Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Periodic Table Grows By Two
Britain set to become 'nuclear dustbin
Pakistan Nuclear Expert Gave Info to Iran
Why Indian N-tech won't leak
Pakistan's Nuclear Forces, 2001
Key Pakistani Is Said to Admit Atom Transfers
Pakistani Confesses to Aiding Nuclear Efforts
ELBARADEI: 'Sanctions Worked'
Ex-Arms Inspector Now in Center of a Political Maelstrom
US spy flights claim
Playing on both teams of the nuclear game
Bush moves toward 'Star Wars' missile defense
U.S. Missile Defense Set to Get Early Start
US to begin putting intercept missiles in silos in June or July
U.S. Missile Defense Set to Get Early Start
AP: Nuclear Black Market Is Small, Covert
Funding for Flats' watchdogs faces cuts
Cheney Designs Commission to Evaluate Cheney
Iraq intelligence efforts led by Cheney magnified errors, officials say
Cheney Sees His Shadow
Halliburton: Cheney-A 'Risk Factor'
US defense budget silent on Iraq war costs
Bush Offers Budget Stressing Military and Security Spending
Deficit Is $521 Billion In Bush Budget
Democratic Chief Says 'AWOL' Bush Will Be an Issue
George Bush & John Kerry: Blood Brothers
MILITARY
Lawmakers seek to close loophole in gun sales
Fear of bioweapons grounded flights
Following U.S. Lead, Blair May Start Iraq Weapons Inquiry
Boeing chief rules out buying BAE Systems
Halliburton Gets Scrutiny on Food Billing in Iraq
Chinese victims of chemical weapons spill sue Japan for apology
Iran's Reformist Party to Boycott Elections
One-Third of Iranian Parliament Quits in Protest
Iranian Legislators Quit in Mass Protest
G.I.'s to Pull Back in Baghdad, Leaving Its Policing to Iraqis
Deadly Suicide Attacks Could Shift Kurds' View of New Iraq
Sharon Says He Plans to Pull Out 17 Settlements From Gaza
NATO speeds up expansion as ex-Soviets push for protection
Kosovo Seen As Test of New NATO Approach
Part of Wen Ho Lee Report Due for Release
U.N. Election Team Seeks Order in Iraqi Chaos
U.N. Dissolves Panel Monitoring Al Qaeda
Defense budget doesn't include funds for Iraq, Afghanistan
Fiscal 2005 Department of Defense Budget Release
How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio
TomPaine.com Takes Ad Campaign against Pentagon Adviser
Blair alone after Bush WMD move
Scott Ritter - 'Israel knew Iraq had no WMDs'
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Bush to Establish Panel to Examine U.S. Intelligence
Bush Meets With Ex-Inspector Before Naming Intelligence Panel
UK Teenager Sentenced for Hacking U.S. Research Lab
Detaining Hamdi
Inmates surrender, release guard
ENERGY
Bush Wants More Research Money for Hydrogen Cars
California Asks EPA To Waive Ethanol Requirement
Florida Pressed to Embrace Energy Efficiency Standards
OTHER
Bush Moves to Defuse Environmental Criticism
ACTIVISTS
Israeli nuclear spy to be freed in April but under surveillance
70,000 protesters form human chain in Taiwan
Temperatures rising over imminent release of Israel's "nuclear spy"
-------- NUCLEAR
Periodic Table Grows By Two
Scientists create two new 'superheavy' elements
DENVER, (AP)
Feb. 2, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/tech/main597457.shtml
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/02/1075570361236.html
Russian and American scientists say they have created two new "superheavy" elements that will reside at the extreme end of chemistry's periodic table of elements.
Just a few atoms of the newly discovered elements, 113 and 115, existed for split seconds after being created in a particle accelerator. They represent unusual forms of matter with properties that go well beyond those of the 92 elements that occur naturally on Earth.
Superheavies may be abundantly generated by supernova explosions in stars. Or perhaps they were fused during the fiery moments that signaled the dawn of the universe.
Here on the ground, such tiny amounts of superheavies formed in atom smashers probably will never find an everyday use.
Yet their "birth" adds details to a broader - and very competitive - scientific inquiry to establish a single, unified theory that would explain the physical forces that govern the behavior of all matter.
Data on the new elements will appear in the journal Physical Review C, a publication of the American Physical Society that specializes in nuclear structure.
The discoveries will not be fully accepted and added to textbooks until other labs create the elements, a process that could take months or even years.
Confidence in nuclear structure experiments was shaken when the purported 1999 discovery of two elements was found to be false. But other researchers familiar with the latest study said they were confident in the results.
"The paper is solid," said Richard Casten, a Yale physicist and an editor for the journal.
He described the techniques employed at the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California as "very tricky."
But Casten and others expressed confidence in the results and the scientists involved, especially Yuri Oganessian, the Russian physicist and lead author of the paper, for being able to interpret the results of the particle collisions in the Russian cyclotron, or circular accelerator, where the elements were created.
"I'm confident that the process was good," Casten said. "Yuri is a very well respected and careful guy."
Oganessian said in a telephone interview that the newly discovered Element 115 existed for 80 milliseconds before decaying to Element 113. Element 113 then decayed to known elements, and one of them, Element 105, Dubnium, existed for 20 hours before it split, he said.
"The experiment has attracted huge attention," Oganessian told The Associated Press. "But we have just had the first and only experiment. A single result doesn't make a discovery. We must conduct a whole series of further experiments."
"I hope that other laboratories will also work on the subject," Oganessian added. "There are laboratories in the United States, Germany and Japan which can repeat it and go further. As of today, this is just a single fact which needs to be confirmed."
In the experiments, researchers fired a rare isotope of calcium at a target made from americium. The new element 115 was created on occasions when the nuclei of the calcium and americium fused.
In the artificial environs of the cyclotron, atoms of element 115, now labeled Ununpentium, apparently lasted only a fraction of a second before it decayed into element 113. The atoms of element 113, known as Ununtrium, persisted for more than 1 second.
The 115 and 113 are the new elements' atomic numbers, which refer to the number of protons in their nuclei.
In nature, scientists theorize, they would belong to a special class of superheavy elements known as the "region of stability" that have a much longer life because the shell-like structure of their nuclei contain the highest numbers of precisely arranged protons and neutrons.
In 1999, California and Oregon State University researchers bombarded a lead target with a beam of krypton ions. They reported detecting three atoms of element 118, which then was the heaviest element detected. They decayed almost instantly into element 116.
But two years ago, the claims were retracted after a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was found to have fabricated data. Physicist Victor Ninov was the only member of the lab's 16-member team to be dismissed in the incident, and he is appealing the decision.
Other researchers later created element 116.
In 1999, Russian researchers at Dubna discovered another superheavy - element 114 - by bombarding plutonium with calcium ions.
-------- britain
Britain set to become 'nuclear dustbin of the world' in policy shift
By Michael Harrison, Business Editor
02 February 2004
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=486914
Ministers are preparing to sanction a policy which could turn Britain into the "nuclear dustbin of the world" by allowing thousands of tons of radioactive waste shipped to the UK from abroad to be stored here permanently.
A document slipped out on Friday by the Department of Trade and Industry calculates that the shift in policy could earn between £200m and £650m for British Nuclear Fuels if it kept waste from its Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria rather than returning it to the fuel's country of origin.
However, the document also acknowledges that this would raise issues over where to store the radioactive material because a deep underground repository might not be built until the beginning of the next century. The earliest that one is likely to be approved is 2025, says the document, meaning that the waste would need to be stored above ground.
Environmental groups and opposition parties reacted angrily to the proposals yesterday, demanding an end to reprocessing and the return of all foreign nuclear waste to the country that produced it.
Tony Juniper, the executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Waste reprocessing is an undesirable trade fuelled by an undesirable industry. Whoever creates the waste should get it back."
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' environment spokesman, also condemned the proposals: "This is a shocking suggestion deliberately released in a week when the media's attention was elsewhere in an attempt to bury bad news," he said. "The UK already has large amounts of intermediate and high-level waste and this will merely add to the stockpile." The UK's current policy is that all intermediate and high-level waste left over after the processing of foreign nuclear fuel at Sellafield should be returned to its original sender.
The consultative document from the DTI recommends that the UK keeps all intermediate-level waste but ships back additional high-level waste produced in British reactors that would otherwise have to be disposed of here.
The document calculates that the amount of extra waste to be disposed of in the UK would be roughly equal in volume to four medium-sized detached houses. And keeping all intermediate level waste would mean a reduction in the number of international waste shipments by sea and rail from 225 to 38.
-------- india / pakistan
Pakistan Nuclear Expert Gave Info to Iran
By MATTHEW PENNINGTON
Associated Press Writer
Feb 2, 2004
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PAKISTAN_NUCLEAR_DETENTIONS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- The founder of Pakistan's nuclear program has acknowledged in a written statement that he sent sensitive technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea to aid their atomic programs, a Pakistani government official said Monday.
Abdul Qadeer Khan - long regarded as a national hero in Pakistan - made the confession in a statement submitted "a couple of days ago" to investigators probing allegations of nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, the official told The Associated Press on condition on anonymity.
The transfers were made during the late 1980s and in the early and mid 1990s, and were motivated by "personal greed and ambition," the official said.
The official said the transfers were not authorized by the government.
A meeting of the National Command Authority that controls Pakistan's nuclear program was briefed on the statement at a meeting on Saturday, when Khan was sacked from his position as a scientific adviser to the prime minister. Two senior military officials briefed a number of Pakistani journalists late Sunday about Khan's confession. Khan had previously been reported as denying any wrongdoing.
They told journalists that Khan admitted to selling outdated "drawings and machinery" to the three countries to earn money for Pakistan. However, Khan claimed the transfers to Libya and Iran were also motivated a desire to help other Muslim countries become nuclear powers, said two journalists who attended the briefing.
The government official said the two-month probe into the proliferation allegations had reached its conclusion, but said it was up to the authority to decide whether to prosecute Khan and six other suspects in the case.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who heads the authority, is due to make an address to the nation about the progress of the investigation after the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, the Feast of Sacrifice, which ends Thursday in Pakistan, officials said.
Pakistan began its investigation in November after revelations by Tehran to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. Allegations of nuclear transfers to Libya and North Korea have also surfaced.
The government official said that "questions have been put" to two former army chiefs, Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg and Gen. Jehangir Karamat, to check information provided by Khan and other suspects during the "debriefings" - as the government has referred to the questioning of scientists.
The official stressed that the two generals were not the focus of the investigation. He said they told investigators they never authorized nuclear transfers.
However, the official said the probe had concluded there had been a lapse in security that allowed the transfers to take place, although no blame had been apportioned.
Analysts say that many unanswered questions remain over how powerful generals who oversaw the Pakistan's nuclear program that began in the 1970s - with the aim of creating a military deterrent against rival India - could have been so in the dark about any nuclear transfers by its scientists.
The mission to create the bomb was conducted in secret, using black market suppliers to circumvent international restrictions on trade in nuclear-related technology. Pakistan conducted its first nuclear test in 1998.
In all, 11 employees of the Khan Research Laboratories, a top nuclear facility named after Khan, have been questioned since November, and some subsequently released. Officials say that three scientists and four security officials - military officers among them - are still being investigated.
Six are held in custody in an undisclosed location. Khan has been told to stay at his Islamabad home, where he is guarded with tight security.
The journalists who attended Sunday night's briefing said Khan acknowledged in his 10-12 page written statement to giving the technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The transfers began in 1989 and continued for 10 years.
Khan denied he made the transfers for personal gain.
Khan had met with Iranian nuclear scientists in the southern Pakistani port city of Karachi but it wasn't clear when, said the journalists, who did not want to be identified.
The government's move to publicize Khan's reported admissions could be a move to stall a backlash against his sacking.
Opposition parties have been quick to defend the scientists, particularly Khan, for their role in making Pakistan the Islamic world's first nuclear power. A hardline Islamic coalition said Saturday it planned to hold street rallies after the Eid holiday to protest Khan's dismissal.
In recent weeks, newspapers have reported that Khan had a vast array of real estate holdings, including a hotel in Timbuktu, Mali. He has also supported a number of educational institutes and charitable causes.
----
Why Indian N-tech won't leak
MANOJ JOSHI
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 02, 2004
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow/469288.cms
NEW DELHI: In the late 1970s, H N Bahuguna, the petroleum minister, was sent to Libya to negotiate the purchase of crude oil with mercurial leader Col Muammar Gaddhafi.
Oil prices had hit the roof and the Indian economy was reeling under its impact.
So, Bahuguna invoked the "Third World solidarity" pitch for oil at concessional rates. The colonel was willing, but he had one request - India should provide him plutonium reprocessing technology.
The sole use of this was to make plutonium metal for the core of an atomic bomb. Not quite familiar with the subject, Bahuguna agreed. But when he returned to New Delhi, he was read the riot act.
Within weeks, a Libyan delegation arrived in Mumbai to discuss the issue. The then atomic energy head, Homi Sethna, was polite, but firm. The Libyans could have technology for making nuclear medicine or power, but no reprocessing technology.
This story sums up the Indian record on ensuring that its huge nuclear estate is not in the clandestine international chor bazaar to make weapons of mass destruction.
----
Pakistan's Nuclear Forces, 2001
Mostly from the FAS website. Attentive reading will reveal that the 'revelations' of the current furor are far from new.
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <nonukes@foesyd.org.au>
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004
It is extremely difficult to estimate the number and types of nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal. Outside experts estimate the country has between 24 and 48 nuclear weapons. The weapons are based on an implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched uranium, requiring an estimated 15Ð20 kilograms per warhead. Seismic measurements of the tests conducted on May 28 and 30, 1998, suggest that the yields were on the order of 9Ð12 kilotons and 4Ð6 kilotons respectively, lower than Islamabad announced. Chinese tests in the 1960s used similar designs, and it is suspected that the Chinese assisted Pakistan's program in the 1970s and 1980s.
It is unclear how much weapons-grade uranium Pakistan has. For two decades, Pakistan pursued a gas centrifuge uranium-enrichment method to produce fissile material for its nuclear weapons, at what is now known as the Abdul Qadeer Khan Research Laboratories in Kahuta. By the early 1990s, some 3,000 centrifuges were thought to be operating. Although Pakistan declared a moratorium on the production of highly enriched uranium in 1991, experts think it resumed production well before the May 1998 nuclear tests. The most reliable estimate is that Pakistan has produced enough fissile material for 30Ð52 nuclear weapons.
Like other nations that have developed nuclear weapons, Pakistan does not seem content with a first-generation nuclear weapon and may be pursuing other designs and refinements. The 40- to 50-megawatt thermal Khushab reactor, at Joharabad in the Khushab district of Punjab, can produce weapons-grade plutonium. Loading the reactor's target materials with lithium 6 could produce tritium. Plutonium separation reportedly takes place at the "New Labs" reprocessing plant next to the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (Pinstech) in Rawalpindi. Through these efforts Pakistan seems to be positioning itself to increase and enhance its nuclear forces significantly in coming years. It may intend to match India's plan to deploy a nuclear triad of air-, land-, and sea-based weapons.
Bombers.
U.S.-manufactured F-16s are most likely to be used by the Pakistani Air Force to deliver nuclear weapons, although other aircraft, such as the Mirage V or the Chinese- produced A-5, also could be used. Twenty-eight F-16A (single-seat) and 12 F-16B (two-seat) trainers were delivered to the Pakistani Air Force between 1983 and 1987. At least eight are no longer in service. In December 1988, Islamabad ordered 11 additional F-16A/Bs as replacements, but they were not sent.
In 1985 Congress adopted the Pressler Amendment, which sought to inhibit Pakistan's pursuit of the bomb. Pakistan was forbidden from receiving most economic and military aid unless the president could certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device. Although there was much evidence to the contrary, Presidents Reagan and Bush issued annual certifications, and some aid continued to flow, mainly to support Pakistan's front-line role in the Soviet-Afghan War. After the war ended, sanctions were finally imposed on October 6, 1990.
The 11 embargoed aircraft are stored in the Arizona desert near Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. In September 1989, plans had been announced for Pakistan to acquire 60 more F-16s. Seventeen were built by the end of 1994, but because of the embargo they joined the others at Davis-Monthan. In a Presidential Determination signed September 22, 2001, President George W. Bush waived the Pressler Amendment, but the aircraft have not been released.
The F-16s most likely to have been modified to carry nuclear weapons are deployed with Squadrons 9 and 11 at Sargodha Air Base, 160 kilometers northwest of Lahore. The F-16 has a range of more than 1,600 kilometers, more if drop tanks are used. It can carry as much as 5,450 kilograms externally on one under-fuselage centerline pylon and six under-wing stations. Given the F-16's payload limitations of weight and size, the bomb probably weighs around 1,000 kilograms and would most likely be attached to the centerline pylon. The assembled nuclear bombs and/or bomb components for these planes may be stored in an ammunition depot near Sargodha. Alternatively, the weapons could be stored at other operational or satellite bases further to the west, near the Afghanistan border, where the F-16s would pick up their bombs. It has also been reported that M-11 missiles may be stored at the depot near Sargodha.
Missiles.
According to bomb designer A. Q. Khan, the Ghauri missile is Pakistan's only nuclear-capable missile, although other missiles in the Pakistani armed forces could be configured to carry a nuclear warhead. The single-stage Ghauri-1 was first flight-tested on April 6, 1998, to a distance of 1,100 kilometers, probably with a payload of up to 700 kilograms.
The missile was reportedly launched near the city of Jhelum in northeastern Pakistan, 100 kilometers southeast of Islamabad, and hit its target near Quetta in the southwest. The liquid-fueled Ghauri is basically a North Korean No Dong missile, itself a Scud derivative. A two-stage Ghauri-2 was tested on April 14, 1999, three days after the Indian Agni-2 test flight. It was launched from a mobile launcher at Dina, near Jhelum, and landed in Jiwani, near the southwestern coast, after an eight-minute flight. A third version of the Ghauri, with an unconfirmed range of 2,500Ð3,000 kilometers, is under development and was test launched on August 15, 2000.
The choice of the name Ghauri is highly symbolic. Muslim Sultan Muhammad Ghauri defeated the Hindu ruler Prithvi Raj Chauhan in 1192. Prithvi is the name India has assigned to its short-range ballistic missiles.
Beginning in 1992, Pakistan received 30 or more complete M-11 missiles from China. Subsequently, it has had Chinese assistance in constructing maintenance and storage facilities. Pakistan may produce its own missile, the Tarmuk, based on the M-11.
Pakistan's reverse-engineered Chinese M-9 missile, the Shaheen-1 (Eagle), has a range of 700 kilometers and can carry a payload of 1,000 kilograms. Pakistan conducted the initial flight test of the Shaheen from the coastal town of Sonmiani on April 15, 1999. Islamabad claims its two-stage Shaheen-2 medium-range missile, unveiled at the Pakistan Day parade on March 23, 2000, has a range of 2,500 kilometers and can carry a 1,000-kilogram payload. The missile is carried on a 16-wheel mobile launcher. It is possible that both missiles have a nuclear capability.
Nuclear command and control.
In November 2000, Pakistan placed its key nuclear institutions under the control of the National Command Authority, established in February 2000, in an apparent effort to create an effective nuclear command and control system.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 focused a great deal of attention on the security of Pakistan's arsenal. According to press reports, Pakistan's military began relocating nuclear weapon components within two days of the attacks. One potential danger to Pakistan's arsenal is extremist elements within the intelligence service, armed forces, nuclear weapons program, and in the general population. Gen. Pervez Musharraf took several actions in fall 2001 to mitigate these problems, including firing his intelligence chief and other officers, detaining several suspected retired nuclear weapons scientists, and redeploying the arsenal to at least six new secret locations.
Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris and William M. Arkin of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Hans M. Kristensen of the Nautilus Institute, and Joshua Handler. Inquiries should be directed to NRDC, 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C., 20005; 202-289-6868.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
--
Pakistan Nuclear Weapons
A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Program
Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.
India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan's program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan's Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.
In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.
Pakistan Nuclear Weapons - A Chronology
Nuclear Tests
On May 28, 1998 Pakistan announced that it had successfully conducted five nuclear tests. The Pakistani Atomic Energy Commission reported that the five nuclear tests conducted on May 28 generated a seismic signal of 5.0 on the Richter scale, with a total yield of up to 40 KT (equivalent TNT). Dr. A.Q. Khan claimed that one device was a boosted fission device and that the other four were sub-kiloton nuclear devices.
On May 30, 1998 Pakistan tested one more nuclear warhead with a reported yield of 12 kilotons. The tests were conducted at Balochistan, bringing the total number of claimed tests to six. It has also been claimed by Pakistani sources that at least one additional device, initially planned for detonation on 30 May 1998, remained emplaced underground ready for detonation.
Pakistani claims concerning the number and yields of their underground tests cannot be independently confirmed by seismic means, and several sources, such as the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory have reported lower yields than those claimed by Pakistan. Indian sources have also suggested that as few as two weapons were actually detonated, each with yields considerably lower than claimed by Pakistan. However, seismic data showed at least two and possibly a third, much smaller, test in the initial round of tests at the Ras Koh range. The single test on 30 May provided a clear seismic signal.
DEVICE
DATE
YIELD [announced]
YIELD [estimated]
[boosted device?]
28 May 1998
25-36 kiloton
total 9-12 kiloton
Fission device
28 May 1998
12 kiloton
Low-yield device
28 May 1998
sub-kiloton --
Low-yield device
28 May 1998
sub-kiloton --
Low-yield device
28 May 1998
sub-kiloton --
Fission device
30 May 1998
12 kiloton 4-6 kiloton
Fission device
not detonated
12 kiloton --
This table lists the nuclear tests that Pakistan claims to have carried out in May 1998 as well as the announced yields. Other sources have reported lower yields than those claimed by Pakistan. The Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory reports that the total seismic yield for the May 28th tests was 9-12 kilotons and that the yield for the May 30th tests was 4-6 kilotons.
According to a preliminary analysis conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory, material released into the atmosphere during an underground nuclear test by Pakistan in May 1998 contained low levels of weapons-grade plutonium. The significance of the Los Alamos finding was that Pakistan had either imported or produced plutonium undetected by the US intelligence community. But Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other agencies later contested the accuracy of this finding.
These tests came slightly more than two weeks after India carried out five nuclear tests of its own on May 11 and 13 and after many warnings by Pakistani officials that they would respond to India.
Pakistan's nuclear tests were followed by the February 1999 Lahore Agreements between Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Sharif. The agreements included confidence building measures such as advance notice of ballistic missile testing and a continuation of their unilateral moratoria on nuclear testing. But diplomatic advances made that year were undermined by Pakistan's incursion into Kargil. Under US diplomatic pressure, Prime Minister Sharif withdrew his troops, but lost power in October 1999 due to a military coup in which Gen. Pervez Musharraf took over.
-Satellite Imagery of Pakistan's May 28 and May 30 nuclear testing sites
Nuclear Infrastructure
Pakistan's nuclear program is based primarily on highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is produced at the A. Q. Khan research laboratory at Kahuta, a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility. The Kahuta facility has been in operation since the early 1980s. By the early 1990s, Kahuta had an estimated 3,000 centrifuges in operation, and Pakistan continued its pursuit of expanded uranium enrichment capabilities.
In the 1990s Pakistan began to pursue plutonium production capabilities. With Chinese assistance, Pakistan built the 40 MWt (megawatt thermal) Khusab research reactor at Joharabad, and in April 1998, Pakistan announced that the reactor was operational. According to public statements made by US officials, this unsafeguarded heavy water reactor generates an estimated 8-10 kilotons of weapons grade plutonium per year, which is enough for one to two nuclear weapons. The reactor could also produce tritium if it were loaded with lithium-6. According to J. Cirincione of Carnegie, Khusab's plutonium production capacity could allow Pakistan to develop lighter nuclear warheads that would be easier to deliver with a ballistic missile.
Plutonium separation reportedly takes place at the New Labs reprocessing plant next to Pakistan's Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (Pinstech) in Rawalpindi and at the larger Chasma nuclear power plant, neither of which are subject to IAEA inspection.
Nuclear Arsenal
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads, and Carnegie reports that they have produced 585-800 kg of HEU, enough for 30-55 weapons. Pakistan's nuclear warheads are based on an implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched uranium and requires an estimated 15-20 kg of material per warhead. According to Carnegie, Pakistan has also produced a small but unknown quantity of weapons grade plutonium, which is sufficient for an estimated 3-5 nuclear weapons.
Pakistani authorities claim that their nuclear weapons are not assembled. They maintain that the fissile cores are stored separately from the non-nuclear explosives packages, and that the warheads are stored separately from the delivery systems. In a 2001 report, the Defense Department contends that "Islamabad's nuclear weapons are probably stored in component form" and that "Pakistan probably could assemble the weapons fairly quickly." However, no one has been able to ascertain the validity of Pakistan's assurances about their nuclear weapons security.
Pakistan's reliance primarily on HEU makes its fissile materials particularly vulnerable to diversion. HEU can be used in a relatively simple gun-barrel-type design, which could be within the means of non-state actors that intend to assemble a crude nuclear weapon.
The terrorist attacks on September 11th raised concerns about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. According to press reports, within two days of the attacks, Pakistan's military began relocating nuclear weapons components to six new secret locations. Shortly thereafter, Gen. Pervez Musharraf fired his intelligence chief and other officers and detained several suspected retired nuclear weapons scientists, in an attempt to root out extremist elements that posed a potential threat to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Concerns have also been raised about Pakistan as a proliferant of nuclear materials and expertise. In November, 2002, shortly after North Korea admitted to pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the press reported allegations that Pakistan had provided assistance in the development of its uranium enrichment program in exchange for North Korean missile technologies.
Foreign Assistance
In the past, China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere. According to a 2001 Department of Defense report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities.
In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.
According to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than U.S. and Soviet designed first generation warheads.
China also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chasma nuclear power reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid 1990s. The project had been initiated as a cooperative program with France, but Pakistan's failure to sign the NPT and unwillingness to accept IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear program caused France to terminate assistance.
According to the Defense Department report cited above, Pakistan has also acquired nuclear related and dual-use and equipment and materials from the Former Soviet Union and Western Europe.
Intermittent US Sanctions
On several occasions, under the authority of amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Pakistan, cutting off economic and military aid as a result of its pursuit of nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. suspended sanctions each time developments in Afghanistan made Pakistan a strategically important "frontline state," such as the 1981 Soviet occupation and in the war on terrorism.
Pakistan's Nuclear Doctrine
Several sources, such as Jane's Intelligence Review and Defense Department reports maintain that Pakistan's motive for pursuing a nuclear weapons program is to counter the threat posed by its principal rival, India, which has superior conventional forces and nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). According to the Defense Department report cited above, "Pakistan remains steadfast in its refusal to sign the NPT, stating that it would do so only after India joined the Treaty. Consequently, not all of Pakistan's nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards. Pakistani officials have stated that signature of the CTBT is in Pakistan's best interest, but that Pakistan will do so only after developing a domestic consensus on the issue, and have disavowed any connection with India's decision."
Pakistan does not abide by a no-first-use doctrine, as evidenced by President Pervez Musharraf's statements in May, 2002. Musharraf said that Pakistan did not want a conflict with India but that if it came to war between the nuclear-armed rivals, he would "respond with full might." These statements were interpreted to mean that if pressed by an overwhelming conventional attack from India, which has superior conventional forces, Pakistan might use its nuclear weapons.
Aside from these public declarations, Pakistan has not issued an official nuclear doctrine. The organization authorized to make decisions about Pakistan's nuclear posturing is the National Command Authority (NCA) established in Februrary 2000. The NCA is composed of two committees that advise Gen. Musharraf on the development and employment of nuclear weapons; it is also responsible for wartime command and control. In 2001, Pakistan further consolidated its nuclear infrastructure by placing the Khan Research Laboratories and the Pakistan Atomic Research Corporation under the control on of one Nuclear Defense Complex.
Sources and Resources
- Deadly Arsenals, chapter on Paksitan - by Joseph Cirincione, John B.Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar (Carnegie, June 2002). The chapter discusses Pakistan's WMD, missile and aircraft capabilities. It also presents the strategic context of the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan and the history of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, touching on foreign assistance from China and on-and-off US economic assistance.
- Proliferation: Threat and Response, Jan. 2001 - A Defense Department report on the status of nuclear proliferation in South Asia. It includes a brief historical background on the conflict between India and Pakistan as well as an assessment of their nuclear capabilities, chem/bio programs, ballistic missile programs and other means of delivery.
- ENHANCING NUCLEAR SECURITY IN THE COUNTER-TERRORISM STRUGGLE: India and Pakistan as a New Region for Cooperation - by Rose Gottemoeller, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 2002. This working paper explores possible cooperative programs that could enhance the security of Pakistan and India's nuclear arsenals, in order to prevent the diversion of dangerous materials into the hands of terrorists or rogue state leaders.
- "Pakistan's Nuclear Forces, 2001" from NRDC Nuclear Notebook, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Jan/Feb 2002. A Two-page update on the state of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It makes rough estimates of the number of nuclear weapons and the amount of fissile material in Pakistan's possession and touches on fissile material production capabilities. Also included is a brief discussion of delivery mechanisms such as aircraft and missiles.
- Monterey Institute Resource Page on India and Pakistan - last updated July 7, 2000. This page has many useful links to relevant maps, news articles and analytical pieces on India and Pakistan's nuclear programs.
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - Pakistan resources
- Pakistan Nuclear Weapons - A Chronology - a timeline of the Pakistan's Nuclear Development program since 1965.
- "The Threat of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons" - a CSIS report by Anthony H. Cordesman (Last updated Nov. 2001). - This report tells the history of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program and discusses China role in its development. It also lists recent US intelligence reports on Pakistan's activities.
- From Testing to Deploying Nuclear Forces: The Hard Choices Facing India and Pakistan - Gregory S. Jones. (Rand, 2000). "This issue paper describes the requirements for a nuclear deterrent force in general terms, discusses how the Indian-Pakistani nuclear relationship is affected by China, and then considers the specific decisions that still must be made in India and Pakistan."
- Pakistan Nuclear Update, 2001 - Wisconsin Project. This three-page document provides a brief summary of Pakistan's main nuclear sites and an update on developments in Pakistan's nuclear program.
- Securing Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal: Principles for Assistance - by David Albright, Kevin O'Neill and Corey Hinderstein, Oct. 4, 2001. An ISIS issue brief on the potential threats to the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
- The May 1998 India and Pakistan Nuclear Tests - by Terry C. Wallace, Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory (SASO), 1998. This technical paper provides a seismic analysis of India and Pakistan's 1998 nuclear tests. It concludes that Pakistan's May 28 tests had a seismic yield of 9-12 kt, and the May 30 test had a yield of 4-6 kt. An updated web page on this report can be found here
- Satellite Imagery of Pakistan's May 28 and May 30 nuclear testing sites, hosted on the Center for Monitoring Research Commercial Satellite Imagery Page
- "Pakistan's Nuclear Dilemma" - September 23 2001, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Transcripts from a Carnegie panel on developments in Pakistan in the aftermath of the Septempber 11th attacks. The panel included three speakers -- Shirin Tahir-Kheli, George Perkovich and Rose Gottemoeller-- and was moderated by Joseph Cirincione.
- Chapter on Pakistan, from Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: A Guide in Maps and Charts, 1998 by Rodney W. Jones, Mark G. McDonough, with Toby F. Dalton and Gregory D. Koblentz (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment, July 1998). This chapter documents the history of Pakistan's nuclear program and tracks the development of its nuclear infrastructure. It also covers in detail the sanctions the US imposed on Pakistan in light of these developments, as well Pakistan's missile program.
- "U.S. Appears to be Losing Track of Pakistan's Nuclear Program" and "U.S. Now Believes Pakistan to use Khushab Plutonium in Bomb Program" By Mark Hibbs July, 1998. Two brief articles written in the aftermath of Paksistan's 1998 nuclear tests -- they discuss Pakistan's weapons grade uranium and plutonium production capacities and the implications for its nuclear arsenal.
- "U.S. Labs at Odds on Whether Pakistani Blast Used Plutonium," by Dana Priest Washington Post Sunday, January 17, 1999; Page A02. This article discusses the controversy over the preliminary analysis carried out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, which found that plutonium traces had been released into the atomosphere during Pakistan's May 30th underground nuclear test. Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Labs contested the accuracy of this finding and alleged that Los Alamos had contaminated and then lost the air sample. At the time, Los Alamos' findings were highly controversial because they implied that Pakistan had obtained plutonium either though imports or indigenous production, and there was uncertainty about Pakistan's plutonium production capabilities. It is now public knowledge that Pakistan can produce and isolate plutonium at its Khusbab reactor and at the New Labs and Chasma separation facilities.
- NUCLEARISATION OF SOUTH ASIA AND ITS REGIONAL AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS Munir Ahmed Khan REGIONAL STUDIES Autumn 1998
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/
Maintained by the Strategic Security Project
Updated Thursday, December 11, 2002
--
Pakistan
The strategic competition with India has spurred Pakistani efforts to acquire ballistic missiles, which it claims to have done without assistance. Pakistan's missile industry includes a large solid rocket motor production complex and a ballistic missile test facility. Chinese and more recently North Korea assistance has sustained these efforts. Pakistan's missile effort evidently consists of three components:
- The short range Hatf-1 and Hatf-2, which are apparently of Pakistani design and construction, were developed by the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO). These missiles seem to have proven a disappointment, due probably in no small measure to their modest range, and do not appear to have entered operational service.
- The Shaheen series of solid-propellant missiles are imports from China by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), which is also responsible for Pakistan's plutonium bomb program. The Chinese M-11 missile was obtained from China in the early 1990s, and tested with considerable publicity in mid-1999. The longer range Shaheen-I and Shaheen-II appear to correspond to the Chinese M-9 and DF-15, respectively, though there is presently no solid evidence that Pakistan has obtained either missile.
- More recently, the A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories, which is also responsible for Pakistan's uranium bomb program, has imported and tested the North Korean Nodong missile under the name Ghauri. Imports of the longer range Taepodong missiles may also be under consideration.
Designation
Foreign Range (km)
Payload derivation (kg)
First Launch
Operational Inventory Comments
Hatf-1
60-100
500
Jan 1989
testing some?
Hatf-2
Shadoz
280
500
Jan 1989
cancelled none
Shaheen
Hatf-3 ? PRC M-11
300
500
15 April 1999
1995? ~34-80?
Shaheen-I
Hatf-4 ? PRC M-9
800
500
Shaheen-II
Hatf-6 PRC M-18
2,000
some
Ghauri
Hatf-5 DPRK ND-1
1,350-1,500
700 kg
06 Apr 1998
1998? some Also flown
by North Korea
(No-dong)
and Iran
(Shehab-3).
Ghauri-III
Abdali DPRK TD-1
??
2,500
Tipu DPRK TD-2
??
4,000
Ghaznavi ?,000
Sources and Resources
- Pakistan's Surface-to-Surface Missile (SSM) Inventory As of April 1999 @ Pakistan Institute for Air Defence Studies
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/aircraft/ Maintained by Robert Sherman
--------
Key Pakistani Is Said to Admit Atom Transfers
February 2, 2004
By DAVID ROHDE and DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/asia/02STAN.html?pagewanted=all&position=
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Feb. 1 - The founder of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has signed a detailed confession admitting that during the last 15 years he provided Iran, North Korea and Libya with the designs and technology to produce the fuel for nuclear weapons, according to a senior Pakistani official and three Pakistani journalists who attended a special government briefing here on Sunday night.
In a two-and-a-half-hour presentation to 20 Pakistani journalists, a senior government official gave an exhaustive and startling account of how Dr. Khan, a national hero, spread secret technology to three countries that have been striving to produce their own nuclear arsenals. Two of them, Iran and North Korea, were among those designated by President Bush as part of an "axis of evil."
If the Pakistani government account is correct, Dr. Khan's admission amounts to one of the most complex and successful efforts to evade international controls to stop nuclear proliferation.
The account provided by Pakistan on Sunday night came after years in which the government strongly denied that it or scientists at the Khan Research Laboratories had given crucial technology to other nations.
Officials detailed how Dr. Khan had presided over a network that smuggled nuclear hardware on chartered planes, had shared secret designs for the centrifuges that produce the enriched uranium necessary to develop a nuclear weapon, and had given personal briefings to Iranian, Libyan and North Korean scientists in covert meetings abroad.
Dr. Khan said he shared the technology because he thought the emergence of more nuclear states would ease Western attention on Pakistan, the senior official told journalists. He also said he thought it would help the Muslim cause.
The Bush administration offered no public comment on the Pakistani announcement on Sunday. But in recent weeks, administration officials have said that they forced the government of President Pervez Musharraf to confront the evidence, after Iran and Libya made disclosures that showed their reliance on Pakistani-supplied technology.
"This is the break we have been waiting for," a senior American official said. But the account provided by Pakistani officials carefully avoided pinning any blame on General Musharraf, the army or the Pakistani intelligence service, despite the fact that some of the material - especially what was sent to North Korea - appeared to have been transported on government cargo planes.
Pakistani and American officials have said senior Pakistani Army officials would have known if nuclear hardware had been shipped out of a tightly guarded nuclear facility.
The senior official told journalists that all nuclear transfers ceased after General Musharraf established a new National Command Authority to oversee the country's nuclear arsenal in early 2002. But according to American accounts, the nuclear transfers to Libya continued through last fall.
The Khan laboratory has for years been the crown jewel of the Pakistani nuclear program, and it received the highest-level support after Dr. Khan stole the basic technology for uranium enrichment from a European consortium, Urenco, in the late 1970's.
Dr. Khan's house has been surrounded by Pakistani security officials for several weeks, and he could not be reached for comment on Sunday. A spokesman for the families of Dr. Khan and six detained officials who the government says aided him said they would respond to the government allegations on Monday.
It was unclear whether Dr. Khan would be arrested, or whether General Musharraf's government would be further shaken by his decision to take on a man revered as the creator of the first Islamic bomb.
At the briefing on Sunday night, the Pakistani official insisted that the country's military and intelligence officials had been unaware of Dr. Khan's activities during the past decade, despite the huge houses and lavish life he maintained on a relatively modest government stipend.
"There were intelligence lapses on our part, and we admit to them," the official said, according to the journalists who attended the meeting. "We should not have allowed this loose administrative and security system to have prevailed."
There was no way to independently verify the senior official's account, though senior American officials said parts of it seemed in accord with intelligence they had gathered and provided to Pakistan.
The news of the confession came a day after Pakistan's government removed Dr. Khan from a senior government post. The government has been gradually paving the way for the announcement since December, when it first admitted that its scientists might have operated "for personal profit."
Until that time, accounts of secrets given up by the Khan laboratory were met by a string of denials. But after receiving detailed evidence last year from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United States, Pakistan began an investigation into possible nuclear transfers to Iran and Libya in November.
The investigation has gained speed ever since, and General Musharraf personally questioned Dr. Khan, American officials say.
The senior Pakistani official said Dr. Khan transferred nuclear weapons-related designs, drawings and components to Iran between 1989 and 1991, according to the three journalists. He transferred nuclear technology to North Korea and Libya between 1991 and 1997, they said, though American officials believe that the transfers to Libya continued until just four months ago.
Dr. Khan also transferred additional technology to North Korea until 2000, the Pakistanis said. That is particularly significant because North Korea has denied, as recently as last month, that it has a secret uranium enrichment project under way, in addition to the plutonium project at Yongbyon that the C.I.A. believes has already produced several weapons.
Details from Dr. Khan's confession, if made available from the United States, could have a major effect on the negotiations to disarm North Korea, American officials said.
The Pakistani official who briefed reporters said Dr. Khan had met with Libyan nuclear scientists in Casablanca, Morocco, and in Istanbul; American officials were apparently unaware of the Istanbul meeting. He also met Iranian scientists in Karachi, Pakistan, and scientists in Malaysia, the journalists reported.
Dr. Khan made direct shipments of nuclear hardware through Dubai, in the Persian Gulf, and chartered flights to North Korea that may have included the shipments on government planes. American intelligence officials believe that he visited North Korea more than a dozen times.
He also tried to ship nuclear hardware by land from Pakistan to Iran with the aid of a Karachi businessman, the officials said.
According to the Pakistani account, centrifuges came from a factory in Malaysia that had been built by a Sri Lankan identified as "Tahir," who was one of several middlemen Dr. Khan used to spread the technology.
The Pakistani official said, and American officials confirmed, that Tahir was in government custody in Malaysia. Centrifuge components made in Malaysia were intercepted en route to Libya in October, American officials said.
The other middlemen were three Germans identified by the senior official only by their last names - "Brummer," "Heinz," and "Liech" - the journalists said. A Dutch citizen identified by Pakistani officials as "Hanks" was also described as a middleman, though American intelligence officials believe that Hank is his first name. The man is believed to have some connection to Urenco, the European conglomerate where Dr. Khan once worked. Dr. Khan was convicted in absentia for stealing technology there, though the conviction was overturned on a technicality.
Dr. Khan smuggled out of Pakistan a mix of new and untested centrifuges and centrifuge parts, the senior official said. Some of the machines and components were defective, by his account.
The Pakistani officials charged Sunday night that after their government opened an inquiry into possible nuclear transfers in November, Dr. Khan wrote to Iranian officials and urged them to destroy some of their facilities and to tell officials that the Pakistanis who aided them had died. He also threatened to kill one of his subordinates in 2001 if he told anyone of the transfer, they said.
The senior government official told journalists that the Pakistani government first heard rumors that nuclear technology was leaving the country for North Korea in 2000. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency conducted a raid on a plane chartered by Dr. Khan that was bound for North Korea, but found nothing on board.
Two years later, in the fall of 2002, an American delegation to North Korea led by James A. Kelly, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, confronted the North with intelligence that the country had a secret uranium enrichment facility. He based his charges on evidence first collected by South Korean intelligence agencies. According to the American account, North Korea admitted to having such a project, though it later insisted that it had been misunderstood, and had no such program.
American officials relayed the information to Pakistan, urging action. But when the news became public, Pakistan denied that its scientists had any role. On Sunday, however, the senior Pakistani official acknowledged that the government had found documents at the Khan Research Laboratories that showed equipment had been shipped out of the facility.
In February 2003, American officials showed Pakistani officials satellite images of Iran's large centrifuge complex, whose existence was disclosed by Iranian dissidents. American officials said the scale and design of the project suggested that the Iranians were getting aid from an advanced program like Pakistan's - a charge that was confirmed when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear regulatory body, toured the facilities.
The inspectors discovered that some equipment had been contaminated with weapons-grade uranium, though it was unclear whether Iran had produced that material, or the equipment had been previously contaminated. The senior official here told journalists that the high enrichment level indicated that the equipment had come from Pakistan, the journalists said.
Iranian officials also informed Atomic Energy Agency officials that three Germans and two South Asians had aided their program, prompting Pakistan to open its inquiry in November. In mid-January, Libya informed Pakistani officials that they too had received nuclear aid from Pakistanis.
The senior official said Dr. Muhammad Farooq, the head of overseas procurement, had played a critical role in aiding Dr. Khan. He worked closely with the Sri Lankan middleman, the official said. The Sri Lankan established the factory in Malaysia that built components based on Pakistani designs, the official said. Dr. Farooq also traveled with Dr. Khan to the meetings with Libyan officials in Istanbul and Casablanca and recorded some of the conversations.
The senior official told journalists that General Musharraf would address the nation about the results of the inquiry, and any disciplinary action, shortly after a series of national holidays, which end on Thursday.
David Rohde reported from Islamabad for this article and David E. Sanger from Washington.
--------
Pakistani Confesses to Aiding Nuclear Efforts
Scientist Helped N. Korea, Libya, Iran
By John Lancaster and Kamran Khan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4550-2004Feb2.html
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Feb. 2 -- Pakistan's most prominent nuclear-weapons scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has admitted providing nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea during the 1980s and 1990s, a senior Pakistani officials said Monday.
But Khan claims that he never received money for his efforts, as Pakistani investigators have charged, and maintains that any help he gave to North Korea in the 1990s was provided with the full knowledge and approval of the Pakistani military, the official said. Pakistan has consistently denied allegations by U.S. officials that its scientists helped North Korea with its nuclear program in exchange for assistance in developing ballistic missiles.
Khan admitted in a confession he signed Friday to providing Iranian nuclear scientists with "disused" centrifuge machines used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons as well as "sketches" and other technical specifications, said another senior official. Both of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, were present at a briefing for Pakistani journalists Sunday night at which the case against Khan was described.
Khan told investigators that he provided the assistance to Iran in order to deflect international pressure on Pakistan's nuclear program, one of the officials said. "By including other Islamic countries in the list of nuclear powers I wanted to take pressure off of Pakistan," the official quoted Khan as telling investigators.
"He did it on personal grounds, purely for his personal reasons although he didn't admit money," said the other official.
Khan's written confession said three other nuclear scientists -- Mohammed Farooq and two others -- had assisted him in his efforts, one of the officials said. Family members speaking on Farooq's behalf denied any wrongdoing. Neither he nor Khan could be reached for comment Monday morning.
Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who founded and directed Pakistan's main uranium-enrichment plant, the Khan Research Laboratories, for more than 20 years before his forced retirement in 2001. Khan is among several scientists and former military officers associated with the laboratory under investigation.
Pakistan launched its investigation last November after the International Atomic Energy Agency provided it with information suggesting that Pakistani scientists had provided centrifuge designs and other assistance to Iran. Pakistani investigators have subsequently said that Khan made millions of dollars selling nuclear-related technology to Iran and Libya, spreading it among foreign bank accounts and real estate investments in Pakistan, Africa and elsewhere.
On Saturday, Khan was fired from his position as science adviser to Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali. Pakistani officials have said they are still weighing a decision on whether to prosecute him or the other scientists, who are regarded as national heroes. Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, will discuss the case in a television address following the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which ends Wednesday, officials said.
-------- iraq / inspections
ELBARADEI: 'Sanctions Worked'
The world's atomic watchdog, vindicated in Iraq, confronts the new nuclear landscape
By Lally Weymouth,
Newsweek
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4120339/
Feb. 9 issue - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), meant to be the watchdog of the nuclear world, has been shouldered aside by the Bush administration in Iraq and Libya and kicked out of North Korea by Kim Jong Il. Yet now that even Washington admits that Saddam didn't have an active nuclear program, and with the contours of a global black market in nuclear technology coming to light, the agency may soon resume its central role in the fight against nuclear proliferation. In an interview with newsweek's Lally Weymouth, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei discussed the challenges ahead. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: What conclusion do you draw from the fact that Iraq does not seem to have had a sophisticated nuclear program?
ELBARADEI: I think the sanctions worked, and more importantly, the inspections worked. A combination of sanctions and inspections managed to disarm Iraq.
Do you feel vindicated on Iraq?
I feel relieved.
If Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, why didn't he come clean?
You have to understand the Iraqi system, which was the most centralized, authoritarian regime that ever existed. Nothing was done without [Saddam's]green light or consent. You might argue that he knew that they had nothing and [acted based] on dignity and pride. It could also be that he realized that the war was predetermined, so why add to his humiliation? Before the war, Iraq, at least in our area, was cooperating with us, trying its best to help. But it was too late.
Would you like to send inspectors back to Iraq?
Oh, absolutely. We still have a request by the Security Council to verify that Iraq has no nuclear weapons. We are in a very uncomfortable situation because [although] we have the mandate, we are not able to return. I think eventually we'll have to go back, as we are the ones who, frankly, have the credibility to say they do or do not have [a nuclear program] because we are impartial. I am worried because they still have a lot of people with the know-how and the technology. So I'd like to do some ongoing monitoring and verification in Iraq for a few years before we say this chapter is closed.
North Korea says they have a program to process plutonium. What's your sense?
My gut feeling is that they have a [nuclear] capability. We know that they have spent fuel, which has been reprocessed. They probably have enough plutonium to make a few bombs. That makes [North Korea] the most dangerous proliferation situation. This is a country that is completely beleaguered, isolated, has nothing to lose and has a weapons capability. So continuing to do a Kabuki dance over how to resolve the issue is not helpful. We must find a solution.
What should be done?
They are going through a very difficult humanitarian situation. We need to provide them security and humanitarian assistance, and in return make sure that we dismantle their weapons program. The more we offer, the more we [will] get.
How do you ensure that they don't cheat as they did the last time?
They cheated the last time because there was no system of verification. So, this time, if there is a settlement, we need to [ensure] comprehensive verification of all nuclear activities to see that they are not cheating.
There have been reports of the differences between your agency and the Bush administration. Please comment.
I'm not sure I want to characterize them as differences. In Libya, for example, I believe that we obviously have the mandate under [the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] to do the verification and to do it independently. There was some discussion over the division of labor, but I thinkthat has been accepted now that we are the ones to do the inspection. There might be some differences in perception with regard to Iran. We have said we haven't seen concrete evidence that Iran's program is linked to a weapons program. Some in the American administration say that the Iranian program could only be explained in terms of a weapons program. On Iraq, we sustained the view before the war that we hadn't seen evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapon program, and we [still] haven't seen it today.
Why does an energy-rich country like Iran need nuclear energy?
They say it's more economical for them to export oil and gas and rely on nuclear energy. They would like to diversify their source of supply. The suspension is difficult they claim [because] it is their right under the NPT to enrich uranium. [They argue that] they are suspending but should not terminate the program so should they decide to resume, they will be ready. Of course, the West wants to see the program terminated. And Iran has made the enrichment program a jewel in the crown in terms of national pride. After 20 years of sanctions, they managed to do it on their own, so they sold it as a major national achievement.
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw says Iran is not playing ball on the question of uranium enrichment. But you said recently that it is. What's the case?
Iran is playing ball. It declared the origin of its program and is cooperating well with us after months of difficulty. We can't say everything we have seen is for peaceful purposes, but we are moving in the right direction. Enrichment activities have been suspended. The problem is how do you define enrichment-related activities? The Iranians would like to continue to manufacture centrifuges and to assemble them under verification. But if you are really suspending, it should be a comprehensive suspension.
How big was Libya's nuclear program?
They were at the preparatory stage for developing an enrichment program; but they were getting the equipment. There was a serious program in the making. They were at an early stage, but it was [only] a question of time.
Do you think multilateral sanctions had an effect on Libya?
I frankly don't know why Libya switched. I don't know if it was regime preservation or they realized that there was no point to continue confrontation with the West. Maybe they feared that what happened to Iraq might happen to them.
Where did the Libyans and the Iranians acquire their nuclear technology? They were both getting it from the black market-it's a network of suppliers.
Are states involved in the nuclear technology black market? I'm not sure we can say it's state oriented. I think it's a lot of private-sector individuals. The Pakistani government is now investigating some Pakistani scientists.
Can you actually produce enough fissile material to make a bomb without a government lab?
That's what we have seen. There are scientists who have the know how to design centrifuges or weapons, for example. They contract a manufacturer in a country that has an industrial infrastructure, and then a recipient country will get ready-made enrichment technology.
What about terror groups getting nuclear technology?
They can get their hands on radioactive substances-that's the worry. A Cobalt 60 machine in a hospital , you can make a dirty bomb with these [but] they are not nuclear weapons. They will disseminate radioactivity and will terrorize. [For terrorists to acquire a ] nuclear weapon is still difficult unless they steal a ready-made bomb. It's still quite difficult to enrich uranium or separate plutonium. Difficult but not impossible.
How would you change the NPT to address this new reality?
If we believe that WMD coupled with terrorism is the No. 1security threat , we need to take a fresh look at the regime. It is worth it because the regime is not up to expectations; it has loopholes in terms of inspections and of export controls. For example, we have seen in Libya how sophisticated black-market proliferaters operate with an extremely high level of sophistication. Things are designed in one country, manufactured in a couple of others, shipped to a false end user, rediverted to a fifth country-it's really like organized crime in the trade of weapons. That requires revisiting the whole system of export controls. Right now the export-controls system is based on a gentlemen's agreement. We need a system universally subscribed to and treaty based, a legal obligation.
Under the existing NPT, a member state can enrich plutonium or reprocess spent fuel-two ways to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Must the system change and IAEA be given enhanced powers to prevent countries from getting nuclear weapons programs?
The NPT started operating over 30 years ago when reprocessing and enrichment appeared to be such sophisticated technologies that not many countries would be able to engage in them. Now any country with an industrial infrastructure can do enrichment-reprocessing. So is the system good enough if you have countries sitting on plutonium or highly enriched uranium which can easily be converted into [nuclear] weapons? There is no need for every country to have enrichment and reprocessing facilities. If they are needed for civilian use [nuclear energy], they should be concentrated in a few centers under multinational control.
You outlined an ambitious new approach to dealing with the problem of proliferation going beyond what the current NPT does. Could you get international support for this?
I think we can get a lot of support if the change is perceived to be equitable, which means that the weapons states should commit to move toward nuclear disarmament. You cannot tell everybody, we'll tighten the screws on you while we will continue to develop new weapons. The situation is really coming to a fork in the road. If we continue the way we are going, we will see more nuclear weapons since people see them as a source of power and prestige.
Washington is more worried about Iran or Pakistan having nuclear weapons than Great Britain. Maybe that's not fair, but that's the reality.
Put yourself in Iran's or North Korean's shoes. They're also worried about what they hear about regime change, about the axis of evil.
But they are rogue states.
I cannot judge them. I do not like people to have nuclear weapons whether they are democracies or not.
--------
Ex-Arms Inspector Now in Center of a Political Maelstrom
February 2, 2004
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02KAY.html?pagewanted=all
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 - David A. Kay, the arms inspector who changed his mind about the existence of unconventional weapons in Iraq, is perplexed by all the fuss he has caused. The weapons are simply not there, he says; it is empirical.
Yet since he went public with his findings in recent days, Dr. Kay, a plain-spoken technocrat, has been in the center of a political maelstrom. The C.I.A. is fighting for its reputation, and the Bush administration is battling accusations that it went to war on the basis of false information.
Contending that he has the facts on his side, Dr. Kay comes across as a political innocent. He seems genuinely surprised to learn that some members of the Central Intelligence Agency are furious at him for criticizing the agency that hired him. He dismisses lawmakers who call him biased as practitioners of "gotcha politics."
His testimony has stunned official Washington. Such independence is rarely witnessed in a city where "mistakes are made" - note the passive voice - but almost never by one's bosses, and controversial or unpopular findings are muddied up with double talk.
At 63, Dr. Kay is an unlikely celebrity. He is short, with wire-rimmed glasses and a brush mustache, as nondescript as any bureaucrat, scientist or spy. But now, everyone is noticing the man who seemed destined to be overlooked.
He almost seems to be enjoying himself.
He chats amiably and doles out corny wisecracks, saying his wife, a retired teacher, who has banished him to a basement office at home in Leesburg, Va., "has threatened to send me to an undisclosed location." He recalls how his first granddaughter was born while he was in Iraq, and he had to rely on e-mailed photographs. Photography is his hobby.
"People probably think it's been more painful to me than it has," he said.
He is puzzled by the administration's response to his testimony. Senior officials have clung to statements that the inspections are continuing and therefore inconclusive.
"I'm sort of mystified," Dr. Kay said. "Quite frankly, the easier political strategy would be to say, `Look, everybody agrees that we're better off with Saddam Hussein gone, but on the other hand, it's clear that not all our advance information was good.' "
In an hourlong phone conversation on Thursday, Dr. Kay said he had been taking calls from old high school chums and several intelligence officers who are friends, but had not heard a peep from the White House or from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence.
He described the intelligence breakdown as a systems failure and said only an independent investigation would be able to set things right. He warned of "the difficulties we have of closed orders in secret societies to reform themselves."
Despite all the commotion he has caused - in an election year, no less - Dr. Kay sees an opportunity to overhaul an intelligence service that has stumbled badly for years.
For some, Dr. Kay's candor makes him nothing short of a hero.
"Not only does he say he was wrong, but he is willing to tackle the institutional questions of being in error," said Frank J. Gaffney Jr., the president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. Mr. Gaffney urged President Bush to swallow any annoyance he might feel and ask Dr. Kay to replace Mr. Tenet in his job.
Yet for others, Dr. Kay's honesty stopped short of the White House gates. Administration critics have accused the president and his advisers of exaggerating intelligence reports, cherry-picking data that was most helpful to their war strategy and pressuring analysts to view Iraq as an imminent threat. Dr. Kay holds that, based on the information provided to the administration, "it was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat."
Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who keeps a long list of administration claims made to justify the Iraq war, accused Dr. Kay of trying to shield the president.
"He is trying quite clearly to put the responsibility on the intelligence community and deflect it from the administration," Senator Levin said in an interview. "He obviously supports the president."
Dr. Kay, who calls himself a political independent, does not see it that way. "I think from the record it's the intelligence community that abused the president," he said. "In general the flow of intelligence turned out not to be true."
Nowhere, perhaps, are Dr. Kay and his findings more of a topic for discussion than at the C.I.A.
Melvin A. Goodman, who served 20 years in the C.I.A. and now teaches at the National War College, said intelligence officers were complaining that Dr. Kay had bowed to political pressures.
"They feel the way he aimed his remarks at the C.I.A. exclusively - and let the administration off the hook - was totally one-sided and unfair," said Mr. Goodman, who insists that analysts felt pressured to provide the most dire data to the policy makers. "He caved."
Yet many administration defenders, including some of the staunchest supporters of the war, say Dr. Kay got it right. "The president is a consumer of intelligence, not a producer of it," said Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and an ardent proponent of the war. "I have long thought our intelligence in the gulf has been woefully inadequate."
Dr. Kay said he had received a number of supportive calls from members of the intelligence agencies. He said an e-mail message arrived from one officer, who had served as station chief in five countries, "saying, `You said exactly what needs to be said.' "
Once the dust settles over this issue, Dr. Kay and his wife want to take a vacation - somewhere warm. Then, he will set about writing a book or two. Unlike in 1991, when he was flooded with book offers, this time no publishers have approached him. He would probably disappoint them. He wants to write a scholarly tome on suppressing weapons proliferators, he said. "Look," he said, "I don't do kiss and tells."
-------- korea
US spy flights claim
February 2, 2004
The Age
(Australia)
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/01/1075570296658.html
North Korea claimed the US military conducted at least 190 spy flights against the communist state in January, accusing Washington of mapping out a sudden attack.
North Korea's official news agency KCNA said yesterday that U-2, RC-135 and other reconnaissance planes of the US military were used for "round-the-clock" operations.
"Such aerial espionage clear shows the US imperialists' black-hearted design to mount a sudden pre-emptive attack on the DPRK anytime as they did to seize Iraq and Afghanistan," KCNA said. DPRK stands for Democratic People's Republic or Korea, or North Korea.
North Korea regularly makes such accusations. The US military does not comment on North Korean claims on spy flights, although it acknowledges monitoring North Korean military activity.
The United States keeps 37,000 American troops in South Korea - a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Efforts are under way to continue international talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The six-nation negotiations comprise the United States, Russia, China, Japan and the two Koreas. A first round ended in August with little progress made.
-------- mideast
Playing on both teams of the nuclear game
By Aluf Benn
Mon., February 02, 2004 Shvat 10, 5764
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/389613.html
Recent disclosures about Iran and Libya's nuclear programs highlighted the limits of monitoring by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Although it kept tabs on Iran and Libya, the IAEA was unable to detect their nuclear programs because of its rigid mandate and an "organizational culture" that leads it to trust at face value the declarations countries make. For many years Israel warned that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons, and in the past two years also sent out warnings about Libya. Yet Israeli officials were themselves surprised by the extent of international nuclear smuggling attempts that were exposed when Libya pledged to start dismantling weapons of mass destruction.
As it emerged, an undeveloped country lacking an industrial base can buy a near-functioning factory to produce enriched uranium. All that is required is to cultivate some middle men, pay some cash, get some blueprints in Pakistan, and assemble plant parts in Malaysia. Then the work can begin.
Now Israeli officials are worried that efforts to develop nuclear weapons have not been limited to Iran and Libya. They suspect other countries in the region may have used the "Pakistan channel" to get dangerous nuclear materials. The main suspects in this venture are Syria and Saudi Arabia, but there apparently is no firm evidence that these had a nuclear program.
Israel own nuclear policy is schizophrenic. It supports strengthening the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty, to prevent the flow of nuclear technologies and materiel to potentially dangerous neighbors.
But it then refuses to sign the NPT, partly because signing it would require Israel to open the doors of Dimona - formally known as the Nuclear Research Center, Hebrew acronym KAMAG - to foreign inspectors.
In recent months Israel has been trying to promote an initiative to control the production and sale of nuclear fuel. The idea was presented by Gideon Frank, Israel's Atomic Energy Commission chief, at the IAEA's last meeting in September. Since then, officials have discussed the idea with counterparts from other countries.
The Israeli initiative relies on the assessment that IAEA monitoring is limited to one task - preventing the weapons-related use of enriched uranium and plutonium. There is no limit on the production of nuclear fuel so long as it is reported to the IAEA.
Iran concealed from international inspectors its attempts to acquire enriched uranium - in the end Iranian opposition groups exposed it. Facing serious international pressure, Iran agreed to suspend the uranium enrichment program for an unspecified period and to sign an agreement widening IAEA monitoring. But the Iranians have insisted they retain the right to produce nuclear fuel.
The "Frank plan" aims to reduce any chance of a country manufacturing fissionable materials suitable for nuclear weaponry under the guise of making "nuclear fuel for power stations."
A country that produces nuclear fuel can adapt it to making atomic bomb within a few months. The danger nuclear fuels being converted will increase in coming years when hundreds of nuclear power stations are likely to be built to combat the greenhouse effect of fossil fuels.
Many such reactors are to be built in China and India, but are also likely to be built in Middle East states and in countries of other volatile regions.
Israel proposes that an international consortium of "recognized countries" should take responsibility for supplying nuclear fuel to some domestic energy reactors. "This arrangement would relieve countries interested in operating nuclear reactors from the economic burden involved in building facilities to produce fuel, and limit the environmental damage of nuclear waste," Frank told the IAEA conference. "And it would also facilitate better administration of such sensitive reactors and limit the prospects that the proliferation of such nuclear facilities would increase the risk of [nuclear weapons] proliferation."
IAEA director general Mohamed El Baradei championed a similar idea in an Economist magazine article last October, and Israeli officials were encouraged by his attitude.
Ironically, Israel would not be able to benefit from its own initiative. Under current international regulations, a state that has not signed the NPT cannot buy a power station. Israel has prepared a site for a future nuclear power station, but the prospects of it being built seem remote.
Israel's official policy is that when there is comprehensive regional peace, it will advocate "a Middle East nuclear weapons free zone." This position recently won unexpected support from British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who explained to the House of Commons why Israel should not be pressured to follow Libya and abandon its nuclear program.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to encourage other states to strengthen the NPT and it has supported raising the IAEA inspections budget.
-------- missile defense
Bush moves toward 'Star Wars' missile defense
Mon February 02, 2004
By Jim Wolf
(Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4262262
WASHINGTON, Feb 2 - President George W. Bush is planning to put the first weapons in space despite broad international opposition, budget papers sent to Congress on Monday showed.
Bush's spending plans for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 include an unspecified sum for developing and testing "advanced, lightweight, space-based (missile) interceptor components," the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said.
In its budget overview, the agency said it was seeking $47 million to start "technology development" of such weapons and others that could be phased into a multi-layered U.S. missile shield starting in January 2012.
In the two years thereafter, the Pentagon aims to base a handful of missile interceptors in orbit for testing, the agency said.
Any such setup, whether space-based lasers or interceptor rockets in orbit, could give the United States the means to attack enemy satellites as well as incoming warheads.
China, an emerging space power, has voiced strong objections to such "weaponization" of space as have Russia and some U.S. European allies.
Although the heavens are already home to spy satellites and other military and intelligence sensors that help weapons work, no offensive or defensive arms are known to be in orbit yet.
Last year, the Missile Defense Agency obtained an initial $14 million for research on a space-based interceptor "test bed," but no decision has been made yet to deploy it.
The fiscal 2005 budget is the first to set aside funds to start developing the kind of weapons President Ronald Reagan had in mind when he called for a space-based Strategic Defense Initiative on March 23, 1983. Critics decried Reagan's vision as "Star Wars" for fear it would launch an arms race in space.
GROUND-BASED MISSILE SHIELD
By Sept. 30 of this year, Bush is set to put on alert several ground-based interceptor missiles at Fort Greely, Alaska, for an initial shield against limited ballistic missile attacks from countries like North Korea.
By December 2005, this bulwark will consist of up to 20 ground-based interceptors in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, up to 10 based on U.S. warships at sea plus upgraded radar stations and communications links.
The initial system is optimized to knock down any long-range North Korean missiles that could carry nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, though critics doubt the system -- such as it is -- could thwart a surprise attack.
Overall, Bush is seeking to boost funding for missile defense by 13 percent to $10.2 billion next year, including funds for the Army's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 short-range missile interceptor program.
Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is the prime contractor for the ground-based leg of missile defense. Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) is building the system's battle command, control and communications system. Raytheon Co. (RTN.N: Quote, Profile, Research) builds the interceptor's "kill vehicle" designed to obliterate its target by slamming into it. Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Orbital Sciences Corp. (ORB.N: Quote, Profile, Research) are building booster rockets.
Missile defense is the Pentagon's costliest weapons program. The new budget projects $53.1 billion in related spending for the next five fiscal years, up more than $3 billion for the five-year period projected a year ago.
In addition, billions of dollars that had been earmarked for spending from 2006 to 2010 are now due to be spent sooner -- a sign critics said showed the program was behind schedule and over budget.
"What they're doing now are the simplest efforts," said Philip Coyle, who stepped down in January 2001 as the Pentagon's top weapons evaluator. "The later years aren't going to be any less expensive (than forecast last year) -- and that's especially true because the system has become more complex," he said in a telephone interview.
----
U.S. Missile Defense Set to Get Early Start
Pentagon Planning to Deploy Interceptors At Alaskan Military Base This Summer
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4411-2004Feb1?language=printer
The Pentagon plans to begin operation of a national missile defense system this summer, putting the first missile interceptors on alert weeks ahead of a previous autumn deadline, according to senior defense officials.
The accelerated schedule, if realized, would enable President Bush to claim fulfillment of a major 2000 campaign pledge earlier than officials had indicated. The United States currently lacks a defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles. Erecting such a system has been not only a top Bush priority but also a longtime Republican Party goal.
Democratic lawmakers have challenged the urgency and expense of the project, and scientists and other critics have warned that Bush's approach relies on unproven technology.
Disclosing the planned summer start, Pentagon officials insisted in interviews that politics played no part in revising the schedule. They said the change grew out of the realization that the system could begin providing some anti-missile protection before all 10 of the interceptors slated for fielding this year had been lowered into silos in Alaska and California.
"If we could have some capability, we'd be negligent not to put it out as early as we could," said one senior military officer involved in the program. "It has nothing to do with a politically motivated date. We've never been told to speed it up."
Whether the Bush administration is moving too fast to deploy the anti-missile system was in dispute even before the latest shift, with the Pentagon's own top weapons evaluator recently raising a warning flag. In a status report last month on major new weapons programs, Thomas P. Christie, director of the Pentagon's office of Operational Test and Evaluation, said a shortage of testing data would likely make it difficult for him to assess the system's effectiveness ahead of any deployment this year.
He expressed concern about the small number and relatively simple nature of flight tests, noting they have used the same course each time and have relied on surrogates and prototypes for key elements still under development. Problems with a new booster, designed to carry the interceptor vehicle into space, prompted the Pentagon to suspend flight intercept attempts after the last test in December 2002.
The next flight tests are scheduled for May and July; thus, the Pentagon could end up activating the anti-missile system before results of the summer tests have been fully assessed.
Nonetheless, program officials say that previous tests have given them enough confidence to justify a recommendation to go forward this summer. In eight tests since 1999, interceptors have scored five hits against mock warheads, validating -- in the view of program officials -- the principle of using a missile to hit a missile.
"We have seen nothing in terms of a showstopper that would prevent us from putting the system on alert," the senior military officer said.
The system relies on land-based interceptors to soar and ram into enemy warheads headed toward the United States. It is intended as just one layer of what Bush envisions will be a multilayered network of defenses. Other systems under development are aimed at striking missiles soon after launch with land- or sea-based interceptors or airborne lasers. Should a missile survive these layers of defense, another system of interceptors would target it as it descended.
Adopting a phased approach to establishing this expansive network, Bush in late 2002 ordered the deployment of the first 10 long-range interceptors by the end of 2004 -- six at Fort Greely in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Internally, Pentagon officials set Sept. 30 this year as the deadline for opening the Fort Greely facility.
The idea of going on alert earlier at Fort Greely emerged from a military exercise before the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year, the senior officer said. The exercise, which involved Patriot anti-missile batteries and focused on devising an air defense network for the Iraq war, showed the benefit of putting some network elements into service before all were in place.
A senior Pentagon civilian also cited Israel's experience in the past few years with its Arrow anti-missile system. Individual elements of that system have been declared operational as soon as they have been built.
"The Israelis have done that for deterrence purposes," the official said. "They have wanted to send a message to their neighbors that the system was ready, even if still had a ways to go."
The Pentagon plans to start loading interceptors into silos at Fort Greely in May or June, continuing through the autumn there and into January at Vandenberg. Software improvements to a critical tracking radar, known as Cobra Dane and located on Shemya Island in the Aleutians, are due for completion in July. Shortly after that, the anti-missile system could go on alert for the first time.
"We anticipate that it would be before the September time frame that we've used as a planning date in the past," the senior officer said.
By starting the system, while still installing the first batch of interceptors, operators can gain early experience and quickly spot any potential glitches, thereby smoothing the way for completion of the deployment, officials said.
"What we're trying to get away from is the idea that we're going to have one switch that we're going to throw at midnight on a certain date, and everything is going to be operational," the senior officer said.
By the end of 2005, plans call for adding 10 more interceptors at Fort Greely as well as 10 ship-based, intermediate-range interceptors, a new floating tracking radar and an upgraded radar at Fylingdales in Great Britain. In his 2005 budget request, which goes to Congress this week, Bush is seeking more than $10 billion for missile defense, up from $9.1 billion this year.
----
US to begin putting intercept missiles in silos in June or July: official
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Feb 02, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040202203926.gz7oyppu.html
The United States plans to have a rudimentary missile defense system in operation by October and to begin putting interceptor missiles in launch silos as early as June, Pentagon officials said Monday.
The Pentagon is seeking a 20 percent boost in funding for the program, from 7.7 billion dollars this year to 9.2 billion dollars in 2005, under the proposed budget presented to Congress on Monday.
Plans calls for deploying 20 ground-based interceptor missiles and up to 10 sea-based missiles by the end of fiscal 2005.
The Pentagon anticipates declaring the system to have an "initial operational capability" by the end of fiscal 2004 on October 1.
"Probably about June or July is when the first (interceptor missiles) will go in," said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency. "You still have a period of check-out before their declared ready for operational use."
Work to upgrade a Cobra Dane radar at Shemya Island in the Aleutians and an early warning radar at Beale Air Force Base in California -- integral to the system's tracking and targeting of incoming missiles -- are supposed to be complete by the end of the summer, he said.
But the Missile Defense Agency plans only two full fledged intercept tests before the system is declared operational.
The Pentagon's chief of weapons testing and evaluation, Thomas Christie, warned in a report last month that "the small number of tests will limit confidence in the integrated interceptor performance."
The interceptor missile will be blasted into space on a commercial booster developed by Orbital Science that has not been tested before in a full-fledged intercept test.
Its first such test will be in the May-June period -- just before the first of the missiles are supposed to go into launch silos -- and a second intercept test will be conducted in mid to late summer, Lehner said.
"We haven't done an intercept test since December of 2002 because there was no point in using a surrogate booster. We wanted to wait at least until we had an operational booster," Lehner said.
"Now that the Orbital one is ready we can resume intercept testing again," he said.
----
U.S. Missile Defense Set to Get Early Start
Pentagon Planning to Deploy Interceptors At Alaskan Military Base This Summer
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4411-2004Feb1.html
The Pentagon plans to begin operation of a national missile defense system this summer, putting the first missile interceptors on alert weeks ahead of a previous autumn deadline, according to senior defense officials.
The accelerated schedule, if realized, would enable President Bush to claim fulfillment of a major 2000 campaign pledge earlier than officials had indicated. The United States currently lacks a defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles. Erecting such a system has been not only a top Bush priority but also a longtime Republican Party goal.
Democratic lawmakers have challenged the urgency and expense of the project, and scientists and other critics have warned that Bush's approach relies on unproven technology.
Disclosing the planned summer start, Pentagon officials insisted in interviews that politics played no part in revising the schedule. They said the change grew out of the realization that the system could begin providing some anti-missile protection before all 10 of the interceptors slated for fielding this year had been lowered into silos in Alaska and California.
"If we could have some capability, we'd be negligent not to put it out as early as we could," said one senior military officer involved in the program. "It has nothing to do with a politically motivated date. We've never been told to speed it up."
Whether the Bush administration is moving too fast to deploy the anti-missile system was in dispute even before the latest shift, with the Pentagon's own top weapons evaluator recently raising a warning flag. In a status report last month on major new weapons programs, Thomas P. Christie, director of the Pentagon's office of Operational Test and Evaluation, said a shortage of testing data would likely make it difficult for him to assess the system's effectiveness ahead of any deployment this year.
He expressed concern about the small number and relatively simple nature of flight tests, noting they have used the same course each time and have relied on surrogates and prototypes for key elements still under development. Problems with a new booster, designed to carry the interceptor vehicle into space, prompted the Pentagon to suspend flight intercept attempts after the last test in December 2002.
The next flight tests are scheduled for May and July; thus, the Pentagon could end up activating the anti-missile system before results of the summer tests have been fully assessed.
Nonetheless, program officials say that previous tests have given them enough confidence to justify a recommendation to go forward this summer. In eight tests since 1999, interceptors have scored five hits against mock warheads, validating -- in the view of program officials -- the principle of using a missile to hit a missile.
"We have seen nothing in terms of a showstopper that would prevent us from putting the system on alert," the senior military officer said.
The system relies on land-based interceptors to soar and ram into enemy warheads headed toward the United States. It is intended as just one layer of what Bush envisions will be a multilayered network of defenses. Other systems under development are aimed at striking missiles soon after launch with land- or sea-based interceptors or airborne lasers. Should a missile survive these layers of defense, another system of interceptors would target it as it descended.
Adopting a phased approach to establishing this expansive network, Bush in late 2002 ordered the deployment of the first 10 long-range interceptors by the end of 2004 -- six at Fort Greely in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Internally, Pentagon officials set Sept. 30 this year as the deadline for opening the Fort Greely facility.
The idea of going on alert earlier at Fort Greely emerged from a military exercise before the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year, the senior officer said. The exercise, which involved Patriot anti-missile batteries and focused on devising an air defense network for the Iraq war, showed the benefit of putting some network elements into service before all were in place.
A senior Pentagon civilian also cited Israel's experience in the past few years with its Arrow anti-missile system. Individual elements of that system have been declared operational as soon as they have been built.
"The Israelis have done that for deterrence purposes," the official said. "They have wanted to send a message to their neighbors that the system was ready, even if still had a ways to go."
The Pentagon plans to start loading interceptors into silos at Fort Greely in May or June, continuing through the autumn there and into January at Vandenberg. Software improvements to a critical tracking radar, known as Cobra Dane and located on Shemya Island in the Aleutians, are due for completion in July. Shortly after that, the anti-missile system could go on alert for the first time.
"We anticipate that it would be before the September time frame that we've used as a planning date in the past," the senior officer said.
By starting the system, while still installing the first batch of interceptors, operators can gain early experience and quickly spot any potential glitches, thereby smoothing the way for completion of the deployment, officials said.
"What we're trying to get away from is the idea that we're going to have one switch that we're going to throw at midnight on a certain date, and everything is going to be operational," the senior officer said.
By the end of 2005, plans call for adding 10 more interceptors at Fort Greely as well as 10 ship-based, intermediate-range interceptors, a new floating tracking radar and an upgraded radar at Fylingdales in Great Britain. In his 2005 budget request, which goes to Congress this week, Bush is seeking more than $10 billion for missile defense, up from $9.1 billion this year.
-------- terrorism
AP: Nuclear Black Market Is Small, Covert
February 2, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Black-Market.html
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The nuclear black market that supplied Iran, Libya and North Korea is small, tight-knit and appears to have been badly hurt by the exposure of its reputed head, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, diplomats and weapons experts told The Associated Press.
They describe the network that circumvented international controls to sell blueprints, hardware and know-how to countries running covert nuclear programs as involving people closely dependent on one another.
Abdul Qadeer Khan, who founded Pakistan's nuclear program, is emerging as the head of the ring believed to have been the main supplier through middlemen over three continents. A Pakistani government official revealed Monday that Khan has acknowledged in a written statement transferring nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
The sales, during the late 1980s and in the early and mid-1990s, were motivated by ``personal greed and ambition,'' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official added that the black market dealings were not authorized by the Pakistani government.
European diplomats also said it appeared unlikely President Pervez Musharraf sanctioned the deals. But with Khan close to previous governments, senior civilian and military officials before Musharraf's takeover in 1999 likely knew of some of the dealings, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity in interviews Monday and this past week.
They described Khan as the head of an operation likely involved in supplying both North Korea and Iran with uranium enrichment technology and hardware in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Libya was also a customer, receiving an array of nuclear-related equipment and know-how that included blueprints of a nuclear bomb handed over to U.S. and British intelligence officials late last month, they said.
Middlemen responsible for meshing supply and demand were located in European capitals, Asia and the Middle east, they said, typically working with Iranian, Libyan and North Korea's diplomats stationed abroad.
These would identify their country's needs and the intermediaries would then procure the orders, often ordering sensitive parts from manufacturers unaware of the end destination or purpose of what they were selling, they said. Most of those companies, were in Germany, Austria and Switzerland and other West European countries with the technological expertise to make finely machined centrifuge parts and other components.
Hundreds of millions of dollars changed hands over the past 15 years, in deals as easy to hide as a floppy disc storing sensitive drawings or as bulky as thousands of centrifuge parts for nuclear enrichment, a key part of building a weapons, the diplomats said.
A key beneficiary appears to be Khan, whose salary as a civil servant cannot account for what Pakistani newspapers say are far-flung real estate holdings and other assets worth millions of dollars.
Khan, who hasn't spoken publicly about the charges, but has been prevented from leaving Pakistan, has denied during interrogations with investigators that he made the transfers for personal gain.
Pakistani authorities began investigating Khan and key associates on information from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that some Pakistani nuclear scientists helped Iran and Libya get centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi revealed -- and renounced -- his weapons and programs of mass destruction in December. Iran continues to maintain it has no nuclear weapons ambitions, but IAEA officials said Tehran has cooperated in revealing the sources of its centrifuges.
U.S. officials also suspect Pakistan bartered nuclear secrets in exchange for North Korean missile technology, a charge Pakistan denies. American officials believe North Korea already has one or two nuclear bombs and could make several more within months. North Korea has never confirmed or denied having atomic weapons.
While he has not been linked to the nuclear network headed by Khan, the case of Asher Karni, an Israeli businessman awaiting trial in the United States, offers a window on how those suspected of nuclear smuggling cover their tracks.
Court records allege Karni used a series of front companies and misleading shipping documents to buy detonation devices whose possible uses include setting off nuclear weapons from a Massachusetts company, then had them sent through New Jersey to South Africa and on to the United Arab Emirates and later to Pakistan.
A federal judge in Washington D.C. ruled last week Karni could be released while he awaits trial as long as he agreed to waive his immunity from extradition from Israel or South Africa, to pay a $100,000 bond and to be electronically monitored while he stays in Maryland.
The diplomats said thousands of components used for uranium enrichment and bound for Libya that were seized on a German ship in October had bogus papers masking their use, point of origin and end destination.
The ring supplying Iran, North Korea and Libya was small -- probably no more than around a dozen major players who knew details of what was being sold to whom, said the diplomats. Many of them were probably dependent on Khan for his contacts, first as an employee of Urenco, the West European uranium enrichment consortium and then as the architect of the clandestine weapons program that publicly established Pakistan as a nuclear power in 1998.
The fact that he is now sidelined has, in combination with the world focus on interdiction and monitoring countries under suspicion, probably crippled the supply chain, the diplomats said.
David Albright, a former Iraq nuclear weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security, agreed. With Khan exposed, the ring that accounted for much of the three countries' illicit nuclear hardware and know-how is ``now busted up,'' he said.
``There are still remnants, and that has to be watched, but this is a major victory for nonproliferation,'' he said from Washington.
On the Net:
Institute for Science and International Security, www.isis-online.org
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- colorado
Funding for Flats' watchdogs faces cuts
Group aired concerns of local governments
By Alicia Caldwell
Denver Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 02, 2004
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1929738,00.html
Federal funding for a group that has been described as local governments' voice in the Rocky Flats cleanup project will not be included in the budget that President Bush releases today, according to the group's director.
The Rocky Flats Coalition of Governments, a watchdog group representing seven local governments that border the contaminated site of the former nuclear weapons plant northwest of Denver, will not receive $300,000 for fiscal year 2005, said David Abelson, the group's executive director.
And he said U.S. Department of Energy officials told him the group will not be funded for the current year, which began Oct. 1. The group has enough in reserves to operate for a year, he said.
DOE officials declined to comment on the group's funding status.
Local officials who have used the group to look over the shoulders of federal and state officials charged with cleaning up the site said they were distraught that they would lose this venue to ask what one member called "uncomfortable questions."
"I think it has the potential to affect the public's confidence in what the federal government is doing to clean up this site," said Lisa Morzel, a former Boulder City Council member and ex officio member of the coalition. "I think it's incredibly premature."
The $7.3 billion cleanup of the former nuclear weapons trigger plant is scheduled to be completed in December 2006. But several "critical issues" remain to be decided, Abelson said, involving cleanup methods, long-term residual contamination decisions and water management.
"These issues, which we've been actively pushing to resolve, still remain unresolved," Abelson said.
The state's point person in directing the cleanup of the buildings, the most contaminated part of the site, said the coalition has been an active voice in deciding precisely how the cleanup would proceed.
"They've had great influence on our decisions and with the congressional delegation on how the cleanup is being conducted," said Steve Gunderson, Rocky Flats project coordinator for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. "I think they have their communities' best interests at heart."
A Department of Energy official who would speak only on background said the reason the coalition's current funding was in jeopardy was because the pot of money it comes from is designated both for worker retraining and community involvement. The former is the department's priority, the official said, and there is projected to be no money left to fund community groups for fiscal year 2004. The official would not comment on the 2005 budget, which is scheduled to be released today.
Lorraine Anderson, an Arvada City Council member and a director of the coalition, said it has taken a long time for local governments to find a common voice and to build trust with the U.S. Department of Energy. She worried that eliminating the coalition would once again breed distrust and suspicion.
"They had been very secretive at times, and we would only find out about issues after something bad had happened," she said. "If we're not there, and we don't have a way to keep track of what's going on, I fear they could take some shortcuts."
-------- us politics
Cheney Designs Commission to Evaluate Cheney
February 2, 2004
Progressive --
Matthew Rothschild
http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx020204.html
When I heard that Bush was succumbing to the pressure to name an independent commission to look into the mysterious case of Iraq's vanishing weapons, I joked that he might appoint Dick Cheney to head it, since Cheney was probably the biggest hormswaggler of all.
Turns out that Cheney, while not heading the commission, is playing an instrumental role in its creation, membership, and mandate, according to The New York Times.
Perhaps that's why this panel will not release its results till after the November election. God forbid the voters know who is culpable before they cast their ballots.
And perhaps that's why this panel will look well beyond Iraq to some broader issues of intelligence failures. The more the commission broadens its focus, the less implicated Bush and Cheney may appear.
At least that seems to be the White House's hope.
So, too, the hope that people will buy the claim that, at bottom, this was an intelligence failure, rather than the result of heavy-handed pressure by the Bush Administration.
Though David Kay denied that such pressure existed, that is not the conclusion the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reached in its recent report "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications."
The evidence "suggests, but does not prove, that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002," the report says. "Although such situations are not unusual, in this case, the pressure appears to have been unusually intense."
It noted Cheney's own repeated, and extraordinary, visits to CIA headquarters, a fact The Washington Post disclosed on June 5, 2003, in an article by Walter Pincus and Dana Priest.
"Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to Al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush Administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials," the Post article said.
The article quoted a senior CIA official who said the visits "sent signals, intended or otherwise, that a certain output was desired from here."
The Carnegie report also mentions that "political appointees in the Department of Defense set up their own intelligence operations reportedly out of dissatisfaction" with the work of the CIA.
And, as Seymour Hersh has reported for The New Yorker, Cheney and Rumsfeld insisted on getting raw intelligence reports unevaluated by the experts at the CIA.
"It strains credibility," the Carnegie report says, to believe individuals and agencies did not feel pressure "to reach more threatening judgments of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs than many analysts felt were warranted."
It's too easy, and too convenient, to blame the intelligence agencies for screwing up.
Here is a more plausible theory: Bush wanted this war from day one, as did Cheney and Rumsfeld, and their deputies Scooter Libby and Paul Wolfowitz, respectively. All four of those men were part of the Project for the New American Century, which had long advocated the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a top U.S. foreign policy priority. To get their way, the President's men breathed heavily on the backs of the intelligence gatherers to come up with anything that could make the President's war wish--and their own war wish--come true.
Now to have Cheney appoint his own interrogator is a laughable cover-up.
----
Iraq intelligence efforts led by Cheney magnified errors, officials say
BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY, WARREN P. STROBEL AND JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Mon, Feb. 02, 2004
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/politics/7859310.htm
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - What went wrong with intelligence on Iraq will never be known unless the inquiry proposed by President Bush examines secret intelligence efforts led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon hawks, current and former U.S officials said Monday.
The officials said they feared that Bush, gearing up his fight for re-election, would try to limit the inquiry's scope to the CIA and other agencies, and ignore the key role the administration's own internal intelligence efforts played in making the case for war.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, didn't dispute that the CIA failed to accurately assess the state of Iraq's weapons programs. But they said that the intelligence efforts led by Cheney magnified the errors through exaggeration, oversights and mistaken deductions.
Those efforts bypassed normal channels, used Iraqi exiles and defectors of questionable reliability, and produced findings on former dictator Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaida and his illicit arms programs that were disputed by analysts at the CIA, the State Department and other agencies, the officials said.
"There were more agencies than CIA providing intelligence ... that are worth scrutiny, including the (Pentagon's now-disbanded) Office of Special Plans and the office of the vice president," said a former senior military official who was involved in planning the Iraq invasion.
Some of the disputed findings were presented as facts to Americans as Bush drummed up his case for war.
Those findings included charges of cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaida, Cheney's assertion that Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear weapons program and would "soon" have a nuclear bomb, and Bush's contention in his 2003 State of the Union address that Saddam was seeking nuclear bomb-making material from Africa.
Senior officials on Monday revealed new details of how Cheney's office pressed Secretary of State Colin Powell to use large amounts of disputed intelligence in a February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council laying out the U.S. case for an invasion.
A senior administration official said that during a three-day pre-speech review, Powell rejected more than half of a 45-page assessment on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction compiled by Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, and based on materials assembled by pro-invasion hard-liners in the Pentagon and the White House.
Powell also jettisoned 75 percent of a separate report on al-Qaida, said the official.
Still, he said, Libby continued pressing Powell unsuccessfully right up until a few minutes before the speech to include dubious information purportedly linking Saddam to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Bush said Monday he would name an independent bipartisan commission to review intelligence failures in Iraq. It would also look at what is known about efforts by Iran, North Korea and terrorist groups to obtain nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Two congressional committees, an internal CIA board and a White House advisory panel are already reviewing the Iraq intelligence.
Bush's decision to name an independent commission followed assertions by David Kay, who quit last month as chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, that Saddam had not hidden the banned chemical and biological warfare stockpiles. The president had cited such weapons as his prime justification for the March invasion.
Bush and GOP leaders in Congress had resisted a demand by Democrats for an independent review of the Iraq intelligence, but calls by Kay and key Republicans last week for such an inquiry forced the president to reconsider.
"I want to know all the facts," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting.
He insisted, however, that the war and occupation - in which more than 500 U.S. troops have died - were justified because Saddam had failed to halt all illicit weapons activities in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions.
"Saddam Hussein had the intent and capabilities to cause great harm," Bush asserted.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the membership and duration of the independent commission weren't settled. He skirted the question of whether the panel would examine whether Bush and his top aides exaggerated or misrepresented intelligence on Iraq.
"I'm not going to get into the scope issues at this point," he said.
Top Democratic lawmakers said Bush should allow Congress to appoint the commission and determine the scope and duration of its inquiry.
"One of the major questions that needs to be addressed is whether senior administration officials ... misled the Congress and the public about the nature of the threat from Iraq. Even some of your own statements and those of Vice President Cheney need independent scrutiny. A commission appointed and controlled by the White House will not have the independence or credibility necessary to investigate these issues," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) and four other senior Democrats wrote in a letter to Bush.
The former and current officials said that an objective inquiry would require the panel to look at the roles that Cheney, his office and his neoconservative allies at the Pentagon played in collecting and analyzing intelligence on Iraq.
Reviewing what the CIA did "is half the picture," said Melvin Goodman, a former senior CIA analyst who teaches at the National Defense University. "What you want is an open-ended, blue-ribbon inquiry of the whole picture, which is what (intelligence) the White House got and how the White House used what it got."
Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld have long expressed serious doubts about the CIA's abilities.
Cheney, according to a senior U.S. official, began visiting the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency during his first days in office for briefings on Iraq and other pressing national security issues.
His staff collected intelligence on Iraq from sources such as newspapers, as well as from regular intelligence channels and from internal Pentagon initiatives directed by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.
Those efforts, according to the current and former U.S. officials, combined raw intelligence from the CIA and DIA with information from defectors and Iraqi exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi, now a member of the U.S.-installed Iraqi Governing Council.
The CIA and State Department saw Chalabi, who is close to neoconservatives inside and outside the administration, as an unreliable source of information with a self-interest in pressing the case for Saddam's ouster.
The senior administration official said the assessments on illicit weapons, al-Qaida and human rights in Iraq that Libby pressed on Powell were products of Cheney's office and Feith's efforts.
The bulk of the work on illicit weapons and al-Qaida links was rejected after representatives from Cheney's office failed in a 10-hour meeting to show that the materials were from reliable sources, he said.
He said that materials rejected as dubious or false included:
_Sept. 11 terrorist Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, the Czech Republic, five months before the attacks;
_Iraqi efforts to purchase software from an Australian company to use for mapping the East Coast of the United States;
_Satellite pictures that Libby insisted showed Iraq possessed robot aircraft capable of spraying lethal chemicals;
_A chronology of contacts "going back years" between Iraqi officials and al-Qaida. "These pages put the two in contact, but they didn't prove a damn thing," said the senior official, who added that follow-up reports showed that "in meeting after meeting Iraq rebuffed al-Qaida, that Saddam had serious differences reconciling fundamentalist Islam with secular Iraq."
Still, Powell included in his U.N. speech charges that Iraq had provided chemical and biological warfare training to several al-Qaida members and that he had helped an al-Qaida-linked group produce crude poisons.
----
Cheney Sees His Shadow
By Tom Engelhardt,
TomDispatch.com
February 2, 2004
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17715
Over the last year, I think it could safely be said that the three men hardest to spot have been Saddam Hussein, finally found in December in his "spider hole"; Osama Bin Laden, still undetected in his "cave," assumedly somewhere on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border; and Dick Cheney, our stealth vice president (or president, depending on your interpretive druthers) in his bunker in Washington.
Well, in the last week-plus, Cheney has been spotted, and then spotted again, and again and again: first, bird-shooting with a Supreme Court justice, then speaking in Los Angeles on the war on terror, next visiting Davos, Switzerland, followed by Italy where he continued to flog those long- discounted Iraqi "trailers" as evidence of massive Saddamite WMD programs, and finally seeking the Pope's blessing at the Vatican, where in a small spectacle of curious taste he came bearing a gift. "During Mr. Cheney's visit on Tuesday, the vice president presented the pope with a gift that symbolized peace: a crystal dove," according to Eric Schmitt and Frank Bruni of the New York Times. Perhaps it wasn't "peace" the vice president had in mind, but "pieces" - as in, all the better to smash it into...
Anyway, it was a week of Cheney glut with Cheney quotes old and new popping up. Unlike Elvis sightings, Cheney sightings have been rare enough that it's worth spending a little time on them.
You might say that the vice president, suddenly under attack by the Democrats as the symbol of an extremist administration and with his poll numbers in free fall, had been flushed out, like one of those game birds he and Supreme Court Justice Scalia hunted together recently. (Wouldn't you have liked to be a little bird - a very small and unmeaty one, of course - listening in on what the potential Chief Justice of the second-term Bush Supreme Court had to say to the administration's first-term "eminence grise," and vice versa? I doubt they were trading Lord of the Rings subplots, and they couldn't have been discussing the potentially embarrassing Guantanamo cases that will appear before the court this year. That would have been unethical.)
Cheney, in the light of day, seemed to be blinking hard and looking just a little unsteady, though our press managed to explain all this in slightly encoded, exceedingly polite language, meant to carry a punch mainly for your basic insider or news jockey. Take Eric Schmitt of the New York Times in this passage:
"Vice President Dick Cheney, on a five-day trip through Switzerland and Italy, is stepping out of his self-imposed seclusion and into what administration officials and political analysts say is a calculated election-year makeover to temper his hard-line image at home and abroad...."
"Democrats acknowledge they are seeking to make Mr. Cheney a lightning rod for criticism of the administration.... But aides say none of this has shaken Mr. Bush's trust in Mr. Cheney, who still wields huge, though largely unseen, influence on issues from Iraq to tax policy. The two meet weekly for a private lunch in a small dining room off the Oval Office. Mr. Cheney has repeatedly said he has no presidential aspirations of his own, allowing him to focus solely on Mr. Bush's agenda."
It's a lovely passage really. That little word "makeover" - as in a before-and-after commercial for some women's beauty product - and that super last line. So that's what he's been doing all these months - selflessly focusing "solely on Mr. Bush's agenda."
If you want to find some evidence of real attitude in our elite press, do remember to check out those final paragraphs of pieces it's undoubtedly assumed that next to no one reads, where a reporter can finally run free. Yesterday, for instance, David Sanger of the Times had a front-page piece on "Bush's Risky Options," focusing on how the President might respond to the call by the former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, David Kay (along with endless Democrats and Sen. John McCain who has no love for the younger Bush) for an independent commission to look into American prewar WMD intelligence.
Sanger pointed out that White House officials have been in "a slow retreat... day-by-day, fact-by-fact" from prewar, wartime, and postwar WMD assertions. (Condoleezza Rice's most recent fallback position, however, when it comes to Saddam's links to "terrorists," sounds a bit of a fall-forward position to me: "With Saddam Hussein, we were dealing with somebody who had used weapons of mass destruction, who had attacked his neighbors twice, who was allowing terrorists to run in his country and was funding terrorists outside of his country.")
Here, in any case, are Sanger's last two paragraphs, just about as snarky as you can get in the Times:
"Only Mr. Cheney, the man who made the most extensive claims about Iraq's readiness to strike out, has failed to back down publicly. Last Friday he was on the air again, talking about Mr. Hussein's mobile biological weapons units, which now appear, Dr. Kay says, to have had no such purpose.
"We'll have to get Cheney the new memo," one White House official said after Mr. Cheney's comments, "As soon as we write it."
But Cheney really didn't need snarky reporters to do his job for him. In the quotes department last week he did pretty well for himself.
From Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing in the Washington Post comes the following:
"During his stopover at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, forum founder Klaus Schwab asked Cheney about his controversial Christmas card, interpreted by some to be sly hint about the country's status as a modern empire. The card featured a quote from Benjamin Franklin: 'If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?'
"Do you consider the United States to be an empire?" Cheney was asked. After jocularly blaming his wife for choosing the card, Cheney insisted "It did not refer, or should not be taken as some kind of indication that the United States today sees itself as an empire." He said that if the United States were an empire, "We would currently preside over a much greater piece of the Earth's surface than we do.'"
Think that one over for a minute, while you consider the following little quote from Secretary of State Colin Powell, off visiting the former Soviet hinterlands. According to Kim Murphy of the Los Angeles Times, Powell arrived in Moscow after a visit to Georgia to "soothe" (other words in our press for his behavior: "mollify," "assure," "reassure") the Russians about our good intentions despite our relatively new bases in the former SSRs of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, our military trainers in Georgia (after all, it has been a state of the Union ever since the American Revolution), our demand that the Russians get their troops out of that small country, and Powell's recent comments about future basing plans in former Eastern European Soviet satellites like Rumania, Bulgaria and Poland. He said, "The U.S. does not want to build bases all over the world. There is no need to."
No more, at least, than the 700-odd we already have, including the new ones in the old Soviet borderlands. If we were an empire, by Cheney's calculations and with Powell's quote in mind, maybe we'd have 1,400 bases.
Murphy elaborated in the following fashion: "U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Monday said the U.S. has no plans to create military bases in Georgia. At the same time, U.S. officials have not ruled out a long-term security presence in the strategically important Caucasus republic, once a part of the Soviet empire and still a crucial component of the Kremlin's effort to maintain an extensive sphere of influence and counter NATO's expansion toward its western frontier...
"For the United States, the region provides a window onto crucial theaters in the war on terrorism, including Afghanistan and Iraq. It also encompasses a crucial transport route for oil riches from the Caspian Sea."
For anyone who lived through the Cold War (or, were it possible, the British "Great Game" against the Russians in Central Asia), this sort of language - and there was plenty of it in the press this week - would sound oddly familiar. Every spot on Earth - or at least in that vast "arc of instability," aka the oil lands of our planet - is actually "strategically important" and a "window" onto something else, and everything we don't control, a danger. But what's to be a "window" for us is evidently meant to be a windowless wall for the Russians who are to be left out in the cold. If the Bush administration could, they would undoubtedly exile the Russians to Siberia and good riddance - though, thought about another way, with its oil and natural gas deposits, Siberia could certainly be considered "strategically important" and a "window" onto something else.
Bitter-enders in Washington
Oh, and as if to help Cheney along this week, a new bio of Tony Blair, the British PM with no less than nine lives, just appeared claiming that Cheney, according to a Blair aide, had "waged a guerrilla war against the process" of seeking UN approval before the war. (Mike Allen, in the Washington Post):
"The book says Cheney considered Blair and his pleas for multilateral military action against Hussein to be an irritant. It asserts that Cheney told a high-ranking British official during the summer of 2002, when Bush was denying he had decided to go to war, 'Once we have victory in Baghdad, all the critics will look like fools.'"
I guess this, then, was the week of the fools, one in which Cheney looked increasingly like Washington's version of the sort of "bitter-ender" Rumsfeld et al. were always yakking about. The Nelson Report, a Washington insider's newsletter, commented on the vice-presidential emergence this way: "Some observers amused themselves with speculation that Cheney's bizarre ceremonial with the Pope is just part of a 'come out of the cave' PR campaign orchestrated by his staff, as part of an effort to rehabilitate his public image."
Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service pointed out that Cheney himself commented on his outing this week ("Will Dubya Dump Dick?"):
"In a[n]... interview, Cheney told USA Today he was not worried about his image as the administration's Machiavelli, skilled in the quiet arts of persuading his 'Prince' to pursue questionable policies, adding, surprisingly unselfconsciously, 'Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole? It's a nice way to operate, actually.'"
A few days ago, in a fascinating piece posted at antiwar.com, Lobe asked the question that has been quietly nibbling at the edge of the mainstream press ever since. He wrote in part:
"While Democratic rivals battle for the presidential nomination in a succession of grueling primary elections, Vice President Dick Cheney appears to be fighting to secure his spot on the Republican ticket behind President George W. Bush.
"The vice president, whose moderation and 35-year Washington experience reassured voters worried about the callowness and inexperience of Bush during the 2000 campaign, is seen more and more by Republican Party politicos as a drag on the president's reelection chances in what is universally expected to be an extremely close race...
"Reports were already surfacing two months ago that a discreet 'dump-Cheney' movement had been launched by intimate associates of Bush's father (former president George H.W. Bush) - his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former secretary of state James Baker, who now has a White House appointment as Bush Jr.'s personal envoy to persuade official creditors to substantially reduce Iraq's 110-billion-dollar foreign debt.
"In addition to their perception that Cheney's presence would harm Bush's reelection chances, the two men, who battled frequently with the vice president when he was defense secretary in the first Bush administration, have privately expressed great concern over Cheney's unparalleled influence over the younger Bush and the damage that has done to U.S. relations with longtime allies, particularly in Europe and the Arab world."
In her latest column, the New York Times' Maureen Dowd took this up quite bluntly - it's obviously the talk of Washington right now - concluding ("Dump Cheney Now!"):
"Dick Cheney, who declared that Saddam had nuclear capability and who visited C.I.A. headquarters in the summer of 2002 to make sure the raw intelligence was properly interpreted, is sticking to his deluded guns. (And still trash talking those lame trailers.)
"The vice president pushed to slough off the allies and the U.N. and go to war partly because he thought that slapping a weakened bully like Saddam would scare other dictators. He must have reckoned there would be no day of reckoning on weapons once Saddam was gone.
"So it had to be some new definition of chutzpah on Tuesday, when Mr. Cheney, exuding more infallibility than the pope, presented him with a crystal dove."
The same Nelson Report, by the way, had this bit of scuttlebutt on the subject:
"About Vice President Cheney: on the one hand, no one predicts that he will be involuntarily dropped from the ticket, even if they haven't heard the reported reaction from President Bush, when urged, over Christmas, to do just that by serious money players who enjoy that level of access - for the record, Bush said 'no way,' and cited factors of loyalty. But... the rumors persist, not least because of the well-known, public antipathy of what recent journalism calls "the Scowcroft wing' of the party..."
Imagine that. "Serious money players" directly asked the President to drop Cheney. If you want to check out who those money men might have been, you could start by running down the lists of "Pioneers" ("the 241 individuals who have raised a minimum of $100,000 for the Bush 2004 reelection effort") and "Rangers" ("the 151 individuals who have raised a minimum of $200,000 for the Bush 2004 reelection effort") posted at the Texans for Public Justice website.
Tom Engelhardt is the editor of tomdispatch.com
----
Halliburton: Cheney-A 'Risk Factor'
Newsweek
Allan Sloan
February 2, 2004
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4121538/
Feb. 9 issue - Halliburton, the big contracting company that Dick Cheney used to run, is now warning investors that its Cheney connection is what Wall Street calls a "risk factor." No, the company's not talking about the multibillion-dollar asbestos liability that it got stuck with thanks to the Cheney-orchestrated takeover of Dresser Industries. Rather, Halliburton says, the Cheney connection has caused "intense scrutiny" of its operations. "Since [Cheney's] nomination as vice president," the company said in a recent SEC filing, "Halliburton has been and continues to be the focus of allegations, some of which appear to be made for political reasons by political adversaries of the vice president and the current Bush administration. We expect that this focus and these allegations will continue and possibly intensify as the 2004 elections draw nearer."
The one-paragraph Cheney item, first noted by Michelle Leder's footnoted.org financial-news blog, is buried in 26 pages of risk factors that range from subsidiaries' bankruptcy proceedings to contract disputes over an oilfield off the coast of Brazil. Cheney's office referred all comment to Halliburton, which said this is the first time it has included a Cheney-risk item in its SEC filings. "Management made the decision to include these statements because of the politically charged environment in which we now operate," company spokesman Wendy Hall said in an e-mail. "Times have changed since the vice president left the company and we understand it is an election year." The bottom line: when you hire a rainmaker CEO like Cheney, you've got to be ready to mop up the puddles he leaves behind.
----
US defense budget silent on Iraq war costs
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Feb 02, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040202175457.ahe68xzu.html
The US administration on Monday announced a 401.7 billion dollar defense budget for 2005 that funds a rudimentary missile defense system but puts off how to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until after the presidential election.
The spending blueprint also defers until at least 2006 the withdrawal of US troops from western Europe, tying an ambitious global redeployment to politically sensitive base closures in the United States, a senior defense official said.
If approved by Congress, military spending would go up seven percent next year, swelling the size of the US defense budget for the fifth year in a row.
Military spending would account account for 3.6 percent of US gross domestic product, up from a low of 2.9 percent in 2000, according to budget figures released Monday.
A ballooning US deficit and the Iraq war have emerged as key issues for Democratic presidential challengers to the Republican president, George W. Bush, in campaigning ahead of the November 2 election.
Under pressure from critics, Bush on Monday announced an independent commission would look into the intelligence failure over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
But the budget proposal contains no money for future military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the administration will not seek additional funding from Congress until early next year, a senior official said.
Instead, the Pentagon will finance the operations from cash flow, the official said.
The official denied the election played a role in the decision not to budget for the military costs this year, insisting it was due to the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq.
"I challenge anybody in this room to tell me what is going to happen in Iraq after July 1," said the official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.
Sketching out what he described as "plausible scenarios," he said the transfer of sovereignty could go well, bringing in the United Nations and other foreign forces like the French; it could degenerate into civil war; or things could continue as they are now.
"This time we don't have a good feel for those estimates," he said. "There is no way to predict it."
Operations in Iraq are costing on average four billion dollars a month, and would go up to cover a massive rotation of forces now underway, the official said.
He was unable to provide a cost for last year's invasion or the ensuing occupation.
The budget reflects war strains in other ways.
Although it maintains the military's active duty "endstrength" at 1.38 million troops, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has added about 30,000 troops on an emergency basis to ease strains on the army.
It also finances plans to reorganize the army to add at least 10 more combat brigades, reshape the national guard and reserves, and shift civilians into jobs now held by military personnel.
It includes funding for a 3.5 percent pay raise and other "quality of life" benefits aimed at shoring up recruitment and retention.
The Pentagon also laid out a timetable for a renewed attempt to close bases in the United States, a politically unpopular exercise aimed at eliminating an estimated 20 percent surplus capacity.
The base selection process begins next month but will not conclude before late 2005.
That, in turn, has complicated plans to revamp the way US forces are deployed around the world.
The United States wants to reduce heavy US ground forces based primarily in Germany and open up new bases in former Soviet bloc countries.
But US troops cannot be brought back from Europe until after the domestic base closures are settled, the official said.
"The first time we'll have a good feel for that is '06," said the official. "You can't do them separately"
The Pentagon, meanwhile, boosted spending on missile defense by about 7.7 percent to 9.2 billion dollars, funding the deployment of a rudimentary defense against a long-range missile attack by North Korea.
Plans call for having in place an "initial operational capability" by the end of 2004, a goal set by President George W. Bush.
By the end of 2005, the Missile Defense Agency will deploy 20 ground-based interceptor missiles in Alaska and California and up to 10 sea-based missiles aboard three Aegis cruiser.
No major weapons programs were cut, but weapons procurement dipped to 74.9 billion dollars.
A large portion went to aircraft: the F-22 fighter aircraft (4.7 billion dollars), Joint Strike Fighter (4.6 billion dollars), the F/A8-18E/Fbillion dollars), and the V-22 Osprey (1.7 billion dollars.)
But unmanned combat aircraft and surveillance planes were gaining with 1.8 billion dollars budgeted.
--------
Bush Offers Budget Stressing Military and Security Spending
February 2, 2004
By DAVID STOUT
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/politics/02CND-BUDG.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 - President Bush proposed a $2.4 trillion budget for 2005 today, calling for big increases in military and domestic-security spending and for trims in many domestic programs.
The budget for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1 proposes a 7 percent increase in military spending, a 10 percent increase in domestic security spending, and a hold-the-line increase of just one-half percent for a vast array of domestic programs.
The budget does not specifically provide for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House budget director, Joshua Bolten, said the administration might ask for as much as $50 billion in supplemental funds, but not until the 2005 calendar year, which would be after the coming elections. If that amount of money is requested, and is approved by Congress, the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year would soar well over $400 billion.
Mr. Bush has said the budget deficit - $521 billion in the current budget and projected to be $364 billion in the proposal unveiled today - can be cut in half in five years.
Mr. Bush said today that his budget "sets clear priorities: winning the war on terror, protecting our homeland, making sure our children get educated, making sure the seniors get a modern Medicare system."
"And at the same time," he said after a cabinet meeting, "we're calling upon Congress to be wise with the taxpayers' money."
The budget is an immensely complicated document requiring hours of line-by-line study to deciper completely. But it was clear even from a cursory reading that the outline Mr. Bush set forth today is heavily tilted toward spending priorities that were not envisioned before the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that he may be counting on his conduct of the campaign against terrorism to fortify his re-election prospects - and perhaps his place in history.
One thing was immediately clear: the budget will be fiercely debated on Capitol Hill.
"This president has made a series of choices that stand in conflict with the values and the priorities of the American people," Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, the Senate minority leader, said at a news conference. "We have proposed alternatives after alternative, and those alternatives, in the form of amendments, will be offered, and we will go directly to many of the deficiencies that we've seen in this budget proposal."
Mr. Bush proposed some modest increases in education programs. But whether they will be enough to satisfy Democrats was far from clear. Mr. Bush has said that he wants to be known as "the education president," and Mr. Bolten, his budget director, asserted today that "there is room in that budget to still robustly fund our education priorities and make sure that the vision of the No Child Left Behind Act is realized."
About half the government's Cabinet-level agencies would get less money, with the Agriculture Department and Environmental Protection Agency apparently in line for the biggest cuts. Any cuts in environmental-agency spending are certain to touch off debate on Capitol Hill.
Copies of the budget, whose bound volumes are about the size of several metropolitan telephone directories, were ceremoniously trucked this morning to Capitol Hill, where they were received by Representative Jim Nussle, the Iowa Republican who heads the House Budget Committee.
In sending the budget to Capitol Hill, Mr. Bush was offering a political statement as much as a spending plan. Every president's proposed budget is also a political document, and that is especially true this election year, when all the seats in the House of Representatives and one in three in the Senate will be at stake exactly nine months from today.
So, of course, will the presidency itself. Mr. Bush has embraced the cause of "compassionate conservatism," a label his critics have already sought to turn against him and are sure to do so many times more in coming months. Many Democrats have said his vision is anything but compassionate, and some deficit-hating Republicans have said the president's spending ideas have veered from true conservatism.
Opposition from those groups - as well as from lawmakers in both parties who may recoil from making domestic spending cuts in an election year - will make it hard, if not impossible, for the White House to get the budget approved in its present form.
But the budget message today tried to strike a note of optimism blended with prudence.
"The federal budget - like America itself - is in solid shape, considering the extraordinary strains placed upon it: a stock market collapse that began in early 2000; a recession that was fully under way by early 2001; revelation of corporate scandals; and, of course, the Sept. 11 attacks and ensuing war on terror," the budget message declares.
The budget offering sets the stage for months of debate between the White House and Congress; between the House and Senate, between Republicans and Democrats - and not least between factions within the parties.
Details of the spending plan for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 have been emerging for days. So it was no surprise today that Mr. Bush called for limiting the growth of a vast range of discretionary nonmilitary and homeland security programs. (The term "discretionary" means those programs that are separate from entitlement programs, like Social Security, whose spending levels are mandated by law.)
A presidential budget is a proposal often subject to great change, particularly if the president is of one party and one or both chambers of Congress are controlled by the other. This time the White House and both houses are under Republican control, but that will hardly guarantee easy passage.
Several aspects of Mr. Bush's spending plans have already stoked hot debate, and are certain to stir more in the months ahead.
The president has said that he intends to slash the deficit and assure national security. He has also said he wants to provide for the new costs of the Medicare drug-prescription plan. He has called for sending Americans back to the Moon, and then on to Mars. (The budget proposed a 6 percent increase in the space agency budget, to just over $16 billion.)
The president's ambitious goals would not all have to be paid for in the budget unveiled today. But the president's critics, some Republicans as well as Democrats, have questioned whether he can do everything he wants and still keep taxes low, as he has pressured Congress to do.
Many Democrats, and more than a few deficit-wary Republicans, have been saying those goals are simply incompatible. Moreover, the budget contains no money for the military operations in Iraq, the assumption for the moment being that the $87 billion supplemental package approved last year for Iraq and Afghanistan operations will suffice, until another supplemental bill is approved for the next fiscal year, if necessary.
Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, as well as government officials throughout the federal bureaucracy, were poring over the figures today to see which programs were being cut and which were meant to survive. But Democrats offered some instant criticism.
"This administration pledged that its tax cuts and policy choices would not turn record surpluses into record deficits, but this budget shows that's exactly what's happened," Senator Daschle told The Associated Press before his news conference.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, called on Congress to reject Bush's spending plan, telling The A.P. it was the "most antifamily, antiworker, antihealthcare, antieducation budget in modern times."
Another Massachusetts Democrat, Representative Edward J. Markey, similarly faulted the Bush proposal, drawing a parallel with the seasonal event in Pennsylvania purporting to predict winter's duration. "It is quite fitting that President Bush is releasing his budget on Groundhog Day, a day when Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, ensuring that we're in for another six weeks of winter," he said. "The Bush budget also casts a wintry shadow - but it is a shadow of looming budget deficits caused by escalating tax breaks for the wealthy."
The budget also immediately became grist for the presidential campaign. "Today's budget proposal makes it clear what President Bush's priorities are: tax cuts for the rich and tough luck for everyone else," Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, said in a statement from Little Rock, Ark.
-----
Deficit Is $521 Billion In Bush Budget
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4093-2004Feb1?language=printer
President Bush's $2.4 trillion budget for the fiscal year that begins in October will leave the government $521 billion in the red. But by trimming domestic spending and eliminating up to 65 federal programs, the White House expects to cut the deficit to $237 billion by 2009, White House officials said yesterday.
White House and congressional Republicans say the 2005 budget, being released today, will be asking a lot of lawmakers in an election year. Meeting privately with congressional Republicans in Philadelphia on Saturday, Bush said, "It will be a tough budget," according to one of the participants.
In all, Bush will request spending at the annual discretion of Congress to be held to $818 billion in fiscal 2005, a 4.1 percent increase over this year, White House and congressional officials said. But if emergency spending in Iraq and Afghanistan are included in this year's spending level, the Bush request will actually be a 6.3 percent cut, from $873 billion. "It was bound to be a tough year because of the election," a senior Republican Senate aide said yesterday. "It was bound to be a tough year because of the deficit. And now we're seeing how tough it's going to be."
Bush's budget will include no additional funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond Sept. 30, an omission that both Democrats and Republicans are questioning.
The most expensive proposal of Bush's reelection campaign -- making three years of tax cuts permanent -- will largely have no impact on the president's budget deficit forecast, which extends out five years rather than 10, as was customary in the 1990s.
The true cost of extending the tax cuts would not come until 2011, long after Bush has left office. In 2012 alone, extending the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would cost the Treasury $275 billion, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last week.
"The bottom line is, his budget is going to be like Swiss cheese," said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee. "It's not only the programs he has [in the budget] but what he doesn't have to mask the size of the deficit."
Both Republican and Democratic congressional experts say Bush's biggest challenge is tackling rising deficits while he increases spending on defense and homeland security and rules out tax increases. His budget also does not propose any cuts to the majority of federal spending: entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that are funded by congressionally mandated formulas, not by annual spending bills.
The one entitlement cut the president proposed last year has been dropped from this year's request, a Republican congressional aide said. Last year, Bush had proposed turning many federal welfare programs into a block grant to the states, which would save money in the long run.
That means any cuts in spending are confined to the $362 billion currently going to programs not related to defense or homeland security, less than 18 percent of the total budget, a Senate Republican budget expert said. That block of money funds health research, education, housing, law enforcement, the State Department, environmental restoration and veterans programs, to name a few entities. If all such domestic programs were eliminated, the government would still have a significant budget deficit, Kahn noted.
White House officials declined to say which programs were slated for elimination, and White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten did not offer any examples when he met with GOP leaders last week. But congressional sources said they expect Bush to request deep cuts in energy, agricultural and environmental programs.
The budget will propose a modest, one-year tax change to keep millions of Americans from facing the alternative minimum tax, a parallel income tax system originally designed to ensure the rich pay taxes but increasingly ensnaring the middle class. Bush's one-year "patch" for that would cost $23 billion and avoid longer-term costs that would thwart pledges to cut the deficit in half, congressional officials said.
Instead of proposing a long-term solution, Bolten told GOP lawmakers, "We will be focusing on fundamental tax reform," a participant said.
CBO has said a modest 10-year fix would cost $469 billion.
The budget will include a $1 billion increase for special education, a $1 billion addition for poor school districts and an $18 million increase for the National Endowment for Arts, a request that has infuriated some conservatives.
But Bush will ask for $256 billion for transportation programs, considerably less than the $318 billion that Senate Republicans hope to spend on a major transportation bill due to be completed this year, and far less than the $375 billion House Transportation Committee leaders want. Indeed, the most heated debate at the Philadelphia retreat came over the transportation funding, participants said.
Bush indicated to lawmakers that he would not accept an increase in the federal gasoline tax that the House is seeking, nor will he allow federal money not generated by the gas tax to fund the transportation bill, one participant said.
The Senate intends to take up its version of the bill tonight, meaning the first clash of the budget season could come in weeks.
Bush will renew his proposal to establish new retirement and tax-favored savings accounts, a proposal that would eliminate taxation on interest, capital gains and dividends for most Americans. But, congressional aides say, the primary motivation for keeping the proposals in the budget is the short-run deficit picture. Under the proposal, the Treasury Department expects millions of savers would close their traditional Individual Retirement Accounts to open the new accounts, paying taxes on the withdrawals now rather than later, when they retire. That would cost the government tax revenue in the future but would provide a $15 billion increase in revenue over the next three years, thus brightening Bush's bottom line.
The White House's $521 billion deficit forecast for 2004 is considerably higher than the $477 billion deficit projected by CBO, but Bush's $237 billion deficit for 2009 is mostly consistent with CBO's $239 billion forecast for that year. A White House official dismissed the discrepancy, saying, "It's not at all unusual for projections to be different."
But budget aides in both parties noted that the higher number makes it easier to say the deficit would be cut in half in five years. A higher deficit forecast now could also help Bush show progress when his budget office delivers its updated projection in July, congressional aides said.
"These numbers are not real," said Kahn, of the House Budget Committee. "The real numbers are that we're headed toward far bigger deficits as far as the eye can see. He's taken a bad situation and made it really bad."
----
THE OVERVIEW
Democratic Chief Says 'AWOL' Bush Will Be an Issue After a Nominee Emerges
February 2, 2004
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/politics/campaign/02CAMP.html?pagewanted=all&position=
ROSEVILLE, Mich., Feb. 1 - With the Democratic presidential candidates campaigning across the country on Sunday, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee accused President Bush of being AWOL during his Air National Guard service, a signal of the ferocious campaign ahead once the Democrats finish with one another.
Revisiting an issue that arose briefly at the end of the last presidential election, the chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said he expected Mr. Bush's record of military service in the 1970's to become an issue this fall, particularly if the Democrats nominate the front-runner, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Mr. McAuliffe said he was staying neutral in the fight for his party's nomination. But, he said, if Mr. Kerry is the nominee, Mr. McAuliffe will relish comparing him with Mr. Bush.
"I look forward to that debate, when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL" in the National Guard, Mr. McAuliffe said on the ABC program "This Week."
"George Bush never served in our military in our country," he said. "He didn't show up when he should have showed up."
Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the comments "slanderous."
"President Bush served honorably in the National Guard," Mr. Gillespie said in a telephone interview. "He was never AWOL. To make an accusation like that on national television with no basis in fact is despicable."
The issue of Mr. Bush's military service arose when the filmmaker Michael Moore, a supporter of Gen. Wesley K. Clark, called Mr. Bush a deserter at a rally last month.
Mr. McAuliffe's attack on Mr. Bush seemed partly pre-emptive, suggesting that the Democrats would swing back hard if the Republicans tried to portray Mr. Kerry, decorated for his service in Vietnam, as weak on national security because in his Senate career he has voted against increasing the Pentagon budget.
It might also have been a diversionary tactic by Mr. McAuliffe, who has watched with dismay as the Democratic candidates deliver increasingly harsh blows at one another. If that was the case, it failed.
Howard Dean continued to blast Mr. Kerry on Sunday, saying Mr. Kerry had taken more money from lobbyists than any other senator in the last 15 years. Citing an article in Time magazine that said Mr. Kerry once corresponded with Johnny Chung, who later pleaded guilty to illegally funneling money to the Kerry campaign, Dr. Dean said Mr. Kerry owed voters an apology.
"He misrepresented himself, grossly misrepresented himself, as a candidate who would take on special interests in Washington," Dr. Dean told reporters on his campaign plane. "We cannot go on in this country having United States senators and public officials gather their money from people who they then perform favors for."
Mr. Kerry told reporters that the Chung story was old news. "The moment we had learned anything about that contribution," he said, "we returned the entire contribution."
On Saturday Mr. Kerry fired back, saying that Dr. Dean had conflicts of his own and had had to seal his records from his days as governor of Vermont to hide them. He also said that two of Dr. Dean's top campaign aides had been corporate lobbyists.
But Mr. Kerry generally held his fire on Sunday, staying in Fargo, N.D., and taking the posture of a front-runner as he anticipated a strong showing in Tuesday's string of primaries and caucuses. He also spurned the idea of a one-on-one debate with Dr. Dean, which he proposed before he won in Iowa and in New Hampshire.
"We're in a seven-state primary," Mr. Kerry said. "I don't have time right now."
Dr. Dean, who has said he does not expect to win in any of the seven states that hold contests on Tuesday, said he would drop out of the race if someone else accumulated enough delegates to claim the nomination. But he also told reporters that he did not expect anyone to do that before the convention.
He said on the NBC program "Meet the Press" that he intended to stay in the race through March 2, "Super Tuesday," when delegate-rich states like California and New York vote.
Mr. Kerry appeared to be running out the clock. Instead of charging off on Sunday to a populous state with more delegates than North Dakota, he stayed in Fargo to watch the Super Bowl.
Speaking to a crowd of about 600 North Dakotans at the Fargo Air Museum at midday Sunday, Mr. Kerry repeated his standard stump speech. He did not back off from his sharp criticisms of the Bush administration as being hostage to special interests, even in the face of continued sharp attacks from Dr. Dean.
Instead, Mr. Kerry vowed, as he has repeatedly in recent days, that if elected, he would sign executive orders barring government employees from becoming lobbyists for five years and requiring that any meeting between a lobbyist and a public official be a matter of public record. "No more secret deals, secret meetings," he said.
The rally at the air museum was his only public event of the day, and he planned to spend almost 24 hours on the ground in Fargo, more hours than he has spent in Missouri, whose 74 delegates offer the richest prize on Tuesday. He delayed his flight to Albuquerque - to stump for votes in the New Mexico primary on Tuesday - until late Sunday night. The reason is that the senator from Massachusetts wanted to watch the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl.
Mr. Kerry planned to spend Tuesday night not in any of the seven states with contests that day but in Washington State, which votes Feb. 7, and where Dr. Dean had hoped to compete strongly.
Dr. Dean also plans to be in Washington on Tuesday night. Michigan also votes on Feb. 7, but he is looking ahead to Feb. 17, when Wisconsin votes. Mr. Kerry has the endorsements of the governors in Michigan and Washington.
Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who has staked the future of his campaign on winning Tuesday in South Carolina, appeared to rule out taking the vice-presidential slot if he did not win the nomination.
Asked on the CBS program "Face the Nation" what he would do if he were offered the No. 2 spot on a Democratic ticket, he said he would refuse because he is running for president. "To bring the change I think needs to be brought to this country, I need to be the president of the United States," he said.
Gen. Wesley K. Clark was in Oklahoma and planned to campaign in New Mexico and Arizona. His campaign emphasized two new endorsements from Oklahoma newspapers.
"Clark is from Arkansas and he knows what Oklahomans and military communities are all about," The Lawton Constitution wrote. "Simply put, he understands us better and he won't forget his roots."
And Senator Joseph I. Lieberman promoted three new newspaper endorsements on Sunday as he hit three states that vote on Tuesday - Delaware, Oklahoma and New Mexico.
Speaking to reporters after attending services at the New Destiny Fellowship Congregation in Wilmington, Del., Mr. Lieberman said that his campaign had enough money to continue through to the Virginia primary on Feb. 10 so that his "unique voice" could be heard.
"Unlike some of the other candidates - who, I'm beginning to fear, are drifting toward outdated class warfare arguments - I'm never going to be an antibusiness candidate because it's businesses that create the jobs for people and help people work their way up into the middle class," he said.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, campaigning in South Carolina, said on the CNN program "Late Edition" that he intended to remain in the campaign as well, saying he had essentially the same strategy as Dr. Dean: winning delegates, if not states. He noted that the black vote was split, as was the white.
Dr. Dean kept up a busy schedule, but not in the states voting on Tuesday. He met with black leaders in Milwaukee but did not come away with their endorsement. He also spoke at a black church in Milwaukee as former Vice President Al Gore appeared on his behalf in black churches in Detroit.
Dr. Dean said he would meet with labor leaders this week but brushed off suggestions that they want him to drop out if he wins no states on Tuesday. He also said he wanted to start revealing more about himself in an effort to connect better with voters.
"People have a strong sense of my message," he said at the event with black leaders. "I'm not sure they have a strong sense of who I am."
He flew here later for a town hall meeting and then headed for New Mexico for a forum on Monday on Hispanic voters.
----
George Bush & John Kerry: Blood Brothers
Connecting the Dots
by Victor Thorn
February 2, 2004
Wing TV
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/bloodbrothers.html
Following the 2000 presidential race, with memories of Votescam, hanging chads, the debacle in Florida and a possible "stolen" election still fresh in our minds, many people are wondering if this fall's contest will likewise be marred by some form of vote tampering or electronic ballot rigging. But in all honesty, the New World Order power brokers aren't even concerned with such notions this year.
Why? Because if John Kerry gets the Democratic nomination and runs against George Bush, both candidates will already by bought, sold, and controlled. It won't matter to the ruling elite who ultimately wins because both of these men have already surrendered their souls to the evil cabal years ago.
What makes me arrive at this conclusion? Well, for starters, George Bush and John Kerry are both graduates of Yale University - that long-heralded bastion of the Eastern establishment. In addition, each of these men were members of Skull & Bones, the most exclusive secret society/fraternity in America, and prime breeding ground for the CIA and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
But wait; there's more. John Kerry's wife, Teresa, was formerly married to Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz. Guess what college he attended. Answer: Yale. And guess what notorious fraternity he pledged to. Skull & Bones! Now ask yourself: what are the odds that both presidential candidates went to the same school, belonged to the same secret society, and that one of their wives was married to TWO different Skull & Bonesmen? It's infinitesimal ... off the charts.
To make matters even stranger, Teresa Kerry's widowed husband also had direct ties to the Bush family. According to researcher Rodney Stich in Defrauding America, when George Bush Sr. and CIA Director William Casey engineered the October Surprise to bribe Iranian officials into retaining U.S. hostages until after the 1980 elections, two of the passengers on Bush's BAC 111 flight to Paris were Senator John Heinz, along with Senator John Tower from Texas.
Even more intriguing is the fact that John Heinz chaired a three-man presidential review board that probed the Iran-Contra affair and had in his possession all the damning documents from that sordid affair, while John Tower led the infamous Tower Commission that investigated a variety of different CIA criminal activities and dirty dealings. Coincidentally, both John Heinz and John Tower died in plane wrecks on successive days in 1991 - Tower in Georgia, and Heinz in Montgomery County, Pa. Once again I must ask: what are the odds of such an occurrence, especially when both men had close ties to George Bush Sr., who was a former CIA director in the mid-1970s? Did both of these men uncover information that they refused to keep silent about any longer?
Before you answer, consider that after Senator John Heinz died, his wife married Senator John Kerry, who was chairman of the 1988 Kerry Commission, described in the Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy as "focusing on allegations of illegal gun-running and narcotics trafficking associated with the Contra war against Nicaragua" in relation to the CIA, Department of Justice, the U.S. State Department, and the office of the President and Vice President. The testimony that took place during these trials (both in open and closed door sessions) was quite possibly the most damning ever against our federal government, yet mysteriously, nearly all of it was suppressed and not widely reported in the mainstream media. Why? Senator Kerry as a Democrat, had every opportunity to blast a Republican administration out of the water, yet he inexplicably remained silent and the status quo prevailed. Could it be that someone tapped him on the shoulder and told him that if he played his cards right and kept these sordid matters hush-hush, he would be rewarded sometime in the future?
Well, here we are sixteen years later, and guess what. John Kerry, a Yale Skull & Bonesman (class of 1966) who kept his mouth shut about Yale Skull & Bonesman George Bush Sr. (class of 1948) is now running for the presidency against Yale Skull & Bonesman George W. Bush (class of 1968). Peculiar? You tell me.
So, when people start mentioning Votescam and rigged elections in the November election, all I can say is: why should the Controllers bother? Both of their candidates are already in the bag and will carry out the aims of those who are pulling their strings from behind the scenes. It's good to have friends in all the right places, don't you think?
-------- MILITARY
-------- arms
Lawmakers seek to close loophole in gun sales
February 02, 2004
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040201-105115-6716r.htm
RICHMOND - State lawmakers have introduced a bill tightening regulations on weapons sales at gun shows and are scheduled to debate a proposal that forbids people with concealed-weapons permits from bringing their guns into restaurants that serve alcohol.
The Senate Finance Committee this week will debate the bill that requires buyers at gun shows to pass a criminal background check. Virginia law now requires background checks only for people who buy guns from licensed dealers and from stores.
The bill passed in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee by an 8-7 vote about two weeks ago with an amendment to exempt buyers who already had passed the background check. The bill could reach the Senate floor in the next two weeks if it is passed by the Finance Committee.
The bill was written by state Sen. Henry L. Marsh III, Chesterfield County Democrat, to close what is called the "gun show loophole." A similar bill died last year in the Finance Committee.
Advocates for tougher gun regulations see the bill's early success this year as a victory.
"A gun show is an ideal place for criminals or terrorists to go and get guns because they know they can do it with no record of the transaction," said Jim Sollo, president of Virginians Against Handgun Violence.
He pointed to the Columbine High School massacre as an example of the problem, saying the weapons were bought from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show and that Colorado has since passed a law requiring background checks to prevent such incidents.
"It's simply a cash-and-carry market," Mr. Sollo said. "Criminal elements are using these gun shows to purchase guns and they can use those guns in crimes." If the bill passes, unlicensed sellers at gun shows would be required to make a phone call to the state police to instantly get the buyer's background.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League, says the bill unfairly targets gun owners and called it "outrageous." "The ability for individuals to sell a gun privately to another individual without telling the government is not a loophole," he said. He called the bill "a solution in search of a problem." Mr. Van Cleave is also lobbying to repeal the ban that forbids those who have a concealed weapons permit from bringing their weapon into restaurants that serve alcohol.
The bill sponsor is Sen. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Fairfax County Republican.
"Permit holders are the most law-abiding citizens in the commonwealth," Mr. Van Cleave said.
The bill, which is expected to be heard this week by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, was defeated last year in the House by a 58-41 vote. It is expected to meet heavy opposition from gun control advocates and from the restaurant industry lobby. It is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee on Wednesday.
State Sen. Janet D. Howell, Fairfax County Democrat, is sponsoring a competing bill that prohibits the carrying of a loaded gun into a restaurant that has a liquor license. The bill has support from Virginians Against Handgun Violence and is awaiting a Courts of Justice hearing.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League is also battling the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority over a regulation banning guns on its property - including sections of the heavily traveled Dulles Access Road, Routes 28 and 606, and the Metrorail station at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
The group claims the agency is overstepping state and federal laws and concealing the "obscure and unknown" ban, essentially "trapping" law-abiding gun owners traveling across authority property.
The authority says the ban is necessary for security.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
-------- biological weapons
Fear of bioweapons grounded flights
But intelligence information said to be spotty, unreliable
West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller says a biological or chemical attack on an airliner could not be stopped.
Monday, February 2, 2004
(CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/01/flights.canceled/index.html
WASHINGTON -- The specter of a biological attack was raised Sunday as a possible reason that a handful of transatlantic and domestic flights were canceled this weekend.
One federal law enforcement source told CNN that the U.S.-bound flights were grounded mainly out of fears that terrorists would use the planes as "air taxis" to deliver biological, chemical or radioactive weapons material to cities in the United States.
The source said the intelligence information was spotty and may be unreliable, and added that translation problems made the picture even less clear.
According to this source, the intelligence centered on British Airways, Air France and several U.S.-owned airlines, which the source did not identify. In some cases, specific flights were highlighted, some of them through several weeks in the future.
All flights mentioned in that intelligence have been canceled, a government official said.
The federal law enforcement source also said that at least one federal agency, the Department of Energy, was concerned enough about the latest intelligence that it asked that cities install radioactivity detectors.
The developments come as U.S. officials, citing credible electronic intercepts, say al Qaeda may again be targeting international flights into the United States.
A senior administration official said the intelligence gives precise threat information, including airlines, dates and flight numbers.
The intelligence mentioned Air France and British Airways flights to the United States, as well as British Airways Flight 223 specifically.
A key member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said the United States would have no way to counter a biological or chemical attack on a U.S.-bound airliner.
"I don't think so, and that's partly the problem of not checking cargo, and it's partly the problem of biological weapons, which nobody has figured out really what to do about yet," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, said on "Fox News Sunday." "Nobody has any idea about what to do about them on an airplane or on the ground."
Outside the network's studios, Rockefeller added, "We don't know how to protect against any biological. ... You play it safe, and the plane doesn't fly, and people are going to have to get used to that, and people are not going to like that, but it's what you've got to do in this era."
British Airways, Air France and Continental Airlines grounded several flights to the United States for security reasons this weekend. (Full story)
Three Air France flights to Los Angeles, California, were canceled Christmas Eve and Christmas Day because of similar threats.
British Airways canceled Flight 223 from London to Washington Dulles Airport on Sunday and Monday, and the return flight, Flight 222, both days. Flight 207 from London to Miami, Florida, on Sunday was called off as well.
"We canceled these flights on advice from the U.K. government for security reasons," a spokeswoman for the airline said.
Air France canceled Flight 026 from Paris to Washington on Sunday and Monday, the airline said.
Also, Flight 378 from Paris to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was grounded Saturday, but the Air France Web site said it was called off for "operational reasons."
Continental Airlines also canceled Flight 1519 from Washington to Houston, Texas, on Sunday because of security concerns, spokesman David Messing said.
"We weren't able to obtain the necessary security clearance from the Department of Homeland Security," Messing said.
He said the cancellation was not caused by the Super Bowl, being played in Houston.
A senior U.S. official said the airlines, not the U.S. government, decided to cancel the flights.
"We did not want to cancel" the French and British flights, the official said. "We have been working all week to try and prevent that. Once it gets into the airlines' hands, however, then this is what happens."
-------- britain
Following U.S. Lead, Blair May Start Iraq Weapons Inquiry
February 2, 2004
By PATRICK E. TYLER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/europe/02CND-BRIT.html
LONDON, Feb. 2 - Prime Minister Tony Blair was preparing to announce an independent inquiry tonight or tomorrow into the apparent failure of pre-war intelligence on Iraq's still-unfound unconventional weapons, his official spokesman said.
Following President Bush's announcement this morning that the United States would set up a similar inquiry, Mr. Blair appeared to be responding to mounting pressure within his own Labor Party and from opposition forces in Parliament to address basic questions about why such weapons have not been found nine months after Saddam Hussein was toppled.
Mr. Blair's spokesman said that following the issuance last week of the report by Lord Hutton exonerating Mr. Blair and his aides of allegations they had "sexed up" the threat from Iraq to garner public support for war, it was now possible "to address hopefully in a more rational way and in a more rational context the perfectly valid questions that people had asked" about the failure to find any chemical or biological weapons.
Mr. Blair's political rivals and critics within his own party welcomed the step, though Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, said it was insulting for Mr. Blair to order an inquiry to mirror Mr. Bush's inquiry in the United States. The opposition leader, Michael Howard, also repeated his call for an independent investigation.
In speaking to the BBC, Mr. Cook called on Mr. Blair not to follow Mr. Bush's lead in setting a long-term for the inquiry, pushing the results into next year.
"The reason why the United States doesn't want a report this year is because they don't want it until the president is safely re-elected," said Mr. Cook.
He said it should not be difficult to reach conclusions quickly since so much intelligence information is in hand, and since the political judgments that were made from intelligence that was never as clear cut as political leaders made it out to be can be examined straightforwardly.
"I see no reason why the people of Britiain should have to wait until next year to hear a report on why it was we committed British troops to war on the basis of intelligence which turned out to be wrong, on the claim of a threat that wasn't there when we could have let the U.N. weapons inspectors finish the job and find out there were no weapons without fighting a war to prove it," he told the BBC.
Mr. Blair was scheduled to make an appearance Tuesday before a parliamentary committee to answer questions on how intelligence agencies are unable to account for the differences in their pre-war and post-war assessments of dangerous weapons in Iraq.
-------- business
Boeing chief rules out buying BAE Systems
LONDON (AFP)
Feb 02, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040202171419.1ijg9qmq.html
Harry Stonecipher, the new chief executive and president of US aerospace giant Boeing Co, ruled out Monday making a takeover bid for British group BAE Systems.
The two companies have cooperated on a series of programmes, but there are no plans for closer ties, signalled Stonecipher, the 67-year-old executive who took the helm late last year after the surprise departure of Phil Condit.
"I have no interest in buying BAE Systems. We like them as partners," he said.
BAE had a whole range of activities Boeing is not interested in, Stonecipher explained, in comments which contrasted with his predecessor's apparent enthusiasm for a merger.
"We have no interest in submarines and shipbuilding," he told reporters in London after Boeing announced it had signed an unrelated agreement with British technology firm QinitiQ.
Stonecipher, who was in London for his first visit since his appointment as the new Boeing boss, said he would be meeting BAE chairman Sir Richard Evans during his trip, though it was more likely to be for dinner or a game of golf. The pair are long-time friends.
Last week Boeing and BAE were snubbed by the British government over a joint bid for a huge contract to provide the Royal Air Force with refuelling aircraft, preferring the pan-European EADS group instead.
--------
Halliburton Gets Scrutiny on Food Billing in Iraq
February 2, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/business/02WIRE-HALLI.html?hp
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Halliburton, the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq and already under scrutiny for its work there, said Monday it was looking into how much it charged to feed troops after Pentagon auditors' raised questions about costs.
Questions over the cost of meals follow other billing queries raised by auditors involving a unit of Halliburton, run by Vice President Cheney until 2000.
Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) said the billing issue for meals was raised following a routine audit by the Pentagon into the company's work via a logistics contract KBR has with the Army. No conclusions had been reached in that audit, the company said.
"This is not about overcharging. This is about finding a good way to estimate the number of meals so soldiers can get fed," said KBR President and Chief Executive Randy Harl.
Military auditors and the U.S. Army did not immediately respond to questions over the billing issue.
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that KBR may have overcharged by more than $16 million for meals to U.S. troops at Camp Arifjan, a sprawling U.S. military base near Kuwait City, for the first seven months of 2003. The job was subcontracted to a Saudi company.
Citing an e-mail alert sent to Army contracting officials, the Journal said in July 2003 alone, a Saudi subcontractor hired by KBR billed for 42,042 meals a day but served only 14,053 meals a day. The difference for that month was more than $3.5 million.
The Journal said the Pentagon extended its audit of KBR food services to include more than 50 other dining facilities in Kuwait and Iraq, according to the e-mail.
Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall declined to comment on figures cited in the report but said the company was working with the government to improve methods of counting how many meals it served.
"This is not a neighborhood restaurant where you can quickly total up all the dinner tabs," she said.
In the meantime, Hall said KBR had agreed not to bill any of the subcontractors' charges but stressed this was not an "admission" it had charged too much.
"It is an agreement to temporarily delay billing while we and the government jointly determine the best way to estimate how many meals to prepare," she said.
Last month, Halliburton reimbursed the U.S. Army $6.3 million after disclosing one or two of its employees may have accepted kickbacks from a Kuwaiti contractor to get the work.
In addition, the Pentagon's inspector general's office has been asked by military auditors to look into possible violations involving fuel brought by a KBR subcontractor into Iraq, which despite being oil-rich suffers from a shortage of refined products.
A draft Pentagon audit in December found the company may have overcharged by up to $61 million for fuel it brought into Iraq from Kuwait via a subcontractor.
Halliburton is the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq and has major contracts worth more than $8 billion, from delivering mail, cooking meals and building bases to repairing Iraq's crucial oil industry.
-------- chemical weapons
Chinese victims of chemical weapons spill sue Japan for apology
BEIJING (AFP)
Feb 02, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040202030032.pod3ks0g.html
Thirty-five Chinese victims of a leak from chemical weapons left by the Japanese military after World War II have filed a lawsuit calling for the Tokyo government to apologise and dispose of the armaments.
The victims in December had received 300 million yen (2.8 million dollars) in compensation from the Japanese government, but they now say money alone is not enough, the Xinhua news agency said.
On Sunday they authorized an attorney to file a lawsuit against the Japanese government on their behalf.
"Though we got some money after the incident, the Japanese government didn't say what the money stands for, nor did we receive any apology from the Japanese government," victim Ding Shuwen, 26, was quoted by Xinhua saying.
"We want an apology from the Japanese government. We also urged the Japanese government to destroy all chemical weapons abandoned in China as soon as possible. Don't let other Chinese be injured anymore. It's too painful," said Ding, a garbage collector.
The leak happened when a cache of chemical weapons was unearthed at a construction site in Qiqihar city in northeast China's Heilongjiang province on August 4, killing one person and injuring 43 others.
China's foreign ministry had welcomed Japan's decision to pay the money, but said it would continue to urge it to clean up the weaponry left in the mainland for nearly 60 years.
More than 700,000 chemical bombs and grenades are estimated by Japan to have been abandoned in China by its retreating armies, although Chinese experts put the figure at up to two million -- the the world's largest stockpile of abandoned chemical weapons.
Since beginning work to search and destroy these old weapons about a decade ago, Japan has retrieved about 36,000 chemical bombs on the mainland, according to previous reports.
Sino-Japanese tensions, never far below the surface, have flared again in recent months fueled by outrage over an orgy organised for Japanese tourists on the anniversary of their World War II occupation of China.
-------- iran
Iran's Reformist Party to Boycott Elections
February 2, 2004
By NAZILA FATHI
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02CND-IRAN.html?pagewanted=all
TEHRAN, Feb 2 - Iran's main reformist party will boycott the country's parliamentary elections this month, the head of the party, Mohammad Reza Khatami, said today.
The statement by Mr. Khatami to reporters, which was carried by the Islamic Republic News Agency, was the latest development in what appears to be a deepening political crisis in Iran after more than one-third of the members of Parliament resigned on Sunday over a sweeping exclusion of candidates by religious conservatives.
"We will inform the nation about the facts that prove the illegal nature of the Feb. 20 elections," Mr. Khatami said in the statement. "All the same, we will not ask the people to boycott the elections, since making up the decision in that regard is up to the people themselves."
Reuters quoted him as saying that "in the current circumstances we cannot participate."
Mr. Khatami is the secretary general of the Islamic Iran Participation Front and the brother of Iran's reformist president, Mohammad Khatami.
"All I can tell you in this regard is that the absence of the political parties and groups at the elections will definitely have a negative effect on the elections," Mr. Khatami, of the reformist party, said.
There has been continual tension in Iran between reformers - the president and much of Parliament - who are pressing for greater religious and cultural freedom, and the religious conservatives, who control the judiciary and security services.
On Sunday, one by one, angry lawmakers who have held a three-week sit-in at the huge Parliament building handed their resignations to the speaker. In an emotional statement read aloud during the parliamentary session and broadcast live across the nation on Iranian radio, the members who resigned accused powerful conservatives of seeking to impose a religious dictatorship like that of the Taliban, who were overthrown by American-led forces in Afghanistan.
"We cannot continue to be present in a Parliament that is not capable of defending the rights of the people and that is unable to prevent elections in which the people cannot choose their representatives," the statement said.
Mr. Khatami, the party leader, was among those who resigned. He warned of a conservative coup supported by the military.
The resignations were a move typical of the brinkmanship that marks Iranian politics, to try to get the hard-liners to back down three weeks before a crucial election that will determine the future of the reform movement in Iran.
The student news agency ISNA reported that a pro-democracy Iranian student group said on Sunday that it had sought permission to hold public demonstrations on Wednesday to protest the ban, a move that could provoke a clash with riot police officers and vigilante groups.
The mass resignation coincided with what was supposed to be a day of national celebration, the 25th anniversary of the return to Iran of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini from exile in France. The cleric led a popular Islamic revolution that brought an end to the 2,500-year monarchy and ushered in an Islamic Republic.
The resignations came a day after the president announced that his negotiations with senior religious officials had failed to resolve the crisis.
Last month, the hard-line Guardian Council barred more than 2,000 candidates, including 87 current members of Parliament, from competing for the 290-seat assembly in elections scheduled for Feb. 20.
The council ignored an announcement by the Interior Ministry, which is under the president's supervision, that it intended to postpone the election, and even an order by the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to reinstate the candidacies of the current members of Parliament.
The number of members who resigned had reached 123 by Sunday afternoon. The move, which is likely to intensify the fight between reformers and their hard-line opponents, was unprecedented in the country's parliamentary history.
The speaker of Parliament, Mehdi Karoubi, said he and Mr. Khatami had appealed once more to Ayatollah Khamenei to intervene and help end the crisis. Ayatollah Khamenei has the final word on all state matters.
Among those who resigned was the deputy speaker of Parliament, Behzad Nabavi. Several prominent women among the members also resigned. "An election whose result is clear beforehand is treason to the rights and ideals of the nations," said Rajabali Mazroui, another member of the group.
Mr. Khatami, the brother of the president, said on Sunday that the Guardian Council had killed opportunities and left them no other solution.
"Even if all those disqualified are reinstated today, there will be no time for competition," he said. He called the elections "illegitimate" under the present structure of the ruling establishment, adding, "This is the end of the reform movement."
If the hard-liners hold the elections, he added, "it will be a full-fledged coup with the help of military forces and confirmation that it is illegitimate."
Under the law, Parliament must approve the resignations and could reject them if they would deny the body the two-thirds quorum it needs to operate. But those who resigned said they would refuse to take part in the sessions even if their resignations were refused.
Many of the allies of Ayatollah Khomeini during the 1979 revolution are reformist politicians today, and they contend that today's hard-liners have gone against the tenets of Ayatollah Khomeini.
They recall his emphasizing the republican nature of his government and saying that "the criterion is the people's vote."
"From the day we held the referendum in 1979," Ayatollah Khomeini "insisted on an Islamic Republic - not a word less and not a word more, he kept saying," said Mr. Karoubi, the Parliament speaker. "He repeated this until he died."
"Now we see that a couple of old men want to run the country," he added, referring to the council.
The Guardian Council, whose six clerics are handpicked by Ayatollah Khamenei and six Islamic lawyers appointed by the judiciary, took over screening of election candidates after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989.
"The whole dilemma is because of this contradiction in the Guardian Council's role," said Ibrahim Yazdi, secretary general of the opposition party Freedom Movement, who was once a close aide to Ayatollah Khomeini. "The only solution to resolve the matter is for the Guardian Council to return to its former role and just supervise the elections."
The dispute has raised questions about whether the revolution has moved toward its goals and democracy 25 years later.
As many as 28 provincial governors threatened to resign, and a dozen cabinet ministers said they were determined to quit if the Guardian Council did not back off from its decision, which they called undemocratic.
President Khatami hinted on Saturday that his government would call off the vote if it could not hold elections that were both competitive and free.
--------
One-Third of Iranian Parliament Quits in Protest
February 2, 2004
By NAZILA FATHI
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02TEHR.html?pagewanted=all
TEHRAN, Feb. 1 - More than one-third of Iran's Parliament resigned Sunday to protest a sweeping ban on candidates running in the parliamentary election later this month. The defiant move threatened to plunge Iran's political system into chaos.
One by one, angry lawmakers who have held a three-week sit-in at the huge Parliament building, marched up to the podium and handed their resignations to the speaker. In an emotional statement read aloud during the session of Parliament on Sunday and broadcast live across the nation on Iranian radio, the members who resigned accused powerful conservatives of seeking to impose a religious dictatorship like that of the Taliban, who were overthrown by American-led forces in Afghanistan.
"We cannot continue to be present in a Parliament that is not capable of defending the rights of the people and that is unable to prevent elections in which the people cannot choose their representatives," the statement said.
There has been continual tension in Iran between reformers - the president and much of the Parliament - who are pressing for greater religious and cultural freedom, and religious conservatives, who control the judiciary and security services.
Mohammad Reza Khatami, the leader of the main reformist party and the brother of Iran's reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, was among those who resigned. He warned of a conservative coup supported by the military.
The resignations were a move typical of the brinkmanship that marks Iranian politics, to try to get the hard-liners to back down three weeks before a crucial election that will determine the future of the reform movement in Iran.
The student news agency ISNA reported that a pro-democracy Iranian student group said Sunday that it had sought permission to hold public demonstrations on Wednesday to protest the ban, a move that could provoke a clash with riot police officers and vigilante groups.
The mass resignation coincided with what was supposed to be a day of national celebration, the 25th anniversary of the return to Iran of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini from exile in France. The cleric led a popular Islamic revolution that brought an end to the 2,500-year monarchy and ushered in an Islamic Republic.
The resignations came a day after the president announced that his negotiations with senior religious officials had failed to resolve the crisis.
Last month, the hard-line Guardian Council barred more than 2,000 candidates, including 87 current members of Parliament, from competing for the 290-seat assembly in elections scheduled for Feb. 20.
The council ignored an announcement by the Interior Ministry, which is under the president's supervision, that it intended to postpone the election, and even an order by the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to reinstate the candidacies of the current members of Parliament.
The number of members who resigned had reached 123 by Sunday afternoon. The move, which is likely to intensify the fight between reformers and their hard-line opponents, was unprecedented in the country's parliamentary history.
The members who resigned continued their sit-in in the afternoon, calling again for the decision barring the candidacies to be reversed and for the elections to be delayed.
The speaker of Parliament, Mehdi Karoubi, said he and Mr. Khatami had appealed once more to Ayatollah Khamenei to intervene and help end the crisis. Ayatollah Khamenei has the final word on all state matters.
Among those who resigned was the deputy speaker of Parliament, Behzad Nabavi. Several prominent women among the members also resigned. "An election whose result is clear beforehand is treason to the rights and ideals of the nations," said Rajabali Mazroui, another member of the group.
Mr. Khatami, the brother of the president, said the Guardian Council had killed opportunities and left them no other solution.
"Even if all those disqualified are reinstated today, there will be no time for competition," he said. He called the elections "illegitimate" under the present structure of the ruling establishment, and said, "This is the end of the reform movement."
If the hard-liners hold the elections, he added, "it will be a full-fledged coup with the help of military forces and confirmation that it is illegitimate."
Under the law, Parliament must approve the resignations and can reject them if they would deny the body the two-thirds quorum it needs to operate. But those who resigned said they would refuse to take part in the sessions even if their resignations were refused.
Many of the allies of Ayatollah Khomeini during the 1979 revolution are reformist politicians today, and they contend that today's hard-liners have gone against the tenets of Ayatollah Khomeini.
They recall his emphasizing the republican nature of his government and saying that "the criterion is the people's vote."
"From the day we held the referendum in 1979," Ayatollah Khomeini "insisted on an Islamic Republic - not a word less and not a word more, he kept saying, said Mr. Karoubi, the Parliament speaker. "He repeated this until he died."
"Now we see that a couple of old men want to run the country," he added, referring to the council.
The Guardian Council, whose six clerics are handpicked by Ayatollah Khamenei and six Islamic lawyers appointed by the judiciary, took over screening of election candidates after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989.
"The whole dilemma is because of this contradiction in the Guardian Council's role," said Ibrahim Yazdi, secretary general of the opposition party, the Freedom Movement, who was once a close aide to Ayatollah Khomeini. "The only solution to resolve the matter is for the Guardian Council to return to its former role and just supervise the elections."
The dispute has raised questions about whether the revolution has moved toward its goals and democracy 25 years later.
As many as 28 provincial governors threatened to resign, and a dozen cabinet ministers said they were determined to quit if the Guardian Council did not back off from its decision, which they called undemocratic.
President Khatami hinted Saturday that his government would call off the vote if it could not hold elections that were both competitive and free.
--------
Iranian Legislators Quit in Mass Protest
Reformers Challenge Ballot Restrictions
By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, February 2, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2767-2004Feb1.html
ISTANBUL, Feb. 1 -- More than one-third of the members of Iran's parliament resigned Sunday in a mass protest against efforts by a powerful council of hard-line clerics to fix an upcoming election.
The dramatic gesture, which came as Iran began official celebrations marking a quarter-century as a theocracy, threatened to bring to a climax a standoff that has simmered for most of the last decade. The conflict pits elected officials who favor loosening the grip of clerics on Iranian life against widely unpopular hard-line conservatives in the Guardian Council who provoked the current crisis by using their oversight powers to disqualify most reformist candidates in the Feb. 20 parliamentary elections.
"They want to cover the ugly body of dictatorship with the beautiful dress of democracy," said Mohsen Mirdamadi, a reformer, in a speech on behalf of fellow lawmakers. "We have no choice but to resign."
The practical effect of the resignations, handed in sheaves to the white-turbaned speaker of parliament, was not immediately clear. Legislative rules require resignations to go into effect only after being debated. The parliament is scheduled to convene this week to discuss the issue.
The resignations, which numbered 124 by day's end, appeared to have some impact in Tehran, where the population had become increasingly disillusioned with politics. While the reformers had swept into parliament in a landslide four years ago, the slow pace of change in recent years had led many Iranians to dismiss politics as a contest between competing elites.
Three weeks of daily sit-ins by legislators at the parliament had brought the reformers scant visible sympathy among the population. Many residents, recalling hollow ultimatums in earlier confrontations with hard-liners, had doubted the reformers would follow through on their repeated threats to step down.
But Sunday's developments on the floor of parliament, broadcast live on Tehran Radio, brought an air of expectancy, at least to part of the capital.
"Today's resignation showed that they are honest and determined in their claims," said Mohammad Amin, a metallurgy student at Tehran Polytechnic. "I think that we should do our best to support them."
The Office for Fostering Unity, regarded as the most important student organization, said it would hold a protest in support of the lawmakers on the Polytechnic campus on Tuesday. Another group scheduled a meeting at Tehran University on Wednesday.
These plans indicate at least a tentative show of faith from the students, who have complained that reformers have failed to endanger their political careers while students faced beatings and arrest for protesting repression.
"The people are eager to know what they're going to do," said Sadjad Ghoroghi, spokesman for Office for Fostering Unity, which had previously called for boycotting an election it regarded as irrelevant. "The game has changed. We are now trying to make the fundamentalists delay the election for two or three months."
The resignations of the lawmakers increased pressure on members of the executive branch to follow through on their threats to step down. President Mohammad Khatami, who was elected almost seven years ago on a promise of making the religious government responsive to social and economic demands, has shown a reluctance to confront the hard-liners and has declined to accept resignation letters from several cabinet ministers, the country's 28 governors and dozens of deputy ministers and technocrats.
"I think if it starts to move to the ministers, people will take it more seriously," said a diplomat in Tehran.
But because the cabinet controls the day-to-day operations of the government, mass resignations might bring the heavily centralized country, and its petroleum-based economy, to a halt. Some analysts said that prospect is keeping senior officials from stepping down. "They see it as a national security issue," a diplomat said. Khatami, who was bedridden with back pain on Saturday, made a surprise appearance Sunday at the opening of Tehran's new international airport. The vast facility is named for the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who arrived in Tehran from exile in Paris to a tumultuous welcome 25 years ago.
"Those who are tuned to the will of the nation will survive and those who stand against the people . . . are doomed to extinction," Khatami said, according to the official news agency.
Khatami reportedly held out hope of resolving the current crisis through negotiations with Khomeini's successor as supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The top cleric appoints the members of the Guardian Council, which under Iran's constitution has broad powers to screen candidates and to veto legislation.
The last round of negotiations, however, went badly for the reformers. Among the 3,600 candidates the council barred in its first sweep were 83 incumbent reformers. In the ensuing uproar, Khamenei instructed the guardians to review the lists again, and specifically to restore incumbents.
When it released its latest list Friday, however, the council had disqualified even more incumbents, bringing the total to 87.
The new list approved an additional 1,160 candidates, but the interior minister, a Khatami ally, said the approved list ensured that conservatives would win at least half of parliament's 290 seats. He called for a postponement of the election.
"There is no real hope for this matter to be settled in a proper way," said Mohammad Reza Khatami, the president's younger brother and head of the leading reformist party, who also resigned from parliament Sunday. "Even if they allow the participation of all candidates, there is not much time left so there would be no equal opportunity for all sides to run their electoral campaign."
Special correspondent Mehrdad Mirdamadi in Tehran contributed to this report.
-------- iraq
G.I.'s to Pull Back in Baghdad, Leaving Its Policing to Iraqis
February 2, 2004
By THOM SHANKER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02ADMI.html?pagewanted=all
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 1 - American commanders have ordered a sharp reduction in the presence of occupation troops in Baghdad, senior officers announced Sunday. The most visible role of policing the capital is being turned over to local forces while American troops pull back to a ring of bases at the edge of the city.
Brig. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, commander of the First Armored Division, which has responsibility for security in Baghdad, made the announcement during a visit by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. Mr. Wolfowitz returned here on an inspection tour three months after the hotel he stayed in then was hit by rockets fired by insurgents in an attack that killed one Army officer and wounded more than a dozen people.
American officers said that after reaching a peak of almost 60 operating locations in Baghdad, the American military had already cut its posts in the capital to 26, and that the number would drop to 8 by mid-April. Six of those bases will be in the Baghdad outskirts, and two will be in the high-security "green zone" that is home to the American-led occupation authority inside the city.
General Dempsey said the new Iraqi police force and civil defense corps "are capable of handling the threat" inside the city.
Mr. Wolfowitz, while touring a Baghdad police station, said, "Clearly it's better for us if they're in the front line, and it's better for them and better for their country."
The American military is working to "cede the city security problem to them," he said. He said the American military presence included "sandbags, concrete barriers and concertina wire," which cause serious disruptions and frustration for the residents of Baghdad, as well as creating targets for insurgents.
On Sunday, security was a priority for Mr. Wolfowitz's visit. No announcement was made in advance of his arrival, and Black Hawk helicopters ferrying his delegation around the capital flew zigzag routes just above rooftop level to minimize the opportunity for any adversary to spot and fire on the aircraft. The helicopters gained and dropped altitude at dizzying speeds as they hopped over a succession of city power lines like winged hurdlers.
General Dempsey said insurgent forces in the capital had been hurt by a series of American-led offensives. "I don't think they are as organized as they were a month ago," he said.
As the First Armored Division prepares to hand over the American military mission in Baghdad to fresh forces of the First Cavalry Division, rotating into Iraq from Fort Hood, Tex., the United States forces will remain poised to assist Iraqi police and civil defense forces. They are also taking steps to reassure the population that the troop rotation does not represent a withdrawal of the American military - or of American political interests - from Iraq.
"We will move from leading the security effort to supporting it," said Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, assistant commander of the First Armored Division. "There is a point of diminishing consent for them wanting us to be here. They want their security forces taking care of them, at least most of them do."
A senior Pentagon official said one reason for removing significant numbers of American forces from the city center was to withdraw as much as possible from buildings, posts and offices associated with the fallen government of Saddam Hussein. But a number of palaces used by his government at the edge of the city will still be used by the occupying military, and the occupation political authority continues to use a Hussein-era palace in the city center as its headquarters.
A senior military officer said about 8,000 Iraqi police officers now patrolled Baghdad, a city of about 5.5 million, although security analysts say the city needs 19,000. About 1,000 new policemen are being trained each month, the officer said.
A senior official with the Coalition Provisional Authority here said recent bombings of Iraqi police stations had not driven new recruits away from police training.
Military intelligence now indicates that from 250 to 300 hard-core insurgents operate in the city, dispersed among various neighborhoods but loosely organized into about 14 cells.
The American military and Iraqi security forces are battling a spate of kidnappings by insurgents, who hope to compel the victims' families to carry out attacks against American troops and Iraqi police officers or who are trying to extort money to pay for attacks, a senior military officer said.
--------
Deadly Suicide Attacks Could Shift Kurds' View of New Iraq
February 2, 2004
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN and EDWARD WONG
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02CND-IRAQ.html?pagewanted=all&position=
ERBIL, Feb. 2 - It was a funeral without speeches, and it began today at the gates of the grand mosque, where two lines of men, hundreds of grim faces long, stood holding pictures of their slain leaders.
Mourners filed between them, here to pay respects to the Kurdish politicians killed in Sunday's twin suicide strikes.
The mourners saluted the photographs and then stepped into the mosque to pray. Thousands of people waited in the streets behind them.
If Kurdistan were a state, today would have been a state funeral.
Instead, Kurds are embroiled in heated negotiations over how much independence they will be allowed in the new Iraq, and the crippling attack on their leadership could affect the two most contentious political processes under way - the debate over autonomy and the question of whether to hold direct elections by June for a transitional national assembly.
American officials said today that at least 67 people were killed and 247 wounded in the bombings, 10 minutes apart, at the Erbil headquarters of the two leading Kurdish parties. Casualties included the deputy prime minister, the mayor of Erbil, a police chief and a top political boss.
The loss of some of those people could bring a shift in attitudes, experts said.
Within each party, there is tension between factions that advocate a more radical break from Iraq and ones that take a more moderate stance.
The highest-ranking Kurdish official killed, Sami Abdul Rahman, deputy prime minister of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, was a "reasonable pragmatist" who was willing to back off from demands for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and any immediate push for independence, said Joost R. Hiltermann, a Middle East expert with the International Crisis Group, a conflict prevention organization.
"He was well ahead of most of the Kurdish people who were talking about independence and about Kirkuk," Mr. Hiltermann said.
Another high-ranking Kurd who was killed was Akrem Mantik, mayor of Erbil, known for his especially good rapport with Americans. His absence could mean less leverage for the Coalition Provisional Authority.
If the voices within the parties change, so could the shape of the new Iraq as the transfer of sovereignty approaches. American officials and Iraqi Governing Council members have been engaged in delicate negotiations with Kurdish leaders over the definition of federalism, which is expected to be included in an interim constitution due on Feb. 28.
The Kurdish region has existed as a virtually independent state since 1991, when the American and British governments declared the area no-flight zone. The area is split into two zones, one governed by the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the other by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
Each of the two main parties controls half the region, and they insist on keeping - under a projected united administration - the broad governing powers they have enjoyed in the last 12 years.
Hamid Majid Mousa, head of the Iraqi Communist Party and a Governing Council member, said federalism would be the most contentious issue of the interim constitution. "It's not just about de-centralization," Mr. Mousa said. "It's about finding a solution to the Kurdish issue."
The attacks also showed how fragile the security situation is in Iraq at a time when some political groups are clamoring for swift elections while others say they should be postponed until the country is more secure. Kurdistan was thought to be one of the safest places in the country.
"The situation has deteriorated if even the Kurdish places aren't safe anymore," said Mr. Hiltermann, who recently traveled Iraq trying to gauge the feasibility of direct elections.
A powerful Shiite cleric has demanded elections by May 31 but many Sunni and Kurdish groups oppose holding them that soon. Shias comprise more than 60 percent of the population, Sunnis around 30 percent, Kurds about 20 percent and smaller ethnic minorities make up the balance.
Feisal al-Istrabadi, a legal adviser to Adnan Pachachi, who led the Governing Council in January, said it was too dangerous now for elections.
"Can you imagine the types of massacres you would have?" Mr. Istrabadi asked.
The Bush administration has avoided publicly acknowledging that security is perhaps the biggest obstacle to holding swift elections. In private, though, American military officials, United Nations officials and election experts concede security is a big concern.
It is not clear who was behind Sunday's attacks, each of which involved a man walking into a crowded reception hall and detonating explosives strapped to his body. But many security officials blame Ansar al-Islam, a group linked to Al Qaeda that was driven out of eastern Kurdistan at the start of last year's war in Iraq.
According to an Iraqi security agent, as many as 200 members of Ansar al-Islam have returned to Erbil, where they receive support from guerrilla cells in other parts of the country.
"After the war, Ansar members came back and asked for forgiveness," said the security agent, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They were sleeping for a time. Now they are awake."
A coalition official said the group, which follows an extreme Muslim ideology similar to the Taliban in Afghanistan, still operates in northern Iraq, though it has been weakened.
Most people, when asked about the bombing, instinctively blamed "the Islamists."
The bombings came on the first day of Id al-Adha, a Muslim holiday, and despite warnings from American authorities about an increased risk of attacks, Kurdish officials declined to search guests at their headquarters because they thought it was rude.
"We will have to change that," said Mahmoud Mohammed, culture minister for the Kurdistan Democratic Party.
The price was heavy.
This morning, one after another, pickup trucks loaded with wooden coffins rumbled into Erbil's main cemetery. Outside the grand mosque, men tied black banners to the gates, remembering the dead.
"All of Erbil is a funeral today," said Shahab Achmad, who lost a cousin. "But we have seen worse."
Thousands of Kurds were executed during Saddam Hussein's reign as Iraq's dictator, some villages were gassed and many Kurdish political offices have been bombed.
At the Erbil Emergency Hospital, shirtless men lay on narrow mattresses. Many of them had bad burns and shiny burn salve on their faces.
"Their attitude is amazing," said Mario Ninno, an Italian nurse and the medical coordinator for the hospital. "Their leaders come in here to say they are sorry and the people say, `No, we are your troops; as long as you are alive, don't feel sorry.' "
One badly burned man tapped an American journalist on the arm and whispered: "Tell Mr. Bush thank you. We are liberated."
At the headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the blast ripped down a concrete wall, blew apart furniture and shattered the windshields of cars parked 100 feet away.
Today, investigators were still picking through the wreckage, putting money, jewelry and pens in one bag and pieces of flesh in others.
"Look at this," said Ako Koyee, an office worker for the party, as he bent down in the rubble. "Children's teeth."
Asked if it made him upset, he said no.
"It is not the first time we have seen this," he said. "But each time it is important to collect our friends."
Jeffrey Gettleman reported from Erbil for this article and Edward Wong from Baghdad.
Jeffrey Gettleman reported from Erbil for this article and Edward Wong from Baghdad.
-------- israel / palestine
Sharon Says He Plans to Pull Out 17 Settlements From Gaza
February 2, 2004
By TERENCE NEILAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02CND-MIDE.html?hp
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel said today that he had given an order to plan for the removal of all 17 Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip, causing consternation among settlers and politicians.
"I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza," Mr. Sharon said in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, parts of which were published on its Web site today.
Despite his assertions, the motives for the plan were called into question, by the Palestinians and even by an Israeli politician.
Political analysts also noted that Mr. Sharon, a strong supporter of settlements throughout his political career, has announced their planned removal in recent months, but with little practical result on the ground.
The prime minister confirmed his Gaza plan at a meeting of his own Likud Party, but gave no timetable for the move, Israel Radio reported.
"It is my intention to carry out an evacuation - sorry, a relocation - of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements," the prime minister told a Haaretz columnist, Yoel Marcus.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian news agency WAFA quoted medical officials as saying that four Palestinians were killed today when Israeli forces raided the town of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip.
Mr. Sharon said he would present his plan to President Bush during a visit to Washington later this month, the prime minister told Haaretz, saying it needed American support and financing. He said he had not yet discussed it with the Bush administration.
Mr. Sharon has said recently that he would take unilateral action if no progress was made on a peace plan with the Palestinians, but up to now he has referred only to the possible relocation of isolated settlements.
The present plan would affect 7,500 people, Mr. Sharon said, and involve moving factories and packing plants, thousands of educational institutions and "thousands and thousands of vehicles."
The first thing would be to seek the settlers' agreement, many of them third-generation, he said.
But to judge from initial reactions that will not be easy. Doubts were also expressed about whether Mr. Sharon would actually go ahead with such a plan, and that if he did whether it would be passed by Parliament
"I am in shock," a Likud legislator, Yehiel Hazan, told Israeli radio in broadcast remarks.
"I think that the prime minister thinks he is the leader not of the Likud but of Labor, Meretz and Shinu," Mr. Hazan said, referring to parties with a political agenda to the left of Likud.
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who was asked about the plan before the Likud faction meeting today, said he had not heard about it, but that he was opposed to unilateral concessions, Haaretz reported.
"My position has been made known publicly in the past, and it hasn't changed: that unilateral steps will not lead to a lessening of the confrontation and friction, and might make it worse," Mr. Shalom said.
The head of the Council of Settlements, Bentzi Lieberman, told Haaretz that Mr. Sharon must listen to his military advisers who are opposed to a unilateral pullout. He also said he did not think the government would pass such a plan.
A spokeswoman for residents in the southern Gush Khatif settlement bloc told Agence-France Presse, that "transferring people from their homes is not the solution to peace in the Middle East."
Zvi Hendel, an Israeli lawmaker and Gaza settler, accused Mr. Sharon of trying to deflect attention from various corruption investigations against the prime minister and his two sons.
"I said several weeks ago that the intensity of the investigations would equal the intensity of the uprooting of settlements," Mr. Hendel told Israel Radio.
A leading Palestinian cabinet member, Saeb Erekat, told Reuters, "Usually when the Israeli government speaks about evacuation of settlements, it aims only at public relations.
"If Israel wants to leave Gaza, no Palestinian will stand in its way."
-------- nato
NATO speeds up expansion as ex-Soviets push for protection
BRUSSELS (AFP)
Feb 02, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040202030549.bjf5007u.html
NATO is bringing forward its enlargement into ex-communist eastern Europe as incoming member states push to come under the alliance's air-protection umbrella as soon as possible, diplomats say.
The 19-member former Cold War military bloc, which had been expected to admit seven new members at a June summit in Istanbul, is now planning on an enlargement ceremony in the next few months, sources say.
The push for help in policing eastern Europe's skies comes in particular from the three ex-Soviet Baltic republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as Slovenia.
"The incoming member countries have virtually no air defences, and they are keen to come under the NATO system," said an alliance official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Officials at NATO's Brussels headquarters are in "intense discussions" on the issue with the new members -- also including Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria -- who may now join at a ceremony during the spring.
Moves to bring forward the formal accession date were decided on after the Istanbul summit date was put back by about a month. In addition the ratification process in member states has gone quicker than expected.
The seven newcomers were invited to join NATO at a summit in Prague in November 2002, following three other ex-communist states -- Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic -- which joined in 1999.
"Certainly, all countries concerned would like to have NATO air policing cover in place by the time of accession," said a Lithuanian diplomat, adding: "Given the current state of discussions within the alliance, we hope for very rapid progress over the coming weeks and months."
"It is urgent that we find a solution so that these countries get this air cover which is fundamental," added the NATO official.
Apart from some 20 AWACS air surveillance aircraft, NATO itself does not possess any military hardware, relying on member states to provide resources -- in this case fighter jets able to patrol skies over the alliance newcomers.
The need was amply demonstrated during the 2002 Prague summit, when the Czech Republic had to call on US aircraft to protect the airspace over the summit venue.
The problem is that, with NATO member states already stretched with commitments in hotspots from the Balkans to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is proving difficult to find air power to protect the relatively unthreatened newcomers.
In a recent interview with the French daily Le Figaro, NATO's chief commander in Europe, US General James Jones, said the question of air defences for the Baltic countries should be on the agenda for the June summit.
Lithuania for example has an airforce of barely 800 people, and depends heavily on its fellow Baltic states. All three states rely for the most part on surface-to-air missiles.
Vilnius has no fighter jets, and was "strongly advised" by NATO "not to invest into combat aircraft," said the Lithuanian diplomat.
But this leaves it in a situation where, if the alliance cannot provide air protection, it will be forced to strike bilateral deals, or drop investments asked of it to meet NATO standards.
"The number of aircraft that is necessary is small... we do not expect to get this coverage for nothing and are ready to discuss all the conditions and modalities of this cooperation," said the Lithuanian diplomat.
"Political will would help us move forward on this issue," he added.
----
Kosovo Seen As Test of New NATO Approach
Mon Feb 2, 2004
By FISNIK ABRASHI,
Associated Press Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=732&e=1&u=/ap/20040202/ap_on_re_eu/kosovo_nato
PRISTINA, Serbia-Montenegro - NATO's top commander in Europe said Sunday he views the alliance's mission in Kosovo as a testing ground for how it will operate in future missions around the world.
Gen. James L. Jones made the comment at the end of a two-day visit to this U.N.-run province.
NATO's Kosovo mission, known as KFOR, is currently the alliance's largest military mission. It consists of some 18,500 troops from 35 contributing NATO and non-NATO nations - down from an initial deployment of 50,000 troops.
The planned transformation of KFOR into an even smaller force with greater flexibility reflects NATO's larger transformation, Jones said.
"NATO has signaled that it desires to be much more flexible and have a greater role on a global basis," he said. "It has been wonderful to see this transition occur right here in Kosovo, which I consider to be one of the great testbeds for how the operational forces and the alliance worldwide will have to work in the future."
NATO is planning to create its first multinational military unit combining air, land and sea power for use anywhere in the world on short notice. Known as NATO Response Force, it was first proposed by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002.
Counterterrorism is one of the main tasks of the force, which will be 20,000 strong when it becomes fully operational by the end of 2006. Troops will be able to deploy within five to 30 days to deal with operations including peacekeeping, evacuations and embargoes, NATO has said.
NATO, an alliance forged during the Cold War to protect Western Europe from the perceived threat of the Soviet Union, has in recent years redefined its mission, taking on peacekeeping tasks in war-torn regions outside its traditional sphere of interest.
It saw military action for the first time in 1999 when it launched air strikes against Serb targets to end Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's crackdown on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Since then, NATO has joined the mission in Afghanistan and the 19 member states are mulling a U.S. proposal for the alliance to take on military tasks in postwar Iraq.
On the Net:
Allied Command Transformation: http://www.act.nato.int
NATO's Kosovo Mission: http://www.nato.int/kfor
-------- spies
Part of Wen Ho Lee Report Due for Release
February 2, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Wen-Ho-Lee.html
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- Unclassified portions of a never-released Justice Department report on the investigation and prosecution of nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee will be given to a government secrecy watchdog.
``It's the answer to the question: What went wrong?'' said Steven Aftergood, who will receive the materials.
The report was prepared after the criminal case against Lee crumbled and he was freed in 2000. Its release had been repeatedly rejected by the Justice Department under both Janet Reno and John Ashcroft.
Aftergood appealed their refusals, and Justice Department official Richard Huff responded by working out a plan for the release. Huff wrote Aftergood on Jan. 21 that the office would send him ``the releasable information contained in the unclassified portions of the report.''
Another Justice Department committee, meanwhile, will consider declassifying portions of the classified material in the report, Huff's letter says.
Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, said Monday he expects to see part of the report by March 1.
The Taiwan-born Lee acknowledged downloading sensitive nuclear weapons data to an unsecure computer tape cassette. Lee, a U.S. citizen, was never charged with espionage and said he never passed any sensitive or classified material to anyone.
-------- un
U.N. Election Team Seeks Order in Iraqi Chaos
February 2, 2004
By WARREN HOGE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02NATI.html?pagewanted=all
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 1 - On one side of the electoral expert Carina Perelli's 30th floor office in the United Nations building is the enduring view of the soaring towers of midtown Manhattan.
On the other is a bulletin board jumble of chicken-scratch diagrams of the hastily constructed election process being proposed for Iraq.
In the coming days, Ms. Perelli and members of the Electoral Assistance Division that she leads will travel to Baghdad to judge whether that process or some refined form of it can bring lasting structure to the chaotic politics of Iraq.
It is a highly atypical mission for the division, which usually insists on months of surveys of local conditions and brings a rigor to the task that has gained the United Nations an international reputation as the most credible and trusted outside judge of elections.
That reputation was surely considered by the Bush administration when it discarded its longstanding reluctance to involve the world organization in Iraq and to ask in mid-January for an emergency mission by United Nations experts to try to rescue the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority's stalemated plan for political transition.
In an interview, Ms. Perelli said she could not discuss the specifics of the coming trip. But others at the United Nations said they felt the United States and its coalition partners had little understanding of the political dynamics of Iraq and had miscalculated in promising to hold a caucus-based vote setting up the transfer of authority to the Iraqis by June 30.
A senior United Nations official who has recently met with top Bush administration officials said he had told them that their belief in the power of quick elections to bring stability to countries with no history of democracy was "simplistic."
"We know from our experience that these things have to be gradual - it is naïve of them to think otherwise," he said.
The mission that Ms. Perelli is leading will have the narrow focus of determining whether direct elections can be organized before June 30, and, if not, what adjustments need to be made to the current complex caucus process, which has drawn strong objections from various Iraqi leaders. Those leaders have told the Americans that they would be willing to accept only a transition plan that had United Nations approval.
Electoral assistance has become an increasingly important function at the United Nations because it is critical to the peacekeeping and stabilizing mission that occupies more and more of the organization's time.
Ms. Perelli, a 46-year-old sociologist and political scientist from Uruguay, has been chief of the unit since 1998 and has a background of political activism from growing up under military rule. "I tend to be distrustful of large organizations, and if anything, my stint at the U.N. has made me even more distrustful of large organizations," she said.
She and her staff are used to front-line activity. Recent operations have taken them to East Timor, Liberia, the Central African Republic, Haiti, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone. "Find a hot spot and we are probably there," she said.
They are tough-minded about their job. "There are many ways to disenfranchise people without saying you are, and it's one of our jobs to discover that," she said. "We have to determine whether a country really wants our help or do they want us there just to rubber stamp their process."
The United Nations normally provides three kinds of electoral assistance: technical and logistic assistance, including registration, use of computer technology, training of polling officers, storage of ballot papers and support for administrators; the observation and monitoring of elections; and the organization and actual hands-on conduct of elections.
The assets the United Nations believes it brings to this process are experience, impartiality, legitimacy and respect for sovereignty. The division has a roster of 1,100 people with field expertise from around the world it can call on, and over the past two years, it has provided formal assistance to 53 countries.
"Peace processes always come up in elections at some point so we always end up coming in, and sometimes it is in the middle of the process," said Carlos Valenzuela, a Colombian who is one of Ms. Perelli's deputies. "In Cambodia, we were being shelled every night and had to go around doing civic education in flak jackets and helmets, which is not exactly conducive to conditions for democratic elections, but we stayed there," he said.
No matter what happens in the current transition in Iraq, the United Nations is expected to be the major outside participant in the creation of direct elections now scheduled for 2005.
Ms. Perelli rolled her eyes at the thought. "Sometimes people say, `Oh, you have a lot of time because the vote is not until March of 2005,' " she said. "Well in this office, that comment is greeted with fits of laughter."
--------
U.N. Dissolves Panel Monitoring Al Qaeda
Group Had Criticized Security Council
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4102-2004Feb1.html
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council quietly dissolved a high-profile independent U.N. panel last month that was established more than 21/2 years ago to prevent the al Qaeda terrorist network from financing its war against the United States and its allies, U.S. and U.N. officials said.
The move comes six weeks after the panel, headed by Michael Chandler of Britain, concluded in a stinging report that a number of Security Council sanctions against al Qaeda had failed to constrain the terrorist network.
But Security Council members have denied the move was retribution for the panel's conclusions, saying that the quality of the group's work was uneven and that the group had outlived its usefulness.
The 15-nation council on Friday adopted a new resolution sponsored by the United States, Russia and Chile that would replace Chandler's panel with what they say will be a more professional body. The new panel is expected to keep monitoring the global war against terrorism but would be subject to closer Security Council coordination and oversight.
The dispute underscores the challenge of managing an international counterterrorism operation through an organization whose 191 members are frequently criticized for failing to cooperate. It also reflects growing frustration among members that sanctions have done little to interrupt the flow of money and arms to al Qaeda.
Chandler criticized the decision, saying it would undercut the United Nations' capacity to combat al Qaeda. He suggested that his panel's demise was a result of pressure from influential U.N. members who had been singled out in his reports for failing to take adequate measures to combat al Qaeda.
"A number of people were uncomfortable with our last report," Chandler said. He said that the Security Council was sending the wrong message and that one of the "key elements" of a successful counterterrorism strategy is "a strong independent monitoring group."
Chandler's five-member panel -- the monitoring group on al Qaeda -- was established in July 2001 to ensure compliance with an arms embargo against the Taliban and a freeze on its financial assets for harboring Osama bin Laden. The mission's mandate was expanded after the Taliban fell in January 2002, granting it broad powers to monitor international compliance with a U.N. financial, travel and arms ban.
Chandler's reports have provided periodic snapshots of the international campaign against terrorism, often highlighting failings in governments' responses to the al Qaeda threat. In August 2002, after a lull in al Qaeda activities, Chandler provided a prescient forecast of the network's resurgence. "Al Qaeda is by all accounts 'fit and well' and poised to strike," the report warned. It was followed by deadly strikes in Bali, Indonesia; Casablanca, Morroco; and Saudi Arabia.
"The group functioned very well, providing hard-hitting reports to the Security Council which painted a picture of what was really going on," said Victor Comras, a former State Department official who helped write the Dec. 2 report.
"I am at a loss to understand why the United States is one of the main players in redrafting the new resolution and allowing the monitoring group to lapse," he added. "The United States was the greatest beneficiary of the monitoring group because it gave them a lever to name and shame" countries that failed to combat terrorists.
One U.S. official said the last thing the United States wants is to "muzzle" the United Nations. But he said that although Chandler's panel was effective "at getting headlines," his propensity for antagonizing member states could ultimately undermine U.S. efforts to harness the United Nations' support in its anti-terror campaign. Chandler's group "did a good job," said James B. Cunningham, the deputy U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "But we are trying to make the committee more effective."
Some U.S. and U.N. diplomats said Chandler needlessly alienated potential allies and constituents at the United Nations, including some in the United States. Chandler's 2002 report irked Bush administration officials by casting doubt on the success of the U.S.-led effort to block al Qaeda financing. The Bush administration also challenged the veracity of Chandler's assertion in an earlier report that the Treasury Department had ignored warnings from SunTrust Banks that a key plotter in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had previously transferred large sums of money to an account at a Florida bank branch.
Chandler infuriated officials from Liechtenstein, Italy and Switzerland with the Dec. 2 report that illustrated how two U.N.-designated terrorist financiers, Youssef Nada and Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, lived, traveled and operated multimillion-dollar businesses in their countries in violation of U.N. sanctions.
Liechtenstein's U.N. ambassador, Christian Wenaweser, one of Chandler's sharpest critics, complained that the Chandler investigation was shoddy and that he failed to adequately acknowledge his government's role in helping build the case against two alleged terrorist financiers. "We don't question the usefulness of the monitoring group. Quite the contrary. But they have to have a clear mandate and guidelines on how they should and shouldn't do their work," Wenaweser said. "They didn't bother to verify basic facts; they got some things wrong. Travel dates. Spelling of names. Some of the stuff was silly."
Chile's U.N. ambassador, Heraldo Muñoz, the U.N. terrorism committee's chairman, said the new eight-member panel -- called the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team -- would give "more teeth" to U.N. anti-terror efforts by strengthening the committee's expertise in finance and border controls, and improving its capacity to analyze terrorist trends.
"I would like a monitoring team that is efficient, that is independent and that can closely collaborate with the committee," Muñoz said.
-------- us
Defense budget doesn't include funds for Iraq, Afghanistan
By Drew Brown
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Mon, Feb. 02, 2004
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7858468.htm
WASHINGTON - President Bush is asking Congress for $401.7 billion in military spending for 2005, including huge outlays for new manned and unmanned aircraft, advanced ships, missile defense and precision weapons.
The proposal represents a 7 percent increase over fiscal 2004.
American military budgets have increased steadily for the past six years. The Bush administration plans for military spending to grow $20 billion a year over the next five years. The current defense-budget proposal projects that spending will reach $487.7 billion by 2009.
The 2005 proposal represents 3.6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, according to Pentagon estimates. Defense spending is up from 2.9 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2000, but down from 8.9 percent during 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, according to Pentagon figures. Spending is also down from 6 percent of GDP during the military buildup of the Reagan administration, according to Pentagon figures.
Noticeably absent from next year's request is money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. White House budget director Joshua Bolten estimated that another $50 billion would be needed to cover those costs next year. The White House expects to cover the war costs with supplemental funds after next fall's elections.
The budget sets aside a 3.5 percent pay hike for troops and $74.9 billion in new weapons. Another $68.9 billion is earmarked for research on futuristic projects including a laser satellite system, space-based radar and cruise missile defense.
Weapons procurement is weighted heavily in favor of new planes and other aircraft, including $11 billion for the controversial F-22 Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, all of which have had cost overruns in recent years. The Osprey had a series of fatal crashes and almost was scrapped.
Unmanned aircraft such as the Predator, which was used successfully in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, would receive nearly $2 billion in funding, a 32 percent increase over last year. The Pentagon also plans to spend $1.6 billion on satellite and laser-guided bombs, Tomahawk missiles and other precision munitions, all of which have been used heavily in combat operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The budget includes $9.2 billion for missile defense, a $1.5 billion increase over fiscal 2004. Bush's plan calls for deploying up to 20 ground-based interceptor missiles in Alaska and California and another 10 ship-based interceptors by the end of calendar year 2005.
Critics argue that missile defense hasn't been tested adequately and isn't ready to deploy. A report by the congressional General Accounting Office last year warned that anti-missile system technology hadn't been proved to work, and many critics warn that deploying the system could spark a new arms race.
"Sanity does not seem to have a lot of influence on the decision," said Christopher Hellman, a military analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "It's a totally unproven technology."
Pentagon officials said the president's proposed military budget would meet the demands of the war on terrorism and also would help make the armed services a lighter and more lethal force.
Some defense analysts disagreed.
"It seems that there are a lot of leftover Cold War weapons programs that are still being funded in this budget," said Marcus Corbin, an analyst at the Center for Defense Information, a policy research organization in Washington. Examples include the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Comanche helicopter.
With federal deficits already ballooning, other critics say Bush's plan to increase defense spending may be unrealistic.
"One of the most significant questions is whether or how long this (amount of spending) is sustainable under the broader fiscal picture, which doesn't look very good," said Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, another Washington policy-research group. "If history is any guide, if and when Congress decides to take on the deficit issue, then defense will be among the first to be hit."
The Air Force comes out the winner in next year's defense plan, with a 9.6 percent increase in funding. The Army would receive only a 1.8 percent increase, the smallest of any service.
----
Fiscal 2005 Department of Defense Budget Release
United States Department of Defense
News Release On the web:
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html or +1 (703) 428-0711
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2, 2004
No. 061-04
http://www.dod.mil/cgi-bin/dlprint.cgi?http://www.dod.mil/releases/2004/nr20040202-0301.html
President George W. Bush today sent Congress his fiscal 2005 defense budget. The budget requests $401.7 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Defense (DoD). This represents a seven percent increase over fiscal 2004 funding levels, after taking into account Congressionally directed rescissions.
The budget maintains implementation of the Bush Administration defense strategy and continues the transformation of the U.S. military to ensure that it has the capabilities needed to counter 21st century security threats most effectively and efficiently. The budget balances support for this long-term transformation with resources for current global operations and requirements.
Successfully Pursue the Global War on Terrorism
The fiscal 2005 budget includes robust readiness and acquisition funding, important legislative authorities, and other essentials for winning the global war on terrorism.
Readiness. The request funds the military's training and readiness requirements and sustains prudent readiness standards, e.g., for flying hours. Ongoing initiatives include:
- Improving metrics to evaluate force readiness, with emphasis on evaluating readiness relative to a full range of missions, not merely the traditional major regional contingency operation.
- Fleet Response Plan, adopted in fiscal 2004, expands in fiscal 2005 and will increase the availability of naval assets for duty worldwide.
Transformation/acquisition overview. Recent operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism have reinforced the importance of transforming U.S. military capabilities, and the FY 2005 budget continues the president's strong commitment to defense transformation and force modernization. This transformation and other acquisition of new capabilities are funded in the appropriation titles of research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement. The fiscal 2005 request is:
- $74.9 billion for procurement - up from $60 billion in fiscal 2001.
- $68.9 billion for RDT&E - up from $41 billion in fiscal 2001.
Lessons learned. The Department of Defense is continuing to compile and take action on lessons learned from U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism.
- Some lessons are not new, and already are addressed in DoD programs - notably, the importance of readiness, training, force protection, operational speed, joint interoperability, intelligence, precision weapons, unmanned vehicles, communications and command and control. Already in DoD plans, for example, are cutting-edge communications systems to eliminate bandwidth problems and improve interoperability.
- New lessons learned mostly involve advanced capabilities that U.S. forces require in order to counter more decisively unconventional threats like those encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of these capabilities can be and are being fielded rapidly - such as better systems to detect explosives and other terrorist threats. Other lessons will require more time and investment, and these will be addressed during the next year as the department develops its defense program for fiscal 2006 and beyond.
Legislative support. The fiscal 2005 budget includes legislative authorities vital to the fight against terrorism, notably:
- Train and equip support (up to $500 million) to the military and security forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and friendly nearby regional nations to enhance their capability to combat terrorism and support U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Commanders Emergency Response Program (up to $300 million) to enable military leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs.
- Increased drawdown authority ($200 million) under the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act to provide added help for the Afghan National Army.
Supplemental appropriations. The fiscal 2004 supplemental appropriations bill signed into law last November will provide sufficient resources to enable DoD to finance its incremental costs for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism. For fiscal 2005, the department cannot yet determine the scope of these operations nor their incremental costs, and so these possible costs are not budgeted for in the fiscal 2005 request. The department does not anticipate that supplemental appropriations will be requested during the rest of calendar year 2004.
Doing Right by our Military People
The fiscal 2005 budget will support the high morale and quality of our military people through good pay and benefits. It requests a 3.5 percent military base pay raise and completes the elimination of average out-of-pocket housing costs for military personnel living in private housing. Prior to fiscal 2001, the average servicemember had to absorb over 18 percent of these costs.
Military health care. The fiscal 2005 DoD budget for military health care costs includes $17.6 billion for the defense health program, $7.3 billion for direct medical personnel costs and $0.2 billion for medical construction. The budget also includes a $10.3 billion payment into the Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund to finance the future benefits of current active duty personnel. A $5.3 billion payment out of the Fund will finance health care for the department's 1.7 million current Medicare-eligible military retirees, family members and survivors.
Housing. The fiscal 2005 budget keeps the department on track to eliminate nearly all its inadequate military family housing units by fiscal 2007, with complete elimination in fiscal 2009. The budget continues the department's extensive use of privatization to advance this goal and to get maximum benefit from its housing budget.
Facilities. Taking good care of the department's people, both military and civilian, includes providing them quality facilities in which to work. To that end, in the fiscal 2005 request all the military services fund 95 percent of facilities sustainment (maintenance) requirements - up from 94 percent in fiscal 2004. To modernize DoD facilities at a satisfactory pace, Secretary Rumsfeld established the goal of achieving a facilities recapitalization rate of 67 years. The fiscal 2005 request keeps DoD on track to reach that goal in fiscal 2008. The fiscal 2005 rate is about 107 years.
Managing Demand on the Force
Recent operations have placed a heavy demand on America's military, and the Department of Defense is working to avoid overloading its military people with excessive, unsustainable stress. DoD leaders believe that a permanent increase to military personnel levels would be the most expensive option for managing demand on the force, and has other disadvantages as well. Instead, the department is developing and advancing numerous initiatives that can reduce demand more quickly and produce other benefits as well. These initiatives include:
Expanding military capabilities. DoD is expanding military capabilities available for meeting national security requirements by divesting the military of lower-priority functions and by enabling it to perform its missions more efficiently. Additionally, ongoing transformation initiatives will allow the military to fulfill many missions with greater speed, precision and effectiveness, and often with fewer troops.
Rebalancing forces. Recent operations have shown that certain military skills and types of units are being stressed far more than others. DoD is rebalancing its military units and people to enhance the total force's responsiveness to crises and resolve stressed career fields. DoD objectives include:
- Structure forces to reduce the need for involuntary mobilization of Reserve components during the early stages of a rapid response operation.
- Structure forces to limit involuntary Reserve mobilization to reasonable and sustainable rates.
- Use innovative management to improve the mobilization process, enhance volunteerism and establish a more predictable rotational overseas presence.
Rebalancing includes, for example, increasing the active Army's early responsiveness in such functions as transportation, quartermaster, medical and engineer. Rebalancing within the Reserve components includes phasing out some late-deploying artillery, air defense and heavy engineer units and adding high-demand military police, transportation, medical, civil affairs and psychological operations units. Progress in rebalancing forces:
- Fiscal 2003 - about 10,000 military spaces.
- Fiscal 2004 - about 20,000 military spaces.
- Fiscal 2005 - about 20,000 military spaces.
Military-to-civilian conversions. Essentially the same benefit as a permanent military personnel increase could come from converting positions currently filled by military personnel to positions that could be supported by DoD civilians or contractors. The department has identified more than 50,000 positions to begin such conversion. Already underway:
- For fiscal 2004, the services will begin converting 10,000 positions from military to civilian.
- The fiscal 2005 budget includes $572 million to achieve the conversion of another 10,070 positions.
Personnel management. The department is working to achieve more flexibility to manage its military people, which could help relieve stress on military skills that have been in high demand during recent operations. One example is the "continuum of service" concept, which - instead of being constrained by the distinction between active and Reserve components - would permit a range of participation from full-time to available only during crises. It would make it easier for skilled individuals to perform military duty without the current accounting and management constraints. Throughout their career, individuals could have a continuum of participation geared to their lives and DoD needs.
Emergency authorities. Existing authorities give the department critical tools to manage an intense operating tempo by exceeding its authorized military personnel level. However, DoD leaders will continue to assess the adequacy of the current authorized level to ensure its sufficiency for meeting America's security needs without excess stress.
Reshaping Defense Global Posture and Basing
The results of two comprehensive initiatives will be of great importance in the years ahead: The DoD U.S. Global Defense Posture Review and the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission.
Global Defense Posture Review. DoD is continuing its comprehensive review to scrutinize all aspects of America's global defense posture - including personnel, infrastructure, equipment, sourcing, and surge capabilities. The goal is to ensure that U.S. military capabilities are configured to make them optimally deployable and best able to meet the challenges of the new global strategic environment. The United States is seeking the full participation of its allies and global partners in this review. The Bush Administration has begun and will continue to consult with the Congress. The fiscal 2005 budget does not include any proposals reflecting any findings from this review. Possible shifts of military capabilities from overseas to U.S. locations will be considered in conjunction with BRAC 2005.
BRAC 2005. The work of this commission will be critical to streamlining DoD facilities and saving billions of dollars that would be better spent on transformation, not excess facilities. The budget includes funding beginning in fiscal 2006 for implementation of BRAC 2005 decisions.
Transforming Military Capabilities
The transformation of America's military capabilities involves developing and fielding new military systems to achieve a new portfolio of military capabilities to decisively combat the full range of security threats - now and well into the future. A key objective is to provide robust capabilities and innovative approaches for the full spectrum of potential missions. For example, unmanned aerial vehicles continue to provide new capabilities and advantages that have proven critical in the global war on terrorism. Transformation will continue to require a strong science and technology (S&T) program. The fiscal 2005 S&T request is $10.5 billion, a 1.6 percent real increase over the fiscal 2004 request.
DoD continues to emphasize realistic cost and schedule estimates for acquisition programs, as demonstrated in the fiscal 2005 program by its additional funding for Future Combat Systems, and schedule adjustments for the Joint Strike Fighter. Below are highlights of transformation and acquisition programs of special interest in the proposed budget and their total fiscal 2005 RDT&E and procurement funding:
Missile Defense
Missile Defense Agency. $9.2 billion, $1.5 billion above fiscal 2004. The increase includes $0.9 billion to continue to field an initial defensive capability for the Ballistic Missile Defense System and $0.6 billion to begin fielding its next increment. This initial capability for defending the United States from ballistic missile attack is scheduled to be operational by the end of 2004 and, by the end of 2005, is scheduled to include 20 ground-based interceptors, up to 10 sea-based interceptors and upgraded radars and command and control.
Cruise Missile Defense. $239 million to accelerate the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Elevated Netted Sensor System, begin integrating the Surface Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile into the projected Cruise Missile Defense architecture and accelerate development of a joint integrated fire control capability. Goals include contingency capabilities in 2008 and first units equipped in 2010.
Army Transformation
Future Combat Systems (FCS) and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT). $3.2 billion to support the transformation of the Army by fully funding the FCS and $1.0 billion to procure the combat vehicles for the 5th SBCT. The fiscal 2005 budget supports the fielding of the 4th SBCT and sustains the three SBCTs already in the force.
Shipbuilding
Total program. $11.1 billion to support procurement of nine ships in fiscal 2005 - up from seven ships for fiscal 2004. Fiscal 2005 begins a period of transition and transformation for shipbuilding as the last DDG 51 destroyers are built, and the first DD(X) destroyer and Littoral Combat Ship are procured. This increased commitment is further shown in the average shipbuilding rate from fiscal 2005-2009 of 9.6 ships per year. This will sustain the current force level and significantly add to Navy capabilities.
CVN-21. $1.0 billion to continue development of and to procure long-lead equipment to support this planned 2007 aircraft carrier, whose innovations include an enhanced flight deck, a new nuclear power plant, allowance for future technologies and reduced manning.
New ship classes/technologies. $1.6 billion to continue development of technologies to be applied to a new generation of 21st century surface ships including DDX destroyer, littoral combat ship, CG(X) cruiser and the Maritime Preposition Force (Future) ship.
Communications, Intelligence, and Related Systems
Space Based Radar. $408 million to continue development of a system to identify and track moving ground targets, which will significantly strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities.
Transformational Satellite Communications. $775 million to continue development of a new system based on laser communications and greatly enhanced radio-frequency capability, which would free users from current bandwidth constraints and provide greatly enhanced interoperability and connectivity to support net-centric operations.
Joint Tactical Radio System. $600 million to provide Internet protocol-based, ad-hoc mobile wireless networking capability - enabling information exchange among joint warfighting elements, civil and national authorities for seamless networking.
Unmanned Vehicles
Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems. $710 million. J-UCAS consolidates all previous unmanned combat air vehicles programs. It will develop a common operating system and enhance competition to achieve the best capabilities. The program will accelerate key capabilities leading to an operational assessment in fiscal 2007-2009.
Aircraft
EA-18G. $0.4 billion to develop the next generation solution to detect, identify, locate and suppress hostile emitters for decades to come, providing electronic attack and information operations capability against integrated air defense systems and adversary infrastructure while supporting strike forces and ground assets.
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). $4.6 billion. The JSF program is being restructured to provide for cost growth in its system development and demonstration (SDD) phase. The total cost estimate for SDD increases from $33.0 billion to $40.5 billion. Schedule delays on this very complex aircraft are prudent and necessary to mature its design and ensure its ultimate success.
V-22. $1.7 billion to support ongoing development and procurement of 11 aircraft. The program has been structured to enhance interoperability in the next increment, implement additional cost-reduction initiatives, and pursue a more executable production ramp following operational testing, Milestone C review and DoD certification.
Improve and Integrate Intelligence Capabilities
Recent operations have reinforced the criticality of timely intelligence about threats to America's security. The fiscal 2005 budget reflects this lesson by sustaining robust funding to strengthen intelligence activities and capabilities. The department also is advancing several ongoing and planned initiatives, to include:
- Improve information sharing and the horizontal integration of organizations producing and using intelligence.
- Improve human intelligence collection worldwide.
- Increase the development and use of promising technologies.
- Enhance the effectiveness and coherence of signal intelligence systems' focus on terrorism.
Further Streamline DoD Management Processes
Recent operations reinforce the importance of transforming DoD management processes so they work better and cost less. The new budget supports ongoing and planned initiatives, including:
National Security Personnel System. The department is continuing to implement the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), the much-needed new way to manage DoD civilian personnel, to provide needed flexibility and incentives without eliminating important safeguards. Initial implementation will cover 300,000 employees.
Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP). This is a comprehensive, multi-year initiative to overhaul DoD management processes and the information technology systems that support them. The budget includes almost $100 million per year in RDT&E funding for fiscal 2005-2009 to continue the evolution and extension of BMMP.
Better budget execution. The fiscal 2005 budget urges Congress to increase general transfer authority to $4 billion (from $2.1 billion for fiscal 2004 DoD budget) to give DoD greater ability to shift funding from lower to high priorities during this period of increased military operations. Also needed is to make O&M funds available for two years to help the department ensure, during budget execution, that funding goes to the military's most pressing readiness, training and support requirements.
Fiscal 2005 DoD Budget by Title
(Discretionary budget authority $ in billions)
Fiscal 04 Fiscal 05 Fiscal 06 Fiscal 07 Fiscal 08 Fiscal 09
Military Personnel
97.9 104.8 109.4 113.1 116.8 120.4
Operation & Maintenance
@127.6 140.6 146.1 151.2 156.3 163.9
Procurement
75.3 74.9 80.4 90.6 105.1 114.0
RDT&E
64.3 68.9 71.0 70.7 71.6 70.7
Military Construction
5.5 5.3 8.8 12.1 10.8 10.2
Family Housing
3.8 4.2 4.6 4.5 3.6 3.5
Revolving & Mgmt Funds & Other
@@0.8 3.0 2.3 1.6 1.4 4.9
Total @@@375.3 401.7 422.7 443.9 465.7 487.7
@ Includes $3.5 billion rescission to the fiscal 2003 Iraq Freedom Fund.
@@ Includes $1.8 billion rescission to DoD appropriations in fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
@@@ Also includes $.8 billion in prior-year program rescissions to Procurement, RDT&E, Military Construction, Family Housing and National Defense Sealift Fund.
Fiscal 2005 DoD Budget by Component
(Discretionary budget authority $ in billions)
Fiscal 04 Fiscal 05 Fiscal 06 Fiscal 07 Fiscal 08 Fiscal 09
Army
95.4 97.2 102.7 108.0 113.7 116.5
Navy/Marine Corps
115.1 119.3 125.5 130.2 137.5 148.2
Air Force
110.9 120.5 128.2 132.6 138.8 142.7
Defense-wide
@53.9 64.7 66.3 73.0 75.7 80.3
Total
@@375.3 401.7 422.7 443.9 465.7 487.7
@ Includes $3.5 billion rescission to the fiscal 2003 Iraq Freedom Fund and $1.8 billion rescission to DoD appropriations in the fiscal 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
@@ Includes $.8 billion in prior-year program rescissions to Procurement, RDT&E, Military Construction, Family Housing and National Defense Sealift Fund.
(Some columns may not add correctly due to rounding)
Copies of DoD budget documents are available at the following Internet address: http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2005/.
-------- propaganda wars
How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio
Clear Channel gags an antiwar conservative
By Charles Goyette
February 2, 2004
American Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/2_2_04/article3.html
"Imagine these startling headlines with the nation at war in the Pacific six months after Dec. 7, 1941: "No Signs of Japanese Involvement in Pearl Harbor Attack! Faulty Intelligence Cited; Wolfowitz: Mistakes Were Made."
Or how about an equally disconcerting World War II headline from the European theater: "German Army Not Found in France, Poland, Admits President; Rumsfeld: 'Oops!', Powell Silent; 'Bring 'Em On,' Says Defiant FDR."
It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident. The Secretary of State should not need to convince a skeptical world with satellite photos of a couple of Toyota pickups and a dumpster. And faced with a legitimate casus belli, it should not be hard to muster an actual constitutional declaration of war. Now in the absence of a meaningful Iraqi role in the 9/11 attack and the mysterious disappearance of those fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction, there might be some psychic satisfaction to be had in saying, "I told you so!" But it sure isn't doing my career as a talk-show host any good.
The criterion of self-evidence was only one of dozens of objections I raised before the elective war in Iraq on my afternoon drive-time talk show on KFYI in Phoenix. Many of the other arguments are familiar to readers of The American Conservative.
But the case for war was a shape-shifter, skillfully morphing into a new rationale as quickly as the old one failed to withstand scrutiny. For a year before the war, I scrambled to keep up with the latest incarnations of the neocon case. Most were pitifully transparent and readily exposed. (Besides the aluminum tubes and the trailers that had Bush saying, "Gotcha," does anyone remember those death-dealing drones? Never have third-world, wind-up, rubber-band, balsa-wood airplanes instilled so much fear in so many people.) Still, my management didn't like my being out of step with the president's parade of national hysteria, and the war-fevered spectators didn't care to be told they were suffering illusions. So after three years, I was replaced on my primetime talk show by the Frick and Frack of Bushophiles, two giggling guys who think everything our tongue-tied president does is "Most excellent, dude!" I have been relegated to the later 7-10 p.m. slot, when most people, even in a congested commuting market like Phoenix, are already home watching TV.
Why did this happen? Why only a couple of months after my company picked up the option on my contract for another year in the fifth-largest city in the United States, did it suddenly decide to relegate me to radio Outer Darkness? The answer lies hidden in the oil-and-water incompatibility of these two seemingly disconnected phrases: "Criticizing Bush" and "Clear Channel."
Criticizing Bush? Well then, must I be some sort of rug-chewing liberal? Not even close. As a boy, I stood on the grass in a small Arizona town square when Barry Goldwater officially began his 1964 presidential run. And I was there for the last official event of the Goldwater campaign. My job was to recruit and manage my fellow junior-high and high-school conservatives in a phone bank operation, calling supporters to fill up as many buses as possible to help pack the stadium-a show of strength for the nation's television viewers. Of course that's an insignificant role to play in a presidential campaign, but it was pretty heady stuff for a 14-year-old kid from Flagstaff.
I broke with Goldwater in 1976 over his decision to back Gerald Ford instead of Ronald Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination. Ford was a perfectly decent, if ordinary, Republican (who could have taught the big-spending W. Bush a thing or two about the use of the veto!). But I took my conservatism seriously. Reagan was clearly the champion of the conservative cause. Perhaps I'm just anti-military? No. I am proud of my honorable service and of the Army Commendation Medal I was awarded. I also spent a good deal of time in the 1980s as a member of the Speakers Bureau of High Frontier, promoting Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, a defense policy unlike today's in that it was actually designed to defend the American people.
I have been a Republican precinct committeeman; my county Republican Party elected me its "Man of the Year" in 1988; I have written speeches for conservative candidates and office holders; and I have been employed by statewide and national political organizations and campaigns, including the National Conservative Political Action Committee. Despite my disappointment in Goldwater for not supporting Reagan, I was there when a small band of the faithful-no more than four or five of us-gathered for a potluck dinner to support the creation of a brand-new public-policy think tank named after "Mr. Conservative." The enterprise blossomed, and I was honored several months ago to serve as Master of Ceremonies for the Goldwater Institute's 15th Anniversary Gala.
I can assure you then that my criticism of Bush has been on the basis of long-held conservative principles. It begins with respect for the wisdom of the Founders and the Constitution's division of power and delegation of authority, and extends to an adherence to the principles of governmental restraint and fiscal prudence. It proved to be a message that was more than a little inconvenient for my employer.
Clear Channel Communications, the 800-pound gorilla of the radio business, owns an astonishing 1,200 stations in 50 states, including Newstalk 550 KFYI in Phoenix, where I do the afternoon program ... or did until last summer. The principals of Clear Channel, a Texas-based company, have been substantial contributors to George W. Bush's fortunes since before he became president. In fact, Texas billionaire Tom Hicks can be said to be the man who made Bush a millionaire when he purchased the future president's baseball team, the Texas Rangers. Tom Hicks is now vice chairman of Clear Channel. Clear Channel stations were unusually visible during the war with what corporate flacks now call "pro-troop rallies." In tone and substance, they were virtually indistinguishable from pro-Bush rallies. I'm sure the administration, which faced a host of regulatory issues affecting Clear Channel, was not displeased.
Criticism of Bush and his ever-shifting pretext for a first-strike war (what exactly was it we were pre-empting anyway?) has proved so serious a violation of Clear Channel's cultural taboo that only a good contract has kept me from being fired outright. Roxanne Cordonier, a radio personality at Clear Channel's WMYI 102.5 in Greenville, S.C., didn't have it as good. Cordonier, who worked under the name Roxanne Walker, was the South Carolina Broadcasters Association's 2002 Radio Personality of the Year. That apparently wasn't enough for Clear Channel. Her lawsuit against the company alleges that she was belittled on the air and reprimanded by her station for opposing the invasion of Iraq. Then she was fired.
They couldn't really fire me, at least without paying me a substantial sum of money, but I was certainly belittled on the air for opposing the war. The other KFYI talk-show hosts-so bloodthirsty that they made Bush apologists and superhawks Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity sound moderate-vilified me almost daily. As a former radio-station owner myself, it was a little hard to believe management would allow one of their key hosts to be trashed day in and day out on their own airwaves. After all, we sell radio time on the basis of its ability to influence people's behavior. A wiser programming approach would have been to showcase me as an object of curiosity, with a challenge to listeners to see if they could discover where I had gone wrong or how I was missing the imminent threat Iraq posed to the American people. No doubt the constant vilification I received and my heterodoxy on the war cost me audience during the interlude. It was certainly enough to get pictures of me morphing into those of the French president posted on the Free Republic Web site during the "freedom fries" silliness. A banner there read, "Boycott Charles Chirac Goyette at KFYI radio Phoenix, AZ! Protest against the Charles Goyette Show from 4-7pm at KFYI for his leftist subervsive [sic] Bush-bashing rants. Turn off KFYI radio for the Charles Goyette Show! No liberal scum talk shows on KFYI!" Radio does provoke people, doesn't it?
One Clear Channel executive had me take an unexpected day off for the sin of reporting the breaking news on March 27, 2003, that neocon hawk Richard Perle, of the Defense Policy Board, had relinquished his chairmanship under scrutiny of his business dealings and for blaspheming that Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense since Robert McNamara. So great were these transgressions that the radio gods themselves must have been aghast at my impiety. I explained in conference-room confrontations that both positions were completely respectable points of view. The comparison with McNamara had been made repeatedly in subsequent days in the mainstream media. I specifically cited "The McLaughlin Group" the following Friday and the New York Times the following Monday, and in describing the Perle resignation, I relied upon details from both Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker and from syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington. "Well, then," they explained, the problem was "the emotionalism" of my remarks. Imagine that, emotionalism in talk radio? I reminded them that for years we had run promotions identifying KFYI as "the Place with More Passion," where the Charles Goyette Show was positioned as "Fearless Talk Radio!"
Clear Channel made it clear - "With you, I feel like I'm managing the Dixie Chicks," said my program director-that they would have liked to fire me anyway. While a well-drafted contract made that difficult, it did not prevent them from tucking me away outside prime time.
So I'm a talk-show war casualty. My contract expires in a few more months and-my iconoclasm being noted-it is not likely it will be renewed. Among the survivors at my station: one host who wanted to nuke Afghanistan (he bills himself as "your voice of reason and moderation") and another who upon learning that 23-year-old Mideast peace activist Rachel Corrie had been run over by an Israeli bulldozer shouted, "Back up and run over her again!" As he doesn't quite get some of the important distinctions in these debates, such as that Iranians should not be called Arabs, we would hope that he's not taken too seriously. Likewise my replacements in the afternoon drive slot, brought in for glamorizing the war and billed as "The Comedy Channel meets Talk Radio." If you remember the "Saturday Night Live" skit "Superfans" with Mike Myers and Chris Farley-"Who's stronger, God or da Bulls?" "Da Bulls!"-then you get the idea. Only instead of "da Bulls," it's three hours every afternoon of "da Bush!" Expect to hear more insightful topics like "So Who's Tougher: Michael Jordan or Donald Rumsfeld?"
I've seen how war fever infects a people. And I was in a no-win situation, with an audience pre-screened by virtue of 11 hours a day of screaming war frenzy-unlistenable for the uninfected-that surrounded my time slot. So I knew there would be a personal price for opposing the war, and I was prepared to pay it. But as a lover of the rough and tumble of public debate and the contest of ideas, I am disappointed at what is happening in my industry. At least at Clear Channel, there's only one word for the belief that talk radio is still a fair and fearless search for the truth: "Un-Bull-ieveable!"
Charles Goyette was named "Best Talk Show Host of 2003" by the Phoenix New Times.
----
TomPaine.com Takes Ad Campaign against Pentagon Adviser Richard Perle Underground
2/2/04
U.S. Newswire
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=147-02022004
To: National Desk
Contact: Nick Penniman, 202-332-2881 ext. 11,
or Ellen Miller, 202-332-2881 ext. 10, both of TomPaine.com
WASHINGTON, -- Yesterday, TomPaine.com began a month-long campaign challenging Pentagon adviser Richard Perle's personal conflicts of interest by placing ads in 10 prominent subway stations throughout the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
TomPaine.com's executive editor, Nick Penniman said, "Perle is further evidence of the decadent mercenary culture that governs Washington today. He's one of the most prominent armchair generals, who doesn't hesitate to advocate war as long as he can fight it from the safety of a television studio or a Washington think tank."
The ad reads, in part:
"As a Pentagon adviser, he helped lure the White House into invading Iraq while briefing investors on ways to make money off the conflict. Did Perle offer better advice to the businessmen than to the president? After all, it was he who said that Iraq was teeming with weapons of mass destruction... Only in Washington's twilight zone of policy, power and profits could a man like Perle thrive."
The ads can be seen at the following subway stations in the Washington, D.C. area: Capitol South, Crystal City, Farragut North, Farragut West (starts 2/15), Federal Center, Federal Triangle, L'Enfant Plaza, McPherson Square, Metro Center, and Pentagon City.
The original of the ad appeared in The New York Times on Jan. 14, 2004. It can be viewed on the TomPaine.com website at http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad2.cfm/ID/9757
TomPaine.com is a nonprofit, nonpartisan Internet journal. Since 1999, its online content and ads have been praised by Rolling Stone, Forbes.com, the Columbia Journalism Review, Chicago Tribune, PC Magazine and many others.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
----
Blair alone after Bush WMD move
Inquiry leaves PM facing climbdown
Nicholas Watt, Richard Norton-Taylor, and David Teather in New York
Monday February 2, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1136935,00.html
George Bush is to establish a full blown investigation into the Anglo-American failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, piling the pressure on Tony Blair, who used Saddam Hussein's banned arsenal to justify last year's war.
Amid growing jitters in government circles in London, the White House announced last night that President Bush would sign an executive order to set up the investigation into intelligence failures in Iraq.
His action, which will pre-empt a possible inquiry by the US Congress, was coordinated with Tony Blair, who will face intense pressure to follow the White House's lead.
While Downing Street made it clear yesterday that it would resist such calls, the prime minister will prepare the ground for a climbdown this week when he acknowledges the need to come clean about the failure to uncover any banned weapons.
Peter Hain, the leader of the Commons, indicated the depth of government unease yesterday when he said that ministers might eventually hold MI6 responsible.
"I saw evidence, it was categoric, on Saddam possessing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction," he told BBC1's Politics Show.
"That informed our decision to go to topple him. I think we were right in doing so. But let's wait and see what - what the jury finds in the end."
His remarks, which highlighted intense discussions at the highest levels of government, came as a well-placed government source explained how the prime minister would change tack this week.
It is understood that Mr Blair will indicate that he understands critics who say it is no longer tenable for him to tell people to await the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, which is scouring the country for banned weapons.
The prime minister is expected to adopt the new approach in public tomorrow when he faces questions from the cross-party liaison committee of senior backbench MPs.
During his appearance - and when he takes the lead in a Commons debate on the Hutton report the next day - Mr Blair is expected to acknowledge the need to explain the failure to uncover any banned weapons so far.
A series of factors have persuaded Downing Street to change tack:
· the White House decision to change its stance on banned weapons, highlighted last week when Mr Bush all but cast himself as an aggrieved member of the public who wanted to "know the facts";
· the admission by David Kay, departing chief of the Iraq Survey Group, that the US was "almost all wrong" about Iraq's weapons programmes; and
· Lord Hutton's finding last week that neither the prime minister nor anyone else in Downing Street had "sexed up" the September 2002 arms dossier which was used to justify action against Iraq.
The "not guilty" verdict from Lord Hutton was a crucial factor.
"It is important that we can address these questions without accusations of having falsified the evidence," the senior government source said.
"But it is also valid to point out that the interim report of the Iraq Survey Group showed evidence of weapons programmes and evidence of concealment. The factual basis has not changed, but the climate has."
Mr Blair will choose his words carefully, because failure to uncover banned weapons represents a greater political threat to him than it does to Mr Bush, who never used Iraq's banned weapons as the main reason for going to war.
Simply acknowledging that he needs to offer an explanation will, however, mark a significant step for the prime minister.
The senior government source said last night that the prime minister would not hold up his hands and admit he was wrong when he declared in September 2002, on the day the arms dossier was published, that Iraq's banned weapons programme was "active, detailed, and growing".
Mr Blair will also resist pressure to hold an independent inquiry into the apparent intelligence failure, despite demands from the Tories.
His closest ally in cabinet, the constitutional affairs secretary Lord Falconer, told Sky News yesterday: "Little would be achieved by constantly looking and re-looking at what the intelligence shows at a particular time."
Downing Street's change of tack comes as British intelligence officials are increasingly acknowledging that no weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.
Whitehall officials say if none is found, it will be damaging to the intelligence agencies.
----
Scott Ritter - 'Israel knew Iraq had no WMDs'
Editor
Monday, February 02, 2004
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
http://www.iraq.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1571&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=b3d392337facb3d580b46910bc49221b
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said Sunday that the Israeli intelligence community was well aware that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
"That's the only conclusion you can reach," Ritter said in an interview with Y-Net in Washington. "Israeli intelligence reached it years ago."
In reaction, MK Ehud Yatom (Likud), a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said Sunday evening that Israel had always maintained and believed that Iraq did, in fact, retain weapons of mass destruction.
MK Roman Bronfman (Meretz) said that if Ritter is right, it means the government had purposely misled the Israeli public. "This just shows what price Sharon's government is prepared to pay in order to sow panic and evade undertaking any political action," he said.
Ritter, a former marine, was a weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998and a vocal critic of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq.
Last July, Ritter released a new book, accusing US President George W. Bush of illegally attacking Iraq and calling for "regime change" in the US in the next election. Ritter criticized key figures caught up in the US-led war, saying: Bush lied to the American people and Congress about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan lacks courage; and former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is "a moral and intellectual coward."
One month earlier, Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Yuval Steinitz (Likud) formed a subcommittee to investigate Israel's readiness and the intelligence community's activities in preparation for the Iraq war.
By December 2003 , the subcommittee had not yet submitted a report, and committee member Yossi Sarid (Meretz) demanded a new, more independent subcommittee be formed.
By then, conflicting reports published by a respected Tel Aviv think tank in December indicated deep disagreement over the failure by Israeli intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein's threat to strike the Jewish state.
One report, penned by veteran IDF intelligence officer Col. (res.) Ephraim Kam, the deputy head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, claimed Israeli intelligence was correct in assuming Iraq had the capability and intention of striking Israel during the recent US invasion, if only to play it safe following the previous conflict, in which Israel was hit by 39 Iraqi Scuds with conventional warheads.
The other report, by Brig.-Gen. (res.) Shlomo Brom, claimed Israeli intelligence not only was a "full partner" in the failure to correctly assess Saddam's capabilities and intentions, but had participated in an "exaggerated assessment" with the Americans and British.
While not overtly political, this was mainly due to "excessive intelligence anxiety" to adopt the worst-case scenario in order to be heroes if validated, and forgiven if their bleak prophecies did not materialize, Brom said. He warned that the good reputation enjoyed by Israeli intelligence could be jeopardized by this failure and hinted there may have been subtle political influence on the intelligence assessment.
Arieh O'Sullivan and Nina Glibert contributed to this report.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Bush to Establish Panel to Examine U.S. Intelligence
February 2, 2004
By DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02WEAP.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 - President Bush will establish a bipartisan commission in the next few days to examine American intelligence operations, including a study of possible misjudgments about Iraq's unconventional weapons, senior administration officials said Sunday. They said the panel would also investigate failures to penetrate secretive governments and stateless groups that could attempt new attacks on the United States.
The president's decision came after a week of rising pressure on the White House from both Democrats and many ranking Republicans to deal with what the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee has called "egregious" errors that overstated Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and made the country appear far closer to developing nuclear weapons than it actually was.
Mr. Bush's agreement to set up a commission to study the Iraq intelligence failures was first reported Sunday by The Washington Post. The officials described the commission Mr. Bush will create as a broader examination of American intelligence shortcomings - from Iran to North Korea to Libya - of which the Iraqi experience was only a part.
The pressure to establish such a panel became irresistible after David A. Kay, the former chief weapons inspector, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that "it turns out we were all wrong, probably," about the perceived Iraqi threat, which was the administration's basic justification for the war.
The commission will not report back until after the November elections. Some former officials who have been approached about taking part say they believe it may take 18 months or more to reach its conclusions.
"It became clear to the president that he couldn't sit there and seem uninterested in the fact that the Iraq intel went off the rails," said one senior official involved in the discussions. "He had to do something, and he chose to enlarge the problem, beyond the Iraq experience."
White House officials said the president was still completing a list of who would serve on the commission, expected to have about nine members. Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said Sunday that they were talking to "very distinguished statesmen and women, who have served their country and who have been users of intelligence, or served in a gathering capacity." Among those who have been consulted, officials say, is Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser under Mr. Bush's father. Mr. Scowcroft, who was a harsh critic of the process by which the current president decided to go to war, is currently the head of a foreign intelligence advisory board and it is unclear if he will play a role in the new commission.
Mr. Bush's effort is intended to put the study into a broader context - the retooling of American intelligence-gathering for a new era of terrorism and nuclear proliferation by rogue scientists and countries that may pass weapons into the hands of groups like Al Qaeda. But it is far from clear that those steps will insulate him from Democrats' charges that the White House tried to manipulate the Iraq intelligence to justify the March invasion.
Nor is it clear whether the commission's broader mandate will keep it from delving too deeply into the specific failures by the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies in the case of Iraq. Mr. Bush has been trying to avoid identifying individuals or agencies responsible for the Iraq failures. Senior administration officials concede they do not want to risk further alienating the C.I.A. or the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet.
In interviews on Sunday, White House officials rejected direct comparisons to the commission that is examining the intelligence failures surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks, or the commission that issued a blistering critique of NASA after the Columbia disaster a year ago. Instead, a senior White House official said Sunday afternoon, Mr. Bush intends to order a look "at the global security challenges of the 21st century."
The draft of the executive order specifically orders the commission to compare intelligence about Iraq with what was found on the ground there. But it is not clear whether the commission will decide to delve into issues beyond how the intelligence was gathered, and specifically how it was used. In the case of Iraq, that could put the commission into the midst of the politically charged question of whether the most dire-sounding possibilities were de-emphasized by Bush administration officials to build a national and international consensus on the need to take military action. The White House has denied any such effort to filter the intelligence.
"It has to have that included," Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on Fox News, making an argument that has divided Democrats and Republicans for months in the debate in Congress about prewar intelligence. "And that is still not settled."
While other studies of American intelligence lapses have been ordered by past administrations, none has taken place at the level of a presidential commission. Nor have they operated in the midst of a heated political debate over whether the president was the victim of bad intelligence, as Republicans argue, or whether he sought to cherry-pick the evidence that would justify the decision to go to war, as many of the Democratic candidates for president have contended.
Officials familiar with the discussions over the creation of the commission say that besides the Iraq experience, the commission may examine the failure to detect preparations for the nuclear tests that Pakistan and India set off in 1998, missed signals about how quickly Iran and Libya were moving toward a bomb with the aid of Pakistani scientists, and Al Qaeda's focus on an attack on the American mainland.
In Dr. Kay's testimony, he noted that the same intelligence agencies that overestimated Iraq's abilities seemed to have underestimated Iran's and Libya's, and still cannot get a clear fix on North Korea's.
Only last week, asked about setting up an inquiry, Mr. Bush said he would await the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, which was asked to find Iraq's unconventional weapons and which Dr. Kay led until last month. But it quickly became clear, White House officials said, that that position was untenable.
Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last week that he would not stand in the way of an independent intelligence inquiry as long as it did not interfere with the months-long investigation by his panel, which plans to distribute a draft report to members of Congress on Thursday.
The Senate panel "for the last six, seven, eight, nine months, has had 10 staffers working 24/7 on floor-to-ceiling documents and doing the most thorough investigative job on the entire intelligence community that's been done in 20 years," Mr. Roberts said in an interview last week. "We now have our draft report. I would at least like to get the draft report out and make it public, and then if people feel like they have to have an independent investigation, that's fine."
Mr. Roberts has said the draft report by his committee staff had found no evidence that the Bush administration put pressure on intelligence analysts to exaggerate the dangers posed by Iraq - a conclusion that matches one offered by Dr. Kay in his testimony last week. But the Senate report is expected to be highly critical of the Central Intelligence Agency and its counterparts.
Representative Porter J. Goss, the Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and one of the C.I.A.'s closest allies in Congress, said in an interview on Friday that "unless we're prepared for another intelligence failure, we need to get about the business of improving our intelligence service."
Mr. Goss added, however, that he believed that any new broad-based reviews should be forward-looking - exactly the path Mr. Bush appears to have chosen.
One senior House Republican aide said an independent review could also have a political benefit for Republicans by providing a forum to attack Democrats for shortchanging intelligence in previous years, an emerging Republican theme against Senator John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. Mr. Kerry has been particularly blistering in his assessment of how Mr. Bush used American intelligence, saying he was "misled" by Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as they urged him and his colleagues to vote for a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
Congressional officials said Sunday that Mr. Cheney had been in contact with leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee from both parties to discuss a possible blueprint for a broad, independent review of the state of American intelligence agencies. But Mr. Cheney, known for his reticence, gave little indication of what form the inquiry might take.
Mr. Cheney himself has much at stake in the path the commission takes: He offered some of the most dire statements about Iraq's abilities in the months leading up to the war. "It's not surprising," one White House official said, "that he's been so involved in the creation of the commission."
---------
Bush Meets With Ex-Inspector Before Naming Intelligence Panel
February 2, 2004
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/middleeast/02CND-WEAP.html?hp
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 - President Bush, saying that he wanted "all the facts," said today that he would consult with the former weapons inspector David A. Kay before naming an independent commission to examine intelligence shortcomings on Iraq and in the global war on terrorism.
"I'm putting together an independent, bipartisan commission to analyze where we stand, what we can do better as we fight this fight, this war against terror," he said, after a meeting with his cabinet to discuss a new federal budget plan.
First, he said, "I want to sit down with Mr. Kay," the former lead United States inspector in Iraq who has said that his team found no significant signs of banned weapons there.
Dr. Kay arrived at the White House shortly afterward, and later had lunch with the president, said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman.
The news that Mr. Bush will launch an inquiry into intelligence shortcomings on Iraq, on secretive states like Iran and North Korea, and on stateless terror groups like al-Qaeda, raised the pressure on some of his allies in the Iraq war to follow suit.
In London, a spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair, said that the government would announce late in the day or on Tuesday whether it would follow suit. It was expected to do so. And opposition party leaders in Spain and Australia sharply challenged their governments' reliance on American and British pre-war intelligence about Iraq, which pointed to threatening weapons programs that Dr. Kay said probably will never be found.
Mr. Bush has set no timetable for the inquiry, and he sidestepped a reporter's question today about whether Americans were owed an explanation before the Nov. 2 elections. Mr. McClellan said that the committee's work would extend past the Nov. 2 presidential election "so it doesn't become embroiled in partisan politics."
By using an executive order to establish the commission, Mr. Bush will retain greater control over its membership and mission; aides said it will probably be given until next year to complete its work.
But Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate Democratic leader, said that Mr. Bush may be seeking to maintain too much control.
The commission, he told reporters, "truly should be independent. It sounds as if the president is going to call for one where he gets to appoint each of the members and dictate the design and ultimately the circumstances under which they do their work."
Still, Mr. Daschle said he was pleased that the administration had agreed to an outside inquiry.
And Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey, a Democrat who had vainly pushed in July for creation of such a bipartisan commission, said that any investigative panel must consider the question of "whether there was any misrepresentation or exaggeration" of available intelligence.
Even in agreeing to the panel, Mr. Bush has said little about intelligence or policy-making errors. He repeated today his frequent assertions that Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi leader, was a dangerous man with dangerous intent "and the capabilities to cause great harm."
Still, by agreeing to create an independent commission he appears to be acknowledging that he cannot otherwise put to rest a central question: How his administration could so confidently have insisted on a threat from weapons that Dr. Kay said may never be found.
Until this is answered, congressmen of both parties have said in recent days, United States credibility abroad cannot be restored.
"The issue is not just shortcomings of U.S. intelligence," Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraka, a senior Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday, but "the credibility of who we are around the world and the trust of our government and our leaders."
Dr. Kay gave the administration some breathing room by saying last week that he knew of no political pressure to manipulate intelligence on Iraq.
Democrats, however, have said that any inquiry must examine whether policy-makers ignored hedges and qualifications from CIA analysts, and overrode their doubts, in marshaling a case against Iraq.
Mr. Bush provided no other details on his plans for the makeup of the bipartisan commission, though its members are expected to be well-known people with backgrounds in public service and solid groundings in intelligence.
-------- internet
UK Teenager Sentenced for Hacking U.S. Research Lab
February 2, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-britain-hacker.html
LONDON (Reuters) - A London teenager was sentenced on Monday to 200 hours of community service for hacking into the computer system of a U.S. physics research laboratory to store his personal collection of music and film files.
Joseph James McElroy, 18, of Woodford Green, told Southwark Crown Court in London that he hacked into 17 computer systems at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago over a two-week period in June 2002 to store and exchange hundreds of gigabytes worth of computer files with his friends.
The U.S. Department of Energy had sought 21,000 pounds ($38,000) in compensation for the breach, which forced technicians to shut down a portion of the computer network for three days, the court was told.
The government-funded laboratory does advanced research into subatomic particles, plus research on nuclear weapons.
In October, McElroy, a student at Exeter University in southwest England, pleaded guilty to violating Britain's Computer Misuse Act. The law, which covers a broad range of computer crimes from hacking to virus writing, carries a maximum prison term of five years.
Judge Andrew Goymer waived demands to repay the U.S. Department of Energy on grounds the breach at no point compromised the laboratory's confidential research data.
The laboratory, renowned for discovering the smallest elements of matter in the universe, has one of the largest computer facilities on the planet capable of storing vast amounts of research data.
For years, people have been hacking into corporate and university computer systems to store massive caches of film and music files when their own computers run out of disc space.
In such piggy-backing schemes, large institutions and corporations are chosen because the files can go undetected for long periods amid a sea of data.
A joint investigation between the Department of Energy and New Scotland Yard's Computer Crime Unit in Britain traced the break-in to McElroy in July 2003 after they identified his IP address, an identifier that matches computer users with their computer.
McElroy told police he was unaware the computers belonged to a government-funded research laboratory.
-------- justice
Detaining Hamdi
February 02, 2004
By Nat Hentoff
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040201-105108-1425r.htm
Of all the actions taken by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, none has been more controversial - across the political spectrum - than the president's empowering only himself to imprison an American citizen as an enemy combatant - without charges, indefinitely and without continuous access to a lawyer. This case, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, is now before the Supreme Court, despite the strong objections of the government, which urged the court not to take it.
The citizen, Yaser Hamdi, was captured in Afghanistan by bounty hunters in the Northern Alliance. He was allegedly caught fighting for the Taliban and turned over to American forces. A federal district judge ruled that the evidence against Mr. Hamdi has not been fully proved. But the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an 8-4 decision, ruled that the president has enough basis to hold Mr. Hamdi indefinitely without charges and without any prospect of a trial.
Mr. Hamdi, in a Navy brig for two years on American soil, had been denied any access to his lawyer. But suddenly, on Dec. 2, the Defense Department announced that he would be able to see his attorney - just a day before the Justice Department was required to file a brief before the Supreme Court regarding Mr. Hamdi.
In November, during oral arguments on Mr. Hamdi's case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, two of the three judges harshly rebuked the administration, signaling that the panel would find that the president does not have the constitutional authority - without the approval of Congress - to lock Mr. Hamdi up under these conditions. The Second Circuit's actual Dec. 18 decision stated exactly that.
Significantly, although the third judge on the Second Circuit panel supported the president's position, he did agree with the majority that the president, though actingascommander in chief in a military decision, did not have the authority to deny Mr. Hamdi the right to seehislawyer (whom he needed in order to help contest the government's case against him).
Accordingly, the government's abrupt decision to let Mr. Hamdi see his attorney seemed to be a transparent attempt to improve its position before the Supreme Court. However, the nine justices will still have to confront the Sixth Amendment question of this citizen's right to counsel, because the Defense Department has made it clear that giving Mr. Hamdi access to a lawyer at this time "is not required by domestic or international law and should not be treated as a precedent."
Moreover, SolicitorGeneral Theodore Olson, in thegovernment's brief to the Supreme Court, emphasized that the administration does not agree that it has any obligation to let Mr. Hamdi see a lawyer. It said it made an exception this time because it had finished questioning him.
I expect, therefore, that the SupremeCourtwillsee through the government's stratagem to let a lawyer slide into the Navy brig only by the sufferance of the government.
What the justices will have to deal with are the findings of the majority of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. First, in 1971, in reaction to the shameful herding of Japanese-Americans into detention camps during World War II, Congress passed the Non-Detention Act, which declares unambiguously that "no citizen shall be ... detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress."
But the administration claims that the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in September 2001, gives the president that unilateral authority in order to go after the terrorists who committed the September 11 attacks and continue to operate worldwide. However, the Second Circuit held that this post-September 11 resolution does not, in any way, authorize the president, solely on his say-so, to detain American citizens - let alone without charges, indefinitely and with no constitutionally guaranteed access to a lawyer.
Neal Sonnet, chair of the American Bar Association's task force on enemy combatants, said on ABC's "Nightline" Jan. 9 about the administration's insistence that the courts must defer to it in these matters: "...the administration has gone beyond the bounds. They have arrogated power to themselves that has never been done before in the history of this country."
Actually, Abraham Lincoln did just that during the Civil War, suspending habeas corpus and herding dissenters before military tribunals. However, in 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that "the Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." Lincoln, on his own say-so, had defied the Constitution.
President Bush, too, has denied citizen Yaser Hamdi the most fundamental due process rights at the very core of our rule of law. Will the Constitution survive high noon at the Supreme Court?
-------- prisons / prisoners
Inmates surrender, release guard
Around the Nation
February 02, 2004
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/national/aroundnation.htm
BUCKEYE ARIZONA - A prison hostage standoff ended yesterday when a corrections officer was released from the guard tower where a pair of inmates had held her for two weeks, a Corrections Department spokeswoman said.
The inmates surrendered, said spokeswoman Cam Hunter, adding that the guard, whose name was not released, was receiving medical attention.
The guard and a male officer were taken hostage Jan. 18 at the medium- to high-security Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis. The male officer was released Jan. 24.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
Bush Wants More Research Money for Hydrogen Cars
REUTERS USA:
February 2, 2004
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23651/story.htm
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will seek a 43 percent increase in federal funds to develop cars that run on hydrogen fuel and eventually have in place the service station infrastructure that will support the vehicles.
The $227 million in total research money is included in the government's budget for the 2005 spending year to be released by the White House on Monday, said an Energy Department official.
The money is part of President Bush's long-term initiative begun last year to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by developing hydrogen-powered fuel cells to run cars, trucks, homes and businesses.
The emissions-free vehicles would also cut pollution as their only by-product would be water.
The administration wants to have the hydrogen cars in the market and available to consumers at an affordable price near the end of the next decade.
However, many environmental groups say that is too long and believe U.S. oil imports could be reduced quicker if the government significantly boosted the mileage requirements for new gas-guzzling SUVs, pick-up trucks and minivans.
--------
California Asks EPA To Waive Ethanol Requirement
SACRAMENTO, California, (ENS)
February 2, 2004
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2004/2004-02-02-09.asp#anchor6
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the Bush administration to grant his state a waiver from a federal program that mandates the use of gasoline with added oxygenates, including ethanol.
Under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, areas in violation of federal smog standards must use gasoline with two percent oxygen in order to reduce harmful emissions. But California banned one oxygenate, MTBE, in 1999 because of concerns over groundwater contamination - and does not want to be required to use ethanol, the other alternative.
State officials say the requirement to use ethanol, a corn based fuel additive, is too costly and does too little to reduce air pollution.
"The Clean Air Act oxygen mandate slows environmental improvement, raises costs and is no longer required to ensure substantial and sustained ethanol use in California," Schwarzenegger said in his letter to EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt.
The California governor, a Republican, noted that a Blue Ribbon Panel of the U.S. Enivornmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that a minimum oxygen content is not needed in California, and the California Air Resources Board has demonstrated that "the oxygen requirement is detrimental to our efforts to achieve healthy air quality." "Furthermore, the oxygen requirement limits the ability of fuel producers to use the most cost effective mix of gasoline blends and, as a result, greatly increases fuel costs borne by California motorists," the governor wrote.
California has been seeking the waiver for five years, but officials are bolstered by recent moves that indicate the EPA may be ready to change course on the issue.
Last week, the EPA announced it is ready to grant New Hampshire a waiver from the program because of its concerns over MTBE. New Hampshire, however, opted into the program.
Federal lawmakers from ethanol producing states have lobbied against granting California a waiver for fear of what it might do to the market for the corn based fuel.
In his letter Schwarzenegger tried to defuse that concern and said there will still be a large market for ethanol in California without the mandate and added that he is considering mechanisms to "spur in state ethanol production."
-------- energy
Florida Pressed to Embrace Energy Efficiency Standards
TALLAHASSEE, Florida, (ENS)
February 2, 2004
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2004/2004-02-02-09.asp#anchor8
Environmentalists are appealing a decision by Florida state officials to deny a petition that would set new energy efficiency standards for 10 products sold in Florida.
Setting such standards could save Florida consumers more than $2.9 billion, according to the Florida Public Interest Research Group (Florida PIRG).
Florida state officials denied the petition, filed by Florida PIRG and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, last October. The petition would have started a new rulemaking process to set the standards.
In addition, consumer groups and civic leaders, Tampa Electric Company, and Florida TaxWatch urged Governor Jeb Bush to enact energy efficiency standards for 10 products and appliances sold in Florida.
"Historically, Florida has been a leader in setting state level energy efficiency standards," said Florida PIRG's Holly Binns. "It is very disappointing that Governor Bush's administration took a pass on this proposal. It is a great opportunity to substantially reduce Florida's exploding electricity demand and put Florida on the path to a smart, pro-consumer, pro-environment, clean energy future."
The appeal was filed last week in the wake of a new report on the state's energy future prepared for the Florida Energy Office and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
The report views appliance efficiency standards as "highly cost effective" and recommends that Florida "adopt and maintain strong energy codes and appliance standards."
In its denial of the petition, the DCA determined that six of the products proposed for stronger efficiency standards were not "consumer" products as defined by the Florida Energy Conservation Standards Act, and thus the agency does not have authority to establish new efficiency standards for these products under current law.
Although the agency agreed that it has the authority to adopt energy efficiency standards for four consumer products listed in the petition - ceiling fans, television cable boxes, torchiere lights, and external transformers for small appliances - it said the benefits from adopting these standards would be "marginal" and the issue should be left to the federal government.
Energy efficiency advocates say the savings from energy efficiency standards for these four products would be equivalent to nearly twice the electricity all the homes and businesses in the state capital, Tallahassee, used in 2000.
Several states around the country are moving to enact measures that establish new energy efficiency standards. Last month the Maryland General Assembly overrode Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich's veto of an energy efficiency bill that will set minimum efficiency standards for nine products commonly sold or installed.
Similar legislation is now being considered in other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and many of the New England states.
-------- environment
Bush Moves to Defuse Environmental Criticism
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 2, 2004; Page A05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3982-2004Feb1.html
The Bush administration is moving to defuse some of the severest criticisms of its environmental policies, just as several Democratic presidential candidates are taking aim at its record.
Polls reflect public unease with President Bush's handling of the environment, and some Democrats see an opening in this year's congressional and presidential elections -- even if history shows that the subject rarely ranks among voters' top concerns.
Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic front-runner, said that Bush has "the worst environmental administration that I've ever seen" and that the administration is "going backward on clean air, backward on clean water."
Yet Bush and his allies point to several environmental accomplishments after his early rollbacks of a number of Clinton administration air and water initiatives. As his reelection campaign heats up, Bush and his aides have reversed or fine-tuned a few of his most controversial actions, steps that might limit his political vulnerability this fall.
Last month, the president abandoned efforts to use a Supreme Court ruling as justification for rewriting clean water rules to reduce by nearly a third the number of streams and wetlands protected from commercial and residential development. The Sierra Club and other critics cited it as an example of what they consider Bush's bias in favor of industry and disregard for the environment.
Bush halted the rulemaking several days after meeting with officials of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and other groups representing nearly 40 million hunters, fishermen and conservationists. The groups said the proposed policy would destroy valuable fishing and hunting habitats. Bush, a hunter, was impressed by the argument and affirmed his commitment to allowing no net loss in the nation's wetlands, according to conservationists familiar with the meeting.
Last week, the administration sued an eastern Kentucky power cooperative for expanding two of its plants in violation of the Clean Air Act, making good on a pledge to get tough with polluters in the utility industry.
The administration last summer approved rules that would make it easier for older power plants to upgrade their facilities without installing costly anti-pollution equipment and without fear of being sued, which prompted the Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department lawyers to begin scaling back their enforcement efforts. Angry environmental and public health advocates said the new rules were a sop to Bush's campaign supporters within the utility industry and would exacerbate pollution.
After a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the rules from taking effect on Christmas Eve, however, EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt abruptly took a tougher approach to the utility industry. He warned industry leaders to begin cleaning up their plants in anticipation of new administration policies that would sharply reduce their pollutants in the coming decade, and he said new lawsuits were in the works.
The administration's policy reversals were "breathtaking," said one Democratic environmental strategist. They came on the heels of other administration accomplishments, including passage of "brownfields" legislation to clean up abandoned industrial sites; new and proposed rules for slashing health-damaging diesel emissions from vehicles and off-road machinery; new air quality standards for smog and fine particles; passage of a "Healthy Forests" initiative; and, most recently, announcement of a market-based approach to reduce by more than two-thirds power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury.
"The environmental groups have tended toward high-blown rhetoric, but in fact the president has a comprehensive approach to the environment and has addressed environmental issues across the board," said Terry Holt, a spokesman for the Bush reelection campaign.
Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said recently: "There's no question the administration has recognized [its environmental record] is a vulnerability with key voting groups . . . and I think they will work very hard to reverse" that perception. Greg Wetstone of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: "The environment is a prism through which the image of the president can be defined, and both parties see that and both parties are focusing on that."
While taking steps to enhance its environmental image, the administration has begun bestowing election-year favors on targeted states.
Just days before the Jan. 27 New Hampshire primary, the EPA announced it would exempt the Granite State from having to maintain high levels of the additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) in reformulated gasoline. MTBE has polluted New Hampshire lakes, and Kerry had criticized the administration for failing to deal with the problem. Meanwhile, Leavitt recently traveled to Maryland to announce increased funding for Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration.
Administration and Bush campaign officials play down any suggestion of a coordinated effort to burnish the president's environmental record. But some activists say the recent spate of environmentally friendly initiatives contrasts with the first year of Bush's presidency, when officials challenged dozens of Clinton administration environmental regulations and policies -- including one to toughen the standards for arsenic in drinking water -- and the United States withdrew from an international global warming treaty.
"There will always be critics, and I accept that," Leavitt said in a recent interview. "But we are doing the right thing for the right reasons and that's the job the president has given me." The Democratic presidential candidates include some of the president's toughest critics on the environment. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has blasted Bush's handling of global warming and has co-authored legislation with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to impose mandatory caps on carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas emission.
Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) has sharply criticized administration efforts to weaken the New Source Review enforcement rules on aging power plants. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean regularly tells audiences that his first act as president would be to repeal "every single" executive order implemented by Bush dealing with the environment.
Kerry has stressed the relationship between progressive environmental policy and development of alternative sources of energy on the one hand and job creation, economic expansion and energy security on the other. He contends that Bush has promoted a false dichotomy between tough environmental protections and economic development -- just as Bush opposed the Kyoto global warming treaty because he said it would hurt the U.S. economy.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Israeli nuclear spy to be freed in April but under surveillance: report
JERUSALEM (AFP)
Feb 02, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040202083536.uoobzgl2.html
A former Israeli nuclear technician jailed for 18 years for leaking details of the Jewish state's atomic weapons program will be freed in April but placed under tight surveillance, an Israeli daily said Monday.
Israel's security services will bar Mordechai Vanunu from giving interviews to the press, publishing a book, travelling overseas or even within Israel, and plan to monitor his correspondence, the newspaper Yediot Ahronot reported.
Vanunu will also be required to regularly check in with police.
According to the paper, Israel's security services claim the tough measures are necessary, as Vanunu has declared his intention in numerous letters to reveal new secrets about Israel's nuclear weapons program upon his release.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was to participate in talks with justice ministry officials to give the official seal of approval to the "restrictive measures" to be placed on Vanunu, Yediot Ahronot reported.
Vanunu is due to be released on April 21.
----
70,000 protesters form human chain in Taiwan
FEB 2, 2004
AFP / Asia Times
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,233030,00.html
TAIPEI - Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) mobilised 70,000 supporters to form a human chain yesterday in protest against missiles in China being aimed at the island. Show of hands by Democractic Progressive Party supporters in Taiwan yesterday. These women were among the 70,000 people who formed a human chain to protest against Chinese missiles aimed at the island. -- AFP
Led by former president Lee Teng-hui, the protesters joined hands along a 62km stretch of highway in southern Tainan county, hometown of President and DPP head Chen Shui-bian.
In a symbolic move, protesters faced in the direction of the Chinese mainland and raised their hands at precisely 2.28pm.
The timing represented the date Feb 28, 1947 when thousands of native Taiwanese were killed by nationalist troops during a riot.
The rally was a warm-up exercise for an even longer human chain to be organised on Feb 28 when about one million people are expected to hold hands along the 400km length of the island.
The group shouted slogans such as 'anti-missile', 'want peace' and 'peace referendum to save Taiwan', referring to a controversial referendum that the DPP government plans to hold alongside presidential elections on March 20.
In an apparent move to allay concern in Washington about the ballot changing the political status quo, Mr Chen has watered down the wording of the referendum question.
It would ask voters whether Taiwan should buy more anti-missile weapons if China refused to withdraw its missiles and whether Taipei should open talks with Beijing rather than demand that China withdraw the missiles.
The United States apparently remains unconvinced about the need for a public vote.
'As I understand it, referenda are generally reserved for items or issues which are either very divisive or very difficult,' US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Friday.
'The wording I've seen... seems to be neither divisive nor difficult.'
He made his remarks during a trip to China and Washington observers said it was significant that the comments came from Mr Armitage, who is known for his pro-Taiwan stance, the China Times reported yesterday.
The Chen administration has played down his comments, saying the US and Taiwan are still communicating with each other on the issue.
The heat on Taiwan over the planned referendum is expected to intensify with China's top official handling Taiwan affairs, Mr Chen Yunlin, visiting Washington today.
----
Temperatures rising over imminent release of Israel's "nuclear spy"
JERUSALEM (AFP)
Feb 02, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040202143847.w47n4diz.html
The upcoming release of Mordechai Vanunu, the whistleblower jailed for exposing Israel's nuclear arsenal, was never going to be an easy pill to swallow but it comes at a difficult time for the Jewish state, under growing pressure to come clean about its atomic weapons programme.
Vanunu, who worked as a technician at the Dimona nuclear facility in southern Israel, was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1986 after giving details about Israel's secret weapons programme to Britain's Sunday Times.
Israeli agents subsequently lured Vanunu from London to Italy, where he was kidnapped and brought to Israel. Tried in secret, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
But his upcoming release, scheduled for April 21, comes at a difficult time for Israel which is facing increasing diplomatic pressure following a recent declaration by Libya that it would renounce its non-conventional weapons programme.
A month earlier, Iran said it would suspend its uranium enrichment programme and allow nuclear inspections, turning the spotlight firmly onto the monitoring of non-conventional weapons in the Middle East.
Although Israel has firmly adhered to a policy of "nuclear ambiguity", never confirming or denying it possessed nuclear weapons, foreign experts believe the Jewish state holds at least 200 atomic warheads.
With Vanunu's release likely to draw unwelcome additional attention to Israel's undeclared arsenal, Israel's security establishment is planning to use drastic measures to curb his freedom, the Yediot Aharonot daily said Monday.
"The security establishment is almost certain that if Vanunu is allowed to go on his way, he will leave Israel and begin to sing. To prevent this problem ... the justice ministry and defence ministry are examining a number of possibilities, all based on emergency regulations," the paper reported.
The "package of restrictions" could include putting Vanunu in administrative detention, stopping him from leaving the country and restricting his movement inside Israel.
Under administrative detention regulations, the authorities can detain a suspect for renewable periods of six months without charges or trial. It is a practise frequently used to detain suspected Palestinian militants.
Moreover, Vanunu's correspondence would be monitored and he would be required to regularly check in with police, the paper said.
Under such regulations "if he against lets his tongue loose, he can be tried and thrown into jail".
Security officials claim the tough measures are necessary, as Vanunu has declared his intention in numerous letters to reveal new secrets about Israel's nuclear weapons programme upon his release.
Although it was impossible to know whether or not Vanunu still had "dangerous" information, his forthcoming release would put Israel in a difficult position because it will focus attention back on the nuclear agenda, a former senior military official said.
"It will be very inconvenient because Israel's interest is, of course, to keep this issue as quiet as possible," he told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"One has to assume that he will going on telling whatever he knows," he said.
Asked whether he believed Vanunu still knew information that could damage Israel's security, the source said: "It's quite possible that he does."
Despite Vanunu's revelations to the Sunday Times, there was quite a lot of information available about Israel and its nuclear capability, and his actions did not actually damage the state's policy of ambiguity, he said.
Dan Yakir, chief legal counsel for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, said Vanunu would have little recourse to fight any surveillance measures or restrictions taken against him.
"Unfortunately, there are ways to restrict a person administratively under the Emergency Defence Regulations of 1945 and other legal instruments," he said, referring to a draconian set of laws drafted during the British mandate, but still used by Israel in the Palestinian territories.
He said any appeal against the planned restrictions would have to be fought in the Supreme Court.
"The 1945 Emergency Defence Regulations are currently being used in the occupied territories but its use against Israelis is very rare," Yakir said.
The former security official said although such restrictive measures would have to be legally sanctioned, it was highly possible they could successfully prevent Vanunu from leaking further information.
"In 1986, he had nothing to lose, now he will have his freedom to lose," he said. "Everything is relative in life. There is a big difference between being in a prison cell and being free in Israel."
-------
------- 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.