Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Birth Defects Tied to GWS
U.S. MUST DESTROY SEVERAL SITES TO END IRAN'S NUKES
Britain Advises Iran on Nuke Inspections
Who Lost the WMD?
Israeli Likens BBC Program to Nazi Press
US seeking alliance to block weapons exports by North Korea, Iran
'North Korea could test nuke by Dec.'
N. Korea: Taking nuclear issue to UN a `prelude to war'
Rice criticises construction of Israel's security fence
When the U.S. says jump, it wants Pakistan to jump
Flier from senator angers Muslims
U.S. Lawmakers Want International Forces in Iraq
MILITARY
NATO prepares to lead Afghan force
Resurgent Taliban fighters train next generation in new style of warfare
Whispers of Genocide, and Again, Africa Suffers Alone
UK fighter jets sold into Ivory Coast war zone
US tells Taiwan to rely on itself
Bioweapon labs will bring threat of lethal viruses to urban America
Soldiers fear they're acting illegally
Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat
Lawmaker: U.K. Didn't Doctor Iraq Intel
EU stars for UK troops in Congo
BRIT TROOPS SLAM YANKS
Al-Qaeda joke shot down
Iraq's Real Weapons Threat
Paras storm town where mob killed British soldiers
Iraq's resistance war was planned
Death on the road to Basra
Once Hailed, Soldiers in Iraq Now Feel Blame at Each Step
Saddam's top aide organised suicide squads on Syria trip
American Forces Carry Out Raids in Central Iraq
Israel's Lethal Weapon of Choice
Israel Is Skeptical, but Starts Gaza Pullout in Separate Deal
Palestinian Groups Agree to Suspend Attacks Against Israel
Australia enters island war zone
Kashmir Clash Kills 12 Indian Soldiers During Visit by Premier
Fighting an Army's Empire
American death toll in Iraq passes 200
Fighting in Iraq is supposed to be over, but local moms know better
Israel cuts off ties with BBC
Arabs seen as the new villains of Hollywood
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Study: 'First Responders' Underfunded
U.S. Spending Against Terror Is Too Low, Report Warns
Report Says Security Preparedness Underfunded
In the Land of Guantánamo
OTHER
Future Dims for 'Clear Skies' Initiative
ACTIVISTS
Charges dropped against 400
Former Israeli soldiers return to occupied territories to give aid
Greens spurn Democrats, hope for another Nader run
Rage. Mistrust. Hatred. Fear. Uncle Sam's enemies within
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- depleted uranium
Birth Defects Tied to GWS
The man in the street may have heard about the deformed Iraqi children, born following the first Persian Gulf war. But Americans remain largely un aware about the shocking number of children with horrifying birth defects born to U.S. vets who returned home after the war ended in 1991.
Exclusive to American Free Press,
June 29, 2003
By Christopher J. Petherick
http://www.americanfreepress.net/06_29_03/Birth_Defects_Tied/birth_defects_tied.html
American veterans of the 1991 war in Iraq, who reported suffering a wide array of debilitating illnesses now known as Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), have had an alarming number of children born with severe birth defects, according to several independent researchers. The Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), however, have refused to acknowledge a direct relationship between those who served in or around Iraq during the war and the increase in birth defects among their offspring.
On Jan. 17, 1991, the United States attacked Iraq to expel the country's forces from Kuwait after it was invaded in 1990. Some 697,000 U.S. soldiers and sailors participated in the war, which barely lasted a month-and-a-half.
At first, U.S. war planners were applauded for keeping U.S. casualties to a minimum. But after the war officially came to close on Feb. 28, 1991, veterans began reporting illnesses doctors were at a loss to explain.
Veterans reported suffering a wide range of symptoms, including chronic fatigue, muscle and joint pain, headaches, memory loss, depression, un explained rashes and sleep disturbances. This wide array of ailments came to be known collectively as GWS.
Despite the evidence, the government still refuses to link the war with illnesses suffered by vets.
The VA disputes reports on GWS, saying it "is a non-scientific label that has frequently been used to describe those veterans with unexplained illnesses."
VA officials argue that veterans are actually suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, "an anxiety disorder commonly diagnosed in individuals exposed to extraordinary stress or trauma, such as that associated with military combat."
But, 12 years after the war has ended, more and more veterans have reported their illnesses getting worse. According to some independent researchers, thousands of Gulf War I vets have died from illnesses related to GWS.
It's not just veterans who are suffering from GWS. Another tragic result of the war, according to independent researchers, is the shocking number of children with severe birth defects born to Gulf War vets.
"Sixty-seven percent of babies born to the 400,000 vets who suffer from Gulf War Syndrome have birth defects," said Joyce Riley, a former nurse who flew in Iraq and the founder and spokesperson of the American Gulf War Veterans Association. "But the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs do not want America to know the number of sick, dead and deformed kids that vets are having. It's another cover-up."
Mrs. Riley served in the Gulf War as a captain in the Air Force Reserve and flew C-130 missions with a medical team in support of the war.
"A lot of the babies are being born with organs out of place-kidneys in the wrong place, hearts out of the body," Riley told AFP. "The most [common birth defect] is failure to thrive, where they could not keep weight on and just didn't make it."
Though the government refuses to acknowledge that many children of vets are suffering, Mrs. Riley says the evidence linking the ghastly birth defects to Iraq is overwhelming.
"One nurse who served over there-all three of her children were born autistic," she said. "We've also seen a lot of what is known as 'Goldenhar Syndrome,' that is where there is a missing left eye and left ear. It's very strange. A lot of people believe this has something to do with the radiological problem related to the use of depleted uranium."
"Goldenhar Syndrome is a congenital birth defect which involves deformities of the face," reports the National Craniofacial Association (NCA), a non-profit organization based in Tennessee that assists families of children born with facial deformities. "It usually affects one side of the face only. Characteristics include: a partially formed or totally absent ear; the chin may be closer to the affected ear; one corner of the mouth may be higher than the other; or a missing eye."
According to NCA, the causes of Goldenhar Syndrome are a bit of a mystery. It is not caused by anything the mother does while pregnant. However, certain factors, such as the environment, play a part.
The group is specifically looking into a link between the Gulf War and an increase in this type of birth defect.
"[T]here does seem to be an increased incidence of Goldenhar among the children of Gulf War veterans," reports NCA.
The NCA, along with the University of Texas South western Medical Center at Dallas and the Association of Birth Defect Children, Inc., have initiated a study into the relationship between Gulf War vets and Goldenhar. The groups are trying to locate all children with Goldenhar syndrome who were born subsequent to July 1, 1991, and who had a parent who served in the U.S. military between 1990 and 1991.
The reasons remain puzzling as to why so many children with birth defects have been born to veterans.
Some believe it is due to the vast number of highly toxic depleted uranium rounds fired into Iraq by U.S. forces. Others contend that it is due to the many vaccines given to troops working in the area. Still others argue that it is the result of the demolition of Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
As more veterans come forward, researchers are confident that a link will be established and GWS sufferers and their children will finally get the justice they deserve.
-------- iran
U.S. MUST DESTROY SEVERAL SITES TO END IRAN'S NUKES
Sun, 29 Jun 2003
[MENL]
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2003/june/06_30_1.html
WASHINGTON -- The United States must be willing to destroy a range of Iranian facilities to ensure the elimination of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
A report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy asserts that any U.S. effort to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capability would invite major retaliation from the Islamic regime. The institute said that a U.S. strike on one or two nuclear facilities would not suffice in ensuring the destruction of Iran's nuclear capability.
"Given the broad scope of the Iranian program, the United States would have to mount a comprehensive attack aimed at several key facilities in order to significantly stunt its progress," the report, entitled "Iran's Nuclear Weapons: How Might Iran Retaliate," said. "Any such operations would need to be precise and effective. Key facilities and components would need to be completely destroyed or rendered useless, and this level of damage is not always easy to achieve."
The report was referring to a series of facilities discovered over the last year secretly built by the Islamic republic. The United States has confirmed nuclear facilities at Arak, Natanz and the nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
----
Britain Advises Iran on Nuke Inspections
June 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Britain-Nuclear.html
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Sunday that Iran must agree to unfettered inspections by the U.N. nuclear watchdog if it hopes to improve trade ties with Europe.
Britain has echoed U.S. concerns that Iran might be using its civilian nuclear power program to conceal attempts to build an atomic bomb. Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at meeting its growing electricity needs and denies it is developing nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has urged Iran to sign an additional protocol to the nonproliferation treaty. Under the pact, Iran would have to accept more intrusive inspections of its nuclear sites by the U.N.'s nuclear agency without prior notice.
Straw, who is on a two-day visit to the Islamic country, said Iran's signing of the additional protocol would start to bring confidence among members of the 15-nation European Union.
``In the EU, we want to see economic cooperation ... and propose closer cooperation with Iran,'' he said. ``Progress on that depends on cooperation on human rights and the nonproliferation treaty.''
Straw said Iran should sign the protocol ``unconditionally and quickly'' and warned that the world would not be willing to work closely with Iran if it didn't.
``If the reverse happens and there is no signature, confidence will not be improved and the international community will be profoundly reluctant to lift the sanctions,'' he said at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart Kamal Kharrazi.
Kharrazi said Iran was ready for talks to sign the protocol, provided that the IAEA and countries possessing nuclear technology offer to help Iran in what it says is its peaceful atomic program.
``We are ready for talks and cooperation. But Iran's transparency should be reciprocated. When Iran signs the protocol, others should also take positive steps,'' he said.
Iran has said it will sign the protocol if the IAEA provides it with advanced nuclear technology as a member state and a signatory to the nuclear treaty.
Britain and the United States severed diplomatic ties with Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Britain and Iran exchanged ambassadors in May 1999. This is Straw's fourth trip to Tehran in the past two years.
Iran's hard-liners on Sunday denounced Straw's visit after British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed support for the student-led protests in Iran earlier this month.
``Blair aggressively supports rioters,'' the hard-line daily Jomhuri-e-Eslami said. ``The Foreign Ministry should explain the point of dialogue with those who interfere in Iran's internal affairs.''
Kharrazi said he had expressed Iran's dissatisfaction over Blair's remarks. Straw said London would not interfere in Iran's internal affairs.
``Our position is to support the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. Future arrangements in the government in Iran is a matter for Iranian people (to decide) and we respect that,'' he said.
Straw was expected to meet with President Mohammad Khatami on Monday.
-------- iraq / inspections
Who Lost the WMD?
As the weapons hunt intensifies, so does the finger pointing. A preview of the coming battle
By MASSIMO CALABRESI AND TIMOTHY J. BURGER
Sunday, Jun. 29, 2003
TIME magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030707-461781,00.html
Meeting last month at a sweltering U.S. base outside Doha, Qatar, with his top Iraq commanders, President Bush skipped quickly past the niceties and went straight to his chief political obsession: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Turning to his Baghdad proconsul, Paul Bremer, Bush asked, "Are you in charge of finding WMD?" Bremer said no, he was not. Bush then put the same question to his military commander, General Tommy Franks. But Franks said it wasn't his job either. A little exasperated, Bush asked, So who is in charge of finding WMD? After aides conferred for a moment, someone volunteered the name of Stephen Cambone, a little-known deputy to Donald Rumsfeld, back in Washington. Pause. "Who?" Bush asked.
It seems as if just about everyone has questions these days about the missing WMD. Did U.S. intelligence officials-or their civilian bosses-overstate the evidence of weapons before the war? And if some intelligence officials expressed skepticism about WMD, who ignored them? For the past several weeks, the usually lockstep Bush Administration has done its best to maintain a unified front in the face of these queries. Whenever asked, Administration officials have replied that the weapons will turn up eventually. But as the search drags on through its third largely futile month, the blame game in Washington has gone into high gear. And as Bush's allies and enemies alike on Capitol Hill begin to pick apart some 19 volumes of prewar intelligence and examine them one document at a time, the cohesive Bush team is starting to come apart. "This is a cloud hanging over their credibility, their word," Republican Senate Intelligence Committee member Chuck Hagel told abc News. Here are key questions Congress wants answered:
What Was Cheney's Role? Lawmakers who once saluted every Bush claim and command are beginning to express doubts. Two congressional panels are opening new rounds of investigations into the Administration's prewar claims about WMD. One of their immediate inquiries, sources tell Time, involves Vice President Dick Cheney's role in reviewing the intelligence before the bombing started. Cheney made repeated visits to the CIA in the prelude to the war, going over intelligence assessments with the analysts who produced them. Some Democrats say Cheney's visits may have amounted to pressure on the normally cautious agency. Cheney's defenders insist that his visits merely showed the importance of the issue and that an honest analyst wouldn't feel pressure to twist intelligence. The House intelligence committee (and possibly its Senate counterpart, sources say) plans to question the CIA analysts who briefed Cheney, and that could lead to calling Cheney's hard-line aides and perhaps the Veep himself to testify.
Is Powell Trying To Have It Both Ways? Secretary of State Colin Powell, who staked his reputation on his February declaration at the U.N. about Saddam Hussein's arms program, is also feeling the heat. Powell's aides fanned out after that performance to say the Secretary had gone to the CIA and scrubbed every piece of intelligence to make certain it was solid. But since then, little of Powell's presentation has been proved by evidence on the ground, and last week his aides were on the defensive over a memo from the State Department's intelligence bureau that questioned whether two Iraqi trailers discovered in April were mobile bioweapons labs, as Powell has asserted. Questionable intelligence that made it into Powell's February speech leaves him particularly vulnerable. Expect a push by Democrats, and perhaps some Republicans, to seek Powell's testimony too.
Will Tenet Be Left Holding the Bag? CIA Director George Tenet is faring a bit better. The House committee's top Democrat, Jane Harman, noted last week that "caveats and qualifiers" Tenet raised in prewar intelligence about Iraq's weapons were "rarely included" in Administration arguments for war. After the awkward Q&A in Doha, Bush put Tenet in charge of the WMD hunt. Tenet in turn hired a former U.N. weapons inspector, David Kay, to run the search, but Tenet and Kay have a lot of ground to make up fast. Tenet, sources say, recently conceded to the House panel that the CIA should have done more to warn that finding WMD could be a drawn-out process. Tenet got a reprieve last week when an Iraqi scientist who had hidden parts and documents for nuclear-weapons production in his backyard for 12 years came forward. Tenet's usually behind-the-scenes CIA suddenly became very public in trumpeting the importance of the discovery, if only to remind people how hard illicit weapons would be to find. But Tenet's hot zone isn't Baghdad; it's Capitol Hill. He canceled testimony before the Senate committee last week, citing a schedule conflict. If he doesn't find any weapons, he needs to find a way not to be blamed.
Bush officials believe that time and history are on their side. They argue that now that Saddam is gone, Americans don't care very much about finding WMD. They also say it is only a matter of time before more evidence of weapons materials and programs emerges. And when that occurs, they contend, all their opponents will look as silly as they did when they argued that the war was going badly in its second week. "The Dems are looking for an issue, but I think they're making a mistake," says a senior Administration official.
Democrats do sense a possibly potent campaign theme, but they run the risk of appearing to politicize a sensitive national-security issue as they try to prove the Administration has a credibility gap. But Democrats are not alone in feeling as though they may have been sandbagged on the evidence before the war began. Sources say g.o.p. Senate Intelligence Committee members Olympia Snowe and Hagel have privately questioned the Administration's handling of prewar intelligence. The Republican-held House voted last week to order the CIA to report back on "lessons learned" from the buildup to war in Iraq. The House and Senate intelligence-committee leaders have agreed to coordinate their probes loosely to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. In a rare move, the House panel quietly voted on June 12 to grant all 435 Representatives access to the Iraq intelligence, although a Capitol Hill source said fewer than 10 members outside the committee had reviewed the material.
Administration officials have a further concern about where all these questions are leading. They fear that any problem with the prewar intelligence could undermine Bush's ability to continue his muscular campaign against terrorism overseas. The Administration has argued that to counter new kinds of threats posed by terrorists, rogue states and WMD, it has to be able to act pre-emptively. But pre-emption requires excellent intelligence, and the whole doctrine is undermined if the intelligence is wrong-or confected. "Intelligence takes on an even more important role than in the past because you can't wait until you see an enemy army massing anymore," says former Clinton Deputy National Security Adviser James Steinberg. But if WMD don't turn up and the Administration wants to act elsewhere, it may find that the enemy massing against it is public opinion at home.
-------- israel
Israeli Likens BBC Program to Nazi Press
June 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-BBC.html
JERUSALEM (AP) -- An Israeli government official said Sunday that a BBC program charging Israel with secretly stockpiling nuclear and chemical weapons demonized Israel in a way reminiscent of anti-Semitic tracts published in Nazi Germany.
Government Press Office chief Daniel Seaman said a TV report entitled ``Israel's Secret Weapon'' was the latest in a number of programs by the British Broadcasting Corp. questioning Israel's right to exist. He declined comment on media reports that he intended to impose sanctions.
The BBC said it stood by the program.
The program, part of the ``Correspondent'' series, was aired in Britain in March but first shown in Israel on Saturday night. It cites experts as saying Israel has ``the world's sixth largest nuclear arsenal with small tactical nuclear weapons ... as well as medium-range nuclear missiles launchable from air, land or sea.''
It also says Israel has undeclared biological and chemical capabilities and used an unknown gas against Palestinians in Gaza in February 2001 that sent 180 people to the hospital with severe convulsions.
Israel at the time denied having used poison gas.
``The accusations are very reminiscent of the most horrible anti-Semitism,'' Seaman said. ``This is very reminiscent of Der Stuermer,'' he added, referring to a virulently anti-Semitic newspaper from Nazi-era Germany.
The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday that the Government Press Office intends to impose visa restrictions on BBC staff and to refuse to make officials available for BBC interviews, or to help BBC journalists facing problems with army roadblocks and airport security checks.
``Let's say that the hospitality extended by the government of Israel through the GPO is not something engraved in stone,'' Seaman said without elaborating.
BBC spokeswoman Kate Atkins said the broadcaster had not been officially informed of any pending Israeli action.
``We stand by the Correspondent program and regret any response the Israeli government might make,'' she said.
Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons, but the government's public policy is purposefully vague, stating only that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.
Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, because it objects to international inspections.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the country's Dimona nuclear plant, gave pictures of what appeared to be nuclear weapons at the plant to a London newspaper. He is serving an 18-year term for treason and espionage.
Israel has fallen out with the BBC before, protesting bitterly over a June 2001 documentary in which legal experts said Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should be indicted for failing to prevent the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in refugee camps during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
The killings were carried out by a Lebanese Christian militia allied with Israel. An Israeli inquiry found Sharon indirectly responsible and forced him to resign as defense minister in 1983.
``The BBC always questions and doubts Israel's integrity,'' Seaman said. ``It is always putting it in some demonic context, not as a democracy fighting for survival.''
-------- korea
US seeking alliance to block weapons exports by North Korea, Iran
Sunday June 29
(AFP)
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030629/afp/030629123146int.html
TOKYO - The United States is seeking an international alliance to block exports of weapons of mass destruction and missiles by North Korea and Iran, it was reported here.
The report by Asahi Shimbun follows allegations that the United States may scuttle an international project to build light-water reactors in North Korea, a deal contingent on the Stalinist state's adherence to a pact freezing its nuclear arms programme.
North Korea publicly declared this month it was seeking nuclear weapons.
A senior US administration official said Washington would help establish a "voluntary alliance" of countries that would boost inspections of ships and aicraft against the hardware shipments, the Japanese daily said.
Leaders of the 11-country bloc are the United States, Japan and Australia, which met in Madrid on June 12 to plot strategies to thwart the spread of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and missile components, the influential daily quoted an unidentified official as saying.
Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain have confirmed they would make best use of existing laws to intercept such exports, the official said.
The countries were to meet July 9-10 in Australia to plan better cooperation in tracking the shipments.
China and Russia, both with close links to North Korea, were to be consulted by the United States in an effort to pursue "stronger action," based on a UN resolution, to halt weapons exports, the official said.
In December, the Spanish navy stopped and searched a suspected North Korean freighter in the Mediterranean found to be carrying 15 North Korean Scud missiles to Yemen, but US forces had no legal right to seize the cargo as the ship was intercepted in international waters.
Meanwhile, US allegations over the weekend indicated Washington would suspend the nuclear reactor project, despite caution expressed by South Korea and Japan.
On Friday, US Ambassador to Japan Howard Baker said that if Pyongyang does not dismantle its nuclear weapons programme, "it is unlikely that the United States would support the completion of those reactors beyond the commitments that we've undertaken in the framework agreement."
But earlier Saturday, Asahi quoted a senior US official who said the United States would decide "on its own" whether to halt the reactor project.
Construction of the light-water reactors started in August under a 1994 "framework agreement" between Pyongyang and Washington designed to end the North's nuclear arms ambitions.
The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO) -- which groups the United States, South Korea, Japan and the European Union -- was created to build the reactors, which would produce significantly less weapons-grade nuclear material than a nuclear plant constructed during the Soviet era.
"I think we have only a few months, two or three months, and then KEDO will become, essentially, history," Kenneth Quinones, a former US State Department official involved in the framework talks, said in an interview published in the Daily Yomiuri Sunday.
"The Bush administration has provided administrative support until the end of August," said Quinones, who now serves as the Korean affairs director for the non-governmental International Center in Washington.
"Once the US stops supporting KEDO, KEDO's dead."
----
'North Korea could test nuke by Dec.'
Yomiuri Shimbun
June 29, 2003
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20030629wo43.htm
Kenneth Quinones, a former North Korea analyst for the U.S. State Department during the administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton, said Friday it was possible for North Korea to test a nuclear weapon by the end of this year. During an interview with The Yomiuri Shimbun, Quinones--who was involved in negotiations that resulted in the 1994 Agreed Framework between Washington and Pyongyang--said this viewpoint is shared by officials of the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.
Following is an excerpt of the interview:
The Yomiuri Shimbun: Could you tell us about the common viewpoint in Washington regarding the situation in North Korea?
Quinones: To the best of my knowledge, based on very well-informed Washington sources, North Korea's nuclear program is moving ahead very quickly. Basically, this means North Korea reprocessing is almost finished, or has finished. This means North Korea now has enough plutonium to make six to 10 nuclear weapons.
There is the problem of how do you know if it will work. If North Korea wants to use their nuclear weapon as negotiating leverage, they must test it. If the test works, they want us to know. Why? They want to frighten us. To make us negotiate with them.
There is the question of how can they deliver this. It is impossible for North Korea to have nuclear warheads. The technology is too sophisticated. They do not have that technology. However, it is possible to deliver a large nuclear weapon using a ship.
The only ballistic missile that works in North Korea is the Rodong--or Scud, possibly. The Rodong is designed (to hit) U.S. military bases in Japan. You are the target of the Rodongs.
North Korea cannot send nuclear weapons to the United States. The only country they can send it to besides South Korea is Japan. So you have three problems. You have abducted Japanese citizens, you have ballistic missiles and you have nuclear weapons.
This is a very difficult situation for Japan, not just Washington.
You talked about a time frame for a nuclear weapons test.
The more I talked to my friends, the more I realized that it is possible for North Korea to have a nuclear weapon by December. It is possible they'll have a test by December. There is nothing to stop North Korea from doing this.
Why do you say this?
It takes about six months to reprocess, and then about six months to make the bomb. There are two kinds of bombs North Korea could make. One is the HEU--highly enriched uranium bomb. I now understand that it takes a long time, maybe two or three years, to make enough HEU to make one nuclear weapon.
So it's not possible now for North Korea to make that kind of bomb.
On the other hand, you only need 2 or 3 kilograms of plutonium to make a nuclear weapon. They have that. It is possible that they have that technology. And it is widely known technology.
Do you believe this information is known by officials in the Bush administration?
Yes. I think the information has been studied very, very deeply for one year. And there has been very careful assessment.
Does this mean it is going to take more time for them to make a weapon small enough to mount on a ballistic missile?
I asked a specialist about that exact question: What is necessary to make a small nuclear warhead? And the answer I received was, it requires very sophisticated technology. It took the United States a very long time. We know that Pakistan does not have that capability, and because of cooperation between Pakistan and North Korea before, North Korea does not have that technology. China says it did not give it to them. Russia has not.
So it would be extremely difficult for North Korea to develop that technology by itself, and it would also require a long time. And then they would have to test. Before that, it would be simpler to just make an old-fashioned nuclear bomb. That's where North Korea is.
So if they're going to attack Japan, for instance, they're going to send a cargo ship with weapons.
It's the only way. You see, once we begin thinking that they have nuclear weapons, our thinking must change. Completely. And we begin to think about how to deal with a nuclear North Korea. How will they react, how will we react? So in some ways, (they) are in transition from conventional North Korean military power to an almost nuclear North Korean power.
Is KEDO (Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization) dying? Is there room for it to survive?
The Agreed Framework is dead. My friends in KEDO are looking for new jobs. The Bush administration has provided administrative support until the end of this August. Once the U.S. stops supporting KEDO, KEDO's dead.
Why? Because when KEDO was established, the United States promised North Korea that the U.S. would be the key player in KEDO. Maybe South Korea will take over KEDO, and maybe the project will continue, but not as KEDO. Japan has been put into a difficult situation. Does Japan contribute to a nuclear program in North Korea, or does Japan stop? I think we have only a few months, two or three months, and then KEDO will become essentially history.
----
N. Korea: Taking nuclear issue to UN a `prelude to war'
By The Associated Press
Sunday, June 29, 2003
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=312394&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
SEOUL - A move by Washington to bring the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program to the United Nations will be seen as a "prelude to war," the North warned yesterday, adding it would respond with a "corresponding measure."
North Korea's official KCNA news agency did not elaborate on the corresponding measure.
The communist country has been sharpening its anti-U.S. rhetoric amid tensions over its suspected nuclear weapons development.
The United States has proposed that the Security Council issue a statement denouncing North Korea's nuclear program. Washington and its allies have been pressuring the North to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
The North said it would consider the introduction of the nuclear issue at the UN Security Council "as a prelude to a war and take a corresponding measure."
Washington's "intention to refer the issue to the UN can never be tolerated, as it seeks to use the UN in achieving its criminal aim to isolate and stifle" North Korea, KCNA said.
Also yesterday, KCNA released a copy of a letter from North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun to the Security Council, harshly criticizing the United States and urging the council to remain neutral on the nuclear dispute.
"It can be said that now, the United Nations is at the crossroads of whether it will maintain the international order led by the United Nations or give way to the establishment of a dangerous world order led by an individual country," the letter said.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Friday, submitted by North Korean Ambassador Pak Gil Yon.
North Korea accuses the United States of setting off the nuclear dispute to create an excuse to invade the communist country.
The nuclear standoff flared in October when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted having a secret nuclear program.
U.S. officials say North Korea has told them it already possesses nuclear bombs and plans to build more, but is willing to give them up in return for security guarantees and aid.
-------- us politics
Rice criticises construction of Israel's security fence
Sunday, 29-Jun-2003
Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)
http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/ah/Qmideast-us-roadmap-fence.REWH_DuT.html
JERUSALEM, June 29 (AFP) - US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sunday criticised the Israeli government's continued construction of a security fence between Israel and the West Bank, a government source said.
Speaking after a meeting with Israeli ministers in Jerusalem, Rice said Washington saw the construction of the fence as "problematic" because it would "create a fait accompli" and could be perceived as the precursor to an international border between the two territories.
In response, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the fence "had no political significance" and that it was only being built as a response to "security concerns".
Sharon stressed he would not back down on the issue, even if it caused a disagreement with Washington.
Israel began building its 350-kilometre (210 mile) security fence in June last year in a bid to keep Palestinians from entering the Jewish state to carry out attacks like suicide bombings.
Construction of the fence, which roughly follows the Green Line marking the armistice lines at the end of the 1967 war, was criticised by the UN Human Rights Commission, which said it amounted to de facto annexation of nearly seven percent of West Bank land.
But Israel defends construction of the fence, the first 145 kilometres of which is due to be completed next month, as an effective measure to stop Palestinian attackers.
"We are in favour of continuing construction of the fence, not to create a border but because it is an effective way of stopping terrorist infiltrations, " the centrist Justice Minister Tommy Lapid said after meeting Rice.
After meeting with Sharon, Rice met with members of the security cabinet, including Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom and Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Rice, who arrived in the region Saturday for a lightning visit aimed at boosting the "roadmap" for peace, was also expected to meet the entire Israeli cabinet on Sunday.
She met earlier Sunday with Palestinian finance minister Salam Fayad and Sharon's top aide Dov Weisglass to discuss "civilian issues", the radio reported.
Rice met with Palestinian prime minister Mahmud Abbas in the West Bank town of Jericho on Saturday evening and extended an official White House invitation to the moderate premier.
Her visit could coincide with the announcement of an Israeli-Palestinian security deal and a three-month suspension of anti-Israeli attacks by Palestinian militant groups, although last-minute differences could delay the truce.
----
When the U.S. says jump, it wants Pakistan to jump
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
June 29, 2003
Toronto Sun
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jun29.html
Pakistan's military ruler, President Pervez Musharraf, was granted the honour last week of an audience at Camp David with the Great White Father. U.S. President George Bush, who three years ago couldn't even name Pakistan's leader, hailed Musharraf as a "statesman" and "friend of freedom."
Gen. Musharraf was offered a conditional $3 billion US aid package, provided: a) Congress, which hates Pakistan, approves; b) Musharraf continues to arrest Islamic militants and support the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan; c) makes no trouble with India over Kashmir; d) doesn't supply nuclear technology to North Korea.
On the last item, the same Washington "experts" who assured us Iraq was bristling with deadly weapons that could annihilate the U.S. and U.K. "in 45 minutes" now claim Pakistan aided North Korea. Pakistan denies this questionable allegation.
In a startling public insult to a "friend and ally," Bush refused Musharraf's request to release F-16 fighters bought by Pakistan in 1989. Pro-Israel members of Congress blocked delivery of the aircraft to punish Pakistan for its nuclear program. Ironically, Pakistan's inability to acquire modern warplanes to counter India's state-of-the-art French Mirage 2000s and Russian MiG-29s and SU-30s compelled Islamabad to rely ever more heavily on its nuclear forces to deter hostile India, whose powerful military seriously outnumbers and outguns Pakistan.
I've felt a certain sympathy for Gen. Musharraf, who overthrew Pakistan's inept prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, in a 1999 coup. When I interviewed Musharraf in 2000, he was truly struggling to reform Pakistan's squalid, corrupt politics. Then came 9/11. The Bush administration put a gun to Musharraf's head, ordering him to ditch Pakistan's Afghan ally, the Taliban, open Pak bases to U.S. forces, arrest anti-American militants and fire the capable nationalist officers - and close friends - who put him into power, Generals Aziz and Mahmoud.
Obey, Washington warned Islamabad, or we will foreclose your loans, impose trade sanctions, cut off spare parts, and give India a green light to go after you. Tough Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan's last military ruler, would have stood up to American bullying. Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto would have cleverly managed to somehow finesse Washington's threats. But Musharraf, with a near-bankrupt nation, and faced with what he viewed as a Hobson's choice between obedience and ruin, caved in to Washington's demands and became, overnight, its compliant servitor.
One couldn't fail to notice the contrast last week between the leaders of Pakistan and India. While Musharraf was at Camp David playing the loyal sepoy to the American Raj, India's Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee was concluding an historic strategic agreement with rival China. India finally agreed to fully recognize Chinese rule over Tibet in exchange for China's acceptance of India's rule over the Himalayan kingdom of Sikkim, which Delhi annexed in 1975. No mention, however, was made of Aksai Chin, the northernmost portion of divided Kashmir annexed by China.
The Indo-Chinese pact will help reduce tensions between the world's two most populous nations - both nuclear powers - over their poorly demarcated Himalayan border, which led them to war in 1962. But it will not allay Beijing's fears the U.S. is using India to threaten China, and secretly encouraging Israel to help India build its nuclear forces. Nor will it lessen the worrying nuclear arms race between the two Asian superpowers. Still, it was a major advance and an act of effective statesmanship by the old rivals.
Those who call for Tibet's freedom will be dismayed. Without Indian support and bases, no armed Tibetan independence movement can operate. Last week's agreement marks the end of any faint hope Tibet might retain its national identity and avoid being totally absorbed, as have China's other minorities, by a flood of Han Chinese immigration.
Tibet is now destined to become a theme park for foreign tourists and its former Buddhist leadership a curio from the past. I say this with heavy heart, since His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, gave me some spiritual guidance and helped inspire my book, War at the Top of the World, which deals, in part, with Tibet and the Indo-Chinese strategic rivalry.
Tibet's last chance for independence is now gone. I understand China's historic claims to Tibet, but my heart aches for its people and their gentle, gracious leader.
Before leaving the U.S., President Musharraf rightly warned Americans that terrorist attacks were largely due to smoldering political grievances around the world, and that "state terror" against Muslim peoples was being ignored or abetted by America - an obvious reference to Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir. Unfortunately, Bush was too busy trying to organize an international campaign against Hamas and Israel's other Palestinian opponents to heed Musharraf's sensible warning.
This administration has obviously learned nothing since 9/11 and still refuses to accept the painful truth that misguided U.S. foreign policies led to that attack. Or that Bush is personally stoking anti-Americanism around the globe.
Musharraf's pleas to Bush to help resolve the Kashmir dispute - the world's most dangerous crisis that risks nuclear war between India and Pakistan - were ignored.
"Take your money, go home, arrest more militants, and don't cause trouble," was Washington's sendoff message to the general.
----
Flier from senator angers Muslims
By Yvonne Abraham,
Boston Globe Staff,
6/27/2003
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/178/metro/Flier_from_senator_angers_Muslims%2B.shtml
Senator Guy W. Glodis has angered Muslims and a civil rights group over a flier he sent to fellow senators that says terrorist attacks could be deterred if convicted Muslim extremists were buried with pig entrails.
The flier, which Glodis's 39 colleagues received Wednesday, said an execution of Muslim extremists in the Philippines was ordered by General John Joseph ''Black Jack'' Pershing before World War I, in which the terrorists were shot with bullets dipped in pigs' blood, then buried with ''pigs' blood, entrails, etc.'' According to the flier, contact with the blood and entrails of pigs ''instantly barred'' Muslims from paradise, dooming them to hell. It said news of the burial deterred other terrorist attacks for ''the next forty-two years.''
''Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq,'' the flier concluded. ''The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?''
A Muslim group denounced the flier as ''slanderous garbage.'' Internet websites cast doubt on the authenticity of the killings as described in the flier, with at least one referring to the description as a fictional chain.
The Auburn Democrat would not say yesterday whether he agreed with the contents of the flier, which he circulated to his colleagues with a note that said ''thought this might be of interest to you.''
''I didn't write it,'' he said. ''I just passed it along to my colleagues. I often share news items of interest with my colleagues.''
The flier merely recounted historical fact, Glodis said, and should not have offended anyone.
''If some of my colleagues are so weak-kneed and politically correct and cannot accept historical fact, I suggest they lodge a formal complaint with the secretary of the Army,'' Glodis said.
But a national Muslim society took a different view and plans to call for Glodis's censure today.
''I am outraged and I am offended, and I think that the senator owes an apology to his Muslim constituents,'' said Raeed N. Tayeh, public affairs director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, in Washington, D.C. ''The inflammatory nature of passing this around and the recklessness with which he's done it -- he hasn't checked his history, and I think it's ludicrous.''
Islam does not teach that people would be barred from heaven by being buried with pigs, Tayeh said.
''It's a canard, it's a lie, a fable,'' he said. ''It is one of those urban legends that keeps getting passed on like a terrible chain letter. God admits people to heaven based on their actions. This is what Muslims believe.''
Tayeh said he would join local Muslims today to call on Senate President Robert E. Travaglini to censure Glodis. Travaglini's office did not return several calls requesting comment.
''This is just a sad commentary on the ignorance of people who are entrusted to represent Americans, that they would pass around such offensive, distasteful, and slanderous garbage to members of an esteemed body such as the Massachusetts Senate,'' Tayeh said.
A local civil rights leader concurred.
''It's deeply troubling,'' said Andrew Tarsy, civil rights director for the Anti-Defamation League's New England office. ''Discourse on difficult issues in this country requires a fundamental respect for human rights. Appeals to bigotry are not a part of the constructive discussion about the war on terrorism. His role is to lead a discussion, and that can be done without this kind of recklessness.''
Most of the senators called for comment on Glodis's mailing yesterday did not return calls, but two defended his First Amendment right to circulate it. ''I respect Guy. He is a friend, and this isn't something I would support or send out, but he has a right to do it,'' said Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees, an East Longmeadow Republican.
''If there was any indication that we would repeat something like that, I would never agree to anything like that, but he has a right to any opinion he wants,'' he said.
Senator Jarrett T. Barrios said he found the flier offensive, and threw it away.
''I get offensive things sent to me all the time,'' said the Cambridge Democrat.
''The First Amendment of the United States allows people to be eloquent in how they express themselves or to be troglodytes. It doesn't discriminate. Clearly, the senator is able to exercise his First Amendment rights and has chosen to do so. And I am free to throw it in the garbage.''
This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 6/27/2003.
----
U.S. Lawmakers Want International Forces in Iraq
Sun June 29, 2003
By Lori Santos
(Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DY1EUFOJXU2EKCRBAEKSFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=3007510
WASHINGTON - An international force of up to 60,000 troops is needed in Iraq to halt the continuing violence, which will escalate if left unchecked, U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden warned on Sunday.
Appearing on the "Fox News Sunday" program, the influential Democrat, on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "I think we need somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 other troops."
"I want to see French, German, I want to see Turkish patches on people's arms sitting on the street corners, standing there in Iraq," Biden said. "...We've got to get over this ideological fixation on the part of Mr. (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (Vice President Dick) Cheney of not letting the Europeans and NATO come in."
Biden returned recently from a trip to Iraq, where steady attacks have targeted Americans since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1. At least 22 Americans have been killed by hostile fire.
Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, told CBS "Face the Nation" extra troops were urgently needed.
"I don't think we have months. I think we've got weeks to turn this around," Dodd said. "And the people on the ground know it. Our military people are exhausted.
"... We need to get that second army in place over there. We need to invite others around the region as well as the world to help us do that. We're not doing that and the longer we wait, the greater risk is going to be posed by Iraq," Dodd said.
The lawmakers spoke after a week of particularly intense ambushes and hit-and-run attacks. Another explosion in Baghdad on Sunday targeted a U.S. convoy. Biden said the status of U.S. troops there was "in peril. The war is still on." He said he had been assured NATO was ready to join the U.S. and British troops in Iraq and that "NATO should be in."
The Delaware Democrat said the U.S. troops he spoke with felt shortchanged by Washington's failure "to expand this responsibility internationally. They all understand it."
"One general I spoke with said. 'Look senator, this is a fairly sophisticated group... It's the old Fedayeen, we believe, and it's the old Republican Guard and they are beginning to mobilize and organize."'
While Biden said he did not believe a coordinated central network was in place, the attacks were clearly being organized by "serious military people."
"It is increasingly becoming bolder and increasingly becoming more coordinated," he asserted. "...To the extent that we continue to try to own this all ourselves, I think, this will increase."
On ABC's "This Week," U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said he also "would like to see a lot of other nations" included.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
NATO prepares to lead Afghan force
Sunday, 29-Jun-2003
by Leon Bruneau
Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)
http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/cf/Qnato-afghanistan.RRAt_DuT.html
BRUSSELS, June 29 (AFP) - NATO is preparing to take over a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan in August, amid growing calls for the mission's mandate to be extended to deal with mounting insecurity in the battle-scarred country.
The Alliance will take over the International Stabilisation Force (ISAF) in the war-scarred country, in the first "out-of-area" mission - meaning beyond its tradition European theatre of activities - in NATO's 54-year history.
But even as troops train for the August 11 handover to NATO command, calls are multiplying for the force to be extended from Kabul and its immediate surroundings to cover other parts of Afghanistan.
An extension of the force's mandate seems however unlikely any time soon, inciting NATO commanders to look at other ways to boost ISAF's influence, such as working more closely with so-called US sponsored "provincial reconstruction teams" (PRTs) some of which are already on the ground.
But some diplomats at NATO caution against "building up false hopes", while others say it is "premature" to talk about extending ISAF beyond it's current area of deployment, considering the lack of means.
NATO decided in April to take command of ISAF, which will remain under a UN mandate. The current 4,700 strong force was deployed at the end of 2001 after the fall of the Taliban to US attacks following the September 11 terrorist attacks, and is currently jointly led by Germany and the Netherlands.
In the rest of the country, the United States has about 8,500 troops under Operation Enduring Freedom.
The growing insecurity in Afghanistan was highlighted last week when a US soldier was killed and two others wounded after being attacked on patrol in Afghanistan's restive southeast region. Earlier this month several people were killed when an explosion hit an ISAF troops' bus in Kabul.
NATO's top commander in Europe, US General James Jones last week designated the commanders of the Alliance-led force as German General Goetz Gliemeroth and Canadian major-general Andrew Leslie.
Military commanders are currently battling to fill the "shortfalls" in force in time for the handover in less than a month and a half's time.
"Preparations are well underway, it is going pretty well. The problem at the moment is not the number of troops - we have them - but the logistical aspects," such as transport, said one diplomat.
At the same time, commanders acknowledge that "pressure is building up" over the issue of ISAF's mandate.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, UN officials as well as non-governmental organizations want the force's geographical mandate to be extended, at a time when the security situation is deteriorating on the ground.
But British General Sir Jack Deverell, in charge of planning NATO's takeover of the Afghan force, said the issue was more than about geography.
"We need to get away from the idea that Isaf's influence is simply defined by a line in the ground," he said, speaking recently at NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium.
"What we need to do is expand Karzai's area of influence and use ISAF... to help him do that," he added.
Military commanders are therefore studying ways of boosting links between ISAF and the PRTs, whose aim is to help the central government strengthen its authority in the provinces through reconstruction programmes spearheaded by the military.
"How that works is not clear," admitted Deverell.
The aim is to deploy 16 PRTs across the country. Three are already in place, in the central region of Bamyan, Kunduz in the north and Gardez in the east. Britain is also set to deploy its own troops in Mazar-i-Sharif, in the north.
For its part, the United States is trying to persuade countries notably in central Asia to take part, said one US diplomat.
----
Resurgent Taliban fighters train next generation in new style of warfare
Sunday, 29th June 2003
Scotsman
http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=710862003
MULLAH Malang is waiting impatiently at his home in Pakistan, praying for his sick wife to die. The senior Taliban fighter says his presence is needed in southern Afghanistan, where a new model army of Islamic extremists is gathering following a renewed call to arms by their ousted leader Mullah Omar.
Malang's Taliban superiors have assigned him to help set up mobile training camps in the increasingly lawless border provinces. With their ranks routed and camps destroyed by American forces, the resurgent Taliban have taken to the road to train the next generation in a new style of warfare.
Instructions in suicide attacks - once the preserve of the Taliban's Arab fighters - are being adopted by native Afghanis.
New recruits are also being taught how to use dogs and donkeys fitted with explosives to attack coalition checkpoints. Turned loose nearby, the bombers wait until the animal wanders close enough to a checkpoint and the explosives are then detonated by remote control.
In an interview at an undisclosed location near Miranshah, Pakistan, Malang said he would instruct between five and eight recruits at a time as larger numbers might attract US attention. They stay no more than three days in one place.
All this spells trouble for the US, say observers, although they doubt the Taliban could engage in mass warfare to win territory.
"The Taliban are adopting new and deadly strategies," said Peshawar-based analyst Mohammad Riaz.
Shahnawaz Tanai, a former communist Afghan general now living in exile in Pakistan, added: "It is a dangerous situation. But the Taliban's guerrilla warfare lacks co-ordination and it seems unlikely they can take Kabul again."
Taliban sources say their presence in southern Afghanistan now includes more than 1,000 fighters under the command of former intelligence chief Mullah Dadullah. According to Malang, mobile training camps are operating in Kandahar, Uruzgan, Helmand and other former strongholds of the Islamic militia, where there has been a recent upsurge in violence.
Observers say the Taliban are trying to undermine the central government's authority by creating obstacles to major reconstruction projects in the south, an area many Western aid workers have fled.
Local border-town residents say leaflets announcing the formation of suicide squads to attack US forces were distributed in Afghanistan. In the first attack, a car bomb was detonated in Kabul on June 7, killing four German peacekeepers. Malang attributes the attack to Arabs and Uzbeks. Reports at the time suggested it was a co-ordinated effort by the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Hizb-i Islami. Until now, suicide missions in Afghanistan have been the province of foreigners.
"We received orders from Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden to prepare ourselves for suicide attacks against Americans," said Malang. He quotes the orders as saying: "Don't hesitate to sacrifice life in the name of Allah. Carry out suicide attacks whenever there is a crowd of foreigners or their puppets."
The Taliban began planning its comeback last year in Kandahar. Then 70 or so trusted Taliban men attended a secret meeting, according to sources in the militia, where the one-legged Mullah Dadullah administered an oath and duties. This week, Mullah Omar reportedly convened a 10-man war council to lead the jihad against the infidels.
Malang, meanwhile, counts the days until he can return to guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan. "Pray for my wife's death so I get liberated from worldly affairs and have no burden on my mind in the battlefield," he said. "I have pledged to sacrifice my life and go to heaven as a jihadi."
A version of this story first appeared in the Christian Science Monitor
-------- africa
Whispers of Genocide, and Again, Africa Suffers Alone
By Lynne Duke
Sunday, June 29, 2003
Washington Post; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43548-2003Jun27?language=printer
How bad does it have to get this time? How many Africans must die before the world is moved to action?
Once again, there is bloodletting in Africa, this time in a place called Ituri, in the dense equatorial forests in the northeast of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). Machetes and Kalashnikovs are the preferred weapons. Ethnic rivals are the preferred victims, especially in batches and whole families. At the United Nations this spring, whispered fears of "genocide" were in the air again. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who has been down this road before, warned that the pattern of killing in Ituri could presage a far more disastrous conflict. He called for a more robust U.N. peacekeeping force than the 8,700-strong contingent already in Congo, and France is now leading a supplemental emergency force of 1,400 to try to quell the Ituri violence.
President Bush will travel to the continent next month. Among his stops will be Uganda, across the border from Ituri, where Ugandan troops once patrolled and supplied arms to combatants. Bush's trip will look nice. Last Thursday, in a speech to the Corporate Council on Africa, Bush outlined a broad-brush agenda on Africa, including an end to Congo's war. "To encourage progress across all of Africa, we must build peace at the heart of Africa," he said.
But don't count on the White House to support a beefing up of the U.N.'s role in Congo. And don't expect Washington to do anything aggressive to stop the killing. That is not Washington's way -- at least when it comes to Africa.
This has happened many times before. It happened under President Clinton, when the world failed to deter genocide in Rwanda. With indignation and rhetorical flourishes, the Bush administration recently cited that episode as a cautionary tale to shame members of the U.N. Security Council reluctant to throw in their support for the war against Iraq. "From a moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda . . . , the United Nations Security Council will have failed to act once again," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. But with violence once again threatening Africa's Great Lakes region, the United States is doing just what it did in 1994 -- sitting on the sidelines.
So I wonder: Just how many dead Africans would it take for the United States to intervene? The answer may come soon if Ituri and other ethnically riven Congolese regions continue to smolder. But historically, Washington's and the rest of the world's tolerance for mass African death has been quite high.
Perhaps I sound cynical, even a bit macabre. I admit it. I am bitter. That's because I've been there. I've seen these policy failures up close. It all goes back to a place called Nyabibwe, a Zairian town caught at the fluid front lines of war, where I came to understand -- with a sting I still feel sharply today -- that the West was willing again and again to let Africans die in mass slaughters.
I was covering Africa for The Washington Post, and for several days in November 1996, armies of journalists, aid workers and U.N. personnel were vexed by the question: Where were the Rwandan war refugees? Their location and number would determine whether a U.N. peace mission would deploy to help them or would fold. The area around Nyabibwe was a logical place to look. Roughly 1.1 million people had fled to eastern Zaire after the massacres in Rwanda in 1994 and were housed in a string of 30 U.N. refugee camps along the border. Then, when war broke out in Zaire and engulfed the camps in November 1996, about 600,000 of them fled back to Rwanda. That should have left half a million, scattered by the fighting. That's what the U.N. said and what U.S. reconnaissance imagery, seen by aid groups, showed.
The aid groups were outraged, then, to hear U.S. diplomats say there were no more than 200,000 refugees left in Zaire, dispersed in relatively small groupings. Moreover, the diplomats said, those refugees who remained in Zaire had probably taken part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide and were thus unworthy of being saved. This last point was hotly debated, for the refugees included huge numbers of children and elderly and throngs of people being herded through the region like human shields.
In search of the "missing" Rwandan refugees, I happened upon a blasted-to-smithereens refugee convoy at Nyabibwe, where the steady report of automatic weapons fire told us that fighting was still raging in the nearby hills. The Clinton administration's reasoning was clearly a crock, I realized. I counted 30 charred and twisted cars, trucks, buses and gas tankers choking the main road along Lake Kivu's western shore. In a region where few vehicles are ever spotted, of course reconnaissance flights would have seen all these vehicles plodding up the Kivu road. That road was lined for miles with the remnants of cooking fires and tents used by the refugees. Eyewitnesses I met on the road told me that hordes of people had moved with the convoy until forced to march off into the hills near Nyabibwe -- the same hills where I had heard the shooting.
But there would be no rescue. The peace mission was aborted. Washington won the day, leaving 500,000 Africans to their fate. Months later, hundreds of thousands of refugees started emerging from the rain forest in search of aid only to be greeted by massacres that left untold numbers dead.
The United States obviously cannot police the entire world. It cannot be expected or obligated to jump in and save the day in each and every conflict. Liberia, for example, also cries out for help. But it's the way Washington decides where to intervene, and for whom, that stirs indignation. It has become a chronic feature of U.S. policy -- dating back to the 1993 debacle that left 18 U.S. Rangers dead in Somalia -- to send no troops into harm's way in Africa. Over and over, U.S. diplomats will say that Africa, unlike the Balkans or Iraq, is not of strategic interest to the United States.
But the U.S. aversion to intervention in Africa is deeper than that; Washington has prevented other nations' troops from intervening, as well. Rwanda, where 800,000 people died, is one case. Ituri, where the peacekeeping mandate comes up for Security Council reconsideration in the coming month, could become another.
It is not a matter of asking why can't the Africans solve their own problems. It is, instead, a matter of asking: If the United States can help Kosovo Albanians, Iraqis, Bosnians, Israelis and Palestinians trying to settle their conflicts, why can't it help Africans? Many may be forgiven for believing it is about race and the lesser value that the United States places on African lives.
Even by the standards of Africa's many catastrophes, the five-year-old Congo conflict rates high in terms of the sheer numbers of casualties. The conflict -- of which Ituri is one theater of battle -- is part of a domino effect caused by Rwanda's genocide. This war started in 1998, when a rebel faction supported by Rwandan and Ugandan troops mounted a failed military push on the Congolese capital, Kinshasa. Since then, the Congolese war has claimed more than 3 million lives, not just in battle, but also as a consequence of the sustained degradation in the region's quality of life. People are dying from malnutrition and from disease. In Ituri, aid groups estimate the death toll to be 50,000. The Western powers, we must surmise, find these deaths tolerable, for they have evoked no more than the usual tut-tutting and shaking of heads that accompany bad news about Africa.
So Bush, like Clinton before him, will now travel to Africa. And, like Clinton before him, Bush will break bread with President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda. Museveni is one of Washington's favored African leaders, in no small measure because of his leadership in bringing Uganda's stunningly high HIV-AIDS infection rate of a decade ago under control.
But Uganda has played a destructive role in the Congo crisis. The United Nations has accused the Ugandan military and business elite of plundering Congo's natural resources. Aid groups have accused Uganda, along with Rwanda, of training and arming some of the fighters now ripping the Ituri region apart. Both Uganda and Rwanda have maintained military forces in Congo-Zaire since the 1997 ouster of Mobutu Sese Seko. The withdrawal of their forces earlier this year under a Congo peace accord has bequeathed the fighting to their respective militia proxies.
That is what is fueling Ituri's violence. It is not some inevitable spasm of innate African violence, not some stereotype of darkest Africa as summoned up during Rwanda's nightmare. It is mere cause and effect, and thus highly predictable -- and preventable. Let hundreds of thousands of people die, and you can expect enmities to fester, leading to still more bouts of extreme violence.
It is a cycle that can be slowed, even broken. The combatants in the broader Congolese war already have begun negotiating a transitional government, as called for in their peace accord. But that peace process could easily be sabotaged if the Ituri conflict goes unchecked.
With a firm and consistent international commitment, plus a muscular military mandate and sufficient troop strengths, it can be done. It won't be easy, to be sure. Congo is a vast nation -- the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River. It is a dysfunctional state, with little electrical infrastructure, a collapsed road system and a dearth of telephones in most places outside the capital. The country was picked clean under Mobutu, the infamously corrupt dictator of 32 years, and plunged into more confusion by his power-hungry successor, the late Laurent Desire Kabila. Spreading peacekeepers around such a large and problematic place would admittedly be a logistical nightmare. Yet it must be done, and more than the 8,700 troops in the international force are required. And they need more muscle; they need to be authorized to shoot to kill, as is the emergency French-led force in Ituri.
If the goal is to stabilize Congo's embattled regions, save lives and stave off more of the kind of ethnic cleansing that already has taken place, the United States needs to be more aggressively and actively engaged.
That is my wish. Now I must wait and see, again, how many Africans must die first.
Author's e-mail: dukel@washpost.com
Lynne Duke is a New York-based staff writer for the Style section. She was The Post's correspondent for southern and central Africa from 1995 to 1999 and is the author of "Mandela, Mobutu and Me; A Newswoman's African Journey" (Doubleday).
-------- arms sales
UK fighter jets sold into Ivory Coast war zone
Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday June 29, 2003
The UK Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,987215,00.html
British Customs officials are to launch an inquiry into the sale of jet fighter which look likely to be involved in military operations against civilians and rebels in one of Africa's bloodiest civil wars.
An Observer investigation has revealed a loophole allowing potentially lethal British military hardware to slip out of the country without official scrutiny, licence or control.
The sale of the two Strikemaster jets to the Ivory Coast government discloses a trail which begins with a British air display pilot and ends with a former commando in the French special forces now plying his trade as a mercenary in the war-torn state.
It will come as a further embarrassment to the Government following recent revelations of how British tanks and planes were used by the Indonesian military to suppress a popular uprising.
The Strikemaster is one of the most successful fighters made in Britain. Fitted with two machine-guns and wings designed to carry 3,000lb of bombs or rockets, it is well suited for counter-insurgency, ground attacks and advanced pilot training.
Its acrobatic displays are popular at airshows. But it is these very qualities which allowed it to be sold quietly through a Yorkshire aviation firm to Ivory Coast.
Concerns were first raised in March this year after a plane-spotter published his photograph of a Strikemaster at a Maltese airport in freshly painted Ivory Coast livery.
The Observer's subsequent investigation found that the jet had been used by its then owner, UK pilot Tom Moloney, in airshows across Europe. Because the plane had been disarmed, it was registered as a civilian plane.
Earlier this year Moloney was approached by Sheffield businessman Jurgen Morton-Hall. He told Moloney he wanted to buy his Strikemaster and another similar plane for a company which would use them for film and display work in South Africa.
Morton-Hall's client was called Strikemaster Films. But although the company has a London address it was set up specifically to buy the two fighter planes and was run by two French directors, one of them Jean-Jacques Fuentes.
Fuentes is a former pilot with the French special forces who worked for several years as a mercenary. In 1999 he was flying missions for the African intervention force, Ecomog, in Sierra Leone.
Fuentes told The Observer he had wanted the jets for film work but the deal collapsed. He was then approached by the Ivory Coast government.
He claims the aircraft will be used for reconnaissance flights and for training pilots. He insists that the planes are too old to be rearmed.
Yet it is clear the jets will be used by the military in a region facing huge unrest. According to Amnesty International, refugees from neighbouring Liberia are pouring into Ivory Coast and many are being indiscriminately killed by the military.
Despite this, the jets were sold as civilian planes without an export licence. Had Fuentes applied for a licence, the sale could have been vetoed by the Department of Trade and Industry.
A DTI spokesman said: 'These are clearly military aircraft which will be used for military operations and the seller should have obtained export licences. It is up to Customs and Excise to now investigate the transaction.'
A spokeswoman for Customs confirmed it would be looking at the case 'very thoroughly'. Molony and Morton-Hall claim they had no knowledge of the Ivory Coast deal.
Paul Eavis of the Saferworld think-tank says the case exposes a dangerous loophole.
He said: 'This case raises serious questions about how many other people might be undertaking similar activities. The Government must pursue this case and make sure this type of scandal can't happen again.'
----
US tells Taiwan to rely on itself
29 June 2003
Sunday Dawn (Pakistan)
http://www.dawn.com/2003/06/29/int16.htm
TAIPEI: The United States has told Taiwan that Taipei must be self-reliant when it comes to its national defence as it will take at least two weeks for US support to reach Taiwan if China attacks, media reported on Thursday.
Pentagon officials made the warning to a visiting Taiwan parliament delegation on Wednesday, Taiwan radio and major newspapers said on Thursday.
The delegation briefed US-based Taiwan media on their meeting with Pentagon officials at a news conference in Washington D.C.
"The two-week delay is because the US must go through its own procedure, including military deployment," lawmaker Sun Ta-chien told the news conference.
"The message is to let the Taiwan government and parliament know that in case of military conflict in the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan should be prepared to handle it on its own, and not think that the US Big Brother will come and help Taiwan," China Times quoted Sun as saying.
The Taiwan delegation is led by Parliament Speaker Wang Jin-ping and consists of the parliament's National Defence Committee members.
It met with senior US defence officials at the Pentagon, including Assistant Defence Secretary for International Security Affairs Peter Rodman and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Asian & Pacific Affairs Richard Lawless.
According to Wang, the US officials re-affirmed US commitment to Taiwan but expressed increased concern about China's military threat towards Taiwan.
"They warned that between 2005 and 2008, China's military modernization will reach such a stage that there will be certain changes in the military situation in the Taiwan Strait," the United Daily News quoted Wang as saying.In their discussion of Taiwan's weapons shopping list, US defence officials mentioned three priorities - PAC-3 anti-missile defence system, advanced long-range early-warning radars and the so- called C4ISR capabilities which are command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
US President George W. Bush approved an arms sale package to Taiwan in April 2001, including eight diesel submarines. But since the US has not produced diesel subs for 50 years, the US must find sources to design and build the subs.
Germany and the Netherlands have rejected the notion of making the subs for Taiwan because they have diplomatic ties with China, which sees Taiwan as its breakaway province. Taiwan only has four outdated subs to patrol the 120-kilometre Taiwan Strait.
The US was Taiwan's long-time ally. When it dropped Taiwan to recognize China in 1979, it signed the Taiwan Relations Act pledging to maintain cultural and trade ties with Taiwan and continue to sell defensive arms to Taiwan.
China, calling US sales an obstacle in China's reunification with Taiwan, has repeatedly demanded the US reduce and eventually end arms sales to Taiwan.-dpa
-------- biological weapons
Bioweapon labs will bring threat of lethal viruses to urban America
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
29 June 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=419946
A network of high-security laboratories for storing and investigating some of the most lethal viruses known to mankind is being built across the US, leaving communities in uproar. They not only fear the risk of the viruses escaping, but also contend that the programme, part of the $6bn (£3.5bn) Project BioShield, is a stunning case of overkill. For none of the germs to be studied is related to bioweaponry.
In the tiny town of Hamilton, Montana, campaigners worry that they will become a terrorist target if the proposed laboratory goes ahead. In New York State, congressmen have already blocked a proposal to house a laboratory on Plum Island, off Long Island. In Davis, California, home to a major branch of the state university system, activists have sued the university for failing to abide by state environmental regulations in making its application to house nasties ranging from Ebola to hanta virus and tick-borne encephalitis.
This is not just a matter of nimbyism. The protesters cannot understand why they should risk exposure to the tiny clutch of diseases requiring the construction of maximum-security "level 4" biosafety facilities - there are just five of them - when none has any known practical utility as a guerrilla weapon. The diseases the national security people are most worried about - anthrax, smallpox and plague - are either level 2 or level 3, and plenty of laboratories at those levels exist already.
"There is no benefit to our community. Not a single one," said Samantha McCarthy, who is leading efforts against the Davis biolab.
In Davis, in particular, there are serious security concerns. This is a university that managed to spread major contamination in a 1950s experiment to irradiate beavers. The clean-up is still going on. In February, a rhesus monkey used in disease experiments mysteriously disappeared from campus and has never been found. Now, the university is proposing to contract out security for the new biolab to Los Alamos, the nuclear laboratory in New Mexico embroiled in numerous security lapses - most recently when it lost what it called a "small" amount of low-grade plutonium.
According to Ms McCarthy, the biolab plan would entail the transport of highly dangerous materials in and out of town in ordinary lorries - a system that recently brought a Hazmat team out on to a road in Ohio after an explosion involving a lower-grade biological agent.
Most experts agree that the level 4 facilities would probably be pretty safe, since they are made of numerous isolation chambers that researchers would enter in moon-style protective gear. Whether they are suitable for urban areas such as Davis is a matter of debate, however. One biolab designer, Jim Orzechowski of the Canadian firm of Smith Carter Architects and Engineers, told the Los Angeles Times less than reassuringly last week: "We're getting as close to fail safe as possible. As fail safe as the space shuttle." The space shuttle has had two catastrophic failures in 17 years.
The broader question, however, is why these laboratories are being built at all. According to Richard Ebright, professor of chemistry at Rutgers University, it is a matter of crazy bureaucratic logic. Congress flooded the National Institutes of Health with so much money that the NIH simply could not work out how to spend it all on biodefence. Even if the NIH accepted every single research proposal without vetting - something it would never do - and built as many level 2 and level 3 labs as it possibly could, it still would not get through the $6bn. Only super-expensive level 4 labs can do the trick - even though they are of negligible scientific or medical value and do not cover bioweapon agents.
"Not only is this a monumental waste of money," Professor Ebright said, "but the new labs raise their own security issues. And it can't be a good idea to increase the number of people trained in handling these agents given the damage that a rogue scientist could do."
-------- britain
Soldiers fear they're acting illegally
By Trevor Royle and Neil Mackay
29 June 2003
UK Herald
http://www.sundayherald.com/34963
BRITISH soldiers fear they could be acting illegally while serving in Iraq and could face war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court.
Their fears are exacerbated by the row in Britain over whether or not the government exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein to persuade the nation to support military action.
Soldiers believe that if the government did lie, or misrepresent the case for war, then the occupation and any actions taken by serving soldiers in the Gulf would be illegal and could leave them open to prosecution.
British officers and squaddies are concerned that there are no clear rules of engagement for dealing with civilians and that firing on civilian rioters could see them charged with war crimes. Last week, six British soldiers were killed in Majar al-Kabir by Iraqi rioters after using baton rounds to defend themselves.
A senior military source told the Sunday Herald that British operations in Iraq were a grey area which has not been cleared up to the Army's satisfaction.
'The International Criminal Court has the power to bring to trial individual soldiers and their commanders if there is evidence that a war crime has been committed against a civilian,' the source said.
'While this is unlikely, as we have our own system of checks and balances, it does concern our guys, as it is often impossible to differentiate between armed civilians and soldiers.
'Now that we're in the peace making phase, the problems are more acute and the issue is becoming more blurred.'
His fears chime with those of Stephen Solley QC, an international human rights lawyer, who warned before the invasion of Iraq that 'no-one has made a legal case for war'.
British soldiers moved back into the town of Majar al-Kabir yesterday. Some 50 light and heavy armoured vehicles moved into the town as four attack helicopters hovered overhead. The soldiers were met by a group of Shia clerics and prominent town officials in a peaceful ceremony aimed at putting the acrimony in the past and quelling Iraqi concerns that the British planned to take revenge on the town for their comrades' deaths.
Meanwhile, two American soldiers who had been missing for a number of days from their checkpoint north of Baghdad were found dead yesterday. Their bodies were discovered 20 miles north-west of the Iraqi capital.
----
Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat
US official who identified documents incriminating Iraq as fakes says Britain must have been aware of findings
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Raymond Whitaker in London
29 June 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=419982
A high-ranking American official who investigated claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking uranium to restart its nuclear programme last night accused Britain and the US of deliberately ignoring his findings to make the case for war against Saddam Hussein.
The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the west African state of Niger, were forgeries. When he saw similar claims in Britain's dossier on Iraq last September, he even went as far as telling CIA officials that they needed to alert their British counterparts to his investigation.
The allegation will add to the suspicions of opponents to the war that last week's row between the BBC and Tony Blair's director of communications Alastair Campbell was a sideshow to draw attention away from more serious questions about the justification for the war.
The comments of the former US diplomat appear to be at odds with those of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. Appearing before a parliamentary committee last week, Mr Straw said the British intelligence community had not known of the forged documents' existence "at the time when [the September dossier] was put together".
But in his first interview on the issue, the former US diplomat told The Independent on Sunday: "It is hard for me to fathom, that as close as we are and [while] preparing for a war based on [claims about] weapons of mass destruction, that we did not share intelligence of this nature."
Asked if he felt his findings had been ignored for political reasons, he added: "It's an easy conclusion to draw." Though the official's identity is well-known in Washington - he was on the National Security Council under President Clinton - he asked that his name be withheld at this stage.
During last week's hearings by the Foreign Affairs Committee, MPs cited repeated reports that the forged documents - a letter on which the signature of Niger's president had been faked, and another carrying the signature of a man who had not held office in the country since the 1980s - had originally reached the CIA via British intelligence.
Mr Straw not only denied that the forged documents came from British sources, but said Britain's allegations about Iraq's quest for uranium in Africa came from "quite separate sources". He said he would give further details of these sources for the uranium allegation in a closed session on Friday, during which he was fiercely cross-questioned by Sir John Stanley, the committee's chief sceptic. After hearing what the Foreign Secretary had to say, the Tory MP is reported to have told Mr Straw he did not believe him.
The testimony of the former US diplomat further undermines the claims of both the British and US governments that Saddam had developed, or was developing, weapons of mass destruction.
The Niger connection became one of the most important and most controversial elements in the build-up to war, and both Britain and the US used it to claim that Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear programme. It later emerged that the report was based on forged letters obtained by Italian intelligence from an African diplomat. The Italians were said to have passed the letters to their British counterparts, from where they reached the CIA.
When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) finally had the opportunity to inspect the documents, nearly a year later, they were dismissed as fakes in less than a day. Neither the US nor Britain ever gave the IAEA any other information to back up their allegations on Iraq's uranium-buying activities, despite the "separate sources" cited by Mr Straw.
In February 2002, the former diplomat - who had served as an ambassador in Africa - was approached by the CIA to carry out a "discreet" task: to investigate if it was possible that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. He said the CIA had been asked to find out in a direct request from the office of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.
During eight days in Niger he discovered it was impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities of uranium alleged. "My report was very unequivocal," he said. He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents.
On his return he was debriefed by the CIA. One senior CIA official has told reporters the agency's findings were distributed to the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department, the FBI and the office of the Vice President on the same day in early March.
Six months later the former diplomat read in a newspaper that Britain had issued a dossier claiming Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa. He contacted officials at CIA headquarters and said they needed to clarify whether the British were referring to Niger. If so, the record needed to be corrected. He heard nothing, and in January President Bush said in his State of the Union speech that the "British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa".
The ex-diplomat says he is outraged by the way evidence gathered by the intelligence community was selectively used in Washington to support pre-determined policies and bolster a case for war.
----
Lawmaker: U.K. Didn't Doctor Iraq Intel
By ED JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer
Jun 29, 2003
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITAIN_IRAQ_FEUD?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
LONDON (AP) -- Prime Minister Tony Blair's office did not doctor an intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, a lawmaker involved in an official probe said Sunday.
Eric Illsley, part of a Parliamentary committee investigating the government's use of intelligence material to justify war in Iraq, said he was satisfied that Blair's communications chief, Alastair Campbell, had not tampered with the dossier.
But fellow committee member John Maples said his colleague's remarks were premature, adding the verdict may come soon. "We haven't come to any conclusions at all yet," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.
In part, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee is investigating a BBC report that Blair aides redrafted a file published in September to include claims that Saddam could launch chemical and biological weapons at 45 minutes' notice.
BBC defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan said intelligence officials were unhappy with the "sexed-up" report and believed the information about the 45-minute notice came from a single, unreliable source and was incorrect.
The story prompted accusations that the government had exaggerated the scale of the Iraqi weapons threat to convince skeptical lawmakers of the necessity of war.
Government relations with the BBC have slumped to their lowest level in years, with Campbell and the corporation's director of news, Richard Sambrook, firing venomous open letters at each other.
The government is demanding an apology and neither side is backing down.
In the latest twist, Illsley, of Blair's Labor Party, told LBC radio on Sunday that he and other committee members were satisfied the dossier and the 45-minute detail were compiled by intelligence chiefs.
Countering that report, Maples told the BBC that the committee was meeting Tuesday decide its position. Blair's office declined to comment, saying it would wait for the committee's official verdict.
----
EU stars for UK troops in Congo
By Adam Lusher
29/06/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$I1J2FJKMUWUH5QFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/06/29/neu29.xml/
The government was accused yesterday of moving closer to joining a "Euro army" after British soldiers began an African mission under European Union command, wearing EU insignia.
Forward elements of a detachment of about 70 Royal Engineers flew to Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo last week as part of a 1,400-strong, French-led EU force, trying to restore security in the war-torn region.
Their headquarters will fly the EU flag and the British will wear Union gold stars on their uniforms.
Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, said: "You have a single command and a single insignia - it's another step towards a Euro army, which the Government continues to deny."
Some British veterans have expressed unease about the mission - the first EU-controlled military operation outside Europe and the first without Nato support.
Major Michael Murray, 80, of the Royal Engineers Association, said: "I think the command structure has to have a British source, not an alien one, and particularly not a European one. After Iraq, things aren't very happy between the British and French."
A Ministry of Defence spokesman denied any move towards an EU army, adding: "The involvement in Congo is the type of EU mission that will probably be done in the future - a small, limited operation."
----
BRIT TROOPS SLAM YANKS
Army feud exposed by documentary
Brendan Mcginty Exclusive,
June 29, 2003
UK Sunday Mail
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13121566_method=full_siteid=86024_headline=-BRIT-TROOPS-SLAM-YANKS-name_page.html
A BRITISH Army Colonel has branded US Marines in Iraq as "idiots" and "stupid".
The outburst, to be shown on a TV documentary tonight, will fuel the simmering fued between the coalition forces.
Colonel Steve Cox, dubbed The Mayor of Umm Qasr, made the remarks after learning US Marines had arrested three innocent Iraqi civilians.
The BBC programme Fighting the War shows Cox's anger as he speaks to the camera.
The incident was over in seconds but sheds further light on the ill-feeling between the two forces.
It has come to light after intense cotroversy over the deaths of British soldiers in friendly fire incidents and American complaints about the conduct of British Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins.
The BBC followed Cox as he set up a British command centre in the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr in March.
On a trip to the town's harbour, controlled by the US Marines, he discovered three prisoners he recognised after they requested help in the city.
The men had their hands bound.
But they were released and taken back to the city by Cox, the deputy commander of British 3 Commando, and his men.
In his explanation for the cameras he said: "These nobbers here, sorry these Americans, the people came down here to look for help.
"They've tied them up in the room there.
"I think one is a guy whose daughter was hit by a US bomb the day before yesterday and we have been trying to track down his daughter. These idiots would keep him here all night. Stupid."
Cox, a highly rated and popular commander, made it a priority to win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis.
The man who he had recognised was later reunited with his missing daughter.
There had been bad blood between the two armies before and the incident gives an insight into possible ill-feeling and mistrust between the two sets of troops.
It reached new heights when complaints were made about the behaviour of Collins by an American major.
The major accused Collins, 43, of breaching of the Geneva Convention.
But supporters of Collins have pointed to the British-US feud as a possible reason for the complaint.
The document containing the complaint also highlighted anti-American feeling among British troops.
There was also a friendly fire incident in which a British soldier described the US pilot who fired as behaving like a "cowboy".
Tonight's programme also features Scottish Regiment the Black Watch as they come under enemy fire in Iraq.
It carries interviews with the regiment's commanders and soldiers as they are fired upon as they carry out a supply mission.
-------- europe
Al-Qaeda joke shot down
June 29 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/28/1056683951244.html
A Swiss air traffic controller jokingly put an "al-Qaeda" label on a French helicopter that strayed into restricted air space during the Group of Eight summit, nearly leading to a shooting down of it by the French air force.
The controller put the tag on his radar screen during the June meeting in Evian, France, on Lake Geneva. Spokesman for air traffic firm Skyguide Patrick Herr confirmed that the French military picked up the label on its own radar and immediately scrambled Mirage fighter jets. Only at the last moment did the Mirage pilots realise that it was a French transportation helicopter.
The controller has been suspended during an inquiry.
-------- iraq
Iraq's Real Weapons Threat
By Rolf Ekeus
Sunday, June 29, 2003
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43468-2003Jun27?language=printer
THE HAGUE
With no weapons of mass destruction as yet found in Iraq, the political criticism directed against President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair is mounting. Before the war, the two leaders publicly declared that the Iraqi regime had not only procured and produced such weapons but still retained them with the intention to use them. This was considered a good reason for a military operation against Iraq -- an outright casus belli.
A United Nations inspection team, before the war, and the U.S. military, after the war, have been searching Iraq and have not come up with anything that can remotely be called weapons of mass destruction. Is it now time to join the game of blaming Bush and Blair for an illegitimate or illegal war? Let us first consider some facts in a complicated picture.
Chemical weapons were used by Iraq in its war against Iran (1980-88). Arguably that use had a decisive effect on the outcome: It saved Iraq from being overwhelmed by a much larger Iranian army. Furthermore, Iraq made use of chemical bombs in air raids against the Kurdish civilian population in northern Iraq. Nerve gases, such as sarin, and mustard gas immediately and painfully killed many thousands of civilians. More than 100,000 later died or were crippled by the aftereffects.
These reminders illustrate that Iraq's acquisition and use of chemical weapons were carried out in pursuit of two strategic goals, namely to halt Iran's possible expansion of its sphere of influence in the Persian Gulf region and to suppress internal opposition. The war started by Iraq in 1980 was directed against its historical enemy, Iran. In strategic terms and over generations, Iraq/Mesopotamia had been positioned as a gatekeeper of the Arab nation against repeated Persian expansion westward, a threat that had become acute with the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. All the emirates and states in the gulf region, ruled by Arabs of traditionalist Sunni Muslim orientation, considered Persian nationalism and expansionism a constant problem, especially after Iran's Shiite revolution.
For Saddam Hussein, the self-styled, self-promoted defender of the Arab nation, "the Iranian beasts," to quote Tariq Aziz in a conversation with me -- not the United States or Israel -- were the eternal enemy of Iraq. With its population of more than 64 million, Iran constituted a challenge that Iraq, with its 24 million inhabitants, could not match with conventional military means. By using chemical weapons to gas and kill the "human waves" of young, poorly protected Iranian attack forces, the Iraqi army repeatedly saved itself from being overwhelmed. And thus it became conventional wisdom, nourished by the Iraqi leadership, that only nonconventional weapons could guarantee that Iraq would prevail in an armed conflict with Iran.
Regarding biological weapons, the U.N. inspection team, UNSCOM, managed after four years of investigation to confirm the existence in Iraq of a major secret biological weapons program. This led in August 1995 to the defection from Iraq of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamal, director of Iraq's WMD programs. During UNSCOM's debriefings in Iraq after the defection, Iraqi biological weapons scientists, able to speak slightly more openly than normally, explained that their secret work mainly was on assignments to find means for warfare against the Iranians.
Regarding the nuclear weapons projects, the Iraqi authorities defended their systematic violation of Iraq's obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with the proposition that Iran, likewise a party to the treaty, was active in developing its own nuclear weapons. Iraq's obsession with Iran was illustrated by its air attack in 1983 on the Iranian nuclear reactors at Busher.
Even the quite remarkable missile developments in Iraq were related to Iran. Iraq succeeded in modifying and re-engineering many hundreds of the more than 800 Scud missiles bought from the Soviet Union -- increasing their range of 200-300 kilometers to 500-600 kilometers, sufficient to reach Tehran.
In sum, all four components of Iraq's prohibited and secret WMD program were motivated and inspired by its structural enmity and rivalry with Iran. Thus, during the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq did not use its readily available chemical weapons, stored in considerable quantities in southern Iraq, against the U.S.-led forces. The Iraqi leadership made clear to me that there would have been no military sense in using chemical weapons on such a fast-developing battlefield, where the enemy was highly mobile, well trained and well equipped for chemical warfare. In addition, the Iraqi willingness to use chemical weapons had been tempered by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's promise to Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that such a contingency would change the U.S. war aim from the liberation of Kuwait to regime change in Iraq.
The fact that Iraq in the recent war did not counter the coalition forces, now even better trained and equipped than last time, with chemical weapons should not have come as a surprise. The chemical weapons, like the other WMD, had been developed with another enemy in mind. But a big question remains about the puzzling absence of chemical weapons in Iraq. Detractors of Bush and Blair have tried to make political capital of the presumed discrepancy between the top-level assurances about Iraq's possession of chemical weapons (and other WMD) and the inability of invading forces to find such stocks. The criticism is a distortion and trivialization of a major threat to international peace and security.
During its war against Iran, Iraq found that chemical warfare agents, especially nerve agents such as sarin, soman, tabun and later VX, deteriorated after just a couple of weeks' storage in drums or in filled chemical warfare munitions. The reason was that the Iraqi chemists, lacking access to high-quality laboratory and production equipment, were unable to make the agents pure enough. (UNSCOM found in 1991 that the large quantities of nerve agents discovered in storage in Iraq had lost most of their lethal property and were not suitable for warfare.)
Thus the Iraqi policy after the Gulf War was to halt all production of warfare agents and to focus on design and engineering, with the purpose of activating production and shipping of warfare agents and munitions directly to the battlefield in the event of war. Many hundreds of chemical engineers and production and process engineers worked to develop nerve agents, especially VX, with the primary task being to stabilize the warfare agents in order to optimize a lasting lethal property. Such work could be blended into ordinary civilian production facilities and activities, e.g., for agricultural purposes, where batches of nerve agents could be produced during short interruptions of the production of ordinary chemicals.
This combination of researchers, engineers, know-how, precursors, batch production techniques and testing is what constituted Iraq's chemical threat -- its chemical weapon. The rather bizarre political focus on the search for rusting drums and pieces of munitions containing low-quality chemicals has tended to distort the important question of WMD in Iraq and exposed the American and British administrations to unjustified criticism.
The real chemical warfare threat from Iraq has had two components. One has been the capability to bring potent chemical agents to the battlefield to be used against a poorly equipped and poorly trained enemy. The other is the chance that Iraqi chemical weapons specialists would sign up with terrorist networks such as al Qaeda -- with which they are likely to have far more affinity than do the unemployed Russian scientists the United States worries about.
In this context the remnants of Iraq's biological weapons program, and specifically its now-unemployed specialists, constitute a potential threat of much the same magnitude. While biological weapons are not easily adapted for battlefield use, they are potentially the more devastating as a means for massive terrorist onslaught on civilian targets.
As with chemical weapons, Iraq's policy on biological weapons was to develop and improve the quality of the warfare agents. It is possible that Iraq, in spite of its denials, retained some anthrax in storage. But it could be more problematic and dangerous if Iraq secretly maintained a research and development capability, as well as a production capability, run by the biologists involved in its earlier programs. Again, such a complete program would in itself constitute a more important biological weapon than some stored agents of doubtful quality.
It is understandable that the U.N. inspectors and even more, the military search teams, have had difculty penetrating the sophisticated, well-rehearsedand protected WMD program in Iraq. The task was made infinitely more challenging by the fact that Iraq was, and indeed still is, a "republic of fear." Through my indirect contact with some senior Iraqi weapons scientists, I have been given to understand that the reign of terror is still in place.
Outsiders who have not dealt with Iraq cannot easily understand the extent to which the terror of the Hussein years has penetrated that unhappy nation. As long as Hussein and his sons are not apprehended or proven dead, few if any of those involved in the weapons program will provide information on their activities. The risk of terrible revenge against oneself or one's family is simply too great. The first point on a WMD agenda must be to create a safe environment free from the remnants of terror.
The chemical and biological warfare structures in Iraq constitute formidable international threats through potential links to international terrorism. Before the war these structures were also major threats against Iran and internally against Iraq's own Kurdish and Shiite populations, as well as Israel.
The Iraqi nuclear weapons projects lacked access to fissile material but were advanced with regard to weapon design. Here again, competition with Iran was a driving factor. Iran, as a major beneficiary of the fall of Hussein, has now been given an excellent opportunity to rethink its own nuclear weapons program and its other WMD activities.
The door is now open for diplomatic initiatives to remake the region into a WMD-free area and to shape a structure in the Persian Gulf of stability and security. Moreover, the defeat of the Hussein regime, a deadly opponent to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, has opened the door to a realistic and re-energized peace process in the Middle East.
This is enough to justify the international military intervention undertaken by the United States and Britain. To accept the alternative -- letting Hussein remain in power with his chemical and biological weapons capability -- would have been to tolerate a continuing destabilizing arms race in the gulf, including future nuclearization of the region, threats to the world's energy supplies, leakage of WMD technology and expertise to terrorist networks, systematic sabotage of efforts to create and sustain a process of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the continued terrorizing of the Iraqi people.
The writer was executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq from 1991 to 1997. A former Swedish ambassador to the United States, he is now chairman of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
----
Paras storm town where mob killed British soldiers
By David Blair in Majar-al-Kabir and Philip Sherwell near Amara
29/06/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/29/wirq29.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/06/29/ixportaltop.html
The roar of tank engines and the clatter of helicopters echoed across the mudhouses of Majar-al-Kabir yesterday as the British Army returned in force to the town where six soldiers died last week at the hands of an Iraqi mob.
More than 500 soldiers from 1st Bn, The Parachute Regiment, swept back to the scene of the worst attack on British forces since the invasion of Iraq began.
Operation Swordfish, as the incursion was codenamed, was an enterprise fraught with risk. Returning in strength to a town whose people had attacked British soldiers in their thousands could have stirred up a hornets' nest.
Leaving it unpatrolled, however, threatened to create a "no-go" area. British officers decided that the balance of risk favoured the hard line approach.
About 100 armoured, fighting vehicles, including Challenger 2 main battle tanks, supported the Paras as three attack helicopters, including one United States Apache, swooped low over the town 100 miles north of Basra.
Even so, the Paras wore their maroon berets instead of helmets. L/Cpl Colin Rushford, 23, from Fife in Scotland, said he did not want to "get his own back".
He said: "The guys won't let something like this get the better of them, because they are always professional at what they do."
Another Para, however, who was among those who took part in the disastrous patrol through the town's streets on Tuesday, admitted that he was angry. "You would be, if you'd been shot at the way they were," he said.
Lt Col Ronnie McCourt, a British military spokesman, said the aim of Operation Swordfish was to "re-establish our link with this town" and allow officers from the Royal Military Police to conduct a scene-of-crime investigation inside the police station where their six colleagues were killed. "We bared our teeth but were not going to bite," he said.
Crowds of bemused onlookers gathered in the shade on street corners, but there was no overt hostility. "We're sorry for the British who died and for our own dead civilians," said Dr Adil Al-Shawi, the general manager of the local hospital.
He added, however, that the townspeople were still angry about the deaths of four locals, caused by British soldiers. "They killed two civilians before anything happened. They were shooting all the time," said Dr Al-Shawi.
Similar claims were denied last week by senior British officers, who said that the troops had kept to their rules of engagement and only opened fire after coming under attack. Two local men described in Majar as innocent martyrs were actually killed after aiming Kalashnikovs at the soldiers.
Yesterday it emerged that local leaders had been consulted over Operation Swordfish and gave their approval for the British incursion.
In a statement, "To the great British people, from the Iraqi people," they thanked British soldiers for "liberating" them from Saddam Hussain's regime.
"We asked Allah to bless your, and our, dead men and we hope such a painful incident will never happen again," it read.
The Army says it is determined to hunt down those who murdered its soldiers although no retribution will be exacted against the townspeople. The investigation will focus on whether some of the men were executed after being cornered in the police station.
Four were shot in the head at close range but it is not clear whether this was during the fighting or whether the men were killed in cold blood.
The bodies of two missing American soldiers were found north of Baghdad and one soldier was killed in a grenade attack, bringing to 24 the number of Americans killed by hostile fire in Iraq since the end of the war.
----
Iraq's resistance war was planned
Jason Burke, Baghdad
Sunday June 29, 2003
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,987279,00.html
The bodies of two missing American soldiers were found yesterday as news emerged that a growing campaign of Iraqi resistance to coalition occupation may have been planned before the war began.
Allied officials now believe that a document recently found in Iraq detailing an 'emergency plan' for looting and sabotage in the wake of an invasion is probably authentic. It was prepared by the Iraqi intelligence service in January and marked 'top secret'. It outlined 11 kinds of sabotage, including burning government offices, cutting power and communication lines and attacking water purification plants.
What gives the document particular credence is that it appears to match exactly the growing chaos and large number of guerrilla attacks on coalition soldiers, oil facilities and power plants.
At least 61 US troops have died in Iraq since major combat was declared to be over on 1 May, including at least 23 in attacks. The latest death came on Friday when a soldier was killed in an ambush, and another shot in the neck and critically injured. Grenades were thrown at a US convoy as it passed through the Thawra area, a poor, mainly Shia Muslim part of the capital that had been largely free of anti-American violence.
US officials dismiss their casualties as 'militarily insignificant' and point out that there are 55,000 US troops in Baghdad. But the repeated attacks damage the forces' image of invulnerability and lead to harsher security measures that risk alienating swaths of the population.
A series of major operations involving hundreds of arrests have apparently failed to quell the unrest, much of which is believed to be committed by criminals hired by wealthy former Baath Party officials. Some attacks are also sponsored, security offi cials believe, by hardline religious groups.
It is not known who was behind Friday's attack although the prime suspects are Sunni Muslims from the west of Baghdad, where resistance to the US has so far been strongest. It is possible that they chose to attack Americans in a Shia Muslim area to bolster the impression that Iraq's majority Shia population, who have hitherto been relatively supportive of the occupying forces, are joining the fight against the coalition.
The spiral of violence has also hit British troops after six military policeman were killed and eight other soldiers injured in the southern Iraqi town of Majar Kabir. Yesterday UK troops returned to the village where the men were killed after dropping leaflets promising that there would be no 'mass punishment'.
Military officials insisted they were not offering an amnesty to those who were responsible for the killings. 'The priority is to win back the hearts and minds of the people,' an Army spokesman said. 'But by doing that one of the benefits will be that hope fully we will be able to catch the people responsible. There is certainly no amnesty.'
There is still no explanation of why the RMP detachment was not assisted by the substantial British forces near by when it was surrounded by an angry mob. Sources within the RMP in the UK told The Observer they suspected that the detachment may have been short of ammunition. One soldier recently returned from Iraq said that a shortage had led to ammunition being taken from military policemen to give to frontline units.
'When I was in Kosovo we had to borrow ammo and grenades off the Para Regiment to feel as though we were suitably armed when isolated. Apparently we were "policemen not soldiers", so we weren't issued it,' one source said. 'I know from friends in the Gulf that they had had a lot of ammo withdrawn because of this attitude. It cost them their lives.'
British military officials dismissed the claims last night. 'The idea that we send anyone out without enough ammunition is simply rubbish,' one said.
----
Death on the road to Basra
By Tristana Moore
BBC correspondent in Basra
Saturday, 28 June, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3025800.stm
It is another sweltering day in Iraq. The temperature gauge in our car says it is 48C outside - but our translator, Wissam, says it is far hotter than that.
The Basra Highway Basra highway: Major military route to Baghdad
We left Baghdad several hours ago. We are driving along the motorway built during Saddam Hussein's rule linking the capital with Iraq's second-largest city, Basra.
The road stretches ahead of us - a long straight line - the desert lying on either side. The only sign of life is the odd Bedouin herding his camels.
The land is arid and inhospitable. Every so often, there is a picnic stop by the side of the road. It seems incongruous in the desert.
It was indeed the body of a young boy, his blood-soaked clothes scattered across the road
We pass a number of American military convoys all heading towards Baghdad.
The Americans have set up bases along the motorway signalling the occupation is settling in. As we drive further south, Baghdad seems a world away.
It is a long journey - I feel exhausted, my cameraman is nodding off beside me.
Dark discovery
I still do not know why it caught my eye, why I looked ahead when I did - but I glimpsed a dark shape lying in the middle of the road.
The driver swerved to avoid it, braking sharply. As we passed I looked through window and caught sight of a body. Not the body of an animal, but the body of a child.
I asked the driver to stop, and we drove back. It was indeed the body of a young boy, his blood-soaked clothes scattered across the road. A few metres away, a girl is crying, screaming. She is inconsolable.
The Americans have set up bases along the motorway signalling the occupation is settling in
We see an American soldier and ask him to call for help. Ten minutes later, officers from the US Military Police turn up. In the blazing sun, a crowd is now gathering.
The girl is still crying - her name is Sabrina, she is 13 years old. She is barefoot and wears a ragged dress. She has dark eyes and long, brown hair.
She tells me how she saw her 11-year-old brother, Muhannad, had run up to an American military convoy trying to sell something to the soldiers, but was run over as he crossed the road.
The Americans did not stop.
Tension
The news of this terrible accident spreads quickly. In the distance, a group of women dressed in black are running across the desert towards the road.
The women are crying, wailing for their lost child. The men hold them back. A child beats his head on the ground until it starts bleeding. The unmistakable smell of death lingers in the air.
"Look, this is going to get tense," I overhear an American soldier telling one of his colleagues. "We have to get the body out of here."
The US soldiers look nervous. They are wearing full body armour and carry rifles ready for action.
I thought the Americans came here to protect us and give us security, instead there is death and more suffering The dead child's mother
"We can't take any chances," one soldier tells me, sweating profusely.
I engage him in conversation. He tells me he is from New York, his name is Al and he is married with three children.
"I've been in the Gulf for five months and I'm tired of all of this" he says. "We have become a target now. All I want to do is to go back to my family."
As he is talking he scans the crowd that has surrounded us. He is a worried man.
'Why?'
With grief comes anger and, soon, the young boy's relatives are hurling abuse at the Americans.
They are Shia Muslims, persecuted by Saddam Hussein. After the war, many of them welcomed the coalition forces but now they blame the Americans.
"I thought they came here to protect us and give us security," the dead boy's mother says.
Wounded child in Basra
Wounded children sway US battle for Iraqi hearts and minds "Instead there's death and more suffering."
She looks at the body of her son, which has been covered by a blanket. Tears run down her face. Another woman kneels down, she is frustrated.
"I can't understand - why has this happened?" she asks.
A few minutes later, the boy's father lifts the body into the boot of a car. The father is crying as he drives off to the hospital morgue.
My translator, Wissam, is furious.
"Why didn't the Americans stop when they saw they'd run over the child?" he asks me.
Wissam takes off his baseball cap and angrily waves his arms at the American soldiers - some of them can only be around 18. They seem too young to be here.
As we finally drive on, my mind flashes back to the image of the little boy lying in the road and his relatives weeping inconsolably with a haunting expression in their eyes.
In losing their child, they have lost their faith in the foreign faces which occupy their land.
----
Once Hailed, Soldiers in Iraq Now Feel Blame at Each Step
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
June 29, 2003
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/international/worldspecial/29HEAR.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 28 - After riding into Iraq on a wave of popular euphoria, American and British forces are unexpectedly finding themselves the brunt of criticism for everything that goes wrong these days.
"We are furious about people pointing guns at us," said Hamid Hussein, 33, pushing his broken-down Volkswagen bus to the front door of his house this morning. A United States Army Humvee was parked in the middle of his street, and a soldier in the turret ordered Mr. Hussein in English to stop where he was.
If the complaint is not about security, then it is about the lack of electricity this week in Baghdad.
"Don't talk to me about Saddam Hussein," snapped Ibrahim Aullaiwi, a 46-year-old shop owner in the poor neighborhood of New Baghdad. "The Americans are in charge of everything here. They could have brought generators in here within 24 hours."
Like Mr. Aullaiwi, many residents of Baghdad seem to ignore the fact that the electricity disruption was caused at least in part by sabotage and looting. Seething in 110-degree heat without air-conditioners, fans or refrigerators, many residents were already furious about chronic power failures over the past two months.
Whether battling saboteurs or snipers, American and British occupation leaders find that the public mood has turned critical, even though countless Iraqis remain pleased that Saddam Hussein is gone and still place considerable hope in the Americans and British to improve things.
The scorn, and the risk to the Western forces, can go together. That was the case when an angry crowd in the southern town of Majar al Kabir killed six British soldiers on Tuesday, and many residents contended that the British set off the disturbance by trying to search Muslim homes, a claim the British dispute.
American soldiers sometimes infuriate Iraqis by running afoul of time-honored tradition. On Thursday, soldiers on patrol in an Army convoy here heard gunshots and rushed into a house from all sides. It turned out there was a wedding party under way, a ceremony that often occurs on Thursday evenings and is celebrated with gunfire. The Americans added to the anger among the revelers by roughly grabbing and arresting a young man who was trying to sneak off in a taxi with his gun, according to a witness.
Earlier this month when thousands of American troops raided what they believed were bases for loyalists to Saddam Hussein, provoking a lengthy firefight that killed four Iraqis, the Shiite newspaper Al Dawa described the deaths as "martyrdom."
The drumbeat of daily attacks on allied soldiers, meanwhile, is forcing military leaders to strike back with measures that often increase anger and fear.
Soldiers in full-body armor, often without translators, show up at houses in the middle of the night and politely but firmly demand to search for weapons. Jittery soldiers in Humvees and tanks point machine guns at Iraqi cars that show the slightest hint of irregular behavior.
The tensions seem certain to increase. Attacks on American soldiers, though they do not endanger the overall military plan, have continued steadily for three weeks.
Today in Baquba, about 60 miles northeast of Baghdad, an unidentified person threw a grenade at American soldiers in a Humvee. The grenade missed the soldiers but wounded two Iraqis who happened to be shopping nearby.
The scene made for grisly images today on Al Jazeera, the Arabic television network based in Qatar: bloodied Iraqis at the sides of American soldiers.
Late Friday night, a grenade attack in the Baghdad district of Thawra left one American soldier dead, four soldiers wounded and one Iraqi interpreter wounded.
In yet another neighborhood of Baghdad that night, residents said someone fired a rocket-propelled grenade at an American armored personnel carrier. Military officials could not confirm the incident as of early this afternoon.
Those were merely the most recent deadly incidents in a week that included sniper attacks on individual soldiers, bombs placed under trucks and rocket-propelled grenades fired at Humvees.
American military commanders have greatly stepped up the pace of house-to-house sweeps, in which hundreds of soldiers temporarily close off neighborhoods and then search each house for weapons or any hints of loyalty to Saddam Hussein.
The searches usually proceed without serious conflicts, but the experiences are jarring for many people. On one recent raid, soldiers handcuffed and detained a man who had posters of Mr. Hussein in several of his rooms. The man went peacefully and was released after questioning.
British commanders, who have prided themselves on their ability to project a friendly image to Iraqis, learned this week just how explosive such searches can be.
Conservative Shiite Muslims in the southern town of Majar al Kabir had demanded that British soldiers refrain from house searches because they were disrespectful.
British commanders said they agreed to the demand, but troops set off a melee on Wednesday simply by showing up in the town. Mobs cornered and then killed several soldiers in a police station, and several more outside. Six soldiers died and eight more had been wounded by the time the dust settled.
Today, British forces returned to Majar al Kabir accompanied by at least five tanks as well as helicopters overhead. To ease tensions, the British have distributed leaflets begging residents to believe in the soldiers' peaceful intentions.
"Do not let rumors and misinformation split us apart," the leaflets say. "We will not return to punish you. That was the tactic of Saddam's regime."
One problem facing both British and American officials is their own limited ability to communicate through mass media. The American-led Coalition Provisional Authority inaugurated radio and television broadcasts last month, but the television broadcasts are only a few hours a night and are mostly devoted to reruns of Arab-language entertainment shows.
Meanwhile, Iraqis listen to television broadcasts from the Iranian network Al Alam, which is overwhelmingly critical of American forces in Iraq and the United States in general. Television sets here can receive Al Alam with the help of a large antenna. For the growing number of Iraqis with satellite dishes, the most influential source of news may be Al Jazeera. It has been critical of the allied forces and has assiduously and quickly reported attacks on American soldiers.
Meanwhile, Iraq has seen a flood of new newspapers. While some are balanced, and one or two are pro-American, many are plainly hostile.
An article on the front page of Al Haqiqa, one of several Shiite newspapers, reported that "unemployment and the chaos of security are the root causes of Iraqis clashing with Americans."
And in a separate front-page headline, the newspaper quoted a prominent Shiite leader as saying, "No Dialogue with the Occupier."
----
Saddam's top aide organised suicide squads on Syria trip
By Philip Sherwell and Martin Bentham in Baghdad
29/06/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/29/wirq129.xml/
Saddam Hussein's most trusted aide travelled to Syria last month after the overthrow of the regime to organise a suicide campaign by Arab fighters against American forces within Iraq, The Telegraph has learned.
Abid Hamoud Mahmud, who was captured by US troops 12 days ago, has told military interrogators that he fled to Syria with Saddam's sons after Baghdad fell, but has not revealed to them the true reason for his trip.
An influential Iraqi tribal leader with close links to the old regime disclosed details of Hamoud's mission yesterday, as this newspaper also obtained the first picture of the former dictator's personal secretary and right-hand man since he changed his appearance and went into hiding.
The plan, agreed by senior Saddam loyalists involved in organising resistance to American occupation north and west of Baghdad, was to launch the foreign extremists on suicide attacks in July or August, according to the tribal leader. He said that they had obtained high explosives stolen from an army camp near Baghdad.
Before the war, Hamoud - the Ace of Diamonds in America's pack of the 55 most-wanted Iraqis - was invariably seen standing next to his cousin Saddam in dark green fatigues, a black beret and with a thick black moustache. The new photograph, taken in Syria, shows him wearing a dark cap, white pullover, large tinted glasses and with a full grey beard.
While in Syria, Hamoud drew on funds already deposited in foreign bank accounts before the US-led invasion to make travel arrangements and payments for Islamic radicals, who had gathered in Syria to volunteer for so-called "martyr" operations inside Iraq. He also conducted financial deals on Saddam's behalf.
It is not known how many of the extremists have entered Iraq, although US forces wiped out a group of about 75 mainly foreign fighters at their temporary camp in the western desert near the Syrian border 17 days ago. Damascus has consistently denied harbouring leaders of the deposed Iraqi regime.
Foreign fighters are also believed to have been behind the campaign of sabotage which has disrupted Iraq's power supplies in recent weeks, leaving many Iraqis without electricity during the hot summer months.
A document marked "secret", dated January 23, was discovered recently by coalition forces in Basra, urging Saddam loyalists to target power stations, water purification plants and communication lines to undermine any new regime.
----
American Forces Carry Out Raids in Central Iraq
June 29, 2003
The New York Times
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/international/worldspecial/29CND-IRAQ.html
BALAD, Iraq, June 29 - American forces carried out an aggressive series of predawn raids across central Iraq today, aiming to root out groups that have been attacking American and British soldiers and to project an intimidating display of power.
Carried out by the Army's Fourth Infantry Division and Task Force Ironhorse, the raids involved thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles. Army officials arrested more than 60 people, and seized several caches of weapons and documents.
But military officials said they did not capture anyone on their list of most-wanted Iraqis, and the relative absence of armed resistance suggested that they had not uncovered any major pockets of resistance.
Army commanders said they staged more than 20 raids over a vast part of the Tigris River valley, beginning just north of Baghdad and going upriver beyond the city of Tikrit. There were no reports of American casualties in the raids, which are likely to continue in the days to come.
Today's almost simultaneous raids began around 2 a.m., and struck homes, farms and abandoned buildings that were suspected of housing loyalists to Saddam Hussein or other groups fighting the American-led occupation.
"We want to send a message of `don't mess with us,' " said Lt. Col. Aubrey Garner, commander of the First Battalion, 68th Armor, which is part of the Fourth Infantry Division.
"They will see that we have the flexibility to bring firepower" wherever and whenever, he continued. "The ability is almost magical." In raids about 40 miles north of Baghdad, Colonel Garner's battalion seized more than a dozen weapons ranging from pistols to assault rifles and ammunition.
They also arrested three men, including a member of Iraq's former military intelligence service named Amir Ismael Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad was found with five different identity cards, and the house he was in contained technical publications on missile guidance systems and printouts of an Internet search on weapons production, according to the American military.
The Associated Press reported that soldiers in another raid nearby arrested a man suspected of recruiting Iraqis to attack Americans.
Tanks and armored trucks surrounded each of the areas being raided, and sometimes blocked off roads leading to them. Airplanes also provided support, dropping flares carried on parachutes that provided just enough light to let soldiers see with night-vision goggles.
The sweeps were focused most intensively on the areas north of Baghdad that have been staging grounds for an accelerating stream of deadly hit-and-run attacks on American troops. Similar raids were carried out for several days beginning almost two weeks ago.
The attacks on American and British troops have hit a new intensity in the last week, killing more than a half-dozen American soldiers in Baghdad and central Iraq. Among the victims were two American soldiers kidnapped in their Humvee near here; their bodies were found this weekend.
Other victims included a soldier who was shot in the head at point-blank range while shopping at an outdoor market in Baghdad on Friday. There have also been numerous ambushes of Americans using rocket-propelled grenades and remotely-detonated bombs.
L. Paul Bremer III, the Americans' top civilian administrator in charge of Iraq, said tonight he was "certainly not panicked" by the attacks and that Americans had in the past two weeks begun receiving tips from Iraqi citizens.
"Plain old citizens are now confident enough that they are willing to provide us with information," Mr. Bremer said in a meeting with reporters tonight. "Most of it is pretty good."
But it is not clear that today's raids produced much in the way of concrete results. Unlike a similar set of raids earlier this month, the ones today did not lead to any major fire fights. All told, military officials said in a statement released tonight, soldiers seized only 14 Kalashnikov assault rifles, two shotguns and an unidentified amount of ammunition.
The two raids carried out by the First Battalion, 68th Armor, did produce tantalizing hints of militant activity, as well as of people who might remain loyal to the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein.
But the raids did not uncover what intelligence officials had been hoping to find. One raid, against a compound that had at one time been used by the Badr Brigade, a Shiite militia groups, turned up little more than two families of squatters.
In a second raid on a farmhouse several miles south of here, officials had been hoping to capture a high-ranking intelligence officer named Col. Asad Adeen.
Soldiers quickly rounded up 14 men in three buildings, handcuffed them and covered their heads with sacks to keep them disoriented.
An extensive search produced a large trove of papers about missile-guidance systems and other military technology, one of which had been written by Colonel Adeen, the intelligence officer. Soldiers also found handguns and five assault rifles, including two being hidden by women under their bed blankets.
But the colonel himself was nowhere to be found. Arabic-speaking interrogators then questioned the men until well after dawn. But the American commanders ultimately decided to release 11 of the 14 men, including a relative of Colonel Adeen, saying there was no evidence they were involved in either the Baath Party or guerrilla attacks.
"The target was Adeen, not these other people or members of his family," said Colonel Garner.
The raids this morning appeared to be the start of a campaign that will continue in the days and weeks to come. In the last big sweep, two weeks ago, 497 assault rifles and 124 rocket-propelled grenades, among other weapons and ammunition, were confiscated.
Meanwhile, attacks on American troops continued today. Two soldiers were wounded and an Iraqi civilian was killed after coming under attack while in a convoy on a road leading to Baghdad International Airport, the military said.
-------- israel / palestine
Israel's Lethal Weapon of Choice
As Assassinations of Militants Increase, Citizens' Uneasiness Grows
By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 29, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45924-2003Jun28?language=printer
JERUSALEM -- Nazih Abu Sibaa, 35, died seconds after he opened the trunk of his booby-trapped car. Abdel Rahman Hamad, 33, was shot dead by a sniper as he sat on his roof reading the Koran. Mohammad Abayat, 27, was killed when he picked up the receiver of a pay phone that blew up outside a hospital where he was visiting his sick mother.
All three men, whose deaths were described by witnesses and Palestinian officials, were suspected Palestinian militants marked for assassination -- one of Israel's primary weapons in its effort to curb suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis. These "targeted killings," as they are known here, were described by Israeli officials two years ago as "rare and exceptional" measures. But now they are carried out with regularity, using missiles, bombs, tanks, booby traps and gunfire, and they are stirring increasing disapproval from the Israeli public.
Their frequency increased as Palestinian militants sent a wave of suicide bombers to attack Israelis, intensifying the level of violence in the 33-month-long Palestinian uprising, in which approximately 2,950 people have been killed.
The number of suspected Palestinian militants tracked and killed by Israel more than doubled from 35 in 2001 to 72 last year. The toll of civilian bystanders and others killed who were not intended targets of the missions increased 2 1/2 times during the same period, according to studies of the cases by The Washington Post, which were based partly on research by two Israeli human rights groups, B'Tselem and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel; and three Palestinian organizations, the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment (known by its Arabic acronym, LAW), the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.
The figures exclude incidents that were not targeted killings -- such as gunfights, street fights or other shootings that appeared to be random -- or in which suspected militants were killed during general arrests or military operations.
According to the data, Israeli military forces and undercover operations teams have killed at least 249 Palestinians during targeted attacks since the fall of 2000.
Of that total, 149 were the targets and 100 were civilians or, in some cases, bodyguards or members of militant groups who were not the primary targets. Slightly more than one of every 10 Palestinians who has died in the conflict was killed during a targeted killing operation, the data show.
"Targeted killing is not only very valuable," Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, chief of planning and policy in the Israeli military and one its most senior officers, said in a recent interview. "If we could not use this method in areas like Gaza, where we do not control the territory . . . we could not fight effectively against terrorist groups."
"In 2003, the main weapon the Israeli army has in its arsenal against terrorism is the assassination policy," said Michael Sfard, a Tel Aviv attorney representing LAW and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, which are challenging the policy as a violation of international law and human rights standards in a suit now before the Israeli Supreme Court. "Today we execute people without trial. It's so simple. That's what we're doing. No one shows evidence to anyone." 'New Rules' of the Conflict
Israel's increased use of targeted killings, and the civilian deaths that have accompanied them, has sharpened debate here on a critical question: Should a Jewish state that describes itself as the only true democracy in the Middle East refrain from conducting assassinations, or does Palestinian use of suicide bombers to attack Israelis in cafes and on buses justify extreme measures to protect Israeli citizens?
"Terrorism has introduced new rules into the game," said Yaron Ezrahi, a Hebrew University professor and one of Israel's leading political scientists and philosophers, "and therefore the situation for a state like Israel, and the United States, is how to maintain its constitutionality in the face of terror."
Today in Israel, he said, "what we're seeing is a process of erosion of democratic norms."
Although Israelis have suffered more than 2 1/2 years of suicide bombings and other attacks, Israeli society is becoming increasingly opposed to the tactic of assassination.
In a recent public opinion poll by the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, large numbers of Israelis who were questioned expressed doubts about both the tactics and the motives of such operations. A majority of Israelis polled -- 58 percent -- said the military should at least temporarily discontinue targeted killings. Two of every five Israelis polled said they believed the government had used targeted killings to sabotage a new, U.S.-backed peace process.
Israel's policy of targeted killings has become one of the most divisive issues in the debate over a U.S.-backed peace plan known as the "road map." Palestinian militant leaders have said they will honor a cease-fire agreement with Israel only if the practice is ended. Israelis have insisted that they reserve the right to go after militants that they consider imminent threats if Palestinian security forces don't detain them or prevent the attack after being advised about it.
The United States, which last year killed suspected al Qaeda operatives in Yemen using a Hellfire missile fired from a remote-controlled Predator aircraft, has criticized Israel's policy of assassinations as "unhelpful" to the peace effort but has not issued strong condemnations. In deference to Israel's arguments that assassinations are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, the United States reportedly has pushed Israeli officials to limit their targets to "ticking bombs" -- individuals who can be tied to impending threats -- though critics argue that such limits are open to broad interpretation.
History of Assassination
In the spring of 1973, a group of Israeli commandos guided a speedboat up the Mediterranean coast and scrambled ashore in Beirut. Their covert mission: to assassinate three of the Palestine Liberation Organization's top officials in their downtown apartments.
The leader of the team, Ehud Barak, commander of Israel's special forces, wore a long, dark wig, false breasts and women's clothing. He and his men gunned down all three targets, according to accounts confirmed by Barak, who later became Israel's prime minister.
Israel's history of assassinations stretches back decades. In the early 1970s, prominent members of Palestinian organizations were killed in rocket attacks and car bomb explosions in Lebanon. Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized hit squads to locate and kill members of the Black September cell responsible for the kidnapping and murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Israeli undercover squads, dressed as Arabs, hunted down suspected militants in the Palestinian territories during the first uprising, or intifada, from 1987 to 1993.
In the fall of 2000, as the second intifada began, Barak was prime minister and authorized security forces to assassinate Palestinian militants suspected of planning or conducting attacks against Israelis.
Just before noon on Nov. 9 of that year, Hussein Abayat, a 37-year-old father of four, was driving his gray Mitsubishi through the West Bank village of Beit Sahur on the eastern edge of Bethlehem when antitank missiles fired by Israeli gunships slammed into his car. Neighbors found his charred body melted to the driver's seat. Two women, Aziza Jubran, 58, and Rahma Hindi, 54, who had been standing on the roadside, also died, their bodies burned black by the missiles.
Abayat, identified by Israelis as an activist with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement who allegedly organized shooting attacks on the nearby Jewish community of Gilo, became the first known targeted killing of the current conflict. After the hit, Barak vowed to "continue with such operations."
As the intifada intensified under Barak's successor, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the military's reliance on assassinations and the scope of the targets expanded, buttressed by advances in intelligence gathering and adaptations of high-technology military equipment and weaponry.
The Israeli government has not released official data on targeted killings. In some cases, the government says Palestinians were killed because Israeli security forces had to fire in self-defense. Details about evidence gathered by Israel on suspects, and facts about the decision to assassinate them, usually remain secret after the attacks.
In carrying out the targeted killings, Israeli forces have lifted some of their tactics from the murky world of covert operations and integrated them into the daily missions of regular troops. Frequently, several types of security units participate in a single operation: The mission will be directed by Shin Bet, the country's civilian security agency, with military commandos providing the muscle and army tanks and air force helicopters supplying the firepower.
In an example of such a coordinated hit, three suspected Islamic Jihad militants driving on an isolated road north of the West Bank city of Jenin last October were ambushed by eight undercover Israeli operatives, four armored personnel carriers and three helicopters. Two of the suspects were killed.
Palestinian hospital officials said one of the men, Wassim Ahmed Sabana, 23, was shot seven times. Israeli security officials later said intelligence reports indicated the men were en route to a suicide bombing inside Israel.
Other missions have relied more on finesse. In 16 known incidents, Israeli operatives or Palestinian agents cooperating with Israelis have planted explosive devices in telephone booths, cars and other locations where they were detonated by remote control, sometimes from unmanned drones or helicopters. Because such operations are often carried out in secret by security services, Israeli officials usually deny involvement and attribute the explosions to accidents caused by Palestinians building or carrying explosive devices that detonated prematurely.
Military officials said they used targeted killings when they were unable to arrest the wanted militant, which officials said was always their first choice. But human rights officials argue that Israel has made thousands of arrests under difficult circumstances since the intifada began, challenging the claim that some targets must be killed rather than arrested. Israeli officials say the justification for targeted killings is self-defense: "a means to prevent in-progress and future terrorist attacks that will kill Israeli civilians," according to court documents recently filed to the Israeli Supreme Court by the Israeli government in response to the human rights groups' suit.
Human rights officials argue, however, that the practice of targeted killings is a denial of due process in a country that grants its own citizens accused of crimes extensive judicial rights and does not have a death penalty.
Increasingly, in the past two years, proposed operations have been screened by military lawyers. The most important targets are sent to Sharon for approval, according to civilian and military officials.
"Did we make some mistakes?" the military's Eiland said. "Yes. Did we sometimes miss the target? Yes. Did we sometimes cause collateral damage? Yes." But he also said operations have been delayed or canceled "hundreds of times" because of concerns over civilian casualties and other factors. Unintended Victims
Abdel Aziz Rantisi said he never heard the helicopters coming. He didn't realize a missile had slammed through the engine block of his car until the blue Mitsubishi filled with white smoke.
"It took me three seconds to realize we were being targeted," said Rantisi, 60, one of the most senior and most strident Gaza leaders of the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, "and I started to think, 'How are we going to survive the second rocket?' "
He leaped out a back door and his 19-year-old son, Ahmed, who was driving, crawled out a window. As the car rolled into a nearby intersection, AH-64 Apache gunships spit five more missiles at it.
Amal Jarosheh, 8, was standing in the gate leading to her family's house a few feet away when the first missile punched through the hood of the Rantisi car at 11:50 a.m. on June 10.
"I gave her some money to buy candy," said her father, Nimer Jarosheh, 46, a mechanic. "She never got a chance to eat it."
Rantisi, the target, survived the operation. But five other people, including Amal, died from their wounds.
"The thing that makes me angry is they mean to kill as many people as they can," Rantisi, still nursing a leg injury from the attack, said in an interview in Gaza City. "Their assassinations all occur in very crowded areas. This was one of the most crowded areas of Gaza.
"I'm sure I was monitored and observed from the time I left my house. They could have tried to assassinate me in a place that was not crowded and avoided spilling civilian blood."
About one-third of all the suspected militants killed in targeted assassinations have been hit with missiles fired from aircraft and, in one case, a 2,000-pound bomb dropped by an F-16 fighter plane. But more than two-thirds of all unintended victims were killed in these airstrikes, making them the most controversial of the targeted killings.
"Israel fails to apply the principle of proportionality," said Donatella Rovera, who monitors Israeli and Palestinian human rights issues for Amnesty International, the London-based rights group. "So many bystanders have been killed in pursuit of this policy."
The largest number of fatalities occurred last July when an Israeli fighter jet dropped a one-ton bomb on a house in a central Gaza City neighborhood where concrete apartment buildings are packed together. The target was Salah Shehada, the founder and leader of Hamas's militant wing in Gaza. He was killed. So were 14 other people, including Shehada's wife.
While the international backlash over the bombing did not surprise Israeli officials, they were stunned by the reaction from their own public.
"The bomb in Gaza that killed 14 innocent people left a very profound impact on Israelis," said Ezrahi, the Israeli political scientist. "There is a certain kind of agonizing over events where there is killing of civilians."
After the attempted assassination of Rantisi, public opinion responded even more severely, according to the newspaper poll that showed 40 percent of those questioned believed the attack was an attempt to disrupt the peace initiative.
Though Israeli officials defended the targeting of Shehada and Rantisi, both had prompted vociferous debates within the military and intelligence communities before they were carried out, according to military officials.
In the case of Shehada, some officers argued that more precise missiles, rather than a one-ton bomb, should have been used. But Shehada had escaped a previous assassination attempt and had shown an ability to outwit Israeli security forces, according to Eiland. "We didn't know exactly where he would be inside the house," Eiland said. "If we attacked him with a helicopter [using a missile], the probability that we would kill him was considered too low."
The military has not used an air-dropped bomb in a targeted killing attempt since the Shehada bombing.
The attempted killing of Rantisi was also vigorously debated within the government. Many officials, including one of the country's top military and intelligence officials, believed it would be too provocative at a time when the United States was attempting to launch a new Middle East peace process. Final authorization for targeting Rantisi came from Sharon, according to Israeli officials.
Correspondent John Ward Anderson and researcher Islam Abdelkarim in Gaza City and researchers Hillary Claussen and Ian Dietch in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
----
Israel Is Skeptical, but Starts Gaza Pullout in Separate Deal
June 29, 2003
The New York Times
By JAMES BENNET with GREG MYRE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/international/worldspecial/29CND-MIDE.html?hp
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip, June 29 - The leading Palestinian factions today declared a three-month suspension of attacks against Israel, a breakthrough that raises hopes of ending 33 months of almost daily Mideast violence.
A skeptical Israel dismissed the announcement. Yet only hours later, Israeli armored vehicles kicked up clouds of dust as they pulled out of the northern Gaza Strip, part of a separate agreement for Israeli troops to withdraw from much of the coastal strip, with Palestinian security forces replacing them.
The two developments are the most significant advances since the Middle East peace plan was formally launched earlier this month. But the process remains extremely vulnerable, with Israelis and Palestinians both insisting that the other side make additional concessions if the peace initiative, known as the road map, is going to succeed.
"These are important steps and they pave the way for further progress on the road map," said Ziad Abu Amr, the Palestinian culture minister. "We hope Israel will not spoil it for us this time."
"Tomorrow there will be a new horizon," said Gideon Meir, a senior official in Israel's Foreign Ministry. "But success depends on the commitment of the Palestinian Authority to fighting terrorism."
In Washington, where President Bush has said his goal is not a cease-fire but the complete dismantlement of Hamas, the White House reacted with caution.
"Anything that reduces violence is a step in the right direction," Ashley Snee, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Under the road map, parties have an obligation to dismantle terrorist infrastructures. There is more work to be done."
The developments came as the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, wrapped up two days of talks with Palestinian and Israeli leaders, the latest in a series to top-level mediation efforts by the Bush administration.
With the United States administration making such a major investment, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want to be seen as an obstacle to the Mideast peace plan. The initiative seeks to establish a Palestinian state and a comprehensive political settlement within three years.
Many previous peace efforts have been greeted by a surge in violence, but this time, the truce pledge by three Palestinian factions - Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah - has raised the possibility of a sustained period of calm.
"We declare that military operations against the Zionist enemy will stop for three months, starting from today," Hamas and Islamic Jihad said this afternoon in a joint statement released in Gaza.
The groups set no preconditions for the truce, but listed a long set of demands that Israel will have to meet, including an end to military incursions, targeted killings of suspected militants, the release of prisoners and ending the effective confinement of the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat.
The groups set no time frame for Israel to meet the demands, but said if it did not happen, "the enemy will bear the responsibility of what will result," suggesting attacks would resume.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad have always opposed peace negotiations with Israel, and rejected all such truce proposals in the past.
The dominant Palestinian political movement, Fatah, which is headed by Mr. Arafat and Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, joined in with their own truce declaration several hours later.
Israel said the announcements held little value, and would give the militants time to regroup if the Palestinian Authority did not take tough action against them.
"We deal only with the Palestinian Authority," said Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. "And for us, there is only one proper response concerning the terror organizations: they have to be completely disarmed and dismantled. We will not accept anything less."
Mr. Abbas, commonly known as Abu Mazen, had sought the truce, saying he is not prepared to use force against the Palestinian factions and risk a major internal conflict among Palestinians.
While Mr. Abbas got the truce pledge he was seeking, it did not play out in the fashion he intended.
Despite weeks of negotiations, the Palestinian factions were not able to agree on the exact wording of the truce and were not able to make a simultaneous declaration today.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two groups that have carried out many of the deadliest attacks against Israel, went forward with their own announcement, leaving Fatah to make its own statement tonight.
A senior Israeli military official said Israel still had dozens of warnings about possible Palestinian attacks, and instructions to halt violence had not filtered down through the ranks.
Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have stopped at least two planned attacks against Israeli targets in recent days, according to the official. The actions showed that the Palestinian forces had the capability to prevent violence, though the Palestinians say their forces have been greatly weakened by repeated Israeli military strikes, the official added.
In Gaza, Israel intended to move quickly, carrying out its troop withdrawal and also easing travel restrictions on Palestinians by Monday, or Tuesday at the latest, the official said.
The deal calls for Israel to pull its troops out of Beit Hanun, a town in the northeastern corner of Gaza. Israeli forces have gone into Beit Hanun repeatedly to act against militants using the town to fire rockets at Sederot, an Israeli town just on the other side of the Gaza boundary.
Israel was also to leave other parts of northern Gaza, and remove checkpoints in order to allow Palestinians to travel more freely along the main north-south road in the coastal territory.
Palestinian security forces will move in to replace the Israelis and will assume responsibility for preventing attacks against Israeli targets. The Israeli forces will continue to guard the 7,000 Jewish settlers who live in several enclaves in Gaza, where 1.2 million Palestinians reside.
The Israelis and Palestinians are also working on an Israeli troop withdrawal from the West Bank town of Bethlehem, and that could happen by the end of the week if the talks go well, according to the Israeli military official.
Meanwhile, Ms. Rice met Mr. Sharon and the Israeli Cabinet today and raised United States concerns about a security fence that Israel is building to keep Palestinians militants in the West Bank from reaching Israeli cities.
The barricade roughly follows the boundary between Israel and the West Bank. However, in several places the plans call for it to go deep inside the West Bank in order to protect Jewish settlements.
Ms. Rice said the fence had the appearance of creating a unilateral border, according to Israeli officials. But Mr. Sharon said that the fence was a security barrier, and was not intended as a political border.
"In Israeli society, there's a broad consensus that the fence is a necessity to protect our citizens from suicide bombers," Mr. Gissin said. "As the prime minister said, we won't compromise on security issues."
-----
Palestinian Groups Agree to Suspend Attacks Against Israel
June 29, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- The militant Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups and Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement declared immediate suspensions of attacks against Israel on Sunday, and Israel began pulling troops out of Gaza, breakthroughs in attempts to end almost three years of fighting.
The militant groups announced three-months truces and Fatah's cease-fire was for six months.
At sundown Sunday, Israeli troops and tanks began pulling out of northern Gaza, in keeping with an agreement to hand responsibility for security in Gaza over to the Palestinians.
An Israeli pullout is a condition of the U.S-backed ``road map'' to peace and a Palestinian state by 2005.
The Bush administration welcomed news of the cease-fire, but said it wants to see more progress.
``Anything that reduces violence is a step in the right direction,'' White House spokeswoman Ashley Snee said. ``Under the road map, parties have an obligation to dismantle terrorist infrastructure. There is still more work to be done.''
The truce was first announced by the two militant groups. The timing came as a surprise, after Palestinian officials said it would be delayed at least until Monday because of political infighting in Arafat's Fatah movement, a partner in the three-way deal.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad apparently did not want to wait for Fatah to resolve its internal agreements.
Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a Hamas leader, read the truce announcement in a phone call to The Associated Press.
``The two movements (Hamas and Islamic Jihad) decided to suspend military operations against the Zionist enemy for three months, starting today,'' Rantisi said.
Islamic Jihad leader Mohammed al-Hindi confirmed that the truce took effect Sunday.
``This is a joint declaration between Islamic Jihad and Hamas and I think our brothers in Fatah are going to declare their position soon,'' al-Hindi told the AP.
Hours later, Fatah issued a statement saying it would halt all military operations in accordance with an Egyptian initiative calling for a six-month truce.
Israeli officials said they fear the truce will be used by militants to regroup for more attacks against Israel. The government wants the Palestinian Authority to dismantle militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as required by the road map plan.
``We are not holding our breath,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Gideon Meir said. ``We here in Israel fully support the road map, and we want it to be implemented chapter and verse.''
Rantisi reiterated a list of demands -- although not preconditions -- for the suspension of attacks. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have said they want Israel to halt all military strikes, including targeted killings of wanted militants such as a recent attack on Rantisi.
The groups also want a release of Palestinian prisoners.
``We consider ourselves free from this initiative if the Israeli enemy does not implement all the conditions,'' Rantisi said.
Before Fatah declared its cease-fire, its Central Committee met to try to defuse its crisis over the truce. Key members of the group -- led by Arafat and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas -- were upset at being kept out of negotiations.
Talks with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the main political rivals of Fatah, were largely handled by Marwan Barghouti, a Fatah leader jailed by Israel.
Fatah members angered by the back-channel talks had insisted Sunday that the introduction to the document be changed and that the U.S.-backed ``road map'' be mentioned, according to officials close to the dispute. Such an addition would be unacceptable to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have rejected the plan.
Over the weekend, the three main groups held talks with 10 smaller factions on joining the truce.
In one snag, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical PLO faction, told Palestinian officials Sunday that while it would not join a declaration, it would not violate a truce.
In Jerusalem, meanwhile, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice held talks Sunday with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a day after meeting with Abbas. Rice is talking to both sides about implementation of the road map.
Israel Army Radio said Rice and Sharon discussed details of Israel's troop pullback and an easing of restrictions, including a release of Palestinian prisoners and the possible rebuilding of the Palestinians' international airport in southern Gaza. Israeli troops destroyed the runway in 2001.
During Saturday's meeting, Rice invited Abbas to the White House in the coming days, and he accepted, a senior Palestinian official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The White House did not immediately confirm the invitation.
Abbas would be the first Palestinian leader in three years at the White House. President Bush has boycotted Arafat, saying he is tainted by terror, while Sharon has met repeatedly with the president.
Palestinian Cabinet Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said the Palestinians told Rice of the importance of getting Israel to halt attacks against militants and release prisoners, including Barghouti. ``We told her that this would create a positive atmosphere to implement the road map,'' the cabinet minister said.
As part of the U.S.-backed peace plan, Israel and the Palestinians agreed on the handover of security responsibility to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank town of Bethlehem. Israel insists that the Palestinians must halt terror attacks originating in the areas they control.
On Sunday evening, Israel TV showed pictures of a long line of vehicles snaking northward out of the strip. Israeli forces moved into the area of the town of Beit Hanoun several weeks ago, attempting to halt Palestinian militants from firing rockets at an Israeli town just outside the Gaza fence.
As a key element of the agreement, Palestinians are to be allowed freedom to travel the length of the main road in Gaza, cut often in two places by Israeli forces as a response to attacks against Israeli settlers in the narrow strip.
Israel sealed crossing points from Palestinian territories at the start of fighting, nearly three years ago, preventing more than 100,000 Palestinians from reaching jobs inside Israel.
The security deal, negotiated by Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan and Israel's Maj. Gen. Amos Gilad, came with an Israeli pledge to halt targeted killings of wanted Palestinians -- a key militant demand for continuing with a truce.
Palestinians in turn agreed to act against what Israel calls ``ticking bombs'' -- assailants on their way to attack Israelis. But Israel has reserved the right to go after assailants themselves if Palestinians do not.
-------- pacific
Australia enters island war zone
Canberra is making its biggest military intervention since 1945 to restore order to the Solomon Islands, a tropical paradise wracked by civil war.
By Nick Squires in Sydney
29 June 2003
UK Sunday Herald
http://www.sundayherald.com/34956
In a dramatic shift from its traditional hands-off approach, Australia is to send hundreds of police and troops to restore order in the Solomon Islands, a little-known corner of the south Pacific plagued by civil war, gang violence and corruption.
The Australian government agreed last week to spearhead a regional force, which could include contingents from New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. The intervention follows pleas for help from the Solomon Islands' prime minister, Sir Alan Kemakeza.
In what will be Australia's biggest military intervention in the Pacific since the second world war, the force will include a warship and up to 1500 police and troops.
'The assistance that is being contemplated includes substantial policing, law and justice and economic assistance, backed up by significant operational support from the Australian Defence Force,' Prime Minister John Howard told parliament on Wednesday. 'It would be dangerous for the police to go in without adequate military back-up.'
Canberra fears that without armed intervention the Solomons, an archipelago of nearly 1000 palm-fringed islands once known as the 'Happy Isles', could degenerate into ever greater lawlessness and provide a haven for drug smugglers and terrorists.
'Weak and failing states can become Petri dishes for trans-national crime, including money laundering, gun running, drug trafficking and perhaps even terrorism,' said Elsina Wainwright, an analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a semi-independent think tank.
The proposed intervention will be debated by a special meeting of south Pacific foreign ministers in Sydney tomorrow. It will then go before the Solomon Islands parliament early next month, where it is expected to get strong backing.
The Solomons is part of an 'arc of instability' to Australia's north, stretching from the secessionist Indonesian provinces of Aceh and Papua to Papua New Guinea, Bougainville, Vanuatu and Fiji.
For years Australia has been reluctant to intervene in such troubled countries, fearful that it would be labelled a neo-colonialist bully.
Howard specifically ruled out sending police or soldiers to the Solomons as far back as June 2000, 'particularly without any defined exit strategy'. His new willingness to become involved in the Solomons, a former British colony, reflects heightened security concerns in the wake of the New York and Bali terrorist attacks.
'If we don't fix up Solomon Islands, nobody will be able to,' Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer said. 'We're the only country with the capability to do this.'
Australia is anxious to restore order to the country's judiciary, national finances, police force and prisons as part of a 10-year, £340 million rescue package. The initiative, which Downer has dubbed 'co-operative intervention', is underscored by fears that without serious help the Islands will become an economic and political basket case.
The Solomons epitomise the ideal of a South Seas tropical paradise, but that image masks a history of slavery, poverty and ethnic conflict.
Lying 1000 miles north-east of Australia, the Solomons were declared a British protectorate in 1893. A patchwork of tribes speaking more than 80 languages, the islands had no tradition of nationhood.
In the second world war the Solomons were the scene of bloody fighting between US Marines and the occupying Japanese. After the war the islands returned to Britain, before being granted independence in 1978.
But the country struggled to engage with Western-style democracy and suppressed tribal animosities re-emerged.
Tension grew over land and jobs between the inhabitants of the main island, Guadalcanal, and settlers from neighbouring Malaita island. Both sides formed militias and when fighting erupted five years ago, an estimated 20,000 Malaitans were driven off Guadalcanal.
In June 2000 the then prime minister, Bartholomew Ulufa'alu, was ousted in a coup. A peace agreement signed in October 2000 failed to end the violence.
Two months ago an Australian missionary, Lance Gersbach, was beheaded while working at a Seventh Day Adventist hospital on Malaita.
Gersbach was killed over what appears to be a long-festering land dispute among local tribesmen.
Hugh Laracy, an expert on the Solomons at the University of Auckland, said the death seems to have been connected with traditional pagan beliefs which are still entrenched in parts of the archipelago.
'There's a long tradition of resentment of outside authority. Land is an extraordinarily sensitive issue. It might be that some lunatic young man took it upon himself to redress a grievance,' Laracy said.
Earlier this month 10 villagers were reported to have been killed and more than 350 forced to flee their homes after violence broke out along the rugged and remote Weathercoast on Guadalcanal.
The area is under the brutal rule of a warlord, Harold Keke, whose ragtag militia has attacked villages, terrorised locals and last year killed the local MP, the minister for women, youth and sport.
This week William Morrell, a former deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester police, called for Australian and New Zealand special forces to be sent to the region to restore order.
Morrell, 47, who was recruited from Britain in January and has previously served with the United Nations in Kosovo, said: 'The situation on the Weathercoast requires a military intervention because police are not trained to deal with such situations.'
Australia's planned deployment represents 'a paradigm shift' in its foreign policy, according to Paul Kelly, a political analyst at The Australian newspaper.
'It is driven by the recognition that the prime source of instability today is the failed state and that only Australia can exercise the leadership role in the Pacific,' Kelly said.
But the Australians will have their work cut out. Aside from ethnic tensions and violence, renegade members of the police force are in possession of weapons looted from police armouries, and the economy is close to bankrupt. Primary schools are frequently closed and many public servants have not been paid for months.
The breakdown of order has also forced the closure of the country's main export businesses: a gold mine, a palm oil plantation and a tuna cannery.
All that is left now is the sale of fishing licenses to countries like Taiwan and Japan, and the exploitation of the islands' fast- dwindling tropical forests for timber.
-------- pakistan / india
Kashmir Clash Kills 12 Indian Soldiers During Visit by Premier
By DAVID ROHDE
June 29, 2003
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/international/asia/29KASH.html?ei=1&en=8e35bd9fb103638e&ex=1057906474&pagewanted=print&position=
SRINAGAR, Kashmir, June 28 - In the deadliest attack on Indian forces in the disputed territory of Kashmir in months, two suspected separatists killed 12 Indian soldiers and wounded 7 before dawn today after sneaking into a military base outside the city of Jammu.
The attack, in which the two men lobbed grenades and fired assault rifles at the soldiers before being shot dead themselves, came during the first visit to Kashmir by a sitting Indian president in six years. It poses a challenge to a fragile, American-backed peace effort under way between India and Pakistan.
President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam was hundreds of miles away from the site of the attack and was in no danger. But it occurred only a few miles from the site of a May 2002 suicide strike on army barracks that killed 34 soldiers and family members, infuriating Indian officials.
That strike, which followed a failed December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament building in New Delhi, prompted India to mass hundreds of thousands of soldiers on its border with Pakistan and brought the two nuclear-capable countries to the brink of war.
Indian accuses Pakistan of arming, training and financing separatists in predominantly Muslim Kashmir where they have been waging a 13-year campaign to win independence from India. Pakistan denies financing the groups, and accuses Indian forces of human rights violations in Kashmir.
Senior American diplomats have applauded the new peace initiative and repeatedly visited the region since last year's war scare.
This week, President Bush urged Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to resolve the dispute peacefully. The two leaders met at the presidential retreat at Camp David.
Kashmiris, caught between India and Pakistan, have suffered the most in a conflict waged in one of the most beautiful places in the world. More than 35,000 people, including 14,000 civilians, have been killed in skirmishes, raids and suicide attacks carried out in a stretch of Himalayan territory claimed by both countries.
The Press Trust of India reported that an unidentified caller said a previously unknown group, Al Nasreen, claimed responsibility for the attack.
Indian military officials said two men dressed in Indian army uniforms walked into the Sujwan military base about five miles south of Jammu at 4:30 a.m.
"They entered into a barracks where unarmed soldiers were," Brig. J. S. Thind, the camp's commander, said on Indian television.
For five minutes, the militants hurled hand grenades and fired assault rifles, killing and wounding as many soldiers as they could.
Brigadier Thind said a "quick reaction force" located the attackers within minutes.
Other officials said one of the attackers was killed instantly, while the other was able to hide behind a wall and shoot at pursuing soldiers.
In any case, the killing of 12 soldiers will most likely complicate a peace effort begun by India's prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in April with a speech in Kashmir.
As an initial step, the two countries had restored full diplomatic relations and had planned to re-establish bus and air links that were severed when they nearly went to war last spring.
--------
Fighting an Army's Empire
Pakistani Farmers' Land Battle Underscores Tension Over Military's Economic Power
By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 29, 2003; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45902-2003Jun28?language=printer
VILLAGE 5/4-L, Pakistan -- "Ownership or death" is the slogan that farmers here have adopted in their fight for the title to land their forefathers first tilled nearly a century ago. But the farmers have a formidable foe: Their landlord is the Pakistani army.
A contractual change instituted three years ago transformed the farmers from sharecroppers to renters. Many tenants are angered by the change, which they say is intended to drive them off the land at Okara Military Farms -- a 17,000-acre grain and dairy operation that is one of numerous Pakistani businesses run by the military. The tenants are refusing to pay their rent, and have staged a number of protests, several of which have turned violent.
The army has responded by cutting off water to the fields of rebellious tenants, sending troops to surround their villages and arresting hundreds of protesting farmers, some of whom say they or their relatives have been tortured to force them to pay rent. Seven villagers have died in clashes with police or paramilitary forces since the protest erupted in 2000, leaders of the tenant movement say.
As tensions between the army and the tenants have escalated in recent months, the standoff in this fertile region of Punjab province has become a focal point for growing public anger over the military's control of prized economic assets in Pakistan, from farmland and profit-making universities to major industries such as cement production and trucking.
Land is a potent symbol of the privileged status enjoyed by the military, which has ruled Pakistan for most of its 56-year history. The army chief of staff, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is also the president.
Rapid population growth, insufficient water and a legacy of feudalism have made productive farmland increasingly scarce in Pakistan, where agriculture still provides the largest source of employment. Yet the military continues to dominate -- and occasionally add to -- a real estate empire that includes horse farms, tracts of irrigated croplands and prime residential property in major cities, much of which is allotted to senior officers as part of their retirement packages.
In that light, the Okara Farms dispute is "a symbol of the resentment people feel about the army's monopolization of power and resources," said Aasim Sajjad Akhtar, a Yale-educated economist and coordinator of the People's Rights Movement, a non-profit group that has taken up the tenants' cause. "They've become such a huge corporate empire in this country, and the land-grabbing is just one part of it."
Army officials accuse groups such as Akhtar's of exploiting the Okara Farms tenants to further a leftist political agenda that has nothing to do with the facts of the dispute. They say they are charging the farmers below-market rents and deny efforts to drive them off the land. The contractual change, they say, is intended to improve the efficiency of a farming operation originally set up by the British in 1913 to feed their colonial Indian army troops and horses -- similar to the purpose it now serves for Pakistan's military.
"This is not an issue of human rights," said Maj. Gen. Mahmud Shah, director general of the Remount, Veterinary and Farms Corps, which oversees Okara and 23 other military farms. "This is a law-and-order situation."
The courts have supported that claim. In 2001, the high court in the provincial capital of Lahore ruled that in refusing to pay rent to the army, the farmers were "in possession of the property without any lawful basis."
"Legally they can't succeed," Hasan Rizvi, a former visiting professor at Columbia University in New York who has written several books on civil-military relations in Pakistan, said of the tenants' campaign. "To me, the villagers are being used."
But the army's assertion of ultimate authority over the land is also open to question, military experts say, because the actual owner of the land is the Punjab provincial government. The army pays a token fee to use the land, and two years ago the province refused an army request to transfer title to the property free of cost, according to a copy of an April 2001 letter from the Punjab Board of Revenue.
"The issue is there are two parties fighting over land which doesn't even belong to them," said Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha, an Islamabad-based military analyst for Jane's Information Group. Siddiqa-Agha worked in the late 1990s as deputy director of defense auditing under Pakistan's auditor general, the government's chief spending watchdog.
Army officials say Okara Farms provides the military with milk products as well as fodder for pack mules -- used to haul army supplies over rugged mountain passes -- and thoroughbred race horses and polo ponies that the army raises for sporting use.
Under the old sharecropping system, which dates to the farm's inception in 1913, the army supplied seed and fertilizer to the tenants, who then gave the army half of their crop. But three years ago, after concluding that corrupt civilian managers were stealing some of the army's share, military officials instituted a rent system, Shah said.
Because Pakistan's legal code provides fewer protections for renters than sharecroppers, the move sparked a rebellion from villagers, many of whose families had worked the same land for generations and saw the change as a first step toward transferring ownership to military officers and private corporations.
Last year, the army called in the Ranger paramilitary force to quell the protests and force the villagers to adhere to the new system. But the situation has only grown more tense. While some tenants have begun paying rent, many still refuse. As a result, Rangers are preventing movement in and out of several villages, including this one, to pressure protesters.
Last week, a foreigner paid a visit to Village 5/4-L -- the numerical designation is a legacy of British rule -- avoiding military roadblocks by means of a dirt track that bounced through dry fields. Situated on a flat plain crisscrossed with irrigation canals about 100 miles southwest of Lahore, the mud-brick village is home to about 4,000 people, many of whom appeared fully engaged with the protest.
Among them was Bashir Ahmed, 65, who hobbled over on crutches to display the scar from a leg wound he said he suffered when Rangers opened fire on protesters in a neighboring village last summer. "I'm a poor man, and I can't pay the contract fee," said Ahmed, gaunt with a graying mustache. "They shot us because we were protesting for our rights."
As he lay in his hospital bed after he was wounded, Ahmed said, Rangers "forcibly" inked his thumb and made an impression on a rental agreement, which he has subsequently refused to honor.
Ghulam Nabi Chaudhry, 22, said he was arrested on May 9 as a means of putting pressure on several of his brothers, who work as tenant farmers and had refused to pay rent. Chaudhry, a locksmith who says he suffers from a heart condition, said he was beaten on the buttocks with leather shoes and a piece of a tire, and at one point was made to stoop over for 10 minutes while a heavy load of bricks was piled on his back.
"They told me, 'Your brothers are not paying us contract money and that is why you are behind bars,' " he said. After three days, he said, he was released when one of his brothers forked over 15,000 rupees -- about $260 -- in back rent.
Army officials say the Rangers have acted with restraint, and that in several cases villagers have been killed by gunfire from protesters' weapons. They deny the stories of coercion and torture. "This is all fabrication," Shah said.
-------- us
American death toll in Iraq passes 200
Sunday, June 29, 2003
By PAUL HAVEN
Associated Press Writer
http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id=313A8EFD-369F-46A1-BE2C-FDA7E2E1FFC7
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- After days of intense searching by ground and air, U.S. forces on Saturday found the bodies of two soldiers missing north of Baghdad, as the toll of American dead since the start of war topped the grim milestone of 200.
Also Saturday, British forces were greeted peacefully as they returned to a southern Shiite town where six of their troops were killed in clashes. And the U.S. military announced small rebuilding projects, ranging from the delivery of school and medical supplies to the restoration of power and water in several Iraqi towns.
The day's events highlighted the pattern of progress and setback that has bedeviled the U.S.-led occupation, facing daily attacks that distract from the mission of reconstruction.
Sgt. 1st Class Gladimir Philippe, 37, of Roselle, N.J., and Pfc. Kevin Ott, 27, of Columbus, Ohio, were last seen Wednesday at their post in the town of Balad, 25 miles north of Baghdad.
Their remains were found 20 miles northwest of the capital Saturday morning, while their Humvee was recovered Friday in another location nearby, a senior Pentagon official said on condition of anonymity.
The crew had two M16 rifles, a grenade launcher and a global-positioning unit, and were equipped to have radio and visual contact with nearby teams, the official said, adding that he did not know if any of that gear was missing.
A sandstorm at the time made it hard to see, though it was not known if the storm contributed to the disappearance or to the other soldiers' not noticing that it was happening, the official said.
Iraqis later reported seeing the Humvee traveling with a white vehicle. The vehicle was tracked to a house, which led to the detentions of people being questioned.
In other violence, attackers lobbed a grenade at a U.S. convoy making its way through the predominantly Shiite Thawra neighborhood of northeast Baghdad late Friday, killing one American soldier and wounding four others, said military spokesman Sgt. Patrick Compton. A civilian Iraqi interpreter was also wounded, he said. No arrests were made and no further details were immediately available.
Another soldier, shot in the neck Friday as he shopped at a Baghdad market, was listed in critical condition Saturday, Compton said.
The deaths bring to at least 63 the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq since major combat was declared over on May 1. The military has confirmed the identities of 138 soldiers killed before that date, for a total of 201 so far, while the names of several other casualties have not yet been made available.
In addition, some 42 British troops have died in the current conflict. The American death toll was still far below the 382 U.S. troops killed in the 1991 Gulf War.
It is impossible to know how many Iraqi soldiers have died since the war started on March 20. An Associated Press investigation completed earlier this month found that at least 3,240 civilians died throughout the country.
The persistent drumbeat of guerrilla-style attacks and sabotage also has raised doubts about the coalition's mission in Iraq. Senate Democrats in Washington have called for an inquiry into the credibility of prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its links to the al-Qaida terror network.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Friday blamed the violence on scattered, disorganized remnants of the ousted Saddam Hussein government. Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to a combination of leftover Baath Party members, Fedayeen fighters and criminals who loot and steal in Iraq "taking it out on soldiers."
As attacks increased, so has fear that anti-American resistance was becoming more organized. The U.S. military brushed off those claims, although there were signs that larger-scale military operations might kick off soon to eliminate armed resistance.
"We have always anticipated and were prepared for what we term as pockets of resistance," said Lt. Commander Nicholas Balice, a spokesman for Centcom in Tampa, Fla. "We anticipate that we'll be dealing with the situation for some time."
In other violence:
- Suspected insurgents fired rocket-propelled grenades on Friday at U.S. troops in Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, causing no injuries or damage. Later, soldiers at a checkpoint arrested four Iraqi men when rocket-propelled grenades, small arms and grenades were found in their vehicle, the military said.
- A U.S. patrol came under small arms fire late Friday near Habaniyah, just west of Fallujah, and U.S. troops returned fire. No injuries or damage were reported.
- A fire broke out at one of Baghdad's largest textbook printing plants, sending thick, black smoke billowing over the capital. Coalition forces arrested two men. "We think it was an act of arson," said Lt. Col. James Otwell, a civil affairs liaison working with the Iraqi fire department.
Saboteurs have been attacking Baghdad's power grid and oil pipelines, foiling coalition efforts to restore basic services like water and electricity, a source of frustration for ordinary Iraqis.
The setbacks have overshadowed progress made since the fall of Saddam's regime. The vital oil industry has resumed, if only at a fraction of its prewar output, and will be pumping much-needed dollars into state coffers. Police and court systems are also coming back on line, providing hope for improved law and order despite an overwhelming crime wave.
On Saturday, British soldiers moved back into Majar al-Kabir, a predominantly Shiite southern town, scene of the deadly bloody confrontation. A group of Shiite clerics and prominent town officials received the returning soldiers in a ceremony aimed at putting the acrimony in the past.
"We are not here for retribution," said Capt. Guy Winter, of Dover, England, who made initial contact with the Iraqi delegation. "We are here to re-establish communications and get the (rebuilding) process back on the road."
----
Fighting in Iraq is supposed to be over, but local moms know better
Sunday, June 29, 2003
By Ted Roelofs
The Grand Rapids Press
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news-9/1056881851244910.xml
When President Bush touched down in triumph May 1 on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, it felt to most Americans as if war with Iraq was over.
It doesn't feel that way to Sand Lake resident Karen Smith.
She hears the reports -- six British killed in a riot, a U.S. soldier shot in the head at a suburban Baghdad sidewalk store, another shot in the back on night patrol. And she wonders how much longer her son, Army Sgt. Shane Smith, will be told to stay.
"People think it's over. But my son is still over there," says Smith, 49.
"I think we need to leave. I think we need to do what we can and get out of there. They are turning on us. We have got to get out of there."
It's a sentiment echoed in homes of many military families across West Michigan, as doubts creep in about a mission with no clear end in sight.
With sons and daughters poised to invade Iraq, most of these families backed the war and its goal of taking out Saddam Hussein. They agreed we needed to find and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. They thought Iraq deserved a chance at democracy.
But as swift military victory gave way to looting, chaos and Iraqi resentment against foreign troops, many now wonder if the troops have been handed an impossible job.
A survey for ABC News and the Washington Post released last week reflects their fears. The poll found that 51 percent of Americans deem the number of U.S. casualties acceptable, down from 66 percent in April.
The slide in confidence reflects the troubled landscape that is Iraq, where 146,000 American troops remain two months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities. Since then, troops have faced riots, been shot at point-blank, attacked by rocket-propelled grenades and in one case, assaulted by a 12-year-old girl armed with an AK-47.
Of more than 200 U.S. troops killed since the start of war March 20, about a third died since major combat was officially declared over May 1, according to The Associated Press.
Though the Bush administration gives no firm timeline for American withdrawal, senators from both parties now talk of a mission that will take five years.
U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Holland, counsels patience.
"Nowhere where we have conducted the major military campaign of a war have we had our troops home in three weeks," Hoekstra said. "There's a lot of work to do in Iraq."
To abandon the cause now would be to lose a great opportunity, Hoekstra said.
"You would see the country go into anarchy and probably go back to some kind of authoritarian rule that would be very hostile to the West," he said.
"Americans have gotten used to lightning-quick wars and minimal casualties," Hoekstra said. "These folks did sign up for the U.S. armed forces and one of the real possibilities is military combat."
Somewhere in the north of Iraq, Army Pfc. Christopher Bolhouse, 20, is on duty for the 101st Airborne, his fourth full month in the theater.
Grand Rapids resident Sue Bolhouse, 50, looks forward to weekly phone calls from her son -- even though the 2001 Creston High School graduate seldom tells her much about what's going on.
"He doesn't tell me anything. He can't tell me anything," said Bolhouse, a labor-and-delivery nurse at Spectrum Health Butterworth Campus in Grand Rapids.
Pfc. Bolhouse entered Iraq near the end of March, just behind the first wave of troops across the border. The 101st later worked its way to the north, a region that has thus far escaped much of the violence that popped up elsewhere.
"People say to me that, 'You must feel so good now that the war is over,' " Bolhouse said. "No, it's worse now."
While the attention of most Americans drifted away from Iraq, for Bolhouse it never left.
"Every time a soldier is killed, it's, 'Where did it happen and what unit is it?' " Bolhouse said.
Beyond attacks on coalition soldiers, the challenges to bringing civil order to Iraq are staggering. The economy is in shambles. In parts of many cities, the power is out. Water is unreliable. Tens of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers have not been paid. And the transfer of power from the army of occupation to the Iraqis seems stuck in neutral.
Military officials have promised to bring in military police and troops trained for this kind of peacekeeping. Thus far, most of the burden has fallen to the soldiers who also fought the war.
Army Capt. Mark Crow also is stationed in northern Iraq with the 101st, in the city of Mosul.
Crow, 28, is a 1993 graduate of Rockford High School who went on to receive a master's degree in space systems and aerospace engineering from the University of Michigan in 1998. He joined the Air Force that year, but transferred to the Army in 2000.
A logistics specialist, he also is trained in urban warfare and in coordinating movements of helicopters. He is passionate about service to country.
But his mother, Belmont resident Ellen Crow, 48, doubts that he and the soldiers around him are equipped for this new mission.
"I know that Mark and his unit are trying, but that's not what they are trained to do," she said.
Crow said things had been "pretty decent" for her son, but added that he wrote in a recent e-mail that his unit had to deal with "a little riot." A few weeks ago, he sent an e-mail describing an ambush attempt on another soldier nearby.
"He tries not tell me too much," Ellen Crow says. "It's so scary."
Back home at Fort Campbell, Ky., Crow has a wife, Kristina, waiting for him, along with his 6-month-old daughter, Isabella.
Ellen Crow clings to hope he might come home soon. But given the past few months, she isn't holding her breath.
"He tells me there is a slight possibility he might be able to leave July 10," she said. "But he wrote in big letters, 'THIS IS TENTATIVE, MOM.' "
For Sand Lake resident Karen Smith, July 12 is a date she would just as soon forget.
That was the day Sgt. Shane Smith was to be married to his fiancee, Maryland resident Karen Green. Their wedding already was put on hold once, when he was deployed to Iraq.
They now have a new date: Aug. 30. No invitations have been sent out yet.
In the meantime, Smith, 27, is attached to the Army's 10th Engineers near Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad.
Daytime temperatures there climb to 120 degrees or hotter, while the soldiers get by with a summer uniform that includes long sleeves. Smith tells his mother his unit is short on water.
In recent weeks, Fallujah has been the scene of almost daily attacks on U.S. troops. To Karen Smith, it's not about politics. She just wants her son to come home.
"About a week ago, he called. He said they were saying they could leave by the end of July.
"But he said, 'Don't go by what they said, either.' "
-------- propaganda wars
Israel cuts off ties with BBC
By Anat Balint,
Haaretz Correspondent
29/06/2003
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/312675.html
Israel declared over the weekend that it is cutting off ties with the BBC to protest a repeat broadcast on non-conventional weapons said to be in Israel.
The program was broadcast for the first time in March in Britain, and was rerun Saturday on a BBC channel that is aired all over the world.
The boycott decision was made by Israel's public relations forum, made up of representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, the Foreign Ministry and the Government Press Office.
It was decided that government offices won't assist BBC producers and reporters, that Israeli officials will not give interviews to the British network, and that the Government Press Office will make it difficult for BBC employees to get press cards and work visas in Israel.
Before the broadcast Saturday, Israeli officials tried to pressure the BBC to cancel the broadcast, saying that the program was biased and presented Israel as an evil dictatorship, ignoring the existential threat it was facing.
The forum members were furious at the trailers to the program, which showed pictures of the Dimona nuclear reactor and the biological institute in Nes Tziona, with the narrator saying, "Which country in the Middle East has not declared the nuclear and biological weapons in its possession?"
The trailer also says that there is no external supervision over Israel, "which is holding in custody for 17 years a man who has leaked its secrets."
The broadcast deals with Israel's attempts to maintain a policy of ambiguity on its nuclear weapons, through the Va'anunu affair, the trial of Brigadier General Yitzhak Ya'akov and the incidents of cancer among the Dimona nuclear reactor workers.
Danny Seaman, the head of the Government Press Office, has been saying for some time that the BBC has a clear anti-Israel policy, bordering on anti-Semitism. Seaman told Army Radio on Sunday that the BBC broadcast was an attempt to tarnish Israel.
----
Arabs seen as the new villains of Hollywood
By Roger Dobson
29 June 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=419969
Hollywood has a new top villain, who has taken over from those old foes, red Indians and Communists.
Now the Apache have become respected native Americans, the Iron Curtain gone, and Russia almost an ally, Arabs are pretty much the only villains in town. According to a new report, they are portrayed in a derogatory way 96 per cent of the time.
Usually typecast as nasty bombers or evil billionaires, or at best, evil belly dancers, Arab characters have been the baddies in more than 20 big films in the past 10 years, including Death Before Dishonor, Navy SEALs, Patriot Games, The American President, Delta Force 3 and Executive Decision.
Not, it seems, since the heyday of cowboys-and-Indians has there been such an epidemic of violence against one group, though Arabs have long been a target as well. The report in the July issue of Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science says they have been depicted as rogues for the best part of a century.
Based on a study of more than 900 films, the report says: "Moviemakers' distorted lenses have shown Arabs as heartless, brutal, uncivilised, religious fanatics through common depictions of Arabs kidnapping or raping a fair maiden; expressing hatred against the Jews and Christians; and demonstrating a love for wealth and power."
It compares the stereotype of the hook-nosed Arab with a similar depiction of Jews by the Nazis. Cartoons are involved too. Even in those with all-Arab characters the heroes are lighter-skinned - with American accents.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Study: 'First Responders' Underfunded
$98 Billion More Urged; Ridge Aide Calls Number 'Inflated'
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 29, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45636-2003Jun28?language=printer
Government agencies across the nation are dramatically underfunding efforts to prepare police, fire and ambulance personnel for terrorist attacks, and should spend $98 billion on that task beyond current plans for the next five years, according to a study by the Council on Foreign Relations.
The 62-page report, to be released Monday by a task force of the nonpartisan research group, concludes that while the Homeland Security Department is doing valuable work, the federal government should increase its spending fivefold as part of the effort to prepare "first responders" for terrorist strikes.
"Although the American public is now better prepared in some respects to address aspects of the terrorist threat than it was two years ago, the United States remains dangerously ill-prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil," according to the study by the Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders.
The study substantiates the complaints of many cash-starved states and cities that they need more federal help to pay first responders, and that even the money that has been dedicated to them is slow to arrive. The panel identifies biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as the gravest terrorist threats.
The 20-member panel that wrote the report was headed by former senator Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.) and Richard A. Clarke, a former top counterterrorism adviser to presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. and George W. Bush. Other members include retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. and retired Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; William H. Webster, former director of the CIA and FBI; and Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg.
The report, "Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared," is a follow-up to an earlier study, also led by Rudman, that reached equally critical conclusions about the nation's lack of preparedness for emergencies, as well as gaps in protections for facilities such as ports and water systems.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesman said the council's new study contains little new information except for the huge sums of money it recommends.
"The council's [recommended] budget numbers seem to be grossly inflated," department spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. He cited a proposal that government agencies spend an additional $3.3 billion in the next five years on emergency operations centers.
Johndroe added that many of the report's other recommendations have already been suggested by the Bush administration or are being implemented.
Other blue-ribbon panels have also proposed increasing the budgets for police, fire and emergency medical personnel to help them respond to terrorist attacks. Democrats have made similar recommendations, elevating the issue as one of their main critiques of the Bush administration's handling of homeland defense.
The council worked closely on the report with 20 large groups that have stakes in the funding of local personnel, including the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and other organizations that represent police, fire and hospital officials.
Currently, the Homeland Security Department and other federal agencies spend about $5.4 billion a year on first responders. The study says they should be spending about $25 billion annually to do the job.
The federal government is expected to spend about $27 billion on first responders over the next five years, and state and local agencies (whose emergency preparedness budgets are harder to forecast) between $26 billion and $76 billion, the council says. The report recommends that, over the next five years, all those levels of government should spend $98 billion more than is called for in current plans.
On average, fire departments have enough breathing equipment to protect only a third of the firefighters on a shift, and enough radios for half, the council says. Police departments lack the protective clothing for securing a site attacked with a chemical or biological weapon, or a radiological dispersal bomb.
The council says one big snag in moving forward to prepare first responders for terrorist attacks is the lack of federal standards, namely guidance on the protective gear they should buy, and the training their officers need. Johndroe said Homeland Security is moving quickly to draw up standards.
-------- homeland security
U.S. Spending Against Terror Is Too Low, Report Warns
June 29, 2003
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/national/29COUN.html
WASHINGTON, June 28 - Nearly two years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the United States is still not spending enough to prepare fire, police, rescue and medical agencies to handle another catastrophic attack, a study by the Council on Foreign Relations has found.
Federal, state and local governments should triple their spending on emergency services, the report recommended, increasing the amount spent by about $100 billion over the next five years.
The report was written by a panel of experts led by Warren B. Rudman, a former senator from New Hampshire, and directed by Jamie Metzl, a senior fellow at the center and a former staff member at the National Security Council and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The group's senior advisor was Richard A. Clarke, a former White House adviser on terrorism and on computer security.
The federal government now plans to spend $27 billion over the next five years to help fire and police departments, emergency medical teams and veterinary response teams, the group reported. At this level of spending, it said, "the United States remains dangerously ill-prepared." But if the federal government alone were to fill the spending gap, the group said, federal spending would have to be nearly quintupled.
Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, called the report's numbers "grossly inflated" and said most of the council's recommendations had already been put into motion by the department.
"We fully recognize that there is more to be done, and that is why we will continue to fund local and state governments for preparedness for the foreseeable future," Mr. Johndroe said. "I can't imagine a time when we won't be. I don't know why they're putting out recommendations on things that are already getting done."
The report said that on average, fire departments had only enough breathing equipment for a third of their firefighters, and that only 10 percent of fire departments had enough personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse. Public health laboratories lack equipment to respond to a chemical or biological attack, and 75 percent of state laboratories are already overwhelmed, the report said.
Current projections for combined federal, state and local spending for the next five years, while uncertain, range from about $53 billion to $103 billion, the report said.
The task force made a wide range of recommendations, from a restructuring of the Congressional committees charged with security allocations to increased federal support for 911 systems across the country. It said more spending was needed to prepare hospitals police officers and firefighters for an attack involving weapons of mass destruction.
----
Report Says Security Preparedness Underfunded
June 29, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-response.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. government efforts to prepare for another attack on America are grossly underfunded and will require an additional $98.4 billion over the next five years, the head of a think tank task force said on Sunday.
More than 20 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. agencies are still dangerously unprepared for another attack, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, said former Sen. Warren Rudman, the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations' emergency responders task force.
The conclusions were made in a report to be released on Monday.
``If you talk to mayors, to governors, to police chiefs, to fire chiefs, they are just not ready. And we had better get ready,'' Rudman told NBC's ``Meet the Press.''
Rudman said the authors of the report had interviewed police, fire, emergency medical services, public hospitals, public health agencies and federal law enforcement.
The report cites widespread shortcomings, including fire departments without enough radios; police departments without proper protective gear, and laboratories lacking basic equipment and expertise.
Currently the Homeland Security Department and other federal agencies spend about $5.4 billion a year on first responders. The council study said they should be spending about $25 billion annually.
Over the next five years, the federal government is expected to spend about $27 billion on first responders.
The report concluded that combined federal, state, and local spending should be increased by $98.4 billion over the next five years to speed emergency preparations.
``They just don't have the funding, the training, the personnel, that if tomorrow a major WMD, weapons of mass destruction, attack were to take place in a major American city, we are not prepared to deal with it,'' Rudman said.
In response, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Gordon Johndroe called the report's budget recommendation ``grossly inflated.''
Johndroe said the department has completed or is in the process of implementing many of the recommendations made in the report and is committed to making sure first responders get the equipment and training they need.
``The administration has provided billions of dollars to state and local governments for preparedness and will continue to do so. We are a much better-prepared nation than we were 20 months ago on September 11th,'' the spokesman said.
The former Republican senator from New Hampshire insisted the government should either raise taxes or cut spending in other areas to bridge the funding gap.
``It's going to have to be forthcoming. I do not think we can take a risk with the lives, the safety of the American people,'' Rudman said.
-------- prisons / prisoners
In the Land of Guantánamo
June 29, 2003
By TED CONOVER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/magazine/29GUANTANAMO.html
I. Dropped From the Sky
The juvenile enemy combatants live in a prison called Camp Iguana. It looks like a pair of tennis courts surrounded by fence lined with a few extra layers of the usual green-nylon wind screen. It is perched on a bluff overlooking the sea; the breeze is warm and pleasant. Not far away is a beachside park for barbecues and picnics and a wildlife-viewing area, but the young detainees don't visit these places. They must remain in one bedroom of a small cinder-block hut inside the fence or, for two or three hours a day, in the grassy yard that adjoins it.
There is a soccer ball in this small yard, and a Nerf football. A translator who is here all day long -- the same one who leads their study of the Koran, who is also trying to show them how to write their own names in English -- has taught them how to throw the football. They also play board games like chess and something called Popomatic Trouble. They pray. When they are done with their studies, they are given ice-cream sandwiches, which the guards say they love, and they watch videos: Disney cartoons and documentaries about the sea. ''They're very interested in the ocean,'' a guard tells me. They can see it through a wide window that has been cut in the green fence-netting on the ocean side.
There is only one feature film in the stack of videos: ''Cast Away,'' starring Tom Hanks as a FedEx employee who is stranded on a desert island when his plane crashes. Though I doubt that they can understand the words, the plot must be familiar: they, too, dropped from the sky onto a tropical island, where, far from home, they experience an indefinite detention. The soldiers here say that every homey detail of Camp Iguana -- down to the calming ''Carolina Blue'' shade of the wall paint -- was carefully thought out before the juveniles' arrival. If that is so, I wonder, who made the weird and brilliant choice of this film?
There are apparently three detainees, boys between the ages of 13 and 15. They are just a few feet away but out of sight on the other side of the hut. Single cots bolted to the floor fill the bedroom; the living room has two cushioned chairs and a table. Pieces of blue tape on the floor delineate the areas that are off limits: the kitchenette, the space near the front door.
Guards -- selected for their experience in working with young people -- are here around the clock, but otherwise there is not much visible in the way of security. This seems a bit strange, given that Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that they are very dangerous: ''Some have killed. Some have stated they're going to kill again. So they may be juveniles, but they're not on a Little League team anywhere. They're on a Major League team, and it's a terrorist team.''
But if they hate the United States, the juvenile enemy combatants do not seem to show it. For example, they respectfully rise to their feet whenever a soldier enters the room, says a Reserve sergeant from Michigan who has apparently never seen anything like it at the junior high where he teaches.
If anything, they seem more troubled than dangerous. One suffers frequent nightmares and what a military psychologist says is post-traumatic stress disorder. (He leads a regular group-therapy session that he says the youths ''love.'') They were captured on the battlefield; they are child soldiers. One -- a Canadian national reportedly held with the adult detainees -- is said to have killed an American soldier with a grenade, but Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who commands this detention operation at the naval station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, won't comment on that.
Rather, his tone is sympathetic. ''We're doing our best to give these juvenile enemy combatants options to be able to be integrated back into their societies,'' he says after a prayer breakfast. ''These despicable terrorists have decided to use younger people as a part of their army. They're the ones who decided to impress, kidnap and force them into service. Their treatment program started the day that they came here. And so, like anyone freed from an intolerable situation, they're returning to what we'd consider normal.''
What is normal for teenagers who were made to fight in a war? Do we have any idea? Could being locked up ever be therapeutic? I mean these as real questions, not rhetorical jabs, and I recently visited Guantanamo to try to get a sense of how, a year and a half after its creation, the detention-and-interrogation center, this place where hundreds of people are being held indefinitely so that we might find out what they know, had evolved. What kind of community had grown here, and what might it say about America's attitude toward these prisoners of war?
II. Beachfront America at the Edge of Nowhere
Most of the roads around Guantanamo Bay are restricted to 25 miles per hour. Most of the buildings are low, made of wood or cinder block and painted a pale yellow with brown trim. Utility poles are stained a pleasing Forest Service green; the overwhelming impression is of suburban America circa 1950. At night, crabs scuttle across the road ahead of advancing cars; by day, iguana-crossing signs -- and the big, basking lizards themselves -- are commonplace. There is a golf course and Cuba's only McDonald's and Little League teams and a shopping mall staffed by guest workers from Jamaica and the Philippines.
The United States presence here dates from the Spanish-American War in 1898. The last lease, signed in 1934, granted the United States indefinite use of this 45-square-mile corner of the island in return for an annual payment of $4,085. Fidel Castro, who once called the base ''a dagger plunged into the heart of Cuban soil,'' has always refused to cash the checks.
It feels surreal to be on an American naval base inside the territory of a Communist country. And it feels doubly strange -- like a parody of a David Lynch movie -- to cruise slowly by little town-house subdivisions, past batting cages and even by a rocky outcrop where high-school students spray-paint their names, then come suddenly upon a prison camp in the ''war on terror'' wreathed in razor wire.
Prisoners from the Afghan war first arrived at ''Gitmo,'' as locals call the base, in January 2002. The first 110 men were brought to a makeshift set of cages called Camp X-Ray and were made to kneel, shackled and blindfolded with special blacked-out goggles, while soldiers trained rifles on them, an image captured in the first news photographs of them. Then, last spring, they were all moved to a newer, larger facility, Camp Delta. Unlike X-Ray, Delta has running water, indoor toilets and plenty of unused capacity. (There are 680 prisoners housed there now, with room for about 1,000.) Soldiers call Camp Delta ''the Wire,'' and it has plenty of that -- rows of chain link and concertina. Rising behind them are plywood guard towers, some draped with American flags, and an array of lights for night.
At the camp's main gate, a 4-foot-by-8-foot sign attached at eye level says ''Honor Bound to Defend Freedom.'' This is the slogan of J.T.F./Guantanamo, the joint military task force -- 2,000 strong -- that runs the detention-and-interrogation operation. It is printed on handouts and official documents and signs and is constantly recited, soldier to soldier, at the camp's checkpoints. As I arrived at the main gate for the first time, I turned to the first lieutenant who was escorting me. ''Isn't that a little strange,'' I offered, ''a slogan about freedom on the gate of a prison camp?''
He looked at me flatly. ''Doesn't seem strange to me,'' he said. ''Does it seem strange to you?''
III. A Very Long Way From Geneva
The detention-and-interrogation operation at Guantanamo Bay is clearly a problem area of America's war on terror. In mid-April, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell sent Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld a strongly worded letter that cited complaints from our allies that the indefinite detention of foreign citizens undermines efforts to win international support for the campaign against terrorism. And yet, two months later, the children are still there, the prisoner count is up by 20 and tribunals have yet to be scheduled.
Combatants from 42 countries are held at Guantanamo. Most, apparently, are from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan, but others are citizens of allies like Canada, Sweden, Australia, Britain and Kuwait. The indefinite detention of the young is a small but revealing part of the operation. There is practically global unanimity that children deserve special protection by governments; the Convention on the Rights of the Child (C.R.C.), adopted by the United Nations in 1989, is the most widely ratified human rights treaty ever. It specifies that detained juveniles shall have the right to legal assistance and to a court's prompt decision on their detention. We are not providing either.
But the main action at Guantanamo is Camp Delta. What the detention of teenagers is to the C.R.C., you might say, conditions at Camp Delta are to the Geneva Conventions.
Except for a new unit -- Camp Four, which now holds about 125 detainees -- it appears to be a prison based on the supermax model of solitary confinement that has become popular in the States during the past 25 years. Except, in many ways, Camp Delta is harsher. Each prisoner lives in a separate cell that is 6 feet 8 inches by 8 feet. The door and walls are made of a tight mesh through which it would be hard to pass anything larger than a pencil. Unless rewarded for good behavior, each prisoner is allowed out of the cell only three times a week for 20 minutes of solitary exercise in a large concrete-floored cage, followed by a 5-minute shower. Before coming out of the cell, he must submit to a shackles-connected-to-handcuffs arrangement known as a ''three-piece suit.'' Guards escort him on either side.
Twenty-four of these cells, constructed out of Connex shipping containers placed end to end, are situated opposite 24 others, and a roof with ventilators is constructed overhead; this assemblage of 48 cells constitutes a cellblock. So far, there are 19 of these cellblocks at Camp Delta, suggesting a capacity of approximately 1,000.
The United States, for what the administration says are reasons of national security, has chosen not to designate these combatants from the war in Afghanistan prisoners of war; this means that they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. If they were, the prison camp would look a lot different. The Third Geneva Convention, which pertains to P.O.W.'s, says that ''close confinement'' settings are acceptable only ''where necessary to safeguard their health.'' It says that prisoners should be allowed to keep ''all effects and articles of personal use,'' that they should be permitted to smoke and prepare their own food when possible, that their religious leaders ''shall be at liberty, whatever their denomination, to minister freely to the members of their community'' and that the ''Detaining Power shall encourage the practice of intellectual, educational and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners.'' Most relevant to the operation of Camp Delta, it says that prisoners must never be interrogated.
The conventions are famously important to the military, and those working inside the Wire take pains to emphasize the ways they are abiding by them. Exhibit A in this regard is how the military is bending over backward to respect Muslim religious practice at Camp Delta. Every prisoner is provided a prayer mat, prayer beads, oil, Koran, Islamic prayer book and access to a Muslim chaplain (who is American). On the floor of every cell are spray-painted an arrow and ''MAKKAH 12793 km.,'' so that prisoners know which way to face during prayer. The call to worship blares out over Camp Delta's public-address system five times a day (the chaplain downloaded from the Internet recordings of it from Mecca and Medina), the only American government facility in the world, it seems, that does that. The camp commander will tell you that meal times were changed to accommodate Ramadan, and Chief Warrant Officer James Kluck, the kitchen head, will talk about the baklava he added to the menu.
Exhibit B is the health care, which I was told several times is better than most of the detainees ever received in their lives. Capt. Albert J. Shimkus, the command surgeon for the joint task force, proudly shows the lab where a lot of tests can be done, the surgical theater, the X-ray machines, the examination rooms and the dental-care room, which is also used for physical therapy and prosthetics; several of the prisoners, Captain Shimkus explains, are amputees. Eighty-five operations have taken place so far, he says, mostly orthopedic. The average prisoner, I am told, has gained 13 pounds since arriving at Guantanamo.
But despite the hospital, all is not well with the detainees. In 2002, there were 10 suicide attempts. Then, in just the first three months of this year, there were 14 more, by 11 individuals. Almost all were by hanging. Most of the would-be suicides were not badly injured, but one suffered brain damage and at the time of my visit was in a ''persistent vegetative state,'' according to Shimkus, was being ''fed by a medical device in his stomach'' and required ''24/7 care.''
I ask where he is, and the captain points behind him to a room where the beds are; the patient is just a few yards from where we sit. I cannot see him. I was told at the outset that I would not be allowed to see any prisoners. (To deny the press access to prisoners, the military invokes, of all things, the Geneva Conventions article stating that P.O.W.'s ''must at all times be protected . . . against insults and public curiosity.'')
In late March, a special mental health unit was opened inside Camp Delta. I am told that there the emotionally ill are given special treatment and that since it opened there has been only one additional suicide attempt. (Three more have occurred subsequently, bringing the total to 28 attempts by 18 individuals.) About 90 detainees are under mental health supervision, the camp psychiatrist tells me, with about half of those receiving psychiatric drugs regularly. (Though Shimkus stated that no detainee had ever been forcibly medicated, one released prisoner, interviewed recently in Afghanistan by The New York Times, said that after a suicide attempt, he had been given an injection by force that left him ''unable to control his head or his mouth or eat properly for weeks.'')
But providing psychiatric care does not change other factors that surely underlie the despair. First there are the physical conditions of confinement: even in most American supermaxes, the cells are larger and prisoners are let out for at least 30 minutes of exercise daily.
But another factor in despair is the way prisoners think about their confinement. At the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in New York, where I spent nearly a year as a correctional officer, inmates understandably attach a great deal of importance to the lengths of their sentences, their first possible parole dates, prisoner offenses that could extend the time they serve, et cetera. Each passing day represents some tiny fraction of the whole, slow progress toward a goal. Having a sense of the length of the tunnel appears to make being in the tunnel more bearable. But all this is missing at Guantanamo: nothing is known of conditions for release, and there is no judicial procedure. Officially, the P.O.W.'s are being held for interrogation, but clearly, to judge by the conditions, they're being held for punishment as well. But for how long? Who decides? Under these conditions, it would seem, hopelessness is inevitable.
IV. What Can't Be Guarded Against
Next door to Camp Delta is Camp America, where many of the soldiers live. Like Delta, America is hot and treeless and fairly grim. I ate some meals in the Seaside Galley mess hall there, where every table has folded cards with slogans like ''How to Respond to a Potentially Suicidal Person'' and ''Symptoms of Depression.''
''This is to educate you about how to handle suicidal detainees, right?'' I asked a soldier one day at lunch.
''No,'' he corrected me. ''This is about us,'' he said, and pointed to a card, on which someone had written in pen. ''Symptoms of Depression'' had been amended to read ''Symptoms of Gitmo.''
The guards who work inside Camp Delta are mainly reservists from military-police companies; about half do some sort of police work back home, and many are in corrections. They have in common with the detainees a certain anxiety about how long they will spend here. Several, having nearly finished their usual six-month tours, had just been informed that their postings had been extended an additional six months.
The guards told me striking stories about the detainees and what it was like to work inside the camp. Sgt. Jason Holmes of the 438th military-police company from Kentucky said that it was hard not to show negative feelings toward the detainees, ''keeping it in mind that you're here just to serve a purpose, not pass judgment on anybody or condemn anybody. They're just as curious about us as we are about them'' -- and they'll often want to talk about their personal lives, even if the guards won't reciprocate. (To keep the prisoners from learning anything personal about them, the M.P.'s ''sanitize'' their uniforms before entering Camp Delta: they put a strip of green duct tape over the names monogrammed on their breast pockets. Off duty, many store these strips under the brims of their caps.)
''Did any prisoner ever refuse his weekly exercise?'' I asked Sergeant Holmes. ''Occasionally,'' he said, ''there are some that do not want to go, but depending on the M.P. at hand, generally, after a minute or two, they'll usually go. They use the question 'Why?' a lot. I reply: 'Why not? There's a soccer ball out there -- why don't you go out and kick it around?'''
Specialist Lily Allison Fritzborgen of the 344th M.P. company out of Connecticut said that if they want a guard's attention, they usually call ''M.P.!'' Sometimes in her case, however, they also call ''Woman!'' which she does not appreciate. ''We present it to them that we're all M.P.'s -- if they don't like it or won't speak to us, they're not going to get anywhere.'' Had she had any problems with respect from the detainees? ''I've had things thrown on me,'' she said. ''Bodily fluids, all that a man is capable of.'' Among the penalties for such behavior, I later learned, is being moved for up to 30 days to an isolation cell -- the same size as the others but with solid doors and walls and only a small window to let you know if it's day or night.
''Do they ever sing or make music?'' I asked. Specialist Fritzborgen said she had heard some of them humming or even outright singing songs from the Backstreet Boys. Holmes said, ''There are some new beds that are enclosed on three sides, and when you hit them, it sounds like an African drum, so some make pretty decent music.'' He had heard two detainees drumming together.
Sgt. First Class Bill Lickman, a correctional officer at a prison in Michigan, said his son had been working at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Being posted here was part of coming full circle, he said; the circle would be finished when he finally went back home. He said that these prisoners could be manipulative in the same way as prisoners back home: one might claim that a female guard had inappropriately watched him in the shower, for example, in the hope of getting her in trouble. He spoke of one prisoner known to guards as ''the General'' because of the way he could command everyone's silence when he had something to say or the way he could lead the block in a period of jumping jacks. And then there was ''the Riddler,'' who would always try to amuse them with lame jokes like: ''Why did the cat go into the barbershop? Because the door was open.''
I heard the Riddler story again the next day, over lunch with one guard who struck me as exceptional. She didn't work inside the Wire anymore, said Staff Sgt. Laura Frost of the 785th M.P. company from Michigan, and it was probably just as well.
Sergeant Frost is warm-faced, with a ready laugh and a smoker's rasp. Her job, she said, had been to distribute writing materials to the detainees so that they could send letters home. But then people like the Riddler would want to talk to her -- women make up 10 to 15 percent of the entire force, and there are not many around Camp Delta.
''He would want to tell a riddle or a joke or whatever -- I tried to stay professional and stay focused, but it was really, really hard . . . some of the letters were so sad. You know, they talk about asking their families for prayers, and their safe return, and that they were sorry because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would get questions like, 'How do you spell amen?''' Frost got a bit choked up.
''What do you mean, they ask how to spell amen?'' I asked. ''Were they writing the letters in English, instead of their own language?''
Yes, she said, ''a letter in English goes out faster.'' Letters in other languages had to be translated so that the intelligence personnel could review them first. And likewise, all letters they received from abroad had to be first translated into English so that they, too, could be reviewed.
They had temporarily moved her out of work in the Wire when her security clearance lapsed; while she was waiting to have it renewed, she settled happily into an administration job. ''As I look back on it, I think it's probably a good thing,'' she said. ''I had felt very heavy in my heart for what was going on in there. You know, there's things that've happened that I'm glad I wasn't there to see.''
V. The Question of Questioning
"We do nothing here in Camp Delta that we wouldn't be proud of,'' said General Miller when I asked what the interrogation consisted of. I asked more pointedly, ''What did they do to get people to talk?'' He said drugs were never used in connection with interrogation, nor was ''violence or infliction of physical pain or anything psychological other than standard interrogation techniques.'' And what were the ''standard techniques''? Miller declined to say, asserting that to do so might aid the enemy and put at risk American troops and his mission.
I pursued this further with Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, head of public affairs for the joint task force, telling him that I flat out didn't believe that military interrogation could be all about decency and respect. ''This is not a coercive effort,'' he replied, ''because as you coerce people, they will tell you exactly what they want you to hear -- and that does us no good. We have to have accuracy and facts, and people need to be willing to give you that. It takes motivation, not coercion.'' The recent inauguration of medium-security Camp Four inside Camp Delta, according to Colonel Johnson, was about that kind of motivation: in Camp Four, detainees live in small dormitories and can eat, pray and exercise together. They wear white prison suits instead of orange. It is held up as a place you might get to if you cooperate. Most of the detainees released this year were all recent residents of Camp Four.
Unbidden, Johnson added: ''You asked about pain. I would say fear is very different than pain.
''I would say there are a lot of detainees who fear what faces them when they return to their own countries -- because of what people might think or believe they've been involved in.''
''You mean the suspicion that they'd snitched?'' I asked. Johnson would not respond, and I got nothing further.
One reason the interrogation process has dragged on for months and months, however, is that joint-task-force investigators are not the only ones doing the questioning. Presumably because each has a slightly different intelligence agenda, any interested government agency, including the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the State Department, the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is given a shot at interrogating Camp Delta's detainees. It is easy to imagine that it could go on for a very long time.
One evening, as Johnson drove me in his Jeep Cherokee to a bluff overlooking what is now the abandoned Camp X-Ray, where the detainees were originally confined, I pestered him again about the issues nagging me. Everyone knows the detainees are kept at Gitmo because they have no constitutional rights here, I said to him. (Responding to a complaint brought last year by families of Kuwaiti, British and Australian detainees, a United States court of appeals has agreed with the administration's claim that because Guantanamo is leased, it is not officially American soil.) Johnson smiled, but again did not respond.
Later, in an e-mail message, I pestered him some more about the extraordinarily tight security at Camp Delta. Are these soldiers considered more dangerous than enemy soldiers from any other war? Johnson replied: ''Unlike conventional soldiers who abide by certain laws of war, and who would also be bound by the III Geneva Convention to act in certain ways when confined, the enemy combatants in the high-security section committed themselves at some point to killing Americans, period. They are not obedient soldiers defending a nation, but individuals who are motivated for whatever reason to kill Americans.''
We can all argue about the nature of those who were defending Afghanistan against the American attack that followed 9/11; perhaps the jihadists are really just undisciplined murderers and not soldiers. But were the Nazi storm troopers or the suicidal Japanese soldiers of World War II any less hateful or fanatical? Certainly war has changed, but did the America that signed the Geneva Conventions ever think that detaining enemy soldiers would not involve having to manage antipathy?
It was just a little too dark to get a good look at the remains of Camp X-Ray by the time we got there, so we turned around and headed back. Johnson had James Taylor playing on the Jeep's stereo, and he was singing about the ''turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston.'' In the dusk, I thought about how Johnson was a smart and likable guy and about how the soldiers were good, decent people and about how whatever bad we were doing at this new American gulag we must be doing out of fear.
Later, as we passed by two housing subdivisions, Tierra K and West Iguana, I also thought of the ending of ''Cast Away,'' in which Tom Hanks, off the island at last, returns home to the suburbs. Moviegoers will remember what happened there: his fiancee, hearing no news of him for years, wrote him off as dead and married somebody else. He has survived, but his life is destroyed. Being incommunicado so long, as prisoners all over the world can tell you, is a sort of death.
Ted Conover is the author, most recently, of ''Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing.''
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- environment
Future Dims for 'Clear Skies' Initiative
GOP Lawmakers, Utilities Aim to Postpone Mercury Emissions Targets Until 2018
By Eric Pianin and Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 29, 2003; Page A05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45606-2003Jun28?language=printer
One of President Bush's premier environmental initiatives -- to cut mercury emissions by nearly half within seven years -- is suddenly in deep trouble, the victim of administration infighting and resistance from industry leaders fearing huge costs.
The proposal, part of the president's "Clear Skies" legislation awaiting congressional action, would for the first time regulate mercury emissions from their largest source, coal-fired power plants. Mercury pollution is linked to several public health problems, and the Clinton administration ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations on power plants beginning in 2007.
When Bush took office, he extended the deadline, calling for power plants to reduce mercury emissions by 46 percent as of 2010, and 70 percent by 2018. But with administration officials divided over whether it is economically or technologically feasible for power plants to achieve those goals, some GOP lawmakers representing Midwestern utility interests have vowed to rewrite the Clear Skies legislation to effectively postpone any new mercury standards until 2018 at the earliest.
Some environmentalists say the administration, by design or mishap, has virtually invited Republican lawmakers to weaken what they considered a weak bill to begin with. "They touted it as a big initiative, and now they are quietly tiptoeing away from it," said Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust.
Administration officials said in interviews last week that lawmakers may change the interim mercury provision, but said it was more important that Congress approve the president's longer-term goal.
"First and most importantly, we are delighted that there appears to be a strong consensus in favor of a 70 percent cut in mercury on the timeline [by 2018] the president called for," said James L. Connaugton, chairman of the president's Council on Environmental Quality. "We crossed a major divide getting consensus around that."
The National Research Council has warned that mercury spread through air and water can cause birth defects, neurological damage to fetuses and young children, and other debilitating conditions to people of any age.
Bush introduced Clear Skies as a response to critics who said he was trying to undermine enforcement of Clean Air Act regulations for aging coal-fired power plants. The bill would use mandatory caps and a pollution credit-trading program to reduce overall plant pollutant emissions -- including mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide -- by 70 percent over the next 15 years.
But the bill's interim provision to reduce annual mercury emissions from 48 tons to 26 tons by 2010 has fallen prey to an internal squabble between the EPA, which favors the tough new standard, and the business-friendly Department of Energy, which is more critical.
Bush based the plan on an EPA analysis showing that by installing equipment to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, power plants could also achieve the 46 percent reduction in mercury emissions by 2010 as a "co-benefit." The Energy Department recently challenged this estimate, saying its research concluded that only minimum mercury reductions -- 4 percent -- could be obtained in this manner, and plants would have to spend $700 million on new technology to meet the interim target.
Officials at Southern Co., one of the nation's largest utilities, and other large plant operators say no available technology would enable the industry to meet administration targets. Energy Department officials and others also say that the interim mercury standard could force many utilities to switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, which could create gas shortages and drive up the price of home heating fuel and other consumer goods.
The dispute spilled out this month during testimony before a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee. Republican allies of Midwestern utilities now demand that the bill be rewritten to lower the interim mercury target substantially. At the hearing, Randall Kroszner, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, disclosed the Energy Department analysis and hinted that the administration would be understanding if lawmakers chose to weaken the interim mercury provision.
"Occasionally, Congress does change things the president proposes, and that could be a possibility," Kroszner said.
Subcommittee Chairman George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) immediately said he planned to rewrite the section. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the full committee, said: "I am concerned that the cap is too stringent and creates too much uncertainty."
The consequences of mercury poisoning have been described for decades. Last week, the EPA's "Draft Report on the Environment" identified health effects ranging from lung damage to fatigue, weight loss, gastrointestinal problems, and behavioral and personality changes.
"Children may be more highly exposed to mercury and may be more vulnerable to its toxic effects," the report said. "The health effects of mercury are diverse and can include developmental and neurological effects in children."
Pathologist Robert A. Goyer, who headed a study on mercury poisoning by the National Research Council in 2000, said people can ingest mercury in its elemental state or as methylmercury, a "particularly hazardous" toxic compound that readily breaches cell membranes or the placental wall. Humans typically are poisoned by eating mercury-contaminated fish.
The EPA report said the primary source of environmental mercury contamination -- 33 percent -- is coal-fired power plants.
The Clear Skies plan originally envisioned that mercury could be dramatically reduced using equipment designed to control other emissions. The EPA found in 1999 that these techniques were capturing one-third of the vaporized mercury coming from plant furnaces. For some coals, installation of equipment to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide "might get you all or most of the way toward" Clear Skies mercury requirements, said emissions expert George Offen, of the Electric Power Research Institute, the utility industry's nonprofit research arm.
Recently, however, researchers are finding a "lot of site-to-site variability," said Michael D. Durham, president of ADA Environmental Solutions, an environmental technology company that sometimes consults for the utility industry. "You can't depend on high levels of mercury removal at every site. It goes anywhere from 5 percent to 95 percent."
This concern has led to an alternative strategy in which carbon dust is sprayed into the stack exhaust, capturing vaporized mercury in particles that can be gathered as part of the "fly ash" trapped by existing emission controls. To achieve the reductions envisioned in Clear Skies, however, experts suggest that plants may have to add an expensive fabric-filtering system known as a "bag house," which works much like a huge vacuum cleaner. Offen and Durham said these technologies cannot be guaranteed to achieve the desired results.
"Our position from the beginning was that the cap was unrealistic," said Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents utilities that produce about 70 percent of the nation's power. "We weren't quibbling over the second phase [the 2018 targets], but if we have to install additional controls to meet the 26-ton cap, we will have a very difficult time."
Durham said, "It is a pretty categorical statement" to say that technology does not exist to achieve Clear Skies targets. "We're developing the technology at the same time we're developing the regulation," he said, but "nobody would be putting money into the technology unless there was a regulation coming."
-------- ACTIVISTS
Charges dropped against 400
Evidence lacking against anti-war protesters, D.A. says
Jaxon Van Derbeken,
Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 28, 2003
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/28/BA166765.DTL
In a surprise move, District Attorney Terence Hallinan dropped charges Friday against more than 400 anti-war protesters arrested in San Francisco after the Iraq war began.
The dismissals came just one week after prosecutors had refiled the cases to keep them from being dropped. Prosecutors said Friday that the Police Department had given them nothing to go on to secure convictions against the demonstrators, who were among 2,300 people arrested during more than four days of protests that tied up much of downtown San Francisco.
Police told prosecutors that "they are unable to establish the facts necessary to convict any of these individuals," Assistant District Attorney Mike Menesini told Traffic Commissioner Paul Slavit, who was considering citations against 407 people arrested during the protests that began March 19.
Menesini said prosecutors always doubted that they could secure convictions based on the underlying misdemeanor on which the protesters originally were arrested, unlawful assembly. Many were also arrested for interfering with police, but defense lawyers said police simply could not prove who was guilty of what.
The issue of supporting evidence has been a sore spot for prosecutors since the cases hit the courts. Hallinan complained earlier this month that police had failed to provide reports for many of the arrests.
Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan wasn't ready for the Police Department to accept blame for the district attorney's decision not to prosecute.
"This chief is not going to get into a dogfight and place blame," Fagan said. "We believe the charges originally filed were appropriate."
Prosecutors have gone back and forth on whether to pursue the cases that they finally dismissed Friday. Most of the protesters were originally arrested on misdemeanor charges, but Hallinan's deputies reduced the misdemeanors to infractions by crossing out the word "misdemeanor" on the citations and replacing it with "infraction."
Defense attorneys argued that Hallinan had taken an illegal shortcut by altering the original citations instead of filing new charges.
Slavit threatened to dismiss the charges, prompting Hallinan to say he "didn't want to continue to bankrupt the city" with the cost of filing new charges.
On June 20, however, he changed his mind and began filing new complaints.
The dismissals Friday leave the status of the remaining 1,900 cases up in the air. Bobbie Stein, an attorney for many of the protesters, said Hallinan had assured her that those cases would be dropped as well.
Prosecutors, however, did not go that far publicly. Mark MacNamara, spokesman for the district attorney, said Hallinan would review each case on its merits, and dismiss them if he has no evidence to support the charges.
Asked whether he wants to see the remaining demonstrators prosecuted, Fagan said, "What's important to me is that we were able to maintain public safety during that time. I'd like to see justice done, and unfortunately, in these difficult budget times, there are costs associated with these prosecutions."
Chronicle staff writer Rachel Gordon contributed to this report. / E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.
----
Former Israeli soldiers return to occupied territories to give aid
By Sheera Frenkel
29 June 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=419942
Thousands of Israeli military conscripts and reservists have spent time in the occupied territories, especially since the beginning of the current intifada 33 months ago. Many are disturbed by what they see while in uniform. But only a handful do what Moti Kimtel has done - return as aid workers.
Three years ago Mr Kimtel was patrolling in Gaza with his battalion. Now he teaches irrigation and farming techniques to Palestinians, but he is constantly reminded of his service there as a soldier. While working on an irrigation project he saw a women whose house he had searched after her son had been arrested as a terrorist suspect.
"I don't know, maybe her son was a terrorist," he said. "It only bothers me that I followed orders I didn't even understand at the time. Now I work for peace in ways that I can understand. I feel better about everything I do."
The former conscript says that while he often felt "a slight guilt or doubt" while in uniform, he followed orders because of "peer pressure". It was only afterwards, when he was at university with a conscientious objector, or refusenik, that he considered joining a peace movement.
"I don't have the answers to all of Israel's problems," said Mr Kimtel, "but I was in the occupied territories as a soldier and now I am here as an activist. It feels like I am doing much more good here as an activist."
Ronen Eidelman has worked with a number of peace organisations since leaving the army 10 years ago. After his compulsory service he did another two years before opting out of a military career. "When I was in Lebanon I did things that, looking back, I regret," he said. "I was part of a greater force that may have caused injustices against the Palestinians. Now I question if it was the right thing."
Mr Eidelman helps to organise demonstrations and "teach-ins" which try to teach Palestinians and Israelis ways to work together. He regularly enters the inner zones of the occupied territories, from which Israeli civilians are banned by law, saying that if everyone followed the restrictions nothing would get done.
"The Palestinians do not resent my being here, nor do they judge me for once being a soldier," he said. "They understand the Israeli mentality, how army service is a part of life and often goes unquestioned. They are just happy that now I choose to work for peace."
Israeli men are called up for three years and women for 20 to 24 months but, in most circumstances, the men also have reserve obligations, which can last until they are 50. They can spend one or two months every year back in uniform - more in times of tension. Only a small percentage of Israelis refuse to do military service at all, which usually incurs a jail sentence. Others, including some who do aid work with Palestinians, refuse to serve in the occupied territories. As a rule the army accepts this, however reluctantly though those taking this option can expect "peer pressure".
Bob Mark, an American who came to Israel in 1977, is a teacher in Neve Shalom, a village of Arabs and Jews who live and work together as a show of solidarity. He has come to support conscientious objection. "Let's say that I serve in the army," he said. "Even though I'm not directly involved in the occupied territories, I'm just taking the place of someone else so that they can go and serve in the territories. Either way I'm a part of what's going on in the territories.
"The majority of people make excuses to get out of service, but what is important is people who go to court and simply say, I won't serve."
That was the choice of Ariel, 21 who did not want his surname published. After his jail sentence he joined a peace organisation named Ta'ayush (Arabic for "life in common"). In his current project, Peace Camp, he is camped in front of a Palestinian village to prevent it being bulldozed.
"There are some people here who once served in the army, but have changed their views since then," he said. "But we all respect them for having moved beyond the conditioning the army puts you through."
----
Greens spurn Democrats, hope for another Nader run
June 29, 2003
By Steve Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030629-120734-9515r.htm
The Green Party is not likely to sit on the sidelines for the presidential race next year, a party official said this week, fueling speculation that consumer advocate Ralph Nader will once again make a presidential bid.
Meanwhile, national Democrats have been in constant contact with Green Party leaders, urging them to cooperate by not running a candidate so President Bush can be defeated in 2004.
"It is a very slim possibility that we will not run somebody next year," said Sarah Charlesworth, a member of the Green Party's presidential exploratory committee.
Mr. Nader is "leaning toward a run," said Juscha Robinson, who leads the party's Coordinated Campaign Committee.
"He has been in touch with us for some time now," Miss Robinson said. "We have an ongoing dialogue with him."
The field of Democratic presidential candidates is not strong enough at this point to deter a Green Party candidate on the 2004 ticket, said Green Party spokesman Scott McLarty. Mr. Nader, whom some Democrats blame for Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000, captured 3 percent of the vote that year.
In Florida, which decided the 2000 election, Mr. Bush received 2,912,790 votes and Mr. Gore 2,912,253 - a difference of 537 votes. Mr. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida, most of which Democrats say would have gone to Mr. Gore.
Mr. Nader was also perceived as a very serious threat in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan - forcing Mr. Gore to spend time and money in those states rather than campaign elsewhere. Mr. Gore won all five states.
Mr. Nader's 2000 presidential bid championed issues such as the environment, campaign finance reform and opposition to economic globalization. Some 2004 Democratic presidential contenders are focusing on liberal-left issues that appeal to many Green Party members.
"There are some good Democrats in the running," Mr. McLarty said. "Dennis Kucinich is at the top of that list. And Carol Moseley Braun, Howard Dean and Al Sharpton - we appreciate some of their stands, but some of them are compromised."
However, Mr. McLarty acknowledged that all the candidates he noted stand little chance of receiving the Democratic Party nomination.
"We have several party activists who are interested in running, but no one with near the national fame of Mr. Nader," he added. "We are looking to build on past success, and if we run a national candidate, we want someone who can top the 3 percent we got in 2000."
A group of Green Party members has formed the "Draft Nader 2004 Committee" in hopes of persuading him to run again.
"We would like to have something in place by the fall," said Doug Friedline, the committee's national political director. "We have put together an effort that will allow us to have people in place in each state by the end of the year."
The party's 25-member exploratory committee speaks twice monthly on a conference call, discussing possible candidates. Mr. Nader, who is not an official member of the Green Party, earned 3 percent of the popular vote, or 2.78 million votes, in 2000.
In a national poll of Green Party members, Mr. Nader was the favorite for the presidential race next year, trailed closely by former Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. Also noted were Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and television figure Bill Moyers.
"We need somebody of Mr. Nader's stature to run for us," Mr. McLarty said. "He is somebody who would have the strongest following in the party."
----
Rage. Mistrust. Hatred. Fear. Uncle Sam's enemies within
While the US fights a war on terror, it is also systematically crushing its citizens' rights. Neil Mackay on the alarming rise of a new tyranny
UK Herald
29 June 2003
http://www.sundayherald.com/34917
WHEN the Hollywood actor Tim Robbins took to his feet before the National Press Club in Washington DC in April this year, he delivered a speech laced with deliberate echoes of Bob Dylan's protest song Blowin' In The Wind. While Dylan, however, sang of freedom and liberty one day triumphing over repression and control, Robbins was saying that the greatest democracy on earth, the United States of America, was heading in the opposite direction under President Bush: to a future where freedom had lost out to repression and liberty to control.
'A chill wind is blowing in this nation,' said Robbins -- who, along with his wife, the actress Susan Sarandon, has been routinely denounced by the American right. 'A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio ... if you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications. Every day the airwaves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public ... sit in mute opposition and fear.'
Just days before this speech, Saddam's statue in Baghdad was wrapped in the Stars and Stripes and dragged to earth by US tanks. To millions of Americans like Robbins, the image must have been replete with irony. Here was democratic America destroying one of the most tyrannical regimes on earth in the name of freedom -- yet in the process of fighting for democracy abroad, America's own freedoms were being systematically eaten away at home.
A few things have happened recently that show just how powerful -- and, perhaps, unstoppable -- is the march of the right-wing machine in the US. This month the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-wing think tank umbilically tied to the Bush administration, declared open warfare on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) deemed too left-wing and set up an organisation called NGOWatch to monitor these liberal pressure groups. NGOs that have fallen foul of its wrath include groups promoting human rights, women, the environment and freedom of speech; among its targets are the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the World Organisation Against Torture. Only this February, George Bush boasted that 20 AEI members were working for his administration. AEI fellows include Lynne Cheney, the vice- president's wife, and Richard Perle, the most influential of all neo-conservative hawks.
NGOWatch has issued scathing reports on the following groups:
lHuman Rights Watch, which investigates government abuses around the world. According to NGOWatch, it is an organisation that 'recommends groups that promote same-sex marriage', 'promotes sexual orientation rights', 'denounces abstinence [from sex] programmes', 'advocates gays in the military' and 'demands release of some detainees at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay'. Nearly 700 men are held at the camp without charge, trial or access to legal help.
lCARE International, which works in the third world. It is attacked because its president, Peter Bell, criticises Bush's Mexico City Policy, which prohibits international groups that perform or promote abortion from receiving tax dollars to teach family planning.
lThe NOW (National Organisation For Women) Foundation, which promotes abortion rights and equality in the workplace. NGOWatch says: 'With lesbianism and left-wing politics, NOW conferees cling to the fringe.'
Naomi Klein, author of the anti-corporate bestseller No Logo, points out that Andrew Natsios, head of the government-run United States Agency for International Development (USAID), attacked NGOs this May 'for failing to play a role many of them didn't realise they had been assigned: doing public relations for the US government'. Klein says NGOWatch is a 'McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against the Bush administration's policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House'.
But the Bush administration might not find the term 'McCarthyite' all that insulting if the poster-girl of the American right, Ann Coulter, gets her way. Coulter is set to knock Hillary Clinton, the former first lady, off the top of the US bestseller lists with her book Treason: Liberal Treachery From The Cold War To The War On Terrorism. Its central thesis is that Senator Joe McCarthy, the man behind the communist witch-hunts of the 1950s, was a good guy and an all-American patriot. Coulter is the woman who said after September 11: 'We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.' She also said US citizens should carry passports on domestic flights to make it easier to identify any 'suspicious-looking swarthy males'.
McCarthy was censured by his Senate colleagues: despite levelling charges of communism at all and sundry, he was unable to produce the name of a single card-carrying communist in the US government. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says he was seen by his detractors as a 'self-seeking witch-hunter who was undermining the nation's traditions of civil liberties', yet his accusations led to the persecution of many of those he condemned .
Coulter says: 'The myth of McCarthyism is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie ... Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught ... McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. He was tilting at an authentic communist conspiracy.'
Coulter's article of faith is that liberals have managed to shout harder than the right and twist society with propaganda. It is a remarkable claim given the approach to journalism by one of the US's most popular TV stations, Fox News. Vilification of liberals is almost a sport on Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. One of its main anchors, Bill O'Reilly, told viewers the US should 'splatter' Iraqis; one of its other anchors referred to the veil worn by a Muslim-American woman as a 'thing'.
While Europeans might recoil at a subservient press and a government with such blatantly right-wing policies, others will say: 'So what? The Bush administration is simply pushing its agenda and the media is reflecting the support of the public.' But that is not the case. Scratch the surface and more and more disturbing examples of government control and attacks on dissent in the name of patriotism spring to light -- and it is obvious that a vast swath of the US public is horrified by what is happening.
Take the case of John Clarke, an organiser with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). In February 2002 he was crossing into the US from Canada to speak at Michigan State University. He was taken into the immigration offices and asked what anti-globalisation protests he had attended and whether he 'opposed the ideology of the United States'. His car was searched and he was frisked. He was denied entry to the US, then interrogated by a special agent with the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service. He was asked if the OCAP was a cover for anarchism and if he was a 'socialist'. The agent had a file on the OCAP, leaflets from public-speaking engagements Clarke had taken part in and the name of a man Clarke had stayed with in Chicago. Clarke was accused of being an 'advocate for violence' and threatened with jail. Astonishingly, the interrogator asked him questions about Osama bin Laden.
Sounds like a rogue agent? Not if you take into account the six French journalists who arrived at Los Angeles Airport this May to cover a video games conference. They were detained -- three of them in cells for 26 hours -- interrogated, subjected to body searches and then forcibly repatriated .
It is not just foreigners that are deemed dangerous and un-American. There was Tom Treece, a teacher who gave a class in 'public issues' at a high school in Vermont. A uniformed police officer entered his classroom in the middle of the night because a student art project on the wall showed a picture of Bush with duct tape over his mouth and the words: 'Put your duct tape to good use. Shut your mouth.' Local residents said they would refuse to pass the school budget unless Treece was sacked. He was eventually removed from that class.
Or how about Jason Halperin? This March he was in an Indian restaurant in New York when it was raided by five police officers with guns drawn. Halperin says they kicked open the doors, then pointed guns in the faces of staff and made them crawl out of the kitchen . Ten other officers from the Department of Homeland Security then entered. One patron said the police had no right to hold him; he was told the Patriot Act allowed his detention without warrant. Halperin asked if he could see a lawyer; he was told only if he came to the station, and then in 'maybe a month'. When he told police he was leaving, an officer walked over, his hand on his gun, saying: 'Go ahead and leave, just go ahead.' Another officer said: 'We are at war and this is for your safety.'
The American Civil Liberties Union had to take court action to help 15-year-old Bretton Barber, who faced suspension from school when he refused to take off a T-shirt showing Bush with the words 'International Terrorist' beneath. AJ Brown, a college student from North Carolina, was visited at home by secret service agents who told her: 'Ma'am, we've gotten a report that you have anti-American material.' She refused to let them in, but eventually showed them what she thought they were after -- an anti-death-penalty poster showing Bush and a group of lynched bodies over the epithet 'We hang on your every word'. The agents then asked her if she had 'any pro- Taliban stuff'.
Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran the presidential campaign in North Carolina for the Green Party's Ralph Nader, was told he could not board a plane to Prague because no Greens were allowed to fly that day. He was questioned by police, photographed by two secret service agents and asked about his family and what the Greens were up to. Stuber says he was shown a Justice Department document that suggested Greens were likely terrorists.
Michael Franti, frontman of the progressive hip hop band Spearhead, says the mother of one of his co-musicians, who has a sibling in the Gulf, was visited by 'two plain-clothes men from the military' in March this year. Franti says: ' [The military] came in and said, 'You have a child who's in the Gulf and you have a child who's in this band Spearhead who's part of the resistance.'' The military had pictures of the band at peace rallies, their flight records for several months, the names of backstage staff and their banking records.
Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize- winning New York Times reporter, was booed off stage after making what was perceived to be an anti-war speech at a graduation ceremony at Rockford College in Illinois. College officials unplugged his mic twice while he was making the speech, which he had to cut sharply in order to keep the situation under control ; some students blared foghorns and turned their backs, while others rushed up the aisles screaming and throwing caps and gowns .
A report by the ACLU called Freedom Under Fire: Dissent In Post-9/11 America says: 'There is a pall over our country. The responses to dissent by many government officials so clearly violate the letter and the spirit of the supreme law of the land that they threaten the underpinnings of democracy itself.'
The words of Justice Antonin Scalia, an avid Bush supporter and member of the Supreme Court, seem to support these fears. In March, during a lecture at John Carroll University in Ohio, Scalia told his audience: 'Most of the rights you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.' He added that in wartime 'the protections will be ratcheted down to the constitutional minimum.'
Under current laws, anyone even suspected of terrorism can be held indefinitely without charge or access to a lawyer. A new proposed law would lead to anyone deemed a sympathiser of an organisation classed as terrorist having their US citizenship revoked; they would also be deported. The Pentagon's Total Information Awareness plans will allow the state to analyse every piece of data held on each US citizen.
Many are frightened to fight back. In September 2002, around 400 peaceful demonstrators near the White House were attacked and arrested; in Oakland, California, police used rubber and wooden bullets at a peace rally. Yet there is resistance. The Bill Of Rights Defence Committee has been supported by more than 114 legislatures in cities, towns and counties, as well as the states of Alaska and Hawaii. They have all passed resolutions opposing draconian legislation: that accounts for 11.1 million people.
Still, with massive donations rolling in from corporate backers, many fear it is unlikely Bush will be dethroned in 2004. With a supine Democratic Party, save a few maverick voices, and a craven media, it is left to a handful of fringe voices to speak out for Americans who are angered and disgusted at the state of their nation.
These voices belong to people such as Bruce Jones, an author and Vietnam veteran. He recently wrote about what he saw as 'the ugly side of patriotism ... those who insist that 'you are either with us or against us''. He added: ' There is no more important patriot in this nation than the citizen who has the guts to stand up and tell the official establishment that it is wrong.
'I know who my enemies are -- the idiots who burned down the dry- cleaning establishment I use here in Modesto because it had the word French in its name, or because it had Assyrian owners who immigrated from the Middle East. I know who I must fear the most -- those Americans who do not understand what freedom of speech means; those who equate patriotism with blind obedience.'
l Ralph Nader: Seven Days
-------
------- 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.