Tell the Washington Post what you think... mailto:OPED@washpost.com
97 Injured in Md. Amtrak Crash...
Heat Is Suspected as Cause of Bulge Spotted in Track
By Susan Levine and Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 30, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18861-2002Jul29?language=printer
---
Some Past Crashes, Derailments in Area
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19034-2002Jul29?language=printer
June 17, 2002: An Amtrak passenger train and a MARC train sideswiped each other in Baltimore, causing three minor injuries and delaying hundreds of commuters as well as rail travelers between Washington and New York.
July 18, 2001: A 60-car freight train carrying hazardous chemicals derailed in a narrow Baltimore tunnel blocks from Camden Yards, sparking a five-alarm fire. Fueled by chemicals aboard the train, the fire burned for days.
April 24, 2001: A CSX freight train derailed and scattered 28 rail cars across two MARC commuter tracks in Frederick County, a mile east of Point of Rocks. The accident damaged about 1,000 feet of track and forced 5,000 commuters to find another way to get to work.
Aug. 15, 2000: A light rail train carrying passengers to Baltimore-Washington International Airport slammed into a steel safety barrier outside the airport's International Pier, injuring 22 people.
Feb. 13, 2000: A light rail train slammed into a steel barrier at BWI, injuring 20 passengers.
Jan. 30, 2000: An 80-car CSX train descending a mountain in Garrett County, Md., lost one of its braking systems, sped out of control and jumped the tracks, sending a 100-ton coal car through a home. A 15-year-old boy asleep on a couch in the living room was killed.
Sept. 20, 1999: An Amtrak train bound for Washington from Chicago hit an 83-car CSX freight train, loaded with new automobiles, from behind as the two pulled into the train yard in Cumberland, Md. Thirty-seven people aboard the Amtrak train were hurt.
April 12, 1998: Nineteen cars from a northbound CSX freight train derailed near Crystal City. No one was injured and there was no major damage, but about 2,500 Amtrak riders were affected.
July 8, 1997: A southbound Amtrak passenger train was sideswiped in the derailment of a northbound CSX freight train near the Pentagon, injuring three people and disrupting Virginia Railway Express's rush-hour commuter service.
July 21, 1996: Two CSX trains derailed in Alexandria. Nine cars of a train going from Baltimore to Waycross, Ga., left the tracks, striking cars of a train on an adjacent track going from Hamlet, N.C., to Philadelphia. The impact knocked 18 northbound cars from the tracks, and VRE commuter service was canceled the next day.
Feb. 16, 1996: MARC train crashed head-on into a Chicago-bound Amtrak train in Silver Spring. Nobody aboard the Amtrak train was killed, but the lead MARC car was ripped open and fuel from an Amtrak locomotive sprayed in. The car burst into flames, and the three crewmen and eight passengers died.
Jan. 6, 1996: A Metrorail train smashed into the rear of another at the rail yard at Shady Grove station at the end of the Red Line, killing a train operator.
March 23, 1993: Thirty-three cars of a CSX freight train derailed near Germantown, blocking the tracks and disrupting MARC service.
April 12, 1991: An Amtrak train of four locomotives slammed into a Conrail freight train northeast of Baltimore, injuring two Amtrak crew members and snarling rail traffic between Washington and New York.
Sept. 28, 1989: In Fauquier County, a truck from the Catlett Volunteer Fire Department crossed into the path of an Amtrak passenger train, causing a crash that killed two firefighters and injured 57 passengers.
May 10, 1989: A CSX freight train, pulled by four locomotives, collided head-on with two locomotives attached to each other in Gaithersburg, causing minor injuries to one railroad worker.
Feb. 19, 1988: Twelve freight cars derailed as they rounded a curve in Fairfax County. There were no injuries, but nearby homes were evacuated temporarily.
Sept. 5, 1987: Fourteen CSX freight cars derailed alongside Metro tracks south of New Hampshire Avenue in Northeast Washington, leaving thousands of Metrorail riders without service.
June 19, 1987: Twenty-one cars of a 134-car CSX freight train derailed alongside Metrorail tracks, crashing onto a major subway power rail. No one was injured.
Jan. 4, 1987: A string of three Conrail locomotives ran a stop signal near Baltimore and into the path of a high-speed Amtrak train carrying 660 passengers from Washington to Boston. Sixteen people were killed, and 175 injured.
Jan. 13, 1982: Three people were killed in a Metrorail derailment on the Orange Line.
--------
Woman Finds Missing Iridium in Dump
July 30, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Mexico-Missing-Iridium.html
TECATE, Mexico (AP) -- A missing pellet of radioactive Iridium that had sparked a massive search by authorities near the U.S. border was found here Tuesday by a trash picker at a dump.
Soldiers and firefighters cordoned off the trash dump after the foot-long container holding the pellet was located. The container appears to be undamaged, but the area was secured as a precaution, said Baja California state civil defense director Gabriel Gomez.
The pellet was used to look for cracks in a Baja California pipeline project. It was lost from the back of a truck July 23 near Tecate. U.S. border officials were placed on alert as a precaution.
Gomez said a woman who, together with her husband, makes a living combing through trash for recyclable materials, found the container early Tuesday. The couple then notified authorities. It wasn't immediately known how the material arrived at the dump.
The foot-long container encloses an inch-long pellet of iridium 192, which emits potentially hazardous gamma rays and is commonly used to check welded joints.
Although not harmful if used properly, iridium and other commonplace radioactive materials have sparked concern that, in the wrong hands, they could be used to create a radiological ``dirty bomb'' that would create widespread panic.
-------- russia
U.S. Officials To Open Russia Talks
By Steve Gutterman
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20940-2002Jul30?language=printer
MOSCOW -- Improving ties between Russia and the United States faced a test Tuesday, as two high-level American officials arrived in Moscow days after President Vladimir Putin's government announced plans to step up cooperation with Iran and build six nuclear reactors there.
The visit by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Undersecretary of State John Bolton were planned before Friday's approval by the Russian government of a 10-year plan to dramatically expand ties with Iran beyond its existing contract to complete a nuclear reactor at Bushehr.
The $800 million deal has been a sticking point in Russian-American relations for years because U.S. officials fear the cooperation could help Iran develop nuclear weapons. Russia insists there is no danger that could happen.
Russia's new cooperation plan takes the nuclear deal even further, envisaging a total of six Russian-built nuclear reactors in Iran - four at Bushehr and two at a yet-to-be-built plant in Akhvaz.
The government resolution, which has been approved by Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov but still must be signed by top Russian and Iranian officials, also calls for Russia to help Iran explore oil fields, launch communications satellites and build passenger jets.
It comes at a time of improved Russian-U.S. ties ushered in by Putin's westward-leaning policies and his support for the U.S. anti-terror campaign following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bolton met with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov as part of regular talks on nuclear arms cuts and proliferation issues.
Putin and President Bush signed a treaty in May to slash American and Russian nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.
On Sunday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said no specific mechanism or timetable has been set for implementing the treaty, which calls for each country to cut its nuclear arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads by 2012, from the 6,000 each is now allowed.
"We still have to decide how that should be done and when," the Interfax news agency quoted Ivanov as saying.
The Foreign Ministry said Mamedov and Bolton discussed that effort and other nonproliferation issues, as well as nuclear weapons cuts and anti-missile defense systems - a source of tension since Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Bolton and Mamedov focused on preparations for the first meeting of a Consultative Group for Strategic Security whose establishment was agreed upon at the May summit and will take place in September in Washington, the Foreign Ministry said.
Bolton was due to leave Russia Thursday after meetings with Mamedov and other officials, including Nuclear Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev.
Abraham, who plans three days of talks, was also to meet Wednesday with Rumyantsev. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said Abraham's talks would focus on preparations for a Russian fuel and energy summit to be held in Houston in October, according to the Interfax news agency
--------
U.S. Officials Arrive in Moscow
July 30, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Russia-US.html
MOSCOW (AP) -- Improving ties between Russia and the United States faced a test Tuesday, as two high-level American officials arrived in Moscow days after President Vladimir Putin's government announced plans to step up cooperation with Iran and build six nuclear reactors there.
The visit by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Undersecretary of State John Bolton were planned before Friday's approval by the Russian government of a 10-year plan to dramatically expand ties with Iran beyond its existing contract to complete a nuclear reactor at Bushehr.
The $800 million deal has been a sticking point in Russian-American relations for years because U.S. officials fear the cooperation could help Iran develop nuclear weapons. Russia insists there is no danger that could happen.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said the visiting U.S. officials would convey their concerns about Russian-Iranian cooperation.
``We've consistently urged Russia to cease all nuclear cooperation with Iran,'' Reeker said. ``Contributing to Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions would be counterproductive ... to Russia's broader strategic interests.''
Russia's new cooperation plan takes the nuclear deal even further, envisaging a total of six Russian-built nuclear reactors in Iran -- four at Bushehr and two at a yet-to-be-built plant in Akhvaz.
The government resolution, which has been approved by Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov but still must be signed by top Russian and Iranian officials, also calls for Russia to help Iran explore oil fields, launch communications satellites and build passenger jets.
It comes at a time of improved Russian-U.S. ties ushered in by Putin's westward-leaning policies and his support for the U.S. anti-terror campaign following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bolton met with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov as part of regular talks on nuclear arms cuts and proliferation issues.
Putin and President Bush signed a treaty in May to slash American and Russian nuclear arsenals by two-thirds. The Group of Eight nations last month offered up to $20 billion over 10 years to secure Russia's stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
On Sunday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said no specific mechanism or timetable has been set for implementing the treaty, which calls for each country to cut its nuclear arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads by 2012, from the 6,000 each is now allowed.
``We still have to decide how that should be done and when,'' the Interfax news agency quoted Ivanov as saying.
The Foreign Ministry said Mamedov and Bolton discussed that effort and other nonproliferation issues, as well as nuclear weapons cuts and anti-missile defense systems -- a source of tension since Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Bolton and Mamedov focused on preparations for the first meeting of a Consultative Group for Strategic Security whose establishment was agreed upon at the May summit and will take place in September in Washington, the Foreign Ministry said.
Bolton was due to leave Russia Thursday after meetings with Mamedov and other officials, including Nuclear Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev.
Abraham, who plans three days of talks, was also to meet Wednesday with Rumyantsev. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said Abraham's talks would focus on preparations for a Russian fuel and energy summit to be held in Houston in October, according to the Interfax news agency.
-------- terrorism
NRC Warns of Nuclear Theft Danger
July 30, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Dirty-Bombs.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- People with access to irradiation equipment used in medicine or commerce aren't required to undergo background checks, increasing the potential for theft or sabotage, a lawmaker said Tuesday.
Workers who transport materials for irradiation aren't checked either, and shipments aren't required to be screened for hidden explosives, said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the co-chairman of a bipartisan congressional task force on nuclear nonproliferation.
``Such a detonation could blow a hole in the walls (or) roof of the facility and disperse radioactive materials over a large area,'' said Markey, who released a Nuclear Regulatory Commission response to questions he raised last month about the security of irradiators used by hospitals, research institutions, food plants and other facilities.
A dirty bomb uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. Most nuclear experts say such an attack would cause radiation contamination over several city blocks, but probably no deaths from radiation because of the low doses as the material is dispersed.
Concern about the security of radioactive materials used in medicine and industry increased in June with the announcement that an alleged terrorist, linked to al-Qaida, had been taken into custody, suspected of planning an attack using a dirty bomb. The Justice Department said there was no indication that the suspect, Jose Padilla, ever obtained the radioactive material for such a device.
Markey asked the NRC for detailed information on the tracking and security of cobalt 60, used to irradiate food, and cesium 137, used to sterilize medical equipment.
Forty-eight states have at least one facility using radioactive materials and 17 states have at least one facility that uses more than 1 million curies of the material for irradiation or sterilization, according to Markey's staff. About 1,000 curies is viewed as a sizable radiation source, according to nuclear experts.
In a four-page response, dated July 24, the NRC said that no background checks were required because, ``Prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the risk of intentional misuse of the radioactive material was considered to be very low.''
Since the attacks, the NRC has advised irradiator operators to increase security measures, including additional controls on persons and materials entering the irradiator facilities. It is evaluating further measures.
Later this year, the agency is to propose a rule on the transport of large quantities of radioactive material.
Markey said the NRC should have already ordered heightened security measures. Over the past 5 years, nearly 1,500 radioactive sources have been reported lost or stolen in the United States, but less than half of them have been found, he said.
``This failure on the part of the NRC to take action almost a year after Sept. 11 shows it has a blatant disregard for the unacceptable public health risks a dirty bomb poses to America,'' Markey said.
The NRC had no immediate response.
Irradiators -- both cabinet-sized units and larger ones -- are to be kept locked or under constant surveillance, according to NRC rules. Smaller irradiators are usually inspected every 3-5 years, larger ones every 1-2 years.
The NRC said that removing a radioactive source with its heavy shielding from a larger unit would require equipment. Anyone who tried to remove a source without shielding would be quickly killed by radiation, it said.
On the Net:
Rep. Ed Markey: http://www.house.gov/markey/
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/
-------- us politics
Today In Congress
Reuters,
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19009-2002Jul29?language=printer
SENATE
Meets at 10:30 a.m.
Committees:
Armed Services -- 2:30 p.m. Emerging threats and capabilities subc. GAO report on nuclear nonproliferation and efforts to help other countries combat nuclear smuggling. 232A Russell Office Building.
....
Finance -- 10 a.m. Role of the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act in the international competitiveness of U.S. companies. 215 DOB.
HOUSE
Not in session.
----
Senate puts off vote on security
July 30, 2002
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020730-13647898.htm
The Senate will not complete action on its bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security before leaving for the August recess, drawing a rebuke from Republicans who said that means a final compromise can't reach President Bush by September 11.
The schedule now calls for senators to take up the bill, which the Governmental Affairs Committee approved 12-5 last week, at the end of the week, and make it pending business when senators return after Labor Day.
"There are a host of issues on the floor that have taken us a lot longer than we had hoped," said Ranit Schmelzer, spokeswoman for Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat.
The Senate has spent a week trying to pass a prescription-drug bill, and Mr. Daschle wants to approve the defense spending bill before the break.
Ms. Schmelzer also said the bill faces a filibuster if taken up now, and although she would not specify who would block the bill, two Democratic senators have urged a go-slow approach.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia has said he wants to ensure the bill doesn't alter the balance of power between the legislature and the executive branches, and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina says the president's plan would create a huge bureaucracy without solving critical intelligence issues.
But Republicans said the homeland security bill should be a "top priority."
"Every American deserves to feel safe within our borders," Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the Senate Democratic leadership will not allow the Senate to complete action this week to organize and mobilize the nation's resources at every level to protect America from terrorist attack." The bill would transfer 170,000 employees from all or parts of 22 existing agencies to the department, which would have a budget of $38 billion.
The House passed its version 295-132 at 10 p.m. Friday, just before members began their summer recess, and House Republicans criticized Senate Democrats yesterday for not following suit.
"We're disappointed that the Senate is taking longer to complete their work, but it is not surprising," said Richard Diamond, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican. "We will do what it takes to get the homeland bill done as soon as we can."
Still, the White House has been downplaying the importance of meeting the September 11 deadline.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Fred Thompson from Tennessee, the top Republican on the Government Affairs Committee, said yesterday that Mr. Thompson believes meeting the first anniversary isn't as important as getting the bill right.
"He really is not concerned about the artificial deadline of September 11," Michelle Semones said.
House Republicans said they had hoped to have each chamber's bill done by early August and hold informal meetings during the recess so a compromise would be ready to go when lawmakers return after Labor Day.
But if the Senate bill isn't final, outstanding differences, such as union protections and the structure of the existing White House homeland security director's position, can't be negotiated, House aides said.
Ms. Schmelzer said the Senate has to overcome more obstacles.
"The Republican leadership in the House was able to jam something through over the objections of many in their party, as well as Democrats - that's not how it works in the Senate," she said.
Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, has been one of the strongest voices calling for final action before the deadline.
"I continue to believe that we should aim for a goal of September 11 in tribute to the families who lost people," he said even before Mr. Bush sent his proposal to Congress in June, and he has reiterated that goal in the weeks since.
Mr. Gephardt's press office didn't return a phone call for comment.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
Leak on bombing miscue downplayed
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 30, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020730-96206872.htm
NEW YORK - A leaked U.N. report claiming that U.S. soldiers attempted to "sanitize" the site of an Afghan wedding party accidentally bombed by U.S. forces last month embarrassed U.N. officials, who yesterday tried to downplay its findings.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, denied there was a coverup, but U.S. officials declined to comment on the specific accusations in the report compiled immediately after the June 30 incident. According to the Afghan authorities, the attack killed at least 48 persons and injured nearly 120.
A "first version" of the report apparently was leaked to the Times of London, which published it in its Monday edition. It was compiled by Kandahar-based U.N. humanitarian workers and local Afghan authorities and found "discrepancies" in American accounts of the events, specifically about the fire that U.S. authorities claimed came from the area.
According to the Times, the report also charges that U.S. soldiers arrived in the village shortly after the bombing to "clean the area" by removing evidence of "shrapnel, bullets and traces of blood." The paper also quotes the U.N. document as saying that women's hands had been bound.
U.N. officials in Kabul, Afghanistan, and New York yesterday refused to confirm the substance of the Times account and tried to downplay the early findings.
"It was not supposed to be issued, because the findings are not comprehensive and they are not conclusive," said David Singh, the Kabul-based spokesman for the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). "We would rather have preferred to issue it once."
He said that after the air strikes, UNAMA dispatched a team to assess the humanitarian effect of the bombings on the people of Uruzgan. The group arrived in the region July 2 to see what kind of damage had been wrought and to determine what emergency measures would be necessary, Mr. Singh said.
He noted that the United Nations does not have a mandate to "evaluate" U.S. air strikes, only to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan.
"A report leaked - it shouldn't have been leaked. The findings were preliminary, not substantiated, and we are sure to make a statement when we are sure of everything," said Mr. Singh, who denied that the organization was second-guessing the air strikes.
UNAMA was forced to issue a statement yesterday stressing that a "quick preliminary report" was assembled but required further substantiation.
"There were facts in it that were not adequately substantiated," said Fred Eckhard, the U.N. spokesman in New York. He said that the U.N. special representative in Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, "asked them to produce a more detailed report, which they have done. The whole point was to make this a more responsible document than the one that initially returned from this fact-finding team."
Mr. Eckhard denied that the findings would be whitewashed to make them more palatable to the United States, whose political, military and financial support is vital to establishing security and stability in Afghanistan.
The final report, approved by Mr. Brahimi, could be released as early as today.
The Pentagon said yesterday that it is still conducting an investigation to determine exactly what happened on June 30, when U.S. bombers strafed villages in central Afghanistan, killing a large number of women and children. More than a dozen of the dead were family members celebrating a wedding.
-------- arms sales
Israel to help U.S. build Taiwan's subs
By Abraham Rabinovich
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 30, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020730-69533722.htm
JERUSALEM - Israel has offered technological help in building American submarines for Taiwan, provided it can do so without angering China, a leading Israeli newspaper reported yesterday.
According to a report in the newspaper Ha'aretz, Israel has conditionally offered to provide key planning input in the construction of Dolphin-class submarines in an American shipyard for Taiwan.
The Bush administration agreed to sell Taiwan eight of the submarines.
Israel's condition is that its involvement in the submarine deal between the United States and Taiwan not adversely affect its own relations with China.
These were rocked two years ago when Israel canceled the sale to China of its Phalcon airborne reconnaissance system under American pressure.
For Israel, the advantage of involvement in the submarine project is that it would indirectly permit it to expand its own submarine fleet, seen as an increasingly vital strategic arm intended to offset the threat of nuclear weapons that Iran and other Muslim countries are seeking to acquire.
Israel currently has three Dolphin-class subs that reportedly are able to fire nuclear-tipped missiles. Since Israel's small size makes it particularly vulnerable to missile attack, the submarines, with their second-strike capacity, are regarded as a prime deterrent.
Several European countries, reluctant to antagonize China, have refused Taiwan's submarine-purchase request. These countries include Germany, where the Dolphins were originally designed and built.
But with the Bush administration having agreed to the request, two American firms, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, are competing for the contract.
However, the United States for the past 50 years has produced submarines powered by nuclear reactors, whereas Taiwan is seeking conventional subs.
The Dolphin is a conventional sub, but the version built in Germany for Israel contains major, Israeli-initiated, modifications.
Israel has records of manufacturing plans for the vessels. Apart from silos for ballistic missiles, the submarine has exit hatches for commandos.
According to Ha'aretz, Israel has offered Northrup its knowhow in the construction of the Dolphins because Israel is interested in seeing a Dolphin assembly line established in the United States.
Such vessels could then be acquired by Israel with the defense aid it receives annually from the United States.
Because of concern over how Beijing might react, Israel and Northrop officials agreed to omit any reference to Israel in the sales pitch made to Taiwan and to refer to the vessels as "Dolphin-design submarines developed in a German dockyard."
-------- europe
FBI Shifts From Drug War to Terror
July 30, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Drugs.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- FBI director Robert Mueller said Tuesday that the war on terrorism demands that the FBI pull agents away from narcotics task forces and no longer make drug enforcement a top priority.
The comments, which came at the 20th anniversary celebration for the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, followed statements by Attorney General John Ashcroft reaffirming that the drug war would be reorganized but not abandoned.
Ashcroft said law enforcement agencies have created a ``most wanted list'' of 54 drug organizations that must be toppled here and abroad. The list will allow crime fighters to focus their resources, Ashcroft said.
But the FBI will be less involved in the effort because of the shift toward preventing terror attacks and gathering information on terror groups in the United States, Mueller said Tuesday.
``We ought to defer to the Drug Enforcement (Administration) on cartel cases,'' Mueller said. ``We will still participate but with fewer resources. Where there were 10 (FBI agents) on a drug task force in the past, now there will be five.''
Mueller listed stopping terror attacks, counterintelligence and undermining strikes at the nation's computer networks as the FBI's new top three priorities. He listed corporate crime investigations as another major draw on the FBI's resources.
Mueller has spoken before about the need to reallocate resources away from narcotics enforcement, but Tuesday's comments were the strongest yet.
``(Sept. 11) has required us to look at our resources and make hard choices,'' Mueller said. ``That is the bottom line for us -- participate (in drug enforcement) but not in the ways we have in the past.''
About 400 agents will be taken from narcotics efforts and placed on counterterrorism task forces, Mueller said. There are 11,324 agents in the FBI.
The agency will focus on assisting narcotics enforcement when it intersects with terrorism and in attempts to financially disrupt drug cartels.
Reaction to the message was mixed. John Fernandes, an assistant director of the DEA in Los Angeles, said that the shift will not lead to more drugs on the streets.
``We are broadening the war on drugs and looking for ways to fight smarter, instead of harder,'' Fernandes said. ``We are getting better at sharing intelligence and resources to compensate.''
Seattle police officer Mike Helton said the FBI's diminished presence would hamper efforts.
``Fighting the drug war will be harder without the extra manpower of the FBI -- there is no way around it,'' Helton said. ``This is a signal that drugs aren't the most important thing anymore and that will be reflected out across America.''
Ashcroft said the Bush administration is committed to the drug war.
``I reject the notion that a nation founded on the ideals of freedom can willfully abandon the goal of defeating drugs,'' Ashcroft said. ``We will defeat drugs.''
The focus on terrorism has shifted the way law enforcement officers plan to fight the drug war, with more concentration on cartel finances and organizations.
DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said the agency is seeking new training for agents and analysts and 20 special agents for money laundering cases.
Other agency chiefs who spoke at the conference alluded to the shift away from fighting drugs. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thomas Collins said efforts aimed at narcotics enforcement fell by 90 percent after Sept. 11. Coast Guard officials said the current figure is about 5 percent lower than pre-Sept. 11 levels.
But the number of drug seizures has increased, Collins said, because of searches aimed at stopping terrorists.
``These are not battles that must be fought separately,'' Collins said, noting that two of the Coast Guard's largest cocaine seizures happened after Sept. 11.
-------- iraq
French Leader Warns on Iraq Attack
By Geir Moulson
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 30, 2002; 2:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21711-2002Jul30?language=printer
SCHWERIN, Germany -- The French president warned Iraq Tuesday to "very, very quickly" agree to the return of U.N. weapons inspectors as he and the German leader emerged from a summit meeting to insist an attack against Baghdad would require United Nations approval.
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and President Jacques Chirac reaffirmed their long-standing positions as speculation builds that President Bush will order a military offensive to oust Saddam Hussein. Washington accuses the Iraqi leader secretly developing biological and nuclear weapons.
"I do not want to imagine an attack against Iraq, an attack which - were it to happen - could only be justified if it were decided on by the (U.N.) Security Council," Chirac said at a joint news conference.
"I also do not want to imagine that the Iraqi authorities will fail to grasp their interest. ... I believe Iraq would be well advised to understand the necessity for it to reach an accord very, very quickly with the U.N. secretary-general."
A third round of U.N.-Iraq talks on the return of weapons inspectors collapsed in July, with no date set for another round. The inspectors left the country ahead of U.S. and British military strikes in December 1998, and Baghdad has barred them from returning.
Schroeder, recalling that German military deployments abroad need parliamentary approval, said that "there is no majority, on one side or the other, for taking part in military action without approval by the United Nations."
The German government has said existing U.N. resolutions would not cover a new attack on Iraq.
"The American president has repeatedly promised consultations before any decisions are made and we have absolutely no reason to doubt the word of the president," Schroeder said.
----
Rumsfeld Doubts Iraq on Inspections
By Pauline Jelinek
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, July 30, 2002; 4:54 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22249-2002Jul30?language=printer
WASHINGTON-- Iraq is unlikely to allow the kinds of inspections that would be needed to investigate all of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday.
"It's difficult to begin to think they might accept" inspections that would be "without notice, anywhere, anytime," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference.
Rumsfeld said Monday that it would be difficult for airstrikes to destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction because many facilities are deeply buried - and biological labs can be in trailers, making them mobile.
The defense secretary said Monday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had the technology to make mobile weapons labs, but did not offer details.
"I would go on and say it really may not be necessary that they're mobile, because with no inspectors on the ground there's nobody there to find them," Rumsfeld said.
Rumsfeld's comments were the latest in the continuing public debate over the Bush administration goal of toppling Saddam from power.
President Bush already has approved covert action against Saddam and directed the CIA to increase support to Iraqi opposition groups. Six Iraqi opposition leaders are visiting Washington for talks next month.
Rumsfeld said American officials have briefed NATO allies, U.S. lawmakers and others about the threat the United States believes Iraq poses.
Congress has supported Bush's demands for Saddam's removal, but has questions: How much of a threat does Iraq pose to the United States? How many U.S. soldiers might die? How would other countries respond? Who would replace Saddam? How long would the United States have to keep troops there?
"I think there are a number of difficult questions that need to be asked before Congress would support a resolution of war against Iraq," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will discuss Iraq policy in hearings Wednesday and Thursday with foreign policy analysts and former U.S. government officials.
Rumsfeld said Tuesday he welcomed the hearings.
"I don't think it demonstrates any opposition to anything because there's nothing to oppose at the moment," Rumsfeld said.
No administration officials have been asked to appear, though they could be invited before the committee in September, said the chairman, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.
"It's clear to me that the administration is still in the throes of a searching debate about what to do," Biden said. "I don't want to put them in a position to prematurely have to reach a conclusion."
The House International Relations Committee expects to invite administration officials to appear when it holds its own hearings on Iraq after the August recess, said its chairman, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.
Biden said in an interview that he doesn't believe the public will automatically support whatever Bush proposes.
Meanwhile, in the latest incident in the no-fly zone, coalition planes Sunday bombed a communications bunker in southern Iraq, officials said.
No-fly zones were set up after the Persian Gulf War to keep Saddam from using military aircraft to threaten dissident Kurds in Iraq's north and Shiite Muslims in the south. Saddam calls the zones an infringement of Iraq's sovereignty and often tries to shoot down the air patrols. Coalition planes have responded by striking parts of Iraq's air defense system.
"You can expect that there will be, on a weekly basis, these exchanges," Rumsfeld said. "And our purpose would be to punish and destroy things that are of military value."
On the Net:
U.S. Joint Forces Command: http://www.jfcom.mil/
----
Rumsfeld says air strikes won't disarm Iraq
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 30, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020730-83465321.htm
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that air strikes alone cannot destroy Saddam Hussein's buried and mobile sites for weapons of mass destruction.
"The Iraqis have a great deal of what they do deeply buried," Mr. Rumsfeld said after a tour of U.S. Joint Forces Command in the Norfolk area. The command is staging the military's largest exercise in history as it plans for new 21st-century threats.
"So the idea that it's easy to simply go do what you suggest ought to be done from the air - the implication being from the air - is a misunderstanding of the situation," he said to a reporter who asked whether bombs and missiles alone could do the job.
Mr. Rumsfeld has previously said he does not believe a new round of United Nations arms inspections could find Iraq's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons or all its nuclear weapons components.
The defense secretary's implication is that if air strikes and inspectors cannot do the job, the United States must find a way to remove Saddam from power - an objective that is likely to require a ground invasion or an insurrection by key Iraqi military leaders.
President Bush has said he wants Saddam out of power. The administration's argument is that Saddam will eventually gain nuclear weapons, which could fall into the hands of terrorists and be used against the United States.
U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Persian Gulf, has drawn up a number of possible invasion scenarios. Mr. Bush has authorized the CIA to use covert means to oust Saddam.
Mr. Rumsfeld said American turncoats have helped Baghdad by providing information on how the United States collects intelligence.
"The Iraqis have benefited from American spies defecting to the Soviet Union or Russia and providing information as to how we do things, and they proliferate that information on how another country can best achieve denial and deception and avoid having the location, precise location, actionable locations of things known," the defense secretary said.
"They have chemical weapons," he added. "They have biological weapons. They have an enormous appetite for nuclear weapons. They were within a year or two of having them when Desert Storm got on the ground and found enough information to know how advanced their program was."
--------
Rumsfeld Doubts Air Power Would Destroy Iraq's Weapons
New York Times
July 30, 2002
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/international/30CND-MILITARY.html
WASHINGTON, July 30 - Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that it would be difficult for an air campaign alone to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The secretary said the extent to which Iraq, and other countries, are capable of hiding their deadly weapons underground and moving them around "makes the task of knowing about, let alone dealing with weapons of mass destruction, very difficult."
Mr. Rumsfeld's comments, given at a regular Pentagon briefing, were some of the most elaborate he has given on Iraq. The Bush administration has repeatedly said it would like to see Saddam Hussein toppled from power, although the always-circumspect Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized today that the United States has no definite plans to strike at Mr. Hussein.
Mr. Rumsfeld said Iraq is not likely to allow the kind of inspections - "without notice, anywhere, anytime" - that would assure that Iraq does not have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities.
"They have chemical weapons and biological weapons, and they have an appetite for nuclear weapons and have been working on them for a good many years," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "There's an awful lot we don't know about their programs."
The secretary stopped short of saying he believed that only a ground invasion could depose Mr. Hussein. But military historians can point to several instances in which air power alone has not brought victory.
One way Mr. Hussein might be overthrown without an invasion was if the Iraqi military turned on him, Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Nice thought, that," he added.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin on Wednesday to hear experts on Iraq and the Middle East. The committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden, Democrat of Delaware, told reporters today that he did not expect any military action against Iraq before next year.
-------
Profound Effect on U.S. Economy Seen in a War on Iraq
New York Times
July 30, 2002
By PATRICK E. TYLER and RICHARD W. STEVENSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/international/30COST.html
WASHINGTON, July 29 - An American attack on Iraq could profoundly affect the American economy, because the United States would have to pay most of the cost and bear the brunt of any oil price shock or other market disruptions, government officials, diplomats and economists say.
Eleven years ago, the Persian Gulf war, fought to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, cost the United States and its allies $60 billion and helped set off an economic recession caused in part by a spike in oil prices.
For that war, the allies picked up almost 80 percent of the bill. Today, however, as the Bush administration works on plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein, the United States is confronting the likelihood that this time around it would have to pick up the tab largely by itself, diplomats said.
Unless the economic outlook brightens, the government could well find itself spending heavily on the military even as the economy recovers falteringly from last year's recession.
Senior administration officials said Mr. Bush and his top advisers had not begun to consider the cost of a war because they had yet to decide what kind of military operation might be necessary. Whatever choice is made, experts say, the costs are likely to be significant and therefore may ultimately influence the size, scale and tactics of any military operation.
Already, the federal budget deficit is expanding, meaning that the bill for a war would lead either to more red ink or to cutbacks in domestic programs.
If consumer and investor confidence remains fragile, military action could have substantial psychological effects on the financial markets, retail spending, business investment, travel and other key elements of the economy, officials and experts said.
If oil supplies are disrupted, as they were during the 1991 gulf war, and prices rise sharply, the economic effects would be felt in the United States and around the world.
All of that could present a complicated political problem for President Bush, both in the Congressional mid-term elections in November and as he manages a war and looks ahead to his re-election campaign in 2004.
"I think a good case can be made that voters will want to understand the case for a war or any kind of extended military action better than they do now because the economic considerations are considerable," said Kim N. Wallace, a political analyst for Lehman Brothers in Washington.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Japan divided the cost of the 1991 war with the United States, but today none has offered to assist with financing a new military campaign. In fact, each has signaled that it is not eager to be asked, diplomats say.
"Just open a map," said a member of the Kuwaiti royal family in close consultation with Washington. "Afghanistan is in turmoil, the Middle East is in flames, and you want to open a third front in the region?"
"That would truly turn into a war of civilizations," he added.
If Mr. Bush decides on a large-scale invasion plan for Iraq involving as many as 250,000 troops, as some commanders advocate, the country would face a significant military mobilization and call-up of reserves as early as this fall to be ready for a military campaign early next year.
James R. Schlesinger, a member of the Defense Policy Board that advises the Pentagon who held senior cabinet posts in Republican and Democratic administrations, said he believed that the president would opt for a significant ground presence in Iraq. He said he did not think that fear of economic instability by itself would cause the United States to refrain from trying to unseat the Iraqi leader.
"My view is that given all we have said as a leading world power about the necessity of regime change in Iraq," Mr. Schlesinger said, "means that our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place."
The Persian Gulf war cost $61.1 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, of which $48.4 billion was paid by other nations.
The House Budget Committee's Democratic staff said that in 2002 dollars, the cost of the war was $79.9 billion, providing a very rough benchmark for what a conflict of similar dimensions might cost today.
Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said the United States would come up with whatever money was necessary. But he said planning for a war now would have to recognize the nation's deteriorating fiscal condition and the need to address other priorities.
"While it's not beyond our means, we can't have it all," Mr. Spratt said. "Since there is no surplus in the budget from which the cost could be paid, there will be trade-offs, making initiatives like Medicare drug coverage harder to do, and there almost certainly will be deeper deficits and more debt."
James A. Placke, a former senior diplomat specializing in the Persian Gulf and now a senior associate of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said the market reaction to any invasion of Iraq was at best uncertain. "Given the marked lack of enthusiasm for this venture, I wouldn't think the market reaction would be very good," he said.
"When weapons start going off in the Middle East, markets generally go down, gold prices go up, and oil prices shoot to the moon," he added, "and I expect that this is the short-run pattern that we can reasonably anticipate."
The United States is best prepared among the Western powers to withstand fluctuations in oil markets through drawdowns from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which today holds about 580 million barrels of oil. But Richard N. Cooper, a Harvard economist who headed the Central Intelligence Agency's top analytical body during the 1990's, cautioned that "psychological factors come into play" even in the face of prudent preparation.
He pointed out that after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait in August 1990, oil prices climbed rapidly from a low of $15 a barrel and peaked at $40 in October 1990, although it was well known that the United States would release oil from the strategic reserve. Prices remained high for more than a year in what many experts saw as a tax on worldwide consumers that allowed Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to pay down the American and allied bill for the war.
"I am firmly of the school that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait precipitated the American recession in 1991," Professor Cooper said, adding that while he generally praised the first President Bush's handling of the war, "the one area of fault was that they dallied on their commitment to release oil supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve."
Last Nov. 13, a month after the United States began bombing Afghanistan to dislodge the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the president's advisers debated whether Iraq should be the focus of phase two of the campaign against terrorism. Mr. Bush directed Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to add more than 100 million barrels to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Since Jan. 1, oil shipments into the reserve have reached record levels, about 150,000 barrels a day. One oil strategist in London noted that United States government acquisitions for the reserve were accounting for more than half of the growth in demand for oil this year.
With a capacity of 700 million barrels, the reserve could be used to disperse 4.2 million barrels of oil a day to jittery markets - more than enough to make up for the 1 million barrels a day of Iraqi crude lost because of military operations.
"What I am hearing from Washington," said Adam Sieminski, an oil markets analyst for Deutsche Bank in London, "is that serious consideration is being given to a coordinated Strategic Petroleum Reserve drawdown by the United States, Germany and Japan if military action takes place because this Bush does not want to make the mistake his father did."
Still, the fear is that Mr. Hussein, who set afire oil fields in Kuwait a decade ago, might strike out with chemical, biological or radiological weapons at Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer with the largest capacity to expand its oil production to stabilize oil supplies.
"Everybody's nightmare is Saudi Arabia," said an Energy Department oil analyst. "People are deathly afraid of any military campaign spreading to Saudi Arabia." That country contains one half of the spare production capacity in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
-------- israel / palestine
Suicide Bomber Wounds Five in Jerusalem
New York Times
July 30, 2002
By JAMES BENNET
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/international/30CND-MIDE.html
TAPUAH, West Bank, July 30 - Two Israeli brothers from this settlement were shot to death by masked Palestinian gunmen this morning when they stepped out of their tanker truck to sell diesel fuel in a neighboring Palestinian village.
Later, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a falafel stand in Jerusalem, wounding five people, none seriously. It was the first such attack inside Jerusalem in more than a month, since back-to-back bombings killed 26 people and prompted Israel to begin its latest West Bank military offensive.
With Israelis already braced for an anticipated new wave of violence, the director of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Avi Dichter, warned a parliamentary committee today that his organization had learned of 60 planned attacks. He said that the Shin Bet had thwarted 12 attacks in the past week.
Palestinian militants have vowed to retaliate for an Israeli air strike on Gaza City last week that killed a leader of the Islamist group Hamas and 14 other people, including 9 children.
The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a militia connected with Yasir Arafat's Fatah faction, claimed responsibility for killing the two settlers, saying that its gunmen acted to avenge "Palestinian warriors."
Shlomo and Mordechai Odesser, aged 60 and 52, were a rarity these days among Israeli settlers, their neighbors and Israeli officials said. They made a living by doing business with the Palestinians in the villages surrounding their gated settlement, the home for years of one of the most radical anti-Arab political movements.
It was a Palestinian acquaintance from the village of Jammain who called and asked them to deliver diesel oil, said Inspector Galit Wingrad, a spokeswoman for the Israeli police. Because of travel restrictions imposed by Israel, it is difficult if not impossible for Palestinians themselves to distribute goods along the major West Bank roads.
The two Israelis drove their tanker, with yellow Israeli license plates, up a rutted dirt road through the dusty village and to an isolated cement factory. They climbed out of the cab, leaving their Uzi submachine gun behind, Inspector Wingrad said.
While the brothers were talking to workers from the factory, two masked men emerged from a nearby shed and shot both in the head at close range, she said, citing evidence at the scene and Palestinian eyewitnesses. She said that a Palestinian had called the Israeli border police and informed them of the killings.
The police suspect that a trap had been laid for the two Israelis, but "everything has to be checked," Inspector Wingrad said. The Israeli army searched Jammain and other nearby villages today and arrested several suspects.
The shooting was the latest in a series of attacks on Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Before dawn today, a Palestinian armed with two knives sneaked into the settlement of Itamar, near Nablus, and stabbed a man and woman. The man was injured moderately and the woman lightly, the army said, before soldiers shot the attacker to death.
It was the third infiltration to Itamar in two months. New fences have been appearing around some settlements.
For Israeli officials, today's three attacks were evidence that Mr. Arafat's Palestinian Authority was continuing to foment violence. "Their campaign of terror continues without skipping a beat," said David Baker, an official in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "Anyone who has the illusion that the Palestinian Authority is trying to block this is sorely mistaken."
This evening, mourners gathered here to memorialize the two brothers. A young man walked beside a black van carrying their bodies to the service, pressing a hand to its steel side and calling, "Father, Father!"
Shlomo Odesser, the father of three, recently moved here after a divorce, said Daniel Shukrun, the settlement's manager. He said that Mordechai Odesser, who had six children, was among the settlement's early members.
Most of the men who gathered here carried semiautomatic rifles slung over their shoulders or pistols strapped to their belts. They were sympathetic to the message of a settler leader, Benzi Lieberman, who, in taking the microphone at the service, denounced Mr. Sharon's government as lacking "moral legitimacy" for failing to act more forcefully against Palestinians.
"For two years we have been clinging to the land in an impossible existence," he said. "We are demanding - destroy their homes, exile them from this land."
Tapuah has been a center for Kahane Chai, a spinoff of the radical Kach movement of Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was gunned down in New York in 1990. The rabbi's son, Binyamin Kahane, lived here. He was killed on the last day of the year 2000, shot dead along with his wife when Palestinian gunmen opened fire on his car. Five of his six children were wounded.
Kahane Chai and the Kach party were both outlawed in Israel in 1994 and labeled foreign terrorist groups by the American government. That year, a Kahane supporter, Baruch Goldstein, fatally shot 29 Muslim worshipers in a mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron.
David Ha Ivri, who publishes a newsletter for those sympathetic to Kahane Chai, said that the slaying of the two brothers demonstrated how mistaken they were in trying to do business with Palestinians.
"I don't think that every single Arab is a terrorist, but I do think the Arabs should not be here," Mr. Ha Ivri said. "What's going on inside the borders of Israel has more than proved the two nations cannot live together peacefully. Somebody has to go."
He said that money donated to the Palestinian Authority should be spent to relocate Palestinians abroad. "On a world scale, three million people is not a lot of people," he said. "Take some to Japan, some to Denmark, some to the United States, some to the Arab nations."
The suicide bomber who struck today was identified as a 17-year-old youth from Bethlehem, Yousef Atta Khasim. Police officials theorized that he was on his way to a more crowded target when he thought he was spotted by a police officer on patrol. He stepped into the doorway of Yemenite Falafel Center on Hanev'im Street and blew himself apart.
But the officer, Sgt. Ofir Yona, had not noticed anything unusual.
"He didn't look suspicious," Sergeant Yona said as workers swept up broken glass. "He was clean shaven, he had gel in his hair."
Meir Swissa, 24, was parking his car nearby at the time of the blast. "I saw a young man in a black shirt, blue jeans with a backpack standing next to the falafel stand," he said. "I was looking at him and he simply exploded. Parts of him were blown everywhere."
-------- un
In Rare Move, U.N. Reviews a U.S. Attack on Afghans
New York Times
July 30, 2002
By CARLOTTA GALL
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/international/asia/30AFGH.html
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 29 - A spokesman for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said today that it had conducted an investigation into the July 1 American airstrikes in Oruzgan Province. Villagers say more than 50 civilians died there.
United Nations officials visited the village with local authorities the day after the airstrike and produced a "quick, preliminary report," a United Nations spokesman in Kabul, David Singh, said today. A fuller report after a more detailed investigation would probably be finished in the next two days, he said.
The investigation is likely to embarrass the United States military, which is conducting its own formal inquiry. An American military team has traveled to Uzbekistan to interview members of the coalition forces, and went last week to Kakrak, the village that was hit in the airstrike. The results of the investigation are expected in a couple of weeks, an American spokesman said.
The Times of London first reported the existence of the United Nations inquiry over the weekend.
"There is a paramount necessity that an incident like this does not recur, that a full investigation be carried out to ensure such tragedies are not repeated, and that the protection of civilian lives becomes a primary concern in the war against terrorism," Mr. Singh said in a statement.
The British newspaper, which said it was shown a draft copy of the United Nations report, said the investigators had found no corroboration of the American claim that the aircraft were fired on from the ground. The United Nations report also said there were discrepancies in the American accounts of what had happened.
The draft report said coalition forces had arrived on the scene very quickly after the airstrikes and had "cleaned the area," removing evidence of "shrapnel, bullets and traces of blood," The Times reported. People in the United Nations had suggested that the American military was attempting a cover-up by dragging its feet on its own investigation, the newspaper said.
At the Pentagon, officials flatly rejected assertions that the American military had tried to hide evidence.
The Defense Department "absolutely denies" allegations of covering up evidence of wrongdoing, Lt. Col. David Lapan of the Marines, a Pentagon spokesman, said today. He said the United States, in conjunction with Afghan authorities, was continuing an investigation.
Colonel Lapan said that shell casings, blast fragments and other evidence from the scene had been collected to help in the inquiry, but he stressed that the visit by American investigators had been conducted openly, and had been documented by correspondents traveling with the American military team.
There is continuing concern over security in Afghanistan, and today a man was arrested when the paneling of his car was found to be packed with explosives, Kabul television reported.
Officials of the National Security Directorate said the man, who was shown on television and appeared to be in his thirties, had been planning to crash his car into the car transporting President Hamid Karzai.
The man was a foreigner and was caught when he was involved in a crash on his way to Kabul, the television report said.
The concern about security has increased since one of the country's vice presidents, Hajji Abdul Qadir, was killed three weeks ago and after conflicts and attacks involving some of the country's warlords in remote provinces. American Special Forces are helping to protect Mr. Karzai.
In the airstrikes in Oruzgan, as many as 54 people were killed and more than 120 were injured, Afghan authorities said. The attacks were part of an American-led operation against several villages suspected of harboring Taliban leaders. An AC-130 gunship fired on several targets after coming under fire from the villages, the United States military has said. Many victims were women and children who were gathered for an engagement party in Kakrak.
Col. Roger King, spokesman for coalition forces at Bagram Air Base, said in an e-mail reply to questions that the military had collected evidence, "blood samples, shell casings and shrapnel included," as part of its investigation.
He admitted to discrepancies in the American accounts of what had happened, saying, "Early reporting is often sketchy, and sometimes it contains inaccuracies."
The commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Dan K. McNeill, said in an interview last week that he intended to pursue the hunt for senior Taliban leaders in Oruzgan Province and was confident that his troops had performed according to military procedure and within their rules of engagement.
--------
UN Denies Cover - Up in U.S. Raid on Afghan Wedding
July 30, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-afghan-bombing-un.html
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations denied on Tuesday it was knuckling under to American pressure by squelching a report from a U.N. team in Afghanistan sent to the site of a U.S. air strike that killed dozens of civilians celebrating a wedding.
Instead of publicly releasing the report, as expected, the world body turned it over to the U.S. and Afghan governments, which were conducting their own joint investigation of the raid, U.N. officials said.
A preliminary report by the U.N. team found the United States may have understated the death toll and covered up evidence related to the attack, which angry Afghans saw as a massive unprovoked air strike on defenseless civilians.
The U.N. mission had earlier confirmed that a fact-finding mission had visited the site of the July 1 bombing in order to conduct an assessment of humanitarian aid needs and had prepared a preliminary report setting out a far higher casualty estimate than the Pentagon.
But the mission said the preliminary report contained casualty estimates ``that were not fully documented and judgements that were not sufficiently substantiated.''
U.N. chief spokesman Fred Eckhard said on Monday that a more comprehensive report on the bombing was being prepared which he expected would be made public the next day in Kabul.
But on Tuesday, Eckhard said that report had instead been turned over to the U.S. and Afghan governments.
The shift in plans recognized that members of the U.N. team had gathered information that ``they weren't professionally qualified to make judgements on'' but that ``could still be of help to professional investigators,'' Eckhard told reporters.
NO SIGN OF ANY COVER-UP
``I have seen no evidence of communication between either the U.S. government or the Afghan government trying to influence our conduct of this fact-finding mission or of what we do with the results,'' he said.
``There is no sign or suspicion on our part of any cover-up,'' he said, adding however, that he was unaware of what contacts may have taken place through U.N. offices in Kabul.
Pentagon officials also have denied a cover-up.
The bombing in the rugged region of Uruzgan in central Afghanistan was a public relations disaster for Washington, which has tried to build broad Afghan support for its ``war on terror'' following Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
According to The Times of London, the preliminary U.N. report on the incident, based on a July 3-4 fact-finding trip by U.N. staff, raised a series of questions about the accuracy of U.S. accounts.
While it pegged the death toll at 80 and the number of injured at up to 200, Afghanistan since has said 48 civilians were killed and 117 wounded, while the Pentagon said its investigators found only five graves at the site.
The preliminary U.N. report also was unable to corroborate U.S. statements that a U.S. plane involved in the raid had come under fire from the ground, stating that it found no destroyed weaponry or ammunition at the scene.
The preliminary U.N. report also said U.S. forces had carried out ``a thorough 'cleaning' of the strike areas'' shortly after the attack, according to the newspaper.
But Roger King, a U.S. military spokesman at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, denied evidence had been secretly removed. He said shrapnel, bullets and blood samples picked up by U.S. forces had been gathered as part of a U.S. investigation.
-------- us
Army boosts civil affairs contingent
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 30, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020730-73670806.htm
The Pentagon is boosting the number of Army civil affairs soldiers in Afghanistan as the military plans to increase outreach to villagers who need help modernizing farms and educating children.
Civil affairs soldiers, an element of U.S. Army Special Operations Command, specialize in rebuilding communities after a war. About 200 such soldiers, bolstered by similarly skilled people from other nations, have been in Afghanistan the past months helping Afghans start over.
Administration officials said the increase underscores the shifting mission in Afghanistan more than nine months after the first bomb was dropped Oct. 7. The mission has changed from significant battles and air raids to searches for small pockets of al Qaeda and Taliban guerrillas.
Some in the Pentagon have advocated a beefed-up program to concentrate aid on the countryside to win the hearts of villagers loyal to the old Taliban regime or to anti-U.S. warlords.
Civil affairs soldiers can play a critical role in "winning the peace," as one Pentagon official put it in an interview. In postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example, these Army specialists played a major role in restarting government functions and building new schools.
Col. Roger King, spokesman for Lt. Gen. Dan K. McNeill, who commands all 7,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, confirmed to The Washington Times that more civil affairs (CA) soldiers will arrive.
"In the process of rotating forces, Lt. Gen. McNeill asked for some increase in the number of CA soldiers assigned to Afghanistan," Col. King said. "The total increase in civil affairs soldiers doing CA work in the field will be about 80 soldiers."
The Army operates five civil affairs commands. Most of the soldiers are reservists. Sources say the Pentagon will soon activate a new cadre to go to Afghanistan. A spokesman for Army Special Operations Command declined to comment.
Gen. McNeill's command is reorganizing civil affairs soldiers into a much tighter unit. Instead of an ad hoc team called the "coalition joint civil military operations task force," there will be one brigade headquartered in Kabul.
"It doesn't involve a change in mission, just a unit better able to do the job assigned," said Col. King.
A need for a greater coalition presence in the countryside emerged after a July 1 friendly-fire incident in Uruzgan province north of Kandahar. Locals say scores of civilians were killed when an Air Force AC-130 gunship fired at what the crew identified as an anti-aircraft artillery battery.
Afterward, Gen. McNeill decided to send humanitarian workers to Uruzgan, a Taliban stronghold, to form closer relations with Pashtun tribal leaders and local farmers.
"I believe a decision has been reached to try to work out ways that the U.S. presence could be there, assisting on the humanitarian and civil affairs front," Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said earlier this month.
Civilian policy-makers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been brainstorming inside the Pentagon in recent weeks over the right mix of forces in Afghanistan now that the first phase of the war is largely won. The United States has ousted the Taliban from power, and killed or evicted most al Qaeda. Now, the major challenge is to convert the country into some type of stable democracy.
"You cannot put more troops in Afghanistan to just sit on the country," said a senior administration official. "You have to be engaged with the people. Afghanistan is run by tribalism and warlordism. You can't totally change that. But you can't let it become a petri dish for terrorism either."
U.S. Army Special Operations Command says its civil affairs soldiers "possess unique training skills and experience. Since the majority of the civil affairs forces are in the reserve component, these soldiers bring to the Army finely honed skills practiced daily in the civilian sector as judges, physicians, bankers, health inspectors, fire chiefs, etc."
-------- venezuela
Venezuela Inquiry Clears U.S. Aides
New York Times
July 30, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/international/americas/30VENE.html
WASHINGTON, July 29 - The State Department's inspector general has concluded that department officials did not act inappropriately during the brief ouster of the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, in April.
Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general, released preliminary findings today that department officials sent a consistent message of support for democracy in Venezuela and discouraged talk of removing Mr. Chávez by force. "The department and the embassy urged the Chávez government to conduct itself in a democratic and constitutional fashion," and they urged government opponents "to act within the limits of the Constitution of Venezuela."
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, requested the report after administration officials set off an outcry by appearing to embrace Mr. Chávez's ouster and establishing contacts with his self-declared successor.
"I requested this report because questions surrounding this matter continued to be raised, and I believe a full and accurate accounting of administration actions would help put them to rest," Mr. Dodd said in a statement.
-------- propaganda wars
Message to Iraq: We're Coming (Maybe)
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 30, 2002; 8:03 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20283-2002Jul30?language=printer
Why don't we just e-mail Saddam Hussein one of those Yahoo maps, showing the exact invasion route?
That is, if there is an invasion.
This surreal psy-war being carried on in the press has reached a new level of unreality.
One day the ink is barely dry on the American war plans. The next day someone's calling the whole thing off. The country, meanwhile, is paying more attention to the gyrating Dow.
If the Pentagon is indeed plotting how to topple Saddam, two questions arise:
Why are military sources leaking this stuff? Self-importance? Disinformation? Loose lips that sink ships?
And why is the press printing the stories in such detail, which is like sending the Iraqi leader a telegram?
What's prompted a whole lot of head-scratching -- at least among the Beltway types who ponder such things -- is the recent spate of seemingly contradictory pieces.
Here's the Philadelphia Inquirer on Friday:
"The Bush administration is moving forward aggressively with planning to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, laying the groundwork for a possible U.S.-led invasion early next year, according to senior U.S. officials and individuals involved in the planning. Under one scenario being discussed at the Pentagon, a force of 250,000 to 300,000 U.S. troops would invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein, backed by massive air strikes."
Have a nice day.
Along comes The Washington Post on Sunday with this never-mind piece:
"Despite President Bush's repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.
"The conclusion, which is based in part on intelligence assessments of the state of Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and his missile delivery capabilities, is increasing tensions in the administration over Iraqi policy. The cautious approach -- held by some top generals and admirals in the military establishment, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- is shaping the administration's consideration of war plans for Iraq, which are being drafted at the direction of Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld."
By Monday it was back on, at least according to the New York Times:
"As the Bush administration considers its military options for deposing Saddam Hussein, senior administration and Pentagon officials say they are exploring a new if risky approach: take Baghdad and one or two key command centers and weapons depots first, in hopes of cutting off the country's leadership and causing a quick collapse of the government.
"The 'inside-out' approach, as some call this Baghdad-first option, would capitalize on the American military's ability to strike over long distances, maneuvering forces to envelop a large target. Those advocating that plan say it reflects a strong desire to find a strategy that would not require a full quarter-million American troops, yet hits hard enough to succeed. One important aim would be to disrupt Iraq's ability to order the use of weapons of mass destruction."
Confused? So are we.
Maybe this just reflects different factions fighting for the upper hand, and whispering to their favorite reporters as part of that strategy. But it is an absolutely bizarre spectacle.
Rumsfeld is pretty chatty on the subject too, the Washington Times reports:
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that air strikes alone cannot destroy Saddam Hussein's buried and mobile sites for weapons of mass destruction.
"'The Iraqis have a great deal of what they do deeply buried,' Mr. Rumsfeld said after a tour of U.S. Joint Forces Command in the Norfolk area. The command is staging the military's largest exercise in history as it plans for new 21st-century threats. 'So the idea that it's easy to simply go do what you suggest ought to be done from the air -- the implication being from the air -- is a misunderstanding of the situation,' he said to a reporter who asked whether bombs and missiles alone could do the job."
The presidential Teflon is now officially scratched, says USA Today:
"The turmoil on Wall Street and corporate corruption scandals are eroding public confidence in President Bush's handling of the economy and improving Democratic chances of gaining seats in this year's congressional elections, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll released yesterday shows. . . .
"The findings continue to show strong backing for Bush, who holds a 69% overall approval rating in the survey conducted Friday through Sunday. But approval of his handling of the economy, has dropped since early July, while disapproval has jumped to 43% from 36%.
"The shift in thinking on the administration's handling of the economy coincides with a change in attitudes toward which party would do a better job in Congress setting the right economic course. In the survey, 42% favored Democrats while 37% backed Republicans. In May, Republicans led Democrats 43-34%."
Here's an oddity: Bush fighting for a Clinton law, with the Democrats demanding changes.
"President Bush insisted on tougher work requirements for welfare recipients Monday, denouncing the Senate Democrats' welfare reform bill as 'a retreat from success' riddled with 'loopholes,'" says the Los Angeles Times.
"Bush all but threatened to veto that bill, which the Senate Finance Committee approved last month. His remarks set the stage for a potential end-of-session showdown with a looming deadline for Congress to extend the landmark 1996 law, which ended lifetime entitlements to welfare benefits. The current legislation expires Sept. 30. . . .
"While Republicans are declaring the 1996 reforms a resounding success and are clamoring for more stringent rules, many Democrats want to soften some of the policies that President Clinton signed into law six years ago. The Senate bill, for instance, would provide billions of dollars more for child care than the House version."
The Washington Post has the latest in Bush-bashing:
"Leading Democrats launched a series of stinging attacks on President Bush here today, challenging his handling of the economy, response to corporate accountability scandals and conduct of the war on terrorism while charging there is a 'leadership deficit' in Washington that they are prepared to fill.
"The across-the-board critique, including pointed questions about the war in Afghanistan, reflected a growing belief among Democrats that voter anxiety over the economy makes the president and the Republican Party more vulnerable than at any time since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
"Chiding Republicans for trying to pin the economy's current problems on the 'binge' days of the 1990s, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) declared that the prosperity of the previous decade was 'not a fluke or a bubble' but the result of sound economic policy."
Should Hillary really be referring to "binge" days in discussing her husband's administration?
"'When it comes to fiscal responsibility and economic growth, this administration is all blame and no game plan, all response and no responsibility,' she said at the summer meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
"Democrats sought to place the blame on Bush and his big tax cut for a return to federal budget deficits and a downturn in the economy, claiming that he is presiding over a 'jobless recovery' and stock market volatility that has left many Americans worried about their retirement security."
Sounds like a pretty good '02 preview.
Salon's Joe Conason scores John Kerry ahead of Joe Lieberman:
"Lieberman offered a rather safe, somewhat cliched homily about cracking down on corporate crime while remaining 'pro-business,' and ended with an appeal to faith. He evidently believes that if the corporate crooks had prayed more they would have stolen less. For some reason he finds such displays of piety irresistible.
"Kerry was more subdued in style but bolder in substance. He insisted that Democrats must not retreat from leadership on military and international policy because the Republican administration is so mediocre. He reiterated his earlier criticism of the operations in Afghanistan, which allowed al-Qaida leaders to escape from Tora Bora; then he outlined a critique of Bush's unilateralist approach, from Iraq to Russia to the Middle East to North Korea. . . . As a decorated veteran Kerry can speak this way without fear, unlike so many politicians in either party; he is bidding to become the Democrats' McCain."
The American Prowler sees a disgruntled Gore:
"Former Vice President Al Gore was not satisfied with the slot he was to receive at the Democratic Leadership Council's New York meeting this week, and declined an invitation to speak at the 'National Conversation.'
"'Gore was pushing for a "keynote" style speech, a big one,' says a DLC staffer. 'But we aren't doing it that way, everyone is getting a chance to speak, especially those with a national reputation. He wasn't comfortable traveling in a pack.'
"Gore apparently was further upset that his former running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, would be given what he perceived to be preferential treatment. Unlike Gore, Lieberman has been an active DLC member for years. 'Lieberman isn't getting anything that the other speakers aren't getting. It's a speaking engagement, nothing more,' says the DLC-er. 'You have to wonder about a guy who is acting like a spoiled child toward a group he needs badly if he is to succeed down the road. It is sort of odd.'
"On the face of it, it doesn't appear that Lieberman is getting much of a special spotlight. He spoke on Monday, along with Sens. Tom Daschle and John Kerry. Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Dick Gephardt are scheduled for Tuesday, when Gore presumably would have had a slot. But ironically, his absence only adds to the attention that will most likely be showered on John Edwards, who is primed for what his staff considers to be a major address to a group he's looking to build tighter bonds with."
George McGovern ran for president once. Now, he says in OpinionJournal.com, he has trouble boarding an airplane:
"When I go to an airport these days I don't worry about a terrorist bomb. I've been flying steadily and unsteadily for 60 years, beginning with my days as a bomber pilot in World War II. I've always known that a bomb in somebody's suitcase could blow up the plane I was on, just as I knew every day in 1943-45 could be my last. No one can ever take all the risk out of flying. On the wrong day you can even be hit by a drunken driver going to or from the airport.
"But what terrifies me at the airports now is not the terrorists or drunks. It is the fear that I won't be able to get through all the checkpoints, or that my car will be seized for parking within a mile of the airport, or that I will have forgotten my identity card, or that I'll forget one of my shoes while my toes are being examined for explosives, or that my foot odor will offend some examiner and get me arrested as a public nuisance.
"I worry that the little nail-clippers in my toilet article bag will be detected by the X-ray machine and get me arrested as a threat to the pilot and flight crew. But most of all I worry about missing the deadline for being checked in, rechecked and checked again before finally reaching my assigned seat flustered, humiliated and exhausted. The New Republic, which has called for Paul O'Neill to quit, unfavorably reviews the Treasury secretary's Sunday TV appearances:
"O'Neill had an easy enough time at 'Fox News Sunday.' But, of course, that had something to do with the kid-glove treatment he got from host Brit Hume. Hume began by airing two economic predictions, from 2001, that have since come true, using them as a flattering lead-in to elicit O'Neill's prognosis for the next year. . . .
"Unfortunately for O'Neill, things didn't go nearly as well over at 'Meet the Press.' Tim Russert has long been a stickler about balanced budgets and, like Hume, he raised the possibility of postponing or repealing part of the Bush tax cut. When O'Neill tried the same response -- that this was the equivalent of raising taxes -- Russert would have none of it. Instead, Russert simply became more aggressive, citing promises made during the campaign (not to mention his own show) that the Bush administration would not run deficits and dip into Social Security trust funds. Here's how one typical exchange went:
"Russert: You're not spending the Social Security surplus?
"O'Neill: I don't think, Tim, that the American fiscal position, that is to say, surplus or deficit, comes from raising taxes.
"Russert: But you're spending the Social Security surplus. The facts are important, Mr. Secretary.
"Soon, Russert had O'Neill fumbling for new rationales as to why the deficit had gone up. Now it wasn't congressional spending that had pushed the federal budget into the red. It was the response to 9/11."
ABC's Note jumps on a different aspect of O'Neill's performance:
"One couldn't help notice that former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's long-term restraint in refusing to publicly (or even privately) criticize current Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's style or performance was met by a boomerang to the gut, when O'Neill on 'Meet the Press' virtually out of the blue attacked Rubin for being in Singapore while Citi was having troubles, in an apparent attempt to deflect criticism for his own globe-trotting.
"When asked about Rubin's repeated call for canceling most of the (Bush) tax cut, O'Neill said, 'He's saying raising the taxes, Tim. I'm sorry. You know where he said it from? He said it from Singapore while his company was losing $50 billion worth of market capitalization.'
"The Wall Street Journal picked up on the O'Neill-slaps-Rubin remarks, and says simply that '[a] Citigroup spokesman didn't have any comment on Mr. O'Neill's remarks.' We wonder which of Rubin's many, many political advisers will tell him to fight back on this one, and if he does, what that might do to O'Neill."
Finally, Allen Iverson walks (what a shock). But would the average Joe have been treated like this?
"A Philadelphia judge who admitted he's a huge fan of hometown hoops hero Allen Iverson tossed out all of the felony charges against the star -- after one witness said he lied to cops and another hinted of a possible extortion scheme," says the New York Post.
"The stunning slam-dunk ruling for the Philadelphia 76er came amid backpedaling by key prosecution witnesses and conflicting statements about what happened July 3, when Iverson allegedly barged into his cousin's apartment and threatened those inside with a gun if they didn't tell him where his wife was.
"Judge James DeLeon, asked afterward why he dismissed 12 of the 14 criminal charges against Iverson, responded: 'It sounds like you had a relative looking for a relative at the house of a relative. . . . I reached a decision that it was not probable that Iverson had a gun.'
"DeLeon -- admitting 'I had to stop wearing my Iverson shirt as soon as I got this case' -- added that he didn't expect the superstar to get jail time if found guilty of the remaining misdemeanor charges, two counts of making terroristic threats."
--------
Man Hijacks al - Qaida Web Site
July 30, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Al-Qaida-Online.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- When Web operator Jon Messner gained control of one of al-Qaida's prime Internet communication sites, he offered it to the FBI to use it for disinformation and collecting data about sympathizers.
What followed, he says, was a week of frustration.
FBI agents struggled to find someone with enough technical know-how to set up the sting. By the time they did, the opportunity was lost as militant Islamic Web users figured out the site was a decoy, said Messner of Ocean City, Md.
``It was like dealing with the motor vehicle administration,'' said Messner, who runs Web sites, many of which sell pornographic materials. ``We could have done something that could have seriously impacted things. It took me so many days just to get somebody who understood the Internet.''
Barry Maddox, a spokesman for the FBI's Baltimore office, said Tuesday he could not discuss specifics involving Messner but that ``there are a number of factors that we have to weigh prior to conducting an investigation.''
``The FBI doesn't encourage private citizens to take on investigative techniques, but we encourage the public to give any criminal information it may possess, especially information involving national security or terrorists,'' he said. ``All such information is taken very seriously and is acted upon quickly.''
Though many of his Web sites involve pornography, Messner said he became interested in Alneda.com, a militant Islamic Web site that promotes the al-Qaida terror organization and carries messages from its top members.
Alneda originally was registered in Malaysia but has been chased out of several countries after pressure by authorities. It also has shown up on computers in Michigan and Texas.
Messner used a software program that probes Web site addresses whose registrations are about to lapse, meaning the address will go into a pool available for sale. When it did, Messner snapped it up and filled the site with Web pages from the original Arabic site.
He hoped U.S. officials could use the site for disinformation campaigns or to collect data on visitors who used its message boards or other resources.
Even though some features didn't work yet, his decoy site fooled some Web users.
Almost immediately after putting the site online July 16, he saw visitors from Arab nations and references to it on other militant Islamic Web sites.
``I (was) tracing back to hostile message boards that say when translated, 'Praise Allah, the Alneda site is back up,''' Messner said.
Since he couldn't write any new articles in Arabic, he needed the FBI's help to keep the site alive. He said FBI officials in Baltimore and Salisbury, Md., encouraged his work but took too long to decide how to help him.
Within a week, other Arabic Web sites outed Messner's site as a phony and warned visitors away. He shut it down.
Since Messner gave up the Internet address, the Alneda Web site is back up again, this time hosted in Dayton, Ohio, and carrying a new interview with an al-Qaida field commander describing battles against American forces.
Messner said he handed over the data he gathered to the FBI.
Intelligence experts said the gamble on a fake Alneda site might not have been worthwhile.
Rather than a traditional sting operation -- a routine task for the FBI -- Messner's decoy site would be available to everyone on the Internet, said John Pike of Globalsecurity.org. That means the FBI might have inadvertently helped terrorists communicate.
``There is a difference between tossing a kilo of coke into a guy's lap and then cuffing him, versus going out and selling it to little children,'' Pike said. ``I'm sure there would have been somebody at FBI who would have said this information is going to be publicly accessible. We don't even necessarily know all that is going to be communicated here.''
Pike said that concern, coupled with the pressure caused by the Internet's breakneck speed, makes the lost opportunity understandable.
``It's too new, and they were probably scared,'' Pike said. ``And they might have well-founded fears.''
Former CIA counterterrorism expert Vincent Cannistraro said relying on the public to do intelligence work is dangerous.
``It may be looked on as a large resource for law enforcement. On the other hand, it does lend itself to massive cases of abuse,'' Cannistraro said. ``When it comes to monitoring the Internet and exploiting it, you have to leave it to the professionals.''
On the Net:
Globalsecurity.org: http://www.globalsecurity.org
FBI: http://www.fbi.gov
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS
Bigger Markets for Inmate Workers?
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19013-2002Jul29?language=printer
Now that the country has ended welfare as we know it, it might be the moment to end jail time as we know it.
"It is ironic that there is one major group in society that still gets public support without a work requirement -- prisoners," writes Progressive Policy Institute Vice President Robert D. Atkinson in a recent report called "Prison Labor: It's More than Breaking Rocks."
Currently, "only a modest share of state and federal inmates work at jobs for pay," according to Atkinson. But putting prisoners to work "reduces inmate recidivism, thereby reducing crime and lowering prison costs. Second, if done right, it produces 'profits' which can be used to offset the taxpayer-financed costs of incarcerating prisoners," he wrote.
Atkinson presented his report last week at a Hill briefing sponsored by the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Enterprise Prison Institute. The Third Way advocate appeared on the panel with Edwin Meese III, the former Reagan attorney general (and current Heritage Foundation scholar), and Rachel King of the American Civil Liberties Union, among others.
The topic of prison labor gets a chilly reception from many business and labor groups, who view low-paid inmates as unfair competition. Particularly galling to business types is that federally run prison factories get first dibs on plum federal contracts, even if their bids come in higher.
"Their gripe is that . . . prisoners get very, very low wages and preferential treatment from the federal government. I think that's correct," Atkinson said. "A better solution . . . would be to let the market decide how to employ prison labor," he wrote in the report.
The PPI plan would allow private businesses willing to pay the minimum wage to federal and state prisoners to "make virtually whatever product or service they want to and sell it to whomever they choose." Prisoners would get to keep at least 20 percent of the wages, with the rest going to restitution. The federal sourcing requirement would be eliminated. The plan would also "mandate that all federal prisoners who can work do work, provided that work is available."
"Just as Congress should not give in to protectionists on trade, they should not give in to protectionists on prison labor," Atkinson wrote.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
GM says stationary fuel cell power generators key to producing vehicles
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
By Ed Garsten,
Associated Press
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/07/07302002/ap_47979.asp
HONEOYE FALLS, N.Y. - General Motors Corp. plans to have fuel-cell-powered electric generators commercially available by 2005, a move that could provide it with the revenue and technology for meeting its goal of widely available fuel cell vehicles by the end of the decade.
"If we're producing hydrogen for a fuel cell that's producing power ... we have the power to produce a fueling station," Tim Vail, director of distributive generation solutions, told reporters at the GM's new fuel cell research facility Monday.
Larry Burns, GM's vice president for research, development, and planning, said it's possible that hundreds of thousands of hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered vehicles could be on the road by 2010.
GM wouldn't produce the generators but would provide the fuel cell technology through partnerships with other companies. Vail said the arrangement would be similar to the personal computing industry, wherein a separate company builds the processors but not the PCs. "Let them bend the sheet metal and put our module inside their unit," he said.
GM plans to announce its partnerships later this year, produce prototype units by late 2003 or 2004, and sell the technology in 2005 or 2006, Vail said.
The automaker wants to tap the lucrative "premium power" market, such as data communications companies and hospitals that are willing to pay as much as $1,000 per kilowatt hour for reliable power. Such power is interrupted an average of just more than three seconds a year, compared with an average of 8.76 hours a year for electricity provided to most residential and commercial customers who pay $1 a kilowatt hour.
At the dedication of GM's new 64,000-square-foot fuel cell facility, New York Gov. George Pataki powered on a unit like those that will provide some of the electricity for the lab. Another lab, operating next door since 1998, is partially powered by fuel cell electric generators. Other GM fuel cell research facilities are located in Warren, Mich., and in Mainz-Kastel, Germany. The new facility in Honeoye Falls will employ about 100 engineers, besides the 200 that have been working in the existing lab since 1998.
Fuel cells produce electricity through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. If pure hydrogen is used as a fuel, the only emission is water vapor, but there is no extensive refueling infrastructure. On-board tanks that are safe, light, and inexpensive enough remain in development.
Gasoline, methanol, and natural gas are being used as interim fuels, but they require the addition of a heavy, expensive reformer to extract hydrogen and aren't pollution-free.
In May, GM demonstrated a gasoline-fed fuel cell version of its Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck. The automaker also is working on a drivable version of the Autonomy fuel cell vehicle it debuted at this year's North American International Auto Show in Detroit. The Autonomy is based on a skateboardlike structure where each wheel is powered by an individual electric motor and controls such as steering, braking, and transmission use "by wire" technology, operated electronically, instead of mechanically. Interchangeable bodies can be mounted on the chassis.
Burns said Monday he would need to sign off on whether to go forward with production of an Autonomy-like vehicle by 2005 or 2006.
Last January, domestic automakers and U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced an initiative called FreedomCAR to develop a hydrogen infrastructure and speed the production of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Every major automaker is working on a fuel cell vehicle.
Last week, Honda Motor Co. announced it would begin leasing a four-passenger, hydrogen-powered car in California and Japan this fall, making it available to government and institutional users. The FCX, short for "fuel cell experimental," likely will become the first zero-emissions car available in California that is not powered by batteries that need recharging. There are no immediate plans to mass-market it to consumers.
-------- energy
Bush Introduces Clear Skies Legislation
By Cat Lazaroff
July 30, 2002
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2002/2002-07-30-07.asp
WASHINGTON, DC, Legislation introduced Monday would implement the Bush administration's market based approach to reducing air pollution from power plants, known as the Clear Skies plan. But a new national poll shows that most voters reject this approach, preferring the mandatory emissions cuts and other mechanisms contained in the existing Clean Air Act.
The Bush Administration calls the plan an aggressive program that would cut power plant pollution by 70 percent and protect public health. Representatives Billy Tauzin of Louisiana and Joe Barton of Texas, both Republicans, introduced the Clear Skies Act of 2002 on Friday, and Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, introduced a companion bill in the Senate on Monday.
Power plants produce two-thirds of total U.S. SO2 emissions, more than a quarter of the nation's NOx, one third of the nation's mercury pollution, and about 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. (Two photos by Carole Swinehart, courtesy Michigan Sea Extension)
"America has made significant progress over the last 30 years in our quest for cleaner air, and we have learned a lot about what approaches work best. Now is the time to put those lessons to use," said President George W. Bush. "Building upon the success of our most effective clean air program, we have crafted a new Clean Air Act for the 21st century - one that will do more to clean up emissions from power plants than ever before."
But environmental and public health groups warn that the Clear Skies plan will cripple current efforts to reduce air pollution, providing far fewer benefits that existing legislation.
President Bush first announced the Clear Skies initiative on February 14. The plan would set mandatory, nationwide emissions caps for three air pollutants - sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury - with the aim of reducing power plant emissions of these pollutants by 70 percent.
The White House claims the plan would reduce emissions of these three pollutants by 35 million tons of more than full enforcement of the current Clean Air Act.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released data from computer models suggesting that nationwide reductions of SO2, NOx and mercury would mean "vast improvements" in air quality in all regions, particularly areas that now suffer the most from power plant pollutants, including the northeast, southeast and midwest. These pollutants are responsible for air quality problems including smog, acid rain and haze, and they also deposit mercury and nitrogen into the nation's waterways.
Many older power plants have been accused by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of illegally upgrading without installing pollution controls.
Under the Clear Skies plan, many cities and towns would meet air quality standards for the first time in years, the EPA claims.
"Clear Skies will protect public health and the environment and dramatically improve America's air quality," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "The President and I are committed to a plan that will clean up power plant pollution much faster than current law. This plan makes sense for the environment, public health and American consumers."
The EPA estimates that by 2020, the Clear Skies plan would deliver $96 billion per year in health and visibility benefits, including preventing 12,000 premature deaths, 10,500 fewer hospitalizations or emergency rooms visits per year, and 13.5 million fewer days when Americans suffer from minor respiratory symptoms. An alternative estimate also cited by the agency shows just $11 billion in benefits, including avoiding 7,000 premature deaths each year by 2020.
"Clear Skies will also help save our forests, lakes, streams and coastal waters from acid rain and nitrogen and mercury deposition," said President Bush. "Clear Skies will do this through the use of a market based system that guarantees results while keeping electricity prices affordable for the American people."
Cap and Trade
The Clear Skies proposal is modeled on the 1990 Clean Air Act's acid rain program, the nation's first cap and trade program for pollutants. By meeting emissions caps early, or exceeding required pollution reductions, companies earn credits that they can sell to other companies that are having trouble meeting the new emissions requirements.
The White House argues that establishing a cap in 2010 will cause companies to begin reducing their emissions immediately to generate such credits. Under the plan, emissions of SO2 would be capped at 4.5 million tons per year by 2010, and three million tons by 2018. Current annual SO2 emissions are 11 million tons.
NOx emissions from power plants would be capped at 2.1 million tons in 2008, and 1.7 million tons in 2018, down from current emissions of five million tons a year. The plan would set the first ever national cap on mercury emissions: 26 tons in 2010, then 15 tons in 2018, down from current emissions of 48 tons a year.
None of Ohio's coal burning power plants are currently required to meet the emissions standards of the 1970 Clean Air Act because they were planned or constructed prior to 1973. (Photo courtesy Ohio Environmental Council)
But critics of the proposal say the plan would allow more pollution than current federal law. For example, the White House bill would eliminate current protections against increased emissions from aging, coal fired power plants under a Clean Air Act provision called New Source Review (NSR), and weaken existing measures to reduce air pollution drifting over national parks.
The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (ERCC) commended the Bush Administration for proposing to eliminate the NSR provisions, which they have blamed for the expensive lawsuits now facing many large utilities which have upgraded their power plants without installing required new emissions control equipment.
"Cap and trade programs can go a long way towards making the Clean Air Act more rational," said ERCC spokesperson Scott Segal. "Clean air is too important to be left to perpetual litigation."
In fact, Segal argued, the NSR provision should be overhauled or retracted now, before Congress undertakes its potentially lengthy review of the Clear Skies legislation.
"Current problems with NSR are ongoing and need to be fixed right now," Segal said. "Environmental protection, workplace safety, and electric reliability hang in the balance."
Clean Air Delayed
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said Monday that the White House bill would delay pollution cuts already required under the Clean Air Act by as many as 10 years.
The Bush plan would allow 50 percent more SO2 emissions than current law can achieve, and delay safer standards by as long as eight years, the NRDC charges. It would permit three times more toxic mercury emissions than existing law, and would allow millions of tons of additional NOx pollution.
The Clear Skies plan also fails to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas.
Senator Jim Jeffords, a Vermont Independent, authored the Clean Power Act and shepherded the bill through the committee he chairs. (Photo courtesy Office of the Senator)
In contrast, an alternate, Democratically backed plan, the Clean Power Act (S 556), would cut emissions of all four major power plant pollutants. According to an NRDC analysis of EPA figures, by 2020, the tighter standards mandated by the Clean Power Act would cut 34 million more tons of SO2, 6.5 million more tons on NOx, 280 more tons of mercury, and 9.2 billion more tons of CO2.
The weaker emission limits in the White House plan would cost 12,000 lives and almost $115 billion each year in medical costs compared to the Clean Power Act, which cleared the Environment Committee last month.
"Sweetheart deals for industry in the administration bill will cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and condemn millions of people to pollution levels harmful to their health," said David Hawkins of NRDC. "Introduction of this bill looks like nothing more than an election year smokescreen, but the public will see through this cynical ploy."
John Kirkwood, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said the administration's Clear Skies plan "will dismantle the Clean Air Act and severely weaken the nation's effort to fight air pollution."
"The plan will not reduce power plant emissions enough to clear the skies and protect the nation's health," Kirkwood said. "In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency's own analysis shows that the Clean Air Act will provide greater pollution reductions than those proposed by the Administration initiative."
Public Not Convinced
Most Americans share this view, according to a new poll released by the nonprofit Clean Air Trust. The survey of registered and likely voters, conducted for the Clean Air Trust, found that, by almost a three to one margin, voters reject the notion that electric power companies should be able to buy pollution credits from another company rather than clean up their own emissions.
That result held true even when the Bush cap and trade plan was described in the White House's own terms, claiming that the proposal would "lead to faster reductions in air pollution at less cost by relying on the efficiency of the market."
"If it were up to the voting public, the Bush plan would be dead on arrival," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust.
O'Donnell noted that the survey questions were worded carefully in order not to load the results.
"The truth is, once the voting public understands what the Bush plan is all about, they flatly reject it, even if we don't point out that it will encourage irresponsible corporate behavior," added O'Donnell.
O'Donnell noted that 53 percent of surveyed Republicans, 69 percent of Independents, and 70 percent of Democrats oppose the cap and trade proposal. However, 70 percent of voters said they supported tougher enforcement of existing clean air laws.
Voters also said they would be less likely, by a 45 percent to 10 percent margin, to vote for a candidate who supports the cap and trade proposal.
Representative Joe Barton with then Texas Governor George W. Bush in Austin in 2000. (Photo courtesy Office of Representative Barton)
The Clear Skies bill is expected to have the support of most Republicans in Congress. Representative Barton, who introduced the House version of the legislation, said the bill "will not only accelerate the already improving air quality of our nation, but begin key reforms to regulatory programs which have hindered progress and impeded technological innovation."
Still, Barton said he expects the bill to face considerable opposition and debate.
"This bill serves as a starting point which will hopefully lead to passage of this or similar legislation over the next several years," Barton noted. "This is a first step, and an important one, but we have many more ahead of us."
More information about the Clear Skies plan is available at: http://www.epa.gov/clearskies
----
Fueled by Pork
By Carl Pope and Ed Crane
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18565-2002Jul29?language=printer
As members of the House and Senate wrangle over how to hitch together their versions of an energy plan, the two of us -- one a committed conservationist, the other an advocate of free-market principles -- find ourselves in a rare moment of harmony. We both agree that the energy bill now in conference committee ought to be stopped. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, one thing is clear: It's time to derail this legislative train.
The Senate has already killed the big items on the agendas of both the environmentalists (higher auto-mileage standards) and the oil industry (drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Some Washington insiders smugly say that since now no one is happy with this bill, it must be a good one. Wrong.
The legislation does nothing to improve the efficiency of energy markets or to remedy any market failures. In fact, it makes matters worse by further distorting these markets with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and other handouts to well-connected energy industries.
This shouldn't come as any surprise. When politicians lack the courage or wherewithal to solve problems, they reflexively subsidize politically potent industries that supposedly offer solutions. So let's start at the top: What's the problem that the House and Senate bills supposedly solve?
It's not energy supply or price. There is no national energy shortage, and prices are moderate in constant dollars. In fact, the House and Senate bills will almost certainly raise gasoline prices by ramming down consumers' throats a poorly conceived, environmentally damaging and expensive ethanol mandate.
It's not oil dependence. For those to whom this is important, the legislation would have only a trivial effect on domestic oil production or consumption.
It's not gasoline refining capacity. Even those in the oil industry acknowledge that when new capacity is needed, they'll add it; profit opportunities, or the lack of them, are the only real barrier -- and the ethanol mandate might actually create spot shortages on the coasts.
It's not consumer protection in electricity markets. The bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a green light to continue restructuring the industry in an experiment that looks more dubious by the minute, especially for consumer interests.
The bill passed by the Republican House last August boils down to little other than $33 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, the great majority of which are awarded to the coal, oil and nuclear industries. It has dozens of new federal studies and other benefits for virtually every energy technology represented by a lobbyist. Since when did conservatives believe in picking winners and losers in the marketplace?
The Senate bill crafted by the Democrats, with a price tag of merely $14.5 billion, isn't much better. It, too, has a hurricane of subsidies, tax breaks and regulatory preferences for every energy industry you can imagine. And despite Democrats' green rhetoric, the Senate bill rains roughly the same level of subsidies on the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries as it does on "green" energy technologies such as solar and wind.
Conservative legislators have conveniently forgotten the economists' admonition that if a technology is economically competitive, no public subsidies are necessary, and if a technology is not economically competitive, no amount of public subsidy or special favors will make it so. Liberal legislators, on the other hand, are so hypnotized by the handouts to their favorite industries that they overlook the far greater sacks of largess bestowed on their economic competitors.
We would hope it's not too late for something better. Devotees of Adam Smith and Rachel Carson should join together to propose an alternative bill, one that would simply strip away all energy subsidies and preferences from the budget and the federal tax code.
Environmentalists would be happy if renewable energy sources and energy-efficient technologies were just allowed to compete with the fossil fuels industry on a level playing field. The only way to level it is to end the ever-escalating arms race of corporate subsidies that guarantee green technologies will never win, no matter which party is in power. Likewise, many economic conservatives are more interested in freeing energy markets than in rigging them, but they've lacked the ability to fight the pork-barrel crowd in Washington.
Not only would energy markets operate more fairly and efficiently but taxpayers could realize billions of dollars of savings by saying "no" to this grotesque bipartisan avalanche of welfare for the well-connected. If it is too late for something better, then let's just kill these bills and call it a day.
Carl Pope is executive director of the Sierra Club. Ed Crane is president of the Cato Institute.
-------- health
West Nile Here To Stay, Warn N.Va. Officials
By David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 30, 2002; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18799-2002Jul29?language=printer
For the first time, mosquito breeding areas in Northern Virginia have tested positive for the West Nile virus, health officials said yesterday, indicating that it is only a matter of time before the disease strikes a human, now that it is endemic to the area.
Until now, West Nile had been found only in birds in Northern Virginia -- indicating that the virus has been transported from out of state. No human cases have shown up in Virginia, and last year only one mosquito breeding area -- in Suffolk near the Great Dismal Swamp -- tested positive.
But over the past few weeks, breeding pools in the Annandale and Mount Vernon areas of Fairfax County as well as 24 in the Fort Myer area in Arlington tested positive for West Nile. That is evidence that the virus has been passed to homegrown mosquitoes, which can then infect humans and animals, according to Trina Lee, spokeswoman for the Virginia Health Department.
"West Nile is not going to go away. It's established itself here," said Roy Eidem, a Fairfax County environmental health specialist. Northern Virginia and state health officials agreed in a conference call last week that West Nile is here to stay, he said.
In Maryland, health authorities have found nearly a dozen positive mosquito breeding areas and declared West Nile endemic to the state last fall, said Tracy DuVernoy, acting state public health veterinarian. Last year, six human cases of the virus and two deaths were reported in Maryland. This year, none has been reported, she said.
Nationally this year, 12 human cases of West Nile have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 in Louisiana and one in Mississippi, said spokeswoman Bernadette Burden.
Health experts at the CDC said they expect the disease, which appeared in the United States for the first time in New York, to continue moving south and west from the East Coast.
Diseased birds have become so common in Fairfax and Alexandria that health officials have stopped collecting and testing them.
A dead crow with West Nile was even found on the lawn of the White House this month.
The focus has turned to public awareness and efforts to get rid of mosquito breeding places.
"It is a matter of time now. Whether it will be this year or next year or the year after, we will at some point see a human case in Virginia," Eidem said.
A mosquito that bites an infected bird can transmit the virus to humans and other mammals, especially horses, but the disease cannot be spread directly from person to person, said Anthony Marfin, an epidemiologist for the CDC.
The most vulnerable are the elderly. Eighteen people have died from West Nile in the United States since 1999, and their average age was 70, according to the CDC.
Severe infections of West Nile virus can cause headaches, high fever, neck stiffness, disorientation, coma, convulsions, muscle weakness and, in rare cases, death. But most infections are mild, marked by little more than fever, headaches and body aches and occasionally skin rashes and swollen lymph glands.
Most people infected with West Nile aren't sick enough to know they have it, Marfin said.
Even in areas where the virus is present, fewer than 1 percent of mosquitoes carry it, and of people bitten by an infected mosquito, fewer than 1 percent become seriously ill, Marfin said.
In spite of its rarity, West Nile scares people because there is little they can do to avoid getting it, Eidem said.
Katherine McGuire of Falls Church said she was certainly unnerved.
"We are not crying wolf anymore," she said. "You really have to make sure you are protected and have insect repellent on."
------- ACTIVISTS
Philippine Protest Slams Powell Visit, U.S. Troops
July 30, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-asia-powell-philippines.html
ZAMBOANGA, Philippines (Reuters) - About 2,000 leftist demonstrators slammed on Tuesday a U.S.-led anti-terror exercise in the Philippines ahead of the visit of Secretary of State Colin Powell for talks on combating terrorism.
Anti-riot troops armed with truncheons, assault rifles and machineguns sealed off the gate of a stadium in southern Zamboanga, where the protesters had massed, to prevent a possible clash with pro-U.S. demonstrators holding a separate rally in the city.
In the capital Manila, a dozen other protesters waded through chest-deep waters on Manila Bay adjacent to the U.S. Embassy building and waved signs reading: ``Powell, you're not welcome here'' and ``Goodbye, Joe, don't come back.''
Powell is to make an overnight visit to Manila later this week in the course of an Asian tour to be highlighted by the signing of an anti-terror declaration between the United States and 10 Southeast Asian nations in Brunei on Wednesday.
Tuesday's protests occurred on the eve of the formal end of a six-month counter-terrorism exercise between U.S. troops and Filipino soldiers in the southern Philippines. About 1,000 Americans are involved in the training.
The exercises were intended to upgrade Filipino skills in fighting the Abu Sayyaf rebels, whom the United States has linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network.
Powell is expected to discuss with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on Saturday the possibility of holding more military exercises as part of the U.S.-led campaign against terror.
SUPPORT FOR EXERCISES
Although recent surveys showed more than 80 percent of Filipinos supported the exercises, leftist and nationalist groups have opposed the training as violating the country's constitution, which bars foreign troops from Philippine soil unless under a treaty.
Leftist anger was heightened by accusations by two lawmakers that a U.S. soldier had shot and wounded a civilian suspected of links with the Abu Sayyaf when Filipino troops last week raided his house to arrest him.
The U.S. Embassy denied the accusation and said the American, an army medical officer, was called in by the local military to treat the wounded rebel.
Tuesday's anti-U.S. protest in Zamboanga took place 1.8 miles from the Philippine military headquarters, where American troops were staying.
``U.S. troops out now'' and ``U.S. no. 1 terrorist,'' the protesters shouted.
The group included several Americans and Europeans belonging to an international group of peace activists.
Tension mounted in Zamboanga -- a largely Christian city of 700,000 about 535 miles south of Manila -- on Monday night when the leftists rode in a motorcade through the city.
Residents rained stones on the motorcade, injuring one person.
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!