talks, telephoned Mr. Rabbani Friday night to appeal for flexibility and an end to the impasse. Mr. Rabbani also appeared to be facing a revolt from inside the Alliance from younger members, including Yunus Qanooni, the interior minister who heads the delegation in Bonn.

Anticipating a diplomatic breakthrough, American special forces units completed a two-day inspection of the American Embassy in Kabul today, according to a senior defense official.

The special forces reported that the building had been seriously vandalized but there were no mines or booby traps, he said. The Pentagon has informed the State Department that with two weeks of clean-up work, the building could be ready for the first American diplomatic mission to return to Kabul.

"Our fear was that the embassy had been destroyed or was badly booby trapped," said the official.

The special forces returned to their base elsewhere in Afghanistan after the inspection of the embassy.

Abdullah Abdullah, the Northern Alliance's designated foreign minister, told journalists at the conference that the Northern Alliance would negotiate in good faith and abide by the results, contradicting Mr. Rabbani's statements on Friday.

The Alliance proposal offered today would mean that plans to name a larger temporary Supreme National Council in Bonn, a kind of legislature, to work in parallel with the executive, would be dropped.

The proposal would also avoid naming the former king, Mohammad Zahir Shah, 87, as even a symbolic head of state, as the other factions want and which Mr. Rabbani opposes. The proposal could work as a compromise, but by sidelining the idea of a leading and unifying role for the king, it may not fly with the other factions. In Kabul today, Mr. Rabbani said that the former king could be a member of the executive - a hands-on role Mr. Zahir Shah is unlikely to want.

"I spoke with Lakhdar Brahimi and I proposed that a very big council is not necessary," Mr. Rabbani told journalists in Kabul. "It would take a lot of time, so because of this it would be better to have a four-month leadership council."

Mr. Rabbani also suggested that the cabinet "must be shaped up from specialists and technocrats," he said. Since his proposal would also keep rival politicians from taking important roles in government, in a capital the Northern Alliance already controls, the other factions are likely to view the idea of a purely technical cabinet with skepticism.

Mr. Rabbani, who was Afghanistan's president until 1996, is considered a figure of the past, and Washington and other Afghan factions would like to see him replaced. While he says he will step down in favor of a new administration, Mr. Rabbani has been dragging his feet from the start, diplomats say, to try to hold on to power.

With what appears to be the final siege of Kandahar those questions of power-sharing have become especially urgent.

As the relief crisis continues - food and aid operations are bogged down because of poor security on roads throughout Afghanistan - American forces conducted an engineering assessment of the Friendship Bridge linking Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. That bridge is the key to setting up an efficient supply route to transoirt urgently needed food and medical supplies to the estimated three million Afghanis in the north who could face starvation this winter.

The Pentagon hopes that the structural assessment will be done by midweek. But the major obstacle to opening the bridge remains concerns about the lax security on the Afghan side.

----

Rumsfeld opposed to any U.S. role in nation building

December 2, 2001
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011202-52669380.htm

The United States would prefer that the Afghans themselves form a stable government in the post-Taliban era without the aid of international peacekeepers, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday, emphasizing that nation-building has a spotty record.

Mr. Rumsfeld made his comments during an interview on CNN's "Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields." He was asked whether the United States would have to "lead a major nation-building effort" in Afghanistan and also participate in a peacekeeping mission in that country, once the war is over and the Taliban regime is ousted.

"With respect to a peacekeeping force, people on the ground are the ones that you would want to provide the peacekeeping first, if they are able to do it," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

"That is to say if the Northern Alliance or the tribes of the south are able to create a secure environment that is sufficient so that the humanitarian aid can come in and the aid workers can get there, and they can provide the kinds of assistance to the terribly suffering Afghan people," they should do it, he said.

He added: "We need to provide that stability. But the best way to do it is to let the forces on the ground do it."

Talks on Afghanistan's political future in Bonn moved into a decisive phase yesterday, after the Northern Alliance said it was prepared to transfer power to an interim council backed by the United Nations and to allow an international security force.

Some members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have charged that the United States helped allow the ruthless Taliban government to come to power by failing to stick around after the Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan in 1989 after its failed decadelong occupation of the country.

The United States provided covert military and intelligence aid for Afghan rebels against the Soviet invaders but did nothing to assist in the creation of a replacement government after the war.

To prevent a repetition of that, the Bush administration - through the State Department - has been involved in advisory efforts aimed at establishing a stable interim Afghan government to succeed the Taliban: one that does not threaten U.S. security. In fact, the United States helped set up the U.N.-led talks now under way in Germany. It actively pressured the reluctant Northern Alliance to participate.

Throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, Mr. Bush adamantly opposed the United States' being involved in nation-building.

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going to prevent that," he said in the Oct. 3, 2000, presidential debate.

He was referring to nation-building missions by U.S. military forces under the Clinton administration in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans.

Asked about the policy reversal at a White House news conference two weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush said, "We're not into nation-building. We're into justice." Administration officials repeatedly have said that it will take Afghans themselves, not outsiders, to establish a new government that has any chance of survival in that ethnically diverse country.

Mr. Rumsfeld echoed that sentiment yesterday on CNN. Asked if the United States should play a key role in nation-building in Afghanistan, he said:

"Nation-building does not have a brilliant record across the globe. It's a very hard thing to do. It's a hard thing for the people in a country to make a nation work well, and it's even harder for foreigners, strangers, to go into a country and think that they know what the template, what the model ought to be for that country."

Mr. Rumsfeld further said: "Now, we do have a responsibility, and we care about what happens in Afghanistan after we leave. When we leave, we want to make sure that we do what's right from a humanitarian standpoint.

- This article is based in part on wire service reports.

-------- business

Help Wanted
If You Can Subdue a Hijacker at 10,000 Feet, Speak Pashto or Analyze Bacteria

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 2, 2001; Page H01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43075-2001Dec1?language=printer

By the end of October, well over 7 million Americans had joined the ranks of the jobless.

The hiring outlook for early next year may not be much brighter. A recent survey of 16,000 businesses by the Milwaukee recruiting firm Manpower Inc. found that 16 percent plan to slash their workforces during the first quarter of 2002.

But wait: Smack in the middle of this hazy employment landscape are American businesses that say they will hire hundreds, if not thousands, of workers over the next several months. Indeed, 16 percent of those 16,000 businesses told Manpower they expect to add new jobs by April.

Fueled by demand for such random things as bomb-detection machines, home-refinancing requests, gas masks and security services, employees who fit into these pockets of job growth will reap the benefits of government attempts to right the economy or defend the nation against terrorist threats.

"It was like a switch being turned off in the one area and on in the other," said John Challenger, founder of the job-placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas in Chicago.

In the Washington area -- which added 4,000 jobs in October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- it should come as no surprise that the greatest activity will take place in the ranks of the federal government.

"It's a very stable employer," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com Inc. in West Chester, Pa.

Most dramatic are the 28,000 baggage-screening and supervisor jobs the Transportation Department must fill at the nation's airports. The security jobs, like nearly all of the new public-sector openings, are open to U.S. citizens who pass special background checks. The agency is still developing pay scales.

Other agencies are on the prowl for workers, too.

• The Central Intelligence Agency kicked off a recruiting drive for spies, linguists and technical wizards who can analyze vast troves of data, though -- decidedly in character -- the CIA declines to reveal exactly how many new employees it is hiring.

• The Federal Aviation Administration is hunting for hundreds of sky marshals. People under age 40, especially those who have law enforcement or military backgrounds, are encouraged to apply. The pay starts at $32,000. But they'll have to be prepared to pack those family portraits and rack up thousands of frequent-flier miles: The job requires almost nonstop travel.

• The U.S. Customs Service prepares to hire as many as 3,000 inspectors to poke through bags and patrol the nation's borders, based on a funding plan recently approved by the House of Representatives. Robert Smith, the agency's personnel director, said the agency usually screens 20 applicants to find one candidate it can hire. They also looked to the graybeards, asking nearly 800 customs inspectors and canine officers who retired in the past two years to return to the fold.

• But the vast majority of the 100 employees at the new Office of Homeland Security will be working on loan from other federal agencies. No more than a dozen new jobs will be created, said White House spokesman Ken Lisaius, and some of those have already been filled by veteran aides to security czar Tom Ridge.

Winning these federal positions will be no easy feat. As with many government jobs, the applications process can prove exhausting. The deadline to apply for some of the jobs posted since September has already passed, even though candidates may not hear for weeks or months whether they have made the cut. Plus, there's no guarantee that prospective sky marshals and customs officers, who must leave their day jobs for months of training, will meet stringent physical tests and background checks that comb through every aspect of a candidate's life, from bankruptcies to drug use.

Some local county governments simply plan to use contractors to get themselves over the hump. David Molchaney, chief information officer for Fairfax County, said he may call on outside information-security experts to shore up the county's electronic networks rather than hire anew. Same with many local police and fire departments, said Joe Zelinka, public safety coordinator at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

"D.C. has hired contractors to complete the plans they had in place for evacuation planning, debris removal, a lot of public works projects," Zelinka said. "They're spending it on safety measures rather than personnel costs."

In the private sector as well, unexpected bursts of job creation have appeared, though how long the spike in demand will last remains unclear.

Consider InVision Technologies Inc., which makes bomb-detection machines used in many U.S. and international airports. The Newark, Calif., firm has already cleared out extra space in its factory and altered its assembly process so that it can roll out machines more quickly.

Ross Mulholland, the company's chief financial officer, said the firm is looking for at least 200 employees and as many as 300 to help with the manufacturing process. Pay ranges from $13 to $20 an hour on the assembly lines, but engineers who install and support the machines on site take home $45,000 to $55,000 a year. The new air safety law mandates more bomb-detection units be placed in U.S. airports by 2002 -- sending companies such as InVision into a frenzy of activity.

"We will be going from single shifts to multiple shifts, 24-7," Mulholland said.

For months, Americans have raced to the bank to refinance their home mortgages because of low interest rates, which dropped after changes in the bond market and multiple rate cuts by the Federal Reserve Board. At Wells Fargo's home mortgage unit, based in Des Moines, the company is looking for about 5,000 customer-service representatives and middle managers. Entry-level pay is about $25,000. The largest operations hubs -- and the most likely homes for the new jobs -- are in California, Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota, said spokesman Dan Frahm.

For other firms, demand remains high but the supply of qualified workers has ebbed. Wackenhut Corp., which places security guards and executives at client firms, could absorb as many as 5,000 workers -- if it could find that many meeting its experience and background requirements. Chief Operating Officer Alan Bernstein said that in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks many of its guards are working overtime or handling longer shifts. The average security guard earns about $12 per hour, but those who are quartered in more dangerous offices, including nuclear sites, can take home far more.

At the same time, the health-care sector, which has boomed in recent times even as other sectors have stumbled, continues to starve for nurses, doctors, medical technicians and others. A Tennessee lab recently won approval to hire eight new workers in the aftermath of the anthrax mailings, but there are still not enough microbiologists, chemists and other top-level professionals to fill all of the nation's available slots, said Scott Becker of the Association for Public Health in Washington.

"It's difficult to pursue these opportunities," noted Jeffrey Joerres, Manpower's chief executive. "I can't be a construction worker one day and a nurse tomorrow."

Longtime students of the U.S. labor market said the current employment blips are unusual. Academic Peter Cappelli said the situation reminded him of the oil shocks of the late 1970s, when demand for coal workers rose unexpectedly.

"Do we see this kind of stuff typically in a downturn? No," said Cappelli, a professor and director of the Center for Human Resources at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. "They don't have anything to do generally with the ups and downs of the business cycle. It's usually the result of a large outside shock to the system."

Look no further than Mine Safety Appliances North America, an equipment manufacturer based in Pittsburgh, for one of the more unusual employment spurts. MSA has ramped up production of key products, especially gas masks, since Sept. 11. The firm has placed help-wanted listings in western Pennsylvania and in the Carolinas -- sites of its largest plants -- advertising jobs for people who mold and trim rubber. MSA's largest clients are emergency workers and the military, but the firm is considering a rollout of a new line of gas masks for consumers, said Ben DeMaria, the company's vice president for human resources.

"This is a significant HR [human resources] event for us," DeMaria said. "We have to hire not just production people but also supervisors. I've heard we need from 40 to 80 percent more people, depending on the plant."

A few hundred miles to the south, rival gas-mask maker Scott Health & Safety has taken a markedly different approach. Jack Hankins, director of sales for the Monroe, N.C., firm, said the anthrax mailings and the terrorist attacks have stirred up orders for the firm's products. But instead of hiring fresh workers, the firm has asked current employees to put in longer hours and opened up additional shifts.

"Obviously we're dealing with a soft economy here," Hankins said. "For us to make a decision to hire new people would rest on several factors. The single biggest would be a sustained increase in business. The last thing you want to do is hire people, then have to let them go in three or six months."

Some companies are responding even more cautiously. Columbia-based Rouse Co., which owns and manages 62 shopping malls around the country, is adding security guards this holiday season at selected locations. But Rouse will use off-duty police officers rather than hiring full-time workers, said spokeswoman Nancy Tucker.

And other industries where employment would seem to be on the rise are not noticing much difference at all.

Robert Kloppenburg, a spokesman for Bayer AG, the manufacturer of the seemingly ubiquitous antibiotic Cipro, said the firm did not plan new hires in its production or sales units within the next few months. Same with translators, said Walter Bacak, executive director of the American Translators Association. Bacak said there may be short-term interest in the group's 8,500 members -- especially those who speak Arabic, Farsi, Pashto and Urdu -- but he doubts that the war effort will have a lasting effect on the profession.

In the insurance sector, which expects to pay out $40 billion in claims as a result of the terrorist attacks, job rates are as predictable as ever, according to Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute. From 1998 to 2000, the industry has seen little change in the total number of employees, about 1.6 million.

"Most insurance people are very busy," Hartwig said. "That's sort of the irony here. There are tens of thousands of claims that need to be analyzed. All of this represents a watershed event that's going to keep us busy, but it doesn't mean a huge boom in hiring. The demand for our products will remain fairly stable."

Terry Mizrahi, president of the National Association of Social Workers, has deeper concerns on her mind. She worries that funds for social workers will dry up as limited government dollars are diverted toward homeland defense efforts.

"The demand will be there," Mizrahi said. "The question is whether the jobs will follow."

-------- iraq

Secret US plan for Iraq war
Bush orders backing for rebels to topple Saddam

Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver
Sunday December 2, 2001
The Observer
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,610461,00.html

America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqi opposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt. President George W. Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that could begin within months.

The plan, opposed by Tony Blair and other European Union leaders, threatens to blow apart the increasingly shaky international consensus behind the US-led 'war on terrorism'.

It envisages a combined operation with US bombers targeting key military installations while US forces assist opposition groups in the North and South of the country in a stage-managed uprising. One version of the plan would have US forces fighting on the ground.

Despite US suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 11 September attacks, the trigger for any attack, sources say, would be the anticipated refusal of Iraq to resubmit to inspections for weapons of mass destruction under the United Nations sanctions imposed after the Gulf war.

According to the sources, the planning is being undertaken under the auspices of a the US Central Command at McDill air force base in Tampa, Florida, commanded by General Tommy Franks, who is leading the war against Afghanistan.

Another key player is understood to be former CIA director James Woolsey. Sources say Woolsey was sent to London by the hawkish Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, soon after 11 September to ask Iraqi opposition groups if they would participate in an uprising if there was US military support.

The New York Times yesterday quoted a senior administration official who admitted that Bush's aides were looking at options that involved strengthening groups that opposed Saddam. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, said that action against Iraq was not imminent, but would come at a 'place and time of our choosing'.

Washington has been told by its allies that evidence it has presented of an Iraqi link to 11 September is at best circumstantial. However, US proponents of extending the war believe they can make the case for hitting Saddam's regime over its plan to produce weapons of mass destruction.

A European diplomat said last week: 'In the past week the Americans have shut up about Iraqi links to 11 September and have been talking a lot more about their weapons programme.'

The US is believed to be planning to exploit existing UN resolutions on Iraqi weapons programmes to set the action off.

Under the pre-existing 'red lines' for military action against Iraq - set down by Washington and London after the Gulf War - evidence of any credible threat from weapons of mass destruction would be regarded as sufficient to launch military strikes along the lines of Operation Desert Fox in 1998, when allied planes made large-scale strikes against suspected Iraqi weapons complexes.

Opposition by Blair and French President Jacques Chirac may not be enough to dissuade the Americans. One European military source who recently returned from General Franks's headquarters in Florida said: 'The Americans are walking on water. They think they can do anything at the moment and there is bloody nothing Tony [Blair] can do about it.'

Bush is said to have issued instructions about the proposals, which are now at a detailed stage, to his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, three weeks ago. But Pentagon sources say that a plan for attacking Iraq was developed by the time Bush's order was sent to the Pentagon, drawn up by Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, chairman of the joint chiefs General Richard Myers, and Franks.

The plan is to work with a combination of three political forces: Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq, radical Sunni Muslim groups in and around Baghdad, and, most controversially, the Shia opposition in the south.

The most adventurous ingredient in the anti-Iraqi proposal is the use of US ground troops, Pentagon sources say. 'Significant numbers' of ground troops could also be called on in the early stages of any rebellion to guard oil fields around the Shia port of Basra in southern Iraq.

-------- nato

Robertson says NATO must expand further

Briefly
December 2, 2001
Combined dispatches and staff reports
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20011202-686149.htm

TALLINN, Estonia - Despite improving relations between NATO and Russia, the enlargement of the military alliance is needed to ensure stability in Europe, NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said here.

Moreover, NATO enlargement would be beneficial to Russia as it would create "a more stable set of neighbors in the same way as the enlargement in Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary produced a new area of stability in Europe," Mr. Robertson told reporters Thursday during a one-day visit.

He said Russian President Vladimir Putin told him in Russia last month that Russian-Polish relations were at a "historic high," having rebounded from Moscow's anger about the three former Soviet satellites joining NATO in 1999.

----

NATO Allies to Take Look at Russia

December 2, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-NATO-and-Russia.html?searchpv=aponline

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell and other NATO foreign ministers will take a new look this week at the way the alliance does business with Russia.

Since Sept. 11, the allies believe they have detected a new, more cooperative Russia under President Vladimir Putin, a potential partner rather than the confrontational adversary of old.

NATO's secretary-general, Lord Robertson, went to Moscow recently to discuss bringing Russia into the fold -- not as a member of the 19-nation alliance, but as a full partner in deciding some major issues of European security.

How to do this will be discussed Thursday and Friday at the foreign ministers' meeting.

``We have an important opportunity to recast NATO's relationship with Russia,'' said Nicholas Burns, the American ambassador to NATO. ``NATO and Russia are increasingly allied against threats such as international terrorism. NATO must reflect these new realities and evolve accordingly.''

Some see this as letting the fox in the hen house, allowing Russia to begin gnawing at the alliance from within, accomplishing through stealth what it failed to do through confrontation. Others believe it is pure pragmatism, a recognition of the reality that there is more for both sides to gain through cooperation.

The NATO members are still discussing what form this new relationship should take, but what most likely will emerge is a new structure within the alliance in which Russia sits as a full participant on selected issues.

The new partnership will not give Russia a veto, NATO officials insist. If the new consultative body fails to reach consensus between NATO and the Russians, the alliance's North Atlantic Council can still meet and come to a decision the way it always has.

The consideration of a new approach comes four years after NATO and Russia created the Permanent Joint Council, which was to be a forum for discussing issues of mutual interest. In reality, it became an exercise in informing the Russians what the alliance had already decided, not the decision-making entity the Russians had envisioned.

In a joint statement at their recent summit in Crawford, Texas, Putin and President Bush spoke of ``opportunities for an entirely new mechanism, joint decision-making and coordinated action.''

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has suggested a new ``Russia-North Atlantic Council,'' and Canada, Germany and Italy have made similar suggestions.

Whatever accommodation is reached with Russia, NATO's core mission as a collective defense organization would not change, said Burns, the U.S. ambassador. ``Russia will not have a veto over alliance decisions.''

The allied foreign ministers are expected to approve the new approach to Russia at their meeting this week and instruct the permanent representatives on the North Atlantic Council to work out the details. When the alliance has decided its own position, it will be taken to the Russians for further discussion.

The allies hope this can be accomplished by early next year.

Some observers see the proposed new relationship as less than momentous.

``I don't think it goes as far as some people think it does,'' said Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University in Washington. ``I see it as a series of tactical moves, not a shift in the tectonic plates.''

Jakub Godzimirski, a Russia watcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, said there are no new factors that point to real change. The Russians still oppose American plans for missile defense and NATO's intention to bring in new members from the former Soviet bloc nations of eastern Europe, he noted.

And while Moscow may not have a veto over NATO decisions, it could use its new position at the table to sow discord among the allies.

``This is not going to be a linear relationship,'' said Adams. ``It will have its ups and downs. That's why I say it is not going to be a strategic realignment. What this does do is improve the atmospherics when there is a disagreement.''

-------- propaganda wars

Allies in War, Not in Perspective

By Peter D. Feaver
Sunday, December 2, 2001; Page B02
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43105-2001Dec1?language=printer

CAMBRIDGE, England- The remarkable military progress of the war in Afghanistan has bought the United States breathing room on the global public relations front. But in the crucial theater of European public opinion, the war on terror is far from won. Indeed, if President Bush is serious about extending the conflict beyond Afghanistan, he will need all the PR help he can get to persuade our European allies to stay on the bandwagon.

Look at our staunchest partner, Britain. No country has done more to support the U.S. effort, and no leader has been a more reliable friend than Prime Minister Tony Blair. But it would be a big mistake to take British support for granted. There is a fundamental divide between the way Americans and Britons interpret Sept. 11. Americans view the terrorist attacks as a world-changing event, and expect to see the policies of other governments adjust to the new reality. Britons, it seems to me, based on countless conversations and an informal review of the British media, view the attacks as an America-changing event, and thus expect to see American policies adjust, whether on missile defense, multilateralism, support for Israel or other issues.

If we are going to close that perception gap, we will have to close what helps perpetuate it: the criticaldivide in the ways in which the media on either side of the Atlantic have reported on the war on terrorism so far.

Even in its bleakest assessments, the American media has presented a balanced picture of the war. By contrast, the Britishmedia has been far more negative, increasingly adopting the role of designated war critic. Although this may be intended as a deliberate corrective to perceived boosterism on the part of U.S. reporters, the result has been coverage that is less objective and more misleading.

The American media have been full of explanations about the inherent difficulties of targeting, about historical benchmarks from previous bombing campaigns and about the steps the Taliban took to inflate civilian casualties. Remarkably little of that context reaches the average British reader or spectator. Moreover, the British media do not try very hard to distinguish between news reporting and editorializing. Many front-page British news reports would be assigned to opinionpages in the United States. And radio and TV reports, including those of the vaunted BBC, are even worse in this regard.

Take the coverage of the prison uprising in Mazar-e Sharif. The U.S. media have played this story as an illustration of the dangers of trusting the most hardened al Qaeda and Taliban units to surrender. In Britain, the story seems to illustrate the perfidy of the Northern Alliance, the bloodthirstiness of the Americans, and the borderline ineptitude of U.S. unconventional forces. Even the conservative Times of London framed the uprising as a "CIA blunder," and wondered " . . . whether it was incompetence, overconfidence or duty that prompted two CIA operatives to interrogate dozens of Taliban on their own. . . ." This was not an editorial, but the news account of the revolt's suppression, which the reporter opined should be viewed as a "slaughter . . . directed by Britons and Americans." Associating the British SAS forces with a debacle was a rare nod to even-handedness. Most coverage of the SAS in the British press frames them as the rescuers of incompetent, trigger-happy, technology-obsessed American forces.

If anything, media coverage is even less favorable on the continent. Le Monde, the French newspaper of record, began its account of the recent prison revolt with an accusatory "What really happened?" and gave prominent attention to the decision by Amnesty International to launch an investigation; a skimpy Pentagon denial of any massacre of the prisoners is buried at the end of the story. And the paper's Web site features a special section on L'Amerique mal-aimee ("Unloved America"), with a comprehensive survey of the grievances held against America on five continents.

There are, however, grounds for optimism. Europeans, on the whole, share American values. They put great stock in Secretary of State Colin Powell, and a concerted effort by him could work wonders over here. While the unfolding military campaign has boosted the prestige of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over Powell inside the Beltway, Powell's star is still ascendant on this side of the pond. And happily, the administration's renewed PR focus is tailor-made to address the exacerbating factor of foreign media bias.

Nevertheless, President Bush, and the American public he leads, should not assume that our allies see the world in the same way we do. Hearts and minds in Europe are winnable, but they must, in fact, be wonday after day after day.

Peter Feaver, associate professor of political science at Duke University, is visiting fellow at Corpus Christi College and visiting scholar at the Centre of International Studies, Cambridge.

-------- us

Bull's-Eye War: Pinpoint Bombing Shifts Role of GI Joe

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 2, 2001; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44042-2001Dec1.html

Over the last seven weeks in Afghanistan, the U.S. military has shown the world the latest version of the new American way of war, one built around weapons operating at extremely long ranges, hitting targets with unprecedented precision, and relying as never before on gigabytes of targeting information gathered on the ground, in the air, and from space.

This capability, first seen in its infancy during the Persian Gulf War a decade ago, has now matured to such a degree that some argue it has become the key element around which the U.S. military should be reshaped as it faces terrorism and other threats of the 21st century.

"We may have reached critical mass," said John F. Guilmartin Jr., an Ohio State University expert on the history of air power.

Such a shift in U.S. military posture would have immense implications for what investments are made in troops and weaponry, how war is waged, and when the United States chooses to go to war.

If air power moves from its traditional role of supporting ground forces to become the decisive force in U.S. war-fighting, ground troops of the future would likely be ancillary, with U.S. Special Forces serving as target spotters and liaisons to local militias. Conventional U.S. units might be relegated to a mop-up role of holding ground and keeping the postwar peace.

In terms of foreign policy, the shift could have a subtly belligerent effect. Some analysts worry that the new American capabilities, by minimizing the casualties suffered not only by the U.S. military but also by civilians in the war zone, have lowered the bar for the use of force, making the military option seductively easy for policymakers to select.

But those conclusions are hugely controversial. In a unusual joint interview, the chiefs of the Air Force and Navy rejected the notion that the apparent success of the Afghan war amounted to a prescription for military reform, arguing that every conflict is different.

Still, they, too, emphasized how much technological progress has been made since the Gulf War. Back then, noted Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air Force chief of staff, the Navy couldn't receive its daily air orders electronically, so printouts had to be delivered by hand to aircraft carriers.

"We've come a long way from 10 years ago, when we had to fly ATO [air tasking orders] out to the aircraft carriers in order to get us all on the same sheet of music," Jumper recalled Friday afternoon as he reviewed the air war in a joint interview with Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations. "We couldn't even communicate with each other at the beginning of Desert Storm."

By contrast, Jumper said, in Afghanistan the Air Force's unmanned Predator drone reconnaissance plane has used its laser designator to point out targets for Navy fighters, while Special Forces troops on the ground have given satellite-guided target coordinates to Navy and Air Force pilots.

Jumper described how a constellation of information-gathering systems -- from imaging satellites to surveillance aircraft to ground troops -- combined to enable U.S. forces to precisely find and hit the al Qaeda terrorist network and its allies in the Taliban while minimizing civilian deaths and opening the way for proxy forces to advance on the ground.

"The turning point came . . . when all these systems began to come together at the 30- to 40-day point, so that your accuracy and precision improved greatly," he said.

Unlike earlier wars, the Afghan campaign required the U.S. military chiefly to pursue ephemeral "emerging targets" -- such as people meeting in houses -- rather than traditional "strategic targets" -- such as airfields and military communications bunkers. "That's different than anything we've ever been involved in," said Clark, the Navy chief. "It really placed a premium on this type of capability, merging all of this information and getting it to the guy in the cockpit."

For example, a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft might detect a spike in satellite phone calls being made from a known Taliban office. A Predator drone then might be steered in for a look, transmitting real-time video of the office to targeters in Saudi Arabia and their superiors at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa. A Navy fighter pilot "loitering" nearby would fly close enough to look for additional telltale signs, such as bodyguards waiting outside, and verify the target. Then a targeter would read the precise coordinates of the office to the weapons officer sitting behind the pilot, who would punch them into a computer keypad in the cockpit and let loose a precision bomb that -- if all went well -- would steer itself to that office, destroying it and the Taliban fighters inside.

The Gulf War introduced the public to this new information-oriented approach to war. Back then, cruise missiles and smart bombs were novel concepts, greeted with skepticism even by some in the military.

But for all the breathless headlines at the time, precision weapons during the Gulf War were still a niche specialty. Only about 10 percent of the bombs dropped in the Gulf War were precision-guided, meaning they could either sense and hit a target dot from a laser beam, or could pick up signals from a global positioning system (GPS) satellite. By contrast, 90 percent of the bombs dropped in Afghanistan have been precision munitions. Also, for the first time in warfare, an unmanned aircraft, the Predator, has carried and fired missiles.

The cost of precision has plummeted. The cruise missiles that played a central role in the Gulf War were roughly $1 million each. In Afghanistan, the centerpiece of the air campaign is the Joint Direct Attack Munition, a kit that makes dumb bombs smart by attaching a GPS system and tail fins that can guide a bomb 10 miles from aircraft to target. It costs $18,000.

Nothing in the U.S. arsenal looks more like a relic of the Cold War than the lumbering, half-century-old B-52. Yet in the Afghan war, the big eight-engine bomber has become a precision weapon. B-52s have been using data provided by Special Forces troops on the ground to navigate by satellite and drop bombs precisely in designated 1,000-yard-long boxes.

A handful of Special Forces troops in northern Afghanistan called in the precision airstrikes that, in the view of the Air Force, cleared the way for the Northern Alliance's sudden progress in early November. "When history is written, it will show that three or four guys up there [in the north] made the difference in this conflict," Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles F. Wald, until last month the commander of the air war in Afghanistan, said in a recent interview. "When Mazar-e Sharif started falling, it was basically because of them."

The debate is already underway about whether and how to reshape the U.S. military to reflect this new way of fighting. What sort of Air Force does the nation need? And if the United States indeed will fight mainly at a distance, with long-range bombers, missiles and carrier-based aircraft, how big an Army must it have?

Most strikingly, there already are sharp disagreements over whether the Air Force should reexamine its acquisition priorities, which emphasize short-range fighters and don't buy any of the long-range bombers that have been central to its campaign in Afghanistan.

"Look at this war," said Michael Vickers, an expert in military reform at the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "It's practically a referendum on how to change the Air Force."

Vickers contrasted the land-based bombers the Air Force has used in the Afghan campaign -- B-1s, B-2s, B-52s and F-15Es -- with the service's plan to spend tens of billions of dollars on two short-range fighters, the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter. The Air Force approach, he concluded, is "entirely wrong."

In their joint interview, however, Clark and Jumper argued emphatically against reshaping their services in light of the Afghan war. "It is going to be different in every scenario," said Clark. "You know, the last one wasn't like this one, and the next one won't be like this one, and this one is like this one."

Some outside experts also warn against reading too much into the nation's recent spate of small wars. U.S. air power may have been "spectacularly successful" in Bosnia in 1995, in Kosovo in 1999 and now in Afghanistan, said Christopher Bolkcom, a defense analyst at the Congressional Research Service. But, he added, it is crucial to remember that in all these fights, "U.S. air power has been essentially unopposed."

There is still general agreement that air power alone can't nail down victory and that some land forces will always be needed. "You don't win until some snuffy with a rifle . . . walks into the bunker and takes out whoever is still there," commented Guilmartin, the Ohio State historian. That is the phase of the war in which the United States now finds itself in Afghanistan, with about 1,000 Marines landing south of Kandahar last week.

But just how many troops would constitute an appropriate standing ground force, and of what sort -- conventional infantry or Special Forces target-spotters -- isn't clear. "The conventional Army needs to be very worried with this campaign," one Special Operations officer recently said about the Afghan war. He predicted that the Army could be cut to six divisions from its current level of 10.

Even the Air Force may need far fewer aircraft in the future. Instead of carrying 16 2,000-pound bombs, said Vickers, the analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the B-2 bomber eventually may carry 324 250-pound bombs that make up in accuracy what they lack in explosive power.

At the same time, military experts worry about two dangers in devising a small, precise force. One is the long-term worry that it would be too small to take on -- and so to deter -- a big opponent such as China.

The other is that these revolutionary steps in precision may already be making it easier for U.S. leaders to turn to the use of force.

"The advent of precision weapons -- and the ability to deliver those weapons with minimal risk to U.S. forces -- has chipped away at old inhibitions regarding the use of force," said Andrew Bacevich, a Boston University expert in war and foreign policy. "The policy elite has become comfortable not simply with the notion of possessing great military power, but of using it."

----

THE LAW
Tribunal Comparison Taints Courts-Martial, Military Lawyers Say

December 2, 2001
By WILLIAM GLABERSON
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/02/national/02TRIB.html

Former military lawyers say they are angered by a public perception, fed most recently by the top White House lawyer, that the military tribunals authorized by President Bush are merely wartime versions of American courts-martial, a routine part of military life with a longstanding reputation for openness and procedural fairness.

In fact, the proposed tribunals are significantly different from courts- martial, the lawyers say, adding that confusion between the two has distorted the debate over the tribunals and unfairly denigrated military justice.

"It bothers me that people are thinking we try thousands of people this way in the courts-martial system," said Ronald W. Meister, a New York lawyer who is a former Navy lawyer and judge.

"We do nothing of the sort," he said. "These commissions are a totally different animal."

John S. Cooke, a retired Army judge who is the chairman of the American Bar Association's committee on armed forces law, said military courts had been tainted by association with the tribunals, which many commentators, politicians and civil libertarians criticized as an effort to find a foolproof shortcut to a guilty verdict.

"There's been a lot of talk about military kangaroo courts," Mr. Cooke said. "Having grown up in the courts-martial system, I'm rather offended by it, because it is a good system that provides more than adequate due process for the men and women in our military service."

Standard military courts closely resemble civilian courts in many ways, Mr. Cooke said. He added that they offered many of the fundamental protections that critics had said the president ignored in his Nov. 13 order authorizing the military tribunals. Courts-martial, for example, are governed by rules of evidence similar to those in civilian courts. They give defendants full rights to appeal a conviction, require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and require a unanimous decision to impose the death penalty.

But those and many other protections were missing from the sketchy outline of the tribunals proposed in the president's order. The administration is working on more detailed rules, and officials have said the criticism is premature.

But the order specified some details that distinguished the tribunals from courts-martial. The order provides, for instance, that sentences - apparently including the death penalty - can be imposed by a two- thirds vote of the tribunal members.

In courts-martial, the rules limiting the kind of evidence that can be heard are as strict as they are in civilian courts.

Hearsay, for example, is limited in both civilian courts and courts-martial because it is often unreliable. But the president's order suggested that any evidence - apparently including hearsay - would be admitted if it had "probative value to a reasonable person."

Despite the differences between the systems, administration officials have sometimes seemed to confuse the two.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Friday, Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, defended the commissions, saying they would be fair.

Mr. Gonzales continued with an assertion that appeared to liken the commissions to courts-martial.

"The American military justice system is the finest in the world," he wrote, "with longstanding traditions of forbidding command influence on proceedings, of providing zealous advocacy by competent defense counsel and of procedural fairness."

Some critics say the administration appears to be fostering the confusion to blunt criticism of the tribunals.

"The confusion benefits the administration," said Eric M. Freedman, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University School of Law in Hempstead, N.Y. "If the government can spread the impression that the tribunals are like the courts- martial, that would allay many fears."

In the battle of perception, both sides have been making statements that may not be accurate. Critics have said tribunals will conduct "secret trials."

Mr. Gonzalez wrote that the commissions "will be as open as possible," though the president's order permits closed proceedings.

It is not yet clear how far the administration will go in closing proceedings. But lawyers say the issue of whether the trials will be public also shows the differences between the two military systems.

Courts-martial, like civilian courts, are presumed to be open, and judges close them only in extraordinary circumstances.

Last spring, news organizations from all over the world attended preliminary hearings in the military justice system for Cmdr. Scott D. Waddle, the commander of a Navy submarine that accidentally sank a Japanese fishing trawler off Hawaii in February.

By contrast, the last time the United States used military commissions, German saboteurs were tried, convicted and sentenced to death in closed proceedings in Washington in World War II.

Some lawyers say such contrasts show how different the two systems are.

They say the administration seems unaware that trials that appear to include shortcuts to win convictions may raise suspicions around the world. Edward F. Sherman, a former Army lawyer who was until recently the dean of Tulane Law School in New Orleans, said a prominent example was that under the president's order, defendants in the tribunals might not be permitted to select their own lawyers.

Defendants in courts-martial are allowed to do so.

Mr. Sherman said that and many other omissions raised questions about how commission trials would be perceived.

"If it appears they're assigning lawyers and just going through the steps and then imposing the death penalty," Mr. Sherman said, "there would be questions around the world about whether these kinds of trials comport with the basic due process we expect in our legal system."


-------- POLICE / PRISONERS

Broader powers for anti-terrorism agents weighed

ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 2, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011202-5357768.htm

Lawmakers are considering whether to give U.S. anti-terrorism agents new police powers to make it easier to obtain special wiretaps and search warrants usually reserved for finding foreign spies.

The changes, solicited from the Justice Department by House and Senate members working on the intelligence bill that sets the budget for the CIA, come just weeks after Congress approved and President Bush signed powerful new anti-terrorism laws. The changes would:

-Allow federal agents to secretly request wiretaps even if details about the target of the surveillance, such as his identity or the location of his phone, weren't known.

-Allow agents to make broader demands for most business records, as long as the documents were related to an investigation.

-Give the government up to three days to seek a judge's approval for warrants after investigators conduct a search or wiretap in emergencies. The government currently must obtain a judge's permission after just 24 hours.

A fourth proposed change, which lawmakers already have rejected, would have permitted the United States to invoke a powerful anti-espionage law even in cases against individual foreigners. That law is currently reserved for cases against people working as spies for foreign governments or other foreign organizations.

All the changes would affect the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, a secret U.S. court considers requests for searches or wiretaps, and these generally require a lower standard of proof for approval than in traditional criminal cases.

The Justice Department and some lawmakers characterized the changes as technical amendments to the surveillance act. House and Senate oversight committees had urged intelligence agencies and the Justice Department to suggest changes to the law. The proposals, including the one lawmakers rejected, came from Justice lawyers.

"It is perfectly normal that committees will reach out to executive agencies for input about changes they want to make and language that facilitates that," Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden said. "In this case, the intelligence committees reached out to the Justice Department for technical guidance."

Civil liberties groups cautioned that the changes would considerably broaden police powers.

"This is a significant expansion of electronic surveillance in the United States," said Jerry Berman, head of the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's only been a month or so, and they're already asking for expansions."

The proposal rejected by lawmakers would have allowed the surveillance law to be used against "a foreign individual," according to draft language by Justice Department lawyers. They wrote that otherwise restricting use of the espionage law "limits the ability of the president to use this statute against hijackers or other terrorists without affiliation or known affiliation with a specific group or foreign state."

People familiar with the proposals, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, said lawmakers considered that change too serious to be included among technical amendments and decided not to consider it until at least next year.

Another change would add the phrase "if known" to the requirement for wiretap approvals of identifying the location of a target's electronic communications. Justice lawyers said the change would be useful in cases of wireless telephones or e-mail accounts, "where the facility to be monitored is typically not known in advance."

The Patriot Act that Mr. Bush signed Oct. 26 gives federal agents broad new powers to detain immigrants, eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mail, and share sensitive details of criminal investigations with the CIA.

----

Americans OK on liberties curb [poll]

Around the Nation
December 2, 2001
Combined dispatches and staff reports
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011202-97591432.htm

NEW YORK - An overwhelming number of Americans support the restrictions the administration of President Bush is proposing to impose on U.S. civil liberties, according to a poll released yesterday.

In a telephone poll of 1,002 adults conducted on Nov. 29 and 30 by Newsweek magazine, just 11 percent of those surveyed believe the administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Seventy-two percent said what the administration has done so far or is proposing to do is "about right."

The Justice Department has extended the period during which immigrants suspected of links to terrorists can be detained without a court order, a decision supported by 35 percent of those polled, down significantly from the 54 percent who supported the move in September.

Fifty-one percent of the poll's respondents believed the protections of the Bill of Rights should be extended only to U.S. citizens, though 62 percent expressed opposition to special surveillance for Arabs and Arab-Americans who are not suspected of crimes.

But support waxed to 68 percent for the use of military tribunals for noncitizens convicted of terror-related crimes.

----

FBI agents rebel over new powers
Liberty Watch: Observer campaign

Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday December 2, 2001
The Observer
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,610381,00.html

The US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, was yesterday reported to be ready to relax restrictions on the FBI's powers to spy on religious and church-based political organisations. His proposal, leaked to the New York Times, would loosen limits on the FBI's surveillance powers, imposed in the 1970s after the death of its founder J. Edgar Hoover.

The plan has caused outrage within the FBI itself with agents expected to act upon new surveillance powers describing themselves as 'very, very angry'.

The spying, wiretapping and surveillance campaign unleashed by Hoover against church and political groups was called 'Cointelpro', and was aimed mainly at the movement behind civil rights activist Martin Luther King, the Black Panthers, the anti-Vietnam war movement and, on the other wing, the Ku Klux Klan.

When the system was revealed, upon Hoover's death, restrictions were put on the security bureau, in the form of two sets of regulations pertaining to foreign-based and domestic groups. The rules forbade FBI agents from sending undercover agents into churches, synagogues or mosques unless they found 'probable cause or evidence' that someone in them had broken the law.

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Susan Dryden, said no final decision had been made on their reintroduction.

According to sources, the plan has caused a sharp rift within the department and the FBI. Ashcroft and the new FBI director, Robert Mueller, are pushing the plan eagerly, but there is strong opposition among officials inside both the bureau and the Justice Department.

Internal opposition to the plan will exacerbate an already fractious atmosphere in the FBI since President Bush took office.

Some agents told the New York Times that they considered any weakening of the guidelines 'a serious mistake', and that the Justice Department had 'not clearly described' the proposed changes. 'People are furious right now,' said one agent.

The changes would become part of what civil liberties groups regard as a dangerously changing legal landscape in the US: 1,200 people with connections to Islamic groups have been taken into custody, and Draconian security measures, such as wiretapping of lawyers, pushed through Congress.

Further plans are now afoot to seek out and interview some 5,000 immigrants, mostly Muslims, who have entered the US since January.

----

CIVIL LIBERTIES
Ashcroft and Leahy Battle Over Expanding Police Powers

December 2, 2001
By ROBIN TONER
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/02/politics/02ASHC.html

Thomas Friedman on Terrorism presents six of Mr. Friedman's Op-Ed columns on the threat of terrorism facing the U.S. prior to the attacks of Sept. 11. Read now for just $4.95.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - The issue of civil liberties has created a classic balance-of-power struggle between Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, a onetime colleague now leading the administration's domestic war on terrorism.

In a series of testy letters, blunt interviews, chilly phone calls and formal committee hearings, Mr. Leahy has demanded that Mr. Ashcroft explain and defend the sweeping police, detention and prosecutorial powers assumed by the administration in recent weeks.

In an interview, Mr. Leahy, a former prosecutor from Vermont and a 25-year-veteran of the Senate, said: "I don't want a struggle. First and foremost, as an American and as a Vermonter, I want to see us protected from terrorism. But I want it done in a way that does not diminish the basic protections of the Constitution."

The administration and its allies argue that it has maintained that balance, and note that the public is overwhelmingly supportive of its approach, judging from the public opinion polls. And they dispute the idea that Mr. Ashcroft has failed to adequately consult with Congress.

Mindy Tucker, a spokeswoman for Mr. Ashcroft, said, "The administration has consulted quite a bit with Congress." She added, though, "There are times when the attorney general exercises power that has already been legislated to him, by Congress, and during those times he may or may not consult with them ahead of time."

But this dispute, which will be fully joined when Mr. Ashcroft himself appears before the committee next week, is not just an abstract clash of executive power and legislative prerogative. It also has a personal and political subtext.

During the second term of the Clinton administration, Mr. Ashcroft was a deeply conservative member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, regularly squaring off with ideological opposites like Mr. Leahy on issues like judicial nominations.

Mr. Leahy says he and Mr. Ashcroft had a collegial relationship during their time on the committee and worked together on issues like privacy. But when Mr. Ashcroft was nominated to be attorney general early this year, Mr. Leahy opposed him in the bruising confirmation battle that followed, arguing that Mr. Ashcroft was simply too divisive for the job.

Mr. Leahy says that after Mr. Ashcroft took office, the two men had a reconciliation.

"I told him after he was confirmed, even though I voted against him, I told both him and the president that as far as I was concerned, he was now our attorney general," Mr. Leahy said. "I was starting with a blank slate, and that as ranking member, then as chairman of the committee, I would do the best I could to help him be the best attorney general possible."

But the era of good feelings was brief; tensions have grown since the terrorist attacks.

In the negotiations between Mr. Leahy and the administration over an antiterrorism bill, Mr. Ashcroft appeared at a Republican news conference to denounce the Democrats for moving too slowly on legislation to give the administration new powers for the investigation, surveillance and detention of suspected terrorists.

Mr. Leahy ultimately agreed to a bill that granted the administration much of what it wanted, much to the dismay of civil libertarians. In the view of some liberals, Mr. Leahy had compromised far too much, encouraged by Democratic leaders like Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, who had little interest in confronting the administration on civil liberties.

Then, in a matter of days, the administration and Mr. Ashcroft began a series of unilateral actions to expand their powers even more, which provoked Mr. Leahy to protest, strenuously.

In a letter to Mr. Ashcroft on Nov. 9, Mr. Leahy declared, "I have felt a growing concern that the trust and cooperation Congress provided is proving to be a one-way street." In a signal-sending appearance on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Mr. Leahy was asked if he was upset with Mr. Ashcroft and bluntly replied, "Yes, very much so."

What was particularly grating, several senators on the Judiciary Committee said, was learning of the administration's actions only through the news media. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview, "The point is, the Judiciary Committee - Leahy - did give the administration what it wanted." He added, "So it's not exactly an uncooperative or halting Congress."

Others dispute the notion that this is a clash of institutions. "I don't see this as a battle between Congress and the president," said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel for the conservative Washington Legal Foundation.

At the committee's first hearing this week, Mr. Samp said, "With the possible exception of Senator Specter, it sounded like all the Republicans were on the side of the administration, and the Democrats were the ones raising questions."

Mr. Samp argued that the dispute was fundamentally a partisan clash between Democrats, "who are more naturally inclined to be concerned with civil liberties in a criminal context," and Republicans, who are much less so.

Mr. Leahy sees it differently. In an interview, after the administration's executive order allowing the creation of military tribunals to try foreigners accused of terrorism, he complained: "There's been no consultation. These things just get announced: `George Washington got a British spy once by doing this, so thank goodness we've got recent precedents.' "

Mr. Leahy added, "Maybe part of this is the hubris of, you're riding high in the polls and you feel you can operate by fiat."'

With the specter of critical Senate hearings led by Mr. Leahy looming, Mr. Ashcroft seemed to be moving in a conciliatory direction this week. "I think it's entirely proper that the United States Senate and House exercise oversight over the Justice Department," he told reporters. "I have the highest level of respect and regard for these elected representatives of the people."

But the political and partisan currents are strong. In the hearings this week, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, rallied firmly to the administration's defense, declaring, "I, for one, believe that the steps taken by our law enforcement and intelligence communities have saved us from even more harm."

The public opinion polls show voters are generally supportive of the administration's actions on military tribunals and the detention and questioning of Middle Eastern immigrants. The risks in bucking that tide, some say, are substantial.

Referring to Mr. Leahy, one Republican leadership aide in the Senate said, "During wartime, when so many have been killed, there seems to be a disconnect between what's going on in this country, and what he's doing in his committee."

The Judiciary Committee itself is a politically dangerous place, riven for years by ideological and partisan lines. During the Clinton administration, when Republicans controlled the Senate, Democrats complained bitterly that the Republicans - particularly conservatives like Mr. Ashcroft - were blocking his judicial nominations. Now, Mr. Leahy is drawing increasing fire from conservatives who accuse him of "judicial obstruction" of Mr. Bush's nominees.

Still, on the civil liberties issue, Mr. Leahy does have some bipartisan political cover from lawmakers like Mr. Specter. And he will be joined in the spotlight next week by other Democrats, including Charles E. Schumer of New York, who will act as chairman for a hearing on Tuesday on military tribunals.

The challenge facing Mr. Leahy is how to scrutinize the administration's record on civil liberties while assuring the public that national security remains paramount. "Nobody up here is for crime," Mr. Leahy said carefully in an interview. "Nobody is for terrorists. But let's work together to find the right tools."


-------- activists

Neo-Nazis protest Berlin war exhibit

BERLIN
Agence France-Presse
December 2, 2001
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20011202-346577.htm

Thousands of neo-Nazis held their biggest demonstration in Berlin since the end of World War II yesterday, rallying to challenge a public exhibition claiming the German army had been involved in wartime Nazi atrocities.

Police stopped the neo-Nazis parading through Berlin's traditional Jewish quarter following protests by the mayor and other leading personalities of the German capital.

Police also managed to prevent a confrontation between neo-Nazis and anti-Nazis, using water cannon and tear gas grenades against anti-Nazi militants protesting the march by some 3,500 Nazi sympathizers who had arrived in special trains from all over the country.

The exhibition, asserting that the Wehrmacht had taken part in war crimes, opened earlier in the week in the Jewish district, now a ghost of what it once was.

Tens of thousands of Berlin Jews were among the millions whom the Nazis deported to concentration camps and death during the Third Reich.

The neo-Nazi rally was organized by the National Democratic Party (NPD) - a German fringe party on the extreme right, which Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government wants banned because of its extremist views.

Berlin's vestigial Jewish community reacted with fury, and anti-racist organizations intervened forcefully to stop the march through the Jewish district.

Berlin's Social Democrat Mayor Klaus Wowereit was among the many political and cultural personalities to protest.

Yesterday Mr. Wowereit was among those who visited the Wehrmacht exhibition.

But Berlin police chief Gerd Neubeck, who mobilized some 4,000 of his men to maintain order, said there had never been any intention of allowing the neo-Nazis into the Jewish quarter.


-------

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

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