Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
No radiation released in accident, Limerick nuke plant
Op-ed: Remembering some tragedies
German nuclear power exit jars with CO2 goals - DAtF
Iraq Shows Off Missile Sites to Rebut U.S. Charges
Iraq trying to cooperate, says Blix
''The nuclear bomb hoax''
''Iraq's nuclear non-capability''
Scientist Gives Inspectors First Private Talk
Scientist Interviewed in Private
Iraq Shows Off Missile Sites to Rebut U.S. Charges
Japanese voice strong doubts about Iraq war
Prime minister called puppet dancing to Bush's tune
U.S. Tells N. Korea It Can Wage 2 Wars
Calls Build For U.S. Activism In N. Korea
North Korea threatens pre-emptive hit on US
N. Korea threat of first strike dismissed
North Korea Warns of 'Nuclear Disasters'
Bush Administration Defends Its Approach on North Korea
NASA'S Nuclear Prometheus Project Viewed as Major Paradigm Shift
Calif. Panel OKs Moving Nuclear Reactor
Oldest Operating Nuke Reactor Turns 60
Study May Stretch N-Waste Stay in Utah
Yucca Mountain Planners Urged to Go Slow, Careful
Bush Seeks Israeli Advice on 'Targeted Killings'
France & Russia warned support US war on Iraq or no Iraqi oil
Bush warns Iraq 'game is over'
MILITARY
Iraq could be 2nd Vietnam: veteran
US Plans for Use of Gas in Iraq
Common Chemicals Could Be Used in Attacks
U.S. Moves Closer to Colombia's War
Blair tries to woo Iran into anti-Saddam pact
Across Iraq's Border, a Land Haunted by War
What smoking gun?
Ongoing Iraqi Camp Questioned
Commentary: The Smoking Gun Found
Alleged Al Qaeda Ties Questioned
Envoy Who Represents U.S. To Leave Iraq
Four Cuban Coastguardsmen defect to U.S.
Venezuela: Chavez Changes Currency System
Kuwait's Landscape of Tents and Tanks
Turkey to Let U.S. Upgrade Bases
U.S. in Talks on Allowing Turkey to Occupy a Kurdish Area in Iraq
NATO Is Torn Over Weapons for the Turks
Minister denies terrorist presence
Russia opposes second Iraq resolution
Russia seeks a share of Iraqi oil
Secret video refers to CIA killing Mugabe
Regan data no secret, witnesses say
Japan Prepares Spy Satellite
Bush Puts More Pressure on Iraq and U.N. Members
U.S. Ready to Back New U.N. Measure on Iraq, Bush Says
Marine gunfight rules
Bush Orders Guidelines for Cyber-Warfare
Sleuths Invade Military PCs With Ease
US Orders Fifth Aircraft Carrier to Gulf - Officials
Marines in Kuwait Getting Ready for War
Software improves accuracy, quickens air war planning
U.S. Scholar Uncredited Britain's Report on Iraq
Colin Powell Is Flawless - Inside a Media Bubble
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act
Judge says Justice obstructed inquiry
House Ratifies Security Perimeter
Labs Unprepared for Chemical Attacks
U.S. Considers New Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Expansion of Patriot Act Criticized
Progress Seen in Border Tests of ID System
F.B.I. Recruits Chinese Students in U.S.
U.S. Raises Terror Alert, Warning of High Risk of Attacks
Five Levels of Terrorism Alerts
ENERGY AND OTHER
Bush urges Congress to pass fuel-cell bill
U.S. Seeks 54 Exemptions on Pesticide Ban
ACTIVISTS
Students Protest Possible Iraq War
THE CALL FOR PEACE FROM GULF HEROES
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Gate-Crasher Hands Bush 'Message From God'
Mexico Digs at Last for Truth About 1968 Massacre
Palestinians Protest Possible Iraq War
Turkey Denies U.S. Anti - War Leader
PBS' NOW With Bill Moyers
Transcript: Bill Moyers interviews Chuck Lewis
Cheap Bureaucrats Ruining Free Speech
Pope's answer to Rumsfeld pulls no punches in opposing war
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
No radiation released in accident, Limerick nuke plant officials say
Pottstown Mercury Staff Report
February 07, 2003
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6969324&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6
LIMERICK -- Two fuel bundles fell onto the refueling floor at Exelon Nuclear's Limerick Generating Station Jan. 30 while workers were organizing materials to prepare for an annual refueling outage this spring.
The fuel assemblies are transported horizontally in large containers, and workers were lifting a container into a vertical position for storage when the accident occurred, according to company officials.
No one was injured, and the refueling floor was temporarily evacuated (per plant policy), but there was no release of radiation, officials said.
Each fuel bundle, which costs roughly $200,000, weighs approximately 700 pounds and contains 100 fuel rods.
-------- depleted uranium
Op-ed: Remembering some tragedies
Farish A Noor
Pakistan Daily Times,
February 7, 2003
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-2-2003_pg3_2
Have we come to the point where the only legitimate pain that has to be recognised is that of the West? Can the East, and the Muslim world, not bleed too? To quote the line from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice": "When you cut us, do we not bleed?"
There are tragedies and then there are tragedies. Some tragedies, apparently, matter more than others while some hardly seem to count at all: At least if the politicians and ideologues have their way.
Following the untimely and tragic destruction of the American Space Shuttle Columbia over the weekend, the world has been fed a steady diet of news and information about the ill-fated mission, the spacecraft and the members of its crew. By now their names have become household words in the United States and abroad, and we even know of their personal histories, educational background, hobbies and personal traits. At least one of the astronauts - Israeli officer Ilan Ramon - had his past brought back to the present when it was announced that he happened to be a veteran of the Israeli-Arab war and that as a pilot for the Israeli air force he had been decorated for his "valiant" efforts at killing Arabs.
But taking into consideration America's ambiguous status in many other parts of the non-western world today, the Columbia shuttle disaster was inevitably given a multiplicity of interpretations. In London, one of the more notorious maverick Imams at a local mosque argued that the destruction of the shuttle Columbia was proof of "God's wrath" against the US and Israel, a claim bolstered by the fact that some of the debris from the shuttle finally landed near the town of Palestine, Texas.
While one does not wish to appear callous or insensitive at this point - and indeed the death of innocents should always be a cause for grieving - there remain some very crucial observations that need to be made at this stage.
Putting aside forensic questions of what went wrong aboard the Columbia and what caused it to explode upon re-entry, there are other obliquely related issues to bring to the fore. For a start, one cannot help but reflect on the ironies and injustices that exist in this uneven world we live in today: Seven western astronauts are killed in a mishap in space, and the world is told to mourn their passing. America's unchallenged (and unchallengeable) status as global hegemon means that its pain becomes the pain of the world, and its suffering must be recognised and shared by all. Already tributes and accolades to the bravery of the western astronauts have been showered upon the White House, NASA, and the United States in general.
But how many Americans have been made aware of the suffering and tragic deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis over the past decade, as an indirect result of the embargo that has been placed on that unfortunate country? How many Americans (and non-Americans for that matter) realise that since the Gulf War thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the use of US smart bombs, explosives and weapons laced with traces of depleted uranium and other weapons of mass destruction? And how many of us realise the number of Iraqi civilians - children and the elderly included - who have had to suffer deprivations in health care and basic public utilities as a result of the Western embargo on that country?
Imagine, if you will, the international outrage and moral indignation that would be solicited if an American child were forced to undergo dental surgery without anaesthetics and painkillers. Imagine the sense of anguish and anger if an American was told that the very airspace of his country had been carved up, and that he could not fly from point A to point B because the heavens above his homeland had been declared a "no-fly zone".
But the point is that most of us cannot imagine that - for the simple reason that it would be unimaginable for westerners to have to endure such humiliation and abuse in routine. If it is unimaginable and unacceptable for Americans, why should it be otherwise for anyone else? This is the question that no one has dared asked in public, for fear of being dubbed insensitive.
But surely to be humane and caring in the world today means having the compassion and humanity to recognise our rights and entitlements across the gulfs of race, ethnicity, gender and religion. Or has the very concept of "humanity" itself been so politicised today that it refers only to Americans and those who support them? Have we come to the point where the only legitimate pain that has to be recognised is that of the West? Can the East, and the Muslim world, not bleed too? To quote the line from Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice": "When you cut us, do we not bleed?"
The Columbia disaster occurred at a time when America has taken on a posture of belligerence and bellicosity. At no point in the country's history has America been as unashamedly aggressive and ambitious as far as its global designs and foreign policy is concerned. The American political elite now talks of "regime change" in other countries as if it was like changing one's bank account.
But this is an aggressive superpower with a schizophrenic side to it. American politicians openly declare their intentions to re-make and re-shape the world according to their own grand design. American politicians and military personnel talk of extending the military arm of the US well into every nook and cranny of the world, so that their enemies would not be able to find refuge even in the deepest caves of Afghanistan.
However when America's global expansionist ambitions are checked by a mishap on the frontiers of space, the superpower cries and expects the world to cry with it. The tears, however, are not forthcoming and they flow in trickles in some parts of the world. For the millions of people of the South, who have experienced first-hand just what Uncle Sam's benevolence feels like when it is served at the point of a bayonet or courtesy of a smart bomb, there are other things to cry about.
America and the American spirit will not be damped by this disaster in space. They can and will afford to build more machines and spacecraft in their rush to conquer outer space as well. But the same cannot be said for the nations that have fallen under the might of American arms. Iraq is still trying to build itself after America's last adventure in the Middle East. Soon, no doubt, it will be forced to gird its loins and hold back its bitter tears as the mothers search for their children buried under the rubble thanks to the bombs that have been dropped on them by the Americans. And when that happens, none of us will be told the names of the dead, maimed and lost.
Dr Farish A Noor is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist
-------- germany
German nuclear power exit jars with CO2 goals - DAtF
REUTERS GERMANY:
February 7, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19732/story.htm
FRANKFURT - Germany's plans to give up nuclear power and fill the supply gap from coal, gas and renewable sources conflicts with its greenhouse gas reduction targets, the country's nuclear industry lobby said.
"Depending on the share of each energy resource (other than nuclear) that will mean between 80 and 130 million tons of additional CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions," the president of the Berlin-based Deutsche Atomforum (DAtF) said in a statement.
Gert Maichel, who also heads German utility RWE's (RWEG.DE) energy plant division RWE Power, said this total dwarfed the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions that Germany still had to make under the Kyoto pact on global warming.
"Compared to that (amount of CO2 emissions), the 24 million tons of CO2 which we still need to cut, to fulfil German Kyoto commitments, seem small," Maichel said.
The German government aims to entirely ditch nuclear power, which accounts for almost a third of German power generation of 550 terawatt hours (TWh), by the early 2020s.
Germany is also pressing on with political targets to slash emissions of greenhouse gases, which largely rule out the promotion of "dirty" coal-based technology.
The Kyoto Protocol, agreed by the United Nations in 1997, aims to reduce the developed world's output of the gases which trap heat in the atmosphere with potentially grave long-term consequences for the global environment.
Maichel said a EU proposal to make power firms manage their decommissioning funds - money kept to pay for the dismantling of old nuclear plants - separately from the rest of their balance sheet was legally unfounded.
"As long as there is no harmonisation in (nuclear) waste disposal within the EU, firms in Germany will be disadvantaged, as they have taken high precautionary measures due to sophisticated (German) laws," he added.
The European Parliament has called for a change in legislation to stop power companies with large decommissioning funds from using the money to buy up competitors.
Nuclear power aside, coal makes up 52 percent of Germany's annual power production and gas nine percent while renewables and minor sources provide the rest.
-------- iraq
Iraq Shows Off Missile Sites to Rebut U.S. Charges
Fri February 7, 2003
By Nadim Ladki
Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=442NLNJNEXPJGCRBAELCFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=2188616
Photo: http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/2003-02-07T164219Z_01_GALAXY-DC-MDF203485_RTRIDSP_2_INTERNATIONAL-IRAQ-SITE-DC.jpg
BAGHDAD - Iraq took international journalists to two missile sites on Friday in an attempt to rebut U.S. charges that it was developing long-range missiles in violation of a U.N. ban.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, during a presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, produced a satellite pictures of what he said were illegal activities.
One of the pictures showed two engine test stands at Falluja north of Baghdad. One of the stands, Powell said, was designed to test engines of missiles with a range of 1,200 km (750 miles).
Under U.N. resolutions, Iraq is allowed to have missiles with a maximum range of 150 km (95 miles).
Another picture showed trucks at Al Moatassem missile production facility south of Baghdad. Powell said Iraq was clearing up banned materials from the site shortly before U.N. weapons inspections.
Iraq's Information Ministry took journalists to both sites.
At the Falluja facility, run by the government's Al Rafah company, Ali Jassem, an official, said the site was the first visited by U.N. weapons inspectors when they resumed work in Iraq on November 27.
"The inspectors visited this site and searched it. They found that everything inside falls under permitted activities," Jassem said.
He said the inspectors had returned to the site several times since, the last of which was on February 4, a day before Powell's presentation.
STATIC TESTS
The official said the experts, who have attended four static tests for the al-Samoud missile with a range of 150 km, had looked at the stand and found it consistent with permitted activities.
Reporters were taken to tour inside the facility and shown the two stands. The hulks of large missiles destroyed by previous inspection teams were strewn in the site.
Jassem said the larger stand had not been put into operation yet and that it was large because it was designed to test engines horizontally. But, like Powell said, a roof had been built over it.
Powell said the picture that he produced for the Security Council had been taken in April 2002.
"Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it so it will be harder for satellites to see what's going on underneath," Powell said, adding that the stand was designed for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 km.
At Al Moatassem, chief engineer Karim Jabbar said Powell's charge was "a false allegation" and said the facility was producing parts for the short-range Al Fatah missiles.
"We were surprised (by Powell's charge) because there is nothing banned at the factory. It is a declared site...The inspectors have already visited it 10 times," Jabbar said.
He said there was constant activity around the site "because we deliver and receive parts all the time."
Reporters saw many complete missiles lined up at the site.
----
Iraq trying to cooperate, says Blix
Simon Jeffery and agencies
Friday February 7, 2003
UK Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,891269,00.html
Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, today said that Iraq appeared to be "making an effort" to cooperate with monitors following the first private interview with a scientist associated with its weapons programmes.
But on the eve of a meeting with Iraqi officials in Baghdad, he said that he wanted to see "a lot more".
"We want to see disarmament of Iraq through the inspection process," he told new inspectors in Vienna shortly to leave for Iraq. "It requires active cooperation from Iraq, not on process but on substance."
"[That means] they should make an effort either to present prohibited items [or] provide evidence to convince us and the world that they have been destroyed," he said.
"Without active cooperation by the Iraqi side, it is difficult to achieve an effective inspection."
The weekend's talks are expected to form the bulk of a report that Mr Blix and Mohamed el-Baradei, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, will make to the security council next week.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, this week effectively set the inspectors' report as a deadline for Iraq to comply with the UN's demands to disarm.
Speaking on Wednesday after Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, presented what he claimed was evidence of Iraqi non-cooperation to the 15-nation body, he said that if Baghdad continued on the same path "this council should take its responsibilities".
The US president, George Bush, last night declared that "the game is over for Saddam Hussein" and urged allies to join in disarming Iraq.
"The dictator of Iraq is making his choice," he said. "The UN must not back down. All the world can rise to this moment."
The concession on scientist interviews without "government minders" came only hours after Mr el-Baradei insisted Iraq make "drastic" changes in its dealings with the inspectors.
Under security council resolution 1441, Iraq is required to grant the inspectors private access to scientists and others associated with its weapons programmes, and to allow them to be taken abroad for interview if the inspectors think it necessary. Until yesterday, this had not happened and Mr Powell cited it in his speech on Wednesday as evidence of Iraq's noncompliance.
The Baghdad government had denied obstructing the interview process, saying the scientists themselves refused to be interviewed without Iraqi officials present as witnesses.
The US said the scientists were reluctant to talk because they had been threatened with death if they give away any information.
Mr Blix and Mr el-Baradei are also expected to gain Iraqi concessions on such issues as U-2 reconnaissance flights but senior UN officials have said that Baghdad must also provide hard evidence about its weapons programmes.
Western diplomats will be trying to determine over the next few days whether it is a token gesture or a real shift away from what they describe as Iraq's "catch us if you can" approach to inspections.
But Iraq's move did not impress the US, which is concerned that Baghdad might offer Mr Blix and Mr el-Baradei enough gestures to encourage France and others to demand that the inspectors be given more time.
Russia today said there was no need for the UN security council to pass a second resolution authorising war with Iraq while opportunities still exist for a political solution to the crisis.
Its foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said Moscow believed the weapons inspectors should be given more time to avoid the "grave consequences" of conflict.
"We do not see today any grounds for passing a UN resolution that would envisage or sanction the use of force against Iraq," he said after a meeting with the Finnish foreign minister.
"We always underlined that the use of force is an extreme measure, which involves grave consequences for the country and grave international consequences and it should only be applied in extreme situations."
Russia is one of the three permanent members of the security council believed to be opposed to military action, and especially unilateral military action by the US and its allies.
Mr Ivanov this week gave Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, a carving of a wooden bear walking a tightrope from one tree labelled war to another labelled peace carrying the security council's five permanent members to symbolise his difficult balancing act. If the bear drops one country he will tip over and fall to the ground.
Russia's deputy foreign minister, Yuri Fedotov, today said in an interview with the Interfax news agency that the county would stick to its position but much would depend on Mr Blix and Mr el-Baradei's visit to Baghdad this weekend.
"Further steps of the UN security council on questions of Iraq will depend on the character of the reports," he said.
----
''The nuclear bomb hoax''
Friday, February 07, 2003
Guest Editorial By Imad Khadduri
Former Iraqi nuclear scientist
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (Canada)
http://yt.org/article.php?sid=1055&mode=thread&order=0
(YellowTimes.org) - In his speech in front of the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003, Colin Powell did not offer any viable new evidence concerning Iraq's nuclear weapon capability that Bush and his entourage continue to wave as a red flag in front of the eyes of the American people to incite them shamefully into an unjust war.
On the contrary, the few flimsy so-called pieces of evidence that were presented by Powell regarding a supposed continued Iraqi nuclear weapon program serve only to weaken the American and British accusations and reveal their untenable attempt to cover with a fig leaf their thread bare arguments and misinformation campaign. The false and untrue pieces of evidence follow:
Powell, in a theatrical query, asked why the Iraqi scientists were asked to sign declarations, with a death penalty if not adhered to, not to reveal their secrets to the IAEA inspection teams. Exactly the opposite is true. The four or five, as I recall such declarations, which I read in detail, held us to the penalty of death in the event that we did not hand in all of the sensitive documents and reports that may still be in our possession! Had Powell's intelligence services provided him with a copy of these declarations, and not depended on testimonies of "defectors" who are solely motivated by their self-promotion in the eyes of their "beholders," and availed himself to a good Arabic translation of what these declarations actually said, he would not, had he in any sense been abiding by the truth, mentioned this as "evidence."
This is exactly the cause of the second untruth brandished by Powell by referring to the cache of documents seized in the house of Faleh Hamza: that Iraq is hiding or is still working (it is hard to discern from the tangle of his word what is really meant) on its "third" uranium enrichment process.
Faleh, according to my explanation of the above declarations, did not consider the reports on his work to be covered under this declaration for the following reason: Faleh did dabble during the eighties at the Physics Department in the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center itself -- but not under the nuclear weapon program activities which came under the label of the PetroChemical 3 program -- with the uranium laser enrichment process using a couple of medium range copper lasers.
His low-key research concluded that it was not yet viable to pursue this line of enrichment on a production scale and the whole project folded up after it reached its cul-de-sac in 1988. He packed up and then joined the PC3 working on the Calutron enrichment method in 1989. Furthermore, this was well documented and explained in our final report to the IAEA inspectors in late 1997, to which they confirmed and referred in their own final report on the matter.
Yet, fully aware of this fact, the James Bondian and insulting manner with which UNMOVIC (following in the footsteps of their CIA infiltrated UNSCOM predecessors) invaded the home of Faleh and searched it, even the private belongings of his family to the glare of the cameras, added insult to injury and exponentially increased Faleh's position vis-à-vis the authorities who were trying to protect the scientists from such American theatrics.
Arrogantly, the Americans are wondering why other scientists are not coming forward. Even worse, Blix chose to wave this torn flag in front of the Security Council in his report on Monday, January 27, 2003. This fact alone was one of the reasons I have decided to come out. Even Mohamed Baradei, the head of the IAEA, chided Blix the following day for not taking into account IAEA's knowledge on this matter, which was that the 3000 pages of documents were financial statements and Faleh's own lifetime research work, and had nothing to do with the nuclear weapon program. That is why he kept them at his home. It was becoming apparent that Blix was succumbing to the American pressure tactics and leaned backwards to provide them with flimsy "proof" at the expense of his supposed fairness and mandate as a U.N. official. Powell grasped even this straw.
Powell only accused but did not provide any evidence that Iraq had tried to get nuclear grade fissile material since 1998. He vainly gave the impression that everything was set and readily waiting for just this material to be acquired and the atomic bomb would be rolling out the other door. He did not bother to ask himself the following questions:
Where is the scientific and engineering staff required for such an enormous effort when almost all of them have been living in abject poverty for the past decade, striving to simply feed their families on $20 a month, their knowledge and expertise rusted and atrophied under heavy psychological pressures and dreading their retirement pension salary of $2 a month?
Where is the management that might lead such an enterprise? The previous management team of the nuclear weapon program in the eighties exists only in memories and reports. Its members have retired, secluded themselves, or turned to fending for their livelihood of their families.
Where are the buildings and infrastructure to support such a program? The entire nuclear weapon program of the eighties has been either bombed by the Americans during the war or uncovered by the IAEA inspectors. It is impossible to hide such buildings and structures. Powell should only take a look at North Korea's atomic weapon facilities, or perhaps even Israel's, to realize the impossibility of hiding such structures with the IAEA inspectors scouring everything in sight.
Powell need only ask those on the ground, the IAEA inspectors delegated by the U.N. upon America's request, to receive negative answers to all of the questions above. Instead, he chose to fabricate an untruth.
Finally, there are the infamous aluminum pipes that are supposed to be used in a centrifugal enrichment process. Powell and Bush should be able to relax regarding this point, for they would have at least a ten-year attack period before Iraq would be able to militarize these pipes. According to the "American experts" themselves, such a process would need kilometers of strung-out, highly-tuned, delicately controlled spinners to fulfill their ill-wish for Iraq. Not to be noticed by their satellites, PowerPoint presentations and colored arrows would then be an intelligence folly. This is not even mentioning the lack of a stable electric power supply in Iraq or the phantom of highly technical staff to run these kilometers long "very high grade and expensive" mortar casings that are not made to U.S. military standards. Perhaps Powell's grievance was, "How dare Iraq think of such expensive mortars?"
Powell said: "Let me now turn to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program." This verges on being humorous. But as the Arabic proverb goes: The worst kind of misfortune is that which causes you to laugh.
[Imad Khadduri has a MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto, Canada. He has been interviewed by the Toronto Star, Reuters, and various other news agencies in regards to his knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear program. This article was originally printed in YellowTimes.org.]
Imad Khadduri encourages your comments: imad.khadduri@rogers.com
YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.
Other articles by Imad Khadduri on YellowTimes.org:
''Iraq's nuclear non-capability'' http://yt.org/article.php?sid=874
"'Saddam's bombmaker' is full of lies" http://yt.org/article.php?sid=889
--
''Iraq's nuclear non-capability''
Thursday, November 21, 2002
Guest Editorial By Imad Khadduri
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (Canada)
http://yt.org/article.php?sid=874
(YellowTimes.org) - As the war storm against Iraq swirls and gathers momentum, seeded by the efforts of the American and British governments, serious doubts arise as to the credibility of their intelligence sources, particularly the issue of Iraq's nuclear capability. It has been often noted that reliable intelligence on this matter is not immediately forthcoming. Moreover, such intelligence as has been presented is spurious and often contradictory. Perhaps it is not too late to rectify this misinformation campaign.
I worked with the Iraqi nuclear program from 1968 until my departure from Iraq in late 1998. Having been closely involved in most of the major nuclear activities of that program, from the Russian research reactor in the late sixties to the French research reactors in the late seventies, the Russian nuclear power program in the early eighties, the nuclear weapons program during the eighties and finally the confrontations with U.N. inspection teams in the nineties, it behooves me to admit that I find present allegations about Iraq's nuclear capability, as continuously advanced by the Americans and the British, to be ridiculous.
Let us go back to 1991. A week before the cessation of two-month saturation bombings on the target-rich Iraq, the Americans realized that a certain complex of buildings in Tarmiah, that had just been carpet bombed for lack of any other remaining prominent targets, exhibited unusual swarming activity by rescuers the next morning. When they compared the photographs of that complex with other standing structures in Iraq, they were surprised to find an exact replica of that complex in the north of Iraq, near Sharqat, which was nearing completion. They directed their bombers to demolish the northern complex a few days before the end of hostilities. My family, along with the families of most prominent Iraqi nuclear scientists and the top management of the northern complex, were residing in the housing complex. The Tarmiah and Sharqat complexes were designed for housing the Calutron separators, similar to those used by the American Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic bombs that were dropped by the Americans on Japan.
At the end of 1991, after that infamous U.N. inspector, David Kay, got hold of many of the nuclear weapons program's reports (reports whose maintenance and security I had been in charge of), the Americans realized that their saturation bombing had missed a most important complex of buildings: that complex at Al-Atheer, which was the center for the design and assembly of the nuclear bomb. A lone, single bomb, thermally guided, had hit the electric substation outside the perimeter of the complex, causing little damage.
The glaring and revealing detail about these two events is the utter lack of any intelligence about these building complexes -- information that should have caused the repository of American and British intelligence to overflow. That is to say American and British intelligence had no idea of the programs that those buildings harbored -- programs that had been ongoing at full steam for the previous ten years!
What really happened to Iraq's nuclear weapon program after the 1991 war?
Immediately after the cessation of hostilities, the entire organization that was responsible for the nuclear weapons project turned its attention to the reconstruction of the heavily damaged oil refineries, electric power stations, and telephone exchange buildings. The combined expertise of the several thousand scientific, engineering, and technical cadres manifested itself in the restoration of the oil, electric and communication infrastructure in a matter of months -- an impressive accomplishment, by any measure.
Then the U.N. inspectors were ushered in. The senior scientists and engineers among the nuclear cadre were instructed many times on how to cooperate with the inspectors. We were also asked to hand in to our own officials any reports or incriminating evidence, with heavy penalties (up to the death penalty, in some cases) for failing to do so. In the first few months, the "clean sheets" were hung up for all to see. As the scientific questioning mounted, our scientists began to redirect the questioners to the actual technical documents themselves that had been amassed during the ten years of activity. These documents had been traveling up and down and throughout Iraq in a welded train car. Then the order was issued to return the project's documents to their original location. At that point, David Kay pounced on them in the early morning hours of September 1991. Among the documents were those of Al-Atheer and the bomb specifics.
In the following few years, the nuclear weapons project organization was slowly disbanded. By 1994, its various departments were either elevated to independent civilian industrial enterprises, or absorbed within the Military Industrial Authority under Hussain Kamil, who later escaped to Jordan in 1996 and then returned to Baghdad where he was murdered.
Meanwhile, the brinkmanship with the U.N. inspectors continued. At one heated encounter, an American inspector remarked that the nuclear scientists and engineers were still around, and hinted accusingly that those scientists and engineers may be readily used for a rejuvenated nuclear program. The retort was, "What do you want us to do to satisfy you? Ask them to commit suicide?"
In 1994, a report surfaced claiming that Iraq was still manufacturing a nuclear bomb and had been working on it since 1991. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors brought the report to Baghdad, demanding a full explanation. The inspectors requested my opinion on the authenticity of the report, inasmuch as I was the responsible agent for the proper issuance and archiving of all scientific and engineering documents for the nuclear weapons project during the eighties. It was my opinion that the report was well done, and most probably had been written by someone who had detailed knowledge of the established documentation procedures. However, as we pointed out to the IAEA inspectors, certain words used in the report would not normally be used by us but rather by Iranians and we supplied an Arabic-Iranian dictionary to verify our findings. The IAEA inspectors never referred back to that report.
During these years, crushing economic inflation was growing. It would spell the end for most of the Iraqi nuclear scientists' and engineers' careers in the following years.
In 1996, Hussain Kamil, who was in charge of the entire range of chemical, biological and nuclear programs, announced from his self-imposed exile in Amman that there were hidden caches of important documentation on his farm in Iraq. (Apparently, he had had his security entourage stealthily salvage what they thought were the most important pieces of information and documentation in these programs.) The U.N. inspectors pounced on this and a renewed string of confrontations occurred, until the inspectors were asked to leave Iraq in 1998.
In the last few years of the nineties, we did our utmost to produce a satisfying report to the IAEA inspectors concerning the entire gamut of Iraq's nuclear activities. The IAEA finally issued its report in October 1997, mapping these activities in great detail. The inspectors raised vague, "politically correct" queries which seemed obligatory in their intent.
In the meantime, and this is the gist of my discourse, the economic standing of the Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers (along with the rest of the civil servants and the professional middle class) has been pathetically reduced to poverty level. Even with occasional salary inducements and some insubstantial benefits, many of those highly-educated persons have been forced to sell their possessions just to keep their families alive. Needless to say, their spirits are very low and their cynicism is high. Relatively few have managed to leave Iraq. The majority are too gripped by poverty, family needs, and fear of the brutal retaliation of the security apparatus to even consider a plan of escape. Their former determination and drive, profoundly evident in the eighties, has been crushed by harsh economic realities; their knowledge and experience grow rusty with the passage of time; their skills atrophy from lack of activity in their fields.
Since my departure from Iraq in late 1998, one cannot help but notice the mien of those former nuclear scientists and engineers as being but a wispy phantom of a once elite cadre representing the zenith of scientific and technical thought in Iraq. Pathetic shadows of their former selves, the overwhelming fear that haunts them is the fear of retirement, with a whopping pension that equates to about $2 a month.
Yet, the American and British intelligence community, obviously influenced by the war agenda, vainly attempts to continue to provide disinformation. For example, a consignment of aluminum pipes (the intelligence experts opine) might conceivably be used in the construction of highly advanced, "kilometers long" centrifugal spinners. The consideration that there are no remaining Iraqi personnel qualified to implement and maintain these supposed spinners seems to have eluded the intelligence agencies' reports.
Last month, a group of journalists was taken on a guided tour of a "possible" uranium extraction plant in Akashat in western Iraq. The Iraqi guide pointed to the obviously demolished buildings and asked tongue-in-cheek, "Who would make any use of these ruins? Maybe your experts would tell us how."
It is true that the Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers did not commit suicide. But for all the remaining capability they possess to rebuild a nuclear weapons program, they may as well have.
Bush and Blair are leading their public by the nose, attempting to cloak shoddy and erroneous intelligence data with hollow patriotic urgings and cajolery. But the two parading emperors have no clothes.
[Imad Khadduri has a MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto, Canada.]
Imad Khadduri encourages your comments: imad.khadduri@rogers.com
--
'Saddam's bombmaker' is full of lies
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
Guest Editorial By Imad Khadduri
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (Canada)
http://yt.org/article.php?sid=889
(YellowTimes.org) - The book "Saddam's Bombmaker," recently published by Khidhir Hamza, recounted the author's 22 years of experience with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). Hamza exaggerated to a great extent his own role in the nuclear weapon program. As I personally know the author and have worked with him during these two decades, I wish to clarify the following untruths and misinformation that has been postulated by him in his book.
There is a huge difference between those who worked with the government for scientific and professional reasons despite being under the sharp sword of government security agencies, and those who try to hide their fear with a fig leaf. A few scientists who believed in their work realized the slippery road they were treading and tried to leave before and after the 1991 Gulf War. While some were able to flee Iraq, others, such as Dr. Al Shahrastsani (who was also charged with other offenses), ceased his work despite the penalty of death given to such rebellious actions.
But when the bells of fear first started to ring in Hamza's mind in 1974, when he prepared the first nuclear weapons project report at the request of the government, he decided to stay in Iraq until it was convenient for him to go abroad. In the '70s and '80s, it would have been much easier and less risky to leave, yet he wallowed in Iraq in nice Mercedes cars while attending scientific conventions with lavish stipends. He kept deluding himself, as he naively mentions in his book, that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) or the CIA would contact him and magically whisk him out of Iraq as if on a flying carpet.
Even though he was the head of the physics department in the nuclear research center for ten years during the seventies, his deep inner fear of radiation prevented him from ever entering the reactor hall or touching any scientific gadgets, probably due to his continual fear of an electric jolt that he experienced as a child, as his book mentions.
Hamza's aversion to scientific experimentation drove him to insist on working solely on the highly theoretical three-body-problem during the seventies, far removed from any of the initial work on fission that was carried on during that period at the Iraqi Nuclear Research Center. He did not, even remotely, get involved in any scientific research, except for journalistic articles, dealing with the fission bomb, its components or its effects. The testimony to this is the recorded archive of the IAEC for the seventies that point to the efforts of others in this field, and none to the self-proclaimed "bombmaker."
At the end of the seventies, he completely refused to take any responsibility in the Iraqi purchased French research reactor, and left that task to the great Egyptian scientist, Dr. Yehya El Meshad, who was assassinated by the Israeli Mossad in Paris in 1980.
After he again withdrew from any leadership responsibility for the nuclear weapon project which started in earnest in 1980 in direct response to the Israeli attack on the OSIRAK reactor, leaving it to one of Iraq's great physicists, Hamza was merely assigned the gaseous diffusion project. He did, in fact, spend some effort in buying the fine filters needed for that project, but his fear of entering the project hall was a cause of many hilarious puns.
In the mid eighties, Hamza was asked by Hussain Kamil to write a report on the progress of the weapon program to present to the government. In response to this report, the whole program was put under the control and guidance of Hussain Kamil himself in 1987. The pace of work accelerated immensely until 1991. However, during that time, the "bombmaker" was kicked out of the program at the end of 1987 for stealing a few air conditioning units from the building assigned to his project. This he conveniently omitted to mention in his book, but cited frequent travels abroad to garner assistance and equipment, while in fact he was an outcast to the project and did not attend any seminar or brainstorming sessions during that intense period.
The "bombmaker" did make a great deal in his book of his role in building the Al Atheer weapon manufacturing center during the late eighties, while in fact he was going in circles doing nothing at the Tuwaitha Research Center, as a mere has-been, and did not even have an office space in Al Atheer. He was, in fact, assigned the peripheral job of writing a report on the American Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) project and spent his time collecting whatever information was available in the library from newspapers and scientific journals. He spent all his time during these critical years in the library and, in 1989, was made a sort of consultant, still loosely attached to the IAEA, but also taught at a university two days a week, far removed from any bomb making.
In addition, he was thoroughly annoyed and bitter regarding the rejection by the CIA of his appeal for them to take him, through the auspices of the Iraqi National Congress representative in the north of Iraq, where he fled alone, leaving his family behind, in 1994. He pathetically thought that the CIA was not aware of his minuscule role in the bomb making, especially after the weapon program's scientific report fell in the hands of the IAEA inspectors in 1991. He claimed to be the container of secrets while in fact he was only regurgitating them. Worse than that, he claims in his book that the CIA, in 1995, fabricated a story published in an English newspaper of his submitting a report on the supposed continued Iraqi nuclear program just to ferret him out of his hiding place. Being a teacher at that time in a Libyan University is not a place to hide, to say the least.
The extent of his fear climaxed when the Iraqi government sent his son to Libya to persuade him to return. He repulsed his son's appeals and again scrambled to Europe, knocking desperately at the doors of the IAEA and the CIA, who again gave him the cold shoulder. But then, it is most probable, the CIA reconsidered his case in the light of the escape of Hussain Kamil to Jordan and his revelation of yet more hidden technical reports at his chicken farm in Iraq. The CIA thus hoped that Hamza might fill in some small gaps on information and took him under their wings, helping him and his family to settle in the U.S. under their protection and strings.
I can only recall the image of "the bombmaker" straggling for two decades during the seventies, eighties and early nineties with his tail between his legs, looking over his shoulders and running to whomever gave him a piece of bone with some meat on it, to then suddenly springing from his cocoon at the end of the nineties as a Don Quixote with an American mask. Brandishing his wooden sword in the small arena afforded to him by the CIA, he counted on the silence of his colleagues, either out of fear of the Iraqi security agencies or the blind cruelty of the American ones, to not expose his phony claims in his book, which may be rendered as a repayment to the CIA for their services to him. His appearances on the weekly American talk shows are truly a reflection of his present allegiances.
The reader might question the motive of my writing on this sensitive subject and the personal tack apparent in it. All I can say is that even if silence is gold, then not speaking out at this time against such fallacies is a stigma of cowards.
[Imad Khadduri has a MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto, Canada.]
Imad Khadduri encourages your comments: imad.khadduri@rogers.com
----
BAGHDAD Scientist Gives Inspectors First Private Talk
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By IAN FISHER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/middleeast/07BAGH.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 6 - Under closer threat of war, Iraq bent today to a central demand of the United Nations weapons inspectors by saying one of its scientists agreed to be interviewed in private, without a government witness at his side.
The interview itself, which took place tonight at a hotel here in Baghdad, seemed less significant on its own than as a possible sign that Iraq was feeling deep pressure and might make concessions to stave off an attack by the United States.
Baghdad offered up the scientist, identified as Sinan Abdul Hassan, who was involved in the nation's biological weapons program, one day after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made the case to the Security Council that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction and two days before another last-minute visit here by the two chief United Nations weapons inspectors.
A senior United Nations official here said tonight that if Baghdad was serious about cooperating fully, it would probably also concede on two other crucial points this weekend: allowing surveillance of Iraq by U-2 spy planes and progress on internal legislation for the longer-term presence of inspectors here.
But with President Bush saying war may be only weeks away, the official expressed hope that Iraq might feel squeezed into offering some concrete proof that it has no weapons of mass destruction.
"The big thing is coming on Saturday," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Hopefully we will see what sort of fish is in the pond."
In announcing the private interview, Gen. Amir al-Saadi, the top science advisor to Saddam Hussein, acknowledged that the scientist had agreed because of "the circumstances that are present and the tension."
More than 20 Iraqi scientists previously refused to be interviewed in private, despite an agreement reached here late last month with Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the two chief United Nations inspectors, that Iraq would "encourage" the scientists to do so.
Iraq had argued that it could not force the scientists to speak in private, and General Saadi stressed that the decision today had been made by the scientist alone. American officials have said the scientists have been threatened not to speak with inspectors alone. The general said he expected others to volunteer.
"It is people coming to us seeing that this question has become like a measure of Iraq's cooperation and that Iraq is play acting or something, that it is not encouraging people to go forth and be interviewed," General Saadi said in a news conference tonight devoted mostly to a detailed rebuttal of Mr. Powell's allegations against Iraq on Wednesday.
The United Nations official here said an Iraqi official called today and "suggested" a private interview with the scientist, who is among those who had earlier refused and is reportedly also a member of the government group assigned to monitor the inspectors on their visits. He was interviewed for about 3 hours and 20 minutes.
"The importance of this particular interview is they finally started giving in on something under the pressure that was put on them," the official said. "We don't know if this is just one attempt and after this we will get stuck again or this is a precedent."
A diplomatic noose of sorts has slowly tightened around Iraq since Mr. Blix delivered his report last month to the Security Council that was largely negative in its assessment of Iraq's overall cooperation with the inspectors.
Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei are to report again on Feb. 14,
"We hope at this late hour," Mr. Blix said today in London after meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair, "that they will come to a positive response. If they do not do that, then our report next Friday will not be what we would like it to be."
General Saadi said tonight that Iraq had been surprised by Mr. Blix's last report. "We hope he won't spring another surprise on us the next time when he gives his report on the 14th," he said. "And we will engage him into dialogue to help clarify his misgivings and why he is holding such extreme views."
----
Scientist Interviewed in Private
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38187-2003Feb6?language=printer
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 6 -- An Iraqi biologist acquiesced to a private interview with U.N. weapons experts tonight, becoming the first scientist linked to the country's arms programs to agree to confidential questioning sought by the Bush administration and the United Nations' top inspector, U.N. and Iraqi officials said.
The concession, one day after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell assailed Iraq for hindering the inspectors and flouting U.N. resolutions, appeared to be an effort to gain the confidence of the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who is scheduled to deliver a report to the Security Council on Feb. 14. Although Powell argued that inspections were not working, Blix's assessment could prove crucial in determining whether countries such as France and Russia, permanent members of the council, support a new resolution authorizing war or insist the inspections continue.
A senior U.N. official involved in the inspections said Blix has been led to believe that President Saddam Hussein's government will soon relent on two other key issues: a guarantee that Iraq will not try to shoot down U-2 reconnaissance aircraft flying over the country at inspectors' behest and a commitment to enact legislation permitting a long-term presence of inspectors. The official said Blix is hoping to announce agreement on those issues after meetings with Iraqi officials in Baghdad this weekend. "Blix is coming here with the hypothesis that the three items are already there," the senior official said.
Blix is still seeking information that will be crucial to his assessment, including additional evidence that would better explain Iraq's weapons program and support its contention that it destroyed tons of biological and chemical warfare agents produced in the 1980s, officials said. "He expects the transparency to go beyond these [three] items. . . . He wants evidence," the official said.
Speaking in London after meeting British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Blix said: "We hope at this late hour they will come to a positive response. If they do not, our reports next Friday will not be what we would like them to be." The chief U.N. nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iraq must make a "drastic change" in its level of cooperation with the inspectors.
U.N. and Iraqi officials did not release many details about the scientist questioned tonight, but they suggested he was not one of Iraq's senior arms specialists. Gen. Amir Saadi, Hussein's top weapons adviser, said that the scientist's name was Sinan and that he was involved in past biological weapons programs. The senior U.N. official said the scientist now works with Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate, which serves as a liaison to the inspectors.
The interview, which was conducted at a Baghdad hotel where the inspectors are staying, lasted three hours and 32 minutes, a U.N. spokesman said. U.N. officials refused to characterize the session.
"The importance of this particular interview is that they finally started giving in on something under the pressure that was put on them," the senior U.N. official said. "We don't know if this is just one attempt and afterwards we will get stuck again or [if] this is a precedent."
The Nov. 8 Security Council resolution authorizing the latest round of inspections requires Iraq to provide "private access" to anyone the inspectors wish to interview. But every scientist inspectors approached insisted on having a government official present. Iraqi officials said the scientists were worried about having their testimony mischaracterized.
U.N. and U.S. officials contend Hussein's government prevented scientists from speaking in private out of fear they might spill secrets about banned weapons programs. Although Iraqi officials had promised in January, during Blix's last trip to Baghdad, to encourage scientists to speak in private, inspectors still were unable to conduct confidential interviews.
Before today, the inspectors' request for private interviews had been rejected by more than 20 scientists, including the one questioned tonight. But this morning, the general in charge of the weapons monitoring directorate called inspectors and said a scientist had agreed to speak in private.
"Due to the circumstances that are now prevalent . . . some of our scientists came back and said, 'We do not insist on witnesses,' " Saadi said. He said other scientists also have expressed a willingness to speak privately.
"We are waiting for them to be called," Saadi said.
Despite U.N. officials' belief that Iraq will relent on the surveillance planes, Saadi insisted that Baghdad's position on U-2 flights has not changed. He said the government cannot guarantee safety for the high-altitude American planes unless U.S. and British warplanes cease their patrols over Iraq's northern and southern "no-fly" zones. In the mid-1990s, the Iraqi government provided guarantees for the inspectors' U-2s despite the patrols, as long as a flight plan was submitted in advance -- something Blix also has offered to do. This was seen as a possible avenue of agreement for Blix's meetings here.
Saadi and a senior Foreign Ministry official, meanwhile, assailed Powell's presentation at the Security Council during a lengthy news conference. Saadi accused Powell of quoting reports out of context, playing fabricated recordings, using unreliable sources and mischaracterizing documents seized from the home of an Iraqi scientist.
He denied Powell's contention, based on intelligence sources, that weapons were moved from presidential palaces before the inspections and that missiles equipped with biological warheads have been scattered in Iraq's western desert. "He says, 'Our sources, our sources,' without any convincing evidence," Saadi said. "As if that is enough to convince the world."
Saadi also disputed Powell's characterization of a missile-testing facility, insisting the building has a large exhaust vent not because it was designed to test long-range missiles, as Powell alleged, but because the missile engines are tested in a horizontal position. "He forgets to mention that the inspectors have been there and seen it for themselves," Saadi said.
He called the presentation "a lot of fiction."
Saeed Mousawi, a senior Foreign Ministry official, dismissed as "totally baseless" Powell's allegation that Iraq has been harboring a terrorist cell run by Abu Musab Zarqawi, whom Powell described as a member of the al Qaeda network. Mousawi said that Iraq has no record of Zarqawi entering the country but that last week it obtained information indicating he was in a part of northern Iraq not controlled by Hussein's government.
--------
Iraq Shows Off Missile Sites to Rebut U.S. Charges
February 7, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-site.html
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq took international journalists to two missile sites on Friday in an attempt to rebut U.S. charges that it was developing long-range missiles in violation of a U.N. ban.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, during a presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, produced a satellite pictures of what he said were illegal activities.
One of the pictures showed two engine test stands at Falluja north of Baghdad. One of the stands, Powell said, was designed to test engines of missiles with a range of 1,200 km (750 miles).
Under U.N. resolutions, Iraq is allowed to have missiles with a maximum range of 150 km (95 miles).
Another picture showed trucks at Al Moatassem missile production facility south of Baghdad. Powell said Iraq was clearing up banned materials from the site shortly before U.N. weapons inspections.
Iraq's Information Ministry took journalists to both sites.
At the Falluja facility, run by the government's Al Rafah company, Ali Jassem, an official, said the site was the first visited by U.N. weapons inspectors when they resumed work in Iraq on November 27.
``The inspectors visited this site and searched it. They found that everything inside falls under permitted activities,'' Jassem said.
He said the inspectors had returned to the site several times since, the last of which was on February 4, a day before Powell's presentation.
STATIC TESTS
The official said the experts, who have attended four static tests for the al-Samoud missile with a range of 150 km, had looked at the stand and found it consistent with permitted activities.
Reporters were taken to tour inside the facility and shown the two stands. The hulks of large missiles destroyed by previous inspection teams were strewn in the site.
Jassem said the larger stand had not been put into operation yet and that it was large because it was designed to test engines horizontally. But, like Powell said, a roof had been built over it.
Powell said the picture that he produced for the Security Council had been taken in April 2002.
``Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it so it will be harder for satellites to see what's going on underneath,'' Powell said, adding that the stand was designed for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 km.
At Al Moatassem, chief engineer Karim Jabbar said Powell's charge was ``a false allegation'' and said the facility was producing parts for the short-range Al Fatah missiles.
``We were surprised (by Powell's charge) because there is nothing banned at the factory. It is a declared site...The inspectors have already visited it 10 times,'' Jabbar said. He said there was constant activity around the site ``because we deliver and receive parts all the time.''
Reporters saw many complete missiles lined up at the site.
-------- japan
Japanese voice strong doubts about Iraq war
By Takehiko Kambayashi
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030207-1433776.htm
HIROSHIMA, Japan - As images of the terrorist attacks on American soil flashed continuously across television screens on September 11, survivors of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reminded of the hell they lived through some 56 years earlier.
But, what took Haruko Moritaki aback was that some of the atom-bomb survivors, including "pacifists," were cursing the Americans.
"That made me realize how deep is the pain and resentment in their minds," said Mrs. Moritaki, co-director of the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (HANWA). "But I told myself that hundreds of thousands of lives [of those who perished in the atomic fires] can't be wasted. Hiroshima has to overcome animosity. Otherwise, we can never abolish nuclear weapons."
Except for her father, Mrs. Moritaki and other members of her family escaped the atomic holocaust because they had been evacuated to the countryside in June 1945, two months before the U.S. nuclear attack.
Her father, Ichiro Moritaki, survived the bombing but was disfigured by blast debris that destroyed his right eye, though his left eye recovered by a miracle, she said. Mr. Moritaki became one of the leading figures in the anti-nuclear movement and later served as chairman of the Japan Congress Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs. The atomic bombing is believed to have caused his death in 1994, 49 years after the attack. Mr. Moritaki, like many other atomic-bomb survivors, died of cancer.
"My father always said that we should change from 'a nuclear civilization or brute-force civilization to a civilization of love,' " recalls Mrs. Moritaki, who is also president of the Association for Youth Peace Exchanges with India and Pakistan. The program, begun after their 1998 nuclear tests, brings schoolchildren from both countries to Hiroshima for "peace study."
It came as no surprise when Mrs. Moritaki and other Hiroshima residents, including atom-bomb survivors, sent letters to President Bush after the September 11 attacks, urging him not to retaliate in Afghanistan. HANWA has forged closer ties to Peaceful Tomorrows, an anti-war group founded by families of September 11 victims.
Some HANWA members and survivors of the U.S. atom-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki flew to the United States in April to participate in demonstrations against war and nuclear weapons.
A planned to visit Towers High School in DeKalb County, Ga., was canceled abruptly after the school board learned that the delegation's flier said, "These activists believe the U.S. may use nuclear weapons soon." Officials feared the Japanese group would be seen as "too political."
With tensions mounting between Washington and Baghdad, Mrs. Moritaki again is revving up an anti-war campaign, urging Washington not to take military action against Iraq.
She and other activists traveled to Iraq in December to meet with government officials and visit hospitals and a former battlefield.
"I wanted to know the present situation in Iraq. I thought I would lack credibility if I didn't go and see it for myself," she said.
Mrs. Moritaki, who has suffered from breast cancer believed caused by the 1945 atomic bombing, said she particularly wanted to see children who might have been victims of depleted uranium.
U.S. troops are reported to have used tons of armor-piercing bullets of depleted uranium during the Persian Gulf war, and Iraq has blamed depleted-uranium exposure for cancers, birth defects and other ailments.
NATO and the European Union took seriously two years ago the potential health risks of depleted-uranium ammunition used in the Balkans, which provoked concern in Europe when Italy began investigating soldiers who became ill after serving there.
On its Internet site, the White House dismisses Iraq's claims as "propaganda" in its "disinformation campaign" and warns that Baghdad "could take advantage of established international networks of antinuclear activists launching their own campaigns against [depleted uranium]."
The White House "can't make even a counterargument," said Akira Tashiro, an board member of the Chugoku Shimbun, a Hiroshima-based newspaper. But he said the U.S. government can't ignore growing concern over the health effects of depleted uranium on humans.
Mr. Tashiro, an author of "Discounted Casualties: The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium," has investigated the long-term negative health effects of depleted-uranium bullets. Having covered radiation victims in Japan and abroad since the late 1980s, Mr. Tashiro said the reports of Gulf war syndrome among U.S. and allied soldiers were convincing, despite official American denials that exposure to depleted uranium could result in serious health problems.
He added that since Hiroshima citizens know firsthand that people suffer from war-induced ailments even many years after a conflict has ended, most staunchly oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq. In Hiroshima, cancer began to increase 10 to 15 years after the 1945 bombing.
Major opinion polls also show that growing numbers of Japanese oppose U.S. military action against Iraq. The Asahi Shimbun, a major Japanese daily, said 69 percent of those surveyed in late January opposed U.S. military action against Iraq, and 20 percent favored it.
Another Asahi poll shows the job-approval rating of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet declined to 47 percent from 54 percent in December. Under such circumstances for Mr. Koizumi, Japan's support for U.S. military action is a tough sell.
As in many other countries, anti-war demonstrations were held Jan. 18 in major cities across Japan. People fear Japan will become a terrorist target for supporting the Bush administration. However, some say this country should support a U.S.-led military attack even without a new U.N. resolution.
"Japan should give loud approval," asserts Tadae Takubo, a professor of international relations at Kyorin University in Tokyo. Japan "doesn't have to follow Germany and France."
Mr. Takubo said the United States has been cautious and spent a lot of time dealing with the issues of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Japanese who criticize Washington for its tough stance are wrong, he said. He would like to ask them: "If Iraq were next to Japan, what would they want?"
Tokyo has dispatched an Aegis-equipped destroyer to the Indian Ocean to provide logistic support for the U.S. Navy and its allies. Japan points out that its war-renouncing constitution, written by Americans during Gen. Douglas MacArthur's postwar occupation, bans the "threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes."
During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, Japan contributed several billion dollars to the war effort waged by the U.S.-led multinational forces.
Mr. Koizumi has skirted the question of whether Japan would support a U.S.-led war against Iraq, but leading members of his administration have suggested it would back the United States even without a U.N. resolution. Some government officials have said Japan would assist the postwar reconstruction of Iraq.
This angers pacifists like Mrs. Moritaki.
"What infuriated me most is some government officials are saying with a straight face that Japan is willing to help the 'reconstruction of postwar Iraq.' They are saying this on the premise of military attack, aren't they?" she said.
"As a key ally and the only nation to be bombed with atomic weapons, Japan should play a role in telling the U.S. to stop preparing military action against Iraq," she said.
----
Prime minister called puppet dancing to Bush's tune
February 7, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030207-72409285.htm
Minoru Morita, a political analyst and regular commentator on national networks, spoke to reporter Takehiko Kambayashi about Japan's stance regarding a possible U.S. military attack on Iraq. Mr. Morita, chairman of Morita Research Institute Co. Ltd. in Tokyo, also touched on Japan's economic situation.
Question: How do you think Japan will respond to a U.S. attack on Iraq?
Answer: Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi will do anything in order not to be disliked by the Bush administration, because that is his only lifeline.
I would say that right-minded Japanese now think it was unfortunate that Mr. Koizumi became prime minister, and they also think that was a mistake in terms of personality and insight. There is an atmosphere of hopelessness that we can't manage as long as the Bush administration firmly supports Mr. Koizumi.
Mr. Koizumi gets President Bush's protection by doing just as he is told. Mr. Koizumi is dancing on Mr. Bush's palm.
Q: Are you saying the premier doesn't listen to the public?
A: Not only does he not listen to the public, he lives for the sake of the Bush administration.
When Mr. Koizumi became prime minister, some journalists considered him a savior. If they admitted their mistake they would lose their jobs, so they still support Mr. Koizumi - just to protect themselves.
So the Koizumi administration stands on these two legs.
The prime minister's popularity, however, is expected to decline as the nation's economy grows worse in March. People's tax burden will increase, starting April [the start of Japan's fiscal year]. I believe more and more people will criticize him, so he will rely only on Washington.
Probably Mr. Koizumi will support a U.S. attack on Iraq, and give the United States money when the Bush administration asks him.
Q: You mean one main reason that President Bush supports Mr. Koizumi so much is to get much-needed money.
A: That's right.
While tightening the budget, cutting welfare spending and other domestic programs, Mr. Koizumi will give the U.S. money. If that happens, I'm sure the public will turn its back on him. Then, if President Bush still supports him, very strong anti-Bush sentiments will mount among the Japanese public.
Q: You say that although much of the media coverage these days has been devoted to Iraq or North Korea, Japan's economic situation is so serious that many people cannot pay much attention to nondomestic issues.
A: It is in the hinterland that the economic situation has become much more serious. The number of those who can't make ends meet is increasing outside Tokyo. With many stores shuttered even on Main Street in the daytime, it turns into a so-called "Shutter Street."
It's very gloomy in those towns and cities. The topics of conversation become "How long will this recession last?" "So-and-so has committed suicide." "What are things coming to?"
Though people continue working hard with their teeth clenched, some [medium-sized and small] Japanese companies go under for lack of only [about $4,150 to $8,300]. If such companies could get loans for that amount of money, they could recover. But the banks, which are under the control of the Financial Services Agency, cannot even save them.
The only prosperous place in Japan is Tokyo, which we can call "Tokyo Bubble." Many people say that there are now two Japans - Bubble Tokyo, and the provinces in deep recession.
-------- korea
THE WORLD U.S. Tells N. Korea It Can Wage 2 Wars
By Sonni Efron,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer,
February 7, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-norkor7feb07001433,0,5497702.story
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration warned North Korea on Thursday that it had "robust plans for any contingencies" and though it has no intention of invading, the U.S. is capable of simultaneous military action there and in Iraq.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he believed a diplomatic solution could be found, and he said the U.S. was telling its allies, including China, that they must share the responsibility for keeping North Korea from producing nuclear weapons.
But Powell, responding to sharp criticism from Senate Democrats, said that although President Bush favors a diplomatic solution to the North Korean crisis, he has not ruled out any options, including military action or sanctions.
Even as they praised Powell for his Iraq presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, and promised to increase the State Department's budget next year to conduct assertive diplomacy around the world, Senate Democrats lambasted the administration for allowing the North Korean crisis to fester while it focused on Iraq.
"North Korea is a grave threat that seems to grow with each day that passes without high-level engagement," said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. "The president should stop downplaying this threat, start paying more attention to it, and immediately engage the North Koreans in direct talks."
At the White House, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said North Korea's "saber-rattling" was nothing new, and only hurt its own cause. But he warned that "the United States is very prepared with robust plans for any contingencies."
The carefully balanced remarks followed two announcements from North Korea on Wednesday, the day of Powell's presentation, that once again seemed designed to cause maximum anxiety in the United States just when the administration was most preoccupied with Iraq.
First, North Korea said it had restarted its Yongbyon nuclear power plant, which is believed capable of producing enough plutonium for perhaps six bombs within six months. Powell told senators he was not certain that the reactor had in fact begun working, but that in any case, he expected it to be reactivated soon.
Later Wednesday, the North Korean foreign minister was quoted by Britain's Guardian newspaper as saying that "preemptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the U.S.," a comment that was interpreted by some as a threat of a first-strike nuclear attack. North Korean invective, always heated, has grown scorching of late, but its rhetoric is often subject to later revision. Nevertheless, Fleischer called the statement "a real concern."
North Korea's party newspaper, the Rodong Shinmun, was also reported to have run a commentary warning that "when the U.S. makes a surprise attack on our peaceful nuclear facilities, it will spark off a total war."
Thursday's U.S. response was measured under the circumstances, said Kim Joung Won, an analyst with the Seoul-based Sejong Institute. Saying that the U.S. can handle two military conflicts at once, particularly given Pyongyang's threat that it could launch its own preemptive strike, reaffirms past statements and reflects a contingency that U.S. military planners are considering, he said.
"The U.S. is certainly not baiting North Korea," Kim said. "If anyone's doing the baiting, it's North Korea. This is a very conservative, reasonable U.S. response."
While the Bush administration clearly wants to downplay the North Korean crisis, analysts said, it's also walking a fine line. Ignoring North Korea's incendiary threats, particularly given growing criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, isn't a viable political option, they said.
Any move by Washington in the direction of military intervention would probably face resistance in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing, however, where engagement is strongly favored over confrontation. Any North Korean missile launch or preemptive strike would quickly change opinions in neighboring countries, however.
Japan's growing support for Washington's Iraq policy despite strong antiwar and growing anti-American movements is seen as a necessary trade-off, some say. Tokyo understands that the United States is the only one able to defend Japan should North Korea do something rash, said Hajim Seki, head of the Tokyo-based Toranomon Strategic Institute.
Pyongyang threatened to launch a preemptive strike in 1998, said Nicholas Eberstadt, North Korea expert with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington.
"This is not a new formulation," he said, "although that doesn't make it any nicer."
The escalation in North Korea's nuclear activities -- which the administration argues is not a crisis -- sparked more pointed questions Thursday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which had grilled Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage on North Korea two days earlier.
"Even now the Bush administration claims the ball is in North Korea's court," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "North Korea says it is in our court. From where I sit, the ball is stuck in the net and somebody better go get it."
And Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) termed the administration's foreign policy "designed neglect" of urgent issues not just in North Korea but elsewhere because of the exclusive focus on Iraq.
Powell bristled at that characterization, saying U.S. foreign policy is broad and proactive. He defended the administration's North Korea policy as an important engagement in multilateral problem-solving.
"North Korea is a more direct threat to South Korea and to China and to Russia than anyone else," Powell said. "Now, those nations are also encouraging us: 'Quick. Quick. Talk to the North Koreans.'
"And we are prepared to engage with the North Koreans and we're prepared to talk to them. But what we can't find ourselves in the position of doing is essentially panicking at their activities and their demands."
Powell noted that Chinese President Jiang Zemin had said China would not accept the nuclearization of the Korean peninsula. China and other North Korean neighbors must also work at forcing North Korea to comply with international norms, Powell said, noting that "they have a responsibility as well to persuade North Koreans that they have to behave correctly."
That seemingly mild language was a strong signal to Beijing from an administration that has tried hard to rebuild frayed relations in part by avoiding the appearance of bullying China and working out differences of opinion in private.
Meanwhile, the administration is engaged in a similar diplomatic balancing act with the South Korean president-elect.
For more than a decade, South Korean leaders have insisted that the U.S. not demean them by cutting separate deals with the North Koreans. South Korea was incensed when Washington agreed to a nuclear freeze with Pyongyang in a bilateral negotiation in 1994, a deal that later became the Agreed Framework, and then asked South Korea and Japan to pay for most of it, said Ralph Cossa, head of the CSIS Pacific Forum in Hawaii, a foreign policy research institute.
Now South Korea is urging the U.S. to conduct bilateral negotiations with North Korea, but it is undercutting U.S. leverage by ruling out military force, Cossa argued.
"While no one wants to talk about a preemptive military strike, it should not be ruled out," Cossa wrote in an e-mail. "Nor should we endorse today's conventional wisdom that even a limited military action will automatically unleash a holocaust, as Pyongyang endlessly threatens.
"If Pyongyang's primary objective is regime survival, would it really launch a suicidal attack in response to a limited military action (aimed at destroying its nuclear weapons production capability), knowing that the end result would be the complete destruction of the regime it is desperately trying to preserve?"
- Times staff writers Janet Hook in Washington and Mark Magnier in Tokyo contributed to this report.
----
Calls Build For U.S. Activism In N. Korea
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38137-2003Feb6?language=printer
Top Bush administration officials defended the deliberate pace of their evolving policy toward North Korea yesterday as a growing chorus of critics said the United States must do more -- and do it faster -- to prevent North Korea from producing atomic weapons or nuclear material that could be peddled abroad.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that ample time remains for international diplomacy to deter the Pyongyang government. He said the administration is searching for a formula with its partners that does not deliver concessions unless North Korea changes its behavior.
On a day when North Korea's official news agency warned that a preemptive U.S. attack on the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon would spark a "full-scale war," Powell said the Americans have tried to dampen the rhetoric while communicating with the government of Kim Jong Il through a variety of channels.
"We have tried to understand what they want. But they need to understand clearly what they have to do in order to resolve this problem," Powell said. He added that he discussed the issue at length Wednesday with the Chinese and Russian foreign ministers as U.S. officials seek to increase pressure on North Korea and perhaps convene multilateral talks.
The central conundrum is an escalating series of North Korean moves to reject international nuclear agreements, produce fissile material and, analysts believe, develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons. U.S. authorities have discovered no simple way to reverse the actions, and they have all but ruled out the use of force.
Time seems short to many nuclear specialists and Korea scholars, who note that the Pyongyang government could produce enough high-quality plutonium for four to six weapons within a matter of months if it reclaims about 8,000 spent fuel rods stored at Yongbyon. Former Washington Post reporter and Korea specialist Don Oberdorfer warned yesterday that "unless something is done in the next few weeks, my sense is it's going to be too late."
As the Pyongyang government takes step after unchallenged step, criticism has grown that the administration is making a mistake by refusing to grant the North Korean government an audience. Members of both parties in Congress have called on the White House to name a senior envoy and schedule early discussions.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) told Powell that U.S. policy seems "fuzzy." Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) yesterday called North Korea a "grave threat that seems to grow with each day that passes without high-level U.S. engagement." In a speech on the Senate floor, Daschle said North Korea's nuclear program is far more advanced than Iraq's.
"It is well past time that the administration develop a clear policy on North Korea," Daschle said. "The president should stop downplaying this threat, start paying more attention to it, and immediately engage the North Koreans in direct talks."
Amid calls for U.S. activism, several prominent South Koreans said at a Washington seminar yesterday that talks alone will not succeed unless diplomats from several countries devise a plan that extends beyond nuclear weapons.
"It is not a panacea to say that we have to go back to dialogue," said former foreign minister Han Seung Soo. "We have to insist on certain conditions, but we have come to a situation where North Korea seems to have certain goals."
Kim Kyung-won, former ambassador to the United States, pointed to a disagreement between the Bush administration and its South Korean allies over tactics and ambitions. He said the U.S. goal of ensuring a denuclearized North Korea probably cannot be achieved without giving the Pyongyang government the kinds of concessions U.S. officials have said would be a reward for blackmail.
North Korea should be required to accept an international inspection regime more complete than the 1994 Agreed Framework deal it recently abandoned, Kim explained at a conference sponsored by The Washington Post and the South Korean newspaper JoongAng Ilbo. But North Korea is likely to see stricter rules as a threat to its sovereignty and stability.
"To persuade North Korea to accept the inspection regime, it is going to take quite a bit of incentives. We should not kid ourselves," said Kim.
Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly, who confronted North Korea with evidence of its covert uranium enrichment project last October, repeated that North Korea can gain international stature and economic aid if it gives up its nuclear projects and reduces the threat posed by its regular military force.
"We're trying to avoid a crisis," Kelly said. "A crisis drives hasty solutions that are incomplete solutions, that seem to solve the problem, but in fact just cover it over so it can surface later on."
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz predicted difficult negotiations ahead with the unpredictable North Korean government.
"I think they've already crossed a few lines they've got to back down from," Wolfowitz said at the seminar. "The further they go up this ladder, the further they're going to have to climb down."
----
North Korea threatens pre-emptive hit on US
By Shane Green,
Sydney Morning Herald Correspondent in Tokyo
February 7 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498914574.html
Mr Rumsfeld ... "We have the capability of dealing in more than one theatre at a time." Photo: AFP
North Korea, restarting its nuclear facilities, says it has the right to make a pre-emptive strike against the United States. It has also emerged that Australian forces could be involved in any war on the Korean peninsula.
In a move described by the US as "dangerous" by a "terrorist regime", Pyongyang announced it would reactivate its reactor at Yongbyon, capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.
North Korean officials claimed the reactor would be used to generate electricity "at the present stage". US spy satellites have recently identified the movement of trucks near fuel rods at the facility, prompting fears North Korea could be planning to make about six nuclear weapons.
Responding to the restarting of the nuclear facilities, the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, described the North Korean situation as "a dangerous one".
And he warned of the US forces' ability to deal with North Korea, despite preparations for war with Iraq. "Our forces are arranged around the world, not in a threatening way, but in a way that demonstrates we already have the capability of dealing in more than one theatre at a time," he said.
In Pyongyang, a Foreign Ministry spokesman was quoted as saying that North Korea had the right to make a pre-emptive strike against the US.
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next, but we have our own counter-measures," the official told Britain's Guardian newspaper. "Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."
As the tension increased, the possibility of the involvement of Australia's already stretched armed forces emerged.
The director of the Asia Pacific Security Program at the Australian National University, Alan Dupont, said that if South Korea asked Canberra for military assistance in the event of a North Korean attack, it would be "extremely difficult for any government to refuse".
This was because of the historical ties between South Korea and Australia, plus commitments from Australia's involvement in the UN armistice arrangements put in place at the end of the Korean War.
While not legally binding, the nations involved in the defence of South Korea declared at the end of the war their readiness to again defend the country.
The past week has seen an increase in tension over the North Korean nuclear crisis, which began in October when Pyongyang admitted to a nuclear arms program.
In a warning to North Korea, the Pentagon is ready to deploy 24 long-range bombers to the US air base on Guam, south-east of the Korean peninsula. The bombers would back up US forces in South Korea and Japan, which include the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk.
In Tokyo, defence officials said there were no immediate plans to send Japan's state-of-the-art Aegis destroyers to the Sea of Japan to watch for North Korean missile launches. Pyongyang fired a test missile over Japan in 1998.
The Kyodo news agency had reported that Japan was considering deploying the destroyers, which have sophisticated air defence systems and are capable of tracking ballistic missiles.
----
N. Korea threat of first strike dismissed
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030207-274499.htm
The Bush administration yesterday dismissed a North Korean warning of a pre-emptive strike against U.S. forces and said the White House has "robust plans for any contingencies" on the Korean Peninsula.
A day after Pyongyang said it had reactivated its Yongbyon nuclear plant, North Korean Foreign Ministry Deputy Director Ri Pyong-gap was quoted as saying that "pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the United States."
The White House said such statements are nothing new and their only consequence is to further isolate the North.
"Obviously, the United States is very prepared for robust plans for any contingencies," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters. "But this type of talk and the type of actions North Korea has engaged in or says it's engaging in only hurt North Korea."
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that President Bush has taken no options, including military ones, off the table, "although we have no intention of attacking ... or invading North Korea."
The administration's handling of the nuclear standoff with the North came under sharp criticism by the committee's Democratic members, who labeled the policy "fuzzy" and one of "designed neglect."
Democrats accused the administration of not taking the threat that Pyongyang's nuclear capabilities pose seriously enough, in contrast to its preoccupation with Iraq.
Among the most vocal critics were Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a declared 2004 presidential candidate.
"Mr. President Bush, please, please, if you don't want to enunciate it, in your mind Mr. President, treat this as a crisis, because it is, if not contained now," Mr. Biden said.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Mr. Bush "should stop downplaying this threat, start paying more attention to it and immediately engage the North Koreans in direct talks."
Mr. Powell said he understood the senators' "anxiety," but said that "we can't find ourselves in a position of panicking." He added that "it is possible to achieve a diplomatic solution."
He rejected Mrs. Boxer's charge of a "policy of designed neglect," insisting that the administration's foreign policy was "geared to the problems we have in the 21st century."
The secretary, who presented the administration's case against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, also noted that more time was spent discussing North Korea during his meetings in New York with the Chinese and Russian foreign ministers.
"We are deeply engaged in these issues," he said. "We are in touch with the North Koreans through a variety of channels."
On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the United States is ready to confront North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's "terrorist regime" if necessary. North Korea, in turn, warned that any U.S. attack on nuclear facilities would "spark off a total war."
Mr. Powell promised yesterday to try to "lower the rhetoric."
He said Mr. Bush wants to help the North Koreans, "who are starving, who are in economic distress."
"But we have to find a way to do it that does not suggest to the North Koreans that we are doing it because they have this tool, this weapon, that they use nuclearization of the peninsula as a way to get us to do it because we are threatened by them," Mr. Powell said.
Although he expressed concern over the reactivation of the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, the secretary pointed to a silver lining in recent developments. He noted that traffic has began moving between North and South Korea through one of the openings in the demilitarized zone, which is something "we have been working to achieve and to get worked out between the two sides."
The administration said last month that it is willing to talk, but not negotiate with the North, which withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also wants the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council.
The IAEA plans to hold an emergency meeting on the issue at its headquarters in Vienna, Austria, on Wednesday. It is not expected to recommend economic sanctions, which Pyongyang has said would be equal to a "declaration of war."
----
North Korea Warns of 'Nuclear Disasters'
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Koreas-Nuclear.html
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- Any U.S. moves to build up its military force on the Korean Peninsula could lead to ``horrible nuclear disasters,'' the communist state warned Friday.
The North Korean statement, the latest in a series of warnings, came a day after the White House said it had ``robust plans for any contingencies,'' including military action.
The United States has 37,000 troops in South Korea, and has maintained a force there since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, leaving the North and South technically still at war.
``If the U.S. moves to bolster aggression troops are unchecked, the whole land of Korea will be reduced to ashes and the Koreans will not escape horrible nuclear disasters,'' North Korea's official news agency, KCNA, said.
In Washington, President Bush on Friday said ``all options are on the table'' to solve the nuclear standoff with North Korea.
But he repeated that the situation can still be resolved peacefully but notably ratcheted up the U.S. position by raising the suggestion of the use of a military strike.
The nuclear dispute with North Korea began in October when U.S. officials said North Korea had admitted having a nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement.
Washington and its allies suspended oil shipments to North Korea -- which in turn expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors and pulled out of a global nuclear arms control treaty.
On Wednesday, North Korea said it was putting the operation of its nuclear facilities on a ``normal footing,'' triggering fears it was about to produce weapons materials.
North Korea said in December it planned to reactivate its nuclear facilities to generate badly needed electricity. U.S. officials say the amount of electricity that can be generated by the North's facilities is negligible.
In Vienna, Austria, the International Atomic Energy Agency had no comment on the North's claims and said it would not respond before next Wednesday's emergency session of the IAEA board of governors.
The 35-nation board is expected to refer the dispute to the Security Council, which could lead to economic sanctions or other punitive measures against the North.
North Korea's statement Friday was issued by the Committee for Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland, a government agency in charge of relations with South Korea.
In line with the North's strategy to drive a wedge between the United States and its ally South Korea, the statement urged the South Koreans to frustrate alleged U.S. plans for a military buildup.
``The grave situation where there is the real danger of a new war created by the U.S. imperialists on the Korean Peninsula goes to more clearly prove that there exists on the peninsula only confrontation between the Korean nation and the United States,'' it said.
North Korean soldiers are holding rallies at their bases, vowing to wage ``a life-and-death battle'' against the U.S. ``imperialists,'' KCNA said Friday.
The report repeated Pyongyang's position that the nuclear issue can be resolved only through direct negotiations with the United States. It rejected a multilateral approach to the dispute.
The North froze its nuclear facilities in a 1994 energy deal with the United States, but the agreement unraveled when U.S. officials said in October that North Korea had admitted embarking on a second, clandestine nuclear program.
----
NUCLEAR STANDOFF
Bush Administration Defends Its Approach on North Korea
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By JAMES DAO
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/asia/07KORE.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 - The Bush administration warned North Korea today against trying to take advantage of the United States' focus on Iraq, saying it would maintain a robust military deterrent in the region even as it seeks a diplomatic solution to the impasse.
On a day when North Korea said that a pre-emptive strike by the United States against its nuclear weapons facilities would lead to "total war," an array of senior administration officials argued that the standoff could be resolved peacefully and had not reached a state of crisis.
Democrats, sensing what they considered disarray in the administration's policy, sharply criticized the White House for spending too much time on Iraq, calling its strategy toward North Korea "fuzzy," "passive" and one of "designed neglect."
But in appearances on Capitol Hill and at the White House, senior administration officials asserted that they were fully engaged in resolving the Korean standoff.
On Wednesday, in its latest step toward restarting nuclear weapons production, North Korea announced that it was resuming operations at a nuclear reactor that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. The North Koreans contend that the plant will provide only electricity, but the White House says it consumes as much power as it produces.
"No options have been taken off the table," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning. "The options of sanctions, the option of additional political moves, no military option's been taken off the table, although we have no intention of attacking North Korea as a nation."
Responding to the North Korean threats of "total war," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said, "Obviously, the United States is very prepared with robust plans for any contingencies."
But Mr. Fleischer insisted that President Bush remained convinced that diplomatic action in conjunction with China, Russia, Japan and South Korea could resolve the matter. Next week, the administration will urge the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer the issue to the United Nations Security Council.
North Korea's latest provocative actions seemed to be a response to the announcement earlier this week that the Pentagon had placed 24 long-range bombers on alert, to be available in the Pacific to deter "opportunism" by the North Koreans.
Officials in North Korea also appeared angry with a statement by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday describing North Korea as a "terrorist regime" that is a threat to sell nuclear weapons technology or materials to terrorists and so-called rogue nations.
Several senior administration officials said today that they considered Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks too harsh. But they said the administration wanted to send a clear message to North Korea not to make trouble while the United States is preparing for a possible war against Iraq.
At a forum on the crisis at The Washington Post, the deputy secretary of defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz, said: "We are dealing with an unpredictable regime and a regime that seems to be moving along a ladder of escalation in terms of its actions. It is a matter of some concern.
"But what Secretary Rumsfeld has done, in putting those bombers on alert, is simply to reinforce our deterrent posture, to make sure that North Korea doesn't do anything adventurous or dangerous of a military kind."
Since late last year, North Korea has been taking increasingly provocative steps toward restarting a nuclear weapons program that it had pledged to freeze in a 1994 deal with the Clinton administration. In addition to expelling international atomic weapons inspectors it has moved spent nuclear fuel rods out of storage, American officials say.
American officials believe that North Korea will next try to begin reprocessing those fuel rods into fissile material for bombs - potentially enough to build half a dozen weapons within months.
A senior administration official said the United States had communicated to North Korea through other countries and through the North Korean mission at the United Nations that restarting plutonium reprocessing would be "a particularly bad step."
Asked how the United States might respond, the official said, "That's for us to know and them to find out."
Two Democratic presidential candidates, Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, both asserted that the administration should be more forceful in discouraging North Korea from reopening its plutonium reprocessing plant. They also called on the White House to begin direct talks with North Korea.
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader, scolded Mr. Bush for playing down the threat from North Korea and urged him to "immediately engage the North Koreans in direct talks."
But administration officials stuck to their position that they would only talk to North Korea about dismantling its nuclear weapons programs, and would not discuss economic aid or security agreements until the dismantling had begun.
"We're prepared to talk to them," Mr. Powell said. "But what we can't find ourselves in the position of doing is essentially panicking at their activities and their demands."
-------- space
NASA'S Nuclear Prometheus Project Viewed as Major Paradigm Shift
By Leonard David Senior Space Writer,
Space.com
07 February 2003
http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/prometheus_030207.html
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO - Enthusiasm towards Project Prometheus, a major new initiative to reactivate nuclear space power and propulsion work under NASA, has been muted due to the space shuttle Columbia tragedy.
NASA is undertaking Prometheus in partnership with the Department of Energy. At stake is moving forward nuclear technology in the hope of enabling an unprecedented science data return from future robotic missions, making use of high-power science instruments and advanced communications technology.
Project Prometheus faces a number of technical challenges, not the least of which is to produce a space reactor system that is safe to launch and function for years on end as it cruises toward deep space targets.
NASA and industry nuclear experts believe the time is right for a paradigm shift in robotic, and eventually, human space exploration beyond Earth orbit. Yet, with the unknown ripple effects surrounding the Columbia calamity and the money required to regain human space launch operations, supporters of Prometheus are worried the project may be scrapped or slowed down before it starts.
Target: trio of icy moons
Here at this year's Space Technology & Applications International Forum (STAIF-2003), a major session to unveil Project Prometheus was cancelled. Those attending that were knowledgeable about the effort were requested by NASA Headquarters not to openly discuss details of the project given the Columbia catastrophe.
NASA did quietly roll out its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2004 on February 3.
As a NASA new initiative, requested funds for Project Prometheus includes $279 million, with $3 billion to be spent on the effort over five years. This consists of $186 million ($1 billion over five-years) from the Nuclear Systems Initiative introduced in Fiscal Year 2003 and adds $93 million ($2 billion over five-years) for a first flight mission, dubbed the Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter, or JIMO for short.
To be flown within a decade, JIMO will search for evidence of global subsurface oceans on Jupiter's three icy Galilean moons: Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. These oceans may harbor organic material. Moreover, the mission is intended to set the stage for the next phase of exploring Jupiter and will open the rest of the outer solar system to detailed exploration.
Baby steps
"We're a baby that's been crawling and we're trying to get ready to stand up and take our first baby steps," said Alan Newhouse, NASA Manager of the Project Prometheus Nuclear Systems Program. "So it's going to be a while before we know how fast we can run," he told SPACE.com in a phone interview.
Newhouse emphasized that Prometheus is not a rocket. Rather, what is being championed is a demonstration of nuclear electric propulsion in space.
In the near future, NASA intends to open up formal dialogue with industry to hammer out technical approaches needed to fabricate a nuclear electric propulsion spacecraft.
"We are welcoming all practical ideas for building reactors...practical in the sense of something that can sit in a spacecraft and has some pedigree in design. If at the end of that process, if we have one or three designs, so be it. We'll see what it looks like," Newhouse said.
Lightweight design needed
As for the name, Newhouse said that NASA Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, picked Project Prometheus. Last year, a number of possible flagship missions were considered, to showcase nuclear space technology. One favored candidate was lofting a high-powered telecommunications satellite into Mars orbit. Eventually, the JIMO mission moved to center stage.
Development work is clearly needed, Newhouse said. The nuclear reactor itself must be a lightweight design. Ion engines, akin to those used in NASA's Deep Space 1, need to be far more powerful. Longer-lived equipment is also necessary, he said.
"We schemed around for a while and came up with a spacecraft that, quite frankly, we can barely launch because it's so heavy. Obviously, we've got work to do," Newhouse said.
DoD: no active interest
"Our first project is not just going to be a test. It will be a real, important scientific mission," Newhouse said. The craft's nuclear reactor would churn out 100 kilowatts of energy, he added.
Beyond the NASA-Department of Energy partnership on Prometheus, the Department of Defense has "no active interest" in the work, Newhouse said. "That's not to say five years from now that they won't decide they want one," he said.
There is NASA and Air Force interaction regarding electric propulsion engine work underway in both organizations, Newhouse said.
"This is going to be a focused, technical development program of a specific mission. It's not going to be a sandbox for bureaucrats," Newhouse said. "Anything that gets in our way is going to be shouted out, yelled out, and moved out of the way," he said.
Paradigm shift
Project Prometheus is a paradigm shift in the way solar system exploration can be carried out, said Colleen Hartman, NASA's Solar System Exploration Division Director. "We've been running on a 100-watts and this is stadium lighting, all of a sudden," she said.
Hartman said in a phone interview that a request for proposals to build high-powered instruments will soon be released. Scientists need to better understand how to take advantage of the energy level cranked out by a space nuclear reactor.
The nuclear power capability is "just going to be unbelievable...orders of magnitude higher capabilities than what we've ever done before," Hartman said.
Fortified by a nuclear power system, a range of instruments can be utilized, such as ice penetrating radar. Additionally, broadband communications gear can relay to Earth unprecedented quantities of data about Jupiter's icy moons, Hartman said.
Mixed reactions
First reactions from the space science community and other groups have been mixed.
One senior space scientist suggested that NASA was looking for a "poster child" mission to demonstrate nuclear space power, doing so without consulting the science community at large.
Last year, a major Planetary Decadal Survey was done through the National Research Council. Those working on the survey took great pains to carefully blueprint a strategy for future spacecraft missions.
NASA's Hartman said there has been a lag time between the space agency being able to fully explain Prometheus and the JIMO flagship mission to space scientists.
A special community workshop to bring together Prometheus officials, instrument builders, and space scientists is being considered for this March, Hartman said.
Europa - a high priority
"I am thrilled that we may see a return to Europa and other Galilean satellites in the coming decade, as recently recommended by the Planetary Decadal Survey," said Robert Pappalardo, a space scientist in the Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences Department at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
Characterizing the probable oceans within these moons is the first step toward understanding their potential habitability, Pappalardo said.
"Some in the planetary community have reservations regarding the use of nuclear technology to get a spacecraft there, but I'm confident that these issues will be thoroughly studied and addressed," Pappalardo said. "My impression is that the community would not want to see a Europa mission abandoned if the nuclear technology does not pan out. It is my understanding that the administration and NASA is 100% behind making this work. But with or without nuclear, Europa exploration remains a very high priority."
The Planetary Society in Pasadena, California, a public space interest group, applauded NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe for "his boldness and commitment to the exploration of space beyond Earth orbit." The JIMO mission and the nuclear propulsion system provide the "next giant leap in our ability to explore the Solar System and beyond," the group noted in a February 6 statement.
Anti-nuclear stance
But Project Prometheus is not welcomed news in some quarters.
Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space in Gainesville, Florida, said an escalation in launching nuclear devices into space will also dramatically increase the risk of a deadly accident. "The public did not sign up for this mission. We know now that space technology can and does fail. When you mix nuclear power into the equation you are asking for big trouble," he said.
Gagnon and his supporters protested the STAIF-2003 meeting here, brandishing banners and signs outside the gathering of nuclear space and propulsion experts.
"We strongly believe that an expansion of research and development of nuclear devices at the Department of Energy labs will bring more toxic contamination to workers and local communities. DoE has a long history of contamination problems that will be magnified by this new space nuclear program," Gagnon said.
Openness and transparency
In the months ahead, as NASA moves forward on the Prometheus effort, openness and transparency must be the watchwords, said Steven Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy within the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C.
There are those in the broad general public, Aftergood said, who aren't concerned about safety. There are others who can't be convinced that space nuclear power and propulsion are sufficiently safe.
"But for everyone else, a program that is open, accountable, and responsive to public inquiries is most likely to be acceptable. As a practical matter, this means acknowledging that space nuclear power, like spaceflight in general, is not 'safe' in any absolute sense. The issue rather, is the value of the mission as well as the adequacy of the steps that are taken to minimize potential hazards," Aftergood said, contacted at his Washington, D.C. office.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- california
Calif. Panel OKs Moving Nuclear Reactor
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Reactor.html
SAN DIEGO (AP) -- Operators of a nuclear plant won permission Friday to truck a decommissioned, 900-ton reactor vessel along a beach that environmentalists say is a critical habitat for endangered birds.
After heated discussion, the California Coastal Commission voted 7-5 to approve the request by Southern California Edison, which operates the San Onofre plant 10 miles south of San Clemente.
A 192-wheel tractor-trailer will haul the reactor, as heavy as two fully loaded Boeing 747s, over streams and through a popular public beach.
Edison says it will take several days next month to make the 15-mile trip. It must complete the project by March 31, to avoid the primary nesting season of the snowy plover.
The defunct reactor, which has been cleaned of high-level radioactive material, will be loaded onto a barge at Camp Pendleton Marine base and shipped to a nuclear landfill in Barnwell County, S.C.
The commission's staff endorsed Edison's choice of truck transport as ``the feasible, least environmentally damaging alternative.''
The commission in 2000 gave permission to Edison to use a rail line to move the reactor. But the utility said that building a spur to the line and covering other costs would be too expensive.
Commission member Pedro Nava complained on Friday that Edison was looking for the least costly choice. ``This is like a guy who built a yacht in his basement and couldn't figure out how to get it out the door,'' he said.
Mark Massara, a representative of the Sierra Club, told the commission that San Onofre's operators were behaving like ``reckless pennypinchers.''
But Edison officials argued the beach was often used by Marines for training. The commission also noted that Marine vehicles often travel the same stretch of beach.
Massara said the Sierra Club intends to offer a live Webcast of the move to allow public monitoring.
On the Net:
Southern California Edison at http://www.sce.com/sc3/default.htm
California Coastal Commission at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/
Sierra Club at http://www.sierraclub.org/
-------- tennessee
Oldest Operating Nuke Reactor Turns 60
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Oldest-Reactor.html
OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) -- John Gillette recalls the atomic age arriving just before sunrise six decades ago at a secret government project known simply as the Graphite Reactor.
Gillette and other scientists and engineers had worked all day and through the night loading tons of uranium slugs into a wall of carefully numbered holes leading into a graphite matrix.
Then on Nov. 4, 1943, the pioneering Enrico Fermi was summoned and at about 5 a.m., the reactor ``went critical,'' becoming the world's first continuously operated nuclear reactor.
Two months later the reactor produced plutonium, in a design that would be replicated many times over at a facility in Hanford, Wash., to fuel the atomic bomb dropped over Nagasaki, Japan, to help end World War II.
``All I can tell you about it was that we were happy when it was over,'' Gillette told dozens of retirees and officials gathered Thursday to mark the 60th anniversary of groundbreaking for the reactor. ``We felt we had done something helpful in the overall project.''
Now a national historic site, the reactor was the core of what became the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the country's oldest national lab.
The reactor produced the first electricity from nuclear energy. It was the first to create the element promethium, used in nuclear-powered batteries in guided missiles. And until it closed in 1963, the reactor was one of the world's foremost sources of radioisotopes for medical, agricultural and industrial uses.
``What took place in this building changed forever the way we view science and its impact on our lives,'' said Gerald Boyd, the Energy Department's Oak Ridge manager.
Sixty years ago this month, ground was broken for the $12 million graphite reactor. Nine months later, it was working.
``We can't even conceive of moving that fast today,'' Oak Ridge National Lab Director Bill Madia said.
Built in the hills of eastern Tennessee, Oak Ridge began as a huge government complex that included the Graphite Reactor and the uranium enrichment sites known as K-25 and Y-12. Today, K-25 is shuttered and Y-12 makes parts for nuclear weapons.
The Oak Ridge lab complex, with 3,800 scientists investigating everything from new materials to the genetic code, is experiencing a rebirth. An array of labs and offices are under construction and the $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source, the country's biggest nonmilitary science project, is set for completion in 2006.
On the Net:
Oak Ridge National Lab: http://www.ornl.gov/
-------- utah
Study May Stretch N-Waste Stay in Utah
BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH - csmith@sltrib.com
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
February 7, 2003
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02072003/utah/27158.asp
PHOTO Route Map through Nevada http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02072003/images/wn_yuca.jpg
WASHINGTON -- A new federal study recommends initially storing more canisters of radioactive trash aboveground near the planned Yucca Mountain underground nuclear waste dump in Nevada. If the change goes through, it eventually may lead to extending the planned operating life of a proposed temporary nuclear-waste dump on Utah's Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, about 300 miles to the northeast.
The National Research Council's suggested changes in the Department of Energy (DOE) management plan would allow time to develop a new strategy that places a greater emphasis on safety at the Nevada site.
The study released Thursday by the congressionally chartered National Academy of Sciences recommends DOE conduct a "pilot stage" at Yucca before entombing the steel casks of spent nuclear power plant fuel rods and other highly radioactive materials that generate heat and will remain hazardous to humans for thousands of years. That new phase of the project would begin with placing nonradioactive simulated waste and only a small amount of actual highly radioactive materials in the underground vaults to perform a series of safety tests and operational exercises.
While those new tests are under way, waste from nuclear plants around the country would continue to be shipped to the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, but likely would not be entombed for years. Instead, the waste would remain in so-called "buffer" surface storage facilities at or near Yucca as DOE slowly increases the rate of burial.
Critical to DOE adopting the new "adaptive staging" management strategy is the study's recommendation that DOE abandon current plans to match the rate of waste shipments accepted at Yucca with the rate of waste burial underground, and instead keep the shipped waste in expanded buffer sites until it can be entombed as DOE's knowledge of the process and integrity of the dump grows.
The new system would give DOE "reversibility," the opportunity to entomb waste on a flexible rather than rigid schedule, and allow operators to return waste to an aboveground buffer area if changes in the process are needed.
The Swiss scientist who chaired the study committee said while the group did not assess whether Skull Valley would serve as a suitable long-term buffer storage area for Yucca, the Utah dump is a feasible alternative under the adaptive staging strategy.
"The study doesn't make that connection but there's certainly nothing wrong with the logic of doing it like that," Charles McCombie, the former technical directive for the Swiss Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste, said in a telephone interview. "When we talked about buffer sites, we envisioned it being very close to Yucca Mountain, but a buffer doesn't have to be immediately outside the front door."
McCombie said if DOE adopts adaptive staging, it will not necessarily delay the opening of Yucca Mountain.
However, the study did emphasize the new approach would push back current burial schedules at Yucca and create possible security concerns with surface storage.
"Adaptive staging may slow the initial pace of underground waste emplacement and, therefore, it may lead to longer periods in which the waste is more accessible to humans," the panel wrote. "Independently of the management approach chosen, the time that will elapse before geologic repositories will begin to operate is so long (i.e. decades) that other, more immediate measures are needed to prevent misuse of radioactive materials by terrorists." Although the Goshute reservation storage facility is not mentioned by name, the strategy outlined in the new study could benefit developers of the $3 billion temporary dump 75 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The 121-member Skull Valley Goshute tribe and a consortium of commercial nuclear power plant operators known as Private Fuel Storage are seeking a 20-year license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to accept waste at the dump.
But state officials fighting the license say it is likely the facility would continue to accept waste shipments beyond the initial 20-year period since the state contends the venture will not turn a profit unless it collects fees for accepting waste for 40 years.
In a hearing last year before the U.S. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, NRC staffers disputed the state's suggestion that the Goshute facility would continue to accept waste beyond the 20-year license.
The NRC said after accepting four casks of waste a week for 1,000 weeks -- about 19 years -- the "off-loading" process will begin at Skull Valley, where casks would be transported over the next 20 years to Yucca for permanent entombment.
-------- us nuc waste
Yucca Mountain Planners Urged to Go Slow, Careful
By Cat Lazaroff
February 7, 2003
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-07-06.asp
WASHINGTON, DC, Nuclear waste disposal programs, including the one under construction at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, should be implemented in stages, so that decisions about how to proceed can be based on the latest available information, argues a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. The report, released Thursday, concludes that setting rigid times lines for opening the Yucca Mountain facility would increase the risk of problems and undermine public trust in the controversial project.
The National Research Council (NRC) committee that wrote the report coined the term "adaptive staging" to describe this gradual approach, because it allows project managers to make adjustments throughout the waste disposal process, based on operational experience or scientific advances. Safety, environmental and cost concerns also can be taken into account in a timely manner, and managers can better respond to public input, the committee said.
In the case of Yucca Mountain, adaptive staging would allow the Department of Energy (DOE), which is overseeing the project, to retain the option of reversing a decision or action while moving forward with disposal.
"Adaptive staging focuses on cautious progress based on continuous learning and on maintaining flexibility in the program, rather than on meeting pre-arranged, rigid milestones," said committee chair Charles McCombie, an independent consultant based in Switzerland. "While this approach calls for a measured pace of advancement, it will not necessarily delay the project."
The committee was not asked to comment on the choice of geological repositories as a preferred option for disposal of high level radioactive waste, or on the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a repository site. Its study addresses geological repositories in general, with specific applications to Yucca Mountain when appropriate.
The report, "One Step at a Time: The Staged Development of Geologic Repositories for High-Level Radioactive Waste," concludes that adaptive staging could help address some of the criticisms leveled at the proposed Yucca Mountain site, located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The site is the only one now being considered as a permanent repository for some 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel now stored at power reactors across the country.
Already approved by Congress and the White House, Yucca Mountain still faces a number of legal challenges from environmental groups and the state of Nevada.
"Public sentiment against the Yucca Mountain project has remained consistent," Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn said Thursday, as he accepted $24,000 in donations from realtor associations in Nevada, Arizona and Utah, given in support of Nevada's legal actions against the proposed dump site. "The state of Nevada currently has four lawsuits in federal court, where I've maintained all along we will get fair treatment."
The NRC report offers some suggestions for alleviating concerns about the Yucca Mountain site, centered around the careful planning approach the committee dubbed adaptive staging. Adaptive staging is characterized by the simultaneous presence of seven attributes: continuous and systematic learning, flexibility, reversibility, "auditability," transparency, integrity, and responsiveness to public concern.
The committee called the decision making that separates each stage of the disposal process a "decision point." At each decision point, project managers collect and evaluate all relevant information acquired so far and use it to develop options for the next stage.
At the same time, they re-assess the safety of the geological repository, make their findings public, and engage in a dialogue with stakeholders. Introducing decision points throughout the project reduces the odds of large scale, costly mistakes, the committee said.
The DOE requested the report after recognizing the potential advantages of employing a staged development approach at Yucca Mountain, where the department plans to operate a geological repository for the disposal of high level radioactive waste, pending regulatory approval. Some of the DOE's plans are already consistent with the principles of adaptive staging, the committee found.
However, DOE's overall approach to the Yucca project is still more linear than adaptive, the committee said. This linear planning is illustrated by the department's tendency to propose unrealistic schedules and by a lack of public involvement in some decision processes.
The DOE's major milestones that involve interaction with other stakeholders correspond to licensing decision requirements; an adaptive staging plan would incorporate more, and more transparent, decision points.
The sooner DOE adopts adaptive staging for Yucca, the more effective this approach is likely to be, the committee said. It urged the ageny to follow through on the idea of a pilot stage, which could - after obtaining the proper license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - consist of first placing some nonradioactive simulated waste in the geological repository, and then putting a small amount of radioactive waste in one section of the underground facility.
At the same time, other tests can be conducted outside the repository but within the same rock formation. These tests would preserve the integrity of the repository itself while allowing the DOE to study features that, if implemented, could improve performance or reduce uncertainties.
The DOE should also consider reserving a fraction of the waste disposal area for public demonstration purposes, the committee advised.
To provide the recommended flexibility, adaptive staging may require a larger "buffer" storage capacity at, or near, the Yucca Mountain site. This additional storage would allow managers to receive waste at the repository even if there will be a delay in its being placed underground, the committee said. Buffer storage also offers a place for waste to be stored if it has to be retrieved from the underground facility.
Adaptive staging will not affect the security of the nuclear wastes, the committee added. The length of time before Yucca Mountain is ready to receive waste is already so long that more immediate measures will be needed if security becomes a heightened concern.
Adaptive staging may lead to higher costs early on, the report says, but it could also accelerate schedules and reduce costs in the long term because the nature of the process may allow problems to be identified and corrected before they become expensive and time consuming.
The committee made several recommendations for improving scientific knowledge and public outreach. For example, a technical oversight group - independent of the federal government - should be established by the DOE to review scientific aspects of the Yucca project, and a stakeholder advisory board representing local organizations, state governments, municipalities, and other concerned parties should be set up as well, the report says.
The long term science and technology program initiated last year by the DOE to address technical concerns at Yucca Mountain - beyond what is required to obtain license approval - should be given high priority and sustained funding, and should include social science research, the committee added.
The existing U.S. regulatory framework has enough flexibility to accommodate an adaptive staging approach at Yucca Mountain, the committee said. The report calls on the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to work together - without either agency compromising its independence - to ensure that the regulatory process allows for adaptive staging, and that the public has access to information and participates in hearings and the licensing process.
For more information regarding the Yucca Mountain Project, visit: http://ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/
-------- us politics
Bush Seeks Israeli Advice on 'Targeted Killings'
By ORI NIR FORWARD STAFF
FEBRUARY 7, 2002
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.07/news5.html
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has been seeking Israel's counsel on creating a legal justification for the assassination of terrorism suspects, the Forward has learned. Legal experts from the United States and Israel have met in recent months to discuss the issue, and are considering widening the consultation circle to include representatives of America's closest allies in the war against terrorism.
Israeli sources who are intimately familiar with the talks said that American representatives were anxious to learn details of the legal work that Israeli government jurists have done during the last two years to tackle possible challenges - both domestic and international - to its policy of "targeted killings" of terrorist suspects.
On Monday, Israel's attorney general's office submitted a document to Israel's Supreme Court in defense of the "targeted killing" policy. The document, submitted in response to an appeal by human rights groups, for the first time provides a comprehensive set of legal arguments justifying the assassination of terrorism suspects.
Last year, Israeli media reported that the American military and Central Intelligence Agency sought operational expertise from Israel's military on how to carry out such operations.
Unlike Israel, which went public in November 2000 with its assassinations policy, the Bush administration, like previous administrations, officially is opposed to such assassinations and does not acknowledge that it engages in such actions.
The administration repeatedly has condemned Israel's policy of assassinating suspects in the West Bank and Gaza.
According to credible press reports quoting American officials, however, the Bush administration has resorted to such methods in pursuing terrorism suspects. Last November, a missile reportedly launched from an unmanned drone over Yemen killed six suspected members of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, including Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, whom the United States has linked to the attack on the warship USS Cole off Aden in October 2000. Unnamed American officials confirmed to the press at the time that the CIA carried out the attack.
Last week, in his State of the Union address, President Bush came close to confirming the administration's involvement in such operations, saying that terrorism suspects who were not caught and brought to trial have been "otherwise dealt with." All told, the president said, "more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries, and many others have met a different fate."
It is not clear how many terrorism suspects the United States has killed in such targeted operations. Israel, in the past two years, has assassinated more than 80 suspects, according to Western human rights organizations. Michael Sfard, a Tel Aviv lawyer who submitted an appeal to Israel's Supreme Court against the policy on behalf of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, said that according to his data, the number is higher than 100. "That number, of course, does not include the dozens of innocent bystanders who are regarded 'collateral damage' by the authorities," Sfard said.
In the document submitted Monday to Israel's Supreme Court in response to the appeal by Sfard and human rights groups and obtained by the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, the attorney general's office says that "targeting identified terrorists, who are directly involved in severe terrorism attacks, as carried out by Israel's security forces, is utterly legal and legitimate." Since September 2000, according to the document, Israel is conducting "an armed conflict" in the West Bank and Gaza, which merits actions under "warfare laws" and not in accordance with "self-defense laws."
Kenneth Roth, executive director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, told the Forward that although he has not read the Israeli government document, he disagrees with its premise. War powers, which merit such actions, are not to be used where law enforcement is possible, Roth said. In the case of Israel, which rules over the West Bank and Gaza, law-enforcement actions are possible, and suspects can be caught and brought to justice, Roth said.
According to official Israeli data, in more than two years of armed conflict with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli forces arrested more than 200 terrorism suspects, which shows that "you can do it if you want to," Sfard said.
Roth said that in this sense there is a fundamental difference between Israel's and America's pursuit of terrorists. "The core of the issue is when it is appropriate to treat somebody as an enemy-combatant rather than as a criminal suspect," Roth said. "If you're an enemy combatant, you can be shot. That's what war is about. So the real question is when it is appropriate to characterize someone as such."
Based on that yardstick, Roth explained, Human Rights Watch did not object to the killing of al-Harthi in Yemen in November, because of two main reasons: his alleged association with al-Qaeda made him an enemy-combatant, and neither the United States nor the Yemeni government had any effective control in the area where he was found, which did not allow for a reasonable law-enforcement alternative. Indeed, 18 Yemeni soldiers were reportedly killed when they previously tried to arrest al-Harthi.
----
France & Russia warned support US war on Iraq or no Iraqi oil
1/27/2003 - OGI: Cairo
Oil and Gas International
http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/world_industry_news/jan03_france.html
France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want acess to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. According to a report in today's Tehran Times, US Senator Richard Lugar, a leading member of the Bush administration and Republican Party chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Russia and France "must be ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in any US-led military intervention" if they want a share of Iraqi oil.
The paper quoted Lugar as saying that Paris and Moscow oil companies will be deprived of Iraqi oil and have no share in the country's resources if they refuse to join in the US war to oust Hussein. It noted that both the Russian Duma and the French parliament have both expressed opposition to a US military attack on Iraq.
----
Bush warns Iraq 'game is over'
By Bill Sammon and Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030207-1171604.htm
President Bush yesterday accused Saddam Hussein of authorizing Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons against U.S. forces and bluntly warned the Iraqi dictator that "the game is over."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons, the very weapons the dictator tells the world he does not have," Mr. Bush said.
The president was joined for remarks to the press in the Roosevelt Room of the White House by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
Mr. Bush's remarks came just hours after Mr. Powell pressed the administration's case against Iraq to Congress, where he said that the standoff with Iraq over its failure to disarm will be brought to an end "within weeks ... one way or another."
Earlier in the day, the State Department warned Americans at home and abroad of continuing terrorist threats.
With the clock ticking toward war within a matter of weeks, the president urged the U.N. Security Council to make good on its Nov. 8 resolution, which promised "serious consequences" if Saddam did not disarm.
"Now, the Security Council will show whether its words have any meaning," Mr. Bush said. "Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dictator.
"The United States would welcome and support a new resolution which makes clear that the Security Council stands behind its previous demands," he said. "Yet resolutions mean little without resolve."
Administration officials cautioned that Mr. Bush considers a second resolution helpful, but not necessary. They pointed out that the administration is already paving the way for war by conducting the final round of Security Council consultations spelled out in the earlier text, Resolution 1441.
Mr. Bush made clear that he would not be deterred from war if Saddam makes a partial, last-minute disclosure of weapons of mass destruction, or suddenly drops his objection to U2 surveillance flights over Iraq.
"Saddam Hussein can now be expected to begin another round of empty concessions and transparently false denials," he said. "No doubt he will play a last-minute game of deception. The game is over."
The warning was aimed at pre-empting Saddam from making an 11th-hour play for international sympathy. One senior U.S. official said Saddam could abruptly "discover" weapons programs and even say he had executed underlings for hiding the programs from him.
"Judging by Saddam Hussein's efforts in the past to conceal and to deny and to cheat and retreat, it would not surprise anybody if all of a sudden Saddam Hussein showed a little bit of the tip of his iceberg," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.
Such a disclosure would merely "underscore the fact that Saddam Hussein is again lying to the world," he said.
The spokesman added: "There's only one thing that counts, and that is the complete and total disarmament of Iraq."
Mr. Powell did not speak in the Roosevelt Room. Polls show that more Americans trust Mr. Powell than Mr. Bush on the issue of the looming war.
Mr. Powell on Wednesday delivered a detailed indictment against Saddam to the Security Council, and Mr. Bush reiterated and summarized much of the evidence presented by the secretary.
"Saddam Hussein has made Iraq into a prison, poison factory and a torture chamber for patriots and dissidents," Mr. Bush said. "Saddam Hussein has the motive and the means and the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American people. Saddam Hussein will be stopped."
The public appearances by Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell were the latest manifestations of an intense push for international support that began with the president's State of the Union address last week. Mr. Bush appears determined to enlist as many allies as possible before waging war as early as the end of this month.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Powell said that the visit to Iraq by chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei this weekend will be crucial for determining the course ahead.
"It will start to come to a head when Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei return from Baghdad, and we see whether or not there is any chance of serious progress - and not just progress on process, but a serious change of attitude and a commitment to comply," the secretary said.
"I would say that within weeks ... we will know enough to bring this to a conclusion one way or the other. We are reaching an endgame in a matter of weeks, not a matter of months."
Mr. Powell dismissed the French proposal to boost the presence of weapons inspectors in Iraq, arguing that it will not work unless Baghdad has a change of heart.
"Twice [or] three times as many inspectors, as was suggested by my French colleague and seconded by my German colleague [Wednesday], might be useful if there was a change in attitude," Mr. Powell said. "But if there is no change in attitude, we don't need to hire more detectives. That's not the purpose of it."
He noted that the administration is ready to "work toward" another Security Council resolution if the other council members insist on it, even though "there is more than enough authority for military action" in Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously.
Mr. Powell was praised yesterday by every member of the Senate committee not only for his U.N. presentation, but also for his role in the Iraq deliberations.
The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, said he is "proud to be associated with" the secretary.
"I think you did better than anyone could have because of your standing, your reputation and your integrity as it is understood by our European friends, as well as others around the world."
The administration received good news yesterday from Turkey, whose parliament voted to allow the United States to upgrade military bases and ports for use in a war against Iraq.
-------- MILITARY
-------- britain
Iraq could be 2nd Vietnam: veteran
07feb03
AFP
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5949759%5E401,00.html
A BRITISH airman captured during the Gulf War and paraded by his captors on Iraqi television, has told a London newspaper that any attack on Baghdad without public support could leave troops psychologically scarred, just as US soldiers were after Vietnam.
Pilot John Peters, who along with his navigator John Nichol, was captured by Iraqis when their Tornado bomber was shot down during the 1991 Gulf conflict, told the Daily Mirror tabloid it would be wrong for Britain to go to war without public backing.
"The general public feeling is that we are not sure we're doing the right thing. No one wants to go to war without a sense that your nation supports you.
"If the nation ends up damning the troops, it will be Vietnam all over again and it will psychologically scar our forces," warned Peters, who retired from the air force two years ago.
His comments came the day after British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that Britain's public would need much persuading to back a war in the absence of a second UN resolution.
"If there were a second UN resolution, then I think people would be behind me. I think if there is not, then there is a lot of persuading to do," Blair told a televised debate broadcast by the BBC.
Peters said he was "very uneasy" about Britain's push for war.
"(Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein is an evil man and he operates an evil regime but in my view we have not been given enough reasons to attack a sovereign state.
"We need to be convinced that Saddam has got weapons that are a direct threat to our security," Peters added.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon yesterday announced Britain would boost its total deployment of warplanes in the Gulf and Turkey to some 100 over the next few weeks, in preparation for possible military action against Saddam's regime.
The force includes Tornado F3 interceptors, Tornado GR4, Jaguar and Harrier fighter bombers, Tristar refuelling aircraft, Hercules transporters, and helicopters, and will be backed up by some 7,000 support personnel.
Britain has already committed 30,000 troops, 120 tanks and a 17-vessel naval task force led by the aircraft carrier Ark Royal to a potential US-led war.
-------- chemical weapons
US Plans for Use of Gas in Iraq
The Sunshine Project
News Release
7 February 2003
http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr070203.html
(Austin and Hamburg, 7 February 2003) - Top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in an invasion of Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the plans in February 5th testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee. This is the first official US acknowledgement that it may use (bio)chemical weapons in its crusade to rid other countries of such weapons. The Sunshine Project and other nonprofits have warned since late 2001 that the "War on Terrorism" may result in the United States using prohibited biological and chemical armaments, thereby violating the same treaties it purports to defend. The US announcement creates grave concerns for the future of arms control agreements, particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Rumsfeld stated that plans are being made for multiple applications, including use of gas or aerosols on unarmed Iraqi civilians, in caves, and on prisoners. Rumsfeld reiterated the confusing, typical US official language about so-called "non-lethal" biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld described applications of a "riot agent" that clearly imply the complete incapacitation of victims, combatant and non-combatant, in armed conflict - a definition and usages that are at odds with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Rumsfeld acknowledged US ratification of the CWC but expressed "regret" about its restrictions, stating that the US has "tangled ourselves up so badly" on policy for use of incapacitating biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld indicated that - in his opinion - if President Bush signs a waiver of long-standing restrictions on US use of incapacitating chemicals, that the US will be able to legally field them in Iraq and elsewhere.
TESTIMONY AUDIO
Choose format:
mp3 - http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/gasiraq.mp3 |
aiff - http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/gasiraq.aiff
(6 min. 41 sec.)
The speakers:
The first speaker, who poses the question, is Rep. Meehan of Massachusetts. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld replies (including a follow-up question from Meehan), followed by remarks from Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A Realvideo recording of the entire hearing (3 1/3 hours) is available from CSPAN. The audio extract reproduced above begins at approximately 1 hour, 31 minutes. This requires a Real video player.
Click here to view the Realvideo.
rtsp://12.170.145.134:554/jdrive/e020503_rumsfeld.rm
The focal points for US development of these weapons are the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate in Quantico, Virginia, and the US Army Soldier Biological Chemical Command, located at Edgewood/Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Following their capture in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the US has used incapacitating chemicals on suspected terrorist "detainees". In October 2002, Russian Special Forces used a so-called "non-lethal" incapacitating biochemical weapon when storming the Palace of Culture Theater in Moscow. It resulted in the deaths of over 100 hostages and was used to facilitate the extrajudicial execution of as many as 50 Chechen separatists. Before the War on Terrorism began, British officials stated that they would not cooperate with the US military in missions where US troops used incapacitating chemicals.
The Sunshine Project has established an online clearinghouse of dozens of documents from the US research program on these weapons, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
- About the Sunshine Project
http://www.sunshine-project.org/
----
Common Chemicals Could Be Used in Attacks
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terror-Chemical-Arsenal.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chemical agents are everywhere. A variety of chemicals commonly used in industry also could also be used to mount a terror attack.
Much of the nation's attention has focused on the threat of biological attacks that would use anthrax, smallpox or other pathogens. But just last month, the deadly poison ricin was found in a north London apartment. Ricin is one of the world's deadliest toxins and has been linked to both Iraq and the al-Qaida terror network.
Attorney General John Ashcroft cited the London incident Friday in announcing that the national terror alert was being raised from yellow to orange, the second-highest level.
``These indications demonstrate al-Qaida's interest in carrying out chemical, biological and radiological attacks,'' Ashcroft said.
Used as weapons, many chemicals could maim, kill and pose risks to the public, although a review of the chemical terror threat concluded that specialized knowledge would be needed to acquire and deliver most of them effectively.
``In most cases terrorists would have to overcome significant technical and operational challenges,'' the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, said in 1999 testimony.
But not always, the GAO said: ``Some chemical agents are commercially available and require little sophistication or expertise to obtain or use.''
For instance, toxic industrial chemicals such as chlorine, phosgene and hydrogen cyanide are readily available. These are among the earliest chemical weapons and were used by troops in World War I. Today, they are commonly used in commercial manufacturing and ``could be easily adapted as terrorist weapons,'' the GAO said.
Cyanide, for instance, is commonly used in electroplating, where metals are attached to each other, and jewelry manufacturing. It's readily available and has been used to attack the public before: In 1982, cyanide-laced capsules of Tylenol Extra Strength killed five people and terrorized the nation.
``Cyanide is obviously a very lethal material that acts very rapidly,'' said Dr. Philip Edelman, acting associate director for terrorism preparedness and response at the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There is an antidote for cyanide, but it must be administered quickly.
It's not alone on the threat list. ``There are a number of chemicals that are highly toxic that would bring on their effects very rapidly,'' Edelman said. ``They are out in commerce for various purposes that are completely legitimate.''
Commercial pesticides such as organophosphates, commonly available in hardware stores, are far less deadly than nerve agents like sarin or soman, but they produce similar effects in the body by poisoning the nervous system. If someone were exposed to such an agent, the cause of the resulting illness might not be readily apparent, which would make it difficult to detect such an attack. Symptoms include blurred vision, difficult breathing, excessive sweating, weakened muscles, paralysis and seizures.
A chemical attack would be difficult to execute outdoors, since unpredictable winds can blow the agents away from their targets. Chemicals could be delivered relatively effectively, however, through indoor ventilation systems or in food or water.
The most deadly agents in the chemical arsenal are nerve agents, although they are more difficult to obtain. A small amount of sarin or soman can penetrate the lungs or the skin and invade the nervous system. Sarin has been used once before: In 1995, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo released it into the Tokyo subway system, killing 12 and sickening thousands.
The most toxic of chemical weapons is VX, a sticky, colorless liquid that evaporates slowly into a colorless, odorless gas. It interferes with the body's nerve impulses to cause convulsions and paralysis of the lungs and blood vessels. Victims essentially choke to death. A dose of 10 milligrams on the skin is enough to kill.
There is an antidote for nerve agents: atropine.
Considerable work is being done at the state and local levels to prepare for biological and chemical attacks, and a new survey suggests much work is needed at state labs. A survey by the Association of Public Health Laboratories found most state labs rate their ability to respond to a chemical attack very poorly.
-------- colombia
U.S. Moves Closer to Colombia's War
Involvement of Special Forces Could Trigger New Wave of Guerrilla Violence
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38331-2003Feb6?language=printer
SARAVENA, Colombia -- The arrival of U.S. Special Forces trainers in this battered town last month signaled the beginning of a change that gives the United States more direct military involvement in Colombia's long civil war and could lead the country's two leftist guerrilla armies to broaden attacks against U.S. targets.
Late last month, the smaller of the two Marxist-oriented guerrilla movements, the National Liberation Army, kidnapped two journalists, a Briton and an American, in this oil-rich region of eastern Colombia, saying the province had become a "war zone declared by the North American government and the Colombian state."
Although meant as an explanation for the abduction of the journalists, who were released Saturday after 11 days in rebel hands, the warning stirred deep anxiety among Colombian civilians that the presence of U.S. troops would prompt a sharp response from the guerrillas.
Over the course of this year, Arauca province is scheduled to become the center of gravity for a $470 million-a-year U.S. effort to help President Alvaro Uribe cripple the enduring leftist insurgency by strengthening Colombia's military. The training program will emphasize counterinsurgency rather than the anti-drug techniques that had been the focus of U.S. aid to date.
In expanding the training beyond counter-drugs, the United States has abandoned an ambiguity that was once carefully cultivated by U.S. officials, promising to make the United States a higher-profile player in Colombia's 39-year-old war.
This month, U.S. officials will begin shifting military resources previously used in anti-drug operations in southern Colombia to this province, which lies on the Venezuelan border and is 220 miles east of Bogota, the capital. Helicopters will be used directly against the two guerrilla armies, which the State Department considers terrorist organizations. Under the program, the Colombian military is scheduled to buy additional helicopters and other military equipment.
The effort has been presented as a way to help Colombian troops protect an economically important government oil pipeline from guerrilla attack. But it is clear from the training taking place on an army base here that defending the pipeline will mostly entail offensive operations against the seasoned guerrillas who have prospered on this swampy stretch of oil and coca fields. The first military unit selected for training, for instance, is a counter-guerrilla battalion, not a unit whose principal task is to protect the pipeline.
"I look at this [program] more as one that is trying to establish security in an area where there just happens to be a pipeline," a U.S. official said.
The 70 U.S. trainers in Arauca -- more than half here, the rest on nearby bases in Cano Limon and Arauca city to the east -- are a useful propaganda symbol for the guerrillas, who have long warned of U.S. economic designs on Colombia's natural wealth. The message has resonated all the more as the United States prepares for a possible war in Iraq that could disrupt world oil supplies.
In the coming weeks, U.S. officials say, at least five UH-1H Huey II helicopters will be sent from the south to support counterinsurgency here. Those helicopters, funded under a $1.3 billion U.S. anti-drug package, were restricted to anti-drug operations until the Bush administration received congressional approval last year to allow their use in counterinsurgency.
U.S. officials say that at least five helicopters will be needed to meet their initial goal of being able to move a 40-man platoon to guerrilla targets at one time. They say the $88 million to $98 million program will pay for as many as 10 new helicopters, "target acquisition" systems, night-vision gear and the training itself.
About 25 U.S. trainers will remain in Larandia, an army base in southern Colombia, preparing troops to carry out operations against drug labs and coca crops. In addition, 15 U.S. trainers based in Tolemaida, west of Bogota, are preparing a 300-man commando battalion to be used to hunt important guerrilla commanders and destroy guerrilla command-and-control centers, small-unit capabilities the army does not have. The U.S. trainers are not authorized to participate in military operations.
On a gray morning here last week, troops from the 30th Counter-Guerrilla Battalion based in Fortul, 12 miles south of Saravena, gathered in small groups to begin the 10-week course on "how to move, communicate and shoot," in the words of one U.S. official. U.S. officials hope to train two battalions of the 18th Brigade, about 800 men, this year.
Saravena, a city of 40,000 residents, once dominated by guerrilla militia networks, offers a surreal picture of Colombia's war. Despite the oil riches that surround the city, the urban centerpiece is a bombed-out police station and city hall, the rubble lined with sandbags and gun emplacements. The airport, destroyed last year by guerrilla attacks, remains decorated with signs sponsored by the chamber of commerce that cheerfully invite passengers to return soon.
The National Liberation Army, a 5,000-member Cuban-inspired insurgency known by its Spanish initials, ELN, has profited from the oil pipeline, which runs 500 miles from Cano Limon to Covenas on the Caribbean coast. In general, the ELN bleeds funds from sympathetic nonprofit organizations and city halls that get extra taxes and subsidies from pipeline royalties.
The ELN's larger cousin, the 18,000-member Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has moved in more recently seeking its own share of the royalties.
Both guerrilla groups have declared U.S. interests in Colombia military objectives, but they have usually reserved their attacks for helicopters, anti-drug spray planes and economic infrastructure. The notorious exception was the FARC's 1999 killing of three American indigenous-rights activists in Arauca, the result of a power struggle between the guerrilla groups.
The most prominent guerrilla target has been the pipeline, jointly operated by the government and Occidental Petroleum Corp. of Los Angeles. The guerrillas, primarily the FARC, blew up the pipeline 170 times in 2001, according to the state oil company, Ecopetrol. According to military officials and provincial politicians, the objective of most of the bombings was to force the ELN to share more of the proceeds.
The attacks cost the government $500 million in revenue in 2001, money the United States wants Uribe to be able to invest in the war effort. Bombings dropped to 42 last year with better security and a guerrilla agreement over money.
Uribe last week ordered that Arauca's oil royalties, amounting to roughly $42 million a year, must be managed by his administration rather than by the provincial government, a move designed to choke off the ELN's financing. That announcement angered regional political leaders, who say not a penny of promised social aid has arrived since September, when Uribe declared the region a special security zone.
"It's a way to generate news," said Jose Trinidad Sierra, Saravena's mayor. "The question is: Does it work? And what comes next? Beyond these Special Forces, what the government must do is invest in employment."
Several human rights, political and military officials here said the kidnapping of the two journalists, on assignment for the Los Angeles Times, broke the long-standing immunity enjoyed by foreign journalists working in Colombia and marks a change in guerrilla tactics.
Scott Dalton, 34, a photographer from Conroe, Tex., and Ruth Morris, 35, a British citizen raised in Los Angeles, were detained at an ELN roadblock Jan. 21 as they traveled from here to Tame, 35 miles to the south.
The two were released Saturday without fanfare to an International Red Cross delegation not far from where they were originally seized.
"It's a deplorable act, but it is the result of anger among the people here over the militarization of Arauca," said Jose Murillo, president of the Joel Sierra Regional Committee for Human Rights. "You don't need some deep analysis to tell you what the U.S. troops are going to bring, a worsening of the government's dirty war against the left."
-------- iran
Blair tries to woo Iran into anti-Saddam pact
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
and Alan Philps in Jerusalem
07/02/2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$X5DX5YDW0FLZ3QFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2003/02/07/wiran07.xml/
Tony Blair tried to draw Iran into a coalition against Saddam Hussein - and out of America's 'axis of evil' - when he held talks in Downing Street yesterday with the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi.
Britain gave Teheran assurances that any war in Iraq would not result in the break-up of the country.
Officials said Britain and Iran also discussed the kind of government that would take over in Baghdad should Saddam be toppled.
In return Iran seems ready to acquiesce in a military campaign to depose Saddam, particularly if it is sanctioned by the United Nations.
Britain has embraced America's "axis of evil" doctrine, which states that the greatest threat to the West is posed by rogue states such as Iraq that are armed with weapons of mass destruction and have links to terrorist groups.
But in contrast with President George W Bush, who has equated Iran with North Korea and Iraq, Britain has gone out of its way to woo the reformist wing of the Iranian regime.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who has visited Teheran three times in less than two years, described Mr Kharrazi as "my good friend" and praised the "good dialogue" with Iran.
The honour shown to Mr Kharrazi has infuriated Israel and drew protests from hundreds of Iranian exiles, as well as from some MPs and peers.
As it begins the diplomatic endgame in the crisis with Iraq, Britain believes that it is important to ensure that Iran, one of Iraq's most powerful neighbours, co-operates with the coalition rather than hampers it.
Teheran hosts the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an armed faction drawn from Iraq's Shi'ite majority, which is involved in a dialogue with America.
In public, Mr Kharrazi warned Britain and America against taking unilateral action and urged them to seek UN authorisation for military action.
"Everybody in the region is concerned about the use of force and they prefer to use diplomatic channels to make sure that the region will not be insecure any more," he said.
In private, British officials said Iran was content to see its old Iraqi foe "dealt with".
Mr Kharrazi said he was not worried that Teheran would become America's next target for "regime change".
He added: "Iran is very different from Iraq. It was a strategic mistake by America to put Iran and Iraq on the same plane. We are a democratic country, a popular one. We have good relations with the outside world."
While British officials admit that Iran has played a helpful role in supporting the post-Taliban Afghan government, Israel is furious at Teheran's role in supporting Islamic militants in both Lebanon and the Palestinian areas. It also accuses Iran of trying to develop a full arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Mr Kharrazi's trip to London is particularly galling for Israel because Mr Blair refused to receive Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli foreign minister, when he visited London last December.
"We find it surprising that the prime minister of Great Britain should meet the foreign minister of a country whose leaders are calling for the annihilation of Israel," a government spokesman said in Jerusalem.
Israel is particularly concerned at warming relations between Iran and Europe because Hizbollah guerrillas have been holding an Israeli reserve colonel, Elhanan Tennenbaum, since October 2000.
At a joint press conference yesterday, Mr Kharrazi refused to answer a question posed by a journalist for Israel Radio. "I offer you this question," he told Mr Straw.
The embarrassed Foreign Secretary insisted that Britain made no distinction, as Iran did, between terrorists and "freedom fighters".
Iran's sparring Ayatollahs - Foundation for Democracy in Iran http://www.iran.org/news/WSJ_971209.htm
Iran - Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/mideast/iran.php
Foreign and Commonwealth Office http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029390554
----
IRAN FRONTIER
Across Iraq's Border, a Land Haunted by War
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/middleeast/07IRAN.html
SHALEMCHEH, Iran, Feb. 2 - The feeling of death lingers on this parched desert plain two miles from the Iraqi border, many years after the fighting ended.
The bodies were buried long ago, but the twisted remains of Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers dug deep in the cracked earth stand as reminders of an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq that left the border unchanged but cost between 600,000 and a million lives.
It was in this southwest corner of Iran that President Saddam Hussein of Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iran sent human waves of teenage martyrs to die in the name of Islam.
The Islamic Republic is building a marble-floored war memorial and museum here to replace the makeshift museum of corrugated metal where photos of the dead Iranian soldiers hang. One photo shows a bloody, severed head.
A sign at the entrance reads, "Dear pilgrims, have a good pilgrimage," but there are more construction workers than visitors these days.
People in this region have a unique perspective on the war that the United States seems determined to fight.
While the official line in Tehran is to oppose an American-led war against Iraq, here the argument is different: only when Mr. Hussein is overthrown will Khuzistan Province be secure enough to persuade businesses and individuals to invest in an economically depressed area that wants to be made whole again.
"Of course war brings misery," said a heavyset merchant in the Indian Spice Shop as he blended curries for stews, soups and kabobs. "But it would be wonderful if there's a war and Saddam disappears."
His partner agreed, "Yes, it would be good to get rid of that regime no matter what."
An old man chimed in: "What are you talking about? This whole thing is about Iran, not Iraq. The Americans want to surround Iran. They are already doing it. Even the son of the shah wants to come back and claim the monarchy."
But still, he added, war would be a "positive development."
An engineer from nearby Ahwaz said afterward that Mr. Hussein was a useful scapegoat for the problems of the Islamic Republic.
"If we don't want to be too pessimistic about our own government, we say the problem is Saddam," he said as he gave a foreign guest a drive around the area. Then he refined his argument, adding that the problem is indeed Mr. Hussein.
"Saddam is like a wild animal," he continued. "We lost everything when Saddam came. No one can predict what he will do when he's disturbed in his lair."
Khuzistan Province had oil and a large Arabic-speaking population. Mr. Hussein believed that the area was rightfully his, just as he believed that Kuwait belonged to him when he invaded that country a decade later.
It was in this part of Iran that Mr. Hussein mounted a huge air and ground assault on the first day of his invasion in 1980, attacking Abadan's huge oil-refining center, the nearby port city of Khorramshahr, the provincial capital, Ahwaz, and the military installations in the area. The second day he sent his divisions deep into Iran.
Much of the area has never been rebuilt, and many of the inhabitants who did not flee have never recovered economically or psychologically. So the feelings toward the Iraqi leader are a blend of hatred and fear.
Yet a kind of normalcy prevails. The shops in Abadan, Ahwaz and Khorramshahr are filled with people buying and selling. Families stroll along the fetid Karun River, and boys fish for small white fish in the salt marshes that once were filled with bloated corpses.
The posters and paintings glorifying the martyrs of the Iran-Iraq war are more numerous here than in other areas of Iran. But people here have little confidence that the government in faraway Tehran will come to their rescue if Mr. Hussein decides to avenge an American invasion by turning against Iran. Clerics are less visible than in many other parts of Iran.
An estimated 200,000 Iraqi refugees live in camps along the border or in poverty outside the refugee system. The United Nations high commissioner for refugees, Ruud Lubbers, said about 300,000 refugees would be expected to flee to Iran in case of a new war.
"We are afraid that he may open the borders and overrun us with refugees or may gas us again with chemical gases," a businessman said of Mr. Hussein. "But we will not go to war again."
The desire to see the Iraqi leader fall coincides with a strong distrust of the the United States and its allies. Much of the West took Iraq's side after it invaded Iran, and during the war armed it with the sophisticated arms and chemicals that kept Iran at bay. In the beginning the main reason was Iran's seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
After the invasion, the United States merely cautioned that it "could not condone" Iraq's seizure of Khuzistan. It took the United Nations more than a week to pass a weak resolution that urged the combatants to refrain from the use of force and accept appropriate mediation.
After the Iranians retook Khorramshahr in one of the fiercest battles since World War II, it was another six years before Iran abandoned its effort to overthrow Mr. Hussein. Much of the landscape that surrounds Khorramshahr - renamed Khuninshahr or city of blood, during the war - looks the way it did during the war. Deep trenches, gun pits and earthen walls reminiscent of World War I have permanently reshaped the landscape.
A war museum boasts exhibits designed to prove Iran's conviction that this was a holy war against blasphemy. Among the possessions of the dead Iranians are copies of the Koran and handwritten poems about the glories of sacrifice. The Iraqis, by contrast, took playing cards, cigarettes and whiskey to war.
Some of the hatred of Mr. Hussein here stems from a racist-tinged animosity between ethnic Arabs and ethnic Iranians inside Iran, and between Iraqis and Iranians in general.
The war not only attracted Iraqi refugees to the cities, but also ethnic Arabs and other tribesman from their villages, and Iranians of all classes blame the newcomers for a rise in crime.
The primary reason that Iranians here are unlikely to welcome their Iraqi brothers if there is a war is economic.
"The economy is dead," said an electrical technician in Khorramshahr who works for the government and earns the equivalent of $200 a month. "People are not afraid of war. They're afraid of poverty. Even though the Iraqis are Muslims and we are Muslims, refugees will make things even worse."
But the businessman explained: "There's a historic animosity that goes back between the Arabs and the Persians. Saddam has always despised the Persians, and we were always afraid what he would do to us."
-------- iraq
What smoking gun?
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
February 7, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030207-97796104.htm#2
Well, the Bush administration, through Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, has finally made its case about Iraq ("Powell offers 'irrefutable' arms proof," Page 1, yesterday). But it has given its answer while forgetting the simple question: Did Saddam Hussein have any part in the September 11 attacks? If he had "weapons of mass destruction," why did the terrorists have to use, of all things, box cutters?
If he had nothing to do with September 11 - and nobody, even among the Bush people, now argues that he was behind it - what is the point of war on Iraq?
Are we really expected to believe that conquering Iraq will make us safer from terrorism in the future?
JOSEPH SOBRAN Burke
When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell displays two satellite photos - the first showing a huge chemical weapons plant, the second showing it gone - it logically follows that intermediate photos showing the dismantling and moving of that chemical plant have to exist. (After all, the United States has constant satellite surveillance of Iraq.)
If Iraq has been dismantling and moving sizable quantities of weaponry, then satellite photos showing where at least some of that stuff went have to exist. This raises an important question: Why wouldn't the United States give that information to the weapons inspectors and let them uncover the "smoking gun" that would bring the whole world over to the U.S. side?
ELAINE MEDINA
Phoenix
----
Ongoing Iraqi Camp Questioned
Lawmakers press Powell as to why terrorist training ground has not been destroyed.
By Greg Miller
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 7 2003
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-intel7feb07,0,5391792.story
WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where Al Qaeda affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.
But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?
Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an explanation for why the United States has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the Al Qaeda terror network.
The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration to explain its decision to leave the facility, which it has known about for months, unharmed.
"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"
Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.
"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.
Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested that the administration has refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.
"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. "If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the intelligence committee, said she and other members have been frustrated in their attempts to get an explanation from administration officials in closed-door briefings.
"We've been asking this question and have not been given an answer," Feinstein said. Officials have replied that "they'll have to get back to us."
A White House spokesman said Thursday he had no comment on the matter.
The administration's handling of the issue has emerged as one of the more curious recent elements of the war on terrorism. Failing to intervene appears to be at odds with President Bush's stated policy of preempting terrorist threats, and the facility is in an area where the United States already has a considerable presence.
U.S. intelligence agents are said to be operating among the Kurdish population nearby, and U.S. and British warplanes patrol much of northern Iraq as part of their enforcement of a "no-fly" zone.
Several lawmakers and intelligence experts expressed concern that Powell's presentation Wednesday might have cost the United States an opportunity to prevent the spread of toxins.
"By revealing the existence of the camp, it's predictable whatever activity is there will probably go underground," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "I don't understand why we don't hit it," said Robert Baer, a former CIA officer who worked extensively in northern Iraq. U.S. officials said the Pentagon and the CIA considered plans last summer for a covert raid on the compound, but that administration officials decided against pursuing the plan.
Officials would not say why the plan was scrapped but rejected reports at the time that activity at the camp was not seen as significant enough to warrant the risks.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is particularly vocal on the matter.
"I favor prompt and forceful U.S. military action to deal with that problem, as we have done in attacking Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and Yemen," Levin said in a statement. A satellite photo showed by Powell depicted a collection of elongated buildings on relatively bare terrain, a seemingly easy target for U.S. warplanes or missiles fired from a Predator drone.
Some suggested that bombing the facility could complicate diplomatic efforts to build international support for a possible war with Iraq.
The camp is outside the "no-fly" zone, but lawmakers said based on Powell's remarks, the United States would seem to have ample justification for an attack under international law.
"It's clear to me there is existing authority," Feinstein said.
Several lawmakers cited the U.S. strike last November in Yemen, when a CIA Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a carful of suspected Al Qaeda operatives, killing six, including a U.S. citizen.
In his U.N. presentation, Powell portrayed the camp as an international menace, a facility where terrorists learn how to work with explosives and a deadly toxin known as ricin.
"Less than a pinch," Powell said, "would cause shock, followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote."
The facility is in a corner of Iraq controlled by an Islamic extremist group known as Ansar al-Islam, which is believed to have Al Qaeda ties.
But Powell said the camp is run by lieutenants of terrorist suspect Abu Musab Zarqawi, a 36-year-old Palestinian linked to a series of plots in Europe, and the killing of a U.S. Embassy worker in Jordan last year.
Zarqawi is seen as a possible link between Baghdad and Al Qaeda. Zarqawi was treated at a Baghdad hospital last year for a wound he suffered in Afghanistan, the United States says.
British police recently broke up a plot involving the possible poisoning of food at a British military base. A U.S. official said Thursday that traces of ricin were found in an apartment where several Islamic extremists were arrested. The official said those detained appear to have links to Zarqawi and the camp.
Staff writer Robin Wright contributed to this report.
----
Commentary: The Smoking Gun Found
The "smoking gun" has been found, not in Iraq but in Washington. In the actions of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
(see photo - http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1117064.jpg)
By Charles R. Steward III
Friday, February 7, 2003,
Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=323
The search for the elusive "smoking gun" continues. Do Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have a business and working relationship? So far there is a lot of smoke but no gun.
As the mocking grin of Osama still haunts us through intermittent videos on the major networks, we prepare to invade Iraq because Saddam has "weapons of mass destruction." But how did Saddam obtain these weapons that we are on the verge going to war to destroy?
Look no further than the White House. That's right! There are at least two smoking guns hanging out at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Two of our leaders screaming the loudest for the invasion of Iraq have ties to Saddam that have been verified. Their transactions are on paper and on video. They are both clearly linked to Saddam. They are smoking guns.
Smoking Gun Rumsfeld
Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld never served in the armed forces, he is anxious to send our men and women into war. Prior to his cabinet position he had considerable success as Ronald Reagan's bagman to Baghdad. In the early 80s Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad to meet with Saddam and normalize relations. This was indeed a successful mission.
Reports by the US Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, overseeing American exports policy, show the successive administrations of Reagan and Bush Sr. sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other nasty germs were also sold. Saddam used these weapons of mass destruction on the human waves of Iranian children-soldiers in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s and on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
Supposedly, the use of chemical warfare was outlawed in the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The entrepreneurial spirit of the U.S. and European corporations that make these horrible weapons and the intense U.S. hatred of Iran at the time made it easy to forget old laws. So Saddam got his weapons of mass destruction.
Today there are estimates of approximately 100,000 Gulf War veterans receiving disability compensation for Gulf War Syndrome. Perhaps Rumsfeld can shed some light on these ailments.
Now he wants to send our citizens to possibly face weapons he helped provide for the enemy. It's interesting that the administration will drag out the charge of "traitor" when citizens speak out against the war, yet not for one who was instrumental for arming our enemy.
Smoking Gun Cheney
Holding Rumsfeld's current job of Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War was Dick Cheney, our Vice President. Cheney too never served in the armed forces, but he is also very familiar with Iraq. During his tenure as CEO at Halliburton, the company did $23.8 million in business with Hussein after the first Gulf War. If Hussein is such a monster, why did Halliburton and its subsidiaries sell him the equipment to get his bombed out oilfields up and running so he could afford to build weapons of mass destruction?
Though we are ready to invade Iraq, we are still doing business. Iraq is America's second-largest Middle Eastern oil supplier. When one trades with the enemy, isn't he a traitor?
When Cheney left Halliburton, he received a $34 million severance package for a job well done. Halliburton stockholders are now suing him for some Enron-like practices that occurred during his time at the helm.
As America's top oil-services company, Halliburton is the nation's fifth largest military contractor and the biggest non-union employer in the United States. It employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide and does more than $15 billion in business a year. It is not surprising, then, that Halliburton and its many subsidiaries are lined up with hands out for the anticipated military contracts. Who better to take care of Iraq's oil after the war?
While the U.N. Inspectors are combing Iraq for weapons, they should also visit Washington and talk to Rumsfeld and Cheney, who encouraged Iraq to build up its weapons capabilities in the first place. The smoking gun is inon Iraq, it's right here at home.
Charles R. Steward III is a journalist in Texas and is a U.S. Army Veteran.
----
Alleged Al Qaeda Ties Questioned
Experts Scrutinize Details of Accusations Against Iraqi Government
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38235-2003Feb6?language=printer
Foreign government officials, experts in terrorism and a few members of Congress raised questions yesterday about the Bush administration's description of the connections between the Iraqi leadership and the al Qaeda terrorist network.
One of the most powerful disclosures made by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council Wednesday concerned a terrorist organization run by Abu Musab Zarqawi, 36, a Jordanian-born Palestinian. Powell described Zarqawi as an "associate" and "collaborator" of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Several experts described Powell's presentation as very strong in public relations terms, but they questioned the details of his description of the Zarqawi group and its relationship with Baghdad. A Washington terrorism expert who asked not to be identified said President Bush's depiction of Zarqawi yesterday as "a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner" raised similar questions.
Senior administration officials said that, although Zarqawi has ties to bin Laden's group, he is not under al Qaeda control or direction. "They have common goals," one intelligence analyst said, "but he [Zarqawi] is outside bin Laden's circle. He is not sworn al Qaeda."
Another senior administration official said Zarqawi started out as a Palestinian terrorist whose first known operation was carried out with Jordanians who had come together during the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The operation was an attempt in late 1999 to blow up the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman, Jordan, which was frequented by Israeli and American tourists.
In his U.N. address, Powell said Zarqawi's network represents a potentially "more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network" than the connections Baghdad previously had with terrorist groups such as the Palestine Liberation Front, which it had supplied with money, small arms and explosives. Powell said Zarqawi has a "cell" in Baghdad from which associates "coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network."
Senior U.S. officials, contacted by telephone yesterday, said that, although the Iraqi government is aware of the group's activity, it does not operate, control or sponsor it.
Zarqawi's network, Powell said, maintains a camp in northeastern Kurdish Iraq -- territory not controlled by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- that is within a small enclave ruled by an Islamic fundamentalist group called Ansar al-Islam. Powell said Baghdad has an "agent" in "the most senior levels" of Ansar, implying a special relationship with the Hussein government.
A senior government official said U.S. intelligence has no direct knowledge of what the "agent" does. "He may be spying on the Ansar group. He may be a liaison with Baghdad," the official said. "Saddam Hussein likes to keep an eye on such groups."
Ansar is at war with the Kurdish groups in northern Iraq that are protected by the United States. "We used to say there was no connection [between Hussein and the Zarqawi group]," said a senior foreign official supportive of the administration's Iraq policy. "You've got this camp of nutters up there in Kurdistan. Now there are some more indications of more connections, but what they mean and where they lead" are not clear.
The exiled former head of Ansar, Mullah Krekar, told the Guardian newspaper of London yesterday that he has no links with Iraqi leaders. "I am against Saddam Hussein," he said from his home in Oslo. "I want [Iraq] to change into an Islamic regime."
At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) asked Powell why no military action has been taken against the Ansar camp since U.S. officials became aware of it in August. Noting that he was in Kurdistan last summer, Biden said there were reports at the time that an attack against the camp was planned.
Powell responded that there had been intelligence monitoring of the camp. "It's been occupied and unoccupied since last summer," he said. As for why no military action has been taken, Powell told Biden that he could not talk about "specific military contingency plans."
Powell said the United States has been "tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," a surveillance effort that enabled him "to make the presentation that I made yesterday." The tracing of those individuals and the testimony of one detainee helped Powell connect Zarqawi's network to plotted terrorist attacks in Europe during his U.N. presentation.
In his remarks at the White House after meeting with Powell yesterday, Bush said Zarqawi's network "was caught producing poisons in London."
However, senior administration officials said a connection with Zarqawi "is still being investigated," a statement echoed by London law enforcement officials quoted in British newspapers.
-------
Envoy Who Represents U.S. To Leave Iraq
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38067-2003Feb6?language=printer
The United States plans to inform Iraq on Saturday that it is withdrawing the Polish ambassador who represents U.S. matters in Baghdad and closing its Polish-run interests section, moves that traditionally signal the coming of hostilities, knowledgeable sources said yesterday.
Several days ago the two ambassadors to Baghdad from Poland, one who represents Poland and one who represents U.S. diplomatic interests, abruptly left for Amman, Jordan, for "consultations," these sources confirmed. They are unlikely to return.
The move would leave about 100 Americans, mostly the U.S.-born spouses of Iraqi citizens and Iraqis born in the United States, with no representation. The State Department has repeatedly warned those U.S. citizens to leave for their own safety.
The pullout involves only a few diplomats. Several operate the interests section, and others maintain the former U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad.
Poland has represented the United States since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Polish agents smuggled six U.S. intelligence officers out of Iraq.
The intelligence officers eluded Iraqis, and spent weeks on the run in Kuwait and Baghdad while White House and CIA officials searched for a way to save them. Eventually, officials turned to the Poles, who had connections throughout Iraq because of their construction work there. With the help of a senior spy flown from Warsaw, the intelligence officers gained refuge at a Polish construction camp and escaped through Turkey.
Polish and U.S. intelligence services continue to "cooperate quite closely," one Polish official said yesterday.
State Department officials declined to comment last night.
As recently as Monday, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States had not asked Poland to end its representation in Iraq. "We are always in very close touch with our Polish friends and colleagues regarding all the issues that might affect their personnel there," Boucher said.
-------- latin america
Four Cuban Coastguardsmen defect to U.S.
February 7, 2003
UPI
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030207-094320-4910r.htm
KEY WEST, Fla., Feb. 7 -- Four members of the Cuban Coast Guard arrived in Key West and surrendered to police Friday, a police spokesman said.
Public Information Officer Cynthia Edwards said they left Cuba in a "go-fast" patrol boat at 1 a.m. and arrived three hours later in Key West where police confiscated two AK-47 assault weapons and a Chinese-made handgun.
"They men were taken to the Monroe County Detention Center where they are awaiting pickup by the Border Patrol. They're on their way now," Edwards said.
Under the nation's wet-foot, dry-foot policy, the four men are likely to be allowed to remain in the United States, although they are expected to undergo debriefing and other processing before they are released.
Under the policy, if a Cuban refugee is intercepted at sea, he or she is returned to Cuba. But refugees who make it to shore without detection are usually allowed to stay.
The issues of homeland security, and how an armed military vessel was able to reach the United States undetected was not immediately addressed.
Edwards said a police officer "was patrolling in 'Old Town' when he was approached by four men in camouflage uniforms from the Cuban Coast Guard. One of the men had a holstered Chinese handgun. He held his hand away from the gun and the officer took it from him."
She said he also had two fully loaded ammunition magazines.
Another man told the officer he was a 14-year veteran of the Cuban Coast Guard.
She said officers found the boat docked at the Hyatt Resort Marina. "They had docked there and started walking around Key West," she said.
Investigators found two AK47 assault weapons and eight fully loaded magazines aboard the speed boat.
The U.S. Coast Guard took the boat to the Key West Coast Guard Station.
----
Venezuela: Chavez Changes Currency System
Controls Aimed at Punishing Strikers
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38084-2003Feb6?language=printer
CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb. 6 -- Emboldened after outlasting a long general strike, President Hugo Chavez today established a new foreign exchange mechanism and warned that the system would punish those who used the strike in an effort to drive him from power.
The new currency system was one of a series of legal and economic retaliatory moves threatened by Chavez following the collapse of the two-month general strike. The new monetary system is intended to protect Venezuela's foreign reserves by setting a fixed rate for the dollar.
Chavez also established a new currency control board that will decide who can receive dollars in exchange for Venezuela's weakened currency, the bolivar, and set maximum prices for basic food products, medicine, transportation, tuitions and rent. The government suspended trading of the bolivar on Jan. 22 as it plummeted in value against the dollar in the midst of the crippling general strike.
During a speech earlier this week, Chavez pledged that there would not be "a single dollar more for coup plotters," prompting business leaders to warn today that the new system would be used to punish them for their political opposition. The president named a retired army captain, Edgar Hernandez Behrens, who participated with Chavez in a failed coup against the government 11 years ago, to head the currency board.
Carlos Fernandez, the chief opposition leader who heads Fedecamaras, the country's largest business association, said Chavez's threat to withhold dollars from companies that participated in the strike would affect 80 percent to 90 percent of the private sector.
"The most serious part of this is the discretion the government will have over who gets dollars and who does not," Fernandez said. "These businesses will have no way to maintain stable prices for the products they import. This completely violates the state of law and will represent a huge disruption of the market."
Chavez said the moves were necessary to protect the nation's battered economy.
"We have taken steps in time to avoid capital flight," Chavez said in a triumphant national address that began Wednesday night and lasted into this morning. "We have arrived at the ideal solution to defend Venezuela's economy."
A self-styled revolutionary, Chavez has emerged from the general strike invigorated by his opponents' failure to force him from office or submit to early elections. But in surviving the broad-based move against him, Chavez now faces the more challenging task of governing a country in dire financial straits. Some economists here predict that Venezuela's economy could shrink by as much as 25 percent this year, and the government has been forced to reduce its budget by 10 percent, or $2.5 billion, for the year ahead.
Much of the resistance to Chavez since he was first elected in 1998 on a pledge to bring about a "social revolution" on behalf of the country's poor majority has come from the private sector and the state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela. But he is using the strike and its aftermath to weaken those pockets of opposition. So far, Chavez has fired 5,100 dissident oil-company employees, some of whom participated in a walkout in April that ended with his brief ouster in a military-led coup, while moving today to impose currency controls that could greatly strengthen the government's influence over private industry.
At the same time, Chavez has hardened his position in negotiations being mediated by the secretary general of the Organization of American States, Cesar Gaviria, to end the standoff. Chavez ruled out a proposed constitutional amendment this week that would cut his current six-year term to four years, leading to new elections next year. In contrast to the conciliatory tone he adopted after returning to office in April, Chavez has also embarked on a round of score-settling with his political opponents.
On Wednesday, the government began investigating a national television station owned by Gustavo Cisneros, a media magnate and Chavez opponent. The inquiry will focus on the truthfulness of the station's broadcasts during the strike. Government investigators were joined at Venevision by 1,000 Chavez supporters, who rallied outside the station for hours. A day earlier mobs attacked City Hall in Caracas, run by opposition Mayor Alfredo Peña, with stones and scattered gunfire. Chavez has not condemned either attack.
"This is a chain reaction," said Felipe Mujica, a congressman from the Movement Toward Socialism party and a member of the opposition umbrella organization known as the Democratic Coordinator. "It's clear that his goal right now is to intimidate and harass the opposition. He knows the cost to the country has been high, but he is trying to use it now to deepen the conflict and carry out the rest of his project."
In his address this morning, Chavez warned that the opposition would now resort to "economic terrorism" in its bid to remove him from power. He acknowledged that the government has already spent $507 million to import unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel since the strike began.
But he said his efforts to restart the state oil company, many of whose workers are still striking, have brought production to 1.9 million barrels a day, or almost two-thirds of its capacity before the strike started. The company provides the government with nearly half its revenue, and the United States with 15 percent of its oil imports.
Since the strike began, Venezuela has used roughly $2 billion of its foreign currency reserves -- or about 25 percent of its pre-strike holdings -- to prop up the bolivar and finance a makeshift supply system that has kept the country in food and gasoline. Chavez said the country still has enough foreign exchange to finance imports for 10 months if necessary.
-------- mideast
Kuwait's Landscape of Tents and Tanks
U.S. and British Forces Flood Northern Desert As Buildup Continues
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38101-2003Feb6?language=printer
CAMP ARIFJAN, Kuwait, Feb. 6 -- The main Kuwaiti port bustles with ships disgorging containers. The international airport and nearby air base roar with the engines of transport planes unloading column after column of soldiers. The highways are jammed with troop convoys heading to camps that did not exist weeks ago.
And parked here at the U.S. Army's main staging area are acres and acres of tanks, armored vehicles, Humvees, bulldozers, forklifts, trucks and tankers as far as the eye can see.
During the past few weeks, the U.S. military has transformed Kuwait into an armed camp, dramatizing predictions from officials and analysts that war with Iraq is likely within weeks. More than 50,000 U.S. military personnel have arrived, from the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force. More are on the way. By next week, Kuwaiti officials predict, 80,000 foreign troops will be in place, roughly the equivalent of 10 percent of Kuwait's native-born population.
British troops have begun arriving as well, judging by the recent proliferation of accents and uniforms in the mess hall at Camp Arifjan, 40 miles south of Kuwait City, as well as the Union Jack flying over Camp Doha, the main U.S. base just west of the capital. Britain, which had already ordered 35,000 troops to leave for the Persian Gulf region, announced today that another 100 warplanes and 7,000 support personnel are on the way.
"The reception stage is winding up," said Brig. Gen. Vincent Boles, head of Army Materiel Command operations here, in charge of supplying soldiers with everything from food and water to tents and tanks. "We've gone from zero to 60, and we'll probably go to 90 soon. . . . Since the beginning of January, there have been ships with cargo being downloaded every day and there have been planes every day. There has been a constant flow of soldiers in here."
Boles said in an interview that he has enough equipment for four heavy brigades on the ground, meaning more than a full Army division, which typically includes at least 15,000 soldiers divided into three brigades. In addition to the Army combat units, Air Force and Marine personnel, and thousands of logistical and support staff, have been dispatched.
"There's enough here to do what we need to do," said Lt. Col. Ray Langlais, commander of the combat equipment battalion at Camp Arifjan.
The Marines have their own supply units. During a visit with troops in Kuwait this week, Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine Corps commandant, told reporters that the past few weeks of buildup have been sufficient to prepare his troops to begin an attack against Iraq immediately if President Bush gave the order. "We are ready now," he said.
The arrival of tens of thousands of foreign troops has sharply altered the landscape here in this 6,880-square-mile emirate on the Persian Gulf. Driving down the road outside Kuwait City, it is almost impossible not to run across a long line of military vehicles moving troops or equipment.
Even those vehicles are not enough for such a huge operation; the military has snapped up nearly every available four-wheel-drive vehicle in the country. Every morning hundreds of identical Mitsubishi Pajeros snake toward the checkpoint at Camp Doha, the main base for U.S. land forces in Kuwait.
More tents go up with each passing hour, some of them equipped with air conditioning and electrical connections, others less comfortable out in the rugged desert north of Kuwait City. The military has set up whole tent cities in the sand, some of them named after the states associated with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- Camp New York, Camp Virginia and Camp Pennsylvania.
"It may be that people are arriving tonight and somebody's putting up a tent today, but there will be a place for them to sleep," said Joyce Taylor, a civilian employee at the Army Materiel Command who oversees hundreds of civilian contractors scrambling to stay ahead of the curve. "You may go out in the morning and say, 'There's no way this will be ready,' and by evening it will be ready."
The Kuwaiti government has done everything it can to ease the way for the Americans and Britons, reserving a quarter of the country for them to operate without interference. Starting Feb. 15, the government will expand the "no-go zone" to cover the entire northern half of Kuwait, keeping out civilians without special permits.
While their compatriots arrive, the soldiers already here spend their days training, setting up bases and receiving their equipment. Even without hostilities, the military buildup has yielded a few casualties. One soldier was killed and four others were injured in a traffic accident outside Camp Arifjan this afternoon. Last week a soldier was shot in the abdomen during a live-fire training exercise in the Kuwaiti desert. And the day before that, a soldier and a civilian contractor were injured when a 25mm round exploded inside the turret of their Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
Next week, officials will hold perhaps the most important exercise, involving few troops but most of their top commanders. Lucky Warrior, a computer-generated, command-post exercise, will test the U.S. forces' command-and-control systems in a dry run for a drive north across the Iraqi border.
Beyond Britain, few other countries have sent troops. Australia has announced that it is dispatching forces. The Czech Republic has deployed a battalion of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons specialists, as has Germany, which today conducted a public display of its capabilities despite past reluctance to highlight its presence.
Much of the burden of outfitting the U.S. troops arriving each day has fallen on Boles and his team here at Camp Arifjan. A sprawling, isolated patch of desert far from the Iraqi border, the camp serves as the rear depot where thousands of troops and civilians labor to unload equipment, service the M-1 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles and distribute gear from latrines to portable kitchens.
The military had planned to move its Kuwait headquarters here from Camp Doha in 2005 at the request of the local government. But the Iraq crisis forced the military to move into Arifjan in October, without abandoning Doha. When the initial units arrived in October, there was no water and no permanent electricity. "It was real austere," said Langlais, the commander of the combat equipment battalion. "It's come a long way."
Today a gravel terrace of sorts, with plastic picnic tables and chairs, is surrounded by a gymnasium in a tent, a PX and newly arrived eateries such as Burger King, Subway and Baskin-Robbins, set up in trailers or shipping containers. Basketball hoops and volleyball nets are set up outside the mess hall. Three-story dormitories have been erected and are expected to be used as sleeping quarters soon.
Long rows of vehicles and shipping containers cover the desert floor, waiting for their combat units to retrieve them. A typical container might hold 50,000 to 60,000 pounds of equipment. Each day companies from the northern desert make their way down to Arifjan to claim gear.
In Kuwait, as well as aboard cargo ships around the world, the buildup has been eased considerably by the prepositioning of equipment since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. But officers are reluctant to give firm figures to describe the scope of their operation. "I don't think you can use the word, 'typical,' " said Langlais. "None of this is typical."
----
Turkey to Let U.S. Upgrade Bases
Officials Expect Action by Parliament Will Lead to Hosting of Troops
By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38083-2003Feb6?language=printer
ANKARA, Turkey, Feb. 6 -- Turkey's parliament today authorized the United States to renovate several military bases and ports for use in a war against Iraq, the first step in an unfolding decision to allow U.S. troops to use Turkish soil to open a northern front against President Saddam Hussein's government.
In a closed session and secret vote that underscored the deep anxiety here about the possible war, the parliament stopped short of giving the United States overall permission to station troops here. But Turkish officials and Western diplomats said that, with the government now pushing for it, permission is likely to be formally granted when parliament reconvenes after the Muslim holiday of Bayram, in about 12 days.
In a meeting with Turkish reporters Tuesday, Prime Minister Abdullah Gul said he expects parliament to vote Feb. 18 in favor of allowing U.S. troops to be based in Turkey, dropping the government's previous insistence on another U.N. Security Council vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq. A diplomat in Ankara said the government also has told the United States "that is their commitment."
U.S. war planners hope to funnel more than 30,000 U.S. soldiers into northern Iraq through the bases in Turkey, creating a threat that would draw Iraqi forces away from the south, where the United States could stage a major assault from Kuwait. In addition, the U.S. troops attacking from Turkey would likely be assigned to guard oil fields in northern Iraq.
Under Turkey's constitution, however, foreign forces can be allowed into the country only with approval from the parliament, known as the Grand National Assembly. The 308-to-193 vote today demonstrated strong discipline by the ruling Justice and Development Party, which controls almost two-thirds of parliament. Many of its members reportedly opposed the measure but were persuaded to approve it at the urging of the party leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
In a sign of how politically sensitive the issue is, however, the session was closed to the public and all records of the debate and vote were ordered sealed for 10 years. That sparked desk-banging and cries of outrage from opposition members -- images that were captured on television before coverage was suspended. "You are afraid of the people!" a legislator yelled.
Turkey, a key NATO ally of the United States, is overwhelmingly Muslim, and opinion surveys show that more than 80 percent of the public opposes a war against its Muslim neighbor to the south, with which Turkey shares a 218-mile border.
U.S. officials initially requested permission to station as many as 80,000 U.S. troops here, but the Turkish government said that only 15,000 to 20,000 would be allowed. After further negotiations, U.S. and Turkish officials are considering a force between 30,000 and 40,000 that would be "militarily capable and politically acceptable," a senior foreign official here said.
According to Turkish news accounts, two seaports and at least five military posts and air bases will be upgraded with improvements such as longer runways and new housing. The renovations could cost between $200 million and $300 million.
Officials declined to say how long the renovations would take or how quickly U.S. troops could be stationed here after the Feb. 18 vote. But they indicated that the United States continues to see the end of February or beginning of March as a probable time to begin a campaign against Iraq and said that U.S. planning continues to be based on opening a northern front.
"We understand the Turkish timetable and are prepared to work within it," a diplomat said today, referring to the United States. "If we start work tomorrow, we can get done what we need to do to get these forces here."
Although Turkey no longer demands a second Security Council resolution to authorize use of force, a senior Turkish official said: "We would prefer it. International legitimacy is important for us."
Turkish officials worry that Kurds in northern Iraq could make a bid for independence during or after a war, which might rekindle a separatist rebellion by Kurdish guerrillas in southeastern Turkey. In addition, Turks recall that the sanctions imposed against Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait have hurt the Turkish economy and complain that the United States did not deliver on financial pledges made during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. With that in mind, the United States has offered an economic package that could be worth as much as $14 billion in loans, grants and other aid.
U.S. and Western officials had said Turkey's reluctance to decide whether to permit U.S. forces was severely hampering war planning. By some accounts, U.S. military officials had wanted work on the bases to have been completed by now. The issue has been delayed principally because the new populist government that was elected in November was reluctant to tackle the politically unpopular cause.
In a speech Tuesday that marked a major about-face, Erdogan, who is likely to become prime minister after elections in March, told Justice and Development lawmakers that Iraq "isn't taking the necessary steps" to avoid a war, adding that Turkey has to be involved from the outset of any conflict to protect its strategic interests.
----
U.S. in Talks on Allowing Turkey to Occupy a Kurdish Area in Iraq
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By DEXTER FILKINS with C. J. CHIVERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/europe/07TURK.html
ANKARA, Turkey, Feb. 6 - American diplomats are engaged in delicate negotiations here that could allow tens of thousands of Turkish soldiers to occupy part of northern Iraq behind an advancing American army, Turkish and Kurdish officials said today.
A United States official confirmed that the negotiations were under way, but said that the Turks would be restricted to a limited area close to the border and that the numbers discussed by the Turks and Kurds were exaggerated.
The plan, which is being negotiated in closed-door meetings in Ankara, the Turkish capital, is being bitterly resisted by at least some leaders of Iraq's Kurdish groups, who fear that Turkey's leaders may be trying to realize a historic desire to dominate the region in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The Kurdish officials say they fear a military intervention by the Turks could also prompt Iran to cross the border and try to seize sections of eastern Iraq.
American diplomats and senior military commanders, led by President Bush's special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, are said to be encouraging the Kurdish leaders to accept the Turkish proposal. While Washington has strongly supported the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq over the past 12 years, it is eager to secure the permission of Turkey's leaders to use Turkey's bases for a possible attack on Iraq.
The proposed deal between the Americans and the Turks moved closer to fruition today when the Turkish Parliament voted to allow American engineers to begin preparing Turkish military bases for possible use by American troops. A vote on whether to allow American troops to use those bases is scheduled for Feb. 18.
The size of each projected military force - American and Turkish - is still unclear. American officials had sought to base as many as 80,000 troops in Turkey. But some Turkish officials have suggested that the American force will be significantly smaller, perhaps no more than 15,000 to 20,000. In negotiations today, Turkish officials said they wanted their forces to outnumber American ones by a ratio of two to one.
With a war looming, Turkey has sought assurances from the Americans that the toppling of Mr. Hussein would not result in the establishment of an independent Kurdish state, which it fears would encourage a revolt by Turkish Kurds.
Turkey's leaders are determined to prevent a repeat of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, when southeastern Turkey was swamped by a half million Kurdish refugees fleeing attacks by the Iraqi Army. Turkish officials say that pro-Kurdish guerrillas crossed into Turkey along with the refugees, igniting a bloody insurgency that the Turkish military has been battling ever since.
But some Kurds are making it clear that they do not want the Turks crossing Iraq's northern border.
"We have told the Americans and the Turks that any outside intervention would not be welcomed," said Safeen M. Dizayee, an official with the Iraq-based Kurdish Democratic Party, who took part in the talks. "I hope it would not get out of control. But it could be suicidal to get into something like this if it undermines political stability."
A United States official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the Turks were proposing to send troops into northern Iraq but said that their role would be sharply limited. The official said that the Turkish troops would be limited to a portion of Iraqi territory near the Turkish border, and that the forces would focus primarily on humanitarian problems and on discouraging people from fleeing to Turkey. Moreover, he said, the Turkish forces would be under American command and would not be mixing with the Kurdish troops.
"It would be in a limited area, close to the border," the official said.
One of the aims of the current negotiations, the official continued, was to bring the Kurds and the Turks to an understanding about a possible Turkish intervention.
Indeed, there were signs that Iraq's Kurdish leaders were showing a willingness to work with Turkey's new government, which has deep Islamic roots and won a majority of seats in the Turkish Parliament last November. Massoud Barzani, the leader of one of the two major Kurdish groups, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, was said to have felt comfortable with Turkey's leaders during a recent visit there.
"He was very impressed with the Turkish government," Fawzi Hariri, a party spokesman, said of Mr. Barzani. "He thought they were genuine and that he could trust them."
But statements by Turkish officials suggested that their plans might be more ambitious. A Turkish official confirmed today that his government was planning to send troops into northern Iraq in numbers that would exceed those dispatched by the Americans.
The Turkish officials echoed comments made Wednesday by the Turkish prime minister, Abdullah Gul. He suggested that the Turkish Army's role would go beyond humanitarian concerns to protecting Turkish interests in the region.
"Turkey is going to position herself in that region in order to prevent any possible massacres, or the establishment of a new state," Mr. Gul told Turkish reporters.
The Turkish official, like Mr. Gul, said the Turkish troops would not take part in combat with the Iraqis but would instead seek to prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. The official said the Turks could also check any re-emergence of the Kurdish insurgency that operated in southeastern Turkey during the 1990's.
The official made it clear that the Turkish troops would protect themselves if they came under attack.
In recent weeks the Turks have been building their forces on the border, and some 1,200 Turkish troops are already operating in parts of northern Iraq, mainly to hunt down pro-Kurdish guerrillas who might be trying to cross into Turkey.
Mr. Dizayee referred to the various Turkish rationales for intervention as "pretexts." Like many Kurdish leaders, Mr. Dizayee expressed pride in the democratic institutions the Kurds have built during their 12 years of autonomy. He expressed dismay at the prospect that those institutions might be swamped by an American-led military attack.
"We think these democratic institutions have set a precedent for the rest of Iraq," Mr. Dizayee said. "If they were undermined, it would reflect badly on the whole operation."
The American-led talks appear to be focused on choreographing the nearly simultaneous entry of American combat troops and Turkish soldiers into northern Iraq. One official with the other major Kurdish group, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said Mr. Khalilzad had called the meeting to give each group its final marching orders for what appears to be an imminent war.
One element of the plan, the Kurdish official said, was to ensure that both Turkish and Kurdish forces left the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk to the American forces. Those cities are the centers of oil production in the region, and Washington plans to grab the oil fields before either Iraq destroys them or the Kurds seize them.
The senior official with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said the Kurds were eagerly anticipating the arrival of American soldiers, but not that of the Turks.
"We regard America as liberators," the official said. "And our neighbors as looters."
-------- nato
THE ALLIANCE
NATO Is Torn Over Weapons for the Turks
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By THOMAS FULLER,
International Herald Tribune
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/europe/07NATO.html
BRUSSELS, Feb. 6 - Three NATO members blocked the deployment of defensive equipment to Turkey today, prolonging a deadlock that a United States diplomat said threatened the alliance's credibility.
With the other 16 members of NATO in favor of giving Turkey access to the equipment, the three dissenting countries - Belgium, France and Germany - were under strong pressure to change their minds.
An official at the NATO meeting said the American ambassador to the alliance, Nicholas Burns, told his colleagues that "NATO's credibility was on the line" and that "NATO has an obligation to defend an ally."
In an effort to break the deadlock, Lord Robertson, secretary general of the alliance, set in motion a special procedure that would require the dissenters to publicly state their objections. If none did so by Monday, he said, the package would be considered approved.
Turkey requested access to the equipment from its NATO allies last month in light of the threat of a war in Iraq. If the request is approved, Dutch Patriot missiles would be made available to the Turkish armed forces, and Awacs surveillance planes, operated collectively by NATO, could be dispatched to the Iraqi-Turkish border. Military units trained to deal with the effects of chemical and biological weapons are also part of the package.
In addition to sending the equipment to Turkey, NATO allies would be called upon to defend American bases in Europe and to replace troops sent to the Persian Gulf from the alliance's peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Diplomats said the requested equipment would be used "for defensive purposes only." A provision that would have allowed the use of NATO equipment to send troops into combat in Iraq was removed from the package as a concession to the dissenters.
Separately, diplomats said the alliance had agreed this week to collectively patrol the western Mediterranean because "we now perceive a terrorist threat" in that area, a senior NATO official said.
There was no immediate comment from Germany or France on whether they would drop their objections to the Turkish assistance package. The Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, said before the start of the meeting that it was "premature to take a decision now," but he added that Belgium did not "reject that possibility out of hand."
The war issue is particularly sensitive in Belgium with national elections scheduled for May. At least two parties in the governing coalition have taken strong pacifist stands and are expected to oppose any steps by NATO related to a war in Iraq.
-------- pakistan
Minister denies terrorist presence
By Kathy Gannon
ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 7, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030207-31090920.htm
PESHAWAR, Pakistan - The chief minister of Pakistan's North West Frontier province yesterday denied the presence of Taliban or al Qaeda fighters in territory he controls along the border with Afghanistan and demanded a withdrawal of all American forces from the region.
In an interview, Akram Durrani insisted there was no terrorist threat in his province and said Pakistan's federal government should expel U.S. forces from bases in Pakistan being used to support the war against terrorism in Afghanistan.
"We don't have any al Qaeda or Taliban here," said Mr. Durrani, who heads a conservative Islamic coalition that won power in the province last year. "Absolutely, there is nothing here, and we don't want any foreigners here."
He was speaking of American Special Forces that work with Pakistani troops in the tribal regions that border Afghanistan and FBI agents who have been on several raids with Pakistani security forces against Islamic schools and homes in the province.
"It's time for the United States to rebuild its relationship with Pakistan," Mr. Durrani said in Peshawar, the provincial capital 120 miles northwest of the federal capital of Islamabad.
Mr. Durrani's coalition, made up of some of the most radical of Pakistan's Islamic political parties, won impressively in October's general elections on a staunch anti-American platform.
The coalition struck a chord with Pakistanis, particularly in North West Frontier province and neighboring Baluchistan, the country's most conservative regions that both border Afghanistan.
The two provinces are critical for the United States and the global war against terror because their mountainous tribal regions are believed to have furnished sanctuary for al Qaeda and Taliban forces fleeing coalition troops in Afghanistan.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has generated criticism from the country's conservative Islamists by supporting the U.S.-led hunt in Afghanistan for remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda, including the network's leader, Osama bin Laden.
Gen. Musharraf, who has said until recently that bin Laden may be dead, yesterday further backed off that belief, saying he could have survived U.S. bombing and may be hiding in the Afghan mountains near Pakistan.
But bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist, is definitely not in Pakistan, Gen. Musharraf said in Moscow.
Bin Laden's whereabouts are unknown, but U.S. intelligence officials also believe he may be hiding in the mountainous border region.
Gen. Musharraf voiced skepticism about Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's assertion that Iraq had ties with al Qaeda before September 11 through Iraq's embassy in Pakistan.
"We don't think any such activities took place," he said. "At least, we don't have any information or intelligence on this. If [Mr. Powell] has the intelligence and information, we need to analyze whatever information he has."
Mr. Powell made his assertion during his presentation of evidence against Iraq at the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday.
-------- russia
Russia opposes second Iraq resolution
February 7, 2003
UPI
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030207-081551-3133r.htm
MOSCOW, Feb. 7 -- Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Friday that Moscow opposes a second U.N. Security Council resolution that would authorize military action against Iraq.
Ivanov said there is currently no need for such a measure, insisting the crisis can still be resolved politically.
"We see no basis for adopting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would open the way for the use of force against Iraq," he said.
Ivanov's comments came one day after President George W. Bush challenged the United Nations Security Council to back up its words with deeds in the showdown with Iraq if it wants to retain international credibility.
"The game is over," he said of Saddam Hussein's cat-and-mouse, hide-and-seek game with U.N. weapons inspectors searching for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam, he said, would continue with new ploys to stall and deceive the international community, but time for action had come.
Many of America's Western European allies -- Germany and France, for example -- oppose force and want international inspectors to continue their work in Iraq indefinitely. Also against military action is China, which along with Russia and France hold veto power on the council and could thwart any U.S. hopes of gaining a new resolution specifically authorizing the use of force. Washington does not believe it needs the resolution, but some countries are hedging their participation in a "coalition of the willing" on such a document.
The United States argues that a new Security Council resolution is not needed to authorize force to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but many other countries are pushing for such a resolution before committing themselves to action.
Bush said the United States will agree to a strong, new U.N. resolution that compels Saddam to disarm, but the United States will not wait for the Iraq to comply. Bush challenged the United Nations to act.
In November, the 15-member Security Council voted unanimously for Resolution 1441, which finds Iraq in material breach of earlier disarmament mandates and invokes unspecified "serious consequences" for any new failure to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors.
The European Union on Thursday welcomed U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's case against Hussein, but remained deeply divided over how to disarm the Iraqi dictator.
(With contributions from White House Correspondent Richard Tomkins)
----
Russia seeks a share of Iraqi oil
By Timothy Burn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20030207-25509979.htm
One of Russia's top oil executives said yesterday that his country wants an equal stake in Iraq's oil market and that its petroleum industry is stable enough to withstand a drop in oil prices that could come after a war in Iraq.
"We are hoping that after all of this ends the Americans are not going to take everything for themselves," Mikhail Khodorkovsky, chairman and chief executive of Yukos Oil Co., Russia's second-largest oil and gas company, told editors and reporters at The Washington Times.
Yukos would "be very happy" if the United States delayed any military operation "for another two years," he said. "A price of $30 per barrel is real nice. But we know that all good things must come to an end. The Russian oil industry is basically ready for the next period of when oil prices are going to be lower."
Mr. Khodorkovsky's comments come as Russia is flexing new economic muscle as the world's second-leading producer of oil, after Saudi Arabia. Russia currently produces about 7 million barrels of oil a day for the world market, and Mr. Khodorkovsky said that Russia could be producing more if it improved its oil transportation network.
Crude oil prices are at two-year highs amid heightened uncertainty about a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Crude oil prices for spot delivery yesterday rose 23 cents to $34.16 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Some oil industry analysts say a swift and successful war with Iraq would cause oil prices to tumble.
Strong oil prices in recent years have helped to revive Russia's oil industry, which was left in disarray for several years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Internal reforms of Russian oil companies and national tax laws, coupled with increased production, have swiftly turned Russian oil executives like Mr. Khodorkovsky, 40, into Western-style tycoons.
Mr. Khodorkovsky said Russia's oil industry is now in a strong position and that Russian companies will be able to prosper even if prices fall below $18 per barrel in the coming year.
Yukos continues to grow. Its oil production is rising by 6 percent to 8 percent annually. Yukos and the rest of Russia's oil sector are eager to tap further into the Western marketplace.
But oil transportation bottlenecks threaten to limit the number of customers for their oil.
While much of Russia's oil goes to Europe, Yukos is realizing that U.S. ports are too far away for it to be cost-competitive with other U.S. suppliers like Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.
Yukos, in a bid to demonstrate its interest in linking up with Western markets, last summer sent a supertanker of Russian oil directly to the United States for the first time. But transportation issues will have to be ironed out before regular shipments from Russia to the United States become profitable.
Yukos last month joined three other companies in announcing a new pipeline that will carry oil from western Siberia to the deepwater port of Murmansk in northern Russia. Mr. Khodorkovsky noted that Murmansk was the port that the United States used to send lend-lease aid to help supply Russia during World War II.
Murmansk is closer to U.S. East Coast ports by water than Saudi Arabia. But it is not clear when the construction of that pipeline project, which is being controlled by the Russian government, will be completed.
"Unfortunately the government is not expanding pipeline capacity as quickly as we would like it to," Mr. Khodorkovsky said. "It is also not allowing us, the private oil companies, to help expand it more quickly."
-------- spies
Secret video refers to CIA killing Mugabe
By Angus Shaw in Harare
February 7 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498914661.html
A political consultant told the Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai he had recruited the CIA to "eliminate" President Robert Mugabe, according to a video played in court on Wednesday.
On the secretly recorded video played at Tsvangirai's treason trial, Ari Ben Menashe also told the opposition leader his firm had lobbied the US Congress to back a plan to remove Mr Mugabe.
Mr Ben Menashe is the Zimbabwean Government's star witness in the case against Tsvangirai on charges he was trying to kill Mr Mugabe and stage a coup.
Tsvangirai and two colleagues in the Movement for Democratic Change say they were framed to weaken the opposition. They could face the death penalty if convicted.
On the third day of the trial, the prosecution continued to play segments from the video of a meeting between Tsvangirai and Mr Ben Menashe.
The tape, recorded by ceiling-level cameras in the consultant's offices in Montreal on December4, 2001, shows Mr Ben Menashe becoming angry when Tsvangirai said constitutional succession would have to be followed if Mr Mugabe was no longer in office.
"We do our thing. We eliminate or assassinate Mugabe or whatever ... then you say: now there's a constitutional process," Mr Ben Menashe said on the recording.
He added: "This is a different story. Work has been done on your behalf to get stuff to Congress. Work has been done to get these guys on your side to do the elimination on your behalf" as he pointed to a man at the table he had earlier identified as a CIA official who gave his name as Edward Simms.
On the tape, Simms told Tsvangirai he needed a "a clear and concise commitment" of involvement in Mr Mugabe's removal and steps to be taken afterwards.
Tsvangirai is shown walking out of the meeting. Mr Ben Menashe testified on Wednesday that the opposition leader was "upset".
The opposition leaders say Tsvangirai stormed out of the meeting when he realised where Mr Ben Menashe's remarks were headed.
Judge Paddington Garwe ruled the court would view the entire tape and rule on its value as evidence later.
----
Regan data no secret, witnesses say
By Arlo Wagner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030207-80052264.htm
Security specialists testified yesterday that missile-site information carried by spy suspect Brian Patrick Regan was outdated, of no value to Iraq and China and should not have been classified top-secret.
"That information was not damaging because it was publicly known," said Maynard Anderson, former acting deputy secretary of defense for security policy who has helped formulate the presidential order for security.
By contrast, the information disclosed Wednesday to the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell could be damaging, but it was necessary for officials to illustrate the dangers posed by Iraq, Mr. Anderson said.
"Far-fetched" was how Alan Shaw described concerns that two papers possessed by Sgt. Regan when he was arrested Aug. 23, 2001, endangered the United States and aided Iraq and China. Mr. Shaw is a director of the Office of Technology Assessment and has had security clearance since 1974.
The papers, introduced as evidence in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, listed the geological coordinates of missile sites in Iraq and China. Prosecutors claim the information would have provided revelations about America's satellite imaging and helped those adversaries set up defenses.
Mr. Shaw's testimony was the last in defense of Sgt. Regan, who is charged with three counts of attempted espionage and one count of illegally gathering national security information.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are expected to give closing arguments when the trial, which began Jan. 27, resumes Monday. Sgt. Regan, 40, could face the death penalty, a first for an American spy since 1953 when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted for passing information to Russia.
Five specialists on security, computers and satellite intelligence testified in behalf of the retired Air Force master sergeant, who had worked in the supersecret National Reconnaissance Office in Chantilly.
Several testified that the information that FBI agents seized from Sgt. Regan at Washington Dulles International Airport and from his Bowie home and Gateway computer was public knowledge available on the Internet, some newspapers, other publications and from commercial and foreign satellites.
Computer forensics specialist Donald Allison testified that the FBI may have made incorrect copies from Sgt. Regan's computer. Mr. Allison testified similarly in the trial of terrorist suspect Zacarias Moussaoui.
Cross-examined by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Gillis, Mr. Allison acknowledged that computer hard-drive errors are only one bit in billions. He also said the FBI had done as he recommended by making copies rather than researching the hard drive repeatedly.
Mr. Shaw said some information is classified uselessly because it has become common knowledge through publications and advances in technology.
Both Iraq and China certainly knew about the geological coordinates listed by Sgt. Regan, Mr. Shaw said, pointing out that China had been working with Strategic Air Missiles since receiving them in the 1960s from Russia.
He agreed with defense attorney Jonathan Shapiro that it is "reasonable to believe that Iraq, Iran [and] Libya know that every inch of their territory is seen by U.S. satellites."
Most of the evidence is unseen by courtroom spectators. Much of it is classified as secret or top-secret and is shown on video screens only to the jurors and court officials.
Prosecutors have said Sgt. Regan sought $13 million for the information. They said evidence indicated he wanted the money deposited into banks in Switzerland. He was about to board a plane to Switzerland when arrested.
--------
Japan Prepares Spy Satellite
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Japan-Rocket.html
TOKYO (AP) -- Shrouded in secrecy and guarded by gunboats, Japan's latest rocket arrived Friday at the country's secluded space center, where officials are quietly preparing to launch Japan's first spy satellites in response to North Korea.
The launch is likely to be the most clandestine to date by Japan's space program, due to its payload and the current international standoff over North Korea's nuclear programs.
The project was nearly four years in the making and originally envisioned as an advanced warning system against North Korean military moves.
But officials from Japan's National Space Development Agency were mum about details Friday, as coast guard patrol boats escorted a ship carrying rocket parts to the southern island of Tanegashima, where Japan has its launching pad.
Spokeswoman Yuko Kubota would not confirm media reports that the shipment contained Japan's two-stage H-2A rocket, although she said it was part of the launch. The truck-sized rocket containers, usually bearing the National Space Development Agency logo, were bare and a squad of riot police secured the port as they unloaded, according to Kyodo news agency.
Japan announced last year that it planned to launch the two earth observation satellites by the end of March.
But as the launch date nears and relations with North Korea deteriorate, space agency officials have declined to discuss details, including the launching timeline.
Kubota cited the payload for the extra precautions and said the stepped up security on the island may be extended to include a ban on press coverage of the launch itself.
Japan usually welcomes news coverage of its beleaguered and cash-strapped space program. It has launched four H-2A rockets, most recently in December when one lifted off with an Australian satellite -- Japan's first launch with an international payload.
The March mission is partly the outgrowth of strained relations with North Korea.
The Japanese government decided to build the satellites after North Korea test-fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan and into the Pacific in 1998. The test alarmed Tokyo and underlined the need for Japan to better monitor its communist neighbor.
The satellites will be able to take still photos of objects on the ground as small as a yard across in any weather conditions. And they can also be positioned above any target in the world within 24-hours notice, space officials have said.
The satellites will orbit earth at a height of 250 miles to 370 miles and should have a life span of about five years.
-------- un
Bush Puts More Pressure on Iraq and U.N. Members
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By JOEL BRINKLEY
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/middleeast/07cnd-iraq.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 - Turning up the heat on Iraq, President Bush worked today to persuade reluctant members of the Security Council to support a new resolution authorizing military action, but he made no apparent headway with the French.
"The U.N. Security Council has got to make up its mind soon as to whether or not its word means anything," Mr. Bush said at a swearing-in ceremony today for his new Treasury secretary, John W. Snow. "This is defining moment for the U.N. Security Council."
But President Jacques Chirac of France, speaking on French television, said: "There's still an alternative to war. It's the responsibility of each member of the Security Council to explore all the possibilities to the end."
Also today, the United States ordered another aircraft carrier to Iraq, the fifth, and military officials said American forces in the region now numbered 113,000 - enough to carry out an attack in concert with an air assault, officials said. On Thursday, the army's 101st Airborne Division, the military's largest air assault unit, received orders to send more than 15,000 troops and nearly 300 combat helicopters to the Persian Gulf.
The government also raised the terrorist threat level, saying the nation faced a high risk of an attack, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced this afternoon.
The decision, Mr. Ashcroft said, was based on an increase in intelligence "from multiple sources" pointing to a possible attack by Al Qaeda at the time of the Haj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to the holy Saudi city of Mecca. Apartment buildings, hotels and and other places where security is relatively light may be targets in the United States and other countries, he said.
United Nations weapons inspectors are scheduled to meet with Iraqi officials over the weekend to discuss their clear, public concern that Iraqi compliance with last fall's Security Council resolution calling for disarmament has been inadequate. After that, the inspectors are to report to the Security Council on Feb. 14. Jean-David Levitte, the French Ambassador to Washington, said France would not decide whether to alter its position until after that report.
"We want more active cooperation," Mr. Levitte said, speaking to the United State Institute of Peace, a government-financed research group. "We'll see on the 14th where we are, and we'll decide together what are the next steps. In the meantime, he said, "let's have the inspectors do their job."
But President Bush appears to have made up his mind already. Speaking of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the president said, "If he wanted to disarm, he would have disarmed" already.
Mr. Hussein, he added, has "treated the demands of the world as a joke."
Mr. Bush spoke by phone to two members of the Security Council who remain recalcitrant, in his view: France and China. Neither offered him much solace. Speaking to Jiang Zemin, the Chinese premier this morning, Mr. Bush was told that China, like France, wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time, the Xinhua news agency reported.
Later in the day Mr. Bush spoke to Mr. Chirac, who told him, that they share a common objective, disarming Iraq. Still, Mr. Chirac added, "we can disarm Saddam Hussein without going to war," his spokesman reported after the phone call.
Both France and China hold the power to veto any new Security Council resolution to authorize war. Britain has suggested it will offer one next week.
Almost every French official with responsibility in this area took the opportunity to speak out against war today. Jean-Marc de la Sablière, the French ambassador to the United Nations, said: "The time has not come" for another resolution.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld took a slap at the French this afternoon, suggesting that it is France's policy to be contrary.
"They are frequently recalcitrant about a lot of things," he said in an interview with the Chicago television station WFLD, made public by the Pentagon today. "Any given day or week, their role in NATO, they seem to be the country that disagrees with a lot of other countries."
Mr. Rumsfeld lived in Chicago before becoming defense secretary.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Thursday evening, Mr. Bush seemed not terribly concerned about the opposition he faces from France and other countries.
"The United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime," the president said. He added that he expected Mr. Hussein to begin another round of "empty concessions and transparently false denials."
"No doubt he will play a last-minute game of deception," Mr. Bush said.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the Security Council on Wednesday, laying out intelligence evidence against Iraq, was effective among the American public, several opinion polls have found. They showed that the number of Americans who supported the idea of a war against Iraq increased in the last 48 hours.
Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, seemed to stand behind the president's Iraq policy today, saying Mr. Bush's comments "put Saddam Hussein on notice and send a message to the United Nations that if they are going to act, they have to act soon."
In Baghdad today, Agence France-Presse reported, the United States said it would close its last remaining diplomatic station in Iraq, the American interest section housed in the Polish embassy.
----
WASHINGTON
U.S. Ready to Back New U.N. Measure on Iraq, Bush Says
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By ERIC SCHMITT with JULIA PRESTON
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/middleeast/07IRAQ.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 - The United States stepped up the political and military pressure on Iraq today, signaling that it would welcome a second United Nations resolution authorizing war to disarm Baghdad. It also ordered the 101st Airborne Division to the Persian Gulf, where more than 100,000 American troops are massed, a total that could double by the end of the month.
President Bush said he was open to seeking a new Security Council resolution to support using military might to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and challenged the Council to back up its words with action to force President Saddam Hussein to comply.
"The United States would welcome and support a new resolution which makes clear that the Security Council stands behind its previous demands; yet resolutions mean little without resolve," Mr. Bush told reporters at the White House.
Anticipating an effort by Iraq to string out the inspections and to drive a wedge between members of the Security Council by appearing to cooperate, Mr. Bush made clear that he would have none of it.
"Saddam Hussein can now be expected to begin another round of empty concessions, transparently false denials," the president said. "No doubt he will play a last-minute game of deception. The game is over."
Even as the Bush administration kept open the diplomatic door, the Army's 101st Airborne, which is the military's largest air assault unit and is known as the Screaming Eagles, received orders to send more than 15,000 troops and nearly 300 combat helicopters from Fort Campbell, Ky., to the Persian Gulf, military officials said.
The decision to send the division, which has fought in America's battles from World War II to Afghanistan, underscores the importance the Pentagon is placing on fast-moving forces in a war with Iraq. It also appears to set one of the last major military pieces in place before an offensive begins to oust Mr. Hussein.
Once the 101st Division's equipment is loaded aboard ships in Jacksonville, Fla., and other East Coast ports, sailing time to the Persian Gulf is about three weeks.
The latest deployment order came as there were signs that Iraq was beginning to bend under the military and diplomatic pressure. An Iraqi scientist agreed to be interviewed in private, without a government witness. United Nations officials said it was also possible that Baghdad would soon allow U-2 surveillance flights over its territory.
A day after Mr. Powell presented evidence to the Security Council that he said showed Iraq was deceiving inspectors in its determination to conceal or obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, many experts said there were signs that France was preparing for a possible shift in position.
France's only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, sailed this week from the southern port of Toulon for exercises in the Mediterranean. French media have reported that the country's military is engaged in a hurried effort to retrofit munitions so they would be compatible with American weapons.
France's former army chief of staff, Jacques Lanxade, told a French newspaper that the nation could send as many as 12,000 troops to Iraq if it comes to war.
Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, speaking during a trip to India, said: "We're not systematically pacifist, but we think war isn't nice, and we don't want war. We know that it's the last resort that could be considered when all other options have been considered."
American officials are weighing several possible formulas for a new Security Council resolution, including a text that would not explicitly call for "all necessary means" against Baghdad, the Council's most direct language for war.
American and British officials have also considered including a ultimatum with a very short deadline - perhaps as little as 48 hours - that would give Arab nations an 11th-hour chance to persuade Mr. Hussein to step down peacefully.
Consulting closely with Britain, the Bush administration would like to lay all the legal groundwork for military action by mid-March, the diplomats said. Pentagon officials have said the military would be best positioned to strike anytime after mid-February.
Administration officials, assessing the reaction to Mr. Powell's exposition, are more inclined to seek a second resolution because they believe that France and Germany, the two most active Council opponents of war, are becoming isolated in Europe and losing force among the 15 Council nations.
Mr. Powell said today that in a rapid succession of one-on-one meetings with Council foreign ministers after his speech on Wednesday, he detected "a shift in attitude that suggested, I think, more and more nations are realizing that this cannot continue like this indefinitely."
Speaking today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Powell said a decision on using force would "start to come to a head" after Feb. 14, when the two chief United Nations weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, are to report to the Council after two days of talks in Baghdad this weekend.
While Dr. ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector, appealed to Iraq today for a "drastic" change of attitude, the United States and Britain are confident that Mr. Hussein will not make any concessions large enough to satisfy Council demands for complete cooperation.
American diplomats are not yet certain that they have the nine votes necessary to adopt a resolution. But as signs of the declining support for France and Germany, United States officials pointed to an open letter released on Wednesday by 10 Eastern European nations, calling for the Council to respond to "the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime" with "necessary and appropriate action," a strong endorsement of Washington's position. The letter follows a similar one from eight Western European nations last week.
Administration officials have said there are tremendous advantages to having an endorsement of military action from the Council, even if the resolution were to pass with abstentions from France, Russia and China, veto-bearing permanent members of the Council. Many nations, especially in the Arab world, have said they are ready to support the United States in war but need a Council resolution to give them cover with opponents at home.
To make a new resolution more acceptable to France and other skeptics on the Council, the United States might put forward a text that finds that Iraq has committed a "further material breach" of the weapons inspections, which were established in Resolution 1441, and recalls the "serious consequences" that the Council threatened if Iraq failed to cooperate.
The authorization of force would not be fully spelled out. The United States and Britain contend that they wrote into Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously, all the authority they need for military action. If American and British diplomats can build support among the 10 nonpermanent members for a resolution to use force, they are relatively sure that France will not use its veto to block the measure.
American diplomats say they believe that if Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei give a strongly negative report, it may be possible to win French support for a cautiously worded resolution. Russia and China are likely to abstain.
Mexico, a nonpermanent member, today expressed support for France's proposal. But nations whose support for the United States is becoming clearer include Spain, Bulgaria, Chile, Cameroon, Guinea and Angola. Vice President Dick Cheney spoke by telephone on Wednesday morning with José Eduardo dos Santos, the president of Angola, American diplomats said.
In Germany, Europe's staunchest opponent to war, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder reiterated that his country would not take part in any military action. But he came under attack from opposition figures who said the he had unnecessarily isolated Germany from its main ally and weakened its ability to play a role in international affairs.
The United States did little, meanwhile, to disabuse German fears of diplomatic isolation. The American ambassador to Germany, Daniel Coates, said in a television interview that the position of Germany was raising "serious doubts" in the United States about whether it was still a reliable ally.
In Moscow, the Kremlin said that President Vladimir V. Putin had spoken by telephone today with the French president, Jacques Chirac, and that the two had agreed that the Iraq crisis should be solved by political and diplomatic means.
-------- us
Marine gunfight rules
February 7, 2003
Inside the Ring
Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
Notes from the Pentagon
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030207-9560176.htm
With U.S. military forces ready for war with Iraq, troops around the nation are preparing to ship out for the Middle East. The Marines have taken a lighter look at some rules of ground combat, and we obtained a copy of them.
Among the 24 rules are such gems as, No. 1: "Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns," and, No. 2, "Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive."
Rule No. 7 is: "In 10 years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived." And No. 8: "If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading and running."
Rule No. 10 addresses a worst-case scenario: "Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty." And No. 11: "Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose."
As for prisoners, the rule is: Be careful. No 18: "Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them)."
And advice for warriors in combat, Nos. 21 and 22: "Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one."
In a dig at other services, the Marines offer this: "U.S. Navy rules:
1. Adopt an aggressive offshore posture.
2. Send the Marines.
3. Drink Coffee."
Army rules: "Show up after fight to provide security and help hand out food to all of the displaced civilians."
Air Force rules: "Watch this all on cable in a BOQ [Bachelor Officers´ Quarters] while drinking a beer."
•Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough are Pentagon reporters. Mr. Gertz can be reached at 202/636-3274 or by e-mail at bgertz@WashingtonTimes.com. Mr. Scarborough can be reached at 202/636-3208 or by e-mail at rscarborough@WashingtonTimes.com.
----
Bush Orders Guidelines for Cyber-Warfare
Rules for Attacking Enemy Computers Prepared as U.S. Weighs Iraq Options
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38110-2003Feb6?language=printer
President Bush has signed a secret directive ordering the government to develop, for the first time, national-level guidance for determining when and how the United States would launch cyber-attacks against enemy computer networks, according to administration officials.
Similar to strategic doctrine that has guided the use of nuclear weapons since World War II, the cyber-warfare guidance would establish the rules under which the United States would penetrate and disrupt foreign computer systems.
The United States has never conducted a large-scale, strategic cyber-attack, according to several senior officials. But the Pentagon has stepped up development of cyber-weapons, envisioning a day when electrons might substitute for bombs and allow for more rapid and less bloody attacks on enemy targets. Instead of risking planes or troops, military planners imagine soldiers at computer terminals silently invading foreign networks to shut down radars, disable electrical facilities and disrupt phone services.
Bush's action highlights the administration's keen interest in pursuing a new form of weaponry that many specialists say has great potential for altering the means of waging war, but that until now has lacked presidential rules for deciding the circumstances under which such attacks would be launched, who should authorize and conduct them and what targets would be considered legitimate.
"We have capabilities, we have organizations; we do not yet have an elaborated strategy, doctrine, procedures," said Richard A. Clarke, who last week resigned as special adviser to the president on cyberspace security.
Bush signed the order, known as National Security Presidential Directive 16, last July but it has not been disclosed publicly until now. The guidance is being prepared amid speculation that the Pentagon is considering some offensive computer operations against Iraq if the president decides to go to war over Baghdad's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development programs.
"Whatever might happen in Iraq, you can be assured that all the appropriate approval mechanisms for cyber-operations would be followed," said an administration official who declined to confirm or deny whether such planning was underway.
Despite months of discussions involving principally the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and National Security Agency, officials say a number of issues remain far from resolved. "There's been an initial step by the president to say we need to establish broad guidelines," a senior administration official said. "We're trying to be thorough and thoughtful about this. I expect the process will end in another directive, the first of its kind in this area, setting the foundation."
The current state of planning for cyber-warfare has frequently been likened to the early years following the invention of the atomic bomb more than a half-century ago, when thinking about how to wage nuclear war lagged the ability to launch one.
The full extent of the U.S. cyber-arsenal is among the most tightly held national security secrets, even more guarded than nuclear capabilities. Because of secrecy concerns, many of the programs remain known only to strictly compartmented groups, a situation that in the past has inhibited the drafting of general policy and specific rules of engagement.
In a first move last month to consult with experts from outside government, White House officials helped arrange a meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that attracted about 50 participants from academia and industry as well as government. But a number of participants expressed reservations about the United States engaging in cyber-attacks, arguing that the United States' own enormous dependence on computer networks makes it highly vulnerable to counterattack.
"There's a lot of inhibition over doing it," said Harvey M. Sapolsky, an MIT professor who hosted the Jan. 22 session. "A lot of institutions and people are worried about becoming subject to the same kinds of attack in reverse."
Government officials involved in drafting the new policy insist they are proceeding cautiously, recognizing the risks of crossing the threshold into cyber-warfare and acknowledging the difficulties still inherent in trying to model how a major cyber-attack might play out. By penetrating computer systems that control the communications, transportation, energy and other basic services in a country, cyber-weapons can have serious cascading effects, disrupting not only military operations but civilian life.
"There are questions about collateral damage," Clarke said. As an example, he cited the possibility that a computer attack on an electric power grid, intended to pull the plug on military facilities, might end up turning off electricity to hospitals on the same network.
"There also is an issue, frankly, that's similar to the strategic nuclear issue which is: Do you ever want to do it? Do you want to legitimize that kind of weaponry?" Clarke added.
A sign of the Pentagon's commitment to developing cyber-weapons was its decision in 1999 to assign responsibility in this area to a command under a four-star general -- at the time, Space Command, which last year merged into Strategic Command. In addition, a special task force headed by a two-star general has been established to consolidate military planning for offensive as well as defensive computer operations.
Maj. Gen. James David Bryan, who heads the Joint Task Force on Computer Network Operations, said his group has three main missions: to experiment with cyber-weapons in order to better understand their effects; to "normalize" the use of such weapons, treating them "not as a separate entity" but as an integral part of the U.S. arsenal; and to train a professional cadre of military cyber-warriors.
The Pentagon's general counsel also attempted four years ago to establish some legal boundaries for the military's involvement in computer attack operations, issuing a 50-page document that a senior defense official said in a recent interview remains "the basic primer" on the subject. It advised commanders to apply the same "law of war" principles to computer attacks that they do to the use of bombs and missiles -- namely, the principles of proportionality and discrimination.
This means hitting targets that are of military necessity only, avoiding indiscriminate attacks and minimizing civilian damage. So, for instance, sending a computer virus through the Internet to destroy an enemy network would be ruled out as too blunt a weapon, the senior defense official said.
One challenge that the Pentagon has been facing in exercises simulating computer attacks is getting military commanders to specify just what effects they would hope to achieve with a cyber-weapon.
"In the beginning, when we would ask, 'What do you want us to do for you,' the answer would come back very general," Bryan said. More recently, Bryan added, the stated objectives have become more specific, which has helped in designing more precise cyber-weapons.
Even so, effective and predictable computer attacks depend heavily on detailed intelligence about enemy networks and access to them. For all the heightened attention to cyber-warfare, specialists contend large gaps exist between what the technology promises and what practitioners can deliver.
"This whole area still leaves a lot to the imagination in terms of what can be done," said John P. Casciano, a retired two-star general who supervised Air Force computer operations.
Given the newness of the weapons, their potential power and the uncertainty about how they would work, the Pentagon's Joint Staff has issued classified "rules of engagement" that strictly require top-level approval for any cyber-attack.
----
Sleuths Invade Military PCs With Ease
By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 16, 2002; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24191-2002Aug15?language=printer
SAN DIEGO, Aug. 15 -- Security consultants entered scores of confidential military and government computers without approval this summer, exposing vulnerabilities that specialists say open the networks to electronic attacks and spying.
The consultants, inexperienced but armed with free, widely available software, identified unprotected PCs and then roamed at will through sensitive files containing military procedures, personnel records and financial data.
One computer at Fort Hood in Texas held a copy of an air support squadron's "smart book" that details radio encryption techniques, the use of laser targeting systems and other field procedures. Another maintained hundreds of personnel records containing Social Security numbers, security clearance levels and credit card numbers. A NASA computer contained vendor records, including company bank account and financial routing numbers.
Available on other machines across the country were e-mail messages, confidential disciplinary letters and, in one case, a memo naming couriers to carry secret documents and their destinations, according to records maintained by ForensicTec Solutions Inc., the four-month-old security company that discovered the lapses.
ForensicTec officials said they first stumbled upon the accessible military computers about two months ago, when they were checking network security for a private-sector client. They saw several of the computers' online identifiers, known as Internet protocol addresses. Through a simple Internet search, they found the computers were linked to networks at Fort Hood.
Former employees of a private investigation firm -- and relative newcomers to the security field -- the ForensicTec consultants said they continued examining the system because they were curious, as well as appalled by the ease of access. They made their findings public, said ForensicTec President Brett O'Keeffe, because they hoped to help the government identify the problem -- and to "get some positive exposure" for their company.
"We were shocked and almost scared by how easy it was to get in," O'Keeffe said. "It's like coming across the Pentagon and seeing a door open with no one guarding it."
In response to an inquiry by The Washington Post, military investigators this week confirmed some of the intrusions at Fort Hood, saying they were occurred on PCs containing unclassified information. Senior officials said they are preparing an Army-wide directive requiring all shared computer files containing sensitive information to be password-protected. Sensitive information includes such items as Social Security numbers, confidential plans and so on, officials said.
The Army has never before focused so intently on the security of desktop computers containing unclassified data, but it is doing so now because so many more machines are linked to vulnerable networks, officials said. These systems are not as strictly secured because they are not supposed to contain or communicate any classified material. More secure networks are typically not linked to the Internet and employ much more stringent safeguards, including procedures to authenticate the identities of computer users.
"Everything is connected," said Col. Thaddeus Dmuchowski, director of information assurance for the Army. "Our 'defense in-depth' has to go down to the individual computer."
ForensicTec's electronic forays show that the government continues to struggle with how to close off systems to prying eyes -- including terrorists and foreign agents -- after a presidential directive last fall making cybersecurity a national priority.
That struggle was underscored by a General Accounting Office report last month that concluded the government wasn't doing an adequate job coordinating efforts to protect its online systems. Next month, the White House's new Critical Infrastructure Protection Board will release a sweeping national plan intended to bolster computer security.
None of the material made available by ForensicTec appears to be classified. But government and private specialists said that such open systems pose a threat because compromised machines may contain passwords, operational plans or easy pathways to more sensitive networks.
They also could be used to mount an electronic attack anonymously or to gather enormous amounts of unclassified information to gain insight about what an agency or military unit is privately contemplating, specialists said.
"If you had an organized spy effort, that would be the real concern," Richard M. Smith, an Internet security consultant based in Cambridge, Mass., said of ForensicTec's findings. "This is a widespread problem."
Kevin Poulsen, another security specialist, worries that an intruder could place onto an unsecured network malicious software such as a virus, worm or Trojan horse program that could wind up on more-sensitive networks as desktop machines migrate from one place to another.
"The government is now lagging behind the sophisticated Internet users, when they should be leading," said Poulsen, editorial director of SecurityFocus, a Web site devoted to such matters.
A spokesman for the Pentagon agency responsible for computer network defense said he could not discuss the ForensicTec activity because the vulnerabilities are under investigation. Maj. Barry Venable, a spokesman for the U.S. Space Command, said the military takes seriously all such intrusions, even if the system entered does not contain classified data. He said hackers rarely gain control of military computers.
"Even one successful intrusion or instance of unauthorized activity is too many," he said. "The services and DOD agencies are working hard to educate their computer users and administrators to practice and implement proper computer security practices and procedures in a very dynamic information environment."
The issue of computer security has become more pressing in recent years as vastly more computers and networks have been linked to the Internet. Many public and private computers still have not been properly configured to block outsiders, and security components of operating software often are left set on the lowest default level to ease installation.
Even though it's a felony under U.S. law to enter a computer without authorization, the number of intrusions has skyrocketed, according to data collected by the CERT Coordination Center at Carnegie Mellon University. The number of incidents reported to CERT -- the leading clearinghouse of information about intrusions, viruses and computer crimes -- increased from 406 in 1991 to almost 53,000 last year. Howard Schmidt, vice chairman of the White House Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, said officials have been crisscrossing the country to push for better practices. But he acknowledged that many individuals still don't take rudimentary precautions, such as adopting passwords more complex than "password" or a pet's name. And system administrators often do not fix known flaws with widely available software "patches."
Schmidt said the board's strategy, to be announced next month, will provide clearer guidance about how to achieve better security for government agencies and businesses alike. A crucial element will be to encourage people to follow through on existing rules and procedures.
"This reinforces to us that there's still a lot of work to be done," he said of the ForensicTec findings. "It's more than technology. . . . It's people not following the rules, people not following the policies."
The GAO report last month said the "risks associated with our nation's reliance on interconnected computer systems are substantial and varied," echoing a series of earlier reports chronicling the government's inability to secure its computers.
"By launching attacks across a span of communications systems and computers, attackers can effectively disguise their identity, location and intent," it said. "Such attacks could severely disrupt computer-supported operations, compromise confidentiality of sensitive information and diminish the integrity of critical data."
ForensicTec consultants said it wasn't hard to probe the systems. They employed readily available software tools that scan entire networks and issue reports about linked computers. The scans showed that scores of machines were configured to share files with anyone who knew where to look. The reports also contained people's names and revealed that many of the computers required no passwords for access, or relied on easily crackable passwords such as "administrator."
The consultants said they identified other Internet addresses during their exploration of Fort Hood, including those for machines at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the DOD Network Information Center, the Department of Energy and other state and federal facilities. Scans of those systems yielded similar results: hundreds of virtually unprotected computer files.
O'Keeffe, the company president, said his consultants concluded that they had tripped across a serious problem.
"If we can do this, other governments' intelligence agencies, hackers, criminals and what have you can do it, too," he said, adding that he hopes to help the government by bringing the vulnerabilities to light. "We could have easily walked away from it."
The material they saw ranged from poetry and drafts of personal letters to spreadsheets containing personal and financial information about soldiers.
A couple of memos to members of a squadron at Fort Hood included the location of several safes and the inventory of one: secret operations information on hard drives, floppy disks and CDs.
Another memo designated a courier -- by name, rank and Social Security number -- who would "be hand-carrying classified information" to Fort Irwin Army Installation in California, apparently from February to June.
The consultants also obtained access to spreadsheets and e-mail messages at NASA containing details about vendor relationships, account numbers and other matters. NASA spokesman Brian Dunbar said he could not confirm the provenance of the information obtained by ForensicTec. But he said the agency was investigating its claims of vulnerability in accounting-related computers.
"We will investigate what's going on here," he said. "If this information is in the clear, it poses a risk to these companies and we need to get it fixed."
Steven Aftergood, a research analyst and government information specialist, said that much of the data the consultants came across is, by itself, "of limited sensitivity." But the easy access to government machines represents a substantial security challenge, at a time when military, government and business officials rely on computer networks more than ever.
"It's a qualitatively new kind of vulnerability that the government has not quite come to terms with yet," said Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists. "And it is a vulnerability that will increase in severity if the government doesn't do something about it."
--------
US Orders Fifth Aircraft Carrier to Gulf - Officials
February 7, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-usa-buildup.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Friday ordered a fifth aircraft carrier to sail for the Gulf as the U.S. military masses land, sea and air forces in the region for possible war with Iraq, defense officials said.
The officials told Reuters the USS Kitty Hawk had been ordered by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to deploy from the western Pacific Ocean through the Indian Ocean to join four other U.S. carriers and a British aircraft carrier within striking distance of Iraq.
The Kitty Hawk, which is based in Yokosuka naval base in Japan, is currently at sea with its 75 warplanes. The officials, who asked not to be identified, said the movement would bring to nearly 500 the number of U.S. naval and Air Force aircraft near Iraq. The carrier is also accompanied by other warships carrying cruise missiles.
Three U.S. carriers are already within striking range of Iraq -- the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Constellation in the Gulf, and the USS Harry S. Truman in the Mediterranean Sea. A fourth carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, set sail from the western Atlantic for the region on Tuesday.
To replace the Kitty Hawk in the western Pacific, the defense officials said orders were also being issued in a ``package'' to the carrier USS Carl Vinson to move from Hawaii to be near the Korean peninsula, where Washington and its allies are involved in a nuclear crisis with North Korea.
The United States says it wants to settle the dispute with Pyongyang peacefully, but has warned that it will maintain strong forces in the western Pacific.
WAR WOULD NOT BE LONG -- RUMSFELD
Rumsfeld, visiting American troops at a base in Aviano, Italy, said he did not expect any war with Iraq to last long, but stressed that Baghdad had not complied with U.N. orders to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction.
``It is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months,'' Rumsfeld said.
More than 110,000 American troops are already in the Gulf region and tens of thousands more are headed there in a surge that could put nearly 200,000 in the area by early March.
The British aircraft carrier Ark Royal and its shepherding battle group passed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea earlier and is expected to be on station soon in the Gulf within striking distance of Iraq.
A British government press release said on Friday that Britain had sent or was in the process of deploying about 42,000 military personnel to the region for possible war.
Along with several hundred U.S. Air Force fighters, attack jets and bombers now in place in the Gulf region, the United States continues to move tens of thousands of troops there to carry out any order by President Bush to attack Iraq to rid Baghdad of what Washington charges are chemical and biological weapons. Iraq denies it has weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division, which played a key role in the ground phase of the 1991 Gulf War, was ordered to deploy to the Gulf region on Thursday.
The elite air assault division earlier this week began moving helicopters and a liaison team to the Port of Jacksonville, Florida, at Jacksonville Naval Air Station to prepare to load the aircraft onto ships.
The 101st Airborne Division includes about 16,000 soldiers and 270 helicopters, including AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, UH-60 Black Hawks, CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters and OH-58 Kiowa Warrior armed reconnaissance helicopters.
--------
Marines in Kuwait Getting Ready for War
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Kuwait-Marines.html
IN THE KUWAITI DESERT (AP) -- With mortar and tank fire booming in the distance, U.S. Marines stretched out in the Kuwaiti desert and adjusted their rifle sights to zero in on paper targets 25 yards away.
The Marines want their weapons set perfectly in case President Bush orders them to invade Iraq. On Friday, Bush urged the U.N. Security Council to ``make up its mind soon'' about confronting Iraq over its prohibited weapons' programs -- or the United States and its allies will disarm Saddam Hussein on their own.
About 113,000 U.S. troops are deployed in the Gulf and 100,000 more could be in place by the end of the month. Among those forces are the combat engineers from the 1st Marine Division of Camp Pendleton, Calif., who have been here three weeks.
Facing one set of plywood-backed targets, about 80 Marines lined up with their M-16A2 assault rifles and let off three rounds. A few yards away, another group of about 20 lined up with their M-240 light machine guns, each also firing three shots at a time.
After each volley, the men then go up to the target to measure how far away the shots are from the bulls eye, adjust their sights, and return to measure once more.
In combat, experts estimate that even the best soldiers hit their target only one time for every 15 shots. Every chance to practice, every opportunity to fine tune the sights, the better the hit ratio becomes.
The men fine-tuning their rifles Friday were mostly teenagers, many of them are so new to the military they are still getting used to carrying their weapons.
Also Friday, the military identified Spc. Brian Michael Clemens of Kokomo, Ind., as the 19-year-old soldier who died Thursday in a Humvee accident while on patrol near Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. Four other soldiers suffered minor injuries.
No other details were immediately available
While all of the Marines in Kuwait have completed basic training, many joined less than a year ago. Non-commissioned officers like Staff Sgt. Thomas Pierce of Wichita Falls, Texas, is responsible for getting them combat-ready.
``We're training so everyone is prepared for whatever is thrown at us,'' said Pierce, a 34-year-old Gulf War veteran. ``Everything is repetition training, so it will become second nature.''
Pierce said the equipment the Marines have now is better designed and more convenient than what he was issued in 1991, when he cleared a mine field to open a path for U.S. troops crossing into Kuwait to force out the Iraqi army.
The combat engineers will clear many more minefields if U.S. troops go to war in the coming months. Combat engineers also set up portable bridges, construct defensive positions or destroy any structure built by the enemy to hinder an attack.
Besides the target practice, the men have also spent the last weeks in the desert getting ready for whatever faces them, said Cpl. Lemoine Logan from New Orleans, La.
At 24, he's older than most of the men, many of whom were surprised by the cold desert nights and how simple it can be to get lost in the featureless landscape. The most important thing, he said, is ``situational awareness: knowing where you are, who you're with, where the others are and making sure everyone is accounted for.''
Behind the uniforms and rifles, the young Marines are no different than others in their late teens and early 20s. They talk about music and girlfriends, teasing each other during a lunch of prepackaged meals consumed while sitting cross-legged in the sand.
Pfc. T.J. Powell, an 18-year-old from Tuskegee, Ala., said he never expected to go into combat, but had always known it would be a possibility during his nine months of training. He said his unit is ready to fight -- and that he feels the American people are behind them.
``I'd like them to pray for us -- please pray and don't worry,'' he said. ``We're going to do the job and come back home.''
--------
Software improves accuracy, quickens air war planning
by Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez
Air Force Print News
02/07/03
http://www.af.mil/news/Feb2003/20703291.shtml
WASHINGTON -- A new technology designed to save time and reduce errors in air warfare planning will make its debut in Southwest Asia -- if the United States moves to disarm Iraq.
RELATED LINKS Printable Version The master air attack plan toolkit is a Web-based software application developed to help war planners in an air operations center produce a master air attack plan. The MAAP is the foundation for the air tasking order -- essentially the marching orders for fighter, attack and bomber aircraft in theater.
In years past, computers have played a more extensive role in the process of producing the MAAP. But largely, the process still involved a lot of manual information shuffling -- grease pencils and transparencies, paper maps and printouts. The process, said the commander of the Air Force's Command and Control Battlelab at Hurlburt Field, Fla., was daunting.
"The idea for this started with the Persian Gulf War and with Bosnia while preparing the master air attack plan," said Col. Jon Krenkel. "That process was very manual and very labor intensive. You would have to take a complete set of targets and a complete set of assets including airplanes available, the munitions that they had, where they were coming from, where they had to go to, and try to tie all that together in a coherent logical manner."
The battlelab is a small technical community responsible for finding innovative ways to improve Air Force command and control support of joint operations. According to Krenkel, the lab developed the MAAP toolkit in response to the difficulties of creating it manually.
"What we have done is take a software tool called the Web Enabled Temporal Analysis System and added some business rules," Krenkel said. "That enabled us to do everything that used to be done by hand and with yellow 'stickies,' and do it instead with a computer."
The toolkit looks into existing real-time databases provided by other AOC cells. Those include, among other things, weather information, theater maps, lists of available aircraft, lists of available munitions and lists of potential targets provided by the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance communities. These databases are updated continuously and the MAAP toolkit produces a near real-time visual representation of them on screen.
In a typical scenario, Krenkel said, the toolkit might display a map of the theater. Using a list of coordinates provided by the ISR community, the toolkit would highlight those targets on the map. To the side would be separate windows containing lists of available aircraft and available munitions. Beneath the map would be another window displaying "packages" -- pairings of multiple aircraft with select munitions.
Planners use the MAAP toolkit to build packages by dragging and dropping assets, aircraft and munitions from one menu to the other, Krenkel explained. Then they can assign packages, a time and a target. As a target is assigned to a package, its color changes on the map. As aircraft are assigned to a package, their numbers are deducted from the availability lists.
One benefit of the MAAP toolkit is that it eliminates the potential for errors, said Lt. Col. Douglas Combs, chief of concepts execution division for the battlelab.
"You are basically taking the human out of the loop," Combs said. "You don't have the opportunity for error, you are just manipulating (data), putting it into a different package and sending it on its way. If it is correct in the database, then it is correct on the other end."
Besides reducing errors, the speed at which the MAAP can be completed is also improved, Combs said.
"That's what we realized at 2002 Joint Expeditionary Forces Experiment at Nellis Air Force Base, (Nev.)," Combs said. "We were able to take a 24-hour cycle, 12 hours for MAAP and 12 hours for ATO production, and run them concurrently. Pretty much by the end of the exercise we were getting them done in, from start to finish, around eight hours."
The process of reviewing the final MAAP to ensure it is really what war planners were looking for is also improved by the MAAP toolkit, he said.
The toolkit allows users to watch the entire plan unfold like a film, Combs said. Animated aircraft on the screen move slowly across the map toward their target. Each is "launched" to coordinate with their scheduled takeoff times and moves across the screen in sync with all the other aircraft. Additionally, each moves at a speed commensurate with its real-world speed. Planners can watch their plan played out on screen before it is turned into an ATO and sent out to units.
Krenkel said he believes it will perform equally well in a real world situation as it did at the JEFX.
"This (use in Southwest Asia) would be first time this system will be used in an actual combat situation," he said. "But we are confident it will perform well if the need arises."
-------- propaganda wars
U.S. Scholar Uncredited Britain's Report on Iraq
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-Iraq-Dossier.html
LONDON (AP) -- An embarrassed British government acknowledged Friday that it should have credited an American academic whose work it copied for a dossier on Iraq.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said the copying did not ``take away from the core argument'' of the dossier, which purported to detail how Iraq is blocking U.N. weapons inspectors.
Opponents of Blair's hawkish stance on Iraq said the case of the replica report was proof the government is not playing straight in making the case for a war on Saddam Hussein.
``It just adds to the general impression that what we have been treated to is a farrago of half-truths, assertions and over-the-top spin,'' lawmaker Peter Kilfoyle, a member of Blair's governing Labor Party, told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
The document, posted Monday on Blair's Web site and later released to delegates at the United Nations in New York, claimed to be based in part on ``intelligence material'' and to give ``up to date details'' of Saddam's security and intelligence network.
Britain's Channel 4 news revealed Thursday that most of the document was taken, with little alteration, from published sources, including an article by Monterey, Calif.-based researcher Ibrahim al-Marashi that appeared last September in the Middle East Review of International Affairs.
Passages several paragraphs long are identical in the two documents. Other sections contain very minor alterations, and at least one typographical error in al-Marashi's article is repeated in the dossier.
Al-Marashi, a research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, said he had not been approached by the British government about using his work.
``It was a shock to me,'' he told The Associated Press.
Al-Marashi's article looked at Saddam's security apparatus over the past three decades, and drew on information that was recent at the time of publication, as well as some that was years old, al-Marashi said.
The government said its dossier was based on ``a number of sources'' but did not give details. Among claims that come from sources other than al-Marashi's article, the dossier said Iraqi security agents had bugged every room and telephone of the U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad and had hidden documents in Iraqi hospitals, mosques and homes.
Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the dossier on Wednesday as he addressed the United Nations with evidence of Iraq's weapons programs.
``I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities,'' Powell said.
Blair's spokesman said the sections of the report describing the current activities of Iraqi intelligence ``are largely based on intelligence material,'' but conceded that the section on Iraq's security structure -- 10 pages of the 19-page report -- drew on al-Marashi's work, ``which in retrospect we should have acknowledged.''
``The fact that we used some of his work does not throw into question the accuracy of the document as a whole,'' he added.
Blair, a staunch supporter of President Bush's tough line on Iraq, has released several dossiers over the past months as evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime is harboring chemical and biological weapons.
Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats, said the affair was ``the intelligence equivalent of being caught stealing the spoons.''
Glenda Jackson, an actress and Labor Party lawmaker who has spoken out against war with Iraq, said the document ``is another example of how the government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament on the issue of a possible war with Iraq.
``And of course to mislead is a parliamentary euphemism for lying.''
On the Net:
Government Iraq dossier: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7111.asp
Ibrahim al-Marashi's article: http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html
----
Colin Powell Is Flawless - Inside a Media Bubble
by Norman Solomon,
February 07, 2003
MediaNet - Editor@MediaMonitors.net
http://www.mediamonitors.net/solomon112.html
There's no doubt about it: Colin Powell is a great performer, as he showed yet again at the U.N. Security Council the other day. On television, he exudes confidence and authoritative judgment. But Powell owes much of his touted credibility to the fact that he's functioning inside a media bubble that protects him from direct challenge.
Powell doesn't face basic questions like these:
- You cite Iraq's violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions to justify the U.S. launching an all-out war. But you're well aware that American allies like Turkey, Israel and Morocco continue to violate dozens of Security Council resolutions. Why couldn't other nations claim the right to militarily "enforce" the Security Council's resolutions against countries that they'd prefer to bomb?
- You insist that Iraq is a grave threat to the other nations of the Middle East. But, with the exception of Israel, no country in the region has made such a claim or expressed any enthusiasm for a war on Iraq. If Iraq is a serious threat to the region, why doesn't the region feel threatened?
- You say that the Iraqi regime is committed to aggression. Yet Iraq hasn't attacked any country for more than 12 years. And just eight days before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the U.S. envoy to Baghdad gave what appeared to be a green light for the invasion when she met with Saddam Hussein. An Iraqi transcript of the meeting quotes Ambassador April Glaspie: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." Mr. Powell, why don't you ever mention such information?
- Washington tilted in favor of Iraq during its war with Iran in the 1980s. Like other U.S. officials, you emphasize that Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people" and used chemical weapons against Iran, but you don't talk about the intelligence data and other forms of assistance that the United States provided to help Iraq do those things. If the history of Baghdad's evil deeds is relevant, why aren't facts about U.S. complicity also relevant?
- When you warn that the U.N. Security Council "places itself in danger of irrelevance" if it fails to endorse a U.S.-led war on Iraq, aren't you really proclaiming that the United Nations is "relevant" only to the extent that it does what the U.S. government wants?
If Colin Powell faced such questions on a regular basis, his media halo would begin to tarnish. Instead, floating inside a media bubble, he moves from high-level meetings to speeches to news conferences where tough questions are rare. And when Powell appears as a guest on American media outlets, he doesn't need to worry that he'll encounter interviewers who'll challenge his basic assumptions.
Tacit erasure of inconvenient history -- including his own -- is integral to the warm relationship between Powell and U.S. news media. There's a lot to erase. For instance, in January 1986, serving as a top aide to Pentagon chief Caspar Weinberger, he supervised the transfer of 4,508 TOW missiles to the CIA, and then sought to hide the transaction from Congress and the public. No wonder: Almost half of those missiles had become part of the Iran-Contra scandal's arms-for-hostages deal.
As President Reagan's national security adviser, Powell worked diligently on behalf of the contra guerrillas who were killing civilians in Nicaragua. In December 1989, Powell -- at that point the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- was a key player behind the invasion of Panama.
The Gulf War catapulted Powell to the apex of American political stardom in early 1991. When he was asked about the Iraqi death toll from that war, Powell said that such numbers didn't interest him.
At the U.N. on Feb. 5, in typical fashion, Powell presented himself as an implacable foe of terrorism -- much as he did on Sept. 11, 2001, when he denounced "people who feel that with the destruction of buildings, with the murder of people, they can somehow achieve a political purpose." While aptly condemning the despicable hijackers who murdered thousands of people on that day, Powell was also using words that could be applied to a long line of top officials in Washington. Including himself.
At this point it seems that only a miracle could prevent the Bush administration from going ahead with its plans for a horrific attack on Iraq, sure to kill many thousands of civilians. The U.S. leaders will demonstrate their evident belief that -- in Colin Powell's apt words -- "with the destruction of buildings, with the murder of people, they can somehow achieve a political purpose." To the extent that the media bubble around them stays airtight, Powell and his colleagues are likely to bask in national acclaim.
"Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You," by Norman Solomon and Reese Erlich, was published in late January by Context Books. For an excerpt and other information, go to: http://www.contextbooks.com/newF.html
Note to online readers: :
Audio/video of Norman Solomon's recent appearance on C-SPAN's"Washington Journal" is available at: http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ndrive/wj20020703.rm?start=1:01:43
Oryoucan access the same one-hour program, listed under July 3, at:http://www.cspan.org/journal
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Special Report Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act Center Publishes Secret Draft of 'Patriot II' Legislation
By Charles Lewis and Adam Mayle
February 8, 2003
http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0
(WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003) -- The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information.
The Center for Public Integrity has obtained a draft, dated January 9, 2003, of this previously undisclosed legislation and is making it available in full text (12 MB). The bill, drafted by the staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft and entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, has not been officially released by the Department of Justice, although rumors of its development have circulated around the Capitol for the last few months under the name of "the Patriot Act II" in legislative parlance.
"We haven't heard anything from the Justice Department on updating the Patriot Act," House Judiciary Committee spokesman Jeff Lungren told the Center. "They haven't shared their thoughts on that. Obviously, we'd be interested, but we haven't heard anything at this point."
Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff have inquired about Patriot II for months and have been told as recently as this week that there is no such legislation being planned.
RELATED DOCUMENTS The draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (12 MB) Note: Due to high traffic volume, downloading the whole document might take several minutes.
Parts I (4.9 MB)
Part II (1.9 MB)
Part III (1.8 MB)
Part IV (1.8 MB)
Part V (1.9 MB)
The Office of Legislative Affairs "control sheet" which shows that a copy of the bill was sent to Speaker Hastert and Vice President Cheney (157 KB) Read the Justice Department's response to this report. (230 KB)
Mark Corallo, deputy director of Justice's Office of Public Affairs, told the Center his office was unaware of the draft. "I have heard people talking about revising the Patriot Act, we are looking to work on things the way we would do with any law," he said. "We may work to make modifications to protect Americans," he added. When told that the Center had a copy of the draft legislation, he said, "This is all news to me. I have never heard of this."
After the Center posted this story, Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs for the Justice Dept., released a statement saying that, "Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels."
An Office of Legislative Affairs "control sheet" that was obtained by the PBS program "Now With Bill Moyers" seems to indicate that a copy of the bill was sent to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President Richard Cheney on Jan. 10, 2003. "Attached for your review and comment is a draft legislative proposal entitled the 'Domestice Security Enhancement Act of 2003,'" the memo, sent from "OLP" or Office of Legal Policy, says. RELATED LINKS For additional information, visit the web site of PBS' "Now With Bill Moyers". Read the transcript of Moyers' interview with Charles Lewis.
Comstock later told the Center that the draft "is an early discussion draft and it has not been sent to either the Vice President or the Speaker of the House."
Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution, reviewed the draft legislation at the request of the Center, and said that the legislation "raises a lot of serious concerns. It's troubling that they have gotten this far along and they've been telling people there is nothing in the works." This proposed law, he added, "would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive 'suspicion,' create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups."
Some of the key provision of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 include:
Section 201, "Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information": Safeguarding the dissemination of information related to national security has been a hallmark of Ashcroft's first two years in office, and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 follows in the footsteps of his October 2001 directive to carefully consider such interest when granting Freedom of Information Act requests. While the October memo simply encouraged FOIA officers to take national security, "protecting sensitive business information and, not least, preserving personal privacy" into account while deciding on requests, the proposed legislation would enhance the department's ability to deny releasing material on suspected terrorists in government custody through FOIA.
Section 202, "Distribution of 'Worst Case Scenario' Information": This would introduce new FOIA restrictions with regard to the Environmental Protection Agency. As provided for in the Clean Air Act, the EPA requires private companies that use potentially dangerous chemicals must produce a "worst case scenario" report detailing the effect that the release of these controlled substances would have on the surrounding community. Section 202 of this Act would, however, restrict FOIA requests to these reports, which the bill's drafters refer to as "a roadmap for terrorists." By reducing public access to "read-only" methods for only those persons "who live and work in the geographical area likely to be affected by a worst-case scenario," this subtitle would obfuscate an established level of transparency between private industry and the public.
Section 301-306, "Terrorist Identification Database": These sections would authorize creation of a DNA database on "suspected terrorists," expansively defined to include association with suspected terrorist groups, and noncitizens suspected of certain crimes or of having supported any group designated as terrorist.
Section 312, "Appropriate Remedies with Respect to Law Enforcement Surveillance Activities": This section would terminate all state law enforcement consent decrees before Sept. 11, 2001, not related to racial profiling or other civil rights violations, that limit such agencies from gathering information about individuals and organizations. The authors of this statute claim that these consent orders, which were passed as a result of police spying abuses, could impede current terrorism investigations. It would also place substantial restrictions on future court injunctions.
Section 405, "Presumption for Pretrial Detention in Cases Involving Terrorism": While many people charged with drug offenses punishable by prison terms of 10 years or more are held before their trial without bail, this provision would create a comparable statute for those suspected of terrorist activity. The reasons for presumptively holding suspected terrorists before trial, the Justice Department summary memo states, are clear. "This presumption is warranted because of the unparalleled magnitude of the danger to the United States and its people posed by acts of terrorism, and because terrorism is typically engaged in by groups - many with international connections - that are often in a position to help their members flee or go into hiding."
Section 501, "Expatriation of Terrorists": This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated "if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a 'terrorist organization'." But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be "inferred from conduct." Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a "terrorist organization" by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation.
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act is the latest development in an 18-month trend in which the Bush Administration has sought expanded powers and responsibilities for law enforcement bodies to help counter the threat of terrorism.
The USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, gave law enforcement officials broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance and wiretaps, and gives the president the authority, when the nation is under attack, to confiscate any property within U.S. jurisdiction of anyone believed to be engaging in such attacks. The measure also tightened oversight of financial activities to prevent money laundering and diminish bank secrecy in an effort to disrupt terrorist finances.
It also changed provisions of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was passed in 1978 during the Cold War. FISA established a different standard of government oversight and judicial review for "foreign intelligence" surveillance than that applied to traditional domestic law enforcement surveillance.
The USA Patriot Act allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share information gathered in terrorism investigations under the "foreign intelligence" standard with local law enforcement agencies, in essence nullifying the higher standard of oversight that applied to domestic investigations. The USA Patriot Act also amended FISA to permit surveillance under the less rigorous standard whenever "foreign intelligence" was a "significant purpose" rather than the "primary purpose" of an investigation.
The draft legislation goes further in that direction. "In the [USA Patriot Act] we have to break down the wall of foreign intelligence and law enforcement," Cole said. "Now they want to break down the wall between international terrorism and domestic terrorism."
In an Oct. 9, 2002, hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher testified that Justice had been, "looking at potential proposals on following up on the PATRIOT Act for new tools and we have also been working with different agencies within the government and they are still studying that and hopefully we will continue to work with this committee in the future on new tools that we believe are necessary in the war on terrorism."
Asked by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) whether she could inform the committee of what specific areas Justice was looking at, Fisher replied, "At this point I can't, I'm sorry. They're studying a lot of different ideas and a lot of different tools that follow up on information sharing and other aspects."
Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy Viet Dinh, who was the principal author of the first Patriot Act, told Legal Times last October that there was "an ongoing process to continue evaluating and re-evaluating authorities we have with respect to counterterrorism," but declined to say whether a new bill was forthcoming.
Former FBI Director William Sessions, who urged caution while Congress considered the USA Patriot Act, did not want to enter the fray concerning a possible successor bill.
"I hate to jump into it, because it's a very delicate thing," Sessions told the Center, without acknowledging whether he knew of any proposed additions or revisions to the additional Patriot bill.
When the first bill was nearing passage in the Congress in late 2001, however, Sessions told Internet site NewsMax.Com that the balance between civil liberties and sufficient intelligence gathering was a difficult one. "First of all, the Attorney General has to justify fully what he's asking for," Sessions, who served presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush as FBI Director from 1987 until 1993, said at the time. "We need to be sure that we provide an effective means to deal with criminality." At the same time, he said, "we need to be sure that we are mindful of the Constitution, mindful of privacy considerations, but also meet the technological needs we have" to gather intelligence.
Cole found it disturbing that there have been no consultations with Congress on the draft legislation. "It raises a lot of serious concerns and is troubling as a generic matter that they have gotten this far along and tell people that there is nothing in the works. What that suggests is that they're waiting for a propitious time to introduce it, which might well be when a war is begun. At that time there would be less opportunity for discussion and they'll have a much stronger hand in saying that they need these right away."
To write a letter to the editor for publication, e-mail letters@publicintegrity.org. Please include a daytime phone number.
-------- courts
Judge says Justice obstructed inquiry
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030207-30515439.htm
A federal judge says the Justice Department engaged in a cover-up in a lawsuit involving missing American Indian trust funds kept by the Interior Department, accusing the department of obstructing a legitimate inquiry into whether government attorneys lied to the court.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, in an order handed down Wednesday, said Justice lawyers repeatedly made "groundless assertions" of attorney-client privilege, directed a government official "not to answer proper questions" and blocked an investigation to determine if the department's co-counsel "had lied to the court."
Judge Lamberth described the suspected obstruction as "repugnant."
"It has been observed that government attorneys should model the ideals of integrity and ethics rather than attempt to circumvent them," he said in a blistering 31-page order. "Instead, the conduct of defense counsel in this matter makes a mockery of all that the Department of Justice stands for."
Judge Lamberth also targeted what he called "superiors at the Justice Department," whom he accused of condoning improper behavior by the government attorneys and filing a 19-page "meritless memorandum" defending their conduct.
"The Justice Department has attempted to cover up whether its own attorneys have yet again deliberately provided false information to this court," he said. "The lack of judgment demonstrated by this action suggests to the court that something has gone seriously awry in the Justice Department's handling of this litigation."
Named in the order are Justice Department lawyers Sandra Spooner and Robert B. McCallum, an assistant attorney general who heads the department's civil division. Mr. McCallum has been nominated by President Bush as associate attorney general, the Justice Department's third-highest position.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the department was reviewing Judge Lamberth's order, but noted it has "every confidence in the integrity and professionalism of our Justice Department attorneys and their appropriate handling of this case."
Judge Lamberth ordered the Justice lawyers to "personally pay to plaintiffs all reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees," in order to schedule a new deposition in the case.
The judge is presiding over a lawsuit claiming that the Interior Department mismanaged billions of dollars in Indian trust funds held in 300,000 individual accounts and 2,000 tribal accounts. He has ordered Interior officials to account for the funds, saying records provided to the court showed the money was so badly mishandled that the government had no idea how much was missing or where it could be found.
The money was collected from oil, gas and timber royalties paid to the Indians but managed by the government.
In his order, Judge Lamberth said Ms. Spooner blocked the testimony of Donna Erwin, acting special trustee in the lawsuit, on whether government lawyers made misrepresentations to the court. Ms. Spooner had cited attorney-client privilege and questioned whether the testimony was relevant to the case.
"The court finds troubling defendants' assertion that it is irrelevant whether or not their counsel may have lied to the court during a formal hearing," the judge said. "The court is also surprised to hear defendant's claim that a question that directly bears on the credibility of a key witness ... is irrelevant."
In September, Judge Lamberth held Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton in contempt for engaging for concealing documents and making false and misleading statements. He said the department had "indisputably proven" it was either unwilling or unable to administer competently the Indian trust fund. The department has appealed the ruling.
Interior, which manages the trust-fund accounts, has given several reasons why they are unavailable - including that some have been so tainted with rodent droppings that handling them would be hazardous.
-------- homeland security
House Ratifies Security Perimeter
Design Billed as a 'Tasteful Alternative' to Barriers
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page B02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38409-2003Feb6?language=printer
The House of Representatives approved this week construction of a permanent security perimeter around House office buildings to replace the jumble of concrete barriers, squad cars and foot patrols hastily deployed around the U.S. Capitol after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
A 14-month-long project to begin later this month will embed retractable vehicle barriers at key intersections, install reinforced decorative planters and all-weather police shelters along sidewalks and post a ring of 36-inch, green, steel bollards around the eight-square-block office complex south of the Capitol.
One eastbound lane of Independence Avenue will be closed daily from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. until June for construction crews to make the improvements and replace trees, House officials said.
The changes are part of a $35 million House perimeter security initiative for the Capitol complex, to deter potential truck bombers. Senate security measures are being managed separately.
Authorities coated Capitol windows with blast-resistant Mylar, barred truck traffic next to the Capitol and restricted vehicles next to House buildings immediately after the 2001 attacks as stopgap measures.
Last July, crews installed hydraulic barriers covered by steel plates across Independence Avenue to block the street in case of emergencies. Those measures will remain, but the cosmetic changes will bring the landscape of the historic Capitol area in line with a coordinated security design concept promoted by the National Capital Planning Commission, officials said.
"The perimeter security project is an essential element of the House's larger security initiatives, and will provide a secure and tasteful alternative to the current barriers," House Administration Committee Chairman Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and ranking member Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) wrote in a letter to members late Wednesday, after the panel approved the start of construction.
House Superintendent Frank J. Tiscione said the first, four-month phase of the project will affect the House Longworth and Rayburn office buildings and the intersections of First Street SW between Independence Avenue and C Street and the intersections of Independence Avenue at South Capitol Street and New Jersey Avenue SE.
The office of the architect of the Capitol, which is managing the project, and the U.S. Capitol Police have consulted with the District Department of Transportation, D.C. police and the NCPC, city and commission officials said.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said she is thrilled by the construction, citing the Capitol's symbolic importance to the city and its role as a tourist attraction. "To get to be pretty, there has to be a little ugliness on the road," she said.
The project was funded by part of $40 billion in anti-terror aid approved after the 2001 attacks. Separately, Congress is nearing approval of $11.1 million in security design improvements and transportation planning around the White House.
----
Labs Unprepared for Chemical Attacks
Most State Facilities Rated at 4 or Below on a Scale of 1 to 10
By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38145-2003Feb6?language=printer
The nation's public health laboratories are woefully unprepared to handle chemical weapons agents such as sarin or mustard gas that could be used in a terrorist attack, according to a 50-state survey released yesterday.
On a scale of 1 to 10, 37 state labs rated their chemical response capability at or below a 4, while nine others gave themselves scores of 5 or 6, according to the Association of Public Health Laboratories, which conducted the survey last month. Only eight labs have chemical response plans. There are no national protocols for testing or shipping suspicious chemicals.
"We have almost nothing in place if an event occurred tomorrow," said Scott Becker, executive director of the association.
Since the anthrax attacks of 2001, public health labs have raced to upgrade their bioterrorism units, purchasing equipment, hiring specialists and tightening security. But few have the expertise or technology needed to identify some of the 150 most hazardous chemical agents.
"The big fear in the lab community is the unknown sample somebody cooked up that may contain multiple agents," said Jim Pearson, director of Virginia's division of consolidated laboratory services. "You could have a powder that somebody says is anthrax, and here it's some chemical agent that blisters. It affects your staff and puts you out of business."
Lab directors and terrorism experts across the country say they dread scenarios such as the release of a mysterious gas in a subway or basketball arena. Soon people would begin coughing, fainting or reporting other symptoms.
"In our state, within the first 30 minutes, the mayor of Salt Lake City or the governor of Utah would be asking: What is it?" said Charles Brokopp, the Utah state lab director.
But even after elaborate preparations for last year's Olympics, Brokopp said he still would have to send chemical samples to a federal lab and wait 18 to 24 hours for results. "Timing is very important, because that information can be vital to the physicians and emergency departments involved in treating these individuals," he said.
However, Randall Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and director of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, said release of the deadliest chemical agents would not require lab confirmation because people would die rapidly.
He cautioned against spending precious homeland security dollars on preparing state labs for situations they may never encounter.
The government has focused on biological threats in large measure because deadly germs such as anthrax are obtainable by terrorists and small quantities are easily concealed.
Armed with millions in federal aid, state labs have rapidly improved their capability to detect biological agents, said Steve Hinrichs, director of the Nebraska Public Health Lab. But asking a microbiologist to conduct chemical analysis is akin to hiring a car mechanic to fix an airplane, he said.
"One of our concerns is a terrorist would be smart enough to do a dual attack," he said. "They'd use a chemical agent on top of a biological agent."
Five states, including Virginia, have received money from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to test clinical samples such as blood and urine for dangerous chemicals in the event of an attack. This year, CDC hopes to add 10 more labs to that effort, said Dayton Miller, associate director of the lab division at CDC's National Center for Environmental Health.
"We're all very much aware of the need to expand chemical lab capacity," he said. "We're working very hard to do our part to make that happen." But the CDC program focuses only on human specimens, while state labs encounter much more.
A portion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport was closed for several hours recently until the state lab officials could determine that a strange coating of grease on an abandoned suitcase was curry butter and not something hazardous, said lab director Norman Crouch.
"That gives you an idea of what state laboratories are expected to do," he said. "When something happens, we are called in."
----
U.S. Considers New Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Fri February 7, 2003
By James Vicini
Reuters
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2192053
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Justice Department, which won broad new powers after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to eavesdrop and detain immigrants, is drafting legislation that would authorize the creation of a terrorist identification database, department officials said on Friday.
They said the proposals, which already have been criticized by civil liberties groups, also would limit the disclosure of certain information and allow pretrial detention of people suspected of terrorist activity without bail.
The officials said the proposals, still in draft form and called the Security Enhancement Act of 2003, would require congressional approval. They said the proposals remain under active discussion, but final measures were not imminent.
The American Civil Liberties Union denounced the draft legislation, warning it would harm civil liberties.
"The initial USA Patriot Act undercut many of the traditional checks and balances on government power -- the new ... proposal threatens to fundamentally alter the constitutional protections that allow us to be both safe and free," said Gregory Nojeim of the civil liberties group.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said Justice Department employees have not presented any final proposals to Attorney General John Ashcroft or to the White House.
"During our internal deliberations, many ideas are considered, some are discarded and new ideas emerge in the process along with numerous discussion drafts," she said.
"The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties," Comstock said in a statement.
The draft legislation, first disclosed by the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, includes the following provisions, according to the officials:
-- further limit public disclosure of information relating to terrorism investigations by enhancing the Justice Department's ability to deny requests to get the data through the Freedom of Information Act;
-- set up a DNA database that would include people associated with suspected terrorist groups and noncitizens suspected of certain crimes or who have supported "terrorist" groups;
-- terminate state law enforcement decrees -- originally put in place to stop police spying abuses -- that limit the amount of information police can gather about individuals and organizations;
-- Allow pretrial detention without bail for people suspected of terrorist activity;
-- Allow for the expatriation of American citizens who were proven to have wanted to relinquish their nationality and becomes a member of or provides material support to a group designated by the United States as a "terrorist organization."
Less than six weeks after the hijacked plane attacks, President Bush signed the Patriot Act of 2001. The bill enhances the ability of the federal government to tap phones, share intelligence information, track Internet usage, e-mails and cell phones and protect U.S. borders.
----
Expansion of Patriot Act Criticized
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Anti-Terror-Law.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department is preparing to expand the 2001 Patriot Act to increase surveillance within the United States while restricting access to information and limiting judicial review, a nonprofit government watchdog group asserted Friday.
The Center for Public Integrity said it obtained a copy of the draft legislation from a government source. The document, labeled ``confidential,'' was posted Friday on the organization's Internet site along with an analysis.
Justice Department officials said no final decisions have made on any such legislation, and it could change substantially before it is completed. Spokeswoman Barbara Comstock acknowledged the department is ``continually considering anti-terrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so.''
``The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties,'' she added.
The original Patriot Act, passed by Congress in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, gave the government broad new anti-terrorism powers to use wiretaps, electronic and computer eavesdropping, searches and the authority to obtain a wide range of other information in it's investigations. It also broke down the traditional wall between FBI investigators and intelligence agents.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, the draft expansion of the Patriot Act would be called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.
Among other things, it would prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from distributing ``worst-case scenario'' information to the public about a nearby private company's use of chemicals.
In addition, the measure would create a DNA database of ``suspected terrorists;'' force suspects to prove why they should be released on bail, rather than have the prosecution prove why they should be held; and allow the deportation of U.S. citizens who become members of or help terrorist groups.
``It really is a broadening and a deepening of the government's powers,'' said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity.
Congressional aides said they had not been consulted by the Justice Department on the development of such a bill and department officials say it has not been transmitted to Capitol Hill. However, several aids have said they considered it likely that the Bush administration would propose some changes this year.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the legislation ``turns the Bill of Rights completely on its head.''
``This draft bill constitutes yet another egregious blow to our citizens' civil liberties,'' Conyers said. ``Among other things, the Bush administration now wants to imprison suspects before they are tried and create DNA databases of lawful residents who have committed no crime.''
Associated Press writer Jesse Holland contributed to this report.
On the Net:
Center for Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org
Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov
-------- immigration / refugees
Progress Seen in Border Tests of ID System
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/politics/07IMMI.html
NOGALES, Ariz., Feb. 6 - Immigration officials say they are moving rapidly to meet a congressionally mandated deadline for a sophisticated new identification system to be in use at its 100 most porous entry points over the next year.
The system will use ID cards encrypted with digital photos, signatures, biographical information and fingerprints that have been issued by the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service by the millions over the last five years. Until recently, the immigration service has not had the machines to read the information on the cards - a shortcoming that came to light in Congressional hearings into the 2001 terror attacks. The machines cost $8,500 each.
For two months the border agency has been testing 30 machines here and at two other crossing points, in Texas and California, and at three airports. The initial results seemed promising, officials say. For example, they say the machines were not fooled by people with similar appearances, catching 150 people, including a woman using her twin sister's card. "Statistically, it's a very eye-opening number," said Robert Mocny, director of the immigration service's entry-exit program office.
The machines foiled a variety of sophisticated counterfeit attempts, officials said. Inspectors spotted cards on which the front photograph was changed to match the impostor, but the photograph encrypted in the back was still of the original person.
Even if the system is perfected and put in place at every crossing, officials acknowledged, it could not prevent every illegal entry because it now only takes into account Mexican citizens, American permanent residents and Canadian residents.
But the improved identity system will be the largest program using machines to compare detailed measurements of features like fingerprints and facial structure, and would offer a new level of security for the borders, the officials said.
In the push for better security, many government agencies have explored such biometric technologies to identify people with fingerprint matching, facial recognition and iris scanning. But concerns about privacy, rival technology standards and costs have largely mired progress for projects like standardized driver's licenses.
The immigration system, which is required by federal legislation, would be the government's first significant foothold in using machines that track identifying aspects of the human body. Already 15 million people in North America - 10 million American green-card holders, 5 million Mexican citizens with special cards allowing regular border crossings and hundreds of thousands of Canadians - have cards, making this program the largest of its type in the world, government officials say.
Each card is much like a driver's license, except it has a 1.4-inch metallic strip that holds digitized information much the way a CD holds data. The cards hold 10,000 times the information on a common magnetic strip on most credit cards.
"Overnight it will be the largest biometric-based border clearance system ever attempted," said Richard Norton of the International Biometric Industry Association.
In addition the program here, the testing is in effect at Los Angeles Airport, Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta and San Antonio Airport and the land entry points of San Ysidro, Calif., and Falcon Dam, Tex.
Immigration officials say document fraud is the most common way to enter the United States illegally, accounting for about two-thirds of apprehensions. It is common for people to pay dealers in illicit documents a fee to use a border-crossing card and mail it back once across.
At the Nogales crossing, people walk up to the checkpoint, hand in their cards and place a forefinger on a small fingerprint scanner.
The machines scan biographical information, photos and fingerprints off the back of the cards. The fingerprints are compared only to a recorded image of the prints on the card, not to a central database of all fingerprints. Inspectors visually compare people's faces with the photos that come on the screen.
Immigration officials say the special cards store more information and are more difficult to modify illegally than what the industry calls "smart cards," which have computer chips embedded in them.
In May 2002, President Bush signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, which requires the government to define a biometric standard for people entering the country in 2003. By October 2004, the State Department and immigration service can issue only machine-readable documents that include biometric identifiers and all ports of entry must have biometric machine equipment installed.
More notably, the act requires the immigration service to integrate its databases into a single system that uses the government-defined biometric standard and can be shared with other agencies, such as the State Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The legislation also requires foreign governments to use biometric technology in passports.
The lack of uniform standards across the states has largely stymied efforts to bring biometric technology into common use in the United States. But the push toward computer-encrypted identity cards worries civil liberties groups.
"With more information systems, there are more opportunities for abuse," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is pushing the government to release more information on its biometric plans.
Tying identity to the body is a phenomenon less than half a century old in the United States, largely driven by a law enforcement need to distinguish criminals. Until Colorado and California became the first states to put black-and-white photos on driver's licenses in 1958, identity was generally captured on sterile pieces of paper detached from the physical body: birth certificates, Social Security cards and draft cards.
But demand for photo identification has transformed driver's licenses from a public safety credential into the primary identification document in American life. Today, even though they adhere to different standards, a number of states are using biometric technologies such as digital fingerprinting and facial recognition with their driver's licenses.
-------- spying
F.B.I. Recruits Chinese Students in U.S.
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By MATT RICHTEL
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/07TECH.html
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is recruiting Chinese students at American universities to gain insight into what it says is an intensified effort by the Chinese government to obtain militarily useful technologies in the United States, according to law enforcement officials.
A senior F.B.I. official said the program was aimed at students and scholars because they were sometimes tapped by the Chinese government to collect information, particularly in nuclear physics and disciplines that could be used to advance military communications, missile tracking and battlefield command and control.
The effort, which the official said had been going on for six months and entailed paying students from China, comes as the F.B.I. seeks to revitalize its battered reputation as a counterintelligence unit in the aftermath of terrorist attacks.
It reflects the complex, evolving economic relationship between China and the United States, particularly in the area of technology.
China consumes billions of dollars a year in American technology products, and Chinese scholars and entrepreneurs increasingly are the business partners of Americans, making it a serious challenge to discern which technology transfers are legitimate and which constitute a national security threat.
Policy experts say the Chinese government wants to acquire more advanced military technology, particularly in communications.
One F.B.I. official involved with the recruiting of students said there were students acting as agents for the Chinese government - or who might be tapped to do so - who could lend insight into the specific technologies being sought.
He said students were being paid for providing information, but would not say how much.
"We're not interested in kids taking history or English 101," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We want lists of students in the nuclear physics program."
The official said the F.B.I. was trying to identify people with access to the directives of the Chinese government who "can tell us where they're focusing their efforts."
He added that the F.B.I. field offices were also looking for people who "if they go home, or when they go home, would be in a position to assist us."
A second F.B.I. official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the bureau was making the effort in part because the government was seeing "a more focused, more directed and more prioritized collection effort" to obtain American technology. He said the Chinese were seeking nuclear weapons technology, and advanced military technology to be used for missile systems and electronic warfare.
In a statement responding to questions, the Chinese government said the idea that it was "collecting military, scientific and technological intelligence in the U.S. is sheer fabrication and not worthy of comment."
The two senior F.B.I. officials said most of the tens of thousands of Chinese students and thousands of scholars visiting the United States for conferences and exchanges were not involved in any organized effort to procure technology.
Further, the officials said much of the technology sought by the Chinese government was not necessarily proprietary, but public information of the type that could easily be found at a university library.
There is nothing new to the assertion that Beijing is directing an effort to obtain advanced technology. Some China scholars are skeptical that the effort has intensified, as the F.B.I. contends.
James Mulvenon, a China scholar with the Rand Corporation, said there was no evidence that the Chinese were involved in some new "vacuum cleaner campaign of technology." Still, he and several other scholars said there was value in government efforts to develop intelligence through Chinese students.
"We need to know more about the linkages between the Chinese military, Chinese government and Chinese industry," Mr. Mulvenon said. One way to go about it, he said, "is to actually talk to the people most strongly wooed by this apparatus - by the Chinese industry, government and military."
Mr. Mulvenon said his research indicated that for the 2001-02 school year, 63,211 Chinese students were in American degree programs. They represent 11 percent of all foreign students in the United States.
One challenge for the F.B.I., China scholars said, is finding students who already work for the Chinese government, or may do so, to act as sources of information.
"There's a massive Chinese presence in this country," said Nicholas Lardy, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. "To separate those who are here legitimately from those with a government mandate to get a hold of proprietary technology is very difficult."
Richard Bush, also a Brookings Institution scholar, said that he was not familiar with the F.B.I. program, but that the bureau "has not a very good reputation" in terms of counterintelligence, "so one would have to be cautious that this approach is going to be effective."
He added that the F.B.I. would have to worry about Chinese students "being turned" by the Chinese government and the F.B.I. then "being fed bad information."
A scholar who has discussed the program with the F.B.I., speaking on condition of anonymity, said that in the last year "there has been a very strongly renewed effort" by the F.B.I. to monitor and recruit Chinese students. He said it was "part and parcel of the effort" by the F.B.I. and the Immigration and Naturalization Service "to track all foreign students."
But he said that in the case of the Chinese, the F.B.I. was approaching students in nuclear physics, aerodynamics, engineering related to missiles or space satellites, nanotechnology, and disciplines related to supercomputers and encryption.
He said the F.B.I., in an effort to establish ties with students, had organized meetings with Chinese student groups on some campuses, seeking to recruit translators.
The F.B.I. official involved in recruiting students said those being sought may or may not already be working for the Chinese government or military.
The official said the Chinese military might seek to recruit a student to send over scientific information, sometimes seemingly very basic. The Chinese government will tell the student, "get on the university system and e-mail us everything about widgets," the official said. "It's open-source information," he said, but the student "has still done something."
Henry Tang, the co-chairman of the Committee of 100, a Chinese-American institute in Washington, said that whether to cooperate with the F.B.I. "is the decision of the individual student."
But Mr. Tang, who said he was not familiar with the recruiting program, said he worried about a policy and statements from the F.B.I. that could unfairly cast aspersions on tens of thousands of Chinese students, and Chinese-Americans more generally.
-------- terrorism
U.S. Raises Terror Alert, Warning of High Risk of Attacks
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/politics/07cnd-terror.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 - The Bush administration raised the country's alert status from "elevated risk" to "high risk" today, saying that there was now an increased risk of terrorist attacks and that apartment buildings, hotels and other places where security is relatively light may be targets.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, who made the announcement at a news conference, said the move was was made in response to "specific intelligence" that had been corroborated by multiple sources. But as in previous announcements, he did not offer any details.
The change set in motion a series of extra security precautions by federal, state and local law enforcement and emergency agencies. It will bring about extra security at airports and at borders. In New York City, extra attention will be given to lobbies of hotels and apartment buildings as well as subways, bridges and tunnels, Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference this afternoon.
Mr. Ashcroft and other officials advised the public not to panic but rather to remain vigilant. Since the terrorists attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, government officials have said they would rather share information, however fragmentary, with the nation rather than keep it under wraps. "The call that we give today, which Americans have certainly heard before, is based on our knowledge and our conviction that heightened awareness and readiness deters terrorism and saves lives," said Tom Ridge, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
"Each of us in our own ways can contribute to the security of our nation, our families and our communities," Mr. Ridge said. "Today we call on Americans to continue to persevere in the face of this evil, in the face of this terror, because we understand that by working together, not only will we persevere, but we will prevail."
Mr. Ridge said people should check his department's Web site (www.dhs.gov) from time to time for updates. The officials declined to predict how long the heightened alert (from yellow to orange on the color code Mr. Ridge designed) would remain in effect.
Last September, the country was put on an orange status for about two weeks, coinciding with the anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There has never been a red alert, indicating a "severe" chance of attack.
Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg said special units of the State Police and National Guard will be activated, and that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will devote extra security to bridges and tunnels. Mr. Pataki said health-care professional throughout the state are being alerted to watch for suspicious outbreaks of infectious diseases.
Mr. Ashcroft said recent intelligence reports have suggested an "increased likelihood" that Al Qaeda terrorists may try to attack Americans in the United States or overseas during Haji, a Muslim religious period that ends in mid-February. The attorney general said there were recent indications of Al Qaeda's interest in carrying out chemical, biological and radiological attacks.
The attorney general said intelligence reports indicated that Al Qaeda might seek economic targets, perhaps those having to do with transportation and energy, "as well as symbolic targets and symbols of American power."
Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg agreed with that assessment. The mayor said New York city's role as "capital of the world" and the center of American business make it an inviting target, as the assault on the World Trade Center showed.
They agreed, too, that New Yorkers should not capitulate to fear.
"Leave the worrying to the professionals and live your lives," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Otherwise, the terrorists win."
--------
Five Levels of Terrorism Alerts
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terror-Alert-Box.html
The five levels of terrorism alerts as well as recommended government and private-sector responses:
GREEN: Low risk of terrorist attacks.
--Refine and exercise planned protective measures.
--Ensure emergency personnel receive training.
--Assess facilities for vulnerabilities and take measures to reduce them.
BLUE: Guarded condition. General risk of terrorist attack.
--Check communications with designated emergency response or command locations.
--Review and update emergency response procedures.
--Provide the public with necessary information.
YELLOW: Elevated condition. Significant risk of terrorist attacks.
--Increase surveillance of critical locations.
--Coordinate emergency plans with nearby jurisdictions.
--Assess further refinement of protective measures within the context of the current threat information.
--Implement, as appropriate, contingency and emergency response plans.
ORANGE: High risk of terrorist attacks.
--Coordinate necessary security efforts with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies or any National Guard or other appropriate armed forces.
--Take additional precaution at public events and possibly consider alternative venues or cancellations.
--Prepare to work at an alternate site or with a dispersed work force.
--Restrict access to threatened facilities to essential personnel only.
RED: Severe risk of terrorist attacks.
--Assign emergency response personnel and preposition specially trained teams.
--Monitor, redirect or constrain transportation systems.
--Close public and government facilities.
--Increase or redirect personnel to address critical emergency needs.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
Bush urges Congress to pass fuel-cell bill
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 7, 2003
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030207-1775650.htm
President Bush yesterday urged Congress to pass his $1.2 billion plan to spur development of hydrogen-fueled cars, saying the United States must break its dependence on oil from "countries that don't particularly like us."
"We import over half of our crude oil stocks from abroad. And sometimes we import that oil from countries that don't particularly like us," the president said in a speech at the National Building Museum.
"It jeopardizes our national security to be dependent on sources of energy from countries that don't care for America, what we stand for, what we love."
With the United States on the brink of war with Iraq - which could hamper U.S. relations with some major oil-producing nations in the Middle East - Mr. Bush said his proposal would reduce demand for oil by more than 11 million barrels per day by 2040 from the 20 million barrels Americans now use.
The United States imports 55 percent of the oil it consumes, a figure that is expected to grow to 68 percent by 2025. Using fuel-cell cars would eliminate reliance on foreign providers and bring self-sufficiency, which Mr. Bush said is a "matter of economic security."
At the museum, the president spent about 20 minutes watching demonstrations of cars, a scooter and portable electronics such as cell phones and laptops, all powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
One vehicle was the hydrogen-powered Honda FCX, which uses hydrogen supplied to a fuel-cell "stack" to generate electricity that powers its electric motor. With an output of up to 80 horsepower and 201 foot-pounds of torque, its acceleration is similar to that of a Honda Civic, company officials say.
Water vapor is the only exhaust.
Mr. Bush first announced the proposal in his State of the Union address last month, promising a "new national commitment" to take fuel-cell-powered cars "from laboratory to showrooms" within the next 20 years.
While critics complain that a generation is too long to wait before hydrogen-powered cars are widely available and affordable, Mr. Bush said continuing to talk about the issue is pointless; action is needed.
Some Democrats said Mr. Bush is trying to fool Americans into thinking he is an environmentalist, a charge that rankled the White House.
"What's so unfortunate about comments like that is the partisan nature of these types of attacks is exactly why it's been so hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together to protect the environment," Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
"Instead of saying thank you and welcoming a major environmental initiative, opposition parties and groups that represent more of the [Democratic National Committee] than the environmental cause launch attacks."
Mr. Bush wants to spend an additional $720 million over 10 years beyond what is already planned for fuel-cell research. In all, Mr. Bush wants to spend $1.7 billion on two projects over the next five years.
Some, however, said the president's plan did not go far enough.
"While the country awaits the hydrogen-powered cars of 20 or more years from now, the president should be increasing fuel-economy standards for cars, SUVs, and pickups and urging Americans to purchase and drive hybrid gas-electric vehicles that are in auto showrooms right now," said David M. Nemtzow, president of the Alliance to Save Energy.
-------- environment
U.S. Seeks 54 Exemptions on Pesticide Ban
February 7, 2003
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/science/07OZON.html
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 - The Bush administration is requesting exemptions for 54 companies and trade groups that want to continue using a pesticide scheduled to be phased out by 2005 under a treaty to protect the ozone layer, officials said today.
All but two applications have been approved in whole or in part by the Environmental Protection Agency. The requests come from businesses like tomato and strawberry growers and operators of golf courses who say they need to use the chemical, methyl bromide, and have no alternative, the officials said.
The exemption requests, to be submitted this week to the Ozone Secretariat at the United Nations, drew criticism from environmental groups, which said the environmental agency was undermining the Montreal Protocol of 1987.
The protocol is generally regarded as one of the most effective environmental pacts. With 160 signers, it set a timetable for nations to phase out compounds that damage the stratospheric ozone layer that protects Earth from ultraviolet radiation.
The administration had indicated it was considering the exemptions. Today was the first time it specified the number that it would seek and the minimum amount of pesticide use it says would be necessary.
The American requests would result in an increase in the use of methyl bromide, to 39 percent of the baseline set in 1991. The treaty now limits consumption in the United States to 30 percent for 2003 and 2004.
Fourteen other nations are also seeking exemptions for methyl bromide.
Methyl bromide, the last chemical in commercial use that the protocol phases out, is a toxic gas that sterilizes soil before planting and kills pests in stored food products. Scientists have identified it as a potent ozone destroyer and estimate that it accounts for 7 percent of the ozone erosion.
Farmers, beekeepers, cultivators of tobacco seedlings and others say they have no alternative for effectively killing weeds and pests. In their applications, they said they had explored alternatives and would face "significant market disruption" if not granted exemptions.
John Pemberton, chief of staff of the air and radiation program at the environmental agency, said the government had spent $146 million in searching for a benign compound to be used instead of methyl bromide. Numerous groups are seeking relief from the ban, including food processors, turf and sod growers and vegetable producers.
"Unfortunately," Mr. Pemberton said, "it has not resulted in an alternative that can step in for the crops. The research has not resulted in a replacement product."
The agency is applying for two-year exemptions for varying amounts of the chemical. The Montreal Protocol allows for exemptions beyond 2005, but they have to obtain approval from the Ozone Secretariat.
Environmental groups say the Bush administration is undercutting the treaty and setting a poor example. They note that safer alternatives have been found for numerous other compounds listed in the treaty.
"They've had a decade of advance warning," said David Doniger, policy director of the climate center of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Millions have been spent on researching alternatives."
The United States is the largest consumer of methyl bromide, accounting for 25 percent of its global consumption. It is produced here by the Albemarle Corporation of Richmond, Va., as well as by companies in Israel and China.
Mr. Doniger said the administration was reacting to pressure from industries that are resisting change.
"The sore thumb in all this is methyl bromide," he said. "It's the only user community that has continued to fight to change the rules every step of the way."
Officials at the environmental agency said they supported the protocol and planned to restrict use of the chemical in subsequent years.
"The U.S. takes its commitment to the Montreal Protocol and the needs of the agricultural community very seriously," the agency said in a statement to be released on Friday. "Our action on critical use exemptions is good for the environment and U.S. agriculture."
-------- ACTIVISTS
Students Protest Possible Iraq War
Principal says they may be suspended for walking out of class
By Akilah Johnson,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 7, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/la-me-walkout7feb07,0,2493410.story
LOS ANGELES - More than 200 students carrying "no blood for oil" signs marched down the steps of the Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies magnet school in West Los Angeles on Thursday to protest preparations for war against Iraq.
Many other students lined the school's chain-link fence waving "not in our name" signs and applauding as their classmates headed to the first of three rallying spots -- 18th Street at La Cienega Boulevard -- along a three-mile route down La Cienega to Pico Boulevard to Fairfax Avenue and back again.
Taking to the corners of three major intersections along the way, the protesters chanted "1, 2, 3, 4, we won't fight your bloody war!" and waved antiwar posters, rousing some honks of support from passing cars.
Meanwhile, school Principal Frank Nishimura, who accompanied the marchers to ensure their safety, said the protesters will face possible suspension from school for walking out of class. Marchers reported later, however, that Nishimura commended them during an assembly on campus for demonstrating peacefully.
As the march proceeded, a heckler yelled at the students, "You guys should be in class, not out here marching!" But Michael Horton, a junior at the magnet school, said Thursday's event "lets everyone know that we have a mind, and we know what we're talking about."
Among their reasons for opposing a conflict in Iraq, students cited their fears that Iraqi civilians would be killed and their concern that President Bush is overemphasizing national security
"Calling Saddam Hussein evil is not enough for me," said Sheva Diange, 16, who added that she'd like to see beefed up inspections by the United Nations as opposed to war.
----
THE CALL FOR PEACE FROM GULF HEROES
Feb 7 2003
UK Mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12616661&method=full&siteid=50143
NO ONE can tell John Peters and John Nicol anything about the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime.
They suffered grievously for fighting against the Iraqi despot in the war to free Kuwait.
They were shot down, captured, beaten and tortured. Yet yesterday, as another 100 British planes were ordered to the Gulf, both former airmen spoke out against waging a new war on Iraq.
Like others who have actually taken part in military conflict, they understand it is necessary but must be the last resort.
And we are not yet at that stage in the struggle to control Saddam. He may want to possess weapons of mass destruction, he may want to attack other nations, but there is no evidence he is anywhere near being able to.
That is why so many former military men have come out against war at the moment. Like John Peters and John Nicol, they don't believe action is necessary - and think it might be dangerous.
We know the British generals are dubious about invading Iraq. Their opposite numbers in the US are likely to feel the same.
As ever, the politicians who order in troops do so from a position of comfort and safety. Neither George W. Bush nor Tony Blair have personal experience of warfare.
They should listen to the men who do.
----
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
Friday, February 7, 2003
by CommonDreams.org
http://commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm
Secretary Powell's presentation at the UN today requires context. We give him an "A" for assembling and listing the charges against Iraq, but only a "C-" in providing context and perspective.
What seems clear to us is that you need an intelligence briefing, not grand jury testimony. Secretary Powell effectively showed that Iraq is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for not cooperating fully with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. That had already been demonstrated by the chief UN inspectors. For Powell, it was what the Pentagon calls a "cakewalk."
The narrow focus on Resolution 1441 has diverted attention from the wider picture. It is crucial that we not lose sight of that. Intelligence community analysts are finding it hard to make themselves heard above the drumbeat for war. Speaking both for ourselves, as veteran intelligence officers on the VIPS Steering Group with over a hundred years of professional experience, and for colleagues within the community who are increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence, we feel a responsibility to help you frame the issues. For they are far more far-reaching-and complicated-than "UN v. Saddam Hussein." And they need to be discussed dispassionately, in a setting in which sobriquets like "sinister nexus," "evil genius," and "web of lies" can be more hindrance than help.
Flouting UN Resolutions
The key question is whether Iraq's flouting of a UN resolution justifies war. This is the question the world is asking. Secretary Powell's presentation does not come close to answering it.
One might well come away from his briefing thinking that the Iraqis are the only ones in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. Or one might argue that there is more urgency to the need to punish the violator of Resolution 1441 than, say, of Resolution 242 of 1967 requiring Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories it occupied that year. More urgency? You will not find many Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims who would agree.
It is widely known that you have a uniquely close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This presents a strong disincentive to those who might otherwise warn you that Israel's continuing encroachment on Arab territories, its oppression of the Palestinian people, and its pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 1981 are among the root causes not only of terrorism, but of Saddam Hussein's felt need to develop the means to deter further Israeli attacks. Secretary Powell dismisses this factor far too lightly with his summary judgment that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are "not for self-defense."
Containment
You have dismissed containment as being irrelevant in a post 9/11 world. You should know that no one was particularly fond of containment, but that it has been effective for the last 55 years. And the concept of "material breach" is hardly anything new.
Material Breach
In the summer of 1983 we detected a huge early warning radar installation at Krasnoyarsk in Siberia. In 1984 President Reagan declared it an outright violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. At an ABM Treaty review in 1988, the US spoke of this continuing violation as a "material breach" of the treaty. In the fall of 1989, the Soviet Union agreed to eliminate the radar at Krasnoyarsk without preconditions.
We adduce this example simply to show that, with patient, persistent diplomacy, the worst situations can change over time.
You have said that Iraq is a "grave threat to the United States," and many Americans think you believe it to be an imminent threat. Otherwise why would you be sending hundreds of thousands of troops to the Gulf area? In your major speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, you warned that "the risk is simply too great that Saddam Hussein will use instruments of mass death and destruction, or provide them to a terror network."
Terrorism
Your intelligence agencies see it differently. On the same day you spoke in Cincinnati, a letter from the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with such weapons or give them to terrorists..UNLESS:
"Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."
For now, continued the CIA letter, "Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States." With his back against the wall, however, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario.
Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially.
As recent events around the world attest, terrorism is like malaria. You don't eliminate malaria by killing the flies. Rather you must drain the swamp. With an invasion of Iraq, the world can expect to be inundated with swamps breeding terrorists. In human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a large phalanx of security personnel.
We recommend you re-read the CIA assessment of last fall that pointed out that "the forces fueling hatred of the US and fueling al Qaeda recruiting are not being addressed," and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist." That CIA report cited a Gallup poll last year of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased."
Chemical Weapons
With respect to possible Iraqi use of chemical weapons, it has been the judgment of the US intelligence community for over 12 years that the likelihood of such use would greatly increase during an offensive aimed at getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
Listing the indictment particulars, Secretary Powell said, in an oh-by-the-way tone, that sources had reported that Saddam Hussein recently authorized his field commanders to use such weapons. We find this truly alarming. We do not share the Defense Department's optimism that radio broadcasts and leaflets would induce Iraqi commanders not to obey orders to use such weapons, or that Iraqi generals would remove Saddam Hussein as soon as the first US soldier sets foot in Iraq. Clearly, an invasion would be no cakewalk for American troops, ill equipped as they are to operate in a chemical environment.
Casualties
Reminder: The last time we sent troops to the Gulf, over 600,000 of them, one out of three came back ill-many with unexplained disorders of the nervous system. Your Secretary of Veterans Affairs recently closed the VA healthcare system to nearly 200,000 eligible veterans by administrative fiat. Thus, casualties of further war will inevitably displace other veterans who need VA services.
In his second inaugural, Abraham Lincoln appealed to his fellow citizens to care for those who "have borne the battle." Years before you took office, our country was doing a very poor job of that for the over 200,000 servicemen and women stricken with various Gulf War illnesses. Today's battlefield is likely to be even more sodden with chemicals and is altogether likely to yield tens of thousands more casualties. On October 1, 2002 Congress' General Accounting Office reported "serious problems still persist" with the Pentagon's efforts to protect servicemen and women, including shortfalls in clothing, equipment, and training. Our troops deserve more effective support than broadcasts, leaflets, and faulty equipment for protection against chemical and biological agents.
No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is irrefutable or undeniable. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
Richard Beske, San Diego Kathleen McGrath Christison, Santa Fe William Christison, Santa Fe Patrick Eddington, Alexandria Raymond McGovern, Arlington
Steering Group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is a coast-to-coast enterprise; mostly intelligence officers from analysis side of CIA, but Operations side also represented.
----
Gate-Crasher Hands Bush 'Message From God'
By Lloyd Grove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page C01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37895-2003Feb6?language=printer
The Rev. Richard "Rich" Weaver, nicknamed "Handshake Man" because of his knack for getting up close and personal with the high and mighty, struck again yesterday morning.
The Post's David Montgomery reports that the 57-year-old Weaver, a nondenominational Christian minister from Sacramento, crashed the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton, breezing through the ballroom entrance without a ticket and handed President Bush what he later described as an eight-page typed "message from God" about Iraq.
"It's just God, buddy," Weaver told Montgomery. "They asked everyone else for a ticket. They didn't ask me." With his conservative blue suit, neat haircut and hearty, gregarious manner, Weaver easily passed through the metal detector. "I don't try to sneak in," Weaver explained. "I just go where I feel like God wants me to go."
This is Handshake Man's third noteworthy caper, though he claims to have met five presidents, including George Bush the elder. Weaver made headlines two years ago when he slipped past authorities outside the Capitol and handed a note to the just-inaugurated President Bush, exhorting him to "stand for Christ daily without political compromise." He got past the Secret Service and the U.S. Capitol Police even though the police had studied a video of Weaver shaking hands with Bill Clinton at his second presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 1997.
Weaver told Montgomery that Secret Service agents even visited him in Sacramento several weeks ago and asked if he had any plans to meet the president again. "If God tells me to," Weaver quoted himself as answering. The Secret Service wouldn't confirm Weaver's account.
Yesterday Handshake Man found himself in a crowd that included 56 senators, 240 House members, first lady Laura Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and CIA director George Tenet. He freely mingled with his fellow breakfast-goers, whipping out a disposable camera to have his picture taken with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and several other politicians and religious leaders. He found a seat at Frist's table, mere feet from the head table where Bush sat. "Someone stayed home," Weaver shrugged. "I just pinched myself and said, 'God, you did it again.' "
Weaver told Montgomery that at one point he unhooked a rope in front of the head table, approached the president and handed him the letter, which warned: "If America does not repent, there will be 50,000 casualties and a six-month war" with Iraq. Bush had a look of attentiveness and "peace," Weaver added.
The exchange caught the attention of the Secret Service, and a small army of agents accompanied Weaver to his hotel room after breakfast and grilled him about his escapade. He was not charged with anything. After the interrogation, Weaver met with Montgomery in the Hilton lobby, and agents hovered nearby. Then they trailed the pair onto Connecticut Avenue NW when Weaver decided to get his snapshots developed at a nearby RiteAid.
"Mr. Weaver, where are we going?" asked a polite man with a wire in his ear.
"We're going to the drug store to pick up my pictures," Weaver said.
The agent and a partner stood watch in the RiteAid as Weaver thumbed through his prints. Weaver told Montgomery: "They're thorough as all get-out. They're wonderful people."
Secret Service spokesman John Gill declined to comment on Weaver. But he said the president was never in any danger and security had not been breached, because everyone had passed through a metal detector, among other security measures. As for the posse of agents who followed Weaver's every move for hours after the breakfast, Gill said: "Anytime somebody exhibits an unusual direction of interest toward one of our protectees, we would follow up on it. We don't have the luxury of doing otherwise."
Around 1:30 p.m. yesterday, Weaver had to leave for Reagan National Airport airport to catch his plane home. He was going to take the Metro, but the Secret Service offered him a ride. When last seen, Handshake Man was being frisked, then put in a car by government agents.
---------
Mexico Digs at Last for Truth About 1968 Massacre
February 7, 2003
New York Times
By TIM WEINER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/americas/07MEXI.html
MEXICO CITY, Feb. 6 - The struggle for the control of history continues in Mexico. The biggest battleground today is what happened on the night of Oct. 2, 1968.
Every reputable historian, and almost every living eyewitness, says this:
Government troops massacred student protesters in Tlatelolco Plaza in Mexico City that night, on the eve of the 1968 Olympic Games, and then tried to wash away the blood, along with every trace of the killing.
For the next 30 years, Mexico's high-school students learned nothing about the event from their official history textbooks - nothing that was true, at any rate. The textbooks, approved by the secretary of public education, either made no mention of the Tlatelolco massacre or suggested, in passing, that the students were the attackers that night.
Then the government approved a new book: "History of Mexico: an Analytical Approach," by Claudia Sierra Campuzano. Its version of events is, by almost every account, far closer to the truth as documented by declassified government records, independent witnesses, and recorded history.
"The army surrounded the square and fired from every angle on thousands of youths," the book says, leaving "hundreds of dead and wounded, thousands of arrests," followed by "the persecution and imprisonment of student leaders."
So it was more than a little strange to Ms. Campuzano, a 52-year-old professor at the National School of Anthropology and History in Cuernavaca, to hear this week that the Public Education Ministry was ordering her book off the shelves. "It's like the Spanish Inquisition," she said in an interview. "It's a crack in the facade of democracy in this country."
"Even worse, the government looks ridiculous," she said.
Evidently, someone in the government agreed with that assessment. Today, the minister of public education, Reyes Tamez, said in an interview that the book would not be removed, but, perhaps, revised.
He would not say what revisions might be necessary. Nor did he explain the initial announcement that the book would be withdrawn.
But Ms. Campuzano said in an interview that she thought the book's account of the Tlatelolco killings, and the legacies of three past presidents of Mexico, had offended certain high-ranking members of the Public Education Ministry - namely, the permanent bureaucracy of the PRI, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which ruled Mexico from 1929 to 2000.
Many of President Vicente Fox's attempts to change Mexico have been hobbled by the resistance of the old guard. The former ruling party and its millions of loyal members still run much of Mexico's federal machinery. They enjoy a plurality in Congress, and they revel in blocking the sweeping changes Mr. Fox pledged to enact when he became the first opposition politician to take the presidency two years ago.
The struggle over Tlatelolco continues on several fronts.
The 1968 killings were the beginning of a long government crackdown on its real and suspected enemies. Hundreds of people were killed over the next 15 years.
In November 2001, President Fox appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Tlatelolco massacre and at least 275 subsequent killings committed by the government.
Today, the special prosecutor summoned Miguel Nazar Haro, once chief of the now-defunct Federal Security Directorate, the secret police. Mr. Nazar is suspected of torturing and killing leftists during and after 1968. He has never has been charged with a crime.
The special prosecutor has the task of either confirming or refuting the judgment of the nation's leading historians: that the killing at Tlatelolco was orchestrated at the highest levels of the government, with the intent of suppressing political unrest that could embarrass Mexico before the world at the Olympics.
Then that judgment can go down in history, said Ms. Campuzano. "Before, students did not learn history," she said. "How can we be citizens if we do not know what happened before, if we don't know why political and economic decisions were made - if we don't understand anything?"
---------
Palestinians Protest Possible Iraq War
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Mideast-Iraq.html
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Hundreds of Palestinians carrying posters of Saddam Hussein marched in Gaza City on Friday to protest U.S. plans for a war in Iraq.
The march was organized by Hamas, the militant Islamic movement that has killed hundreds of Israelis in bombings and shootings in 28 months of fighting.
The group has said it wants to stay focused on its conflict with Israel. But that wasn't the message Friday.
``Oh, people of Iraq, stand and be patient. Liberation is upon you. Oh. people of Iraq, Hamas is coming to save you,'' one man shouted as the protesters burned American and Israeli flags.
Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the group's spiritual leader, attended the rally. In an interview, he said war on Iraq is a war against all Muslims. ``America must be buried in Iraq so they can learn a lesson not to attack any Arab countries,'' Yassin said.
Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erekat, speaking for the Palestinian Authority, said Thursday that the dispute with Iraq should be resolved by diplomacy, not force.
Israel's army chief, meanwhile, said a successful campaign to oust Saddam could help ease the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He noted that in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, the first Palestinian uprising cooled and peace talks began.
``In the next few weeks there is going to be a regional earthquake here,'' Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon told the daily Yediot Ahronot. ``After it, I believe there will be a new balance in the region, a new structure. A successful American offensive will ... strengthen all of the pragmatic parties in the region.''
Yaalon also said an Iraqi missile strike on Israel is unlikely as Saddam is concentrating his forces around Baghdad and not along the country's western border where they would be within missile range of Israel.
For months, Israelis have been preparing for the possibility Iraq might attack Israeli cities with Scud missiles as it did in the 1991 Gulf War. More recently, U.S. and Israeli soldiers have been testing Israel's air defenses in joint exercises.
He also said he believes the American force is already large enough to effectively wage war against Iraq.
There are an estimated 113,000 U.S. forces in the Gulf region. By early March, the U.S. force is expected to be about 200,000 troops, compared with 500,000 American troops deployed in the 1991 Gulf War.
--------
Turkey Denies U.S. Anti - War Leader
February 7, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Turkey-Iraq-Human-Shields.html
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) -- Border police on Friday denied entry into Turkey to a former U.S. Marine who is leading an anti-war group of ``human shields'' headed for Iraq ahead of a possible U.S.-led attack, an official said.
Ken O'Keefe, the founder of the ``Human Shield Mission'' protest group who flew into Istanbul from Italy, was not let into the country when he presented a passport issued by the World Service Authority.
A spokesman of Istanbul airport, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Turkey does not recognize this passport.
The spokesman said O'Keefe protested, shouting that he had traveled across the world with that passport and was a ``citizen of the world.''
The U.S.-based World Service Authority issues passports on the basis of an article of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that guarantees the right to travel freely. The authority says the passport is recognized by more than 150 countries.
Five other activists accompanying O'Keefe were allowed into the country, while O'Keefe flew back to Italy.
O'Keefe, 33, is a veteran of the 1991 Gulf War. He gave up his U.S. citizenship four years ago to protest U.S. foreign policy.
Another 38 members of the group arrived in Istanbul on Friday in a convoy of two red double-decker buses and several cars that has been traveling by land from Britain.
Scores of Turks waving signs saying ``No to war'' greeted the convoy in Istanbul's downtown Taksim square despite a heavy snowstorm.
The group, which includes Americans, Britons, Australians, Swiss and Greeks, will be joined by several Turks, private NTV television reported.
They plan to reach Baghdad next week. The protesters left London on Jan. 25.
----
PBS' NOW With Bill Moyers Exposes Secret Draft Bill from the Department of Justice to Extend Powers of the Patriot Act
Friday, February 7, 2003
by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0207-10.htm
Tonight, on Friday, February 7 at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html), NOW with Bill Moyers will provide details of a Justice Department draft of a bill designed to extend the powers of the Patriot Act. The draft bill was provided exclusively to NOW by the Center for Public Integrity, [www.publicintegrity.org], which obtained it from a confidential government source. The document, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, outlines significant broadening of law enforcement powers, including domestic intelligence gathering, surveillance, and law enforcement prerogatives, while decreasing public access to information and judicial review authority.
Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution assessed the document for NOW with Bill Moyers and the Center for Public Integrity. "I think this is a quite radical proposal. It authorizes secret arrests. It would give the Attorney General essentially unchecked authority to deport anyone who he thought was a danger to our economic interests. It would strip citizenship from people for lawful political associations," he told NOW's Roberta Baskin. "And...it has not been put on the table so there can be a discussion about it."
NOW interviewed executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, Charles Lewis, in New York on Thursday. When asked to gauge the significance of the document Lewis responded: "It just deepens and broadens, further extends the first Patriot Act," he says. "And it's arguably...a more thorough rendering of all the things law enforcement and intelligence agencies would like to have in a perfect world. I think it's a very tough document when it comes to secrecy and surveillance."
Share your views on the issues and read more about the secret document at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/lewis.html.
--
Breaking News
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/lewis.html
There's an important story developing tonight at the Justice Department. The non-partisan Center for Public Integrity obtained a closely-guarded document that shows plans for a sweeping expansion of the government's police powers.
Until now, few people outside of the department, not even members of key congressional committees have seen this draft legislation. It could lead to increased surveillance and greater secrecy - all in the name of the war on terror. It raises questions about how we balance liberty and security - the rights of individuals versus the rule of law.
Bill Moyers talks to Chuck Lewis about the significance of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 and how it would affect civil liberties.
# Read the complete interview (below) http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_lewis2.html
# Read the Department of Justice Response (PDF) http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/03-082-opa.pdf
# See who received the draft legislation (PDF) http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/distribution.pdf
READ THE DOCUMENT
# Download the high resolution version (PDF) http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf
# Download the low resolution version (PDF) http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-low.pdf
Civil Liberties and the Patriot Act:
The Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp
The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization, was founded by Charles Lewis. The mission of the Center for Public Integrity is to provide the American people with the findings of our investigations and analyses of public service, government accountability and ethics related issues. The Web site has many frequently updated features on Issue Ads, Campaign Finance and Citizen Muckraking, among others. The site is also home to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which posts stories from all over the globe.
The Department of Homeland Security http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/
The Department of Homeland Security offers information about Homeland Security legislation, the President's Homeland Security proposal, and analysis of the department. Other features include transcripts of speeches given by Governor Tom Ridge at the National Association of Broadcasters Education Foundation 2002 Service to America Summit and President Bush's Address to the Nation concerning homeland security. Online chat transcripts with Governor Ridge are also included.
Homeland Security, Homeland Profits http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=1108
On the Corpwatch Web site (a corporate watchdog group), Wayne Madsen argues that corporations are standing to make billions from selling "surveillance and information-gathering systems to government agencies and the private sector." Madsen cautions that this technology will be utilized to intimidate and squelch dissent.
How the USA Patriot Act Puts the CIA Back in the Business of Spying On Americans http://www.aclu.org/congress/l102301j.html
In this issue brief, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that the USA Patriot Act includes domestic espionage against American citizens. According to the ACLU, the USA Patriot Act "permits a vast array of information gathering on U.S. citizens from school records, financial transactions, Internet activity, telephone conversations, information gleaned from grand jury proceedings and criminal investigations to be shared with the CIA (and other non-law enforcement officials) even if it pertains to Americans."
Preparing the U.S. Army for Homeland Security http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1251/
In this Rand Corporation publication, the organization analyzes the security threats facing the U.S. and helps to clarify the U.S. Army's core responsibilities in preventing and responding to attacks on the U.S. homeland.
Seizing Dictatorial Power - William Safire http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/opinion/15SAFI.html
In this New York Times op-ed, journalist William Safire admonishes the Bush Administration for usurping "dictatorial powers" in the prosecution and sentencing of suspected terrorists. Safire trumpets a clarion call for all "conservative iconoclasts and card-carrying hard-liners to stand up for American values."
The Sons and Daughters of Liberty http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0226/hentoff.php
Village Voice correspondent Nat Hentoff reports on 300 citizens of Northhampton, Massachusetts that organized a community meeting to resist the USA Patriot Act. Under the banner of Northhampton Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Hentoff describes the town's activism as a "new American Revolution."
The Northampton Bill of Rights Defense Committee http://www.bordc.org/
The Northampton Bill of Rights Defense Committee (NBORDC) is a grassroots initiative that organized to resist the U.S.A Patriot Act. The NBORDC Web site provides helpful tips to individuals and groups interested in creating their own Bill of Rights Defense Committees in their communities. The Web site also includes an issues page which analyzes provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and Federal Executive Orders in the context of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
USA Patriot Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162:
Thomas is the legislative search engine provided by the Library of Congress. Thomas allows users to read the complete text of the USA Patriot Act, follow its path through Congress and its many committees, review its co-sponsors in Congress, and much more.
USA Patriot Act Includes Provisions on Student Records http://www.acenet.edu/hena/issues/2001/11-05-01/patriot.act.cfm
The American Council on Education(ACE) highlights provisions in the USA Patriot Act that authorizes the ability of the U.S. government to collect detailed information on foreign students. According to ACE, the USA Patriot Act also directs the U.S. Attorney General to implement an electronic database to store and track foreign students from selected countries. Those educational institutions that fail to authorize the intelligence network can be denied the ability to accept foreign students.
Watching You: Systematic Federal Surveillance of Ordinary Americans http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp69.pdf
A Cato Institute issue brief, "Watching You," documents the push to enact a federal tracking system to monitor U.S. citizens in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. If this federal tracking program is instituted, the Cato Institute warns that the government "will have perverted its most fundamental mission and destroyed the privacy and liberty that it was supposed to protect."
Task of a Terror Czar http://www.frc.org/get/ar01j4.cfm
Robert Maginnis of the Family Research Council makes recommendations to ensure the effectiveness of the Gov. Tom Ridges' Department of Homeland Security.
The Posse Comitatus Act: Can We Maintain American Freedom Without It? http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/020729.asp
In this essay, C. T. Rossi responds to Homeland Security head Tom Ridges' attempt to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The Posse Comitatus Act barred the U.S. military from serving as a civilian police force, effectively protecting the right of states and local communities to police themselves. Its repeal, argues Rossi, "would open the door to old abuses" and concentrate undue power in the federal government.
---
Transcript: Bill Moyers interviews Chuck Lewis
2.07.03
PBS
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_lewis2.html
MOYERS: Chuck Lewis, whom you just saw in that piece is with me now. He is the Executive Director of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, the organization responsible for obtaining that document. Chuck Lewis, thank you for joining us.
LEWIS: Thank you.
MOYERS: The Patriot Act was passed six weeks after 9/11. We know now that it greatly changed the balance between liberty and security in this nation's framework. What do you think - what's the significance of this new document, called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003?
LEWIS: I think the significance is it just deepens and broadens, further extends the first Patriot Act. That act in 2001, they had six weeks, which was not a lot of time to throw something together. Now there's been 18 months of all kinds of things that have happened and court decisions that have tried to roll back some of the Patriot Act.
And other concerns, law enforcement, people have, and so they've had time to sift and sort what they want. And it's arguably might be a more thorough rendering of all the things law enforcement and intelligence agencies would like to have in a perfect world. It's sort of how I look at it, and I think it's a very tough document when it comes to secrecy and surveillance.
I understand the concerns about fear of terrorism. And it certainly...
MOYERS: We all have those...
LEWIS: We all have those and there are things in the legislation that make sense, and that are reasonable, I think for any American. But there are other things that really take some of the Patriot Act civil liberties issues that folks were concerned about and go even further. And I think it's gonna be very controversial. Some of these sections are gonna be debated for weeks and months.
MOYERS: So many of these powers latent in this draft legislation were powers that were taken away from the intelligence community some years ago because they were abused.
LEWIS: That's right.
MOYERS: Do you see any protection in here against potential abuse?
LEWIS: I don't think there's very much - there's a lot more authority and power for government. There's less oversight and information about what government is doing. That's the headline and that's the theme. And the safeguards seem to be pretty minimal to me.
MOYERS: I just go through here, you know? "Will give the Attorney General the unchecked power to deport any foreigner?"
LEWIS: Right.
MOYERS: Including lawful permanent resident aliens. It would give the government the power to keep certain arrests secret until an indictment is found never in our history have we permitted secret arrests. It would give the government power to bypass courts and grand juries in order to conduct surveillance without a judge's permission. I mean these do really further upend the balance between liberty on the one hand and security on the other.
LEWIS: Well, they do. They reduce judicial oversight with the secret intelligence courts instead of saying the court may do this now it's the court will do this. They can have ex parte conversations where they go into the judge without anyone else around. In terms of information about detainees, not only can they detain anyone they'd like to detain, there is no public information about it.
Journalists cannot find out the names of - we detained over a thousand people after September 11th because we thought they might all be terrorists. Not one of them was really found with any criminal charges to be a terrorist. And we don't know the names of almost all those people, still. And so it does appear that everything that folks might be concerned about with the Patriot Act, this is times five or times ten is what I look at it. I see it very serious.
MOYERS: You and I have had this kind of discussion often, we go back a long way together. The foundation that I serve on has been a big supporter of yours and you've been a big supporter of our journalism. If we were fighting terrorists instead of being journalists, wouldn't we want this kind of power in our hands?
LEWIS: Well, we would, but we operate in a democracy and there's other considerations. I mean I think, you know, there's no question, if you're in law enforcement, this is gonna make it easier for you to do your job. The problem is, we have a history in our country, just in our lifetime, in the last quarter century.
Where we've seen FBI and CIA abuses of ordinary citizens. Where mail has been opened, where homes have been broken into. Where infiltration has occurred in political groups. Informants have been used, misused. People's lives have been ruined. People have committed suicide because of the pressures brought against them by the government, by these kinds of secret intelligence agencies.
This is not a completely crazy idea to worry about the power of the government. And it was curbed and rolled back in the '70s. And there is something obviously occurring here in the public space around the whole issue of liberty and security right now.
And it is clearly changing and it's moving towards security. And the question for us as a people is what is the right balance. And I think my biggest personal concern is that there ought to be a debate about this. So the Patriot Act jammed through Congress in six weeks.
There was a Congressional - there was a Senate hearing that lasted an hour and a half, there were no questions to the Attorney General by the senators. This is too important for our country. Whatever anyone's point of view, this should be a conversation that the country should have.
And if I'm afraid they're waiting for a war or something and then they're gonna pop this baby out and then try to jam it through.
MOYERS: You mean that if it were not rolled out and discussed publicly until the United States has had war in Iraq, people might not pay as much attention to it as they would now.
LEWIS: They wouldn't pay as much attention and you know, our worries and our fears are gonna be different than they are now. And there will be less of - all these things will melt away. These are nice concerns about liberties but we'll be at war. And we'll have presidents and attorneys general and other government officials telling us things. And I just see a - I see that it wouldn't work quite as easily for them if it comes out in the next few weeks as opposed to then.
MOYERS: Congressman Burton, Dan Burton, of Indiana, a very conservative congressman, who is Chairman on the Committee on Government Reform. He said recently, "An iron veil is descending over the executive branch."
Now your forte is moving information around in Washington trying to find out what's going on. Would you agree with what Congressman Burton has said here?
LEWIS: I absolutely agree with what he's saying. I mean there have been 300 roll-backs of the Freedom of Information Act since September 11th. All over America, at the state and local level, as well as the federal government. The Attorney General sent a message to every federal employee, when in doubt, deny any Freedom of Information request.
We have other things like presidential papers being sealed off. We have reporters trying to cover things in Afghanistan being locked in a warehouse and not able to file their stories. Even before September 11th, we had one reporter's home phone records seized by a grand jury without telling him or his news organization.
There's a lot of things happening with information, access to information, and efforts to stop journalism that I have not seen in 20 plus years of watching Washington and journalism and government interact. And it's not just information. It's not information for information's sake. This is about health, safety, lives...
MOYERS: What do you mean?
LEWIS: Well, you have this whole thing in this current draft legislation that there's a worst case scenario type requirement that every company that is making hazardous or toxic materials has to make that information available to the public. So if something terrible does happen they know that it's possible that it could happen and there's some sort of assessment about it. Well now that is not gonna be required. Chemical companies will not have to tell the world about these problems.
And they will - the citizens in that community will not have access to that information in an easy accessible way. And that's new and that affects their life. If some problem occurs, they're unrelated to the terrorism. Something just goes wrong, they will not know anything about that in their community.
So we're rolling back health and safety and environmental and other considerations and sensitivities that have been in our culture now for decades. Are melting away because of - all in the name of fighting terrorism.
MOYERS: What would be the Attorney General's justification for wanting to restrict access to information about toxic chemicals?
LEWIS: Well, the - I haven't heard one. But I think the rationale is that terrorists could get information about a chemical plant and its security, bad security, inadequate security and somehow then bring about a threat.
But the problem is sunlight is the best disinfectant. If these plants have bad security or they're not being well run and they're actually unsafe it's usually exposing it and talking about it and the public being aware of it that ends up improving the plant or the facility or whatever it is.
I actually find that that's how change occurs usually. And so the ostensible rationale is to keep it away from terrorists. But I think it's also a rationale to protect companies frankly in this instance. Well I happen to know that's been the chemical lobbyist's dream for a long time.
A long time before 9/11. They did not want this information made available.
LEWIS: I see a lot of opportunism here around the fear and paranoia in the wake of September 11th. And taking advantage of the insecurity that we all feel today. And that is, to me, incredibly offensive. And that's why a conversation about it, there's 40 sections in this thing. The public needs to have a sense what exactly are we getting here. There needs to be a chewing over. This should not jam through Congress. This should be out there and being - be talked about.
I mean the realm between public and private, between foreign and domestic, all these things have morphed into the citizen against all of this out there - this morass of regulations and rules and intrusions. And at the same time they can come after you, get your credit card data, your library records, your Internet searching, everything. And they'll decide whether or not you're a suspect or not.
Whether or not they like you. If you're a disfavored political group, or from the wrong ethnic background, then you might become on the radar screen of some folks that you don't know about, you can't find out about, and they can do things. They have - this is incredible power.
MOYERS: One of the provisions in here as I understand it is that the government could actually strip citizenship from someone if - for example, if you were found, according to this, if you were found making what you thought was a legitimate contribution to some non profit organization.
LEWIS: Right.
MOYERS: Foundation. And months from then, that foundation were deemed by the government or that organization were deemed by the government to have been in some way supporting terrorists, you could lose your citizenship because of your contribution, even if you didn't know...
LEWIS: That's right.
MOYERS: That you were contributing to an organization like that.
LEWIS: No, that's absolutely - they have that power. They can also extradite all over world, even if we don't have treaties. I mean, some of the things in here are - strain credulity for legal scholars. They're not sure, they've never seen these kinds of provisions trotted out. I mean, a lot of the question is if it does pass Congress, what would the courts do with it later.
I mean I think there are some legitimate issues there.
MOYERS: What do you make of this? This is the document that went from the Department of Justice with this draft legislation to certain very key people in government. Among them, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President, Richard Cheney, for their comments on this obviously confidential document.
Why the Speaker of the House and the Vice President and not the committee chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate or the appropriate committee in the House?
LEWIS: It's a way to say you've consulted Congress to some extent by sending it to the Speaker and not really consulting Congress.
As far as I can tell, and we have not polled every member or anything like that, but it appears that virtually no one on Capitol Hill, except for the Speaker, has seen this legislation. I'm talking about the people at the judiciary committees in the House and Senate don't have this legislation. And have even been kind of yanked around a little bit for months about whether there will even be legislation.
MOYERS: The House Judiciary Committee actually asked the FBI a few months ago how it has used the new powers that had been given to it under the Patriot Act. And the Justice department said, "We can't tell you that information, it's classified."
And this prompted then-Congressman then Bob Barr, from Georgia, another conservative, by the way, he said the attitude of the Justice Department seems to be that even Congress isn't entitled to know how they are using the authority that Congress gave them.
LEWIS: It's incredible. I mean, if Congress doesn't have oversight over the Justice Department and these programs, who does? That's how it's supposed to work in our constitution and in our set up for government.
MOYERS: That's one of your real concerns, isn't it? That there's no oversight when secrecy is this tight.
LEWIS: Absolutely. The Congress is the people's chance to monitor the executive branch. That is the only... it is the closest branch of government to the people. The House members are up for election every two years. If the House of Representatives and the Congress in general cannot keep a watch on the executive branch and cannot be informed about their activities. There's something very serious here.
MOYERS: Chuck, I hear people out there in the audience thinking, you know, I'm scared. We're - this is a new ballgame, to put it trivially. War on terrorists, they came on 9/11, we keep getting reports they're coming again, who knows where it'll happen. Everybody's scared.
You guys are living in Lotus Land, you journalists talking about this sort of thing. Because we really want the government to protect us from another World Trade Center attack on the Pentagon, which is not far from where your office is in Washington.
LEWIS: Right.
MOYERS: What about that?
LEWIS: Look, I wanna be protected by the government as much as anyone.
But actually, in some ways that's beside the point. There are also freedoms and rights and liberties that, you know, millions of Americas have fought for over 200 years to make sure that this is a special kind of country. And isn't it possible that to be secure and have liberties?
Why give all the power and authority and have no oversight and accountability. What are the safeguards. And that's the question.
MOYERS: When someone inside government, inside the Justice Department, presumably, gives you a confidential document marked, "Not For Distribution," The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, knowing that this administration has been cracking down on watchdogs and leaks from inside government, do you consider this person a patriot?
LEWIS: I really do. I think it takes incredible guts to take something that bothers someone, and for whatever reason, they feel they must give it out. And they know they're gonna be polygraphed, they're gonna be questioned. There's gonna be a clampdown found, there's gonna be a witch-hunt after this occurs. They could very likely not only lose their job but-- maybe worse.
MOYERS: Be sued by the government?
LEWIS: Be sued by the government and otherwise ruined professionally. That is the most incredible kind of courage. And I have an incredible respect for anyone who does that.
MOYERS: I should make this clear this is not marked "Top Secret" - this is not a classified document. It is stamped "Confidential" but nobody is betraying the Secrets Act.
LEWIS: Yeah, that's right, I mean, I've - I'm glad to say that that's right.
MOYERS: There was a story this week in Congressional Quarterly, which is a very respected non-partisan journal in Washington. It says "Pentagon's proposed changes strike some as difficult, dangerous and destabilizing." And one of the things Donald Rumsfeld wants is wavers of environmental laws so that troops can conduct more "realistic exercises."
And then this magazine, which is non-partisan, says this is part of the administration's broad campaign to run the federal government more like a private business. And with private businesses you have more control over employees, you have more control over information. Do you see that developing as a syndrome of this administration?
LEWIS: I think it's incredible what's happening. I see a wholesale assault on access to information in this country that has not really been seen, I have to just say it, since Richard Nixon.
When you look at the roll-backs of freedom of information, when you look at things like meeting with energy companies with the Vice President. It's simple things though in government property with government officials getting paid by taxpayer money and it's not available to the public.
When you see some of the things that we have talked about earlier with reporters from detainees to military actions not being able to see things. I see a lot of very aggressive behavior by government officials towards the act of getting information out and information itself. I think that we're in a very unusual situation right now. And it really worries me actually.
MOYERS: Chuck Lewis, Center for Public Integrity, thank you very much.
LEWIS: Thank you.
-------
Cheap Bureaucrats Ruining Free Speech
Jimmy Breslin
February 7, 2003
Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/mynews/nyc-bres0208,0,5124019.column
He said he hated gaps in parades. They occur in a big parade when you're supposed to get cross-town traffic through and the marchers are stopped with gaps between them and then it starts again and people don't move. They keep the gaps. "You can have them at a red light and it changes and they won't move," Chief Rocco Esposito was saying in Manhattan Federal Court on Friday as day turned into evening.
He was testifying in court for the city, which doesn't want to allow an anti-war march and rally at the UN on Feb. 15. The anti war people, who had Leslie Cagan as their witness, want an injunction against the city. She has been in charge of demonstrations that drew over a million people a couple of times and had two arrests at one of them, in an anti-nuclear rally in 1988.
You listened to Esposito Friday, Cagan was a diletante making his days harder.
The city says the march can't be held because of security reasons since Sept. 11. The reasons they gave Friday made no sense at all, unless you suspect that the march is being opposed because Mayor Bloomberg is trying to help Republicans by stopping a public outcry here against the beautiful war that the administration wants against Iraq. Ray Kelly, the police commissioner, is blocking the march on behalf of Bloomberg.
I know neither one of them is unbalanced, but their work this time has been an act of madness and can do nothing but hurt their reputations with this attempted fascism, which is going to be talked about for a long time.
Free speech comes from Madison and Jefferson and Paine and people went to jail over it and were shot in wars to protect it. You can see how precious, how fragile such a blessing is by the way in which it is embroiled and disputed and can be threatened by the most modest of opponents.
During a break, I went up to one severely dressed young man and he identified himself as Andrew O'Toole of the United States Attorney's office. He was there to make a statement or file something to remind the court that the UN was the responsibility of the city. He was pleasant. The people who sent him over did not tell him to say "Ashcroft." He didn't have to. He was at the city's table and a United State Marshal who had arrived with him and was holding a hand radio stood at the door.
Rocco Esposito was sent to make the stand for the mayor and police commissioner. He turned down the march permit and looked absolutely awful in trying to explain why. In one of the few emotional moments of the day, Esposito got on his favorite, these gaps in the parade, and complained to the court, forcefully, "You just can't get them to move. You can't get them."
At one point, Esposito also said, "I have information that we have an orange condition. I have orders as of 12 noon to upgrade security."
This was the level of argument in an attempt to stop free speech.
And I believe if he looks, he'll find that New York has been on an orange alert from about the day they hit the World Trade Center.
Several times, Esposito said, "We don't know who is coming here for the march. We don't know who they are."
Leslie Cagan said, "Since when in free speech do you have to say who's coming to an event? Do you have to give the names?"
There were two young women from the city Corporation Counsel's office and they kept saying, well, everything has changed since 9-11.
I despised everything they said, and how they said it and why they said it, and if things are fair this act will be on their employment record. At the finish, one of them, Rachel Goldman, was worried about the number of buses coming for the march and that they never had time to negotiate where they should be put.
"How long do you think that will take?" Ms. Goldman said.
"About a half an hour," Cagan said.
Then Ms. Goldman asked that if the buses were put at Yankee Stadium or Shea Stadium parking lots, then how would it effect our mass transit.
"The subways move millions every day," Leslie Cagan said. The young woman from the city retired from the lists.
Leslie Cagan walked off the stand. She could not believe that she had been part of a scene like this, defending a matter of free speech, which is something they inscribe on courthouses, not have it argued over by cheap bureaucrats.
-------
Pope's answer to Rumsfeld pulls no punches in opposing war
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome National Catholic Reporter,
February 7, 2003
http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/021403/021403e.htm
A senior Vatican official says that Catholic "just war" doctrine is undergoing an evolution similar to that on capital punishment, from grudging acceptance to a quasi-abolitionist stance. In both cases, he said, modern society has the means to resolve problems without the use of lethal force.
Thus the Catholic response to a "preventive war" in Iraq is a resounding "no," the official said.
Archbishop Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, made the comments in a Feb. 4 interview with NCR in his office in Rome's Piazza San Calisto.
"I would draw a parallel with the death penalty," Martino said. "In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there is an admission that the death penalty could be needed in extreme cases. But Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae said that society has all the means now to render a criminal harmless who before might have been sent to the gallows.
"This could well apply to the case of war. Modern society has to have, and I think it has, the means to avoid war, Martino said.
Martino argued that non-violent alternatives exist to a "preventive war" in Iraq.
"Resolution 1441 contains all the elements in order to solve the problem without going to war," he said. "If there is indeed any proof [that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction], the inspectors are ready to receive them, and to proceed to either destroy them or render them harmless. Let's try this first."
Martino, who returned to Rome in October from 16 years as the Vatican's observer at the United Nations, has in recent weeks emerged as John Paul II's answer to Donald Rumsfeld: a blunt, pull-no-punches senior official unafraid to take a hard line. In Martino's case, however, the hard line is in favor of peace.
He offered vivid details to support his assertion that war would exact an "unimaginable" cost.
"War is bloodshed, destruction, disaster, and death," he said. "I heard just yesterday that at Sigonella [a U.S. naval base in Sicily], 100,000 bags, the kind used for dead bodies, have been brought there, along with 6,000 coffins. Those are not for the Iraqi soldiers! There's a floating hospital with 1,000 beds, and it will not be treating soldiers who just got a scratch. We're talking about incredible loss of life.
"I heard too that the Americans foresee a loss of 15,000 American soldiers. Whoever is preparing a war has to take into account the cost that any strike will provoke on the enemies, in the area, on friends, and on its own side."
Martino allowed for the "extreme possibility" of war, if convincing proof is offered and Iraq refuses to disarm, but said even then the means of the war would have to be just, meaning protecting civilian populations, and the potential consequences of conflict would have to be weighed.
"There will be an increase in terrorist acts, I'm sure," Martino said. "There will be fire, tumult, all over the Middle East. The oil supplies could suffer. The environment could be endangered, as happened in the Gulf War, and in an even worse manner this time.
"Another element to take into account is world public opinion," Martino said. "Everybody is against the war."
Pointing to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Martin challenged Bush and the West to resolve it before striking Iraq.
"There is a double standard. We already have a war, why don't you stop that one instead of starting another one?"
Contrary to expectations, Martino told NCR he will not be meeting with American Catholic intellectual Michael Novak, whose trip to Rome to argue for the morality of a "preventive war" in Iraq is being sponsored by the U.S. embassy to the Holy See.
Martino will be in Malaysia and Thailand during Novak's stay. Though Novak will see members of his staff, he did not hold out much hope his mission would succeed.
"We all know what the pope has said on so many occasions now. If Novak can reverse what the pope has said, well, good for him," Martino said.
Like other Vatican officials in recent weeks, Martino expressed strong skepticism about the motives of the Bush administration for seeking conflict. Asked if, like the semi-official Vatican journal Civilità Cattolica, he believes oil is a factor, he was indirect but clear.
"I don't have the list of the advantages that those who want the conflict are seeking," he said. "But I can say that it's not excluded that this is on the list of advantages."
So when Donald Rumsfeld says oil has nothing to do with it, Martino finds that hard to believe?
"I'm not the only one," he said.
Martino said that Western policy-makers should examine their own responsibility for global conflicts.
"Why do we impose our cultural patterns, of consumption, of corruption, of sex, of whatever, on the other parts of the world? They get fed up with that," he said.
"When developing nations have been given promises of help, of debt forgiveness, and they are not kept, this causes frustration," Martino said. "That frustration can translate into terrorism. When a young man doesn't foresee anything for his future, being dead or alive is about equal."
"I always say that terrorism can be eradicated not only by rendering harmless one or two thousand terrorists, but by searching for the causes of terrorism," Martino said. "Those causes are three kinds: political, economic and cultural. If we examine our conscience, we can say that there has been, and there is, oppression on these three fronts."
Martino stopped short of counseling Catholic men and women in the U.S. armed forces to refuse to cooperate in the event of war. "The responsibility is not theirs, it is of those who send them," he said.
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR's Vatican correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@natcath.org.
-------
------- 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.