Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Kazatomprom ranks fourth among world uranium producers
Depleted Uranium Munitions
The Heavy Stuff
Romanian nuclear reactor to restart as drought effects recede
Iraqis: Looted radioactive material poses no danger
Hans Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years Ago
Scientist Says Iraq Never Revived Nuke Program
Japan to impose sanctions on N Korea if nuke test conducted
U.S. Upgrades Anti - Missile System in South Korea
Choe Talks Hawks' Language
Radiation Chicken Little
'Anti-Terror Nukes'
Bush Would Use Mini-nukes, Prof Warns
Senate Democrats Fail to Block Nuke Funds
Senate Won't Block Bush Nuclear Weapons Plans
Uranium Welcome, Environmentalists Not, in Eunice
INEEL contractor names new manager
Report raises radiation concerns
Indian Point Security Test Is Called Too Easy
Nuclear fight in Senate heats up
Albright Reveals Fresh N.Korea Details in New Book
U.S. to finance Korea nuke deal
The hawks fall out
MILITARY
Afghans Protest Homes' Destruction
Officials Say Taliban Leader Killed
Pakistan, France discuss armament cooperation
U.S. sanctions Moscow-owned firm for Iran sales
British Spy Chief Says Dossier 'Misinterpreted'
Cheney denies helping old firm to contracts
Lockheed Martin to Acquire Titan
China says troop movements on North Korean border a "normal adjustment"
China Deploys Troops on N. Korea Border
China Moves Troops to Area Bordering North Korea
China Says Troops Not Massed at North Korea Border
French block airlift of British troops to Basra
Open War Over, Iraqis Focus on Crime and a Hunt for Jobs
Iraqi Police Chief Slain In Roadway Ambush
Iraq's New Military Taking Shape Under U.S. Eye,
U.S. to withhold some funds from Israel
Israel downplays threat
U.S. to Withhold Money for Israel
Israel Rejects Palestinian Cease-Fire Offer
U.N. Envoy Urges Israel to Leave Settlements
Killing Arafat as Official Policy Is Denied
Israel Backs Off Arafat Threat
Senior U.S. Official to Level Weapons Charges Against Syria
Official: Syria Seeking Banned Weapons
Despite Concerns About Syria, Powell Aide Opposes Sanctions
Powell Says Gas Attack On Kurds Justified War
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Bush v. Gore Outlives Its Limited Warranty for Use in California
Study: States swivel from 'get-tough' approach on drug war
Ashcroft Mocks Librarians Who Oppose Parts of Counterterrorism Law
FBI May Get Reins In Explosives Cases
The Most Important Book Since 9/11
ENERGY AND OTHER
Provision in Energy Bill Brings Unease in G.O.P.
Trans-Alaska Gas Pipeline Gets Backing
4 States Sue E.P.A., Citing Health Risk of Pesticide Residue
Sperm Made from Stem Cells
Billionaire plugs $100M into brain research
Why men have more heart attacks
Prevention Is New Focus for Homeless
Coming U.S. Vote Figures in Walkout at Trade Talks
Walkout Shadows Free Trade's Future
ACTIVISTS
Lots of news from Jonah House
Bono wants more spent on AIDS
Telling kids to say 'no' to war
How To Stay Out of the Military
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- business
Kazatomprom ranks fourth among world uranium producers
16.09.2003
(Interfax-Kazakhstan)
http://www.interfax.com/com?item=Kaz&pg=0&id=5658758&req=
Almaty - Kazakhstan's national nuclear company Kazatomprom accounted for 8% of the world's uranium production in 2002, rising from fifth place in 2001 to fourth place in 2002, the company's press service said, citing the World Nuclear Association.
The WNA said that the French Cogema (19%), the Canadian Cameco (17%) and the Australian ERA (11%) remain the world's top three uranium producers.
Kazatomprom's press-release says that the increase in uranium production was due to the changeover from depleted deposits to new ones: South Karamurun and South Moinkum.
The company's goal is to bring the annual production of natural uranium to 15,000 tonnes by 2008 and rise to first place in the world rating.
-------- depleted uranium
Depleted Uranium Munitions
09/16,
by bocamp22
http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/25405/view
It was somewhat under reported in the news media, that sites in and around Bagdad had radiation levels measured at 1,000 to 1,900 times higher than normal.
Thousands of tons of depleted uranium munitions were used in the Iraq War in and around Bagdad.
DU are very effective weapons. And the munitions manufacturers can get the stuff for free.
Bravo to the British Goverment. As the British based upon the recomendations of their Royal Society (the British equiv. to our National Academy of Sciences) have made it policy to test all British forces leaving Iraq for Uranium Poisoning.
At least the British have admitted potential problems related to DU. Something the U.S. denies with a suspicious passion.
According to Vet groups here in the USA more than 600 people died and at least 5,000 people are chronically ill today, which they believe is do to DU exposures in the first Gulf War.
Symptoms of exposure take about five to ten years to be evident. Iraqi physicans claim that since the first Gulf War, cancer rates and birth defect rates have more than tripled.
I have read the scientific literature with respect to DU. The arguements against the use of DU munitions are rational. However, regardless. Our U.S. troops situated in areas in and around Bagdad should be tested for uranium poisoning. And these weapons should probably be banned as they do pose a potential environmental hazzard.
----
The Heavy Stuff
Cobalt casings and more, below the decks.
September 16, 2003
NY Press
http://www.nypress.com/16/37/news&columns/zen.cfm
My source-I'll call him "Ethan"-is dead, and now, having kept our agreement, I'm finally free to write about this horror story.
Ethan had read about a recent decontamination drill that was conducted in Denver. A transit train was filled with mock victims and decontamination personnel. The article went on at length about the abomination of "dirty bombs"-the impetus for this drill.
It reminded Ethan of the time he was in the Marine Corps, when he was stationed on a big aircraft carrier. "Jarheads" were placed on these ships for the exclusive purpose of guarding the nukes. That, and administration.
His job was to interview Marines in order to gather information about their status, with mundane questions such as, "Do you want to continue your dental and medical coverage for your dependents this year?" and "Do you want to take your accumulated leave or cash it in?" Despite the innocuous nature of his work, he was often below decks, where the weapons holds and security personnel were. That required a Top Secret clearance.
"While that sounds super-secure," he told me, "it's really not. You have ENTNAC clearance at the very bottom... Then you have Secret, which for me covered my having access to everyone's SSNs, home addresses, medical records, disciplinary records, etc. Then you have Top Secret, which you need to be around anything nuclear.
"Then you have about ten dozen higher levels of security clearance. So, Top Secret is relatively bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. Nonetheless, the NCIS [Naval Criminal Investigative Service] does go to your hometown and spends some time asking folks about you. And when the investigation is done, prior to issuing the clearance, you are sworn not to disclose certain information that the clearance exposes you to...ever in life."
Since he was in Administration, his work took place above decks. His office was right down the hall from the Admiral's office. He also had the benefit of having quarters right next to the officers' staterooms. Although his was called a "duty barracks" and was not in fact a stateroom, it was the same thing, minus the mahogany. Meaning he didn't have to sleep in steerage with the rest of the jarheads.
Ethan was also right down the hall from the Officers Club, for field grade and down. He had met an officer there who was "a cool guy" who regularly invited him to the Officers Club to play cards, smoke cigars and engage in conversation. This officer would be on duty for three days and off duty for three days, completely disappearing. It turned out that he was the officer in charge of the nuke weapons' holds.
One day, Ethan had to get some information from the officer about a TAD (Temporary Additional Duty) request that he'd put in for. Ethan was leaving the ship to go ashore and would not see him again, so he wanted to make sure to get his request right, because he knew that his friend really wanted to stay. While the officer was in the hold, he was not, under any circumstances, allowed to leave. Ethan couldn't reach him on the phone, so he went below.
"I'd been in most of the holds to talk to other Marines," he told me, "but I'd never been to the one where this officer worked. I went through several guarded vault-type doors and finally arrived at a duty station where, for the fifth or sixth time, I was required to show my Top Secret clearance credentials and enter the day's pass code onto a small computer console. When I was cleared, I stated my business and was given a radiation suit-bit of a space-suit lookin' thing."
He asked the Duty NCO (non-commissioned officer), "What the hell's this?" Ethan had been around nukes before, but was never required to wear a suit. The Duty NCO replied only that the officer "is in with the jackets."
"The what?"
"Need to know." This meant that his station orders forbade him to discuss any details of his post.
Ethan suited up and walked into a triple- door sally-port, where he progressed through each airlock via ten-inch-thick lead-lined doors. Past the last door, he stepped into a massive room/warehouse, about 60 feet wide by 100 feet in length, with a 20-foot ceiling-huge for battleship storage-room standards. From the floor to the ceiling, thousands upon thousands of what looked like missiles were stored. It was weird, because he'd never seen missiles stored in such a way where they were on top of one another.
The officer came around a row of missiles, and Ethan asked him the question he had for him about his TAD request, and then asked him, "What the hell kind of missiles are these?"
"Those aren't missiles; they're cobalt jackets."
"What are they for?"
"Well, this is 'need to know,' so keep your mouth shut, but they are designed to slide on over most of our conventional ordinance. They're made out of radioactive cobalt, and when the bomb they're wrapped around detonates, they contaminate everything in the blast zone and quite a bit beyond."
"So they turn regular ordinance into nukes?"
"No, not exactly. The cobalt doesn't detonate itself. It just scatters everywhere."
"Well, what? Does the radiation kill people?"
"Not immediately. Cobalt jackets will not likely ever be used. They're for a situation where the U.S. government is crumbling during a time of war, and foreign takeover is imminent. We won't capitulate. We basically have a scorched earth policy. If we are going to lose, we arm everything with cobalt-and I mean everything; we have jackets at nearly every missile magazine in the world, on land or at sea-and contaminate the world. If we can't have it, nobody can.
"Just another example," Ethan told me, "of what treacherous creatures our leadership is made of."
I emailed the above anecdote-with the subject line "Yikes!"-to no-nukes activist Harvey Wasserman, author of The Last Energy War and co-author of The Superpower of Peace. I asked him to comment in a couple of hundred words.
"'Yikes' is right," he responded. "This nightmare has now essentially come true with the use of depleted uranium on anti-tank and other shells in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. The military rationale is that the super-hard depleted uranium helps shells penetrate tanks and other hard structures. But the long-term effect is that the uranium vaporizes upon explosion and contaminates everything for hundreds of yards, if not miles.
"Thus there are now whole regions that are heavily radioactive. Reports are pouring in from all three countries about soaring cancer rates, infant death rates and more. The mysterious 'Gulf War Syndrome' may have been caused by radiation exposure suffered by U.S. troops. So, though 'off the books,' the last three major U.S. attacks have in fact been nuclear in nature." Volume 16, Issue 37
-------- europe
Romanian nuclear reactor to restart as drought effects recede
BUCHAREST (AFP)
Sep 16, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030916145318.6cr9r7yy.html
Heavy rains in Romania in recent days have made it possible to bring the nuclear power station at Cernavoda in the southeast of the country back into service, the economy ministry announced Tuesday.
The drought which has affected much of Europe this summer forced the authorities to close the station down at the end of August because the level of the Danube dropped to a point where the river water could no longer be used to cool the reactor.
"The waters of the Danube.. have reached the level required for the long term operation of the station," a statement from the ministry, responsible for industry and energy, said. The station will come back into service Wednesday.
The reactor, which provides 10 percent of the country's energy, was closed down on August 23 when the Danube's flow at the point where it enters Romania fell to less than 1,600 cubic metres a second.
On Tuesday the rate of flow had reached 1,930 cubic metres a second.
The temporary closure of the reactor, the only one in eastern Europe to use western technology, cost the operating company Nuclearelectrica 360,000 dollars (euros)a day.
The Cernavoda station is planned eventually to have five reactors but at present only one, with a capacity of 705 megawatts, is in service.
The drought in Romania was the worst for a century and led to a reduction of output from hydroelectric stations, forcing the govermment to rely more heavily on stations using coal and oil.
-------- iraq / inspections
Iraqis: Looted radioactive material poses no danger
9/16/2003
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-iraq-atomicmaterial_x.htm
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iraqi scientists Tuesday minimized the danger of terrorists using looted radioactive material from their country to build a dirty bomb, saying most of what was stolen was low in radiation and has been recovered.
One of the scientists also said it was unlikely that Saddam Hussein revived efforts to build nuclear weapons after his program was destroyed by U.N. teams after the 1991 Gulf War because his experts did not have the resources.
"There was no way to revive those attempts," said Abbas Balasem, now a senior official in the ministry of technology of the U.S.-led Iraqi administration. "There was nothing left."
Asked if Balasem had worked on Saddam's pre-1991 nuclear programs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said an initial check showed no record of him in that capacity.
Balasem's comment was in line with a report presented last week to the agency's board of governors by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. He said in the report that before withdrawing in March, U.N. inspectors found Iraq's nuclear program in disarray and unlikely to be able to support an active effort to build weapons.
The United States and Britain invaded Iraq after saying Saddam's regime was developing nuclear arms as well as chemical and biological weapons.
"No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq," the report said.
Because the IAEA teams had to pull out before they could complete the inspections, the agency cannot say conclusively that Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program.
But what the inspectors saw in the months before their withdrawal suggested the Iraqis were in no position to build a nuclear weapon, ElBaradei said.
B.A. Marouf, another Iraqi delegation official, said the U.S. and British teams now in Iraq searching for signs of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program "haven't found anything to date."
The Iraqi officials discounted concern that that radioactive materials looted in the wake of the spring invasion that toppled Saddam might be used by terrorists to build dirty bombs - conventional explosives that disperse radioactivity on detonating.
The IAEA sent a team to Iraq in June to secure the uranium at the Tuwaitha facility, 12 miles south of Baghdad, after reports of widespread looting. It subsequently reported that most missing material had been recovered and none of it could be used to make weapons.
Still, because U.S. authorities restricted inspections of Tuwaitha, the IAEA team was unable to determine whether hundreds of radioactive materials used in research and medicine across the country were secure.
--------
Hans Blix: Iraq Destroyed WMD 10 Years Ago
September 16, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-weapons-blix.html
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.
In an interview with Australian radio from Sweden, Blix said the search for evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons would probably only uncover documents at best.
``The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found,'' Blix said in the interview, which was broadcast on Wednesday.
``I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991,'' Blix said.
In 1991, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found what it called a secret nuclear weapons program in Iraq. It spent the next seven years dismantling Baghdad's nuclear capability, until its inspectors were thrown out of Iraq.
Before ordering the invasion that toppled President Saddam Hussein, President Bush referred to an imminent threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a prime justification for war.
``In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs...maybe they'll find some documents of interest,'' Blix said.
Blix spent three years searching for Iraqi chemical, biological and ballistic missiles as head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.
U.N. inspectors left Iraq in March this year as American and British forces prepared to invade. Calls for their reinstatement have been denied, with the U.S. occupation authorities preferring instead to set up their own body, the Iraq Survey Group.
After more than five months of searching, no weapons of mass destruction have been found by the Iraq Survey Group, which consists of about 1,500 experts.
U.S. officials said in July that the search had uncovered documents pointing to a program to develop such weapons.
But the U.S. media network ABC News reported on Monday that a draft report by the Iraq Survey Group provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded.
The U.S. government has consistently said the search for weapons of mass destruction will take time and that it is confident evidence will eventually be uncovered.
--------
Scientist Says Iraq Never Revived Nuke Program
September 16, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-iraq.html
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iraq never revived its secret nuclear weapons program after it was dismantled by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s, a senior Iraqi scientist at Iraq's new Ministry of Science and Technology said Tuesday.
Before launching the war to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the United States and Britain said Saddam was trying to develop an atomic bomb and other weapons of mass destruction -- a key justification for the U.S.-led invasion.
U.N. inspectors found no evidence of this during four months of inspections before the war. Since major military action ended in Iraq on May 1, U.S. and British military have still found no proof Saddam had nuclear, chemical or biological arms.
``I think even the inspectors when they went there, they knew...what the activity was there. And you know it (a nuclear weapons program) is very sophisticated,'' said Dr Abbas Balasem, director general of the HAZMAT (hazardous materials) section of the Ministry of Science and Technology.
``Biological weapons or chemical weapons -- you can do something in this area. But in the nuclear area, you need a reactor, for example. So it was difficult for Iraq to restart it again,'' Balasem told Reuters in an interview.
Before the war, Balasem worked for the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission. According to the Foundation of American Scientists' Web site, the commission ``had established a large, secure and highly successful procurement network in support of its uranium enrichment and planned weaponization efforts.''
Asked if he believed the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) assertion it had successfully dismantled Iraq's ambitious atomic weapons program in the seven years after detecting it in 1991, Balasem said: ``I think this is true.''
Balasem said Iraqi nuclear scientists now intended to use their knowledge and skill solely for peaceful purposes.
``The plan of the new ministry is to use all the activities for the peaceful use, and just to leave all of this previous program behind,'' he said, referring to Saddam's nuclear weapons program. ``They want to use all the facilities for rebuilding Iraq, for the reconstruction...''
NUCLEAR LOOTING
Balasem also dismissed fears that highly radioactive sources had been looted from Iraq's nuclear facilities during the war.
In April, radioactive materials were stolen from nuclear sites, including the country's biggest facility -- the Tuwaitha nuclear research complex outside Baghdad -- raising fears that the looted materials could pose health and security risks.
The IAEA was afraid that highly radioactive nuclear sources were among the missing materials and that they could be used in a dirty bomb -- a conventional bomb laced with radioactive material.
But Balasem said it was impossible for these to be stolen.
``These can't be looted,'' he said. ``They are shielded with a very secure shield. They are very heavy. Theywere not organized criminals... They were simple people looking for computers or anything they could get.''
``The sophisticated materials are secure and closed,'' he said, adding that the looters did not get into the area where dangerous materials were stored.
-------- korea
Japan to impose sanctions on N Korea if nuke test conducted
Tuesday September 16, 2003
News International, Pakistan
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2003-daily/16-09-2003/world/w6.htm
TOKYO: Japan plans to impose sanctions against North Korea if the Stalinist state conducts a nuclear test, a report said on Monday.
The planned sanctions include restricting exchanges of people between the two countries and denying permission for North Korean crews to dock at Japanese ports, the top-selling Yomiuri Shimbun paper said, citing government sources.
Facing up to North Korea's nuclear threat, Japan has decided to produce the list of sanctions as a means of urging Pyongyang to show self-restraint on this issue, the Yomiuri quoted a source as saying.
The measures include a total ban on remittances to North Korea through Japanese financial institutions and plans to urge the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution denouncing the Stalinist regime and implementing economic sanctions, the daily said.
Japan and North Korea have no diplomatic ties. Talks aimed at normalising bilateral relations have been suspended since October 2002. If Pyongyang conducts a nuclear test, Tokyo will not resume normalization talks, the Yomiuri said.
On the other hand, North Korea said the United States and Japan had put pressure on UN aid agencies to stop or delay food shipments to the impoverished communist state.
Fewer than 20 aid agencies, non-governmental groups and those of the United Nations, operate in North Korea, where the economy is all but dead and many rely on handouts.
The official KCNA news agency quoted a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman as referring to the recent unprecedented situation in which the approval of regular assistance projects for the DPRK are being delayed or shelved by some UN organisations due to the obstructive moves of unsavoury forces.
"This is attributable to the political attempt of the US, Japan and some other countries to use the UN organisations' assistance to the DPRK as a leverage," it said, referring to an international standoff with Pyongyang over its nuclear ambitions.
In the mean time, China denied reports it has deployed up to 150,000 troops on its border with North Korea to deter Pyongyang's nuclear build-up, but admitted the military was now defending the area rather than the police.
"We have not got any news about troop build-ups on the Sino-DPRK (North Korea) border," said a defence ministry official surnamed Song, who said he had checked the situation.
The foreign ministry also said there was nothing untoward going on in Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, bordering North Korea.
"We haven't heard anything about China stationing 150,000 troops on the Sino-DPRK border," the ministry said in a statement.
Hong Kong's Sunday Morning Post, citing an unidentified security source in China, said five divisions of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops had been deployed in Yanbian since last month to deter a nuclear build-up in North Korea.
While denying the report, China's foreign ministry revealed that since September North Korean and Myanmar border security has been the responsibility of a garrison of the PLA rather than the People's Armed Police.
Also yesterday, Australia dismissed angry protests from North Korea that multinational naval exercises off the east Australian coast at the weekend were a military provocation that could spark war.
"It definitely won't lead to war," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said about North Korea's condemnation of the US-led military exercises that simulated the seizure of a vessel carrying banned weaponry.
"I don't think it's anything we particularly need to respond to, I don't think we for a minute should get alarmed about their rhetoric," Downer said on national radio.
Meanwhile, Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai pledged support for South Korea's efforts to peacefully resolve the standoff over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, officials said. Khai and his South Korean counterpart Goh Kun also agreed to encourage economic cooperation between the two countries, which normalised relations in 1992, Goh's office said.
----
U.S. Upgrades Anti - Missile System in South Korea
September 16, 2003
REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-korea-usa-patriot.html
SEOUL (Reuters) - The United States, at loggerheads with North Korea over its nuclear weapons aims, has deployed an anti-missile system in the South that can hit ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft, the U.S. army said on Tuesday.
It said the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system was part of an $11 billion plan to enhance U.S. defenses in South Korea, where 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed to help deter any North Korean attack.
``The upgraded Patriot system will bring enhanced defensive capabilities to the peninsula as well as contribute to the overall deterrence U.S. forces bring to the alliance (with South Korea),'' the 8th U.S. Army said in a statement.
``Part of the upgrade and new enhanced capabilities include the hit-to-kill technology to destroy incoming ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft,'' it said.
An army public affairs official said the system had been deployed in July but had not been publicized until now because troops were being trained to operate the mobile air defense system. They are now trained.
The PAC-3 fits 16 missiles into a launcher, compared with four on earlier versions. Each missile destroys its target through force of impact but also includes a conventional warhead that blasts fragments to destroy aircraft and cruise missiles.
The United States and four other regional powers -- China, Japan, Russia and South Korea -- are seeking in six-way talks to persuade North Korea to ditch its nuclear weapons program.
Washington is also concerned about the North's ballistic missile program. North Korea already has missiles that can reach Japan and beyond and defense experts say it is developing at least one new type that could reach the United States.
North Korea is certain to take a dim view of the deployment.
``They have conducted ceaseless large-scale military exercises in the sky, land and sea of South Korea and massively introduced sophisticated lethal weapons there this year,'' the communist party newspaper Rodong Sinmun said on Tuesday, according to the North's state-run KCNA news agency.
``This clearly proves that the U.S. imperialists are the chief criminals wrecking the peace and security on the Korean peninsula,'' the newspaper said. It did not refer specifically to the Patriot system.
----
Choe Talks Hawks' Language
by Heo Yong-bum (heo@chosun.com),
CHOSUN
September 16, 2003
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200309/200309160007.html
WASHINGTON - The United States had evidence by the summer of 2002 that North Korea had been enriching uranium to develop nuclear weapons, John Bolton, U.S under secretary of state for arms control and international security told Choe Byung-yul, chief of Korea's main opposition Grand National Party. The two met for talks here Monday (local time).
The North may have been producing uranium in 1998 or even earlier than that, experts say. But the United States is confident that Pyongyang has breached the 1994 Geneva Agreement to produce enriched uranium, Bolton said, adding that the United States is more concerned about the North's production of enriched uranium than the plutonium reprocessed at the Yongbyon facility. Bolton is considered one of the hawks in Bush administration toward North Korea.
Bolton said, in response to Choe's question about North Korea's nuclear weapons possession, that given the amount of plutonium reprocessed, the North probably has one or two nuclear weapons. Washington has assumed that North Korea is capable of developing 6-10 more nuclear weapons, based on Pyongyang's insistence that it has completed the reprocessing at Yongbyon. But the United States has taken a cautious attitude, waiting for more reliable evidence, mindful that the North could be bluffing.
At a luncheon prepared by the think tank the Heritage Foundation, Choe strongly criticized the Sunshine Policy, the appeasement attitude toward North Korea of former President Kim Dae-jung, saying that it encouraged the North to develop nuclear weapons and increase its military budget, rather than inducing any reforms or open-door policies.
Inter-Korean cooperation projects - in particular, the Mount Kumgang touring business - should be reconsidered and postponed until the North dismantles its nuclear arms program, Choe added.
-------- terrorism
Radiation Chicken Little
By Theodore Rockwell
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15666-2003Sep15?language=printer
I was recently invited to observe and offer advice during a revealing drill, spearheaded by the National Academy of Engineering, that tested how well information might be communicated to the public if a "dirty bomb" exploded in Washington. As I watched the interaction of real-life government officials and media decision-makers, I was struck by a glaring discrepancy: The rules for radiological emergencies are wholly inappropriate for such an event. They can change a relatively harmless incident into a life-threatening emergency. These rules apply not only to dirty bombs but also to any casualties involving nuclear power plants or their fuel.
A few minutes into the simulated exercise, a leader of the drill pleaded for some action, warning that radiation was killing people and hospitals were being overwhelmed. This bothered me, because it is well documented by all our official agencies that the radioactivity in dirty bombs is unlikely to seriously hurt anyone. People not injured by the conventional explosion itself could walk away and be out of danger. If concerned about possible contamination, they could remove their clothes and take a shower.
I made this point publicly to the participants, but they said they're getting a different story from the regulators and their scientists. The rules require a hypothetical, squeaky-clean condition, scrubbing the ground and sidewalks down to far less than the natural radiation background of God's good green Earth -- less radiation than millions of people get each year from routine medical procedures. That's the kind of thinking behind statements that the city would have to be evacuated for years after such an attack and that cleanup would cost billions. But these requirements are inappropriate. We don't treat other spills and leaks so fearfully.
If your aim were to remove a public health hazard, you would flush any residual radioactivity down the drain with hoses and be done with it. Would that contaminate the Chesapeake Bay? Not in any practical sense. It would add insignificantly to the bay's overall natural radioactivity. Expensive instrumentation might detect it for a while, but it would not create a public health hazard.
Several participants objected that experts might agree on that, but that the public would panic nonetheless, and that's what we should plan for. At this point, an expert on human behavior got up and said flatly that if you tell people there is no danger, and they have no reason to disbelieve you, they will remain calm. (They did so during the recent blackout.) But if you keep telling them you expect them to panic, they will oblige you. And that's what we're doing.
When I raised this issue with a Nuclear Regulatory Commission official years ago, he replied in horror that if he bought my reasoning, he'd have to ask what he was there for. He should, and so should the contractors and scientists devoting their careers to detailing thousands of unrealistic "what-if" scenarios. When pressed, they justify their actions by saying, "We're just trying to ensure safety." But pushed to such extremes, we're not safer; we're just wrong. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman, Nils Diaz, has asked that more realistic premises be used to evaluate safety -- not looser, not lower, just more realistic. That's a good start. Real safety is based on realistic premises.
On that basis, we should ask why our emergency planning calls for evacuating millions of people around nuclear power plants. Certainly such a mass evacuation would be a mess. (If you really thought the air was full of fission products, would you want to order people to go mill around in it?) The question is, could any realistic damage to the plant warrant such evacuation? The answer, as described in the Sept. 20, 2002, issue of Science, is that one can do nothing to an American-type nuclear power plant or its fuel that would create a serious public health hazard. You might produce a meltdown, as occurred at Three Mile Island, but that event caused no human or environmental injury. Even if the containment structure were also compromised, physical tests and analyses of spent fuel show there would be little dispersion, so there would be few if any radiation injuries. By assuming otherwise, we create unwarranted terror, and the terrorists win.
The writer has many years' experience in nuclear engineering. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a founding officer of the engineering firm MPR Associates.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
'Anti-Terror Nukes'
09/16/2003
The Nation,
by Matt Bivens
http://www.thenation.com/outrage/index.mhtml?pid=954
Here's South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham explaining why he and his tax-and-spend Republican colleagues today insisted on spending your money to develop dainty "mini-nukes", muscular "bunker buster" nukes and an advanced capability to leap back into nuclear testing:
"The idea of being able to use a redesigned nuclear weapon to keep a terrorist from hitting us with a nuclear weapon is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism."
What? What the hell is he talking about?
We need "redesigned" nuclear weapons that can "keep a terrorist from hitting us with a nuclear weapon." And if you don't understand that shut up anyway and get a grip with this because it's "part of the war on terrorism!" Don't you get it, man? We need nuclear weapons to find Osama bin Laden! He won't hold still!
Or perhaps the South Carolina senator and his colleagues hazily envisage us using friendly nuclear weapons to shoot down hostile ones? This was something House Republicans formally declared it would be "prudent" to study: Shooting down incoming nukes with our own nukes. (Prudent!) That idea fell by the wayside when leading military minds suggested there could be, ahem, drawbacks to blowing up nuclear weapons over our cities.
You know, like cancer: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attributes 33,000 American cancers just to nuclear testing fallout. Another great reason, by the way, not to rush back into nuclear testing.
----
Bush Would Use Mini-nukes, Prof Warns
by Dave Zweifel
09/16/03
(Madison Capital Times - Wisconsin)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4730.htm
Is George Bush the most dangerous president in U.S. history? If you ask Professor John Swomley, he is.
Swomley, who teaches Christian ethics at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, has authored an indictment of the Bush administration's foreign policy that includes actual plans to use nuclear bombs as pre-emptive weapons.
It is essential, he says in a magazine article, for Americans to understand that the administration has directed the military to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries - China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Iraq.
Presumably, had Iraq had those so-called weapons of mass destruction and had used them when we invaded the country this spring, we were prepared to drop a weapon of mass destruction of our own.
And Swomley warns that we shouldn't buy the argument that these nukes are small and won't be all that horrific.
"Nuclear weapons, even if they are smaller than those of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, will not only kill on impact, but raise immense radioactive dust, with the terrible results of slow, agonizing death from radiation," he writes.
"Some people make the assumption that using smaller nuclear weapons will allow accurate precision bombing, such as was claimed for the bombing of Iraq," he adds. "What was not reported by officials is that although the Iraq 'smart' bombs rarely missed a target by more than 13 feet, when a bomb blew up it sent high-speed shrapnel flying as far as a mile, causing many civilian casualties. The additional power of a nuclear bomb, together with its dispersal of radioactivity , is sure to produce infinitely more harm."
Nevertheless, the U.S. Senate has already approved Bush's request to lift a 10-year ban on research, development and production of nuclear weapons of less than 5 kilotons.
Swomley quotes defense budget analyst Bill Donahue, who says that the United States is spending roughly $5.8 billion on nuclear weapons this year and that the Los Alamos National Laboratories have been told to begin developing "earth penetrator" mini-nukes even before seeking permission from Congress.
The professor insists that Bush is hell-bent on building an American empire as envisioned by the likes of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield, his underlings Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, Vice President Dick Cheney and State Department hawks Richard Armitage and John Bolton. The philosophy is pre-emptive war, unilateral action and world domination.
"The problem we face today is one that Al Gore described as a new doctrine that destroys the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, in favor of the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States," Swomley insists.
Dave Zweifel is editor of The Capital Times.
----
Senate Democrats Fail to Block Nuke Funds
KEN GUGGENHEIM
Associated Press
Tue, Sep. 16, 2003
http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/6786625.htm
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats failed to block funding for nuclear weapons research Tuesday that they said could trigger a new arms race and increase the likelihood of cataclysmic war.
Republicans said the money was needed to examine how the nuclear arsenal could be adapted to protect Americans from threats in the post-Cold War era, such as terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. They stressed the money would be used only for research and not to build new bombs.
"The idea of being able to use a redesigned nuclear weapon to keep a terrorist from hitting us with a nuclear weapon is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
The funding was part of a $27.3 billion spending bill for the Energy Department. An amendment by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., to cut the $68.6 million for the weapons research was defeated 53-41 in a mostly party-line vote.
The vote puts the Senate at odds with the House, which cut most of the money for the nuclear weapons programs in its version of the energy bill. The two versions will have to be reconciled by House-Senate negotiators.
Tuesday's vote was the second defeat in four months for Senate Democrats on nuclear weapons. In May, the Senate voted to lift a 10-year-old ban on the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. It also defeated a Democratic attempt to block continued research on the bunker-busting Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
The energy bill would provide $15 million for the penetrator research and $6 million to begin research on low-yield nuclear weapons. The so-called "mininukes" would have an explosive effect smaller than five kilotons, about a third the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Advocates of the low-yield weapons say they could limit the number of civilian deaths if nuclear weapons were used. Opponents say they would blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons and increase the likelihood that nuclear weapons might be used.
Democrats said the research would undermine U.S. efforts to stop the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons.
"Does anyone believe that if the United States goes down this path that other nations will not follow?" Feinstein said at a news conference.
After Feinstein and Kennedy's measure was defeated, the Senate approved by voice vote an amendment by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., that specifically restricts the funding to research, preventing it from being used for weapons development.
Feinstein and Kennedy's amendment would have also blocked $22.8 million for environmental studies for a manufacturing plant to make plutonium triggers for the existing nuclear arsenal and $24.8 million to reduce the time necessary to resume underground nuclear bomb testing to 18 months from the current 36 months.
The House bill includes $10.8 million for the plant, $5 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and eliminates money intended for the low-yield research and for speeding up bomb-testing preparations.
----
Senate Won't Block Bush Nuclear Weapons Plans
September 16, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-arms-nuclear-usa.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Tuesday rejected an effort to block President Bush's plans to study new types of small nuclear weapons, which critics say may spur a new arms race and heighten the risk of nuclear war.
The Senate voted 53-41 against including the ban in a $27 billion measure funding energy and water programs next year, including the U.S. nuclear stockpile. It later voted 92-0 to pass the annual spending bill.
A similar effort also failed in May, when the Senate voted to lift a decade-old prohibition on the study and development of so-called mini nukes -- although it did require Bush to get congressional approval before building any.
The administration has said it is only interested in researching smaller nuclear weapons, not in deploying them. But some Democrats say opening the door to such weapons will spur other countries to start developing them.
``How can we demand that North Korea and Iran abandon their nuclear weapons programs while we develop a new generation of those weapons ourselves?'' said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of the sponsors of the effort.
The amendment would have cut from the spending bill $6 million Bush has sought for research into nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 5 kilotons -- a little under half the size of the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima.
Critics argue such small weapons are dangerous because policy-makers may see them as a usable adjunct to conventional weapons, heightening the risk of nuclear escalation.
The amendment would also have cut an additional $15 million that the Pentagon wants to develop an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead for use against deeply buried bunkers. Opponents say such a bomb could not burrow deep enough to avoid throwing huge quantities of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere.
Although the Senate has now twice backed Bush's plans, the Republican-led House of Representatives has taken a different tack. It cut all but $5 million of the funding for low-yield nuclear weapons from its version of the spending bill.
A final version of the legislation will now have to be hammered out by House and Senate negotiators.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- california
Uranium Welcome, Environmentalists Not, in Eunice
The Associated Press,
September 16, 2003
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/apeunic09-16-03.htm
EUNICE - In the little village of Eunice, uranium is welcome, but environmentalists are being told they're not.
Some townspeople say they don't want environmentalists and other protesters trying to speak for them at town meetings scheduled Wednesday and Thursday by Louisiana Energy Services, which has proposed to build a uranium enrichment plant here.
The so-called National Enrichment Facility, if approved, would be the size of a Super Wal-Mart and would turn uranium ore into reactor-grade uranium fuel - enriched 5 percent.
Townspeople in convenience stores, the local diner and at the golf course said they've grown up with environmental dangers far riskier than what Louisiana Energy Services says it's offering. They say they understand the risks.
"We've got enough oil and gas to blow up Lea (County)," said Scott Bateman, co-owner of Eunice Pump & Supply.
"Why would we be worried if we've got WIPP in our back yard?" his brother and business partner Mark Bateman said of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a nuclear-waste repository less than 30 minutes away.
Oil workers in Eunice carry hydrogen sulfide monitors in the oil fields. Hydrogen sulfide can kill a person in minutes and is also explosive.
"I wish people would educate themselves before they protest something like this," said Lea County Commissioner Darrold Stephenson.
Don Hancock of the Southwest Research & Information Center in Albuquerque said people in Eunice shouldn't be so quick to judge those who question the plan.
"We think, clearly, this is a bad idea," Hancock said.
He said the consortium is "trying to go someplace where the negative aspects will not have as much concern, or there are fewer people to react to it."
Louisiana Energy Services promises the plant won't contaminate the area.
But Hancock said it's "a water-using, water-polluting, air-polluting facility that'll essentially be used forever."
The consortium's two previous attempts to build a similar facility in Louisiana and Tennessee were halted after protesters got involved, detractors have said.
Sites like this are only allowed to expose people to 50 millirem per year of radiation, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Normal background radiation - that is, radiation people are exposed to in an everyday environment - is 300 millirem per year.
"This facility doesn't produce much effluent. We have ventilation, but the areas with uranium have a special ventilation system with HEPA and activated charcoal traps," said Rod Krich, LES vice president of nuclear engineering.
At similar plants in Europe, Krich said the company has seen about 10 grams of uranium escape annually at full capacity.
"Ten grams. That's a pretty small dose," said Tim Johnson, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission project manager for the site. "In fact, natural levels of uranium in surface and groundwater vary but are at those levels."
"I think when people get enlightened they'll not be scared of it," said Eunice City Councilor Jo Ann Davis.
In case of an accident, Krich said, all the uranium in the plant is sucked into a trap, and can be disposed of.
As for water contamination, the site is on a 600-foot-thick bed of practically impermeable red clay.
"Yeah, it'll use a hell of a lot of water. But if we don't use it, Texas will get it," said David Raines, local plant manager for Wallach Concrete Inc.
About 92 percent of the water will be used for cooling the building, Krich said. The rest will be for cleaning the plant and sanitary use.
Water exposed to radiation can be cleaned at the site with an evaporator, Krich said.
The depleted uranium byproduct will be held in cylinders at the plant until a "deconversion" site is built.
And Eunice clearly hopes more than uranium will be enriched.
The Enrichment Facility would bring new jobs and families that could start the town of 2,700 on a path toward economic recovery.
"As far as the Eunice Chamber of Commerce is concerned, it'd be good if (the plant) came next week," said Don Reese, the chamber's executive director.
-------- idaho
INEEL contractor names new manager
Pocatello Idaho State Journal,
September 16, 2003
http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2003/09/15/news/briefs/briefs03.txt
IDAHO FALLS - Alan Dobson has been appointed general manager of BNFL's Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment project at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, according to a press release from BNFL.
He has been acting general manager since February. Before relocating to Idaho he was general manager of BNFL's Richland, Wash., office. He brings more than 30 years of experience in the nuclear industry to his position. He has been a member of BNFL's senior management group since 1987. He has a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering, was faculty of engineering at the University of Exeter and has a business management diploma from the Vache (British Coal Staff College).
BNFL Inc., is under contract to the United States Department of Energy to retrieve and prepare 65,000 cubic meters of plutonium-contaminated waste currently stored in Idaho.
-------- new york
Report raises radiation concerns
By: James V. Franco,
09/16/2003
Troy (NY) Record
http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10170156&BRD=1170&PAG=461&dept_id=7021&rfi=6
Three local facilities were used to help make the first atomic bomb and, according to a published report, workers may have been exposed to radiation without knowing it long after work on the project stopped.
According to USA Today, the National Lead Industries site in Colonie, the Al- legheny Ludlum Steel Plant in Watervliet and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute were three of some 250 private entities given classified contracts by the federal government to make atomic weapons in the 1940s and '50s.
The newspaper said a "new, yet-to-be-released federal study finds about 100 sites where there was a 'high potential' that leftover radiation was significant enough to raise workers' risks of cancer and other ills. It also finds a 'high potential' that at least 50 other sites were polluted by beryllium, which causes lung disease."
One of the sites, National Lead, is currently being investigated by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
"After evaluating the environmental data, ATSDR concluded that past depleted uranium emissions from the plant were a public health hazard and may possibly have increased the risk of kidney disease and lung cancer, particularly for smokers who had lived near the plant. The extent to which risk was increased, however, is unknown," said the ATSDR public health consultation. "ATSDR also found that there was no public health hazard from volatile organic compounds in indoor air, and that contact with the depleted uranium-contaminated soil or lead-contaminated soil would not cause people to become sick."
The consultation can be reviewed at the Colonie Town Library on Shaker Road through Oct. 3. The ATSDR is accepting public comments through Oct. 3 as well.
Assemblyman Bob Prentiss, R-Colonie, said he has a list of more than 50 residents living near the 1130 Central Ave. site claiming one or more members of their families have any number of ailments, including cancer, lung disease, arthritis and kidney disease.
National Lead made shell casings and airplane parts using depleted uranium at the 11-acre site from 1937 to 1984, when the Federal Environmental Protection Agency purchased it for $10. Since 1997, the Army Corps of Engineers, under direction from the Department of Energy, has been cleaning up the lead-tainted and radioactive soil. Remediation is expected to finish up by the end of next year.
The DOE Office of Environmental Management did a study of the lands around the National Lead site and found that 56 pieces of property were contaminated with radiation spewed into the air via smokestacks.
Prentiss said his constituents are contemplating a class action lawsuit, which he supports, but it will be difficult to determine who to sue. Congress authorized the payment of up to $150,000 to workers who became sick from actually working with radioactive substances. But lawmakers did not authorize any payment to people who became ill from the lingering effects of radiation or from radioactive pollution.
In 2001, National Lead was listed as one of the sites listed on the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000, making workers there eligible for the payoff. But the law does not cover residents who may suffer from radiological spillover, so Prentiss wants to go after the company.
"For decades this billion-dollar corporate polluter has been allowed to despoil our environment, even endanger our own health," he said. "So, shouldn't it be held liable? Shouldn't it be made to pay?"
The other two local sites, Allegheny-Ludlum and RPI, are also on the federal list. At the now-closed Allegheny-Ludlum plant in Watervliet, workers performed limited extrusion and rolling of uranium metal rods from 1950-52. Surveys have shown there is little potential for environmental contamination.
It is unclear what type of work was done at RPI.
"We have undertaken an internal review and we are also awaiting release of the federal report," said RPI spokeswoman Theresa Bourgeois.
--------
Indian Point Security Test Is Called Too Easy
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/nyregion/16NUKE.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A mock attack to test security at the Indian Point nuclear plant this summer used too few attackers and assumed they would not have access to some commercially available weapons, according to a nonprofit group here that has reported extensively on reactor security.
The group, the Project on Government Oversight, also complained in a letter to the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that three drills were held at Indian Point, in Westchester County, but all were during the day, which was described as an unlikely time for terrorists to attack.
In two of the drills, the letter said, "the mock terrorists crossed open fields in broad daylight in order to reach the protected area, making it that much easier for them to be observed by the security officers." And the drill was announced in advance, the letter complained.
But commission officials said that they could not respond in detail to many of the points in the letter without compromising security.
Roy P. Zimmerman, the director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's office of nuclear security and incident response, said the agency would not talk about "anything that would give a sense of what the security guards at the plant need to protect against."
The commission said that Indian Point had passed the test, which began at the end of July and ran for several days.
A member of the commission, Edward McGaffigan Jr., said that one purpose of the drill was to test Indian Point, but that another was to see if the drills themselves could be improved. The commission would consider nighttime drills, he said, but safety was the first priority. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, he said, "doesn't like us having a bunch of people with broken ankles." And the mock adversaries did not want to surprise unsuspecting guards, who were armed with rifles, he said.
Mr. McGaffigan praised the operators of Indian Point for volunteering for the drill, and said the defenders had performed well in the tests. "Indian Point is our star; it did famously," he said.
Early this year, the commission ordered the resumption of the drills, known as force-on-force tests, which had been suspended after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and rewrote a document that defines a design basis threat. It lists the number of potential attackers, their skills and the equipment that nuclear plants must defend against.
But the letter from the Project on Government Oversight, which was prepared in part by Peter Stockton, a senior investigator with the group and a former security adviser to the federal energy secretary, complained that the new design basis threat involved a small number of attackers, "barely above the much-ridiculed earlier N.R.C. design basis threat of three attackers." He said that when the Army plans for attacks against a target it is defending, it assumes there will be 12 attackers; the Navy assumes there will be 14.
In addition, according to the letter, the drills did not take account of adversaries carrying easily available weapons like .50-caliber sniper rifles with armor-piercing incendiary rounds, or rocket-propelled grenades, which are illegal in the United States but widely available outside the country. Commission officials said they could not confirm or deny what was in the design basis threat.
Mr. McGaffigan said that there were limits to the armaments that private security forces should be allowed to have. "You can have diving commercial airliners in the design basis threat, but you can't give surface-to-air missiles to the guards," he said. The purpose of the defenses, commission officials stressed, was to hold off the attackers until the state police and other authorities arrived.
The letter from the watchdog group took issue with a letter sent by the commission in August to Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and others that said that Indian Point had a strong defensive capability. In a telephone interview today, Mr. Schumer said that he was disappointed in the test.
"Any test that doesn't rely on the elements of surprise is completely suspect, and I wish they'd do another one," he said. Referring to the Project on Government Oversight's letter, he said, "I agree with the thrust of the letter."
"They should check the worst-case scenario, not the best-case scenario," he said.
-------- us politics
Nuclear fight in Senate heats up
Sens. Feinstein, Kennedy object to Bush plan to spend billions
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER,
Tri-Valley Herald,
September 16 2003
http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~1635492,00.html
Senate Democrats assailed the Bush administration's plans for new nuclear weapons on Monday, casting as a "moral decision" the spending of more than $4 billion for new and modified H-bombs, a plutonium weapons factory and shorter delays in explosive nuclear testing.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein and allies moved to trim a multipronged nuclear plan that, she said, will spark an arms race and make the United States less safe from nuclear terrorists and rogue nations.
"This is the wrong message. It takes us in the wrong direction, and in my opinion it puts Americans in more danger in the future," said Feinstein, D-Calif.
Recalling the Hiroshima-Nagasaki nuclear bombings and the massive arms buildup of the Cold War, she said, staring out at the Senate chamber, "If we let this happen again, I think there's a moral degradation that's spread over this whole body."
Republicans defended the president's plan for a $4 billion plant capable of producing 900 A-bomb cores a year and faster resumption of nuclear testing as insurance against the failure of today's U.S. nuclear arsenal.
At the same time, said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., weapons designers at Lawrence Livermore, Sandia and Los Alamos labs would have the freedom in a range of studies to think up new and modified bombs.
He urged senators to reject efforts by Feinstein and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to eliminate funding for the Modern Pit Facility, nuclear test readiness and new weapons designs. Those funding plans go to a Senate floor vote today.
"It does not commit us to build any new weapons, and there is no money in this bill to build new weapons," said Domenici.
America's weapons scientists "should be able to think and design and posture but not build a single new weapon."
Top nuclear officials in the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld say it is likely that at least one weapon will be built if scientists deem it feasible.
Weaponeers at Livermore and Los Alamos are in a $45 million competition to stiffen and ruggedize their leading H-bombs -- Livermore's 1.3 megaton B83 or Los Alamos' B61, with yields variable to more than 300 kilotons -- to survive a punishing plunge through dozens of feet of concrete or granite.
Sandia lab scientists in New Mexico and California are designing a special, ultra-hardened nose-cone, case and non-nuclear parts for the bomb.
The Bush administration says only such a high-yield penetrator will succeed in destroying the toughest targets on Earth, namely bunkers for enemy commanders tunneled deeply into mountains.
If history is any indication, Feinstein said, the study will point to a new bomb that states and their lawmakers will compete to build.
"And then it all happens under the shelf and the economics of it are such that it sort of continues by itself. And I think that's why we ended up with 40,000 bombs," she said.
At the same time, the Defense and Energy departments are seeking repeal of a ban on designing and prototyping low-yield nuclear weapons. So far, the only stated purpose for these new "mini-" and "micro-" nukes is to attack underground or surface storage bunkers and incinerate the chemical or biological weapons inside.
Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said the U.S. arsenal is full of gargantuan "megaton" nuclear weap-ons that no president would ever use. In fact, more than a third of fielded U.S. nuclear weapons have explosive yields adjustable to 5 kilotons or less, down to a fraction of a kiloton.
But, Kyl said, "It's not a credible deterrent. So in a world where you have terrorist groups and terrorist organizations, the question is what sort of deterrent you should have."
He suggests the answer is weapons that are smaller, more precise and won't kill as many people.
Stanford physicist Sidney Drell, a top adviser to the government and the University of California on nuclear weapons, said even a single kiloton weapon will dig a crater larger than a football field or about the size of ground zero at the World Trade Center and cast a million cubic feet of radioactive soil into the air -- all without guaranteeing the incineration of chemical or biological agents.
"I know of no one who would say they know how to use a nuclear weapon to destroy all of the biological agent," Drell said in a teleconference Monday sponsored by the Arms Control Association.
Such a weapon may have to be tested, breaking a moratorium that has kept other nations from catching up with the United States, Drell said.
The testing moratorium and the consensus against nonproliferation of nuclear arms could be broken if the United States begins pursuing a new slate of low-yield nuclear weapons that are seen as more usable on the battlefield, he said.
"It's a moment to keep or to lose," Drell said. "And if we lose it, think of all the countries that will have nuclear weapons and much more conflict on their borders."
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman-
@angnewspapers.com .
----
Albright Reveals Fresh N.Korea Details in New Book
Tue September 16, 2003
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
(Reuters)
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3454453
WASHINGTON - Unable to go to Pyongyang in his final days as president because of preoccupation with the Middle East, Bill Clinton invited North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to Washington in hopes of closing a missile deal, but was turned down, his former secretary of state says.
In her new autobiography, Madeleine Albright reveals that Clinton later regretted investing his last days in office pursuing an elusive Israel-Palestinian accord rather than a possible agreement with the isolated communist regime.
In the book, "Madam Secretary," and during an interview with Reuters, Albright made clear she believes President Bush has squandered a diplomatic opportunity handed to him by his predecessor to resolve the crisis with the North.
"While I make no apologies for Kim Jong-il, who is a horrible dictator and has starved his people, I don't blame him for being a bit confused" about U.S. policy, the first woman to be U.S. secretary of state told Reuters.
"He's not the best signal reader and we're sending mixed messages" on the U.S. willingness to negotiate, she said.
Her successor, Colin Powell, led Albright to believe the new administration "would pick up roughly where we left off."
But instead, it undertook a yearlong policy review, then uncovered information about a covert North Korean program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
This fueled new tensions that led to Pyongyang ousting U.N. inspectors, withdrawing from a key nuclear arms treaty and threatening to begin reprocessing more nuclear fuel.
OPPORTUNITY LOST?
"I do think if the Bush administration had picked up the hand of cards on the table that we had left them, we might be in better shape now," Albright said.
She expressed hope six-party talks that began in Beijing last month would be successful but said direct U.S.-North Korea talks, which Bush has rejected, ultimately would be needed.
In a 1994 accord negotiated by former President Clinton's team, North Korea froze its plutonium-fueled nuclear weapons program in return for two light-water nuclear power reactors and oil supplies.
At the end of Clinton's term, the administration was negotiating a second deal, one to halt the North's production, testing, deployment and export of missiles.
Albright paid an unprecedented visit to Pyongyang in October 2000 to advance missile discussions and Kim invited Clinton to come to the North Korean capital to close the deal.
Clinton was "more than willing to make the trip" to Pyongyang and even asked Bush, who was declared the winner of the 2000 election, if he objected.
Bush said it was Clinton's decision, but Clinton was torn between going or staying home to focus on an Israel-Palestinian peace accord, which seemed promising but eventually failed, Albright wrote.
In a final effort to do both, Clinton invited Kim to Washington. But Kim's invite to Clinton was already public and given the lateness of the U.S. invitation and the importance of "face" in Asian diplomacy, the North declined, Albright wrote.
One day before leaving office, Clinton and Albright spoke by telephone. "Fuming about all the time we had invested in (Palestinian leader Yasser) Arafat, he said he wished he had taken the chance of going to North Korea instead of staying in Washington to make a final push on the Middle East," Albright recalled.
AIMING FOR HONESTY
The 512-page book is filled with funny and poignant personal details as well as policy prescriptions, revealing more about Albright's hopes and insecurities than secretaries of state usually do.
"I decided there is no value in writing about a book about my life without being honest," she said.
It was most difficult to write about her divorce from newspaper heir Joseph Albright -- she was devastated but has "moved on and had a pretty good life" -- and about learning in 1997 that her family, who fled the Nazis, then the Soviets in Czechoslovakia for the United States, was Jewish, not Roman Catholic, and her grandparents perished in the Holocaust.
Albright was "furious" when people criticized her parents, now dead, for not telling their children about their heritage.
But she concluded: "My guess is that they (parents) associated our heritage with suffering and wanted to protect us."
Her book recalls tough struggles with Clinton's male-dominated foreign policy team.
But she told Reuters she felt Clinton was very supportive of her, and having seen the toll Bush administration infighting has taken on Powell, she is less inclined to think her battles resulted from being a woman.
----
U.S. to finance Korea nuke deal
September 16, 2003
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/worldscene.htm
President Bush yesterday indicated that he would spend $3.72 million to finance an international consortium charged with implementing a now-defunct 1994 antinuclear deal with North Korea.
Mr. Bush said in a memorandum to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that the money, earmarked in 2003 spending bills, was vital to U.S. national security interests.
But the cash will cover "administrative expenses only" of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), which represents the United States, European Union, South Korea and Japan.
The administration has requested no money for KEDO in its 2004 fiscal year budget.
----
The hawks fall out
By Jim Lobe,
September 16, 2003
Asia Times (Inter Press Service)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI16Ak03.html
WASHINGTON - Faced with the rising costs and complications of occupying Iraq, the hardline coalition around US President George W Bush that led the drive to war with Iraq appears to be suffering serious internal strains.
On the one hand, neo-conservatives, who were the most optimistic about postwar Iraq before the US-led invasion, are insisting that Washington cannot afford either to pull out or to surrender the slightest control over the occupation to the United Nations or anyone else.
To a rising chorus of calls by Democrats for Washington to invite the world body to take over at least political control of the transition to Iraqi rule in exchange for a commitment of money and peacekeepers, the neo-cons are urging the administration to send more US troops instead.
Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, on the other hand, is dead-set against deploying yet more troops to join the 180,000 now in Iraq and Kuwait. And while he, like the neo-cons, opposes conceding any substantial political role for the UN or anyone else, his preferred option is to transfer power directly to the Iraqis as quickly as possible, even at the risk that reconstituted security forces would be insufficiently cleansed of elements of the former regime's Ba'ath Party.
"It's clear now that Rumsfeld is not interested in 'remaking Iraq'," said Charles Kupchan, a foreign-policy analyst at the Washington, DC, office of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. "He wants to get the hell out of there."
The growing divide between the two groups emerged publicly over the past month as Secretary of State Colin Powell, backed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared to persuade Bush and his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that the financial costs of the occupation and the strain it was putting on US military forces were simply too much for Washington to bear on its own or with the support of the United Kingdom and the other members of the current "coalition of the willing".
Key Republican lawmakers brought back much the same message from the August recess. They reported that their constituents were increasingly concerned about how badly things appeared to be going in Iraq. As a result, Bush gave Powell the authority to negotiate a new UN Security Council resolution that would lighten the load on Washington, even if that meant giving up substantial control over the occupation. The only caveat was that the US military retain complete control over security.
Bush's decision marked a signal victory for Powell, who until then had lost virtually every major internal administration battle regarding the "war on terrorism" to an unbeatable coalition of unilateralist hawks after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
That coalition has comprised the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, traditional Republican machtpolitikers such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, and the Christian Right, whose views have often been pushed by Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.
While their common unilateralism still unites them in opposition to the UN taking any control from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, the hawks appear now to have fallen out over whether Washington should increase US military forces and financial investment in order to keep the world body out and commit itself to a serious effort at "nation-building".
The divide burst into the open recently when neo-cons outside the administration, seconded by Republican Senator John McCain, launched a concerted attack, centered in the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard and other sympathetic media, on Rumsfeld's opposition to increasing US troops in Iraq.
"The choices are stark," wrote Standard editor William Kristol (a former top McCain adviser) and his frequent collaborator, Robert Kagan. "Either the United States does what it takes to succeed in Iraq, or we lose in Iraq."
The article, "America's responsibility", argued that it was illusory to believe that foreign troops from India, Pakistan or Turkey, which would presumably be made available under a new UN resolution, were capable of doing what was required in Iraq. Recent CPA initiatives to bring former Iraqi intelligence and police officers back into service risked "catastrophe", it added.
"If we lose [in Iraq], we will leave behind us not blue helmets but radicalism and chaos, a haven for terrorists, and a perception of American weakness and lack of resolve in the Middle East and reckless blundering around the world," they warned.
While they did not attack Rumsfeld by name, another article in the same issue did. Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst based at the hub of the neo-con network, the American Enterprise Institute, assailed the defense secretary's "mulish opposition to increasing the number of American soldiers in Iraq". He also derided the notion that "an Iraqi army or police force" would be able to secure the country's borders or "even control traffic in Baghdad" without a much larger US force for protection.
Titled "Secretary of stubbornness", the article argued that Rumsfeld's position "is a prime reason the Bush administration has had to go begging to the United Nations".
But Rumsfeld is sticking to his guns, asserting that he also has few illusions about both the usefulness of foreign troops and even the willingness of other countries to provide them. He stresses instead that a new UN resolution would at least provide much more money for reconstruction, while Washington speeds up the training and deployment of Iraqi security forces and begins to devolve power from the CPA to Iraqis themselves. "Our hope is that we can begin to transfer the political responsibility quite rapidly," he said.
The open clash between Rumsfeld and the neo-cons over the US commitment to "nation-building" has long been simmering below the surface. Indeed, even as US troops were driving toward Baghdad last March, neo-conservatives such as Kristol and Kagan were expressing concern that Rumsfeld and Cheney were more interested in crushing perceived US enemies than in trying to "remake" them.
But Washington's difficulties in stabilizing Iraq have forced the difference into the open, especially since many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are seeking scapegoats for the administration's failure to anticipate the postwar challenges.
Bush's request that Congress approve a jaw-dropping US$87 billion to fund US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year has spurred the hunt for a scapegoat, which is currently centered on Rumsfeld and his neo-con deputies, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
In such an atmosphere, the divide between the two forces will be difficult to bridge.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
Afghans Protest Homes' Destruction
Two Reports Say Neighborhood Razed to Provide Land for Officials' Houses
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15608-2003Sep15.html
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 15 -- Sayed Ahmad's mud-brick house looks like it was struck by an earthquake. The main wall has toppled into his yard, where the family cow is tethered to an apple tree. Half the roof has collapsed, and his wife is sweeping rubble into piles.
But this destruction was not an act of God. It was the work of city bulldozers that were sent in last week to force Ahmad and 20 of his neighbors out of the rudimentary homes they had built two decades ago. Once cleared, the army-owned land was slated to be distributed to senior government officials and former militia commanders to build their own houses.
"The police came in and beat me with their guns when I refused to leave," said Ahmad, 56, an army officer and father of six who earns $80 a month. "The machines pushed down the wall and a wardrobe fell on my little girl. Our holy Korans were buried under the earth. I have worked for the army for 26 years, but now the powerful people with guns have humiliated my family and destroyed our home."
A growing scandal over the tiny community known as Sherpur, spurred by two sharply critical reports from a U.N. housing expert and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, has deeply embarrassed the U.S.-backed government. According to the reports, seven cabinet ministers and Kabul's mayor received plots in Sherpur, which abuts the capital's most exclusive neighborhood, for nominal fees.
The dispute has thrown a spotlight on the widely rumored but previously undocumented practices of high-level land grabbing, corrupt municipal real estate dealings and forcible occupation of properties in the capital, where half the population of 3.2 million does not have adequate housing.
"What happened in Sherpur is a microcosm of what has been happening all over the city and the country," said Miloon Kothari, a U.N. special rapporteur on housing and land rights, who spent several weeks here. His final report accused several senior Afghan officials, including the powerful defense minister, of active collusion in official land grabs, and flatly recommended that they be fired.
In his report, Kothari described a "culture of impunity" in which Afghan officials and other powerful individuals can seize homes and refuse to leave them or appropriate valuable public land for their own profit. "There is a crisis of housing and a freeze on land allocation, but that doesn't apply to the wealthy, the well-connected, the commanders or the drug lords," he said in an interview.
Separately, the human rights commission released a report Sunday that described a widespread problem of forcible land occupation and profiteering by "warlords and strong governmental officials." In the Sherpur case, it listed 29 senior officials and other powerful individuals who had received plots for nominal fees, including six cabinet ministers, the mayor, the Central Bank governor and two former militia commanders.
Aides to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said he was "infuriated" and "extremely upset" about the charges. At the weekly cabinet meeting today, aides said, he ordered a commission appointed to investigate the Sherpur case and upbraided his ministers on their responsibility to help the poor rather than enrich themselves.
But two of the senior officials who received plots in Sherpur called a news conference today, during which they denied any wrongdoing. The officials denounced Kothari for interfering in Afghan affairs and challenged the work of the human rights commission, whose chairwoman sat in the audience.
"I believe in human rights. I support human rights. This is political terrorism," said Anwar Ahady, the governor of the central bank, who was listed in one of the reports as receiving one plot of land. Like another official, Education Minister Yonus Qanooni, Ahady did not deny receiving the land, but said it had been legally transferred to him on Karzai's orders and that he had done nothing wrong.
Qanooni said there was a difference between "taking land by force and being given land by the current rulers." He demanded an apology from the human rights commission and handed out copies of a letter from Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, reproving Kothari for some of his public comments.
But Brahimi, in a hastily called meeting today with several journalists, said he had "absolutely no disagreement" with the substance of Kothari's findings. He condemned the destruction of the Sherpur houses as "totally unacceptable" and said he had complained to Afghan officials about the problem of official land grabs and illegal occupation of homes.
The disclosures of high-level land deals came as the Afghan capital is suffering from a shelter crisis of catastrophic proportions. According to officials, the capital's population has nearly doubled in the past two years, largely because of returning refugees, and about half the population lives in "informal" homes without electricity or water, such as tents and abandoned ruins.
City planners have designed blueprints of low-cost housing projects but have no funds to build them. The Kabul municipality has turned away thousands of returned refugees who say they have old deeds to public land plots.
"The housing supply in Kabul does not meet even 10 percent of the demand," said Nasir Saberi, the deputy minister for housing and urban development. It remains unclear how the situation in Sherpur escalated to such a dramatic confrontation and who ordered the land to be distributed to the senior officials. Ahady, Qanooni and others have said the order came from Karzai, but the president's spokesman strongly denied that.
The spokesman, Jawad Luddin, said Karzai had "spoken very clearly" to the cabinet, declaring that no official had the right to individually bestow, sell or occupy city land.
The Sherpur houses were built on land belonging to the Defense Ministry that surrounds an old army base. Some officials said the residents were asked to leave several months ago but refused. Gen. Bashir Salangi, the city police commander whose troops bulldozed the houses, said he would not have given the order without authority from municipal officials.
"Those people [in Sherpur] are liars," he said.
--------
Officials Say Taliban Leader Killed
Reuters
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15611-2003Sep15.html
SPIN BOLDAK, Afghanistan, Sept. 15 -- A senior commander of the ousted Taliban movement was among 15 Taliban fighters killed in overnight clashes with U.S.-led forces, Afghan officials said today.
In a statement, the U.S. military confirmed the death toll, and reported no casualties among the U.S.-led forces.
"Fifteen Taliban were killed, including Mullah Abdur Rahim, in Maruf district," said Khalid Khan Achakzai, an Afghan Foreign Ministry official.
Rahim controlled Taliban guerrilla forces in southern Afghanistan, where attacks have risen sharply in recent weeks. He was wounded earlier this year in a clash with Afghan forces in Spin Boldak.
Khalid Pashtun, a Kandahar province official, also said Rahim was among those killed.
But Abdul Samad, a former intelligence officer for the deposed Taliban militia, denied that Rahim had been killed.
"There have been deaths on both sides, but it is wrong [to say] that Abdur Rahim has been killed," he said. "It is mere propaganda."
-------- arms
Pakistan, France discuss armament cooperation
ISLAMABAD (AFP)
Sep 16, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030916121551.26pawuoj.html
A high-level French military delegation Tuesday held talks with senior Pakistani military officials on defence industry cooperation, officials said.
Rear Admiral Jean Louis Barbier, director of the French armament department, met with Pakistan's secretary of the defence production division, retired Air Marshal Zahid Anis, they said.
The French admiral was briefed about Pakistan's defence capabilities and production projects, a defence ministry statement said.
"They reviewed the ongoing cooperation between Pakistan and France and expressed satisfaction over the progress achieved."
They also discussed maintenance of the French supplied Mirage aircraft, French officials said.
They said the visit was aimed at preparing for the annual meeting of the Pakistan-France armament commission scheduled in Paris next month.
On Monday Admiral Barbier visited Pakistan Navy Headquarters in Islamabad and met with the Chief of Staff, Vice Admiral Mohammad Haroon.
"France is the major supplier of naval platforms and weaponry to Pakistan and both the countries enjoy long and trustworthy relations," officials said.
The Pakistan Navy ordered three Agosta 90-B attack submarines from France in September 1994.
Work on the third vessel was halted following a terrorist attack in May 2002, which killed 11 French naval engineers in Karachi, but has since restarted.
----
U.S. sanctions Moscow-owned firm for Iran sales
September 16, 2003
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030915-103808-7562r.htm
The State Department has imposed economic sanctions on a Russian government-owned company for selling advanced weapons to Iran, a country designated as a state sponsor of international terrorism.
The company, Tula KBP, makes a range of advanced weapons including air-defense missiles, antitank weapons and precision-guided munitions. It manufactures the Krasnopol-M laser-guided artillery shell.
The Bush administration earlier this year accused Tula KBP of covertly selling thousands of Kornet antitank missiles to Saddam Hussein's regime.
As part of the sanctions, the administration waived provisions of U.S. law that would have blocked all U.S. aid to Russia, noting that the assistance is "important to the national interests of the United States."
U.S. law prohibits providing any assistance to nations that sell lethal military goods to terrorist sponsors. The law also allows the ban to be waived.
It was the first time the State Department identified the recipient of such illegal arms transfers. In the past only the seller has been made public.
The sanctions are not expected to financially harm Tula KBP. The company will be barred from doing business with the U.S. government and will be prohibited from obtaining export licenses to buy U.S. defense goods.
The sanctions will be in place for one year from Aug. 25, 2003, when the weapons transfer to Iran was judged to be a violation of U.S. law.
The sanctions were disclosed yesterday in a Sept. 10 letter from Susan Burk, acting assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, to the Federal Register. They are set to be published today in the Register, where official U.S. announcements are listed.
The letter said the U.S. government has "determined that the government of Russia provided lethal military equipment to countries determined by the secretary of state to be state sponsors of terrorism."
The country was identified as Iran, one of the six nations listed as state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq was removed from the list in May after the ouster of Saddam. The date of the Russian arms sale to Iran and exact nature of the weapons were not disclosed in the letter.
The CIA's most recent twice-yearly report to Congress stated that Iran purchased a wide range of advanced conventional arms from Russia in 2002. It estimated that Russian-Iran arms sales are worth about $300 million a year.
The U.S. government protested Moscow's support for Saddam in April after Tula KBP's Kornet antitank missiles were found to have been shipped to Iraq. Moscow also supplied Saddam's regime with electronic jammers and night-vision goggles. Iraq under Saddam is believed to have obtained some 1,000 Kornets that were smuggled in from Syria.
The missile is considered a threat to U.S. tanks because it has a greater range than the cannons of U.S. tanks and has an armor-penetrating warhead. It also can be outfitted with a thermobaric warhead that creates a large fireball to increase lethality.
-------- britain
British Spy Chief Says Dossier 'Misinterpreted'
Reuters
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15616-2003Sep15.html
LONDON, Sept. 15 -- Britain's secretive intelligence chief said today that some criticism of a dossier setting out Prime Minister Tony Blair's case for war with Iraq was valid because the dossier's most sensational warning was "misinterpreted."
Breaking with precedent, Richard Dearlove -- the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6 -- testified via audio link to the judicial inquiry into the suicide of a government weapons expert, which has examined Blair's reasons for war and sent his public approval ratings plunging.
Dearlove's disembodied voice echoed in the courtroom during 40 minutes of testimony. His image was not shown so as to keep his physical appearance secret.
Dearlove said he stood by the intelligence in the dossier, which was made public in September 2002. He called an assertion that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice "a piece of well-sourced intelligence."
But he said the claim was meant to refer only to short-range arms.
Asked if the dossier gave "undue prominence" to the 45-minute assertion, he responded: "Given the misinterpretation that was placed on the 45-minutes intelligence, with the benefit of hindsight you can say that is a valid criticism."
"The original report referred . . . to battlefield weapons," Dearlove said. "I think what subsequently happened in the reporting was that it was taken that the 45 minutes applied . . . to weapons of a longer range."
-------- business
Cheney denies helping old firm to contracts
Washington September 16, 2003
The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/15/1063478122421.html
US Vice-President Dick Cheney has denied helping his former oil services company get multibillion-dollar US Government contracts in Iraq.
He also hinted that the $US87 billion ($A131 billion) the Administration has asked Congress to provide to rebuild the country might not be the last such request. "It's all we think we'll need for the foreseeable future, for this year," Mr Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press.
The request is far higher than members of Congress were anticipating, and they have vowed to get more details from the Administration about how the money would be spent. Polls show most Americans oppose the $87 billion request.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking on CBS's Face the Nation, said consultations with lawmakers were going on to determine how long the money would last.
Increasing cost estimates, the steady death toll in Iraq and the open-ended occupation have left the Administration vulnerable to strong criticism. While expressing regret about the casualties, Mr Cheney said: "The price that we've had to pay is not out of line, and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed."
Democrats have questioned the role of Mr Cheney's former firm, Halliburton, in rebuilding Iraq. The company, headed by Mr Cheney before he became Vice-President, has contracts worth nearly $2 billion.
Mr Cheney bristled at the suggestion that his connection influenced the awarding of the no-bid contracts to Halliburton.
"Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's Vice-President, I've severed all my ties with the company," he said. "And as Vice-President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of . . . contracts let by the US Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government."
Asked why Halliburton did not have to compete with other firms for the contracts, Mr Cheney said: "I have no idea. Go ask the Corps of Engineers."
----
Lockheed Martin to Acquire Titan
Capturing Government Technology Market Key to $2.4 Billion Deal
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page E01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16575-2003Sep15.html
Lockheed Martin Corp. yesterday announced a $2.4 billion deal to acquire Titan Corp. of San Diego, further strengthening its hand in the government technology market.
The deal continues a string of acquisitions in which mid-tier technology companies such as Titan have been acquired by industry giants positioning themselves to take advantage of increased government tech spending.
"Titan provides additional presence within the U.S. government customer base and expands our competencies," Vance Coffman, Lockheed Martin chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. "Our combined capabilities will continue to enhance the Defense Department's transformational systems and focus on the evolving threats that face our country."
In addition to government IT, Titan specializes in homeland security products. While Lockheed also has homeland-security-related businesses, Titan comes with contracts with FEMA, computer simulation of weapons of mass destruction, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, said Christopher E. Kubasik, Lockheed's chief financial officer.
The company also specializes in work for intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, he said. A majority of Titan's 11,000 employees have security clearances, he said.
"Together we will offer a broader spectrum of system and IT solutions to our customers. As such, I am confident that this match is a winner for our customers and employees," said Titan's chairman, president and chief executive, Gene W. Ray.No layoffs are expected among Titan's 11,000 employees. "We really did buy this business to expand it and to grow it," Kubasik said.
Titan had made some of its own acquisitions in the government arena, including the 2001 acquisition of BTG Inc. It has spent the past few years selling off investments in the commercial sector, said Robert Rubin, a vice president at investment bank Aronson Capital Partners LLC. "They have had an up-and-down performance in the past few years. . . . The commercial business muddied up the waters a little bit, but they got back to a pure-play government firm," which made the company a more attractive acquisition target, Rubin said.
The deal provides a hefty premium for Titan shareholders, who will have a choice of taking $22 in cash or an equivalent amount of Lockheed stock, or a combination. Titan closed at $16.96 a share yesterday but has traded as low as $6.80 in the past year.
That is an approximately 30 percent premium on Titan's closing price but a "far more substantial premium" to the company's six-month average, said Anita Antennucci, managing director of investment bank Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin.
The Titan acquisition mirrors General Dynamics Corp.'s recent acquisition of Veridian Corp. for $1.5 billion earlier this year, Antennucci said. "They are both among the largest second-tier companies with real strength" in defense electronics and communications technology, she said.
If approved by Titan shareholders and antitrust regulators, the deal will close in early 2004, according to a Lockheed statement. The purchase includes the assumption of $580 million of Titan's debt.
The deal is also apart of Lockheed's strategy to deploy more of its cash, Kubasik said. Lockheed also announced yesterday that it would double its quarterly dividend to 22 cents a share and that it had bought back more than 6 million shares earlier this year.
-------- china
China says troop movements on North Korean border a "normal adjustment"
BEIJING (AFP)
Sep 16, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030916085313.6y54lc4m.html
China Tuesday said the deployment of soldiers on its borders with North Korea and Burma was part of "normal adjustments" aimed at shifting border duties from police to the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
"Starting from the first half of September this year, the border between China and North Korea and the Yunnan section of the Sino-burmese border, were shifted to the frontier border of the PLA," foreign ministry spokesman Kong Quan said.
"It has been decided by the relevant laws and regulations of the People's Republic of China to unify the mangement model of tha land borders over the whole country. The shift has been finished. It is a normal adjustment," he said.
Military officials told AFP on Monday that the troop movements were not considered a "military build-up," while acknowledging the military was now defending the area rather than the police.
"We have not got any news about troop build-ups on the Sino-DPRK (North Korea) border," said a defence ministry official surnamed Song, who said he had checked the situation.
Hong Kong's South China Morning Post on Sunday, citing an unidentified security source in China, said five divisions of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops had been deployed in Yanbian since last month to deter a nuclear build-up in North Korea.
Large troop movements and new military barracks have also been seen in the border towns of Hanchun, Tumen, Kaishan, Sanhe and Baijing, while air force jets have frequently been seen flying over the capital Yanji, some 40 kilometres (25 miles) from the border, the report, filed from Seoul, said.
The source said troops were also in the area to help stem the flow of North Korean refugees fleeing to China to escape a long famine and recession in the hermitic state.
The policy mirrored the situation along China's border with Burma, where heroin smuggling from the notorious "golden triangle" poppy growing region has become rampant in recent years.
Top negotiators from the United States, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia met in Beijing in late August to discuss the 11-month crisis over Pyongyang's suspected nuclear weapons programmes.
--------
China Deploys Troops on N. Korea Border
By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15610-2003Sep15.html
BEIJING, Sept. 15 -- China has moved troops into new positions along its 870-mile frontier with North Korea and ordered them to take over border patrol duties from military police units. The move comes following reports of rising crime in the region by North Korean soldiers and some of the thousands of North Korean refugees who sneak into China every year.
The Foreign Ministry said in a statement today that the People's Liberation Army took charge of defending the border in early September, but it offered no details and declined to comment on reports in Hong Kong newspapers that the move involved 150,000 soldiers.
It is not generally known how many military police had been assigned to the border.
The statement described the change as a "normal adjustment carried out after many years of preparations" and noted that the army also had been ordered to take over patrols along a portion of the border with Burma.
The Chinese government rarely comments on military matters, and analysts said its announcement could be aimed at stepping up pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
China has hosted two rounds of multilateral talks aimed at peacefully resolving the standoff between North Korea and the United States, pushing North Korea to give up its nuclear arms program and pushing the United States to address North Korean fears of being attacked.
Its efforts appear to have strained relations with North Korea, a longtime communist ally with which it has a mutual defense treaty. In recent talks, North Korean officials have complained that the Chinese have betrayed them and sided with the United States, according to foreign diplomats.
About 300,000 Chinese troops are based in the provinces closest to North Korea, along with about 250,000 members of the Chinese People's Armed Police Force, which is usually responsible for border defense and also reports to China's military commanders. Analysts said that China was probably moving these troops closer to the border instead of bringing in new forces from other parts of the country. They also said a move of 150,000 troops would represent a major deployment, and seemed unlikely.
The movements follow reports of Chinese military exercises in the region this year and could be intended to warn North Korea not to follow through on recent threats to test a nuclear bomb, analysts said. In late February, China sent a similar warning by closing an oil pipeline to North Korea for three days; North Korea's feeble economy depends on Chinese shipments of food and fuel to function.
"The Chinese traditionally move troops to the borders to send signals to others," said David Shambaugh, director of the China policy program at George Washington University and the author of a recent book about the Chinese military. "This looks like a signal to North Korea, and it could be a signal to the Americans, too."
China fought on the North Korean side against the United States and South Korea in the 1950-53 Korean War, but it is unclear what it would do in the event of a military conflict over Pyongyang's nuclear program.
Shambaugh said China also might be preparing for a potential exodus of refugees across the border if the North Korean government collapses or if the United States launches an attack.
Human rights activists said that up to 300,000 North Korean refugees are already hiding in northeastern China after fleeing famine and political repression, and that 10,000 to 20,000 more sneak across the border every year, most during the winter, when conditions are worst and portions of the rivers separating the two countries freeze.
The United States has urged China to allow refugees to enter the country as a way of putting pressure on North Korea, but Beijing has refused, and routinely sends them back to North Korea, where human rights activists say they are often imprisoned or executed.
Several Hong Kong newspapers have attributed the troop movements to a jump in violent crime in China's border areas, including robberies and killings believed to have been committed by rogue North Korean soldiers. Newsweek reported four recent incidents believed to involve North Korean soldiers, including a bank robbery attempt two months ago.
--------
China Moves Troops to Area Bordering North Korea
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By JOSEPH KAHN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/international/asia/16CHIN.html
BEIJING, Sept. 15 - Chinese armed forces have moved into new positions along the country's border with North Korea, charged with defending an 870-mile-long frontier that is often violated by hungry refugees from that isolated state.
Chinese Foreign Ministry officials confirmed in a statement today that army troops had replaced the police along the border, though they did not confirm Hong Kong press reports that as many as 150,000 soldiers were involved.
The move marks a subtle but significant change in relations between the two Communist nations, which fought together against the United States and other nations in the Korean War and still have a mutual defense treaty.
While Chinese officials described the new border arrangement as a routine adjustment, it comes at a time when China has exerted new pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. China is the main sponsor of negotiations involving North Korea, the United States and three other countries that are trying to reach a negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue.
Chinese troop movements near North Korea and Myanmar, formerly Burma, have attracted attention in recent weeks. Several Hong Kong newspapers have reported that as many as 150,000 troops have been assigned to tighten security along the Korean border.
Several analysts said they had seen no evidence of a troop movement of that size. But they said the dispatch of army troops did suggest that China was worried about conflict in the area.
"I think this shows that China is getting more concerned about the overall state of affairs in North Korea and the refugee problem in particular," said Ma Dingsheng, a Chinese military analyst in Hong Kong. "But we are not seeing the kind of deployment you would see if China were contemplating military action."
He said the border troops were the type who guarded China's boundaries in some other areas, like the restive Western region of Xinjiang, and were not equipped with tanks or artillery.
The Korean border has been a source of consternation for China in recent years, as North Koreans have slipped over in increasingly large numbers to escape poverty, famine and political repression. Groups devoted to helping the refugees say as many as 300,000 North Koreans live in northeastern China, often in constant fear of being captured and repatriated by the Chinese police.
Though many North Koreans manage to live and work in China unofficially, Beijing often rounds up refugees and sends them back to North Korea. By many accounts, the North Korean authorities severely punish those people when they return.
The Bush administration has pressed China to allow more North Koreans to flee across the border as a way of putting pressure on the government of Kim Jong Il or even of causing it to collapse. But China has resisted those entreaties.
--------
China Says Troops Not Massed at North Korea Border
September 16, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north-china.html
BEIJING (Reuters) - China dismissed on Tuesday reports that its troops had massed at the border with North Korea, where thousands of refugees from the hermit country have slipped across in recent years.
``Chinese troops have indeed not massed at the China-North Korean border,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan told a news conference.
Kong said on Monday he had not heard of any deployment of up to 150,000 troops on China's border with North Korea, as Hong Kong newspapers have reported in recent weeks. The Sunday Morning Post said the deployment aimed to stem increasing violence by rogue North Korea soldiers.
Kong said the 2.5-million-strong People's Liberation Army took over responsibility for guarding the borders with North Korea and Myanmar from border police early in September.
Kong said it was a routine change of guard to unify border controls nationwide after years of deliberation.
Analysts said the change was aimed at pressuring North Korea to end a nuclear standoff with the United States, stemming any exodus of hungry refugees in the event of conflict and intensifying a crackdown on drug trafficking.
China hosted six-way talks last month to try to defuse the nuclear crisis, fearing instability in the region could stymie rapid economic growth.
Activists say up to 300,000 North Korean refugees are hiding in northeast China after fleeing hunger, poverty and repression in their Communist homeland.
-------- europe
French block airlift of British troops to Basra
By Henry Samuel and Michael Smith
16/09/2003
UK Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$4LV004HIIVFI5QFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2003/09/16/wcors16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/16/ixnewstop.html
The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's opposition to the occupation of Iraq.
Corsair, which has been chartered numerous times to transport UK forces around the world, pulled out of a contract to fly reinforcements to Basra at the weekend.
About 1,400 more troops are being sent to Basra as part of an attempt to prevent the "strategic failure" predicted by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, with a similar number expected to be announced within weeks.
A Corsair Airbus A330 was chartered to fly troops of the Royal Green Jackets from Brize Norton, Oxon, but at the last moment the French transport ministry grounded the aircraft citing safety concerns.
Transport ministry officials were reported yesterday as saying the move had nothing to do with safety but was a result of the intervention of the foreign ministry.
The foreign ministry denied the report, saying there was "no political motive". But British defence officials appeared to confirm that the ban was political and not technical.
"We have used them time and time again to fly troops into trouble spots," one said. "They have been everywhere for us. We always thought they were pretty robust."
A Corsair spokesman said most of the flights undertaken for the MoD took troops to training exercises. For security and insurance reasons they rarely flew to war zones.
"We did fly to Pristina during the Kosovo crisis, but only once it had been cleared for civil aviation."
Basra is already open to civilian aircraft.
-------- iraq
Open War Over, Iraqis Focus on Crime and a Hunt for Jobs
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/international/middleeast/16IRAQ.html?hp
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 15 - The judge sits in his chambers, waiting.
He is waiting for the United States military to deliver the first batch of prisoners for trial in the newly refurbished criminal court in Kharkh District.
The judge, Nawar Mohammed Nasser, the court's chief justice, has grown accustomed to waiting. He was promised prisoners on Aug. 16. No one showed up. It happened again on Aug. 23, then on Sept. 6 and once more on Sept. 9.
"It's not a problem with the judicial system," said the 53-year-old judge, nattily dressed in a gray suit and a deep gray tie with white polka dots. "It's a problem with the coalition forces.
"If they cannot get prisoners to court at the right time, how can we expect them to run the entire administration, the entire state - to establish a new order in Iraq?"
The question of whether the Americans can transform Iraq is asked with increasing frequency.
Iraqis, in general thrilled to be freed from the long, sinister rule of Saddam Hussein, had high expectations that the arrival of the Americans would utterly transform their lives.
As the occupation enters its sixth month, however, they are looking for something, anything, they can hold in their hands that assures them that the future will be better - and they cannot find it.
The residents of Baghdad, more than in any other part of the country, object to living with rampant crime, terrorist bombings, constant power cuts, an ill-defined political process, sluggish reconstruction and a mostly American administration that remains largely inaccessible in its bunkered palaces.
"We have no idea how to follow our proposals through the system," said Adel Abdel Mahdi, a senior official with the main Shiite political group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which sits on the Iraqi Governing Council.
"They tell us our ideas are good, but we have no idea whether they are discussed, whether there is a decision. It's very frustrating."
The Americans tend to counsel patience and promise that things will improve. Iraqis say they could be patient if someone explained the plan to them in a coherent way.
"When they came to Iraq, they didn't really have a plan for what happens next," said Ali Sahib al-Qamoosi, a 33-year-old businessman who celebrated his newfound freedom by opening an Internet cafe. "I say I'm optimistic, but it's only because things were so bad before, that they could never get worse."
At Baghdad Central Morgue
Dr. Faiq Amin Bakr, director of the Baghdad Central Morgue for the past 13 years, reels off the grim statistics that confirm to Iraqis that they have entered what they see as a terrifyingly lawless twilight zone: 462 people dead under suspicious circumstances or in automobile accidents in May, some 70 percent from gunshot wounds; 626 in June; 751 in July; 872 in August. By comparison, last year there were 237 deaths in July, one of the highest months, with just 21 from gunfire.
Dozens of Iraqis mill around outside, their dead relatives a cross-section of ill-fated lives.
A police officer arrives with an ambulance bearing the body of an unidentified man, roughly 21 years old, shot dead in the street, probably the victim of a carjacking.
One family is collecting the body of their 25-year-old cousin, killed by a bullet in the neck, probably a burst of celebratory gunfire during a wedding.
A second family is collecting the body of a 30-year-old night watchman at a large state-owned factory, shot dead by looters.
Several families from Abu Ghraib are there to gather some of the four victims, including an 8-year-old girl, who they said were shot dead by American soldiers in the market after a grenade was thrown at an armored personnel carrier.
An American military spokesman in Baghdad confirmed that one soldier was wounded in a grenade attack but denied that the soldiers, from the First Armored Division, fired back.
"The American soldiers are so panicky that if a tire bursts in the street, they start shooting," said Nabil Saleh Al-ani, a cousin of victim.
Dr. Bakr, the morgue's director, said he had never seen street crime like this.
"When you see your people are killed every day," he said, "you imagine the amount of crime in the country, you imagine how much insecurity there is."
At the Police Station
Lt. Hussein al-Saedi, a former army officer now assigned to Al Nasr Police Station in the sprawling slum called Thawra, harbors nostalgia for the old ways.
"Before, we used to bring the guy, we beat him, hung him by a hook on the ceiling, and he would confess every single criminal act he committed since he was a toddler," he said. "Before, it was much better. Before, we used to solve these cases in one night."
Cpl. Zuhair Mudthafir argues otherwise. He recently completed a three-week American course to retrain officers in work like interrogation, note-taking and human rights. "You know, the Americans have genius officers who find ways to extract confessions from defendants without beating them," he says.
At the police academy, where the courses are taught, Capt. Jason Brandt, a reservist from San Diego, explains that it is going to take some time to train an estimated 5,500 officers, given that they can handle only about 230 at a time.
"They have a lot of pride; they think they are perfect," said Specialist Corey Mann, a 20-year-old college student serving with the 18th Military Police Brigade. "When they first come in here, they say `We don't have drugs, we don't have domestic violence and the Koran says we can hit our women, anyway.' "
There are frequent discussions about where to draw the line between cultural traditions and police work. The Iraqi police generally like the course. It makes them feel part of the world. Some critics say the United States is putting the cart before the horse, teaching human rights rather than training new police, just as they talk about privatizing universities at a time when most Iraqis can barely afford books.
Those who have had frequent dealings with the police appreciate the difference, though.
"When the big dictator toppled, all the little dictators changed," said Adnan Jabar al-Saidi, a 31-year-old lawyer who helps run the Iraqi Human Rights Association. "It's as if they were taking their cue from the big dictator."
The main problem with the police, senior officials admit, is that there are just not enough and they remain ill equipped. Three weeks ago, the 60 officers at Al Nasr shared seven guns, two cars and no radios. They told a visitor to leave the area before nightfall because it was too dangerous even for them to venture out.
This week they have 44 guns - mostly rifles - and three radios. They can only use the radios every other day, however, because they have to take them to headquarters to recharge the batteries.
They also lost their two cars to an emergency police unit. When they arrest someone now, they hail a cab.
There are some 30,000 police officers throughout the country, including about 14,000 in Baghdad.
Ayad Alawi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council whose senior aide was appointed minister of the interior, said that he expected 40,000 officers would be deployed by the end of October, and that that should help turn the tide. In addition, the first 1,200-member brigade of the Iraqi Civil Defense Force, a kind of paramilitary unit, are due to complete their training.
Once there are more police officers and more jobs for everyone, he believes, the number of people willing to carry out attacks will dwindle. He recalled a recent interrogation in which suspects involved in a grenade attack on American military vehicles said they did it for $200.
The Reconstruction Scene
Adnan Janabi, the part owner of a construction company, believes the solution to the rampant crime will be to distribute contracts to an array of Iraqi companies to refurbish the forest of burned government buildings in Baghdad. That would get the unemployed off the streets.
The Baghdad City Council recently hired 11,000 men at $3 a day for a month to clean the streets. That helped spread around a little money, one councilman said, but it is seen as too limited.
Mr. Janabi has been either unable to reach the officials involved or has hit the Iraq reconstruction "Catch-22."
He has been told that American government regulations require numerous studies before any reconstruction can get started - and that the people needed to conduct the studies do not want to come to Iraq because of the dire security conditions.
He points at the sidewalks bursting with electronic equipment and other consumer items; despite the frequent hijackings and thievery on the road from Amman, Jordan, the demands of the booming market are such that the traders absorb the losses.
Private Iraqi construction firms would take similar risks, working under the danger of attack just to get the business, Mr. Janabi says.
"They tell us there is no security, that they cannot rehabilitate the oil sector, that we cannot rehabilitate hospitals, because there is nobody to guard them," he said. "We are fed up with being told to wait because there is no security. We can make our own security."
He filled out a complicated, 10-page form in May to try to bid for some of the $215 million in subcontracts that the Bechtel Corporation says it will hand out from the $680 contract it was given.
At that time, Bechtel had an office in the Sheraton, which they closed on Aug. 1 due to security concerns.
Now their two offices lie behind the barbed wire and multiple barricades that the military maintains around all government offices. The mood of the American soldiers often determines who gets in and who does not.
Mr. Janabi has tried to reach Bechtel and other major contractors via the Internet, but gets no response, and yet he can see on the Web sites that contracts are being awarded.
"A liberal economy is an open economy, a competitive economy," he said, his remarks echoed by a banker who works with similar small- and medium-size companies. "That does not exist here; we don't even see the birth signs."
Gregory F. Huger, the Bechtel manager in charge of major reconstruction projects, said the timetable involved did not allow for open bidding. Instead, the company screened those who attended its early conferences about contracting work and asks 15 to 20 selected companies to bid on specific jobs.
Mr. Huger also said Bechtel was not involved in the restoration of ministry buildings.
Of the 123 subcontracts given out by Sept. 7, 89 went to Iraqi companies, said Francis M. Canavan, Bechtel's public affairs manager in Iraq. He could not give a dollar value for those contracts.
If Mr. Qamoosi, the Internet cafe owner, is to be believed, the Americans share a problem with Saddam Hussein: they have promised a lot, and Iraqis are waiting for a sign they are going to get it.
"Saddam used to tell us that we would cross the river to the other bank," he recalled.
"It was a famous saying of his. You could just refer to it as The Crossing and people knew what you meant. It's the same thing now. The Americans keep saying this will happen and this will happen and this will happen, but nothing happens."
--------
Iraqi Police Chief Slain In Roadway Ambush
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12937-2003Sep15.html
FALLUJAH, Iraq, Sept. 15 -- Masked assailants ambushed a pickup truck carrying the chief of the embattled police force in the nearby city of Khaldiya today, killing him and wounding two others in a brazen daylight attack, hospital officials and police said.
The death of Col. Khudheir Mikhlif Ali, 48, was a severe setback to the police force in Khaldiya, 45 miles west of Baghdad, which has become a flash point of opposition to the U.S.-led occupation.
The killing underscored yet again the challenges facing the United States as it attempts to build up the Iraqi security forces in an effort to bring order to the country. Last week, demoralized police officers in Khaldiya complained in interviews with The Washington Post that they had grown isolated and faced mounting accusations from townspeople of working as collaborators with the U.S. military. In August, the mayor's office was ransacked by an angry mob, which threw rocks and then burned the truck of Ali's predecessor.
Survivors of today's assault said the police chief may have been killed by criminals, not guerrillas.
Khaldiya sits along a main road that runs from Baghdad to Ramadi, a tense stretch along the Euphrates River that is dominated by Sunni Muslims who have chafed the most at the occupation. That region, along with the territory north of Baghdad along the Tigris River, has experienced most of the attacks against U.S. troops since the war ended in April.
Separately, the military said guerrillas fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a U.S. convoy in Baghdad early this morning. A soldier with the 1st Armored Division died of his wounds after he was evacuated to a military hospital. On Sunday, another soldier was killed by a mine in Fallujah, where tensions have run high since U.S. troops mistakenly killed 10 Iraqi security officers on Friday. Officers from Khaldiya wounded in the ambush said assailants wearing checkered head scarves over their faces lay in wait as Ali's pickup truck made its way to Fallujah, where his family lives. At about 2 p.m., a green motorcycle sped in front of the pickup and signaled to three gunmen standing behind a concrete sign for a tourist resort, said one of the officers, Fouad Fadhil Eissa.
"They surprised us," said Eissa, who doctors said was shot in the right shoulder.
The assailants, armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and heavy machine guns, shot out one of the tires, then sprayed the car with bullets. Hours later, shell casings still littered the traffic circle, where mines from earlier attacks on U.S. troops have gouged craters along the curb. Rabia Kamash, the chief's driver, said the assailants fired more than 120 rounds before fleeing into reed-shrouded canals.
Ali, who took over as police chief two months ago, was shot in the chest and right thigh and died after he arrived at Fallujah General Hospital, said Furat Abdel-Hussein, the surgeon who treated him.
Kamash said the assailants were criminals and doubted they had any connection with guerrillas operating along the Euphrates, who appear to enjoy a degree of support in towns like Khaldiya. Abdel-Hussein said Ali's family told him the chief had received threats over the past two days from a car-smuggling ring.
"They're gangsters," Kamash said from his hospital bed, his head and shoulder bandaged. "I swear to God, they're not with the resistance. They were people who don't want security and stability in the country."
But the killing of Ali follows a series of attacks on police and municipal officials in western Iraq, a largely arid swath bisected by the Euphrates. In July, assailants killed the mayor of the town of Haditha, where some residents had accused him of being a collaborator. Earlier that month, in Ramadi, a bomb killed seven U.S.-trained Iraqi police officers during their graduation ceremonies.
Charges of collaboration had unnerved the 100-man force in Khaldiya. Last week, three cars of masked assailants surrounded the police station. They retreated only after a dozen officers went to the roof and threatened a shootout. Since the mayor's office was ransacked last month, Ali had gone to a nearby base to meet his U.S. counterparts rather than have them come to him. Police said at least three officers have quit in recent weeks, fearful for their safety.
"There's no security," Eissa said from his bed. "As long as the Americans are here, there's no stability."
--------
Iraq's New Military Taking Shape Under U.S. Eye,
Recruits Train for Defensive Mission in Smaller Army
By Theola Labbé
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16347-2003Sep15.html
KIRKUSH, Iraq, Sept. 15 -- Ali Tawfak Abbas says he was once ashamed to wear the Iraqi army uniform. But today Abbas beamed with excitement about the new national army, as he and hundreds of other recruits went through training by U.S.-led occupation forces at a desert camp here, 30 miles west of the Iranian border.
In the army of former president Saddam Hussein, Abbas said, he had two meals a day and could not drink water, even when outdoor drills in the searing sun left him dehydrated. And as war with the United States approached this spring, he said, he and eight fellow soldiers planned their escape.
"I used to have to keep my head down because I was ashamed of the politics of the old regime," said Abbas, 19, from Najaf, who was wearing a U.S. Army-issued green-and-beige camouflage uniform. "Now I am proud to be a part of the first line of defense to the new, democratic Iraq."
Abbas spoke during a visit to the training facility by journalists, who arrived in CH-47 Chinook military helicopters and toured the camp under escort. The 735 recruits at the camp are part of a force intended to defend the country's borders and guard key sites by next year.
The trainees had just come back from a one-week leave, during which 16 of them decided not to return. Today, the returning recruits fired weapons, simulated an attack and listened to lessons about health and hygiene.
Standing in five-foot holes, they fired at targets 300 yards away with AK-47 assault rifles as an instructor from Vinnell Corp., a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, looked on.
After the exercise, Khalid Taher Khalid, 29, an Iraqi Kurd, said that ethnic tensions were nonexistent and that he joined the new army out of a sense of obligation to the country.
"I have loyalty to all of Iraq," he said.
During his decades of rule in Iraq, Hussein built up a 400,000-man army, which he controlled through fear and intimidation.
The new Iraqi army, a mix of Sunni and Shiite Muslims, Kurds and people from other groups, will consist of 40,000 soldiers and officers who have undergone a nine-week course. Four battalions will be ready for duty by January and the remaining 37,000 soldiers will be in place by next September, U.S. military officials said.
A source of pride even during Hussein's rule, the national army was a way for thousands of men to earn a living. L. Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator in Iraq, disbanded the army when he arrived in May, fearing that it contained too many officers from Hussein's Baath Party. Bremer also announced that no former soldiers above the rank of lieutenant colonel would be allowed to serve.
Bremer's decision led to protests by some of those soldiers, and eventually he agreed to pay stipends. U.S. military personnel and civilians have also set up job programs for former army officers. Of the additional $87 billion in funding for Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush recently requested from Congress, $2.1 million is earmarked for training the new Iraqi army and other defense forces.
The U.S. military began recruiting soldiers in Baghdad, Basra and Mosul in July. Among the recruits, Shiites make up about 60 percent, Sunnis 25 percent and Kurds 10 percent. At the end of six weeks of training, U.S. officials will select officers from among the recruits, based on their efforts during training.
After completing training, recruits graduate to the rank of private first class and receive salaries of $70 a month. Officer candidates will receive $100 a month during training.
When a full division has completed training, the unit's soldiers will come under the command of the 4th Infantry Division, which is based in Tikrit, Hussein's ancestral home.
Brig. Jonathan Riley, the British deputy commander of the training group, said the new Iraqi army would be focused on protection instead of the aggression that characterized Hussein's army. "They can defend Iraq's borders but not be seen as a threat to its neighbors," he said. "What we will create is an army that they will build upon for the future."
About 60 percent of the current recruits have some sort of military background, U.S. military officials said. Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, the commanding general at the base, acknowledged that nine weeks was a short training period, but said that because most recruits have some military experience, "nine weeks is sufficient to create a credible infantry unit."
While several soldiers talked freely about why they joined the army, others feared retribution from anti-occupation forces that have attacked U.S. soldiers.
"We're still in a hostile environment," said Army Staff Sgt. Johnny Monds, who helps train the recruits.
-------- israel / palestine
U.S. to withhold some funds from Israel
By Reuters
Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Elul 19, 5763
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/340582.html
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said yesterday it planned to withhold some funds from Israel because of its settlement activities in Palestinian areas. The deductions would come from a $9 billion package of U.S. loan guarantees to help Israel weather a deep recession and fiscal crisis.
But administration officials said they have yet to decide whether to penalize Israel for building a fence through the West Bank. Congressional aides doubted the White House would carry out that threat.
Under legislation authorizing the loan guarantees, the United
States would deduct from the face value of the loan guarantees an amount equal to any Israeli spending on settlement activities in Palestinian areas.
An administration official said those deductions were consistent with past U.S. policies. He did not specify an amount that would be deducted or when it would take place.
"We can't preclude any deductions [for fence construction]. That is still a matter for discussion," the official added.
----
Israel downplays threat
September 16, 2003
By Ian James
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030915-091810-8770r.htm
JERUSALEM - Israel backed off yesterday from threats to kill Yasser Arafat, while the incoming Palestinian prime minister ceded control over many Cabinet appointments to Mr. Arafat's Fatah party despite Israeli demands that the veteran Palestinian leader be stripped of authority.
As Israeli leaders insisted they still intend to "remove" Mr. Arafat, the United Nations Security Council considered a Palestinian request to intervene. The Palestinian ambassador stalked out of the council chamber when the Israeli ambassador began to speak.
The chief U.N. envoy to the Middle East, Terje Roed-Larsen, told the council that the peace process has broken down, and that he fears even worse bloodshed. He accused Israelis as well as Palestinians of failing to "seriously and actively" address each other's concerns and stressed that Mr. Arafat is the democratically elected leader who "embodies Palestinian identity and national aspirations."
Facing widespread international opposition to harsh action against Mr. Arafat, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom yesterday sought to play down comments by Israeli leaders that killing Mr. Arafat is an option.
"It is not the official policy of the Israeli government," Mr. Shalom told reporters. "We don't speak about any killing. We didn't speak about it before, and we don't speak about it today."
A day earlier, Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said killing Mr. Arafat was a possibility, as was expelling him or further isolating him inside the West Bank compound where he has remained for nearly two years, repeatedly besieged by Israeli troops.
While various countries sought to pressure Israel to soften its stance, Palestinian Prime Minister-designate Ahmed Qureia asked the Fatah party to choose candidates for up to 16 of his 24 Cabinet posts - a decision that gives Mr. Arafat significant control over the composition of the new Cabinet.
Israeli leaders have said they will not deal with any new government that is effectively under Mr. Arafat's control.
Outgoing Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, who was backed by Israel and the United States, resigned Sept. 6 after four months in office marked by frequent disagreement with Mr. Arafat over the control of security forces and Cabinet appointments. Mr. Qureia has told confidants that he has no intention of challenging Mr. Arafat, who selected him for the job last week.
Fatah leaders met yesterday to come up with candidates for Cabinet posts.
Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said the Palestinians face a choice between sticking with Mr. Arafat or establishing a Palestinian state. "The two won't go together. They won't have a state and Arafat - not when Arafat is in control of the process," Mr. Gissin said.
--------
U.S. to Withhold Money for Israel
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16217-2003Sep15.html
The Bush administration has decided to withhold some money from $9 billion in loan guarantees for Israel because of continued settlement construction in Palestinian areas, but has backed away from a confrontation over Israel's building of a barrier fence separating Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank, administration officials said yesterday.
Officials declined to say how much money is being withheld, but said it was consistent with legislation establishing the loan guarantees, which are designed to help Israel weather a fiscal crisis. Under the legislation, the administration can reduce the loan guarantees dollar for dollar for an amount equal to Israel's spending on settlement activities.
Israeli officials and pro-Israel lobbyists said they had expected some sort of reduction in the loan guarantees because of the settlements, and an official announcement is expected today. The guarantees, part of a $10 billion aid package for Israel, were formally made available yesterday.
Over the summer, administration officials had suggested they might also penalize Israel for building the fence in areas that encroach into Palestinian lands to protect Israeli settlements. But in recent days, Israeli officials appear to have backed off from building the fence deep into the Palestinian territories, averting a confrontation with the Bush administration. The barrier is a high concrete wall in some areas and an electronic fence elsewhere.
--------
Israel Rejects Palestinian Cease-Fire Offer
September 16, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html?hp
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Yasser Arafat wants to reach a truce with Israel, his national security adviser said Tuesday, but Israeli officials brushed aside the offer and demanded that the Palestinian Authority crack down on militant groups.
Arafat himself struck a conciliatory tone, but stopped short of making a specific cease-fire offer. ``We say to the peace supporters in Israel that we extend our hand to you to revive peace,'' Arafat said in a speech to about 2,500 Palestinians at his battered West Bank headquarters.
In the West Bank town of Dura, meanwhile, Israeli troops killed an Islamic militant in an arrest raid, witnesses and military officials said. Such raids have triggered revenge bombings by Islamic militants in the past.
Arafat and his designated prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, are not in touch with the Israeli government on a proposed truce, officials said. But there are high-level contacts between the Palestinian Authority and the militant group Hamas on a new cease-fire, a senior Palestinian official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Palestinian officials have said they were given to understand by the United States that it backs the idea of a mutual truce, provided it is followed by some action against the militants, such as a weapons roundup.
Hamas has been weakened in recent weeks, both by Israel's targeted killings of leaders and fugitives and by attempts by the United States, the European Union and the Palestinian Authority to stop the flow of funds to the group.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and militants linked to Arafat's Fatah movement declared a unilateral halt to bombings and shootings in June, but the truce collapsed last month in a new flareup of violence.
Israel had been suspicious of the unilateral and temporary cease-fire, saying it was a ruse to allow militants to regroup -- and the Palestinian Authority to sidestep the requirement of the U.S.-backed ``road map'' peace plan to dismantle the groups. Israeli troops carried out several deadly arrest raids during the truce, prompting revenge attacks by militants.
Arafat's national security adviser, Brig. Gen. Jibril Rajoub, said Tuesday the Palestinians would soon propose to the Israeli government a more comprehensive -- and permanent -- cease-fire, but warned it would only work if both sides agreed to it.
``There must be a mutual cease-fire based on an end to violence on both sides, Israelis ending their aggression against the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority implementing a cease-fire in its territories,'' Rajoub told The Associated Press.
Rajoub said there were no contacts yet between Israeli and Palestinian officials on the issue. He did not address a possible crackdown on the groups.
Israel's security Cabinet decided last week, in response to twin Hamas bombings that killed 15 people, to reject any Palestinian truce offer.
Raanan Gissin, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said Israel wants to see the Palestinian Authority take action against militant groups before agreeing to any new truce.
The decision on rejecting any truce offer was part of a session in which the Cabinet also decided in principle to ``remove'' Arafat as an obstacle to peace. Israeli government officials later said possible action, to be decided on at a later time, could include expulsion, assassination or complete isolation.
Israeli lawmaker Yuval Steinitz, who is in Washington for meetings with Bush administration officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, said that ``there is no need to give a chance to a cease-fire that does not include dismantling all the armed groups, all the terrorist groups.''
Arafat said Israel's position shows Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not interested in making peace. ``When has Israel ever accepted a truce and when has Israel ever accepted peace?'' said Arafat.
Rajoub also made his proposal on Israel Radio, saying: ``I turn in a clear and straight manner to every resident and citizen in the state of Israel ... your concerns are the concerns of every Palestinian, but we are living under occupation ... the terrorist infrastructure is the occupation.''
In Tuesday's arrest raid, meanwhile, troops in jeeps and tanks surrounded the family home of a senior Islamic Jihad fugitive, Majed Abu Dosh, and called on everyone to leave the building, said Nasser Rajoub, a neighbor. After about 20 minutes, no one had emerged and the troops opened fire, killing Abu Dosh, he said.
The army said Abu Dosh was killed when he came out of the two-story building and tried to hide among civilians, ignoring Israeli soldiers who called on him to stop. Army bulldozers later destroyed the building.
The incoming Palestinian prime minister, meanwhile, decided to give Arafat and his ruling Fatah party considerable say in the composition of the new Cabinet.
Sixteen of the 24 ministers in Qureia's new Cabinet will be appointed by Fatah councils controlled by Arafat, officials said Monday.
Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Sharon, said the Palestinians face a choice between sticking with Arafat or establishing a state. ``The two won't go together,'' he said.
The U.S. government has said Arafat should be sidelined but not sent into exile.
Meanwhile, international condemnation of Israel's decision to ``remove'' Arafat gained momentum, as the U.N. Security Council prepared to vote on the resolution Tuesday after a day of heated debates.
The revised resolution also condemns Palestinian suicide bombings in the apparent hopes of securing British and German support and avoiding a U.S. veto, council diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Addressing the body, Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman outlined Israel's case against Arafat. He accused the council of ``hypocrisy'' for considering the Palestinian resolution while not convening to discuss Palestinian suicide attacks.
--------
U.N. Envoy Urges Israel to Leave Settlements
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By FELICITY BARRINGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/international/middleeast/16NATI.html
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 15 - A scheduled Security Council meeting on the Middle East was transformed today by the events of the last few days into a series of speeches, many of which attacked Israel for its recent actions in the West Bank and most recently its decision to expel Yasir Afafat, the Palestinian leader.
In addition to hearing a day's worth of debate on the Middle East, the Council also privately considered a draft resolution offered by Syria on behalf of the Palestinians that would condemn suicide bombings, what it called extrajudicial murders by the Israeli government of Palestinian figures and Israel's proposed deportation of Mr. Arafat.
Terje Roed-Larsen, the United Nations special coordinator for the peace effort, said at the Security Council meeting that Mr. Arafat "embodies Palestinian identity and aspirations - he is now far from irrelevant."
Mr. Larsen also expressed his concern that "without a major change in the situation on the ground, a further deterioration, resulting in major bloodshed, seems inevitable."
Noting that 2,808 Palestinians and 830 Israelis have been killed in fighting since September 2000, he said that during the discussions of the peace proposals, "neither side has seriously and actively addressed the core concerns of the other side."
He added, "If we abandon the course of peace as drawn in the road map," the process would be surrendered "to those who want to reign through force and terror, to rule not through the rule of law but of man."
The Israeli ambassador, Dan Gillerman, warned the Council: "It would be a grave error if the Council were to come to the aid not of the victims of terrorism, but of their sponsor and perpetrator. The Council's focus should be directed first and foremost at terrorism and at its facilitators, and not at the response to terrorism."
Reuters reported that Mr. Gillerman, dismissed Mr. Arafat as a "professional terrorist" and an "obstacle to peace" and said his removal would swiftly end the conflict.
Those and other comments prompted the Palestinian envoy, Nasser al-Kidwa, who had asked the Council to help protect Mr. Arafat, to walk out of the chamber, Reuters reported.
--------
Killing Arafat as Official Policy Is Denied
September 16, 2003
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/international/middleeast/16MIDE.html
JERUSALEM, Sept. 15 - A day after Israel's vice prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said that killing Yasir Arafat was one option under consideration, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said today that such a move was "not the official policy of the Israeli government."
"We don't speak about killing," Mr. Shalom said. "We didn't speak about it before, and we don't speak about it today. I think that Arafat, while he is here - there is no chance of having peace with the Palestinians. That's my personal view."
Last Thursday, Israel's security cabinet decided in principle to "remove" Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian leader, at a time of its choosing. The wording was deliberately vague, and Israeli officials have subsequently indicated that Israel is considering a range of options.
Mr. Arafat has left his West Bank compound on only a handful of occasions since the Israelis imposed restrictions on him in December 2001.
On Sunday, Mr. Olmert said: "Arafat can no longer be a factor in what happens here. The question is: How are we going to do it? Expulsion is certainly one of the options, and killing is also one of the options."
--------
Israel Backs Off Arafat Threat
Assassination Not Official Policy, Foreign Minister Says
By Andy Mosher
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16216-2003Sep15.html
JERUSALEM, Sept. 15 -- Israel's foreign minister said today that his government had no plans to kill Yasser Arafat, one day after an official said assassinating the Palestinian leader was one possible way to carry out the government's vow to "remove" him.
The foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, told foreign journalists that killing "is not an official policy of the Israeli government." He also said the government would not take immediate action to enact a security cabinet decision made public Thursday in which Arafat was described as "a complete obstacle to any process of reconciliation" whom Israel would "work to remove."
"We didn't say that we have the policy of killing others. No way," Shalom said.
He added, however, that Israel reserved the right to "do anything" to prevent suspected terrorists from carrying out attacks. Israel has frequently used assassinations, which it calls targeted killings, since the Palestinian uprising began almost three years ago, most recently against leaders of the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas.
Several governments have expressed alarm since the cabinet issued the statement Thursday, and the outcry intensified Sunday when the deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert said that in dealing with Arafat, "expulsion is certainly one of the options; killing is also one of the options."
Debate on the issue continued at the United Nations, where Arab and other nations are seeking support for a Security Council resolution that would call on Israel not to harm or expel Arafat.
In an open meeting of the 15-member council, the Israeli and Palestinian envoys traded accusations and blamed each other's leaders for the breakdown of recent Middle East peace efforts, news agencies reported. The U.N. special representative to the region, meanwhile, urged that peace efforts be swiftly revived and cautioned against any precipitous moves regarding Arafat, whom he called "the legitimate leader of the Palestinians."
The envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, also called on Israel to abandon all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a way to build support among Palestinians for the dismantling of groups that have staged terrorist attacks against Israel.
Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, argued that removing Arafat was the only way to ensure that further moves toward peace do not founder as previous ones did. Gillerman accused Arafat of having "done the most to bury" attempts at peace.
All 15 Security Council representatives expressed opposition to Arafat's removal, and debate on the issue was expected to extend at least another day, with no clear indication that a resolution would eventually be brought before the council.
In Ramallah, the West Bank city where Arafat has been confined to his presidential compound since early last year, Palestinians gathered for what they said would be a vigil to ensure their leader's safety. The Associated Press reported that about two dozen men have been sleeping in a tent outside Arafat's office, saying they will serve as human shields if Israeli troops try to seize him. Organizers said they hoped to fill as many as 200 tents in the coming days.
Palestinian authorities said Ahmed Qureia, who was designated to become the Palestinians' next prime minister after the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas on Sept. 6, had resumed efforts to form a cabinet. Officials said Qureia hoped to present his government to the Palestinian legislature by Saturday.
After the Israeli cabinet threatened to take action against Arafat, Qureia said he was suspending any moves toward creating a new government and assuming the office of prime minister, which has become the principal contact point for U.S. and Israeli peace negotiators as their governments try to diminish Arafat's power and authority.
Shalom said Qureia, known as Abu Ala, "will be judged by his actions" but that Arafat's continued presence in the Palestinian leadership was cause for pessimism.
"As long as he is there, there is no chance for peace with the Palestinians," Shalom said.
-------- mideast
Senior U.S. Official to Level Weapons Charges Against Syria
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By JUDITH MILLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/international/middleeast/16SYRI.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - The Bush administration says that despite pledges, Syria has not stopped militants from crossing into Iraq to kill American soldiers.
In testimony prepared for a House hearing on Tuesday, John R. Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control, says the administration is also concerned about what it sees as Syria's continuing support for terrorist groups like Hamas, and he reiterated accusations that Syria has an ambitious program to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
But Mr. Bolton's testimony says there is "no information" that Syria has transferred any unconventional weapons it may have to the terrorist groups it is said to support. He also says the administration "has been unable to confirm" reports that Iraq covertly transferred unconventional weapons it may have had to Syria "in an attempt to hide them from United Nations inspectors and coalition forces."
Syria has denied that it has unconventional weapons.
Mr. Bolton's assertion about the transfer of weapons, along with other parts of his testimony, renewed a prolonged debate within the administration, according to officials. The testimony - some will be given in public, the rest in a closed briefing - pitted officials who wanted a much tougher critique of Syria against those who wished to encourage Syria to honor its pledges.
Late last week, the testimony was cleared by the intelligence community and the White House. A copy of the public testimony, to the International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, was provided to The New York Times by individuals who feel that the accusations against Syria have received insufficient attention.
Mr. Bolton's suggestion that Syria is partly responsible for the attacks on American troops and his allegations of unconventional-weapons programs and support for terrorists reflect the administration's growing frustration that Damascus has not responded to demands that it curb such activities.
His testimony says Syria has taken "a series of hostile actions." Just before and during the war this spring, Syria "allowed military equipment to flow into Iraq," it says. "Syria permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war, and is still doing so," the prepared testimony says.
The administration has previously accused Syria of permitting foreign fighters to pass into Iraq. But Mr. Bolton's sharp criticism reflects what other officials have said is a particular concern about the impact of the reported Syrian action.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters who traveled with him to Iraq last week that of more than 200 foreign fighters captured in Iraq, the largest groups were those from Syria and Lebanon. One intelligence official said 60 to 70 percent of those detained were believed to be Syrian, based on identity cards or interrogations. Many were carrying large sums of money, a Defense Department official said.
A Pentagon official said that while Syria had done some things to limit militant cross-border traffic, "they have not done nearly enough."
The administration, under political pressure as American soldiers continue to die in Iraq, is trying to do whatever possible to stop foreign militants from entering Iraq.
But the cross-border traffic is only one irritant. "Although Damascus has increased its cooperation regarding Iraq since the fall of the Iraqi regime," Mr. Bolton's testimony says, "its behavior during Operation Iraqi Freedom underscores the importance of taking seriously reports and information on Syria's W.M.D. capabilities."
A former intelligence officer said, "We have to find some way of getting their attention," and referred specifically to a trip in May by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and a subsequent visit by an assistant secretary of state in which President Bashar al-Assad promised to curb activities of concern to Washington, but then apparently did not do so.
Mr. Bolton declined to comment or elaborate on his planned testimony.
The testimony does not endorse a Congressional proposal that would require President Bush to impose economic sanctions on Syria. But senior officials said the administration would consider imposing such sanctions if Syria did not stop allowing "jihadis" to enter Iraq and trying to develop unconventional weapons.
In an interview, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the chairwoman of the subcommittee, said Syria's "porous borders and the hatred for Americans are very disturbing."
"Syria can play an important role for regional stability, but it's doing just the opposite," she said.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is a co-sponsor of a bill that would require that sanctions be imposed against Syria unless it ended its reported weapons activities, its support for terrorism and its presence in Lebanon, where it has a substantial military role. She said the bill "gives the administration great leverage" against President Assad.
Mr. Bolton's description of Syria's weapons programs is consistent with earlier Central Intelligence Agency descriptions of Syria's efforts to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. But State Department officials said this is the first time the administration is presenting a somewhat detailed, public assessment of such activities.
Tensions between Washington and Damascus have flared in recent months. As major combat operations in Iraq wound down, administration officials, including President Bush, suggested Syria was harboring Iraqi officials who had fled (an accusation Syria denied) and was allowing remnants of Saddam Hussein's government to hide major weapons in Syria. The United States Army wounded and took into custody five Syrian border guards in June when it attacked what American officials said was an Iraqi convoy near the border.
The testimony also alleges that Syria has "a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles, and has engaged in the research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents such as VX." Syria is not a party to the international treaty banning chemical weapons.
Syria, the statement asserts, "is continuing to develop an offensive biological weapons capability" and has not signed the treaty banning those weapons. The testimony also expresses concern about Syria's nuclear activities, noting that Russia and Syria "have approved a draft program on cooperation on civil nuclear power," expertise that could be applied to a weapons program.
--------
Official: Syria Seeking Banned Weapons
September 16, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Syria.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Syria is allowing militants to cross its border into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers and is aggressively seeking to acquire and develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, a senior Bush administration official said Tuesday.
In addition, he said Syria continues to support organizations the United States lists as terrorist groups.
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control, told a House hearing the United States was trying to change Syria's behavior through diplomatic means and urged lawmakers to let the effort run its course before passing trade restrictions and other measures.
After testifying to the House International Relations Committee's panel on the Middle East and Central Asia, Bolton left for Moscow, where he is to talk with the Russians about proliferation of nuclear technology in Iran, State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said.
White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on ABC's ``Nightline'' that ``Syria is a country with which we continue to have a number of problems.''
``We don't really feel they're meeting the mark, but we continue to press the Syrians,'' she said.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday in Kuwait that Syria was not cooperating with U.S. demands to end support for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group, which Washington labels a terrorist organization, and to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. He warned Congress would adopt the legislation if Syrian President Bashar Assad did not act.
Syria's foreign minister, Farouk al-Shaara, rejected charges his country was not cooperating and said in Damascus that Syria was willing to meet ``reasonable'' demands within the framework of international legitimacy.
``What Powell said about Syria's cooperation, I ask: Who is cooperating with America as America wants?'' al-Shaara said at a news conference. ``America has too many demands. If they are reasonable and realistic Syria is ready to cooperate.''
Bolton contended at the hearing that Syria ``permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war and is still doing so.''
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Iraq last week that the largest numbers of figures captured in Iraq have been from Syria, then Lebanon. Defense officials said there have been about 200 foreign fighters rounded up so far in Iraq.
Rice said that the estimates of the number of foreign terrorists filtering into Iraq range from ``several hundred -- high hundreds -- to a couple of thousands.'' She suggested that the majority of those individuals were among the 20,000 to 30,000 -- or ``possibly even a bit higher'' -- who passed through al-Qaida training camps.
``These are hard-core training terrorists,'' she said. ``Are they actually being sent by al-Qaida or are they, in a sense, freelancing? I think we don't know the full picture. But these are people who were committed jihadists, who were part of the war on terror.''
Bolton, who testified first in public and then in a classified session with lawmakers, said Syria offers sanctuary and political protection to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- all branded as terrorist by the United States.
He said while there is no information Syria has transferred weapons of mass destruction to the terrorist organizations, ``Syria's ties to numerous terrorist groups underlie the reasons for our continued anxiety.''
Bolton put Syria in the same category as Iran, North Korea and Libya as ``rogue states, those most aggressively seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction and their delivery and which are therefore threats to our national security.''
He said the U.S. objective was not just to prevent the spread of these weapons but to ``roll back and eliminate such weapons from the arsenals of rogue states'' through peaceful and diplomatic means. However, he continued, in order to do this and protect America and its allies, ``we must allow ourselves the option to use every tool in our nonproliferation toolbox.''
Asked by the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., if this would include regime change in Syria, Bolton replied the administration preferred diplomacy ``but I am not taking any option off the table.''
In her opening remarks, the committee chairman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, detailed Syria's unconventional weapons capability, quoting from an unclassified CIA report to Congress that was issued in April and covers the first six months of 2002.
The report stated that ``Syria sought chemical weapons-related precursors and expertise from foreign sources, maintains a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and appears to be trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents.''
She said Syria's recent agreement with Russia concerning close cooperation on nuclear power ``raises grave questions regarding the Syrian regime's true objectives on the nuclear front.''
Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said in an interview after the hearing she would like to see the Bush administration take a stronger stand on Syria. She is co-sponsoring a bill that could lead to sanctions against Syria.
Appeasing ``these terrorist regimes does no good to the United States,'' she said.
--------
Despite Concerns About Syria, Powell Aide Opposes Sanctions
September 16, 2003
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/international/middleeast/16CND-SYRI.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 - A top State Department official said today that Syria was continuing to cooperate with terrorist groups, to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to let militants slip into Iraq. But he declined for now to endorse sanctions or punitive action, saying that "very delicate" diplomatic contacts were under way.
The official, John R. Bolton, the under secretary for arms control, has been a harsh critic of Syria. He was testifying before a House subcommittee just a day after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell called on Damascus to respond more forcefully to United States demands for cooperation.
While laying out a damning list of accusations against Syria, Mr. Bolton indicated that the Bush administration was still reviewing legislation known as the Syria Accountability Act, which would permit economic and diplomatic sanctions against Damascus.
Passage of the act, Mr. Bolton suggested, could derail larger United States objectives in the region.
"Secretary Powell has been engaged in some very intensive diplomacy with the government of Syria," he said. "He's engaged, even as we speak, in some very delicate balancing of a variety of factors, diplomatic and political."
Mr. Bolton added: "I think it's important that all of us who are concerned about stability in the region, the outcome of the Middle East peace process, the successful reconstitution of a representative Iraqi government, support the secretary at this delicate time."
His testimony had been vetted by the White House, hinting that those in the administration who favor a harder line to Syria had, for now, been eclipsed by advocates of a more diplomacy-based approach.
Again today, Syria rejected the United States' accusations that it backs terrorists and said it was prepared to meet any reasonable American request for help in the war against terrorism. But it also called for greater sensitivity to Syrian and Arab realities.
"The Americans are now our neighbors," Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara said in Damascus, alluding to the American occupation of Iraq, "and they should care for their neighbors and take into consideration the sensitivity of the Syrians and Arabs," the Reuters news agency reported.
Mr. Shara urged the United States "not to turn into a Third World-like regime in Iraq, blaming neighbors for all the troubles it faces in Iraq." Damascus was open to any "logical and realistic" demands and favored dialogue "to handle all of the stagnant problems in bilateral relations," including the Arab-Israeli peace process.
Mr. Bolton's overall testimony, which was also vetted by the intelligence community, was harshly critical of Syria on several counts. Individuals who sought to publicize these criticisms had provided an advance copy to The New York Times.
Mr. Bolton told the committee that Syria continued to support terrorist groups like Hamas, despite a vow made to Mr. Powell by President Bashir al-Assad in May. Mr. Bolton also said Syria was continuing ambitious programs to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
"Syria has pursued what is now one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities," he said. Further, Damascus was believed to be "continuing to develop an offensive biological weapons capability."
And following a Russia-Syria agreement on civil nuclear power, Mr. Bolton said, the United States continued "to watch for any sign of nuclear weapons activity or foreign assistance that could facilitate a Syrian nuclear weapons capability."
Mr. Bolton's message was less conclusive, however, on other accusations against Syria.
He said there was "no information" that Syria had transferred any unconventional weapons to terrorist groups "or would permit such groups to acquire them."
Nor had the administration been able to confirm reports that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons to Syria "to hide them from U.N. inspectors and coalition forces."
While Syria had "permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war" and was continuing to do so, he said, "Damascus has increased its cooperation regarding Iraq since the fall of the Iraqi regime."
In some ways, Mr. Bolton's tone was more temperate than had been expected. But while he defended diplomatic efforts with Damascus, he said stronger measures had to be kept in reserve for possible use against Syria and other potentially threatening countries.
"If the language of persuasion fails, these states must see and feel the logic of adverse consequences," he said.
"The pursuit of W.M.D. and ballistic missile delivery systems, especially by state sponsors of terrorism, must be neither cost-free nor successful."
Mr. Bolton gave part of his testimony in closed session.
Some of the harshest anti-Syrian language at the hearing came not from Bolton but from members of a House International Relations subcommittee before which he appeared. Most outspoken was the chairwoman, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida.
Since 1989, when Syria was believed to have produced chemical weapons, "Syria has increased, and indeed diversified, its weapons of mass destruction programs to present a serious threat to our allies and our interests in the region," she said.
Citing a variety of sources, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen said that Syria had developed chemical weapons warheads for Scud missiles; that it possessed and could weaponize anthrax and cholera and had received smallpox virus from Russia; and that it planned to integrate biological weapons in its tactical and strategic arsenals.
"There are persistent rumors of a covert nuclear weapons program," she said.
"Syria's nefarious activities pose grave concerns," she said, particularly "in the context of Syria's continued support for global terrorism and its relationship with other pariah states."
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is a co-sponsor of the Syrian Accountability Act, which has wide support in Congress.
The bill calls on Syria to end its reported weapons development, its support for terrorist groups, and its presence in Lebanon, or face possible sanctions. These could include a ban on American exports to, and investment in, Syria, a downgrading of diplomatic relations and the imposition of travel restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the United States.
Last year the White House last year opposed an attempt to pass similar legislation.
Mr. Bolton originally was to have testified in July. While his office blamed the postponement on a scheduling conflict, government officials told The New York Times that the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. agencies had objected to a sharp warning he had been set to issue - that Syrian weapons development had reached the point where they threatened regional stability.
Bush administration intelligence about Iraqi weapons has come under particularly harsh criticism with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The C.I.A. and other agencies did not want a repeat of such controversy, officials said.
-------- propaganda wars
Powell Says Gas Attack On Kurds Justified War
Secretary Visits Town Where Thousands Died
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11974-2003Sep15.html
HALABJA, Iraq, Sept. 15 -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell asserted today that a 1988 poison gas attack that killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds in this farming town nestled in Iraq's barren northern mountains was ample evidence that former president Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction and justified the U.S. decision to go to war.
In an emotional defense of the invasion of Iraq, Powell visited a mass grave site, toured a new museum commemorating the attacks and listened as Kurdish political leaders proclaimed that the Halabja massacre provided sufficient legitimacy to go to war.
"If you want evidence of the existence and the use of weapons of mass destruction, come here now to Halabja today and see it," Powell said after walking through the museum. "What happened over the intervening 15 years? Did [Hussein] suddenly lose the motivation? Did he suddenly decide that such weapons would not be useful? The international community did not believe so."
Powell's three-hour visit to this town near the Iranian border, which required him to fly in a convoy of UH-60 Black Hawk and AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, brought him face to face with scores of Iraqi Kurds who praised the U.S. invasion and held aloft signs lauding President Bush. The sentiments on display here were far more ebullient than those generally expressed by Iraqis in parts of the country Powell did not visit.
"Today it is perplexing and rather painful indeed for the people of Halabja to hear voices in the international community that continue to insist on proof for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction," said Barham Salih, the prime minister for the western part of Iraq's Kurdish region. "Here is the proof. Halabja is the proof. . . . This mass grave in Halabja and the other 170 so far discovered mass graves in Iraq should dispel any doubts about the legitimacy of the American and British liberation of Iraq. These mass graves vindicate the moral imperative of your intervention to protect the people of Iraq."
Powell was joined by Iraq's top Kurdish leaders, Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, who preside over a swath of northern Iraq that had been autonomous since it split from Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The two leaders, who sit on the country's interim Governing Council, expressed opinions similar to those of Salih. "The tragedy of Halabja gives them the legitimacy for going to war," Barzani said.
The attack on Halabja occurred in the waning days of Iraq's eight-year war with Iran. Furious that Kurdish militiamen in the area had allied themselves with advancing Iranians, Hussein ordered his cousin, Ali Hassan Majeed, to carry out a retribution campaign against the Kurds starting in 1987 that included forced relocations, the destruction of villages and the killing of an estimated 182,000 people.
At about noon on March 16, 1988, after two days of conventional bombing, the Iraqi air force dropped sarin, tabun, VX and mustard gases on Halabja. The toxic cloud drifted over the town, killing an estimated 5,000 people and harming 10,000. Those who survived did so by running into the hills or by hiding in their basements.
"It was such a great tragedy," said Esmail Abdulrahim Saleh, an English teacher, who said nine of his relatives died in the attack. "It is impossible to describe."
Although the United States condemned the Iraqi government's use of chemical weapons as a "grave violation" of international law, the Reagan administration did not sanction Hussein, who was regarded as a U.S. ally because of his war against Iran's Islamic revolutionary government. At the time, the State Department said there were "indications" that Iran had used chemical artillery shells against Iraqi positions in the area.
Asked today about the U.S. response, Powell, who was Reagan's national security adviser, told reporters that "there was no effort on the part of the Reagan administration to either ignore it or not take note of it." But when speaking to about 250 relatives of victims, Powell said there should have been a more aggressive response.
"I cannot tell you the world should have acted sooner," he told the relatives. "You know that."
Standing at the mass grave site in front of rows of gravestones aligned in perfect diagonals with the precision of a military cemetery, Powell said the toppling of Hussein would prevent such atrocities in the future.
"What I can tell you is that what happened here in 1988 is never going to happen again," he said, noting that Majeed, the alleged architect of the Halabja attack and better known by his nickname, "Chemical Ali," had been detained by U.S. forces.
"Chemical Ali is in jail," he told the relatives, many of whom were clutching brightly colored bouquets of silk flowers and holding framed photos of dead family members. "He will stay in jail until an Iraqi court decides his fate. Saddam is running and hiding. . . . Beyond that, the system that spawned them, a system of coups and plots and assassins, is smashed and will never return."
Powell did not meet with any of the 1,200 American specialists who are scouring Iraq for evidence that Hussein had an active banned-arms program in recent years. At a news conference Sunday, Powell said there "was no particular need" to meet with them because the director of the search effort, former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay, will soon issue a report.
After touring the museum, which contains a life-size diorama of a dozen dead villagers complete with fake gas produced with liquid nitrogen, Powell had private talks with Barzani, Talabani and other Kurdish leaders before he flew to Kuwait. The leaders pressed Powell for assurances that Kurdish areas would be given continued autonomy under a new government.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- courts
THE LEGAL CONTEXT
Bush v. Gore Outlives Its Limited Warranty for Use in California
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By ADAM LIPTAK
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/national/16LEGA.html?pagewanted=all&position=
The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was meant to be a ticket good for one ride.
"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances," the justices said in their unsigned opinion in 2000, "for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
Three judges on the federal appeals court in San Francisco, all appointed by Democratic presidents, decided yesterday to use it for another ride anyway.
The judges ruled that California's recall election could not be held as scheduled, on Oct. 7, because voters in six counties would still be using the same dreaded punch-card machines that threw the 2000 presidential election into 37 days of chaos.
And like the Supreme Court justices three years ago, the California judges cited the same equal protection guarantees of the Constitution that were used to conclude the presidential election.
"They're hoisting the Supreme Court on its own petard," said Vikram Amar, a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.
In ruling on the case, filed by a coalition of minority groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the judges from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the case involved "almost precisely the same issue" as was confronted in Bush v. Gore.
That may be an overstatement, and it illustrates a continual tension between the courts. The appeals court's decision last year striking the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance, also used complex and ambiguous Supreme Court doctrine to reach its result.
"A lot of the Ninth Circuit's most controversial decisions don't flout the Supreme Court so much as take the Supreme Court's own words and reasoning and run with them in a direction the Supreme Court might not agree with," Professor Amar said.
In some ways the problems the appeals court identified in California voting may present a more striking claim of the denial of equal protection, and in other ways the claim might be seen as weaker.
It is hard to see, though, how the cases concerned almost precisely the same issue.
In Florida, disputed ballots were counted by hand, by those using inevitably subjective judgments, under systems that varied from county to county; in California, the plaintiffs claimed that mechanical processes, not different standards and human decision making, would result in an unacceptable number of errors in some counties that might disfavor minorities and Democrats.
The Ninth Circuit held that the punch-card voting system used in six California counties representing 44 percent of the statewide electorate - Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Diego, Sacramento, Mendocino and Solano - could be expected to produce a large and disproportionate number of uncountable votes. People in those counties would face errors, the court said, two and a half times more often than voters elsewhere in the state.
"The inherent defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all," the three judges wrote, in an unsigned opinion.
The affected counties, moreover, have significantly higher minority populations than the balance of the state, the court noted.
Some lawyers involved in the case detected a delicious tension, while others saw an ideologically biased court run amok.
"If Bush v. Gore has precedential value," said Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs in the appeals court, "and there have been considerable disputes about that, it should apply in this case."
Mr. Hasen added: "The holding of Bush v. Gore is that you cannot in an arbitrary manner value one person's vote above another's. This is an easy case under that rule."
A lawyer for the proponents of the recall said the case was about politics, not law.
"This is obviously an exceedingly liberal panel of an exceedingly liberal court," said Charles P. Diamond, a lawyer for some of the proponents. "Notions of absolute equality tend to resonate with such courts."
The judges who issued yesterday's decision were Sidney R. Thomas and Richard A. Paez, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Harry Pregerson, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.
"The panel is to the left of the Ninth's Circuit's center, to be sure," Professor Amar said.
Mr. Diamond said the panel's decision nonetheless surprised him.
"I thought that this was a court that was looking for a way to enjoin this election, but I was still confident that they would follow the law and the Constitution," he added. "I was disappointed."
The appeals court ordered that the election be deferred until more reliable voting machines are in place. As a consequence of an earlier lawsuit unrelated to the recall, the six counties will have moved to different voting systems in time for statewide primary elections on March 2, 2004.
The appeals court stayed its decision for seven days to allow the losing side to appeal. The proponents of the recall, who had intervened in the suit on the side of the defendant, Kevin Shelley, California's secretary of state, said they would go directly to the Supreme Court.
"We will file within 48 hours," Mr. Diamond said. He said he had urged California officials to do the same.
The filing will include a request for a stay directed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the justice responsible for the Ninth Circuit.
"One thing we know about Justice O'Connor, who is reputed to be one of the two authors of Bush v. Gore," said Professor Hasen, "is that she is not all that predictable in the election law area."
The surmise that Justice O'Connor is a co-author of the decision is based on the fact that only she and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy were in the majority who did not file concurring opinions.
Though Justice O'Connor has the authority to grant a stay while the full court considers whether to hear the case, she would most likely refer the question to the full court, particularly given how little time is available if the election is to proceed in October. Five votes are needed to grant a stay but only four votes are needed to agree to hear the case.
Legal experts said the court might well take the case to clarify the lasting power, or not, of Bush v. Gore; to show that it is equally sympathetic to challenges brought by parties aligned with Democrats; or to slap down the Ninth Circuit for its perceived impudence.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ignored its decision in Bush v. Gore, not citing it in any case since then. That may mean the justices have no particular desire to plunge back into that thicket anytime soon.
-------- drug war
Study: States swivel from 'get-tough' approach on drug war
9/16/2003
Associated Press.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-09-16-drug-policies_x.htm
States have taken sweeping action in recent years to roll back "get-tough" approaches on drug policy, turning toward prevention, treatment and other alternatives to fight addiction, a new report from an advocacy group found.
The survey of new laws between 1996 and 2001 found that states were adopting anti-drug approaches that treat addiction more like an illness than a crime, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that supports such an approach. The report was released Tuesday.
"Our key hope for this report is that legislators around the country will increasingly appreciate that it's possible to introduce and support and enact sensible drug policy reforms without being accused of being soft on drugs or being soft on crime," said Ethan Nadelmann, the alliance's executive director.
Financial problems also are helping to drive the changes in many places, as deficit-ridden states seek to cut costs. A state prison inmate, on average, costs the government $30,000 a year, the report said, citing federal studies.
Nadelmann said the group recognizes that trend, and is hoping to make cost-savings part of their argument as they continue to seek changes on the state and federal levels.
The study found that voters in 17 states have approved drug-reform initiatives, largely to approve marijuana use for medical purposes, to allow for treatment instead of incarceration for some drug offenses, or to ease laws on seizing assets in drug cases.
In only two states - Massachusetts and Washington state - did such voter initiatives fail at the polls, the report found.
Overall, 46 states passed laws to ease tough laws on drug violations, including:
• Sentencing reforms in 18 states and the District of Columbia.
• Restoring some or all welfare eligibility to drug offenders in 29 states.
• Allowing marijuana use for medical needs in nine states and the District of Columbia.
The study characterized the approach as one of "harm reduction" - "the awareness that not just drug abuse, but also misguided drug policies, can cause grave harms to individuals and society."
Nadelmann said that as state lawmakers embrace such changes without a backlash from voters, he hoped to see similar changes on the federal level.
According to a report released last month by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, America's prison population grew again in 2002 despite a declining crime rate, costing the federal government and states an estimated $40 billion a year.
Experts say mandatory sentences, especially for nonviolent drug offenders, are a major reason inmate populations have risen for 30 years. About one of every 143 U.S. residents was in the federal, state or local custody by the end of 2002.
The Drug Policy Alliance was created by the merger in 2000 of The Lindesmith Center and The Drug Policy Foundation with the objective to build a national drug policy reform movement.
The alliance advocates, among other steps, making marijuana legally available for medical purposes, redirecting government resources from criminal justice to public health and supporting syringe exchange and other harm reduction programs to battle infectious diseases.
-------- justice
Ashcroft Mocks Librarians and Others Who Oppose Parts of Counterterrorism Law
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/politics/16LIBR.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - Attorney General John Ashcroft today accused the country's biggest library association and other critics of fueling "baseless hysteria" about the government's ability to pry into the public's reading habits.
In an unusually pointed attack as part of his latest speech in defense of the Bush administration's counterterrorism initiatives, Mr. Ashcroft mocked and condemned the American Library Association and other Justice Department critics for believing that the F.B.I. wants to know "how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel."
The association, which has argued for months that the government's new antiterrorism powers risk encroaching on the privacy of library users, took some satisfaction from the broadside.
"If he's coming after us so specifically, we must be having an impact," said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the library association's Washington office.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the department, said the speech was intended not as an attack on librarians, but on groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and politicians who he said had persuaded librarians to mistrust the government.
The American Librarian Association "has been somewhat duped by those who are ideologically opposed to the Patriot Act," Mr. Corallo said.
Mr. Ashcroft's remarks, he said, "should be seen as a jab at those who would mislead librarians and the general public into believing the absurd, that the F.B.I. is running around monitoring libraries instead of going after terrorists."
Mr. Ashcroft's speech was his 17th in the last month in defense of the sweeping counterterrorism act passed after the Sept. 11 attacks and under increasing criticism for those who contend that it gives the government too much power.
But in departing from his usual remarks, Mr. Ashcroft dwelled today much more expansively on the government's powers under the legislation to demand access to library records in searching for terrorists.
That issue has helped galvanize opposition to the act from libraries nationwide and from some 160 communities that have protested the law as too far-reaching.
It is not known how many times federal agents have actually used the law to gain access to library records because that information is classified. Even the association said it did not know because libraries served with demands for such records are bound by a gag order.
Mr. Ashcroft said critics had tried to persuade the public that the F.B.I. was monitoring libraries to "ask every person exiting the library, `Why were you at the library? What were you reading? Did you see anything suspicious?' "
The Justice Department, Mr. Ashcroft said, "has no interest in your reading habits. Tracking reading habits would betray our high regard for the First Amendment. And even if someone in government wanted to do so, it would represent an impossible workload and a waste of law enforcement resources."
-------- police
FBI May Get Reins In Explosives Cases
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15629-2003Sep15.html
The Justice Department is considering a proposal to give the FBI initial control over all cases that involve bombs and other explosives -- a shift that would mark a significant decline in clout for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The ATF, which was transferred to Justice earlier this year from the Treasury Department, only recently added "explosives" to its official name and usually has been considered the lead agency in federal bomb cases.
But an attorney general's directive under consideration at Justice would funnel all explosives cases first to the FBI, which would be the lead federal investigative agency until it "has significantly ruled out a link to domestic or international terrorism," according to a draft provided yesterday by a legislative source.
The proposal has angered many ATF agents, who have had difficult relations with the FBI and opposed the move to the Justice Department. It also prompted criticism yesterday from two senators, who argued in a letter to Attorney General John D. Ashcroft that the arrangement runs counter to the will of Congress and would hinder counterterrorism probes by straining FBI resources.
"It doesn't meet the common sense test to require FBI agents to run through a fire drill of a potential terrorist attack every time a juvenile prankster loads a neighbor's mailbox with firecrackers from the Fourth of July," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who signed the letter to Ashcroft along with Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.).
The FBI and ATF have clashed over turf issues, including disputes during the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, Tex., in 1993 and another over control of the Pentagon crime scene after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. An internal FBI memo leaked last year asserted that the ATF lacked sufficient training to lead investigations and suffered a "lack of strategic vision." FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III quickly discounted that assessment.
Earlier this year, Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge agreed to give control of all terrorism financing investigations to the FBI, prompting objections from the Secret Service and the former Customs Service, both of which had been moved into the Homeland Security Department.
In the latest dispute, FBI officials have taken the position that the bureau should have initial jurisdiction over all explosives cases because of the threat posed by terrorists. One FBI official said the proposed change also would eliminate the problem of "duplicated resources."
"Following the detonation of or the discovery of a potential explosive . . . it is frequently not clear and not possible to know whether there is a link to international or domestic terrorism," the draft directive says. "Because the prevention and disruption of terrorist threats and activities is the [Justice] Department's top priority, it is essential that any incident which may involve international or domestic terrorism be treated as such an incident until . . . significantly ruled out."
In their letter to Ashcroft, Grassley and Kohl said that less than 1 percent of all explosives cases are linked to terrorism. The ATF has investigated more than 13,000 explosives cases since 1978, and has logged thousands more convictions for terrorism charges than the FBI has, the senators said.
The legislation that resulted in ATF's move to Justice also gave the agency jurisdiction over bombs and explosives cases, according to Grassley and Kohl. The new directive "contradicts clear Congressional intent," the senators wrote.
A Justice Department spokesman did not return calls seeking comment yesterday. An FBI official said the directive was close to approval by Ashcroft. ATF spokesman Andrew Lluberes said the "directive is a work in progress that the Department of Justice is considering and in which ATF continues to participate fully."
-------- terrorism
The Most Important Book Since 9/11
by Anthony Gregory
September 16, 2003
Antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gregory2.html
Anyone interested in the War on Terrorism must read James Bovard's newest book: Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil.
For critics of the War on Terrorism there are two major problems: there's too much information to keep track of, and we risk losing ourselves in the effort.
We owe much to James Bovard for Terrorism and Tyranny, for he has largely solved both of these problems for us. He has constructed with precision and scholarly excellence a narrative of all that Bush has done since 9/11 in the name of fighting terror. Not only does it cover everything from airport security to the War on Iraq, it does each of these topics justice. The writing is dense, the endnotes are invaluable, and the underlying thesis is essential to understanding where the United States is heading. While reading the book you'll learn and be reminded of the insanity that has emerged in the last two years, and by the time you're done you'll be recommitted to the cause of resisting that insanity.
The book's beginnings present a survey history of United States antiterrorism policy in the Middle East under Reagan. While the topic can only fall under so much exploration in one chapter, Bovard does an excellent job in narrating one futile U.S. attempt to stop terrorists with missiles after another. By the chapter's end the reader has lost count of the number of embassy bombings and hijackings, and it becomes clear that while the U.S. government did everything possible to appear vigilant against terrorists, it did little to ensure even the most common sense security precautions at obvious terrorist targets.
Bovard then explains how FBI incompetence and arrogance had the likely effect of allowing the hijackers to murder thousands on September 11, and how the most severe bureaucratic error in American history was rewarded by a glorification of those most responsible. By focusing not on alleged government malice, but rather on the incompetence inherent in bureaucracy, Bovard distances himself from the counterproductive argument that government officials wanted the attacks to happen. This also puts into proper context the way the government responded to 9/11 - blindly increasing its own budgets and complicating its own bureaucracies - revealing that such policies are doomed to failure, regardless of the intentions behind them.
Terrorism and Tyranny then gives a dramatic account of how the Patriot Act was railroaded through Congress without anyone reading it, and with only a perfunctory appearance by Attorney General John Ashcroft at congressional hearings about it. Next, the book presents a bulletproof documentation of the abuses in practically every domestic "antiterrorism" policy: From the government's confiscation of millions of dollars from innocent immigrants without due process; to the harassment of any traveler who dares "smuggle" his own cash to another country; to the de facto suspension of habeas corpus of millions of legal immigrants; to the incarceration of hundreds and stripping of their rights to either trial or council, in some cases not even under a façade of battling terrorism; to the practical obliteration of all Fourth Amendment protections at the say-so of a federal agent; to the molestation of airport patrons and the evacuation of tens of thousands of them over such "security threats" as pairs of scissors found in trash cans; to the hiring of hundreds of federal airport security guards without putting them through any background checks or significant training. The government abuse and ineptitude approaches unbelievable levels through these chapters, which Mr. Bovard documents with nearly 70 pages of footnotes.
The next chapters compare the brutality of terrorists with that of governments. While the Administration claims that the War on Terrorism is a noble crusade against evil, a simple and meaningless devotion to U.S. policy can exempt such unsavory regimes as those in China, Indonesia, and Zimbabwe from criticism - or even earn them subsidies - no matter how many tens of thousands of dissidents they torture or exterminate. Acknowledging the undeniable horror of terrorism, Bovard compares the thousands of innocents who international terrorists have killed to the millions murdered by their governments in a recent ten-year period. He explains the severe danger in trusting governments to suppress terrorism when governments are quite guilty of terrorism themselves.
Perhaps the most controversial chapter is on Israel's War on Terrorism and how the United States has increasingly adopted it as a model. Bovard documents the numerous abuses of the Israeli government in an even-handed, non-inflammatory way, while clarifying that he is not an anti-Semite simply for his critique of Israel. Unfortunately, no matter how well a chapter criticizing Israel is written, no matter how solid its supporting evidence and how tasteful its delivery, there will always be some who liken its sentiments to those of Adolph Hitler. Nevertheless, this chapter is powerful, engaging, fair, and quite helpful in understanding the danger of the United States mimicking the policies of Ariel Sharon.
His chapter on Iraq details fairly well the implications of the UN sanctions, as well as in addresses the controversy surrounding that program. It also gives a strong argument that the Bush administration lied America into war, readily changing its reasons for the military adventure and instigating a widely held and baseless fear that Iraq somehow posed a threat to the United States. The dishonesty and inconsistency of the Bush Administration comes through so well in quotes from presidential press conferences and CIA intelligence reports that Bovard can almost rest and let government officials prove their deceitfulness without the need of any artful commentary. While he could have gone more deeply into the Iraq War - perhaps documenting some specific horrors from U.S. bombing - this chapter is still very compelling.
The last few chapters put everything into context. In the chapter "Bastardizing Freedom," Bovard advances his theory that "it is impossible to understand the long-term political consequences of 9/11 without examining Bush's freedom rhetoric." In the next chapters, Bovard explains how an America more in line with its founding principles should react to 9/11. He concludes that America is on a road to tyranny, and that the long term as well as "immediate threat to Americans' freedom does not stem from a depraved interpretation of the Koran, but from a perverse reading of the Constitution." The government's War on Terrorism, if it continues on its current path, will cause far greater harm to American liberty and security than al Qaeda ever could, while doing very little even to suppress the latter threat, as real as it is.
Does the book have any major weaknesses? Well, people bent on supporting America's current policies might complain that Bovard sometimes cites sources they might not find credible, such as Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union. But he also cites speeches by Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Ridge, as well as officials from the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security Department, and military. And the ineptitude of these officials to keep their stories straight is at times much more convincing of their dishonesty than anything the ACLU could ever say.
One possibly genuine weakness of the book is there's not too much talk about Afghanistan. This is a shame but understandable. Strategically speaking, the book might convince more readers without it. By working in thematic and chronological order, Bovard shows the reader how far the United States has moved from its founding principles in the last two years, from an imperfect republic to an imperial Big Brother. Even many of those lacking sympathy for foreigners will come to realize in the book's first half how much deception the government has used in concealing its abuse of American citizens, so by the time Bovard's chapter on Iraq comes around, the war makers will not seem very credible in their claims on foreign policy. Overall, Terrorism and Tyranny provides a rewind of the last two years that Americans need to stop and see.
Anthony Gregory has a B.A. in history from the University of California at Berkeley, where he was the president for the Cal Libertarians. He sometimes writes for the Libertarian Enterprise, and has a website.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/%7Ecallib/ http://webleyweb.com/tle/ http://www.anthonygregory.com
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- energy
Provision in Energy Bill Brings Unease in G.O.P.
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/politics/16ENER.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - To conservative Republicans, especially those from the West, few things are more sacred than property rights. Their attitude is usually that the government, especially the federal government, should keep its hands off private land.
But as they negotiate a new national energy policy, House Republicans and the Bush administration want to grant the federal government substantial new power to allow the seizure of property - even if it means overruling state and local authorities - to establish corridors for high-capacity interstate power lines.
Supporters of the proposal say new transmission lines are needed to head off blackouts like the one that crippled the Northeast and parts of the Midwest last month, and that the new federal powers are needed to ensure that property owners do not stand in the way.
The issue could complicate negotiations on the broad energy bill being conducted between House and Senate Republicans. Republican senators from the West have resisted such new federal powers in the past.
"I have been warned by some of our people not to do it," said Senator Pete V. Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who is chairman of the House-Senate conference that is working on the measure. "But I am not going to go into this conference frightened to death of the idea of having to make some compromise with the House on eminent domain."
The House bill would enable the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve power line routes that have been blocked or delayed by a state, if the agency found the new lines would significantly ease congestion along the power grid. Companies building the high-voltage lines would be able to exercise eminent domain to acquire rights-of-way if they compensated land owners. The Senate bill does not allow for such intervention.
It is a delicate subject for Republicans who oppose federal intrusion on property owners and often complain that environmental laws violate property rights. But supporters of the proposal say modernization has been held back because utilities have no guarantee that they can add to the more than 150,000 miles of existing power lines.
"I'm not real wild about that part of the bill, but when you are talking about building these power lines across hundreds if not thousands of miles, you can't have one property owner holding up the whole thing," said Representative Richard W. Pombo, a California Republican who is chairman of the House Resources Committee.
The National Governors Association, environmental groups and other organizations representing state and local officials whose powers might be usurped oppose the proposal.
But the blackout has softened opposition from lawmakers. "The blackout probably shifted all of us slightly," said Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, who said he would still work against the eminent domain proposal. Still, he said, he was not "going to give the states the absolute right of veto."
Transmission line proposals have been controversial for decades, as landowners, local governments and others fought them on environmental, health and safety grounds. Usually, the disputes have been settled in local forums and courts.
The latest move in Congress "is a significant change in law if it is enacted," said Diane Shea, who handles natural resources issues for the governors association.
Ms. Shea and other critics of the proposal say it is based on the faulty premise that states frequently block new transmission lines. They say that such cases are rare, and that objections are handled responsibly when they do arise.
The proposal has drawn the attention of property rights advocates who contend that once such new authority is handed to a government agency, it tends to be used as a hammer to intimidate land owners.
"When you put that kind of power in the hands of an individual whose job it is to run a straight line from X to Y on a map, he doesn't care about one man's farm or another man's business," said Charles Cushman, executive director of the American Land Rights Association, whose members are mainly property owners opposed to regulation.
The Bush administration backs the proposal, which it first advanced in the energy policy drawn up in 2001 by a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. In its position paper on the energy bill issued last week, the administration said it "strongly supports" providing "last-resort federal siting authority for high-priority transmission lines" and easing the permit process for lines crossing federal land.
The idea was also supported at the House hearings on the blackout by E. Linn Draper Jr., chairman of American Electric Power, a major electricity producer. Mr. Draper said his company spent 13 years and $50 million winning approval to build a line linking West Virginia and Virginia.
Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat who opposes granting the federal government new power line authority, said the American Electric Power case was an example of how the system works because the company won approval after resolving local objections. Mr. Boucher said the authors of the energy policy were searching for provisions they could point to as ways to fight blackouts while advancing a controversial energy plan that went far beyond electricity concerns.
Representative Billy Tauzin, Republican of Louisiana and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said giving the federal government authority to settle power line disputes would encourage needed investment in transmission systems. He compared it to federal authority for routing natural gas pipelines.
"Our view is that the feds should and can have a role when it involves an interstate power line of national significance," Mr. Tauzin said. "It is a limited role and is consistent with the notion that taking property for public purposes with compensation does not violate property rights."
--------
Trans-Alaska Gas Pipeline Gets Backing
By Dan Morgan and Peter Behr
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15718-2003Sep15.html
Signaling initial progress in drafting energy legislation, top Republican negotiators announced yesterday that they had agreed to endorse a trans-Alaska route for a new pipeline carrying natural gas to U.S. markets while delaying decisions on possible federal subsidies.
The tentative agreement on the pipeline, and on a series of relatively non-controversial issues involving federal support for energy conservation, hydrogen, and coal research, was reached by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.). In an announcement, they said their proposal would be presented to Democrats and other members of a House-Senate conference committee today.
Despite complaints from Democrats that they are being shut out of the negotiating process, the Republican lawmakers said they "looked forward to an open and bipartisan process that will deliver final language to conferees for a vote by early October."
The draft language specifically prohibits an alternative route that would bring natural gas from Alaska's Prudhoe Bay to a pipeline hub in western Canada through a pipeline under the Beaufort Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean, and down Canada's Mackenzie Valley. This route has the backing of a group of U.S. energy investors, but not the major oil companies that own gas reserves in the region. Support for the $20 billion gas project has risen this year, reflecting growing concern that the United States could face chronic tight supplies and higher prices for natural gas.
The Bush administration last week declared that it was opposed to Congress mandating any specific route and said it favored letting "market forces" decide that issue.
Domenici and Tauzin said that decisions on possible subsidies would be made later. But Canadian Ambassador Michael Kergin last week wrote to lawmakers to warn that subsidies proposed in a Senate draft would "skew the North American natural gas market, and would discourage investments in natural gas development in other regions of North America."
-------- environment
4 States Sue E.P.A., Citing Health Risk of Pesticide Residue
September 16, 2003
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/nyregion/16SUIT.html
The attorneys general of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency yesterday, claiming that it fails to protect children from the risk of eating food containing unsafe levels of pesticide residue.
The suit claims neglect on the part of the E.P.A. in carrying out the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, which dictates strict limits on pesticide use. Because children's bodies are significantly more susceptible than adults to certain toxins, the law stipulates that food commonly consumed by children must have pesticide levels that are 10 times lower than those permitted for adults.
"Congress rarely speaks unanimously, as they did with the Food Quality Protection Act in order to protect the health of children and infants," said Peter Lehner, chief of environmental protection in the New York attorney general's office. "Unfortunately, the E.P.A. is ignoring that clear mandate and the solid science which underpins it."
The case focuses on a number of chemicals, including chlorothalonil, alachlor, methomyl, metribuzin, and thiodicarb, which are often used on popular children's foods like peanuts, apples, bananas and corn.
David Deegan, an E.P.A. spokesman, said it was too soon to respond to the suit. "I can say, however, that the E.P.A. has not deviated from our ongoing effort to implement the Food Quality Protection Act."
"But some of our efforts to achieve the milestones laid out in the 1996 law are several years away from completion," he added.
-------- genetics
Sperm Made from Stem Cells
Development in Mice Raises Issues for Human Reproduction
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15976-2003Sep15.html
Scientists in Japan have transformed ordinary mouse embryo cells into sperm cells, marking the first time those specialized sex cells have been cultivated in the laboratory.
The achievement offers researchers an unprecedented window through which they can study the mysterious process by which embryo cells become sperm and brings scientists a step closer to controlling the basic mechanisms of sexual reproduction.
Scientists said the work would also advance efforts to engineer sperm with specific genetic traits -- a capability that, if applied to human embryonic stem cells and sperm, would pose new ethics questions regarding the extent to which people should be allowed to alter their genetic legacies.
The advance could lead the way to new and controversial methods of reproduction. Scientists had already demonstrated that embryonic stem cells could be turned into eggs. By showing that these cells can also be driven to become sperm, scientists said, it now seems possible that baby mice -- and perhaps human babies as well -- could be created from nothing more than two laboratory-grown stem cells, one transformed into a sperm and the other into an egg.
"Basically, you could have human sexual reproduction without people," said Lee Silver, a professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. "You could generate a human being who never had any parents."
Embryonic stem cells are the "starter set" of cells inside every mammalian embryo that later differentiate into all the kinds of cells needed to make an adult body.
Scientists first isolated human embryonic stem cells just five years ago and have just begun to learn how to turn them into various cells -- to serve, for example, as replacement tissues and organs for patients with degenerative diseases. Stem cell research is more advanced in mice, because mouse embryonic stem cells were discovered more than 20 years ago.
Scientists generally agree that what can be done with mouse cells will also prove possible in human cells. But until this year it's been impossible to turn even mouse stem cells into eggs or sperm -- unique cells bearing only half the standard complement of DNA.
In May, scientists at the University of Pennsylvania broke the first barrier by growing eggs from mouse embryonic stem cells, and made the surprising discovery that eggs could be made from either male or female stem cells. That discovery stirred visions of a future in which gay men could have children that are genetically their own, with one man providing sperm and the other providing eggs made from his own stem cells. (They would still need a woman to provide part of an egg, which, when combined with the man's skin cell, would create embryonic stem cells, and also to carry the resulting embryo and fetus to term.)
The creation of sperm from mouse stem cells does not raise the same gender-bending possibilities because sperm, it turns out, can be grown only from male embryonic stem cells. So even if the mouse feat is replicated with human cells, lesbians would not have the capacity to make their own babies, because their stem cells won't grow into sperm.
Nonetheless, scientists said, by taking sperm production out of the testes, where it normally occurs, the new research makes it possible for scientist to watch the process unfold and, of perhaps greater interest and concern, manipulate it.
Scientists already know how to insert individual genes into stem cells, researchers noted. That means it should now be possible -- if not necessarily ethically acceptable in humans -- to grow sperm from stem cells that have been genetically altered, opening a new way to endow one's offspring with desired biological traits.
The new work was led by developmental biologist Toshiaki Noce and colleagues at the privately funded Mitsubishi Kagaku Institute of Life Sciences in Tokyo. The researchers cultivated stem cells in lab dishes along with other cells that secrete key hormones that foster the intermediate stages of sperm development. Then they transferred the mixture of cells into mice, just under the tissue capsule that surrounds the testes, where the hormonal environment was just right for the final stages of sperm maturation.
Some of the cells spontaneously formed tiny tubules like those in the testes in which sperm grow. Nestled inside those self-assembled tubules, the stem cells finished transforming themselves into sperm, the team reported. The findings are to be published this week in the "early edition" of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"The sperm are active," Noce said in a telephone interview, adding that they have successfully penetrated the outer shell of mouse eggs. The resulting fertilized eggs underwent a few cell divisions -- the first step to becoming an embryo. Further tests are needed, he said, to see if those early embryos can continue to divide and develop into fetuses and baby mice.
--------
Billionaire plugs $100M into brain research
9/16/2003
By Robert Davis,
USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-09-16-paul-allen-donation_x.htm
Billionaire Paul Allen, who along with boyhood friend Bill Gates created Microsoft, launches a $100 million scientific effort today to map the genes that drive the brain.
The donation is seed money for brain research and the creation of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle. The goal: To identify every gene's role in the human brain so medical researchers can find new drugs and treatments for disorders such as Alzheimer's and schizophrenia.
The venture comes at a time when brain disorders are looming larger on the horizon.
Preventable and more treatable medical conditions such as heart disease are being managed better by a combination of medical advancements and a trend toward healthier lifestyles.
As the 77 million baby boomers age, they are living longer. But about half of all people who live to be 85 get Alzheimer's disease. So experts predict a spike in cases of degenerative brain disorders.
"We believe this is a historic opportunity to unite the genome and the brain," Allen says in a statement. "Researchers will be able to use the data and technology to tackle the challenges of neurodevelopment, neurodegenerative and psychiatric disease, and contribute to a fundamental understanding of brain science." Allen hopes the keys to treatment and prevention can be found at the root of the brain where genes drive the mental processes, both normal and abnormal. Today, it's a mystery.
The Human Genome Project, which mapped the body's genome, did not determine what each gene does. So researchers still don't know which gene makes a kidney and which ones make a brain.
"It's like opening a box filled with parts to build two tables and there are 30,000 parts and no instructions. There is no map," says Mark Boguski, a longtime genomics researcher who is the senior director of the Allen Brain Atlas team. "We have to figure out which are for the brain, and then we have to figure out how they are put together or what they do."
Allen's brainchild grew out of a meeting in 2001 of leading neuroscientists and genomics experts Allen had flown to Seattle for a discussion of how the two fields might be connected with some help.
Allen, one of the world's richest men with a net worth of $21.5 billion, is a philanthropist known for his diversity in interests. He pumps money into music and film projects. He owns two sports teams.
"It's awe-inspiring that a genome with only 30,000 genes can create the brain - a highly complex system of a trillion nerve cells," Allen says.
Boguski hopes the donation from Allen is just the start. More money will probably follow from government and other sources, he says, but the $100 million from Allen is a rare gift to science.
"Cross-discipline research has always been difficult to fund," he says. "Research funded by the government and pharmaceutical companies tends to be very disease-focused and disease-specific."
The donation also gives Allen a seat at the table.
He tends to be a hands-on giver, helping to direct his pet projects through meetings and e-mails.
"He sent me an e-mail last week asking me about the role of gene splicing and neurodevelopment and neurodegeneration," Boguski says. "He's very interested in this."
And he's in a hurry. Allen has set ambitious goals for the team, including releasing the first information in early 2004.
"This will be a launching pad for more research," Boguski says. "Genome and brain research have always been two trains running down parallel tracks. This is where these fields can connect."
-------- health
Why men have more heart attacks
September 16 2003
(IOL) South Africa
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=117&art_id=qw1063691640813B223&set_id=1
Sydney - Men have more heart attacks than women because of their sex hormones, researchers in Australia said on Tuesday.
They found that male sex hormones, or androgens, activate the genes that stimulate the production of cholesterol in arteries.
None of these genes were activated in women.
Dr Martin Ng, a cardiologist at Sydney's Royal Prince Alfred hospital, said the finding might lead to gender specific treatments for coronary heart disease.
'Male sex hormones stimulate genes that promote coronary artery disease in men' "Male sex hormones stimulate genes that promote coronary artery disease in men but in a very surprising finding, when we used the same male sex hormones in women, we found that nothing happened, even though both men and women have male sex hormones," Ng told Australia's ABC Radio.
The finding helps explain why men are five times more likely to have a heart attack than women.
The results of the two-year study have been published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The lower risk factor for women has customarily been put down to the higher levels of oestrogen in women.
But Ng said his study showed this to be wrong.
-------- homeless
Prevention Is New Focus for Homeless
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By LESLIE KAUFMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/nyregion/16HOME.html
This summer, New York City's shelters for homeless families worked with uncommon smoothness. No one stayed overnight in the Emergency Assistance Unit, the notorious intake office in the Bronx where people slept on benches in past summers because the city had no room elsewhere. And families left the system for permanent housing at nearly twice the pace of the previous year.
Yet even with those improvements, a record number of homeless people - about 39,000 - lived in city shelters at the height of the demand, in July.
So Linda I. Gibbs, the commissioner of the Department of Homeless Services, said she must set her sights this fall on the ultimate policy goal: preventing homelessness.
"It is a mistake to only think in terms of shelter," Ms. Gibbs said. "We need to start a conversation on prevention and to understand what is causing homelessness in completely unprecedented numbers and take action to reverse it."
The commissioner is in the first stages of her effort. To reduce the number of homeless single people, her agency has started programs this year to encourage prisons and hospitals, which often discharge people directly to shelters, to help find alternatives.
But for the more complex and expensive problem of family homelessness, which costs the city an average of $25,000 per family over the course of their stay, Ms. Gibbs's plan is still evolving.
So far, her agency has taken charge of about half of the city's contracts for related services - like legal services and rent subsidies - that were previously dispersed among a handful of agencies. It is developing a computer tracking system and has created a unit for prevention and after-care that will have a staff of 13 this fiscal year and more later on.
The commissioner's new efforts are being met with about equal measures of enthusiasm and skepticism from advocates for the homeless. The city Human Resources Administration once had a division dedicated to preventing homelessness, but it was closed as part of budget cuts a decade ago, they point out. And for now, Ms. Gibbs is not talking about any sizable new money for rent subsidies or new housing.
"Affordable housing is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about," said Patrick Markee, a senior policy analyst at the Coalition for Homelessness, which has a program to help prevent evictions. "Big problems require big solutions, and ultimately they require money."
Rent subsidies to households on public assistance, set by the state, are a particular sore point because they remain at 1987 levels, or a maximum of $312 a month for a family of four. They are, however, set to rise modestly in November.
Ms. Gibbs acknowledged that "new investment is needed." But first, she said, the city should study how best to spend that money.
Already, she said, her investigation has yielded some insights into who becomes homeless, and some new ways to ration the legal and social services that might prevent it.
Among the biggest challenges is identifying needy families before they end up on the street with their luggage. To do that, Ms. Gibbs's agency is developing Homestat, a computer mapping model based roughly on a system the New York Police Department has used successfully to track crime.
The new system has confirmed that families seeking shelter in New York City come disproportionately from just three areas: East Brooklyn/Brownsville, Central Harlem and the South Bronx. The city has hired the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York-based nonprofit group that studies social problems, to analyze why such communities produce three and four times as many homeless families as other districts that are equally poor.
The city says its own data also show that of families it placed into housing a decade ago, some 30 percent have returned to the system. Thirty percent is a stunningly high number, and it is at odds with academic research that found rates of failure to stay in permanent housing were high only for the first six months after placement.
Prompted by the new findings, Ms. Gibbs's department is starting its first program to reach out to families with social services even after they have left the shelters. The Department of Homeless Services hopes to link up soon to the city Housing Department's computer systems to track families that leave the Emergency Assistance Unit.
If such a family missed several months' rent, a team would be dispatched to see if an eviction could be avoided. In a new twist, landlords seeking to evict troubled tenants for back rent or behavior problems would also be able to use the program to alert the city and get help, Ms. Gibbs said.
What the city will do once it identifies families at risk of homelessness is not exactly clear. Ms. Gibbs said it could offer things like mediation services (to make peace with relatives who have housing, for example), homemaking services and legal advice. Even some small intervention where none exists now, she believes, might make a crucial difference.
Sanford Lewis, director of social services for the Community Service Society of New York, which has a program to prevent evictions, said the commissioner is overly optimistic. "People that reach the point that they are in the shelter system have tried every possible way to prevent eviction, including friends, family and the Human Resources Administration," he said. "They need help paying the rent."
But Ms. Gibbs said that city surveys of families at the Emergency Assistance Unit indicate that many have not had contact with the community groups that might have helped negotiate with landlords or pay one-time back rent.
The other tangled area in which Ms. Gibbs hopes to make progress is legal services for tenants facing eviction, many of whom will end up in city shelters. Data show that less than 10 percent of families in housing court have a lawyer, but more than 90 percent of landlords are represented. Most everyone, from tenants' lawyers to judges, agrees that more representation would be better, but the problem is cost.
The city reimburses legal-service organizations about $1,080 per case. Some of the public defenders who contract to handle housing court cases argue that the money is so meager that they are not able to hire enough lawyers to work on their staffs. The Legal Aid Society says the shortage of lawyers explains, in part, why despite the crushing need, these organizations did not claim $4 million budgeted in the 2002 fiscal year to defend tenants in housing court cases.
Ms. Gibbs, whose agency recently acquired the legal-services contracts for housing court, wants no dollar to go unused and is studying a practice called unbundling, which allows public lawyers to handle just one aspect of a client's case, as a possible solution. For example, the practice, which is used in California and Arizona, would allow different lawyers to write pretrial briefs and give advice on the best type of defense.
That strategy worries Steven Banks, associate attorney in chief of the Legal Aid Society. "Once a client is in housing court, simple advice is not enough," he said. "To prevent an eviction requires a significant commitment of resources. It demands full representation."
But the piecemeal approach has support in important places. "Full representation is ideal, but what is the reality here?" said Justice Fern Fischer, the chief administrative judge of the Civil Court of New York. "I believe if a few more tenants came into court with better answers or where their defense were clearly set forth for them by a lawyer, we would see a better result."
-------- imf / world bank / wto
Coming U.S. Vote Figures in Walkout at Trade Talks
September 16, 2003
The New York Times
By ELIZABETH BECKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/international/americas/16TRAD.html
CANCÚN, Mexico, Sept. 15 - It may be more than a year away, but the United States presidential election is already throwing a long shadow. Here in Cancún this week, it was enough to touch off a walkout by delegates from developing nations at the World Trade Organization talks who were convinced that it was hopeless to expect any realistic negotiations with the Americans this year on farm subsidies.
Opinions were divided about the impact of the decision by the developing nations known as the Group of 21 to reject a draft proposal in which they would have opened up their markets to foreign investment in return for cuts in agricultural subsidies. But there was widespread agreement - outside the United States - that they had little choice.
A few trade experts did question the wisdom of the developing countries. Stefan Tangermann, the agriculture expert at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said he feared that the countries had given up a rare opportunity to start cutting down the $300 billion in annual agricultural subsidies that distorts world trade and undermines the poorest farmers around the world.
"It is a very deplorable outcome," he said, shaking his head.
But several senior delegates from advanced countries with little at stake in the agricultural talks said the Group of 21 - which is led by Brazil and includes China, India, South Africa, Egypt and Indonesia - had little choice but to walk out given the restraints caused by the upcoming presidential campaign.
Robert B. Zoellick, the United States trade representative, had promised that Washington was prepared to cut its multibillion-dollar farm subsidies. But the compromise proposal essentially left that farm program intact. It also gave American cotton farmers a reprieve despite appeals from four of Africa's poorest nations.
"Bob Zoellick is a master at strategy and I think he had little room," one senior delegate said. "President Bush was not going to upset his farmers before his re-election."
Before the talks broke off, American farmer groups attending the conference here said they were pleased Mr. Zoellick was able to protect most of the farm bill passed in 2002, which raised subsidies by $40 billion.
"He did his very best," said Robert Stallman, head of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "The ambassador has done an excellent job."
The farm states voted heavily in favor of Mr. Bush in the 2000 election, and were the backbone of the states that gave him the bulk of his electoral votes. Agribusiness, which profits from the low cost of corn, soybeans and other crops subsidized by American taxpayers, has shifted its allegiance to the Republican Party. Political contributions from agribusiness jumped to $53 million in 2002 from $37 million in 1992, with the Republicans' share rising to 72 percent from 56 percent, according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Peter Gaemelke, the head of the European farmers group and the counterpart of Mr. Stallman, said Mr. Zoellick had done his job a little too well. "This should not be a meeting just to elect Mr. Bush," Mr. Gaemelke said.
Mr. Zoellick implicitly rejected such calculations on Sunday night when he said the United States was one of the "very few countries" prepared to negotiate big changes that favor developing nations.
"They missed the opportunity to cut our subsidies," he said.
The American farm provisions, while the central issue, were not the only reasons for the Group of 21's decision to quit the talks. Europe's demand that the world trading body negotiate new rules covering investment, trade facilitation and two other areas were also cited.
In the long run, whether the Group of 21 gains or loses as a result of the breakdown in negotiations may be beside the point. What counts, its members asserted, was the statement that had been made. They said they had established themselves as a power bloc to be reckoned with.
"This is a change in the nature and quality of negotiations between developing and developed nations," said Alec Irwin, South Africa's trade negotiator. "While we are disappointed, there is no doubt today we are all optimistic in the medium and the long run."
--------
Walkout Shadows Free Trade's Future
WTO Meeting, Stymied by Accusations, Seen as Sign of Globalization's Limits
By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15933-2003Sep15
The walkout staged by some of the world's poorest countries that abruptly ended global trade negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, underscored a bedrock question: After decades of rapidly advancing globalization, do the nations of the world lack the stomach to open their borders further to trade and investment?
The prospect that free trade might be reaching its limits, deeply unsettling to some and cheering to others, arose in the wake of the collapse Sunday of World Trade Organization talks. The Cancun meeting, which was supposed to invigorate negotiations launched two years ago for a new pact to lower trade barriers worldwide, broke down amid accusations by developing nations that rich nations were refusing to offer meaningful concessions, all but dooming chances that agreement will be reached by the self-imposed deadline of Jan. 1, 2005.
Yesterday, officials of the developing countries that had forced the rupture were emphasizing that they were still interested in reaching a deal, and trade experts pointed out that brinkmanship and delays are the norm, not the exception, in global trade rounds. But well before the Cancun meeting, the 148 member nations of the WTO were struggling to reach agreement even on basic procedural issues, and the debacle at Cancun has laid bare the enormous obstacles that must be surmounted for a pact to be concluded.
At bottom, the problem facing the eight-year-old WTO can be blamed on its success -- and that of its predecessor organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade -- in sharply reducing trade barriers during the post-World War II era.
After eight rounds of negotiations that slashed tariffs and dismantled other obstacles to the movement of goods and services across borders, the United States and the European Union -- the two biggest players in the organization -- "essentially have very little to give, except the most politically sensitive areas that have survived the previous rounds," said Jeffrey J. Schott, a trade specialist at the Institute for International Economics. In Europe, the most sensitive area is the highly protected farm sector, and in the United States, it is not only agriculture but also the textile and apparel industries, where tariffs remain high in part because of the clout those industries wield in Washington.
The Europeans are extremely reluctant to give up subsidies for their farmers. As for the United States, Schott noted, if U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick offers major concessions in agriculture and textiles to strike a bargain, "Congress will only accept that if they get a good payoff in return," meaning promises by developing countries to significantly increase access in their markets to foreign goods. But many developing countries indicated at Cancun that they are deeply resistant to exposing their industries further to international competition, "and if you were Bob Zoellick, you'd have to ask, 'Do I want to spend time with these guys who don't seem to want to negotiate?' " Schott said.
If that dynamic persists, globalization, at least in its economic form, appears likely to hit a relatively slow patch for a number of years. That doesn't mean that the world trading system would cease to function as it does now; the Geneva-based WTO would continue to police global commerce and adjudicate disputes among member nations. But at the very least, failing to conclude the WTO negotiations, which were launched at Doha, Qatar, in November 2001, would mean passing up a major opportunity to expand world trade -- one that, according to the World Bank, could boost global incomes by as much as $500 billion a year, enough to raise 144 million people out of poverty by 2015.
The growing backlash against free trade in rich countries, and parallel trends in the developing world, may make such an outcome inevitable, trade experts said.
"The hemorrhaging of U.S. manufacturing jobs and the persistence of high unemployment have placed Zoellick in a position where he has very little room to maneuver," said Daniel K. Tarullo, who served as President Clinton's international economic adviser. Neither the EU nor the United States seems capable of offering much to the developing countries, he added, because "both are restrained by a lack of political support at home for trade expansion and by the political strength of their farmers."
The gloom among free-trade advocates over the events in Cancun was leavened by the belief that the meeting could ironically spur progress toward a global trade deal by drawing world attention to the issues that were raised by the developing countries -- in particular, the $300 billion that rich nations pay in subsidies to their farmers. Those subsidies lead to overproduction of many crops, such as cotton, which are then dumped on global markets, depressing prices and hurting farmers in poor lands.
"It's pretty embarrassing for the United States to be seen in an argument with Benin and Mali, two very poor countries, over cotton subsidies," said Edward Gresser, a trade expert at the Progressive Policy Institute. "In a way, it's nice to see countries like that using the system in the way that it ought to be used."
Poor nations were delighted with the propaganda points they scored, and the unity they maintained, at Cancun. "This is the best thing that has happened to developing nations in a long time. I mean, for heaven's sake, if Africans have to compete with rich nations on the price of exporting a mango or rice or cotton or yogurt, how can we ever work our way out of poverty?" said Lucia Quachey, national president of the Ghana Association of Women Entrepreneurs, based in the country's capital, Accra. "It had to be done. A dramatic stand had to be taken."
But, Gresser warned, "ultimately this could be a hollow victory for them." The only realistic chance for reducing the farm subsidies lies in successful completion of the Doha round, he noted, "and if that doesn't get back on track, what good have they done themselves?"
Agriculture was not the only source of friction at Cancun; in fact, the direct cause of the breakdown was the failure to agree on whether a final pact should include WTO rules, sought by the EU and Japan, in areas not currently covered by the organization such as cross-border investment and antitrust.
Whatever the cause, one of the effects will clearly be an intensified effort by the Bush administration to negotiate bilateral free-trade accords with individual countries and groups of countries, similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Zoellick recently wrapped up such deals with Chile and Singapore, and he has also launched talks with five Central American countries, Australia, Morocco, and several southern African countries.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin warned in a French radio interview against "the temptation" of bilateralism, echoing the widely held concern that such deals can undermine the WTO .
One of the purposes of bilateral pacts is to prod recalcitrant countries to come around in the WTO talks, because they would fear that other nations will gain a competitive edge in the giant U.S. market. But many of the countries with whom Washington is negotiating free-trade pacts are among the Group of 22, which played a key role in standing up to the United States and the European Union at Cancun. They include Guatemala, Argentina, Costa Rica and Brazil.
Underscoring the problems Washington has in pursuing bilateral and regional deals, Roberto Rodriguez, Brazil's agriculture minister, said yesterday that the failure to reach an agreement at Cancun jeopardized not only the WTO round but also the U.S. efforts to negotiate a Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would include all the nations of the Western Hemisphere except Cuba. Brazil, the largest nation in Latin America, has staunchly maintained that it would not join an FTAA without obtaining major concessions from Washington on agriculture subsidies; yet at the same time the United States has insisted that a deal on subsidies can only come as part of a WTO agreement.
A senior U.S. official, briefing reporters yesterday on the condition that she not be named, pointedly emphasized that "we will continue to move ahead on the regional and bilateral level." Although the official emphasized that the administration remains as committed as ever to securing a WTO deal, she acknowledged that Cancun raised serious concerns about the prospects.
"Here's a fact as we come out of Cancun: Bold reform on the global level has been delayed," she said. "For countries like us that have been interested in reducing farm subsidies, in reducing goods barriers, that is now delayed. . . . Now how far does that time frame change? We'll see."
Correspondents Jon Jeter in Buenos Aires; Emily Wax in Accra, Ghana; and Keith Richburg in Paris contributed to this report.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Lots of news from Jonah House
From: disarmnow@erols.com
9/16/2003
Dear Friends,
There is lots to report from Jonah House. First an update from Liz and Susan's court date in Bath, Maine, an update from Naed Smith's court date in Alexandria, VA and finally addresses for Sisters Carol and Jackie.
Today Susan and Liz of Jonah House along with Tom Lewis (Mass), George Ostenson (Maine), Lisa Guido (New York) were sentenced to four days in jail and Tom Feagley (Mass), Jim Harney (Maine), Jane Van Landingham (Mass), Cath Robson and Sr. Susan Clarkson (Washington DC), Mary Donnelly (Maine), Kevin Wyer (Maine) were sentenced to two days for their witness in front of Bath Iron Works on August 9th. They pled no contest and told the judge they couldn't pay fines or do community service. They were charged with criminal trespass for holding a banner outside a christening of a Navy Destroyer at the same time and date of the anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan.
On September 5th, as Bill, Steve and Steve were being released from six months in prison for exposing the blood at the Pentagon last December, Naed Smith went into federal court in Alexandria, VA for the same action on Good Friday. He pled guilty to disorderly conduct and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. We spoke to Naed on Wednesday night and he seems to be doing well. He is due to be released around October 3rd. Edward J Smith 2001 Mill Road Alexandria, VA 22314
Sister Ardeth was moved to FCI Danbury yesterday. Her address is: Sister Ardeth Platte, OP #10857-039 FCI Danbury Route 37 Danbury, CT 06811
Sisters Carol and Jackie of Sacred Earth and Space Plowshares have arrived at Federal Prison Camps....
Sister Carol Gilbert, OP # 10856-039 R1 Federal Prison Camp PO Box A Alderson, WV 24910 Send only cards or letters- do not include stamps, money, envelopes or other items. Magazines and paperback books can be sent but less than five in one mailing and write "Authorized by BOP policy" on the outside. Hardcover books can only be sent from the publisher or bookstore.
Sister Jacqueline Hudson,
OP #08808-039 FPC Victorville
PO Box 5100 Adelanto, CA 92301
We assume the same mail regulations apply to Jackie but it may vary with the prison.
Commissary Donations need to be a postal money order with the prisoner's name and number on it. They are sent to: Federal Bureau of Prisons Carol Gilbert (for example) # 10856-039 (for example) PO Box 800073 Marietta, GA 30068-8073
Sister Jackie asked that commissary donations not be sent to her account directly. She is afraid if too much money is in her account the prison will start taking money out to pay her assessments. She asked that if people want to send a small donation it be sent to Sue Ablao, 3495 Dyes Inlet NW, Bremerton WA 98312, with a note on the memo line "for Jackie". While we have not heard directly from Carol and Ardeth on this matter we suggest that people check with us before sending them donations.
If you do send a (small) donation, please also write the sisters to tell them so they can make sure it gets into their account.
Sister Carol wrote with these mail guidelines for Alderson. Send only cards or letters - do not include stamps, money, envelopes or other items. Magazines and paperback books can be sent but less than five in one mailing and write "Authorized by BOP policy" on the outside. Hardcover books can only be sent from the publisher or bookstore. The rules on sending paperback books and magazines may be different elsewhere, especially for Ardeth since she is at a higher security prison.
Thanks for all your support. Gary and Laurel - the only folks left
PS- If you live in Baltimore and want to help us out this weekend. Give us a call at (410) 233-6238.
September 20, 2003 Update:
The seven resisters in Maine sentenced to two days in jail have been released and we expect the other five will be released today. Thanks to all those who offered to help out here at Jonah House, we have everything covered and we survived the hurricane with only the loss of a few trees and large branches.
Love from still only Laurel, Gary and Sojo, the little black cat
----
Bono wants more spent on AIDS
9/15/2003
By Mark Memmott,
USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-15-bono-usat_x.htm
The Irish rock star Bono will urge President Bush Tuesday to spend $1 billion more in the first year of Bush's five-year plan to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.
At issue is whether the United States should spend the $3 billion "authorized" for the first year by the legislation that created the program, or the $2 billion the White House has asked to be "appropriated," or actually paid out.
Bono, of the band U2, has long been an activist on issues related to Africa and is to meet with Bush Tuesday at the White House.
In a meeting Monday with USA TODAY editors and reporters, Bono said the president should push for the additional $1 billion. Bono's organization DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) estimates the $1 billion could prevent 1.6 million HIV infections in Africa.
Bono also said quickly helping Africa will prevent "10 more Afghanistans" by lessening the chances of the AIDS crisis turning the continent into a breeding ground for international terrorists.
When the president unveiled the $15 billion program in his State of the Union address last January, he said that it would prevent 7 million HIV infections in Africa and the Caribbean, treat 2 million HIV-infected people and care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans. Nearly 30 million Africans have the AIDS virus.
The White House says the initiative is one of the president's top priorities, even as the cost of the occupation in Iraq mounts and budget deficits soar.
At $2 billion for the first year, "the president is following through on his commitment," said Trent Duffy, spokesman at the Office of Management and Budget.
Aides of Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., say that the first-year budget may slightly exceed Bush's request and that Frist is committed to spending $15 billion over five years. But the White House hasn't asked for $3 billion the first year, and Frist and many members of Congress do not want to spend that much because of concern that it might overwhelm AIDS programs.
Bono disagrees. "It's sort of 'We'd love to give them the money, but the Africans just couldn't spend it.' Please, just say you don't have the money, but don't say that. Let's be respectful of the gravity of 7,000 casualties a day to this illness."
DATA and a number of other organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, will call today for the $3 billion commitment. This week, DATA radio ads featuring actress Ashley Judd will urge lawmakers to "Keep America's Promise to Africa."
--------
Telling kids to say 'no' to war
By Marjorie Coeyman
The Christian Science Monitor,
September 16, 2003
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0916/p13s02-lecl.html
PHILADELPHIA - John Grant and Frank Corcoran have both been restless this summer, eagerly awaiting the reopening of school.
Yet the two men are not teachers and they are not students. Nor are they parents of school-age children. Rather, they are Vietnam vets with a message they long to bring into schools and share with a younger generation.
The essence of that message: Don't be sucked into believing in notions of war as glorious and patriotic. War is an evil to be avoided at all costs.
Military recruiters and government advertising often dominate access to schools and tell teens the opposite, Mr. Grant says. That's why servicemen who have fought need to tell them the truth.
"In ads, you see out-of-work actors on helicopters," he says, shaking his head. "But that's not what it's really like. We've got to go out there and tell them that."
Grant and Mr. Corcoran are both members of the St. Louis-based Veterans For Peace. The group was founded in the mid-1980s by two veterans, one who had fought in World War II, and the other a Vietnam vet. It sees its purpose as debunking false notions of war as glorious, and alerting the world - particularly those who have never fought - to what they see as the stark and horrible reality of combat.
Part of its credo reads: "We find it sad that war seems so delightful, so often, to those that have no knowledge of it. We will proudly and patriotically continue to denounce war despite whatever misguided sense of euphoria supports it."
Governments want young people to believe that war is necessary, the group believes, but that is rarely - if ever - true. Some members of VFP are pacifists, while others believe war may be necessary to counter aggression. But most agree that the US government has - at least at times - waged war unnecessarily.
And they would like young people, particularly the potential enlistees, to examine the reasons for war much more critically than they are encouraged to.
Schools aren't the only channel of outreach of VFP, but they are an important one, says David Cline, president of the group. "It's one of our mainstay activities, especially for the Vietnam vets," he says. "We're trying to pass our experience on to our children and the younger generation."
But the group's forays into schools are limited partly by its small size (they have only 3,500 members nationwide), and partly by resistance from schools.
"There are teachers who want their students to hear another point of view," Mr. Cline says. But many are uncomfortable with bringing into the classroom a message that may seem not only antiwar but possibly even antigovernment.
Grant and Corcoran, who both live in the Philadelphia area, like to work together, and over the past several years have carried their antiwar message into middle schools, high schools, and both community and four-year colleges.
But since the US invasion of Iraq, they have felt an additional sense of urgency about getting into schools. Their main concern: Military recruiters have become more active in schools and may be filling students' heads with false notions of war as a patriotic duty.
They say they know how vulnerable teens may be to such a message because they themselves were once seduced by it.
Grant grew up in a family that expected all males to serve in the military. He enlisted in the Army in the 1960s right after high school graduation and was sent to Vietnam. He was in radio intelligence and served his tour of duty without questioning his core conviction that he was doing something noble.
Later in life, however, he began to read about that era of US history and "the scales fell from my eyes," he says today. "The idea that we were liberating people, that it was about democracy ... it was never really that."
He came to believe that the Vietnam War had really been fought to achieve political dominance, something he felt could not justify the killing that he had witnessed.
Corcoran's experience was even harsher.
He enlisted in the Marines at age 18, at the height of the Vietnam war. What he saw when he arrived overseas to begin his service he can only characterize now as "slaughter."
His notions of patriotism and glory faded almost instantly, he says. "All that stuff is gone in six weeks. All you're thinking about is survival."
Corcoran hadn't served long before he was caught in a prolonged gun battle during which his two best friends were killed. Both were shot after they crawled to a dangerous spot in an effort to save his life when he was shot in the stomach.
Corcoran says it was 20 years before he could talk about the incident, but now that he has started he wants to tell the story as often as he can.
"Every time I tell it I make Michael and Danny's deaths less senseless," he says.
Although Grant and Corcoran find that it is often hard to get permission to go into schools, once they get there, the greeting is usually a warm one.
Most students - and many teachers - thank them profusely after their talk. "Many students say, 'I had no idea. Thank you for telling us the truth,' " Corcoran says.
And at least one teacher thanked him for arousing more compassion in his students. He says their first response to events in Iraq had been to chant "Nuke them, nuke them," but after listening to Corcoran and Grant explain firsthand how war felt, they were both saddened and subdued.
One reason VFP members hope students will take them seriously is that it is hard to challenge their heroism.
Cline, for instance, served as an infantryman in Vietnam, was wounded three times, and received both a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. He is today disabled as a result of the war wounds.
Cline, in fact, feels so strongly about the need to educate people about the realities of military service that he also supports veterans who want to go into schools and urge students to enlist.
"The whole idea of vets coming in and sharing their experiences with young people is always important, even when it's the rah-rah stuff," he says.
But the purpose of VFP, he adds, is that "we have a responsibility to make sure young people hear both sides of the story."
--------
How To Stay Out of the Military
(Primer on Draft Resistance)
by David Wiggins
September 16, 2003
LewRockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/wiggins5.html
The legal requirement to register for the draft demands a decision: give up your freedom and your conscience, or conscientiously resist. All the good reasons that would prevent a free man from volunteering for military service, also apply to resisting the draft. How in a "free country" can the first requirement of a young man, when he comes of age, be to sign up to accept orders to kill for the state in an organized way? There is never a need to compel a free man to take up a cause that is both necessary and just; but a man who is drafted is never free, and thus his cause can never be assumed to be either necessary or just.
The draft is not simply an academic interest. There is not enough military manpower to sustain the commitments the President has already undertaken. We constantly hear that our troops are "stretched too thin." To assist the United States, both the President and Secretary of State have made serious requests for significant military manpower contributions from other nations. These requests have largely fallen on deaf ears. The President has repeatedly stated he will not "back down" meaning, we must assume, that the military forces will continue to be "thinly stretched." Where will they find relief? It appears they are looking at young Americans who are free to volunteer for military duty, but in good conscience, choose not to do so.
With certain exceptions, all men residing in the United States are required to register for the draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday. The obligation of a man to register is imposed by the Military Selective Service Act, which establishes and governs the operations of the Selective Service System.
In addition to the Military Selective Service Act, the "Health Care Personnel Delivery System" was authorized by Congress in 1987 to deal with large-scale casualties that outstripped the active-duty military's ability to handle them. If implemented, the bill would require a mass registration of male and female health care workers between the ages of 20 and 45. At this time; however, the Selective Service has no statutory authority to draft medical personnel. That authorization would be provided by legislation to be introduced and passed in Congress at the time of a national defense mobilization. That "M-Day" legislative package has not been made available for public comment or congressional debate. See the Center on Conscience and War's "Health Care Professionals and the Draft" for details regarding the Health Care Personnel Delivery System.
The Pentagon is considering other "special skills" drafts, to include military linguists, computer experts, or engineers, which could arise from other immediate needs. "We're going to elevate that kind of draft to be a priority," said Lewis Brodsky, acting director of the Selective Service System.
A bill before the House Armed Services Committee would require the induction of young men into the military "to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year." Representatives Nick Smith and Curt Weldon sponsored the bill, called the "Universal Military Training and Service Act," introduced last fall. The measure is currently before the Armed Services Committee. Youth & Militarism Magazine, published by the American Friends Service Committee, contains an excellent article, "It's Not Your Father's Draft," describing this proposed draft.
Deciding What To Do
Deciding what to do when faced with Registration or the Draft can be a difficult and life-altering decision. If you choose to resist, it is helpful to keep two things in mind:
First, if you stand by your convictions, you cannot lose, and the government cannot win. The government may handcuff you or lock you up, but they cannot make you fight. If you give up any freedom, it is completely on your terms. In contrast, if you allow yourself to be coerced into military duties you risk death, disease, and disability, all for a cause you do not believe in.
Second, if you choose to resist, you will be treated as an adversary by the government. The government is no longer your friend - if it ever was. You can expect the Selective Service to use every legal method and argument at their disposal to get you to abandon your convictions and to follow orders.
Keep records carefully, and make your own file of every transaction with the Selective Service, including phone calls. Do not rely on oral promises from Selective Service officials. Put things in writing, and attach receipts and even envelopes to the correspondence in your file. A second set of those records should be in the custody of someone you can rely on to forward copies as needed. When you make a record of a transaction with Selective Service, you should send a copy to Selective Service for inclusion in your file with the Area Office. When local boards become operational, you can see and copy information in your file. You can authorize others to do so on your behalf. Send your letters and claims to Selective Service by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Observe all deadlines scrupulously. Be sure to include your Selective Service number. Sign and date all papers submitted.
Get help. Check out how the counselor you are consulting was trained. Most attorneys know nothing about Selective Service law; ask their qualifications. Draft counselors will tend to know about qualified attorneys. There are two qualified national counseling organizations: The Center on Conscience & War (CCW), and the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO).
Choosing To Not Register
On a percentage basis, not registering is the most likely way to prevent you from being drafted. The book Chance and Circumstance states that between 250,000 and 2 million males did not register for the draft during the Vietnam War. According to reports from the Selective Service System, forty percent of the men who are required to register for the draft don't register in the sixty-day time period required by law. At least one or two percent still haven't registered by the time they are twenty. At age 26 they are no longer allowed to register. Thus, the number of permanent non-registrants increases daily. There is a known minimum of at least 300,000 people, perhaps a million, who are becoming permanent non-registrants.
If you refuse to register with Selective Service, you'll receive threatening letters, at first politely reminding you to register, then threatening prosecution, finally informing you that your name has been turned over to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution. These sound scary, but they're mostly bluff. No one has been formally charged since 1986.
In the early 1980s, 21 men were indicted for refusal to register: 19 of those 21 were public resisters. Wherever there were trials, the rates of registration actually went down. This resistance halted prosecutions
Penalties for Failure to Register
The penalty for failing to register can be up to five years in jail and/or a fine of up to $250,000. In peacetime, with registration only, the regular maximum penalties are four months and/or $2500. If you don't register, you become ineligible for federal student aid, federal job training or civil service employment. Below, is a summary of the penalties you will face:
STUDENT FINANCIAL AID Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren't registered with Selective Service won't qualify for Federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.
CITIZENSHIP The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.
FEDERAL JOB TRAINING The Workforce Investment Act (formerly called the Job Training Partnership Act - JTPA) offers programs that can train young men for jobs in auto mechanics and other skills. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.
FEDERAL JOBS A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. This applies only to men born after December 31, 1959.
Some states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register. See State Legislation.
A tactic used by many states is to require driver license applicant's to register. These states require a consent statement on all applications or renewals for driver's permits, licenses, and identification cards. The statement tells the applicant that by submitting the application he is consenting to his registration with the Selective Service if so required by Federal law. Transmission of applicant data to the Selective Service is accomplished electronically through an existing arrangement each state has with the data sharing system of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
As of August 28, 2003, 32 states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia have enacted driver's license laws supporting SSS registration. They are: (1) Enacted and Implemented - Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia; (2) Enacted But Not Yet Implemented - Arizona, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Wisconsin
Aid for Those Who Do Not Register
The good news is that there are alternative funds for financial aid for those who cannot register for war because they believe registration is wrong. A few colleges will provide scholarships to make up for the government money denied. Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren, Quakers, Presbyterians and Lutherans have such limited assistance funds to support non-registrants in their own groups. There is a general fund, the Fund for Education and Training (FEAT), which supports those who do not qualify for the other programs. FEAT also would aid those who are denied job-training programs for refusing to register for the draft.
Appealing the Penalties for Failure to Register
A non-registrant may not be denied any benefit if he can "show by a preponderance of evidence" that his failure to register was not knowing and willful. You will have to describe, in detail, the circumstances you believe prevented you from registering and provide copies of documents showing any periods when you were hospitalized, institutionalized, or incarcerated occurring between your 18th and 26th birthdays. If you are a non-citizen, you may be required to provide documents that show when you entered the United States
The benefit agency official handling your case, not the Selective Service, will determine whether you have shown that your failure to register was not a knowing and willful failure to register. The final decision regarding your eligibility for the benefit that you seek will be made by that same agency, (for example, for student financial aid, this would be the Department of Education.) With some agencies, an appeals process is available.
Registering Late, Change of Address
Legally, at any moment until your twenty-sixth birthday, Selective Service must accept your draft registration card. Some young men delay registration until the year in which they turn 21, or even until just before turning 26. This method takes advantage of the way the draft lottery works.
A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. In other words, under present law, which might change with a new draft, Selective Service would first select randomly among those who turned 20 in the calendar year of the call-up. In practice, while it's possible that a draft could move beyond the age-20 selection group, the odds are against it.
It is important to remember that, once registered, even if it is the day before your 26th birthday, you are once again eligible for federal and state assistance.
Change of Address
Registrants are required to notify Selective Service within ten days of any changes to any of the information provided on the registration card, such as a change of address. According to the Center on Conscience and War, very few registrants are doing so. A registrant must report changes until January 1 of the year he turns 26. To notify Selective Service, mark your change(s) on the Change Information Form attached to the Registration acknowledgment Card and mail it to Selective Service, or complete a Change of Information Form, SSS Form 2, which you can obtain at any U.S. Post Office or U.S. Embassy or Consulate office. You may also notify Selective Service of any change by letter, but be sure to include your full name, Social Security Account Number, Selective Service Number, and date of birth, as well as your new mailing address
If the registrant forgets to notify the Selective Service of any address changes, or if the Selective Service loses that notification, the Selective Service may have difficulty finding and notifying the registrant of induction in case of a draft.
If you don't register before you turn 26, you will not be allowed to register, even if you change your mind. You'd then be permanently barred from such benefits, unless Congress or the courts act to change the law. A person who fails to register by age 26 may use the same appeals process as described above, under the section "Choosing To Not Register."
Registering But Resisting Induction
If you decide to register:
- Find a post office for your registration that has an accessible photocopier.
- Print in legible black ink across the middle of the registration form: I AM A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TO WAR IN ANY FORM. This is not a classification, but it may help you later to document your position as a CO. Selective Service makes no record of this declaration in its computer files, but they do make a microfilm record of the registration card. You should make a copy of your card for your file.
- Make a photocopy of your registration form for your own records. Date it, fold and seal it, and mail it to yourself. The postmark confirms the date.
- Put a complete statement of your conscientious objector beliefs on file with your religious body, the CCW, the CCCO, or any other counseling agency.
After registration, Selective Service will send a "registration acknowledgement" letter, which repeats the information the registrant gave on the form and supplies a Selective Service Number. If any of the information is incorrect, the registrant may return the accompanying Form 3B to correct any mistakes. The registrant can retain this letter, Form 3A, as proof of his registration.
Before anyone can be drafted, Congress and the President would have to enact legislation authorizing new draft calls. If this happens, one can apply for various postponements and reclassifications to delay induction, or to avoid it entirely.
Filing for postponement or reclassification
Selective Service regulations are filled with loopholes, postponements, and reclassifications for those who will not or cannot be drafted. A registrant can file a claim only after receipt of an order to report for induction and before the day he is scheduled to report (this means within 10 days). If you were called up, you would receive an induction notice requiring you to report on a certain date not less than 10 days from the date of the notice, to a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) unless you filed a claim for exemption or deferment. Filing a claim involves no more than checking a box on a form, and submitting it to the Selective Service.
After the Selective Service receives the claim, they will send you more forms to complete. You must apply for any and all exemptions for which you think you may qualify, and/or for classification as a conscientious objector. A registrant automatically gets his induction delayed if he files a claim for reclassification. He is also entitled to file for a postponement if he is a student or if he has an emergency beyond his control, such as a serious illness or death in his immediate family. The induction date will be postponed until the draft board evaluates the validity of the claim. The Selective Service publishes a booklet titled "Information for Registrants" which lists each category of claim for postponement of induction into the armed forces and each type of reclassification to become exempt from the draft. Under each heading (accessible by the web) is a detailed description of the qualifications and requirements for each category. The major headings are listed below.
Postponements
1. Student Postponements
2. Emergency Postponements
3. Religious Holiday Postponements
4. Other Postponements
-State or National Examination Scheduled
-Military Academy Acceptance
-Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Applicant
-Acceptance for Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Program
Reclassifications
1. Members of the Armed Forces of the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Public Health Service (Class 1-C)
2. Deferment of Certain Members of a Reserve Component or Students Taking Military Training (Class 1-D-D)
3. Exemption of Certain Members of a Reserve Component or Student Taking Military Training (Class 1-D-E)
4. Conscientious Objectors Available for Noncombatant Military Service Only (Class 1-A-O)
5. Conscientious Objectors to All Military Service (Class 1-O)
6. Conscientious Objectors to All Military Service (Separated from Military Service) (Class 1-O-S)
7. Registrant Deferred Because of Study Preparing for the Ministry (Class 2-D)
8. Registrant Deferred Because of Hardship to Dependents (Class 3-A)
9. Registrant Deferred Because of Hardship to Dependents (Separated from Military Service) (Class 3-A-S)
10. Registrant Who Has Completed Military Service (Class 4-A)
11. Registrant Who Has Performed Military Service for a Foreign Nation (Class 4-A-A)
12. Official Deferred by Law (Class 4-B)
13. Alien or Dual National (Class 4-C)
14. Treaty Alien (Class 4-T)
15. Minister of Religion (Class 4-D)
16. Registrant Exempted from Service Because of the Death of His Parent or Sibling While Serving in the Armed Forces or Whose Parent or Sibling is in a Captured or Missing in Action Status (Class 4-G)
17. Registrant Not Acceptable for Military Service (Class 4-F)
For a hard copy of the above information, write to Consumer Information Center, Pueblo, CO 81009, and ask for "Information for Registrants." Enclose $1 for processing, payable to Superintendent of Documents. The CCCO, CCW and other counseling agencies will probably also have copies of this document available.
Conscientious Objectors
Conscientious Objection is the category of reclassification of most interest to the majority of draft resisters. In fact, every draft resister is a conscientious objector in his own way. According to the Selective Service, a conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles. Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical, but according to the Selective Service, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.
Be aware that, while similar, regulations regarding Conscientious Objection differ for members of the military forces. For more information on claiming Conscientious Objector status while a member of the Armed Forces, see "Advice For Conscientious Objectors in the Armed Forces" by Robert Seeley on the CCCO website.
Conscientious objectors should begin to document their claims well in advance of being drafted since otherwise, their time will be very limited. COs should have prepared in advance a file which documents their beliefs. At the minimum, this file should include the photocopy of the registration card, a comprehensive statement of beliefs, and letters of support for this statement. The CCW website has articles with detailed instructions on how to prepare your statement of beliefs and letters of support. There, you may also sign on to the Conscientious Objector Affirmation. Such evidence can be presented to the local board that will hear the claim for a CO classification. Compiling this file should be done with supervision from a qualified draft counselor or agency such as CCW or CCCO.
If you have one, get on record with your religious organization, especially if there is an official registrar. File a provisional version of your claim with them and/or with the CCW or CCCO. Request an analysis of your claim with your counselor. Arrange for letters of support (signed and dated) and documentation of your belief and a life-style consistent with your claim. Arrange for witnesses and an advisor in advance of your hearing.
If you don't have legal advice, get it. Keep your own file about your beliefs about war and the draft. Keep records of all transactions with the Selective Service System. Many local peace centers have information. The Center on Conscience & Warfare (CCW) provides a counseling service by mail and phone, and publishes aids for thinking out what you believe and what to do. So does the CCCO, the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.
Be sure to learn the procedure for obtaining conscientious objection status.
In general, once a man gets a notice that he has been found qualified for military service (i.e., receives an induction letter), he has the opportunity to make a claim for classification as a conscientious objector (CO). If a registrant believes he can qualify for Class 1-O, he should complete the Claim Documentation Form, Conscientious Objector (SSS Form 22), provided by his Area Office and return the form to the Area Office with documents and written statements to support his claim. Form 22 asks the applicant to answer three questions.
1. Describe your beliefs that are the reasons for your claiming conscientious objection to combatant military training and service or to all military training and service.
2. Describe how and when you acquired these beliefs
3. Explain what most clearly shows that your beliefs are deeply held. You may wish to include a description of how your beliefs affect the way you live.
You should begin preparing answers to these questions as soon as you decide to claim Conscientious Objector status. The Center on Conscience and War provides an excellent worksheet to help you.
A registrant making a claim for Conscientious Objection is required to appear before his local board to explain his beliefs. Claimants for hardship or ministerial classification may also request a personal appearance. At a personal appearance you will have at least twenty minutes, and may present up to three witnesses. You may be accompanied by an advisor, and may request that the meeting be open. You cannot use a recorder at the meeting; but you can submit your own summary within five days after the hearing.
If a claim of conscientious objector status is granted, Selective Service regulations state that the registrant must perform alternative service. Of course, one may also choose to resist or refuse alternative service for reasons of conscience. Likely Alternative Service jobs are in the fields of conservation, caring for the very young or very old, education, or health care. Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have been assigned to the military.
Appealing a Claim That Is Denied
The local board will decide whether to grant or deny a CO classification based on the evidence a registrant has presented. If your claim is rejected, you will receive a new induction date. The CCCO, CCW, and others can help you find lawyers and/or counselors to help you through the lengthy appeals process. The board must give reasons for rejection of your claim. You may appeal a Local Board's decision to a Selective Service District Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board also denies your claim, but the vote is not unanimous, you may further appeal the decision to the National Appeal Board
Refusing Induction
You do, in good conscience, object to Registration and the Draft. This does not change simply because the Selective Service denies your claim. Since there is currently no draft, there are no rules governing those who refuse induction. Historically, draft resisters have been prosecuted and penalized in some manner. You can expect the same. If you choose to refuse induction or were successful using one of the methods described above, you will join a long line of conscientious objectors proud to have defended their freedom to make their own conscientious decisions, and your freedom to do the same. For their stories, check out one of the many books currently available on conscientious objectors and conscientious objection. If you let your conscience be your guide, not your fear or doubt or uncertainty, you will always make a good decision, you will always be free, and you will never regret it.
Contact Information
- Center on Conscience & War (NISBCO)
1830 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009
202-483-2220
800-379-2679
Fax: 202-483-1246
nisbco@nisbco.org
- Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO)
1515 Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-563-8787
Fax 215-567-2096
info@objector.org
- CCCO West
630 20th Street Oakland, CA 94612
510-465-1617
Fax 510-465-2459
info@objector.org
References
Organizations
- The Selective Service System
- The Center on Conscience & War (CCW)
- The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO)
- The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
Articles
- "Medical Workers Face Military Draft" WorldNet Daily
- "It's Not Your Father's Draft" Youth & Militarism Magazine
Appendix 1: SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Here is a brief overview of what would occur if the United States returned to a draft:
1. CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZE A DRAFT
A crisis occurs which requires more troops than the volunteer military can supply. Congress passes and the President signs legislation that starts a draft.
2. THE LOTTERY
The lottery would establish the priority of call based on the birth dates of registrants. The first men drafted would be those turning age 20 during the calendar year of the lottery. For example, if a draft were held in 1998, those men born in 1978 would be considered first. If a young man turns 21 in the year of the draft, he would be in the second priority, in turning 22 he would be in the third priority, and so forth until the year in which he turns 26 at which time he is over the age of liability. Younger men would not be called in that year until men in the 20-25 age group are called
3. ALL PARTS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ARE ACTIVATED
The Agency activates and orders its State Directors and Reserve Forces Officers to report for duty. See also Agency Structure.
4. PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND MORAL EVALUATION OF REGISTRANTS
Registrants with low lottery numbers are ordered to report for a physical, mental, and moral evaluation at a Military Entrance Processing Station to determine whether they are fit for military service. Once he is notified of the results of the evaluation, a registrant will be given 10 days to file a claim for exemption, postponement, or deferment. See also Classifications.
5. LOCAL AND APPEAL BOARDS ACTIVATED AND INDUCTION NOTICES SENT
Local and Appeal Boards will process registrant claims. Those who pass the military evaluation will receive induction orders. An inductee will have 10 days to report to a local Military Entrance Processing Station for induction.
The registrant appeal process begins when a registrant is dissatisfied with his Local Board's decision about his reclassification request and initiates an appeal. The first line of appeal is to the District Appeal Board. In the case of non-unanimous decisions of the District Appeal Board, the registrant may appeal to the President through the National Appeal Board.
6. FIRST DRAFTEES ARE INDUCTED
According to current plans, Selective Service must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.
September 16, 2003
David Wiggins [send him mail] is a West Point (United States Military Academy) distinguished graduate and an honors graduate of New York Medical College. He left the Army as a Conscientious Objector, resigning his commission as an Army Captain on the Iraqi front lines during Operation Desert Storm. He is currently an Emergency Physician.
-------
------- 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.