Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Antidotes: To Radiation Regimen, Add Spice
U.S.: N.Korea Nukes Could Harm China
Court hears Irish challenge to UK nuclear plant
Canada needs billions to clean toxic sites, says report
China's Jiang to Take Last Bow on U.S. Trip
Taiwan Sees China's Jiang as the Devil It Knows
U.S.: N.Korea Nukes Could Harm China
India and Pakistan: The Dispute Burns On as Armies Withdraw
North Korea Warns Skeptical U.S. on Nuclear Talks
A New North Korea?
Bush Sees Korean Nuclear Effort as Different From Iraq's
Russia Resists Ending Iran Project
Northeast Utilities
China's Jiang Zemin Arrives for U.S. Visit
Bush to Seek Asian Denunciation of N. Korean Nukes
Bush Sr. Defends Record on Hussein
For Bush, Facts Are Malleable
Bush Pledges Diplomatic Approach to North Korea
U.S. cool to offer by North Korea for talks
Their Little Secret
Secrets of Good Government
MILITARY
'Smarter' bombs still hit civilians
U.S. Tests Hellfire Missiles in Afghanistan
Bush measure puts pressure on Sudan to end its civil war
BAE Systems North America
Marijuana: High Time
Mexicans Arrest 25 to Stop Ring That Worked for Drug Cartels
U.N.'S Blix Says Iraq Can Avoid War if Cooperates
Israel Holds Back After Bus Bombing in Deference to U.S.
14 Die as Bomb-Filled S.U.V. Rams Israeli Bus
'I couldn't believe I was doing this'
A Wrong Turn Against Iraq
Assad: U.S. peace vision unsufficient
Turkey Negotiates Role in War
U.S. Forces in the Middle East
Slovenians wary of joining NATO
Russia Rejects U.S. Draft on Iraq
Study: Israel leads in ignoring Security Council resolutions
U.S. Offers Concessions in U.N. Draft on Iraq
New U.S. Iraq Plan Before Key Council Members
EYE ON THE GULF - PSYOPS battalion heading to Iraq?
U.S. Navy Training Goes Virtual as War Games Move
U.S. Tests Hellfire Missiles in Afghanistan
U.S. Refines Plan for War in Cities
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
U.S. to Free Some Held in Guantanamo
Ballistic fingerprint resistance
High court turns down case on executing juveniles
USA Patriot Act: Librarians Keep Quiet
Sleuth Without a Badge
U.S. Will Free Small Number of Prisoners Held in Guantánamo
For Justices, Doubts On Death Penalty
Bin Laden's secrets are revealed by Al Jazeera journalist
ACTIVISTS
Antinuclear Demonstrator
Massive Anti-War Rallies Planned
Report on Survivors' Visit to Washington, D.C.
13 Protesting Bush's Stance on Iraq Enter U.N. Building
Protest Against Iraq War Set in D.C.
Nobel laureates say "No" to war with Iraq
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
VITAL SIGNS
Antidotes: To Radiation Regimen, Add Spice
October 22, 2002
New York Times
By ERIC NAGOURNEY
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/health/22ANTI.html
Turmeric, a principal ingredient of curry, may protect cancer patients from the burns and blisters they often suffer from radiation therapy, researchers report.
Although their study was conducted on mice, the researchers, from the University of Rochester Medical Center, suggested that patients undergoing radiation might want to try eating foods with curry. The lead researcher, Dr. Ivan Ding, presented his findings at a recent conference of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.
The substance studied was curcumin, which gives turmeric its yellow color and has been shown to have anti-inflammatory benefits. Evidence also suggests it may be able to suppress tumor growth.
The researchers gave mice differing regimens of curcumin and found they had fewer radiation-related skin problems in all cases. It also appeared to enhance the benefits of the treatment.
Dr. Paul Okunieff, the university's radiation oncology chief, said the group looked at curcumin in part because turmeric has long been used to treat burns in India.
Turmeric supplements are available at health food stores, but Dr. Okunieff said it was unclear how much would be needed. "It would be more or less equivalent to somewhere between half a teaspoon and a tablespoon," he said.
He rejected the notion of turmeric as an alternative medicine. "Alternative medicine becomes standard medicine when it is proven true," he said.
-------- asia
U.S.: N.Korea Nukes Could Harm China
By George Gedda
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; 5:13 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1082-2002Oct22?language=printer
WASHINGTON -- China would be very threatened if North Korea acquires nuclear weapons, senior Bush administration officials said Tuesday, ahead of a Texas summit between President Bush and Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
The officials noted that China, as a major trading partner of North Korea, has some leverage over Pyongyang, but it is not clear how far Beijing would be willing to go to induce Pyongyang to rethink its plan to develop nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration hopes to defuse the looming security threat in Northeast Asia through diplomacy. The U.S. officials, asking not to be identified, said the United States will be looking for signs that North Korea is eliminating its nuclear weapons program.
When the administration disclosed last week that North Korea had acknowledged the existence of a secret weapons program, officials said made clear that no economic incentives will be offered to Pyongyang in exchange for dismantling the program.
China has indirectly criticized North Korea's program, apparently concerned it could touch off an arms race in the region.
Even before last week's disclosure that North Korea was working on a weapons program, in violation of a 1994 agreement with the United States, U.S. intelligence officials believed North Korea may have one or two nuclear weapons from an earlier program. North Korea has denied having any such capability.
Jiang left China on Monday for the United States, planning stops in Chicago and Houston before his rendezvous Friday with Bush in Crawford, Texas.
Both will attend a summit this weekend of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly - an East Asia expert who brought back the news of North Korea's acknowledgment of a secret nuclear program - will attend the meetings in Texas and Mexico.
After arriving in Mexico on Saturday, Bush will meet with President Vicente Fox to discuss migration and other issues. Afterward, he will meet with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
The administration officials said the United States hopes to move in lock step on North Korea with Seoul and Tokyo, both U.S. defense treaty allies.
The United States learned of the North Korean nuclear program during discussions in Pyongyang on Oct. 4. U.S. officials passed the information to the South Korea and Japanese government in the ensuing days. Koizumi raised the issue during a visit to Pyongyang a week later.
There is some concern that the North Korean program, left unchecked, could prompt Japan to seek nuclear weapons of their own. But some analysts believe both South Korea and Japan will continue to rely on the nuclear protection the United States provides to both countries under the respective defense treaties.
The administration officials said Bush also plans separate meetings with Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia and Gloria Macapagall Arroyo of the Philippines.
Bush's meeting with Megawati will give him an opportunity to press for sterner security measures by Indonesia against terrorist groups. The administration hopes the recent bombing at a Bali nightclub that killed nearly 200 people will end what some officials believe has been a complacent attitude by Indonesian authorities toward terrorism.
-------- britain
Court hears Irish challenge to UK nuclear plant
Story by Paul Gallagher
REUTERS NETHERLANDS:
October 22, 2002
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18268/story.htm
AMSTERDAM - Ireland opened its latest legal challenge to a British nuclear fuel manufacturing plant yesterday when an international court began hearing a dispute that has long been a source of friction between the two countries.
Ireland is concerned about safety and pollution from the Sellafield MOX plant, 110 miles (180 km) across the Irish Sea on England's northwest coast. Concerns about safety were heightened after last year's September 11 attacks on the United States.
In June, Ireland asked the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague for access to information about the plant's viability that Britain says is commercially sensitive.
"The information we are seeking is necessary to allow Ireland to form an independent assessment of the impact of the MOX plant on the Irish Sea," Irish Environment Minister Martin Cullen said during a visit to The Hague.
The plant mixes plutonium with uranium oxides to produce MOX (mixed oxide) for use in nuclear reactors. It was idle for years after completion in 1996 because of legal wrangles and concerns it would not make money.
State-owned British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) started operating the facility last December after seeing off a series of legal challenges from the Irish government and environmental groups.
In the latest dispute, Ireland wants to see unedited reports commissioned by BNFL on the plant's viability. Britain said it edited the reports to remove commercially sensitive information.
VIGOROUS FIGHT
Ireland also wants to determine if Britain has complied with its obligations to ensure the plant was legally justified, Cullen said. Britain is obliged under international law to ensure the plant is commercially viable.
Britain says the plant meets the highest international safety standards and has vowed to fight the case vigorously.
"The very small amount of information being held back is commercial information. It's not about safety at all. We fully believe we are in the right about this and will let justice take its course," said a spokesman for the British embassy in Dublin.
The Hague court started to listen to arguments from the two countries yesterday and is expected to rule on the issue within months.
The plant has already weathered many a legal storm.
Ireland applied unsuccessfully to the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for an injunction to block the opening of the 472-million pound ($728 million) plant.
Environmental groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth say that apart from the pollution concerns, the MOX fuel will find few customers because it is more expensive than conventional uranium reactor fuel.
The two groups have lost a court action in Britain to prevent the plant's opening.
An international furore erupted in 2000 when it came to light that data on a pilot batch of MOX fuel sent to Japan had been falsified. The ensuing row and cancelled orders prompted the British government to shelve plans to part privatise BNFL.
-------- canada
Canada needs billions to clean toxic sites, says report
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
By David Ljunggren,
Reuters
http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/10/10232002/reu_48773.asp
OTTAWA - The Canadian government has bungled the clean-up of thousands of toxic sites and abandoned mines across the country and needs to spend billions of dollars to deal with the mess, according to a damning report released by the country's environmental watchdog Tuesday.
Environment and sustainable development commissioner Johanne Gelinas also said Ottawa was not doing enough to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, regulate the use of pesticides, and deal with the spread of species alien to Canada.
"Overall, our findings leave me more concerned that ever about the inadequacy of the federal government's investment to protect the environment and meet its sustainable development commitments," she wrote in the six-volume report. "The federal government has failed to clean up its own backyard," said Gelinas, who reports directly to parliament.
Her insistence on more money comes at a time when Finance Minister John Manley - who will deliver a budget next February - is facing a shrinking surplus and demands for a multibillion-dollar investment in the health care system.
Gelinas said Ottawa knew it had about 3,600 contaminated sites on its hands and another 1,500 where contamination was suspected. These include harbors, ports, military bases, government laboratories, and abandoned mines. "We estimate that the cost of dealing with known sites under federal responsibility is in the billions of dollars," she said.
Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson acknowledged Ottawa faced a huge task but pointed out that his ministry's budget had been cut since 1995 as part of a campaign to slash a massive budget deficit. "We have a lot to do, and it's going to cost a lot of money," he said. "I said yesterday it might cost C$2 billion (US$1.3 billion), and I think that's a low figure. It's probably between C$2- and C$6 billion."
Gelinas noted there were no laws obliging Ottawa to clear up the mess left at federal sites. By contrast, the United States runs a federal Superfund program to clean up the most dangerous contaminated waste sites. She also said Ottawa did not know the full health risks posed by the federal sites and had failed to draw up a list of the worst Canadian spots and develop a plan to clean them up.
One serious concern is the hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic chemicals such as arsenic and cyanide now left at abandoned mines in northern Canada. Cleaning up the 30 worst sites alone would cost C$555 million. The government currently spends C$26 million a year to prevent water contamination at the mine sites, which Gelinas dismissed as "a Band-Aid approach."
In one site alone - the Giant gold mine near Yellowknife - there are 237,000 tons of arsenic dioxide dust stored underground. The storage area is now starting to leak. Gelinas said the problem of abandoned mines had "become dramatically worse" since 1998 and noted the federal approach to tackling the situation was "diffuse and inconsistent."
One reason for the problem is that until recently Ottawa did not oblige owners of mines on federal territory to put up enough money to cover the cost of cleaning up the sites. This meant that when mines closed down, the operators walked away and left the government to clear up the mess.
The opposition Canadian Alliance party said the report showed a lack of leadership by the Liberal government. "Whether it's toxic substances, invasive species, abandoned mines, or contaminated site, the Liberals have dropped the ball every single time," said environment spokesman Bob Mills.
Gelinas noted infighting between government departments and said more more action should have been taken to identify the risks posed by pesticides and other toxic chemicals. "To us, the whole situation is confounding. The processes we have observed seem to defy timely, decisive, and precautionary action," she said. "None of this augurs well for the protection of our health. In my opinion, the current situation and future prospects are not environmentally, economically, or socially acceptable."
(With additional reporting by Gilbert Le Gras)
-------- china
China's Jiang to Take Last Bow on U.S. Trip
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Jeremy Page
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63172-2002Oct22?language=printer
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese President Jiang Zemin headed to the United States on Tuesday for a Texas barbecue designed to crown his career as an architect of bilateral relations but overshadowed by differences on Iraq and North Korea.
Jiang is scheduled to visit Chicago and Houston before meeting President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas on Friday, a coveted honor just a fortnight before the Communist Party chief is expected to step down from his post.
In their third meeting in just over a year, Jiang and Bush will put on a show of unity to cement a new relationship born of the war on terror, despite U.S. allegations last week that China helped North Korea's nuclear weapons program, analysts say.
Bush wants China's acquiescence, if not support, for military action against Iraq, and Jiang wants to set ties with China's key source of investment, trade and technology on a new footing, not least to preserve his own legacy, they say.
The U.S. Commerce Department announced on Monday a flurry of business deals covering beer, telecommunications and oil, highlighting the close commercial ties that underpin relations between the world's most populous nation and its wealthiest.
"It will be more form than substance," said one Western diplomat of the summit. "Despite the obvious problems, both sides have their reasons for making sure things go smoothly."
JIANG'S SWANSONG
Jiang, 76, is expected to retire as party chief, despite persistent rumors to the contrary, at a five-yearly Communist Party congress in November, which political sources say was delayed so he would have all three of his posts at the summit.
He has to step down as president at a parliament meeting in March, but is thought to want to keep his third post as head of the party's Central Military Commission to maintain political power, like his predecessor Deng Xiaoping.
For Jiang's domestic audience, the Crawford trip will invoke memories of Deng, who famously donned a Stetson at a Texas rodeo on his visit to the United States in 1979 and was later declared Time Magazine's Man of the Year.
The summit is expected to involve a one-hour meeting, lunch and a tour of the ranch, Chinese officials say. Chinese state media have talked of a boat trip on a lake.
The meeting, similar to one with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is designed to acknowledge Jiang's personal efforts to improve ties, analysts say.
When he became party chief in 1989, China was a pariah in the United States following the crackdown on pro-democracy protests around Tiananmen Square that year.
Jiang has since weathered a string of bilateral crises including a standoff over Taiwan in 1996, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and a collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter last year.
But relations improved dramatically when he offered Bush sympathy and support after last year's September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Beijing is now hoping Bush will agree to resume full military exchanges curbed by Washington after the spy plane crisis, Chinese officials say.
GLOSSING OVER ISSUES
The two leaders are expected to gloss over the perennially sensitive subjects of human rights and Taiwan, the island Beijing sees as a rebel province, analysts say.
But they will still have to broach the thorny issues of Iraq and proliferation of Chinese weapons technology, they say.
China wields a veto as one of five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and has called for a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis.
Analysts say Beijing is most likely to abstain in a vote on a resolution authorizing military action, but Bush is anxious to prevent it from joining Russia and France in blocking U.S. plans.
Proliferation is doubly sensitive since U.S. officials accused China last week of helping North Korea, branded part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq, develop a uranium enrichment program. China denies the accusations and says it has stuck by its commitments on non-proliferation.
China recently issued new rules on exports of chemical, biological, military and missile-related exports.
It has also freed high profile political prisoners, including a Tibetan nun, to clear the air for Crawford, analysts say.
Bush is likely to temper his words on proliferation to ensure at least a Chinese abstention on Iraq, analysts say.
But the North Korea issue could make it hard for Bush to agree to lift sanctions on Chinese entities accused of transferring weapons technology or start reissuing licenses for space industry cooperation, they say.
----
Taiwan Sees China's Jiang as the Devil It Knows
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Benjamin Kang Lim
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64449-2002Oct22?language=printer
TAIPEI, Taiwan (Reuters) - During more than a decade under President Jiang Zemin, China has lobbed missiles off Taiwan's coast, threatened repeatedly to attack the island and lured away its diplomatic allies one by one.
But as Jiang prepares to step down from his leadership posts at a Communist Party congress in November, Taiwan of all places appears uneasy to see him go.
After the cross-straits bluster in his 10 years as president and 13 years as party boss, officials in Taiwan, which is viewed by China as a renegade province, are taking stock of his legacy -- and finding Jiang had his positive aspects.
They credit him with reining in mavericks in the People's Liberation Army to keep crises from boiling over into war and are counting on Jiang to break a three-year deadlock in cross-straits relations even after retirement.
Put simply: Jiang is the devil they know, while the man expected to replace him -- Vice President Hu Jintao -- is the devil they don't.
"Jiang Zemin is steadier in terms of dealing with foreign and Taiwan affairs," said Hsu Szu-chien, a China watcher at National Chengchi University's Institute of International Relations.
Hu, 59, is poised to take power in the world's most populous nation after waiting in the wings for 10 years. But there is speculation Jiang does not want to retire from all his posts -- apart from being president and party boss, he is also China's military chief.
Either way, Taiwan officials and analysts expect Jiang to retain a high degree of influence over foreign policy matters -- particularly on China's often stormy relations with the island and its president, Chen Shui-bian.
PREFERENCE CLEAR
They say Chen has made it clear who he would rather deal with.
In May, the Taiwan president invited Chinese leaders over to the island to sip tea. He named no names but one of his aides told Reuters later the gesture was aimed at Jiang, not Hu.
"Relatively speaking, Jiang Zemin is a moderate and more acceptable. Hu Jintao is an unknown," said the aide who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"There would be a certain degree of stability if Jiang Zemin retained influence."
Taipei and Beijing have been military and diplomatic rivals since their split at the end of a civil war in 1949.
Jiang's tenure has seen its share of flare-ups -- notably reaching a crisis point when Beijing held missile tests near Taiwan that brought U.S. aircraft carriers into the region in 1995 and 1996.
Over the past decade, Beijing has also angered Taipei by luring away a number of Taiwan's small community of diplomatic allies, the latest being the tiny nation of Nauru in July.
But under Jiang, the two economies have become increasingly integrated. Trade is booming despite the absence of direct transportation, shipping and postal ties known as the "three links."
More than $80 billion of Taiwan money has flowed to the mainland in a decade. Civilian exchanges have flourished despite Chinese threats to attack Taiwan if it declared independence.
CALLING THE SHOTS
Taiwan officials and analysts appear convinced it will be Jiang, 76, who will call the shots after the congress while the younger Hu is preoccupied with consolidating power.
"Whether Jiang Zemin goes into full or half-retirement, he will still have substantial influence for at least two more years," said Andy Chang, director of the Institute of China Studies at the private Tamkang University.
"He will have 100 percent influence over major issues, including policy toward the United States and Taiwan."
Hu, analysts contend, will be too busy building power to give Chen the breakthrough in bilateral ties the Taiwan president needs to win re-election in 2004.
Chen, therefore, has cast his lot with Jiang.
In an interview with Reuters in May, Chen wrote off Jiang's successor, saying it would be "very difficult to have excessive expectations" of a thaw in Taiwan-China ties after Hu assumed power.
Chen also said it was "very strange" for Hu to be anointed heir apparent without democratic elections.
Chen painted Hu as a hawk for backing a military crackdown on pro-democracy student demonstrators in Beijing in June 1989 and crushing rioting in Tibet earlier that year.
Some analysts contend that when Chen backed legislation for a referendum on formal independence from China in August, he sparked tensions that may have provided Jiang -- wittingly or not -- with a lever to cling to power.
LESS OF A GRIP
Chen has good reason to prefer Jiang, whose grip on the 2.5-million-strong PLA helped prevent the crisis in 1995 and 1996 and another dispute in 1999 from becoming a full-blown conflict.
"Jiang is one of the few people who can control the PLA," said Benoit Vermander, director of the Taipei-based Ricci Institute for Chinese Studies.
Analysts say he has equally good reason to worry about Hu, who as an unknown quantity will have a less certain grip over the military.
"When the power of a new leader is unstable, the support of the military is very important," said Hsu of the Institute of International Relations.
"The new leader will easily find himself in a situation in which he must accommodate some of the military's demands."
China's underlying strategy -- to push for reunification and economic integration through the "three links" while reacting angrily to any independence moves -- is likely to remain unchanged after the congress.
"The mainland would pursue its two-pronged strategy, soft and hard," said Lin Chong-pin, formerly one of Taiwan's top China policy-makers. "In their minds, the three links, if realized, would be one step closer toward unification," Lin said.
"The mainland would sugarcoat its rhetoric. It is in Beijing's interest to undertake a more flexible or pragmatic approach toward Taiwan," he said.
--------
U.S.: N.Korea Nukes Could Harm China
October 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-China-NKorea.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- China would be very threatened if North Korea acquires nuclear weapons, senior Bush administration officials said Tuesday, ahead of a Texas summit between President Bush and Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
The officials noted that China, as a major trading partner of North Korea, has some leverage over Pyongyang, but it is not clear how far Beijing would be willing to go to induce Pyongyang to rethink its plan to develop nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration hopes to defuse the looming security threat in Northeast Asia through diplomacy. The U.S. officials, asking not to be identified, said the United States will be looking for signs that North Korea is eliminating its nuclear weapons program.
When the administration disclosed last week that North Korea had acknowledged the existence of a secret weapons program, officials said made clear that no economic incentives will be offered to Pyongyang in exchange for dismantling the program.
China has indirectly criticized North Korea's program, apparently concerned it could touch off an arms race in the region.
Even before last week's disclosure that North Korea was working on a weapons program, in violation of a 1994 agreement with the United States, U.S. intelligence officials believed North Korea may have one or two nuclear weapons from an earlier program. North Korea has denied having any such capability.
Jiang left China on Monday for the United States, planning stops in Chicago and Houston before his rendezvous Friday with Bush in Crawford, Texas.
Both will attend a summit this weekend of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly -- an East Asia expert who brought back the news of North Korea's acknowledgment of a secret nuclear program -- will attend the meetings in Texas and Mexico.
After arriving in Mexico on Saturday, Bush will meet with President Vicente Fox to discuss migration and other issues. Afterward, he will meet with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
The administration officials said the United States hopes to move in lock step on North Korea with Seoul and Tokyo, both U.S. defense treaty allies.
The United States learned of the North Korean nuclear program during discussions in Pyongyang on Oct. 4. U.S. officials passed the information to the South Korea and Japanese government in the ensuing days. Koizumi raised the issue during a visit to Pyongyang a week later.
There is some concern that the North Korean program, left unchecked, could prompt Japan to seek nuclear weapons of their own. But some analysts believe both South Korea and Japan will continue to rely on the nuclear protection the United States provides to both countries under the respective defense treaties.
The administration officials said Bush also plans separate meetings with Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines.
Bush's meeting with Megawati will give him an opportunity to press for sterner security measures by Indonesia against terrorist groups. The administration hopes the recent bombing at a Bali nightclub that killed nearly 200 people will end what some officials believe has been a complacent attitude by Indonesian authorities toward terrorism.
-------- india / pakistan
India and Pakistan: The Dispute Burns On as Armies Withdraw
October 22, 2002
By AMY WALDMAN with DAVID ROHDE
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/international/asia/22INDI.html
NEW DELHI, Oct. 21 - In an undertaking almost as mammoth as preparing for war, India and Pakistan are getting ready to pull hundreds of thousands of troops back from their border after the largest and longest peacetime standoff in their history.
Seeing the possibility of a new beginning in the stalemate's end, American officials have begun talking hopefully of renewed dialogue between the nuclear-armed rivals. But officials and others on both sides of the border, called the Line of Control, say the core dispute between India and Pakistan is no closer to resolution.
Both countries still claim the Himalayan state of Kashmir, which is divided between them. More immediately, India believes that Pakistan is still aiding militants in the Indian-governed part of Kashmir, where insurgents have waged a 13-year secession struggle.
Still, the pullback closes a fraught chapter in the relationship between the two countries, one majority Hindu, the other Muslim, which were cleaved from one another in the partition of 1947. Last December, India blamed Pakistan-backed militants for an attack on its Parliament, and promptly mobilized for war. As their armies faced off, the world shuddered.
American officials stepped in to help defuse the standoff and apply pressure to Pakistan, whose leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, pledged to crack down on terrorism emanating from its soil.
That promise appears to have been only partly fulfilled. Indian officials say infiltration from Pakistan into the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir by Islamic militants has surged and lagged since May, when President Musharraf promised a permanent end to cross-border terrorism, but it has never stopped.
In Pakistan, small amounts of infiltration are believed to continue, although not with active state sponsorship.
India decided to de-escalate anyway, calculating that the costs of coercive diplomacy, primarily the toll on its military, had come to outweigh the benefits. Privately, officials also concede that one of the diplomatic goals of the buildup - increased international pressure on Pakistan - had been achieved.
Indian officials say Pakistan has been forced to admit that it can control Islamic militants, even if it has not fully exercised that control.
So India is turning to other forms of leverage for now, withholding the dialogue that it believes President Musharraf badly wants.
Since announcing the pullback on Wednesday, Indian officials have said there will be no further normalization of relations, and certainly no dialogue, until Pakistan does more to control militants based within its borders.
Pakistan, in contrast, has indicated that it is open, even eager, for dialogue.
"We hope as the troops withdraw, tension would subside," Aziz Ahmed Khan, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman, said today. "But the real measure of tension subsiding would be to sit across the negotiating table and start talking to each other."
The bridge between those two poles may be the high level of American diplomatic involvement in the region, which appears to be a lasting legacy of the standoff. American officials have been pushing for what has been called, in inelegant diplomatic jargon, "simultaneity" - the notion that India should begin talking to Pakistan even as America and other interested countries continue pressing Pakistan to plug the wellspring of terrorism.
"Our view is that these things should go in parallel," the United States ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, said in an interview with the newspaper The Indian Express published on Saturday. "We and others will continue to work very hard in Islamabad to try to promote the objective of no more terrorism emanating from Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled territory. But at the same time, India and Pakistan should resume a serious discussion about their differences."
The Indian government has so far not cottoned to that idea. Naresh Chandra, a former Indian ambassador to the United States, said, "The government needs an excuse" to start talking again, largely to give it political cover domestically. "Some new situation has to emerge," Mr. Chandra said.
On the Pakistani side, no overt concession is likely to be immediately forthcoming. President Musharraf's crackdown on militant groups supporting the insurgency in Kashmir, however imperfect, is seen among Pakistan's governing class as unprecedented and India's demand for more as unrealistic.
Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general and analyst, said that Pakistan was genuinely interested in a diplomatic resolution, but that India was giving it no political cover for a major policy reversal. "They have been following a certain policy for 55 years," he said of Pakistani leaders, "and now India and the U.S. say you give no support for the Kashmiris - full stop."
If a dialogue were to begin, it is unclear where it would lead. Kamal Matinuddin, a retired Pakistani general and diplomat, said Pakistani officials continued to see the insurgency in Kashmir as an indigenous and legitimate "freedom struggle," while Indian officials continue to dismiss it as Pakistani-manufactured "terrorism."
"One man's hero is another man's terrorist," he said. "That will not change."
Indeed, it may be particularly resistant to change now, with religious parties who see the struggle for Kashmir as an article of faith winning record popular support in recent elections in Pakistan.
But the American perspective is that, for now, talking is everything. "If India and Pakistan do not discuss their differences seriously and in a prolonged way," Ambassador Blackwill said in the Indian Express interview, "why is this crisis ever going to go away?"
-------- korea
North Korea Warns Skeptical U.S. on Nuclear Talks
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Paul Eckert
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63369-2002Oct22?language=printer
SEOUL (Reuters) - A defiant North Korea, facing pressure to scrap a secret nuclear weapons program, warned the United States Tuesday it would take unspecified "tougher counter-action" if Washington did not accept talks on the issue.
Breaking its silence over last week's revelation by the United States that the communist state had acknowledged it was secretly pursuing a uranium reprocessing program, North Korea said Washington must "opt for reconciliation and peace."
"If the U.S. persists in its moves to pressurize and stifle the DPRK (North Korea) by force, the latter will have no option but to take a tougher counter-action," the ruling party daily Rodong Sinmun said in a statement carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
In Moscow, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton sought to step up the diplomatic pressure on North Korea, saying its uranium enrichment program was "real and dangerous."
Bolton was in Russia as part of a tour of Asian and European capitals to enlist support to halt North Korea's arms program by diplomatic means. He was later going on to London and Paris.
He told reporters he had passed on to Russian officials confidential information about the North Korean program and he expected the issue to figure when President Bush and Russian leader Vladimir Putin met next Saturday in Mexico.
"I should tell you that our very careful, very deliberate, very prudent assessment of the information we have is enough to convince us that this program is real and dangerous no matter what the North Koreans say," he said.
"What we've said is that they are seeking production scope capability to produce weapons grade uranium and that that effort is a violation of the non-proliferation treaty and a grave cause of concern to us, to the states in the region and to the world as a whole," he said.
Monday, North Korea's number two leader, Kim Yong-nam, told South Korea's visiting unification minister that the communist state was ready for dialogue.
The U.S. ambassador in Seoul, speaking Tuesday, said that Washington sought to pre-empt a crisis through diplomacy, but that North Korea had exhausted its credibility with the secret nuclear program that broke a previous negotiated settlement.
"We have very little basis for trust in North Korea, very little basis for confidence that further dialogue will lead to a solution," said envoy Thomas Hubbard.
BROKEN PACTS
A South Korean cabinet-level delegation that has been in North Korea for talks since Saturday delayed their planned return to Seoul Tuesday because they were unable to agree on the language of a joint statement on the nuclear question.
South Korean media pool reports from Pyongyang said North Koreans balked at the South's demand for explicit language committing the North to swiftly resolving the nuclear issue.
Faced with U.S. evidence, senior North Korean officials acknowledged in early October that their country had been processing uranium to build weapons.
The bombshell admission puts North Korea in violation of at least four international commitments, including a 1994 "Agreed Framework" with the United States which averted an earlier nuclear crisis.
Hubbard, who was closely involved in the negotiations leading to the 1994 pact that froze the North's previous attempt to build nuclear weapons, said Pyongyang was mistaken if it thought the new arms scheme would win it concessions.
He said Washington sought a peaceful outcome to the problem and that there was no "cookie cutter approach" to Iraq, North Korea and Iran, the states Bush labeled an "axis of evil" for seeking weapons of mass destruction.
BUSH EYES DIPLOMACY
In Washington, Bush told reporters he aimed to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear arms program.
"I view this as an opportunity to work with our friends in the region and work with other countries in the region to ally against the proliferation of serious weapons and to convince (North Korean leader) Kim Jong-il that he must disarm," he said.
Bush is to host Chinese President Jiang Zemin at his ranch in Crawford, Texas Friday, a day before the U.S. president holds a three-way summit in Mexico with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
The following week, Japan is due to open diplomatic normalization talks with North Korea in Malaysia and has vowed to make the nuclear issue a priority.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao called for dialogue to reach a peaceful settlement to the impasse.
"The Geneva 1994 agreed nuclear framework plays an important role in the denuclearisation of, and peace and stability on, the Korean peninsula. The agreement was hard-earned and the relevant parties should earnestly implement it," he told reporters.
KEDO FATE UNDECIDED
Asked if he thought the Agreed Framework was dead, Hubbard repeated Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks on Sunday that "it looks like it's nullified" by Pyongyang's admissions.
Under the 1994 Framework, North Korea pledged to freeze the operation and construction of graphite nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert weapons program.
In exchange, the United States agreed to ship 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually to North Korea and help it build two new reactors of the "light water" type believed to be proliferation-proof.
Hubbard said the United States and its allies had made no decision yet on the work of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), a multinational consortium which is constructing the reactors.
"Only KEDO can decide where to go from here," he said.
A South Korean official at KEDO told Reuters Monday that the nuclear revelations had had no impact so far on fuel oil shipments already in the pipeline or on working-level meetings and training programs with North Korea.
The European Union said Monday, however, that it would review its involvement in KEDO in light of the revelations.
Apart from the EU, Japan, the United States and South Korea have provided funds for the $4.6 billion KEDO project.
----
A New North Korea?
By Susan Shirk
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Washington Post; Page A27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61957-2002Oct21?language=printer
North Korea's stunning admission that it has been cheating on its 1994 agreement with the United States and enriching uranium for nuclear weapons is the latest in a string of remarkable confessions from Pyongyang that includes an apology for the killing of five South Korean sailors in a naval battle and the admission that North Koreans kidnapped Japanese citizens.
What lies behind Kim Jong Il's new urge to confess? All three admissions appear motivated by his desire to try to wipe the slate clean, win international credit for candor and move on to a new focus on domestic economic development.
Kim's decision in the 1990s to violate the Framework Agreement and continue with a nuclear program reflected his understanding of the world at that time: If he were able to keep the program secret, he would strengthen his deterrence against an American or South Korean attack. If the Americans or the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors found out about the program, he would trade it away (or pretend to do so) in exchange for aid.
Why should we think Kim's 2002 decision to reveal the nuclear program is any different? And how should we respond?
What's different is that Kim has a domestic program that cannot succeed without help from the United States, South Korea and Japan. After a series of visits to China and Russia, he has embarked on a genuine effort to reform North Korea's Stalinist-style economy. He could build nukes without us, but he cannot build an economy without us.
In late September I visited North Korea for five days at the invitation of a government think tank and had the opportunity to talk with national and local officials, as well as with some ordinary North Koreans. Like other recent visitors, I came away convinced that the reforms were serious and significant, albeit at a very early and fragile stage. My background as a scholar of China's economic reforms helped me compare North Korea's measures with China's.
To lay the groundwork for structural changes, prices and wages have been raised for the first time in more than 20 years. Everyone I spoke to had received a salary increase of 10 to 20 times their original wage. Prices of goods in food markets and department stores have moved closer to international prices in what amounts to a drastic currency devaluation.
Food rationing, except for rice, has been abolished. If you can afford eggs, you can buy as many as you want. Farmers are paid more for what they produce. For several years, they have been allowed to produce vegetables on small private plots and sell them on the free market. Now the collective also may grow profitable crops after meeting its grain quota, putting North Korea where Chinese agriculture was in 1977.
Industrial policy is on pace to match the Chinese reforms introduced around 1980. Profit incentives have been introduced into factory management. Factories exceeding their mandatory quotas can retain profits and distribute them to workers as bonuses.
The regime is laying the groundwork for further changes just as China did in 1977. In political indoctrination sessions, people have been learning how Kim Il Sung's "practical juche (self-reliance) philosophy" now means "shaking off Soviet-style methods" to find "economic methods more suitable to Korea."
In its effort to attract foreign investment and promote trade, North Korea is emulating China's special economic zones, first established in 1979. The choice of Chinese businessman Yang Bin, a citizen of the Netherlands who was made a North Korean citizen, to lead the new "Special Administrative Zone" on the Chinese border at Sinuiju, has proved to be a fiasco, however. The Hong Kong stock market is investigating him and his company, and China has arrested him on suspicion of tax evasion and other criminal activities.
North Korea's early stumbles reflect its inexperience and lack of competent economists. Moreover, North Korea lacks the natural advantages -- a rich resource base and large domestic market -- that China has. Fuel and electricity shortages hamper production.
Reform-minded North Korean officials freely admit that they also confront formidable political resistance from the military. Kim Jong Il was powerful enough to impose the new economic measures over the military's opposition, but he could be forced to reverse course if the changes do not improve performance.
Kim surely knows that the reforms will succeed only if he can put relations with the United States, Japan and South Korea on a new footing. Without technical assistance and foreign investment, the reforms will fail.
In this context, how should the United States handle the North Korean nuclear problem? We should not treat North Korea like Iraq (that is, threaten to use military force to disarm it and change its regime) or like Pakistan and India (give the nuclear program a pass because the country is strategically important).
Instead we should treat North Korea like North Korea: Build on its desire to reform its economy by pursuing a negotiated approach to closing down completely and finally, and under international verification, its programs for weapons of mass destruction and missiles.
Promising to normalize relations and cooperate with North Korea's reform efforts if it agrees to shut down its weapons programs makes sense from the standpoint of our own interests and those of our South Korean and Japanese allies, as well as of China and Russia.
All the northeast Asian governments should support a coordinated effort to insist that the North Koreans undertake a verified abandonment of the weapons programs at the same time as they develop economic and political ties with all of us.
The United States has a strong interest in seeing North Korea's nascent reforms succeed, both from a humanitarian standpoint and because U.S. security interests would be served in two ways: by the elimination of North Korea's capabilities for weapons of mass destruction and by the emergence of a North Korea that puts priority on its own economic development and therefore is motivated to be more cooperative internationally.
The writer is research director of the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation in San Diego.
--------
Bush Sees Korean Nuclear Effort as Different From Iraq's
October 22, 2002
New York Times
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/international/asia/22KORE.html
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - President Bush said today that the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, had to disarm his nation "for the sake of peace," but indicated that he saw a significant difference between North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and Iraq's pursuit of them.
In his first public remarks about North Korea since the White House announced last week that the country was conducting a covert nuclear weapons program, Mr. Bush said he would use diplomatic pressure, not threats of military action, to try to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear efforts.
"It is a troubling discovery, and it's a discovery that we intend to work with our friends to deal with," he told reporters in the Oval Office after a meeting with the NATO secretary general, Lord Robertson. "I believe we can do it peacefully. I look forward to working with people to encourage them that we must convince Kim Jong Il to disarm for the sake of peace."
In contrast, Mr. Bush said he was threatening military action against President Saddam Hussein of Iraq because his case was "unique" in that he had gassed his own people and "thumbed his nose" at United Nations resolutions for more than a decade.
The president's remarks reflected recent comments by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, that Iraq poses a greater threat to the United States, even if it does not yet have nuclear weapons, because of its record of using chemical weapons and its hatred of the United States and its allies.
Nonetheless, Mr. Bush said that he viewed North Korea's admission "very seriously" and that he would work with the leaders of China, Japan, South Korea and Russia at an economic summit meeting of Pacific nations this weekend in Los Cabos, Mexico, to exert pressure on Mr. Kim.
The No. 2 official in North Korea made a public overture to the United States today, saying he was willing to negotiate over the country's nuclear weapons program "if the United States is willing to withdraw its hostile policy toward the North." American officials said they were uncertain how to respond to the overture by Kim Yong Nam, the country's nominal head of state. Mr. Kim made the offer during a meeting in Pyongyang, the North's capital, with a South Korean delegation.
For now, the administration remains embroiled in an internal debate over how and even if the United States should negotiate with North Korea. Hard-liners in the administration argue that the North should be required to dismantle its nuclear program before any talks can begin, but some State Department officials say negotiations will be necessary before the North can be induced to move. The administration is at the same time under growing pressure from Asian allies, which are urging that talks should begin.
A 1994 arms control accord between the United States, its allies and North Korea that might have served as a framework for talks is for all practical purposes dead, and has been ever since the North Koreans admitted to the United States early this month that they were conducting a secret nuclear program. At the same time, North Korea said it had "nullified" the 1994 accord, which provided Western energy aid in exchange for the North's promise to freeze the development of nuclear weapons. Today, senior administration officials said that because the North Koreans had walked away from the accord, the United States had no intention of honoring it.
Similarly, the European Union, which is helping finance the construction of two nuclear reactors in North Korea to generate electricity, promised under the accord, said today that it would almost certainly terminate support of the program.
"It is difficult in present circumstances to see how we can continue with our contributions unless the North Koreans make clear pretty rapidly that they are going to stop their attempts to develop nuclear weapons," Christopher Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external relations, said after a meeting with European foreign ministers.
In Moscow today, John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control, turned over a dossier of American intelligence on the North's clandestine project. Some American officials have suggested that Russian companies have been among the North's suppliers, though they indicated that the Russians provided less crucial technology than did Pakistan.
After the meeting, the deputy Russian foreign minister, Georgi Mamedov, appeared to put the blame for the showdown with North Korea, at least in part, on the administration's new doctrine of military pre-emption and its inclusion of North Korea as part of an "axis of evil."
"We think that such statements may aggravate the situation and don't facilitate constructive solution of the nonproliferation issues," Mr. Mamedov said.
-------- russia
Russia Resists Ending Iran Project
Moscow Balks at U.S. Offer for Curtailing Work on Reactor
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61614-2002Oct21?language=printer
MOSCOW, Oct. 21 -- U.S. officials eager to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons privately offered a potentially lucrative economic deal to Russia in exchange for halting construction of an atomic reactor and other cooperation with Tehran, but Moscow has resisted the proposal.
The Americans told the Russians that if they cut off all avenues of nuclear proliferation to Iran, the Bush administration would work to lift restrictions on the import of spent nuclear fuel to Russia, officials from both countries said today. Russia believes it can make billions of dollars by storing and reprocessing radioactive material from around the world, but it has been blocked by the United States.
Such a trade-off could eliminate a major dispute that has aggravated American presidents and soured U.S.-Russian relations for years. Russian scientists are working to complete construction of a light-water nuclear reactor at the Iranian coastal city of Bushehr, a project U.S. officials believe has served as cover for the transfer of weapons technology. Russia has defied all U.S. pressure to cancel work at Bushehr and denied any clandestine aid to Iran.
By proposing an exchange for spent fuel, Washington hoped that incentives might work where badgering had not. Yet the suggested deal appeared to be foundering, at least in part because of the mistrust engendered by what Moscow perceives as the broken U.S. promises of the past year.
In an interview today, Yuri Bespalko, a spokesman for the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry, noted that the United States has not lived up to its commitment to remove Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Moscow, made last year after Russian President Vladimir Putin threw his support behind the U.S.-led war on terrorism. The Jackson-Vanik amendment bars countries that lack market economies and open emigration policies from enjoying normal trade relations with the United States.
"Americans are being rather sly when they offer this kind of swap," Bespalko said of the latest proposed exchange. Russia, he added, would rather keep the existing $800 million Bushehr project than rely on another U.S. promise of future benefits. "It's better to have a bird in the hand than two in the bush," he said.
U.S. officials appeared uncertain how vigorously to pursue the deal, with some considering it unlikely to happen and others still sensing the prospect of an agreement with Russia.
"I don't think the Russians themselves have a coherent position on it," said a senior U.S. official who asked not to be identified. "We're picking up different vibes from different people." In part, he said, that may stem from U.S. ambivalence.
Clearing the way for Russia to import spent nuclear fuel would be controversial with environmental groups and some members of Congress. Critics contend that Russia would contaminate its environment while not keeping the spent fuel sufficiently secure. Environmentalists and Russian civic groups failed to block the Russian parliament from adopting a plan last year to import spent fuel that the government said could bring in $20 billion over two decades.
Washington controls the disposition of spent fuel from all U.S.-built reactors in the United States and other countries -- as much as 90 percent of the world's spent fuel.
The Bellona Foundation, a Norwegian environmental group that described the potential U.S.-Russian deal on its Web site, criticized it as worse for the cause of nonproliferation than permitting Russia to complete the Bushehr plant.
"There's already too much nuclear material in Russia, and they lack good control over it," said Nils Bohmer, a nuclear scientist with Bellona.
The Iran issue was on the agenda for talks beginning today between visiting Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Russian officials. Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said Moscow's position had not changed and insisted again that it had complied with all international nonproliferation obligations.
"Russia is not providing any weapons technologies and is not even negotiating any such projects with Iran," he said on Ekho Moskvy radio.
Rumyantsev also disputed criticism from environmentalists that Russia cannot adequately guard spent fuel against terrorists. "We have dealt with the problem for 50 years and so far, knock on wood, we have never had situations" such as that, he said.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
Northeast Utilities
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62027-2002Oct21.html
Northeast Utilities, New England's biggest utility owner, said its third-quarter profit rose 40 percent, to $48.6 million, as it reclaimed money set aside to dismantle part of a nuclear plant it is selling.
-------- us politics
China's Jiang Zemin Arrives for U.S. Visit
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Michael Conlon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64720-2002Oct22?language=printer
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Chinese President Jiang Zemin arrived in the United States on Tuesday for his third meeting with President Bush in a year, a session likely to produce a show of unity despite unresolved issues ranging from nuclear arms proliferation to Iraq.
The 76-year-old Jiang stepped off a plane in a heavily guarded area of O'Hare International Airport, greeted by a U.S. Navy brass band and about 1,000 members of the city's Chinese community who shouted "warm welcome" and waved tiny red and gold Chinese flags.
He was welcomed on a red carpet by Chicago's mayor, Richard Daley, Motorola Inc. Chairman Christopher Galvin and other political and business leaders.
The arrival was free of protesters, 700 of whom marched in downtown Chicago the day before to raise human rights issues.
Jiang was to meet later with business and political figures at a reception and then an evening banquet sponsored by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. On Wednesday he heads to Texas for Friday's informal summit at Bush's ranch.
He also plans to attend an annual meeting on Asia-Pacific economic leaders in Mexico along with the U.S. president.
White House officials said Bush would discuss with Jiang North Korea's newly disclosed nuclear weapons program as well as Iraq and cooperation in the war on terrorism.
Washington is seeking a unified position from Japan and South Korea, as well as China and Russia, in dealing with Pyongyang in light of the ongoing effort to develop a nuclear weapons.
The United States would like China to better adhere to bilateral nonproliferation commitments with the United States.
The question also of Bush's effort to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction also would be raised as he is seeking international backing for an attack on Baghdad if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein does not comply.
The White House hopes a new resolution being circulated in draft form at the United Nations may be more acceptable to veto-carrying Security Council members, including China.
Human rights groups also urged Bush on Tuesday to pressure Jiang to free political prisoners and discuss China's crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritual movement.
Jiang plans to step down as president at a Communist Party meeting next month, his status in the West changed considerably from 1989 when he took power at a time Chinese leaders were decried for crushing student protests around Tiananmen Square.
Jiang has since weathered a barrage of bilateral crises, including a standoff over Taiwan in 1996, the U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and a spy plane crisis last year.
His relations with Bush got off to a bad start when China detained the crew of the U.S. spy plane after it crashed with a Chinese fighter, killing the Chinese pilot. Bush also offered China's political rival Taiwan the biggest arms package in a decade, vowing to defend the island Beijing views as a breakaway province that must be reunited with the mainland, by force if necessary.
But relations warmed in the wake of last year's Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, with Jiang one of the first world leaders to convey condolences, followed by support in the administration's ensuing war on terrorism.
Bush thanked him at a meeting in Shanghai in October of last year and traveled to Beijing for a summit four months later in February.
----
Bush to Seek Asian Denunciation of N. Korean Nukes
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Steve Holland
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A839-2002Oct22?language=printer
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush will seek strong statements demanding North Korea give up its nuclear weapons program in talks with Asian leaders this weekend, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.
Bush and his top aides have made no decisions on whether to impose sanctions or other penalties on North Korea in an attempt to force Pyongyang to reverse course from a path that has already produced one to two nuclear bombs, the officials said.
"The key is to get as many countries as possible speaking out in a unified voice saying that this is unacceptable and the program must be rolled back," one senior Bush administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Bush on Friday will grant Chinese President Jiang Zemin an honor coveted among foreign leaders, welcoming Jiang to his private ranch in Crawford, Texas. Only British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah have had similar visits.
It was to have been a relatively low-key farewell visit for Jiang but he will now face a U.S. effort to persuade China, which has close ties with North Korea, to take a tough line on its fellow Communist state.
Bush then travels to Los Cabos, Mexico, for the annual summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, a gathering dominated by the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks last year. This year the United States will be discussing North Korea, the war on terrorism and Iraq.
In Mexico, Bush will have joint talks with Japanese Prime Minister Junihiro Koizumi and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. He will have separate sessions with Mexican President Vicente Fox, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri, whose country is reeling from car bombs that killed more than 180 people on the resort island of Bali early this month.
Bush will also have lunch with Putin.
The United States, Japan and South Korea were partners to the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea that was established to control North Korea's nuclear program, an agreement now in ruins after Pyongyang's admission last week of its secret nuclear weapons program.
Under the 1994 deal, North Korea pledged to freeze the operation and construction of graphite nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert weapons program.
OIL BEING DELIVERED, BUT NO REACTORS
In exchange, the United States agreed to ship 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually to North Korea and help it build two new reactors of the "light water" type believed to be proliferation-proof.
The United States is delivering the oil, but U.S. officials have made clear the reactors will not be built.
U.S. officials took a dim view of North Korea's threat to take unspecified "tougher counter-action" if Washington did not accept talks on the issue. North Korea, where a humanitarian crisis is unfolding, appears to be seeking economic concessions.
"In terms of there being an effective mechanism for garnering greater rewards from us, shredding their previous deal with us is not going to be an effective means of convincing us to enter into a new agreement," one official said.
U.S. officials said they were not yet at a point of deciding on how to force North Korea to give up its program.
"We don't have an exact game plan right now. I do think that what we're looking for (at APEC) are strong statements saying that this action is unacceptable, it's a threat to regional peace and security, the program has to be rolled back," one official said.
"We are not at the stage yet to discuss further items, economic sanctions, we just haven't made those decisions yet," the official said.
He suggested a step-by-step process, saying Washington wanted to proceed "in lock-step" with Asian allies.
"We want to start ratcheting up the pressure and see how the North Koreans react before we ratchet up the pressure to that degree," the official said, referring to possible penalties.
The U.S. officials said Washington wanted from the North Koreans some visible sign that they are dismantling their weapons program.
----
Bush Sr. Defends Record on Hussein
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61344-2002Oct21?language=printer
CHICAGO, Oct. 21 -- The United States erred in expecting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to fall from power after his defeat in the Persian Gulf War, former president George H.W. Bush said today.
"We thought Saddam Hussein would leave power," Bush told a mortgage banking conference.
But the former president, commander in chief of U.S. forces during the 1991 conflict, defended his decision not to occupy Baghdad and oust the Iraqi leader.
"We would not have had the support of our allies if we had entered Baghdad," he said. Saudi, Turkish and, possibly, French forces would have withdrawn support if U.S. soldiers had occupied the capital, he said.
Forcing the removal of Hussein also would have been beyond the mission goals of U.S. and allied forces, he said.
Still, Bush said, the United States may have made a "miscalculation" to expect that the defeat would prompt Hussein's removal by Iraqi opponents. "We underestimated his brutality to his own people," the former president said.
Bush's remarks came as his son, the current President Bush, is considering using military force against Iraq.
----
For Bush, Facts Are Malleable
Presidential Tradition Of Embroidering Key Assertions Continues
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61903-2002Oct21?language=printer
President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."
Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."
All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago.
As Bush leads the nation toward a confrontation with Iraq and his party into battle in midterm elections, his rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy in recent weeks. Statements on subjects ranging from the economy to Iraq suggest that a president who won election underscoring Al Gore's knack for distortions and exaggerations has been guilty of a few himself.
Presidential embroidery is, of course, a hoary tradition. Ronald Reagan was known for his apocryphal story about liberating a concentration camp. Bill Clinton fibbed famously and under oath about his personal indiscretions to keep a step ahead of Whitewater prosecutors. Richard M. Nixon had his Watergate denials, and Lyndon B. Johnson was often accused of stretching the truth to put the best face on the Vietnam War. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, too, played with the truth during the Gary Powers and Bay of Pigs episodes.
"Everybody makes mistakes when they open their mouths and we forgive them," Brookings Institution scholar Stephen Hess said. Some of Bush's overstatements appear to be off-the-cuff mistakes. But, Hess said, "what worries me about some of these is they appear to be with foresight. This is about public policy in its grandest sense, about potential wars and who is our enemy, and a president has a special obligation to getting it right."
The White House, while acknowledging that on one occasion the president was "imprecise," said it stands by his words. "The president's statements are well documented and supported by the facts," Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "We reject any allegation to the contrary."
In stop after stop across the country, Bush has cited an impressive statistic in his bid to get Congress to approve terrorism insurance legislation. "There's over $15 billion of construction projects which are on hold, which aren't going forward -- which means there's over 300,000 jobs that would be in place, or soon to be in place, that aren't in place," is how he put it last week in Michigan.
But these are not government estimates. The $15 billion figure comes from the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group that is leading the fight for the legislation and whose members have much to gain. After pleas earlier this year from the White House for "hard evidence" to make its case for terrorism insurance, the roundtable got the information from an unscientific survey of members, who were asked to provide figures with no documentation.
The 300,000 jobs number, the White House said, was supplied by the carpenters' union. But a union official said the White House apparently "extrapolated" the number from a Transportation Department study of federal highway aid -- not private real estate -- that the union had previously cited.
The president has also taken some liberties as he argues for his version of homeland security legislation. He often suggests in stump speeches that the union covering customs workers is blocking the wearing of radiation detectors. "The leadership of that particular group of people said, 'No way; we need to have a collective bargaining session over whether or not our people should be made to wear these devices,' " he said in Michigan last week. "And that could take a long period of time."
The National Treasury Employees Union did indeed argue in January that the radiation devices should be voluntary, and it called for negotiations. But five days later, the Customs Service said it saw no need to negotiate and would begin to implement the policy, which it did. After a subsequent exchange between the union president and Customs Service commissioner, the union wrote in April that it "does not object" to mandatory wearing of the devices.
The Customs Service said the delay had less to do with the dispute than the fact that customs lacks enough devices (about 4,000 are on order). The White House and Customs Service said the dispute was settled in part because Bush had the authority to waive collective bargaining, although he did not exercise it.
On Sept. 7, meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David, Bush told reporters: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
The IAEA did issue a report in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were denied access to Iraq for the final time, but the report made no such assertion. It declared: "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." The report said Iraq had been six to 24 months away from nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf War.
The White House said that Bush "was imprecise on this" and that the source was U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA.
In the president's Oct. 7 speech to the nation from Cincinnati, he introduced several rationales for taking action against Iraq. Describing contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, Bush cited "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." He asserted that "we have discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft and expressed worry about them "targeting the United States."
Bush also stated that in 1998, "information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue." He added, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," an alliance that "could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
In each of these charges, Bush omitted qualifiers that make the accusations seem less convincing. In the case of the al Qaeda leader receiving medical treatment, U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged that the terrorist, Abu Musab Zarqawi, was no longer in Iraq and that there was no hard evidence Hussein's government knew he was there or had contact with him. On the matter of the aircraft, a CIA report this month suggested that the fleet was more of an "experiment" and "attempt" and labeled it a "serious threat to Iraq's neighbors and to international military forces in the region" -- but said nothing about it having sufficient range to threaten the United States.
Bush's statement about the Iraqi nuclear defector, implying such information was current in 1998, was a reference to Khidhir Hamza. But Hamza, though he spoke publicly about his information in 1998, retired from Iraq's nuclear program in 1991, fled to the Iraqi north in 1994 and left the country in 1995. Finally, Bush's statement that Iraq could attack "on any given day" with terrorist groups was at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA. The testimony, declassified after Bush's speech, rated the possibility as "low" that Hussein would initiate a chemical or biological weapons attack against the United States but might take the "extreme step" of assisting terrorists if provoked by a U.S. attack.
White House spokesmen said in response that it was "unrealistic" to assume Iraqi authorities did not know of Zarqawi's presence and that Iraq's unmanned aircraft could be launched from ships or trucks outside Iraq.
Some of the disputed Bush assertions are matters of perspective.
Bush often says, as he did Friday in Missouri, that "because of a quirk in the rules in the United States Senate, after a 10-year period, the tax-relief plan we passed goes away." There is a Senate rule that required a 60-vote majority for the tax cut, but the decision to let the cuts expire was based on pragmatic considerations. Proponents of the cut from the House and Senate -- both under GOP control at the time -- decided to have the tax cut expire after nine years to keep its price tag within the $1.35 trillion over 10 years that had been agreed between lawmakers and Bush.
Other times, the president's assertions simply outpace the facts. In New Hampshire earlier this month, he said his education legislation made "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time."
In fact, the 15.8 percent increase in Department of Education discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 (the figures the White House supplied when asked about Bush's statement) was below the 18.5 percent increase under Clinton the previous year -- and Bush had wanted a much smaller increase than Congress approved. Earlier this month, Republican moderates complained to Bush's budget director, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., that the administration was not spending the full amount for education that Congress approved. Daniels said it was "nothing uncommon" and decried the "explosively larger education bill."
----
Bush Pledges Diplomatic Approach to North Korea
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61538-2002Oct21?language=printer
President Bush vowed yesterday to enlist other world powers in persuading North Korea to scrap its nuclear-weapons project but indicated he has no plans to use force as he might with Iraq.
"This is a chance for people who love freedom and peace to work together to deal with an emerging threat," he said. "I believe we can deal with this threat peacefully, particularly if we work together."
Bush, using a more restrained tone than he does when lambasting Iraq, was addressing North Korea's confession about a nuclear program for the first time since administration officials reported it to Washington 16 days earlier. He said he would use meetings over the next week with leaders of China, Japan, Russia and South Korea to discuss how to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong Il "that he must disarm."
"We had a bit of troubling news when we discovered the fact that, contrary to what we had been led to believe, that they were enriching uranium, the idea of developing a nuclear weapon," Bush said. "We felt like they had given their word they weren't going to do this."
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer responded coldly to an offer from North Korea for talks about its nuclear programs, saying that consultations with allies would come first. "International pressure will come to bear on North Korea to make them realize the dangers that they are pursuing, in terms of the future for them will be increasingly isolated if they go down the road that they have indicated they're going down," he said.
Bush is to meet Chinese President Jiang Zemin on Friday at his ranch in Crawford, Tex. Bush said North Korea will be central to a discussion of how the United States and China can work together to deal with "the true threats of the 21st century." He said North Korea will be discussed in meetings with other world powers during his two-day trip to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Mexico.
"The people who have got the most at stake, of course, in this posture are the people who are his neighbors," Bush said.
North Korea, which is part of Bush's "axis of evil," along with Iran and Iraq, is a more fearsome foe than Iraq because of the advanced stage of its nuclear program, its larger military and its location adjacent to South Korea, a key U.S. ally. A reporter asked Bush to explain, in terms understandable to the folks back in Texas, why he was threatening war with Iraq but pursuing a diplomatic course with Pyongyang.
"Saddam Hussein is unique, in this sense: He has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years," Bush said, referring to U.N. resolutions requiring disarmament by Iraq. "What makes him even more unique is the fact he's actually gassed his own people. He has used weapons of mass destruction on neighboring countries, and he's used weapons of mass destruction on his own citizenry. He wants to have a nuclear weapon. He has made it very clear he hates the United States and, as importantly, he hates friends of ours."
Also yesterday, Robert Gallucci, chief negotiator of the 1994 arms-control deal with North Korea, said the United States should suspend but not scrap the agreement. Gallucci said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies program that the world was "much better off" for the agreement and that he expected the nuclear problem could be resolved with Pyongyang.
U.S. officials have said that the revelation about North Korea's nuclear program makes the agreement virtually void and that North Korea considers it nullified. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday that no announcement would be made on the administration position until after consultations with allies and Congress.
"We haven't made any specific decisions about many of the details," Boucher said. "We believe we have some leverage in this situation. We're seeking a peaceful and diplomatic solution."
Bush made his comments about North Korea during a photo session with George Robertson, NATO's secretary general, after a brief meeting. Reporters begged Bush to take more questions. "It's too many," Bush said. "I answered 15 questions." At the beginning of the session, Bush had promised to answer three questions. Counting a follow-up, he had taken four, from three reporters.
----
U.S. cool to offer by North Korea for talks
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 22, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021022-29434.htm
The Bush administration reacted coolly yesterday to a North Korean offer for direct talks, still trying to fashion a response to last week's admission by Pyongyang of having a secret nuclear-weapons program.
But it was clear the administration was taking a much different tack in the North Korean confrontation than it has to date with Iraq, a fellow charter member of President Bush's "axis of evil."
"The development of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of these regimes is one that is of serious concern to us, in both cases," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.
"That doesn't mean we deal with them in exactly the same way," he said.
Neither the White House nor the State Department yesterday replied directly to the North Korean offer, relayed through visiting South Korean ministers early yesterday.
But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters that North Korea "has invited upon itself an isolationist course," as U.S. diplomats fanned out to consult regional allies about the North Korean admission.
"I can't predict every move that the United States will make. But we're in the consultation process right now," Mr. Fleischer said.
Mr. Bush, during a meeting with NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, said he viewed the North Korean admission as "an opportunity to work with our friends and other countries in the region" against weapons proliferation and to persuade the North Koreans through diplomacy to disarm.
During a visit by James A. Kelly, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs, earlier this month, officials in Pyongyang admitted they were pursuing a program to enrich uranium - a fuel that can be used for nuclear weapons - in direct violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework accord signed with the Clinton administration.
Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea pledged to give up its nuclear-weapons ambitions in exchange for fuel oil from the United States and two nuclear-power plants designed for nonmilitary uses, to be funded by South Korea and Japan.
Despite Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's assertion during the weekend that the Agreed Framework was "nullified," U.S. officials say publicly that no decisions have been made on the oil shipments and plant construction while private talks proceed with South Korea, Japan, China and Russia.
"The whole situation is very complex," Mr. Boucher said yesterday. "That's why we're taking time to consult with friends and allies and with the Congress before we make or announce any decisions."
With North Korea's economy in tatters and Pyongyang pushing for more aid and diplomatic ties with its neighbors, "we believe we have some leverage in this situation," Mr. Boucher said.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, interviewed on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, rejected what she called a "cookie-cutter foreign-policy" approach to the threats posed by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.
"With North Korea, we think we have a chance to make a diplomatic effort work," Miss Rice said. "The North Koreans, unlike the Iraqis who have oil revenues to fuel their programs, have been signaling to everybody that they're in deep economic trouble, that they need to open up to the international economy, they need investment. We think that's a lever that we can use."
Bush administration officials also argue that Iraq, in its defiance of U.N. mandates, in its repeated attacks on its neighbors and in its use of chemical weapons against its own people, remains in a class by itself.
Privately, some in the Bush administration take a much tougher line with North Korea, insisting the Agreed Framework, the cornerstone of the Clinton administration's efforts to contain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, had been rendered null and void.
But an outright declaration now could pose an immense distraction as the United States pushes for international action against Iraq and would cause severe domestic strains in both South Korea and Japan, critical Asian allies that have moved to improve relations with the North in recent days.
Mr. Boucher also noted that the United States still obtains some benefits from cooperation with North Korea, including oversight of stored plutonium that could be diverted to a nuclear-bomb program.
State Department arms-control chief John Bolton was in Moscow yesterday, briefing Russian officials on U.S. findings regarding North Korea's nuclear program.
Mr. Bolton said after the meeting that it was "fair to say" his Russian counterparts shared U.S. concerns, but Russian officials voiced doubts about the scale of the threat posed by the uranium-enrichment program.
"We are in no rush to make conclusions about these reports," said Georgy Mamedov, Russia's top arms-control diplomat.
South Korea and Japan have said they plan to proceed for now with their commitments under the Agreed Framework deal, although aides to Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said yesterday that he will make the nuclear violations a top agenda item in normalization talks with the North set to take place October 28 and 29 in Malaysia.
Balbina Hwang, top Korea specialist at the Heritage Foundation, said the North Korean admission was the "final nail in the coffin" of South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" of rapprochement with the North.
But she said the news of the nuclear program had exposed a "security disconnect" between the United States and South Korea, with many in Seoul more worried about the U.S. response than they are about the North's violations.
"There's a very widespread fear that this will give free rein to the U.S. hard-liners to go after North Korea as soon as they finish up with Iraq," said Ms. Hwang, who blamed the sunshine policy for creating a sense of complacency among South Koreans about the Pyongyang regime.
----
Their Little Secret
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Washington Post; Page A27
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61955-2002Oct21?language=printer
The smug spirit of Enron pervades the Bush administration. When it learned that North Korea had a secret nuclear arms program, it moved the disclosure off the books lest it complicate the confrontation with Iraq. The information that Congress needed as it held another one of its self-proclaimed "historic" debates was withheld -- a footnote known to only a few key members who, as with Enron's board, passively kept their mouths shut.
But Japan knew. President Bush told Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on Sept. 12. It was the same day that Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly, providing the clearest rationale yet for going to war with Iraq. He said nothing in that speech about North Korea. Unlike Iraq, it is not plodding toward producing nuclear weapons. It may already have at least two.
Undoubtedly, other governments also knew that North Korea was cheating on the agreement it had reached in 1994 with the Clinton administration. It was supposed to abandon its nuclear weapons program -- which, in a way, it did. But it started up another one -- and this is the one that Washington started to substantiate last summer. Washington and Pyongyang had at least one thing in common: They were both keeping a secret from the American people.
In too many respects, the Bush administration operates as if it -- and not Congress or, for that matter, the American people -- owns this entity called "the government." It has told Congress to buzz off when it asked for documents telling whom Vice President Cheney met with in formulating the administration's energy policy. Enron, perhaps?
It has been downright uncooperative in granting Freedom of Information Act requests from the news media and other interested parties. It fought a proposal to create an independent commission to investigate what went wrong before Sept. 11, 2001, then reluctantly agreed to one -- and now has reneged on that agreement. The intelligence community, it seems, did just a swell job -- the hole in Lower Manhattan notwithstanding.
The news that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons -- that it just might already have them -- might not have changed the course of the Iraq debate in Congress one bit. It does not change my mind. In fact, it confronts us with what might happen when a desperate, despotic power gets its hands on such weapons. The South Korean capital of Seoul is just 40 miles from the North Korean border. If North Korea really has a nuclear arsenal, not to mention the means to deliver it, war might well be unthinkable. This, too, could happen with Iraq.
But the North Korean program certainly complicates matters -- maybe in ways that I cannot envision. This is the virtue of debate -- the teasing out of facts, arguments, positions that might never have occurred to you. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, for instance, I did not much consider whether toppling the Iraqi regime might also topple some others. I did not dwell on what would happen when Saddam Hussein was gone -- who would govern the country and whether in fact it would be governable. I was enraged. It was enough.
The debate -- the one in Congress, to some extent, but really the one conducted on the op-ed pages of newspapers -- was extremely instructive. My bottom line did not change, but it wavered from time to time. I wanted all the facts, and in the end I thought I had them.
Not so, it turns out. An important piece of information was withheld -- from me, from you and from our representatives in Congress. I am reminded of the so-called secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Secret from whom? Not from the Cambodians. They surely noticed they were being bombed. Not from the North Vietnamese. They knew, too. The ones in the dark were the American people.
Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice deny that news about the North Korean program was withheld for political reasons. Bush needed time to study the matter, they insist. But he had plenty of time -- and some of that time Congress was engaged in the Iraq debate, playing the role of the oblivious board of directors. Bush is not that slow a learner. In fact, it was he -- remember? -- who included North Korea in his "axis of evil." What did he know then?
It would be one thing if this were an isolated example of the Bush administration either exaggerating threats -- the imminence of an Iraqi bomb, for instance -- or forgetting to mention one that already exists, such as the North Korean program. But this administration keeps one set of books for itself and another for the public and Congress. It's Enron on the Potomac.
----
[I used to chuckle at Buchwald's ironies, but these days reality is more outlandish than fiction. et]
Secrets of Good Government
By Art Buchwald,
Tribune Media Services
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61994-2002Oct21?language=printer
Reporters always complain. Even the White House press corps feels it's being stonewalled by President Bush's press secretary.
Ari Fleischer will go on the record about how much election money the president raised on his swing across America and what he ate for lunch, but the White House is mum on subjects it feels are nobody's business.
Surprise! I think Ari is correct. He is protecting the country's right not to know too much, particularly in an election year.
You can't run a government if you have no secrets. And you can't have a nosy bunch of men and women who think it is their duty to let the public know what's going on.
For example, I have heard from Bush supporters that the reason they believe in a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein is because the president knows a lot more than he wants to tell us.
The White House gets mad when the media pack keeps asking Fleischer, "How much will a war against Iraq cost?" The Pentagon has the price down to the last billion, but the figure cannot be revealed as it would only give aid and comfort to the enemy.
The CIA knows where Saddam Hussein is at every moment, but it would be a terrible mistake to let him know that we know. If he knew what we know, he would hide out in Pakistan.
The White House has a big secret having to do with the economy. Of course they know what the deficit will be, and President Bush secretly keeps the number in his shirt pocket.
If the secret got out, we could have a recession and people would be laid off. This could affect the election.
The list of indicted CEOs is the biggest secret of all because they allegedly fleeced the American people. The list included the names of CEOs who contributed to Bush's presidential campaign and it is kept in a safe in the Situation Room.
Also in the safe are the names of companies like Halliburton. The reason they're locked up is that it could look bad for Vice President Cheney.
If the news media ever got hold of the names of these companies, there would be a shark-feeding frenzy -- which could hurt the election.
Fleischer is a good guy, and everyone likes him until he starts his briefing. He is noted for saying, "I don't know, and if I did know, I wouldn't tell you."
Ari doesn't make things up. He is taking orders from everyone in the White House. Other secrets he carries around are what punishment the senators who don't support Bush will get -- things like, "Forget the dam, close the air bases, and chop off federal lunch money for the state's schools."
If Fleischer doesn't do his job, political guru Karl Rove will blame him for losing the election.
-------- MILITARY
'Smarter' bombs still hit civilians
In every war since Iraq, the US used more 'smart' bombs. So why do civilian casualty rates keep rising?
By Scott Peterson
The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s01-wosc.htm
BAGHDAD, IRAQ - The two American "smart" bombs worked perfectly, striking what the Pentagon had identified as an Iraqi command and control center during the 1991 Gulf War.
The 2,000-pound laser-guided bombs burrowed through 10 feet of hardened concrete and detonated, punching a gaping hole in the Amiriyah bomb shelter - and incinerating 408 Iraqi civilians.
It is considered the single most lethal incident for civilians in modern air warfare.
As US military planners prepare for another battle with Iraq, the Amiriyah bunker bombing illustrates a conundrum that has grown during the Yugoslav and Afghan air campaigns: more accurate bombs aren't necessarily reducing civilian casualty rates.
In the Gulf War, just 3 percent of bombs were precision-guided. That figure jumped to 30 percent in the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, and to nearly 70 percent during the Afghan air campaign last year.
Yet in each case, the ratio of civilian casualties to bombs dropped has grown. Technology, say analysts, isn't the key issue. In Afghanistan, tough terrain, inability to discern combatants from civilians, and paucity of fixed military targets led to estimates of 850 to 1,300 civilian deaths. Red Cross food depots depots were hit twice, as well as some mosques, and so was a wedding party of mostly pro-US civilians last July.
By one estimate, the number of civilians killed per bomb dropped may have been four times as high in Afghanistan as in Yugoslavia.
A number of factors contribute to this trend, including the changing nature of combat. The US is relying more on air power, in part to protect American lives. Its foes, aware of the propaganda power of civilian deaths, are hiding military equipment and troops in civilian areas. The Amiriyah bunker bombing illustrates some of the problems, including the lack of good intelligence on the ground.
The Pentagon targeted Amiriyah because it picked up electronic signals coming from the site, and spy satellites could see a lot of people and vehicles moving in and out of the bunker. It fit the profile of a military command center, says Charles Heyman, the London-based editor of Jane's World Armies. The Pentagon didn't find out until much later, says Mr. Heyman, that the Iraqis had put an aerial antenna on top of the bunker. The antenna was connected by cable to a communications center safely 300 yards away.
Of the 250,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq in 1991, only two impacted here at the bunker, on Feb. 13. But those two bombs defined the war for many Iraqis, and, six weeks into the air campaign, prompted Washington to curtail further attacks on downtown Baghdad.
"I want the Americans to come here to see what happened, because this place bears witness, because the US is talking about a new war," says Intesar Ahmed Hassan, as she takes a visitor on a tour of the blackened Amiriyah bunker - today a shrine to the victims - which still smells of smoke. "Maybe they won't do it again, if they see that this is the result." Propaganda war
But Heyman predicts that if the US launches another air war on Iraq, "[Hussein] is going to make sure that civilians get killed. And he's going to make sure that all over the world, there are pictures of weeping Iraqi mothers and dead babies. That is part and parcel of the game."
Earlier this month, the Brookings Institution in Washington estimated the "Iraqi civilian deaths could number in the tens of thousands.... "Even careful bombing by the US would produce large numbers of civilian casualties, given Saddam's likely decision to hole up in cities, using civilian populations as shields for his military forces."
Military experts say with the shift from trench warfare, the aversion of military losses, and the rise of long-distance high-tech weapons, the proportion of civilian casualties to military in war has grown from 10 percent a century ago, to about 90 percent on modern battlefields. Better technology
"Smart" bombs have advanced by magnitudes since 1991. But war takes place under imperfect conditions. Targeting data may be faulty, computer chips can fail, and greater accuracy can breed overconfidence.
The air campaign to free Kosovo of Serbian control in 1998 underscores the point, according to Fred Kaplan, author of "The Wizards of Armageddon." "Ton for ton, the bombing killed civilians at the same rate as the [Rolling Thunder] air campaign over Vietnam," Mr. Kaplan wrote. One reason was that the improved accuracy of "smart" bombs "emboldened commanders to aim more bombs at targets that required it," he says - leading to more frequent misses.
William Arkin, an air war expert and military commentator who visited Iraq after the Gulf War as part of a Harvard University study team sent to assess battle damage, has seen the Iraqi hospital records that confirm the Amiriyah casualty count. The bombing was the "single largest incident of collateral damage that has ever occurred in modern warfare," he says, and it impacted both sides in the war.
"All of a sudden, after six weeks of there being bloodless conflict, there was blood," Mr. Arkin says. Orders went out that subsequent downtown targets would require approval from Washington." It had as big an impact on [then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Colin Powell's psychology, as it did on the Iraqi people's psychology."
But Arkin doesn't see the Amiriyah bombing as a warning of the risks of air warfare. Rather, he sees it as an example of how efficient smart bomb targeting had become, even then.
"More than 10 percent of all civilians who died in the air war, died in that single incident," says Arkin, who notes that nearly 50,000 allied sorties flown only produced a half dozen cases of numerous civilian dead in Baghdad. But he doesn't expect there to be a greater number of casualties in another Gulf war.
That's because Iraq has the largest conventional army in the Mideast, with a vast array of installations and bases. Targeting will be simpler than in previous conflicts. This "new era of warfare" translates into minimizing casualties, Arkin says - a feat the military can pull off.
Civilian casualties in Iraq may instead depend on the length of the war, US and Iraqi strategies in the cities, and Iraq's possible use of chemical weapons.
US planners are putting their faith in better bombs. Laser-guided munitions that can cost $250,000 each have given way to the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, which is a $20,000 technical kit that can turn many types of bombs into "smart" ones that navigate by satellite. In Afghanistan, the mix was about half and half. Traditional laser-guided bombs were often used on mobile, short notice targets called in - and sometimes "painted" with a laser - by US Special Forces units on the ground. The JDAM was used mostly for fixed targets. In anticipation of war in Iraq, the Pentagon is boosting their production.
"When laser-guided bombs fail, they tend to fail spectacularly," says Arkin. "They could go a mile or more off target, because if a laser fails to lock, if the laser is impacted by weather, if the pilot makes an error, that bomb does not know where to go."
But if the JDAM's satellite system fails, its inertial system kicks in, usually bringing it to within 50 yards of the target.
The advice given after the Amiriyah incident by the Pentagon was that "the safest place for an Iraqi civilian is at home in his bed." But that was little solace to Iraqis who were near the Amiriyah shelter when it was hit by "smart" bombs that worked flawlessly.
Hussein Abdallah still lives in the house across from the shelter, and was asleep in his bed at 4:30 a.m. when the bombs dropped, blasting out the windows of his house, splitting still-visible cracks along grey plastered foundations, and sending a chunk of hot shrapnel the size of his thick forearm hurtling in a wall just 1.5 feet from his head. "We fell down because of fear of the explosion. Our bodies were trembling," recalls Mr. Abdallah, a portly truck driver whose toes protrude from worn plastic sandals.
His children were affected most, when they saw rescue workers pull the dead from the bunker. "In every war there are civilian casualties," Abdallah says. "They will throw rockets, not stones. Always, innocent people will die."
-------- afghanistan
U.S. Tests Hellfire Missiles in Afghanistan
October 22, 2002
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-afghan-apaches.html
BAGRAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) - The U.S. army carried out live-fire exercises using Apache attack helicopters in Afghanistan Tuesday and said the aircraft could have an important role in any war on Iraq.
The Apache, the U.S. military's primary attack helicopter, was widely used against Iraqi air defenses at the start of the 1991 Gulf War.
The test-firing of its Hellfire missile system was carried out near Bagram air base, the U.S. military headquarters north of Kabul. Apaches fired three of the laser-guided missiles, worth around $45,000 each, at targets in hills around the base.
The U.S. military spokesman at Bagram, Lieutenant-Colonel Roger King, said the tests were routine practice.
``I imagine if there was going to be an attack (on Iraq)...that Apaches would play a part in it,'' he said. ``But the Apaches that we have here have a function in Afghanistan.''
``As far as I know, they are staying here in Afghanistan, but they still have to maintain the efficiency of their weapons systems.''
Operations officer Major Don Fallon said the Hellfire system proved effective in the Gulf War.
``I know there had been some discussion about Iraqi operations, but we haven't been read in on any of that. Our focus is still on Operation Enduring Freedom.''
He was referring to the operation involving U.S. and coalition troops pursuing remnants of Afghanistan's former Taliban regime and fugitive Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which the U.S. blames for the September 11 attacks.
The U.S. military has said any attack on Iraq would not affect its Afghan mission. However, there has been speculation that some forces might need to be switched to Iraq.
King said six Harrier jump jets had arrived at Bagram and were preparing for combat operations in Afghanistan. He said this would allow quicker responses than if they were based on an aircraft carrier.
Asked if the planes were brought in to free up carriers for possible operations against Iraq, he replied: ``What we do is voice a requirement to the navy and the air force for air support. How they decide it is up to them. They decided they wanted to put Harriers here as part of their commitment.''
-------- africa
Bush measure puts pressure on Sudan to end its civil war
ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 22, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021022-1138757.htm
President Bush signed a get-tough-on-Sudan resolution yesterday meant to prod the government of Africa's largest nation toward ending a 20-year-old war that has killed some 2 million people.
The measure formally condemns human rights violations, accuses the Sudanese government of using food as a weapon and directs the president to impose sanctions against Sudan if he determines its government is not negotiating in good faith.
The government of Sudan signed an agreement with rebels last week to suspend fighting during talks to end their 20-year-old war. The cease-fire paved the way for the government to lift a ban on relief flights to the southern Equatoria region.
Known as the Sudan Peace Act, the resolution carries a variety of possible penalties against Sudan if it negotiates in bad faith. The sanctions could include a downgrade of diplomatic relations, a U.N. arms embargo and attempts to deny the government use of its oil revenues. Mr. Bush signed the bill in the Roosevelt Room, with former Sen. John Danforth, Missouri Republican, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and Sudanese religious and community leaders in attendance.
It would authorize $300 million over the next three years for peace efforts - money Congress would have to provide in separate legislation.
Since 1983 some 2 million people have died in Sudan's civil war between the Arab-dominated Muslim government and black Christians and animists seeking greater autonomy for the south. Terrorist leader Osama bin Laden lived in Sudan under the protection of the Muslim government for years.
"The signing of the Sudan Peace Act into law represents an important step forward on the road to peace for Africa's longest civil war," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
"The Sudan Peace Act maintains the pressure on the warring parties to resolve their conflict, demonstrates the continued interest of the United States in finding a lasting peace in this troubled nation and provides desperately needed assistance for the people of southern Sudan," Mrs. Johnson said.
-------- business
BAE Systems North America
TechNews.com News Briefs
Washington Post Tuesday,
October 22, 2002; 2:50 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32245-2002Apr11.html
BAE Systems North America, headquartered in Rockville, Md., says it Will buy Condor Pacific Industries, a California-based sensor developer, for $58.5 million in cash. Condor's sensors are used to guide and control missiles. [BAE Systems North America - http://www.baesystems.com/northamerica/index.htm]
-------- drug war
Marijuana: High Time
Drought conditions make it easier for police to locate and arrest pot growers
NEWSWEEK
Paul Tolme
Oct. 28 issue - web retrieved
10/22/02
http://www.msnbc.com/news/823002.asp?0sp=W5b8&0cb=-81b77393&cp1=1
Shorter days and turning leaves signal that autumn is upon us-and, for those who grow marijuana, that it's time to cut their covert crops before the first frost. But this year a nationwide drought has made cultivation more risky than usual, and police are ramping up efforts to catch farmers.
"MARIJUANA is pretty stingy when it comes to water use," says Allen St. Pierre of pro-legalization group NORML, "but the drought means growers have to tend their crops more, and that makes it easier for police to find them."
In Maryland, cultivation arrests have shot up, an increase police attribute to the easier task of finding patches of lushly watered pot amid the surrounding dry vegetation. Sophisticated farmers are setting up irrigation systems by running garden hoses from creeks to their plots. But such infra-structure in the woods can tip off police: authorities in western Colorado discovered 10,000 plants on a remote section of federal land after noticing that water was being diverted from a stream.
Growers may take the risk because, aficionados say, the taste and potency of marijuana improve in dry years like a fine wine. An ounce of a topnotch strain can go for $500. (In wet years, crops can be affected by mold and fungus.) The October harvest is a major economic stimulus in rural communities from Kentucky to northern California: with an estimated value of $15 billion annually, marijuana is among the nation's top 10 cash crops.
--------
Mexicans Arrest 25 to Stop Ring That Worked for Drug Cartels
October 22, 2002
New York Times
By TIM WEINER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/international/americas/22MEXI.html
MEXICO CITY, Oct. 21 - Mexican officials said today that they had arrested 25 people who infiltrated the army, the federal police and the attorney general's office on behalf of some of the nation's most powerful drug kingpins.
The arrests were the first case of its kind under President Vicente Fox. They suggest that despite the recent jailing of leading figures from all the nation's major drug gangs, the cartels retain the money and the power to corrupt Mexico's government.
The attorney general, Rafael Macedo de la Concha, said "corrupt public servants" were at the heart of a network that had been stealing secrets from the government and selling them to the cartels since 1996.
"These unscrupulous people infiltrated and betrayed the government, and of course the citizenry, by sabotaging operations against drug trafficking," he said.
He said the ring included retired soldiers and law enforcement officers, as well as five midlevel officials in the attorney general's office, the Defense Ministry and the federal police. Each member was paid thousands of dollars a month, he said, and about $2.3 million in drug money used for bribes was seized in the investigation.
Under Mr. Fox's predecessors, American law enforcement officials assumed that drug gangs had corrupted law enforcement operations in Mexico at the highest levels. Those fears were underscored in 1997, when the newly appointed drug czar, Gen. Jesús Gutiérrez Rebollo, was arrested and convicted as the henchman of a leading cocaine kingpin.
The Fox government created a highly regarded central law enforcement command, which was apparently untouched by the ring. But the ring maintained an intelligence network inside the government. The leader of the ring appears to have been a state police official named Francisco Tornez Castro, Mr. Macedo de la Concha said. He had previously worked for the federal judicial police, a notoriously corrupt institution disbanded by the Fox government. Investigators found that Mr. Tornez Castro operated a safe house in Mexico City that was the headquarters of the ring.
The ring worked mainly for four of Mexico's most wanted drug lords, prosecutors said, and the ring's existence may explain the four men's continuing ability to evade arrest.
One is Osiel Cárdenas Guillén, the head of a major drug organization known as the Gulf Cartel, which operates out of Mexico's northeast. He is accused of shipping Colombian cocaine from Mexico's Gulf coast to the United States since 1997.
Another is Ismael Zambada, who is vying to control cocaine trafficking in Mexico's northwest. The third is Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, who took over his brother Amado's drug operations when Amado died after botched plastic surgery.
The fourth is Joaquín Guzmán, who was serving 20 years for cocaine trafficking in a maximum security prison when, on Jan. 19, 2001, someone opened his cell, knocked out the video surveillance cameras, hid him in a burlap bag, put the bag in a laundry truck and drove him away.
Upon Mr. Guzmán's escape, President Fox said "the pervasive influence of dirty money" had infected "law enforcement organizations and dishonest government bureaucrats" throughout Mexico.
"The corruption of the past can't be ended overnight," he said, "but now we are truly trying to eradicate it."
-------- iraq
U.N.'S Blix Says Iraq Can Avoid War if Cooperates
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Dmitry Madorsky
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63867-2002Oct22?language=printer
MOSCOW (Reuters) - The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, visiting Russia for talks with senior officials, said Tuesday Iraq could avoid war if it cooperated with monitors due to determine whether it holds weapons of mass destruction.
"I think that if the Iraqis help and cooperate to create confidence that there remain no weapons of mass destruction, then I think there will be no war," Hans Blix told reporters on arrival in Moscow.
President Bush said Monday he believed Iraq could be disarmed peacefully. He was willing to give diplomacy one more try, despite standing by U.S. policy in favor of "regime change" in Baghdad, meaning the removal of President Saddam Hussein.
But Russia has expressed disappointment over a new draft resolution which the United States, anxious to secure quick approval for any future action on Iraq, has handed key Security Council members.
Moscow wants the quickest possible return of weapons inspectors to Iraq and more talks at the United Nations.
"I think there remains still a wish in Washington to change the regime, but it is clear that it is the weapons of mass destruction that are in focus," Blix said.
Blix will deliver lectures in Moscow on civilian use of nuclear power, but is also due to meet senior Russian officials including Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.
"We will consult about the current resolution on Iraq in the United Nations," Blix said of his talks with Russian officials. "It is important for us to know where different members of the Security Council are (standing on the issue)."
RUSSIA DISAPPOINTED BY NEW U.S. DRAFT
The latest U.S. proposals drop explicit authorization to use force against Iraq and delete a proposal for inspectors of the five permanent council members with veto power -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- to accompany the arms inspectors, U.N. envoys have said.
The United States has also retained language saying Baghdad had been in "material breach" of the U.N. resolutions and would be in further material breach if it violated the new measures.
France, Russia and China are apprehensive that this language could be used as cover for a military strike.
Interfax news agency, quoting informed sources, said the new draft was "little different from earlier Anglo-American proposals which were unacceptable to Russia and other permanent Security Council members."
This had caused "serious disappointment" especially since U.S. representatives had expressed their readiness to take into consideration other countries' views, Interfax reported.
The report, also carried by the Itar-Tass agency, suggested that Russia wanted Washington to further soften tough language threatening Iraq with the possibility of military action.
"Russia thinks political and diplomatic methods for resolving the Iraqi problems are far from exhausted," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko told First Channel television. The new U.S. draft also gives arms inspectors a central role, as demanded by most countries around the world, and requests a report from the experts before any military strike.
"We are determined to ensure our inspection will be correct," Blix said in Moscow. "We want assurances from the Iraqi side that they will cooperate in all respects with us."
U.N. weapons inspectors, who began their work shortly after the 1991 Gulf War, left Baghdad in December 1998. Iraq, until recent threats of action from the Bush administration, had refused to allow them to return.
-------- israel / palestine
Israel Holds Back After Bus Bombing in Deference to U.S.
October 22, 2002
New York Times
By JOEL GREENBERG
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/international/middleeast/22CND-MIDE.html
JERUSALEM, Oct. 22 - Israel did not retaliate today for the bombing of a bus on Monday that killed 14 passengers, in what officials said was a nod to American concerns that escalating violence could disrupt plans for possible military action against Iraq.
Departing from what has been the practice after previous suicide attacks in the last two years, the government did not order the army into action in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
Interior Minister Eli Yishai said Israel was taking the American stance into account. ``There are those who say that we need to react now and immediately with all power and all force,'' he told Army Radio. ``On the other hand, we could cause difficulties for the Americans. If the Americans attack Iraq, that is in our interest as well as that of the Americans.''
Dore Gold, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said: ``Israel will certainly take into account America's regional considerations. The government of Israel does what is necessary to protect the civilians of Israel. At the same time, the selection of the timing and approach is going to take into account wider regional interests of the United States.''
Mr. Sharon, who recently returned from a visit to Washington, has reportedly been asked by American officials to curb Israeli military responses to Palestinian violence as the United States tries to enlist the support of Arab countries for a possible strike against Iraq. A 10-day Israeli siege of Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, after a recent pair of suicide bombings was criticized by Bush administration officials as damaging American diplomacy and slowing the process of Palestinian change.
Assistant Secretary of State William Burns is to hold talks this week with Israeli and Palestinian officials on a proposed American ``road map'' to negotiations and a final peace agreement. The blueprint calls for a truce, Israeli troop pullbacks to positions held before the violence began, and establishment of a provisional Palestinian state as a prelude to negotiations of a final peace agreement.
Mr. Burns is expected in Israel on Wednesday, but Israeli security officials said that they did not believe that the bus attack was connected to the renewed diplomacy.
In a sign that no retaliation was imminent, Mr. Sharon did not convene his security cabinet in the hours after the bombing, consulting instead by phone with Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer. Mr. Ben-Eliezer's spokesman said a decision had been made to reimpose curfews and tighten blockades on cities in the West Bank and to cancel steps to ease restrictions on movement by Palestinians.
``The terrorists are taking advantage of the easing of curfews and closures to carry out attacks, so this easing will have to be scaled back,'' the spokesman, Yarden Vatikai, said. ``They are shooting themselves in the foot and causing suffering to the population.''
Despite Israeli warnings that restrictions would be reimposed, curfews were not in force today in Jenin and Nablus, the army said. The two cities have been described by army officers as hotbeds of militant groups and the source of some of the most devastating attacks in Israel.
The army did demolish two family homes in the Nablus area, one of which housed a suicide bomber who struck last July, the other a militant suspected of organizing attacks on Israelis, a military spokesman said.
Israeli security officials said the attackers who struck on Monday had exploited an easing of the curfews to drive their car bomb into Israel. The militant group Islamic Jihad, which took responsibility for the attack, identified the bombers today and said they were from the northern West Bank city of Jenin. The army recently pulled its forces back from Jenin, surrounding the city and digging a trench around it to try to prevent militants from sneaking out.
The police said the bombers had used a sport utility vehicle primed with a powerful explosive to slam into the bus during the afternoon rush at Karkur Junction, near the coastal town of Hadera. In addition to the 14 killed, 50 people were wounded, officials said. As Israelis began burying the dead from the attack, forensic experts were having difficulty identifying all of the victims, some of whom had been trapped in the bus as it was consumed by flame.
Islamic Jihad said the attack was in retaliation for Israeli military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that had resulted in civilian deaths. Mr. Arafat issued a statement condemning the bombing as well as all ``such attacks that target civilians - Israelis or Palestinians.''
--------
14 Die as Bomb-Filled S.U.V. Rams Israeli Bus
October 22, 2002
New York Times
By JAMES BENNET
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/international/middleeast/22MIDE.html
KARKUR JUNCTION, Israel, Oct. 21 - A sport utility vehicle primed with a powerful bomb slammed into an Israeli bus at rush hour here this afternoon, igniting the fuel tank of the bus and killing at least 14 passengers. Flames rendered the vehicle a blackened, contorted skeleton.
Survivors described leaping through shattered windows as the fire spread. Seven other vehicles were destroyed or damaged by the explosion, evidently the work of two Palestinian suicide bombers. Debris and body parts were blasted over an area larger than a football field; the engine and transmission of the vehicle carrying the explosives lay some 50 yards from the bus, by a left leg severed below the knee.
"A lamb was slaughtered," a man in unmistakable anguish declared tonight to no one in particular, as he stepped into the emergency room of Hillel Yaffe hospital in nearby Hadera, where the victims were taken. Behind him, in an office, his wife could be heard wailing. They had just been informed that their child was killed in the attack.
Fifty people were wounded, the police said.
Avi Fried, 43, said he was driving right behind the sport utility vehicle today when it suddenly veered right. It crashed into the rear left quarter of the bus, which had halted to pick up passengers.
Mr. Fried, an accountant, stopped his sedan, which was damaged in the explosion, and ran to help a passenger who was on fire in a car that followed. Then, he said, he went to help a man who was standing in the door of the bus, burning and screaming about God.
When the bomb exploded, Iftach Mental, 19, had a foot on the bus's first step while he checked with the driver to see if Jerusalem was the ultimate destination. He staggered backward, he said.
"The bus was engulfed by fire, and people were coming out the windows," Mr. Mental said. "There was a mushroom cloud of smoke above it. There was a moment of total silence, and then the screams." As he lay in the hospital with slight burns tonight, Mr. Mental wore a T-shirt that read, "It won't happen to me."
Leoni Gino, 17, a high school student, was sitting by a soldier in the middle of the bus, on the aisle. "I was talking to the person next to me and suddenly everything collapsed on top of me," she said. The window shattered, slicing dozens of tiny cuts in her throat and left arm, and she climbed through the gap, following the soldier. "I saw people screaming, all covered in blood, running away," she said. "After that, I really don't remember much."
The militant group Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the attack, calling it retaliation for Israeli military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that resulted in civilian deaths.
Israeli security officials said they thought that two Palestinian terrorists were in the vehicle when it exploded, and that the attack was the work of an Islamic Jihad cell based in or near the West Bank city of Jenin, a few miles east of here. But they said the group's leadership in Damascus, Syria, was ultimately to blame.
"We know for a fact that Damascus is responsible for the direction, for the instruction, for the guidance and for the money that is being use to make these kinds of attacks," a senior Israeli official said. Israel is not likely to take any immediate action against Syria, the official added.
It was the second time that Islamic Jihad had used a car bomb along this perilous stretch of Route 65, known as the Wadi Ara road, instead of dispatching a suicide bomber to try to board a bus. On June 5, just east of here at the Megiddo junction, a suicide car bomber detonated his explosive beside a bus and killed 16 passengers.
It was also the first lethal suicide bombing in Israel since Oct. 10, when a 71-year-old woman was killed in an attack in Tel Aviv.
Since retaking military control of almost all the West Bank after a suicide bombing aboard a Jerusalem bus in June, Israel has in recent days taken tentative steps toward easing some of the restrictions, like 24-hour curfews, that it has imposed on hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Brig. Gen. Ruth Yaron, the chief army spokeswoman, said the army would probably clamp down again, depending on intelligence reports. "Each time that we ease the curfew, we end up with another terrorist attack," she said. "This is the dilemma we're faced with."
Assistant Secretary of State William J. Burns, who is visiting the region in an effort to stop the violence, is expected in Israel on Wednesday. But Israeli security officials said the blast was probably not connected to the renewed diplomacy.
An adviser to the government, Avi Pazner, said the Palestinian Authority headed by Yasir Arafat had given "an apparent green light for terrorism," perhaps in hopes of disrupting American preparations for a possible war on Iraq.
But Mr. Arafat, speaking in the West Bank city of Ramallah, criticized the bombing. "You know that the Palestinian leadership position is against such attacks that target civilians - Israelis or Palestinians," he said.
The bus attacked today, No. 841, began its route in the far north of Israel, in Qiryat Shemona, and was on its way to Tel Aviv. It was being trailed at the time of the attack by one of the bus company's security vehicles, which was also damaged by the blast. Ammunition carried by soldiers on the bus also blew up in the attack.
The explosive weighed 130 to 220 pounds, said Col. Danny Kuffler, a police spokesman, as he surveyed the wreckage this evening. "These are parts of the jeep, of the bus, human parts - everything is mixed," he said.
Colonel Kuffler said policemen who patrolled the Wadi Ara road, having seen the results of so many such attacks, were receiving counseling. "It's unbearable," he said. "It's too much, too much."
The attack seemed likely to distract Israeli attention, at least for the moment, from a widening dispute between the army's leadership and West Bank settlers that has spread rancor within the cabinet of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Army soldiers seeking to evacuate a settlement outpost, Havat Gilad, have repeatedly clashed in recent days with hundreds of settlers who rallied to protect it.
Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said the soldiers were simply enforcing the law. He told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that he might resign from the cabinet, after being assailed by ministers who support the settlers. Mr. Ben-Eliezer came under strong criticism after the army acted against the settlers on Saturday, the Sabbath here.
Any right-wing criticism of Mr. Ben-Eliezer, the leader of the left-leaning Labor party, is likely to benefit him politically as he faces a leadership contest next month. In advance of that internal party contest, Mr. Ben-Eliezer has toughened his stance toward the settlements, which have been multiplying for years.
Settlers again returned to Havat Gilad today in an effort to rebuild the structures there, Israel Radio reported. Just south of there, by the settlement Shavut Rachel, settlers attacked Palestinians from the village of Turmos Ayya who were picking olives in their orchards, Palestinians there said.
After the settlers set fire to seven vehicles, a group of about 200 Palestinians began marching toward the outpost. The Israeli Army turned them away. The Israeli police said they were investigating the incident.
--------
'I couldn't believe I was doing this'
Jonathan Steele
Tuesday October 22, 2002
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,816551,00.html
Last year Rami Kaplan was a loyal commander in the Israeli army. Now he is going to court to prove that the occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal.
It was in Gaza that Major Rami Kaplan, a 29-year-old "veteran" of Israel's prestigious Armoured Corps, began to feel that he had had enough. He was increasingly uneasy about the orders he was given, and the next time he was called up for his annual reserve duty, he said no. Now, after a month in a military prison, he has gone on the attack. Along with seven other refuseniks, he is taking an unprecedented petition to Israel's supreme court. Their case is not that they have a right to conscientious objection. They are going further. They claim that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories on the West Bank and Gaza is illegal, and that as soldiers they have a duty not to take part in an illegal enterprise.
This marks another leap forward in the story of the refuseniks, who first came to public notice earlier this year when some 200 reserve officers signed an open letter explaining their case. The number of signatories has now reached 491.
Michael Sfard, one of the refuseniks' lawyers, acknowledges that the petition has a large degree of chutzpah: Israel's supreme court has already issued judgments on the legality of various army practices, from the demolition of houses of suicide bombers' families to the deportation of suspected terrorists. But using the courts to strike at the whole basis of Israel's 35-year-long occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is unprecedented.
Two things have changed, Sfard argues. Israel's reaction to the Palestinian intifada over the past two years has involved so many violations of human rights that it has become a systematic "mechanism of collective punishment". Under international law, collective punishment of people in occupied territories is prohibited.
Secondly, as an occupying power, Israel has certain rights and duties. It is now clear, the petition argues, that Israel has failed to fulfil its duties of care to the Palestinian population on such a widespread scale during the intifada that the whole occupation has been rendered illegal.
Rami Kaplan was an unlikely convert to the refusenik cause. He initially enjoyed army life, so much so that he signed on for three more years as a professional officer after his three years of conscription, and rose to become a tank company commander responsible for up to 100 men.
His first war service was in Lebanon, where he was briefly in charge of a base set up inside the medieval Crusader castle of Beaufort. "Until 1997 there was a broad consensus that our presence in Lebanon was needed to protect communities in northern Israel. I was young and didn't have the ability to judge what was going on. Our contact with the Lebanese population was minimal," he says.
A short posting to the West Bank during the first intifada in the early 1990s raised his first doubts. He found the army being used as a kind of police force. "I hated it from the beginning. We were operating in towns and were ruling the place. I hated going after kids who threw stones. On one occasion we sent in dozens of troops just to arrest a 10-year-old kid who was on some list," he says.
When he left the army to go to university and prepare for a job in teaching, it was not out of a spirit of refusal, he says. He was relaxed about doing his bouts of reserve duty for a month every year. Catching up again with his colleagues from the unit, who were also coming in for reserve duty from civilian jobs, was like an annual reunion.
Things changed in April last year. By then the second intifada was under way, and Kaplan's tank battalion, of which he was a deputy commander, was posted to the edge of the Gaza strip. One of its missions was to guard the fence that separates Gaza from Israel. The other was to protect the access route to the Israeli settlement of Netzarim, a heavily fortified compound with gun towers and fences in the centre of the Gaza strip. "Guarding settlements has become one of the army's main jobs. We had more soldiers protecting Netzarim than it had settlers," he says.
Kaplan witnessed no atrocities, but what he did see troubled his conscience. He came to the conclusion that Israel was running a colonial enterprise in which Palestinians had minimal rights. One of the Israeli army's regular duties was cutting down Palestinian orchards, vines and palm trees. "There was a tactical explanation. It was not to punish Palestinians, we were told, but to make it harder for people to crawl up to the fence and sneak through.
"Occasionally, explosives were thrown or rockets were fired by the Palestinians, but mainly they were civilians who wanted to get jobs in Israel. I refused to do these orchard-cutting missions, and my commanding officer accepted it. On one occasion I had to replace him, and I regret it very much. It was so painful to see our tanks and bulldozers going through the orchards. I had to sit on a hillside nearby and watch through binoculars," he says.
"You could see Palestinians coming out of very poor and miserable houses. A soldier shouted out, 'They've got guns,' but when I looked through the binoculars I saw they only had bags with straps over their shoulders. It wasn't a rifle strap. They wanted to pick as many oranges as possible before the trees were destroyed. It tore me up. I couldn't believe I was doing this. No one thought of cutting trees on the Israeli side of the fence. If we had, we would have had to pay compensation. No one thought of compensating the Palestinians."
Kaplan found it appalling that decisions on whether to cut the trees to a depth of 200m or 500m - an issue that affected the livelihoods of several families - were routinely taken by low-ranking officers. "It was completely arbitrary," he says.
He also noticed that officers tried to bend the rules of engagement as much as possible. "Instructions from the chief of staff prevented you killing people except in extreme circumstances, but I got the impression that at the regimental level officers tried to give themselves more freedom. They overinsured so as to protect their soldiers and so that they could fulfil their missions easily. Commanders became very flexible," he says.
Kaplan lost his belief in the justice of the cause. "If you're a commander, you have to be very spirited and charismatic to your men. I didn't feel I had the drive any more. I was sucked out, a shadow of myself. I couldn't get up in the morning and do what I was expected to do. The whole mission seemed stupid and a waste of time and money," he says.
His commander was not happy either, but like many other senior officers, according to Kaplan, he hoped the government would end the intifada and get the troops out. In the meantime they had to do their duty. "I asked him: 'What happens if we have to cut the orchards to a depth of 5km rather than 500m on the grounds that the Palestinians are getting longer-range rockets?' "
Back at university, his reserve duty over, Kaplan decided he wanted to write to get his painful experiences off his chest. Cautiously, he put them in a fictional context. "It was very difficult to go against the system. I wasn't yet thinking of refusing to serve. I didn't want to abandon my fellow officers and soldiers," he says.
His article in an Israeli newspaper caused a minor sensation, and he was invited to speak at campuses. Then came the decision this year by a group of officers to refuse to serve on the West Bank and Gaza and draft a letter for signature. Kaplan hesitated for 10 days before putting his name to it.
Taking the plunge, however, meant committing himself to involvement in politics. Israel has been affected as much as any other western society by the liberal "end of ideology" culture of individualism and consumerism, he says. In Israel there is an extra factor. Under the weight of the suicide bombing, he argues, Israeli society has become passive and withdrawn. People retreat into themselves and their families, and stop listening to and watching the news on radio and TV.
"In a way, the settlers and the refuseniks are similar. Our political views differ, but we are the only groups in Israeli society that are willing to take action in the name of something bigger than ourselves," he says.
Buoyed up by the strength of the refusenik movement, Kaplan's views on the occupation have become more radical. "People ask why I am not defending Israel against the suicide bombers. But if I'm in the army in the territories, I'm not protecting people here in Tel Aviv. On the contrary. It's the army's role in the territories that is the cause of the bombings in Tel Aviv. Being a soldier increases the danger to my family here," he says. "You have to be blind to think that people under oppression won't rebel. Suicide bombing is a new phenomenon. It happened after 30 years. This just shows how bad the situation in the territories has become."
Kaplan still calls himself a Zionist, and he is proud of the tolerance of Israeli society. Refuseniks in other armies are not treated so well, he says. "When I decided to refuse, none of my family, neighbours, or friends denounced me. Their tone varied between respect for my views and outright support. An officer in my battalion who is himself a settler told me, 'I respect you, but keep loving the Jews and the nation of Israel.' I was surprised but very happy."
In the military prison from which he has just emerged, Kaplan had no complaints. The group of around 10 refusenik officers doing time with him were treated correctly. He was dismissed from his unit when he signed the refuseniks' letter, but he did not lose his rank.
He also believes that the refuseniks are getting wider, if still silent, support among Israelis than the media suggests. The army has admitted that only a third of reservists turned up for duty last year, though most found medical or other excuses for failing to appear. As the economic situation in Israel worsens, Kaplan thinks more people will begin to criticise the occupation.
Tomorrow the supreme court will hold its first oral hearing on the refuseniks' case. The government is taking their argument seriously and is preparing a highly detailed rebuttal. Even if the court rejects the case - to do otherwise would be a judicial earthquake - Kaplan and his colleagues are confident that by criticising the very legality of the occupation, they will help to bring its end nearer.
· Kaplan begins a speaking tour on Sunday at 4pm at the Red Rose Comedy Club, 129 Seven Sisters Road, London; 8pm, St John's Wood Liberal Synagogue. For details, email aviel_luz@yahoo.com.
-------- mideast
A Wrong Turn Against Iraq
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
Washington Post; Page A26
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61948-2002Oct21?language=printer
As an American living in the Persian Gulf, I can attest that those who are within the range of Iraqi Scud missiles view the impending war as a mistake that will only increase anti-Americanism -- the cause of Islamic terrorism against the West.
While most Arabs and Europeans cheered George W. Bush's election, they soon felt betrayed by his abandonment of the Middle East peace process, his withdrawal from the Kyoto global-warming treaty and a litany of other unilateral foreign policy positions. While most Americans believe that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were in the planning stages for many years, the perception many Arabs and Europeans share is that Osama bin Laden had been trying to take action for years and that President Bush's stances galvanized the support needed to pull them off.
Now many people believe that America's need for cheap oil is a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Right or wrong, if the greatest perceived threat to world peace wages war against the will of the United Nations, how could world security and stability be the result?
Let us not forget that the 9/11 terrorists were led and funded by citizens of our strongest Persian Gulf ally, not by Iraq.
PETER SLOAN EIDENT
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
----
Assad: U.S. peace vision unsufficient
October 22, 2002
UPI
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20021022-095631-8557r.htm
DAMASCUS, Syria, Oct. 22 -- Syrian President Bashar Assad on Tuesday said the U.S. vision for establishing a Palestinian state was not sufficient and called on Washington to stop Israel's "annihilation" of the Palestinians and to resort to wisdom regarding Iraq.
Speaking during a meeting with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs William Burns, Assad said, "U.S. talk about having a vision to establish a Palestinian state is no more enough unless there is a quick intervention to stop the annihilation war (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon is launching against the Palestinian people."
The Syrian leader warned that Israel was particularly displacing the Palestinians and was exerting daily efforts "to change the reality on the ground" while the United States was "clearly unable to exert any pressure on Israel to force it respect the international resolutions."
"In that case, the Palestinian state will be a state without people as Israel wants it to be," Assad was quoted as saying by the official Syrian News Agency.
He said talking about peace commitments was not sufficient unless a timetable to achieve such a peace was defined.
"U.S. policies vis-à-vis the Arabs only harvest anger and increased problems," he said, adding that the only solution that would be "useful to all is to end the Israeli occupation and stop settlement activities ... otherwise everything else is a waste of time."
He said the United States was not aware of "what's really going on" in the region because it was relying too much on Israeli own reports and version of events.
On Iraq, Assad said the United States should have "the wisdom because it would never know what will happen in the region" following its planned military strike.
"To be stuck in the Iraqi sand will be harder on the U.S. than getting stuck in the Afghan sand," he said. "If this dangerous chain starts, no one will be able to stop it or control its consequences."
The Syrian president reiterated his country's constant commitment to the just and comprehensive peace based on international resolutions but called on the U.S. administration to "have a better knowledge and clearer vision before taking decisions that affect the fate of the region and the world, including that of U.S. itself."
----
Turkey Negotiates Role in War
Talks With U.S. Could Put More Troops in Northern Iraq
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61646-2002Oct21?language=printer
ANKARA, Turkey -- The United States and Turkey are locked in strenuous negotiations over what role Turkey would play in a war with neighboring Iraq, a conflict that could lead Turkey to inject thousands of additional troops into the volatile Kurdish region of northern Iraq.
Turkey already maintains 2,000 to 5,000 troops in northern Iraq, assigned, in conjunction with Kurdish militias that control the area, to chase remnants of the Kurdish Workers' Party guerrilla force, which seeks autonomy for Turkey's large Kurdish minority.
But Washington may recruit Turkey to police the flow of refugees and guard prisoners of war in case of a conflict with Iraq, whose northern border abuts southeastern Turkey for about 200 miles and would be a logical escape route for defeated Iraqis. Because the Turks want to keep any fleeing Iraqis on the Iraqi side of the border, the plan would require Turkey to increase its military presence in Iraq by thousands of troops, Western diplomats and Turkish officials say.
Such an arrangement is far from being finalized. Moreover, a generally sour outlook here about possible repercussions from the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein is complicating the Turkish-U.S. talks.
Turkey wants to exact a financial reward from any such cooperation. Its economy is in recession, and Turkish officials say that the country would suffer further from a war and its aftermath. Turkey is looking for $4 billion to $6 billion in aid, news reports here say, as well as trade concessions from the United States.
The Turks are also suspicious of the motives of Washington's main helpmates in Iraq, the Kurds in the north. Turkey wants guarantees that the Iraqi Kurds will not establish an independent state, or even achieve a degree of autonomy that could awaken the crushed separatist dreams of Turkey's Kurdish minority.
Gen. Tommy R. Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command, visited Ankara yesterday for talks with top Turkish military officials on a Turkish ground role in any war with Iraq, as well as use of the big Incirlik Air Base in southeastern Turkey for bomb runs over Iraq.
Franks and Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, the supreme allied commander in Europe, met with Gen. Hilmi Ozkok, the Turkish chief of staff, who is scheduled to visit Washington in two weeks. The military dominates Turkey's policymaking body, the National Security Council, and will make the final decision on Turkey's stand. The Americans met for three hours with Turkish officers and discussed "just about everything," a U.S. official said.
Turkish officials have warned that Kurdish efforts to expand the autonomous zone in the north -- now maintained under an umbrella of U.S. and British air patrols -- could prompt Turkey to grab territory for itself. Over the weekend, Turkish Foreign Minister Sukru Sina Gurel warned the Iraqi Kurds "to heed our warnings" against setting up a state.
"Turkish relations with the Kurds ride on thin ice," said a Western diplomat. "It's a big issue."
Western diplomats and Turkish officials say there will be no definitive decision on Turkey's role in Iraq until the U.N. Security Council votes on a resolution designed, from Washington's point of view, to give the United States the authority to use military force. A Turkish decision may also await the results of Nov. 3 parliamentary elections in Turkey, in which Iraq has emerged as a major issue, Western diplomats say.
For Turks, the idea of ending Hussein's rule in Baghdad is an unwelcome distraction from their campaign to join the European Union. In the Turkish view, the country has only recently emerged from a string of knotty regional problems that slowed its progress toward that goal.
One was the battle with Kurdish nationalists that gave Turkey a reputation as a human rights abuser. In the 1990s, conflict in the Balkans provided Turkey with waves of refugees. And Turkish officials argue that the country lost billions of dollars in tourist revenue and trade with Iraq during and after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
With the Balkans quiescent and Iraq stable, though hemmed in by economic sanctions, Turkey felt it was free to turn its full attention to the EU. With U.S. support, Ankara is trying to persuade the EU to set a date for talks that it hopes would lead to membership. Turkish officials say they want to look west toward prosperity, not south toward conflict.
"We need to keep disruptions away from Turkey," a senior Turkish official said in a recent interview.
"We have gotten along with all kinds of Iraqi regimes," added a senior Foreign Ministry official. "Many would agree that Saddam is not an asset, but we are concerned about a lot of consequences."
"In the Turkish mind," said a U.S. diplomat, "we are creating a mess for Turkey."
With war looming, the Iraqi Kurds have fashioned a proposed constitution for expanded autonomy in a new, federalized Iraq. The Kurdish drive is widely regarded here as a campaign for independence. As a result, war and Kurdish autonomy have become dominant issues in the campaign for parliamentary elections.
Eighteen parties are vying for seats, and politicians with low ratings in opinion polls, notably Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, are trying to make hay out of Turkish insecurities. "The situation in northern Iraq has gotten out of hand," Ecevit warned recently.
Northern Iraq is under the control of two militia groups -- the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. Their enclaves are under the protection of a "no-fly" zone patrolled by U.S. and British warplanes. The overflights bar the Iraqi air force from the area.
Turkey is a partner in the no-fly zone; the U.S. and British planes take off from Incirlik. In addition, the two militia groups help Turkey keep guerrilla remnants of the Kurdish Workers' Party pinned down in the mountains of northern Iraq.
"Those [Iraqi Kurdish] communities' welfare and security have until now been under Turkey's safeguard. If they want to continue like this, then they need to behave accordingly," Gurel, the foreign minister, said over the weekend. "Our presence in north Iraq will continue."
The Bush administration has asserted that there are no plans to split up Iraq. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell recently welcomed the convening of a Kurdish regional parliament as a step toward a "democratic, pluralistic and united Iraq" with the country's "territorial integrity intact."
While seeking Kurdish help against Hussein's government and military, U.S. officials oppose the Kurds' desire to make their regional capital in Kirkuk, the main city in an oil-rich zone of northern Iraq.
The Kirkuk issue in particular has raised Turkish qualms. Turkish officials and newspapers argue that the town is traditionally Turkish and is populated largely by the Iraqi Turkmen minority, an ethnic group that has been dispersed over the years by successive Iraqi governments. A senior Turkish official put the total Iraqi Turkmen population at 2.5 million. The Kurds say they number about 700,000.
Northern Iraq is already a cluttered arena of potentially hostile forces, Western diplomats say. In addition to the Turkish troops stationed in the northernmost reaches, the two militia groups boast a combined force of 50,000 men armed with rifles and antitank weapons.
Hussein maintains divisions of his elite Republican Guard in Mosul and Kirkuk. Baghdad also has established regular forces along the rest of a curved line separating Kurdish autonomous zones from the rest of Iraq. Recent visitors to the area observed construction of earthworks to shelter troops, tanks and artillery.
In the eastern end of the Kurdish zone, along the border with Iran, about 400 Islamic fundamentalist fighters, including some Arab fugitives from al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan, are holed up in the mountains. Turkish and Western officials say that group, Ansar al-Islam, is backed by Iran, one of the latest in a series of efforts by Iran to make its presence felt in Iraq.
--------
U.S. Forces in the Middle East
Oct. 22, 2002
Center for Defense Information Terrorism Project
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/forces-centcom.cfm
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/forces-mideast-pr.cfm
This document presents CDI's estimate of U.S. forces now deployed to the Central Command area of operations and focused upon Iraq.
A number of deployments have been announced in recent days, including early deployment of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Constellation, which indicate increasing efforts to ready U.S. forces for war. It is quite probable that a war may be launched within the next three to six months. Currently, more than over 35,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are in the Persian Gulf area, and more are arriving.
Recent Equipment Moves
On Oct. 11, Reuters said the Navy's Military Sealift Command was to move large quantities of equipment from the home bases of both the U.S. Army's V Corps and the Marines' I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) to the Gulf region. Each headquarters has the ability to plan and conduct combat operations for at least 75,000 personnel. The only remaining levels of command necessary to deploy are the division headquarters and further actual combat brigades. *The Navy tendered for the move of 867 pieces of 'hazardous rolling stock' from California, taking 99,000 square feet. (This amount of equipment probably indicates that at least a brigade's worth of material is being moved). *Separately, another tender called for the transport of 253 pieces of 'wheeled [and] tracked vehicles and containers', from Belgium and Italy - both countries where the U.S. Army has pre-positioned equipment - to be landed at two undisclosed Gulf ports.
Two Army brigade sets are afloat in the Indian Ocean, and up to two more may well be on the way, as well as the Marine brigade inferred above.
With the new tenders, the Navy has now requested six shiploads of military material since August.
KUWAIT
The headquarters of Army Forces Central Command commanded by Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan is located at Camp Doha.
The headquarters of the Army's V Corps from Heidelburg, Germany and the Marines' I Marine Expeditionary Force from Camp Pendleton in California have been ordered to move to Kuwait (V Corps by mid December).
3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), is now in Kuwait, including around 5,000 troops with M-1A12 main battle tanks, M-2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and M-109A6 Paladin artillery.
3rd Brigade is now handing over to the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division from Fort Stewart (also with about 5,000 troops).
one full brigade (3rd being relieved by 2nd) plus another brigade set of equipment. Each brigade or brigade set has about 116 M-1 Abrams tanks, 60 M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, 100 armored personnel carriers, and 25 artillery pieces.
Three aviation battalions, each with at least 25 helicopters, have arrived or about to arrive:
2nd Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment task force.
6th Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment (Apache attack helicopters).
7th Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment (Apache attack, UH-60 transport, helicopters).
A Special Forces company (100-200), and other Special Operations units are present.
There are numerous combat support and logistics units, including elements of the 513th Military Intelligence Brigade.
Advance party from British 1st Armored Division.
Parts of the Marine Corps' 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit are currently exercising with Kuwaiti forces as part of Exercise Eager Mace. Amphibious ships Mount Vernon and Denver are near Kuwait.
U.S. Air Force 332nd Aerospace Expeditionary Group (AEG) is located at Ahmed Al-Jaber air base.
386th Aerospace Expeditionary Group is stationed at Ali Al Salem air base in the south of Kuwait.
3,000 Air Force personnel support Operation Southern Watch over Iraq.
12 Squadron, British Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado GR.4 attack aircraft, at Ali Al Salem.
Total number of U.S. military in Kuwait may now be over 10,000.
JORDAN
Jordan provides basing and overflight permission for all U.S. and coalition forces.
1,400 U.S. Special Operations troops, almost certainly including Army Special Forces, exercising in the country as part of Exercise Early Victor '02, which began on Oct.6. Jordanian, Omani, Kuwaiti and British troops are also taking part in the exercise.
Brig. Gen. Gary L. Harrell, commander Special Operations Forces Central Command, last reported in Jordan Oct. 15.
SAUDI ARABIA
A Combined Aerospace Operations Center (CAOC) is located at Prince Sultan Air Base (PSAB), at Al Kharj, south of Riyadh. This is a major command center.
The 363rd Air Expeditionary Group is also stationed at Prince Sultan Air Base.
British Royal Air Force Tornado F.3 fighters, drawn from 43 Squadron, are also at PSAB.
BAHRAIN
The top Marine general for Central Asia and the Persian Gulf is Lt. Gen. Earl B. Hailston, who is CENTCOM's Marine Component commander (MARCENT) for all Marine forces in the Pacific. He has his headquarters and staff in Bahrain.
Vice Adm. Timothy J. Keating, who served as deputy commander of Carrier Air Wing 17 in support of Operation Desert Storm, is CENTCOM's Naval Component Commander (NAVCENT) for all naval forces in the region. His 5th Fleet headquarters is in Manama, Bahrain.
Task Force 50, stationed in the Gulf, conducts Maritime Interception Operations and enforces UN sanctions against Iraq. The force includes destroyers, frigates and at least one submarine.
Task Force 53, the headquarters for Navy logistics in the area, is at Bahrain.
USS Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group is in the area. The group includes the carrier itself, Carrier Air Wing 14, USS Shiloh (CG 67), USS Mobile Bay (CG 53), USS Fletcher (DD 992), USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60) and USS Reuben James (FFG 57) the attack submarine USS Honolulu (SSN 718), and the USS Camden, a combat support ship.
USS George Washington carrier battle group is in the Mediterranean Sea, along with 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Nassau amphibious ready group.
The USS Constellation carrier battle group from West Coast now to deploy to the region in early November rather than next year.
Four mine countermeasures vessels are assigned to the Fifth Fleet - USS Ardent (MCM 12), USS Cardinal(MHC 60), USS Dextrous (MCM 13), and USS Raven (MHC 61), all based at Bahrain. They form Mine Countermeasures Division 31.
The United Kingdom has RAF Tri-Star refueling tankers at Bahrain airport
The U.S. Navy has P-3 Orion anti-submarine and surveillance aircraft at Bahrain airport
Naval Special Warfare Unit 3, a SEAL force, is headquartered in Bahrain.
QATAR
Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley is CENTCOM's Air Force Component commander (CENTAF) for all Air Force assets in the region. He is now at Al Udeid Air Base, which is 19 miles outside of Doha, Qatar's capital.
Al Udeid will host some 600 personnel from the Central Command headquarters (about a third of the full staff) to exercise a forward headquarters capability in November.
The 379th Air Expeditionary Wing is located at Al Udeid. The base now has a 15,000 foot runway and hangers that can accommodate close to 100 aircraft. It is home to fighter/bomber aircraft, at least 11 air to air refueling aircraft, and JSTARS reconnaissance aircraft.
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
The 380th Air Expeditionary Wing is based at Al Dhafra, an hour outside Abu Dhabi. Three reconnaissance squadrons:
- 12th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, a number of Global Hawk reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles.
- 99th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron.
- 763rd Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, KC-135s providing air-to-air refueling support.
OMAN - 1,150 miles to Baghdad
A new airbase has been under construction at Musnana'h, approximately 120 km. west of the capital Muscat, which has a 14,000-foot runway.
Airlift hubs at Seeb, Thumrait and Masirah Island, the former RAF base in the Arabian Sea, are currently providing substantial support. (Masirah is also a major supply depot.)
The B-1 force in the area, with the 405th Air Expeditionary Wing, is now located in Oman, possibly at Thumrait.
The British Royal Air Force has additional air refueling assets at Seeb to support the no-fly zone in Iraq.
A full squadron, numbering up to 100, of the British Special Forces elite Special Air Service regiment is now reported in Oman.
The Royal Australian Air Force is about to deploy two P-3 Orion maritime reconnaissance aircraft into the region, which might well end up based in Oman.
TURKEY
Incirlik Air Base near Adana hosts the 39th Wing and 4,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to support 50 F-15, A-10 and F-16 fighters, plus U.S. Navy EA-6 Prowler electronic warfare aircraft.
DIEGO GARCIA
40th Air Expeditionary Wing is located at Diego Garcia with B-52 bombers.
Forward basing preparations are underway for B-2 stealth bombers.
Task Group 57.2 of the 5th Fleet, a U.S. Navy P-3 Orion maritime patrol and surveillance force is present.
There are also pre-positioned strategic sealift ships for the Army and Air Force. Two Army brigade sets plus a Marine brigade set and equipment to support Marine aircraft are located around the atoll.
DJIBOUTI
There are around 800 U.S. troops, including special operations forces at Camp Le Monier in Djibouti.
U.S. Marines are training in the country.
The USS Belleau Wood is also in the region.
For additional analysis see "Southwest Asia - Forces in the Area".
Sources
"U.S. Military Grows in Djibouti", Associated Press, Sept. 30, 2002, http://www.djiboutipost.com/p/5f/3a7a44fedc78.html?id=f325b4
Bradley Graham, "U.S. Boasts Its Ability To Plan War," Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2002
Greg Jaffe, "U.S. Asks Britain To House B-2s At Island Base In Indian Ocean," The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 16, 2002.
Todd Purdum, "Saudis Indicating U.S. Can Use Bases If UN Backs War," New York Times, Sept. 16, 2002.
Cordesman, Anthony H., U.S. Forces In The Middle East, Resources and Capabilities, Boulder, CO; Westview Press, 1997.
Vernon Loeb, "U.S. Forces in Tampa Plan Qatar Exercises," The Washington Post, Sept. 12, 2002
Matthew Fisher, "U.S. will be ready for war by December," National Post, Oct. 9, 2002
Chris Tomlinson, "Poised to Strike, U.S. Forces Practice", Boston Globe (AP), Sept. 30, 2002
Sharon Weinberger, "Air Operations Center Could Be Quickly Moved," Aerospace Daily, April 16, 2002.
Hunter Keeter, "CENTCOM Boosting Command and Control Capability," Defense Daily International, April 5, 2002.
Rowen Scarborough, "Military 'Leaning Forward' To Gird For War With Iraq," The Washington Times, March 18, 2002.
"Navy Orders More Ships to Carry Gear to Gulf," Reuters, Oct. 14, 2002
Wayne Specht, "Air Base In Qatar Feature's Region's Longest Runway," Pacific Stars And Stripes, March 31, 2002.
Michael Sirak and Neil Barnett, "USA Looks To Expand Bases In Oman And Qatar," Defense Weekly, April 17, 2002.
U.S. Army, Army Prepositioned Stocks (APS-3)/Army Prepositioning Afloat (APA), DALO-FPP, Aug. 15, 2001
"FB-111A.Net's Updates", http://www.fb-111a.net/Updates.html
"Stealth Fighter Planes, Crew Members Deployed," Washington Times, Oct. 15, 2002
Colin Robinson,
CDI Research Analyst - crobinson@cdi.org
CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW,
Washington, DC 20036-2109
Ph: (202) 332-0600 ·
Fax: (202) 462-4559 info@cdi.org
-------- nato
Slovenians wary of joining NATO
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 22, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021022-96501825.htm
This is the third in an occasional series of reports from seven NATO aspirants in Central and Eastern Europe before the alliance's summit in Prague next month, where they are expected to receive membersip invitations.
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia - Just when it seemed they had convinced NATO that their 11-year-old state of 2 million deserves a membership invitation next month, the Slovenian authorities discovered that they have some more convincing to do, this time among their own people.
For several years, NATO officials have done little to hide their assessment that, when it comes to taking in new members, Slovenia is the easiest case. It is politically stable, and its economy is the envy of the former communist bloc.
But an unusually vocal outcry against joining the Western alliance has come as a slap in the face for the country's government, prompting NATO to make an addition to its list of accession requirements - public support for membership.
"We want to see public support of well over 50 percent," one senior NATO official said. "As a member, a country incurs serious common-defense responsibilities under Article 5, and the government should have the full backing of its people."
The alliance invoked Article 5, which says that an attack on one member is an attack on all, for the first time a day after the September 11 attacks last year.
Although the official said that he and his colleagues "have been pleased" by the Slovenian government's campaign to raise public support for membership, recent polls reveal that a slow and painful effort to boost support ratings, which fell to their lowest level - 39 percent - in early summer, has failed.
"We are cautious of a full-blown campaign and concerned about negative reactions," said Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, referring to charges that the government is wasting taxpayers' money.
Anton Bebler, president of the Atlantic Council of Slovenia, a group of intellectuals advocating NATO membership, said there is a perception among Slovenians that if the authorities need to wage a campaign on a certain policy issue, arguments based solely on its merits are not enough.
The government of Prime Minister Janez Drnovsek has published various materials, such as books and manuals with facts and frequently asked questions about NATO, and a newsletter, which it sent to 683,000 households. It is also operating a toll-free phone service where anyone can address inquiries and concerns, said Nada Serajnik Sraka, state undersecretary for public relations.
But Ali Zerdin, a reporter for Mladina (Youth), a weekly newsmagazine, said that most people think the newsletter is a "joke" and instead are seeking "clear answers from the government what exactly our responsibilities as a NATO member will be."
According to a survey by the University of Ljubljana's faculty of social sciences, used by the government and considered by many the most accurate polling data available, public support for membership has been lingering below 50 percent for the past two years.
It reached its highest level - 62 percent - in the spring of 1997, just before the first round of expansion at the alliance's Madrid summit, where Slovenia's bid failed. It fluctuated between 50 percent and 60 percent the next four years but dropped to 48 percent late last year, falling further to 39 percent this summer.
The latest results showed that things remained unchanged in September, even though all major political parties, except the National Party, support membership. More significantly, opposition to joining NATO also was at 39 percent. About 22 percent were undecided.
"As reasons for their support, the respondents state that NATO provides the best form of collective security, that they consider collective security cheaper and that membership would have positive economic implications for Slovenia," the team that conducted the survey said in an analysis accompanying the results.
"The reasons against entry given by the respondents are high expenses, disagreement with the participation of Slovenian soldiers in military operations abroad and the fact that the state is not under threat," it said.
The survey also found that of those participants who said they would take part in a referendum on NATO membership, 55 percent would vote for and 45 percent against it.
Unlike in any other aspirant country, a referendum seems all but certain in Slovenia, most probably in the period after the Prague invitation and before ratification of enlargement begins in the parliaments of NATO's 19 member states.
"Some want a referendum before Prague, but you can't decline a dinner invitation before you receive it," Mr. Rupel said.
Officials blame the skeptical public opinion on what it calls an "anti-campaign" in the press that, it says, has been undermining the government's effort for more than a year. The foreign minister was the only Cabinet member to respond to the negative press and, according to some officials, was reprimanded in private by his boss, Mr. Drnovsek.
Defense Minister Anton Grizold attributes the strong opposition to NATO membership to a practice reminiscent of the Yugoslav era, although Slovenia has been independent since 1991.
"Journalists were considered political workers in former Yugoslavia, and some still are," he said. "We are still discovering our statehood responsibilities."
Blaz Zgaga, a national security reporter for Vecer (Evening) daily, disagreed, but he acknowledged that "many journalists don't have college education."
He also dismissed the government's contention that the media are conducting a "systematic campaign or conspiracy." But he conceded that his editor "refused to publish an opinion piece I had written advocating NATO membership because she didn't want to go against public opinion."
In Slovenia, unlike in the United States, news reporters also write editorials and other opinion articles, which can be published on both the op-ed and news pages.
Some political observers credit the press with opening a debate that otherwise would never have been initiated.
"The government didn't feel that discussion was necessary, and it didn't listen to those against membership," said Vlado Miheljak, a professor of social sciences and columnist for the daily Delo. "The debate was more about democratic procedure, and it was forced by the media."
The military, which is the most trusted Slovenian institution and has an approval rating of more than 70 percent, has not been affected by the public debate, said Lt. Col. Dobran Bozic, commander of the army's 10th Motorized Battalion.
"We are preparing to work in an international environment," he said. "We have troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we'd like to send special forces to Afghanistan, but the politicians don't want to risk public opinion."
In nearly two dozen interviews, political and military leaders, civil servants, analysts and journalists said that the public outcry was in large part a result of disapproval of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
"People here have a weird way of connecting things," Mr. Bebler said. "There is a correlation in their minds between NATO and the United States. They think the Bush administration will force NATO to march in places like Iraq, so why be tricked into far-away wars by reckless unilateralists?"
Mr. Grizold and Janez Jansa, president of the Social Democratic Party, said that people do not understand U.S. policy because no one explains it to them.
"Every event linked to the United States and NATO is shown negatively in the media," Mr. Jansa said. "The Washington correspondent of the national TV reports as if from an enemy country."
Mr. Rupel expressed some frustration with a few of the administration's policies that are often at odds with those of Washington's European allies.
"I've met Bush, and he is a good and straightforward man," Mr. Rupel said. "Slovenia would love to stay in the group of American friends, but some statements from Washington are not helpful in making our policies popular."
Mr. Grizold, however, said that "as a true partner," Slovenia will support the United States. "Otherwise, how can we be a credible partner? We have to stick together and express solidarity."
He also said his country would fulfill NATO's requirement that 2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) be spent on defense by 2008, in spite of strong objections by some.
But Mr. Miheljak said that many people doubt the government's assertion that building a defense system outside NATO would be much more expensive and that they feel that "we can defend ourselves with less than 2 percent of GDP."
"We are economically stable, and we don't need NATO like some other candidates," he said, referring to Bulgaria and Romania, whose economies have not done as well. "We can survive without NATO."
-------- russia / chechnya
Russia Rejects U.S. Draft on Iraq
October 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-World-Reax.html
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia rejected the new U.S. draft resolution on Iraq Tuesday, dealing a sharp blow to American efforts to gain U.N. backing for the automatic use of force if weapons inspectors are thwarted by Baghdad.
Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov's statement said the U.S. document failed to meet Russian criteria.
His comments to Russian reporters were the Kremlin's first official reaction to the U.S. proposal presented on Monday to the other four permanent members of the Security Council.
``The American draft resolution...does not answer the criteria which the Russian side laid out earlier and which it confirms today,'' Ivanov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
Ivanov made the statement several hours after meeting with Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte gave the complete U.S. draft to envoys of the four other permanent council members -- France, Russia, China and Britain.
Blix, meanwhile, said he thought war with Iraq could be avoided if Baghdad proves it does not have weapons of mass destruction. France and China remained guarded about using force against Hussein.
``They may have evidence, I am not brushing it aside, but in our archive there is no clear-cut evidence. There are many questions, however, that we would like to have answered by them (the Iraqis) and there are also many places we would like to visit,'' Blix said.
Ivanov made his comments after separate meetings with State Department Undersecretary John Bolton as well as with Blix.
Russia, which holds veto power in the Security Council, has opposed unilateral military action against Iraq. It criticized an earlier version of the draft that would have envisaged the use of force if Baghdad failed to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors.
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the United States would continue to push for one resolution.
``It's a fact that they don't have forever. The United Nations is entering the final stages on this and we'd like to see a resolution reached,'' he said. ``Our position remains the same -- one resolution is appropriate.''
China ``will take seriously'' any measure supporting U.N. weapons inspections and leading to a peaceful settlement of the standoff between Iraq and the United States, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a regularly scheduled briefing.
However, he added: ``We have always held that the U.N. weapons inspectors should return to Iraq as soon as possible and the Security Council should consider its next move according to the result of the inspection.''
French President Jacques Chirac did not react directly to the draft but suggested the French were not close to supporting it.
``We have our own appreciation of things, and we tell (the United States) that,'' Chirac said, even if ``we don't say it in an aggressive way.'' He spoke to reporters after a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen whose country holds the rotating European Union presidency.
Earlier, before seeing the draft, French U.N. Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said he did not think an agreement was close.
Washington's staunchest ally on the council, Britain, voiced its support. Prime Minister Tony Blair said he hoped the U.S. draft would be approved.
At the same time, Ivanov said Friday that the Security Council could consider authorizing the use of force against Iraq if the inspectors report ``problems'' in searching for weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, Blix, who said he thought a team of weapons inspectors could be in Iraq within two weeks, issued his assessment as U.N. Security Council members studied the revised U.S. draft of a resolution on Iraq.
``I think that if Iraq helps create confidence that there are no weapons of mass destruction, then I think there will be no war,'' Blix said.
Blix said he would like to see the inspectors go to Iraq as soon as possible, but that it was best for them to wait for the expected U.N. Security Council resolution rather than receive new instructions after they had started work.
He said it was important for the inspectors to travel to Iraq to provide a clearer picture of the state of its weapons programs. Some countries, including the United States and Great Britain, have said that Iraq has made strides in developing weapons of mass destruction that pose a grave threat to mankind.
Also Tuesday, Turkey warned Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions to avoid possible military action, and in an apparent message to Washington, said any action ought to have U.N. approval.
At the end of a four-hour meeting, Turkey's National Security Council -- made up of the country's military and civilian leaders -- issued a statement saying that ``Iraq should behave responsibly to avoid the necessity of military intervention.''
Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has repeatedly spoken out against any military campaign in Iraq, fearing it could destabilize the region and harm the Turkish economy, which is suffering from its worst recession in decades.
-------- un
Study: Israel leads in ignoring Security Council resolutions
By Shlomo Shamirm
Ha'aretz,
October 22, 2002
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=218044&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
NEW YORK - Israel holds the record for ignoring United Nations Security Council resolutions, according to a study by San Francisco University political science professor Steven Zunes.
On the eve of a possible U.S.-British assault on Iraq, Zunes decided to examine in depth one of the main arguments used by the Bush administration to justify changing the Baghdad regime - Iraq's deliberate refusal to implement UN Security Council resolutions. He systematically went through all the states given instructions by the security council to find out how common a phenomenon it was. His results were somewhat surprising: "Some of the countries are considered and are known to be friendly to the U.S.," he told Ha'aretz yesterday. "In the vast majority of cases I examined, the governments violating UN Security Council resolutions are countries that receive significant military, diplomatic and financial aid from the U.S."
Israel leads the list. Since 1968, Israel has violated 32 resolutions that included condemnation or criticism of the governments' policies and actions. Turkey is in second place, with 24 violations since 1974, and Morocco is third with 17 resolutions it ignored.
Newsday newspaper published the ranking yesterday, but Zunes said that he did not rank the states and claimed it was newspaper that came up with the grades. According to Zunes, out of some 1,500 UN Security Resolutions passed since 1947, 90 were openly, blatantly, and continually violated without the governments being held accountable for their actions.
Zunes specifically avoided counting resolutions that are vague or unclear so that governments could claim different interpretations to the meaning of the resolutions. Thus, the famous UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 are not included in his study. He also did not count resolutions that only included condemnations. Instead, he focused on those that included specific calls for changes in the subject governments' policies.
The resolutions Israel violated were either about its annexation of East Jerusalem or settlements in the territories. Israel also ignored UN Security Council resolutions that called for Israel to cease using harsh measures against the Palestinian population and to cease expelling Palestinians.
In response, Israel's deputy chief of mission at the UN, Aharon Yaakov, said yesterday that there are big differences between the decisions that refer to Israel and those that refer to Iraq. "Israel is the only democracy in the region and is fighting for its existence, while Iraq is a brutal dictatorship that attacked its neighbors and violates human rights, including the use of chemical weapons against its own citizens," he said.
----
U.S. Offers Concessions in U.N. Draft on Iraq
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61640-2002Oct21?language=printer
UNITED NATIONS., Oct. 21 -- The United States today formally distributed to the permanent members of the Security Council a draft resolution calling for intrusive U.N. inspections while warning that Iraq may face "severe consequences" if it fails to destroy its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
The U.S. text stopped short of requesting explicit U.N. authorization for military action against the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but it represented a hardening of the administration's position on the inspections as President Bush sought to prod the Security Council into adopting the resolution.
"We've tried diplomacy. We're trying it one more time," President Bush told reporters at the White House during a visit by NATO Secretary General George Robertson. "I believe the free world -- if we make up our mind to -- can disarm this man peacefully. But if not . . . we have the will and the desire, as do other nations, to disarm Saddam. And we'll determine here soon whether the United Nations has got the will."
Bush said his administration remained committed to "regime change" in Iraq, a phrase that is code for toppling the Iraqi leader. "However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clear in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed," the president said.
The administration had delayed introducing the resolution due to the opposition of other permanent Security Council members, predominantly France and Russia, over several conditions spelled out in a previous draft. The administration introduced it today after making several concessions.
China, Russia and France nonetheless reacted coolly to the new resolution, saying they expected the administration would have dropped some of its harshest proposals for reinforced inspections before formally introducing it to the council, according to U.N. diplomats. Asked if an agreement was close, France's U.N. Ambassador Jean David-Levitte told the Associated Press before the meeting, "I don't think so."
The most significant U.S. concession was the elimination of language that could automatically trigger military action if Iraq does not cooperate with inspectors. The administration also removed a clause granting the council's permanent members the right to participate in U.N. inspections. Instead the council would order the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, to employ "accomplished, dedicated and experienced experts" on U.N. missions to Iraq.
The U.S. resolution proposes that U.N. inspectors be granted the authority to invite Iraqi weapons scientists and their families out of the country for interviews and to establish "no fly" and "no drive" zones around suspected weapons sites. These zones, according to a provisional clause in the resolution, could possibly be enforced by U.S., British or U.N. forces. U.N. security guards would also be posted at U.N. bases across the country.
Under the terms of the latest U.S. draft, Iraq would be required to file a "full, final and complete declaration" of its banned weapons programs within 30 days of the resolution's adoption. It would also be obliged to allow "unrestricted" and "immediate access" to any location in the country, including eight presidential compounds where inspections have previously been subject to special procedures that could delay inspections for days.
The resolution established a timeline that would grant Blix up to 135 days before he would be required to report on Iraq's cooperation. It provides the Iraqis with 30 days to declare the status of their weapons program. The U.N. inspectors would then have up to 45 days to resume inspections, and an additional 60 days to report to the Security Council.
Although the schedule could set back the Pentagon's timetable for military action against Iraq, U.S. officials have insisted that the administration reserves the right to use force against Iraq at a time of its choosing.
The United States and France appeared close to an agreement on a resolution Thursday after the administration agreed to drop its demand that the resolution contain a trigger that would authorize use of force if Iraq had failed to comply with its disarmament obligations. The United States also moved closer to France's demand that Blix report any Iraqi violations to the Security Council before undertaking military action.
But the talks hit a snag after the administration redrafted a separate provision of the resolution that finds Iraq in "material breach" of previous U.N. disarmament resolutions and notes that the council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as result of its continued violations," according to diplomats familiar with the text.
French officials expressed concern that the language could be used by the United States to justify military action against Iraq.
John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, delivered the latest draft in a meeting with Britain, France, Russia and China. The five members with veto power are expected to meet again Tuesday to discuss it.
State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said that the new U.S. resolution "will accomplish our goals, identifying the violations of U.N. resolutions by Iraq, mandating and giving the inspectors authority to carry out strong, unrestricted inspections, and making sure that there will be consequences if Iraq fails to comply."
"I think we're also making clear that it's time to wrap this up," he added.
----
New U.S. Iraq Plan Before Key Council Members
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Evelyn Leopold
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63335-2002Oct22?language=printer
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States faced yet another challenge Tuesday, this time from Russia, over its bid to get the United Nations behind a plan to disarm Iraq.
Washington has met a wall of opposition for threatening to attack Iraq -- with or without U.N. support -- and for seeking a "regime change" in Baghdad. It says Iraq has amassed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and threatens world security, a charge Baghdad denies.
Hoping to break a month-long deadlock, the United States on Monday gave its four veto-wielding Security Council colleagues a draft resolution due to be discussed Tuesday.
But Washington's latest effort to reach consensus was met with criticism from two critical allies -- Russia and Turkey.
Interfax news agency, quoting well-informed sources on Tuesday, said the new draft had caused "serious disappointment" in Russia because it was "little different from earlier Anglo-American proposals which were unacceptable to Russia and other permanent Security Council members."
Turkey, which has allowed U.S. use of an air base to patrol "no-fly zones" in Iraq and is seen as a key player in any U.S.-led attack on Baghdad, criticized Washington for sending conflicting messages.
"On one hand they (the Bush administration) are continuously giving an impression of a military action. On the other hand they are saying, 'An intervention may not happen, we have not yet made a decision'," said Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit.
"President Bush and the U.S. administration should make their decision immediately and this uncertainty should be eliminated," Ecevit told Milliyet newspaper.
"SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES"
The new U.S. proposal substituted a warning of "serious consequences" for the automatic use of force if Baghdad impeded weapons inspections, according to excerpts obtained by Reuters.
It also established a timetable for Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president, to agree to comply with the resolution and list the weapons that Iraq possesses. And it requests a report from arms experts before any military strike, possibly pushing back any U.S. military action against Iraq.
President Bush indicated the United States might be willing to budge on its other controversial goal of ousting Saddam if the Iraqi leader cooperated with U.N. inspectors.
"...If he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed," Bush told reporters after meeting NATO Secretary General George Robertson.
A White House official later said Bush had not changed his position.
The reports of Russian unhappiness at Washington's latest move to secure an elusive Security Council agreement, came as U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix was in Moscow to meet senior Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, and discuss the new resolution.
Blix said, "I think that if the Iraqis help and cooperate to create confidence that there remain no weapons of mass destruction, then I think there will be no war."
Iraq pledged to give up any chemical, biological or nuclear arms after the 1991 Gulf War triggered by its invasion of neighboring Kuwait. U.N. weapons inspectors had been assigned the task of finding any such weapons, but left in 1998 ahead of a U.S.-British bombing raid of Iraq, and have not returned.
A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's closest international ally, said the main issue was Iraqi disarmament.
"What it's always been about is disarmament," he told reporters.
NO DECISION TO ATTACK
U.S. Central Command chief Tommy Franks said after talks in Egypt with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Washington was in consultations with regional allies about how to deal with Iraq and had not taken a decision to attack.
As diplomatic efforts to stave off war continued, the U.S. embassy in Doha announced the Pentagon has postponed a planned military exercise in Qatar to December from November to allow time for equipment to arrive.
Qatar is a possible Gulf launch pad for any U.S. attack on Iraq.
U.S. defense officials have said Washington will move up to 600 members of its Central Command armed forces from Florida to Qatar's Al Udeid air base in November for the command post exercise "Internal Look," and that it was considering making the shift permanent.
In Baghdad, Iraq said Tuesday the country's 22 million people were ready to defend every inch of Iraq.
"Our enemies will see how fierce the Iraqi people would fight to defend their country and dignity," Head of the Presidential Office Ahmed Hussein Khudayyir said in remarks published by the local press.
Khudayyir was interviewed on Saddam's decision to release tens of thousands of political prisoners in an unprecedented amnesty. The surpass move was seen as an attempt to rally Iraqis behind his leadership against a possible U.S. attack.
-------- us
EYE ON THE GULF - PSYOPS battalion heading to Iraq?
Source says psychological-warfare troops preparing for action
October 22, 2002
By Jon Dougherty
WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29361
In another sign that the United States could be gearing up for war against Iraq, the U.S. Army's 10th Psychological Operations Battalion is gearing up to deploy overseas, probably in support of anticipated military action against Iraq, WorldNetDaily has learned.
"They will finish getting their overseas shots, get all their paperwork such as wills and insurance papers squared away, and in about two weeks leave for combat," said a source familiar with the deployment schedule who asked not to be identified.
While a deployment is nearly certain, the source said, the unit may be sent to Indonesia or "an unnamed African nation," though Iraq is most likely.
Moreover, the source said, the unit may be up to 20 percent under-strength by the time of deployment because "some of the females are bailing out."
And, the source said, "most" of the men "and virtually none of the women can pass" the Army's "reduced standard" physical fitness test. Finally, said the source, the unit itself has had "virtually zero field training exercises" this year.
According to the Army Reserve's most recent unit deployment list, two personnel from the PSYOPS unit were called up in support of ongoing operations March 2.
Ben Abel, a spokesman for the Army's Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations units, told WorldNetDaily the Department of Defense "had not yet published an order calling the unit up for active duty."
PSYOPS units are responsible for demoralizing an enemy's will to fight by, among other things, encouraging an enemy population to withdraw support for enemy forces. The Bush administration and the Pentagon have said an important part of any Iraq war strategy would be an attempt to demoralize regular Iraqi troops as well as better-trained and equipped Republican Guard forces.
The 10th PSYOPS Battalion is a unit of the Army Reserve. It is made up of the 307th and 318th PSYOPS companies based in St. Louis, as well as the 308th PSYOPS Company based in nearby Belton, Mo. It is part of the 7th PSYOPS Group, based at Moffett Field in Calif.
The unit was constituted in the regular Army Nov. 7, 1967, and formally activated a few weeks later, on Dec. 1, operating in the Mekong Delta.
It was deactivated at Fort Lewis, Wash., April 17, 1971, but was reactivated in the Army Reserve Oct. 30, 1975.
----
U.S. Navy Training Goes Virtual as War Games Move
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Jane Sutton
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64589-2002Oct22?language=printer
MIAMI (Reuters) - With a bombing range in Puerto Rico set to close, the U.S. Navy will shift its war games into the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean using new simulators that can make targets far out at sea look like downtown Baghdad, according to a top U.S. Navy official.
Training exercises conducted for decades off the Puerto Rican island of Vieques will be staged instead from military bases on the southeastern U.S. coast, especially Florida, Adm. Robert Natter, commander in chief of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, said late Monday.
"It's doing training in a different way," Natter said in a telephone interview while visiting Florida. "Some of what we could do there we quite frankly could do better here."
For 50 years, the Navy's aircraft carrier battle groups have conducted war games off Vieques, shelling part of the island from ships and planes before deploying overseas.
Calls to leave Puerto Rico, a Caribbean U.S. territory, erupted after a civilian security guard was killed in a botched bombing run in 1999. Protesters repeatedly have sneaked onto the range to disrupt the training, alleging the bombing damages the environment and endangers the health of the island's 9,000 residents -- charges that the Navy denies.
President Bush has said the Navy will leave Vieques by May but first it must certify to Congress that it has found somewhere else as good or better to train.
Natter said his training plan generally would involve two battle group exercises a year with six to eight cruisers and destroyers, a couple of submarines and support ships, and about 2,000 sailors and Marines participating in each.
Drills would last six to eight weeks and would take place in the Gulf of Mexico from November to June, outside the hurricane season, he said.
"We could have as high as three in any given year but chances are the third one would be restricted to the Atlantic because of the hurricane issue," Natter said.
BOMBING FAR OUT AT SEA
Most bombing would take place far out at sea, using a new system that lets ships simulate the terrain of any area -- "downtown Baghdad, anyplace you have overhead photography," Natter said.
"They can simulate an aircraft overflying that location and give you an actual picture of the target and that can tell the gun crews where to place their rounds," he said.
The image is superimposed over targets placed far away from populated areas or sensitive marine habitats. Sonor buoys around the targets measure where the rounds fall and relay the information back to the ships and planes, letting the crews know if they hit their mark, Natter said.
The Virtual At-Sea Training systems were created by the Navy, using computer, radar and global-positioning technology, Natter said. The Navy will use them in an exercise run from Eglin Air Force Base in the Florida Panhandle in November.
The system was in the works already but the prospect of losing Vieques gave it a boost, Natter said.
"This, we think, is very good technology," he said. "It's the smart thing to do and the cost-effective thing to do."
The new plan also calls for increased use of existing bases and aerial bombing ranges, especially during joint training with the Air Force and Army.
Among those targeted are the Cherry Point bombing range and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, the Avon Park and Pinecastle ranges in Florida and Florida's Eglin Air Force Base, Tyndall Air Force Base, Pensacola Naval Air Station, Key West Naval Air Station and a Navy research station in Panama City, Florida, Natter said.
"Most people wouldn't even know they (the exercises) were happening," Natter said. "It's not going to happen very frequently, it's not happening in one location."
Vieques was long favored precisely because it provided "one-stop shopping" for sea, air and land training. That has become less important as the military increasingly relies on long-range missiles, Natter said.
"We're not able to train with those on shore anyway because of the potential danger should one go astray," he said.
Familiarity with the Vieques range also was a problem.
"If you are a gunner or a pilot having to go in and train against the same target year after year, you get pretty accustomed to what it's all about and it doesn't become such a great challenge to you," he said.
By changing and dispersing the targets, "You get a different look and train our crews more like they're going to have to fight."
So far, communities where the training will take place have been receptive to the prospect of additional ships in port and additional military spending, especially with another round of military base closings set for 2005, Natter said.
----
U.S. Tests Hellfire Missiles in Afghanistan
Reuters
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
By Frankie Fathers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64256-2002Oct22?language=printer
BAGRAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) - The U.S. army carried out live-fire exercises using Apache attack helicopters in Afghanistan Tuesday and said the aircraft could have an important role in any war on Iraq.
The Apache, the U.S. military's primary attack helicopter, was widely used against Iraqi air defenses at the start of the 1991 Gulf War.
The test-firing of its Hellfire missile system was carried out near Bagram air base, the U.S. military headquarters north of Kabul. Apaches fired three of the laser-guided missiles, worth around $45,000 each, at targets in hills around the base.
The U.S. military spokesman at Bagram, Lieutenant-Colonel Roger King, said the tests were routine practice.
"I imagine if there was going to be an attack (on Iraq)...that Apaches would play a part in it," he said. "But the Apaches that we have here have a function in Afghanistan."
"As far as I know, they are staying here in Afghanistan, but they still have to maintain the efficiency of their weapons systems."
Operations officer Major Don Fallon said the Hellfire system proved effective in the Gulf War.
"I know there had been some discussion about Iraqi operations, but we haven't been read in on any of that. Our focus is still on Operation Enduring Freedom."
He was referring to the operation involving U.S. and coalition troops pursuing remnants of Afghanistan's former Taliban regime and fugitive Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which the U.S. blames for the September 11 attacks.
The U.S. military has said any attack on Iraq would not affect its Afghan mission. However, there has been speculation that some forces might need to be switched to Iraq.
King said six Harrier jump jets had arrived at Bagram and were preparing for combat operations in Afghanistan. He said this would allow quicker responses than if they were based on an aircraft carrier.
Asked if the planes were brought in to free up carriers for possible operations against Iraq, he replied: "What we do is voice a requirement to the navy and the air force for air support. How they decide it is up to them. They decided they wanted to put Harriers here as part of their commitment."
--------
U.S. Refines Plan for War in Cities
October 22, 2002
New York Times
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/international/middleeast/22URBA.html
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - The American military is training furiously and polishing a plan for attacking Baghdad that calls for isolating the city and then taking control of it by seizing or destroying Saddam Hussein's pillars of power - but avoiding house-to-house combat in its hostile streets.
The new strategy is a significant change in Pentagon doctrine. In World War II, the American military dealt with the difficult question of urban combat by using heavy artillery, intense fire-bombing and, twice over Japan, even atomic weapons. Since the war, the strategy had been to isolate urban areas, then move on to other targets.
Today, commanders still say they would rather avoid fighting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, which could result in thousands of American casualties and even more civilian deaths. But now, with Republican Guard units digging in around Baghdad, they may have no choice should Mr. Hussein and his die-hard adherents choose to make a last stand.
If they must fight there, American generals say, they will choose their targets carefully and try to overwhelm them with such decisive force that the Iraqis' will to fight collapses.
To that end, marines are training in new mock cities on military bases on Guam and in southern California. At an Army training center in Louisiana, more than 3,000 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y., prepared today for an overnight attack Tuesday on another fake city.
At the same time, intelligence agencies are rushing to update military maps using high-resolution satellite photographs, military officials say. They have also asked foreign construction companies for blueprints of the palaces and ministry buildings they built for Mr. Hussein.
In just the past few years, the whole American doctrine of urban warfare has changed. Where the strategy had been either to avoid cities or to destroy them, under the new doctrine the Pentagon's goal would be to isolate the cities, then selectively attack the pillars of the government. Fighting block by block is considered too risky and too likely to cement popular defiance. Rather, the military hopes Mr. Hussein's government would implode as he loses control over his loyalists.
That approach requires accurate intelligence, tight coordination and rapid movement by the attacking forces. It also calls for faith that civilians would welcome their "liberation," as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has suggested.
Even if Baghdad fell, a bloody urban battle with a high civilian toll could be seen as a political failure for the Bush administration - at home and throughout the Middle East.
Senior military officials say American troops are prepared to fight and win in the cities of Iraq, but they are planning on ways to avoid that kind of Pyrrhic victory.
"If we got into the situation where there was combat in the city, I'm comfortable that our forces know how to do that even though we prefer to prevent that from happening," said Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who commanded a Marine rifle platoon during the vicious fight to oust the North Vietnamese Army from Hue in 1968.
What worries the generals is how cityscapes rob the American military of many of its overwhelming advantages. Even guided long-range bombs can be risky to use in dense cities. Radios often do not work. The best surveillance equipment cannot always find enemies in alleys.
The broad details are spelled out in a document called "Joint Publication 3-06: Doctrine for Joint Urban Operations." The paper was completed just one month ago by the Joint Staff, and incorporates lessons learned in the American missions in Mogadishu, Somalia; Belgrade, Serbia; and Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and in the Russian fight for Grozny, the capital of Chechyna. [The document is online at nytimes.com/iraq.]
The "multidimensional surveillance" it calls for is already under way, pinpointing political and military headquarters, electrical and water supplies, food distribution centers and broadcast studios - as well as places like mosques, embassies and Red Cross warehouses that should not be attacked.
An attack would start with a siege, not just by troops and weapons, but by a wall of electronic jamming. The goal is to "control the flow of supplies, personnel and information into and within the urban area" in order to "physically and psychologically isolate" it. There would be broadcasts and leaflets to demoralize fighters and calm civilians; similar operations would continue after state-run television and radio stations fell.
When and if fighters enter a city, they need "overwhelming combat power" - not to level the city but to capture or destroy crucial targets with such "speed, firepower and shock" that resistance collapses.
"First, you want to control all routes in and out of the city," said Lt. Col. John Nicholson, who commanded the first of the Army's new Stryker brigade combat teams built around quickly deployable, wheeled armored vehicles that could spearhead an urban assault. "You want to isolate the city. Then you want to isolate specific targets inside the city. You don't want to take the whole city. Rather, you want to control it by destroying some objectives and controlling others."
Political considerations play a major part in shaping the plan. "You must have a clear understanding of the political objectives," said Colonel Nicholson, now an aide to the secretary of the Army, Thomas E. White. "You can't just go in and rubble a city if your goal is to quickly transition to a post-conflict friendly government."
That is why modern doctrine sees no point in razing cities.
"You need to figure out what pieces of the city or what things you have to attack in order to get the results you want," said James A. Lasswell, a retired colonel at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory in Quantico, Va., who played a pivotal role in rewriting the Marines' doctrine on urban combat.
Complications like these are what prompt senior officers to say will avoid urban combat if possible. The military must be ready to deal with refugees, relief aid and civil order, including crowd control, and to get power stations and water treatment plants up and running in parts of a city that have surrendered or have been seized. "I wouldn't get sucked into the cities," said Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a former head of the Central Command. "There would be a lot of casualties on our side, we'd kill a lot of civilians and destroy a lot of infrastructure, and the images on Al Jazeera wouldn't help us at all," a reference the Arabic satellite network.
Historically, military forces attacking cities have suffered 30 to 40 percent casualties in the intensive fighting. In war games, the new approach has reduced estimated casualties to 10 percent.
At Quantico, a team of marines assigned to a study called Project Metropolis have found that new tactics are probably more important than new technology.
Jet and helicopter pilots simulating attacks to support ground troops are rehearsing new angles of attack, having discovered that plate glass windows in office buildings can deflect the lasers used to identify their targets. When four infantrymen move with a single M1-A1 tank, others can keep watch over rooftops and other enemy outposts while the tanks provide devastating firepower that no foot soldier can match.
Marine experts at Quantico found that it takes four or five weeks - twice what most Army and Marine Corps infantry units spend each year training for urban fighting - to become proficient at the new tactics. Some training can be done at rudimentary sites, with mock houses rigged of two-by-fours and plastic sheeting. A number of bases have complexes with 30 or so buildings that troops quickly master.
Marines are now using a 1,000-building complex at George Air Force Base, a shuttered installation in southern California. There, as in a strange city, many buildings look alike. There are no street signs. Marines learn to divide the mock city into grids, and to call in air strikes.
"We still don't have enough training facilities that put the average marine or soldier in an urban environment," said Randy Gangle, a retired colonel at the Warfighting Laboratory who was instrumental in developing in the Marine Corps's new urban combat doctrine.
Old tactics, and the clichés that describe them, are being discarded. Army and Marine ground troops do not talk so much about kicking down the doors; too often, they are booby-trapped.
Instead, for example, they are studying how the Israeli Army, in the recent fighting in Jenin, used specially loaded tank rounds to blast holes in the walls of buildings. The charge is designed to open the wall, but not to blast through the building, collapse it or hit what lies beyond.
Technology has its role. Ground-penetrating radar and heat sensors can locate enemy fighters in tunnels or behind walls.
One such device was quietly loaned to rescue teams after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon officials said. Called the Tactical Mobile Robot, this small, remote-controlled vehicle, which is still undergoing tests, burrows through walls or concrete and sends back pictures.
Urban operations would begin after sundown, when American optical technology allows its forces to dominate the battlefield while many adversaries are blinded by the night. Most residents are at home, so they do not fill the streets. The streets are the most dangeous place.
"We expect 80 percent of our casualties would be outside the buildings and in between," said Col. Robert L. Caslen Jr., chief of staff for the 10th Mountain Division, whose 2nd Brigade is preparing for an urban assault exercise this week in Louisiana. "Roads and alleys channelize your movements, and they give a great field of fire for the enemy."
More than 2,500 years ago, the Chinese military strategist, Sun Tzu, warned that urban combat tires troops, courts casualties and voids a victory. "The worst policy is to attack cities," he wrote.
Today, Pentagon strategists have seen little to alter that analysis.
"If we have to fight a pitched battle in Baghdad," said one senior officer with access to the war planners, "it means we screwed up somewhere along the way."
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
U.S. to Free Some Held in Guantanamo
Tue Oct 22,
By PAULINE JELINEK,
Associated Press Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021022/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_prisoners_5
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. government is preparing to free a small number of prisoners from its high-security (news - web sites) jail in Cuba, in what would be the first release of combatants who are no longer considered a terrorist threat, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday.
"There are some people likely to come out of the other end of the chute," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon (news - web sites) press conference.
Other officials said on condition of anonymity that it could be within days.
Rumsfeld said officials were vetting the prisoners to make sure they were not candidates for prosecution, no longer of any intelligence value, and not a threat to the United States and its allies.
The first batch to be let go includes "a relatively small number" of men, he said, adding that he didn't know their nationalities.
Pakistani officials have said a visit to the prison turned up a number of Pakistanis who do not represent a threat to the United States.
The government, a major U.S. ally in the counter-terror war, has asked the men to allowed to return to Pakistan. It's unclear how many other countries have sought release of their nationals.
"We vetted them and gave our assessment ... that some of the detainees did not pose a threat" to the United States, said Asad Hayauddin, spokesman for the Pakistan Embassy in Washington.
There are reported to be some 58 Pakistanis in Guantanamo, 100 Saudi Arabians, a dozen Kuwaitis and so on. In all, the United States is holding 598 men from 42 countries who it has labeled as enemy combatants, saying it may legally hold them until the end of hostilities. It hasn't made clear whether that means the end of the campaign in Afghanistan (news - web sites) or the entire global war which is expected to go on for years.
It was unclear whether the men to be released would be freed completely or simply transferred to some other country for detention, Rumsfeld said.
The U.S. government has said for months that some of the prisoners might eventually be prosecuted, released to other countries for prosecution or held indefinitely.
Though rules for military tribunals were announced nearly seven months ago, no one has been ordered sent before a tribunal for trial.
Some of the men have been held for nearly a year since being rounded up during the air war that opened the military campaign in Afghanistan on Oct. 7. Transfers from Afghanistan to Guantanamo began in January.
The main task with them over the months has been to interrogate them for information that might help prevent future attacks and catch other suspects, officials have said.
"Over the course of our efforts against terrorism, we expect there will be numerous releases, and presumably transfers, to other countries," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis said, declining to give further detail.
One official said that for safety reasons, no transfer will be announced until the prisoner or prisoners have safely arrived wherever they are being sent.
Officials fear al-Qaida will track down anyone who is released and try to get information from them, forcibly if need be, on such things as U.S. interrogation methods, security procedures, details of other detainees and any potential weaknesses in security at Guantanamo.
Up until now, transfers into Guantanamo have been one-way trips for the vast majority of prisoners. The only ones acknowledged sent out by the U.S. government so far have been a man (news - web sites) with mental health problems and prisoners determined to be Americans, who were sent for detention in the states instead.
----
Ballistic fingerprint resistance
Jacob Sullum
October 22, 2002
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021022-76683190.htm
In 1991, after George Hennard shot 22 people to death at a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, Sarah Brady said the mass murder showed the need for a federal ban on "assault weapons." Mrs. Brady, the head of Handgun Control Inc., wrote an op-ed piece in which she asked, "Is it going to take a massacre in every congressional district for enough members to find the backbone to put public safety ahead of the profits of the assault weapon lobby?"
It was an odd connection to make, since the pistols Hennard had used, a Glock 17 and a Ruger P89, were not covered by the legislation Mrs. Brady was demanding. A decade later, she and her organization, now called the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, are still trying to pass off non sequiturs as common sense.
In a recent press release, Mrs. Brady says the string of sniper murders that have shocked and unnerved people in Maryland and Northern Virginia demonstrate the wisdom of the "assault weapon" ban, which Congress passed in 1994. Noting that the law is set to expire in two years, she warns, "We do not want to put more military-style weapons capable of such devastation - and worse - back on our streets."
There's an obvious problem with arguing that an existing law is needed to prevent crimes like the sniper attacks when it has manifestly failed to do so. But the weakness in Mrs. Brady's reasoning goes deeper than that.
First of all, Mrs. Brady misleads the public by stating that the sniper may be using an "assault rifle," which is a gun designed for soldiers that can be switched from semiautomatic (firing once per trigger pull) to automatic (firing continuously). The legislation Mrs. Brady wants renewed has nothing to do with automatic weapons, a k a machine guns, which have been strictly controlled by the federal government since the 1930s.
Mrs. Brady and her allies try to obscure this point by fostering confusion between actual military weapons (such as assault rifles) and guns that bear a cosmetic resemblance to them. The guns covered by the "assault weapon" ban were singled out based primarily on their scary looks rather than their capabilities.
Even if that were not the case, the law would be irrelevant to the sniper murders, every one of which has involved a single shot fired from a distance. Depending upon the shooter's skill, any rifle is "capable of such devastation."
Hence Mrs. Brady's logic suggests that what we really need is a ban on rifles. And we already know how she feels about handguns.
If the "assault weapon" angle on the sniper murders is counterintuitive (to put it kindly), Mrs. Brady's other recommendation - a national "ballistic fingerprint" system - seems more plausible. The idea has enough superficial appeal that the Bush administration, after initially expressing skepticism, has agreed to study it.
Under this scheme, manufacturers would test-fire every new gun and supply the government with the bullet and shell casing, the markings from which would be entered into a database. If the gun were ever used in a crime, police could match a bullet or shell casing found at the scene to the weapon's serial number and original purchaser.
The weaknesses in such a system are manifold. Matching ballistic markings is an uncertain art with no objective threshold for verifying that two bullets came from the same gun. As with ordinary fingerprints, the judgment of an examiner may be especially iffy when only fragments are recovered or when he knows what the result is supposed to be.
Compounding this problem, a gun's "fingerprint" changes with use, and it can be deliberately altered by switching parts or scraping the inside of the barrel. Criminals who don't know how to doctor their weapons can simply use one of the 200 million or so guns already in circulation. And even if they use a gun whose signature is on file, they can escape detection if they steal it or buy it from a source other than a gun store, which is what they usually do anyway.
Supporters of a national gun database concede these points but argue it still might help to solve some crimes. The only downside, they say, is that such a system would upset gun owners, who see it as firearm registration in disguise, a prelude to confiscation.
Ballistic fingerprint enthusiasts dismiss this concern as groundless - which shows they have not been listening very closely to people like Sarah Brady.
Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, is a nationally syndicated columnist.
----
High court turns down case on executing juveniles
By Frank J. Murray
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 22, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021022-865916.htm
The Supreme Court fell one vote short yesterday of hearing a plea to halt the execution of juveniles convicted of murder.
Five justices who voted against examining the constitutionality of executing murderers under 18 did not explain their decision, but four dissenters issued a written opinion calling for an end to "this shameful practice."
After a 6-3 decision in June that said "evolving standards of decency" bar executions of moderately retarded killers, Justice John Paul Stevens said the same rationale applied to executing teenagers.
"The practice of executing such [young] offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society," Justice Stevens wrote in a dissent that never mentioned Kevin Stanford's victim.
Stanford, then 17, was sentenced to die in 1983 for murdering and sodomizing Baerbel Poore, 20, a female gas station attendant in rural Jefferson County, Ky., in January 1981.
Of the nation's 3,701 death-row inmates, 83 were convicted while juveniles in the 22 states that allow the death penalty for 16- and 17-year-olds, according to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. The federal government prohibits the practice for juveniles prosecuted in federal court.
Stanford did not follow the usual appeals process but filed an "original" petition for a "writ of habeas corpus." It says that executing murderers who committed their crimes before turning 18 violates the Constitution and takes five votes to warrant a full hearing.
The four dissenting votes typically would have placed the appeal on the court docket for a full hearing. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined Justice Stevens in dissent.
Advocates for abolishing the death penalty want the court to make the practice unconstitutional and expect the court to eventually consider a similar appeal. Sixteen of the 38 states that allow the death penalty prohibit it for those under 18.
Stanford's lawyer, Margaret O'Donnell, said she is "very hopeful for clemency" and called four votes in favor of hearing the issue a sign that the court may accept a pending appeal from Oklahoma that involves the same question.
That case involves Scott A. Hain, condemned to die for the 1987 burning deaths of Michael William Houghton, 27, and Laura Lee Sanders, 22. His Supreme Court appeal on the age issue was filed Sept. 14, and a decision is likely by year's end.
In a separate ruling yesterday, the court refused to free Charles Foster, who said that the 27 years since his 1975 death sentence in Florida was too long.
Justice Breyer was the lone dissenter. He said the "inevitable anxieties and uncertainties" of the long wait "in death row's twilight" raise questions about cruel and unusual punishment.
Justice Breyer, who often invokes foreign law and policy in his opinions, cited in his opinion practices and concerns in Jamaica, Britain and Canada.
That drew a scornful response from Justice Clarence Thomas, who denounced Justice Breyer's arguments to "impose foreign modds, fads, or fashions on Americans" and recounted the viciousness of a killing that Foster admitted to in open court.
On July 25, 1975, Julian Lanier, 65, a General Motors retiree, was lured to a secluded area by the promise of sexual relations with two young women he had met in a bar, then was attacked by Foster.
Foster "could long ago have ended his 'anxieties and uncertainties' by submitting to what the people of Florida have deemed him to deserve: execution," wrote Justice Thomas, who said he also could have avoided the pain by not killing Mr. Lanier.
Meanwhile, yesterday a federal circuit court in New York heard the government appeal from District Judge Jed Rakoff's ruling July 1 that the 1994 federal death penalty law is unconstitutional.
Lawyer Kevin McNally, who is Miss O'Donnell's law partner, argued that Alan Quinones and Diego Rodriguez should not face death for the June 27, 1999, murder of Edwin Santiago, whose body was burned to conceal his identity. Mr. Santiago was a police informant about the defendants' heroin and cocaine ring in the Bronx.
Judge Rakoff said there can be no due process in death-penalty cases because of the prospect that innocent people will be convicted. He said DNA and the possibility of future discoveries make it impossible to fairly sentence anyone to death.
----
USA Patriot Act: Librarians Keep Quiet
If the FBI comes knocking, there'll be no talking; so the ACLU seeks a renegade for a test case
Adam Piore
NEWSWEEK
Oct. 28, 2002 issue
http://www.msnbc.com/news/823009.asp?cp1=1
Usually librarians are the ones who tell people to keep quiet. But ever since Congress passed a series of laws aimed at helping law enforcement track down terrorists, it's the librarians who are under orders not to talk.
THE USA PATRIOT ACT allows the FBI broad new powers to check borrower records, Internet use and any other materials that could help track client reading histories (it also applies to booksellers and could be used to obtain medical records). The law contains a gag order threatening librarians with criminal prosecution if they tell anyone of the FBI visits. The FBI must get a warrant from a judge, but the standard is lower than probable cause. And the evidence, too, is secret.
For more than a month the ACLU has been searching for a librarian who doesn't want to cooperate and is willing to serve as a test case in the courts. "This statute trumps protections in place in 49 of 50 states, with consequences that could evoke images of Big Brother," says the ACLU's Gregory T. Nogeim. But librarians may be too good at keeping quiet. In February 2002, just a few months after the law's passage, the University of Illinois Library Research Center anonymously surveyed more than 1,000 public libraries. Already 85, or 8 percent, had been forced to reveal patron information. Library officials estimate there must be hundreds more by now. Yet despite widespread outrage among librarians, so far no one has come forward, and the statute remains untested in the courts. The search for Conan the Librarian continues. There's little chance that the role will be filled by the nation's most famous librarian: Laura Bush.
----
Sleuth Without a Badge
Retiree Ed Lake has become obsessed with the anthrax case - and he has a theory about who did it
BY WENDY COLE/RACINE
Monday, Oct. 28, 2002
TIME Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,366316,00.html
Ed lake is not a cop. He has no formal training in forensics or any other aspect of law enforcement. But in the past year he has made it his business to master the intricacies of handwriting analysis, envelope technology and the schedule of U.S. mail pickups in and around Princeton, N.J. He can tell you all about cross-contamination, the common misspellings of penicillin and the "pharmaceutical fold" used by chemists for centuries to dispense medicines - and by person or persons unknown to wrap scrawled terror messages around a few billion spores of surprisingly pure anthrax.
Lake, 65, a retired computer specialist, was planning to spend this year writing his seventh screenplay (sci-fi, time travel), convinced that this one would be good enough to get produced. Instead he has become obsessed with the hunt for the anthrax killer. He works on the case up to eight hours a day, reading everything written about the subject and launching his own unofficial investigations. Several times a day he logs on to the Internet to share his findings with four dozen similarly obsessed citizens - some of them journalists, some of them research scientists, some of them, like Lake, armchair detectives who won't rest until the case is cracked. "I don't like to see things incomplete," says Lake. "I see it as a mystery, and I've got all these facts in front of me. I just need to figure out the missing piece."
To help organize his thoughts - and assist fellow investigators - Lake has assembled what may be the most comprehensive website on the anthrax case outside the FBI, anthraxinvestigation.com. Though he insists that he's no G-man wannabe, Lake has sent dozens of his hypotheses to the bureau over the past year - and received some appreciative feedback in return. ("Knowledge is power," wrote a New York City agent in an e-mail thanking Lake for alerting him to the website.) Among the theories Lake has shared with the feds is his idea, based on the "sloped letters and little balls at the end of the strokes," that the notes were written by a child - perhaps the perpetrator's son or daughter - copying the words from a computer printout.
Conventional wisdom among anthrax aficionados is that the mailings were the work of an American scientist with bioweapons experience who was frustrated by how little attention the U.S. government was paying to the threat these weapons pose. Lake likes that theory a lot better than the ones that blame al-Qaeda or Saddam Hussein. But he doesn't agree with those who tried to drop a dime on Steven Hatfill. He's the former Army scientist whose house has been repeatedly searched and who was famously described by Attorney General John Ashcroft as a "person of interest" (there are about 25 others, according to the FBI). Lake is convinced that Hatfill must have an unimpeachable alibi or the FBI would have hauled him in months ago.
It may actually be a mistake, Lake thinks, to look for a lone anthrax killer. He speculates that there were two co-conspirators: one who supplied the anthrax and a second who refined the spores and mailed them.
Lake has compiled a profile of the refiner-mailer that is striking in its specificity. It's a man, he writes, probably in his 40s, who lives within commuting distance of New York City; reads the New York Post; subscribes to cable TV; watches Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News Channel; was in the Trenton, N.J., area on Sept. 17 and Oct. 8, 2001; and may have traveled last year to Indianapolis, Ind. (from where a threatening letter to O'Reilly was mailed, its handwriting resembling that on the anthrax-tainted letters). You won't read anything like that on the FBI website. On the other hand, Lake isn't bound by the constraints that keep the FBI from broadcasting even informed speculation; that's part of what makes his work so interesting.
Others have criticized the FBI for foot dragging or worse, but not Lake. It's easy to spin theories, he says. "But the FBI has to make sure it has an airtight case." The bureau, for its part, is less generous, officially saying Lake hasn't added anything to the case that it didn't already know.
Lake remains undaunted. FBI agents come and go. In fact, a key member of the FBI's Washington anthrax team - Arthur Eberhart, special agent in charge - retired last summer. But Lake soldiers on. First thing each morning he's back at his computer scouring the Internet for fresh leads. He vows not to quit until the mystery is solved. And then, maybe, he will get back to his screenplay.
With reporting by Andrea Dorfman/New York and Elaine Shannon/Washington
----
U.S. Will Free Small Number of Prisoners Held in Guantánamo
October 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Guantanamo-Prisoners.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon plans to release some terror suspects from prison in Cuba because they are no longer threats and have no more intelligence information to offer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday.
``There are some people likely to come out of the other end of the chute,'' he said, without disclosing how many would be released.
Some of the 598 men at the high-security prison built at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station have been held for nearly a year. They were first rounded up during the air war that opened the military campaign in Afghanistan, then transferred from Afghanistan to Cuba in January.
Until now, the only prisoners who have gotten out of the facility were a man who was mentally ill and an American moved to the United States for continued detention, officials said.
Rumsfeld said authorities were screening the prisoners to make sure they were not candidates for prosecution, no longer of any intelligence value and not threats to the United States and its allies. He didn't say when they might be released, but other sources said on condition of anonymity that it could happen within days.
The first batch to be released includes ``a relatively small number'' of men, Rumsfeld said, adding that he didn't know their nationalities.
At least some are expected to be sent home to Pakistan. The government there, which has been a major U.S. ally in the counter-terror war, says a visit to the prison turned up a number of Pakistanis who do not represent a threat to the United States.
The government has asked that the men be sent back.
``We vetted them and gave our assessment ... that some of the detainees did not pose a threat,'' Asad Hayauddin, spokesman for the Pakistan Embassy in Washington, said Tuesday.
The prisoners in Guantanamo are reported to include 58 Pakistanis, about 100 Saudi Arabians and a dozen Kuwaitis. The United States is holding men from some 42 countries who it has labeled as enemy combatants, saying it may legally hold them until the end of hostilities.
The United States hasn't made clear whether that means the end of the campaign in Afghanistan or the entire global war, which is expected to go on for years.
It's unclear how many other countries have sought release or custody of their nationals, though Kuwait has urged the U.S. government to expedite proceedings against its dozen citizens.
The U.S. government has said for months that some prisoners might eventually be prosecuted, others released to other countries for prosecution, others held indefinitely.
Though rules for military tribunals were announced seven months ago, no prisoners have been identified as a possible candidates for such trials.
Officials said they were busy with the task of interrogating prisoners for information that could help prevent future attacks and catch other suspects.
The process has been to first determine whether the prisoners had any more information, then whether they might be charged with a crime by the United States or another country, and then whether they should be held as future dangers, Rumsfeld said at a press conference with Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
``If you don't want them for intelligence and you don't want them for law enforcement and you don't need to keep them off the street, then let's be rid of them,'' Rumsfeld said, adding that a prisoner could be transferred to another country if that country wanted to hold him for one of those reasons.
Myers seemed to indicate that he didn't know if that was the case with any of the men to be released.
``I know what we decided -- that we were willing to turn them back.'' Myers said. ``And whether the other countries would set them free, they may have a process they have to go through.''
One official said that for safety reasons, no transfer will be announced until it is completed.
Officials fear al-Qaida will track down anyone who is released and try to get information from them on such things as U.S. interrogation methods, security procedures, details of other detainees and potential weaknesses in security at Guantanamo.
Asked if they were being handed over to another government's control or set free, Rumsfeld said, ``We certainly would either hand them to a government's control or we would have talked to the government, and the government would have advised us that they did not need to have control, in which case they would be freed.''
-------- death penalty
For Justices, Doubts On Death Penalty
Four Oppose Execution of Juveniles
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61678-2002Oct21?language=printer
Four Supreme Court justices declared their opposition yesterday to executing juvenile offenders, a strong signal that sentiment is growing at the court for further restrictions on the death penalty in the United States.
The announcement by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- the court's most liberal members -- came in a written opinion dissenting from a 5 to 4 decision, in which the court's conservative majority refused to reconsider the question of whether executing murderers who committed their crimes at age 16 or 17 is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Constitution.
The opinion, written by Stevens and co-signed by Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, called the practice of executing juvenile offenders "a relic of the past [that] is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."
"We should put an end to this shameful practice," the opinion said.
It was the first time since the court upheld the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders in 1989 that four members of the court have gone on the record in favor of reversing that ruling. Executing anyone younger than 16 remains barred under a 1988 ruling by the court.
Opponents of the death penalty said the opinion means the court could hear a different case on the same issue relatively soon, after more state legislatures -- whose views the court considers in determining whether a "national consensus" against a particular aspect of the death penalty has formed -- have passed pending legislation outlawing the death penalty for juvenile offenders.
Death-penalty opponents noted that, normally, the votes of four justices are enough to accept an appeal. But yesterday's case came up under special procedural rules that would have required five votes.
"I think this is a signal from the court to the states to take action if they wish to have an opportunity to resolve the issue on their own, because eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will take a case and will resolve it," said Richard C. Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that opposes capital punishment.
The opinion by Stevens likened the death penalty for juvenile offenders to the execution of mentally retarded offenders. The court banned that practice last June by a vote of 6 to 3, finding that a "national consensus" had emerged against it.
Stevens wrote that, like the mentally retarded, adolescents lack the impulse control of adults, and are thus neither deterred by the threat of death nor fully morally culpable for their actions. Society recognizes the immaturity of adolescents by forbidding them to vote, marry, drink or serve on juries, he wrote.
He wrote that he also saw a "national consensus" repudiating executions of juveniles, in part because of poll data and also because no state has lowered its minimum age for execution since 1989 while five states have raised the age to 18.
Other observers cautioned that the dissenting justices still lack the fifth vote they need to win. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy, both of whom joined in banning capital punishment for mentally retarded offenders, were in the majority yesterday, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Their decision was issued without a written opinion.
"The four [dissenters] feel strongly about it, but they do not have a majority and there is not much likelihood of getting one soon," said Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based nonprofit that often supports law enforcement's position in constitutional cases.
Executions of juvenile offenders are barred by international human rights treaties, though the United States has not accepted those provisions. Only the United States, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo have reported them since 1990.
In the United States, there are 81 16- and 17-year-old murderers on death row. Of those, one-third are in Texas. The rest are distributed among 13 other death-penalty states, according to figures compiled by Victor L. Streib, a law professor at Ohio Northern University.
Twenty-one juvenile offenders have been executed since 1976. The most recent was Toronto Patterson, who died by lethal injection in Texas on Aug. 28. The court's denial of a stay of execution in Patterson's case prompted Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer to dissent, but in milder terms than they and Souter used yesterday. The case yesterday involved Kevin Nigel Stanford, who was convicted in Kentucky 20 years ago for robbing, sodomizing and killing Baerbel Poore. Stanford was 17 at the time of the crimes. His first attempt to get his sentence overturned produced the court's 1989 ruling upholding the execution of 16 and 17-year-old offenders.
Since 1989, Stanford has pursued other appeals in the lower courts and at the Supreme Court, with no success. This time, Stanford was asking the Supreme Court directly to issue him an order known as a writ of habeas corpus, a long-shot request that can be entertained only with the consent of five justices. Stanford's attorneys made the attempt thinking that the court's intervention in the mental retardation case might mean that it was ready to apply similar logic to juvenile offenders.
"If this was [a normal appeal], review would have been granted," said Stanford's lawyer, Margaret O'Donnell,of Frankfort, Ky. "It's very disappointing for Kevin Stanford, but it's a good sign that the court is continuing to move toward the possibility that it will grant review on this issue."
O'Donnell said Stanford, with his court options exhausted, is seeking clemency from Kentucky Gov. Paul Patton (D), who has said he favors a pending bill raising the state's death-penalty age.
The case is In re. Stanford, No. 01-10009.
There was more public disagreement among the justices on a separate death-penalty issue yesterday. Breyer published an opinion dissenting from the court's decision not to hear the case of Charles Kenneth Foster, who has been on death row in Florida for 27 years.
Breyer wrote that the court should have heard Foster's contention that such a long time awaiting execution is itself a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Breyer and Stevens have advocated this, unsuccessfully, in past cases.
"If executed, Foster . . . will have been punished both by death and also by more than a generation spent in death row's twilight," Breyer wrote. "It is fairly asked whether such punishment is both unusual and cruel."
Breyer noted that much of Foster's extended time on death row is due to legal errors the state made in sentencing him, which required lengthy appeals to correct.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, in an opinion supporting the court's decision, blamed Foster's own efforts to fight his sentence for the delay in his execution. "Petitioner could long ago have ended his anxieties and uncertainties by submitting to what the people of Florida have deemed him to deserve: execution," he wrote.
The case is Foster v. Florida, No. 01-10868.
-------- terrorism
Bin Laden's secrets are revealed by Al Jazeera journalist
Intelligence agencies to study book on al-Qa'ida as suspect stands trial in Germany and diplomats debate Baghdad
By Robert Fisk in Beirut
23 October 2002
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=345062
Heroic, vain, calculating, a caliph and a ruthless "terrorist" - a word Osama bin Laden uses of himself - are some of the characteristics of the al-Qa'ida leader that emerge from a remarkable new book by a journalist who knew him.
So does al-Qa'ida's order of battle in Afghanistan when 19 suicide attackers flew aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon a year ago. At least 62 British citizens, 30 Americans and eight Frenchmen were members of al-Qa'ida before 11 September, according to this extraordinary account of Mr bin Laden's war against the West.
Western and Arab intelligence agents will pore over Bin Laden Unmasked by Al Jazeera television's Islamabad correspondent, Ahmed Zeidan, a Syrian who has met Mr bin Laden several times, including at the wedding feast of Mr bin Laden's son Abdullah.
The 215-page treasure trove is being published in Beirut at a moment when the Americans say they don't know whether the world's most wanted man is alive or dead. Mr Zeidan believes he is alive; and recounts how Mr bin Laden persuaded Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, to allow him to stay in Afghanistan - a move that provoked America's bombardment of the country.
The book contains a wealth of unpublished material on the Saudi billionaire blamed for the 11 September crimes against humanity. Mr Zeidan's investigations reveal there were 2,742 Afghan "Arabs" from al-Qa'ida - in other words, Muslims who had fought for Mr bin Laden - in Afghanistan during the Taliban era: they included 62 Britons, 30 Americans, eight Frenchmen, 1,660 north Africans, 680 Saudis, 480 Yemenis, 430 Palestinians, 270 Egyptians, 520 Sudanese, 80 Iraqis, 33 Turks and 180 Filipinos. The Taliban,Mr Zeidan says, provided roughly the same breakdown.
During the Taliban rule, Arab Afghan fighters were dispersed across Afghanistan - this is al-Qa'ida's order of battle revealed for the first time - as 260 Arabs in four bases around Kandahar, 145 Arabs in Orzakan in two bases, 1,870 fighters in Kabul in seven bases, 404 around Mazar-i-Sharif, 400 in three bases around Kunduz, 300 in Laghman province, 1,700 in 12 bases in Nangahar province opposite Pakistan's North-West Frontier province, 160 in Kunar, 600 in Khost and 740 in Paktia.
Al-Qa'ida now passes its information through the internet, the book claims. Its messages are spread through a website called al-Nidaa - the Calling. The words of Mullah Omar are distributed on an Arabic website called the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan".
The book contains an interview recorded in October 2000 in which Mr bin Laden recalls how Mullah Omar was approached by the Saudi head of intelligence, Prince Turki al-Faisal, on behalf of the Americans, to hand over Mr bin Laden, not long after the bombing of two American embassies in Africa. "The Taliban came to me, requesting that I should stop making statements about the Saudi kingdom and keep my declarations aimed at the Americans," Mr bin Laden told Mr Zeidan.
"I shed tears, and I told Mullah Omar that we would leave his country and head towards God's vast domain, but that we would leave our children and wives in his safekeeping. I said we would seek a land which was a haven for us. Mullah Omar said that things had not reached that stage. The Taliban then apologised and left me alone."
Mr bin Laden says it was a "natural state of affairs" there would be spies in his training camps, because "there were unbelievers among the ranks of the followers of the Prophet Mohamed, but that this did not mean that the Prophet ceased his work."
The book suggests Mr bin Laden may have turned to vanity as his campaign against the Americans continued. When Mr bin Laden's son married an Afghan woman last year, Mr Zeidan was a guest and spent the day with the al-Qa'ida leader. The Syrian journalist recalls how Mr bin Laden recited a poem in front of his fighters and then asked the cameraman to re-film the scene next day in front of the same men. "To me this showed Osama's vanity," Mr Zeidan writes. "Very few people, but usually those who understand the importance of public relations ... ever request re-filming ... He went as far as calling on al-Qa'ida members to sit facing him, to play the role of eulogisers as had happened at the wedding."
Mr bin Laden's response to the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden port is reported as follows: "I knelt thanking Allah for this heroic operation that destroyed American arrogance; it is a sign to the Americans that they must leave the Arab region and the Arabian peninsula in particular."
Mr bin Laden is quoted as saying that "the accession of a person like King Abdullah to the Jordanian throne will not change matters so long as Jordan doesn't have the resources to stand on its own feet. This condition applies to all Arab and Islamic countries that can't be independent nations on their own. The only solution is to revert to Arab and Islamic unity, which was the case before the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate. Then, we used to live together for centuries, unlike the so-called [Arab] 'nations' so recently created, whose borders were imposed on them by the West."
The only question the book does not answer is whether Mr bin Laden is alive. Mr Zeidan says: "I think he is alive - the last tape he did for Al Jazeera, I think it was him."
-------- ACTIVISTS
Antinuclear Demonstrator Places Can with Radioactivity Symbol in Front of European Parliament in Strasbourg
Reuters FRANCE:
October 22, 2002
Story by VK/JES/CMC
http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18271
Photo by VINCENT KESSLER
Photo: http://www.planetark.org/envpics/santinucfrancecans.jpg
An antinuclear demonstrator places a can decorated with the radioactivity warning symbol in front of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, October 20, 2002.
Some five thousand demonstrators from ten European countries stage a protest against nuclear energy.
----
Massive Anti-War Rallies Planned
Tuesday, 10/22/02,
Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/print.php?sid=219
Information and analysis of the massive demonstrations planned in Washington and San Francisco and the world this weekend to "Stop The War Before It Starts." By Regis T. Sabol
Now that Congress has given George Bush carte blanche approval for war with Iraq, it's time for the American people to speak. And, if organizers of protest marches this Saturday in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco succeed, hundreds of thousands of Americans from all walks of life will say no to the Bush Administration's "full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes" rush to war.
The protest marches are being organized by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which describes itself as "a broad coalition of peace groups, religious organizations, student groups, anti-globalization and anti-racism groups." The acronym stands for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism! The coalition's website says it "was formed to oppose war, support global justice and self-determination, stop racist attacks on Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, and all people of color, and defend civil rights and civil liberties."
Based on a partial list of endorsements published on the group's website, the coalition is made up of a broad range of groups that include clergy and religious organizations, labor activists, student organizations, Islamic groups, and anti-war activists. It also includes a large number of individuals not affiliated with any one movement or organization but who oppose the impending war.
The protests in Washington and San Francisco, if they draw the numbers anticipated by organizers, would mark the largest anti-war protests since the Vietnam War. That war provoked a number of protest demonstrations in Washington and throughout the country, including two that drew well over a hundred thousand demonstrators to the nation's capital.
The first was the National Moratorium in 1969. A 1972 March on the Pentagon was sparked by Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia and the murder of four young men and women at Kent State University by National Guardsmen. (For a fascinating study of that event, I suggest you read Norman Mailer's Pulitzer Prize winning work, Armies of the Night.) The protest rally Saturday could also be the largest demonstration since the Million Man March on Washington organized by Louis Farrakhan.
The plan for the Washington march is for demonstrators to assemble at Constitution Gardens adjacent to the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial for a rally at 11 a.m. The demonstrators will then march on the White House. The San Francisco anti-war rally will also kick off at 11 a.m. Demonstrators will assemble at the Justin Herman Plaza, at the foot of Market St. at Embarcadero. Following a rally, they will march to Civic Center Plaza (Grove & Larkin) adjacent to City Hall for a closing rally with speakers, entertainment and cultural performances.
In addition to the marches in Washington and San Francisco, A.N.S.W.E.R. anticipates similar marches in cities around the world, including Mexico, Japan, Spain, Germany, South Korea, Belgium, and Australia. All of the marches will be organized under the banner, "Stop the War Before It Starts."
Grassroots opposition to a war against Iraq has already sprung up all over America although it has received little coverage from mainstream media, including such generally sympathetic publications as The New York Times and The Washington Post. In New York, for example, the less than 400 demonstrators who protested Bush's appearance at the United Nations on September 12 mushroomed into close to 20,000 demonstrators in Central Park earlier this month. Despite the size of the rally, the major networks ignored it and the print media gave it scant coverage.
Demonstrations against the war have also taken place in London, where about 250,000 protestors rallied in opposition to Prime Minister Tony Blair's support for Bush's war plans.
March organizers chose October 26 for the anti-war protest because that it the first anniversary of the signing of the notorious USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation, which breezed through Congress with nary a whimper in the wake of 9/11, has been used by Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department to make a mockery of the Bill of Rights.
"As the Bush Administration violates international law," argues the A.N.S.W.E.R. website, "it has systematically engaged in a campaign of division and repression in the United States including a wholesale assault on the Bill of Rights, institutionalization of racial profiling, and aggregation of near dictatorial powers to the Executive branch."
Anti-war activists are particularly alarmed about the Bush doctrine of "preemptive war," a concept which allows the United States to attack another country if it suspects that nation may present a clear and present danger to the U.S. at some unspecified time in the future. The doctrine opens up a Pandora's box of war that could, for example, offer a justification for India to invade Pakistan, which, in turn, might provoke Pakistan to launch nuclear missiles at India. India would then, of course, retaliate with its own missiles. And the world would have to deal with the consequences of a nuclear war.
"In articulating the so-called doctrine of pre-emptive war," say march organizers, "the Bush administration is preparing to violate all existing international law and he UN charter which forbids countries to carry out war except in the case of self-defense. Preemption is merely a slogan to justify a policy of armed aggression and military adventure."
Oil is the real reason for the looming war, according to AN.S.W.E.R. "Bush, (Vice President Dick) Cheney, (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfield, (Asst. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and company are planning to send tens of thousands of young GI's to kill and be killed in another war for Big Oil," it claims. "Simultaneously, the Bush Administration is diverting billions of dollars to feed military conquest and away from jobs, education, healthcare, childcare and housing."
Because Senators and House Representatives ignored thousands of phone calls, e-mails, and letters opposing the resolution in favor of war by a two to one ratio, the American people must exercise their Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to be heard.
"There won't be a real national debate on a planned invasion of Iraq until the people are in the streets," stated an A.N.S.W.E.R. press release. "We can't leave it to the military establishment to decide when and how they will go to war and to define the debate. We must tell Bush and his corporate and Big Oil patrons that we will not allow this to happen."
March organizers believe the war can be prevented, "But the essential element must be the mobilization of a massive new anti-war movement in the streets. We call for civilians and soldiers to exercise their political right to speak out against an illegal war."
For more information on the protest marches, click here!.
Regis T. Sabol is contributing editor to Intervention Magazine. He is also editor of A New Deal: an online magazine of political, social, and cultural thought.
----
Report on Survivors' Visit to Washington, D.C. [from Marshall Islands]
Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: Steve Taylor - Steve@miltoxproj.org
This came across my screen and I thought it would be interesting to folks, info on organizing by survivors of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands.
Advance Team report on Survivors' Visit to Washington, D.C.
As members of the UCC Advance Team to Washington, D.C, we want to thank all of you who were involved in assisting us in any way to obtain appointments with staff of representatives and senators and also supported us through your e-mails, your supportive actions, and prayers.
The following is a brief summary of the work done from Sept. 3-14 in Washington, D.C.
SUMMARY
Three teams made up of one Marshall Islander and one non Marshall Islander visited the international affairs staff of 62 Representatives and 15 Senators. In addition, materials were left with 6 elected officials. Survivors made visits to 12 key elected officials and representatives of the Bush administration and State Department.
The congressional briefing, sponsored by Senator Akaka, was held on Friday, Sept. 13 at 3 p.m. Unfortunately, the room was small and only 45 persons could be seated. Approximately 20 persons could not fit into SC6 and waited outside in the hallway (we asked the church people to not take seats but to give seats to the staff of elected officials and other guests.)
Six survivors representing the 4 affected atolls in the Marshall Islands included:
1. Ms. Rokko Langinbelik, Rongelap Atoll
2. Ms. Aruko Bobo, Rongelap Atoll
3. Ms. Erine Jitiam, Enewetak Atoll
4. Ms. Letwan Talensa, Enewetak Atoll
5. Mr. Wilson Compass, Utirik Atoll
6. Mr. Johnny Johnson, Bikin Atoll
Each survivor told similar personal and family stories of suffering from cancer related diseases as result of exposure to nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. The focus of this briefing was to request for increased medical coverage, increased compensation for damage to personal property and loss of land and funding for cleaning the environment. However, upon learning that the 177 Health Care Program (HCP) which had provided medical assistance to the survivors for the past 15 years expired last year in 2001, the focus immediately changed to seeking re funding for this HCP for '03 & '04. The attendees asked numerous questions re the Compact and the lack of funding for the 177 HCP. Ms. Kristina Stege of the RMI Embassy was present to answer most of the questions.
A packet of information was given to all attendees. Staff members who attended were requested to do the following three Actions:
1. In recognition of the urgent need for FY '03 funds for the 177 Health Care Program for Survivors, please write to or speak with your colleague who are on the key conference committee for the Interior Budget. (See names and sample letter attached.) Also support FY '04 funding for the 177 Health Care Program request.
2. Support the Republic of the Marshall Islands' request for full funding (including full inflation increase) for the Compact of Free Association, which will come before Congress for a vote either this session or next.
3. Since the current 177 Health Care Program and environmental cleanup programs do not adequately meet the needs of the survivors, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has submitted a Petition for Changed Circumstances (based on recently declassified documents) which more adequately addresses the needs for health and environmental cleanup (so survivors can return to their homelands.) Please work closely with the RMI Embassy, the United Church of Christ (UCC) and the United Methodist Church to address, in full, the issues raised in the Petition for Changed Circumstances.
OUTCOMES:
1. Rep. Neil Abercrombie's office is making a supplemental request to the conference committee dealing with appropriations for the 177 survivors' healthcare program. $4 million is being requested for FY'03.
2. Senator Dan Inouye's office is inserting language in the appropriations committee report, requesting the Bush Administration to put 177 healthcare funds into the administrations' budget for FY '04. The Administration works on its budget during the months of November and December '03 for FY '04 funds. If the177 health care funds are included in the Administration's budget, it has a better chance of passing Congress.
3. Staffs of 61 Representatives and 13 Senators and 12 additional key staff/aides were reached by the combined efforts of the advance team, UCC D.C. staff and the 6 survivors. In many cases, staff knew very little about the 67 U.S. nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands. Hopefully, the issue of just compensation for survivors is now on the radar screen of the elected officials, where none was evident before.
4. Follow up will be done through e-mail with all the staff members visited. Additional information will be sent to them on an ongoing basis and when action is needed on the Compact of Free Association or the Petition for Changed Circumstances, urgent e-mails will be sent asking elected officials for support for full funding as requested by the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
5. The Petition for Changed Circumstances, submitted by the RMI government, was seen as the 'justice' piece and advocated for by advance team members of the United Church of Christ and assisted by the United Methodist Church.
6. Following the visit to D.C., two survivors went to Cleveland, Ohio, to continue sharing their stories and four went to Los Angeles. All six survivors were itinerated in Hawaii. Three survivors told their stories at a forum held at Harris United Methodist Church, attended by approximately 42 persons from PAAM and Harris, Mary Matayoshi from the Governor's office, U.H. faculty and students, and peace activists. The event was video taped for future storytelling.
7. Good media coverage was received in Hawaii and the Marshall Islands (Channel 9 & Channel 2, the Honolulu Advertiser, the Marshall Island Journal.) On the national level, National Public Radio did a segment on the survivors' visit to D.C., and the national UMC paper and national UCC paper covered the event, including a Justice and Witness article written by Bernice Powell Jackson that went to all the UCC local churches.
8. Bernice Powell Jackson introduced a resolution to the World Council of Churches in Geneva this fall re 'Justice for Marshall Islanders' as a Follow up to the work done by Darlene Keju Johnson in the 1980's. Resolution was passed.
9. Survivors said they will organize survivors back home in the Marshall Islands, knowing that the stronger they are as a group, the stronger their support groups will be in the U.S. and internationally.
10. Rev. Wie Fiti, the newly elected head of the Micronesian Council of Churches, spoke strongly in support of the survivors at the briefing and wherever we spoke.
11. Johnny Johnson and Rev. Fiti addressed the Board of Directors of the Central Atlantic Conference and received a good response.
12. Justice and Witness executive staff located in Washington,D.C., from approximately 6 denominations listened to the stories of survivors; hopefully this relationship with all the denominational representatives can be strengthened and enlisted.
Much more work needs to be done in the following days, weeks, and months. We hope that all of you are still 'on board' with this urgent task ahead of us and that we will be hearing from you on an ongoing basis, informing us about your recommendations, your actions in your locality, and other means of support.
Thank you again for all your interest and support. We look forward to our work together.
Aloha, Elma Coleman, Julia Estrella, Leona Isamo, Q Keju, Yoshiko Ikuta, Chandra Soans
--------
DEMONSTRATORS
13 Protesting Bush's Stance on Iraq Enter U.N. Building
October 22, 2002
New York Times
By JULIA PRESTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/22/international/middleeast/22PROT.html
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 21 - In an episode that raised new questions about security at United Nations headquarters, demonstrators today, protesting the Bush administration's confrontation with Baghdad, got inside the General Assembly, where they shouted, "No war in Iraq!" United Nations officials said.
The authorities said United Nations security officers had removed the group of 13, who had entered the visitors' gallery in the Assembly hall as part of a regular tour that went through routine security procedures. They were handed over to the New York City police.
Most of the protesters were college students from a New York group called No Blood for Oil! - a recently formed coalition that says it plans "direct action" against a United States attack on Iraq, according to Eric Laursen, a spokesman for the group.
The protesters were apparently not armed or carrying any unusual items. Because of tighter security at its entrance, they were not able to approach the Security Council, whose members are debating a resolution on Iraq.
Six other protesters from the group, also chanting antiwar slogans, were arrested today outside the United States mission, across from the United Nations.
As recently as Oct. 3, an American postal worker scaled the front fence and fired pistol shots through upper windows in the building to protest human rights violations in North Korea.
United Nations security officials have hesitated to cancel the popular public visits inside the headquarters building, which draw many schoolchildren, even though it has long faced terrorist threats.
Michael McCann, the head of United Nations security, said today that the protesters had breached no security procedures. "The public loves seeing the meetings in session," he said. "As long as the building is open with guided tours, this is a risk we run."
--------
Protest Against Iraq War Set in D.C.
October 22, 2002
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Anti-War-Protest.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Organizers of a weekend march to oppose the Bush administration's showdown with Iraq promised Tuesday that the demonstration will draw thousands to Washington to become the largest anti-war protest since the Vietnam War.
The march will coincide with similar protests in San Francisco and several cities around the world, including Berlin, London, Mexico City, Rome and Tokyo.
Organizers predict that the demonstrations combined will attract hundreds of thousands of people.
``We will mount an angry, loud opposition just as we did in the Vietnam War,'' said Brian Becker, co-director of the International Action Center, one of dozens of groups that make up the organizing coalition, International Answer.
Last April, International Answer held a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Washington, one of several protests about various topics that occurred during the spring meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Saturday's march in Washington will begin with a rally featuring the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, actor Ossie Davis, singer Patti Smith and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Also expected is Ramsey Clark, U.S. attorney general during the Johnson administration and a longtime critic of U.S. policy toward Iraq.
Event organizers say they are protesting the Bush administration's push to strike Iraq, an attack they contend would violate international law. The president's true motive behind such a move, they argue, is to gain control of Iraq's oil reserves.
Protest organizers said they don't expect violence and doubt that the demonstration will shut down any part of the city. District of Colombia police said no additional officers will be on duty.
``Hopefully, we'll have nothing more than traffic problems,'' said Tony O'Leary, a police department spokesman.
More than a hundred organizations are planning to send buses to the event, organizers say. College students, expected from every state, will comprise about half the participants, they say.
Demonstrators plan to gather Saturday at Constitution Gardens, beside the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Their expected march will loop around the White House and back.
On the Net:
International Answer: http://www.internationalanswer.org
Muslim American Society: http://www.masnet.org
--------
Nobel laureates say "No" to war with Iraq
Tuesday October 22, 2002
AFP
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/021021/1/33y2n.html
Nobel peace prize laureates meeting in Rome delivered a resounding "No" to war with Iraq and gave their full backing to the need for UN resolutions to avoid a conflict.
In a joint statement at the end of the third annual forum of Nobel peace laureates, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lech Walesa, Joseph Rotblat, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Betty Williams and Rigoberta Menchu said recourse to arms as a way of settling problems between states was unacceptable.
"I believe that now we can be more optimistic regarding Iraq," Gorbachev told reporters before leaving for Moscow.
"The United States has in fact accepted a plan for a double resolution, which will allow UN inspectors to verify the destruction of weapons of mass destruction and therefore to present their report to the Security Council."
Rome mayor Walter Veltroni said the annual gathering placed the Eternal City at the crossroads for international dialogue for peace and justice. Former US president Jimmy Carter, this year's Nobel peace prize laureate, was invited to the forum but it was unknown why he did not attend.
-------
------- 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.