Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Nuclear-Free Zone for Central Asia
Brazilian Candidate Inspires Worry
War with Iraq
Pakistan Stages Missile Test, First Since War Scare in May
CIA sees Iraq with nukes by decade's end
CIA Says Iraq Stockpiling Bioweapons
Iraq Weapons Glance
C.I.A. Says Iraq Revived Forbidden Weapons Programs
Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution
MILITARY
New Set of Potential Risks
UK army rails at rhetoric instead of plans on Iraq
Analysis: Rallies change Italy on Iraq?
Bush veto on Middle East talks
Saudi Support Defined
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Big Brother's national ID card
ACTIVISTS
K2R4 Nuclear Plant Opposition Leader Murdered in Kiev
Thousands Flock to Anti-War Rallies Across Italy
Warren Buffett pledges $2.5 million to the Nuclear Threat Initiative
Students Protest Pentagon Recruiters
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- asia
Nuclear-Free Zone for Central Asia
5 Ex-Soviet States Act to Distance Themselves From Russia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, October 5, 2002; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45797-2002Oct4?language=printer
MOSCOW, Oct. 4 -- Five Central Asian nations have agreed to a treaty declaring their region a nuclear weapons-free zone in a move toward stemming arms proliferation and distancing themselves from Russia.
After five years of stalled negotiations, envoys from the countries settled on a final text of the treaty at a conference last week in Uzbekistan and might hold a signing ceremony as early as this month. The ceremony is expected to be held at Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, the onetime nuclear weapons test center for the Soviet Union.
Joining Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in reaching the agreement were Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan, all former Soviet republics that became independent a decade ago and are still struggling with the environmental legacy of the arms race. The treaty would prohibit any of them from developing, producing or testing nuclear weapons, or helping any other country to do so. It would also ban them from allowing other nations to station nuclear weapons there.
Kazakhstan held Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War, but returned them to Russia after the Soviet collapse. Today, Central Asian nations no longer have such weapons, but are surrounded by others that do, or are believed to be seeking them. In addition to established nuclear powers Russia and China, the Central Asian states are near nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, and both Iran and Iraq are believed to have sought fissionable material to build nuclear devices.
Various reports have suggested that terrorists, including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda while operating in Afghanistan, have tried to obtain fissionable material from Central Asia, and treaty advocates contend the new pact could help prevent the region from becoming a transit corridor for nuclear proliferation.
"Central Asia is an important region because of its proximity to Afghanistan," said Arman Baislanov, head of the national security department at the Kazakh Foreign Ministry. "The world community believes that a stronger control regime in Central Asia would be helpful in ensuring that illegal organizations in Afghanistan and other countries will not be able to obtain material for nuclear weapons."
"It's very important because now the Central Asian states finally have come to recognize their own role in the area of providing security and stability in the region," Alla Karimova, the chief diplomat negotiating the treaty for Uzbekistan, said by telephone from the capital of Tashkent.
The treaty also could thwart any Russian attempt to reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons to the region, an option it has quietly tried to preserve during negotiations. The United States, which now has bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, would also be barred from introducing nuclear weapons there. For that reason, analysts said, China considers the new nuclear weapons-free zone a security boon.
"The Russians don't like this at all," said William C. Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, who has followed the issue closely. "They're not happy with anything that limits their freedom to maneuver."
The Russian Foreign Ministry did not respond to repeated requests for comment. But a Moscow analyst said the issue was more important to the Central Asian countries than to the Kremlin. "The leaders of Central Asia want to emphasize that they are an exception [in the region] -- they're not Iran, they cannot be compared to Pakistan, they don't dream of this prospect. In that context, they belong to world society," said Alexei Malashenko, a scholar at the Carnegie Moscow Center.
In the negotiations, Russia inserted language protecting Moscow's ability to redeploy nuclear weapons in Central Asia. Kazakhstan, acting on Russian concerns, insisted on a clause saying that the new treaty did not affect obligations of past treaties, according to participants. Russia maintains that a collective security pact signed in Tashkent in 1992 gives it the right to deploy nuclear arms in Central Asia, a disputed interpretation.
But the other negotiators who met at Samarkand, Uzbekistan, last week added a follow-up sentence saying that the signatories would take all necessary measures to implement the main principles of the treaty, language they believe obligates them to rebuff any Russian deployment.
Central Asia would be the world's fifth such nuclear weapons-free zone, but the first negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations. After announcing their intention to create such a zone in 1997, the Central Asian states bogged down. Their newfound closeness to the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made it easier to resolve differences and resist Russian pressure, participants said.
The countries are still debating when to sign the treaty. Uzbekistan and others want a ceremony during an Oct. 16-23 visit by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Baislanov said Kazakhstan wants to wait, perhaps until year's end, to see whether the five established nuclear powers sign a protocol agreeing to respect the terms of the treaty.
All agree to have the ceremony at Semipalatinsk, where, over 40 years ending in 1989, the Soviets tested more than 460 nuclear bombs. Today, the local population continues to suffer from the remaining radioactive waste. "We have a lot of negative experience," said Baislanov.
-------- brazil
Brazilian Candidate Inspires Worry
WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
Saturday, October 5, 2002
Washington Post; Page A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45789-2002Oct4?language=printer
Twelve House Republicans expressed grave concern over statements by Brazil's leading presidential candidate suggesting he opposes an international treaty designed to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. The lawmakers outlined their views in a letter to President Bush.
They quoted Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva, presidential candidate of the Workers' Party, as saying that compliance with the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty "would make sense only if all countries that already have nuclear weapons also gave them up."
Lula is running far ahead of his nearest competitor in the elections, which will be held Sunday.
The House members said Lula's comments are a matter of grave concern to Congress.
They said preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons "has been one of the highest priorities for the United States, Latin America, and the entire United Nations."
-------- depleted uranium
War with Iraq
Readers views: letters
October 5, 2002
By THE CAPTIAL'S READERS
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/live/10_05-04/OPN
I write this as the world rejoices over Iraq's agreement to admit weapons inspectors unconditionally. The U.S. response that this is insufficient reveals that the issue of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" is bogus.
The United States wants "regime change" so it can control Iraq's oil, and is already offering Russia, France and China a share of the oil if they agree to overthrow Saddam Hussein. This is blood money. American oil companies would profit from Saddam's overthrow.
While polls show a majority of Americans supporting a military strike, the numbers will drop as Americans realize the real motives of the Bush administration -- to control Iraq's vast oil reserves, control the rest of the Middle East and influence the November elections.
Those who challenge the policies and propaganda of the Bush administration are rarely heard in the major news media or at congressional hearings.
These include Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector; Hans Von Sponeck and Denis Halliday, former U.N. directors for Iraq's "oil for food" program; Phyllis Bennis, the Institute for Policy Studies' Middle East expert; Kathy Kelly, the coordinator of Voices in the Wilderness, who protested sanctions; and Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general who first exposed the damage done by sanctions and depleted uranium in Iraq. These experts have been interviewed regularly on Pacifica Radio.
Attacking Iraq would be a tragic mistake. The human cost to Iraqi civilians, not to mention to American soldiers on the ground, would be overwhelming. The projected cost of $100 billion to $200 billion would further damage our economy. The immense environmental destruction would enhance global warming, and the United States would be despised by the world community.
All this for oil, which we should replace with clean energy to stop global warming.
RICHARD VANDEN HEUVEL
Annapolis
-------- india / pakistan
Pakistan Stages Missile Test, First Since War Scare in May
New York Times
October 5, 2002
By MICHAEL WINES
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/international/asia/05STAN.html
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Oct. 4 - Pakistan today staged what it called a routine test-firing of a medium-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, the first since it conducted a similar test in May at the peak of war tensions with India.
The government said it had given advance notice of the test "to neighbors as well as some friendly countries." Indian officials reacted calmly to the firing, but added later that their military, too, had conducted a test-firing today, with a smaller conventional-warhead missile.
The 40-foot Pakistani missile, known both as the Shaheen I and the Hatf IV, is variously reported to have a maximum range of 380 to 475 miles. Pakistan has also tested a longer-range missile, the Ghauri II, which is reported to be able to reach targets as distant as 1,320 miles.
While the government insisted that the test-firing today was purely a technical procedure, it came as India expressed rising anger over guerrilla attacks that have killed scores of civilians in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, which Pakistan has claimed for some 55 years.
Pakistan helped avert war in June by pledging to stanch the flow of militants into Kashmir, but India says infiltrations and killings resumed as Kashmir residents began voting in local elections last month. On Wednesday, the Indian foreign minister, Yashwant Sinha, again raised the prospect of war as "a last option" should other efforts to halt the militants fail.
Today, Pakistan's military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, replied that "our enemy should not be under the misconception that we are weak."
"Today is a very happy occasion for the whole nation that Pakistan has successfully tested the Hatf IV," he told reporters. "Pakistan's armed forces are ready to give a fitting reply if the enemy dares to attack."
Officially, at least, India brushed off the missile test as a political stunt by General Musharraf's government. "We are not particularly impressed with these missile antics of Pakistan," said the External Affairs Ministry's spokeswoman, Nirupama Rao. "This particular test is clearly targeted at the forthcoming general elections in Pakistan."
On Thursday, Pakistan holds its first parliamentary elections since 1997, and a show of force over Kashmir could translate into votes for pro-government candidates.
India said later that it test-fired its medium-range missile this afternoon. But it was unclear whether the launching was in response to Pakistan's announcement or whether the government publicizing a long-scheduled test. The Indian weapon, called Akash, is a surface-to-air antiaircraft missile capable of hitting several targets simultaneously, but with a range under 20 miles.
The White House, which played a key role this summer in moving the two nations back from the brink of war, had no comment on the tests.
-------- iraq
CIA sees Iraq with nukes by decade's end
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 5, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021005-97861651.htm
Iraq has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and could deploy a nuclear bomb by the end of this decade, the CIA said in a report made public yesterday.
"If left unchecked, [Iraq] probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade," the report said.
After U.N. weapons inspections ended in 1998, Iraq restarted its nuclear arms program, "maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biological weapons," said the 25-page report titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs."
The CIA report was released yesterday as Congress debates a resolution to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq and as the United Nations develops a new resolution that could lead to military action against Iraq.
Regarding missile developments, the report said Baghdad has violated the 93-mile range limit on missiles that was imposed by the United Nations. Iraq also is building unmanned aerial vehicles that will "allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents," the report said.
The report contains a photo of a Czech training jet that was converted into a pilotless drone. The drones could be outfitted to deliver chemical or biological weapons that "could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, and the United States if brought close to, or into, the U.S. homeland," the report said.
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke yesterday said Iraq has an active program of "denial and deception" aimed at hiding its weapons of mass destruction programs.
The report also revealed for the first time that Iraq is building specialized facilities that are part of a medium-range ballistic missile program.
It has deployed new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 short-range missiles that have ranges beyond the 93-mile limit imposed by the United Nations after the Gulf war.
The report said Saddam Hussein lacks the material to make nuclear weapons and probably does not have any nuclear arms but that "he remains intent on acquiring them."
If Baghdad succeeds in acquiring nuclear material that could be used as fuel for a weapon, "it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," the report said.
Iraq recently tried to buy special, high-strength metal tubes that are used to make fuel for nuclear weapons, the report said.
"All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program," the report said.
Iraq has begun making chemical warfare agents again and probably has the blistering agent mustard gas and nerve agents sarin, cyclosarin and VX, the report said.
In addition to aerial bombs, artillery rockets and projectiles, the Iraqi military also has a limited number of chemical warheads for short-range missiles, including some extended-range Scud missiles, the report said.
As for biological arms, the report said Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating biological-weapons agents and could produce a variety of germ weapons, including anthrax, that could be dropped by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives.
"All key aspects - R&D, production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war," the report said.
Iraq also has a large hidden biological-agent-production capability in mobile facilities that can "evade detection, are highly survivable, and can exceed the production rates Iraq had prior to the Gulf war," the report said.
The report said Baghdad has refused to permit U.N. weapons inspections since 1998 and that electronic monitoring of suspected weapons sites is no longer operating.
Baghdad also has banned U.N. Security Council-mandated overflights by surveillance aircraft and limited inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, it said.
The report said the Iraqi government has diverted goods that were purchased legally under the U.N. oil-for-food program for military purposes. Some of the goods probably are being used for banned weapons programs, it said.
The report listed Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds in 1983 through 1987, causing thousands of casualties. The weapons included the blistering agent mustard gas and the nerve agent tabun.
Expanded chemical-weapons facilities include the Fallujah II facility that produces chlorine and phenol. The plants can be used for both water treatment and for making weapons, the report said.
The report also listed several "open-air" testing of biological weapons agents in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. The agents tested included Bacillus subtilis, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin.
Iraq also has rebuilt and expanded a rocket-motor production and test facility.
----
CIA Says Iraq Stockpiling Bioweapons
By John J. Lumpkin
Associated Press Writer
Saturday, October 5, 2002; 3:08 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46465-2002Oct5?language=printer
WASHINGTON -- Iraq could have a nuclear weapon by 2010 and meanwhile is bolstering its stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, U.S. intelligence agencies report.
The report, issued Friday by CIA officials, said the most pressing threat appears to be from Iraq's expanding biological weapons program, which relies on hard-to-find mobile production facilities. Iraq's arsenal includes anthrax, it said.
In addition, "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade," said the report, "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." The United States groups nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons under the heading "weapons of mass destruction."
The unclassified report contains some of the U.S. government's most specific claims about Iraq's weapons programs since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were forced out of Iraq.
Those programs are Bush administration's chief complaint as it threatens war against Iraq. The report comes at the height of an international debate on the danger posed by the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and what should be done about it.
Iraq maintains it destroyed all of its weapons, saying it has complied with all U.N. resolutions since the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War.
In particular, the report says Saddam's nuclear program remains stymied by his inability to obtain enriched uranium or plutonium that could be used in weapons.
If Baghdad is able to covertly acquire pre-made weapons material from overseas, Iraq could have a nuclear weapon within a year, the report said. Otherwise, Iraq will have to make its own.
The report cites Saddam's efforts to secretly acquire high-strength aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges for a uranium-enrichment program. Intelligence officials have said several shipments of tubes have been stopped before reaching Iraq.
The report does note a minority of intelligence analysts believes the tubes are for conventional weapons, not a nuclear program.
However, it said, Iraq "may have acquired enrichment capabilities that could shorten substantially the amount of time necessary to make a nuclear weapon," suggesting that some shipments of tubes may have reached Iraq.
The report, which officials described as an amalgam of information and analysis from various U.S. intelligence agencies, contains many of the same conclusions as a classified National Intelligence Estimate provided to lawmakers earlier this week.
On Friday, CIA Director George J. Tenet and other agency officials held closed-door discussions with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraqi weapons programs. Earlier in the week, some Democratic senators had criticized the agency for holding back information on Iraq.
Intelligence officials said the report was released to inform the public and give government officials guidelines on what U.S. intelligence on Iraq is safe to discuss in open forums.
But after meeting with Tenet, one senator said the report doesn't tell the whole story. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said some information that could weaken the administration's case against Iraq remains classified.
"It is troubling to have classified information which contradicts statements made by the administration," he said. "It is maddening to have classified information which contradicts classified information leaked by the administration."
But Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said he believed intelligence officials were "giving us the vast majority of what they know."
"They're giving us their best judgment, the facts that they have," he said. "But one of the difficulties in addressing this whole issue is that there is just a lot that is unknown and unknowable."
Some senators said they would push for the release of more information. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said, "We are going to do our very best to accommodate their request."
The report's authors addressed Saddam's capabilities but made no allegations that he intends to use these weapons against U.S. interests. As an intelligence document, it did not recommend any particular U.S. course of action.
The greatest current threat appears to be from Saddam's biological weapons programs, including anthrax and ricin toxin, the report suggested.
Iraq's ability to produce the agents has grown in the last decade, despite sanctions, U.S. bombing and U.N. inspections. These weapons can be delivered by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives, "potentially against the U.S. homeland," the report said.
Saddam's missiles can reach his neighbors, but not the United States or Western Europe, it said.
Baghdad has also renewed production of several chemical agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX, the report said. While mustard is a World War I-era blister agent, sarin, cyclosarin and VX are extremely deadly nerve agents.
Saddam probably has stockpiled between 110 and 550 tons of chemical weapons, the report says. However, Iraq's ability to produce and store chemical weapons is probably less than it was before the Gulf War, thanks to inspections, the report said.
Iraq has been able to pay for these programs with money diverted from humanitarian aid programs and from oil smuggling, it said.
Associated Press Writer Ken Guggenheim contributed to this report.
----
Iraq Weapons Glance
The Associated Press
Saturday, October 5, 2002; 3:09 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46482-2002Oct5?language=printer
An unclassified intelligence report released Friday by CIA officials describes specific evidence that Iraq is producing chemical and biological weapons and means to deliver them, as well as seeking nuclear weapons. In particular, the report alleges that Iraq:
Nuclear program
-Tried to covertly obtain tens of thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Some shipments were stopped, but some may have gotten through.
-Retains a cadre of nuclear scientists.
Biological program
-Announced it would upgrade its al-Dawrah Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility in 2001 without U.N. approval. Iraq acknowledged in 1996 it had produced biological weapons at the site, but claims it now only intends to produce vaccine. However, the report says Iraq can import all the vaccine it needs.
-Expanded its storage capacity at the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, "which greatly exceeds Iraq's needs for legitimate medical storage."
-Rebuilt major structures at the Fallujah III Castor Oil Production Plant, which were bombed by U.S. and British warplanes in 1998. Iraq claims it is making castor oil for brake fluid, but the report says it could used to produce ricin, a toxin that is used in weapons.
-Can make biological weapons at mobile production facilities that are difficult to detect.
Chemical program
-Probably has between 110 and 550 tons of chemical weapon agents, including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard.
-Has not used one-third of 33 million pounds of chlorine imported under the oil-for-food program, suggesting some has been diverted to weapons' programs
-Upgraded the Fallujah II chemical plant west of Baghdad since 2000, expanding chlorine output. Iraq is also trying to hide its activities there.
Missile and weapons delivery program
-Has "up to a few dozen" Scud-type short-range ballistic missiles with ranges between 400 and 560 miles.
-Is deploying new al-Samoud and Ababil-100 short-range ballistic missiles, which can fly beyond the U.N. limit of 93 miles.
-Is developing medium-range ballistic missiles with ranges up to 1,850 miles.
-Is building a large test stand for long-range missiles at the Al-Rafah-North Liquid Propellant Engine Research, Developing, Testing and Evaluation Facility west of Baghdad.
-Rebuilt the Al-Mutasim Solid Rocket Motor and Test Facility south of Baghdad. The scale of some of the work suggests Iraq will work on prohibited weapons.
-Rebuilt bombed structures at the Al-Mamoun Solid Rocket Motor Production Plant south of Baghdad. They were previously used to work on a ballistic missile that is now prohibited.
-Completed an ammonium perchlorate production plant at Al-Mamoun. The chemical is used in solid propellant motors. The report says the plant could have only been finished with prohibited foreign assistance.
-Experimented with unmanned aircraft to deliver chemical and biological weapons.
----
C.I.A. Says Iraq Revived Forbidden Weapons Programs
New York Times
October 5, 2002
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/politics/05INTE.html
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 - The Central Intelligence Agency said today that Iraq had taken advantage of the withdrawal of United Nations weapons inspectors to resume the production of chemical arms, expand efforts to develop biological weapons and revive its program to make nuclear arms.
Much of the C.I.A. report echoes the British government's recent assessment of Iraq's weapons programs. Still, the agency's report is the most up-to-date American assessment of Iraq's efforts to make weapons of mass destruction and comes at a critical juncture in the Congressional debate over the possible use of force to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein.
"Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biological weapons," the C.I.A. report said. "Most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
In building its case for a possible military campaign, the Bush administration has cited Iraq's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and threatened to use force to overthrow the Baghdad government if Mr. Hussein does not agree to unrestricted and highly intrusive inspections.
The C.I.A. report says Iraq would probably not be able to make a nuclear weapon until the last half of the decade unless it acquired fissile material through the black market. If fissile material was smuggled into Iraq, the government could make a nuclear weapon within a year, according to the agency's assessment.
"Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them," the report said.
British intelligence has concluded that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon within two years, if it acquired fissile material, while the International Institute for Strategic Studies has said Iraq might be able to use the material to make a bomb in a matter of months.
One sign of Iraq's nuclear intentions was Baghdad's effort to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes, the report said. It also said that American intelligence experts agreed that Iraq was seeking to make nuclear arms and that the tubes could be used to make centrifuges to enrich uranium.
"Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs," it added.
A classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's programs to make weapons of mass destruction was provided to Congress early this week. The unclassified report released today generally reflects the conclusions of the classified review and is posted on the agency's Web site (www.cia.gov).
The agency's account of Iraq's chemical and biological arms provides an indication of the sort of threats American forces may face if President Bush orders an invasion of Iraq. Congress had asked for the agency's official intelligence estimate before a decision to authorize any military action was made.
Iraq, the report said, has rebuilt weapons plants destroyed in American air raids. "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX," the C.I.A. said. The agency estimates that Iraq has several hundred metric tons of chemical agents that it could put in bombs, artillery shells and missile warheads.
As for biological arms, the agency said that "all key aspects" of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program were active and that "most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war."
Iraq, it said, has mobile germ laboratories that are easy to hide. It is also suspected to be working on germ weapons at three sites: the Dawrah Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility, the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute and the Fallujah III Castrol Oil Production Plant.
Regarding missiles, Iraq maintains a covert force of several dozen Scud missiles, the C.I.A. said. The British have estimated that Iraq has up to 20 Scuds.
Iraq has also carried out missile work that is prohibited by the United Nations. After the Persian Gulf war in 1991, the United Nations said Iraq's surface-to-surface missiles could not have range greater than 90 miles. But the new report said Iraq had used its work on permitted systems as a cover for the development of longer-range missiles.
The report noted, for instance, that Iraq has rebuilt the Mutasim Solid Rocket Motor and Test Facility. The site is used to make solid fuel motors for the permitted Ababil-100 missile, but the scale of the sites, the agency says, indicates that Iraq is planning to develop longer-range systems.
The C.I.A. also asserts that Iraq has sought to covert L-29 trainer aircraft into unmanned drones that can disperse poison gas and biological agents.
The report does not say whether inspections could succeed in disarming Iraq. It said Iraq sought to hide its weapon program when United Nations monitors had access to Iraq and has stepped up its weapons research and development since they were withdrawn in 1998.
"In the absence of inspectors, Baghdad's already considerable ability to work on prohibited programs without risk of discovery has increased," the report said. It added that "Baghdad's vigorous concealment efforts" had left information on many aspects of its weapons on mass destruction programs uncovered.
-------- us politics
Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV),
October 5, 2002
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/byrd1.html
Senator Byrd delivered the following remarks as the Senate opened debate on Senate Joint Resolution 46, a resolution authorizing the President to use whatever force he deems necessary in Iraq or elsewhere. Listen to portions of these remarks in .mp3 format.
The great Roman historian, Titus Livius, said, "All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste is blind and improvident."
"Blind and improvident," Mr. President. "Blind and improvident." Congress would be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the sun rises in the east, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that, in its haste, is both blind and improvident. We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.
The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House is unfortunate, all the moreso because it is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems. (NY Times 9/20/2002)
Before risking the lives of American troops, all members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - must overcome the siren song of po litical polls and focus strictly on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue.
The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.
Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'
"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."
If he could speak to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes?
In a September 18 report, the Congressional Research Service had this to say about the preemptive use of military force:
The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a "preemptive" military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal goal of United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence.
The Congressional Research Service also noted that the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 "represents a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today - but it was resolved without a "preemptive" military attack by the United States."
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the President has the authority to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat. And yet, the resolution before the Senate avers that the President "has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Miliary Force" following the September 11 terrorist attack. What a cynical twisting of words! The reality is that Congress, exercising the authority granted to it under the Constitution, granted the President specific and limited authority to use force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Nowhere was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under the Constitution to "deter and prevent" future acts of terrorism.
Think for a moment of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 46 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do you not think that future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends?
Perhaps a case can be made that Iraq poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United States that preemptive military action is the only way to deal with the threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th century horror that the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.
As James Madison wrote in 1793, "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man...."
Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do.
The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?
Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it - we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.
So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.
The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected representatives, must make that decision. It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public's desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the nation and her sons and daughters to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long term consequences of any decision to act.
As to separation of powers, Justice Louis Brandeis observed: "the doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power." (Myers v. United States, 1926)
No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium.
I am also concerned about the consequences of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to imagine that Saddam Hussein, who has been ruthless in gaining and staying in power, would give up without a fight. He is a man who has not shirked from using chemical weapons against his own people. I fear that he would use everything in his arsenal against an invasion force, or against an occupation force, up to and including whatever chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons he might still have. Iraq is not Afghanistan, impoverished by decades of war, internal strife, and stifling religious oppression. Though its military forces are much diminished, Iraq has a strong central command and much greater governmental control over its forces and its people. It is a large country that has spent years on a wartime footing, and it still has some wealth.
Nor do I think that the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a U.S. invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces. There has been no positive showing, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government. There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance, the U.S. is the unknown factor. The President and his cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true, which I doubt, but if it were, why would the Iraqi populace rush out to welcome the U.S. forces. In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bedcovers and not come out until the future became clear.
A U.S. invasion of Iraq that proved successful and which resulted in the overthrow of the government would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long term occupation. The President has said that he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south. Because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced, the U.S. would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside. This kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her.
To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces - forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense - for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military, and security forces and to build new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and to pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of mass destruction. So, if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow.
The Congressional Budget Office has already made some estimations regarding the cost of a possible war with Iraq. In a September 30 report, CBO estimates that the incremental costs - the costs that would be incurred above those budgeted for routine operations - would be between $9 billion to $13 billion a month, depending on the actual force size deployed. Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. Since the length of the war cannot be predicted, CBO could give no total battle estimate. After hostilities end, the cost to return U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion, according to CBO. And the incremental cost of an occupation following combat operations varies from about $1 billion to $4 billion a month. This estimate does not include any cost of rebuilding or humanitarian assistance. That is a steep price to pay in dollars, but dollars are only a part of the equation.
There are many formulas to calculate cost in the form of dollars, but it is much more difficult to calculate cost in the form of deaths. Iraq may be a weaker nation militarily than it was during the Persian Gulf war, but its leader is no less determined and his weapons are no less lethal. During the Persian Gulf War, the United States was able to convince Saddam Hussein that the use of weapons of mass destruction would result in his being toppled from power. This time around, the object of an invasion of Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein, so he has no reason to exercise restraint.
The questions surrounding the wisdom of declaring war on Iraq are many and serious. The answers are too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war. The Senate must address these questions before acting on this kind of sweeping use of force resolution. We don't need more rhetoric. We don't need more campaign slogans or fund raising letters. We need - the American people need - information and informed debate.
Before we rush into war, we should focus on those things that pose the most direct threat to us - those facilities and weapons that form the body of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. The United Nations is the proper forum to deal with the inspection of these facilities, and the destruction of any weapons discovered. If United Nations inspectors can enter the country, inspect those facilities and mark for destruction the ones that truly belong to a weapons program, then Iraq can be declawed without unnecessary risk or loss of life. That would be the best answer for Iraq, for the United States, and for the world. But if Iraq again chooses to interfere with such an ongoing and admittedly intrusive inspection regime, then and only then should the United States, with the support of the world, take stronger measures.
This is what Congress did in 1991, before the Persian Gulf War. The United States at that time gave the United Nations the lead in demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. The U.S. took the time to build a coalition of partners. When Iraq failed to heed the UN, then and only then did Congress authorize the use of force. That is the order in which the steps to war should be taken.
Everyone wants to protect our nation and our people. To do that in the most effective way possible, we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to minimize the number of troops we put at risk. Seeking once again to allow the United Nations inspection regime to peacefully seek and destroy the facilities and equipment employed in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program would be the least costly and most effective way of reducing the risk to our nation, provided that it is backed up by a credible threat of force if Iraq once again attempts to thwart the inspections. We can take a measured, stepped approach that would still leave open the possibility of a ground invasion if that should become necessary, but there is no need to take that step now.
I urge restraint. President Bush gave the United Nations the opening to deal effectively with the threat posed by Iraq. The UN embraced his exhortation and is working to develop a new, tougher inspection regime with firm deadlines and swift and sure accountability. Let us be convinced that a reinvigorated inspection regime cannot work before we move to any next step, and let us if we must employ force, employ the most precise and limited use of force necessary to get the job done.
Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident.
Robert C. Byrd represents West Virginia in the United States Senate.
-------- MILITARY
-------- biological weapons
New Set of Potential Risks
Experts Say Vaccine Would Kill Some, Injure Others
By a Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 5, 2002; Page A09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45826-2002Oct4?language=printer
As the White House studies making smallpox vaccine available to the general public to guard against a terrorist attack, experts are struggling to quantify the risks it may pose.
The vaccine has not been used in civilians in this country for 30 years, so the experts are hobbled by antiquated data.
Moreover, the population has changed significantly since the last good studies were done in the late 1960s, and today it includes many more people whose immune systems have been compromised by cancer, infection or organ transplant, or who have had certain serious skin conditions such as eczema.
Those people are at special risk from the vaccine, and estimates of their number run as high as 50 million, or 17 percent of the population. Attempts would be made to screen them out and vaccinate only those at relatively low risk of complications.
Even so, the vaccine would kill some people and injure more. That's because smallpox vaccine is made from a living virus, cowpox, that is closely related to smallpox. Vaccination works because the immune response the body mounts against cowpox primes it to resist a later infection with smallpox. The cowpox in the vaccine usually doesn't reproduce in the body enough to cause illness, but in a few people it can get out of control.
These are the best risk estimates of experts at universities and the Department of Health and Human Services:
• For every 1 million people receiving the vaccine, 15 would suffer life-threatening complications such as encephalitis, or brain inflammation, and one or two would die, studies suggest. If 200 million of the nation's 288 million people got the vaccine, that would translate into 3,000 people suffering life-threatening complications, and 200 to 400 deaths. Experts are relatively confident of this estimate.
• A far larger, harder-to-estimate group of people would suffer side effects that were serious but not life-threatening. These could range from blindness in one or both eyes to disfiguring skin ailments. If 200 million people got vaccinated, this number could be as high as 160,000 people, studies suggest, but the large majority would be expected to recover without permanent disability.
• A large proportion of those vaccinated would be likely to suffer symptoms like fever or malaise, with 15 to 20 percent of vaccinated children running fevers high enough to keep them out of school for several days.
-------- britain
UK army rails at rhetoric instead of plans on Iraq
Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday October 5, 2002
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,805132,00.html
Britain's military chiefs are becoming increasingly frustrated about the lack of a plan for their contribution to a possible American assault on Iraq.
Irritated by the daily hostile rhetoric on Iraq from their political masters, they are anxiously awaiting orders at a time of growing pressure on the armed forces.
This anxiety is compounded by their role as cover for firefighters, who are threatening to strike this month.
In stark contrast to the US, which is sending thousands of its soldiers to the Gulf, troops here are receiving "no special training" for action, according to the Ministry of Defence.
Unlike their American counterparts, British soldiers are not learning ways to combat an attack from chemical or biological weapons, defence officials say.
"The longer it takes to make a decision the harder it is to make a decision," one senior military source said.
"We don't know what kind of package we will be asked for. None of the decisions have been taken," another said.
With no instructions from ministers, or requests from the US, military commanders have been left to anticipate what units and formations will eventually be requested.
Publicly, MoD officials have repeated the line that no political decisions have been made, either by the US or British governments, on what form military action against Iraq would take.
Faced with continuing uncertainty, military chiefs have pulled out up to 4,000 troops - part of the army's rapid reaction force - from training on Green Goddess fire engines. They will return to their normal exercises.
The MoD has described the move as "prudent contingency planning".
These troops have been replaced by other units, including 1,500 soldiers who have have just returned from peacekeeping duties in the Balkans. The four weeks' leave they were entitled to has been postponed. The units include the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards based at Aldershot, an engineer regiment based at Andover, and two batteries of the Royal Horse Artillery based at Tidworth in Hampshire. Up to 15,000 troops, commanded by a three-star general, are preparing to cover for firefighters in the event of a nationwide strike later this month.
In the absence of any political instructions British military chiefs have had to draw up their own unofficial contingency plans.
With American opinion polls reflecting deep concern about any military action against Iraq confined to US troops, they assume President Bush will call on Tony Blair for a big British contingent.
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, is believed to have promised a substantial commitment during talks with his opposite number, Donald Rumsfeld, in Washington last month.
This could amount to as many as 20,000 troops based around 16 Air Assault Brigade, which includes paratroopers, and Royal Marine commandos. Other military assets which may be called on include the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, which is equipped with hi-tech command and control communications and Harrier jump jets. It is currently on exercise in the Mediterranean.
British aircraft are being equipped with new long-range missiles which can be fired in almost all weather. The lack of modern weapons has meant that the RAF has played only a minimal role in the American bombing campaigns in Kosovo and Afghanistan.
RAF and American planes are stepping up attacks on air defence, missile, and communications sites over the "no-fly" zone in southern Iraq. However, any British contribution to the widely anticipated bombing of Iraq will be largely symbolic.
Of more concern to British military chiefs is the role of ground troops. Though one scenario expects an early collapse of Iraqi military resistance in the south and west of the country with paratroopers, commandos and special forces dropped in by aircraft or helicopter, senior British officers are privately expressing serious concern at the prospect of tanks charging through the desert to Baghdad.
-------- europe
Analysis: Rallies change Italy on Iraq?
By Eric J. Lyman
From the International Desk (UPI)
10/5/2002
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021005-022
Photo demonstration: http://www.antiwar.com/photos/italy.jpg
ROME, Oct. 5 -- More than 1.5 million Italians took to the streets of dozens of cities Saturday afternoon and evening to protest possible U.S. military action against Iraq -- a surprise show of discord that could be fervent enough for the Italian government to re-think its support of Washington.
The larger-than-expected protests took place without violence, despite speculation from some fronts that the gatherings could become dangerous, especially to U.S. citizens. On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Rome circulated a warning to citizens residing in or visiting Italy to stay away from the demonstrations because of fears that they could become targets for violence.
But even though the protests were peaceful, demonstrators made it clear that they opposed U.S. action against Baghdad. The stance is significant because up to this point, Rome and London have been President George W. Bush's strongest allies in Europe.
Most European leaders -- most vocally France's Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany -- have called on diplomatic means to diffuse tensions between the United States and Iraq.
"For several weeks, Italians have been saying that they are opposed to action against Iraq, but this is the first time they have put those words into action," Maria Rossi, co-director of the polling firm Opinioni, told United Press International. "The site of thousands of Italians on the streets protesting against the potential war in Iraq has to be a sobering sight for government officials who will need public support for other issues."
Government officials were not available for comment on their stance on U.S.-Iraq relations on Saturday, but local television drew the same conclusion as Rossi.
"If the government can ignore this ... it can ignore anything," said one on-the-scene journalist for the network La 7 in Milan. "On this day, the Italian people have spoken ... and they say they are against support for the American position."
Opinion polls support that view, with a week-old survey from Opinioni showing that more than two out of every three Italians opposed any armed conflict over Iraq, and nearly four out of five Italians opposed to Italian participation in such action unless it was as part of a United Nations-sponsored force.
Most of the anti-war demonstrations took place on Saturday morning, with the biggest of those in Milan, drawing a crowd that police estimated at between 60,000 to 100,000 people.
Signs in the crowd showed Bush's head on the body of a hawk -- a reference to the president's hawkish stance toward Iraq's Saddam Hussein -- and others that showed Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and British leader Tony Blair as Bush's pets, referring to their support of U.S. policies. Other large morning rallies took place in Bologna, Florence, Naples and Palermo.
But the day's biggest march was held in the evening in Rome, where police said as many as 200,000 people gathered in protest.
"Our point is that we cannot support the United States's plan to kill innocent Iraqis in order to win the upcoming (Congressional) elections," Marco Filiberti, 38, a protester who came to Rome with six friends from the nearby city of Latina, told UPI.
Claudia Bacigalupo, 24, a teacher from Rome, said she hoped the day's unexpectedly large rallies would convince the government to backtrack on its support of Washington.
"We cannot control what the United States does, but we can tell them that if they want to march into Iraq they will have to do so without the support of the Italian military," Bacigalupo said.
Whether that will be the case or not is unclear. In the past, Berlusconi has paid only limited attention to public opinion -- which, combined his eagerness to support Washington on a variety of issues -- might make a change of plans unlikely. But pollsters say that because of the support the government will need to address an array of domestic issues, the public's view on Iraq could create a degree of doubt about the course the prime minister has chosen.
"Over the coming months, the government will try to pass a so-far unpopular budget, revisit controversial labor reform legislation and start to tackle painful pension reforms," Rossi, the pollster, said. "With the economy weakening, the government may have to pick its most important battles ... (and) what we don't know is whether Iraq is one of them."
The United States has taken an aggressive stance against Iraq -- including calls for Hussein's government to be toppled -- on fears that the Iraqi leader is building an arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
-------- israel / palestine
Bush veto on Middle East talks
Humiliating rebuff for Blair initiative
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Saturday October 5, 2002
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,805242,00.html
Tony Blair's drive for Middle East peace talks has suffered an embarrassing setback at the hands of the US president, George Bush, only days after the prime minister flagged up his plan at the Labour party conference in Blackpool.
Mr Blair is pushing for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks, backed by an international conference, before the end the year. He has told colleagues that, with war looming in Iraq, he regards it as essential to deal with one of the main causes of Arab resentment against the west.
But the Guardian has learnt that Mr Bush has blocked the initiative and has made it clear to Mr Blair that he does not want such talks to be held in the near future.
Over the last fortnight Mr Blair has made two public calls for a revival of negotiations aimed at securing a final Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. He told the Commons, recalled last week to debate Iraq, that "we need a new conference on the Middle East peace" and "a massive mobilisation of energy to get the peace process moving again".
On Tuesday he told the party conference that "by the year's end, we must have revived final status negotiations and they must have explicitly as their aims an Israeli state free of terror, recognised by the Arab world, and a viable Palestinian state based on the boundaries of 1967".
Mr Blair has staked a great deal of political capital on his relationship with Mr Bush. But Downing Street and the Foreign Office are exasperated by the American leader's attitude. According to officials, in spite of the setback, Mr Blair is to continue to pursue the idea of peace talks over the next few months.
Mr Bush's rebuff highlights a fundamental division between the US and Britain over the Middle East: the US sees dealing with Iraq as the priority whereas Britain sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the priority, either to be tackled first or, at least, alongside Iraq.
A Whitehall official, describing the US and Israeli attitude towards a resumption of talks as "cool", said: "The lack of progress is poisoning everything in the region."
There has been an increase in transatlantic traffic in recent weeks. Downing Street refused to disclose last night when Mr Blair last spoke to Mr Bush, saying only that there were on-going contacts at all levels.
The prospect of a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian final settlement talks was raised by the Quartet group - made up of the United Nations, the US, the European Union and Russia - but no date has yet been set for the next meeting of the group.
The US representative on the group is the secretary of state, Colin Powell, who shares Mr Blair's views on an urgent need for a peace conference.
The outstanding issues for the final settlement talks are: the future of Jerusalem, which both Israel and the Palestinians claim as their capital; the fate of more than three million Palestinian refugees who demand a right to return to Israel; and the territorial boundary between Israel and a new Palestinian state.
The Foreign Office is keen that an international conference be held in tandem to provide a fillip to the Israeli-Palestinian talks. London has been suggested as a venue for the international conference and Mr Blair as the chairman.
The Israeli government reacted critically this week to the the prime minister's call for a revival of the peace conference and for all countries in the Middle East - Israel as well as Iraq - to honour United Nations resolutions.
Violence continued yesterday, with Israeli police charging into one of the holiest sites in Jerusalem - known as Temple Mount to Jews and Haram as-Sharif to Muslims - after Palestinians dropped stones on Jews praying at the Western Wall. Israeli soldiers shot dead a 16-year-old Palestinian boy near Jenin in the West Bank and left a 12-year-old boy critically injured.
-------- mideast
Saudi Support Defined
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein should result in the removal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia.
By Nawaf Obaid
Saturday, October 5, 2002
Washington Post; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45726-2002Oct4?language=printer
Saudi Arabia has joined the chorus of nations supporting strong U.N. action against Iraq. The kingdom -- which has spent many years in Saddam Hussein's cross hairs -- has as much cause as any country to fear Iraq's ability to wreak havoc on its neighbors. What's more, eliminating this threat would bring another important prize: the removal of U.S. troops from Saudi soil.
The Saudis have long desired regime change in Iraq but often wondered where the United States stood on this issue. In 1996, when opposition groups staged a revolt in northern Iraq, the United States did not act. The resulting slaughter of these fighters by Hussein's forces undermined Saudi faith in America's commitment to forcibly deal with Hussein.
In recent months, as it became apparent that President Bush was getting serious about Iraq, Saudi reluctance had more to do with the U.S. approach than with any affection for the Iraqi president. The headlong and unilateralist style of the U.S. administration gave the Saudis -- along with nearly every other country in the world -- reason to pause.
Senior Saudi leaders -- especially Crown Prince Abdullah and the minister of defense, Prince Sultan -- wanted to address the Iraq problem with the backing of the rest of the world. This was a key topic at last month's meeting between President Bush and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States. In these discussions, Prince Bandar made clear that if the United States presented a defined strategy to remove the threat Hussein poses, one that included appropriate U.N. Security Council resolutions and a multilateral coalition, the Saudis would back the effort.
So when Bush outlined his plan to the United Nations, the Saudis immediately expressed their support. "All signatories to the U.N. charter, including Saudi Arabia," said the Saudi foreign minister, "are obligated to abide by the decisions of the Security Council." Senior Saudi leaders have begun to build support among their people for coming actions against Iraq.
The task will not be easy. Anti-U.S. sentiment in Saudi Arabia has grown in recent months, fueled by perceived American bias against the Palestinians and reports of the demonization of the kingdom in the American media. But Crown Prince Abdullah and Prince Sultan can draw upon a sizable reserve of domestic support. Prince Sultan began his outreach by visiting Buraida (in the central Qassim region), the hub of Saudi conservatism. Prince Sultan, a powerful leader with influence among those in the religious establishment, is in a good position to make the government's case. In the end, there is every reason to expect at least tacit approval for a campaign against Hussein.
The government's position will be strengthened by the fact that success in Iraq would pave the way for the removal of the U.S. military from Saudi Arabia. American troops are stationed in the kingdom to patrol the no-fly zones and prevent Iraqi aggression; once these threats have passed it is logical that they would leave. It is in the interest of both countries.
The withdrawal of American troops would sit well with Saudis from all walks of life who resent their presence, removing one of the main irritants between the American and Saudi governments. It would also belie the fringe but persistent belief that these 3,000 soldiers remain to protect the royal family against domestic opposition. The absurdity of this notion is clear to anyone who has more than a cursory understanding of Saudi Arabia. If foreign soldiers ever raised arms against the Saudi people, the government that hosted them would instantly lose all legitimacy.
There are those who argue against the evacuation of U.S. troops on the grounds that it would hand Osama bin Laden's supporters a victory by succumbing to his key demand. On the contrary: Such a policy would undermine extremists by strengthening the kingdom and its partnership with the United States. It also would undermine to a certain extent bin Laden's critique of the Saudi government as dependent on the U.S. military. Finally, a withdrawal would improve America's relations not only with Saudi Arabia but also with the entire Muslim world. The presence of U.S. troops on the land that hosts Islam's two holiest sites, in Mecca and Medina, has long rankled Muslims.
Defanging Hussein will bring relief to his neighbors and a semblance of normality to the long-suffering Iraqis. Once the job is complete and U.S. troops leave Saudi Arabia, America's position in the region, its partnership with the kingdom and its relations with the Arab world will be strengthened.
The writer is an oil analyst and author of the forthcoming book "Saudi Arabia Since 9/11."
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Big Brother's national ID card
EDITORIAL •
October 5, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021005-695758.htm
A national Identification card - complete with biometic identifiers, such as fingerprints or retinal scans - is coming. Only it's not being called that. House Resolution 4633 - the Driver's License Modernization Act of 2002 - would effectively create a national ID if it's passed. The bill would require each state to adopt a uniform standard for driver's licenses and link their motor vehicle databases to a central computer registry. H.R. 4633 would "amend title 23, United States Code, to establish standards for state programs for the issuance of drivers' licenses and identification cards, and for other purposes." It would make use of "encoded biometric data matching the holder of the license or card." In other words, American citizens who have never committed any crime would be subject to fingerprinting (or something similar, such as a retinal scan) and compelled to carry a card with an embedded computer chip containing reams of personal information.
What the legislation calls for is, in fact, a national ID card that every adult American would effectively be forced to carry. The only way to opt out would be to give up one's driver's license - something that is not practical in an era when, outside of major cities, being able to drive is a necessity without which one cannot secure or maintain employment. And like the now-ubiquitous Social Security number - which, recall, was "never to be used for identification purposes," but which is now almost impossible to conduct any business without - the coming national ID/driver's license will almost certainly become an item without which one cannot open a bank account, obtain a credit card, purchase a car or home, and so on.
As Eric Skrum of the National Motorists Association put it recently: "Ultimately, anybody in any state with a card reader would be able to look up your personal driving record, credit rating, Social Security number, health information, personal address, and anything else the government would force you to divulge in order to 'voluntarily' obtain a driver's license."
They can call it whatever they want, but the end result will be the same. This bill should be rejected as being incompatible with a free society.
-------- ACTIVISTS
K2R4 Nuclear Plant Opposition Leader Murdered in Kiev
October 3, 2002
Associated Press, and the online magazine Korrespondent, and CEE Bankwatch
http://nonukes.narod.ru/Public_Control.htm
KIEV, Ukraine - A month ago a civic group filed a lawsuit against the Ukrainian government to stop construction of two nuclear power plants at Rivne and Khmelnytskyi, calling the projects illegal. On Tuesday its vice-Chairman was gunned down in Kiev.
An unidentified man shot and killed Ruslan Syniavskyi, 44, late Monday at the entrance of his apartment building in downtown Kiev, the Interior Ministry's department in the capital said. Police didn't provide other details.
The Interfax news agency said that the assailant shot several times in an attempt to rob Syniavsky. "It's very doubtful that an ordinary thief carries a gun," said Oleh Sadanets, a representative of Syniavskyi's Public Control organization. "We consider that this (killing) was linked to his activity in the organization... four shots cannot be a simple accident."
Syniavksy was the vice-Chairman of Public Control, a non- governmental, environmental organization. The group is suing the Ukrainian government in a Kiev district court demanding a halt to the plants' construction. The group claims that the State Nuclear Regulatory Committee broke the law by not conducting adequate public hearings before providing a license to the state nuclear company Energoatom to construct the new power stations.
A judge agreed in August to hear Public Control's case after the same court denied a lawsuit by six representatives of an environmental group against Energoatom, claiming completion of the nuclear plants posed an ecological threat to the country. Alexei Tolkachov, a law student who is the chairperson of the Kiev-based Public Committee for State Security - a take-off of the Soviet-era KGB, or Committee for State Security - led the unsuccessful lawsuit.
Ukrainian law requires the court to order construction to stop pending review of the group's petition and a decision. Court officials would not confirm whether a stop order has been issued, and Energoatom has denied that it had received any court order to stop construction resulting from the lawsuit.
Soviet-designed reactors are currently operating at Rivne and Khmelnytskyi and the disputed new reactors are about 85% complete. Ukraine negotiated to build the new reactors to compensate for the electricity lost when the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was closed in 2000.
Currently, Ukraine operates four nuclear power plants with 13 reactors, nine of which are now working. The reactors are frequentlyshut down for malfunctions or scheduled repairs.
K2R4 Loan Hurdles
On 13 December 2000 the European Commission approved a Euratom loan of US$585 million for the Khmelnytskyi and Rivne plant expansions, subject to the confirmation by the EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) of the effectiveness of their 7 December 2000 decision on a US$215 million loan for the same project. As all conditions were fulfilled, the EBRD and the Commission decision was ready to be confirmed and the loans were to be granted in early December 2001.
But on 28 November 2001, some days before signing the contracts with the EBRD and European Commission, the Ukrainian Prime Minister Anatoly Kinakh requested additional discussions on certain loan conditions that Ukraine considered unachievable, and consequently refused to sign the EBRD loan contract.
At the request of Ukraine, a joint Working Group (WG) was established to explore solutions that would address the issues of their concern and render the project acceptable. The WG met biweekly until early February 2002 to discuss project cost, the Project Financing Plan, electricity tariffs, the Decommissioning Fund and nuclear liabilities and insurance. Substantial work remains to be done before a solution is fully defined.
One of the conditions which the EBRD required is an immediate hike in electricity rates, which would have meant a 30% rise in consumer rates. The issue of increasing electricity rates played an important role in the move on 28 November 2001 not to sign the contract. To agree to such an increase at that moment was impossible in the run-up to national elections scheduled for March 2002. According to Prime Minister Kinakh, the negotiations in the WG had led to agreement on reduction of the project costs and on mitigation of the bank's requirement for increasing electricity rates. The required hike in electricity rates could be smaller if the total project costs could be lowered.
Assuming the project is satisfactorily adjusted at technical level by the WG, it will have to be re-approved by all parties, a process that will require full political support. In any case, a decision is not expected until after the Ukrainian parliamentary elections of March. Currently, due to parliamentary disagreements and presidential scandals it is expected that agreements will not be announced until much later this fall.
For more information, contact NIRS WISE Ukraine at akul@svitonline.com or see our website at http://nonukes.narod.ru
Natasha Akulenko P.O.Box 218-2 Kyiv 02099 Ukraine akul@svitonline.com Ukrainian Energy Brigades www.energybrigades.org
----
Thousands Flock to Anti-War Rallies Across Italy
Reuters
Saturday, October 5, 2002
By Shasta Darlington
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47675-2002Oct5?language=printer
ROME (Reuters) - Waving banners and ringing church bells, thousands of Italians flocked to peace rallies across the country on Saturday to protest against a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq.
Anti-war groups said demonstrators in 100 cities from the financial hub of Milan to the tip of the Italian boot participated in the protests.
Thousands of people streamed through the historic centers of Milan, Florence, Bologna, Catania and Bergamo in the morning and many thousands more took to the streets of Rome in the evening.
"Against the war without ifs or buts!!" one Milan banner declared as swarms of students marched through the streets.
"This protest gives a clear message without any doubt that we are against this war and against wars in general," said Luca Corradini, a student leader.
In Rome, a group of women hand-cuffed together headed a massive march to the capital's historic Piazza Venezia.
Union leaders, left-wing politicians and anti-globalization groups led protests in Sicily and Naples, other marchers burned flags and monks rang church bells in Florence to show their support for the demonstrators.
It was not immediately clear how many people turned out for the protests.
President Bush is lobbying for a tougher United Nations resolution against Iraq, saying President Saddam Hussein should be removed because he is trying to build an arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Iraq denies the charges and recently agreed to let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq to search for illegal weapons.
Unlike Germany and France, the Italian government has been supportive of Bush.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi recently told parliament that Rome had a duty to support U.S. diplomatic and military efforts to disarm Iraq and said he would not flinch from conflict if that were the only way to disarm Baghdad.
But many Italians oppose the idea of conflict.
"The interests of Bush are not to bring about peace or stabilize an unstable situation. Bush's interests are military and economic" student leader Ambra Zeni said on Saturday.
The U.S. embassy in Rome issued what it calls a "warden message," warning American citizens to avoid large crowds on Saturday due to the protests for fear they could turn "unruly."
The demonstrations were for the most part peaceful, although a group of protesters briefly occupied the British consulate in Venice to protest London's support for Bush.
In Rome, a group of some 60 women held a sit-in at the U.S. embassy, where they were outnumbered three-to-one by police.
----
Warren Buffett pledges $2.5 million to the Nuclear Threat Initiative
Saturday, October 5, 2002
Washington Post; Page E02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45734
Warren Buffett is pledging $2.5 million to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, founded by Ted Turner and former senator Sam Nunn, to help reduce the risk of nuclear terror on U.S. soil. The offer from the country's second-wealthiest man, chairman of the Omaha-based investment firm Berkshire Hathaway, comes as the Nuclear Threat Initiative is strapped for cash. Its initial financing was a pledge of AOL Time Warner stock held by Turner that has plummeted in value.
----
Students Protest Pentagon Recruiters
Military Ban on Gays Conflicts With Georgetown's Antidiscrimination Policy
By a Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 5, 2002; Page B02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45831-2002Oct4?language=printer
More than 100 Georgetown University law students and professors yesterday protested the military's ban on homosexuality, as the law school grudgingly allowed Pentagon recruiters into a campus career fair.
Chanting, "Do tell, do change, do right!" the protesters decried a new policy that requires schools to accept military recruiters or risk losing their federal funding. Georgetown was one of several law schools nationally that, until recently, banned military recruiters and other employers deemed to violate their campus anti-discrimination policies.
"What's going on inside this building is fundamentally wrong," said professor Michael Seidman, gesturing to the Capitol Hill hotel where the Law Center was holding its Government Interview Week. "It's an abuse of power over this institution and institutions like ours."
Inside the Washington Court Hotel, though, the Army and Air Force recruiters said the protest had not slowed the line of other law students signing up to interview for jobs. "My job is not to deal with policy but to recruit quality candidates," said Army Maj. David Mendelson.
As recently as a decade ago, nearly all of the nation's 182 law schools denied access to the armed services' Judge Advocate General corps. But since the mid-1990s, when Congress passed a law calling on schools to open their doors or risk losing federal funds, most schools have amended those policies. For example, Georgetown began to allow Pentagon recruiters to advertise jobs in student mailboxes and interview interested students on the university's main campus, away from the Law Center.
But along with several other law schools, Georgetown continued to refuse to host those recruiters.
Recently, the government has stepped up its enforcement of the policy, threatening not just the federal funding of individual law schools -- which tends to be modest -- but that of the larger universities the schools belong to. In the last few weeks, several law schools, including Harvard, Yale and the University of Southern California, have reluctantly agreed to accept recruiters.
Earlier this week, Dean Judith Areen explained her decision in a memo to the Georgetown law school community. "The fact that these interviews will occur does not mean that the Law Center has retreated in any way from our strongly held view that our gay, lesbian and bisexual students should be able to seek any and every job for which they are qualified," she wrote.
Outside the hotel yesterday, second-year law student Jennifer Oliva, 28, a West Point graduate and lesbian who served in the Army for five years, decried what she described as the military's selective enforcement of its ban on homosexuality.
"If you're doing a good job, they'll look the other way," she said. "But if someone is mad at you, this is how they'll go after you because it's the easiest way to outprocess someone."
A rally of about 75 students and faculty members more than doubled when the crowd moved from the hotel to a park on the Capitol grounds for an outdoor "teach-in."
Professor Chai R. Feldblum led a discussion on the legislative roots of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy formulated by the Clinton administration. Professor Wendy Webster Williams took a less direct approach. As students leafed through textbooks and took notes on laptops, Williams discussed the hypothetical situation of whether Title VII can prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a man with long hair.
Oliva said protest organizers had weighed the idea of scheduling appointments with the Pentagon recruiters in order to confront them personally with objections. However, she said, by the time organizers learned about the military presence at the career fair, most of the interview slots were booked.
Mike Dana, a second-year law student who interviewed with both the Army and Air Force recruiters yesterday, said he was undeterred by the protest. And he questioned the logic of aiming it at the military.
"It's not the military that set this policy, it's the executive branch," said Dana, 22. "I've seen some of these same people interview with executive branch agencies."
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.