Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
The Threat from Made-in-USA WMDs
All things Radioactive
Crimes in Iraq - Lest We Forget Thirteen Years of Sanctions
Confronting the realities of the Pak-US relationship
The paradox of Pakistan-US relations
An atomic bargain hampers hunt for illicit weapons
Iran Has Right to Civilian Nuclear Program: Arab Official
Iran to begin construction of heavy water reactor
Iran to Build Reactor That Can Produce Plutonium
Group says N. Korea has enough plutonium to build many nuclear weapons
Holes in the Sky
UK-US military ties not workable
Council, Udall tackling Flats future
New Jersey Reaches $1 Million Settlement with Owner of Oyster Creek
River cleanup proposal changed
Rice faces accusation on eve of testimony
Condoleezza Rice testimony
Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission
Analysis Bush Credibility on 2 Wars -- Iraq, Terrorism -- Under Challenge
Kerry Targets Budget Deficit New Proposals Echo Clinton
MILITARY
Afghan Warlord's Troops Overrun City
Ten Years Later, Rwanda Mourns Genocide
Brutal Conflict in Sudan Brings Warnings by Bush and Annan
Iraqis threaten to kill Japanese hostages
Japan has no plan to withdraw troops despite hostage reports
Lockheed lowers Titan-buyout offer
Syria-EU Trade Deal Stalls Over Chemical Weapons Issue
A Democratic China? Not So Fast, Beijing Leaders Say
China Acts to Ease Tensions With Hong Kong
A Call for an Exit Door from Iraq
US stoking unrest before festival, say Shia
Mosques will be targeted: US
Anti-U.S. Uprising Widens in Iraq;
Line Blurs Between Civilians, Fighters
U.S. Vows to Retake 2 Southern Cities in Hands of Militants
Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand
India Land Mine Attack Kills 26 Police
Pakistanis ready to launch fresh anti-terror offensive
Government Licenses First Private Rocket
Russian Researcher, Asserting Innocence, Given 15 Years
Russian Court Gives Scientist 15-Year Sentence for Spying for U.S.
Diplomacy and Security
US Troops Shift Gears In Iraq Fighting
Rotation Reassessed as Toll Spikes
Under Fire, Security Firms Form An Alliance
U.S. May Delay Departure of Some Troops in Iraq
Point Proved?
Condi Gets A Reality Check
Rice Seeks to Shift Blame
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
System Can Detect Fraudulent Passports
Senate Panel OKs $1B for Rail Security
Push Is On to Give Legal Immigrants Vote in New York
Panel to Ask About Pre-9/11 Planning
Bush Understood Threat Posed by Al Qaeda, Rice Tells Panel
9/11 Panel: Bush White House Withheld Papers
FBI's Ability In Espionage Is Questioned
Suit Contests Military Trials of Detainees at Cuba Base
Yemeni's Attorney Tries to Halt Tribunals
What the 9/11 Commission Overlooks
OTHER
Cleanup of Site Near Kearny May Become E.P.A. Project
Lead in DC Drinking Water Could Signal National Problem
Global Electronic Waste Stream Poisons New Delhi
Lead in DC Drinking Water Could Signal National Problem
Ranges of hundreds of threatened, endangered species
Environmentalists call for cruise ships to clean up dumping
ACTIVISTS
Police tell anti-war protestor he's a security threat
Peace groups protest against deployment
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
The Threat from Made-in-USA WMDs
by Mina Hamilton
April 8, 2004
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/April2004/Hamilton0408.htm
Iraq's alleged nuclear threat sinks into the dustbin of history. Americans can stop worrying about atomic perils? Wrong.
Americans are at risk from American-as-apple-pie, Stars-and-Stripes, and made-in-USA, WMDs.
A just-released study, Danger Lurks Beneath: The Threat to Major Water Supplies from US Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Plants, details the danger. Written by Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, a high energy, nuclear physicist, who has been studying nuclear hazards for 28 years and published by the public interest group, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, this book will curl your hair.
Danger Lurks Beneath shows EVEN IF THE US NUCLEAR ARSENAL IS NEVER USED a deadly plague has been released upon the land and water. Though most of the 13 nuclear weapons factories are currently shutdown (a situation President Bush would love to change), the contamination is spreading.
The process of manufacturing nuclear bombs is not dramatic. Unlike an actual nuclear exchange no humans are burned to a crisp, no cities are pulverized. But the ingredients for a nuclear bomb must be mined, sheared, heated, melted, liquefied, transformed into gas, spun, fashioned into metal, nuked, chopped up, put through chemical baths, extracted - all the while unleashing a host of poisons.
The hazard isn't just to the citizens living nearby to the factories. The poisons threaten us all.
Imagine the distance between Boston and New York. It's a five-hour, pedal-to-the-metal highway jaunt. It's also the alarming distance toxins have migrated away from the Hanford nuclear weapons factory in Washington.
Mussels and oysters found on the Washington coast are contaminated with radioactive poisons that flowed down to the coast from Hanford, 200 miles upstream. This is one of many devastating findings in Danger Lurks Beneath.
How can we take in the enormity of what's happened and is still happening?
We learn that four major rivers and many minor rivers are already contaminated or at risk. The Columbia River in Washington, the Snake River in Idaho, the Tuscaloosa River in Georgia, the Rio Grande in New Mexico, the Great Miami River and Ohio Rivers in Ohio.
How do we wrap our minds around four major rivers at risk? What does it mean for people who swim, fish or drink from those rivers? What about people picnicking alongside those rivers? Are the grasses along the banks safe? Is the sediment toxic?
The risk is not a hypothetical, let's-worry-in-ten-years matter. At the Fernald nuclear weapons factory in Ohio the plant managers deliberately poured - via a buried pipeline -tons of uranium into the Great Miami River. Yes, TONS. And this is a river that flows into the Ohio River from which many municipalities draw drinking water.
Ohio communities are not the only ones whose water supplies are threatened. One water reservoir has already had to be shutdown, the Great Western reservoir in the suburbs of Denver. It's contaminated by runoff from the Rocky Flats factory. Now a second nearby water reservoir, Standley Lake, is also polluted by radioactivity.
The information in Danger Lurks Beneath is so shocking we want to comfort ourselves, assure ourselves, Hey we don't live there or near there. Problem: The toxins are seeping into the food chain in sinister ways. For example, ever eat farm-fed trout? That delicious, fresh trout staring up from your plate was probably grown in water drawn from the Snake River aquifer in Idaho. The nearby Idaho nuclear weapons factory is polluting the aquifer.
For the first time in 2000, plutonium was detected in two locations in this aquifer. A host of other nasty chemicals and radionuclides had already been found in this vital water source.
Not that the trout are contaminated, at least, as far as we know. But here's an indicator of how real the threat is: several years ago a trout farmer tried to sell his Idaho hatchery business to the company, W.R. Grace. He was turned down. What were W.R. Grace's reasons? They didn't want a fish farm that gets its water from a source above which nuclear waste is buried. (1)
W.R. Grace was not whistling in the dark. It's a company that knows about nuclear hazards. Back in the 1960's, Grace ran a now-defunct nuclear reprocessing factory in West Valley, NY.
Danger Lurks Beneath shows that the contamination from nuke weapons factories is widespread and it's traveling along unknown and unmapped pathways. We're fooling ourselves if we think we're safe -- anywhere.
The information is this book would be easier to swallow if there were a villain, an archenemy like Saddam to blame. But these villains are US government employees making extraordinarily dumb decisions, decisions driven by a blind dedication to so-called national security.
During four decades worth of bomb making the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor the Department of Energy adopted an out-of-sight, out-of-mind policy. Dump the waste where nobody can see it. Pump poison into aquifers, pipe it to rivers, dump it into streams, ponds and trenches, site burial grounds in swamps. And, all the while, lie about what you're doing.
This WMD threat makes Saddam's "nuclear" menace look like a cupcake. Ditto North Korea's or Iran's.
Don't expect President Bush to make jokes about this threat. No way is he going to engage in a comic routine looking under the desk in the Oval Office for by-products of the US's bomb building spree.
Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, the US Congress, the media and any sane member of the human species should be trumpeting the findings of this report across the land. Will they? Are they?
Are we?
(1) Perspectives of a Former Idaho Trout Farmer, www.ieer.org/sdafiles.
To obtain a copy of Danger Lurks Beneath go to www.ananuclear.org. If you don't feel up to the 270-page study, an Executive Summary is available. Also you can download individual chapters on nuclear factories nearest you or your family and friends.
Mina Hamilton is a writer based in New York City. She is a Contributing Editor to Danger Lurks Beneath: The Threat to Major Water Supplies from US Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Plants. She can be reached at minaham@aol.com.
-------- depleted uranium
All things Radioactive
Anna Bachmann,
Electronic Iraq,
8 April 2004
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1449.shtml
Just after my arrival in Iraq several weeks ago, I located the new Iraqi Ministry of Environment and talked to Dr. Ali Azziz, the Ministry Advisor. I spoke with him about my interest in looking at the issues of Depleted Uranium and radiation exposure at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility just south of Baghdad (this facility was looted after the war because the U.S. Military failed to secure it. Many barrels of yellow cake uranium and other materials were dumped at the site and the barrels removed to be used by community members for things like water and food storage).
Dr. Azziz told me that if I was interested in Radiation issues and Tuwaitha, I should talk to Dr. Bushra at the Radiation Center in Jadryia neighborhood of Baghdad. I have since visited Dr. Bushra and her facility about a half a dozen times and each visit opens up completely new questions.
Imagine, if you will, the upscale neighborhood of Jadryia filled with large, comfortable homes of brick and stone, here you will find the Radiation Center located right next to a small community hospital. When you walk into the facility there is a sign in Arabic that includes the English letters, "W.H.O." The World Health Organization is funding the rebuilding of the Center. As you pass the sign you walk into a construction site filled with bricks, cement, and paint spattered workers.
"This is the Radiation Center?" I ask.
Apparently so. We are ushered into a small, unfinished room for a search of our belongings and a quick pat down (my translator calls this her daily "massage"), then we are led through the unfinished building, dodging workers carrying fresh cement, up some stairs covered in dirt and brick dust to the roof. There is a roof-top structure that contain a few rooms with desks, a computer and several men and woman professionally-dressed. These are the staff of the Radiation Center.
We are introduced to Dr. Bushra, a plumb, pleasant looking woman wearing hijab (head scarf) who speaks reasonably good English.
And so begin the odyssey of pleasant discussions on the unpleasant topic of radiation and Depleted Uranium that stretched over the course of the next six weeks. The Radiation Center was started in 1971 and is in charge of all sources of radioactivity in the country of Iraq. This includes any radioactive materials in hospitals, universities and industry as well as all radioactive waste. They are responsible for routine and emergency environmental monitoring for radiation.
Dr. Bushra, like many on the staff, is a physicist and has been with the Center for many years. She was on the original World Health Organization survey team that did an assessment of the community around the Tuwaitha Nuclear Facility after the war and the looting. This original survey lasted three months (May - June) and included sampling of soil, food, vegetation and water. It also included, Bushra says, a health assessment for 4,000 community members.
And I'm in luck, she tells me, they are just about to start a follow-up survey and I'm more than welcome to tag along. I can't believe my luck or how open Dr. Bushra is to talking to me. But it turns out that it is not quite that simple. The promised survey trip invite takes several weeks to materialize and when it finally occurs it is more like a guided tour than an actual survey.
"And here on your right we have the earthen walls of the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility. Oh, on on your left is the impoverished village of Jeser-Diyala."
We stop at a small school where a Ministry of Health team is taking blood samples from the children. We ask one of the team members if they are seeing any health effects from the radiation that this community was exposed to. We are told that there are a lot of health problems in the community made only more complicated by the problems of poverty, poor nutrient, hygiene and sanitation. But with radiation exposure there are more long-term effects. Within two years, we are told, we can expect to see a rise in Leukemia in these villages.
But Dr. Bushra's rhetoric is always positive. "There is no problem," she assures us, "It's all taken care of." So persistent is this line of Dr. Bushra's I try to ask her more detailed questions on the issue of Depleted Uranium.
Here is a typical conversation:
Anna: "I understand that the Coalition Forces used Depleted Uranium-tipped munitions in Baghdad. Have you found evidence of this?"
Bushra: "No, no evidence. There is no problem."
Anna: "But I have a report here that the former Ministry of Planning was struck by Depleted Uranium."
Bushra: "Oh, well, I guess we'll have to take a look at that."
Several weeks later, when I ask her this question again, her response is, "Oh, we can not go there. Security. We can not get permission to enter."
Anna: "But you should be able to get permission. Who do you need to go to to get this permission?"
Bushra: "Hmmm. I don't know."
You don't know?! This is the person who says that she is in charge of investigating Depleted Uranium contamination in all of Iraq and she doesn't know where to go to get permission to enter a site potentially loaded with this material?
Anna: "Well, I do know of one place that you can go without permission. I've been there twice. It's a huge dump yard on the outskirts of Baghdad where they put lots of Iraqi military equipment after the war. There are a lot of tanks there and many were potentially struck with Depleted Uranium. It's very easy to find. Lots of people know about it. It's right off the highway."
Bushra: "Oh? Really? Where is it?"
So we gave her directions and were left wondering what this Radiation Center really does. I've spoken to many people here in Iraq about this apparent openness that masks an apparent deeper reluctance to speak the truth. Dr. Bushra seems to be a master of nodding her head 'Yes,' when what she is really saying is 'No." In many way, I'm amazed she is willing to talk to me at all. There are a lot of tight lips on the issue of radiation at Tuwaitha and Depleted Uranium. She could always have said, "I can't speak to you. You'll have to leave." But she remains as ever, always polite and accommodating.
One man working with an Iraqi environmental non-governmental organization explained to me, "It was dangerous to share information under the former regime. Iraqis have been living with this oppression for so many years, it has become a part of our bones."
On April 10th, the construction of the Radiation Center will be complete and there will be a grand opening ceremony. I plan to attend but I feel that it will take more than a ribbon cutting ceremony to begin a more open era of looking at the difficult questions of radiation in Iraq. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, with a radioactive half-life numbering in the millions of years, they will have plenty of time to grapple with these issues.
Anna Bachmann is a Port Townsend, Washington resident. She has been in Iraq since February 2004 with Voices in the Wilderness.
----
Crimes in Iraq - Lest We Forget Thirteen Years of Sanctions
By Felicity Arbuthnot
Freelance Journalist - London
08/04/2004
Islam Online
http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2004/04/article_03.shtml
When Martti Ahtisaari, then Special Rapporteur to the UN, visited Iraq in March 1991 just after the end of the Gulf War, he wrote, "Nothing we had heard or read could have prepared us for this particular devastation - a country reduced to a pre-industrial age for a considerable time to come."
UN reports on Iraq's water, electricity, health care, and education in 1989 described Iraq as near First World standards. The country was regarded as having the most sophisticated medical facilities in the Middle East. The embargo, implemented on Hiroshima Day 1990 to pressure Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, had an almost instant negative impact. Iraq imported a broad range of items, 70 percent of everything, from pharmaceuticals to film, educational materials to parts for the electricity grid, water purifying chemicals to everything necessary for waste management; and at the consumer level also, almost everything that a developed society takes for granted was imported.
With all trade denied, the Iraqi dinar (ID), worth US$ 3 in 1989, became virtually worthless: ID 250, formerly US$ 750 did not even buy a postage stamp in neighboring Jordan. Staple foods multiplied up to 11,000-fold in price. With no trade, unemployment spiraled and many - in a country where obesity had been a problem - faced hunger and deprivation. The US and UK-driven UN sanctions, in fact, mirrored a pitiless Middle Ages siege. With Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait the embargo should have been lifted, but a further relentless US and UK-driven "war of moving goal posts" began, and the majority of children in Iraq - who are fourteen years old now - have never known a normal childhood. Even birthday parties,`eid celebrations - and Christmas and Easter celebrations for Christians -became victims; few had the money for the feast or the gifts.
In a country where obesity had been a problem, many faced hunger and deprivation.
Ten months after the war, I stood in the pediatric intensive care unit of Baghdad's formerly flagship Pediatric Teaching Hospital. A young couple stood, faces frozen with terror, as a nurse tried frantically to clear the airway of their perfect, tiny, premature baby. There was no suction equipment. "It is at a time like this, all your training becomes a reflex action," remarked my companion, Dr. Janet Cameron, from Glasgow, Scotland, "and in a unit like this, you know exactly where everything will be - but there is nothing here." The fledgling life turned from pink to an ethereal grey, to blue, flickered, and went out. Since then, over a million lives have gone out due to "embargo related causes," a silent holocaust initiated on Hiroshima Day.
Doctors were remarking in bewilderment at the rise in childhood cancers and in birth deformities, which they were ironically comparing with those they had seen in textbooks after the nuclear testing in the Pacific Islands in the 1950s. In 1991, only the United States' and the United Kingdom's top military planners knew that they had used radioactive and chemically toxic depleted uranium (DU) weapons against the Iraqis. Just weeks later, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency wrote a "self initiated" report and sent it to the UK government, warning that if "fifty tonnes of the residual DU dust" had been left "in the region" there would, they estimated, be half a million extra cancer deaths by the end of the century (i.e., the year 2000).
The Pentagon eventually admitted to an estimate of 325 tons; some independent analysts estimate as much as 900 tons. Estimates of the added burden of last year's illegal invasion are that up to a further 2,000 tons of the residual dust remain to poison water, fauna, flora and to be inhaled by the population and the occupiers, causing cancers and genetic mutations in the yet-to-be-conceived. DU remains radioactive for 4. 5billion years. Some scientists estimate that it will still be poisoning the earth, the unborn, the newborn "when the sun goes out." Iraq, the land of ancient Mesopotamia - like Afghanistan and the Balkans - has become a silent potential weapon of mass destruction for the population and geographical neighbors.
Ironically, as cancers spiraled, the UN Sanctions Committee added to its limitless list of items denied to Iraq, treatment for cancers (and heart disease) since they contain minute amounts of radioactive materials. Iraqi scientists, they argued, might extract the radioactive materials from these medications and make weapons from them. One exasperated expert commented, "Even were the technology available - and it is not - one would probably need to extract the radioactivity from every pill and intravenous treatment on earth, to make one crude device." So little Iraqis, in their irradiated land, could only suffer the most lethal effects of radiation but were denied all of the therapeutic ones in the name of "we the people of the United Nations" - a United Nations to which, incidentally, Iraq was one of the first signatories.
In the West, 70 percent of cancers are now largely curable or with long remissions. In Iraq they are almost always a death sentence. On another early visit after the war, I went to a ward where just two small boys, aged three and five lay alone, in an attempt to isolate them. They had acute myeloid leukemia and hopelessly compromised immune systems, rendering them vulnerable to any infection. The three-year-old, whose name translated as "the vital one," was covered with bruises from the leaking capillaries bleeding internally and rigid with pain. There was not even an aspirin available. His eyes were full of unshed tears and I realized he had taught himself not to cry - sobs would rack his agonized little body further.
"I now know it is actually possible to die of shame."
Leaving, I stooped to stroke the face of the five-year-old, who was in an identical condition. In a gesture that must have cost more than could ever be imagined, he reached and clutched my hand tightly, as do children everywhere, responding to affection. I left the ward, leaned against a wall and prayed that the ground would open and swallow me. I wrote at the time, "I now know it is actually possible to die of shame."
Families would sell all they had to buy cancer and other vital medication on the black market, and since hospitals no longer had the requisite equipment to test it, could not even check to ensure it was safe. I remember an enchanting three-year-old, the bane of the doctors, his energy levels and mischief belying his precarious health. As I was talking to Dr. Selma Haddad, a man burst through the door and thrust a small packet into her hand. She looked at it, then said to me, "This is his uncle, he is the last one in the family with anything left to sell. He has sold all he has for 500 milligrams of medication. This child needs 800 milligrams a month, for a year."
When, occasionally, pitiful amounts of medication came in, doctors gave half the needed dose so the next patient would have some, too - rendering effectiveness virtually nil. They would meticulously write the patient's protocol (dosage, medication, amount, time to administer) on used paper, writing between the lines, and between the between, on cardboard, on anything (paper was vetoed by the UN Sanctions Committee) then solemnly write under each item, N/A, N/A, N/A - not available. Sometimes just one would be available - in half a dose.
I remember Ali, eighteen months, lying nearly unconscious in his mother's arms in the packed child cancer clinic. "With bone marrow transplant, we could do something, but there is nothing," said Dr. Haddad. The mother begged and pleaded, but beds and even palliative care were for the glimmer of chances, not for the small no-hopers, such was the total destruction of a fine, free, sophisticated health service. Leaving the hospital, I found Ali's mother sitting on the ground, leaning against one of the great white entrance pillars, in her black abaya, her tears streaming onto his small, still face.
"How do you cope?" I asked Dr. Haddad on one visit: doctors who have all the skills and knowledge yet no ability to treat those they care so passionately about. She thought for a moment, then said quietly, "I take them all home with me, in my heart." In a way, she said, the older children were the hardest. She sat on Ezra's bed, holding her hand and stroking her hair. "They know they are going to die." Ezra was beautiful, 17 years old, and the cancer had paralyzed her central nervous system. But it had not prevented her crying. She had been crying for three weeks, because she wanted to go home, to complete her studies, to go to university and graduate. Most of all, she wanted to live. As I left, her grandmother grabbed my hand, "Please," she begged, "take her with you, make her better." Parents, grandparents, made the same plea, again and again. They did not ask where you were from, who you were, or for their beloved back, just, Please, take him or her and make them well again.
"I asked death, 'What is greater than you?' Death replied, 'Separation of lovers is greater than me,'" was one of his collected phrases. He was 13.
Then there was Jassim. In the same ward as Ezra, he lay with his huge eyes and glossy hair, listlessly viewing the barren ward. He had been selling cigarettes on the streets of Basra to support his family until he became ill. "This is Felicity and she writes for a living," said Dr. Haddad. Jassim was transformed; he glowed and showed me the poems he spent his days writing, when he still had the energy. He collected phrases, too, to incorporate where he thought appropriate. I told him all writers collect words and phrases, they are our tools. He glowed again, delighting that he was being understood and that his instincts were guiding him correctly along his passionate path. "I asked death, 'What is greater than you?' Death replied, 'Separation of lovers is greater than me,'" was one of his collected phrases. He was 13.
One of his poems was called "The Identity Card." In translation, it reads:
The name is love,
The class is mindless,
The school is suffering,
The governorate is sadness,
The city is sighing,
The street is misery,
The home number is one thousand sighs.
He watched my face for reaction. Lost for words, eventually I said, "Jassim, if you can write like this at thirteen, think what you will do at twenty." I asked him if I could incorporate his poem in articles from that visit and said I would send them back to him, so he would see it in print. Some weeks later, I did just that and sent cuttings back to him with a friend and imagined him glowing again. He had fought and fought, but lost his battle just before my friend arrived. He never saw his poem in print and became just another statistic in the "collateral damage" of sanctions by the most inhuman regime ever overseen by the United Nations, which arguably condemned the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child - the most widely signed convention in history - to the dust, to the mass of graves of Iraq's children, resulting from the embargo years.
Children that survived, wrote Professor Magne Raundalen, possibly the world's foremost expert on children in war zones, who heads the Centre for Crisis Studies, in Bergen, Norway, were "amongst the most traumatised child Population" on earth. And there was no chance of recovery. Count Hans von Sponeck, who resigned as UN Co-ordinator in Iraq, like his predecessor Denis Halliday (who had cited the sanctions he was there to oversee as generating "the destruction of an entire nation, it is as simple and terrifying as that"), spoke of not only of medical and nutritional problems, but "intellectual genocide."
School books were vetoed. All professionals - doctors, engineers, architects -qualified from 1989 course material. An Iraqi doctor qualifying in 2003 was fourteen years behind in clinical developments, though never in commitment.
Children, Iraq's future, were also marooned in the academia of the1980 s. Isolation was searing. On one visit, this writer was asked for a radio interview and the usual ground rules were laid down: no politics. It was a pleasant half-hour of history, culture - and only mildest current politics. Then the presenter said that all guests were asked to select a piece of music and dedicate it to whom they wished. ("We like to think of ourselves as Baghdad's BBC Radio 3.") I chose Stevie Wonder's "I Just Called to Say I Love You" and dedicated it to the children of Iraq.
Children that survived were "amongst the most traumatised child Population" on earth.
The next day I had a crash course in human relations. I was repeatedly stopped in the street, whispered to at a conference, by people from all walks of life. Was I the lady on the radio last night? On affirmation, the comment was always virtually the same: "Thank you so much, we are so isolated, my wife (or husband) was in tears, I was in tears, my children...thank you." And no, I know orchestration; this was not.
Several years ago, I talked to the young who should have had all before them - a social mixture, between 18 and 21 years old - and asked them about their hopes, dreams and fears. None had a dream. "I dream of having enough milk for my baby," said a young mother. "I am too tired to dream," said a youth who had dreamed of being a doctor, but was working in a smelt, in the searing heat of a Baghdad summer, to help support his family. A vibrant, beautiful young woman from a formerly privileged family waited until her mother had left the room and whispered, "Nothing awaits us, only death." She was 18.
And for much of the country there were the often daily, ongoing bombings of the patrolling by the United States and United Kingdom of the "no fly zones" or misnamed "safe havens" in the north and south, an illegal exercise not sanctioned by the United Nations. For reasons unknown, aircraft returning to their bases in Turkey and Saudi Arabia routinely bombed flocks of sheep - and with them the child shepherds who minded them.
An abiding memory is of watching a tiny illiterate woman, who had lost her three children -the youngest 5 and the oldest 13 - her husband and father-in-law to one of these bombings, as she walked with leaden feet to their graves in a tiny dusty cemetery near the northern city of Mosul. She sat hunched, fetal, on the smallest grave, that of five-year-old Sulaiman. Their flock of nearly 200 sheep were also blasted to pieces on a barren plain where they would have been visible for exactly what they were. "We searched all day for parts to bury," said a villager who had rushed down to help, on hearing the bombing. Then he lowered his eyes and whispered, "There was so little recognizable, we still don't know whether the graves contain all human or some sheep remains."
Asked why flocks of sheep were being bombed, the British Ministry of Defence - surreally - responded, "We reserve the right to take robust action, when threatened." At St. Matthew's Monastery on Mount Maqloub, which overlooks the plain, the priest in charge commented of the bombings, "Every day, there are new widows, new widowers, new orphans." Then he said solemnly, "Please, will you tell your Mr. Tony Blair that he is a very, very bad man." The ancient monastery is Iraq's Lourdes, where people of all religious beliefs bring their sick to the site of the saint's believed burial, to benefit from the healing powers legend holds he still possesses from the grave. The ongoing grief and carnage on the plains below were in contrast to all the monks and monastery stood for. The gentle, sorrowful admonition from a spiritual soul was especially poignant.
Forgotten, too, are the major bombing blitzes over the years. In 1993 there were two massive attacks on Baghdad: one a good-bye from outgoing George Bush Senior and the other a hello from incoming William Jefferson Clinton. The second one killed, among others, the talented artist Laila Al-Attar. Days later I stood by the crater that had been her home. "When they lifted her out, she looked like a beautiful broken doll," a friend said quietly. Al-Attar ran the Museum of Modern Art. She was also the artist responsible for the mosaic face of George Bush Senior on the steps of the Al-Rashid Hotel. The death of her and her family by a precision guided missile can, of course, only be a freak coincidence.
The year 1996 saw further bombings, as did 1998. All the planners predicted the '98 bombing would begin on February 23, "the darkest night": maximum cloud cover for the planes. That day I went to interview Leila, yet another of the embargo's victims with a tragic tale to tell. Her large front room was empty: she had sold all her furniture to survive and provide. As we talked, the room filled up with neighborhood children, creeping in, quiet as proverbial mice, sitting on the floor, watching my every move - a stranger and foreigner was a treat in isolated
Iraq. When I left, dusk was falling, and they followed me out to the battered car (spare parts vetoed), about 50 of them, between maybe 3 and 13 years old.
In 1993 there were two massive attacks on Baghdad: one a good-bye from outgoing Bush Senior and the other a hello from incoming Clinton.
As we pulled away, they ran beside the car in a joyous wave, laughing, waving, and blowing kisses. When they could no longer keep up, I looked back: they had formed a little group in the center of the road, still laughing, waving, and blowing kisses. Photographer Karen Robinson and I looked at each other, stricken, and said in unison, "We are going to bomb them tonight..." I went back to my hotel, lay on the bed, and wept.
In the event, public protest halted a February blitz. In December, Prime Minister Blair stood in front of a resplendent Christmas tree outside 10 Downing Street and announced a seasonal gift for Iraq: a four-day onslaught on a decimated country, where nearly half the population were under 16 years and the average nutritional values were below those of Eritrea.
February 2000 saw another attack, another hello, from another George Bush. An elegant school principal broke down in front of me, encapsulating the pain and desperation: "My son is a doctor in Washington, why are they doing this to us?" She sobbed. Earlier, a10 -year-old pupil had told me, poignantly, "When there is a bombing, my father goes and stands outside the gate to protect us and our home."
"When there is a bombing, my father goes and stands outside the gate to protect us and our home."
In July 2001, a shameful admission was extracted from Benon Sevan, head of the United Nations Iraq Program: the money allotted for food for Iraqis was US$100 per capita per year, less than that allotted for the United Nation's sniffer dogs used in de-mining in northern Iraq.
In spite of the grinding misery for most of the embargo years, one event changed the national psyche. In 1999, Baghdad International Airport re-opened, with the those of Mosul and Basra, rebuilt with creativity and inventiveness. The United Nations, under pressure from the United States, did all it could to prevent international flights. Lloyd's of London mysteriously withdrew insurance; airlines were threatened that if they flew to Baghdad, they would be denied landing rights in the United States. In one case - a flight from Athens to Baghdad, arranged by former Greek First Lady, Margarita Papandreou - the United nations demanded the names and occupations of all passengers. Assured by the United Nations that it was entirely confidential to them, the passengers agreed. In less than three minutes, Madam Papandreou's phone rang: It was the US Embassy complaining about some names on the passenger list. Like others, though, the flight finally arrived. "There are tears in our eyes, every time a plane lands," remarked an Iraqi friend. Isolation had been as grinding as deprivation.
Iraqi Airways was integral to the national psyche. Many of its offices stayed open during the embargo years, even though its aircraft were stranded throughout the Middle East. International flight manuals, too, were vetoed, so courteous staff perused August 1990 schedules and then solemnly said it might be more accurate to telephone Jordan. With the airports opening, and a single proud Iraqi Airways plane again flying between Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra, the collective consciousness visibly changed, pride and hope returned. Shop windows began to sparkle again, traders rose at dawn and hosed the pavements, stock was dusted and rearranged, shutters, blinds, and buildings were repainted and refurbished, and the arts again flourished.
Francois Dubois, heading the UN Development Program, had a passion for Iraq equaling that of Halliday and von Sponeck. A fluent Arabic speaker, he had spent the years of the Lebanese civil war there, then headed for the complexities of Iraq. Almost single-handed, he encouraged, funded, and advised the restoration of art galleries, sculpture exhibits, music, and theater. Where artistic life had sunk under the weight of everyday living, it was rekindled and nourished, and it flourished. Few could afford to buy exhibits, but the spirit grew again and haunting beauty was born again. Creativity flourished at every level - inventive architecture, superb woodwork. Iraqis were looking forward and outward again.
A week before last year's invasion, in Mosul, I watched the joyous flocks of birds sweep and sing across the corniche in peach-streaked dawns and dusks. As I left for Baghdad, I jumped at the sound of a bird of a different kind, the roar of a low-flying aircraft, having come within minutes of annihilation from the US and UK bombings on several occasions. The driver and translator laughed and pointed skywards with a tangible pride. "It is ours, ours," they said as the sun glinted on the great white form with its green Iraqi Airways insignia.
Less than a month later, I sat in London with a sociology professor from Mosul University as she drew her breath in horror as Saddam's statue toppled, his head pulled along the street. It was not the destruction of Saddam's image, but of what - like many statues and monuments built in the mists of time - made Mesopotamia. It was destruction of future history. Flicking channels, we watched as Mosul University, Museum, and Library were looted, ransacked, burned. "No, no, not my university, not my home..." She was inconsolable and incredulous. Then came the scenes of Baghdad Airport: "secured," destroyed, with a great white broken bird, the green insignia just visible, lying on the runway. The airport immediately became a symbol of repression, not freedom, Iraq's own Guantanamo, with the imprisoned largely unaccounted for. Reports are that 300 people are also buried there, equally unaccounted for. The great, regal, centuries- old palm groves that fringed the road and perimeters have been bulldozed, like Palestine's olives.
There is a memorial in Basra to Iraq Airways. It reads, "Iraqi Airways - 1947-1990." Iraqi Airways rose from the ashes, like Iraq itself has done after so many invasions. Both surely will again. In the phoenix year of Iraqi Airways, I gained an interview with Tareq Aziz on behalf of Middle East International. It included a modern history lesson: "Iraqis are very quick to revolt, as they did in 1921, 1931, 1947, 1957 and 1968," he said (neatly omitting the US-encouraged uprising of 1991). Watching ominous recent "liberation"-linked events, one is tempted to add "and 2004."
Ironically, it is the residents of Sadr City, who were bribed by the Americans to fill the square as the statue fell, who are now leading the uprising against them. Viceroy Bremer and the planners of this dangerous, feckless oil grab would have done well to have read up on Iraq's modern history.
Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist and activist who has visited Iraq on numerous occasions since the 1991 Gulf War. She has written and broadcast widely on Iraq, her coverage of which was nominated for several awards. She was also Senior Researcher for John Pilger's award-winning documentary - Paying the Price Killing the Children of Iraq
http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/film
-------- india / pakistan
Confronting the realities of the Pak-US relationship
By Shireen M Mazari,
April 08 2004
Hi Pakistan
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en60294&F_catID=&f_type=source
As things become clearer on the Pakistan-US relationship, it is evident that the US is simply playing for time to complete its war on terrorism in Afghanistan before it comes down hard on Pakistan in the context of the nuclear issue. Meanwhile, to allay suspicions and provide a sop for Pakistan, Colin Powell, on his most recent visit to Islamabad, declared that the Bush Administration would be making notification to the Congress that will designate Pakistan as a Major Non NATO Ally (MNNA)!
This aroused a groundswell of approval from those Pakistanis who have always had a romantic vision of a Pakistan-US relationship - a vision devoid of the realities of the strategic partnership between India and the US that is directly undermining our deterrence capability. In any case, a belated protest from India further convinced some in Pakistan of the importance of the MNNA status. Not that the Indians are really concerned, given that less than 48 hours before Pakistan was offered MNNA status, Powell had offered India the role of "regional policeman" in stopping nuclear proliferation under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which so far has 11, mostly Western states, as members. The PSI is highly controversial because it contravenes international law by permitting interdiction on the high seas. In any event, while Powell did not offer Pakistan membership to the PSI, he did offer the very same to India.
Had we not been detracted by the offer of MNNA status, we may have found the time to officially protest at India being offered membership to the PSI. Clearly, this is a direct attempt to delink India's nuclear weapon status from that of Pakistan's and this has serious long-term implications for us. This effort began in earnest last year when India was invited, along with China and Saudi Arabia, to participate in the G-8 Summit in Evian, France in June. Pakistan was left out although one of the focal points of the G-8 proceedings was the issue of WMD! That effort was an indirect route to de-linking the nuclear status of India from that of Pakistan. The PSI is a more direct route to this end - with the Indians being painted as a "responsible nuclear power" and Pakistan an "errant" one. The international community has effectively ignored India's links to Israel's nuclear development and to the aiding and abetting of Iran's nuclear programme. Iran itself, unfortunately, has attempted to use Pakistan as a decoy to detract from its nuclear cooperation with India, which dates back to a formal agreement in 1975. But have we even whimpered a protest? No.
In contrast, pro-India lobbyists have begun to undermine even the granting of the largely symbolic - in that all arms sales/transfers have to be approved by Congress - MNNA status to Pakistan. Even as the $3 billion aid, promised to President Musharraf on his last visit to the US, gets slapped with a whole set of conditionalities while doing the rounds for final Congressional approval, pro-Indian Congressmen are moving to make the MNNA status conditional also. Congressman Ackerman is seeking to alter the way the US President can designate a country as a MNNA, so that two certifications would be required from the President. The first certification deals with the issue of democracy and requires the President to certify that the designee is a democracy (and we know how that can be played out!). The second deals with the issue of WMD and here the President will have to certify that the designated country participates with the US in all international arrangements aimed at preventing the spread of WMD!
So Pakistan may not get the MNNA status after all (which may be a blessing in disguise in the long term), given the role of Congress in its final approval. Of course, the US State Department has tried to ignore this by pointing out that a MNNA is exempt from suspension of US military assistance - but that is assuming that such assistance is there in the first place. And what type of assistance is equally important. Given the level of military assistance Pakistan is giving to the US along the Durand Line - including the sacrificing of Pakistani lives - what Powell should have offered were membership to PSI, to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group and the prospect of sale of AWACs (to balance the Phalcon sale to India) and the Arrow missile system (which will eventually be given to India). At the very least, we should demand the F-16s before we accept any symbolic gestures from the US Administration. Some equivalent level of reciprocity from the US in military terms should be demanded, instead of mere satisfaction with symbolic gestures once again. As for the quid pro quos of the MNNA status, these were already spelt out in this column two weeks ago.
But we seem to thrive on symbolism in the context of our relationship with the US. That is why we seem to be totally unconcerned that because of Pakistan's status as a frontline state in the war on terrorism, US and European funding for research and development in all fields is being directed to India on account of Pakistan being unsafe for foreign nationals! This is being done despite the fact that some of the ideas and projects going to India have been initiated by Pakistani researchers/doctors. It seems our urban areas (where such projects would have been located) are only safe/suitable for US military personnel!
In contrast to the symbolic gestures being reluctantly dangled before Pakistan, India and the US are moving fast in their strategic partnership which seems to have a strong nuclear and space dimension also. Earlier this month, a high-level Indian delegation left for Washington for talks on nuclear and strategic issues. The delegation is led by two senior bureaucrats of the External Affairs Ministry. Mr Sharma, who heads the disarmament section, is holding talks on the PSI through which the US is seeking new agreements with member states to search and seize transportation carrying WMD or weapons technologies - even on the high seas, which is a direct contravention of the Law of the Sea. Mr Mehta, who heads the Indian External Affairs Ministry's Americas division, is holding talks on further enhancing the new strategic partnership between India and the US announced by Bush and Vajpayee separately on January 12, 2004. This is what is referred to as the Glidepath - earlier referred to as the Trinity which then became the Quartet - in which the two states are committed to cooperating in the fields of civilian nuclear technology (who will decide on dual use technologies?), space technology and hi-tech - with talks on Ballistic Missile Defence also added on. Obviously, no Congressional pressures or interventions apply in the case of this extensive Indo-US cooperation!
Nor should Pakistan be sanguine over the present pushing aside by the US Administration, of the nuclear issue relating to Pakistan. The US will certainly re-focus on it once the Afghan situation improves - on that count there should be no doubt. Of course, what we should be asking is why the US is not focusing on the export loopholes of their European allies like Germany and Holland? Why are we not demanding access to information on the German and Dutch components of the private nuclear black market? And, why is the IAEA chief, Mr ElBaradei so silent on that count? Especially since he continues to make demands on Pakistan. The most recent was his comment that he had not yet received a date from Pakistan to allow IAEA inspectors into the country to carry out so-called "environmental sampling" to compare certain key components with those allegedly sold on the international black market to Iran? Why should he be waiting for this intrusion of inspectors onto Pakistan's nuclear facilities? We are under no international obligation to have these inspectors so why have we not come out with a categorical statement officially on that count? These questions are disturbing within the context of our sovereignty and our psychological ability to preserve our strategic assets. In any event, perhaps we should at least point out to ElBaradei that he should seek such samples from India which has a similar uranium enrichment programme to Pakistan's and a longstanding nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran.
There really is a need for Pakistan to be more aggressively proactive on all the counts mentioned above. As President Musharraf pointed out in his talk to segments of civil society on March 31, 2004, we are an important state in terms of our geo-strategic location and nuclear capability. Let us behave like one.
----
The paradox of Pakistan-US relations
By Nasim Zehra,
April 8, 2004
Hi Pakistan
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en60445&F_catID=&f_type=source
For now on the home front both are not at peace ; neither the USA and nor Pakistan. Nations going through transition never are. Hence statements alone tend to take the realtionship to a 'boiling point.' Pakistan's strategic course correction, some on objectives and others on means, has involved internal political and security commotion. With only minimal 'rules of the game' operational in politics and the continuing civil-military divide, Pakistan's foreign policy issues make for good political battling items. Also the convergence between Pakistan's foreign policy and domestic politics was engineered by the State when it partnered with the US and Saudi Arabia in the anti-Soviet jihad. The human, ideological, weaponised and militia prone infrastructure of the CIA-funded jihad spread across much of Pakistan.
That roll-back now taking place is dangerously chaotic. It is necessary for internal peace and security; as was the tackling of the tragic A.Q. Khan case. However, legitimate these actions, public resentment against continued US pressure on Pakistan for not doing enough also exists. Whether it is Under Secretary John Wolfowitz's statement or it is the US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's threat of US military conducting anti-militant operations in the tribal areas if Pakistan fails, leave the Pakistanis livid. Even with their own government. Yesterday's mujahideen are today's terrorists and yesterday's financiers of the jihad are today's men with the proverbial 'big stick.'
These are complex perceptions, not easily tackled. Also they are rooted in some truth. But the state must opt for real politick; for viable pathways to a better quality of life including dignity and confidence for its people and towards stature and strength for the country. This is the difficult path we are on, and indeed not made any easier by ironically those who are also helping us on this path. Because given the international context, the issues of proliferation, anti-terrorism, growing Muslim resentment in major geographical zones towards the US, our nuclear power, major military force and our strategic location, a relationship with Pakistan is indispensable for them. The recent decision to give Pakistan the Major Non-Nato Ally (MNNA) status illustrates the point. Pakistan's establishment like most political parties, even if they state otherwise, recognise the compulsions of this relationship. The public watches the US created killing fields of Iraq, the dehumanisation of even innocent men in Guantanamo Bay and no less the unfair demands on Pakistan to bring peace to Afghanistan. Innocent deaths and the controversial Wana operation too was credited to the US account. Often the internal logic and necessity for much of this is lost.
But these are realities unlikely to change within the immediate context. Largely of US making, they will be sustained by USA's own compulsions, even if short-sighted.
Naturally in its election year the Bush administration is deeply troubled. Its policies that earlier enjoyed bipartisan support may now be cause for a Democratic victory. There is the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq, the incontrovertible evidence of fabrication on Iraq's WMDs to justify invasion, the continuing problems of warlords, drugs and security in Afghanistan, the allegation that instead of tackling terrorism the Neocons opted to invade Iraq and above all the growing unemployment in the US. It is under heavy criticism for withholding thousands of pages of Clinton administration papers from the bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 events.
No less is there regular criticism by sections of US's policy community of Bush's policies towards Pakistan. They want penalties imposed on the Pakistan government that sections of Bush's own administration claims is responsible for continuing trouble in Afghanistan, has contributed to global proliferation, is not doing enough in the tribal areas to nab al-Qaeda, continues to support "fundamentalists" within Pakistan and has failed to restore democracy. This is then the unending "wish list" of accusations that float the US popular media; that the Bush administration must continuously address.
United States generally and the Bush administration specifically is dealing with a crises largely of its own making. During his March interview with PTV the US Secretary of State had maintained that for the US the lesson from their extremist and militarised Afghan policies of the eighties was that dialogue was key to settling disputes. In Iraq ofcourse, despite global pressure to the contrary the US abandoned that lesson. The result is the continuing unwieldly holy mess.
From Iraq body bags will flow to grief-stricken Iraqi and US homes. Anti-US guerrilla warfare will continue. There are reports in the US media of US soldiers of the 442nd Military Police Company of the New York Army National Guard returning from Iraq tested positive for depleted uranium contamination. What health havoc would this play for Iraqis is another issue.
Afghanistan is no 'success' either. According to the South China Morning Post of April 6 Colonel Babbington who recently is charged by the UN with disarming 100,000 Afghan militiamen maintains "Wherever disarmament has been done before, in Africa, Cambodia, or wherever, you've had a couple of essential preconditions: first, a peace treaty, second, peacekeepers to enforce the disarmament process. Here, you don't have either of those safeguards," he said. There is no undermining the difficulties in Afghanistan. Even Powell maintains now the war lords are the main problem; ones the US itself had supported after its October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.
It is, however, in the nature of big powers to opt for delayed policy reversals. Indeed all those who have the leeway to continue to blunder. Big powers, however, on blundering paths boldly blame others for their shortcomings. The complaining Khalilzad and Wolfowitz, who subsequently retracted their statements, know this truth. Pakistan hence is caught between the cross-fire of USA's electioneering campaigns and between the competing disasters of Iraq, Afghanistan and "anti-terrorism" policies. Bush and his top men including Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld , CIA chief George Tenet and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton are all voting in favour of Pakistan as a responsible international state. That is what gives Pakistan common ground on which to build a relationship on terms that are mutually acceptable.
Benefits for Pakistan range from economic, security and development. Differences on many issues still remain; on the Iraq war, on Pakistan's nuclear programme, on the solution to the Kashmir dispute, on the Palestinian dispute and on a politico-military not merely a military response to terrorism. And Pakistan has confidently pursued policies it believes it must. However, more parliamentary involvement in discussing these policies strengthens a nation's standing internationally to stay the course on 'difficult' policies. Meanwhile Pakistan-US relationship is currently an issue-based and measured one, with some overlap in threat perceptions. For now , despite the MNNA status, neither view the other as a completely trustworthy and dependable ally - a possibility which in the future cannot be ruled out provided US opts for a strategic course correction of its foreign policy objectives.
-------- inspections
An atomic bargain hampers hunt for illicit weapons
By CARLA ANNE ROBBINS
The Associated Press
4/8/04
The Wall Street Journal
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0031_BC_WSJ--NuclearWatchdog&&news&newsflash-financial
VIENNA -- The International Atomic Energy Agency is the world's nuclear watchdog, charged with stopping the spread of nuclear weaponry. But it's a watchdog with a split personality: The IAEA is also charged with promoting the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy.
At its headquarters here, Russ Clark, head of the nuclear-power-engineering section, is helping Romanians extend the life of their Cernavoda nuclear plant and the Mexicans update the preventive-maintenance program at Laguna Verde. Down the hall, experts prepare energy assessments for states as far afield as Indonesia, which might be a good candidate for nuclear power, and Haiti, which isn't.
Why is the world's premier nonproliferation organization helping countries with their nuclear programs? The answer goes back to the "Atoms for Peace" bargain on which the agency was founded in the late 1950s: Any state that forswears the pursuit of nuclear weapons is allowed to buy or build all of the nuclear technology it wants, from medical isotopes to power plants to equipment that can produce atomic fuel for those plants -- or bombs, if countries decide to cheat. Today, the bargain looks increasingly flawed, leaving the agency struggling to stanch the proliferation crisis.
When President Eisenhower outlined the bargain in 1953, there was unlimited optimism about nuclear energy but also growing fear of a spiraling arms race. Hoping to dissuade others from joining in, he proposed sharing peaceful nuclear technology. Soon the U.S. and Soviet Union were in a new race: providing equipment and know-how to client states.
The IAEA was founded in 1957 to provide technical aid to civilian programs while making sure they weren't diverted to military use. But it was given only limited policing powers. In many countries, the IAEA still can inspect only openly "declared" nuclear sites, not suspected ones. Its new antiterrorism security standards, designed to thwart attacks on nuclear plants or the theft of nuclear materials, are recommendations, not requirements. And there's no clear punishment for a state that pulls out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
The flaws in the bargain have become frighteningly clear of late, after the discovery that a black market led by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan sold plans and sophisticated equipment to clandestine nuclear programs in Libya, Iran and North Korea. At the time of the sales, Libya and Iran were under IAEA monitoring. Tripoli has since agreed to abandon its weapons efforts, but Tehran is going ahead with what it insists is a civilian power program. North Korea has pulled out of the nonproliferation treaty and declared that it has nuclear weapons.
Now the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, is calling for a rethinking of the nuclear bargain, starting with restricting access to sensitive nuclear-fuel technology. Facing a picture of Edvard Munch's "The Scream" on his office wall, he warns that the system for stopping proliferation is in "crisis."
"The fact that every country now can say, I have the right ... to sit on enough plutonium or enough highly enriched uranium that they can use, should they decide, to make a bomb within a month or two is too close for comfort," he said in a recent interview.
The IAEA has taken a lot of knocks for missing so much illicit nuclear activity. In part, the criticism is unfair: U.S. and British intelligence agencies missed much of it as well. And, as IAEA officials are quick to point out, the agency was right when it said before last year's Iraq war that it found no sign of an active nuclear-weapons program there.
Still, the agency's board -- a rotating group of 35 states who almost never act without consensus -- can be painfully slow to move. At last month's meeting, talk of Dr. Khan and proliferation was almost drowned out by complaints about cuts in the fund that finances technical-cooperation programs, including Mr. Clark's.
And Mr. ElBaradei often appears to be conflict-averse. Despite nearly two decades of concealment by Iran and its repeated failures to come clean to IAEA inspectors, he insists that he's seen no evidence of a weapons program. It "could be that this is a weapons program," he says. "But I cannot read intentions. I'm not God. I really have to work on specific evidence, on specific facts." He says he has no intention of "letting the Iranians off the hook," but he is also worried that pushing too hard could lead Tehran to oust inspectors and pull out of the nonproliferation treaty.
U.S. officials say that Iran is using that threat to manipulate the agency while the country moves ahead with what Washington claims is a clandestine weapons program. Mr. ElBaradei visited Iran this week to urge improved cooperation, and the Iranians agreed to address a host of outstanding questions. According to a person with knowledge of the trip, the Iranians also said they would soon start construction on a long-planned reactor for nuclear research that would be under agency monitoring. Experts say the reactor could also produce enough plutonium for at least one nuclear weapon a year.
U.S. officials say they wouldn't be disappointed if Mr. ElBaradei left when his term runs out next year. Mr. ElBaradei has made clear his discomfort with President Bush's decision to tear up arms-control treaties and pursue research into new nuclear weapons. But the two men, who met at the White House last month, agree that there need to be major fixes in the nonproliferation system.
The Atoms for Peace bargain was enthusiastically embraced by the two superpowers and their nuclear industries. U.S. officials had become convinced "that the technology was going to spread anyway," says Jon Wolfsthal, a proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington. "They decided they'd much rather have some leverage and some ability to monitor" new nuclear programs as well as receive political credit from client states.
Until then, U.S. law prescribed the death penalty for sharing nuclear secrets. In 1954 the U.S. Atomic Energy Act was written to allow the U.S. to export peaceful technology and information to friendly countries that pledged not to pursue weapons. The following year, the U.S. sponsored a U.N. conference, where more than 20,000 scientists from around the world showed up to learn the secrets of nuclear power. Homi J. Bhabha, the father of India's nuclear-weapons program, was chairman of the meeting.
At IAEA headquarters, the Atoms-for-Peace deal -- the slogan decorates agency business cards and stationery -- is never far away. Outside the paneled boardroom sits a bust of President Eisenhower, flanked, with no apparent irony, by India's Mr. Bhabha.
But there is still a fierce debate about the Atoms for Peace legacy. There is no doubt that the bargain, and the nonproliferation treaty that followed, helped dissuade a lot more countries from pursuing nuclear weapons. Fifty years later, there are nine likely nuclear powers, rather than the dozens many analysts feared. But the bargain also helped scientists in India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea, Iraq, Libya and perhaps Iran to develop the skills for illicit nuclear-weapons programs.
The U.S. and Russia are now trying to clean up some of the mess, helping former clients dispose of spent fuel left over from their small Atoms for Peace research reactors, although the effort is moving slowly and the amount of weapons-usable nuclear fuel still out there is frighteningly large. The IAEA -- unusually, with some financing from a U.S. nonprofit, Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat Initiative -- is providing technical assistance for the transfers.
IAEA officials note that more than 90 percent of their budget for sharing nuclear expertise goes to noncontroversial programs that aren't related to nuclear power: improving agriculture with irradiated seeds and human health with radiation treatment; mapping sources of underground water in drought-stricken areas; and sterilizing Tse Tse flies to wipe out sleeping sickness. "We're not out selling nuclear power to anyone," says Mr. Clark. But for countries "that make that choice ... we're here to help make it run smoother, safer and better."
Still, some IAEA critics argue that the program may be helping suspect states improve their skills. Testifying on Capitol Hill last week, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a fierce critic of traditional arms-control treaties, warned that Syria was using the IAEA's technical cooperation fund to obtain "dual-use technologies" -- civilian equipment that can also be used for making weapons.
U.S. officials privately say they're more concerned that Syria may have been another of Dr. Khan's customers. But officials point to two IAEA programs they say could help determined scientists. The IAEA helped the Syrians buy concrete structures, known as hot cells, to package radioactive isotopes used for medical imaging. The agency also helped build a small plant to produce high-purity phosphoric acid, a common food additive, by extracting uranium, a basis of nuclear fuel, from phosphate.
An agency official involved says that there's no danger since the hot cells were specially built to handle only medical isotopes, while the plant produces only small amounts of uranium. But David Albright, head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, says that the hot cells are larger than the Syrians need and could help them learn how to handle other, more dangerous isotopes, and any natural uranium extracted won't be under IAEA monitoring. "It's a long shot ... but it raises questions about the Syrians' intentions."
On the watchdog side, the agency says its most urgent priority is trying to figure out the Khan network -- and especially who else might have gotten his wares. Investigators acknowledge that with a safeguards budget of $100 million, they have far fewer resources than U.S. or U.K. intelligence agencies. What the agency can sometimes bring to the hunt is access in places the U.S. or U.K. can't go. Its work in Iran shows how it can use that access -- but also the limits of its powers.
Last year, after months of international pressure, agency inspectors were allowed to do environmental testing -- looking for traces of nuclear materials -- at two sites in Iran where centrifuges were being assembled and tested. Centrifuges are used to increase the concentration of uranium-235, a uranium isotope that can be split to provide the energy for nuclear reactors -- or, at higher concentrations, weapons. The Iranians said the centrifuges are being used for their power program.
Between the time the inspectors first asked to do testing and when they were allowed in, workers had completely remodeled one of the sites, pulling up the floor, repainting and retiling the walls. When the results from both sites came back, they still showed traces of highly enriched uranium, some up to weapons grade.
Until then, the Iranians had insisted that they'd built all their own centrifuges and never used them. Now they admitted to enriching a small amount of uranium -- but none to weapons grade. They also told inspectors they had imported centrifuges, which must have arrived contaminated with enriched uranium. By late October, with international pressure mounting, Tehran offered up a list of nuclear middlemen, some of whom would be traced back to the Khan network.
Then, in December, Libya agreed to give up its weapons and come clean about its suppliers. The IAEA's inspectors were invited in to see a remarkable array of nuclear technology, including weapons plans, parts for two types of centrifuges -- P-1s and more sophisticated P-2s -- and instructions and materials for building more.
U.S. and British weapons experts had already been through. But the IAEA inspectors also had worked in Iran, and they immediately began comparing the two programs. Examining a stack of crates filled with P-1 centrifuge parts, they found a few stickers with the names of some of Iran's suppliers. The P-1 components were identical to the ones the inspectors had seen in Iran, even down to the red and blue plastic containers.
The inspectors began to ask themselves: If Iran was using the same suppliers as Libya, did it get as broad a nuclear package? When pressed, Iranian officials conceded that they'd bought plans for the more sophisticated P-2 centrifuges and showed inspectors a small number of P-2 parts. Inspectors are now eager to find out what else Iran may have bought and not owned up to.
The problem with that success story is that it took crisis-level pressure -- mainly from the U.S. and its allies -- to get the inspectors into the Iranian and Libyan sites. In many other countries the agency is hobbled by its original rules, which limit inspectors not only to "declared" nuclear sites but to agreed-to "measurement points" inside those sites. Broader access, states argued, would be too costly to nuclear industries or could jeopardize proprietary secrets. The rules were "a political compromise" that also reflected the "naivete" of the times, says Pierre Goldschmidt, the IAEA's deputy director general in charge of safeguards.
The IAEA has been trying to change those rules since the end of the first Gulf War when, after giving Iraq a clean bill of health, inspectors discovered that Baghdad was secretly developing a nuclear-weapons program separate from its declared civilian research program. In 1997 the board adopted the Additional Protocol, which gives inspectors much wider access, and at shorter notice. But the protocol is optional for member states.
Officials in Washington and Vienna now are weighing how to fix the system. President Bush has called on members of the nuclear suppliers' group -- a loose alliance of most countries that produce nuclear technology -- to cut off all sales to states that haven't signed up to the more intrusive inspections. He also wants the group to deny fuel-production technology to any country that doesn't already have those capabilities.
Mr. ElBaradei is calling for a moratorium on building new nuclear-fuel plants, and ultimately for such plants to be placed under multinational control. He also wants the nuclear suppliers' group membership broadened -- Malaysia, where some of Dr. Khan's equipment was manufactured, isn't a member -- and transformed from a "gentlemen's agreement" to a more binding commitment with clear sanctions for anyone who sells to an illicit weapons program.
Mr. ElBaradei opened last week's board meeting warning of the dangers of the Khan network and the need for change. But the board's 35 members devoted most of their energy to wrangling over the technical cooperation budget and how to word resolutions on Libya and Iran. (The U.S. is one of 10 members always on the board because of their advanced nuclear-energy technology.) Diplomats acknowledged that a lot of the debate was a surrogate for deeper divisions about Israel or Iraq or the U.S. and Russia's failure to give up more nuclear weapons.
For many states, the Atoms for Peace bargain won't be easily amended. "What worries a lot of us is that the concept of nonproliferation is being reduced to what constraints will be placed on the developing countries," says Roberto Abdenur, Brazil's ambassador.
Brazil has announced that it will open a uranium-enrichment facility to produce reactor fuel later this year. It's also refusing so far to sign the Additional Protocol and it's been frustrating IAEA inspectors for years by walling off its centrifuges from view, saying it's protecting commercial secrets. U.S. officials say they don't believe that Brazil has weapons ambitions.
David Crawford contributed to this article.
-------- iran
Iran Has Right to Civilian Nuclear Program: Arab Official
April 8, 2004
Tehran Times
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=4/8/2004&Cat=2&Num=006
KUWAIT (IRNA) -- Iran has the right to use nuclear energy peacefully, head of the Arab delegations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mahmud Nasraddin said here Tuesday.
Talking to IRNA, Nasraddin called on Iranian officials to continue their move to build international confidence, saying Iran has the right to produce enriched uranium for peaceful and economic purposes with no problem after it built international confidence.
Iran suspended its uranium enrichment activities in November voluntarily even before signing the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), he added.
Iran, contrary to those countries which violated the NPT, has clearly announced it has uranium enrichment activities for peaceful purposes, said the official, adding based on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the country has had positive cooperation with the agency.
Pointing to the rumors on fears of southern countries of the Persian Gulf in regards to the Bushehr power plant, Nasraddin said this belief that the Bushehr power plant is a threatening factor is not correct since non of these states have adopted an official stance yet.
He assessed propaganda against Iran as baseless and said accusing Iran of production of plutonium from used fuel of the Bushehr power plant is funny to experts but unfortunately some 90 percent of people do not know this fact.
Undoubtedly, Iran tries to meet full security of the power plant based on scientific principles because any dangerous event would first harm the local populations of its southern cities.
----
Iran to begin construction of heavy water reactor
Reactor may be used in fuel cycle to produce bomb-grade plutonium
April 8, 2004
AFP
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-4-2004_pg4_12
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1083512.htm
TEHRAN - Iran is to begin work in June on constructing a heavy water reactor which could eventually be used as part of a fuel cycle to produce bomb-grade plutonium, diplomats said in Vienna Wednesday.
This step is almost certain to raise concern about Iran's intentions at a time when the international community is calling on the Islamic Republic to fully cooperate on answering charges it is hiding a programme to develop nuclear weapons, the diplomats said.
"Iran is to announce soon that it will be beginning work in June on a heavy water research reactor in Arak," 200 kilometres (120 miles) southwest of Tehran, a diplomat close to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said.
IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei returned to Vienna Wednesday from Tehran, where he had hammered out an agreement for Iran to adhere to a timetable to answer the agency's questions about its nuclear activities. The reactor to be built at Arak would not be in violation of safeguards which the IAEA enforces under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the diplomat said. Iran has been saying since July that it wants to build such a reactor.
But another diplomat said going ahead with the reactor now could send the wrong political signal. "This is not an accident," the diplomat said, referring to the fact that construction is to begin in June, the same month the IAEA will hold a board of governors meeting on Iran.
He said the Iranian government wanted to assert its independence, as it claims it has the right to make nuclear fuel, and also had to appease hardliners at home who object to yielding to IAEA demands. Iran has said the Arak reactor would be for research and the production of radioisotopes for medical and industrial use.
Iran told the IAEA, according to an agency report in November, that "it had tried to acquire a reactor from abroad to replace" a 30-year-old research reactor in Tehran. The first diplomat said the reactor, which is to have thermal power of 40 megawatts, could produce enough fuel to make "more than one significant quantity of plutonium per year," a "significant quantity" referring to the amount needed to make an atomic bomb.
But due to US and other Western nations' sanctions, Iran was not able to buy a new reactor, and so wanted to build one of its own which could use domestically produced fuel such as uranium dioxide. The diplomat said, however, that the heavy water reactor could produce depleted uranium which could then be reprocessed into plutonium, for instance in so-called hot cells that would be also used to make radio-isotopes.
It is this connection, at a time when the United States is raising alarms about Iran's possible nuclear weapons potential, that the IAEA would like Iran to desist from starting work on the reactor, even if in June the Iranians would only begin digging the hole for the building.
"Once they have started to build it, it's as if it exists," he said, referring to problems the international community has already had with Iran's resumption in March of uranium conversion, another part of the nuclear fuel cycle that is not forbidden by NPT safeguards but which raises concerns.
Such technically legal activites could damage confidence Iran is doing everything necessary to prove it is not secretly developing nuclear weapons, diplomats said.
"It's still something that can be fixed, namely by putting another type of reactor at Arak and giving them the fuel for it," the diplomat said. But he said this depended on Iran cleaning up the IAEA's questions about its nuclear programme.
----
Iran to Build Reactor That Can Produce Plutonium
Associated Press
Thursday, April 8, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59723-2004Apr7.html
VIENNA, April 7 -- Iran will start building a nuclear reactor in June that can produce weapons-grade plutonium, diplomats said Wednesday. Although the Tehran government insists the heavy-water facility is for research, the decision heightens concern about its nuclear ambitions.
One diplomat said the planned 40-megawatt reactor could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon each year, an amount experts commonly say is 8.8 pounds.
The diplomats said that Iran informed the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency last year of its plans to build a reactor, and Iranian officials have previously suggested the reactor was already being built.
But the diplomats said that construction had not yet begun and that Iranian officials announced the June start date for the first time during talks Tuesday in Tehran with Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.
With Iran open about its desire to build the facility, the diplomats said the Iranian decision to go ahead with the plan was not an overt example of Tehran backtracking on pledges to dispel suspicions it is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Still, it "sends a bad signal at a time all eyes are on Iran," one of the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
International scrutiny of Iran's nuclear program has been growing since the IAEA discovered last year that Tehran had not disclosed large-scale efforts to enrich uranium, which can be used in nuclear warheads.
Traces of weapons-grade uranium found by inspectors and evidence of suspicious experiments led to a series of critical resolutions by the IAEA's board of governors.
-------- korea
Group says N. Korea has enough plutonium to build many nuclear weapons
By Joseph Giordono,
Stars and Stripes Pacific
Thursday, April 8, 2004
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=21474
SEOUL - North Korea has enough plutonium stocks to make an "unlimited quantity" of nuclear weapons, according to a group that was building nuclear power plants in the country.
"I feel very confident that their plutonium program is now in full operation and it's one that can produce almost unlimited quantities of nuclear weapons," said Charles Kartman, executive director of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, or KEDO.
Kartman made the comments late Monday in an address to the European Union parliament.
Under a 1994 agreement in which North Korea promised to stop seeking nuclear weapons, KEDO was assigned to build two nuclear reactors to provide energy to the country. The power station work was suspended in December amid concerns over the North's revitalized weapons program.
"The plutonium program is a very real and very large problem," Kartman said.
At the same time, he said, questions lingered about the North's ability to produce enriched uranium, another key component in the weapons program.
"Although I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a problem there, its dimensions are beyond my knowledge," he said.
Negotiations over the weapons continue. South Korean and U.S. experts said after the last round of six-nation talks that the North seemed unlikely to firm up any agreements until after the November U.S. presidential elections.
Two rounds have been held in Beijing but no formal solutions have been produced.
On Tuesday, a Japanese newspaper reported that U.S. and North Korean officials held secret meetings in March in New York about the weapons issue. Neither side confirmed that report.
-------- missile defense
Holes in the Sky
Bush's Crazed Missile Defense Plan
By CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI
April 8, 2004
Counterpunch
http://www.counterpunch.org/brauchli04092004.html
"With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
Here's a puzzle with no answer. Why has George Bush budgeted $3.73 billion to deploy a missile defense system the component parts of which have either not been tested or having been tested, have failed, while simultaneously declining to proceed with installing missile defense systems for commercial airliners the cost of which is approximately $3 million a plane.
In February 2003 it was reported that the Pentagon intended to begin deploying a missile defense system in 2004 without fully testing it. In support of the idea, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee said: " I happen to think that thinking we cannot deploy something until you have everything perfect, every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed, is probably not a good idea In the case of missile defense, I think we need to get something out there, in the ground, at sea, and in a way that we can test it, we can look at it, we can develop it, we can evolve it, and find out-learn from the experimentation with it."
Mr. Rumsfeld had forgotten about a 1983 law mandating that before some weapons system is deployed, it must be successfully tested. In the 2004 budget request the president justified deployment without testing by saying that deployment would be considered part of the development and demonstration of the system rather than its actual use. In the budget request the White House further suggested that no testing of the system be required until after the 2004 election although that wasn't quite how it was stated. What it said was that testing of the system should resume in 2006.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan objected to this approach saying: "It would be a lot better if we have confidence that the system will work before it is deployed, because otherwise it just creates a lot more uncertainty." He explained that the purpose of the 1983 law was "to prevent the production and fielding of a weapon system that doesn't work right."
In September 2003 the General Accounting Office issued a 40-page report saying the uncertainty surrounding the development of the system produced a "greater likelihood that critical technologies will not work as intended in planned flight tests." Phillip E. Coyle, III, a former head of weapons testing at the Pentagon said the GAO report demonstrated that if the system was activated in 2004 it would be "no more than a scarecrow, not a real defense."
Although George Bush doesn't mind deploying an untested anti missile system, he doesn't think any missile defense on civilian aircraft should be installed until he is completely sure that the systems have been fully tested irrespective of what the producers of those systems say.
BAE Systems, one of three groups of contractors selected by the Department of Homeland Security to develop the technology is confident the technology to deflect small missiles such as those Al Qaeda has, could be ready for installation in 3-4 months and even sooner if needed. Jack Pledger a Northrop Grumman executive in charge of anti missile systems for that company said the laser-jamming devices could installed on passenger jets "right now. If it became necessary to provide this system immediately, we're ready."
Operating with the sort of caution eschewed by Mr. Rumsfeld , the Homeland Security Department put aside $100 million for a study to determine whether anti missile devices could successfully be installed on passenger planes. Prototypes should be built within the next 18 months. Responding to criticism that it is moving too slowly it explained that it would be irresponsible to put in place a system the reliability, safety and cost effectiveness of which had not been proven. John J. Kubricky directs anti missile research programs at the Department of Homeland Security and said cautiously: "What we're trying to avoid is taking shortcuts. I can't think of any way to speed this up and to do it safely and economically."
The missile defense system for the country is to protect us from North Korean missiles. That should be easy since, as Ben Arnoldy of the Christian Science Monitor has reported, North Korea's No Dong missiles, their most far reaching, have a range of about 600 miles. The aircraft system is designed to protect airplane passengers from shoulder-fired missiles costing about $5,000 each on the black market, weighing 35 pounds, of which more than 5000 that have the capacity to presently inflict great harm are held by terrorist groups around the world. As soon as Mr. Bush finishes spending billions protecting us from missiles that don't pose a present threat, he may want to consider protecting us from those that do.
Christopher Brauchli is a Boulder, Colorado lawyer. His column appears weekly in the Daily Camera. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu
-------- treaties
UK-US military ties not workable
By Dan Plesch,
Dawn/The Guardian News Service,
April 08 2004
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en60346&F_catID=&f_type=source
LONDON: Britain must loosen its military ties with the United States. Whatever their value in the past, today the relationship is dragging Britain into operations that are against its interests - while providing Americans with a false sense that they are speaking for what is called the international community.
But this year presents a once-in-a-decade opportunity to open up the linchpin of that relationship to public scrutiny. This is the year that parliament and the United States Congress have to renew the treaty governing their cooperation on nuclear weapons.
The understanding is formally known as the 1958 Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes, but is usually called the Mutual Defence Agreement, or the 58 Agreement. It governs the two countries' trade in weapons of mass destruction.
Trading in weapons of mass destruction is pretty controversial right now - given all the fuss about Libya, Pakistan, Iran and so on. But the negotiations between London and Washington are going on in secret, and the treaty is likely to be slipped in at the end of the year without anyone noticing.
Without the agreement, Britain would not have its Trident nuclear weapons system, or be a nuclear power at all. Britain has test-fired over 40 hydrogen bombs in Nevada and, in return, supplied the US at times with plutonium. Britain continues to use Nevada for tests that don't involve nuclear explosion. For example, the UK conducted experiment Vito to check that a warhead would explode correctly on Valentine's day 2002. The Trident nuclear warheads are dependent on the US. They are manufactured in Berkshire according to US designs and under management that includes the US arms producer Lockheed Martin. Specialist joint working groups include nuclear weapons engineering and manufacturing practices.
Neither Tony Blair nor George Bush has made any public statement about what deals are being struck over the renewal of the treaty, but they are likely to involve both specific technologies and political agreements. Tony Blair wants a successor to Trident supplied from the US.
In return, the UK will help American WMD manufacturers where it can. For example, by doing some design work if Congress bars American firms from working on new weapons.
The broader political trade-off is likely to include support for Washington's military policies, which include: building new nuclear weapons; starting to test them again "if necessary"; putting non-nuclear weapons in space; and preparing anti- satellite weapons. All these programmes are under way in Washington.
There are more fundamental objections to the nuclear special relationship than signing up for the next round of Star Wars and H-bombs. The Mutual Defence Agreement encourages the British delusion that it is an independent nuclear power and therefore a force to be reckoned with.
This self-deceit among British officials has been the greatest obstacle to any sensible discussion about Britain's foreign policy for half a century. And it relies on the full extent of the agreement being kept both from the public and even from almost all officials and politicians.
As with most dependent relationships, its defining characteristic is that nothing must be done to upset the controlling partner, so that partner gets more and more control. The CIA now often sits on the joint intelligence committee. So, even there, at the very heart of the British state, there is no independence of thought. You can be sure that the favour is not reciprocated.
The other side of the coin is that the agreement allows Washington to pretend to the American people that it has real allies even over reckless adventures such as the invasion of Iraq. But there, too, the truth is kept from the public and even from specialists. I only ever found a handful of defence advisers in Congress who had even heard of the programme.
Internationally, the US-UK trade in WMD sets a terrible example of double standards in which we are clearly arguing that our trade in WMD is good and other peoples' is bad.
Confronted with such huge issues, it is easy to think that there is nothing we can do. But pressure has made an impact before. Remember when France was blowing up nuclear bombs in the Pacific? Bill Clinton was pushing to get a nuclear test ban signed because it was popular. But the Tory government, with secret encouragement from some US officials, was opposed.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- colorado
Council, Udall tackling Flats future
By RICHARD VALENTY,
Thursday April 8, 2004
Colorado Daily Staff Writer
http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2004/04/08/news/news02.txt
The former Rocky Flats plutonium-trigger manufacturing site is currently in the midst of a $7 billion cleanup effort with a goal of creating a Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge that could be safe for human activity.
The key word is "safe." Since the Flats weapons operation dealt with large quantities of plutonium, which has a half-life of some 24,000 years, some local leaders think the federal government should wait for a small fraction of that half-life before allowing recreational activities at the refuge.
Tonight Boulder's City Council will review a letter that could be sent to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service explaining the city's position on possible recreation at the site.
Upon completion of the Flats cleanup, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) will evaluate the site. If deemed safe, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would transfer parts of the site to Fish & Wildlife Service for operation as a wildlife refuge.
Fish & Wildlife has prepared a draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the future refuge. Two of the four alternative plans outlined could allow human recreation. Alternative "B," the preferred choice of Fish & Wildlife, would phase in public access over a period of five years, while Alternative "D" might allow human access within 6-12 months.
Council member Shaun McGrath will be explaining the city's preferred Alternative "C" tonight, which would restrict access for 15 years and direct Fish & Wildlife to restore the site to "pre-settlement conditions."
McGrath is the city representative to Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments (RFCLOG). The RFCLOG cities of Broomfield, Arvada and Westminster as well as Jefferson County favor "B" or "D," while Boulder, Boulder County and Superior favor a longer period of testing before opening the site to visitors.
"We're dealing with a lot of unknowns," said McGrath. "One group (of RFCLOG entities) is fairly certain it will be safe, but we believe potential problems could possibly arise. We would rather approach it cautiously."
If DOE and Kaiser-Hill Company are doing a careful site cleanup, what could go wrong? According to the city's letter to Fish & Wildlife, the former Rocky Mountain Arsenal site is also being managed as a wildlife refuge, and sarin (a deadly nerve gas) bombs were found on site in 2001, about 14 years after cleanup began.
In other words, a simple human error like missing a radioactive "hot spot" could be deadly.
Recently, authors Wes McKinley and Caron Balkany published a book, "The Ambushed Grand Jury," which accused the U.S. Department of Justice of covering up potential environmental crimes at Rocky Flats.
In particular, former Flats employee Jacque Brever was depicted in the book as informing the FBI that the plant was performing illegal midnight plutonium incineration at Flats Building 771 in 1988 and 1989.
Congressman Mark Udall, D-Boulder, sent a letter to the CDPHE and the EPA on March 16, asking if the agencies had examined and addressed allegations made in "Ambushed."
Douglas Benavento, CDPHE executive director, sent a three-page response to Udall March 26. Benavento said 771 is "slated for demolition later this year," and soil sampling on site would "identify any dispersed environmental contamination from an incinerator in this building."
Robert E. Roberts, EPA regional administrator, replied to Udall March 30. Roberts said EPA and CDPHE are requiring additional sampling of Flats soils, but not "because of the alleged illegal incineration activities discussed in the ("Ambushed") book."
According to Roberts, the sampling results will be available in late 2004.
Doug Young, Udall's district policy director, said the letters from EPA and CDPHE indicate that there is an "aggressive" cleanup being performed, yet citizens should still speak out if they know of unsolved problems.
"People who believe the regulatory agencies are missing something can come forward right now, and I think ought to come forward and let us know, so the EPA and CDPHE can go out and do an investigation," said Young.
Citizens can comment to Fish & Wildlife on the comprehensive conservation plan-environmental impact statement before April 26. Also, a draft of the city's letter to Fish & Wildlife can be found at www.ci.boulder.co.us. Go to "City Council," then "Agendas," and click item 7C on the April 8 agenda.
-------- new jersey
New Jersey Reaches $1 Million Settlement with Owner of Oyster Creek
Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General
For Immediate Release: April 8, 2004
For Further Information Contact:
Peter Aseltine, OAG (609) 292-4791
Erin Phalon, DEP (609) 984-1795
This message has been sent by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Nuclear Power Plant Regarding Fish Kill Caused by Thermal Discharge Payments Will Fund Environmental Projects
TRENTON - Attorney General Peter C. Harvey and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell today announced that the State has reached twin settlements totaling $1 million with AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen), the owner and operator of the Oyster Creek Generating Station, to resolve criminal and civil actions against the company in connection with a thermal discharge that violated its water pollution discharge permit and caused at least 5,876 fish to die from heat shock. More than two-thirds of AmerGen's $1 million settlement payment will be used to fund environmental projects.
"This settlement should send a clear message that New Jersey will hold polluters and those who damage our natural resources accountable for their actions," said Governor James E. McGreevey. "Although AmerGen caused critical damage to New Jersey's marine life and water resources, I am pleased that the company has agreed to fund environmental projects important to the community most affected, including improvements to the park and educational facilities at the Lighthouse Center in Waretown."
The fish kill occurred on September 23, 2002 when AmerGen shut down a transformer to perform maintenance work. The transformer provides power to the plant's three thermal dilution pumps, which serve to lower the temperature of water heated within the plant before it is discharged into Oyster Creek. The State alleged that the fish kill occurred because the company violated specific requirements concerning operation of the pumps contained in its water pollution discharge permit, issued by DEP.
"This is a fair and appropriate settlement to address the company's permit violations," said Attorney General Harvey. "We conducted a thorough investigation that uncovered weaknesses in the company's procedures and training relative to compliance with its water pollution permit. The $1 million in payments required under this settlement will provide the company with a strong incentive to maintain compliance going forward and will send a strong message to others as well."
"AmerGen's permit violations inflicted serious damage to marine life, and revealed a disregard for environmental safeguards," said DEP Commissioner Campbell. "The successful enforcement and settlement of AmerGen's water pollution discharge permit violations illustrate the McGreevey Administration's commitment to the protection of marine life and water resources."
AmerGen will pay $500,000 under a civil settlement agreement with DEP and $500,000 under a settlement agreement with the Division of Criminal Justice. AmerGen's settlement with the Division of Criminal Justice consists of a $250,000 penalty to be paid to the Clean Water Enforcement Fund to support enforcement activities of the Division's Environmental Crimes Bureau and $250,000 for the Lighthouse Center for Natural Resource Education in Waretown. The civil settlement includes an additional $52,088 to be used to improve the Lighthouse Center.
Under the civil settlement, AmerGen will pay an administrative penalty of $190,000 in addition to funds for natural resource damages and environmental projects. AmerGen will submit $182,912 to settle the State's demand for reimbursement for damage to natural resources. These funds will be used to restore injured natural resources or habitat in the Barnegat Bay area.
The company also will pay $75,000 under the civil settlement for the purchase of two EMM-550 Environmental Monitoring Modules to be used by the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program. The modules will monitor water temperature, conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen and turbidity at specific locations in the Barnegat Bay estuary. The modules will increase public understanding of water quality in Barnegat Bay by automatically transmitting continuous data to be posted in real time on the Internet.
The environmental monitors will be placed at sites in Manahawkin and Waretown where U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) equipment is currently set up. The monitors will operate in conjunction with USGS equipment in an effort to conserve resources. Both module sites are located near important submerged aquatic vegetation beds and vital resource species of fish and shellfish.
AmerGen's $302,088 payment to the Lighthouse Center, under the two settlements, will be used to make physical improvements to the Lighthouse Center property, which is located adjacent to Barnegat Bay. The Lighthouse Center is a 95-acre, multipurpose environmental educational facility that is owned by the State and used by the public and various environmental organizations. The improvements may include the rehabilitation of an existing fishing pier, reconstruction of water control structures to enhance fisheries habitat, lagoon dredging to improve access to the site by boaters, and other general site upgrades.
AmerGen's water pollution discharge permit includes provisions that are intended to protect marine life from exposure to harmful thermal release by regulating thermal dilution pumps. One provision prohibits maintenance work that impacts the dilution pumps from the start of June through the end of September. A second stipulates that at least one of the plant's dilution pumps must be in operation at any time when the water temperature of Oyster Creek at the Route 9 bridge exceeds 87 degrees Fahrenheit.
The State alleged that AmerGen violated the conditions of its permit by shutting down the pumps during September, when it was prohibited to do so, and failing to monitor the temperature in the creek. AmerGen also allegedly violated a requirement that it notify DEP within two hours of the discovery of the fish kill. Although AmerGen employees discovered dead fish within an hour of the time at which the pumps were taken out of service, the company allegedly failed to contact DEP until five hours after the discovery.
A thorough investigation by the Division of Criminal Justice revealed that the company failed to implement adequate procedures to ensure that employees fully appreciated the connection between their actions and the requirements of the plant's water pollution permit. Investigators also identified incidents of miscommunication at key points leading to the discharge. AmerGen has voluntarily taken steps to prevent the reoccurrence of water pollution permit violations by improving its procedures and employee training.
The case was handled for the Division of Criminal Justice by Supervising Deputy Attorney General Edward Bonanno, head of the Environmental Crimes Bureau, and Investigator Stephen Politowski. Deputy Attorney General Charles Licata handled the civil case for the Division of Law.
Coalition for Peace and Justice (http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org); and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign (http://www.unplugsalem.org); 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583/37; Norm Cohen <ncohen12@comcast.net> The Coalition for Peace and Justice is a chapter of Peace Action (http://www.peace-action.org). "You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" (Lennon). "Don't be late for your life" (Mary Chapin Carpenter).
-------- washington
River cleanup proposal changed
Thursday, April 8th, 2004
By Annette Cary,
Tri-City Herald staff writer
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/4943781p-4872550c.html
Two changes to the final contract proposal to clean up Hanford land along the river corridor should ease some Tri-City concerns.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will have more time to relocate offices and labs from the 300 Area just north of Richland, said Energy Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow in a phone interview Wednesday.
"Potentially 1,000 highly skilled workers would have been on the street," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who negotiated for changes in the proposal.
In addition, in the final proposal the winning contractor will be required to "really involve small business," McSlarrow said.
The final River Corridor Contract proposal will be released in about a month, with the award of the contract likely in the fall. The contract will include the demolition and sealing of old reactor complexes along the Columbia River at the northern end of Hanford and the cleanup of the industrial 300 Area along the river at the south end of the Hanford complex.
Many of the laboratories and offices in the 300 Area were built in the 1950s. In many cases, processes were tested at pilot scale in the 300 Area before being transferred to full-scale production of plutonium for weapons at Hanford.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory continues to use 19 buildings, including two that date from the 1970s. About 900 employees, or nearly a quarter of its work force, have offices in the 300 Area.
The final proposal will push that date back to 2009, McSlarrow said.
"We want to make sure activities at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory -- it's a jewel in the crown -- are protected," McSlarrow said.
The new proposal should prevent work at the lab from being disrupted but still allow DOE to continue cleanup progress at the 300 Area and meet accelerated goals, he said.
PNNL is estimating that replacing the 700,000 square feet of office and lab space it is using in the 300 Area will cost $250 million. Although not all buildings are contaminated, the ground and waste utility system beneath much of the site are contaminated.
The two-year delay in vacating the 300 Area is "very, very good for us," said PNNL Director Len Peters. "It gives us adequate time to work through the DOE budgetary process."
The lab will need preliminary engineering and design funds in 2005 and 2006. Some construction will be done in 2007 and 2008, allowing workers to begin moving to the replacement campus in 2008, Peters said. All workers could be out of the 300 Area by 2009.
The move will give DOE and PNNL the opportunity to create a modern and consolidated campus, said PNNL spokesman Greg Koller.
Little information is available yet on how the new office and lab space will be paid for, but Peters said federal government and third-party financing are likely.
"In a conflict like that you have to have common sense prevail," he said. He's been meeting with McSlarrow, the second-highest ranking official in DOE, and other DOE officials about the problem for several months.
Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both D-Wash., also supported changes to the contract proposal that would give the national lab in Richland more time to vacate the 300 Area.
"Sen. Murray is glad to see (deadlines) being pushed back, but still needs to see what the plan for replacement is going to be," said her spokeswoman, Alex Glass.
Hastings also is continuing to work to get other provisions changed in the final River Corridor Contract proposal, including providing a larger role for small businesses and addressing concerns about curtailed pension benefits.
McSlarrow said the final proposal will address small business concerns, while still naming a main contractor to manage the large and complicated project.
The president has made extending federal contract opportunities to small businesses a priority, McSlarrow said.
The Tri-Cities Local Business Association had complained that the draft proposal required no small business participation unless the main contractor hired subcontractors. Then half that work would have had to been done by small businesses.
The association believes that the River Corridor Contract is essentially many smaller contracts for diverse projects bundled together. It has asked that the contract be broken into five to 10 individual contracts that small businesses would be more likely to bid on and win.
It persuaded the Small Business Administration to look into the matter. In addition the General Accounting Office is conducting a nationwide review of small business contracting at DOE sites.
If the final River Corridor Contract proposal "forces the contractors to utilize small and local contractors, it is a step in the right direction," said Sid Morrison of the Tri-Cities Local Business Association.
But he cautioned, "I've got to read the fine print."
The association has argued that the contract proposal includes work that is not highly technical or hazardous that local businesses could perform. It believes making it easier for small businesses to do the work would save overhead costs and help them grow into stronger, more experienced companies that would remain after Hanford cleanup dollars are gone.
"We'd just like to have the chance to compete," Morrison said.
DOE is expected to release a statement today on changes made so far to the final River Corridor Contract proposal.
-------- us politics
Rice faces accusation on eve of testimony
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday April 8, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55877-2004Apr6?language=printer
A senior terrorism expert said yesterday that he had delivered a final desperate warning of an inevitable terrorist attack to Condoleezza Rice five days before al-Qaida struck New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in Washington.
On the eve of the national security adviser's public appearance today to defend the Bush administration's record before the commission studying the September 11 attacks, Gary Hart, a former Democratic presidential candidate who co-chaired an earlier three-year public study of the threats to US security in the 21st century, told the Guardian his warning had been ignored.
"She [Rice] said: 'I'll discuss it with the vice-president'," Mr Hart said; but he felt the response was a brush-off.
"All I can say is she didn't feel the degree of urgency I thought was necessary," he said. He said he has known Ms Rice for 20 years, since she had volunteered to work on his Colorado Senate campaign.
Ms Rice will speak under oath for more than two hours to the national commission examining whether more could have been done to prevent the September 11 attacks. She is expected to make a detailed rebuttal of the allegations by Richard Clarke, a former White House chief counter- terrorist adviser, that the Bush team virtually ignored the al-Qaida threat because of its fixations on Iraq and strategic missile defence.
Mr Hart's comments add weight to Mr Clarke's argument and make Ms Rice's task even harder.
Together with Warren Rudman, a veteran Republican politician, Mr Hart chaired the US commission on national security/21st century, which was established by President Bill Clinton in October 1998 and told to report to the incoming president in early 2001.
That report predicted: "America will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland [and] Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."
It recommended a national homeland security agency.
To the surprise of the 14 commissioners, Mr Hart said, the recommendations were ignored. The post of homeland security adviser was established in the White House only after the September 11 attacks.
"We were not just another federal commission. This was supposed to be - and was - the most comprehensive review of US national security since 1947," Mr Hart said in Denver, where he now works for an international law firm.
He said that in the first week of February 2001 he and other commissioners briefed Ms Rice, the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and the secretary of state, Colin Powell, to convey their fears personally.
"They were respectful and attentive, interested in what we were saying" - but nothing was done .
In early May 2001, when Congress was contemplating legislation to establish a homeland security agency, President Bush publicly called on it to shelve the issue while it was considered by Mr Cheney.
But the senior White House national security officials did not meet to discuss the terrorist threat until the first week of September.
"Imagine eight months before Pearl Harbor, an officially designated group of 14 Americans had told Roosevelt that the Japanese would attack some place somewhere and Roosevelt did nothing," Mr Hart said.
He complained that the September 11 commission had not asked him or his former colleagues to testify.
But Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission, said it had read the Hart-Rudman report, its staff had talked to some of Mr Hart's fellow commissioners, and might talk to Mr Hart himself.
----
Condoleezza Rice testimony
National Security Advisor's statement, as prepared, for delivery to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
April 08, 2004
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4693224/
Below are the prepared remarks of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, for delivery to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, in the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., on April 8, 2004.
I thank the Commission for arranging this special session. Thank you for helping to find a way to meet the Nation's need to learn all we can about the September 11th attacks, while preserving important Constitutional principles.
This Commission, and those who appear before it, have a vital charge. We owe it to those we lost, and to their loved ones, and to our country, to learn all we can about that tragic day, and the events that led to it. Many families of the victims are here today, and I thank them for their contributions to the Commission's work.
The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on September 11th, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al-Qaida and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans.
The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient. Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late. Despite the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and continued German harassment of American shipping, the United States did not enter the First World War until two years later. Despite Nazi Germany's repeated violations of the Versailles Treaty and its string of provocations throughout the mid-1930s, the Western democracies did not take action until 1939. The U.S. Government did not act against the growing threat from Imperial Japan until the threat became all too evident at Pearl Harbor. And, tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11th, this country simply was not on a war footing.
Since then, America has been at war. And under President Bush's leadership, we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our Nation is ended. The world has changed so much that it is hard to remember what our lives were like before that day. But I do want to describe the actions this Administration was taking to fight terrorism before September 11th, 2001.
After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton Administration on many national security issues during the transition. The President-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al-Qaida network. Members of Sandy Berger's NSC staff briefed me, along with other members of the new national security team, on counterterrorism and al-Qaida. This briefing lasted about one hour, and it reviewed the Clinton Administration's counterterrorism approach and the various counterterrorism activities then underway. Sandy and I personally discussed a variety of other topics, including North Korea, Iraq, the Middle East, and the Balkans.
Because of these briefings and because we had watched the rise of al-Qaida over the years, we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure there was no respite in the fight against al-Qaida. On an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network. President Bush retained George Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence, and Louis Freeh remained the Director of the FBI. I took the unusual step of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton Administration's counterterrorism team on the NSC staff. I knew Dick to be an expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to ensure continuity of operations while we developed new and more aggressive policies.
At the beginning of the Administration, President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the Director of Central Intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office - - meetings which I attended, along with the Vice President and the Chief of Staff. At these meetings, the President received up-to-date intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence officials. From January 20 through September 10, the President received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on al-Qaida, and 13 of these were in response to questions he or his top advisers had posed. In addition to seeing DCI Tenet almost every morning, I generally spoke by telephone every morning at 7:15 with Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. I also met and spoke regularly with the DCI about al-Qaida and terrorism.
Of course, we also had other responsibilities. President Bush had set a broad foreign policy agenda. We were determined to confront the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We were improving America's relations with the world's great powers. We had to change an Iraq policy that was making no progress against a hostile regime which regularly shot at U.S. planes enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And we had to deal with the occasional crisis, for instance, when the crew of a Navy plane was detained in China for 11 days.
We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the al-Qaida terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."
This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration - - not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida.
Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document, we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work, and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power - - intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military - - to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities. For instance:
• It directed the Secretary of State to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al-Qaida.
• It directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and State to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al-Qaida and its benefactors.
• It directed the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al-Qaida and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
• It tasked the Director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.
• And it directed the Secretary of Defense to - - and I quote - - "ensure that the contingency planning process include plans: against al-Qaida and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities; against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers." This was a change from the prior strategy -- Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in 1998 - - which ordered the Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.
More importantly, we recognized that no counterterrorism strategy could succeed in isolation. As you know from the Pakistan and Afghanistan strategy documents that we made available to the Commission, our counterterrorism strategy was part of a broader package of strategies that addressed the complexities of the region.
Integrating our counterterrorism and regional strategies was the most difficult and the most important aspect of the new strategy to get right. Al-Qaida was both client of and patron to the Taliban, which in turn was supported by Pakistan. Those relationships provided al-Qaida with a powerful umbrella of protection, and we had to sever them. This was not easy.
Not that we hadn't tried. Within a month of taking office, President Bush sent a strong, private message to President Musharraf urging him to use his influence with the Taliban to bring Bin Laden to justice and to close down al-Qaida training camps. Secretary Powell actively urged the Pakistanis, including Musharraf himself, to abandon support for the Taliban. I met with Pakistan's Foreign Minister in my office in June of 2001. I delivered a very tough message, which was met with a rote, expressionless response.
America's al-Qaida policy wasn't working because our Afghanistan policy wasn't working. And our Afghanistan policy wasn't working because our Pakistan policy wasn't working. We recognized that America's counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies and to our overall foreign policy.
To address these problems, I made sure to involve key regional experts. I brought in Zalmay Khalilzad, an expert on Afghanistan who, as a senior diplomat in the 1980s, had worked closely with the Afghan Mujahedeen, helping them to turn back the Soviet invasion. I also ensured the participation of the NSC experts on South Asia, as well as the Secretary of State and his regional specialists. Together, we developed a new strategic approach to Afghanistan. Instead of the intense focus on the Northern Alliance, we emphasized the importance of the south - - the social and political heartland of the country. Our new approach to Pakistan combined the use of carrots and sticks to persuade Pakistan to drop its support for the Taliban. And we began to change our approach to India, to preserve stability on the subcontinent.
While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke. Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last Administration, and some had been on the table since 1998. We increased counterterror assistance to Uzbekistan; we bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets; we increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies; and we moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida.
When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity. Let me clear up any confusion about the relationship between the development of our new strategy and the many actions we took to respond to threats that summer. Policy development and crisis management require different approaches. Throughout this period, we did both simultaneously.
For the essential crisis management task, we depended on the Counterterrorism Security Group chaired by Dick Clarke to be the interagency nerve center. The CSG consisted of senior counterterrorism experts from CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Defense Department (including the Joint Chiefs), the State Department, and the Secret Service. The CSG had met regularly for many years, and its members had worked through numerous periods of heightened threat activity. As threat information increased, the CSG met more frequently, sometimes daily, to review and analyze the threat reporting and to coordinate actions in response. CSG members also had ready access to their Cabinet Secretaries and could raise any concerns they had at the highest levels.
The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas. More often, it was frustratingly vague. Let me read you some of the actual chatter that we picked up that Spring and Summer:
• "Unbelievable news in coming weeks"
• "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar"
• "There will be attacks in the near future"
Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when; they don't tell us where; they don't tell us who; and they don't tell us how.
In this context, I want to address in some detail one of the briefing items we received, since its content has frequently been mischaracterized. On August 6, 2001, the President's intelligence briefing included a response to questions he had earlier raised about any al-Qaida intentions to strike our homeland. The briefing item reviewed past intelligence reporting, mostly dating from the 1990s, regarding possible al-Qaida plans to attack inside the United States. It referred to uncorroborated reporting from 1998 that terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat information. And it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat information we received was focused overseas, I was also concerned about possible threats inside the United States. On July 5, Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps to respond, even though we did not have specific threats to the homeland. Later that same day, Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives from the FAA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. At that meeting, these agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase security and surveillance.
Throughout this period of heightened threat information, we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against, and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack. For instance:
• The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.
• The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisories and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies, and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any al-Qaida attack on U.S. interests.
• The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI also tasked all 56 of its U.S. Field Offices to increase surveillance of known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.
• The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijackings.
• The CIA worked round the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against al-Qaida in more than 20 countries.
• During this period, the Vice President, DCI Tenet, and the NSC's Counterterrorism staff called senior foreign officials requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.
This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer of 2001.
Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States, something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. As an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt. Nor will I forget the courage and resilience shown by the American people and the leadership of the President that day.
Now, we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together. Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events - - events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting. Just as World War II led to a fundamental reorganization of our national defense structure and to the creation of the National Security Council, so has September 11th made possible sweeping changes in the ways we protect our homeland.
President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American Homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security, established a new center to integrate and analyze terrorist threat information, directed the transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror, broken down the bureaucratic walls and legal barriers that prevented the sharing of vital threat information between our domestic law enforcement and our foreign intelligence agencies, and, working with the Congress, given officials new tools, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, to find and stop terrorists. And he has done all of this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.
But the President also recognizes that our work is far from complete. More structural reform will likely be necessary. Our intelligence gathering and analysis have improved dramatically in the last two years, but they must be stronger still. The President and all of us in his Administration welcome new ideas and fresh thinking. We are eager to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people. And we look forward to receiving the recommendations of this Commission.
We are at war and our security as a nation depends on winning that war. We must and we will do everything we can to harden terrorist targets within the United States. Dedicated law enforcement and security professionals continue to risk their lives every day to make us all safer, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. And, let's remember, those charged with protecting us from attack have to succeed 100 percent of the time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists only have to succeed once, and we know they are trying every day.
That is why we must address the source of the problem. We must stay on offense, to find and defeat the terrorists wherever they live, hide, and plot around the world. If we learned anything on September 11th, 2001, it is that we cannot wait while dangers gather.
After the September 11th attacks, our Nation faced hard choices. We could fight a narrow war against al-Qaida and the Taliban or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush chose the bolder course.
He recognizes that the War on Terror is a broad war. Under his leadership, the United States and our allies are disrupting terrorist operations, cutting off their funding, and hunting down terrorists one-by-one. Their world is getting smaller. The terrorists have lost a home-base and training camps in Afghanistan. The Governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia now pursue them with energy and force.
We are confronting the nexus between terror and weapons of mass destruction. We are working to stop the spread of deadly weapons and prevent then from getting into the hands of terrorists, seizing dangerous materials in transit, where necessary. Because we acted in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will never again use weapons of mass destruction against his people or his neighbors. And we have convinced Libya to give up all its WMD-related programs and materials.
And as we attack the threat at its sources, we are also addressing its roots. Thanks to the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform, we removed from power two of the world's most brutal regimes -- sources of violence, and fear, and instability in the region. Today, along with many allies, we are helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to build free societies. And we are working with the people of the Middle East to spread the blessings of liberty and democracy as the alternatives to instability, hatred, and terror. This work is hard and dangerous, yet it is worthy of our effort and our sacrifice. The defeat of terror and the success of freedom in those nations will serve the interests of our Nation and inspire hope and encourage reform throughout the greater Middle East.
In the aftermath of September 11th, those were the right choices for America to make -- the only choices that can ensure the safety of our Nation in the decades to come.
Thank you. Now I am happy to answer your questions.
----
Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission
Thursday, April 8, 2004
by the Center for American Progress
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0408-04.htm
Planes as Weapons
CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]
CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]
FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]
August 6 PDB
CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th. [responding to Ben Veniste]
FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]
Domestic Threat
CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]
FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]
CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]
FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event -- there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]
Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force
CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]
FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time period, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03]
Principals Meetings
CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]
FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]
Previous Administration
CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony, 4/8/04]
FBI
CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]
CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]
FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]
Homeland Security
CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]
FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.
CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies -- the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA -- so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]
FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04]
IRAQ-9/11
CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."
FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]
CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"
FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04; USA Today, 3/28/04; Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04]
War on Terror
CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."
FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03; CNN, 11/23/02; Newsweek, 4/7/04]
----
Analysis Bush Credibility on 2 Wars -- Iraq, Terrorism -- Under Challenge
By Dan Balz and Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Thursday, April 8, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59416-2004Apr7.html
A week of escalating violence in Iraq, accompanied by growing numbers of U.S. casualties and gruesome images on television and in newspapers, threatens to erode public confidence in President Bush and redraw the political calculus of the impact of the war on terrorism in the presidential election.
Bush has put a consistently hopeful face on his Iraqi policy as he aims for the June 30 transfer of power back to the Iraqis. But that very optimism could turn into a political liability if the American people conclude that it does not square with their evaluation of events. Faced with a growing debate over his policies, Bush's credibility on terrorism, once the linchpin of his political strength, is under serious challenge.
"There's no doubt that the increasing casualties will affect public opinion adversely for a president who has drawn a much more optimistic scenario than the amount of casualties we're seeing today," said Larry Berman, a professor at the University of California at Davis and an author of books about presidential decision-making during Vietnam.
"There's a lot of reasons this is not Vietnam," he added. "There are so many inaccurate analogies being drawn, but the one that has the most resonance to contemporary events is the credibility gap between what a president says and what is happening."
Advisers to the president and administration allies said it was too soon to measure the political impact on Bush, but they were clearly nervous and expected erosion as a result of the events of the week. Meanwhile, a second Democratic senator in three days drew a parallel between Bush's Iraq policy and Vietnam.
The challenges to Bush's credibility come on multiple fronts. Assertions by former White House counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke that the administration did not take the threat of terrorism seriously before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks pose a direct challenge to the portrait White House officials have drawn of the president. Add to that images of a Marine carrying a body bag and the burned corpses of U.S contractors that have filled television screens in the past six days and the potential political peril for Bush becomes obvious.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice will seek to rebut one such challenge when she testifies this morning before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. Republicans privately said yesterday that Bush must step forward to confront questions about his Iraq policy.
The president stayed out of sight at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., but events have played havoc with his schedule. Originally, Bush planned to remain out of view until he attends Easter services on Sunday, but aides acknowledged that was untenable at such a momentous time. Now they are planning an Easter Sunday speech at nearby Fort Hood, according to aides, and a possible appearance Friday.
Public support for going to war in Iraq remains strong, according to the only poll taken since four American civilian contractors were killed and their bodies desecrated in Fallujah last week, but more ominous for Bush were a sharp drop in support for the way he is handling Iraq and growing concern about whether the administration has a clear plan for a successful transition to Iraqi control and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.
The Pew Research Center survey showed that just 40 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from 59 percent in January, when the capture of former president Saddam Hussein was still fresh. At the time of that capture in December, 44 percent said Bush had a clear plan for resolving the situation in Iraq; the latest poll found 32 percent agreed.
The most significant shift in attitudes occurred among political independents. In January, a solid majority approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Today, a solid majority disapproves, a shift that could mean political trouble if the president cannot reverse perceptions in the coming months.
John Mueller, a professor at Ohio State University and an authority on war and public opinion, said the uprising in Iraq is "potentially a debacle and a disaster" in terms of domestic support for the war. "We've heard about five times that we've turned the corner," he said. "We've continued to get this spin, which is fine if it's more or less true. Presidents frequently try to boost support for things by talking, but people don't necessarily buy it" without seeing improvements.
Bush campaign officials have challenged Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the presumptive Democratic nominee, to explain what he would do differently, but even Republicans were looking yesterday for Bush to take control of the situation to reassure the public -- not just that he is determined to suppress the resistance in Iraq -- but that there is a viable plan for transferring power in less than 90 days.
The risk for Bush comes in the potential for growing division on Capitol Hill and in the country about whether to increase troop strength or accelerate a U.S. withdrawal. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld indicated yesterday that the Pentagon will take advantage of planned troop rotation, designed to draw down U.S. forces, to maintain troop strength to deal with the uprising.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said: "Now, after a year of continued strife in Iraq, comes word that the commander of forces in the region is seeking options to increase the number of U.S. troops on the ground if necessary. Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development."
Byrd said the United States needs "a road map" for exiting Iraq, an argument that drew sharp rebuttal from some GOP senators, including John McCain (Ariz.), who said, "We don't face another Vietnam."
"The real danger for Bush is if he loses support among Republicans on Capitol Hill and you see a growing movement to bring the troops home," said James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations. "That would be the most disastrous outcome for American foreign policy, both in long term and in the short term. Whether you supported the war or not, it is critical to American interests to get Iraq right."
GOP strategist Charles R. Black Jr. expressed concerns that were widespread among Bush allies.
"His continued resolve, combined with explaining to people why we're there will probably keep enough people behind him politically, but you don't know because you don't know what's going to happen next," Black said. "People's first instinct is to rally around the troops and the president. But if it goes on a while and there's a lot of second-guessing, people may become hesitant to support the policy."
Milbank reported from Texas. Staff writer Mike Allen contributed to this report.
---------
Kerry Targets Budget Deficit New Proposals Echo Clinton
By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 8, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57889-2004Apr7?language=printer
Sen. John F. Kerry outlined a broad deficit-reduction policy yesterday, scaling back several campaign promises that he now concedes the country cannot afford if his new budget goals are to be met.
In his second major policy address of the general election campaign, the Massachusetts Democrat harked back to the fiscal and political policies of President Bill Clinton, sacrificing social spending to the goal of reducing the budget deficit by half in five years and eventually eliminating it by raising taxes on the rich and restraining government spending.
Kerry pulled back on promises made during the Democratic primary crunch to immediately make preschool universal and cover the cost of college for students who provide national services, such as volunteering. Both programs would cover fewer people than originally billed. Sarah Bianchi, the campaign's policy director, said Kerry is also cutting in half a proposal to send $50 billion to cash-strapped states. The Democratic candidate has been under relentless attack by the Bush campaign as a big spender.
"Those are hard calls a president has to make," Kerry told students at Georgetown University.
While much of the nation is focused on death tolls and chaos in Iraq, Kerry is picking a political fight with President Bush over budget deficits, health care costs, tax cuts and spending, all of which have ballooned over the past three years.
"George Bush stubbornly refuses to change course," Kerry said. "When false promises don't work, he tries excuses. Blaming everyone from Bill Clinton to Ken Lay to Saddam Hussein."
Kerry's speech echoed widespread criticism of Bush's fiscal policies that contributed to the largest fiscal swing in the nation's history: the record budget surplus of $236 billion in 2000 has turned into a record deficit that could reach $500 billion this year.
"This is not going to be easy," Kerry said. "It will require tough decisions, not just for one budget, not just for one campaign, but tough for years to come and often in the face of unforeseen circumstances."
Yet Kerry avoided some of the most difficult choices in his budget framework. For instance, it does not spell out ways to cut or contain the costs of entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, which together eat up nearly a third of the federal budget. Nor does it account for how Kerry, as president, would pay for many other programs, such as those for veterans, that could prove expensive over the next decade.
Gene Sperling, a Kerry economic adviser, said Kerry would spend as much as Bush on national defense and slightly more on homeland security. In his speech, Kerry said he would fill in the blanks later in the campaign and "state, in specific terms, how to finance them without raising the deficit or middle-class taxes."
If he cannot make his programs fit into a balanced budget, Kerry said he will slow or shrink them.
The presumptive Democratic nominee vowed to pay for all future tax cuts and spending, but, like Bush, has confined any restraint on federal spending to a sliver of the $2.4 trillion budget, leaving untouched Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, homeland security and education spending. The non-defense, non-homeland-security, non-education spending that remains represents about 17 percent of the budget, and much of it is sacrosanct to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Like Bush, Kerry pledges to cut the deficit in half in five years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, economic growth would cut the deficit nearly that much even if no new policies were adopted to change spending or tax receipts over that time.
The real problem comes beyond that window, in 2011, when all of Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts are set to expire. In 2012 alone, the expired tax cuts would add $249 billion to federal revenue. To draw out his comparison to Bush's fiscal policies, Kerry shows how his budget proposals would compare with Bush's if all the tax cuts were made permanent, as Bush has demanded of Congress. But even Kerry advisers acknowledge that his plan would worsen the deficit, compared with where it would be if the tax cuts were allowed to disappear, as current law holds.
Sperling conceded that Kerry's budget would not pay for extending the Bush tax cuts that Kerry supports. This is a change for Kerry. Just last month, over the objections of the White House and the Republican leadership, four GOP moderates in the Senate joined Kerry and other Democrats to pass a budget that includes far stricter impediments to new tax cuts and new spending.
As for the offsets Kerry outlined yesterday, Clinton and others proposed many of the same measures to bring the budget into balance, such as collecting royalties for mineral rights on federal lands and cutting subsidies to high-income corporate farmers. But they got nowhere in Congress. And if Congress remains in Republican control, Kerry's call to raise $17 billion by extending "Superfund" environmental cleanup requirements on businesses is not likely to be enacted.
Kerry also proposed freezing the federal travel budget and cutting 100,000 contractors employed by the government.
The Bush campaign accused Kerry of glossing over his Senate record, which includes scores of votes for spending increases and tax hikes. "John Kerry's newfound interest in fiscal discipline is a political gimmick that defies his 20-year record in the Senate and stands in stark contrast to his reckless and expansive promises of new government spending on the campaign trail," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman. Bush has turned many of those votes, especially for tax increases, into the sharpest ads of the early campaign.
Kerry, however, voted for several balanced budget plans and tax cuts the Bush campaign ignores in its ads and speeches. The Massachusetts senator's record is filled with votes on both sides of these issues, painting a complicated and sometimes confusing portrait. But as a presidential candidate, he has repeatedly pushed for middle-class tax cuts, even early on when many Democrats were clamoring for a total repeal of the Bush tax cuts.
Kerry twice noted in his speech that 98 percent of individuals would get a tax break, because he would repeal the Bush tax cut only for the richest 2 percent of Americans, and 99 percent of corporations would get a tax break because of his plan to reduce corporate income taxes by 5 percent across the board.
For the first time, Kerry detailed his plan to raise the amount of an estate not subject to taxation to $4 million for families and $10 million for a family-owned farm. Bush's tax cut that was passed in 2001 also raised that exemption, but not until late this decade, and repeals it in 2010. Kerry would maintain the estate tax for large inheritances.
In addition to backing the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $200,000 annually, Kerry supports tax breaks to make education and health care more affordable. Kerry said the savings from a repeal of the tax cuts for the rich would finance his expansion of health care and education programs.
Under Kerry's plan, spending would be allowed to go up only as fast as inflation. If spending exceeded that rate, a Kerry administration would cut spending across the board for all programs save entitlements, defense, homeland security and education.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
Afghan Warlord's Troops Overrun City
April 8, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-Factional-Fighting.html
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- A powerful warlord's militias overran a provincial capital in Afghanistan on Thursday, forcing the governor to flee in what could be the biggest challenge yet to U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai.
The takeover of Maymana could raise concerns in Washington over the stability of Afghanistan as the country prepares for national elections and American troops face a surge of violence in Iraq.
Forces of Abdul Rashid Dostum stormed into Maymana, the capital of Faryab province some 260 miles northwest of Kabul, Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali said.
``They have control of the city,'' Jalali said, adding that the ``massive'' force had met little opposition.
But he pledged to reinstate the Kabul-appointed governor, Enayatullah Enayat, who fled to the airport, and said Dostum would be ousted from the town.
Enayat will ``continue in his job and we're going to send more police to protect him and allow him to do it,'' Jalali said at a news conference.
Dostum is an ethnic Uzbek, but the fighting was unrelated to terrorist attacks in neighboring Uzbekistan.
It was the second major militia clash in Afghanistan in less than a month, and threw further doubt on the war-ravaged country's readiness for elections.
The government already has deployed 1,500 troops from its U.S.-trained Afghan National Army to the western city of Herat after bloody factional fighting last month left 16 dead, including a Cabinet minister.
U.S. officials had hoped the Afghan army would play an important role in bolstering the 13,500-strong military coalition as it pursues Taliban and al-Qaida militants. The coalition wants the army to eventually supplant militias across the country.
But the force has managed to collect only 8,000 men, despite increased training programs.
U.S. military and embassy officials in Kabul had no immediate comment on the latest fighting or deployment plans.
In unrelated violence, two Afghan army soldiers were among seven people killed across the insurgency-torn south and east, officials said. One died in a gunbattle during a search operation in southern Helmand province. An American soldier was wounded in the battle.
Another Afghan soldier was killed by a mine in neighboring Uruzgan. Three militants and two police officers were also reported killed in Helmand. Jalali said 750 more soldiers would be deployed in Faryab. ``Whatever is necessary for maintaining stability and peace, they are going to do it,'' he said.
Dostum, a former communist and veteran of Afghanistan's brutal civil wars, ran a swath of the country, including Faryab, as a personal fiefdom in the early 1990s.
He returned to power in the region after helping U.S. forces drive out the Taliban in late 2001, and has since maintained a large private army.
But he has appealed in vain for a top security job in Karzai's administration, and his men have fought repeatedly for control of the territory with Tajik rivals allied with Defense Minister Mohammed Fahim.
Officials in Faryab accused Dostum of trying to drive them out of office for allying too closely with Karzai's government.
Dostum's aide in Kabul said he had discussed the situation in Faryab with elders of the province but had ordered no moves against Enayat or Hashim Khan, the commander of the 200th Afghan army division, who Jalali said had also fled Maymana.
The aide, Akbar Boy, said government troops were welcome in the region, but cautioned that there would be a backlash if they sided with the embattled officials, whom he accused of receiving government funds to buy votes ahead of the elections.
``The people of Faryab will rise against them,'' Boy said. ``They don't want Hashim.''
Karzai's government has vowed to disarm some 40,000 militia fighters and round up heavy weapons in the country by the September vote.
Jalali said the government pinned its hopes in a U.N.-sponsored demobilization plan to disarm fighters and reintegrate them into civilian life.
``We hope that by the election, we will have everything under control,'' he said.
-------- africa
Ten Years Later, Rwanda Mourns Genocide
Victims Honored As Survivors Stitch New Lives
By Emily Wax and Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59520-2004Apr7.html
KIGALI, Rwanda, April 7 -- This is not a place where solemn gravediggers are hired or gated cemeteries honor the dead with expensive tombstones arranged in neatly manicured rows. In Rwanda, people dig graves for their own relatives, burying them where they were killed.
But Wednesday was different. Rwandans began a week of mourning, honoring those who died in the 1994 genocide, a 100-day killing spree that began at daybreak 10 years ago and left an estimated 800,000 minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus dead.
The remains of 20 of those victims were unearthed from around the capital for Wednesday's ceremony and lowered into a cavernous gray stone tomb high above the capital's sloping maze of tin-roofed slums and red-dirt footpaths. They rest amid two levels of neatly tended gardens just steps below the central courtyard of a new museum to commemorate the victims of the genocide.
Relatives held up framed photo collages of those they had lost. Children carried bundles of red roses and wreaths of yellow and pink wildflowers. Everyone was draped in silky purple scarves, a traditional color of mourning in Rwanda. Under a pounding sun, a female choir, with umbrellas overhead, sang sweetly, "This world is not for us. At the end, we are taken to heaven."
At noon, a tranquillity fell over the city as the central African nation observed 10 minutes of silence -- children hushed, bars fell quiet and radios were turned off. President Paul Kagame, who led the military force that stopped the genocide, laid a wreath on the 20th coffin before it was lowered into the large tomb. He lit a flame that will burn for 100 days.
"The memory of those killed is still fresh in our minds," Kagame said. "Every single day in the last 10 years has been a battle for our soul." Ceremonies were scheduled from 6 a.m. until past midnight.
Kagame also lashed out at countries that stood by during the genocide. "All these powerful nations regarded 1 million lives as valueless, as another statistic and could be dispensed with," he said.
Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt was the only non-African head of government to attend. He also unveiled a memorial for 10 Belgian peacekeepers who were killed that April 7 as they tried to protect the prime minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana. She was dragged into the street and killed. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and former president Bill Clinton, who had both apologized for the lack of attention to the killings, were absent.
"When I was a boy, I had to bury my mother alone after the genocide," mumbled Freddy Mutanguha, 28, a genocide survivor who is working with the memorial to exhume mass graves around the country. "No one was there for me then. I wanted people to see us today."
Aegis Trust, a British group, helped design and construct the $2 million Kigali National Memorial Center, which describes the history and displays the documents surrounding the genocide. It was finished just in time for Wednesday's ceremony. A purple banner at the entrance reads in English: "Never Again." Inside, in a glass case, is the fax from Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire, commander of a small U.N. peacekeeping force in Rwanda, in which he pleaded for help.
The genocide began hours after the still unsolved downing on April 6, 1994, of the plane carrying President Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu. Phrases like "go to work" and "the graves are not yet full," poured over the radio airwaves. Hutu youth roamed the streets, setting up roadblocks and hacking Tutsis to death as they checked ethnic identification cards. Moderate Hutus were slaughtered in churches, schools and their homes for not agreeing to kill their Tutsi neighbors. The violence engulfed the region as Hutu militiamen fled into neighboring Congo.
There is deep frustration in Rwanda at the pace of the work by the U.N.-backed International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which has secured 18 convictions. Rwandan officials said at least 300 ringleaders live abroad and remain at large, in other African nations as well as in the United States and Europe.
To quicken trials for those accused of lower-level crimes, Rwanda has introduced a system of traditional courts known as gacaca, which means "under a tree." Ordinary Rwandans are asked to serve as judges and attorneys, and the accused are told to ask for forgiveness for crimes such as injury, stealing and, more recently, rape and attempted killings. The courts have just begun countrywide. Rwanda's formal court system in Kigali is overburdened with 80,000 prisoners still in the system.
For ordinary Rwandans, the rituals of remembrance Wednesday were largely for the outside world. At the city's rundown Amahoro Stadium, Rwandans gathered for an afternoon of speeches by African heads of state and other political leaders. Some, including South African President Thabo Mbeki, apologized for ignoring the genocide. Others blamed the United Nations, the United States and other countries for the world's indifference.
But their voices were often drowned out by the wails of traumatized women. Some were so distraught they were carried out of the stadium screaming, "They are killing my mother," and "Where are my people?" The sounds of planes from the nearby airport and the stifling heat added to the tension.
"At an occasion like this, your tragedy is replayed," said Esther Mukakigeri, 38, who attended the ceremony with several relatives. She had lost her husband and parents during the genocide.
In the end, Rwandans said, stitching together a life after genocide is a daily duty that touches nearly every part of life and needs few opulent ceremonies.
Every day for the past three months, groups of teachers have been meeting to assemble a curriculum and develop textbooks and lesson plans about the genocide. Recent history has not been taught since the genocide. No one has wanted to offend Hutus and Tutsis who sit side by side in classrooms and whose parents are neighbors.
"We don't need fancy buildings with big reminders. We live it," said Xaverine Mujawayezu, 49, director of Smile Again, a Rwandan widows association, which runs a technical center that teaches tailoring and construction skills to orphans of the genocide. She grabbed the hand of one of her students, Jeraldine Uwimana, 21, who had a measuring tape hanging around her neck as she learned to operate a sewing machine. Uwimana's parents were killed as she played amid the thick banana trees behind her home.
Hand-in-hand, she walked with Mujawayezu over the hills to her home. There was a muddy bump in the ground where a grave sat. There were no flowers. No one, Uwimana said, came to sing when she buried her parents, or even years later.
--------
Brutal Conflict in Sudan Brings Warnings by Bush and Annan
April 8, 2004
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/africa/08SUDA.html
A conflict raging in Sudan came under heightened international scrutiny yesterday as President Bush called on the government there to rein in militias and the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, raised the alarm about reported atrocities.
The timing of Mr. Annan's comments made them particularly pointed. Ten years ago, when Mr. Annan was the United Nations' peacekeeping chief, ethnic Hutu combatants killed up to 800,000 ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda. The massacres have come to symbolize the world's failure to avert mass killings of shocking proportions.
Yesterday, Mr. Annan used a commemoration of the 1994 events to draw attention to the western Darfur region of Sudan, where the country's latest civil war has pushed an estimated 100,000 civilians west across the desert border into Chad.
The refugees, who are black Africans, have reported attacks by largely Arab militias affiliated with the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum.
There are no accounts of what is happening in Darfur from independent observers; the Khartoum government has refused aid groups access to much of the region. But refugees in Chad have told of being chased out of their villages, and have reported killings and rapes.
"Such reports leave me with a deep sense of foreboding," Mr. Annan said at yesterday's commemoration, held in Geneva. "Whatever terms it uses to describe the situation, the international community cannot stand idle."
President Bush, who has tried to bring an end to a separate civil war in Sudan, called on the Sudanese government to end the attacks in Darfur.
"The Sudanese government must immediately stop local militias from committing atrocities against the local population and must provide unrestricted access to humanitarian aid agencies," Mr. Bush said in a written statement. "The government of Sudan must not remain complicit in the brutalization of Darfur."
The other war in Sudan, which has pit Muslim Khartoum against southern Christian rebels for nearly 20 years, is beginning to show signs of a thaw.
Peace talks between the Islamist government in the north and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, from the largely Christian and animist south, have steadily inched forward. A final accord is likely to bring the deployment of a substantial United Nations peacekeeping force in Sudan.
-------- asia
Iraqis threaten to kill Japanese hostages
Thu 8 April, 2004
(Reuters)
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=491042§ion=news
DUBAI - Arab television Al Jazeera has aired a video showing three Japanese, including one woman, it says have been taken hostage by an Iraqi group vowing to kill them if Japan does not leave Iraq.
A statement on Thursday by the hitherto unknown Iraqi group called Saraya al-Mujahideen (Mujahideen Brigades), shown by the channel, gave Japan three days from the airing of the video to withdraw its troops from Iraq before it killed the hostages.
The Arabic statement said Japan had betrayed Iraqis by supporting the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
"We tell you that three of your children have fallen prisoner in our hands and we give you two options -- withdraw your forces from our country and go home or we will burn them alive and feed them to the fighters," it said.
"You have three days from the date of this tape's airing."
The hostages were shown wearing civilians clothes. Passports shown on the video carried the woman's name as Nahoko Takato and the two men as Noriaki Imai and Soichiro Koriyama. At least one of them had a press identification card.
Japanese public broadcaster NHK said Takato belonged to a human rights group and she has been involved in relief work for children in Iraq since last year.
Imai had been planning a trip to Iraq to do field work on the possible effects of depleted uranium weapons and Koriyama is a freelance cameraman, NHK added.
Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatsuhisa Takashima said: "The only thing I can say is we watched Al Jazeera...and what Al Jazeera reported is what we are now trying to confirm."
Top government officials including Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, the top government spokesman, gathered at the prime minister's office to collect information while Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was at his official residence.
Earlier on Thursday, Japan vowed to make no hasty decisions about its 550 non-combat troops in the southern city of Samawa after explosions near their camp.
The three Japanese were shown kneeling with their eyes bound with white cloth and surrounded by masked men holding rifles. A later shot showed them without their bindings and talking to their captors as they sat on the floor. The walls of the room were riddled with bullets.
Nudged by the United States, Japan has sent troops to Samawa on a non-combat mission to help rebuild Iraq.
It is Japan's riskiest military deployment since World War Two. Critics also say it violates Japan's pacifist constitution.
No Japanese soldier has fired a shot in action or been killed in combat since 1945 and casualties could undermine support for Koizumi's government ahead of Upper House elections in July.
----
Japan has no plan to withdraw troops despite hostage reports
TOKYO (AFP)
Apr 08, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040408142506.m8ocglnb.html
Japan said Thursday it has no plan to withdraw its troops from Iraq despite reports that three Japanese nationals were detained in the country by a group demanding the withdrawal of Japanese troops.
"Since our Self-Defence Forces are providing reconstruction support for Iraqi people, we have no reason for withdrawal," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda told a news conference.
A previously unknown group, calling itself the "Mujahedeen Brigades," threatened Thursday to kill three Japanese nationals it said it had abducted unless Tokyo withdrew its troops from Iraq, in a videotape aired by the Al-Jazeera satellite channel.
Fukuda said the government has yet to confirm the report.
"The government is doing our best to gather information," Fukuda said. "If innocent civilians are taken hostage as reported, it is unforgivable and I feel strong resentment. We demand their immediate release."
The Qatar-based television aired soundless video of the trio and their passports, adding that an accompanying statement had given Tokyo three days to meet the group's demands.
The three captives, one of whom was a woman, appeared blindfolded in parts of the video, while other shots clearly showed their faces and the rest of their bodies.
Japan, a close ally of the United States, has deployed some 550 ground troops to Samawa in predominantly Shiite southern Iraq as part of the US-led coalition's humanitarian work, despite strong objections at home.
Japanese soldiers have been tasked with providing clean water, medical assistance and help in repairing public facilities in Samawa.
Fukuda defended the government's decision to send troops to Iraq.
"Doesn't terrorism occur if we do not send the Self-Defence Forces?" Fukuda said after he was asked about the government's responsibility for the deployment and the reported abductions.
"Terrorism can occur anywhere," he said, adding that rescuing the hostages was more important than questions about the dispatch of Japanese troops.
The military deployment is Japan's first since World War II to a country where fighting is ongoing and has caused controversy because of the risk of being drawn into combat, potentially violating the nation's post-war pacifist constitution, which bans the use of force in settling international disputes.
Fukuda also said the government plans to Senior Vice Foreign Minister Aisawa to Jordan to handle the case.
"We have not made any contact with the group yet," Fukuda said, adding that Tokyo has not received any request from the group directly.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has "ordered us to make our utmost efforts to rescue the hostages," Fukuda said.
-------- business
Lockheed lowers Titan-buyout offer
ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 08, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20040407-092920-4780r.htm
Lockheed Martin Corp. lowered its buyout offer for Titan Corp. by $200 million to $2.2 billion yesterday as part of a renegotiated agreement that comes as Titan faces an ongoing federal probe into suspected illegal overseas payments.
The new pact calls for Lockheed to pay shareholders of the San Diego-based Titan $20 per share in cash, down from the $22 per share in cash and stock offered when the original deal was struck last year.
That dropped the value of the deal from $2.4 billion to $2.2 billion, according to Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky.
"We feel the adjusted price is both fair and appropriate under the circumstances," he said.
Those circumstances are Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department investigations of potential bribery related to payments by Titan consultants to foreign officials.
In a March 31 SEC filing, Titan said the probes centered on three business units and subsidiaries in Benin, Saudi Arabia and the Far East.
The filing said Titan and Lockheed presented preliminary findings of internal probes to federal investigators at a March 25 meeting. It did not specify what the internal investigation uncovered.
If charged and found guilty, Titan could face criminal penalties and fines and be blocked from future federal contracts.
Under the new deal with Lockheed, Titan must present written proof that the Justice Department has cleared the company of wrongdoing or plead guilty and be sentenced.
The agreement also pushes back the approval date for a second time. Titan shareholders will now vote on the merger June 7. The vote was scheduled for April 12, a date that had been pushed back from March 16 to give the probes more time to play out.
If the merger is not completed by June 25, both Lockheed and Titan can back out, but the companies said that deadline could be extended to September.
Analysts said Lockheed was using Titan's legal woes as a way to lower what had previously been an expensive deal for the Bethesda-based company.
Titan spokesman Wil Williams said the company thought the lower price was fair.
-------- chemical weapons
Syria-EU Trade Deal Stalls Over Chemical Weapons Issue
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59724-2004Apr7.html
DAMASCUS, Syria -- Syrian efforts to cut a trade deal with Europe before the possible imposition of U.S. sanctions have stalled over attempts to pressure the government of President Bashar Assad to renounce its chemical weapons programs, European diplomats and Syrian officials say.
The deadlock with the European Union means that Syria faces possible U.S. economic and diplomatic sanctions without the cushion of eased trade with West European countries.
Syrian officials complain that the EU, under pressure from the Bush administration, had stiffened requirements for it to join a trade initiative that would have reduced tariffs and opened trade between the EU and countries along the Mediterranean. Under EU rules set last year, accords between the EU and non-EU countries must include language upholding bans on weapons of mass destruction.
"We feel the wording is a deliberate attempt to raise impossible issues," said Buthaina Shabaan, Syria's minister of expatriate affairs. "This negatively affects us a great deal."
Syria and the EU had reached agreement on language dealing with weapons of mass destruction last December, but Britain, the Netherlands and Germany demanded a stronger commitment, a senior European diplomat said. In January, Syria rejected a new clause, complaining that the EU had made no similar demands of Israel, which possesses an undeclared arsenal of nuclear weapons.
A final trade deal stands no more than a 50-50 chance of getting signed, the diplomat said. Talks between Syrian and EU officials last week failed to resolve the dispute. "We want this agreement, but not at any cost," Shabaan said.
The accord would reduce Syrian import tariffs and remove duties on many exports to Europe. It also would open up Syria to foreign financial companies, possibly boosting prospects for investment in the country.
The Bush administration is pondering a series of sanctions to place on Syria under a measure passed by Congress in 2003. Under the act, President Bush has the option of imposing sanctions that include bans on trade and investment, freezing Syrian government assets in the United States, reducing diplomatic representation and prohibiting Syrian commercial flights into or over U.S. territory.
Bush administration officials have accused Syria of pursuing "what is now one of the most advanced Arab chemical weapons capabilities," John R. Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control, said last year. Bolton said Syria possesses sarin, a nerve gas, which could be delivered by aircraft or missile.
Although Syria has no nuclear weapons, Bolton said, "We believe that Syria is continuing to develop an offensive biological weapons capability." He linked the assertions to Syria's support for armed Palestinian and Lebanese groups that are on the State Department list of terrorist organizations.
"We cannot allow the world's most dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes," he said.
Syrian officials regard the sanctions threat as a U.S. favor to Israel, which seized the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. They reject U.S. suggestions that Syria follow the example of Libya, which has dismantled its nuclear and chemical programs in recent months. "Libya does not have land occupied by Israel," Shabaan said. "Why can Israel, which occupies territory, have weapons and the ones who are occupied have none?"
Syria has proposed a region-wide ban on weapons of mass destruction.
Although the effect of U.S. sanctions would be relatively small -- bilateral trade amounts to no more than $300 million a year -- the move would have a chilling effect on Syria's economy. Syrian officials say their economy needs to grow by about 5 percent a year to keep up with the number of young people entering the workforce, but current growth rates are about half that much.
U.S. officials have also accused Syria of permitting foreign fighters to pass through its territory and infiltrate Iraq. The charge, along with criticism over Syria's relations with armed Palestinian and Lebanese groups and its continued occupation of portions of Lebanon, has prompted Syria to stop cooperating with the Bush administration's declared war on terrorism. The Syrian government had closely cooperated with the United States, passing along intelligence information on activities of the al Qaeda terrorist network, but that has stopped, Shabaan said.
The EU trade agreement would help buttress Syria's fledgling efforts at economic reform, Syrian and European officials said. According to some reform-minded Syrians, however, certain officials in Assad's government, including Foreign Minister Farouk Charaa, are opposed to the accord, arguing that trade from abroad would weaken Syria's wobbly state-run industries. In any event, the European diplomat warned that after May 1, when the EU expands by 10 members, the organization may be reluctant to quickly grant Syria trade breaks.
-------- china
NEWS ANALYSIS
A Democratic China? Not So Fast, Beijing Leaders Say
April 8, 2004
By JOSEPH KAHN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/asia/08chin.html
BEIJING, April 7 - When asked why China, with its surging economy and rising power, has not yet begun to democratize, its leaders recite a standard line. The country is too big, too poor, too uneducated and too unstable to give political power to the people, they say.
The explanation is often delivered in a plaintive tone: China really would like to become a more liberal country, if only it did not have unique problems requiring the Communist Party to maintain its absolute monopoly on power for just a while longer.
The case of Hong Kong suggests it could be a great deal longer.
Hong Kong, a former British colony that came under Chinese control in 1997, is a tidy, small place by Chinese standards. Its six million people are extensively educated, multilingual and heavily Westernized. It has a low crime rate, a nimble economy and a remarkably accommodating population that has proven pragmatic and subdued under both British and Chinese rule.
At $24,750 in per capita annual income, its people are about 25 times wealthier than their mainland compatriots and the 15th most affluent population in the world, according to a World Bank tally. It is also by far the richest place in which citizens do not have the right to elect their own leaders, with Kuwait, its nearest competitor, ranking 34th.
So why then did Beijing decide this week to revoke Hong Kong's leeway to chart a course toward local democracy, which many there felt was guaranteed in a series of laws that govern its special status under Chinese rule?
Some analysts say it is Beijing's leadership that lacks the requisite conditions, or perhaps the confidence, to allow its people a greater say in their own affairs.
"The problem for China is not legal. It is not whether Hong Kong society is capable of handling democracy," said Shi Yinhong, a political expert at People's University in Beijing. "The problem is that if Hong Kong holds direct elections now, it will probably elect people who are not loyal to Beijing."
"Frankly speaking," Mr. Shi said, "that is something Chinese leaders are not ready to accept."
Democracy has long been a distant and distinctly foreign concept in Communist China. Even during the pro-democracy Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989, the idea was so vague to most student leaders that they expressed it by building a papier-mâché Goddess of Democracy that resembled the Statue of Liberty. Democracy was like Hollywood, Ellis Island and tricorner hats.
It is not like that now. Democracy is an immediate and direct threat to China's leadership in Hong Kong and also in Taiwan, two places it considers vital to its security and prestige.
Beijing considers Taiwan part of China. But the island has been drifting further away from mainland control with its democratic development over the past 15 years. China's leaders view Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, as determined to make Taiwan an independent country in a legal and internationally recognized sense, an outcome they have repeatedly warned will lead to war. Despite those concerns, Taiwanese voters gave Mr. Chen a second term in office in last month's presidential elections.
China once viewed Hong Kong as a golden goose that would share capitalist expertise while demonstrating the motherland's rising power by returning to the fold. When Deng Xiaoping negotiated the terms of its return to Chinese rule with Britain in the 1980's, the promise of allowing the territory to democratize in the first decade of the 21st century seemed safely distant and risk free.
Now, after last year's mass street demonstration against a national security bill China wanted to impose and follow-up protests demanding greater local control, Hong Kong has joined Taiwan as a political crisis preoccupying the top leadership.
In Mao Zedong's day, the problem would have been solved easily enough, by calling democrats counter-revolutionaries and mobilizing the masses to silence them. But China faces a conundrum today. It does not have a revolutionary ideology that its own leaders believe is superior to democratic rule. The masses are too busy making money to be mobilized.
So officials search for reasons why the time is not yet right, or the conditions are not yet suitable, or the procedures are not yet finalized. They present themselves as sympathetic to the democratic impulse who are troubled only by questions of implementation.
The coup de grâce in Hong Kong's case was delivered in the form of a legal interpretation of the Basic Law, the constitutional framework governing Hong Kong, by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in Beijing. The interpretation consisted of microscopic legal language in which Beijing allotted itself a much greater role in deciding Hong Kong's future political system. Top leaders have never squarely ad dressed the larger political issues involved.
For China, democracy is like the law and human rights. As it seeks to create a world-class economy and increasingly demands equal treatment with the United States in world affairs, it has embraced democracy, legal reform and human rights as desirable and even inevitable. It amended its Constitution in March to explicitly guarantee human rights protections for the first time.
But its promises, so far, are good only to the extent that these ideals work to enhance Communist rule, not to undermine it.
"The party sees these things as tools," said a prominent Beijing lawyer who has frequently clashed with authorities in court. "If the tool works, use it. If the tool does not work, find another way."
--------
China Acts to Ease Tensions With Hong Kong
Envoy Arrives for Talks After Ruling on Political Reform Angers Democracy Activists
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57517-2004Apr7.html
HONG KONG, April 7 -- Seeking to ease tensions, the Chinese government dispatched a senior official to Hong Kong on Wednesday to reassure the enclave's worried political activists that Beijing means them no harm.
The envoy, Qiao Xiaoyang, deputy secretary general of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, immediately launched into a round of formal meetings with Hong Kong's intelligentsia, professionals and Legislative Council members. His swift arrival and willingness to discuss Hong Kong's aspirations for full democracy were seen here as the beginnings of a charm offensive by the Communist Party leadership in Beijing after months of acrimony and name-calling.
"These are unprecedented moves," said Christine Loh of the pro-democracy Civic Exchange group. Loh, a former legislator, predicted that many Hong Kong residents would be willing to listen if Qiao accepted a genuine dialogue on the territory's political future, adding: "It's really what should have taken place some years ago."
The Chinese legislature's Standing Committee jolted Hong Kong's democracy activists on Tuesday, ruling from Beijing that the central government alone has the right to initiate reforms of the one-country, two-systems regime that has governed Hong Kong since the former British colony returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.
The decision, an interpretation of Hong Kong's Basic Law, was denounced by democracy advocates here as a unilateral change in the territory's political arrangements. It bestowed on Beijing a chance to veto reforms at the beginning as well as at the end of the legislative process, they complained, and raised the specter of further changes that could whittle away the political liberties promised when China took over.
Jackie Hong, a spokeswoman for the Civil Human Rights Front, said the group's leaders were confident of a large turnout for a demonstration scheduled Sunday to protest Beijing's ruling. The front helped organize a march of a half-million people last July that has become a marker in the territory's quest for direct elections to choose its chief executive and the full Legislative Council.
Wilson Fung, vice chairman of the Hong Kong Medical Association, who attended Qiao's first session Wednesday afternoon, said the Chinese envoy urged Hong Kong people to face the new situation in a peaceful way. The Chinese government will not do anything bad to Hong Kong, Fung quoted Qiao and his colleagues as promising.
"They said Hong Kong people should trust the Chinese leadership," he added.
Ivan C.K. Choi, senior instructor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong's department of government and public administration, said the approximately 40 intellectuals who attended the meeting at Hong Kong's hillside government headquarters were assured that Beijing still had an open mind about political reforms. In addition, Choi said, Qiao and his aides abstained from criticizing even the most strident of Hong Kong's democracy activists, a sharp departure from past practice.
The talk was cordial and appreciated, said Sung Lap Kung, a physician who also attended, but still left people wondering what lies ahead now that Beijing has asserted its sovereignty in such a forceful way. "It didn't help to remove Hong Kong people's fears," he said in a post-meeting discussion with reporters.
"One of the major concerns raised by the attendees is whether there will be a timetable for direct elections," Qiao said after the meeting. "Another issue is how Hong Kong can face the post-interpretation situation in a rational matter . . . and the impact on the economy and stability of Hong Kong."
Aside from a meeting March 30 between a Chinese representative here and three pro-democracy legislators, the gatherings marked the Chinese government's first effort to establish a dialogue with those pushing hardest for democratic reforms for Hong Kong's 6.7 million people.
Hong Kong's democracy activists have demanded direct elections to replace the territory's chief executive in 2007. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, whose current term expires then, was chosen by an 800-member panel whose membership was determined in Beijing.
In addition, they have sought direct elections for the full 60-member Legislative Council in 2008. Twenty-four seats in the current legislature were filled by direct elections, the rest by nominations from professional and labor groups. The number of directly elected members rises to 30 in the next vote, scheduled for September.
With polling consistently showing 60 percent of the population favoring a direct vote, democracy activists had hoped to gain enough seats in September, backed by support from members nominated by professional and labor groups, to form the two-thirds majority needed to initiate the reforms needed to meet their demands. That would have forced Beijing to go along with the reforms or publicly block duly-voted Hong Kong law, an unpalatable choice made unnecessary by Tuesday's ruling.
-------- iraq
A Call for an Exit Door from Iraq
by Sen. Robert Byrd,
April 8, 2004,
Antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/byrd.php?articleid=2272
I have watched with heavy heart and mounting dread as the ever-precarious battle to bring security to post-war Iraq has taken a desperate turn for the worse in recent days and hours. Along with so many Americans, I have been shaken by the hellish carnage in Fallujah and the violent uprisings in Baghdad and elsewhere. The pictures have been the stuff of nightmares, with bodies charred beyond recognition and dragged through the streets of cheering citizens. And in the face of such daunting images and ominous developments, I have wondered anew at the President's stubborn refusal to admit mistakes or express any misgivings over America's unwarranted intervention in Iraq.
During the past weekend, the death toll among America's military personnel in Iraq topped 600 - including as many as 20 American soldiers killed in one three-day period of fierce fighting. Many of the dead, most perhaps, were mere youngsters, just starting out on the great adventure of life. But before they could realize their dreams, they were called into battle by their Commander in Chief, a battle that we now know was predicated on faulty intelligence and wildly exaggerated claims of looming danger.
As I watch events unfold in Iraq, I cannot help but be reminded of another battle at another place and another time that hurtled more than 600 soldiers into the maws of death because of a foolish decision on the part of their commander. The occasion was the Battle of Balaclava on October 25, 1864, during the Crimean War, a battle that was immortalized by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in his poem, "The Charge of the Light Brigade."
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Tennyson got it right - someone had blundered. It is time we faced up to the fact that this President and his administration blundered as well when they took the nation into war with Iraq without compelling reason, without broad international or even regional support, and without a plan for dealing with the enormous post-war security and reconstruction challenges posed by Iraq. And it is our soldiers, our own 600 and more, who are paying the price for that blunder.
In the run up to the war, the President and his advisers assured the American people that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. For a brief moment, that outcome seemed possible. One year ago this week, on April 9, 2003, the mood in many corners of the nation was euphoric as Americans witnessed the fall of Baghdad and the jubilant toppling of a massive statue of Saddam Hussein. Less than four weeks later, the President jetted out to an aircraft carrier parked off the coast of California to cockily declare to the world the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
For those with tunnel vision, the view from Iraq looked rosy then - Baghdad had fallen, Saddam Hussein was on the run, and U.S. military deaths had been kept to a relatively modest number, a total of 138 from the beginning of combat operations through May 1.
But the war in Iraq was not destined to follow the script of some idealized cowboy movie of President Bush's youth, where the good guys ride off into a rose-tinted sunset, all strife settled and all wrongdoing avenged. The war in Iraq is real, and as any soldier can tell you, reality is messy and bloody and scary. Nobody rides off into the sunset for fear that the setting sun will blind them to the presence of the enemies around them.
And so the fighting continues in Iraq, long past the end of major combat operations, and the casualties have continued to mount. As of today, more than 600 military personnel have been killed in Iraq and more than 3,000 wounded.
Now, after a year of continued strife in Iraq, comes word that the commander of forces in the region is seeking options to increase the number of U.S. troops on the ground if necessary. Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development. Surely, the Administration recognizes that increasing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq will only suck us deeper into the maelstrom of violence that has become the hallmark of that unfortunate country. Starkly put, at this juncture, more U.S. forces in Iraq equates more U.S. targets in Iraq.
Again, Tennyson's words bespeak a cautionary tale for the present:
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Like Tennyson's Light Brigade, American's military personnel have proved their mettle in Iraq. In the face of a relentless and seemingly ubiquitous insurgency, they have performed with courage and resolve. They have followed the orders of their Commander in Chief, regardless of the cost. But surely some must wonder why it is American forces that are still shouldering the vast majority of the burden in Iraq, one year after the liberation of the country. Where are the Iraqis? What has happened to our much vaunted plans to train and equip the Iraqi police and the Iraqi military to relieve the burden on U.S. military personnel? Could it be that our expectations exceeded our ability to develop these forces? Could it be that, once again, the United States underestimated the difficulty of winning the peace in Iraq?
Since this war began, America has poured $121 billion into Iraq for the military and for reconstruction. But this money cannot buy security. It cannot buy peace. $121 billion later, and just 2,324 of the 78,224 Iraqi police are "fully qualified," according to the Pentagon. Nearly 60,000 of those same police officers have had no formal training - none! It is no wonder that security has proved so elusive. The time has come for a new approach in Iraq.
The harsh reality is this: one year after the fall of Baghdad, the United States should not be casting about for a formula to bring additional U.S. troops to Iraq. We should instead be working toward an exit strategy. The fact that the President has alienated friend and foe alike by his arrogance in "going it alone" in Iraq and has made the task of internationalizing post-war Iraq an enormously difficult burden should not deter our resolve.
Pouring more U.S. troops into Iraq is not the path to extricate ourselves from that country. We need the support and the endorsement of both the United Nations and Iraq's neighbors to truly internationalize the Iraq occupation and take U.S. soldiers out of the cross-hairs of angry Iraqis.
And from the flood of disturbing dispatches from Iraq, it is clear that many Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiite, are seething under the yoke of the American occupation. The recent violent uprising by followers of a radical Shiite cleric is by far the most troubling development in Iraq in months and could signal America's worst nightmare - a civil war in Iraq that pits moderate Shiites against radical Shiites. Layered over the persistent insurgency being waged by disgruntled Iraqi Sunnis and radical Islamic operatives, a Shiite civil war could be the event that topples Iraq from instability into utter chaos.
As worrisome as these developments are in and of themselves, the fact that they are occurring as the United States hurtles toward a June 30 deadline to turn Iraq over to an interim Iraqi government - a government that has yet to be identified, established, or vetted - adds an element of desperation to the situation.
Where should we look for leadership? To this Congress? To this Senate? This Senate, the foundation of the Republic, has been unwilling to take a hard look at the chaos in Iraq. Senators have once again been cowed into silence and support, not because the policy is right, but because the blood of our soldiers and thousands of innocents is on our hands. Questions that ought to be stated loudly in this chamber are instead whispered in the halls. Those few Senators with the courage to stand up and speak out are challenged as unpatriotic and charged with sowing seeds of terrorism. It has been suggested that any who dare to question the President are no better than the terrorists themselves. Such are the suggestions of those who would rather not face the truth.
This Republic was founded in part because of the arrogance of a king who expected his subjects to do as they were told, without question, without hesitation. Our forefathers overthrew that tyrant and adopted a system of government where dissent is not only important, but it is also mandatory. Questioning flawed leadership is a requirement of this government. Failing to question, failing to speak out, is failing the legacy of the Founding Fathers.
When speaking of Iraq, the President maintains that his resolve is firm, and indeed the stakes for him are enormous. But the stakes are also enormous for the men and women who are serving in Iraq, and who are waiting and praying for the day that they will be able to return home to their families, their ranks painfully diminished but their mission fulfilled with honor and dignity. The President sent these men and women into Iraq, and it is his responsibility to develop a strategy to extricate them from that troubled country before their losses become intolerable.
It is staggeringly clear that the Administration did not understand the consequences of invading Iraq a year ago, and it is staggeringly clear that the Administration has no effective plan to cope with the aftermath of the war and the functional collapse of Iraq. It is time - past time - for the President to remedy that omission and to level with the American people about the magnitude of mistakes made and lessons learned. America needs a roadmap out of Iraq, one that is orderly and astute, else more of our men and women in uniform will follow the fate of Tennyson's doomed Light Brigade.
----
US stoking unrest before festival, say Shia
By Patrick Cockburn in Sadr City, Baghdad
08 April 2004
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=509579
American commanders in Iraq vowed yesterday to arrest Muqtada Sadr, the young Shia leader, and crush the black-clad militiamen of his Mehdi Army amid signs that US actions are alienating the Iraqi Shia community as a whole.
US soldiers do not seem able to distinguish between the Army of the Mehdi and ordinary Shia pilgrims on their way to the holy city of Kerbala to commemorate the feast of Arbain, which starts today, forty days after the anniversary of the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, one of the founders of their faith.
"The Americans are just as bad as Saddam Hussein," said Hamid al-Ugily, the leader of six men from Sadr city carrying a green flag who are spending two to three days walking to Kerbala. "We think they will attack Muqtada in Najaf. We will defend our religious leaders."
What is menacing for the US is that all of the men marching to Kerbala, something they once did secretly under Saddam Hussein, are soldiers in the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps (ICDC). This paramilitary body, created by the Coalition Provisional Authority, is set to take over duties currently undertaken by the American soldiers.
Abbas, one of the marchers, said: "I have been in the ICDC one year and the Americans didn't do anything for Iraq." The friction between US soldiers and Iraqi Shias, some 15-16 million of the 25 million population, is becoming more intense by the day.
On another road into Baghdad another group of Shia pilgrims about a hundred strong from the town of Dejali were being detained and forced to sit on the ground by heavily armed US soldiers who were eyeing their green flags with suspicion.
In the past, 30-year-old Muqtada Sadr, whose authority stems from fact that he is the son of Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, the revered Shia clerical leader assassinated by Saddam Hussein in 1999, has had only limited popular support.
But there are signs that this is growing after a US-appointed Iraqi judge issued a warrant for his arrest.
The Army of the Mehdi has shown that it has greater military strength than had been supposed in fighting since the weekend.
It is reportedly in control of most of Najaf where Sadr himself has taken refuge. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmit, deputy director of operations for the US army in Iraq, said that Sadr would be arrested and "the coalition and security forces are conducting operations to destroy the Mehdi Army."
This will be sooner said than done. If the US army uses its massive fire power to fight its way into Najaf in pursuit of Sadr it well be seen by Shias as a repetition of the Iraqi army offensive. This was against rebels in Najaf and Kerbala during their great uprising against Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.
In many of the southern cities of Iraq where Shia are the majority of the population, the local Iraqi police and paramilitary units - supposedly under orders from the coalition - have shown they are not prepared to fight fellow Shia in the Mehdi army.
In Kut, a city on the Tigris river south of Baghdad, the Ukrainian army contingent has withdrawn from the local government headquarters. A British civilian working for a private security company in Kut was reported killed.
The US is now facing a two-front war against Sunni and Shia Iraqis. Earlier in the week militiamen supporting Sadr entered the Sunni neighbourhood of Azamiya in Baghdad to shoot at US Humvees.
Sadr is not revered as a clerical leader by many Shia because of his youth and lack of religious training. But whatever their misgivings they may support him in a direct confrontation with the US.
----
Mosques will be targeted: US
From correspondents in Washington
April 8, 2004
Agence France-Presse
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9225135%5E1702,00.html
A SENIOR US army officer said today that Iraqi mosques will be targeted by his troops if they are used as fire bases or weapons storage depots.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, speaking to CNN from Baghdad, said US forces had dropped two 227kg precision-guided bombs on a mosque compound in Fallujah, Iraq, because local insurgents were using the compound as cover to fire at US soldiers.
"It (a mosque) has a special status under the Geneva Convention that it can't be attacked," Kimmitt said, adding "however, it can be attacked when there is a military necessity".
He said such religious sites would be struck if his forces believed insurgents were "storing weapons, using weapons, inciting violence, (or) executing violence from its grounds".
Kimmit said he could not confirm precise damage to the mosque or additional reports that a second Fallujah mosque had been attacked by US troops.
When asked to explain how insurgents, who were believed to have been hiding inside the mosque after reportedly attacking US forces, escaped, Lieutenant-Colonel Brennan Byrne replied: "I don't know".
Byrne, in Fallujah, said the insurgents may have fled after a Cobra helicopter gunship fired a Hellfire missile at the mosque, and before an aircraft dropped a laser-guided precision bomb.
He had earlier suggested that up to 40 insurgents had been killed in the airstrikes.
Byrne said it was possible other insurgents in the flashpoint town west of Baghdad had dragged the bodies away in the 30-40 minutes before marines arrived to sweep the area.
The bombing came after several hours of small arms and rocket-propelled grenades fire from insurgents, which left five marines wounded.
Hundreds of US marines have swarmed into Fallujah during the third day of "Operation Vigilant Resolve" to flush out insurgents who killed and brutalised four American contractors here last week.
Asked if the Marines had made any arrests related to the killings of the four contractors, Kimmitt replied: "I know that they have picked up what they consider to be 15 or so targets.
"It could well be that those targets may have amongst them some of the perpetrators of this atrocity."
Earlier, all the city mosques called for a "jihad" (holy war) against occupation forces amid intense bombardments and aircraft overflights, an AFP correspondent said.
Interviewed with Kimmitt, a spokesman for the US-led coalition in Iraq, Dan Senor, said: "Life is improving for Iraqis. Things are getting better for them. The general trend is positive.
"And as we get closer and closer to June 30th, as we hand over sovereignty here, there are going to be these bumps in the road where violent mobs and two-bit thugs are going to try and throw this process off course."
Kimmitt added that coalition forces would remain beyond that date to help ensure security.
"We've never suggested that on June 30th that somehow the coalition would pull out, leaving the responsibility of external and public security to the Iraqis," he said.
--------
Anti-U.S. Uprising Widens in Iraq;
Marines Push Deeper Into Fallujah Cleric's Force Tightens Grip In Holy Cities
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56942-2004Apr7?language=printer
BAGHDAD, April 7 -- Violent resistance to the American occupation of Iraq spread to new parts of the country on Wednesday, including previously quiet parts of Baghdad, as U.S. and allied forces struggled to quell separate uprisings by Sunni and Shiite Muslim insurgents.
In Fallujah, an epicenter of the Sunni resistance, U.S. Marines attempting to root out insurgents pushed toward the center of the city, drawing heavy rifle and grenade fire. After a contingent of Marines was attacked by gunmen hiding in a mosque, a U.S. jet and a helicopter took the unusual step of bombing the compound's outer wall. Witnesses told Arab journalists in the city that as many as 40 people were killed in the bombing, although the U.S. military said it had no reports of civilian casualties.
In central and southern Iraq, fighters loyal to Moqtada Sadr, a Shiite cleric who vowed Wednesday to turn Iraq into "another Vietnam for America," tightened their grip on the holy cities of Karbala, Kufa and Najaf. Members of the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to Sadr, seized control of Kut, a city to the southeast of Baghdad, when Ukrainian troops withdrew after an overnight gun battle.
The U.S. military's director of operations in Iraq, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, said American troops would "destroy the Mahdi Army."
The unrest also spread to northern Iraq for the first time as U.S. troops in Hawijah, near Kirkuk, fired on an angry mob protesting American tactics in Fallujah, killing eight Iraqis. Although Baghdad's Sadr City slum, the site of bloody clashes earlier in the week, was largely calm, violence erupted in other parts of the capital. Shortly after nightfall, gunmen opened fire on a U.S. base in Baghdad's Shiite enclave of Kadhimiya and on another in the Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya.
Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, issued his first official comments about the violence Wednesday evening, condemning the U.S. approach to dealing with the Shiite uprising. In a written statement bearing his seal, Sistani called for both sides to pursue a peaceful resolution and "refrain from escalating steps that will lead to more chaos and bloodshed."
But across Baghdad, Sistani's moderate message appeared to have been drowned out by an increasingly vocal cry from mosque minarets for people to resist the occupation and to donate money and blood to help resistance fighters in Fallujah. In perhaps the clearest sign yet of the convergence of Sunni and Shiite uprisings, announcements from Shiite mosques called on people to help Sunnis in Fallujah, while residents of Sunni neighborhoods lauded Sadr and his followers.
Portraits of Sadr and graffiti praising him have appeared on mosques and government buildings in Sunni towns west of Baghdad, according to Arab media reports. On Monday night, gunmen loyal to Sadr joined with Sunni insurgents in Baghdad in attacking U.S. soldiers on patrol in the first reported act of collaborative Sunni-Shiite resistance activity.
"The Sunnis and Shiites are now together," said Fatah Abdel-Razzaq, 31, the owner of a falafel stand in Sadr City, a sprawling slum of 2 million that has long served as Sadr's stronghold.
"America came and destroyed the country," he said. "What's America doing?"
Abdel-Razzaq and others in the predominantly Shiite neighborhood drew parallels between the fighting there and in Fallujah, saying Sunnis and Shiites had come together. Others bitterly denounced civilian deaths, placing the blame squarely on U.S. forces, not on the militiamen from Sadr City. Often heard was the contention that the Americans were fighting Shiites or, more generally, Islam.
"We're not scared of anyone -- not the airplanes, not the tanks, nothing," said Salah Abdel-Hassan, who said his four sons were members of the Mahdi Army. "Sadr City is impossible to make quiet unless they withdraw from it."
The most intense fighting Wednesday occurred in Fallujah, where Marines fought their way farther into the city in an effort to flush out hundreds of well-armed insurgents, who are described by U.S. officials as a mix of Sunni extremists, loyalists of former president Saddam Hussein and common criminals. With the fighters lurking in mosques and residential areas, the Marine strategy has been to advance into open areas to draw fire from the insurgents, who then are targeted with return fire.
Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that his forces control a quarter of the city, where four civilian contractors were killed last week and the bodies of two of them were mutilated. Although some Marine units had pushed well into the city, most remained on the outskirts.
As the Marines fought their way into Fallujah, Byrne and other officers said, about 40 armed men opened fire on the Americans with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades from a bunker at the Abdelaziz Samarrai mosque. Four Marines in a Humvee several blocks away were wounded.
After ground attacks failed to flush out the fighters, Marine officers at different command posts in the city debated how to respond. After a few hours of discussion, they decided to order an airstrike.
An AH-1W Cobra attack helicopter fired a rocket at the mosque compound, and an F-16 fighter jet dropped a 500-pound bomb on the site, military officials said. They said the bomb and rocket destroyed part of a wall surrounding the mosque but not the mosque itself. The Marines said in a statement that one insurgent was killed in the attack.
The insurgents "firing from the mosque wrongfully violated the law of war by conducting offensive military operations from a protected structure," the Marine statement said. "As a result, the mosque lost its protected status and therefore became a lawful military target."
One Marine was killed in the fighting Wednesday and six were wounded by rifle and grenade fire, military officials said. Eighteen Marines have been killed since Monday in fighting west of Baghdad, including at least 12 in an attack on Tuesday in the vicinity of the provincial governor's office in Ramadi.
The Marines have not released any details about the incident in Ramadi other than a brief statement noting that the firefight lasted for seven hours and that 11 soldiers were killed in the fighting and a 12th died later of his wounds. The Associated Press, citing witness accounts, reported that the battle started when gunmen hiding in Ramadi's main cemetery opened fire on U.S. patrols.
The military on Wednesday announced the deaths of two more U.S. soldiers. One soldier with the Army's 1st Infantry Division was killed on Tuesday in Balad, a town north of Baghdad that is home to a large U.S. air base. The other soldier, assigned to a task force commanded by the Army's 1st Armored Division, died Wednesday in Baghdad after his convoy was struck with a rocket-propelled grenade near a police station.
Since Sunday, fighting across Iraq has claimed the lives of 34 Americans, two other coalition soldiers and more than 190 Iraqis. In the nearly 13 months since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, 635 American service personnel have died, 444 of them as a result of hostile action.
In Sadr City, officials at the two main hospitals said 64 Iraqis had been killed and 238 wounded in clashes since Sunday. Most of the casualties were men, but officials said women and children were among the dead and wounded.
Sadr City was largely quiet Wednesday, but the mood was angry. Conversations dwelled on the bloodshed over the previous three nights, and residents exchanged stories about the fighting -- houses hit by helicopter fire, cars struck by gunfire, civilians killed.
"Anybody who goes out at night, the Americans will kill them," said Walid Khaled, 24, one of several men crowded around a charred car.
Through the day, crowds gathered around Sadr's office, carrying flags and pictures of the 30-year-old cleric. At 5 p.m., young men from across the street ran toward the office as a loudspeaker blared Sadr's latest statement from Najaf: "I call upon the American people to stand beside their brethren, the Iraqi people, who are suffering an injustice by your rulers and the occupying army, to help them in the transfer of power to honest Iraqis," the statement read. "Otherwise Iraq will become another Vietnam for America and the occupiers."
With Sadr's militia exercising full or partial control of several southern cities, Kimmitt, the military spokesman, said in response to questioning that occupation forces had not arrested the cleric partly because a major Shiite religious festival, Arbaeen, begins later this week. "We've got to recognize the time and the number of pilgrims outside Najaf city right now," he said.
Sadr's militiamen took over Kut when the Ukrainians withdrew from the city after overnight gun battles killed 12 Iraqis, the Associated Press reported. The Mahdi Army occupied the Ukrainians' base, seized weapons caches and planted their flag on a nearby grain silo.
In Karbala, as in Kufa and other cities south of Baghdad, Sadr's militiamen have assumed effective control of the municipality. Black-shirted members of the Mahdi Army have taken over police stations and government buildings.
Polish soldiers attempting to patrol Karbala were attacked Wednesday by the militiamen, prompting several firefights. A senior leader of Sadr's militia was killed in one of the battles.
Correspondents Anthony Shadid, Karl Vick and Sewell Chan in Baghdad and Pamela Constable in Fallujah contributed to this report.
--------
Line Blurs Between Civilians, Fighters
By Karl Vick and Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59592-2004Apr7?language=printer
BAGHDAD, April 7 -- All night, the body of Ali Hussein Hashem lay in the muddy alley near the Rafadein Police Station, his checkered Arab headdress shredded by a .50-caliber round.
To U.S. soldiers at the station, who endure cascades of hostile gunfire each night from the surrounding neighborhood, anyone killed in that alley must be a member of the Mahdi Army, the outlawed Shiite militia that a senior U.S. commander on Wednesday vowed to "destroy."
"You have to understand, if people are coming down an alley repeatedly with weapons, we'll fire," said 1st Lt. John Gilbreth of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment's Comanche Company, which holds the abandoned station. "If we see a guy with an AK-47 or an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade], realistically, he's making himself a target."
But in the light of day, the distinction between civilians and combatants becomes difficult in Sadr City. In the decrepit quarter that spawned the militia, loyalties blur into an ambiguity as confounding to residents as to the Americans squinting through gunsights.
Hashem was killed as he ran to check on a house struck by helicopter fire or, as some neighbors said, as he shouldered a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Either way, it hardly seemed to change the conclusions drawn by residents here.
"The Mahdi Army is the people," said Abu Raja Kinani, a tribal elder in the neighborhood, his voice exasperated. "They're the sons of all the city."
In a population caught between an occupier's armor and an indigenous guerrilla force, the full truth of Kinani's sloganeering is all but impossible to determine. Yet again and again in interviews Wednesday across the teeming slum of 2 million, residents repeated Kinani's formulation in words of their own.
Destroying the Mahdi Army, they said, might be possible only by destroying Sadr City.
"Of course we are all Mahdi Army," said Whalid Johi Minshid, 25, standing in the rubble of a rooftop pierced by a missile from an Apache attack helicopter near where Hashem was shot. "Because this is our belief, our religious leaders."
The leader in question, Moqtada Sadr, has been declared a wanted man by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which has shadowboxed with the fundamentalist cleric since the first days of the occupation. The youngest son of a revered Shiite ayatollah who was believed to have been killed on the orders of Saddam Hussein, the deposed president, Sadr has drawn on his family name and his organizational talents to fashion a movement that challenged the U.S.-led occupation on more militant terms than favored by more senior and moderate Shiite leaders.
That challenge turned military on Sunday, when the Sadr militia named for a Shiite messiah, the Mahdi Army, attacked a Comanche Company patrol in the slum named for Sadr's father. The ensuing battle brought 1,000 U.S. troops into the district that one resident referred to as "the sleeping tiger."
"Now the tiger is awake," said Ahmed Abdulkarim. "And he uses his claws."
As men gathered around Abdulkarim to talk about the fighting, their bravado competed with anxiety. As followers of Sadr, and Iraqis, they said they were keen to engage the U.S. forces, who they said had overstayed their welcome. But as fathers and sons, they worried about the consequences for their neighborhood.
"If we receive an order, we will eat them -- eat them with my own teeth," said a man named Hassan. "The problem is we cannot resist them here, because our families and our homes are here."
The dangers were obvious. There were the helicopters scanning rooftops for snipers each night. "At five o'clock, my mother handcuffs me," said Minshid. "Anyone who goes on the roof will be shot at." At street level, gunners with night-vision gear and powerful scopes fire even on people who try to recover the dead.
Hashem's body lay in the lane unclaimed after a Comanche gunner shot at a tire that had been rolled into the alley to determine whether the way was safe. The body was recovered after the break of dawn.
Officials at Sadr City's two main hospitals said they had counted 64 bodies since Sunday and seen 268 wounded. At the Shahid Sadr General Hospital, a black banner inscribed with white hung over the entrance. "Death in glory is better than life in humiliation," it read.
"It's quiet today, but tonight we'll strike them," said Jaafar Muhajir, 32, outside the main Sadr office in the slum's vast central square, where hundreds of young men milled about. "The fighting will continue until the Americans leave Iraq -- not just Sadr City, but all of it."
Muhajir, who identified himself as a militiaman, said he donned civilian clothes during the day, black at night. He started to boast of their weapons -- rocket-propelled grenades and mortars -- but was angrily told to be quiet by other men around him.
Residents say the price of munitions has more than doubled in the last three days, to 25,000 Iraqi dinars, roughly $17, for an RPG, 4,500 for a regular grenade.
Down the street, with its trash and pools of sewage, two U.S. tanks were parked opposite the Muhsin Mosque, which the Sadr office uses for Friday prayers. On one barrel was written, "Anger Mgt." On another, it read, "Analyze This."
Since the fighting began, the Sadr group has gone to great lengths to fashion its uprising as more than a parochial power grab. Sadr's clerical followers, many of whom resent the greater influence of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have put up posters of the leading religious cleric on the office's walls. On the sidewalk outside, Sistani's posters were sold side by side with Sadr's portraits. Outside the office are copies of the newspaper, Sadr, declaring the revolt "the first Moqtada Sadr uprising."
In red, a headline reads in part, "Bremer opened the doors of hell."
Once uncommon, posters of Said Hasan Nasrallah, secretary general of Lebanon's Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the U.S. government, were sold outside Sadr's office for the equivalent of about 15 cents. A slogan often used by Hezbollah -- "Crush them under your feet" -- has begun to appear on Sadr's own posters.
Many in the mostly young crowd outside the office drew parallels between Sadr City and the fight in Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim city. "They're no different," said Alaa Sarraji, 20. "We're one Iraq."
Elsewhere in Sadr City, men sat quietly in plastic chairs lining the long, colored tent erected to receive mourners after the early morning funeral of Hashem. Among them was Jawad Kadhim, the stout, middle-aged man whose image was broadcast repeatedly around the globe when U.S. tanks first entered Sadr City almost one year ago.
Khadim was filmed walking down the street beating his shoe against a portrait of Saddam Hussein, an iconic image of liberation. A year later, he was paying his respects to his nephew, Hashem.
"He was just like us in the beginning," Khadim said of the man killed in the alley. "He was happy with the liberation of Iraq and he welcomed the Americans.
"But after what he saw from them -- the delay and the insults -- not only him but all of us looked at them differently. We started looking at them as imperialists."
--------
U.S. Vows to Retake 2 Southern Cities in Hands of Militants
April 8, 2004
By CHRISTINE HAUSER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08CND-IRAQ.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 8 - The Sunni and Shiite uprisings against the American-led occupation forces in Iraq continued today throughout the country as the high command of the American military acknowledged that militant fighters had at least partial control of two southern cities.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the American commander in Iraq, said at a news conference here that Shiite rebels had full control in Kut and partial control in Najaf, but he vowed that American forces would retake the cities.
"We are conducting offensives across the battle space to eliminate" the rebels, he said.
Militants have also wrested control of government buildings and police stations in a third town, Kufa, near Najaf in southern Iraq, news agencies reported, citing residents.
American troops are confronting resistance by Sunni militants in a volatile region west of Baghdad and by Shiite insurgents in Baghdad and southern Iraq. The two fronts do not appear to be formally linked but seem to be finding and exploiting common ground in their shared opposition to the foreign occupation.
General Sanchez said today that there may be links between the Shiite and Sunni insurgents at low levels of the resistance movements but offered no further analysis.
In Baghdad, thousands of Sunni and Shiite protesters held a rally outside the Um al-Qura mosque in solidarity with Sunni countrymen in Falluja, Karbala and other conflict zones, Reuters reported. Similar rallies took place in Mosul and Baquba, north of the capital.
Militant Shiites were seen delivering food aid to a Sunni mosque in Baghdad as part of a relief effort for the residents of Sunni-dominated Falluja.
"We will carry our swords and strike the Americans on their heads," a Sunni cleric yelled, Reuters reported.
The most likely explanation for the coincident eruptions of violence, many Iraqis believe, is that Sunnis and Shiites are each watching the other's assaults, first in Falluja last week and then in other places over the weekend - the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad, Kufa, Najaf and at least three other southern cities - sensing that the American forces were overstretched.
The eruption of violence across the country has also had a wide impact on American allies there, with forces from other nations coming under direct attack, forcing some countries to rethink their commitments to Iraq.
Among the latest challenges to foreign resolve was a mysterious militant group claiming responsibility for the kidnapping of three Japanese citizens. Al Jazeera television showed images today of the three wearing blindfolds and civilian clothes, a group of men armed with assault rifles surrounding them. The group, which called itself Saraya al-Mujahideen, said it would kill the hostages unless Japan withdrew its forces within three days.
Japan has about 530 ground troops in Iraq, part of a total planned deployment of 1,100 soldiers for a mission to purify water and carry out other reconstruction tasks.
Reuters, quoting the South Korean foreign ministry, reported that seven South Korean members of a church group had also been kidnapped by an armed group in Iraq. About 460 South Korean medical personnel and military engineers have been in Iraq for nearly a year but are scheduled to return to South Korea after Seoul's planned deployment of up to 3,600 troops to the Kurdish region of northern Iraq later this year.
And an official from the Foreign Office confirmed today that a 37-year-old Briton had been kidnapped, Reuters reported.
In fighting today, American-led coalition forces in Baghdad destroyed a building used as a base of operations for the militant followers of rebel Shiite cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, CNN reported, quoting an American military official. American troops suffered no casualties and insurgent casualties were "minimal," the official said.
In Falluja in the Sunni heartland west of Baghdad, where some of the most intense battles have occurred this week, fighting raged between American troops and Sunni rebels loyal to the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein. The director of the main hospital there told Reuters that as many as 300 Iraqis had been killed and at least 400 wounded since Sunday.
Hospital officials said on Wednesday that several dozen people were killed after Americans fired rockets at a mosque compound in Falluja. American officials said their troops were retaliating against militia members who were firing from the mosque. The mosque itself remained largely intact.
Mosque loudspeakers broadcast instructions to townspeople to take their dead to a sports stadium for burial, Reuters reported. Fighting has made the town's cemeteries inaccessible.
Pentagon officials in Washington signaled on Wednesday that they would probably delay bringing home some 25,000 troops as scheduled and probably move reinforcements to the south.
"We're facing a test of will, and we will meet that test," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said, adding that the plan to postpone the troop return was part of a plan "to systematically address the situations we are facing."
The intensification of the combat is sapping efforts to lay the foundations for a largely ceremonial transfer of political sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30.
An official in the occupation authority said Wednesday that allied and Iraqi security forces had lost control of the key southern cities of Najaf and Kufa to the Shiite militia, conceding that months of effort to win over the population with civil projects and promises of jobs have failed with segments of the population.
"Six months of work is completely gone," the official said. "There is nothing to show for it."
He cited reports that government buildings, police stations, civil defense garrisons and other installations built up by the Americans had been overrun and then stripped bare, of files, furnishings and even toilet fixtures.
For the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein a year ago, the Americans found themselves fighting intensely against two main segments of the population, using warplanes, attack helicopters and armored units against the groups the United States had said it came to liberate when it invaded war in March last year.
In a further indication of widening opposition to the allies' presence, Bulgaria has asked the United States to send troops to reinforce its 450-member battalion in Karbala.
In Falluja, the Marines said they had waged a six-hour battle around the Abdel-Aziz al-Samarri mosque before calling in a Cobra helicopter, which fired a missile. An F-16 dropped a laser-guided bomb, Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said.
Elsewhere in Falluja, American forces seized a second place of prayer, the Muadidi mosque, according to The Associated Press. A marine climbed the minaret and fired on guerrilla gunmen, witnesses told the agency. Insurgents fired back, hitting the minaret with rocket-propelled grenades and causing it to partly collapse, the A.P. added
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, said the Marines did not attack the mosque until it became clear that enemy fighters were inside and using it to cover their attacks.
He told CNN that under the Geneva Convention, the mosque was protected but that once attacks originated from it, its protected status was moot.
Much of the Iraqi anger among the Shiites has been fanned by what many here see as a heavy-handed crackdown by American occupation forces on Mr. Sadr, with the closing of his mouthpiece newspaper last week and the announcement of an arrest warrant in connection a cleric's murder last year.
"What is going on now is a huge popular uprising," Qais al-Khazali, a spokesman for Mr. Sadr, said in Najaf on Tuesday.
"This is a reaction from the Iraqi people, not just from the Shiites," he said. "It is for the Sunni people, too. This intifada unites us." Intifada, Arabic for shaking off, is the word used by Palestinians for their struggle against Israel.
American officials have to balance their security aims without appearing to interfere with a Shiite pilgrimage holiday called Arbaeen, which starts Friday, when millions of Shiites pray at shrines in Najaf and Karbala.
"We are weighing our options, thinking very carefully about the way to restore order to Najaf," General Kimmitt said. "But at the same time, doing it in such a manner that does not alienate the pilgrims who are celebrating one of the most important observances of the Muslim calendar."
John F. Burns contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article and Kirk Semple contributed reporting from New York
--------
Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand
April 8, 2004
By JAMES RISEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08SHIA.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08SHIA.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, April 7 - United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.
That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.
But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising.
A year ago, many Shiites rejoiced at the American invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who had brutally repressed the Shiites for decades. But American intelligence officials now believe that hatred of the American occupation has spread rapidly among Shiites, and is now so large that Mr. Sadr and his forces represent just one element..
Meanwhile, American intelligence has not yet detected signs of coordination between the Sunni rebellion in Iraq's heartland and the Shiite insurgency. But United States intelligence says that the Sunni rebellion also goes far beyond former Baathist government members. Sunni tribal leaders, particularly in Al Anbar Province, home to Ramadi, the provincial capital, and Falluja, have turned against the United States and are helping to lead the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say.
The result is that the United States is facing two broad-based insurgencies that are now on parallel tracks.
The Bush administration has sought to portray the opposition much more narrowly. In the Sunni insurgency, the White House and the Pentagon have focused on the role of the former leaders of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein's government, while in the Shiite rebellion they have focused almost exclusively on the role of Mr. Sadr. Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon that the fighting in Iraq was just the work of "thugs, gangs and terrorists," and not a popular uprising. General Myers added that "it's not a Shiite uprising. Sadr has a very small following."
According to some experts on Iraq's Shiites, the uprising has spread to many Shiites who are not followers of Mr. Sadr. "There is a general mood of anti-Americanism among the people in the streets," said Ghassan R. al-Attiyah, executive director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in Baghdad. "They identify with Sadr not because they believe in him but because they have their own grievances."
While they share the broader anger in Iraq over the lack of jobs and security, many Shiites suspect that the handover of sovereignty to Iraqi politicians from the American occupying powers on June 30 will bypass their interests, Mr. Attiyah said.
With his offensive, Mr. Sadr has "hijacked the political process," he said. As a result, more moderate Shiite clerics and politicians risk going against public opinion if they come out too strongly against the rebellious young cleric, he said.
Also hard to gauge is the relationship between Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Mr. Sadr. Ayatollah Sistani is an aging cleric venerated for his teachings, while Mr. Sadr is a youthful rabble-rouser, with little clerical standing. This week, Ayatollah Sistani issued a statement supporting Mr. Sadr's decision to act against the Americans, but emphasizing the need for a peaceful solution. In this, the older man seemed to be marking out a position that allowed him to associate with the tide of Shiite popular feelings, while allowing Mr. Sadr, for whom he is said to harbor a personal contempt, to risk his militia - and his life - in a showdown with the Americans.
While Mr. Sadr's militiamen prepared for battle, all was quiet at the Kufa headquarters of a rival militia that has helped sustain Mr. Sadr's political influence - the Badr Brigade. Nominally controlled by another Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Brigade has generally been seen as underpinning Ayatollah Sistani's authority.
Although anti-Americanism is hardly universal among Shiites, an anti-American mood has been building for months. At the Grand Mosque in Kufa, where Mr. Sadr took refuge as his militiamen were seizing control of the city on Sunday, this deep vein of anti-Americanism feeds off every rumor. At night, as they torch gasoline-soaked tires to light checkpoints guarding the approaches to the mosque, the militiamen speak of America's planning to uproot Islam in Iraq, to steal its oil, to deny Shiites a voice in the country's future governance, even to bring back Saddam Hussein.
In the Shiite-dominated areas of Iraq, some Pentagon officials and other government officials believe that Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shiite extremist group, is now playing a key role in the Shiite insurgency. The Islamic Jihad Organization, a terrorist group closely affiliated with Hezbollah, is also said by some officials to have established offices in Iraq, and that Iran is behind much of the violence.
C.I.A. officials disagree, however, and say they have not yet seen evidence that Hezbollah has joined forces with Iraqi Shiites. Some intelligence officials believe that the Pentagon has been eager to link Hezbollah to the violence in Iraq to link the Iranian regime more closely to anti-American terrorism.
But C.I.A. officials agree that Hezbollah has established a significant presence in postwar Iraq. The Lebanese-based organization sent in teams after the war, American intelligence officials believe. Hezbollah's presence inside Iraq is a source of concern since it is widely recognized by counterterrorist experts to have some of the most effective and dangerous terrorist operatives in the world. The United States has issued a $25 million reward for the capture of Imad Mugniyah, the longtime chief of foreign terrorist operations who is believed to have been behind a series of terrorist attacks against Americans in the 1980's, including the hostage-taking operations in Lebanon.
More recently, Hezbollah has focused its terrorist activities on Israel, and, before the war in Iraq, is not believed to have launched a major terrorist attack against American interests since the bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996 killed 19 American military personnel.
There were some clues to an Iranian presence in Kufa this week. Even as militiamen ferried food and medical supplies into the mosque this week in preparation for a siege, among the pilgrims to the sanctuary were Iranian men.
Militiamen at the mosque said that at least some of the funds needed for extensive reconstruction work currently under way inside the sanctuary have come from Iran. There are close ties between the Shiite clerical establishments in the two countries. But whether the Iranian role extends beyond finance is hard to know. Some foreign Islamic fighters have been playing a role in Iraq, particularly in the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian affiliated with the Ansar al-slam terrorist group, is conducting terrorist operations in conjunction with the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials believe. Mr. Zarqawi may have been behind some recent car bombings in Iraq, although American intelligence officials do not believe he is commanding any of the Sunni militia forces facing the United States military.
The Sunni forces appear instead to be led by former Iraqi government members and local tribal leaders in Falluja and other cities in the Sunni heartland, intelligence officials said.
Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. official who worked covertly in Iraq in the mid-1990's, said that some of those Sunni tribal leaders were once opposed to Saddam Hussein, and years ago approached the C.I.A. about working with it against Hussein. But now, many of those same tribal leaders have turned against the occupation, current and former intelligence officials say.
John F. Burns contributed reporting from Baghdad and Kufa, Iraq, for this article, and Neela Banerjee from New York.
-------- landmines
India Land Mine Attack Kills 26 Police
Apr 8, 2004
(AP)
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/I/INDIA_POLICE_KILLED?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
NEW DELHI, India -- Communist guerrillas calling for a boycott of India's national elections are suspected of triggering a land mine that killed at least 26 policemen in the eastern state of Jharkhand, police said Thursday.
The explosion occurred Wednesday night as the police, traveling in a truck and a jeep, were on a dirt road in the Saranda Forest, a police official said on condition of anonymity.
Police had raided a suspected guerrilla hideout in the dense jungle and were leaving the forest when the land mine went off, he said, adding that an unknown number of police officers were also injured.
The state's director-general of police, R.R. Prasad, said one of the guerrillas had been killed.
The attack occurred the night before India's deputy prime minister, Lal Krishna Advani, was due to campaign in Jharkhand. Despite the attack, he headed there Thursday from neighboring Bihar state, which he visited on Wednesday.
"It seems the incident was triggered ... to disrupt the elections, but they will not succeed in their designs," Press Trust of India news agency quoted the state's chief minister, Arjun Munda, as saying.
Militants of the outlawed People's War Group were suspected of involvement in the attack, police said, but Munda blamed a similar group, the Maoist Communist Center.
No one immediately claimed responsibility.
The People's War Group carried out a similar attack last year in the same area, killing 33 policemen. It issued a statement a week ago demanding that people in Jharkhand and neighboring Bihar state, two of India's poorest regions, boycott the April 20-May 10 Parliament elections.
More than 6,000 people have been killed since the rebels, inspired by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong, began fighting in 1981. The insurgents mostly target rich landowners and police, who they say collude to exploit landless farmers and rural laborers.
-------- pakistan / india
Pakistanis ready to launch fresh anti-terror offensive
4/8/2004
Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-08-pakistan-hunt_x.htm
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistani forces have drawn a bead on a cluster of remote hideouts along the Afghan border and promised Thursday to send thousands of soldiers in a fierce crackdown if tribesmen there do not hand over al-Qaeda terrorists by April 20.
Critics, however, said announcing the deadline makes it easy for terrorists to flee ahead of the operation, as they did when Pakistani forces last month allowed a top al-Qaeda terrorist to get away in South Waziristan.
This time, Pakistani forces have shifted their focus to North Waziristan, and more specifically to a group of mud compounds along a forbidding mountain range straddling the Afghan border in the forested area of Shawal.
"There are possibilities of an operation in Shawal," Brig. Mahmood Shah, chief of security for the tribal regions, told The Associated Press on Thursday from the northwestern city of Peshawar. He said some militants in Shawal appear to have escaped the earlier operation, 25 miles to the south. He gave no specifics.
"We have thousands of troops, not hundreds, but I can't give operational details," he said. Shah said intelligence indicated foreign terrorists had used Shawal in the past, and that troops also were concerned about militant activity in two other North Waziristan towns - Shakai and Hamrang, and the village of Makin in South Waziristan.
The government assault in March on al-Qaeda suspects holed up in South Waziristan was costly, and failed to net any major terrorists. The military acknowledged it lost at least 50 men, and officials say privately the casualty toll might have been twice that. At least a dozen civilians were killed.
The government says a top al-Qaeda militant, the Uzbek terror leader Tahir Yuldash, was injured but managed to escape, possibly through a 1.5-mile-long tunnel that led out of the siege site to a dry riverbed near the frontier. About 160 militants were arrested, and 63 killed. Hundreds escaped.
North and South Waziristan have long been suspected hideouts for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri. Senior Pakistani officials initially thought they had al-Zawahri surrounded in March.
On Monday, more than 100 tribal elders met in Peshawar with the local governor, who set the April 20 deadline for turning over the militants to avoid military action. One tribe has formed a 600-member military unit to round up terrorists, though it is not clear how vigorously they will support the military.
Army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan said Pakistani forces had given tribal elders a small window to cooperate, though he did not say specifically whether the army would wait until the deadline expired before taking action.
"At this moment we are focusing on the political process," Sultan told AP.
Some questioned the government's decision to set a deadline, saying it removed the element of surprise.
"Perhaps those who are handling operations against these terrorists are under the impression that they have encircled them and they have no way to escape," said Talat Masood, a Pakistani military analyst. "It may be true, but I think they are relying on a false presumption."
Shah said military action before the deadline was unlikely, but not out of the question.
"If we have credible intelligence (that terrorists are fleeing), we will go in," he told AP.
Pakistani forces also set a deadline before launching the March operation, and were surprised by the severity of the resistance they faced on a disastrous first day in which at least 16 soldiers died. Entrenched militants used rockets, mortars, grenades and heavy machine-gun fire against a small military unit that was overwhelmed.
The Pakistanis have also been criticized for launching the March assault before U.S. military and Afghan forces in Afghanistan could get in position to catch any terrorists who fled across the frontier.
Lt. Col. Michele DeWerth, a U.S. military spokesman in the Afghan capital, said U.S.-led troops were patrolling the border closely and would continue to conduct "parallel and complimentary" operations on the Afghan side. She declined to give details.
The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, caused an uproar this week when he said the American military would move forces into Pakistan if it failed to oust the terrorists itself.
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is a key U.S. ally, but he has refused to allow U.S. military forces to operate on his soil. Khalilzad later backed off the comments.
-------- space
Government Licenses First Private Rocket
April 8, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-FAA-Rocket-License.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government on Wednesday awarded a California aviation company the first license for a manned suborbital rocket.
The Federal Aviation Administration announced that it gave a one-year license to Scaled Composites of Mojave, Calif., a company founded by aviation maverick Burt Rutan. His goal is public space travel within 10 years.
Rutan is best known for designing the Voyager airplane that made the first nonstop, unrefueled flight around the world in 1986. But his dream is to inspire excitement about space flight.
Though he declined to comment on obtaining the launch license, Rutan posted a statement on the company's Web site expressing his hopes that ordinary people can travel to space in 10 years.
``I strongly feel that, if we are successful, our program will mark the beginning of a renaissance for manned space flight,'' he wrote. ``This might even be similar to that wonderful time period between 1908 and 1912 when the world went from a total of ten airplane pilots to hundreds of airplane types and thousands of pilots in 39 countries. We need affordable space travel to inspire our youth.''
The Scaled Composites craft consists of a rocket plane, dubbed SpaceShipOne, and the White Knight, an exotic jet designed to carry it aloft for a high-altitude launch. SpaceShipOne, made of graphite and epoxy, has short wings and twin vertical tails. It reached 12.9 miles altitude in a trial flight; the license will allow the spacecraft to reach the edge of space, about 60 miles up.
The license is a prerequisite for the X Prize competition, an international space race that will give $10 million to the first company or person to launch a manned craft to 62.5 miles above the Earth, and then do it again within two weeks. The craft must be able to carry three people.
The prize, announced in 1996, is sponsored by the privately funded X Prize Foundation in St. Louis. Supporters include Dennis Tito, the American who spent $20 million to fly in a Russian craft as the first space tourist; pilot Erik Lindbergh, the grandson of Charles Lindbergh; former astronaut and U.S. Sen. John Glenn; and movie actor Tom Hanks.
FAA spokesman Henry Price said the agency is considering two other applications for launch licenses. One is an X Prize contestant.
Twenty-seven contestants from seven countries have registered for the X Prize competition.
Before launching the spacecraft in the X Prize competition, Scaled Composites must give the prize sponsors 90 days notice, Price said. The company can launch its rocket before that, he said, but it must be in an area that isn't risky.
Scaled Composites is located in the Mojave Desert.
FAA inspectors carefully examined the space vehicle to make sure it's safe, said Price.
``There's no sure thing in anything when it comes to rocketry,'' he said. ``We want to do what we can with the knowledge we have to make sure the launch is as safe as possible for the public.''
The company also had to demonstrate that it was adequately insured for a launch and that it met environmental standards, Price said.
A suborbital flight reaches space but doesn't travel fast enough or high enough to complete an orbit of the Earth.
On the Net:
Scaled Composites: http://www.scaled.com
Federal Aviation Administration: http://www.faa.gov
X Prize: http://www.xprize.com
-------- spies
Russian Researcher, Asserting Innocence, Given 15 Years
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59421-2004Apr7.html
MOSCOW, April 7 -- A Russian arms control researcher, convicted of passing military information to a British company that prosecutors said was a front for U.S. intelligence, was sentenced Wednesday to 15 years in prison for treason in a ruling that human rights groups said would intimidate others from associating with foreigners.
Igor Sutyagin, who worked for the Institute for the Study of the United States and Canada in Moscow, protested his innocence in a statement from inside a cage in a Moscow courtroom before Judge Marina Komarova handed down her decision. The data he gave to the British firm, he said, were publicly available.
"All I'm guilty of is talking to foreigners," Sutyagin said in the first part of the sentencing hearing, which was opened to journalists. "The prosecutors were unable to produce evidence of some secret sources they are talking about. The written materials I used as sources are newspapers, magazines and books -- in particular, foreign books. I'm being accused of taking state secrets from newspapers and giving it to foreigners."
After the hearing, defense attorneys vowed to appeal the conviction on grounds that the judge tilted the closed proceedings toward the prosecution. "They made a show trial out of Sutyagin's case in order to make a point, that finally we caught a real spy so that others don't do that," said Anna Stavitskaya, one of the attorneys. "But we're certain of his innocence and we'll keep fighting."
Prosecutors, who had asked for a 17-year sentence, pronounced themselves satisfied with the sentence. "The punishment was chosen taking into account the gravity of the crime and the damage caused to the security of the Russian Federation," Yuri Volgin, a senior prosecutor, said on state television.
Sutyagin, 39, has spent 41/2 years behind bars since his arrest and will be allowed to count that time against the sentence.
A jury convicted him Monday of treason by means of espionage for passing secret data on nuclear submarines and missile warning systems to a British firm, Alternative Futures, which prosecutors said was a front for the CIA. His defenders noted that Sutyagin never had access to classified material.
"Once again we are witnessing the troubling phenomenon of spy mania that has come to characterize Russia under President Putin's administration," Aaron Rhodes, executive director of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, said in a statement.
In Washington, Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, declined to comment on the substance of the charges but criticized the conduct of the trial. He told reporters on Tuesday that "there were problems with the lack of transparency and the due process."
--------
Russian Court Gives Scientist 15-Year Sentence for Spying for U.S.
April 8, 2004
By SETH MYDANS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/europe/08russ.html
MOSCOW, April 7 - A Moscow court sentenced a Russian scientist on Wednesday to 15 years at hard labor for spying for the United States in a case that rights groups said harked back to Soviet-style repression.
Igor Sutyagin, 39, an arms control expert, was found guilty of espionage on Monday for selling information to a foreign company that he and fellow scientists said was unclassified and open to the public.
The sentencing is the latest in a string of cases that appear to reflect concerns within the Russian security services about contacts between Russian and foreign scientists.
The F.S.B. - the successor to the K.G.B. - has stepped up investigations and prosecutions of scientists since the election in 2000 of President Vladimir V. Putin, who formerly headed the agency.
Scientists said the cases would discourage interaction with their foreign counterparts, which would be a setback for research here.
Mr. Sutyagin was affiliated with the prestigious U.S.A. and Canada Institute when he was arrested in October 1999. He has been in custody ever since, as his case has made its way through a legal labyrinth.
He was accused of collecting and selling material on nuclear submarines and missile warning systems to a British company that prosecutors said was a cover for the Central Intelligence Agency.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the shrinking of state subsidies for science, many scientists have found work in research and other activities for foreign companies.
When the judge instructed the jury, she made no reference to the question of whether the material was classified, said Boris Kuznetsov, one of Mr. Sutyagin's lawyers.
After his sentencing, Mr. Sutyagin repeated his defense that he had only analyzed material that was publicly available.
"The only thing I am guilty of is that I had contacts with foreigners," he said.
"In fact only newspapers, magazines and books, mostly published abroad, were the sources of my work."
The jury trial is an innovation that has been used only once before in an espionage trial, which ended in acquittal last year for Valentin Danilov, a scientist accused of selling secrets to China.
"We're returning to a time when science was considered a dangerous profession," Mr. Danilov told reporters after his acquittal.
Another scientist who was acquitted in a similar trial involving unclassified material, Anatoly Nikitin, told the radio station Ekho Moskvy: "A man has been jailed for 15 years for carrying out scientific activity. Even terrorists get less."
Lyudmila Alekseyeva, who heads the Moscow Helsinki Group, a leading human rights organization, said she doubted the independence of the jury in Mr. Sutyagin's case.
"I believe he is innocent, and I do believe that the judge and prosecutor and jury knew he was innocent," she said.
In January four international rights groups said Mr. Satyugin was "the target of politically motivated treason charges" and protested to the Council of Europe.
On Tuesday the State Department issued a statement that criticized the trial for its "lack of transparency and due process."
-------- un
Diplomacy and Security
U.S. Seeks New Global Force To Protect the U.N. in Iraq
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59417-2004Apr7.html
The United States has asked more than a dozen countries to join a new international military force to protect the United Nations in Iraq, a proposal critical to persuading the world body to return there after two massive suicide attacks against its Baghdad headquarters last year, State Department officials said.
Washington has approached France, which led opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as India, Pakistan and other nations that were reluctant to join the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq, U.S. and European officials said. The list includes "a good global mix," said a State Department official familiar with the proposed force. But no Arab countries or neighbors of Iraq are on the list, with Turkey notably absent.
The new force is considered essential to the fragile political transition because the Bush administration is relying on the United Nations to return to Iraq to help organize elections after the occupation ends on June 30. The U.N. mission is likely to include activities -- such as assistance with a census, voter registration, civic education and training in the run-up to an election, as well as monitoring the polls by the year's end -- in places where even the current coalition is not deployed, U.S. officials said.
"Potentially there could be a lot more places that forces would have to go. This is an innovative process. None of us has done this before," said the senior State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. "We all understand the importance of getting the U.N. to return, and we're trying to be creative to make that happen. We want to be responsible and make sure there is adequate protection."
The administration, aware that it is unlikely to secure more troops from the 33 countries already in Iraq, is defining the new mandate as exclusively for U.N. protection and distinct from the current coalition's military goal of stabilizing postwar Iraq, U.S. officials said.
But the new force would technically come under the broader coalition umbrella and coordinate on security, especially if there are attacks or unrest after June 30, but many of the details must be worked out, U.S. officials said.
The United States is hoping to win commitments for at least 1,500 new troops, U.S. officials said. The number will depend on the size of the U.N. staff, which could vary from 150 to 500, depending on which phase of the election process is underway, they added. The initial approaches were made by U.S. embassies in the capitals of the respective countries.
The State Department hopes to get responses in the next two weeks, since it can take several weeks to months to identify forces, prepare them and deploy. The goal is to have a significant part of the force in place before the June 30 handover of sovereignty to Iraq, U.S. officials said.
Some countries have made "favorable noises," while others have asked for time to "do some homework," the State Department official said. "For the most part, no one has slammed the door in our face."
But France cautioned the United States that it is too early to take a position, since the United Nations has not yet determined its future role in Iraq or even whether it will be able to help form an interim government to accept sovereignty from the coalition on June 30, a French diplomat said.
U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi "is now in Iraq with a small staff discussing the way forward for sovereignty, and we don't know what his recommendations will be or how the U.N. secretariat will take into account the security situation in Iraq. So it's extremely difficult to answer a question that is still highly hypothetical," the diplomat said.
France already has 40,000 troops based overseas, including 4,600 in the Ivory Coast, 4,500 in the Balkans, 1,200 in Haiti and 530 in Afghanistan. "For the time being, our plate is rather full," the diplomat said.
The new U.S. effort comes as the coalition shows the first signs of serious strain. Kazakhstan said yesterday that it will pull its 30 troops out when its tour runs out it May. The new Spanish government said last month that it will pull out after June 30 if the coalition does not win an international mandate in a new U.N. resolution.
Secretary General Kofi Annan has been concerned about sending U.N. personnel back after his senior envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and more than 20 other U.N. staff members were killed and dozens were injured in the August and October bombings. The new U.N. mission is likely to be far larger than in previous assignments, U.S. officials said.
Meanwhile, the State Department is also preparing a draft resolution to win U.N. cover for the current U.S.-led military coalition after June 30, U.S. officials said. The proposed resolution would also confer international legitimacy on the new Iraqi government and define the U.N. role in Iraq.
-------- us
US Troops Shift Gears In Iraq Fighting
Dow Jones Newswires
(From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
By Greg Jaffe and Michael M. Phillips
8 Apr 2004
http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004040800120015&Take=1
Fierce fighting in the Iraq cities of Fallujah and Ramadi forced the Marines to abandon a strategy of using highly targeted raids and instead turn to the heavy weapons and large-scale assaults they had hoped to avoid.
Battles there have left 17 Marines dead in three days, part of a broader shift in the conflict and U.S. strategy now taking place. In the sprawling Sadr City section of Baghdad and in southern Iraq, U.S. and coalition troops, who had been focused on humanitarian relief and rebuilding, are having to shift to offensive operations to quell militia forces loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt vowed to "destroy" Mr. Sadr's militia, which the Pentagon said is made up of between 1,000 and 6,000 fighters.
Some U.S. troops scheduled to leave Iraq after one year in the country might be kept there longer to deal with the surge in violence, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. U.S. officials had hoped to reduce the size of the force to 110,000 by late spring from the current peak of 134,000. Mr. Rumsfeld didn't say how many additional troops would be kept in Iraq.
As the military strategy morphs, there are signs that coalition partners are getting edgy. Troops from Poland, Spain, Bulgaria and Ukraine all clashed with Mr. Sadr's loyalists yesterday. Japan, one of the U.S.'s staunchest backers, urged the United Nations to intervene in the conflict, while Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov urged the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance to send troops.
The fiercest fighting yesterday occurred in Sunni-dominated cities of Fallujah and Ramadi where Marines have been in heavy combat with local extremists and some Syrian fighters. U.S. aircraft blasted a wall in a mosque complex in Fallujah; Marine officers said three dozen insurgents were holed up in the mosque itself firing small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. A Marine spokeswoman said that one Iraqi fighter -- and no worshippers -- were killed in the attack. Wire services cited witness reports, however, that dozens were killed.
The exchange at the mosque could further complicate U.S. efforts to pacify areas under the control of Sunnis, who have been most resistant to U.S. control. The Marines took control of western Iraq from the Army at the end of last month, pledging to use a softer touch and lighter weaponry in order to improve relations with the locals. They argued that a delicate balance of humanitarian operations and targeted raids could help them win friends.
"We still think that's absolutely the right thing to do," said Maj. Gen. Keith Stalder, deputy commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, speaking from Camp Pendleton, Calif. "Once this current combat phase is concluded in Fallujah and Ramadi, we'll go back to doing all the things we were planning to do to win people over, to kill, capture or drive out anti-coalition forces."
The Marines attributed the high casualty rate over the last two days to their strategy of taking a higher profile and challenging "anti-Iraq Forces" in the Sunni dominated cities. The violence in Ramadi, in which 12 Marines died Tuesday, began when Marines were ambushed while patrolling.
"The Marines were pinned down for a while and couldn't get out." said an Army soldier involved in the fighting.
In the wake of the attacks, Maj. Gen. Stalder said the Marines have more than enough firepower to defeat the Iraqi insurgency in Ramadi and Fallujah. "We certainly prepared for it," he said. "We had hoped the security situation and the assistance we would get from the local populace would be such that we could avoid this kind of thing altogether."
The Marines say the armed opposition represents a minority of the Fallujah and Ramadi population and believe they can still move quickly back to their original strategy. They cite as evidence the fact that locals call the coalition hotline to report the location of arms caches and insurgents -- although commanders have to vet the calls to ensure that they aren't simply set-ups for ambushes of U.S. troops. "The truth is the average Iraqi is waiting to see who comes out on top of this," Maj. Gen. Stalder said.
Still for now, at least some of the Marines' original plan appears to have gone out the window. Soldiers from the Army's 1st Infantry Division and Marines responded to the Ramadi ambush with 70-ton Abrams tanks. The Marines also used AC-130 aerial gunships, which can lay down withering blasts of fire, Cobra helicopters, and precision-guided 500-pound bombs dropped from attack jets.
Before deploying, Marine officers said they would seek to avoid indirect fire that might result in civilian casualties and turn the local population against them, according to notes from a December conference in which the Marines plotted strategy for Iraq. Some Marines had criticized the Army for its heavy-handed tactics in western Iraq.
The Marines "found out that the situation wasn't what they expected, and those methods were inappropriate to the situation as it existed," said W. Patrick Lang, a consultant who is a former head of Middle East intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
"You can't do the counter-insurgency, hearts-and-minds, give-kids-candy kind of stuff unless you're in control."
Question of the Day: Should the U.S. delay the June 30 target date for transferring sovereignty to the Iraqis? Visit WSJ.com/Question to vote.
--------
Rotation Reassessed as Toll Spikes
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59598-2004Apr7?language=printer
U.S. forces have suffered their bloodiest week in Iraq since just before the fall of Baghdad a year ago, reporting 40 combat deaths in the seven days from March 31 to April 6.
Unlike earlier spikes in casualty figures, notably ones last autumn that resulted from a few helicopter crashes, the latest jump reflects a broad range of incidents, from fierce firefights to roadside bombs. U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the invasion now total 635, including 444 caused by hostile fire. The number of wounded has reached 2,988.
As a sign of growing Pentagon concern about deteriorating security, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld raised the possibility yesterday that some U.S. troops scheduled to leave Iraq in the next few weeks might be kept in place to counter the mounting unrest. Many of the U.S. troops who died in the past week arrived only recently in Iraq, part of a rotation of forces that began earlier this year to replace war-weary veterans.
While plans have called for the U.S. troop level to drop to 115,000 by June, about 135,000 are now in Iraq as arrivals overlap with those due to leave.
"We're taking advantage of that increase, and we will likely be managing the pace of the redeployments to allow those seasoned troops with experience and relationships with the local populations to see the current situation through," Rumsfeld said.
Another senior defense official said later that no decision had been made to extend tours, which would break a Pentagon commitment to limit troop stays in Iraq to one year. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf region, is reviewing options for bolstering emergency response forces, focusing initially on shifting some units closer to trouble spots, the official said.
The recent surge in violence has involved both a rise in attacks by Sunni insurgents and a new militant campaign by Shiite forces loyal to cleric Moqtada Sadr. At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, disputed characterizations of the violence as a popular uprising. They said battles have involved relatively small numbers of militants, estimating the size of Sadr's militia at 1,000 to 6,000 fighters.
"There's nothing like an army or large elements of hundreds of people trying to change the situation," Rumsfeld said. "You have a mixture of a small number of terrorists, a small number of militias, coupled with some demonstrations and some lawlessness."
Rumsfeld also rejected the notion that the intensified fighting represented "a turning point." But he called it a "test of will," saying the militants were engaged in a "power play" before the planned June 30 handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi government.
While vowing "robust military action" to restore calm, Rumsfeld warned Iraqi pilgrims that holy cities were potentially dangerous during the upcoming Shiite holiday of Arba'in. He said Iraqi authorities had asked that U.S. forces stay away from the cities and so the troops will not be in position to protect pilgrims.
The Marine Corps, with 25 dead, suffered the largest share of military deaths in the seven days ending April 6. The Marines took charge last month of a large area west of Baghdad that has been a hotbed of Sunni resistance.
In one set of battles Tuesday in Ramadi, 12 Marines died engaging Sunni militants, and four have died since last weekend in operations to secure Fallujah, where four civilian contractors were killed March 31 and their bodies mutilated.
The U.S. Army has reported 15 deaths. Eight occurred last weekend in Baghdad battles with Shiite militants. Other soldiers perished one by one in attacks in Baghdad, Kirkuk, Balad and Mosul, victims of rocket-propelled grenades or bombs buried along roadways.
Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, said some of the rise in U.S. combat deaths could be linked to U.S. forces stepping up offensive operations over the past week.
"We're taking the fight to the enemy," he said. "Clearly, there are dangers associated with doing that."
Other defense officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the number of Iraqi militants killed as a result of U.S. action has far exceeded the number of American dead. But the officials declined to provide figures for Iraqi casualties. News reports from Iraq have put the number at more than 100.
In a departure from casualty reporting practices by U.S. forces in Iraq over the past year, the Marine Corps adopted a policy last month of disclosing only the number of Marines killed on any given day. Marine casualty announcements now generally list the cause of death simply as "enemy action." Occasionally a phrase is added saying the deceased were engaging in "security and stability operations" when they died.
By contrast, announcements of Army war dead, while hardly expansive, continue to give at least the time of day that an attack occurred, the nearest town and the nature of the attack -- an explosion of a roadside bomb, for instance, or small-arms or grenade fire.
In an explanatory note often posted with its death announcements, the Marine Corps calls the lack of detail a "force protection measure," saying the release of more information could aid enemy fighters "in assessing the effectiveness or lack thereof with regard to their tactics, techniques and procedures."
But the Marine policy has drawn objections from some defense officials, who have argued for making the Marine announcements consistent with Army ones.
"It's a matter of reaching a balance between the amount of information you provide the U.S. public and the amount you end up disclosing to the enemy," said Whitman, the Pentagon spokesman. "There's an ongoing discussion about where that appropriate balance lies."
Researcher Robert E. Thomason contributed to this report.
---------
Under Fire, Security Firms Form An Alliance
By Dana Priest and Mary Pat Flaherty
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 8, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59516-2004Apr7?language=printer
Under assault by insurgents and unable to rely on U.S. and coalition troops for intelligence or help under duress, private security firms in Iraq have begun to band together in the past 48 hours, organizing what may effectively be the largest private army in the world, with its own rescue teams and pooled, sensitive intelligence.
Many of the firms were hired by the U.S. government to protect its employees in Iraq. But because the contracts are managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority and the coordination between the CPA and the U.S. military is limited, and by their accounts inadequate, the contractors have no direct line to the armed forces. Most of the firms' employees are military veterans themselves, and they often depend on their network of colleagues still in uniform for coordination and intelligence.
"There is no formal arrangement for intelligence-sharing," Col. Jill Morgenthaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military command headquarters in Baghdad, said in an e-mail in response to questions. "However, ad hoc relationships are in place so that contractors can learn of dangerous areas or situations."
The demand for a private security force in Iraq has increased since the war ended, said officials with the CPA, the U.S.-led authority that is running the occupation of Iraq. There are about 20,000 private security contractors in Iraq now, including Americans, Iraqis and other foreigners. That number is expected to grow to 30,000 in the near future when the U.S. troop presence is drawn down after the June 30 handover to Iraqi authorities.
The presence of so many armed security contractors in a hot combat zone is unprecedented in U.S. history, according to government officials and industry experts.
In the past, "we've been careful about where and when we arm civilians who accompany the troops because we don't want to inadvertently turn them into soldiers, even by what we have them wear," said Col. Thomas McShane, an instructor at the Army War College.
As the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated in recent days, the security contract workers have been exposed to some of the same dangers U.S. soldiers face -- and have defended their posts as soldiers would, but without the support of the military with which they share the battlefield.
While U.S. and coalition military forces fought rebellions in a half-dozen cities yesterday, the body of a contract worker, employed to guard the power lines of the Iraqi ministry of electricity, was extracted from a rooftop in Kut by his firm's Iraqi interpreter after he bled to death, according to government and industry officials.
The dead man, a Western employee of London-based Hart Group Ltd., had been pinned down on the rooftop of the house he and four colleagues had been occupying Tuesday night when insurgents overran the house. The other four were wounded.
"We were holding out, hoping to get direct military support that never came," said Nick Edmunds, Iraq coordinator for Hart, whose employees were operating in an area under Ukrainian military control. Other sources said Hart employees called U.S. and Ukrainian military forces so many times during the siege that the battery on their mobile phone ran out.
That same night, armed employees of two other firms, Control Risk Group and Triple Canopy, were also surrounded and attacked, according to U.S. government and industry sources.
In all three instances, U.S. and coalition military forces were called for help but did not respond in a timely manner, according to U.S. government and industry accounts. The private commandos fought for hours and eventually were able to "self-evacuate," said one U.S. official, who asked not to be named.
Asked last night to explain why U.S. and coalition forces had not responded to requests for help, a Pentagon spokesman referred the question to commanders in Iraq, who could not be reached for comment because of the time difference.
On Monday, eight commandos from Blackwater Security Consulting repulsed an attack by the militiamen of Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr against the Coalition Provisional Authority headquarters in Najaf. After hours of calling the U.S. military and CPA for backup, Blackwater sent in its own helicopters -- twice -- to ferry ammunition in and carry a wounded Marine to safety, according to U.S. government and industry sources familiar with the incident.
A week ago, four Blackwater commandos -- all former members of U.S. Special Forces working on a contract to protect a private food company in Iraq -- were killed and mutilated in Fallujah. U.S. government and industry sources believe a member of the Iraqi police helped set up the ambush of the two unarmored cars the men were using.
The U.S. military does not have enough specially trained troops or Iraqi police officers to guard its civilian employees, said defense and CPA officials. As a result, the U.S. government has turned increasingly to private firms. Blackwater even provides personal security to U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer.
The Bremer detail, said Peter W. Singer, a private military expert at the Brookings Institution, illustrates the extent to which the military is breaking new ground, even amending its long-held doctrine that the "U.S. military does not turn over mission-critical functions to private contractors," Singer said. "And you don't put contractors in positions where they need to carry weapons. . . . A private armed contractor now has the job of keeping Paul Bremer alive -- it can't get much more mission-critical than that."
Some Defense Department officials are concerned that private commandos are not subject to adequate oversight. There is no government vetting of contract workers who carry weapons. "The CPA has let all kinds of contracts to all kinds of people," said one senior Defense Department official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject. "It's blindsided us."
The CPA's program management office has sought bids for a project to coordinate security among the 10 largest prime contractors and their subcontractors working on U.S.-backed reconstruction projects worth $18.4 billion. But the bids are still under review. In the meantime, the office is "trying to get at least some level of intelligence sanitized from the military that could be given to contractors," said Capt. Bruce A. Cole, spokesman for the program management office in Baghdad. That has not happened yet.
The firms, stunned by the casualties they suffered this week and by the lack of a military response, have begun banding together to share their own operations-center telephone numbers and tips on threats, as well as to organize ways to rescue one another in a crisis.
"There is absolutely a growing cooperation along unofficial lines," Edmunds said. "We try to give each other warnings about things we hear are about to happen."
"Each private firm amounts to an individual battalion," said one U.S. government official familiar with the developments. "Now they are all coming together to build the largest security organization in the world."
--------
THE MILITARY
U.S. May Delay Departure of Some Troops in Iraq
April 8, 2004
By DOUGLAS JEHL, ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08MILI.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, April 7 - After days of intense combat in both Shiite and Sunni cities in Iraq, the Pentagon signaled on Wednesday that it would probably delay bringing home as many as 25,000 soldiers from the First Armored Division as scheduled, even as the new troops meant to replace them are arriving.
Some of the reinforced American troops in the Baghdad area will probably be sent to cities in southern Iraq to help other occupation forces put down an insurrection by forces loyal to a rebellious Shiite cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, military officials said Wednesday.
The military moves reflected a deep sense of concern by the Bush administration and American commanders about the deteriorating situation in Iraq, where the new wave of attacks by Mr. Sadr's Shiite followers has added a second front to an anti-American campaign previously limited to Sunni insurgents.
At the Pentagon on Wednesday afternoon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that postponing the return home of "seasoned troops" was part of a plan "to systematically address the situations we are facing."
The challenge of taking on Shiites in addition to Sunni insurgents was clearly a complication that President Bush and his aides did not expect, prompting a day of emergency meetings between Mr. Bush, who was beginning his Easter vacation at his ranch in Texas, and senior military commanders and Bush administration officials in Iraq and in Washington via a videoconference.
And the new challenge comes as Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, is scheduled to testify on Thursday about what the administration knew about the potential for terror attacks before Sept. 11, 2001.
"We have a lot of balls in the air this week," one senior official said. "And no one around here can tell you where they are going to land."
Throughout the day, White House officials officials tried to portray an atmosphere of calm, saying there was no discussion about having Mr. Bush return early from his vacation in Crawford. They also tried to put down critiques - many fueled by Democrats - that with less than 12 weeks to go before the planned transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30, Mr. Bush still cannot explain who will be taking control of the country.
On Capitol Hill, some Republican lawmakers, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, urged the administration to send more troops to Iraq to address the security challenge. But Senator Robert C. Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat, called instead for the administration to outline an exit strategy.
With 25,000 soldiers from the First Armored Division being joined in and around Baghdad by about 15,000 troops arriving from the First Cavalry Division, a total of 40,000 American soldiers are now in the Iraqi capital - roughly 11,000 more than before the troop rotation began in January. An additional 10,000 soldiers from the First Cavalry are scheduled to arrive soon.
Under a plan being mapped out by the top American commander for the region, Gen. John P. Abizaid, some of the more experienced troops will probably be sent to Shiite-dominated south-central Iraq. In recent days there, forces loyal to Mr. Sadr have tested British, Polish and other non-American troops in charge of what had been - until last weekend - a largely peaceful area.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star officer who served in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, said that while restoring order to Baghdad must be a priority, the need for reinforcements in the south was keen.
"With the exception of the Brits, who have high-quality combat forces, the rest of the coalition forces have capabilities ranging from untrained light infantry with peacekeeping, not peacemaking, rules of engagement, to units barely authorized to protect themselves," he said.
Mr. Bush met with his national security team via the secure teleconference center in a trailer near his ranch in Crawford. Among those participating, the White House said, were Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Rumsfeld; George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence; Secretary of State Colin L. Powell; L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator in Iraq; General Abizaid; Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff.
Administration officials said the meetings dealt with the enormous complications arising from the question of how to deal with Mr. Sadr, who has taken refuge in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. American forces had pledged to remain out of Najaf during the holiday of Arbaeen, which starts on Friday. The city, like Karbala, another holy city where there has been fighting, is already beginning to fill with Shiites.
A senior White House official said Mr. Sadr would "be dealt with, and I don't mean through negotiation."
American officials in Washington and Iraq, concerned that a direct attack now on Mr. Sadr might only fuel the fighting, said the forces sent there might focus more on quelling the violence his followers have unleashed. And some administration officials said their first priority was to enlist other Iraqi Shiites, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a bid to marginalize Mr. Sadr.
Mr. Rumsfeld issued a pointed call to Iraqis to join in condemning Mr. Sadr, and he renewed Mr. Bush's vow not to be driven out of Iraq by what Mr. Rumsfeld called "a group of thugs." Even as American intelligence officials suggested that the Shiite uprising was reaching well beyond Mr. Sadr's followers, Mr. Rumsfeld said the resistance was coming from a force of no more than 6,000 armed fighters led by Mr. Sadr. General Myers also played down the new layer of conflict. "It's not a Shia uprising," the general said at the Pentagon news conference.
Both officials tried to lump Mr. Sadr together with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian Sunni Muslim terrorist who American officials say has led attacks on coalition targets, and they characterized Mr. Sadr as an extremist whose anti-American campaign was at odds with the wishes of most Iraqis.
At the White House, officials said that violence on this scale would not throw off the schedule Mr. Bush has laid out. "The single most important fact in all of this is that the Iraqi people have it fixed in their minds that sovereignty will be transferred on June 30," said one senior administration official. "It is an important point for them. And it will happen."
In both the Sadr City section of Baghdad and in the Sunni enclaves of Ramadi and Falluja, west of Baghdad, American troops are facing one of the commanders' biggest concerns when the Iraq war started over a year ago: prolonged urban combat. In Falluja, where four civilian contractors were killed last week, marines from the First Marine Expeditionary Force have set up barriers at routes in and out of the city. They are advancing through the city.
Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, an assistant commander of the First Armored Division, said in a telephone interview from Baghdad that resistance in parts of the city could last several more days.
And he said the next few days could prove to be a turning point for the American-led operation.
"The moderates, especially the moderate leaders in Baghdad, are watching what's happening," he said. "What we can't afford as we advance toward the new government, is to allow a very small group of extremists to throw the governmental system off its tracks."
Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported from Washington and Eric Schmitt from New York.
-------- propaganda wars
Point Proved?
Clarke Says Rice's Testimony Bolstered His Claims
ABCNEWS.com
April 8, 2004
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/clarke_interview_transcript_040408.html
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice repeatedly told the 9/11 commission today that there was no "silver bullet" that could have averted the deadly Sept. 11 terror attacks on America.
But former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who is also an ABCNEWS consultant, said he tried to warn the president of the imminent threat of al Qaeda. He testified during the Sept. 11 commission's public hearings that the Bush administration paid too much attention to Iraq and underestimated the threat from al Qaeda, before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.
After Rice's three-hour testimony concluded, ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings asked Clarke what he thought about Rice's testimony before the commission.
The following is an unedited, uncorrected transcript of Clarke's interview with ABCNEWS' Peter Jennings as it aired on Thursday, April 8, 2004:
Jennings: Now let's talk a little bit about Richard Clarke. Even if you heard only a little of the testimony today, much of the testimony centered on the testimony of Dr. Clarke. Dr. Rice, you heard comment on it. She certainly contradicted it in some cases.
Mr. Clarke is an adviser to ABCNEWS on the subject of terrorism and has been for many months. I don't think we necessarily expected that he was going to make the kind of news that he did when he appeared before this commission, but we - you will recall that when he testified before the commission, the Bush administration took ample opportunity to attack in a very public, very widespread way what he had said before the commission.
So in trying to understand some of the truth and the facts about this commission today, we've asked Dr. Clarke, who, as I said, has been a paid consultant to ABCNEWS over many months, to come back and try to answer a couple questions about what he has heard today and he is in Boston.
Mr. Clarke, can you hear me?
Clarke: Yes, Peter, I can.
Jennings: I just want to ask you, you heard people using your testimony in a variety of different ways. But I wondered if you would start first by reaffirming your statement that even with more aggressive action by the Bush administration, the events of 9/11 could not have been prevented and then explain then, if you would, why what you have said should matter to this commission.
Clarke: Well, Peter, I was asked by Senator Gorton if the adoption of the strategy in February, as opposed to September, would have stopped 9/11, and I said no. And Dr. Rice said no. I think we agree on that.
The adoption of the strategy would not have stopped 9/11. What I've said might have had some effect on 9/11 would have been if Dr. Rice and the president had acted personally, gotten involved, shaken the trees, gotten the Cabinet members involved when they had ample warning in June and July and August that something was about to happen.
And frankly, I think that Dr. Rice's testimony today, and she did a very good job, basically corroborates what I said. She said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place and she admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet. She admitted that she didn't convene the Cabinet. And as some of the commissioners pointed out, this was in marked contrast to the way the government operated in December of 1999, when it had similar information and it successfully thwarted attacks.
So I don't see that there are a lot of factual problems with what Dr. Rice said.
There are one or two other minor points here or there that I think are probably wrong, but overall I think she corroborated what I said. She said it was inefficient to bring the Cabinet members together to have them work to stop the attacks that they had been informed were coming.
Jennings: Do you agree with her, and she said it repeatedly this morning, that the structural deficiencies, most notably in the relationship between the FBI and the CIA prevented and would have prevented any administration from doing a better job?
Clarke: No, I don't. We had meetings that I chaired two and three times a week where FBI and the CIA shared information. My deputy had a daily meeting where that took place. The problem was that there was information buried in FBI and the CIA that wasn't shaken out.
And by having the Cabinet members come to the White House every day in crisis mode and then go back to their departments and look for anything that is anywhere in the departments in December 1999, we were able to get the kind of information we needed to stop the attacks. You know, there may be structural problems within those agencies, but the way you overcome them in a crisis mode is by having the leaders of the agencies get together in the White House as a team in crisis mode.And Dr. Rice admits she didn't do it. Dr. Rice admits she didn't do it.
Jennings: Dr. Rice and you also disagree about whether or not the White House generally regarded the whole thing as a crisis. She says the memos which you wrote to the president had an historical nature to them rather than being actual plans of action which could be moved forward. She also says she didn't try very hard to see the president - you didn't try very hard to see the president when you felt as strongly as you did. Would you comment on both of those?
Clarke: First of all, the document I sent to her on Jan. 25, days after the administration started, the documents ought to be declassified and people can decide for themselves. That memorandum on Jan. 25 said I urgently need a meeting with the Cabinet to approve these plans, these strategies. we can get into semantical distinctions as to whether it was a plan or strategy or a series of decisions that had to be made, but on Jan. 25, I was saying we have a strategy, it needs these additional elements, the president has to make decisions about that so we can go forward.
And I think what you'll see if it's declassified and you compare it to where they came out on Sept. 4 is basically on Sept. 4, they adopted what I proposed on Jan. 25. And so the time in between was wasted.
Now, on the issue of whether or not I asked for a meeting with the president, I did. I asked for a meeting with the president several times beginning, in fact, before Dr. Rice even took office in the transition briefing. I said I have given this briefing to the vice president, I've given it to the secretary of state, I've given it now to you, I would like to give it to the president.
And what I was told was I could brief the president on terrorism after the policy development process had been completed.
Jennings: You moved at one point from terrorism to cyber security and you did have a meeting with the president at that time. If you felt as passionately about your terrorism plans, why did you not tell the president about that when you had a chance to see him face to face?
Clarke: Because I had been told by Dr. Rice and her deputy that this was a briefing on countering the cyber threats and not on al Qaeda and that I would have my opportunity on al Qaeda if I just held on, eventually they would get to it, probably in September.
Jennings: Mr. Clarke, thank you very much for joining us today. And thank you for your help to us over the last many months.
Clarke: Thank you, Peter.
----
Condi Gets A Reality Check
By David J. Sirota and Christy Harvey and Judd Legum,
Center for American Progress
April 8, 2004
Alternet.org
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18368
Opening Statement
CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."
FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaeda suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]
CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaeda network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power - intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military - to meet this goal."
FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04] CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."
FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]
CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaeda."
FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]
CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."
FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."
FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously - and inaccurately - denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]
CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."
FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]
CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."
FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]
Q&A Testimony
Planes as Weapons
CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]
CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]
FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]
August 6 PDB
CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6. [responding to Ben Veniste]
FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]
Domestic Threat
CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaeda activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]
FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]
CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]
FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event - there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]
Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force
CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]
FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03]
Principals Meetings
CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]
FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]
Previous Administration
CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony, 4/8/04]
FBI
CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]
FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]
CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]
FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]
Homeland Security
CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]
FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.
CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies - the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA - so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]
FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04] IRAQ-9/11
CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."
FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]
CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"
FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04; USA Today, 3/28/04; Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04]
War on Terror
CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."
FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03; CNN, 11/23/02; Newsweek, 4/7/04]
Visit the Center for American Progress.
----
Rice Seeks to Shift Blame
Thursday April 8, 2004
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3956223,00.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - Condoleezza Rice offered little new information about the days leading up to Sept. 11, and instead determinedly shifted blame from the White House to a two-decade failure in the way U.S. intelligence fought terrorism.
From her opening statement to the occasional clashes with members during three hours of testimony Thursday, President Bush's national security adviser stuck closely to her message that blame for America's worst terror attack rested with administrations dating to Ronald Reagan.
The FBI and CIA failed to talk to share intelligence. Administrations had an ``allergy'' to doing the type of domestic intelligence gathering needed to thwart attacks on U.S. soil. Military solutions weren't aggressively considered.
``The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them,'' Rice told the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
That was precisely the message the White House wanted as Bush heads into a tight election campaign in which he is touting his role as commander of the war on terror.
No matter how commission members pressed questions suggesting Bush had enough warning signs to see Sept. 11 coming, Rice did not yield and did not fluster. Her performance earned praise from the panel's Democratic vice chairman, Lee Hamilton.
``I don't think we asked her any questions that threw her at all. She was very articulate,'' Hamilton said. ``I especially appreciated the tone of her statement. She was not in any way vindictive. She was constructive.''
Following a little over a week after her former counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke portrayed the Bush administration as slow to reacting to the terrorist threat, Rice did not personally attack him.
Instead, she often drew different conclusions about the same sets of facts. Most frequently, she pointed to problems inside the FBI and CIA.
``What we do know is that we did have a systemic problem, a structural problem between the FBI and the CIA,'' the president's national security adviser told the commission investigating the 2001 terror attacks.
``This country, for reasons of history and culture and therefore law, had an allergy to the notion of domestic intelligence, and we were organized on that basis,'' she said. ``It just made it very hard to have all of the pieces come together.''
In her three hours on the hot seat, Rice offered little new information on actions taken - and not taken - by the Bush administration in the weeks and days leading up to the attacks in New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people.
But it is unlikely that her appearance will cause additional political damage to the White House.
``She has survived, which was her main goal. She's done more than that,'' said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. ``The average American in looking at this will have a favorable impression of her that's going to override whatever contradictions may remain.''
Rice's initial refusal to testify drew heavy criticism from Democrats and many Republicans.
Rice disputed Clarke's claim that Bush pressed him to find a link to Iraq on the day after the terror attacks.
She said she did not recall such a discussion between Bush and Clarke, but ``I'm quite certain the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts.''
``It is not surprising that the president would say 'What about Iraq?''' she added.
Her testimony did nothing to challenge information developed by the panel that the administration ``was a little lax'' in dealing with terrorism threats before Sept. 11, said Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar with the Brookings Institution.
``Let's face it, it was not their finest hour,'' he said. But he added that there is also no evidence that anything proposed by Clarke or the Clinton administration would have prevented the attacks.
EDITOR'S NOTE - Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- homeland security
System Can Detect Fraudulent Passports
April 8, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Document-Detectors.html
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Australia, one of the United States' strongest allies, has added a new weapon to its arsenal -- a toaster-sized document reader that tells in seconds whether a passport is a fraud and identifies travelers who might be included on terrorist watch lists.
``What we're trying to do is strengthen border security by making sure that the people who are coming into this country are who they say they are,'' said Tim Chapman, a manager with Australia's Customs Service.
In a multimillion-dollar contract, Australia has installed 400 iA-thenticate units from Imaging Automation Inc. of Bedford, N.H., at its international airports in hopes of authenticating the documents of every person entering.
The system ranges from $5,000 to $15,000 per unit. It uses multiple light sources to examine hundreds of security features on travel documents. Many of the features, including the composition of ink, are invisible to the naked eye.
Australia joins Canada, Hungary, Sweden, Finland, Nigeria among the countries using or testing the iA-thenticate system. The Dallas-Fort Worth and Boston airports and a company that contracts with nuclear plants use the system to check credentials of prospective employees.
Chapman said the system was deployed in Australia in mid-February and already has detected false documents. Without giving details, he said the people might not have been detected beforehand.
Imaging Automation is trying to sell its system to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is facing delays in its plans to incorporate passport-validating fingerprint and facial biometrics at border crossings.
On the Net:
iA-thenticate devices: http://www.imagingauto.com
--------
Senate Panel OKs $1B for Rail Security
April 8, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Rail-Security.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Spurred by the railway bombings in Madrid last month, the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday unanimously approved spending more than $1 billion to protect railroads and mass transit systems from terrorist attacks.
The bill requires the Homeland Security Department to develop a plan within 180 days to improve rail security throughout the country. It calls for tightening security at railroad stations and tunnels and for railcars that carry hazardous materials.
Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., said the terrorist strike in Madrid showed ``we need to pass this legislation as soon as possible.''
The committee passed a similar bill in the month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but it never went any further.
Last week, the FBI and the Homeland Security Department warned that terrorists might strike trains and buses in major U.S. cities using bombs concealed in bags or luggage.
Since the bombings in Spain that left 191 people dead, lawmakers have criticized Homeland Security for focusing too heavily on protecting commercial air travel at the expense of other kinds of transportation.
The government has spent $12 billion on aviation security since the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Railroads and transit agencies were authorized to receive $65 million in security grants in 2003 and $50 million in 2004.
The committee approved a separate measure requiring the Homeland Security Department to develop a port security plan. Though the bill would have awarded $400 million a year in grants to protect the maritime industry, a proposal to impose a user fee to pay for them failed.
Also Thursday, the Bush administration backed a proposal by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that would beef up federal penalties for rail attacks and end some decades-old discrepancies between punishments for targeting freight and passenger trains.
The proposal, which representatives of the Justice and Transportation Departments endorsed at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, also would make it a federal crime to release biological or hazardous materials on any mass transportation provider, including trains. Should anyone be killed in such an attack, the death penalty would apply.
Associated Press reporter Jeffrey McMurray contributed to this story.
On the Net:
Transportation Security Administration: http://www.tsa.gov
Homeland Security Department: http://www.dhs.gov
-------- immigration / refugees
Push Is On to Give Legal Immigrants Vote in New York
April 8, 2004
By ROBERT F. WORTH
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/nyregion/08VOTE.html?pagewanted=all&position=
At first glance, it may seem a long shot in an era of orange alerts and stepped-up border patrols. But quietly and carefully, elected officials, labor unions and community groups are starting to push the notion of allowing legal immigrants who are not United States citizens to vote in New York City elections.
Supporters say it is not an outlandish proposition. They point out that even without citizenship, legal immigrants pay taxes, send their children to public schools and serve in the military. Noncitizens in many states were allowed to vote in local, state and even Congressional elections as recently as the 1920's. Until New York City moved to abolish its school boards two years ago, all residents had the right to vote for and serve on them. And although a proposal to open city elections to immigrants was raised 10 years ago without success, some people believe that the time may now be right.
In the last decade, five towns in Maryland have allowed noncitizens, even illegal immigrants, to vote in local elections. Campaigns for immigrant voting rights are under way in several cities, including Hartford; Cambridge, Mass.; and Washington, where Mayor Anthony Williams has said he supports giving legal immigrants the vote in District of Columbia elections.
Those initiatives may be taken more seriously in a campaign season when politicians in both major parties are making overtures to immigrants, as President Bush has with his proposal to grant temporary legal status to millions now living here illegally.
For the moment, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has declined to express an opinion on the subject, and Gifford Miller, the speaker of the City Council, said this week that he was still studying the legal issues. Several union locals have quietly indicated their support, though only one has formally joined the coalition that is promoting the idea.
At a minimum, it is an intriguing prospect in a city with about a million legal immigrants of voting age who are not citizens - equivalent to more than a fifth of the total number of current voters. Granting those people, most of them Hispanic or Asian, the right to vote could change the electoral calculus in a number of arenas, from the races for mayor and the five borough presidents to ballot questions on city borrowing and building projects.
The new voters would be more likely to elect minority candidates, political analysts say, and could force politicians to become more responsive to issues like deportation policy and immigrant access to health care. If voting rights were extended to the state level - truly a long shot at this point - the effects would be even greater, forcing redistricting that could affect the balance of power in Congress. Although all residents are counted when district lines are redrawn, normally only eligible voters are included when the new districts are challenged in court under the Voting Rights Act.
"This would be seismic in its impact," said Roberto Ramirez, a political consultant and lawyer who has served as a state assemblyman and chairman of the Bronx Democratic Party. "Both parties would have to develop a different mindset to address policy issues for those residents who have historically not been part of the political process."
Nationally, there are more than 10 million legal immigrants who are not citizens, according to estimates based on census figures. Some are waiting to become citizens, a process that often takes as long as 10 years with the current backlog of applications. Others are not eligible for citizenship because they are here on temporary visas, or have simply not applied.
In New York City, the latest proposals are still being drafted by two council members, Bill Perkins and John C. Liu. Supporters all agree that whatever measure surfaces, it should extend the vote to legal immigrants who are eligible to become citizens. Some would prefer a broader law to include anyone who pays taxes, regardless of immigration status.
There will certainly be opponents. Critics say that giving newcomers the right to vote would undermine the very idea of citizenship.
"Extending voting rights to noncitizens eliminates the last distinction between people who have accepted permanent membership in the American people and those who have not," said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that favors greater restrictions on immigration. "That distinction is important to maintain."
The political landscape affecting the proposal has changed in recent years. When the idea was first broached in New York and Washington in the early 1990's, some black community leaders opposed it, seeing immigrants as political and economic competitors. That is no longer true, at least in New York, where a number of black leaders and elected officials say they see the effort as an extension of the civil rights movement. Mr. Perkins, one of the councilmen drafting legislation, is African-American.
A stumbling block was removed this year when lawyers for the City Council reviewed state election law and decided that the city could alter its voting statutes without the approval of the State Legislature, where noncitizen voting measures were introduced without success three times during the 1990's. Nothing in New York State's Constitution forbids voting by noncitizens.
A dozen New York organizations have formally joined a coalition that is actively promoting the cause; they have organized community meetings and held a conference last month at City College in Manhattan. Half are immigrant-based groups like the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and New Immigrant Community Empowerment, and some others have links to organized labor. Immigrant sponsors have a clear self-interest: their politicians would presumably get new votes, and their communities would get more influence.
Seven or eight other organizations, including three union locals and some nonprofit political and legal groups like Common Cause, say they support the idea as well.
The groups say their optimism is based in part on the Bloomberg administration's general receptiveness to immigrant concerns.
"In the past two years New York has passed strong laws that protect immigrants and give them better access to government, and we are confident New Yorkers will support voting rights once they fully understand the issue," said Bryan Pu-Folkes, the executive director of New Immigrant Community Empowerment, based in Queens.
Noncitizen voting is sometimes dismissed as a left-wing hobbyhorse that can succeed only in overwhelmingly Democratic places, like the towns in Maryland where such laws have passed.
Still, it is not at all clear that the new voters would favor one party over the other, said John Mollenkopf, the director of the Center for Urban Research at the City University of New York. In their last elections, Mr. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki each drew more than a third of the Hispanic vote in New York City, Mr. Mollenkopf estimated, a strong showing for Republican candidates. Asian voters are even more likely than Hispanic voters to lean Republican, he said.
Whatever the political fallout, some opponents argue that noncitizen voting is bad policy and would remove an incentive to becoming a full United States citizen. The idea's proponents counter that getting the right to vote could help provide a political education for new immigrants and give them an appetite for voting in presidential elections, which is restricted to citizens by federal law.
"In many ways, this prepares people," said Gouri Sadhwani, the executive director of the New York Civic Participation Project, one of the groups pressing the issue. "They start local, and then they become citizens and vote in national elections."
All of these arguments have long histories. From the founding of the nation until the early 20th century, immigrants had a civic voice that many citizens, including blacks and women, did not. At various times, they voted in 22 states and federal territories (though New York moved early, in 1804, to restrict voting to citizens).
The practice known as "alien suffrage" was less common in the South than other parts of the country, largely because new immigrants tended to be hostile toward slavery. The first article in the Confederate Constitution banned noncitizen voting, said Jamin Raskin, a law professor at American University and a leader of the modern movement to give immigrants the vote.
State legislatures began narrowing their suffrage laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as huge waves of immigration from southern and eastern Europe led to greater suspicion about political radicalism among the newcomers. By 1928, voting at every level had been restricted to United States citizens.
That remained true until 1992, when the town of Takoma Park, Md., passed a measure allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. Since then, four other towns in Maryland have followed suit. Two communities in Massachusetts, Cambridge and Amherst, have passed similar measures, but have been blocked from implementing them by the absence of enabling state legislation.
Giving immigrants the right to vote will not be an easy sell, even in New York. Some proponents say they will be content for the moment if they can force people to rethink a fundamental issue.
"Whether or not we pass this law in the next year, this is an idea whose time has come," said Bertha Lewis, the executive director of Acorn, an advocacy group for low-income families that is planning rallies to support the move. "You cannot put this genie back in the bottle."
-------- investigations
Panel to Ask About Pre-9/11 Planning
Rice to Be Questioned About Cole Attack
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 8, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59432-2004Apr7.html
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice will be sharply questioned today about the Bush administration's military planning to meet the terrorism threat and its refusal to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in the first eight months of 2001, according to several members of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean said the question of whether the administration had any military plans for the Taliban and al Qaeda "will definitely be pursued" at this morning's hearing.
Kean and other commissioners also said they will ask why the Bush administration did not respond militarily to the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in a Yemen harbor. That event, which occurred on Oct. 12, 2000, took the lives of 17 Navy sailors and wounded 39 others.
"We've asked the Clinton people pretty tough questions about why there was no response to the Cole during their administration, and we will be asking the same questions of Dr. Rice," Kean said.
In an op-ed piece published in The Washington Post this March 22, Rice wrote: "Through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda -- which was expected to take years."
She added that when it was finished, a week before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, "our plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets, taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." President Bush "wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile strikes," she wrote, like the ones the Clinton administration launched against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.
The administration's former top counterterrorism official, Richard A. Clarke, has charged that the proposals he gave Rice in January 2001 -- which she dismissed in a CBS News interview last month as "a kind of laundry list to, as he said, roll back al Qaeda over three to five years" -- became the substance of the final plan approved that Sept. 4 by senior Cabinet officers dealing with national security. At the same time, in 2001, the Pentagon showed little urgency about the terrorist threat, according to the commission's report. Douglas J. Feith, the defense undersecretary for policy, who ultimately took responsibility for al Qaeda and Iraq planning, did not arrive at the Pentagon until July of that year. Once there, he told the Sept. 11 commission, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld "asked him to focus his attention on working with the Russians on agreements to dissolve the ABM treaty and preparing a new nuclear arms control pact," according to the commission staff report.
The Clinton administration's point person in the Pentagon for counterterrorism, Brian Sheridan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity warfare, never got to brief Rumsfeld during the transition, and his successor was not named until after Sept. 11, 2001, the commission reported.
Responding to the attack on the Cole was not on the Bush Defense Department's agenda, even though Clinton administration officials had asked the Pentagon to prepare military options when evidence linking the strike to bin Laden began to appear, the commission reported. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, briefed President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, on 13 options to strike al Qaeda camps and Taliban targets. But because the evidence on bin Laden's role in the Yemen bombing was still shaky, nothing was done immediately.
Several of Shelton's options involved "U.S. boots on the ground," in part to show Berger the "extraordinary complexity of the 'boots on the ground' options," according to the report of the joint House-Senate committee that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks.
Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, then the new head of the Central Command, developed a "phased campaign concept" that reached the Clinton White House in December 2000, the committee reported. It included strikes against the Taliban but no plans to invade Afghanistan.
When the Bush administration took office, Rumsfeld and his deputy secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, did not push for a response to the Cole attack, though the evidence of bin Laden's role was clear by then. Wolfowitz told the commission during his closed-door appearance that "by the time the new administration was in place, the Cole incident was stale," and that the 1998 cruise missile strike "showed UBL [bin Laden] and al Qaeda that they had nothing to fear from a U.S. response," according to the commission staff report.
Rumsfeld was dismissive of any strike against Afghanistan in response to the Cole. He told the commission last week that he felt "the president ought not to simply fire off cruise missiles; that in the event he was going to make a response, he had to put people on the ground, he had to put people at risk." Even so, the pre-Sept. 11 Bush strategy against bin Laden did not include putting U.S. forces on the ground in Afghanistan.
Deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley told the commissioners that "tit-for-tat military options were so inadequate that they might have emboldened al Qaeda," the staff report said. He also said the Bush administration's response, when it took place, "would be a new, more aggressive strategy."
When Rice appeared on CBS News's "60 Minutes" on March 28, she provided a fuller picture of the pre-Sept. 11 military planning than she had given earlier.
"Nobody is claiming that we intended to invade Afghanistan and push the Taliban out of power," she said. "That wasn't on the agenda in the Clinton administration; it frankly was not on the agenda in the Bush administration until after 9/11."
Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
--------
Bush Understood Threat Posed by Al Qaeda, Rice Tells Panel
April 8, 2004
By DAVID STOUT
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08CND-PANE.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, April 8 - President Bush understood the deadly threat posed by Al Qaeda terrorists from his very first days in office, the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testified today.
But she said the administration was hobbled by deep-seated problems in intelligence-gathering, notably a lack of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.
"I would not consider the problem solved," Ms. Rice said of the lack of communication between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., calling it a problem that has persisted for years. "Tragically," she said, it took the "catastrophic event" of Sept. 11, 2001, to fully illuminate the problem.
In her long-awaited appearance before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, Ms. Rice insisted under sometimes sharp questioning that Mr. Bush "understood the threat, and he understood its importance," as she put it in her opening statement.
In hindsight, some things are so easy to see, Ms. Rice said in a calm, businesslike tone with many survivors of the Sept. 11 attacks looking on.
"The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them," she said, likening America's attitude before Sept. 11, 2001, to its collective mood before the torpedoing of the Lusitania in 1915 and the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Yes, she conceded, there were signals in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda terrorists were planning a major attack against American interests.
"Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks," she told the panel headed by Thomas H. Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana.
But several commission members, while expressing high regard for Ms. Rice personally, took her to task and challenged any assumption that there just were not enough clues before Sept. 11. Fred Fielding, a Republican panel member, said the United States had suffered "an intelligence failure," no matter how else it is described.
"I don't think anyone will kid ourselves that we didn't suffer one," he said.
Ms. Rice conceded what many other critics of American intelligence-gathering have said since Sept. 11: that there has been a longstanding problem of getting the C.I.A. and F.B.I. to talk to each other. "I would not consider the problem solved," she said.
Ms. Rice faced tough early questioning from Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commission member and former Watergate prosecutor. In sometimes testy and confrontational exchanges, he pressed the national security adviser on whether she had told the president about her knowledge of the presence of Al Qaeda cells in the United States, which had been passed on to her by Richard A. Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism director.
Ms. Rice said she believed that a memo from a presidential briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, contained information that the F.B.I. was "pursuing full-field investigations" of the cells.
But she said she could not recall having discussed that information with Mr. Bush.
She added that the administration was aware that there were issues inside the United States, "but I don't remember the Al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about."
Mr. Ben-Veniste persisted, asking, "Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice" that the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6 "warned against possible attacks in this country?"
He ended the question by asking her to give the name of the memo, to which she replied: "I believe the title was `Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "
Ms. Rice insisted, however, that the memo did not warn of attacks inside America. "It was historical information based on old reporting," she said. "There was no new threat information, and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."
Ms. Rice agreed that there was nothing "reassuring" in the memo, which Mr. Ben-Veniste said referred to thwarted attempts at attacks inside the United States by Al Qaeda cells, but she added:
"I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me."
Ms. Rice said she wakes up every day with some worry in the belief that "we have really hurt the Al Qaeda network, but we have not destroyed it."
Bob Kerrey, a Democratic member of the panel and former senator from Nebraska, preceded his questioning by saying that he believed the war on terrorism was a war on radical Islam. He added that the United States did not understand how it was viewed by Muslims, and that he was very worried that the "military tactics" being used in Iraq "are going to do a number of things, and they're all bad," including a civil war.
When applause broke out from spectators, Mr. Kerrey quickly asked that it be stopped.
Applause and laughter broke out later, however, when, in answer to a question from Mr. Kerrey about why the United States had not responded militarily to the attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen, Ms. Rice quoted from a Kerrey speech saying that the best response to the attack would perhaps be to deal with "the threat of Saddam Hussein."
In further questioning about the Aug. 6 memo, Mr. Kerrey said it referred to "patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking."
Ms. Rice replied that the information was checked out and steps were taken in circulars from the Federal Aviation Authority to warn of hijackings.
"But when you cannot tell people where a hijacking might occur, under what circumstances," she said, "I can tell you that I think that the best antidote to what happened in that regard would have been many years before: to think about what you could do, for instance, to harden cockpits"
She added: "That would have made a difference. We were not going to harden cockpits in the three months in which we had a threat spike."
The session before the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, produced long stretches of bureaucratic language, including the word "task" as a verb, with images of people with their "hair on fire," figuratively speaking, in alarm.
Ms. Rice will also speak to the commission later in private.
In her opening statement, Ms. Rice said that if anything might have aborted the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center, blasted a huge hole in the Pentagon and killed some 3,000 people, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States.
But finding such information was difficult, she said, because of "structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies."
Ms. Rice testified in a cool, unwavering tone, even when she said, "We owe it to those we lost, and to their loved ones, and to our country, to learn all we can about that tragic day, and the events that led to it."
Although her tone in the opening statement was not confrontational, part of her statement was a clear rebuttal of recent charges that President Bush and his closest advisers underestimated the threat from the Al Qaeda network and overestimated the danger from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, to the overall detriment of the campaign against terrorism.
Indeed, she said, as soon as Mr. Bush and his aides were briefed by the outgoing Clinton administration, "we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States."
"We wanted to ensure there was no respite in the fight against Al Qaeda," she said. "On an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."
She did not mention the charges lodged recently by Mr. Clarke, who had been a counterterrorism official in both administrations, that the Bush administration was slow to awake to Al Qaeda and, even after Sept. 11, 2001, was almost inexplicably preoccupied with Iraq.
Instead, Ms. Rice described Mr. Clarke as having worked closely with the Bush White House to develop a comprehensive antiterrorism approach and to promote antiterrorism measures that had lain dormant.
"While we were developing this new strategy to deal with Al Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-Al Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke," she said. "Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last administration, and some had been on the table since 1998."
Ms. Rice also defended the administration's concept that the overall war on terrorism is one whose front is in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, where the Taliban was toppled by American-led forces to flush out its Al Qaeda tenants.
"After the Sept. 11 attacks, our nation faced hard choices," she said. "We could fight a narrow war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush chose the bolder course."
Terence Neilan contributed reporting for this article from New York.
--------
9/11 Panel: Bush White House Withheld Papers
Commission Is Demanding Terrorism-Related Documents From Clinton Era
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59534-2004Apr7.html
The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks announced yesterday that it has identified 69 documents from the Clinton era that the Bush White House withheld from investigators and which include references to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and other issues relevant to the panel's work.
The White House turned over 12 of the documents to the commission yesterday, officials said. But 57 others, which were not specifically requested but "nonetheless are relevant to our work," remain in dispute, according to a commission statement. The panel has demanded the documents and any similar ones from the Bush administration.
Yesterday's announcement came just 14 hours before national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to testify publicly in front of the 10-member bipartisan panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The commission has feuded for months with the White House over access to documents and witnesses, and Rice's agreement to testify came after weeks of refusals from White House lawyers.
The discovery of the documents came as a result of a staff review this week of about 10,800 pages of material from the Clinton archives, including about 9,000 pages that the White House had not given to the commission despite the conclusion of federal archivists that they may be relevant. The administration had not notified the panel about the records, which Clinton attorney Bruce R. Lindsey discovered in February.
The commission said in its statement that "more than 90 percent of the material had already been produced, was irrelevant to our work, or was duplicative." The review team, including chief counsel Daniel Marcus, also concluded that "any errors in document production were inadvertent."
But Democratic commissioner Timothy J. Roemer, a former Indiana congressman, said: "We continue to have document problems with this White House. . . . Access to documents is absolutely crucial for this commission to be able to do its work."
Another Democrat, former Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey, said that although the review team did not find any "blockbusters," the remaining records "could be significant" and deal with al Qaeda, bin Laden and other terrorism-related issues.
"The commission is very strongly of the view that they need to give us a yes as soon as possible, and I'm hopeful they will," Kerrey said, referring to the 57 documents still in dispute.
White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said, "We are cooperating with the commission, and we will continue to cooperate."
Kerrey said the panel was provided yesterday with a copy of a draft speech that Rice was scheduled to give on the day of the Sept. 11 attacks. It focused on missile defense and made little mention of terrorism. Some commissioners had complained that the document had not been turned over to the panel, and the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) accused the White House yesterday of trying to "stonewall" the commission.
The Rice testimony comes after weeks of furor over the allegations of Richard A. Clarke, former counterterrorism coordinator in the Clinton and current Bush administrations, who testified March 24 that President Bush was less focused on al Qaeda and bin Laden than his predecessor.
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean said he hopes the panel will be able to rise above clear partisan divisions in questioning Rice today. During his appearance last month, several GOP members sharply challenged Clarke, while several Democratic members praised him.
"I've never seen the atmosphere that exists in Washington right now; it's the nastiest I've ever seen it," said Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who has been out of politics for more than a decade. He said he wants the commission members to ask "tough questions" but not be partisan. "That's a tough line to walk sometimes."
The panel decided in a closed-door meeting last night that each member would have about 10 minutes of questioning and that they would proceed in alphabetical order, several members said. The approach is a departure from the commission's previous practice of appointing two lead questioners who had more time than the others, and reflects the members' desire to be aggressively involved in the high-profile hearing.
Rice has spent hours on preparation, and a variety of aides worked on her 20-minute opening statement. John B. Bellinger III, legal adviser to the National Security Council, took the lead in assembling and creating summaries, timelines and other written materials for her preparation, and communications officials have war-gamed likely questions with her. "There's no mystery as to what the questions are," a senior administration official said. "Commissioners have not been shy about talking about what kind of questions they would like to ask."
That official, like several others who discussed her testimony, refused to be identified because the White House's official position is that people should wait to hear what she has to say.
Several officials said Rice has no intention of following Clarke's lead and offering a public apology to the families of Sept. 11 victims. "That is not the point of this exercise," an official said. "The point of this exercise is for her to provide the facts as she knows them in an objective manner."
Aides said Rice will provide some new details about White House actions on terrorism before the attacks, and will portray Bush as fully engaged on the issue going back to his inauguration in January 2001. Her opening statement will reflect a scouring of White House archives for evidence of action on terrorism.
Staff writer Mike Allen contributed to this report.
-------- police
FBI's Ability In Espionage Is Questioned
New Intelligence Agency An Option, Report Says
Associated Press
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A25
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59419-2004Apr7.html
Questions remain about the FBI's ability to transform itself into an effective domestic intelligence agency geared to prevent terrorism, congressional researchers have concluded. They say one alternative is the creation of a new stand-alone agency to do the job.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, in a report made public yesterday, noted that the FBI has taken numerous steps to address shortcomings apparent after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These include increasing intelligence operations, centralizing control of national security cases at FBI headquarters, and enhancing the recruitment and training of analysts.
But the report said doubts remain about whether the FBI can truly pivot from its long history as a law enforcement agency focused on arresting criminals to an agency that collects and uses intelligence to stop terrorists before they strike.
"The culture of the FBI, including its law enforcement-oriented approach to intelligence, may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle to necessary intelligence reforms," the report said. "Some argue that the pace and scope of reform may be too slow and not radical enough."
Maureen Baginski, the FBI's chief of intelligence, said in an interview that the bureau has come far in a short time in building its intelligence capability. Each of the bureau's 56 field offices now has a contingent devoted to intelligence, and every morning at headquarters top FBI officials who oversee all of its programs meet to discuss intelligence arising from the day's threats, investigations, events and other activities.
"I know what I need to find out to better protect the country," said Baginski, who came to the FBI in May 2003 after 25 years at the eavesdropping National Security Agency.
The report presented five options for Congress to consider but stopped short of endorsing any. They range from supporting the intelligence changes being pushed by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to creating a new stand-alone domestic intelligence service.
The report comes a week before the independent panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and their aftermath is to take testimony from current and former Justice Department and FBI officials. Commission members will consider whether to recommend any changes in the FBI's domestic intelligence role in the panel's final report.
-------- prisons / prisoners
Suit Contests Military Trials of Detainees at Cuba Base
April 8, 2004
By NEIL A. LEWIS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/national/08GITM.html
WASHINGTON, April 7 - A military lawyer for a detainee at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba has filed the first lawsuit directly challenging the military tribunal system that has been set up to try prisoners including his client.
The lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, filed the suit in his own name on Wednesday in Federal District Court in Seattle, his hometown. It asserts that the Bush administration's plans for his client violate the Constitution, federal law and the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
A Defense Department spokesman, Maj. Michael Shaver, declined to comment, saying Pentagon lawyers were still reviewing the papers.
The suit is another avenue of contesting the administration's plans to use military tribunals to try Guantánamo detainees, captured in the war in Afghanistan. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 20 on a different challenge, dealing mainly with whether the prisoners at Guantánamo are beyond the reach of American law because the naval base is not United States sovereign territory.
Commander Swift represents Salim Ahmed Hamdan, one of six prisoners at Guantánamo who have been designated by President Bush as subject to charges before a military tribunal. Commander Swift said Mr. Hamdan, whom he met for the first time on Jan. 30, had authorized him to file the suit on his behalf because he himself had no access to the courts. Prof. Neal Katyal of the Georgetown University Law Center is in turn acting as Commander Swift's lawyer.
The suit asserts that Mr. Hamdan, a Yemeni, was never involved with Al Qaeda or with any military action against American forces in Afghanistan. He is described as a Muslim pilgrim who went to Afghanistan on the way to Tajikistan. Failing to get there, the papers say, he took a job as a driver on Osama bin Laden's Afgan farm and later became a driver for Mr. bin Laden himself.
The tribunal system set up by the administration does not provide for review in any civilian courts. Appeals may be taken only up the military chain of command.
The new suit, before Judge Robert S. Lasnik, asserts that the Constitution guarantees civilian court review of the military justice system. Military officials have contended that the prisoners are unlawful enemy combatants and as such are not entitled to the protections of American law or international treaties.
--------
Yemeni's Attorney Tries to Halt Tribunals
In Federal Court, Lawyer Challenges U.S., International Legality of Proceedings
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 8, 2004; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59376-2004Apr7.html
A military defense lawyer representing a Yemeni laborer who is headed for trial before a military tribunal at the Guantanamo Bay prison has filed a legal petition in federal court saying the tribunals must be halted because they are illegal under U.S. and international law.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Seattle on behalf of his client, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, who admits he worked as a chauffeur at Osama bin Laden's farm in Afghanistan. Swift argued in the filing that the tribunals unconstitutionally target only aliens and not U.S. citizens, and that President Bush lacks the congressional approval needed to allow the special trials to proceed.
Military law experts said the chances of this petition upending the tribunal process are unknowable because the tribunals are entirely new and legally untested -- to say nothing of the controversy surrounding them.
"My jaw dropped when I heard about this suit," said Kevin Barry, a retired Coast Guard captain and expert on military law. "To my knowledge it's the first time a military defense counsel has filed suit in federal court on a case to which he's been assigned."
"This case might well get traction [in legally challenging the tribunals] because there's a great deal of substance to it," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
In January, Swift and four other military defense lawyers representing tribunal defendants made some roughly similar arguments in a friend-of-the-court brief in a case involving the Guantanamo Bay jail detentions. But that filing did not seek to end the tribunals, as Swift's suit filed Tuesday night does.
Bush's November 2001 order setting up the tribunals is "an unprecedented, unconstitutional and dangerously unchecked expansion of executive authority" in part because it established that only alien terrorists and not U.S. citizens could be tried before them, Swift said in the filing.
Justice and Defense department spokesmen declined to comment on the petition. But in the past Pentagon officials, while disputing some legal arguments advanced by the defense lawyers, said their aggressiveness proves the tribunal defendants are being represented by zealous advocates.
Swift argues Hamdan was a simple Yemeni worker who visited Afghanistan in 1996 on his way to Tajikistan, where he planned to join a holy war. But he could not cross the border, and ended up getting a job on bin Laden's farm driving employees, and sometimes the al Qaeda leader himself. Then as U.S. troops took over Afghanistan in late 2001, he was captured by Afghan troops loyal to the United States, and eventually taken to Guantanamo Bay. "He has never taken up arms against the United States or knowingly participated in any way in any plan to kill or injure Americans," Swift wrote in the filing.
But U.S. officials have disputed that Hamdan is the naive laborer uninterested in al Qaeda that Swift has portrayed. But they have not publicly provided details of allegations against him.
Swift filed the proceeding as a "next friend" to Hamdan, a legal tactic allowed when an aggrieved person cannot gain access to a courtroom. In 2002 a federal judge in Los Angeles denied an earlier court challenge brought by civil rights lawyers seeking hearings for all the prison's inmates, saying the lawyers could not claim to be "next friends" because they lacked any relationship to the detainees. But Swift has a signed statement from Hamdan requesting him to file this plea.
Swift filed the case in Washington state because that is his legal residence, and such filings traditionally are made in a courthouse near the "next friend's" home.
Government lawyers are likely to argue in this case, as they have said in other cases, that federal courts lack jurisdiction in part because the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is on land leased from Cuba, legal experts said.
The Swift filing -- in which he was assisted by private lawyers in the District and Seattle -- said that the U.S. military should abide by the rules of military justice in these cases, and that those rules require a detainee be tried within 90 days of being transferred into pretrial incarceration. Hamdan was placed in pre-tribunal solitary confinement in early December.
Hamdan's solitary four-month detention in the special defendant's unit -- where he sees no sunlight, and can exercise only occasionally and at night -- has left him in a "grim" psychological state, Swift said.
-------- terrorism
What the 9/11 Commission Overlooks
Sure we should be discussing the months leading up to the attack. But what about the proxy-war strategy that helped create al Qaeda?
Thursday, Apr. 08, 2004
Time
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,606905,00.html
As Condoleezza Rice prepares for her long-awaited testimony before the commission investigating al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11th attacks, a look at Israel's experience with terrorism is instructive. It may shock Americans to learn that Israeli leaders freely admit that the growth of Hamas was partly a tragedy of their own making. Israel made a conscious decision to allow the Islamist movement to grow in the West Bank and Gaza in the early 1980s, hoping that this would undermine support for Yasser Arafat's PLO. "In retrospect we made a mistake," former Defense Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer told the daily Maariv last week.
The Israeli military administration in the territories had prohibited the PLO from operating openly, but it was instructed to allow the Islamists the freedom to establish a large-scale religious-welfare-political infrastructure. The Islamist welfare effort, which gave Hamas a claim on the hearts and minds of Palestinians living under occupation, was, of course, driven by an agenda even more poisonous than the PLO's to Israel's interest. But, says Ben Eliezer, "by the time we realized what was happening, it was too late."
The candor displayed by Ben Eliezer has been distinctly lacking in Washington's investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
Sure, the public debate has been vigorous, even bloody, as officials from the Bush and Clinton administrations skirmish over who paid more attention to the looming al-Qaeda threat in the run-up to the attacks. It is certainly extremely important to understand whether more could have been done to protect us. But the furor over the allegations by Richard Clarke have framed the question facing the public as simply whether you believe the former terrorism czar's charge that the Bush team took its eye off the ball, or whether you accept the administration's account of Clarke as a disgruntled former employee trying to get back at those who overlooked his self-imagined importance. The debate over Clarke's claims asks no questions about how the Qaeda threat had emerged in the first place. And it is on this score that more candor may be required.
It is generally accepted among historians of the Qaeda phenomenon that Bin Laden's organization grew out of the "Arab Afghans," young men recruited from throughout the Muslim world to join the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. The program to recruit, arm, train and deploy these men involved three U.S.-allied intelligence agencies - those of Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - working in conjunction with the CIA, which was coordinating America's own covert assistance to the Afghan jihad. It suited the Egyptians and Saudis to ship off the restive Islamist elements who might pose a domestic challenge to wage war on the Soviets, and it suited the U.S. to help rally anti-Soviet sentiment in the Islamic world, particularly among Sunni elements naturally at odds with Iran. That's why a number of former intelligence personnel regard the emergence of the Qaeda phenomenon as 'blowback,' spook jargon for the unintended consequences of a covert operation. What the U.S. and its allies had helped to do in Afghanistan was assemble an international brigade of radical Islamists - hardly natural allies of the West, but nonetheless an extremely useful proxy in the immediate task of "bleeding the Soviets." But in the eyes of the "Arab Afghans" themselves, the experience had revived the idea of the unity of the world's Muslims across the national boundaries imposed on them by the West, honoring their age-old religious obligation to wage war against "infidel" armies on Muslim soil.
The unintended consequences, of course, came years later. The proxy warriors initially behaved exactly as expected. But once the Soviets had been defeated, the "Arab Afghans" - now battle-hardened combatants whose radicalism had only been deepened by their Afghan sojourn in the company of some of the world's most extreme theologians of militant fundamentalism - were not welcome back home. Instead, bin Laden kept them together and continued to expand their ranks for purposes of waging jihad in support of embattled Muslims everywhere. And in their radical Islamist mindset, the primary enemy soon became the United States, which they perceived as an aggressive interloper in the Muslim world whose influence would stymie the restoration of Islamic rule throughout the old Muslim empire. The new ideology pioneered by Bin Laden maintained that the local battles waged by Muslims everywhere could only be won if the U.S. was driven out of Muslim lands.
An instance that demonstrated an uncomfortable intimacy between U.S. power and the forerunners of al-Qaeda was the case of Sergeant Ali Mohammed, a former major in Egyptian military intelligence who had served as a Sergeant at the U.S. military's Special Forces base at Fort Bragg from 1986-1989. Before his stint at Fort Bragg, Mohammed had been well connected in Egyptian radical Islamist circles, all the way up to bin Laden's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and during his tenure in the U.S. Army he took weekends off to travel to the New York area where he gave military training to local cells established to send men to fight in the anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan. Two of these men later turned out to have been part of a failed plot to bomb the World Trade Center, while Sergeant Mohammed himself became a key Qaeda operative in the early 1990s. After sharing his expertise in explosives, guerrilla warfare and counterintelligence with the highest levels of bin Laden's organization and taking a key role in organizing the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Sergeant Mohammed turned himself in to the FBI after falling out with al-Qaeda leaders. He is currently serving a prison sentence for his role in the embassy bombings.
Neither side in the partisan wrangling over 9/11 has shown much interest in exploring the origins of al-Qaeda, and the lessons that may be learned from it. That may be because the practice of relying on and empowering dodgy elements as allies and proxies in America's wars remains a strategic staple. Saddam Hussein became an enemy of Washington only after he invaded Kuwait in 1990; in the early 1980s the same tyrant had been supported by the Reagan administration in his war against Iran, then Washington's most immediate foe in the Muslim world. More recently, in Afghanistan, instead of sending in tens of thousands of its own troops, the U.S. relied on local warlords to provide the infantry component against the Taliban. Supported by U.S. air power and directed by U.S. Special Forces, they were more than sufficient to put the Taliban to flight. But today, many of those warlords have reverted to their old ways, running personal fiefdoms with scant respect for democracy or human rights, restoring Afghanistan's place as the world's leading source of heroin, and delaying any transition to democracy. Ironically, many observers now believe that unless there's a substantial increase in the number of foreign troops there and the warlords are disarmed, Afghanistan will revert to being a failed state.
Similarly, the need for basing rights for the Afghanistan operation prompted the U.S. to crown Uzbekistan's authoritarian President Islam Karimov as an ally. But Human Rights Watch this week noted that President Karimov is using the war on terror as an excuse to mount a massive crackdown on all Muslims who want to practice their faith independently of the government. Some observers believe that this week's outbreak of bombings and shootings directed against the police in Uzbek cities may be rooted not only in local al-Qaeda linked groups, but also in response to President Karimov's repression of a far wider group of Muslims.
Over in Pakistan, we find President Pervez Musharraf, an enlightened military dictator who has been embraced as a major strategic ally of the U.S. for his cooperation in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. That support is probably the reason Washington seems to have accepted the fiction that Pakistan's profligate nuclear proliferation over the past decade was all the work of a single rogue scientist who supposedly managed to export the country's nuclear weapons technology unbeknownst to the military - and who, in turn, appears to have also been forgiven after appearing on TV in Pakistan and saying he was really, really sorry. Pakistan, of course, had pretty much invented the Taliban as its own proxy in Afghanistan, and remains, by all accounts, the sanctuary from which Mullah Omar and his men operate. But as long as his men are helping in the hunt for Bin Laden, other trespasses may be overlooked.
The grownup world of realpolitik is all about compromise and lesser evil and deals with the devil in pursuit of limited objectives; it's simply naïve to imagine that principle tops expedience in the pursuit of national security objectives . Still, it's worth asking - as the Israelis have done over Hamas - whether it was possible, in the 1980s, to visualize the long-term consequences of the "Arab Afghan" program. If we focus only on an immediate objective and our sense of history is measured in months, we may, unfortunately, be doomed, sooner or later, to repeat it.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- environment
Cleanup of Site Near Kearny May Become E.P.A. Project
April 8, 2004
New York Times
By RICHARD LEZIN JONES
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/nyregion/08superfund.html
NEWARK, April 7 - New Jersey's chief environmental protection official said Wednesday that he might suspend a much criticized arrangement with private developers to clean up a Kearny industrial site contaminated with hazardous materials and place the site on a federal Superfund list instead.
The commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, Bradley M. Campbell, said one of the two cleanup companies hired by the developers may have trouble producing its share of a $26 million guarantee by Monday. He did not identify the companies.
Consequently, Mr. Campbell, who had defended the arrangement when critics charged that it let developers shape environmental policy, said he may have to place the site on a list that would make it eligible for a federally financed cleanup.
The property is a 25-acre spit of land known as the Standard Chlorine Chemical Company site, which sits alongside the Hackensack River. Chemical manufacturing and processing began taking place at the site in 1916. Factories at the complex produced mothballs, batteries and rubber insulation for decades before closing in 1993.
In 2002, federal officials determined that the site was releasing hazardous materials - including dioxins, benzene and naphthalene - into the river and nearby wetlands.
This is not the first time New Jersey has considered putting the site on the Superfund list. Three years ago, the state suggested that the site be placed on the Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List for cleanups. Commissioner Campbell said that the state began discussing the agreement with developers because he thinks the site could have been cleaned up faster - in perhaps half the time, the commissioner said - than if it were placed on the federal Superfund list.
"Everyone has to remember that putting a site on the Superfund list doesn't guarantee a quick cleanup," the commissioner said.
However, news of the agreement with the developers, reported Wednesday in The Star-Ledger, in Newark, caused concern among New Jersey environmentalists who questioned whether the state was focusing more on development than on cleaning hazardous sites.
Jeff Tittel, director of New Jersey's chapter of the Sierra Club, said that though his group supported efforts to clean up old industrial sites and redevelop them, he was dismayed by the agreement.
"If you do it, you have to do it right," Mr. Tittel said of cleanup efforts. "Otherwise you have these little toxic time bombs that are going to go off."
Mr. Tittel said that he feared the state was developing a two-tiered way of looking at polluted sites in which sites with no development interest are recommended for federal cleanup listings, while the state brokers deals with developers on more attractive sites.
Commissioner Campbell denied such claims and said that any clean-up arrangements with developers would require them to meet or exceed environmental standards. He also said that the $26 million was intended to dissuade anyone who was not serious about cleanup efforts.
"We set a pretty high bar," Mr. Campbell said.
Some environmentalists questioned whether that bar had been set high enough.
Joe Morris, a project director with the Interfaith Community Organization, a Hudson County environmental group that has been pressuring the state to take action on the Standard Chlorine site, said that according to their estimate a "minimally protective cleanup of the site would cost $100 million and should include cleaning up the river that the companies have polluted."
----
Lead in DC Drinking Water Could Signal National Problem
April 8, 2004
By J.R. Pegg
WASHINGTON, DC, (ENS)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lacks enough information to know if the elevated lead levels found in the District of Columbia's drinking water are indicative of a national crisis, agency officials said Wednesday.
The federal agency has no current information on lead levels from 78 percent of the nation's public drinking water systems and has no data from as many as 20 states.
"The numbers are indicating to us that it is not a crisis, but we are not comfortable with the amount of the data we have received to date," said Ben Grumbles, acting assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Water.
Federal regulations enacted in 1991 under the Safe Drinking Water Act - known as the Lead and Copper rule - require states to inform the EPA every three months whether or not utilities meet the agency's safe lead level of 15 parts per billion.
Grumbles, who testified Wednesday at a Senate Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee hearing on the District's lead problems, offered no explanation for the lack of information.
The EPA has initiated a national compliance review "to determine whether or not there is a national problem - and to determine how well the current rule is being implemented," he told the Senate panel.
The hearing came in the wake of a petition signed by 1,377 District of Columbia residents and sent to the Congress calling for rapid action to reduce lead levels in the city's drinking water.
Children exposed to lead experience low birth weight, growth retardation, mental retardation, and learning disabilities, and it is harmful to pregnant women.
Senator James Jeffords, a Vermont Independent, said he has asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the EPA's enforcement of the lead provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
"I urge the agency to immediately initiate nationwide testing to ensure we do not have a nationwide lead problem," Jeffords said.
"How did we get to the point where the futures of children living in our nation's capital are threatened every day by the water in their faucets and bathtubs?" Jeffords asked. "How did we get to the point where water tests revealed startlingly high lead levels, but yet that information was never provided to residents who unnecessarily exposed themselves, their unborn children, and their children to lead-contaminated water?"
Jeffords said many people who live and work in the District have switched to bottled water but he expressed concern that "because bottled water is not regulated in the same manner that tap water is, we cannot even find out if our bottled water is safe."
"Safe drinking water is a right, not a privilege," the senator said.
Lead service line connected to copper pipe (Photo courtesy Alban) Jeffords said his legislation would modify the Safe Drinking Water Act to eliminate lead service lines, pipes and lead fixtures, as well as improve communication and require immediate notification of households receiving water with elevated lead levels.
Vowing to get to the bottom of the District's lead problems, Jeffords told his colleagues "each of us has a responsibility for the residents of the District of Columbia."
"The residents of Washington, DC deserve to get answers from federal and local officials," Jeffords said.
The answers DC residents have gotten thus far have done little to satisfy them.
The vast majority only learned of the elevated lead levels in their drinking water after a report on the front page of "The Washington Post" on January 31, 2004.
To date, water has tested unacceptably high for lead in more than 5,000 homes and schools in three districts in the DC metropolitan area - a few have tested as high as 6,000 parts per billion.
Federal and local officials say the high lead levels are the result of efforts by the Washington Aqueduct, which supplies water to the District and parts of Northern Virginia, to comply with federal regulations to control corrosion of pipes.
In 2000 the Washington Aqueduct, which is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and supplies the Washington Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) with water, added chloramine - a combination of chlorine and ammonia - to the water to limit corrosion.
But this caused the lead to leach from lead service pipes that has resulted in the elevated lead levels in drinking water. Tests in 2002 by WASA revealed elevated lead levels in more than 50 percent of test samples.
Additional tests in 2003 found that 4.075 of 6,188 residences tested had levels above the EPA's safe lead level.
EPA officials say WASA violated federal law by failing to properly sample water and to use the correct language to notify the public about high levels of lead in the water.
"It is clear that WASA was inadequate in conveying to the public the severity of the problem," said EPA Region III Administrator Don Welsh. "It is unacceptable to us that many families in the District live in fear of the quality and safety of the water they drink."
There is also evidence that local and federal officials knew of the elevated levels and failed to notify the public, said DC resident Gloria Borland.
"If the [Washington] Post had not exposed this scandal, our children today would still be drinking lead contaminated water," she told the subcommittee. "We were deceived [by WASA] and the EPA and Army Corps went along with this deception."
Dr. Daniel Lucey, interim DC chief health officer, said "there is no clear correlation between a concentration of lead in the water and a concentration of lead in the blood," but his statement did little to convince New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
The fear for parents is real, said the New York Democrat, because recent scientific findings show "no level of lead is safe."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified a blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter as the level of concern for lead in children, but recent studies have found harmful effects at even lower levels.
Lead exposure is associated with development defects and neurological damage in children. (Photo courtesy USDA)
"We need to level with people," Clinton said. "If we can not provide safe drinking water in our nation's capital, then that is a terrible indictment on all of us."
WASA General Manager Jerry Johnson defended his actions and told the Senate panel "our focus was on trying to comply with federal regulations as opposed to looking at a broader picture and the need to get information to our customers."
WASA has distributed water filters to 27,000 households and is seeking review of a $1.7 billion proposal to replace every one of its lead service pipes by 2010.
The solution for the District may come from Washington Aqueduct, which is analyzing a chemical fix to the problem that could be tested by June and implemented system wide by September.
"We have confidence this change will be effective in reducing lead leaching," said Thomas Jacobus, general manager of the Washington Aqueduct, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
But DC residents are wary of another chemical fix and many want stronger action - including replacement of lead service lines and better oversight by the federal government.
"We parents are angry," Borland said. ""All they had to do was warn us."
"The only answer is to put WASA under federal leadership," she told the subcommittee. "Only under federal control will you be able to restore the trust in the water that we parents need."
The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry offers advice for dealing with high lead levels in tap water online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/spotLights/leadinwater.htm
----
Global Electronic Waste Stream Poisons New Delhi
By Mike McPhate
NEW DELHI, India, (ENS)
April 8, 2004
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2004/2004-04-08-05.asp
At the end of a dirt alley in the slum neighborhood of Silampur, just east of the putrid waters of the Yamuna River in India's capital, a doctor presses his stethoscope to the chest of a skinny, middle aged laborer. He says the man has shown "classic" problems - bleeding from the throat and shortness of breath. The number of such patients at his clinic has grown rapidly, says the doctor B.B. Wadhwa. "It's because of the burning wires."
The wires are part of a toxic tide of computer waste flowing from the United States and Europe into India's poorest urban neighborhoods, where laborers pick it clean for reusable parts or minerals and then dump leftover poisonous ash and plastic residues in nearby landfills.
Whereas a bevy of high tech jobs from the west has launched India's middle class - economic growth in the last quarter was a remarkable 10.4 percent - an even greater flow of obsolete computers into neighborhoods like Silampur is blackening the lungs of its poor, local doctors say.
While overall air pollution in New Delhi measured a drop in the last three years, a recent study by the Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute in Kolkata found that residents are still twice as likely to suffer from lung ailments as their counterparts in the countryside. It found that nearly half of all non-smokers in the city now suffer from lung problems.
Traffic pollution remains the main source of the sickness. But at the city's edges, where the computer recyclers operate, doctors say the enormous fumes produced by the industry should not be discounted.
The recyclers, many of them women and children, melt down the innards of old computers with dangerous acids, releasing a smoky stream of lead, dioxin and other pollutants. They are "bound to take in lead fumes," says Kishore Wankhade of Toxics Link, a Delhi group that monitors the handling of electronic waste.
Wankhade says the laborers must choose "between poisons and livelihoods." Per capita income in India is about US$2,600, and 25 percent of the population live below the poverty line. A trader can get about $50 for a disassembled computer, but the laborers themselves earn only about $1 per day.
The main medical clinic in Mandoli, a sparse neighborhood on the city's east side and a major computer recycling area, has seen a sharp increase of patients with lung ailments, say doctors there.
Chief Medical Officer Priya T. Kumar says the hospital sees much younger patients than it did only a few years ago; they arrive with asthma, bronchitis, and chronic lung infections. Her doctors have also recently been diagnosing diabetes and high blood pressure - both of which have been linked to air pollution - among patients in their mid-20s, an unusually young age for the diseases, she added.
At another nearby clinic Dr. Rajesh Trehan, who says his lung patients have doubled in the last five years, blames the government. "They are not interested in fixing poor areas," he says.
The Indian Supreme Court banned the import of hazardous waste in 1997. But fitful enforcement of the law seems to have only pushed the trade to the fringes of the city. Computer recycling is legal with a government permit, but none has ever been issued.
Still, a walk around Mandoli's industrial area reveals evidence that the trade is booming. Giant piles of computer scrap clog the dirt lanes around more than a dozen high-walled brick buildings. Dark gray clouds rise like giant mushrooms from their clanking bowels, choking the air and shrouding the sun.
A knee-high pile of green circuit boards, picked clean of their metal, spills into a dirt lane from one of the building's side doors. Inside, a circle of women, squatting amid piles of discarded computer parts and several big blue barrels, pull apart electrical plugs with their bare hands. A man in a clean, pressed shirt, noticing a snooping reporter, flashes a scowl before swinging the door shut.
Waste electronic parts await disposal. Yes, says Narender Kumar, a police officer patrolling the area, the plants are illegally recycling computer parts. But that's for the magistrate to deal with, he says.
A truck driver eating a plate of rice in a nearby waste-strewn plot says he transports about 2,400 kilograms of copper every day from the factories into the city. One kilogram of copper fetches about $3.
Salvaging copper from printed circuit boards, the plentiful thin plates on which computer chips are mounted, is one of the most common tasks in Mandoli. It is also the most polluting part of the recycling process, according to Toxics Link. Workers use a brew of nitric acid, a toxic substance that releases the copper from the printed circuit boards as well as lead and mercury, which are suspected carcinogens.
S.K. Gupta, a local printed circuit board manufacturer, says all of the plants in Mandoli use nitric acid. "Of course, it is cheaper," he says, comparing it to cleaner alternatives that cost more. "This is why people use it."
India's computer recycling trade is relatively new.
It sprouted up with the country's economic liberalization measures in the early 1990s, which included a shift to electronic governance. The short lifespan of computers, about three years, created an enormous tide of obsolete units - there are now about two million domestic computers, the vast majority from government and business, waiting to be recycled. A research agency, the International Resources Group, estimated that between 900 and 1,000 computers are recycled in Delhi each day.
But most of the waste, says Wankhade, comes from overseas.
India is bearing the brunt of a global problem. Electronic waste - cell phones, TVs, telephones, air conditioners, as well as computers - is one of the world's fastest growing waste streams.
New Delhi gets most of its computer waste from the seaport in the western coastal city of Mumbai, where it is able to sneak past customs officials with misleading labels that identify the cargo as second-hand computers for resale.
The waste is then transferred by truck to a storage yard in Tughlakabad, a district on New Delhi's southern edge. Scrap bidders divvy up the units and then sell their parts among various neighborhoods with particular recycling specialties throughout the city.
Toxics Link discovered a similar process taking place in India's southern city of Chennai.
America is the main source of the foreign waste, say environmentalists here. A Carnegie Mellon University study estimated that in 2002 the United States sent about 10 million computer units to Asia for recycling, keeping only about three million on its own shores.
The United States is the only developed nation not to ratify the international waste treaty, the Basel Convention, which carries amendments that forbid the export of computer waste.
About half of all U.S. states have drafted or passed locals laws targeting the problem. The nation's first computer waste legislation was passed in California last year, but critics say it will actually encourage export to Asia. The new rules require computer manufacturers to take more responsibility for recycling, but fail to put a ban on the cheapest method of dealing with it - export. They take effect in July.
One study estimates that California taxpayers will have to pay as much as $1 billion to handle its trashed computers by 2006. As recycling costs mount, so will pressure to unload it on poor countries.
Europe is also a major source of the waste. The export from there will also likely increase, says Jim Plunkett of the Basel Action Network. The European Union, like the United States, has instructed computer manufacturers to address the issue of recycling. But with Europe's "porous borders," says Plunkett, the new rules, which come into effect in August, will likely only spur more unlawful exporting.
Indian environmentalists are lobbying their own legislators to put a total ban on importing hazardous waste. Toxics Link's Wankhade is optimistic that they can stop the illegal trade. Activists scored a victory last month by prompting a national assessment of the computer waste industry by the Central Pollution Control Board.
They have "realized a problem," says Wankhade. "We are not in a position to recycle in a sound manner."
----
Lead in DC Drinking Water Could Signal National Problem
By J.R. Pegg
WASHINGTON, DC, (ENS)
April 8, 2004
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2004/2004-04-08-10.asp
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lacks enough information to know if the elevated lead levels found in the District of Columbia's drinking water are indicative of a national crisis, agency officials said Wednesday.
The federal agency has no current information on lead levels from 78 percent of the nation's public drinking water systems and has no data from as many as 20 states.
"The numbers are indicating to us that it is not a crisis, but we are not comfortable with the amount of the data we have received to date," said Ben Grumbles, acting assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Water.
Benjamin Grumbles is the top EPA official responsible for water. (Photo courtesy EPA) Federal regulations enacted in 1991 under the Safe Drinking Water Act - known as the Lead and Copper rule - require states to inform the EPA every three months whether or not utilities meet the agency's safe lead level of 15 parts per billion.
Grumbles, who testified Wednesday at a Senate Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee hearing on the District's lead problems, offered no explanation for the lack of information.
The EPA has initiated a national compliance review "to determine whether or not there is a national problem - and to determine how well the current rule is being implemented," he told the Senate panel.
The hearing came in the wake of a petition signed by 1,377 District of Columbia residents and sent to the Congress calling for rapid action to reduce lead levels in the city's drinking water.
Children exposed to lead experience low birth weight, growth retardation, mental retardation, and learning disabilities, and it is harmful to pregnant women.
Senator James Jeffords, a Vermont Independent, said he has asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the EPA's enforcement of the lead provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
"I urge the agency to immediately initiate nationwide testing to ensure we do not have a nationwide lead problem," Jeffords said.
"How did we get to the point where the futures of children living in our nation's capital are threatened every day by the water in their faucets and bathtubs?" Jeffords asked. "How did we get to the point where water tests revealed startlingly high lead levels, but yet that information was never provided to residents who unnecessarily exposed themselves, their unborn children, and their children to lead-contaminated water?"
Jeffords said many people who live and work in the District have switched to bottled water but he expressed concern that "because bottled water is not regulated in the same manner that tap water is, we cannot even find out if our bottled water is safe."
"Safe drinking water is a right, not a privilege," the senator said.
Lead service line connected to copper pipe (Photo courtesy Alban) Jeffords said his legislation would modify the Safe Drinking Water Act to eliminate lead service lines, pipes and lead fixtures, as well as improve communication and require immediate notification of households receiving water with elevated lead levels.
Vowing to get to the bottom of the District's lead problems, Jeffords told his colleagues "each of us has a responsibility for the residents of the District of Columbia."
"The residents of Washington, DC deserve to get answers from federal and local officials," Jeffords said.
The answers DC residents have gotten thus far have done little to satisfy them.
The vast majority only learned of the elevated lead levels in their drinking water after a report on the front page of "The Washington Post" on January 31, 2004. To date, water has tested unacceptably high for lead in more than 5,000 homes and schools in three districts in the DC metropolitan area - a few have tested as high as 6,000 parts per billion.
Federal and local officials say the high lead levels are the result of efforts by the Washington Aqueduct, which supplies water to the District and parts of Northern Virginia, to comply with federal regulations to control corrosion of pipes.
In 2000 the Washington Aqueduct, which is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and supplies the Washington Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) with water, added chloramine - a combination of chlorine and ammonia - to the water to limit corrosion.
But this caused the lead to leach from lead service pipes that has resulted in the elevated lead levels in drinking water. Tests in 2002 by WASA revealed elevated lead levels in more than 50 percent of test samples.
Additional tests in 2003 found that 4.075 of 6,188 residences tested had levels above the EPA's safe lead level.
EPA officials say WASA violated federal law by failing to properly sample water and to use the correct language to notify the public about high levels of lead in the water.
Drinking tap water may mean ingesting lead if the pipes carrying the water are corroded. (Photo courtesy USDA) "It is clear that WASA was inadequate in conveying to the public the severity of the problem," said EPA Region III Administrator Don Welsh. "It is unacceptable to us that many families in the District live in fear of the quality and safety of the water they drink."
There is also evidence that local and federal officials knew of the elevated levels and failed to notify the public, said DC resident Gloria Borland.
"If the [Washington] Post had not exposed this scandal, our children today would still be drinking lead contaminated water," she told the subcommittee. "We were deceived [by WASA] and the EPA and Army Corps went along with this deception."
Dr. Daniel Lucey, interim DC chief health officer, said "there is no clear correlation between a concentration of lead in the water and a concentration of lead in the blood," but his statement did little to convince New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
The fear for parents is real, said the New York Democrat, because recent scientific findings show "no level of lead is safe."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified a blood lead level of 10 micrograms per deciliter as the level of concern for lead in children, but recent studies have found harmful effects at even lower levels.
Lead exposure is associated with development defects and neurological damage in children. (Photo courtesy USDA)
"We need to level with people," Clinton said. "If we can not provide safe drinking water in our nation's capital, then that is a terrible indictment on all of us."
WASA General Manager Jerry Johnson defended his actions and told the Senate panel "our focus was on trying to comply with federal regulations as opposed to looking at a broader picture and the need to get information to our customers."
WASA has distributed water filters to 27,000 households and is seeking review of a $1.7 billion proposal to replace every one of its lead service pipes by 2010.
The solution for the District may come from Washington Aqueduct, which is analyzing a chemical fix to the problem that could be tested by June and implemented system wide by September.
"We have confidence this change will be effective in reducing lead leaching," said Thomas Jacobus, general manager of the Washington Aqueduct, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
But DC residents are wary of another chemical fix and many want stronger action - including replacement of lead service lines and better oversight by the federal government.
"We parents are angry," Borland said. ""All they had to do was warn us."
"The only answer is to put WASA under federal leadership," she told the subcommittee. "Only under federal control will you be able to restore the trust in the water that we parents need."
The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry offers advice for dealing with high lead levels in tap water online at: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/spotLights/leadinwater.htm
----
Ranges of hundreds of threatened, endangered species have no protection, says study
Thursday, April 08, 2004
By Rick Callahan,
Associated Press
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-04-08/s_22609.asp
Hundreds of imperiled species around the world, from a tiny opossum to a radiant blue bird, lack protection from human encroachment despite the vast amount of land set aside for conservation, a new study warns.
Researchers said the findings are a wake-up call pointing to the need for new strategies to ensure that protected lands and ranges of threatened species overlap.
At present, the largest protected areas are in desert or cold climates where the biodiversity is far lower than in tropical areas teeming with life, said Stuart L. Pimm, a professor of ecology at Duke University.
"The protected areas tend to be in the wrong places. We have huge national parks in Alaska but few protected areas in biologically rich places like Florida or Hawaii," said Pimm, who was not involved in the research.
The findings appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.
In the study, researchers from nine nations compared maps of more than 100,000 protected areas around the globe to maps of the ranges of 11,633 animal species - mostly tropical and many threatened or endangered.
They found that for about 12 percent of the species, their ranges did not include parks or nature preserves that would protect them from human activities such as logging, hunting, or mining operations.
And among 3,896 species deemed threatened, they found that 20 percent had no protection. About 300 of those animals are on the verge of extinction.
They include a tiny Colombian marsupial called Handley's slender mouse opossum and Indonesia's cerulean paradise-flycatcher, a bright blue bird with 100 or so survivors confined to a single forest-topped extinct volcano. Other critically endangered species are the Comoro black flying fox, a fruit bat found only on the Indian Ocean's Comoros islands, and Myanmar's Burmese star tortoise.
Smaller studies have shown gaps between protected areas and threatened species, but the new work offers the first global view of that situation by evaluating the predicament of some of the best documented animal species, said Ana S.L. Rodrigues, a research fellow at Conservation International in Washington, D.C.
"Even for these species that we know well, we're finding these levels of unprotection, of gaps. It's alarming," said Rodrigues who was the study's lead author.
Although about 11.5 percent of Earth's land surface has protected status, she said many developing nations simply lack the resources to protect their national parks. Conflicts over conservation are common, she said, because areas highly attractive to humans such as fertile lowlands and forests are also the richest in species.
Craig Hilton-Taylor, a Cambridge, England-based conservation biologist with the World Conservation Union, called the research "scary" because it did not even look at thousands of little-known species such as small mammals, freshwater fish, plants, and invertebrates that have very tiny ranges.
"We have a long way to go before we can say, 'Yes, we are truly conserving the world's biodiversity,'" he said.
----
Environmentalists call for cruise ships to clean up dumping
Thursday, April 08, 2004
By Tim Molloy,
Associated Press
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-04-08/s_22605.asp
SANTA MONICA, California - Environmentalists called on Royal Caribbean Wednesday to protect marine habitats and human health by cleaning up sewage and wastewater dumped from its cruise ships.
A ship can dump up to 30,000 gallons of sewage a day as well as 255,000 gallons of "gray water" from laundries, showers, sinks, and dishwashers, the nonprofit advocacy organization Oceana and other groups said at a press conference.
"We're calling on them to end the wake of shame," said Moira Chapin, a field organizer for Environment California.
Oceana organizer Jesse Littlewood said pollution from cruise ships contributes to oxygen-free ocean dead zones and algae buildup that kills marine life and may threaten human health.
Littlewood said the company should begin using advanced wastewater treatment systems on all its ships. Royal Caribbean has such systems on three vessels, but its other 25 ships use Coast Guard-approved marine sanitation devices that have been criticized as inefficient.
The company issued a statement saying the environmentalists were "grandstanding" and ignoring Royal Caribbean's cleanup efforts. Company spokesman Michael Sheehan said the company follows U.S. Coast Guard and international regulations on waste disposal.
The advanced water treatment systems haven't worked well on two of the three company ships that have them, and the company is seeking better designs, Sheehan said. Littlewood said the systems cost about $2 million a ship, but Sheehan said they would be more expensive.
Sheehan said Royal Caribbean has improved its environmental practices since 1999, when it paid $27 million after acknowledging it had polluted repeatedly and lied to the Coast Guard about it.
"We used that as a catalyst to try to be a leader in the industry," Sheehan said.
The company statement said Royal Caribbean dumps only 12 miles or more from shore, but Littlewood said loopholes in clean water laws allow cruise ships to dump three miles out.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Police tell anti-war protestor he's a security threat
Thursday, April 8, 2004
Worcestershire ITV, UK
http://www2.itv.com/central/news_west/full_story/?id=846866&type=REG%2B-%2BNews%2BStory
An anti-war campaigner camped in Parliament Square has been ordered to scale down his protest - because police say he's a terrorism threat.
Brian Haw from Redditch in Worcestershire has been waging his one man demonstration since June 2001. But police are worried terrorists could hide bombs under his placards.
Parliament Square in Westminster has been his home for the past 3 years. He says he's protesting because innocent children are dying as a result of the Iraq war. He has no intention of scaling down the protest and going home to Redditch. But he will fully co-operate with the police.
--------
Peace groups protest against deployment of U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Yokosuka Port
April 8, 2004
Japan Press Service
http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2378/n-power.html
Peace organizations in Kanagawa Prefecture have expressed strong opposition to the U.S. plan to deploy a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Yokosuka Port in Kanagawa, a plan unveiled by the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command in the U.S. Congress on March 31.
At the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee hearing on March 31, Commander Thomas Boulton Fargo of the U.S. Pacific Command strongly indicated that the Kitty Hawk, a conventionally powered aircraft carrier deployed at the U.S. Yokosuka Naval Base, will be replaced by a state-of-the-art nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in 2008.
Nagasawa Takeo, the secretary of the Kanagawa Prefectural Council against A & H Bombs (Kanagawa Gensuikyo), said, "Deployment of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will pave the way for bringing nuclear weapons into Japan, and we must prevent such a vessel from entering our port."
"The U.S. commander was outspoken in his remarks, presumably because Japan and the U.S. government have already agreed on the deployment," said Usami Ippei, the secretary of the Kanagawa United Promotion Committee against the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.
On March 16, Defense Agency Director General Ishiba Shigeru flatly denied that the planned construction of additional housing units in the U.S. Navy Ikego residential area located near the Yokosuka base is connected with the proposed deployment of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier deployment in the Yokosuka base.
Yokosuka Port has served as the only homeport outside of the United States for U.S. aircraft carriers since 1973. However, Japanese citizens' strong opposition has prevented nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from being deployed at the port.
-------
------- 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.