Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
U.S. Tracking Nuke Wannabes
Report: Hanford Not Protected Against Possible Terrorist Attack
U.N. wants to end confusion about Chernobyl
Evidence Grows Against Depleted Uranium Weapons
Head of U.N. Nuke Agency to See Israel
Israel Sees UN Nuke Watchdog Chief Visit in July
N. Korea Nuclear Estimate To Rise
Powell says unaware of new intelligence on NKorean nuclear weapons
N Korea working meeting to be held May 12: Russian report
White House downplays North Korea nuclear report
General Says Missile Defense Could Be Ready Soon
Missile defense against N. Korea being readied
UN council adopts resolution to keep terrorists away from WMD
White House applauds UN's arms vote
UN Council Unanimously Adopts Terrorist Arms Ban
A proposal to add Manhattan Project sites to park system
Livermore lab assailed for holes in security
Weapons lab expansion draws fire
Lab expansion ignites debate
Security upgrades years away
Action postponed on legal change sought by Vt. Yankee
Report critical of DOE
Waste reclassification talks stall
Nominee Assures Senate on Iraq
Kerry Again Chides Bush on Guard Duty
MILITARY
Mbeki Marks Decade of Democracy
Bush Issues Directive to Bolster Defense Against Bioterrorism
Army Scientists Eye New Smallpox Vaccine
GAO Cites Cost Risks in Undefined Iraq Contracts
Report: No-bid contracts in Iraq appear to be legal
Probe of Boeing, Documents Expanded
Jets, IT Drive Lockheed Gains
Canadians Allow Islamic Courts To Decide Disputes
China Bristles at Criticism of Hong Kong Restrictions
Taiwan Casts U.S. as China Intermediary
UFO's in Iranian skies?
64 Iraqis Killed in Clashes
Iraqi Forces Get Crash Course for Patrols in Fallujah
New Round of Fighting Erupts in Falluja Despite Cease-Fire
Ambassador Nominee Defends Limits on Iraq's Sovereignty
U.S. planes rock Fallujah
Syrian Capital Is Rocked By Blasts
Turkish defence minister arrives in Pakistan
How Pair's Finding on Terror Led to Clash on Shaping Intelligence
Globalizing the Harrassment of Muslims
Annan Urges Peaceful Solution in Najaf
Missing Army Copter Found in S. Carolina
More Armor Urged for U.S. Forces in Iraq
The Siege of Falluja, a Test in a Tinderbox
'Nightline' to Read Off Iraq War Dead
Army Wants Tanks to Protect GIs in Iraq
U.S. Says Has Rushed Tanks to Iraq to Crush Rebels
Qatar asked to curb Al Jazeera
Remember Falluja
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
High Court Hears Case on Cheney Energy Panel
Supreme Court Weighs Enemy Combatant Case
Justices Hear Arguments in Energy Task Force Case
Bush administration tells U.S. court Cheney papers
Sealing Cheney records defended
Afghan Poppy Crop Up 50 Percent This Year - USDA
Lack of Emergency Training Is Cited by New York Officials
$5 Billion in Antiterror Aid Is Reported Stuck in Pipeline
Bush, Cheney Prepare for 9/11 Questioning
Aide Denies Knowing About Memos
Justices Hear Challenges to Post-9/11 Presidential Powers
Bush-Cheney 9/11 Interview Won't Be Formally Recorded
Feds Probe Ashcroft Campaign Finances
Justice Department Reviewing Ashcroft
ENERGY
Norway Testing New Clean Energy System
Energy Department announces $350 million in research grants
U.S. Hydrogen Highway Paved With Public-Private Research Funds
Nuclear Power Operators Warned About Grid Failure
OTHER
Benefit of genetics: glowing testicles
High Lead Found in Boston Area
Experimental Smallpox Vaccine Protects Monkeys From Dying
ACTIVISTS
Activists share lab expansion concerns
G.O.P. Protesters Plan to Infiltrate Convention as Volunteers
Anglican bishop offers Vanunu unlimited sanctuary in church
No permit for anti-war rally at convention
No permit for anti-war rally at convention
-------- NUCLEAR
U.S. Tracking Nuke Wannabes
Nuclear experts say the U.S. proposal would keep Iran from building nuclear enrichment and reprocessing plants.
April 28, 2004
(AP)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/28/world/main614118.shtml
UNITED NATIONS - Several countries in addition to Iran and North Korea may be trying to develop nuclear weapons, and Washington is pursuing the customers of an underground Pakistani network, U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said Tuesday.
He said he wasn't prepared to name any of the other countries because U.S. officials are still seeking information.
"There are several others," Bolton said. "There's a lot of information that we don't necessarily have corroboration for, but we are pursuing our concerns where we do have information, trying to get additional information, learning from others, and trying to assess the exact magnitude of the threat."
"Certainly one of the things that we're very interested in is finding out if A.Q. Khan's network had other customers, and we're pursuing that in cooperation with a number of other states," he said.
Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, set up an underground network that supplied nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. In February, he admitted being the mastermind of the scheme and was pardoned by Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
"There's more out there than we can discuss publicly," Bolton said, "and it's one of the reasons why the depth of our concern about the international market black market in weapons of mass destruction and related materials is as substantial as it."
Bolton spoke to reporters after accusing "at least" four countries that have ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of using its provisions "as cover for the development of nuclear weapons," either currently or in the past.
"States like Iran are actively violating their treaty obligations, and have gained access to technologies and materials for their nuclear weapons programs. North Korea violated its NPT obligations while a party, and then proved its strategic decision to seek nuclear weapons by withdrawing from the treaty entirely," he said.
In the past, Iraq and Libya also violated the treaty, Bolton told a meeting of the committee preparing for next year's U.N. conference to review the 1968 pact, which is considered the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Declaring that "there is a crisis of NPT compliance," Bolton said President Bush "is determined to stop rogue states from gaining nuclear weapons under cover of supposed peaceful nuclear technology."
Under the treaty, countries that ratify and give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons are allowed to obtain fissile material and nuclear technology for peaceful uses such as power plants. But in February, President Bush made a series of proposals to address what the United States sees as loopholes in the treaty.
Bolton said there was "very broad consensus" to limit nuclear enrichment and reprocessing plants to countries that now possess them, though "how exactly it's done is still the subject of discussion."
The United States wants to ban the Nuclear Suppliers Group - which provides fissile material under the treaty - from selling enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology "to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants." The suppliers would have to ensure a regular supply of nuclear fuel at reasonable prices to countries in compliance with the treaty.
Nuclear experts say the U.S. proposal would keep Iran from building nuclear enrichment and reprocessing plants.
Bolton noted that Iran has expressed interest in buying up to six additional nuclear power plants and has informed the U.N. nuclear agency it is pursuing a heavy-water research reactor at Arak, "a type of reactor that might be well suited for plutonium production."
Stressing that Iran has oil and gas reserves that will last several hundred years, he claimed the only role of Iran's nuclear power program is provide material and technology for covert nuclear weapons development.
Tehran has repeatedly denied it is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Bolton said the United States has not decided whether it will seek to have the International Atomic Energy Agency's board cite Tehran for noncompliance at its June meeting.
The best thing Iran can do now is "come clean" and open its nuclear program "to transparent inspections," Bolton said.
As for North Korea, he said the United States hopes six-party talks will achieve "a peaceful, diplomatic end to North Korea's nuclear programs." But he cautioned that "simply continuing to talk ... is not progress."
Libya has said it has given up its weapons programs.
-------- accidents and safety
Report: Hanford Not Protected Against Possible Terrorist Attack
April 28, 2004
KIROTV.com
http://www.kirotv.com/news/3247618/detail.html
There's bad news on the domestic front in the fight against terrorism.
Federal investigators say the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near the Tri-Cities is not likely to be fully protected against terrorist threats for up to five more years.
A report issued by the General Accounting Office says that's due to internal disputes and cost concerns at the site.
The report also says inventories of weapons, plutonium and highly enriched uranium could be vulnerable.
----
U.N. wants to end confusion about Chernobyl
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
By Louis Charbonneau,
Reuters
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-04-28/s_23248.asp
VIENNA - Although the world may never know the full impact of the world's worst nuclear disaster, the United Nations nuclear agency wants to put an end to the confusion for millions of victims of the Chernobyl accident.
The disaster occurred 18 years ago at 1:24 a.m. on April 26, 1986, when an explosion at Reactor 4 of the Ukrainian power plant spewed a cloud of radioactivity across Europe and the Soviet Union.
Around 30 people died from radiation exposure after the accident, nearly 2,000 children later developed thyroid cancer, and thousands of other fatal illnesses have been blamed on it. More than 100,000 people were resettled, causing physical, economic, and psychological hardship.
Among the millions of people whose lives were affected by the disaster, thousands may have developed cancer and died as a result. But poor records and corruption have prevented the accurate registration of the workers who helped put out the fire and entomb the smoldering nuclear plant in 1986.
"We have an epistemological problem," said Abel Gonzalez, head of radiation and waste safety at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "In Chernobyl, you can say that the only concrete sick persons that you can (identify) are the (1,800) children who got thyroid cancer and the workers who were over-exposed. All the rest: We don't know."
Not only is there a limit to the ability of the nuclear experts to understand the full impact of Chernobyl, but contradictory studies and statements about the disaster have confused the millions of people whose lives were affected by it.
"People living in the affected villages are very distressed because the information they receive - from one expert after another turning up there - is inconsistent. People living there are afraid for their children," Gonzalez explained.
Over the years, wildly varying reports have put the Chernobyl death toll as high as 15,000. For this reason, the IAEA has established the Chernobyl forum, whose task will be to give "authoritative, transparent statements that show the factual situation in the aftermath of Chernobyl," said Gonzalez, who represents the IAEA on the forum.
The forum will bring together Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus; the IAEA; and all other U.N. organizations involved in Chernobyl. It will review all the studies and statements on Chernobyl, filter out the good, throw out the bad, and present a clear summary to next year's U.N. General Assembly.
Registration Was Disastrous
A native of Argentina, Gonzalez is no stranger to the Chernobyl story. From 1989 to 1991, he headed a huge IAEA study of the health, environmental, and radiological impact of the disaster on villages and towns in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine that suffered the worst contamination.
He was always convinced that many cases of leukemia would appear among the 600,000 so-called "liquidators" who worked frantically in the spring of 1986 to put out the fire in the molten reactor and entomb the plant in a concrete sarcophagus.
"I was personally convinced that leukemia in the workers, the liquidators, would be detected. But until now it has not appeared," he said.
Gonzalez said that this may be because some of the people who were granted the status of "liquidator," which gave them free public transport and other perks, never actually worked at Chernobyl but got liquidator cards through contacts.
"I saw this with my own eyes," he said. "Someone with the liquidator card who never worked there."
As a result the liquidator register is almost useless.
"If proper registration had been done, probably you would have seen some leukemia in workers. But the registration is such a disaster that it will be very, very difficult," he said.
Because of this, the question of how many people have died as a result of the accident may never be properly answered.
"It is an issue that is impossible to settle because there are two different types of deaths: the deaths that you can check that they happened and the ones you can only imagine."
Blaming Chernobyl
The Soviet Union's misinformation and overall mismanagement of the disaster resulted in a tendency of victims to attribute all kinds of illnesses to Chernobyl which may have nothing to do with it.
"A woman brings her baby sick with leukemia and says it is caused by Chernobyl. How do you explain to her that if Chernobyl had never happened her child might still have leukemia?"
According to a 1996 article by Atomic Energy Insights, around 200,000 women aborted fetuses due to unfounded fears that the children would have birth defects.
Gonzalez said he was not undermining the seriousness of the disaster, merely pointing out that the ability to clearly identify illnesses caused by Chernobyl is severely limited.
"I don't want to undermine that this was a catastrophe," he said.
The IAEA has often said that the Chernobyl changed the way the world looks at nuclear power. Unknown before April 1986, when newspapers first carried front-page headlines about the accident, Chernobyl is now a household word and the biggest public relations problem for supporters of atomic energy.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that it was an important milestone for the United Nations nuclear watchdog.
"Chernobyl was a tragic but important turning point for the IAEA," said ElBaradei. "It prompted us to focus unprecedented energies and resources to help the affected people and ensure that such a serious accident would never happen again."
What is clear, ElBaradei said, is that it "had a disastrous impact on life, health, and the environment in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia and prompted fear and concerns in other nations of the world about the effects of radiation."
-------- depleted uranium
Evidence Grows Against Depleted Uranium Weapons
Katherine Stapp,
April 28, 2004
Institute for Policy Studies
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23515
NEW YORK, Apr 28 (IPS) - Washington's insistence that depleted uranium (DU) munitions are not toxic has been undermined by revelations that four U.S. soldiers recently home from Iraq are suffering from radiation poisoning.
A by-product of the uranium enrichment process, DU is prized by the military for its use in ammunition that can punch through walls and armoured tanks. The main problem, experts say, is that DU munitions vaporise on contact, generating dust that is easily inhaled into the lungs.
Several months ago a dozen soldiers from the National Guard's 442nd Military Police Company, stationed south of Baghdad, began suffering from dizziness, diarrhoea, blurred vision and other symptoms. Independent tests carried out by a New York newspaper found that four had high levels of depleted uranium in their systems.
The news does not come as a surprise for doctors working in parts of the world that have been bombarded with DU weaponry, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans.
"If it is true, it will be a great problem for the Pentagon," said Dr Jawad al-Ali, a cancer specialist at the Oncology Centre in Basra, Iraq.
Al-Ali says that the number of cancer patients he treats has increased more than 10-fold since the 1990 Gulf War, and that many of the cases are suggestive of heavy metal poisoning.
"The Iraqi people are the victims of the Pentagon policy," he told IPS. "And clean-up is impossible because they used DU on so many local areas."
Washington admitted to using some 300 tonnes of DU munitions during the 1990 Gulf War, although independent experts estimate that the real number is more like 1,700 tonnes.
In Afghanistan, U.S.-led forces in "Operation Enduring Freedom" likely fired thousands of DU armour-piercing shells, although no hard numbers have been released.
And in the most recent Iraq war, the Pentagon and the United Nations estimate that U.S. and British forces used 1,100 to 2,200 tonnes of DU during attacks in March and April 2003.
Last October, Tedd Weyman of the Toronto-based Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC), a non-profit scientific organisation that studies radiation contamination in war zones, led a field investigation to Iraq that found elevated radiation levels, even in the air.
"It was quite unusual because radiation tends to persist for a while in the soil and groundwater, but it usually disperses quickly in the air," he said.
The UMRC team surveyed U.S. and British-controlled combat areas and bombsites in southern Iraq, including Baghdad, al Nasiriyah, al Suweiriah and Basra.
Weyman told IPS that about 30 percent of the civilian residents the team interviewed complained of symptoms consistent with DU exposure. Of that number, one-third had DU excretions in their urine.
Although the team was in Iraq for only 13 days, two members, including Weyman, became contaminated with DU.
"When you know what to look for, you can actually taste it," he said. "You get numbing and splitting of the lips, coughing up blood, redness of the throat."
His own radiation levels, he said, are about four to five times higher than normal.
Weyman also made two trips to Afghanistan, the last in October 2002, to collect urine samples from residents of Jalalabad and Kabul. His report found that "without exception, at every bomb site investigated, people are ill."
Entire neighbourhoods complained of flu-like illnesses, and up to one-fourth of all newborn infants suffered from congenital and post-natal health problems, the UMRC researchers found.
Some residents experienced nosebleeds within minutes of bomb attacks, after giant plumes of dust kicked up from the detonation craters drifted through their neighbourhoods.
The UMRC findings are corroborated by other doctors with experience in the region.
"Afghanistan is a disaster in the making," said Mohammed Daud Miraki, an Afghan doctor based in the United States who is trying to raise funds to clean up his home country. "I have seen children in the south and east of the country born with monstrous deformities, including huge tumours, and even no skin."
"Reconstruction is a paradox when you have sentenced a whole population to death," he said.
Miraki and other experts believe the magnitude of DU contamination in Afghanistan is even worse than in Iraq, because more weaponry was deployed in a smaller area.
Although the Pentagon recently announced that it would pay to test any soldiers who ask for it, and is reportedly conducting further tests on the recently returned troops, officials have not budged from their stance that DU is perfectly safe.
"What they've done is an interesting exercise in hair-splitting," Weyman said. "They say that the effects of uranium have been adequately studied, but not depleted uranium, when the two elements are chemically and radiologically identical."
"And despite the fact that we essentially created the methodology to find DU in urine samples, we've never received a single solitary phone call from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) or the Department of Defence," he added.
Both UNEP and the WHO support Washington's stance that DU is not an immediate health threat, although UNEP's post-conflict assessment unit recommended this month that further studies be conducted in Iraq, "as soon as conditions permit".
"Politics is muffling science," said Ross Mirkarimi, who travelled to Iraq with scientists from Harvard University to conduct environmental assessments of the first Gulf War.
"Despite anecdotal reports of numerous DU-contaminated hot zones in Iraq, its impacts on the flora and fauna, coupled with reports of our troops exhibiting signs of DU exposure and sickness, any formal disclosure about the insidious effects of DU would be a liability to the Bush administration."
"DU decontamination and mitigation measures amid an urban environment is uncharted science, making Iraq the petri dish," he said in an interview.
Some experts, including the United Nations subcommission on human rights, argue that DU weapons violate the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war, because they have an ongoing killing effect, they are not contained to the legal field of battle, they cause undue suffering, and they harm the natural environment.
Maj Doug Rokke, the former head of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project and now a leading critic of DU, believes deploying the weaponry is a war crime.
"I was assigned to the 3rd U.S. Army depleted uranium assessment team as the health physicist and medic," Rokke says in an interview. "What we found can be explained in three words -- oh my God."
"After we returned to the United States, we wrote the 'Theatre Clean-up Plan', which reportedly was passed through the U.S. Department of Defence to the U.S. Department of State and consequently to the Emirate of Kuwaiti," he said.
"Today, it is obvious that none of this information regarding clean up of extensive DU contamination ever was given to the Iraqis," added Rokke.
"Iraqi, Kosovar, Serbian and other representatives have asked numerous times for DU contamination management and medical care procedures but this information has not been provided."
Due to his work, Rokke currently has 5,000 times the normal levels of radiation in his body. At least 30 members of his DU clean-up team have died prematurely.
-------- israel
Head of U.N. Nuke Agency to See Israel
April 28, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Israel.html
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, who has been working for a Middle East that is free from nuclear weapons, is set to travel this summer to Israel, the only country in the region believed to have a stockpile of such weapons.
Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but does belong to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which conducts regular inspections of some of Israel's nuclear facilities.
Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons. But international experts estimate the country holds at least 200 nuclear weapons.
The exact date and agenda for Mohamed ElBaradei's trip has not yet been set, said Melissa Fleming, a spokeswoman for the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency. ``Naturally, he would intend to use such a trip to consult on his mandate ... to promote nonproliferation and a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East, as well as to discuss bilateral cooperation in nuclear sciences and applications,'' she said.
ElBaradei, the agency's director-general, visited Israel six years ago.
Gabriella Gafni, Israel's permanent representative to the IAEA, described the visit as ``routine.''
``He has an open invitation from us for some time now. The date has not been finalized, nor the agenda,'' Gafni said. ``He is very welcome to come and visit us.''
A week ago, Israeli authorities freed Mordechai Vanunu, who spent nearly 18 years in prison for leaking details and pictures of Israel's alleged nuclear weapons program.
Last Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that the United States recognizes that Israel needs a credible deterrent to Iran and other hostile countries.
``They understand that Israel's existence is still in danger,'' Sharon told Israel's Channel One TV.
ElBaradei long has called for talks on eliminating weapons of mass destruction from the volatile Middle East.
In a lecture delivered earlier this month in Egypt, ElBaradei condemned ``this imbalance in the region (with) Israel sitting on nuclear weapons and everybody else trying to stick to the Nonproliferation Treaty.''
However, he said Israel was unlikely to readily change its stance.
``Nuclear deterrence or nuclear weapons (are) deeply ingrained in the Israeli psychology,'' ElBaradei said.
``They think ... that as long as many people, individuals (and) groups continue to talk about the destruction of Israel, they just simply cannot afford to give up the nuclear option in the absence of a comprehensive peace accepted by the people of the region,'' he said.
On the Net:
IAEA, www.iaea.org
--------
Israel Sees UN Nuke Watchdog Chief Visit in July
April 28, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-israel-elbaradei.html
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who has called for Israel to dismantle a nuclear arsenal it has never admitted possessing, is expected to visit the country in July, an official said on Wednesday.
``This is a routine visit that has been in the works for months. We expect Mr ElBaradei to visit Israel in the summer, probably early July,'' Gabriella Gafni, Israel's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told Reuters by telephone from Vienna, the U.N. agency's base.
She declined to give details of ElBaradei's agenda in Israel. An IAEA spokeswoman also declined to comment.
After meeting Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom last November, ElBaradei hinted Israel should sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and thereby open up its atomic sites to international inspections.
``In my view every country in the Middle East, including Israel, will benefit from establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East as part and parcel of a comprehensive peace in the region,'' ElBaradei said then.
Israel has never signed the NPT and under a policy of ``strategic ambiguity'' neither confirms nor denies pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The policy is intended to warn off regional foes while avoiding an arms race.
Non-proliferation analysts estimate Israel has an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons.
The United Nations General Assembly and IAEA General Conference have adopted 13 resolutions since 1987 appealing to Israel to sign the NPT. All have been ignored.
-------- korea
N. Korea Nuclear Estimate To Rise
U.S. Report to Say Country Has At Least 8 Bombs
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47833-2004Apr27.html
The United States is preparing to significantly raise its estimate of the number of nuclear weapons held by North Korea, from "possibly two" to at least eight, according to U.S. officials involved in the preparation of the report.
The report, expected to be completed within a month, would reflect a new intelligence consensus on North Korea's nuclear capabilities after that country's decision last year to restart a nuclear reactor and plutonium-reprocessing facility that had been frozen under a 1994 agreement. Among the evidence used in making the assessment is a detailed analysis of plutonium byproducts found on clothing worn by members of an unofficial U.S. delegation that was allowed to visit North Korean nuclear facilities several months ago.
The increase in the estimate would underscore the strides North Korea has made in the past year as the Bush administration struggled to respond diplomatically while waging a war against Iraq in an unsuccessful effort to search for such weapons there.
Intelligence officials also have broadly concluded that a separate North Korean uranium-enrichment program will be operational by 2007, producing enough material for as many as six additional weapons a year, one U.S. official said.
With Democrat John F. Kerry's presidential campaign planning to highlight the dangers of nuclear proliferation, the leap in Pyongyang's nuclear capabilities during President Bush's tenure could leave the administration vulnerable to charges that it has mishandled the North Korea crisis. Experts said an arsenal of eight weapons means that North Korea could use its weapons to attack neighbors, instead of merely deterring a possible attack.
But some Bush administration officials believe the new estimate will help pressure North Korea's neighbors to back the U.S. position that Pyongyang's weapons programs must be dismantled without concessions. During a tour of Asia two weeks ago, Vice President Cheney warned that time is running out for diplomacy as an increasingly cash-strapped North Korea might seek to peddle its nuclear technology or fissile material -- including, Cheney said, to terrorist groups.
The estimates are guesswork based largely on circumstantial evidence, and administration officials in several agencies have yet to agree on specific numbers. The Energy Department has pressed for a higher estimate of North Korea's weapons and the Defense Intelligence Agency believes the uranium program will be operational at the end of this year, but the State Department's intelligence arm has been the most skeptical. The differences in the estimates depend in part on determinations about the power and efficiency of the North Korean design.
Work on the report began late last summer, after the first round of six-nation talks on the North Korea crisis, when various government agencies sought a unified position on the extent of Pyongyang's programs. Much of the report will not be made public, but its conclusions will guide official statements on North Korean capabilities.
In many ways, the official U.S. estimate of "possibly two" weapons lags significantly behind private-sector reports.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London concluded this year that North Korea's nuclear arsenal could reach four to eight bombs over the next year and increase by 13 bombs per year by the end of the decade. The Institute for Science and International Security in Washington recently estimated that North Korea has a maximum of eight or nine weapons.
"It's long overdue for them to do something," David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said of the administration.
Albright said that the January visit of the unofficial delegation -- which included Siegfried S. Hecker, a former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory -- brought back evidence that North Korea has reprocessed all 8,000 spent fuel rods that had been held in a cooling pond under a 1994 agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration.
In late 2002, Pyongyang evicted international inspectors observing the pond after the United States suspended shipments of fuel oil because, officials said, North Korea had nullified the 1994 deal by having a clandestine uranium program.
In February, CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress: "The intelligence community judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons. The 8,000 [spent fuel] rods the North claims to have processed into plutonium metal would provide enough plutonium for several more." Tenet added that North Korea is "pursuing a production-scale uranium enrichment program" using technology provided by A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani metallurgist who recently admitted to making millions by providing nuclear equipment and know-how to other countries.
The delegation members provided samples of the clothing they wore during their tour of the Yongbyon facility, when the North Koreans showed Hecker a jar that they said contained recently reprocessed plutonium. Albright said traces of plutonium byproducts, such as americium, that collected on the clothing could be analyzed to indicate how recently the plutonium had been processed.
"I think it is generally accepted the North Koreans are probably telling the truth when they say some reprocessing activity took place," said Gary Samore, a weapons expert who was the principal author of the London institute's report.
The earlier estimate was based on calculations derived from the amount of plutonium North Korea was believed to possess -- about seven to 11 kilograms -- and the new estimate essentially reflects the number of additional weapons North Korea could produce from the plutonium derived from the 8,000 spent fuel rods. The calculation in part depends on determining how much plutonium is lost during reprocessing.
Albright said he reached his estimate of a maximum of nine weapons by calculating that North Korea possesses about 37 to 39 kilograms of plutonium and would need at least four kilograms per weapon.
U.S. officials have said Khan told interrogators that in the 1990s the North Koreans showed him three devices they identified as nuclear weapons. The report, which has not been confirmed, would suggest North Korea was more efficient in its use of plutonium than previously thought.
But Samore said he thought it was implausible that North Korea would show its weapons to an outsider, let alone keep them all in one place. He added that it was in Khan's interest to assert that North Korea already had nuclear weapons when he began supplying materials for the uranium-enrichment program.
----
Powell says unaware of new intelligence on NKorean nuclear weapons count
BERLIN (AFP)
Apr 28, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040428174257.axs2om3v.html
US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday he was unaware of any new US intelligence that North Korea may have at least eight nuclear weapons, not two as previously estimated.
"I'm not aware of a new number," he said in response to a Washington Post account, which cited officials preparing a report on the matter to be completed within a month.
"I have not been given any such information by the intelligence community," he told reporters in Berlin.
Powell, who was in the German capital to attend an international anti-Semitism conference, reiterated Washington's position that Pyongyang should use six-way talks to come to an agreement to disarm.
"North Korea needs to come to the realization that nuclear weapons will not serve it any particular useful purpose," he said.
"What they have to do is engage seriously in the six-party talks so that we can achieve complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of their nuclear weapons systems. The United States will not be pressured or pushed into any other outcome."
Up to now, the United States estimated that Pyongyang had developed enough weapons grade material at the nuclear facilities it reopened last year to make possibly two nuclear devices.
Two rounds of six-way talks hosted by China have failed to narrow key differences on how to end the stand-off.
New talks -- which bring together the two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan -- are to open in Beijing by the end of June.
----
N Korea working meeting to be held May 12: Russian report
MOSCOW (AFP)
Apr 28, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040428151344.izk2eajt.html
The six nations trying to resolve North Korea's nuclear dispute with the United States will hold a working group meeting on May 12 in Beijing, an unnamed Russian foreign ministry official was quoted Wednesday as saying by Interfax.
The meeting at the level of experts is aimed to pave the way for a third round of talks between the six nations' foreign ministers, which is tentatively scheduled to be held before the end of June.
Russia has attempted to play a role of a neutral mediator between North Korea and the United States in their nuclear weapons dispute, although its role has been overshadowed by that of China.
Yet Russia remains one of the few nations that has access to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il, with Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting him three times since his own election in 2000.
----
White House downplays North Korea nuclear report
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Apr 28, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040428142759.bv0br6j4.html
The White House on Wednesday downplayed but did not deny a report that US intelligence is concluding that North Korea may have at least eight nuclear weapons, not two as previously estimated.
"I'm not aware of any new estimate from the intelligence community," spokesman Scott McClellan said of the Washington Post account, which cited officials preparing a report on the matter to be completed within a month.
McClellan did not address whether a new estimate was forthcoming on Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal, which Washington hopes to defuse through talks grouping North and South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the United States.
The Post said the revised figure was based on a detailed analysis of plutonium products found on clothing worn by an unofficial US delegation that was allowed to visit North Korean nuclear facilities several months ago.
Up to now, the United States estimated that Pyongyang had developed enough weapons grade material at the nuclear facilities it reopened last year to make possibly two nuclear devices.
-------- missile defense
General Says Missile Defense Could Be Ready Soon
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47651-2004Apr27.html
The general in charge of the Pentagon's missile defense programs said yesterday that upcoming flight tests are likely to have little bearing on plans to field a national antimissile system later this year.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, said top administration and military officials have yet to decide when to declare the system on alert -- that is, ready to engage ballistic missiles fired at the United States. But he said such a move could come as early as this summer, when the first missile interceptors are installed in newly built silos in Alaska.
By September, five interceptors are to be in place at Fort Greely near Fairbanks, Kadish said. By the end of 2005, 16 interceptors are slated for Fort Greely and four are planned for Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
The interceptors, along with several ground- and ship-based tracking radars and an extensive network of electronic links, are intended to give the United States the ability to destroy enemy warheads in space by ramming into them. But the system has come under fire from some lawmakers, scientists, military specialists and others for being largely unproven.
Although eight intercept tests have occurred since 1999, all have involved surrogates for the interceptor. The first flight test of the actual interceptor -- which consists of a small "kill vehicle" attached to a large booster rocket -- is due this summer. Then comes the first intercept attempt using the system's actual components. Both tests have been delayed several months this year as a result of problems with a redesign of the kill vehicle.
"If they both fail, we've got big problems," Kadish told a breakfast meeting of journalists. He went on to express confidence that both tests would succeed but made it clear that successful outcomes are not necessary for proceeding with deployment. "They're parallel paths," he said of the testing and fielding efforts.
Voicing frustration with the charges of insufficient testing, Kadish said the main reason for building the Alaskan site was to allow for flight trials under more realistic conditions. President Bush later decided to turn the site into an operational one, while keeping its initial purpose as a "test bed."
"The criticism we get is that we're not operationally testing the system before we put it in place," the general said. "My response to that -- which people don't seem to want to accept -- is, you can't operationally test the system until you put it in place."
Kadish, who is due to retire this summer, said a large amount of information has been gathered through ground tests and flight trials of individual components. This has led to extensive computer modeling and simulations of likely system performance.
Although the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator has questioned the validity of these models in the absence of more real data, Kadish said they have proven very accurate in predicting test results.
The Bush administration has attached considerable urgency to erecting the antimissile system, citing a growing threat from hostile states trying to acquire long-range missiles. Although two states -- Iraq and Libya -- are no longer the concern that they were, Kadish said the two most worrisome threats remain -- North Korea and Iran. He declined to discuss recent information about missile developments in either country.
Initially, the limited availability of tracking radars will restrict the interceptors in Alaska and California to countering only North Korean missiles.
The planned addition to the system next year of a radar in Britain will enable interceptors to go after missiles launched from the Middle East as well, Kadish said.
----
Missile defense against N. Korea being readied
April 28, 2004
By John J. Lumpkin
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040427-105458-5494r.htm
The chief of the military's missile defense programs said yesterday that he expects to protect all of the United States from a North Korean attack by the end of the year, but said failures in two upcoming tests could mean "big problems" for the program.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Ron Kadish, director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), told reporters that a decision about when to put the first missile interceptors on alert has not been made, but that plans call for several to be ready to test fire by September.
By the end of the year, about 10 interceptors are expected to be on alert at two sites: Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. They will be linked to a specialized radar able to track inbound missiles over the Pacific Ocean.
But the interceptors face two tests of their ability to find and destroy incoming ballistic missiles, the first expected in late spring or early summer.
"If they both fail, we've got big problems," Gen. Kadish said. "We expect them to be successful."
He stopped short of saying that two failures would delay deployment of the first interceptor missiles in Alaska. Officials note that the first interceptors will serve a dual role: as subjects of further testing, as well as actual defenses in an emergency.
The Bush administration has made the deployment of missile defenses a key aspect of its national security policy, saying it is vital to defend the country against missiles launched by hostile nations.
Critics say the technology is neither ready nor affordable, and that it fails to address the greater threat of weapons of mass destruction brought into the country by terrorists or other means.
Citing MDA figures, a recent report from the congressional General Accounting Office said missile defense programs will cost $53 billion from 2004 to 2009.
Despite the apparent elimination of Iraq and Libya as future long-range missile threats, Gen. Kadish said the danger from ballistic missiles is growing. He pointed to North Korea and Iran's missile programs as the most worrisome, although he declined to describe any recent intelligence on developments in either country.
North Korea, which intelligence officials think has an untested intercontinental ballistic missile, is regarded as the most immediate threat, which is why the initial system of radar and interceptors is geared toward strikes from across the Pacific.
"Any adversary that would want to go against this system would have to think more than twice," Gen. Kadish said.
In the longer term, Iran could develop missiles capable of reaching the United States. A radar in Britain, once it is upgraded in 2005, will allow Alaskan-based interceptors to target missiles launched from the Mideast toward North America, Gen. Kadish said.
The general said the United States and European allies are considering a third interceptor base in Europe to protect European countries from those missiles.
Gen. Kadish's agency oversees several other antimissile programs and is working with allies to develop missile defenses in other countries.
He acknowledged delays in the Airborne Laser, a program that aims to mount a laser cannon on a Boeing 747, which would shoot down missiles as they were launched.
Engineers have not been able to fire the main laser, which has not yet been put onto the test aircraft. Nor have the targeting optics on the plane undergone full trials, he said.
-------- terrorism
UN council adopts resolution to keep terrorists away from WMD
UNITED NATIONS (AFP)
Apr 28, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040428173550.xis35o3e.html
The UN Security Council on Wednesday unanimously passed a resolution aimed at keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.
The 15-0 vote approved a resolution crafted in months of negotations by the council's five permament members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- all of which are nuclear powers.
The text was revised three times to answer objections from some of the council's 10 non-permanent members, and finally won the support of the last hold-out Pakistan, which is also a nuclear-armed state.
US President George W. Bush first called for the resolution in September in a speech before the United Nations.
The resolution calls on the 191 UN member nations to stop terrorists, black market traders and all so-called "non-state actors" from acquiring weapons of mass destruction or the materials and technology to obtain them.
It also calls on them to adopt laws to prevent sensitive materials and technology from getting into the hands of non-state actors.
Diplomats said there was broad agreement on the need to plug the gap in the existing non-proliferation treaties, which deal only with interactions between nations.
----
White House applauds UN's arms vote
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Apr 28, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040428195047.gkz3yo1j.html
The White House Wednesday applauded the UN Security Council's unanimous approval of a resolution aimed at keeping nuclear, biological and chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
"This is a high priority and it is important to winning the war on terrorism, and today's vote was an important step to move forward on these international efforts," spokesman Scott McClellan said.
"This will help make the world safer and better, and make America more secure as we move forward on this important initiative."
The 15-0 vote approved a resolution crafted in months of negotations by the council's five permament members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- all of which are nuclear powers.
The text was revised three times to answer objections from some of the council's 10 nonpermanent members, and finally won the support of the last holdout, Pakistan, which is also a nuclear-armed state.
US President George W. Bush first called for the resolution in September in a speech before the United Nations.
The resolution calls on the 191 UN member nations to stop terrorists, black-market traders and all so-called "non-state actors" from acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical weapons or the materials and technology to make them.
It also calls on them to adopt laws to prevent sensitive materials and technology from getting into the hands of non-state actors.
-------- treaties
UN Council Unanimously Adopts Terrorist Arms Ban
April 28, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-arms-un-terrorists.html
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Wednesday for a U.S.-drafted resolution that would punish black marketeers who traffic in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons components.
The measure would obligate all 191 U.N. member nations to punish ``non-state actors'' dealing in parts and technology for weapons of mass destruction.
Even Pakistan, which had misgivings until the last minute, voted for the resolution in the 15-nation council, giving the Bush administration and its allies a clean sweep.
Pakistan admitted this year that Abdul Qadeer Khan, a scientist revered as the father of the country's nuclear bomb, had smuggled nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran and Libya, and was under house arrest.
In an effort to get Pakistan's vote, the resolution was not made retroactive, a point noted by its U.N. ambassador, Munir Akram, in his address to the council.
The measure was sponsored by Britain, France, the Philippines, Romania, Russia and Spain as well as the United States. President Bush at September's U.N. General Assembly called for a resolution to ``criminalize the proliferation of weapons.''
In a White House statement, Bush called the vote ``an important achievement'' and urged nations to enact appropriate measures. ``We must continue to press these efforts to ensure that the world's most destructive weapons are kept from the world's most dangerous regimes and organizations,'' he said.
The resolution compels nations to adopt and enforce laws to prevent terrorists and black marketeers from being able to ``manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery.''
'NAME AND SHAME'
It was adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which makes it obligatory for all nations and could allow for eventual sanctions and the use of force.
In this case, it does not provide any sanctions if the states do not comply. Instead, U.S. officials said they relied mainly on ``name and shame'' pressures on errant nations, and British envoys said any enforcement action would need another resolution.
Pakistan's Akram earlier objected to the use of Chapter VII enforcement provisions.
But Akram said on Wednesday that revisions in the text made it clear the council would not legislate for the world because it was not a representative body. The text now says it is up to individual nations to adopt specific legislation.
The U.S. deputy ambassador, James Cunningham, told the council, ``No one nation can meet this challenge alone.'' He hoped states would cooperate in efforts to ``stop the flow of these deadly weapons.''
The resolution was negotiated over six months by the five permanent members of the council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.
It aims to fill a gap in the system of treaties negotiated since World War II to halt the spread of nuclear and other unconventional weapons to ``non-state actors'' rather than states alone.
In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, ``The importance of this resolution cannot be underestimated'' as a demonstration ``of the international community's determination to tackle the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.''
Among the concessions in the resolution was to lengthen to two years from six months the life of a Security Council monitoring committee. The shorter period had raised questions of quick compliance in devising and adopting new legislation.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
A proposal to add Manhattan Project sites to park system
By JAMES W. BROSNAN
April 28, 2004
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/nw_washington/article/0,1891,TRN_5707_2844398,00.html
The places where Manhattan Project scientists once worked in secret to create the atomic bomb could someday become national parks.
The Senate Energy Committee on Wednesday unanimously approved a bill to authorize a study of whether to add older, unused sections of national laboratories at Los Alamos, N.M., Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Hanford, Wash., to the national park system.
Under the proposal, the National Park Service would conduct the study.
Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said, "My hope is that this can help Americans to better understand the project and its impact on history and mankind."
The Manhattan Project was one of the biggest secrets of World War II. For three years, up to 130,000 workers carved out factories in three rural areas - Los Alamos, where the bombs were designed and built; Oak Ridge, where the first uranium-enrichment facility was built; and Hanford, where the first large-scale reactor for producing plutonium was built.
The two bombs they produced - Little Boy, using uranium, and Fat Man, using plutonium - devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This forced Japan to surrender and thus ended the war.
The older buildings at the three sites already are on the National Register of Historic Places, but the Department of Energy has made it clear to lawmakers that it is not in the caretaker business.
The cash-strapped Park Service would prefer that sponsors find another backer for managing the sites. The study alone could cost as much as $700,000, the service testified at an earlier hearing.
But no nonprofit has the resources to tackle the job, said Cynthia Kelly, president and founder of the Atomic Heritage Foundation.
Kelly was a Clinton administration Energy Department official who, in 1997, helped stop plans to bulldoze six Los Alamos buildings where scientists worked. (Ironically, four of them burned down three years later in the Cerro Grande fire.)
"I realized we needed to get more public awareness of this period," said Kelly, who started the foundation in 2002.
Additional hurdles could be safety and security.
Kelly said the Department of Energy already is paying to clean up waste at the sites so any properties turned over to the Park Service would be safe to visit, or at least be encased in hard plastic.
The labs are still top-secret. Just on Tuesday, the congressional General Accounting Office warned it could take five years to bring security at the labs up to the level necessary to prevent any terrorist attack.
But Domenici said he is confident some tourist visits could be accommodated.
On the Net: www.atomicheritage.org.
(E-mail James W. Brosnan at BrosnanJ@shns.com.)
-------- california
Livermore lab assailed for holes in security
Investigators call radioactive cache vulnerable
Edward Epstein, Keay Davidson and James Sterngold,
San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writers,
April 28, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/28/MNG126C6HI1.DTL
Washington -- Congressional investigators charged Tuesday that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the country's most sensitive nuclear facilities, can no longer adequately protect weapons materials from potential terrorist threats and is moving too slowly to increase security.
Now an independent watchdog group says the lab should not be permitted to maintain stores of the weapons-grade plutonium, uranium and other radioactive materials at the heart of nuclear warheads.
Testifying before the House Government Reform Subcommittee, the group argued that with the lab in the midst of rapidly growing, heavily populated suburbs, the radioactive materials present too much of a risk to the community and cannot be protected properly.
Officials from the Department of Energy, which owns the lab, rejected many of the criticisms of Livermore and other weapons facilities, arguing that security was being improved rapidly and that they have been sharply increasing spending to provide protection against possible terrorist attacks.
Even as critics called for the lab to relinquish its radioactive materials, the Department of Energy held a public hearing Tuesday in Livermore to outline a proposed 10-year expansion of the lab's nuclear weapons research functions.
Lab spokesman Tom Grim said the plan would roughly double, from 700 to 1, 500 kilograms, the amount of plutonium stored at the lab. Lab scientists and technicians also would research new methods of forming the so-called plutonium "pit," the billiard-ball-size fissionable component of a nuclear bomb.
The hearing drew more than 100 people, many of whom denounced the proposal as a threat to the surrounding communities and to the environment.
"I really am beginning to believe that the government is not friendly to the people," one speaker, Annie Griffin, told lab officials.
Responding to the critics in Washington, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek -- whose district includes the lab and who has been a critic of its security in the past -- flew to Livermore's defense.
"I'm not going to tell you security is perfect, but, because of criticisms, they have made dramatic improvements and have invested sizable amounts of money to increase security," she said in an interview. "In a perfect world, there will be plutonium at Livermore."
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, released a report Tuesday that strongly criticized the Department of Energy for being too slow after Sept. 11 to improve security at Livermore and four other weapons facilities and for setting unrealistic goals for improvements.
The report said the guards at the sites were overworked and poorly trained; the Energy Department was resisting intelligence community assessments of what kind of terrorist attacks it had to defend against; and the department was likely to miss its own deadline for improving some security measures by three years.
Although the report, 2 1/2 years in the making, discussed security lapses at five nuclear facilities, many of its conclusions fell squarely on Livermore and the special problems it confronts.
When the lab, owned by the Department of Energy but managed by the University of California, was founded in the early 1950s to design a new generation of nuclear warheads, it was surrounded by ranches with few inhabitants nearby. Today it is in the middle of a thriving suburban enclave in Alameda County.
In fact, the extremely sensitive Superblock building, where the most important weapons-grade materials are kept, is only about a quarter-mile from some homes, according to the Project on Government Oversight, a private watchdog group.
Danielle Brian, director of the group, told the House subcommittee that the site is simply no longer compatible with certain kinds of weapons research because of the suburban encroachment.
"We can say that the encroaching residential community surrounding Lawrence Livermore has made it nearly impossible to properly protect the weapons quantities of plutonium and highly enriched uranium stored there,'' Brian testified.
"Clearly, (Livermore) will not be able to comply with the new directives, '' tougher security requirements that will be in place by 2006, Brian added.
She suggested that all the nuclear materials at Livermore be moved to the Nevada Test Site, which is 65 miles from Las Vegas and was the site of government underground nuclear testing until a ban was put in place in 1992.
Livermore officials have said the lab could continue to fulfill its primary mission, testing and maintaining the reliability of the current stockpile of nuclear weapons, even if the materials were moved, but it would be more expensive and difficult.
That is why some have raised concerns that moving the materials out of Livermore -- which houses about 880 pounds of plutonium, according to a lab official -- would result in changes in its historic mission and possibly a reduction in its size, something the lab and the Department of Energy would fight.
Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees all weapons work, rejected Brian's charges.
"It is not correct that the physical security challenge at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory resulting from residential encroachment makes adequate protection nearly impossible,'' he told the House subcommittee.
Brooks said Livermore's security preparations were tested in February and were ruled satisfactory.
"People looking for soft spots would be ill-advised to come to sites for which I am responsible because they are not soft spots,'' he said.
Tauscher said that the lab was essential to the local economy and that, though security had to improve, it needed to maintain the stocks of bomb materials to conduct its work.
"It's always smarter to consolidate materials in fewer sites to protect them,'' she said after the hearing. "But in order for Lawrence Livermore to fulfill its mission, it has to have some material.''
Tauscher stressed that security has been increased since the Sept. 11 attacks and "remains at its highest level ever.'' She also called on Congress to fund the department's security plan so improvements can continue.
The critical report comes as the Energy Department is preparing to open to competition for the first time the management responsibilities at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs. Both labs have been run by the University of California, but their management contracts will be up for bid for the first time in the next few years.
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., chairman of the House subcommittee, didn't single out any of the five DOE sites with supplies of plutonium or enriched uranium, but he made it clear at the hearing that he felt the lab system is overstretched.
"I believe we have too many sites. They are so antiquated they pose a risk,'' he said.
Shays said that taking two years to revise the security plan, which is what the DOE envisions, is "an inexplicably and inexcusably long time.''
Experts have raised concerns in the past that a band of well-armed terrorists might try and break into a weapons facility to steal material to make a nuclear bomb, or might even assemble a bomb at the site and detonate it there.
The current DOE timetable calls for dealing with an attack on Livermore by a small group of terrorists who might want to steal nuclear material, disperse radioactive material, use a truck bomb to attack a lab or set off what's called an improvised nuclear device. It envisions having the new security mechanisms in place by the end of fiscal 2006.
However, U.S. intelligence agencies believe that the DOE faces a potential threat from a larger and better armed terrorist group, requiring even more stringent defensive measures.
Brooks stressed that the future plans go beyond traditional security measures.
"While I am pleased with the progress we have made, our long-term security must be based on more than guns, gates and guards,'' Brooks said. "Over the long term, we are committed to harnessing the power of technology to improve security.''
Lab security
A GAO report on security at the nation's nuclear weapons labs, including Livermore, found that:
-- Personnel: The Department of Energy has heightened security readiness at the labs, but the increased effort has led to fatigue, turnover and less training for security officers at many sites.
-- Delays: The development of new security plans took almost two years because of bureaucratic delays, and the 2006 target date for completion may not be realistic.
-- Attacks: The security measures fail to contemplate a large-scale terrorist attack.
Edward Epstein reported from The Chronicle's Washington bureau, James Sterngold from Los Angeles and Keay Davidson from Livermore.E-mail the writers at eepstein@sfchronicle.com, jsterngold@sfchronicle.com and kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.
----
Weapons lab expansion draws fire
Administration's plans for Livermore pose risks to human health, activists say
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER,
Oakland Tribune
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~2113367,00.html
LIVERMORE -- In an age of terrorism, the nation's nuclear-weapons agency wants Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to handle twice as much weapons-grade plutonium and tritium -- a radioactive gas -- as lab scientists explore new and modified H-bomb designs, including smaller, more portable ones.
"My question is, do we need the nuclear weapons?" said Stuart Bunstock of Davis. In spirit at least, "We've removed ourselves from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and that's a bad thing whether you live here or in Europe or in Arabia."
In hearings Monday, scientists and activists said the Bush administration's plans for Livermore over the next decade pose risks to human health and run afoul of international curbs on the world's largest nuclear arsenals.
They asked the National Nuclear Security Administration to go back to the drawing board on a two-year study of the future of Livermore.
The plans -- more than 2,000 pages of proposals that are the subject of continuing hearings today in Tracy -- include using exotic lasers to separate vaporized plutonium into its rarer isotopes that are useful for full-scale weapons experiments; building a prototype, robotic factory line for making plutonium atomic-bomb cores; building a biodefense lab to explore genetic manipulations of biowarfare agents; and using weapons materials inside of a gargantuan Livermore laser, the National Ignition Facility, in experiments that scientists say could lead to a new class of nuclear arms.
"I urge you to think very hard about the Pandora's box (that) you are opening if we have an earthquake during plutonium vaporization or a terrorist attack," said Loulena Miles, staff attorney for a lab watchdog group, Tri-Valley CAREs.
The U.S. Department of Energy and its weapons arm -- the National Nuclear Security Administration -- were under fire Monday in Congress and in Livermore for keeping plutonium and highly enriched uranium at a half-dozen locations, such as the suburban East Bay lab, despite evidence that contract security forces may not be capable of repelling terrorist attackers.
Congress' investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, reported that even though the Energy Department upgraded the terrorist threat to its weapons facilities in 2003, the agency still is guarding against a "significantly smaller" terrorist force than intelligence agencies say might attack and try to steal or detonate a bomb's worth of nuclear material.
Those familiar with the Energy Department's preparations for terrorist attack say intelligence analysts have estimated that al-Qaida or other terrorists might send as many attackers after a nuclear weapon as hijackers on Sept. 11. Yet weapons facilities such as Livermore that handle weapons materials instead of fully assembled H-bombs are staffing and arming for half that number. Based on whistleblowers' accounts and Livermore's ability to repel mock assaults, the Project on Government Oversight is pressing Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to remove the lab's entire plutonium and enriched uranium inventory -- enough for more than 100 nuclear weapons and proposed to double over the next decade -- into an impregnable fortress in the Nevada desert.
Squatting half underground between two gun towers, the Device Assembly Facility, or DAF, was built about 20 years ago at the Nevada Test site for$100 million, yet it has been barely used. Its extra-thick, reinforced-concrete walls and doors open into a shooting gallery from which defenders in protected alcoves can unleash a flood of firepower toward attackers. U.S. special forces teams have tried assaults on DAF and never succeeded in taking it.
"We have essentially the most defensible building in the world and it's empty now, while we have nuclear-weapons materials stored in the middle of a neighborhood," said Danielle Brian, POGO's executive director.
Houses around Livermore have curtailed the lab's ability to use heavy firepower, such as high-powered sniper rifles and machine guns, to repel a terrorist assault, Brian told a congressional committee Monday.
The nation's top nuclear-weapons executive, Linton Brooks, challenged that assertion and suggested his agency will oppose moving plutonium and enriched uranium out of Livermore.
"Our judgment is that such a step would preclude our carrying out important stockpile-stewardship assessments," said Brooks, head of the NNSA, referring to experiments on plutonium to gauge the effects on aging on weapons.
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman-@angnewspapers.com .
----
Lab expansion ignites debate
Security, creation of nuclear arsenal has made Livermore focus of argument
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER,
Tri-Valley Herald
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2113134,00.html
LIVERMORE -- In an age of terrorism, the nation's nuclear-weapons agency wants Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to handle twice as much weapons-grade plutonium and tritium -- a radioactive gas -- as lab scientists explore new and modified H-bomb designs, including smaller, more portable ones.
"My question is, do we need the nuclear weapons?" said Stuart Bunstock of Davis. In spirit at least, "we've removed ourselves from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and that's a bad thing whether you live here or in Europe or in Arabia."
In hearings Monday, scientists and activists said the Bush administration's plans for Livermore over the next decade pose risks to human health and run afoul of international curbs on the world's largest nuclear arsenals. They asked the National Nuclear Security Administration to go back to the drawing board on a two-year study of the future of Livermore.
The plans -- more than 2,000 pages of proposals that are the subject of continuing hearings today in Tracy -- include using exotic lasers to separate vaporized plutonium into its rarer isotopes that are useful for full-scale weapons experiments; building a prototype, robotic factory line for making plutonium atomic-bomb cores; building a biodefense lab to explore genetic manipulations of biowarfare agents; and using weapons materials inside of a gargantuan Livermore laser, the National Ignition Facility, in experiments that scientists say could lead to a new class of nuclear arms.
"I urge you to think very hard about the Pandora's box (that) you are opening if we have an earthquake during plutonium vaporization or a terrorist attack," said Loulena Miles, staff attorney for a lab watchdog group, Tri-Valley CAREs.
The U.S. Department of Energy and its weapons arm -- the National Nuclear Security Administration -- were under fire Monday in Congress and in Livermore for keeping plutonium and highly enriched uranium at a half-dozen locations, such as the suburban East Bay lab, despite evidence that contract security forces may not be capable of repelling terrorist attackers.
Congress' investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, reported that even though the Energy Department upgraded the terrorist threat to its weapons facilities in 2003, the agency still is guarding against a "significantly smaller" terrorist force than intelligence agencies say might attack and try to steal or detonate a bomb's worth of nuclear material.
Those familiar with the Energy Department's preparations for terrorist attack say intelligence analysts have estimated that al-Qaida or other terrorists might send as many attackers after a nuclear weapon as hijackers on Sept. 11. Yet weapons facilities such as Livermore that handle weapons materials instead of fully assembled H-bombs are staffing and arming for half that number.
Based on whistleblowers' accounts and Livermore's ability to repel mock assaults, the Project on Government Oversight is pressing Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to remove the lab's entire plutonium and enriched uranium inventory -- enough for more than 100 nuclear weapons and proposed to double over the next decade -- into an impregnable fortress in the Nevada desert.
Squatting half underground between two gun towers, the Device Assembly Facility, or DAF, was built about 20 years ago at the Nevada Test site for$100 million, yet it has been barely used. Its extra-thick, reinforced-concrete walls and doors open into a shooting gallery from which defenders in protected alcoves can unleash a flood of firepower toward attackers. U.S. special forces teams have tried assaults on DAF and never succeeded in taking it.
"We have essentially the most defensible building in the world and it's empty now, while we have nuclear-weapons materials stored in the middle of a neighborhood," said Danielle Brian, POGO's executive director.
Houses around Livermore have curtailed the lab's ability to use heavy firepower, such as high-powered sniper rifles and machine guns, to repel a terrorist assault, Brian told a congressional committee Monday.
The nation's top nuclear-weapons executive, Linton Brooks, challenged that assertion and suggested his agency will oppose moving plutonium and enriched uranium out of Livermore.
"Our judgment is that such a step would preclude our carrying out important stockpile-stewardship assessments," said Brooks, head of the NNSA, referring to experiments on plutonium to gauge the effects on aging on weapons.
Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com
-------- tennessee
Security upgrades years away
AUDIT: Operating at the increased security condition levels has resulted in between $18,000 to $200,000 in unplanned costs per week at each site - primarily the result of overtime costs for the protective forces.
By: Paul Parson paul.parson@oakridger.com
Oak Ridger Staff
April 28, 2004
http://www.oakridger.com/stories/042804/new_20040428024.shtml
While the federal government took immediate steps to improve physical security at its nuclear weapons facilities in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a just-released audit states that protective upgrades are years away from being fully in place at these sites.
The General Accounting Office - the investigative arm of Congress - conducted the audit at the request of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. Oak Ridge's Y-12 National Security Complex was one of the sites reviewed for the document.
Within a matter of hours after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Agency went from a then-normal level 4 security condition - meaning a low level of terrorist threat - to level 2, which is a higher level of threat. The NNSA is the quasi-independent agency within DOE that oversees the nuclear weapons complex.
As part of the heightened security condition, sites were required to increase, among other things, the number of vehicle inspections and badge checks, the distance between public and sensitive areas to protect against large truck bombs, and the number of protective forces on duty.
"Increased SECON (security condition) levels have been expensive in both their financial cost and their toll on the readiness of the protective forces," the GAO audit states. "Specifically, operating at the increased SECON levels has resulted in between $18,000 to $200,000 in unplanned costs per week at each site - primarily the result of overtime costs for the protective forces."
In fact, a June 2003 DOE Inspector General report also noted that
the large amounts of overtime needed to meet the higher security condition requirements have resulted in fatigue, reduced readiness, retention problems and less training for protective forces.
While the increased security conditions have increased the visible deterrence at the federal sites, the GAO also reported that the federal government must press forward with additional actions to ensure that it's fully prepared to provide a timely and cost effective defense. A similar message has also been touted by the watchdog group known as the Project On Government Oversight.
To manage potential risks, DOE essentially updated last year what's known as its "design basis threat," a classified document that identifies the potential size and capabilities of terrorist forces. However, it took the federal agency almost two years to develop the update, according to the GAO audit.
"DOE is unlikely to meet its own fiscal year 2006 deadline for full implementation of the requirements of the new DBT (design basis threat)," the GAO audit noted. "Specifically, some sites estimate that it could take as long as five years, given adequate funding, to fully meet the requirements of the new DBT.
"Because some sites will be unable to effectively counter the threat contained in the new DBT for a period of up to several years, these sites probably are at higher risk under the new DBT than they were under the old DBT."
The GAO report did not specify if Y-12 was one of the sites that would have a problem meeting the full requirements of the new design basis threat document. Y-12 is a storehouse for bomb-grade uranium.
When contacted for comment, BWXT Y-12 officials were initially unaware the GAO report had been released. Officials with the Oak Ridge NNSA office were unavailable for comment this morning.
Plutonium and weapons-useable uranium are stored at nearly a dozen facilities within the DOE weapons complex. And, The Associated Press quoted Linton Brooks, the NNSA's administrator, as saying that officials are reviewing the weapons complex to determine where material can be consolidated, either in more secure areas within facilities or at other sites.
In addition, the AP reported that Brooks said moving material from Y-12 could take decades, probably cost billions of dollars and accomplish little in the short term. Y-12 plans to build a new storage site for highly enriched uranium.
However, the watchdog group POGO and DOE's Inspector General have both voiced concerns about the design of the new Y-12 facility. BWXT Y-12, which manages the plant, has opted to go with a non-berm storage facility instead of one covered with an earthen berm on the top and three sides of the facility.
If the facility were constructed as currently designed, the Inspector General said it would be costly and pose some security issues. In addition, Danielle Brian, POGO's executive director, said: "All the security experts we have interviewed conclude that a berm facility would be far more secure."
-------- vermont
Action postponed on legal change sought by Vt. Yankee
DAVID GRAM
Associated Press
Wed, Apr. 28, 2004
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/8543781.htm
MONTPELIER, Vt. - The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's lobbyists lived to fight another day as lawmakers on Wednesday put off action on a small language change in state law that could be key to the plant's future.
The plant's lobbyists have been working to avoid the need to ask the Legislature for permission to build concrete bunkers at the Vernon reactor site to store spent nuclear fuel, which is highly radioactive.
A 1977 law requires the Legislature's approval before anyone builds a new nuclear waste repository in Vermont. But the law also exempted Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., allowing temporary storage of the high-level radioactive waste in the plant's spent fuel storage pool.
Anti-nuclear activists have been questioning whether that exemption extends to the plant's new owners, Mississippi-based Entergy Nuclear.
The exemption is important to Vermont Yankee. Plant officials have said the fuel pool is close enough to being filled that without a new waste storage solution, the plant would have to shut down by 2008, four years short of its 2012 license expiration date.
Plant officials say they plan to formally ask permission this summer to build "dry-cask storage," in which concrete bunkers would be built on the Vernon site to accommodate additional high-level waste.
Seeking to secure the exemption from the 1977 law, Vermont Yankee lobbyist Gerard Morris succeeded in persuading the Senate Appropriations Committee to add a provision to the state's fiscal 2005 budget bill that would refer to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. and then add the words "its successors and assigns" - meaning Entergy would be covered by the exemption.
Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor and the Senate's assistant majority leader, has been a key player in pushing the plant's agenda. Campbell, a lawyer, said he believes the Entergy should have the right to the same exemption given Vermont Yankee's previous owners. "It's just a legal question," he said in an interview.
Campbell was one of several lawmakers who were flown to Las Vegas and taken to nearby Yucca Mountain, site of a planned permanent high-level waste repository, in December. Vermont Yankee paid for the trip.
The Yucca Mountain site has been approved by Congress but is tied up in lawsuits, meaning that after nearly half a century, the U.S. nuclear industry has not resolved what it will do with its many tons of highly toxic radioactive waste.
Vermont Yankee lawyer John Marshall told the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday the new wording would "clarify" the Legislature's intent. He read pieces of committee deliberations and legislative journals from 1977 and later years when the law was amended to try to prove his case.
Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington and chairwoman of the committee, joined some other members of the panel in expressing doubts. They also complained that the language change was slipped into the budget bill late in the session, rather than going through the normal hearings in the committees that oversee Vermont Yankee.
Committee members elicited an acknowledgment from the plant's lobbyists that they had known about the issue at least since mid-March, six weeks ago. Lawmakers said they were kept in the dark about the company's plans.
"We were not aware that this was going to be an amendment to the appropriations bill," Cummings said.
The Finance Committee ended up working out a deal with the Appropriations Committee in which the latter panel agreed to withdraw the amendment containing the Vermont Yankee language, in exchange for a promise that it would be considered as an amendment to a later bill.
Cummings said her panel would take more testimony on the matter in the meantime.
Marshall said Vermont Yankee believed that the 1977 Legislature meant for Vermont Yankee to have a "site exemption, rather than an exemption just for the owner" from the requirement that new waste sites be reviewed by the Legislature.
But committee members, during the hearing and in interviews later, pointed to several changes at Vermont Yankee since the 26-year-old law was enacted.
They include the sale to Entergy, the plant's planned 20 percent power boost, Entergy's stated desire to extend Vermont Yankee's license beyond 2012, and the still unfulfilled promises that the federal government will ship high-level waste from Vermont Yankee and other nuclear plants to a permanent disposal site.
-------- washington
Report critical of DOE
Wednesday, April 28th, 2004
Tri-City Herald
By Les Blumenthal
Herald Washington, D.C., bureau
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/5014145p-4942808c.html
WASHINGTON -- Despite some progress, the Department of Energy has failed to develop adequate plans to defend the Hanford reservation and other federal nuclear sites against terrorist attacks, congressional investigators said Tuesday.
In a new report, the General Accounting Office said the department had taken a series of immediate actions in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to protect the sites.
"While each of these actions have been important, in and of themselves, we believe they are not sufficient to ensure that all of DOE's sites are adequately prepared to defend themselves against the higher terrorist threat present in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world," the report concluded.
The GAO criticized the department for taking two years to develop what has been dubbed a design basis threat, a classified document that analyzes the potential size and capabilities of terrorist forces that might attack nuclear sites. The department requires contractors at its nuclear sites to provide a large enough force and enough equipment to defend against such a threat.
However, the GAO said the department disregarded estimates from intelligence agencies about the potential threat and decided to prepare for "significantly smaller" terrorist assaults.
The report mentions Hanford only in passing, though investigators visited the site to review security precautions.
Hanford has not produced nuclear materials since the late 1980s. But more than 4 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium still are stored there along with another 14 metric tons of materials that contain plutonium.
The report was released as part of a hearing before the national security subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform.
"Without question, DOE's nuclear warhead production plants, test facilities, research labs, storage locations and decommissioned sites are attractive targets for terrorists determined to turn our technology against us and willing to die while doing so," said the subcommittee's chairman, U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
Despite being asked, Shays said, the department declined to allow a security official from its environmental management office to testify. The environmental management office is in charge of Hanford and other former production sites where the focus now is cleanup.
Security at Hanford and other environmental management sites will be discussed at a separate hearing in the future, Shays said.
Even so, several other DOE officials defended the department's security programs.
"Today no nuclear weapons, special nuclear material or classified materials are at risk anywhere within the nuclear weapons complex," said Linton Brooks, the department's undersecretary for nuclear security.
Shays, who believes the nuclear materials should be consolidated at several high-security sites rather than be spread through facilities across the nation, said he wasn't convinced.
"You are basically saying the design basis threat is inadequate, doesn't capture the threat and the cost is enormous?" Shays asked in questioning Robin Nazzaro, GAO's director for natural resources and the environment.
"Correct," Nazzaro replied.
Nazzaro said the GAO report concluded it was unlikely the department could meet its deadline and implement the new security procedures over the next two years. Instead, the report found most sites estimated it would take two to five years to implement the security requirements if adequate funding was available.
"We know the terrorists will not wait that long to try to exploit lingering vulnerabilities in our nuclear complex defenses," Shays said.
The GAO also said department officials indicated funding had played a large role in developing the threat analysis, with some officials calling it the "funding basis threat," or the maximum threat the department could afford.
"This tension between threat size and resources is not a new development," the GAO said, adding that "political and budgetary pressures" had been factors in preparing earlier threat analysis.
----
Waste reclassification talks stall
Wednesday, April 28th, 2004
By Annette Cary,
Tri-City Herald staff writer
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/5014148p-4942810c.html
Talks appear to have stalled between the Department of Energy and Washington state in a yearlong disagreement over reclassifying high-level waste in Hanford tanks and at other DOE sites.
"We're at odds," said Sheryl Hutchison, spokeswoman for the Washington State Department of Ecology. "Talks have been unfruitful."
DOE has said it is seeking clarification and confirmation from Congress to continue to be able to classify nuclear waste at Hanford and elsewhere.
But the state believes proposed legislation to allow DOE to reclassify nuclear waste is unnecessary and could leave the state with too little authority.
At issue is how much waste could be left in the bottom of huge underground tanks that hold waste from processing plutonium produced at Hanford for weapons during World War II and the Cold War.
Through reclassification, more of the most difficult to remove waste might be left in the tanks rather than be removed and treated.
The matter could be settled through the courts. A federal judge last July ruled that DOE cannot reclassify high-level radioactive wastes on paper as being something less dangerous. The ruling is being appealed.
Alternately, DOE, Washington or other states involved in the dispute could persuade Congress to take action in their favor.
But in January, the Washington congressional delegation urged state leaders to take the initiative to establish high-level talks with DOE to resolve the issue.
The two sides appear to be little closer to reaching an agreement three months later.
"Some progress has been made, but some individuals on both sides seem a little too willing to let the courts resolve something the state and DOE should have worked out," said Jessica Gleason, spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.
Hastings urged the state to initiate talks in January and continues to believe the state and DOE have a responsibility to discuss the issue and work toward an agreement, Gleason said.
"Our sense is that DOE is going back to Congress with the language they want," Hutchison said.
A resolution of the court case could be years away, and the issue of closing underground tanks is too important to wait, said Joe Davis, spokesman for DOE headquarters.
"It is critical to find a solution," he said. "We have projects that will be jeopardized related to tank waste."
A legislative fix is possible that would give the state a say, he said.
"What DOE is proposing is allowing us with the state to move forward to close tanks," he said. "We would like the involvement of the state."
The state says DOE's proposed legislation calls for rulemaking to manage waste. It anticipates that under the rulemaking, DOE would shift oversight from a combined state and federal effort to an emphasis on federal oversight, according to the state.
"It seems to be a move to get the state out of its hair," Hutchison said.
Longterm, the state's authority on reclassifiation of waste would be "diminished or eliminated," she said.
The state does not agree any legislation is needed. But if any is passed it wants it to give deference to the Tri-Party Agreement, a legally binding pact among the state, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DOE.
DOE says it is not proposing anything different than what is in the Tri-Party Agreement.
"We're not trying to leave anyone out of the decision," Davis said. "We do not want to leave the impression that DOE does not want to work with the states."
-------- us politics
Nominee Assures Senate on Iraq
Process of Transferring Power Is Going to Be 'Evolutionary,' Negroponte Says
By Walter Pincus and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47834-2004Apr27?language=printer
President Bush's nominee for ambassador to Iraq, John D. Negroponte, said yesterday that Iraqis will have "a lot more sovereignty than they have right now" when an interim government takes over on July 1, but that the transfer of power will "be a work in progress and it's going to be evolutionary."
At a confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, panel members expressed confidence in Negroponte while voicing skepticism that the United States has a clear enough strategy in place for Iraq.
Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sought to reassure the senators -- including a pledge that the U.S.-led command will retain control over military forces in the country even after July 1. But he acknowledged that many of the most basic details of who will assume power on behalf of Iraqis have yet to be determined.
"There are still unanswered questions about structure, composition and powers of the Iraqi interim government to which I will present my credentials," Negroponte said.
The United States is counting on the United Nations to answer many of those questions -- and in doing so to allow the Bush administration to keep a June 30 deadline for relinquishing political authority over the country.
In New York yesterday, the top U.N. envoy for Iraq expressed confidence that his team will be able to oversee the selection of that caretaker government by the end of May.
Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi told the U.N. Security Council that he is working to identify "honest and qualified" people to administer the country's affairs until a national assembly can be chosen through national elections in January. He said he is searching for transitional leaders -- including a prime minister, a president and two vice presidents -- who would agree in advance not to run for office.
Brahimi's political strategy is calculated to ease the concerns of Iraq's political factions that members of a transitional government might use their positions to gain a political edge as candidates in next year's U.N.-organized elections. His timetable will leave the new Iraqi government with only a month to determine the extent of its powers and to sort out how it will govern a country with more than 135,000 U.S. troops.
Brahimi joined Negroponte in trying to play down expectations that the provisional government will exercise the full range of authority that a subsequent elected government will wield. He said the interim leaders should be mindful that they have not been "democratically elected" and that they should refrain from "entering into long-term commitments."
"This caretaker government, by definition, must be short-lived, as its sole purpose will be to tend to the day-to-day administration of the country," Brahimi said.
In addition, Brahimi detailed his plan to create a "preparatory committee" of Iraqis who would, in turn, identify 1,000 to 1,500 people from across Iraq's political, tribal and religious sectors to participate in a national conference on the country's political future as early as July.
The conference would appoint a consultative council to advise the caretaker government. Overall, Brahimi said, the U.N. effort is aimed at making "the Iraqi people truly the masters of their own destiny."
In Washington, Negroponte was questioned closely by senators about whether the interim Iraqi government would exert control over the U.S. military. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) asked what would happen if there were a disagreement between Iraqi authorities and the U.S. military over how to handle a situation similar to the unrest in Fallujah.
That would require a "real dialogue between our military commanders, the new Iraqi government and, I think, the United States mission, as well," Negroponte said.
In the end, however, Negroponte said the U.S. military "is going to have the freedom to act in their self-defense, and they're going to be free to operate in Iraq as they best see fit." What's more, he said, Iraqi military forces will "come under the unified command" of the U.S.-led multinational force.
Negroponte emphasized that the interim government will not need law-making authority because it will have just two prime functions: running the 25 government ministries, and preparing for next year's election of a transitional national assembly, which will choose the next government and draft a constitution.
Although the members of the interim government will not write laws, Negroponte said, "they are going to have to find some way to memorialize various policy decisions that they take."
Among the most sensitive aspects of the U.S. transition plan has been the Transitional Administrative Law devised by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, sometimes referred to as an "interim constitution" for the country. Key Iraqi figures, primarily Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, an influential Shiite cleric, opposed allowing the unelected Governing Council to write such a law.
At the White House yesterday, press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that an annex to the transitional law is being written that will limit the interim government's power.
"Iraqis have made it very clear that they want limits on the authority of the interim government," McClellan said. "The annex to the Transitional Administrative Law will define in precise ways the interim government's authorities."
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) asked Negroponte about the annex, but Negroponte said he had not been briefed on it. "I'm just not, at the moment, not clued in as to the discussion about the annex. . . . Obviously, it's an issue that I, myself, am going to have to get into." Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said the panel will hold a hearing on the annex to the law.
Despite the uncertainties about how sovereignty will be returned to Iraqis in the coming months, Brahimi expressed confidence that the vestiges of the U.S. occupation will fade away once a freely elected government takes power next year. "What we are talking about is the end of occupation," Brahimi told reporters.
He said Iraq's future national assembly will have the right to reverse legislative decisions made by the Iraqi Governing Council, which he said must dissolve after June 30. Survival of the council, he said, "either in its present form or with some adjustment, [is] not an option."
Brahimi cautioned the U.N. Security Council that Iraq's political transition "will face massive obstacles at every step of the way." But he said the "job is doable, as long as we set principled and realistic targets."
Lynch reported from the United Nations.
--------
Kerry Again Chides Bush on Guard Duty
Some Democrats Fear Focus on Vietnam Service Has Hurt Senator's Campaign
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47733-2004Apr27.html
CLEVELAND, April 27 -- Sen. John F. Kerry on Tuesday rolled through a crucial state hit hard by the manufacturing recession to talk about a national job "crisis" and his program for economic change.
But, in what is becoming a familiar pattern in the early days of the presidential campaign, the Massachusetts Democrat was distracted, if not drowned out, by the political war over war and military service exploding around him. President Bush's allies have been questioning Kerry's credibility on national security as well as his military record and antiwar activities.
In an interview with an Ohio newspaper, Kerry continued the fight over Vietnam-era military service, chiding Bush and Vice President Cheney for avoiding active service.
One day after Kerry attacked Bush's National Guard service for the first time, the presumptive Democratic nominee's campaign circulated a dossier designed to undercut the president's contention that he fulfilled his service duties more than 30 years ago. Bush served in the Texas National Air Guard from 1968 to 1973, although it is unclear what he did during his final year.
"I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard, and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served," Kerry told the Dayton Daily News. Kerry's campaign provided the media access to his remarks.
Nicolle Devenish, the Bush-Cheney campaign's communications director, issued a statement reviving a comment Kerry made in a Senate floor statement in 1992. "Instead of explaining his record, John Kerry has turned to political attacks on the president," she said. "John Kerry is doing exactly what he said he would never do, 'divide America over who served and how.' "
Former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a Vietnam veteran who was defeated in 2002 after Bush campaigned for his opponent, was tapped by Kerry's campaign to go after Bush in a more expansive way.
"I wish that George Bush had actually been exposed to combat. Then he could feel the sacrifice of many in this country who depend on the veterans administration alone to mend their wounds and take care of their need," Cleland said. "What we have here is an administration that wraps itself in the flag, spends $200 million to get itself reelected, trashes a man who is an authentic American hero, but lives in a glass house."
Bush has left political attacks to Cheney and other surrogates. He did not mention Kerry by name Tuesday and again focused on narrow policy proposals. Bush spoke about medical technology at a veterans hospital in Baltimore, to an audience that included veterans who had been hurriedly rounded up.
Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot was in Bath, Maine, as part of a "Winning the War on Terror Tour" to call attention to defense cuts Kerry has supported, including ones affecting destroyers made at the ironworks there. The appearances back up a Bush ad called "Weapons" that is running heavily in swing states where the systems are made.
Kerry was described by aides as furious with the attacks on his military service and antiwar protests, and is intent on fighting back -- even if it interferes with his campaign strategy. This week, he is leading a bus tour through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan to tout his ideas to create jobs, balance global trade and revive the economy.
Some Democrats worry Kerry is falling into a trap of making the 2004 election all about national security -- past, present and future. In recent weeks, Kerry has been dragged into fights over his position on the Iraq war, his votes to cut or eliminate weapons programs and, most recently, whether he tossed away his Vietnam War medals during a war protest 33 years ago. In many cases, Kerry defended himself at the expense of promoting his plans to balance the federal budget, clean up the environment and create jobs.
A few days after Kerry telegraphed his new ad campaign defining him as a war hero, Republicans and conservative groups began questioning one of three Purple Hearts he earned. This week he faced questions about the war medals or ribbons he tossed away during an antiwar rally in Washington in 1971. Kerry has maintained for years that he tossed ribbons, not his Silver Star and Bronze Star or three Purple Hearts, along with medals of two veterans who could not attend the protest rally.
ABC's "Good Morning America," however, on Monday aired a 1971 interview with Kerry in which he talks of throwing as many as nine medals.
On Tuesday, Bush basked in the applause of veterans and service members in uniforms who were rounded up to attend remarks he made about medical technology at the Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The flags of the United States and the Department of Veterans Affairs hung on stage. At least 13 of the audience members wore American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars caps.
William Reisz, a physician's assistant at the hospital who is a lieutenant colonel in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, had his wife rush his crisp uniform to him when he was asked to participate. Robert S. Banker, president of the Maryland chapter of the Korean War Veterans Association, said a state veterans official contacted him at 5 p.m. Monday about coming.
Kerry spent his day talking jobs -- first in downtown Youngstown, Ohio, where more businesses were closed down than are still open for business, and later in Cleveland, where thousands of jobs have been lost in recent years.
In an election-year debate that could be called a tale of two economies, Kerry largely avoided positive economic indicators such as the stock market, housing prices and interest rates. He complained about job losses, calling Bush the "worst jobs president" since Herbert Hoover; soaring health care and education costs; and the growing number of Americans without health care.
"It's a crisis across the board," he told several hundred in Youngstown.
In Cleveland later Tuesday night, Kerry met privately with 2000 Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, who endorsed Howard Dean in this year's party primaries.
Allen reported from Baltimore.
-------- MILITARY
-------- africa
Mbeki Marks Decade of Democracy
AIDS Is Not Mentioned In South African's 2nd Inaugural Address
By Craig Timberg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46445-2004Apr27.html
PRETORIA, South Africa, April 27 -- Newly inaugurated President Thabo Mbeki promised Tuesday to devote his second five-year term to tackling the widespread poverty and joblessness that have become South Africa's most pervasive problems since apartheid ended 10 years ago.
On this day of national celebration, Mbeki took the oath of office, then delivered a sober, 17-minute speech with few specifics about how he would get the economy to produce enough work for the 40 percent of South African adults not fully employed. He made no mention of AIDS or HIV, which infects an estimated 5 million South Africans, more people than in any other country.
Instead, he heralded the end of the "ugly and repulsive" system of apartheid and the peace and stability that the ruling African National Congress has delivered since coming to power through the first multiracial elections here on April 27, 1994.
"Today we begin our second decade of democracy. We are convinced that what has been achieved during the first demonstrates that as Africans, we can and will solve our problems," he told the crowd of hundreds of invited guests at the stately Union Building and thousands of others gathered on the lawn below. "We are equally certain that Africa will record new advances as she pursues the goal of a better life for all. She will do what she can to encourage a more equitable and humane new world order."
Mbeki's African National Congress won reelection two weeks ago with 70 percent of the national vote, its highest percentage in three consecutive landslides. It also gained control of all nine provinces.
The inauguration was formal and sedate, save for the occasionally raucous greetings for arriving dignitaries and the roar of jet engines overhead. During an elaborate air show, a fighter jet decorated as the South African flag and a formation of three South African Airways jumbo jets made low passes over the crowd.
The reaction seemed nearly as loud for the arrival of former president Nelson Mandela, 85, who needed help walking to his seat. He and his wife, Graca Machel, smiled and waved to the crowd, which burst spontaneously into the liberation song "Nelson Mandela." Only his former wife, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, stayed seated during an ovation that lasted several minutes.
Also receiving spirited cheers was President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, whose crackdown on political opponents, crumbling economic policy and forced land seizures have made him a pariah in much of the world.
The inaugural was followed by a rollicking party on the lawn, at which Mbeki made a brief appearance to wave to the crowd. Afterward, thousands celebrated a decade of freedom as they shook their hips and stomped their feet to a succession of musical artists ranging from the traditional to the contemporary.
Out in the crowd, Sunnyboy Msigasa, 36, had a South African flag painted on one cheek, the colors of the ANC -- black, green and yellow -- on the other and "10 YRS" written across his forehead.
"Today we are happy. We have won the vote," said Msigasa, who runs a tavern outside of Johannesburg. "Here we are, multiracial," he added, noting the mixed complexion of the crowd. "It's nice. Its love."
-------- biological weapons
Bush Issues Directive to Bolster Defense Against Bioterrorism
April 28, 2004
By JUDITH MILLER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/politics/28BIO.html
WASHINGTON, April 27 - President Bush has approved a series of initiatives intended to enhance the nation's defenses against a catastrophic biological weapons attack, senior administration officials said Tuesday. The steps include creation of a common surveillance system to collect and analyze information about bioterrorist threats.
The plan, detailed in a secret directive signed by Mr. Bush last Wednesday, also calls for the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a national risk assessment every two years on new biological threats, like those posed by genetically modified agents that may not respond to vaccines or antibiotics.
In addition, the department is to perform a biological "net assessment" every four years, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing biodefenses and to remedy vulnerabilities.
The directive results from a 10-month review of the government's response to the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax attacks that followed. Among other things, it aims to improve coordination among the dozens of offices and agencies that worked unevenly together during and after the anthrax attacks.
The plan does not provide any money beyond the roughly $6 billion that the administration already spends annually on biodefense, a sum that is itself a vast increase over what was spent before 9/11. But it directs the Department of Homeland Security to allocate $11 million to begin planning a National Biosurveillance Group, which will create the single place where all relevant information about potential biological threats against the nation will be assessed.
A declassified version of the administration's plan, called "Biodefense for the 21st Century," is to be outlined at a news briefing on Wednesday by Tom Ridge, secretary of homeland security; Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services; and Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense.
Of the 20 pages in the directive, 11 will be made public at that briefing, and administration officials provided a copy of them in discussing the plan Tuesday.
Several people outside the administration who were asked for reaction said they were hesitant to comment without seeing the plan. One was Tara O'Toole, an assistant energy secretary in the Clinton administration who is now chief executive of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. But Dr. O'Toole did say she would be "disappointed if there was not a very strong emphasis on the urgent need to improve capacity to respond to epidemics."
In particular, she added, "the government needs to engage hospitals in responding to sudden floods of very sick people."
Jerome M. Hauer, a former assistant health secretary for public health emergency preparedness, who was in office when the review was under way, called the effort critical to the nation's defense against bioterrorism. He singled out the center for the integration of all threat information as particularly crucial.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "has failed miserably in trying to develop a common surveillance system," he said. "There's a hodgepodge of surveillance systems around the country, and none of them is the same. Every contractor is out there trying to sell a different model for surveillance."
At the C.D.C., Joseph Henderson, associate director for terrorism preparedness and emergency response, said his agency endorsed the new effort. "We've been working diligently since 1999 in building a better global surveillance system, and since Sept. 11 to detect epidemics domestically," he said. "But there's always room for improvement."
Under the president's directive, assessments resulting from the Homeland Security Department's new analytical system will be provided to the Departments of Defense, Agriculture and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; the disease control centers; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the numerous other agencies responsible for preventing or responding to bioterrorism. The administration will also "expand international efforts to keep dangerous biological material out of the hands of terrorists," the action plan states.
To that end, a senior official said, the administration is sponsoring a resolution in the United Nations Security Council that would criminalize illicit trade in material used to make biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, and that would direct states to adopt stricter export controls on such material and related equipment. The Security Council is expected to consider the resolution as early as Wednesday, an administration official said.
--------
Army Scientists Eye New Smallpox Vaccine
April 28, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Smallpox-Vaccine.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Military scientists have created a gene-based vaccine against smallpox that shows promise in early animal tests.
Today's smallpox vaccine, called Dryvax, is made from live vaccinia virus, a relative of smallpox. It provides good protection but can cause some serious side effects. A milder strain, called MVA, is under study to see if it provides the same protection with fewer side effects.
A vaccine that used just parts of vaccinia instead of the live virus itself might prove even safer. Now, scientists at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases have created a candidate -- dubbed ``4pox'' because it contains four vaccinia genes -- that is the first shown capable of protecting monkeys from a smallpox-like disease.
In a study published in the May issue of the Journal of Virology, USAMRIID scientist Jay W. Hooper and colleagues compared vaccines in a handful of rhesus monkeys: three vaccinated with 4pox, two with today's standard Dryvax, three with a completely unrelated vaccine, and two with a smallpox DNA vaccine containing a single gene.
Then, they gave the monkeys a lethal intravenous dose of monkeypox, a smallpox relative.
The 4pox wasn't perfect, but it did protect against severe infection -- those three monkeys experienced very mild to moderate symptoms, the scientists report.
Monkeys given today's Dryvax were completely protected.
Monkeys who got the unrelated vaccine died within two weeks.
And monkeys given the one-gene vaccine suffered severe disease but survived, suggesting a stepwise protective effect.
-------- business
GAO Cites Cost Risks in Undefined Iraq Contracts
By Mary Pat Flaherty and Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48135-2004Apr27.html
The U.S. Army has yet to reach a final agreement on price or the exact work to be done under nearly $1.8 billion worth of contracts for Iraq reconstruction projects that are already underway, a situation that exposes the government to cost risks and reduces the chance for savings, according to a draft report by the General Accounting Office.
The work encompasses oil fields, the electrical grid, training for the Iraqi army and support for the occupying authority, the draft report states.
GAO auditors also found several instances in which Defense Department contracting officers "overstepped" their authority and ordered millions of dollars of no-bid reconstruction work that appears unrelated to the contracts, according to a copy of the draft obtained by The Washington Post.
The draft cites problems with oversight, including on work done as part of a $24 million contract in which some experts hired to advise occupying authority officials and Iraqi ministries failed to report for duty, did not do the work as expected or had stopped working.
The draft concludes that federal agencies "generally complied" with the laws and regulations governing no-bid or limited-bid contracts -- an issue that has drawn congressional attention. But the GAO reviewers do note shortcomings in the tasks ordered under various existing contracts.
The GAO review covers nearly $3.7 billion worth of private contracting work committed to as of last September -- a sliver of the $20 billion that Congress has appropriated for rebuilding since April 2003. The auditors attribute some failures to pressures to start reconstruction quickly in a hostile and shifting setting. The report says that both the military and contracting staff were short-handed and were working 15-hour shifts.
The report says that some challenges have been overcome, but that staffing and security remain "major concerns" that could ultimately affect reconstruction efforts.
GAO spokesman Jeff Nelligan said yesterday that his office will discuss only the final report, which is set to be released in May and could include changes after the various agencies have a chance to comment on the draft. Spokeswoman Lt. Col. Diane Battaglia said the Army does not usually comment on drafts, a position echoed by Lt. Col. Joseph M. Yoswa, a Pentagon spokesman for the occupying authority.
Among other shortcomings cited by the GAO is a $1.9 million no-bid deal with KBR made in November 2002 -- four months before the war in Iraq -- to develop a contingency plan to repair Iraq's oil pipelines. Work done by KBR -- formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root -- has been a flashpoint on Capitol Hill during several hearings on the reconstruction efforts. KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., which Vice President Cheney headed between 1995 and 2000.
The contingency plan was ordered under a preexisting super-contract that KBR has to supply support services to the U.S. military worldwide. But the GAO auditors say that umbrella contract -- which was competitively bid -- would not have covered the no-bid contingency plan award.
KBR's work on the contingency plan, in turn, positioned it to win a subsequent no-bid contract from the Army Corps of Engineers in March 2003 to control oil fires and do emergency pipeline repairs in Iraq, the GAO report says. The company has been given $2.5 billion in work under that contract as of last month -- paid for mainly with Iraqi funds.
Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said fighting the oil fires is part of its expected work for the Pentagon in the event of war. "We were selected for this work because of our unique combination of business experience in defense contracting, engineering and construction and oilfield services," she said.
The draft GAO report does not address allegations now under criminal investigation that KBR overcharged the U.S. government for meals that were never served to troops and for fuel from Kuwait that was purchased at excessive cost.
The GAO criticizes two contracts awarded to Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) of San Diego: The $24 million contract for expert advisers -- which has drawn criticism from the Pentagon's inspector general -- and an $82 million contract to establish a media network for Iraq.
Under the media contract, the draft states, SAIC bought about $7 million in unauthorized equipment and services, including an H-2 Hummer and a pickup truck. The work was done "in compliance with the direction of government officials," said Ron Zollars, an SAIC spokesman.
He added that previous criticisms of the contract were "baseless or taken out of context."
A spokeswoman for Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) -- a critic of no-bid Iraq contracts, particularly those awarded to Halliburton -- declined to comment yesterday.
David Marin, a spokesman for Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who held the first hearing to review Iraq contracting, said Davis will not comment on the specifics of the draft, but he said it is his understanding "that GAO will paint a predictable good-news, bad-news picture. . . . At the end of the day, Davis anticipates this report supporting what he's been saying all along. That procurement in a war zone, where lives are literally at stake, is a tremendously complex matter prone to mistakes."
Marin added: "As things improve on the ground in Iraq, we'll see fewer and fewer sloppy acquisitions -- and less reliance on emergency procedures."
----
Report: No-bid contracts in Iraq appear to be legal
April 28, 2004
Indianapolis Star
http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/141940-5876-010.html
Washington -- U.S. officials met legal guidelines in awarding billions of dollars in new contracts for Iraq's reconstruction to a Halliburton subsidiary and other companies without seeking competitive bids, congressional investigators say in a draft report.
But the government often appeared to go beyond the rules when it ordered new work under older, existing contracts, the General Accounting Office said in its review of 25 reconstruction contracts. The contracts represented almost all of the $3.7 billion committed for reconstruction through September.
The draft report, which has been submitted to federal agencies for comment and to Congress, was obtained by The Associated Press.
Study faults allocation of homeland security aid
Washington -- Millions of dollars in federal homeland security aid have gone to communities that don't need it, and billions more of the funds remain unspent, according to a congressional study released Tuesday.
The report affirms complaints of New York officials who say they've been shortchanged in homeland security grants and will fuel their push to require that the federal government give a greater share of funds to high-risk areas.
Analyzing $6.3 billion in federal grants approved since April 2003 for emergency responders, the report criticizes both the federal government and states for distributing the money in a way that guarantees significant sums to every state and community regardless of their vulnerability.
----
Probe of Boeing, Documents Expanded
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page E01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47768-2004Apr27?language=printer
A criminal investigation into whether Boeing Co. used stolen Lockheed Martin Corp. documents to win an Air Force contract has grown to include an examination of NASA contract competitions, sources close to the inquiry said yesterday.
Matthew L. Jew, a former Boeing employee who quit in April, has told investigators under a grant of immunity that Lockheed data were used in several Air Force and NASA competitions, according to a government source who declined to be named because of the sensitive nature of the investigation. Also, Boeing contends that it fired one of Jew's co-workers, Richard Hora, because he possessed proprietary Lockheed documents.
The investigation by the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles began last year after Boeing said several employees had thousands of pages of Lockheed documents related to a rocket launch competition. Two former Boeing employees have been indicted in that case, and the Air Force penalized the company $1 billion.
The widening investigation was reported by the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.
The news comes as Chicago-based Boeing struggles to regain the Pentagon's confidence. Boeing's space business is suspended from competing for new contracts as a result of the rocket-launch case, and last week, in an unrelated case, a former senior executive pleaded guilty to conspiracy for accepting a job with the company while still working for the Air Force and negotiating a major contract with Boeing. The ethical breaches helped prompt the resignation of Boeing chief executive Philip M. Condit.
The new revelations could also boost a Lockheed lawsuit against Boeing related to the original Air Force rocket-launch competition.
An Air Force spokeswoman, Angela Billings, declined to comment on the investigation but said a suspension of Boeing's space business would remain until the "the Air Force is confident Boeing is performing responsibly, and procedures have been put in place to ensure they continue to do so in the future." Spokesmen for NASA and Lockheed Martin declined to comment.
"We're working with our customers to try to restore their faith and confidence in the integrity of this company," said Daniel Beck, a Boeing spokesman. There is no evidence Boeing won contested contracts by using proprietary Lockheed documents, he said.
Hora, a former Lockheed employee, was hired by Boeing in July 2001 to generate "competitive assessments" for the company's space business. In September 2001, Hora suggested changes to a cost estimate Jew had generated for a proposed Lockheed rocket, according to a Boeing letter obtained by The Washington Post. Jew adopted some of the suggested changes and revised the cost analysis, the letter said.
In February 2002, Hora distributed a cost analysis to several Boeing employees, saying, "I have a unique insight into" the rocket's costs, according to an e-mail attached to the letter. Hora said he had spent several years working on the Lockheed rocket program, the e-mail said.
Hora also possessed Lockheed proprietary documents from January 2002, even though he began working at Boeing in 2001, according to a Boeing document.
A Boeing ethics officer was alerted to Hora's cost analysis, which seemed to include nonpublic Lockheed information, and began an investigation, Beck said. Hora was fired in December 2003. It is unclear how much Lockheed data Hora had in his possession, but Boeing documents say they were kept at his office and home.
Messages left for Jew and Hora were not returned. Hora has filed a wrongful termination suit against Boeing.
The issue came to the forefront in April when Jew quit at Boeing and was granted immunity by the U.S. attorney's office. It is unclear whether Jew named Hora as the source of the Lockheed data.
During Boeing's internal investigation of the original Air Force allegation, Jew had said he was unaware of any nonpublic Lockheed information, Beck said. "He signed a statement saying that he was being truthful and did not talk about being in possession of any of this [nonpublic] information," Beck said.
Boeing identified three competitions that may have been affected by Hora's work: the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter; Pluto Kuiper, a planetary exploration mission; and a bundle of 19 rocket launches. Lockheed won the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Pluto Kuiper competitions, and Boeing was awarded the $1.2 billion rocket launch contract without a competition, the document said.
But Lockheed has questioned whether future rocket launch competitions can be done fairly and if other programs have been affected.
Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.
--------
Jets, IT Drive Lockheed Gains
Fighter Planes Boost Aeronautics Unit Revenue 38 Percent
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page E03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48146-2004Apr27.html
Lockheed Martin Corp. reported a 16 percent jump in first-quarter profit yesterday as demand for fighter aircraft and information technology continued to boost sales.
The Bethesda defense contractor reported net income of $291 million (65 cents a share), compared with $250 million (55 cents) in the same period last year. Revenue increased 18 percent, to $8.3 billion, from $7.1 billion.
Lockheed, the Pentagon's largest contractor, also raised the upper end of its forecast for 2004 revenue to $34.8 billion from its previous estimate of $34.5 billion. The forecast does not include the delayed $2.2 billion acquisition of Titan Corp.; Titan is under investigation by the Justice Department.
"I'm trying to think back to a quarter as strong as this, and I am having a hard time," said Christopher E. Kubasik, Lockheed's chief financial officer. "It was a solid quarter."
Lockheed's shares closed at $46.88 yesterday, up 38 cents.
Fighter aircraft continued to be the company's largest and fastest-growing business. The aeronautics unit reported $2.9 billion in revenue, a 38 percent increase from $2.1 billion. The results were boosted by the development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the delivery of 15 F-16s to foreign customers. In the same quarter last year, Lockheed delivered three F-16s.
Lockheed's newest unit, Integrated Systems and Solutions, reported a 17 percent increase in revenue to $907 million compared with $772 million. The unit, which was established last year to use technology from the company's different areas for integrated proposals, said demand for "intelligence, defense and information assurance activities" boosted results. The results "validate for us that setting up the [IS&S] as a separate unit is paying off," Kubasik said.
Lockheed's information and technology services unit reported $852 million in revenue, a 24 percent increase from $687 million. The unit's results were boosted by last year's acquisition of the federal information technology unit of Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services Inc. The ACS business has been fully integrated, and "we're seeing them contribute to our growth," Kubasik said.
Lockheed reported a $150 million non-cash expense in the quarter related to its pension plan, up from $72 million.
-------- canada
Canadians Allow Islamic Courts To Decide Disputes
Sharia Gains Foothold in Ontario
By DeNeen L. Brown
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47735-2004Apr27?language=printer
TORONTO -- Suad Almad, her head wrapped in a blue silk scarf, was discussing her beliefs with a group of friends. She said fervently that she thought the lives of all Muslims should be governed by Islamic law, known as sharia.
"It's something nobody can change and we must follow," said Almad, who came to Canada from Somalia, then engulfed by war, more than 12 years ago. "We come to Canada and we become lost . . . We need our own court and we need our own law," she said, her voice strong and certain. "That's what I believe."
Almad and thousands of other Muslims, taking advantage of a provision of the law in the province of Ontario, can now decide some civil disputes under sharia, including family disagreements and inheritance, business and divorce issues, using tribunals that include imams, Muslim elders and lawyers. While it is less than full implementation of sharia, local leaders consider it a significant step.
Muslim promoters of sharia arbitration said that no cases had been decided but that the process is set. Islamic leaders created an Islamic Court of Civil Justice last fall and that organization, in turn, has chosen arbitrators, who have undergone training in sharia and Canadian civil law, according to organizers and participants.
Sharia is based on the Koran, which includes the teachings of Islam and revelations by the prophet Muhammad. According to Muslim beliefs, the Koran provides the divine rules for behavior, including rules about marriage, business and inheritance. Muslims must abstain from stealing, lying, killing, adultery and drinking alcohol.
Some Muslim leaders in Canada said that there should be no controversy about the new arbitration process, but some opponents expressed concern that people might feel coerced into accepting sharia-based arbitration. Government officials said that the decision to submit to such a process was subject to mutual consent.
A 1991 Ontario arbitration law permits such arbitration according to religious principles, just as rabbis in Jewish communities and priests in Christian communities help to resolve civil disputes, said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario attorney general.
"People can agree to resolve disputes any way acceptable," Crawley said in an interview. "If they decide to resolve disputes using principles of sharia and using an imam as an arbitrator, that is perfectly acceptable under the arbitration act."
Crawley said the arbitration act establishes a number of safeguards, including the requirement that parties enter into arbitration only on a voluntary basis. Any decisions by arbitrators are subject to court ratification.
Canadian officials said that no criminal matters would be considered by sharia arbitrators and no corporal punishment could be imposed. Crawley said that legal provisions in other provinces also permit such tribunals.
Jewish courts, using the same methods, have been operating in Ontario for years. Such a court, called a Beit Din, deals with monetary, business and family disputes, but no criminal matters. "Jewish courts have been operating in Toronto for as long as Jews have been here, hundreds of years," said Rabbi Reuven Tradburks, secretary of the Beit Din of Toronto. He said he had not heard of cases decided by arbitrators in Jewish courts that had been overturned.
"A court will not enforce a decision in violation of the Charter of Rights," Crawley said, referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the nation's constitution. He also said there were limits to arbitrators' powers. They cannot, for example, rule on matters regarding third parties. "The rights of children cannot be arbitrated," he said.
Supporters say the tribunals in Canada will make official a process that is already happening informally among Canada's estimated 600,000 Muslims. But critics said they feared that recognizing the tribunals could lead to discrimination, and particular concerns were raised about the rights of Muslim women.
Alia Hogben, a board member of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said she opposes the religious tribunals. "It is difficult to speak up because we don't want to feed into anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic stuff that is developing now," she said. "We are religious Muslim women. We don't want to come across as anti-Muslim. On the other hand, we cannot be quiet about something that worries us."
Although advocates of the sharia process stressed that participation in the tribunal process would be voluntary, some critics expressed concern that many Muslims would be labeled disobedient if they refused participation in such sharia-based arbitrations.
"If I am a woman of faith, and the community of people who see themselves as leaders say that if I do not follow the sharia court here, the Islamic Institute, then I will be tantamount to blasphemy and apostasy," Hogben said in a debate shown on Canadian television. "And you know that in some countries, apostasy means death sentence."
Homa Hoodfar, a professor of anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, complained that there was little public discussion before the tribunals were created. "This vague idea of sharia court is what bugs me," Hoodfar said. "Because having worked on sharia law and family law in the Middle East, I know there is no one set [of laws]. Which country will they use as a basis? They don't answer. But also, the Canadian government does not question. They think sharia law is written in the Koran. But sharia is the interpretation of the law and practices."
Hoodfar said she was concerned that recent female immigrants could be forced into participating in tribunals and possibly victimized because they don't speak English or are not aware of their legal rights. "It won't affect my life or educated women who know their rights," Hoodfar said. "It will affect the rights of women who are new and need protection. They are much more subject to community pressure.
"I just feel this is completely 'black box' and nobody knows what is in it, and yet the government is giving the go-ahead for it. They didn't consult the Muslim community. They didn't put out a discussion. Nobody knows what it is."
Syed Mumtaz Ali , the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, began circulating the idea for the court two years ago. In a statement on his organization's Web site, he said that the tribunals would allow Muslims to practice freedom of religion. "Muslim minorities living in non-Muslim countries like Canada are like wandering Bedouins," he wrote. "Although they are free to live according to the Divine Law to practice their faith unhindered in their homes" and mosques, he said, "they have practically no say in the making of the laws of the land and governmental institutions do not cater to their needs."
Ali said the creation of the Islamic Court of Civil Justice would allow this "without violating any Canadian Law." Ali told the Canadian Law Times that sharia tribunals were important for practicing Muslims in Canada. He said that Muslims would no longer have an excuse not to follow sharia because it would no longer be impractical in Canada.
"The concession given by sharia is no longer available to us because the impracticality has been removed," Ali said. He has written that Muslims who choose not to be governed by sharia "for reasons of convenience would be guilty of a far greater crime." Ali said in a telephone interview that no tribunal cases have been heard yet. He would not elaborate.
"There has been a lot of fear and skepticism about it with regards to women's rights," said Ayesha Adam, a mediator in Toronto. "Islamic belief does not allow women to be treated badly," she said. "Islamic law is based on equality, fairness and justice. I don't see how people just take out something from a particular part of the Koran and not look at it holistically. There are certain things that can't be dealt with here. Criminal code is one thing, so it doesn't apply."
Adam said that Muslim women are among those being trained as arbitrators, and their presence should ease the concern that women might not be treated fairly.
Almad and the other members of the Somalia Women's Organization in Toronto said they preferred to live by laws based on their religious beliefs. "No stealing, no drugs, no sex without marriage. No pork. This is our law," said Hamida Ainshe, another of the Somali women. "A man may take a second or third wife if he is able to support them financially. Yes, there is jealousy, but it is allowed under sharia."
The women said they did not know much about the tribunal and had not heard any information about how it would be run, but said they still welcomed it. "We are Somali and we are Muslim. When we go to court, the judge understands the secular system, but doesn't understand sharia law," she said. "If we have a court that understands our Islamic beliefs, it is good."
"This is what we believe," Almad said. "If you cannot do what you believe, you become a flower."
-------- china
China Bristles at Criticism of Hong Kong Restrictions
April 28, 2004
By KEITH BRADSHER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/international/asia/28hong-long.html
HONG KONG, April 27 - China's foreign minister responded angrily on Tuesday to American and British criticisms of its latest restrictions on democracy here, accusing both countries of holding China to a double standard after ignoring the lack of democracy in Hong Kong during more than a century of British rule.
The strong reaction was the latest sign of a growing assertiveness in China's foreign policy, as Beijing has sought to position itself as rising a diplomatic power in Asia with influence to match its increasing economic might. Historians and politicians here noted that there was some truth to Beijing's complaint of a double standard, with Britain and the United States showing little interest in democracy here except in the 1940's, when Hong Kong was under Japanese occupation, and again in the 1990's, with the British colony's transfer to Chinese rule.
"Do you think Hong Kong was democratic under British rule?" Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing asked reporters in Shanghai on Tuesday. "Did the British raise concerns about that? Did the Americans raise concerns? No. Why don't you take a look at this double standard?"
Mr. Li joined other Chinese officials in also saying that the running of Hong Kong was an internal concern of China. "Are you clear on that?" he asked. "Hong Kong is China's Hong Kong."
At a news conference in Beijing Tuesday, Kong Quan, the spokesman for China's foreign ministry, denounced what he described as foreign interference in China's internal affairs. He pointed out that while London used to appoint Hong Kong's governors, China had allowed a committee of prominent local residents to choose the territory's chief executive, subject to Beijing's approval.
The committee, which currently has 800 members, is dominated by business executives with large investments on the mainland, and they tend to follow Beijing's wishes. Tung Chee-hwa, the Beijing-backed chief executive ever since Britain transferred Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1997, ran unopposed in 2002 for a second five-year term.
Spokeswomen at the American and British consulates here declined to comment on Tuesday on the criticisms from the Chinese foreign ministry.
On Monday, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, China's Communist Party-controlled parliament, barred Hong Kong from holding popular elections for the chief executive in 2007 or for more than half of the seats in the legislature in 2008.
In response, Bill Rammell, the British foreign office minister, called in the Chinese ambassador to London to protest the erosion of the "high degree of autonomy" Beijing had pledged to allow in Hong Kong before it reverted to Chinese rule in 1997. In Washington, State Department and White House spokesmen also criticized the decision, as did the American consul general here, Jim Keith.
"The United States believes that the Hong Kong people's aspirations should be given priority in determining the pace and the scope of democratization in Hong Kong," said Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman.
Martin Lee, the founding chairman of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, said on Tuesday that the British had introduced very little democracy until the final years of their rule. Direct elections for the Legislative Council only began in 1991, with 18 of the 60 seats chosen by the public.
That proportion has gradually increased and will reach 30 directly elected seats in elections to be held in September. On Monday, the National People's Congress capped this ratio at half the seats, while the rest will continue to be elected by representatives of so-called functional constituencies, like insurance and local chambers of commerce, that tend to be dominated by pro-Beijing executives.
Mr. Lee said that he was nonetheless disappointed that Beijing had resorted to such a blunt declaration on Monday that it would not permit greater democracy here. Beijing could have simply asked Mr. Tung, the chief executive, not to introduce any bills containing electoral reforms to the legislature.
"They are really telling the world they don't care what they think, they want to rule from Beijing," Mr. Lee said.
Philip Snow, a leading historian of Hong Kong, said that the United States had shown little interest in Hong Kong until World War II, when it put pressure on the British to return most of the territory to China's Nationalist government.
Only two members of the 13-member Urban Council were elected before the war, and only people who were completely fluent in English were allowed to vote, which excluded most of the local population. The council had little power in any case, with the governor making all important decisions in consultation with London.
Under American pressure, Britain did begin making plans in mid-1943 to allow more popular rule here. By then, however, Japanese troops had already taken Hong Kong, controlling the territory from 1941 until 1945.
Sir Mark Young, the British governor who came to Hong Kong soon after the Japanese surrender, put forward a detailed plan for a municipal council with two-thirds of its members elected by the general public. But interest in the plan faded after his retirement in 1947, while American officials stopped voicing support for democracy here after 1949, in response to the Communist takeover in mainland China.
The plan was finally scuttled in the early 1950's, to a considerable extent because of the opposition of British and Chinese tycoons alike, who feared that greater democracy would lead to higher social spending and taxes.
Local business leaders have raised the same objections in recent months to popular elections, siding with Beijing against the large majority of Hong Kong's people, who polls show, favor direct elections. As in the 1940's, prominent executives have warned that elections could lead to the establishment of a welfare state.
"The elite of the society, then as I suppose now, were dead against democratization," Mr. Snow said.
--------
Taiwan Casts U.S. as China Intermediary
April 28, 2004
By JOSEPH KAHN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/international/asia/28taiw.html
BEIJING, April 27 - President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan is pressing the Bush administration to approve his plans to change the island's Constitution, casting the United States as an intermediary in the most delicate issue dividing China and Taiwan, Taiwanese officials said Tuesday. While Bush administration officials say they do not want to get deeply involved in brokering relations between China and Taiwan, the overture shows how instrumental American mediation has become in preventing tense relations across the Taiwan Strait from deteriorating into armed conflict.
Mr. Chen sent Chiou I-Jen, the secretary general of the presidential office, to Washington this week to outline changes he plans to make to the Constitution during his second term in office, the officials said. If Taiwan gets the blessing it seeks, Mr. Chen may make constitutional change a centerpiece of his inaugural address on May 20, they said.
The effort puts the Bush administration in a delicate position. It is focused on pacifying Iraq and fighting terrorism, and is relying on Chinese help to defuse the North Korean nuclear crisis. American officials have been pressuring Mr. Chen to refrain from provoking China since he narrowly won re-election in March.
Yet Taiwan's supporters in Congress and some neoconservative thinkers in Washington are also urging the administration to offer greater support to the island, which they view as a democracy under threat from China's Communist Party-controlled military.
In the shrouds of doctrine that set the terms of the relationship between the United States, China and Taiwan, China views changing Taiwan's Constitution, drafted when Taiwan's Nationalist Party governed mainland China before 1949, as a cover for formalizing Taiwan's independence. China says it will fight to prevent that from happening.
Mr. Chen hopes to persuade the United States that his proposal for changing the Constitution will focus on the legal framework of Taiwan's central government and its legislature, which he argues must be overhauled because it is irrelevant and ineffective in present-day Taiwan.
But Taiwanese officials said Mr. Chen will pledge not to change Taiwan's official name, the Republic of China. He will also promise to keep the red-and-blue flag of the Republic of China and refrain from rewriting references to the territory Taiwan claims as its own. Those are among the most sensitive issues that China sees as symbolizing Taiwan's national status and maintaining its links to the mainland.
Mr. Chiou will present the scope of the constitutional reform plans and the assurances about the areas Mr. Chen vows to retain during his visit to Washington, the officials said on condition that they not be named.
"It is our desire to be very careful and not be provocative about this," said a senior aide to Mr. Chen in a telephone interview. "It is not something we will rush into until we have the full understanding and support of the U.S."
Mr. Chiou may also broach a plan by Mr. Chen to create a council on cross-strait development that could serve as a forum for dialogue between China and Taiwan, a response to repeated American appeals that the two sides begin talking to one another directly.
While Taiwanese officials present Mr. Chen's plans as conciliatory, Chinese analysts say they fear that any constitutional reform in Taiwan could easily lead to a direct challenge to the mainland. They say Mr. Chen has not lived up to pledges he has made in the past to improve ties with China.
Moreover, Mr. Chen is not expected to detail how he wants to overhaul the Constitution until after legislative elections in December.
Mr. Chen has made modernizing the Constitution the main goal of his second term. He says that his primary concern is fixing outdated clauses that hinder the functioning of government.
But opposition leaders say improving the document does not require the broad rewriting Mr. Chen favors. They say they fear that he mainly wants to redefine Taiwan's political status and its relations with the mainland.
President Bush said last December, with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China at his side, that he opposed any unilateral action by either Taiwan or China to "change the status quo" in cross-strait relations.
Bush administration officials have yet to declare whether they view constitutional changes as upsetting the status quo.
Although the administration maintains publicly that it has no intention of negotiating the details of the China-Taiwan relationship, a senior administration official acknowledged in a recent interview that it has little choice but to stay fully engaged at a time when tensions are high.
"I would not say that we have become an intermediary, but it is fair to say that we are fully seized with the issue," the senior official said. "We need to create an environment that is conducive to dialogue, which is not to say that everything will run through Washington."
Yet Taiwan, and even China, which long urged the United States to stay out of a matter it views as an internal affair, now see Washington as the key. Both have solicited the Bush administration's support for their positions and scrutinized nuances in statements by President Bush and top administration officials for signs of shifting sentiment.
-------- iran
UFO's in Iranian skies?
April 28, 2004
(UPI)
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040428-075121-3924r.htm
Tehran, , Apr. 28 -- Iranians are busy watching the night skies in search of unidentified flying objects, which have lit their air space for the past few nights, reports said.
The Iranian news agency, IRNA, said a beaming object was spotted twice over several Iranian cities in the past few days, including the western city of Kasr Shirin where people stormed the streets to watch the suspected UFO.
They said the body which appeared in the sky Tuesday night is circular and beaming white and blue lights. It was visible for 20 minutes and then disappeared, witnesses said.
The UFO was first spotted over the city of Kankaro, three days ago, but it was beaming violet, green, red and blue lights and stayed visible for an hour.
-------- iraq
64 Iraqis Killed in Clashes
U.S. Says Insurgents Near Najaf Fired First; Marines Strike Fallujah
By Sewell Chan and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46162-2004Apr27?language=printer
BAGHDAD, April 27 -- The U.S. military announced Tuesday that 64 Iraqis were killed on Monday during two clashes near the holy city of Najaf, one of the deadliest encounters of a three-week-old uprising in southern Iraq by Shiite Muslims loyal to the militant cleric Moqtada Sadr.
To the west of Baghdad, the besieged city of Fallujah was mostly quiet until nightfall, when at least one AC-130 Spectre gunship fired on the northern Jolan neighborhood, where a Marine was killed Monday.
Marine officials said their forces in the neighborhood were fired on at about 10 p.m., and the airstrike began half an hour later, sending the roar of 105mm cannon fire echoing across the city. Under the terms of a recent cease-fire in Fallujah, the Marines are permitted to return fire when attacked.
The military's top spokesman, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, said it could take six to eight weeks before U.S. and allied forces take full control of Fallujah, where four American security guards were killed on March 31, prompting a U.S. offensive.
Local leaders and U.S. officials announced Sunday that the Marines would conduct joint patrols with the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to root out insurgents in Fallujah, rather than storming the city. Kimmitt said that commanders did not believe the civil defense force was adequately trained to begin the patrols, but Marine officers in Fallujah said patrols would start Thursday.
Marine commanders are disappointed that local leaders in Fallujah "continue to fail to produce the weapons, fail to produce the fighters, fail to produce those responsible for the heinous acts inside Fallujah," Kimmitt said. Although an agreement reached Sunday calls for heavy weapons to be surrendered, no weapons were turned in Tuesday, he said.
In Baghdad, a soldier with the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division was killed and another soldier was slightly injured while on patrol in the eastern part of the city when they were hit by gunfire from the second floor of a building. Others in the patrol surrounded and searched the building and detained 12 Iraqis.
In another development, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, announced that he would create a commission to provide monetary compensation for those who were imprisoned or lost their jobs during the 35 years that the Baath Party ruled Iraq, which ended when President Saddam Hussein was ousted by the U.S.-led invasion a year ago.
The commission will be staffed and run by Iraqis and draw from a "substantial" start-up fund, said Daniel Senor, a spokesman for Bremer. The composition and structure of the commission and the source of the funding have yet to be decided, Senor said.
The announcement came just days after Bremer acknowledged that the occupation authority's program of removing former Baath Party members from jobs in the government, the military, the education system and other state-run institutions had been poorly run. Bremer said Friday that many officials who were purged in the past year but who did not actively support Hussein would be allowed to return to their jobs.
A delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross visited Hussein on Tuesday, the eve of his 67th birthday. The aid organization last visited the former president, who was captured by U.S. forces in December and is being held at an undisclosed location, in February and has been monitoring his treatment.
Monday's clashes near Najaf occurred as soldiers from the Army's 1st Armored Division, whose tour in Iraq has been extended for three months, moved into positions around the city, replacing Spanish forces that have been withdrawn from Iraq by Spain's new prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.
About 200 U.S. troops moved into a former Spanish military base on the outskirts of Najaf, according to news service reports.
Kimmitt said that news reports of Monday's clashes "mischaracterized" the battle as having occurred inside Najaf, which is sacred to Shiites because it contains the shrine of Imam Ali, the son-in-law of the prophet Muhammad.
The clashes occurred on the east side of the Euphrates River, across from Najaf and the adjacent town of Kufa, Kimmitt said. They began around 1 p.m. Monday, when a U.S. patrol was attacked by small-arms fire. Seven insurgents were killed in the ensuing fighting.
At 9:12 p.m., insurgents fired rocket-propelled grenades at an M1 Abrams tank. Half an hour later, commanders called in a helicopter to fire on a 14.5mm antiaircraft gun that insurgents were using, killing 57 people. Kimmitt said the Army believed the dead were members of Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army.
Although the military is seeking Sadr's arrest in connection with the killing of another Shiite cleric a year ago, commanders have avoided entering Najaf and Kufa for fear of igniting further opposition to the occupation, and Kimmitt emphasized that that policy was still in effect.
"No coalition forces have conducted operations either inside the Kufa area or inside the main town of Najaf," he said.
The special U.N. envoy for Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, told the Security Council in a briefing on proposals for Iraq's political transition that Najaf and Kufa were "among the holiest and most beloved cities for millions of Shia in Iraq and around the world. They're places for worship and not for military confrontation. We join the voices of many respected religious leaders and others in Iraq who have been appealing for respect for the rule of law and for an early, peaceful resolution of the crisis."
Several residents interviewed in Najaf said a group calling itself the Thul Fiqar Organization had distributed leaflets criticizing Sadr's militia and attacked one of its checkpoints over the weekend, killing one militiaman and wounding two others.
Kimmitt said that he had not heard of the organization but that the military had received "anecdotal evidence and anecdotal reports" about attacks on Sadr's group by rival militias.
He acknowledged that information about the situation in Najaf, which has been under the control of Sadr's militia for most of the month, was incomplete. "There will be a time when Najaf, like the rest of this country, is under the direct control of the Iraqi government, and when that time comes there will be a time to decide what happened inside that city when it was not under coalition control," Kimmitt said.
Kimmitt also defended the military's decision Monday to destroy part of a mosque in Fallujah that U.S. commanders said was being used to store weapons and fire on U.S. troops.
"The minaret is no longer standing but the entire remainder of the mosque area remains intact," Kimmitt said, showing aerial photographs of the mosque before and after the attack. After Fallujah is pacified, he said, "you will see the coalition forces participating in the process of rebuilding that minaret."
Chandrasekaran reported from Fallujah. Special correspondent Saad Sarhan in Najaf and staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.
--------
Iraqi Forces Get Crash Course for Patrols in Fallujah
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47652-2004Apr27?language=printer
FALLUJAH, Iraq, April 27 -- Four Iraqi policemen in bright blue shirts, shadowed by four U.S. Marines in full desert camouflage, swept behind an abandoned grain warehouse in a perfect diamond formation, their rifles trained at doors, windows and other likely places for insurgents to open fire.
"Keep your eyes and ears open!" shouted a young Iraqi working for the Marines as an interpreter. "Keep your weapons ready!"
But as the policemen entered a narrow alley in Fallujah's grimy industrial district, their shoes crunching on broken glass and gravel, their diamond collapsed into a lump. "Maintain good space," shouted Marine Lance Cpl. Clayton Schmidt. "You're going through a choke area."
Instead, the policemen clustered closer as they progressed through the alley. Exasperated, Gunnery Sgt. Tracy Reddish tried to cut through the language barrier with sound effects.
"One grenade -- boom! -- you'll all be dead," he told them.
With Marines saying they plan to start joint patrols with Iraqi policemen and civil defense troops in this volatile city on Thursday, the drill on Tuesday afternoon was part of a crash course to prepare the Iraqis for walking through neighborhoods rife with well-armed insurgents. The joint patrols, which are to enter parts of Fallujah not currently under Marine control, are part of a new U.S. effort to preserve a fragile cease-fire negotiated with civic leaders by pursuing insurgents with tactics short of a full-scale invasion.
Spokesmen for the U.S. military command in Iraq and the civilian occupation authority have expressed hope that the patrols will embolden Iraqi security forces to mount more aggressive operations against the insurgents. But Marines who are leading the training in Fallujah said the policemen and civil-defense troops needed extensive instruction before they could independently take on the resistance fighters, many of whom are armed with heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.
"They're fledgling. They're at a crawl phase," said Capt. James Edge of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. "They didn't come to us as well-trained soldiers to do the same type of operations we do."
As a consequence, the joint patrols scheduled to begin Thursday will be decidedly one-sided. There will be several times more Marines than Iraqis. The Marines will determine the patrol route and retain command of the mission. The Iraqis will be limited to carrying AK-47 assault rifles, while the Marines will have a full complement of weaponry -- from grenade launchers to artillery -- at their disposal.
"It will be a Marine patrol with an Iraqi face on it," Edge said. "The Marines are still in charge."
The subordination of the Iraqi forces will leave unanswered the question of whether they can handle security in the city on their own, as some local leaders and Iraqi politicians have urged. Marine officers said the Iraqis have enough experience to control the city during peacetime but not to take on the hundreds of insurgents that Marine officers estimate are hiding in Fallujah's labyrinthine neighborhoods.
Even so, Marine officers described the combined patrols as symbolically important. They said they wanted to send a message to the insurgents that Iraqi security forces, which melted away when the Marines mounted an intense offensive operation this month, have regrouped and will begin efforts to restore order in the city. And, Edge said, the cooperation is intended to show the policemen and civil defense troops that they will be backed up by Marine firepower.
"We want them to understand that we're not going to leave them hanging," said Edge, the 1st Battalion's deputy operations officer.
Edge has been leading a three-day training course for 12 policemen and 18 civil defense troops who will participate in the first joint patrol. Other Marine battalions in Fallujah also will conduct joint patrols on Thursday, Marine officers said.
Edge said he predicted that insurgents who have thus far defied calls to surrender weapons will likely fire at the patrol. "We'll be ready for them," he said. "We'll have a large component of Marines with us."
The training began on Monday in the grain warehouse, located in a swath of Fallujah's industrial zone that is controlled by the Marines. After being drilled in the basics of safe weapons handling and proper procedures for conducting patrols, the Iraqis spent Tuesday walking around the warehouse and its silos with their AK-47s at the ready.
Marine trainers had to rely on a young Iraqi interpreter to convey their instructions and exhortations. As the exercise involving the four police officers began, the interpreter sent them off with a warning: "You must do a very good job."
But seconds after the group started out, the Marines piped up with criticism. "Slow it down," said Reddish, the gunnery sergeant.
Lance Cpl. Schmidt warned Lt. Akil Hamid, the police officer forming the right corner of the diamond, to point his gun at the open windows to his right. When Hamid shot him a puzzled look, Schmidt pointed his M-16 rifle at the windows. Soon enough, Hamid followed suit.
"Search every area," the interpreter barked. "Don't move too fast."
The trainees carried weapons, but they had no ammunition. Because Marines in the area occasionally come under attack from snipers, they did not want the sound of gunfire to confuse their own front-line troops.
When the policemen finished the drill and assembled in front of the warehouse, Schmidt told them that they had performed well -- except for bunching up in the alley. "If somebody had thrown a grenade at the front man, it would have killed everybody," he said.
Abdullah Majid, the leader of the group, nodded in agreement. "Exactly," he said in Arabic.
At the end of the day, Sgt. Cameron Lefler told the 30 trainees that they were getting better by the day. "We're seeing a lot of improvement," he said. "But there's still much room for improvement."
"God willing," several of the Iraqis muttered.
As Lefler continued talking, the attention of several of the trainees drifted. Some slouched and looked away. A few whispered to each other.
Lefler implored the Iraqis to focus. "It's very important for every man to do his job properly so the leaders can focus on the threat and not correct you for safety violations," he said. "When you get lazy and complacent, that's when the enemy is going to strike."
Marine officers privately expressed worry that some Iraqis participating in the joint patrols may be subject to retribution attacks from the insurgents. But when it came time to ask questions, the trainees did not appear concerned about that. What they wanted to know was when they would get paid and how much extra they would receive for participating in the patrols, a query the Marines in attendance could not answer.
Several policemen and civil defense troops in Fallujah have said money -- their salaries range from $75 to $200 a month -- is the main reason they agreed to perform such dangerous jobs. But one of the civil defense leaders said he was motivated by a different purpose.
"We don't want to give an excuse to U.S. forces to stay in Fallujah," said Hamid, the police lieutenant. "We want to take Fallujah in our own hands."
--------
New Round of Fighting Erupts in Falluja Despite Cease-Fire
April 28, 2004
By JOHN F. BURNS and KIRK SEMPLE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/international/middleeast/28CND-IRAQ.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 28 - Fighting between United States Marines and Iraqi insurgents erupted today around a train station in a northwest neighborhood of Falluja, hours after clashes in the same area illuminated the night sky.
There was no immediate word of casualties in the latest round of fighting, which has persisted in spite of a cease-fire brokered by the American authorities and civic leaders in Falluja.
American officials asserted that they were only responding to attacks on their positions and were still hoping that diplomatic efforts would achieve a peaceful conclusion to the standoff, which began about three weeks ago.
Elsewhere, three soldiers with the American-led coalition died today and several were wounded, an American military spokesman said without specifying the soldiers' nationalities. One of the soldiers died of wounds sustained when a patrol near Tall Afar came under attack on Tuesday by insurgents firing rocket-propelled grenades, the spokesman, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, said at the daily coalition briefing in Baghdad. Three other soldiers were wounded in the attack, he said.
Two other soldiers died in As Sawara when their patrol was attacked by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, General Kimmitt said.
The spokesman also disclosed today that six military personnel whom he did not identify by name or nationality had been charged with criminal offenses in connection with accusations that detainees were abused at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. The investigation began in January, after a soldier gave pictures to his superiors appearing to show abusive treatment of detainees.
The fighting in Falluja today began when American troops tried to take the train station, which, they say, rebels were using as a staging ground for attacks, according to a CNN reporter accompanying the American forces.
The American troops met heavy resistance and called in attack helicopters, which pounded the station and surrounding buildings with machine-guns and rockets, the reporter said. Live television pictures on CNN showed thick clouds of black smoke billowing from the area, and tanks being mobilized.
"It is certainly the intention of the coalition forces that the cease-fire continues," General Kimmitt said. "What you're seeing today is a series of defensive responses. When we get shot at, we will respond. We will not sit there and take fire, even though there is a cease-fire ongoing."
He added: "We are letting the political track attempt to resolve the problem rather than the military track. The military solution is simple. The military solution will be quick. And the military solution is relatively easy to turn on and off."
The firefight came hours after marines and insurgents engaged in fierce overnight fighting in the same area, the Jolan district on Falluja's northwestern edge, using an AC-130 gunship, tanks and machine guns to blast rebel positions.
General Kimmitt explained today that American troops were pursuing insurgents who appeared to be preparing an attack on coalition positions. He said that rounds fired by aircraft had detonated what appeared to have been ordnance stockpiles within buildings where the rebels had taken cover, causing the huge explosions that illuminated the night sky.
Live television images on Al Jazeera satellite network last night showed the night sky aglow with smoke and flame, silhouetting a flickering backdrop of palm fronds and low-lying, sand-colored buildings. The fighting continued past midnight, punctuated by muzzle flashes, streaks of tracer fire and intermittent explosions, and a voice in a mosque somewhere in the darkness proclaiming the Muslim cry, "Allahu Akbar," or "God is Great."
Jolan is a district cited earlier by American commanders as a main bastion of a 2,000-man insurgent force. Jolan was also the scene on Monday of the battle that culminated with an American tank shell felling the minaret after insurgents used it for attacks that killed a marine.
The intensity of the fighting on Tuesday night appeared to rival any battle in the three-week siege, deepening concerns for the fragile peace plan brokered by American commanders and a group of civic leaders. Only hours before the fighting, Marine commanders at Falluja and American officials in Baghdad were suggesting that American strategy henceforth would center on patient negotiations and the promise of American money to rebuild Falluja.
Where that strategy lies now seems deeply uncertain, like much else about the wider American enterprise in Iraq. One certainty was that Al Jazeera gave its huge audience in Iraq a view of the nighttime battle that seemed likely to entrench the animosities that American troops now encounter almost everywhere in Iraq.
As its live coverage went out, the network's reporter in Falluja was replaced by a Sunni Muslim cleric speaking by telephone from Baghdad, 30 miles east, who described the American siege at Falluja as a "crusade" that had as its target the killing of ordinary Iraqis.
"They are killing children!" Abdul Sattar, the cleric, proclaimed in a shrill, impassioned voice. "They are trying to destroy everything!" At another point, he added: "The Americans will find only a quagmire in Iraq. The people can see through all the American promises and lies."
The outburst of fighting in Falluja came 24 hours after another nighttime battle between American forces and insurgents, this one on a highway just outside the twin cities of Kufa and Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, where a rebel Shiite cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, has hunkered down with his militia.
After insurgents firing rocket-propelled grenades attacked an American tank on Monday night, an AC-130 gunship spotted an antiaircraft gun hidden by a building beside the highway, the United States command said, and used its cannons to inflict the heaviest casualties in any battle with Mr. Sadr's men.
The American command said on Tuesday that it had counted 57 dead insurgents. To those, the command added seven other members of Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army who were killed in a separate firefight a few miles up the highway on Monday afternoon, after an American convoy was ambushed.
Combined with about 40 men taken to hospitals in Kufa and Najaf after the battles, the losses appeared to be a heavy blow to Mr. Sadr's fighting force. Iraqi reporters who have roamed freely around the two cities in recent days have put Mr. Sadr's fighting strength there as low as 400 to 500 men, and possibly lower.
American commanders have been eager to find ways of striking back at Mr. Sadr; he inflicted major casualties on American troops in the early stages of his three-week-old uprising in half a dozen Shiite strongholds in central and southern Iraq before bolting for cover in Najaf, a Shiite holy city.
Those casualties, and those at Falluja and in other recent fighting, including a soldier killed in a Baghdad firefight on Tuesday, have pushed American losses so far in April to 115 - the same as the total number of American soldiers killed in the invasion of Iraq last year.
Television on Tuesday showed the bodies of the militiamen being loaded into a truck in Najaf. Many bodies were dressed in the robes and checkered headdresses common to many Iraqi men. Their dress was another indication that the tide might be turning against Mr. Sadr.
Before the highway battle, reports from Najaf told of his fighters shedding their telltale black clothing after the city was littered with flyers from a hitherto unknown group, the Thulfiqar Army, threatening to kill Sadr militiamen if they failed to leave. Najaf residents said five militiamen were shot dead within 48 hours.
Senior American officers emphasized again that American troops remained outside both Kufa and Najaf, implicitly observing the "red line" that Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, had declared around Najaf.
Through his spokesmen, Mr. Sadr sought to stir up feelings among Shiites at the seemingly unlikely prospect of American troops coming after him inside one of the mosques where he is said by the American command to have stockpiled weapons and ammunition.
"The clashes are a provocation," Qaid al-Khazali, an aide to Mr. Sadr, told Al Arabiya satellite television, referring to the highway battles. But he added, as if wistfully: "But the red line has not yet been crossed. To enter Najaf means to pour scorn on the Muslim holy places, whether they are Sunni or Shiite. But we are ready, we are organized, and we are coordinated."
John F. Burns reported from Baghdad and Kirk Semple contributed reporting from New York for this article.
--------
DIPLOMACY
Ambassador Nominee Defends Limits on Iraq's Sovereignty
April 28, 2004
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/politics/28CONF.html
WASHINGTON, April 27 - President Bush's nominee for ambassador to Iraq on Tuesday defended the limits that would be placed on Iraqi self-rule, particularly those on control over security forces, asserting that after June 30 Iraqis will have "a lot more sovereignty than they have right now."
Facing skeptical questions from members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the new constraints emerging in the long-planned transfer of power, the nominee, John D. Negroponte, said he saw his major challenge as trying to avert conflicts if the new Iraqi government objected to American military actions. "These are the kinds of questions that I think our diplomacy is going to have to deal with," said Mr. Negroponte, who is now ambassador to the United Nations.
The toughest questions came from Democrats, but all the senators said they would support Mr. Negroponte's confirmation, which the committee could approve Thursday. Senate aides said Mr. Negroponte could be confirmed by the full Senate as early as next week.
Mr. Negroponte said any decisions on whether to attack rebel strongholds, as the United States is threatening now in Falluja and Najaf, would require "great political sensitivity" even though American commanders will nominally be in charge of such decisions.
His comment was praised as candid by Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is the committee's chairman, but other senators said they remained troubled that the terms of Iraq's future were still unclear. "If they have sovereignty, Mr. ambassador, what does that mean?" asked Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, mentioning the siege in Falluja. "I mean, do they have sovereignty or don't they have sovereignty on specific issues like that?"
Mr. Negroponte started to answer, saying there would have to be "a real dialogue" with military commanders, when a heckler began objecting to continuing American control and was escorted out.
Mr. Negroponte said the issue of authority over American and other foreign forces would almost certainly have to be addressed by the Security Council resolution sought by the United States and intended to confer legitimacy on the new government. As a practical matter, Mr. Negroponte said the government that would take control on June 30 could not be in charge of its own security because there were not enough Iraqi security forces. In addition, he said, its status as an unelected "caretaker government" should preclude its ability to make laws; that, he said, should be left until an elected government is installed next year.
Senator after senator praised Mr. Negroponte for his willingness to take on a tough assignment after a long career that began as a junior Foreign Service officer in Saigon during the Vietnam War, a posting many said might prepare him for Iraq.
Two Democrats, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Barbara Boxer of California, noted that they had disagreed with Mr. Negroponte when he was an ambassador in Honduras and deputy national security adviser because of the Reagan administration's policies of providing covert aid to anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua in the 1980's. But they said they would set aside those concerns out of personal respect for him.
Mr. Negroponte said it was unfair to say that Iraq's government would lack sovereignty. Rather, he said, it will simply be unable to exercise full sovereignty immediately.
Jon Corzine, a New Jersey Democrat, said he thought the sovereignty being conferred on Iraq was not what "normal human beings" would recognize as sovereignty. Mr. Negroponte said, however, that it made sense for long-term matters like signing oil contracts to be left to an elected government.
On a logistical level, Mr. Negroponte said a location for the United States Embassy had been found within the "green zone," the heavily guarded swath of Baghdad next to the Tigris River. State Department officials say the embassy would have about 1,000 American and 700 foreign employees, fewer than the total of 3,000 American and foreign employees that officials had predicted a few months ago.
--------
U.S. planes rock Fallujah
April 28, 2004
By Jayson Keyser
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040428-120940-8970r.htm
FALLUJAH, Iraq - U.S. warplanes and artillery attacked Sunni insurgents in a thunderous show of force that rocked Fallujah yesterday, sending huge plumes of smoke into the night sky. The assault on a slum area came after American troops reported killing 64 gunmen near the southern city of Najaf.
An American soldier was killed in Baghdad, raising the U.S. death toll for the month to 115 the same number lost during the major-combat phase of the war that toppled Saddam Hussein last year. Up to 1,200 Iraqis have been killed this month.
The second straight night of battles in Fallujah came as an extension of a fragile cease-fire ended. Marines have been preparing to begin patrols with Iraqi forces later this week in the turbulent city west of Baghdad.
The fighting yesterday appeared far heavier than the clashes during the previous night in which a Marine and eight insurgents were killed suggesting that U.S. forces were trying to wear down gunmen in the Jolan neighborhood, a district of alleyways and ramshackle houses.
An AC-130, a powerful gunship that can unleash a deluge of ordnance, joined 105mm howitzers in opening up on insurgent targets in the neighborhood. Gunfire and explosions reverberated for nearly two hours.
Fires were visible in the Jolan neighborhood, and mosque loudspeakers elsewhere in the city called for firefighters. U.S. aircraft dropped white leaflets over Fallujah before nightfall, calling on insurgents to give up.
"Surrender, you are surrounded," the leaflets said. "If you are a terrorist, beware, because your last day was yesterday. In order to spare your life, end your actions and surrender to coalition forces now. We are coming to arrest you."
Fighting also broke out in Baghdad and in the south, where U.S. forces are in a standoff with militiamen loyal to Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shi'ite cleric accused in the slaying of a fellow cleric.
U.S. forces killed 64 Iraqis on Monday and yesterday in battles with militiamen outside the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said.
The United States is trying to re-establish control of the country ahead of the installation of a new Iraqi government on June 30.
Two nights of battles in Fallujah have strained U.S. attempts to find a way to avoid a resumption of the full-fledged fighting that killed hundreds of Iraqis early this month. At least eight Marines have died in the fighting.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon yesterday that continuing negotiations in Fallujah was "worth the try."
"I think that realistically if you've got some very tough people in a city that are terrorists that you have to expect that they're not going to be terribly cooperative," he said. "Now, does that mean that something can't be worked out? No."
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon might send more tanks and armored vehicles to Iraq.
Commanders have indicated that they might ask for "heavier equipment to go in," Gen. Myers said. "I've not seen that request yet, so I don't know where it stands."
The Pentagon is sending additional armored Humvees to better protect forces from attack by homemade bombs or rocket-propelled grenades, Gen. Myers said.
Some of the bombs being used by the insurgents are built around 155 mm artillery shells that have been powerful enough to blow over U.S. tanks, he said.
South of Baghdad yesterday, U.S. troops battled al-Sadr loyalists on the east side of the Euphrates River, outside the cities of Najaf and Kufa.
The first fight occurred in the afternoon, when the militiamen fired on a U.S. patrol. This prompted a firefight in which seven insurgents were killed.
Hours later, an M1 tank was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades. A heavy battle erupted, during which warplanes destroyed an antiaircraft gun belonging to the militia and 57 gunmen were killed, Gen. Kimmitt said.
Najaf hospitals listed 37 dead, all young men of fighting age. Al-Sadr aides said civilians also died, but could not say how many.
Two-hundred U.S. troops have moved into a base in Najaf to replace Spanish troops and try to increase the pressure on Sheik al-Sadr. The Americans have said that they will avoid the Shi'ite holy shrines about three miles away in the heart of Najaf.
Fewer al-Sadr fighters were seen yesterday on the streets of Najaf and nearby Kufa, where they have been digging in during the past week against any U.S. attack.
About 2,000 U.S. troops are deployed outside Najaf, the holiest Shi'ite city in the country. Any action bringing harm to the Imam Ali shrine in the city could turn the limited al-Sadr revolt into a widespread uprising by the country's Shi'ite majority.
•Staff writer Bill Gertz in Washington contributed to this report.
-------- mideast
Syrian Capital Is Rocked By Blasts
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47734-2004Apr27.html
AMMAN, Jordan, April 27 -- Explosions and gunfire broke out in the diplomatic quarter of Damascus, the Syrian capital, Tuesday night in what officials described as a confrontation between security forces and a group of unidentified attackers.
Witnesses said more than a dozen blasts sounded soon after nightfall in the Mazza neighborhood of western Damascus, home to a number of embassies and a former U.N. building that might have been the prime target. Syrian security officials immediately sealed the area around the Canadian and Iranian embassies, as well as the residence of the British ambassador, where the clash involving grenades and rifle fire played out over most of an hour.
Witnesses in Damascus said a series of small explosions, followed by gunfire, broke out around 8:15 p.m. A number of buildings were peppered with bullets and grenade shrapnel, and Syrian officials told the state news agency that security forces responded quickly.
The state news agency, SANA, quoted an Interior Ministry official as saying two attackers were killed, along with a Syrian policeman and a female bystander.
Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, said soon after the attacks that "we are not clear who may have been targeted. It may have been one of the Western embassies, or maybe the perpetrators were unhappy with Syria's cooperation against al Qaeda. It could be part of the same wave of attempted terrorist attacks that were planned in Jordan. It is still too early to tell."
He later told the Associated Press that "unidentified terrorists" attacked a building that once housed the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force, which monitors a troop-separation agreement between Israel and Syria in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Smoke was said to have appeared over the neighborhood, apparently coming from a building that witnesses initially identified as one used by the United Nations. The U.N. Development Program and children's advocacy arm also maintain offices in the Mazza neighborhood, a U.N. spokeswoman in New York said.
"It is our understanding that a building formerly occupied by UNDOF, which is still known as a U.N. building, may have been hit," said Marie Okabe, the spokeswoman. "Our preliminary information is that all U.N. staff and facilities are safe and accounted for."
Syrian officials did not identify the attackers. Such violence is rare under an authoritarian government that the United States accuses of sponsoring terrorist organizations outside its borders.
[On Wednesday, Syria's state-run television reported that security forces had found a cache of arms and explosives in a raid in the Mazza district, according to the Reuters news agency. It showed footage of a room in which rocket-propelled grenades, gas cylinders and bags of yellow powder were stored and said the makeshift depot was used by the group that launched the attack.]
The fighting in the capital, usually highly controlled by Syrian domestic security agencies, came less than a week after Islamic militants bombed a police building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia's capital.
The late Syrian president, Hafez Assad, brutally put down the beginnings of an Islamic uprising in the late 1970s and early 1980s that threatened his secular government. His son, Bashar Assad, assumed the presidency after his father's death in 2000.
Most recently, the country's minority Kurdish population has called for greater autonomy. The government has responded with a wave of arrests of Kurdish leaders, according to Syrian and international human rights groups.
The clash also came a day after Jordanian officials gave new details of an alleged al Qaeda plot to carry out a chemical attack here. Jordan's security services announced this month that they had seized two trucks carrying explosives, which they said had been smuggled in from Syria. The charge has caused minor friction between the two countries.
Staff writer Nora Boustany in Washington contributed to this report.
-------- pakistan / india
Turkish defence minister arrives in Pakistan
ISLAMABAD (AFP)
Apr 28, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040428144955.pn5octfh.html
Turkish Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul arrived here Wednesday on a five-day official visit to Pakistan, officials said.
The Turkish delegation will hold talks with Pakistani Defence Minister Rao Sikander Iqbal and other officials, they said.
According to a defence ministry statement Pakistan and Turkey enjoyed "excellent relations" and Gonul's visit would "further strengthen bonds of friendship between the two Muslim countries."
-------- spies
How Pair's Finding on Terror Led to Clash on Shaping Intelligence
April 28, 2004
By JAMES RISEN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/politics/28INTE.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, April 27 - Soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, a two-man intelligence team set up shop in a windowless, cipher-locked room at the Pentagon, searching for evidence of links between terrorist groups and host countries.
The men culled classified material, much of it uncorroborated data from the C.I.A. "We discovered tons of raw intelligence," said Michael Maloof, one of the pair. "We were stunned that we couldn't find any mention of it in the C.I.A.'s finished reports."
They recorded and annotated their evidence on butcher paper hung like a mural around their small office. By the end of the year, as the rubble was being cleared from the World Trade Center and United States forces were fighting in Afghanistan, the men had constructed a startling new picture of global terrorism.
Old ethnic, religious and political divides between terrorist groups were breaking down, the two men warned, posing an ominous new threat. They saw alliances among a wide range of Islamic terrorists, and theorized about a convergence of Sunni and Shiite extremist groups and secular Arab governments. Their conclusions, delivered to senior Bush administration officials, connected Iraq and Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
In doing so, the team also helped set off a controversy over the shaping of intelligence that continues today.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating whether the unit - named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group by its creator, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy - exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the war.
The C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies found little evidence to support the Pentagon's view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, and still largely dismiss those ideas. Foreign Islamic fighters have sought haven in Iraq since the American-led invasion and some Sunnis and Shiites have banded together against the occupiers, but the agencies say that is the result of anger and chaotic conditions, not proof of prewar alliances.
And with criticism mounting in recent weeks as the conflict has become more bloody, President Bush has found himself forced to defend once more how the war on terror led to Baghdad.
Some critics argue that some of the first steps were taken by Mr. Feith's little intelligence shop. Whether its findings influenced the thinking of policy makers or merely provided talking points that buttressed long-held views, the unit played a role in the administration's evolving effort to define the threat of Iraq - and sell it to the public.
Unable to reach a consensus on Iraq's terrorist ties because of the skepticism of the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Bush administration turned its focus to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the central rationale for war. Mr. Feith said his team was not involved in the analysis of those weapons.
But, he said in an interview, terrorism and Iraq's weapons became linked in the minds of top Bush administration officials. After Sept. 11 and the anthrax attacks that followed it, he said, the administration "focused on the danger that Iraq could provide the fruits of its W.M.D. programs to terrorists."
The president, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, alluded to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda in their public statements. Mr. Bush also frequently warned of the risks that Mr. Hussein would share his weapons with terrorists.
"The worst thing that could happen would be to allow a nation like Iraq, run by Saddam Hussein, to develop weapons of mass destruction and then team up with a terrorist organization so they can blackmail the world," Mr. Bush said in an interview in April 2002.
The failure to find such weapons in Iraq has prompted a series of investigations into prewar intelligence. The Senate committee plans to complete its review, including its examination of the Feith group, in the next few months. The unit has often been confused with another Feith operation, called the Office of Special Plans, which Pentagon officials say was involved in prewar planning but not intelligence analysis.
Some intelligence experts charge that the unit had a secret agenda to justify a war with Iraq and was staffed with people who were handpicked by conservative Pentagon policy makers to arrive at preordained conclusions about Iraq and Al Qaeda.
"I don't have any problem with them bringing in a couple of people to take another look at the intelligence and challenge the assessments," said Patrick Lang, a former Middle East analyst for the D.I.A. "But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals, people brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going to get."
Mr. Feith defends his analysts. "I would be happy to have anybody come in and examine the quality of the work, whether it is supported by the data, whether it is logical, whether it is well-reasoned," he said.
He added: "There are real policy issues in this town that are worth fighting and debating. Some of them involve peace and war."
Mr. Feith created his team a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks to study links between terrorist groups and potential state sponsors around the world. Mr. Maloof and his colleague, David Wurmser began work in October 2001 in a 15-by-15-foot space on the third floor of the Pentagon. The pair spent their days reading raw intelligence reports, many from the Central Intelligence Agency, in the Pentagon's classified computer system.
"We began to pull together a mosaic," Mr. Maloof said.
Mr. Feith said his group was not set up as a rival to the C.I.A. "This is what policy people do all the time, they read the existing intelligence," he said. "We were not bypassing, we were not being secretive, we were not cutting the intel community out of this."
Resistance From Within
But the effort immediately aroused suspicions at the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. Mr. Feith and his two analysts were closely linked to Richard N. Perle, then chairman of a Pentagon advisory group and a leading neoconservative who had long advocated toppling Mr. Hussein and was a vocal critic of the C.I.A.
"I think the people working on the Persian Gulf at the C.I.A. are pathetic," Mr. Perle said in an interview. "They have just made too many mistakes. They have a record over 30 years of being wrong." He added that the agency "became wedded to a theory," that did not leave room for the possibility that Iraq was working with Al Qaeda, and that "they went to battle stations every time someone pointed to contrary evidence."
When Mr. Perle was a top defense official in the Reagan administration, Mr. Maloof, a former journalist, worked as his investigator, assembling evidence that the Soviet Union was stealing Western technology. Mr. Wurmser, a Middle East expert who had written a book that attacked the Clinton administration and the C.I.A. for their handling of Iraq in the 1990's, had worked at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank where Mr. Perle was a resident scholar. Mr. Feith had been Mr. Perle's deputy at the Pentagon. And while they were all out of government, Mr. Wurmser, Mr. Feith and Mr. Perle had signed a 1996 paper calling for the overthrow of Mr. Hussein to enhance Israel's security.
Despite their access to the Pentagon leadership, Mr. Maloof and Mr. Wurmser faced resistance from the C.I.A. and D.I.A.
They were initially denied access, for example, to the most highly classified documents in the Pentagon computer system. So Mr. Maloof returned regularly to his previous office in the Department of Defense, where he still could get the material. "We scoured what we could get up to the secret level, but we kept getting blocked when we tried to get more sensitive materials," Mr. Maloof said. "I would go back to my office, do a pull and bring it in."
Sometimes, they said, they were met with open hostility. In the Pentagon one day, a senior D.I.A. official told them, "You are not needed and not welcome," Mr. Maloof recalled.
Each week, they would brief Stephen A. Cambone, then Mr. Feith's principal deputy. By November 2001, as the Bush administration began war planning for Iraq, the unit had produced a slide presentation that they were told would be used by Mr. Rumsfeld in a NATO meeting.
The team's conclusions were alarming: old barriers that divided the major Islamic terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, were coming down, and these groups were forging ties with one another and with secular Arab governments in an emerging terrorist war against the West.
Their analysis covered plenty of controversial ground. The two men identified members of the Saudi royal family who they said had aided Al Qaeda over the years. They warned that Al Qaeda had operatives in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, where they were establishing ties with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah. They suspected Abu Nidal, an aging Palestinian terrorist leader living in Baghdad, of being an indirect link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, even though many other analysts believed that he was essentially retired and that his once-fearsome organization had been shattered. Mr. Nidal died under mysterious circumstances in Baghdad in 2002.
The Pentagon conclusions were at odds with years of C.I.A. analysis. The agency was skeptical that governments as diverse as those in Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iran could be linked to anything like a cohesive terrorist network. The C.I.A. and the D.I.A. believed that Feith's team had greatly exaggerated the significance of reported contacts among extremist groups and Arab states. The C.I.A. saw little evidence, for example, that the Sunni-dominated Qaeda and the Shiite-dominated Hezbollah had worked together on terrorist attacks.
And there was little proof that Mr. Hussein was working on terror plots with Mr. bin Laden, a religious extremist who viewed the Baghdad regime as a corrupt, secular enemy. "The divides do matter," a senior C.I.A. official said. "But if you work hard enough in this nasty world, you can link just about anybody to anybody else."
Another agency official summed up the Feith team's work by saying, "Leave no dot unconnected."
Mr. Maloof defends their analysis. "We had to justify every single connection we made," he said. "But the intelligence community had preconceived notions, and if the information didn't fit into those notions, then they simply ignored it."
At the end of 2001, Mr. Maloof and Mr. Wurmser briefed top Pentagon officials as well as John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security and a veteran of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Maloof also met with Mr. Perle at his suburban Washington home. As chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory group, he had security clearance.
That session was interrupted by a call from Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group. At Mr. Maloof's request, Mr. Perle asked Mr. Chalabi, now a member of the interim government of Iraq, to have his staff provide Mr. Maloof information gleaned from defectors and others. The request was unusual, because Mr. Feith's analysts were supposed to review intelligence, not collect it. And Mr. Chalabi at that time had a lucrative contract to provide information on Iraq exclusively to the State Department, which would send it along to the intelligence agencies.
Mr. Maloof later met with member of the Iraqi National Congress's staff. As it turned out, Mr. Chalabi was a risky source: some of the information his group provided was incorrect or fabricated, intelligence officials now believe.
Sharing Their Findings
A high point for the team was a 45-minute briefing for Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, in November 2001. "Wolfowitz said, `How come I'm not hearing this from anybody else?' " Mr. Maloof said. "We said, because no one else has done the analysis." Mr. Wolfowitz did not respond to several requests for comment.
By early 2002, the team had completed a 150-page briefing and slide presentation for Mr. Feith.
"There was intelligence about contacts among these different players - the organizations, the state sponsors, the nonstate sponsors," Mr. Feith said. "There was intelligence about contacts among them that crossed ideological lines to a greater extent than perhaps some people had appreciated before."
"The connections could be tight or loose," he added. "I don't mean to suggest that all international terrorists are really operating from a single organization. They're not. We use the term `network' advisedly."
Soon after finishing the report, Mr. Wurmser moved to the State Department, and then joined Mr. Cheney's staff. He declined to be interviewed.
Mr. Maloof's Pentagon career was damaged in December 2001, when his security clearances were revoked. He was accused of having unauthorized contact with a foreign national, a woman he had met while traveling in the Republic of Georgia and eventually married. Mr. Maloof said he complied with all requirements to disclose the relationship. Several intelligence professionals say he came under scrutiny because of suspicions that he had leaked classified information in the past to the news media, a charge that Mr. Maloof denies. His lawyer, Sam Abady says that Mr. Maloof was a target because of his controversial intelligence work and political ties to conservative Pentagon leaders.
An appeals board reinstated his clearances after Mr. Feith and Mr. Perle wrote letters to the D.I.A. But the intervention angered some intelligence officials, and a second panel reversed course in April 2003. Mr. Maloof is now on paid leave.
Mr. Feith, meanwhile, was eager to continue the work and turned it over to two D.I.A. analysts detailed to him. In the spring and summer of 2002, Christina Shelton, another agency analyst assigned to him, was reviewing old intelligence reports on Al Qaeda when she saw patterns suggesting connections between the Baghdad regime and the group. She became infuriated when one agency official told her that pursuing such leads "would only help Wolfowitz," a Pentagon official recalled.
She began to fight back. That summer, officials say, the C.I.A. issued a classified report entitled "Iraq-Al Qaeda - a murky relationship." After reading it, Ms. Shelton wrote a critical cover memo urging Pentagon policy makers to focus on the underlying intelligence rather than the agency's assessments, according to officials familiar with the incident. With the other analysts on Mr. Feith's staff, she produced a new assessment of Iraq and Al Qaeda suggesting closer ties than the C.I.A. thought existed.
Confronting the C.I.A.
After they briefed Mr. Feith on their work, they were sent to Mr. Rumsfeld, who urged them to talk to George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. In August 2002, Mr. Feith led his team to the C.I.A.
Mr. Tenet and other agency officials were skeptical of the Feith team's conclusions, according to one agency official who attended the briefing.
"They did point out some individual facts that we hadn't focused on," the official said, "but I don't think anything they briefed to us fundamentally changed our bottom line on the issue."
The main dispute was over whether the reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda meant that Iraq had been sponsoring the group's terrorist operations.
"We believed in contact, offers of safe haven, but no operational activity," the intelligence official said.
A few weeks later, on Sept. 16, 2002, Feith's team briefed Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security advisor, and I. Lewis Libby, a senior aide to Mr. Cheney. By that time, Mr. Cheney was already talking publicly about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In an appearance on "Meet the Press" just before the first anniversary of 9/11, he said that even without evidence of direct involvement by Baghdad in the attacks, the Hussein regime may have supported Al Qaeda.
"New information has come to light," Mr. Cheney said. "And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the Al Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years.
Despite Mr. Cheney's assertions and the efforts of Mr. Feith's office, the Bush administration ultimately decided that the terrorism link was not strong enough to use as the central justification for war with Iraq. Instead, the administration focused on Mr. Hussein's illicit weapons, relying on assessments by the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies.
But Mr. Feith said that the evidence of Baghdad's terrorist links, when coupled with the threat of Mr. Hussein providing illicit weapons to groups like Al Qaeda, helped support the administration's case.
After 9/11, the administration reviewed the evidence about Iraq in a new light, he said. "One question was: Was Iraq involved in 9/11? We found no hard link. What about Iraq-Al Qaeda links in general? Well, there were some, but that wasn't the essence of the Saddam Hussein threat. The danger of Saddam's providing W.M.D. to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group - there you had a real problem, because his record on W.M.D. was indisputable."
-------
-------- un
Annan Urges Peaceful Solution in Najaf
April 28, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq.html
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Wednesday that military action in Iraq is feeding the ranks of the resistance and urged U.S. authorities to do everything possible to seek a peaceful solution in the cities of Fallujah and Najaf.
As explosions and gunfire rocked Fallujah and U.S. troops began expanding operations out of their base in the holy city of Najaf, Annan called for negotiations on the ground and a concerted international effort to stabilize Iraq.
``Violent military action by an occupying power against inhabitants of an occupied country will only make matters worse,'' he said. ``It's definitely time, time now for those who prefer restraint and dialogue to make their voices heard.''
The assault against Fallujah began after American troops killed 64 gunmen near the southern city of Najaf.
Annan said he relayed an appeal from the community in Fallujah for the United Nations to intervene -- which he said was impossible because of the lack of security -- and spoken to U.S. authorities about ``the need for caution, the need to do all that is possible to avoid a violent confrontation.
``The reason why I asked for caution is the more the occupation is seen as taking steps that harm the civilians and the population, the greater the ranks of the resistance grows,'' Annan said.
``I think everybody has said the struggle really should have been to win the hearts and minds of the people, and so it has to be an effort in that direction as well.
``It's a difficult situation. I'm not pretending it's very easy to do it, but I think one has to be very careful not to get it much worse.''
Annan expressed serious concern about the wider impact of any fighting in Najaf, a holy city for Shiite Muslims where radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr reportedly is holed up. U.S. troops want to capture al-Sadr for his alleged involvement in the murder of a cleric and then suppress his militia.
``There had been also talks going on in Najaf which we had hoped would work out, and of course our concern (is) that any assault on Najaf will have really unimaginable consequences and could complicate very much the efforts that we are trying to make in ... working with the Iraqis to establish an interim government,'' Annan said.
The secretary-general spoke to reporters a day after his special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, told the Security Council that Iraq's caretaker government must be chosen by May 31 so it can properly prepare to take power June 30 and reach a new agreement with U.S.-led multinational forces that will remain in control of security.
Annan said there also is a need to work out ``coordinating mechanisms'' between the United Nations and the new government, and the United Nations and the multinational force, ``and it's not going to be easy.''
Brahimi told the Security Council that many obstacles to the handover remain, but it can be accomplished even in the face of weeks of deadly violence.
The caretaker government will remain in power until national elections are held by Jan. 31, but Annan stressed that ``security affects everything'' and elections need ``a calm environment.''
-------- us
Missing Army Copter Found in S. Carolina
Associated Press
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48404-2004Apr28.html
FLORENCE, S.C., April 27 -- An Army helicopter that vanished during a training flight in bad weather was found Tuesday night on the bank of a river, and divers began searching for three soldiers who were aboard, Army officials said.
The UH-60 Black Hawk was found at 7:55 p.m. at a bridge off Interstate 95, about 100 miles northeast of Columbia, said Maj. Rich Patterson, a Fort Bragg spokesman.
The helicopter was reported missing Monday evening during a flight from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Florence.
The discovery along the Great Pee Dee River changed the search "from a search and rescue operation to a search and recovery operation," Patterson said.
--------
More Armor Urged for U.S. Forces in Iraq
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A22
Josh White
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48030-2004Apr27.html
As insurgents continue to use improvised bombs to attack U.S. military vehicles in Iraq, officials are growing increasingly concerned that the lack of heavy armored vehicles is putting U.S. forces at risk.
Defense officials said yesterday they are working to increase the number of armored Humvees for Operation Iraqi Freedom but said the 2,000 specially armored trucks there account for only half the Army's estimated requirements. Standard Humvees, considered utility vehicles similar to jeeps, are too vulnerable to attack, officials said.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that every armored Humvee in the inventory has been sent to Iraq and more are being built. In a Pentagon briefing, Myers said the enemy's changing tactics have highlighted the need to shore up transport vehicles.
Myers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also responded to concerns raised by Gen. Larry R. Ellis at Army Forces Command. Ellis wrote the Pentagon that commanders in the field have found the armored Humvee "is not providing the solution the Army hoped to achieve" and that red tape could "fail our soldier and our nation." Ellis suggested the purchase of hundreds of eight-wheel Stryker combat vehicles instead.
Rep. Rob Simmons (R-Conn.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said yesterday it is vital to the protection of soldiers to immediately increase the number of hardened vehicles in Iraq, whether that means more armored Humvees or Strykers. "Soldiers are dying because they're in a war zone," Simmons said, "but the risks they face increase when the equipment they have is inadequate for the threat."
---------
NEWS ANALYSIS
The Siege of Falluja, a Test in a Tinderbox
April 28, 2004
By ERIC SCHMITT
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/international/middleeast/28SIEG.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, April 27 - The siege in Falluja is a case study in mistaken assumptions, dashed hopes, rivalry between the Army and the Marine Corps, and a tragedy that became a trigger, Pentagon officials, senior officers and independent military analysts said Tuesday.
The chain of decisions leading to the standoff that has made the city of nearly 300,000 people in the Sunni heartland a symbol of the insurgency also illustrates conflicting military strategies and shifting political aims. The fate of Falluja has become a possible harbinger for all of Iraq.
Some critics say the immediate showdown is a result of the Marines' overreaction to the killing and mutilation of four American private security contractors on March 31. "They've gone to the sledgehammer approach," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Even before the contractors' deaths, however, the marines ran into sporadic but stiff resistance last month as they took over responsibility for the area from departing Army soldiers. Marine commanders defended their response, which was to throw a cordon of troops, tanks and artillery around the city, try to avoid civilian casualties and prepare for an urban battle to root out some 2,000 insurgents.
In recent days, commanders have said they are taking great pains to avoid an all-out attack. "Every attempt will be made to solve the problem peacefully before resorting to a military offensive against terrorists inside the city," Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the top Marine general in Iraq, said in an e-mail message.
Dealing with Falluja has gone from strictly a military matter for commanders in Iraq to a broader political debate involving President Bush and his top national security aides in Washington, who have voiced concerns that images of fierce fighting in Falluja will stir uprisings throughout Iraq and outrage throughout the Arab world.
Some Marine commanders grumble that the stop-and-start negotiations are giving insurgents more time to restock and refortify their defenses, putting marines' lives at risk and postponing what they say is an inevitable American attack.
The decision to delay any immediate offensive into Falluja is still very tenuous, Pentagon officials said Tuesday. Military commanders are unwilling to accept the status quo, while intelligence suggests that backing off would encourage a new generation of opposition, and postpone big problems until closer to the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty on June 30. There is little sign that resistance is weakening.
If there is any glimmer of hope for a negotiated settlement, American and Iraqi civilian authorities are eager to grasp it. But the idea of sending joint American-Iraqi patrols deep into the city has been put off several times, since American commanders said Tuesday that the Iraqi forces who were being asked to take part were not yet capable of doing so without putting themselves and the marines at risk.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that "if at some point the military decides that the string has run out, then they will tell us that and take appropriate action."
"Now, does that mean that something can't be worked out?" he continued. "No, I wouldn't say that, or else we wouldn't be where we are."
The standoff in Falluja has been building for more than a year. American units have come and gone so often in this hotbed of Sunni resistance that they have had little time to understand their surroundings. Falluja was initially occupied last year by the 82nd Airborne Division, which was soon replaced by the Third Armored Cavalry, which in turn was replaced by a brigade of the Army's Third Infantry Division. Last summer, the Third Infantry handed the town back to the Third Armored Cavalry, which was soon replaced by the 82nd Airborne Division. Last month, the marines replaced the 82nd Airborne.
By December, Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., the division's commander, spoke of being on a "glide path" to victory over the insurgents, at least in Al Anbar Province, in western Iraq. By February, the 82nd Airborne had largely pulled back from patrolling Falluja, putting more responsibility in the hands of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and the Iraqi police. But in early April, those Iraqi forces largely folded under fire.
Although reluctant to criticize the Army publicly, the marines replacing the 82nd Airborne said the Army's practice of staying out of town allowed the security situation in Falluja to fester. For weeks, General Conway and other Marine commanders had boasted they would shift tactics to work more closely with local people, to gain their trust, and, in the process, glean intelligence about insurgents' locations. This strategy drew on the Marine Corps' "Small Wars" manual, which derives from their 20th-century interventions in Central America.
Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, the First Marine Division commander, reminded his forces in a message as they arrived last month that he had added the warning, "Do no harm," to the unit's motto of "No better friend, no worse enemy." Before showing their "velvet glove" approach, however, the Marines also wanted insurgents to feel their mailed fist. "We will move precisely against the enemy elements and crush them without harming the innocent," General Mattis said in his message.
Almost immediately after taking over from the Army, marines came under fire. A convoy was ambushed. Patrols pushing into town for the first time in weeks were met with mortar and rocket fire, and had to pull back. Then the four contractors from Blackwater U.S.A. were killed.
"Certainly the reason we went into Falluja included the killing of the four contractors, but Falluja was not a garden paradise before then," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief spokesman for the American military command, said Tuesday. "Falluja has been a problem, a significant problem for the coalition and for Iraqi security forces for many, many months."
In the Pentagon's view, Falluja was boiling. There had been 27 attacks on occupation forces, Iraqi security sites or American administration targets in the three weeks before the Blackwater killings. Because of that, planning was already under way to go in and clean out insurgents in Falluja.
The planning was accelerated after the Blackwater attack because those killings were viewed by the Pentagon and local commanders as premeditated, and the population cheered - indicating the dangerous political effect of allowing a Falluja-based insurgency to remain.
Some Army officers said marines had stirred up a hornet's nest without responding swiftly and forcefully enough. "The threat in the Al Anbar Province was flat out afraid of the 82nd paratroopers," said one Army officer who served near Falluja.
But Maj. Kevin Collins, a Marine operations officer in Falluja, put the Marines' attitude this way, "If you chose to pick a fight, we'll finish it."
Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington for this article, John F. Burns from Baghdad and John Kifner from Falluja.
--------
'Nightline' to Read Off Iraq War Dead
April 28, 2004
By BILL CARTER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/business/media/28TUBE-LONG.html
In a conscious echo of a famous, Vietnam War-era issue of Life magazine, the ABC News program "Nightline" will broadcast Friday night the names and faces of every soldier killed by hostile fire since the start of the war in Iraq.
Ted Koppel, the program's anchor, will deliver a brief introduction before reading the more than 530 names, as photographs and captions with the ages and hometowns of the dead appear on the screen. "Nightline" will not include those who died by accident and other causes because of time constraints; Mr. Koppel will barely have two seconds for each name.
"I have always felt, and I said it when I was in Iraq last year, that the most important thing a journalist can do is remind people of the cost of war," Mr. Koppel said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Leroy Sievers, the executive producer of "Nightline," said in a telephone interview yesterday that his inspiration for the program was a June 1969 issue of Life, which presented photos of all the men killed during one week in Vietnam.
Although that issue is now remembered as a crystallizing moment for opposition to the Vietnam war, Mr. Sievers denied the program carried any political message. "There is no intended political statement," Mr. Sievers said. "If that was the intention, we would spell it out."
But William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said the message was clear to him. "This is a statement with a capital S, and it's a stupid statement," he said. The program's conceit, he added, was a selective one, chosen to emphasize the controversy over the war in Iraq while neglecting to mention the casualties in Afghanistan or those killed by terrorists.
Mr. Koppel did not dispute that "Nightline" is looking for impact. "You can read the headlines every day - two soldiers killed, three Marines killed - and it doesn't have the same impact as seeing one page of these photos," he said. "All of a sudden you look at all those young people and it really hits you."
But he said "Nightline" was not taking political sides. "If the motivation to go to war is good, is justifiable," he said, "then the cost, whether it is 500, or 5,000, or 50,000, is something people will accept. Should the motivation not be good, then 5 is too many."
The White House declined to comment officially. But a senior Administration official, who requested anonymity, said: "If that's what Mr. Koppel chooses to do, it's his program. We don't make program decisions for them."
"The White House mourns the loss of every soldier," the official added. "It's good that Americans that have given their lives in a sacrifice for freedom and democracy be recognized."
The "Nightline" program will appear just one day short of the anniversary of President Bush's declaration of an end to major combat operations, when he appeared on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished."
Mr. Koppel said the show was not timed to mark that anniversary. "That is purely a coincidence," he said.
--------
Army Wants Tanks to Protect GIs in Iraq
April 28, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Iraq-Heavy-Armor.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a sign that the Iraq conflict is deepening, a senior officer said Wednesday that Army and Marine Corps units have begun receiving more tanks and other heavy armor.
The move is in response to the growing Iraqi insurgency and the lengthening list of U.S. casualties.
Maj. Gen. John Sattler, the operations chief for U.S. Central Command, told reporters at the Pentagon that when new Army and Marine Corps commanders arrived in Iraq in recent weeks, they saw a deteriorated security situation and decided more armor was needed for combat.
He provided few details but said more tanks and armored personnel carriers were requested by the Army's 1st Infantry Division in north-central Iraq and the Marine Corps units operating in the Sunni Triangle west and north of Baghdad, including the city of Fallujah.
Some of the extra armor already has arrived, Sattler said, and some is on its way.
When they planned for their Iraq mission, commanders of the newly arrived units figured they should rely on the jeep-like Humvees, which have little or no armor protection but provide speed and agility.
``Counter-insurgency requires you to ... actually engage and work with the population,'' Sattler said, speaking by telephone from Central Command's forward headquarters in the Persian Gulf. ``That's tough to do from inside a tank, a Bradley or an armored personnel carrier.''
But once the Marines lost any degree of control in Fallujah in late March and the anti-occupation violence flared elsewhere in Iraq in early April, U.S. commanders again changed their approach.
Tanks ``send a very valuable message just by pulling one up to the front lines,'' said Sattler.
April has been the bloodiest month for U.S. troops in Iraq since the invasion was launched in March 2003. It is difficult to determine an exact death count for April because of a time lag between the military's announcement of fatal attacks and the Pentagon's release of casualties' names, but it appears that at least 120 U.S. troops have died so far this month. They recently have included a higher-than-average number of National Guard and Reserve troops.
Four members of the Arkansas National Guard were killed in Taji, Iraq, last Saturday, and on Monday a National Guardsman from Pennsylvania and a Reserve soldier from Maine were killed in Baghdad.
A total of 722 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since March 2003, according to the Pentagon's count. That does not include two Department of the Army civilians who were killed last month.
When the Army rotated fresh units into Iraq this spring, the newly arrived forces left some of their tanks, Bradley infantry vehicles and armored personnel carriers at home, figuring they needed a higher proportion of Humvees to be light and more agile to deal with insurgents.
Gen. Larry Ellis, commander of Army Forces Command, recently told his superiors at Army headquarters that Humvees equipped with extra armor are inadequate in the face of insurgent attacks.
But Ellis issued a statement Wednesday that said the armored Humvee has ``saved lives and prevented injury on numerous occasions and continues to be the best, immediately available solution to the challenges of the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan.''
Gen. Paul Kern, commander of Army Material Command, which supplies the Humvees and the rest of the equipment used in Iraq, said in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that U.S. commanders in Iraq have made ``adjustments'' that include requesting more heavy armored vehicles.
Kern said he could not discuss the details because it would reveal too much about the military's operations in Iraq, but he said the change has had a ripple effect on the supply of spare parts.
Kern also said that when insurgents stepped up attacks early this month on U.S. military convoys bringing supplies north from Kuwait, U.S. commanders reduced the number of convoys for about a week. During the slowdown they improved security arrangements. As a result, the general said, in recent days there have been fewer losses along the main supply routes from Kuwait.
Alluding to the same problem, Sattler said an infantry battalion from the 2nd Infantry Division's Stryker brigade was shifted from its usual operating area in northern Iraq to provide extra security along the southern supply routes from Kuwait.
--------
U.S. Says Has Rushed Tanks to Iraq to Crush Rebels
April 28, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq.html
FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military has rushed more tanks and other armored vehicles to Iraq after requests from commanders in the bloodiest month for American troops since Saddam Hussein was toppled.
``That armor is either (in Iraq) now or is arriving as we speak. So those requests were quickly filled,'' U.S. Marine Corps Major General John Sattler told reporters at the Pentagon by phone from the Gulf state of Qatar on Wednesday.
Sattler said the requests were made by commanders battling to stamp out guerrilla attacks in the so-called ``Sunni Triangle'' north and west of Baghdad, including the flashpoint city of Falluja where U.S. Marines launched new air and ground attacks.
As U.S. helicopter gunships and jet aircraft pounded several districts across Falluja, west of Baghdad, President Bush said in Washington: ``Our military commanders will take whatever actions necessary to secure (the city).''
The previous 24 hours saw the most devastating display of U.S. warplane firepower since American forces encircled Falluja three weeks ago after the killing of four American contractors and the mutilation of their bodies in the city.
IRAQ HIGH IN U.S. CAMPAIGN DEBATE
Bush, seeking re-election in November with Iraq a burning campaign issue, said there were ``pockets of resistance'' in the city but ``most of Falluja is returning to normal.''
Black smoke rose above the palm-dotted Golan district and heavy firing echoed elsewhere, but U.S. officers said they were holding back from an all-out assault on the city of 300,000 in hopes that guerrillas might yet agree to turn in heavy weapons.
Sattler said there were ``somewhere around 1,500'' guerrillas in Falluja, including former members of Saddam's Republican Guard military units and foreign Islamic militants.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, whose organization is helping form an Iraqi government in line with a planned U.S. handover of power in Baghdad on June 30, urged restraint by American forces.
``The more the occupation is seen as taking steps that harm the civilians and the population, the greater the ranks of the resistance grows,'' Annan told a news conference in New York.
With Falluja doctors saying some 600 people have been killed in the siege, U.S. forces are wary of further bloodshed in the city -- about 50 km (30 miles) from Baghdad -- inflaming public opinion across Iraq and the Arab world.
There were no reports of major civilian casualties in Falluja in the latest fighting.
In Falluja a year ago, U.S. soldiers killed and wounded dozens of demonstrators, angering Sunnis in a city that has become a byword for resistance to the U.S.-led occupation.
BIRTHDAY IN PRISON
A year after the fall of Saddam, who spent his 67th birthday in the custody of U.S. forces on Wednesday, American troops are trying to quell twin threats to the new order in Iraq -- from the Falluja guerrillas and Shi'ite rebels in the south.
More than 115 U.S. soldiers have been killed in combat this month, higher than the number killed in the three weeks it took to topple Saddam. Since U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq in March last year, 524 U.S. soldiers have been killed in action.
The combat deaths of a U.S. soldier and two Ukrainian troops were announced on Wednesday.
U.S. forces face a possibly even more delicate dilemma in the southern city of Najaf, where a radical cleric from Iraq's Shi'ite majority, Moqtada al-Sadr, has taken refuge among the shrines with his several thousand strong Mehdi Army militia.
A Sadr aide, Qais al-Khazaaly, said a U.S. incursion into Najaf would ``transform the situation into a Shi'ite Islamic confrontation with the Americans.''
But U.S. commanders believe they can isolate Sadr, wanted by an Iraqi judge in connection with the murder of another cleric, as many Najaf residents are impatient with the violence because it has frightened away pilgrims who drive the city's economy.
``We are tired of what is happening here. Look around you. Most of the shops are closed,'' said Ali Khalid al-Unezi. ``Who will pay the bills?
-------- propaganda wars
Qatar asked to curb Al Jazeera
April 28, 2004
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040427-094708-6203r.htm
The United States warned the Persian Gulf state of Qatar yesterday that an otherwise strong relationship between the two nations is being harmed by "false" and "inflammatory" anti-American coverage of Iraq by the Qatar-based Arab television network Al Jazeera.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other U.S. officials delivered the terse warning to a delegation headed by Qatari Foreign Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabir al Thani - the highest level at which the subject has been discussed.
"The friendship between our two nations is such that we can also talk about difficult issues that intrude in that relationship, such as the issue of the coverage of Al Jazeera, and we had candid discussions about that," Mr. Powell told reporters at the State Department.
Mr. Powell declined to say what exactly Washington wants Qatar to do to influence the editorial content of the network, in which the country's leader, Emir Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, has the biggest financial stake.
Mr. Powell's guest, who stood beside him, also refused to address the subject.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher showed reporters several pages of what he said were "false" or "tendentious" reports Al Jazeera broadcast on April 9 from Iraq.
He quoted one of them as saying that "children are being killed and women cut to pieces" by American troops in the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah.
He said that U.S. officials in Baghdad monitor and document all Iraq coverage on the channel, as well as on other Arab-language stations such as the Dubai-based Al Arabiya. Al Jazeera's reporting is the most biased, he said.
"We have very deep concerns about Al Jazeera's broadcasts because again and again we find inaccurate, false, wrong reports that we think are designed to be inflammatory that ... make the situation more tense, more inflamed and even more dangerous for Americans, for Iraqis, for Arabs and other people who are involved, particularly in Iraq," Mr. Boucher said.
Mr. Boucher rejected criticism that Washington is trying to suppress Al Jazeera's right to free speech, saying that at issue is not freedom of the press, but abiding by journalistic standards practiced around the world.
He said the visiting Qatari officials "have a role of responsibility in the organization" and "understood the U.S. concerns."
A spokesman for Al Jazeera, Jihad Ballout, said yesterday that he was not aware of the discussions at the State Department, but that the Qatari authorities are "concerned as we are about maintaining editorial independence."
He dismissed the U.S. criticism, adding that the network reviews complaints about its coverage on a case-by-case basis.
"Most of the criticism is unwarranted," Mr. Ballout said by telephone from Doha, the capital of Qatar. "We are not involved in politics and try to report what is happening on the ground. We give ample space to various points of view on any issue."
He said the network had broadcast an interview with L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, on Monday. Mr. Powell, Mr. Boucher and other senior U.S. officials have also been interviewed by the station.
The support of Qatar, which provided a key staging area for the Iraq war last year, is crucial for U.S. policy in the region. Its delegation came to Washington to begin a "strategic dialogue" aimed at further improving the relationship.
-------- war crimes
Remember Falluja
Wed., April 28, 2004
By Orit Shohat
Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/421014.html
During the first two weeks of this month, the American army committed war crimes in Falluja on a scale unprecedented for this war. According to the relatively few media reports of what took place there, some 600 Iraqis were killed during these two weeks, among them some 450 elderly people, women and children.
The sight of decapitated children, the rows of dead women and the shocking pictures of the soccer stadium that was turned into a temporary grave for hundreds of the slain - all were broadcast to the world only by the Al Jazeera network. During the operation in Falluja, according to the organization Doctors Without Borders, U.S. Marines even occupied the hospitals and prevented hundreds of the wounded from receiving medical treatment. Snipers fired from the rooftops at anyone who tried to approach.
This was a retaliatory operation, carried out by the Marines, accompanied by F-16 fighter planes and assault helicopters, under the code name "Vigilant Resolve." It was revenge for the killing of four American security guards on March 31. But while the killing of the guards, whose bodies were dragged through the streets of the city and then hung from a bridge, received wide media coverage, and thus prepared hearts and minds for the military revenge, the hundreds of victims of the American retaliation were practically a military secret.
The only conclusion that has been drawn thus far from the indiscriminate killing in Falluja is the expulsion of Al Jazeera from the city. Since the start of the war, the Americans have persecuted the network's journalists - not because they report lies, but because they are virtually the only ones who manage to report the truth. The Bush administration, in cooperation with the American media, is trying to hide the sights of war from the world, and particularly from American voters.
This week, for the first time, the Americans permitted pictures to be published of the coffins of dead American soldiers being sent back home. Until this week, such pictures were forbidden. Therefore, it is no wonder Bush's poll results are better than ever, even though the number of Americans killed in Iraq in April has reached 115.
Is the occupation of Iraq hindering terrorism, or inflaming it? Will the number of dead soldiers - in contrast to the number of Iraqi victims - prompt a reassessment? It is clear that the American war crimes will not reach the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Today, America sets the world's moral standards. It alone decides who will be judged, who is a terrorist, what is legitimate resistance to occupation, who is a religious fanatic, and who is a legitimate target for assassination. That is how four Iraqi children, who laughed at the sight of a dead American soldier, merited being killed on the spot.
Ariel Sharon's government can thus cite a great authority for its own actions, and there are no visible limits to its plan to create a new security order in the Gaza Strip and in the territories in general. To the Israeli government, not crossing the red lines that America sets for its friends is more important than resolving the conflict with the Palestinians.
The ethical dilemmas in Israel over the targeted killings must make the American government laugh. After Falluja, Israel Defense Forces commanders can feel easier with their consciences - and especially with the consciences of those who refuse to carry out such operations. The one-ton bomb that was dropped on an apartment building in Gaza in order to assassinate Salah Shehadeh, which also killed 14 civilians, is almost like throwing candy compared to the number of bombs the Americans dropped on the houses of the residents of crowded Falluja. And there, too, incidentally, the Marines' commander said they did their best in order to avoid hurting civilians. "We brought to this action our experience from World War II, Korea, Vietnam ... The operation in Falluja will be remembered and studied for many years to come," he said.
What can the perplexed Israeli learn from this cynical comparison? Ariel Sharon can feel that he was simply persecuted in the Sabra and Chatila affair. Those who like to say that "the whole world is against us" will choose to talk about the double standards applied to America and Israel with regard to, for instance, Israel's destruction of the Jenin refugee camp. But anyone who has absolute, rather than relative, moral standards can conclude that we should not be learning from the Americans - not with regard to the consumption of junk food, not in the area of human rights, and not even in the area of democracy and freedom of expression.
The practical difference ought to be obvious. America is a superpower, which can evidently do what it pleases, and it can withdraw from the war in Iraq whenever it wants. Israel has no place to which to withdraw. It must remain here, in proximity to its neighbors - its partners in the land, the climate and the fate of its children. Therefore, every retaliation, revenge operation and assassination that we carry out has historical consequences going far beyond those of the cruel assault on Falluja. Operation Vigilant Resolve, in contrast, will become no more than a footnote in American military history - and perhaps a few Marines will even write a book about it.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- courts
High Court Hears Case on Cheney Energy Panel
White House Argues For Confidentiality
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45569-2004Apr27?language=printer
The Supreme Court gave what seemed like a sympathetic hearing to Vice President Cheney's arguments for White House confidentiality yesterday, as several justices expressed concern about the validity of lawsuits by two public interest groups trying to gain access to the internal workings of the energy policy task force Cheney headed in 2001.
The Sierra Club, a liberal environmental organization, and Judicial Watch, a conservative anti-corruption organization, say that Cheney's task force was not a purely governmental body but took heavy input from energy-industry lobbyists and therefore must disclose its deliberations under a federal open-meetings law governing public-private advisory commissions.
A federal district judge, in a ruling that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has granted them access to some of the task force's records to try to prove that claim.
But members of the Supreme Court repeatedly implied that they see some merit in the Bush administration's argument that it would violate the separation of powers to require disclosure of conversations among the president's advisers based on the Sierra Club's and Judicial Watch's accusation that energy lobbyists were "de facto" members of the task force.
"They talked to a lot of people, got a lot of advice," Justice John Paul Stevens told Paul Orfanedes, a lawyer for Judicial Watch. "Does that make them de facto members of the committee?" When Orfanedes responded that "these are not mere unsupported allegations," Stevens replied: "Well, I'm not sure that's right."
The complex legal issues in Cheney v. U.S. District Court, No. 03-475, have been overshadowed in recent weeks by a related debate over Justice Antonin Scalia's refusal to recuse himself from the case. The Sierra Club said Scalia's impartiality was questionable because of his January duck hunting trip with Cheney on an oil-services entrepreneur's land in Louisiana. But Scalia said that no reasonable person could question his impartiality because the case does not expose Cheney, an acknowledged social friend, to any criminal or civil punishment.
Scalia was in court yesterday, and implied that he, too, thinks that the Sierra Club-Judicial Watch lawsuits are misconceived.
"Involvement of private individuals in the task force does not equate with membership of private individuals in the task force," he noted.
The political stakes in the case are high, as well. If the internal records of the energy task force show that officials of such companies as the now-discredited Enron Corp. were intimately involved in formulating Bush administration policy, as the administration's opponents in the case suspect, it would be a major embarrassment for the president.
For its part, the administration is seeking Supreme Court validation of one key aspect of its broader attempt to keep internal White House information off-limits to the media, Congress and interest groups.
The mere fact that Stevens, Scalia and other members of the court were challenging the basis of the lawsuit was a victory for Theodore B. Olson, the U.S. solicitor general, who represented Cheney in court yesterday.
Technically, what is before the court is the district court's 2002 order granting Cheney's opponents "discovery" -- a legal term meaning access to documents and testimony -- so they can try to substantiate their claim that the National Energy Policy Development Group, which operated from January to September 2001, was actually a public-private body made up of Cheney and other officials, plus "de facto" members from the energy lobby.
If it was, then Cheney would be required to disclose its internal proceedings under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA.
Normally, the Supreme Court would not hear a challenge to a lower court's discovery order before it has been precisely formulated with input from both parties to the case, as remains to be done in this case.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg drove home that point yesterday, referring to that "firm, final judgment rule" as "the first hurdle" Olson would have to clear before presenting his challenge.
But Olson argued that this case is unique, because it touches on the very process of policy deliberation within the White House.
Since FACA itself is a disclosure law, he noted, granting the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch the right to look through the task force's papers would be tantamount to giving them a victory in the lawsuit itself.
Olson objected to what he called "the forcing of the president to submit to litigation and discovery -- which, if permitted in this case, could be in any case comparable to it anytime advice is being sought from a citizen or from subordinates who may have then talked to citizens."
The only alternative in such situations, he argued, would be the time-consuming process of formally asserting executive privilege, which the White House has not yet done in this case.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested to Olson that perhaps the White House should have asserted the privilege before beginning its appeals of the district court's discovery order.
But Olson replied that the "case goes far beyond the assertion of executive privilege . . . the objection here is to the process. The president and vice president are being subjected to litigation and discovery which goes far beyond what the [FACA] statute would require."
A decision is expected by July.
--------
Supreme Court Weighs Enemy Combatant Case
April 28, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Enemy-Combatants.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The war on terrorism gives the government power to seize Americans and hold them without charges for as long as it takes to ensure they are not a danger to the nation, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Lawyers for two men detained by the government argued in reply that fighting terrorists cannot mean a president has unchecked authority to snatch U.S. citizens and hold them without a chance to plead their case.
``We could have people locked up all over the country tomorrow,'' said Frank Dunham, lawyer for a Louisiana-born man captured while fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Two-and-a-half years after the Sept. 11 jetliner attacks that killed thousands, the nation's highest court considered far-reaching questions about civil liberties, law and America's security in a changed world. By their words in court, a majority of justices seemed to give at least qualified support to the Bush administration.
The justices heard two cases about U.S. citizens being held as ``enemy combatants.'' Yaser Esam Hamdi was born in Baton Rouge while his Saudi father worked there, but grew up in the Middle East. Jose Padilla was born in Brooklyn and raised in Chicago.
The American-born men, like foreign fighters also labeled enemy combatants and held abroad, have been in near solitary confinement, without access to courts, lawyers or the outside world.
Only in the past month, with the Supreme Court about to hear their cases, have they been allowed to meet with lawyers.
``We've had war on our soil before, and never before in our nation's history has this court granted the president a blank check to do whatever he wants to American citizens,'' lawyer Jennifer Martinez argued on behalf of Padilla, a former gang member and alleged al-Qaida associate arrested at O'Hare Airport on suspicion of plotting to detonate a radioactive bomb.
Government lawyer Paul Clement countered that Congress gave the president broad power to go after terrorists and head off future threats at home or abroad. He likened Padilla to a ``latter-day, citizen version of Mohammed Atta,'' ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
The open-ended detentions prevent the men from rejoining the fight against the United States and help the government gather intelligence, Clement told the justices. Prisoners of war in other conflicts haven't been able to challenge their detentions in court, he said.
``But have we ever had a situation like this where presumably this warlike status could last for 25 years, 50 years, whatever it is?'' asked Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Any wartime detention can seem indefinite, at least at the start, Clement replied. ``If you talk about a detainee in 1942, they're not going to know how long World War II is going to last.''
Several justices suggested it is impractical, perhaps impossible, to expect the government to hold extensive hearings before holding someone -- even a citizen -- who it suspects is fighting for the enemy.
``You want them to run down the members of the Afghan allies who captured this man and get them to testify in a proceeding?'' Justice Antonin Scalia asked Hamdi's lawyer. ``It's just putting unreasonable demands upon a war situation.''
Wednesday's back-to-back arguments were the last of the current Supreme Court term. The justices are expected to rule in the Hamdi and Padilla cases by July. Last week the court heard a similar case about legal rights of foreign enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that ruling is also expected by summer.
Taken together, the three cases give the court the opportunity to broadly define how the government may treat citizen and non-citizen terrorism suspects picked up at home and abroad.
Hamdi was captured on an Afghan battlefield weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The government has presented no public evidence that Hamdi was a terrorist, and his lawyer told the justices that if the government had its way Hamdi would never get the chance to defend himself.
``We have never authorized detention of a citizen in this country without giving him an opportunity to be heard, to say, `Hey, I am an innocent person,''' Dunham argued.
Speaking to reporters later, Dunham said he was not optimistic.
The Bush administration won its argument in a lower court in the Hamdi case, but lost a federal appeals court fight in the Padilla matter.
Representing the government in both cases Wednesday, Clement referred often to the congressional statute passed a week after the 2001 attacks that gave the president authority to use ``necessary and appropriate'' means to fight terrorism.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg worried that a broad reading of the language could give a president unlimited power.
``What is it that would be a check against torture?'' she asked.
Clement said that a U.S. president wouldn't do that.
But ``what's constraining? That's the point,'' Ginsburg replied. ``Is it just up to the good will of the executive? Is there any judicial check?''
Clement responded a president should have the authority to use his military powers to fight terrorism, without ``judicial micromanaging.''
Clement also argued that a federal court in New York improperly ruled in Padilla's favor because Padilla was being held in South Carolina. Padilla's lawyer was appointed in New York.
The cases are Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 03-6696, and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 03-1027.
On the Net:
In the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, audio of arguments from Frank Dunham, representing Yaser Esam Hamdi, is available at: http://play.rbn.com/?urlap/ap/g2demand/all/0428scotus--hamdi1.rm
Audio of arguments from Paul Clement, representing Donald Rumsfeld, is available at: http://play.rbn.com/?urlap/ap/g2demand/all/0428scotus--hamdi2.rm
In the case of Rumsfeld v. Padilla, audio of arguments from Paul Clement, representing Donald Rumsfeld, is available at: http://play.rbn.com/?urlap/ap/g2demand/all/0428scotus--padilla1.rm
Audio of arguments from Jennifer Martinez, representing Jose Padilla, is available at: http://play.rbn.com/?urlap/ap/g2demand/all/0428scotus--padilla2.rm
--------
Justices Hear Arguments in Energy Task Force Case
April 28, 2004
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/politics/28SCOT.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, April 27 - The Supreme Court argument about Vice President Dick Cheney's energy policy task force on Tuesday finally came down to this question: Is the presidency entitled to special treatment?
Underlying the case, although barely mentioned in the courtroom, is a politically charged election-year dispute over the Bush administration's efforts to avoid making public the names of energy industry officials whom it consulted when developing its energy policy in early 2001.
Instead, the argument was a dense and jargon-laden duel that turned on questions of federal court jurisdiction and procedure.
Groups seeking the energy officials' names - Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, and the Sierra Club, a liberal environmental group - won a lower-court ruling entitling them to pretrial discovery of the names and roles of the private citizens who consulted with the panel.
The issue before the Supreme Court is whether the administration can appeal the order.
Discovery orders are generally not appealable before a trial, to discourage piecemeal appeals. But Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson urged the justices to make an exception. "We're submitting that discovery itself violates the Constitution" in the context of this case, he said, by intruding on the president's "core functions" of seeking advice and developing legislation.
Declaring that "this is a case about the separation of powers," Mr. Olson said the vice president, "acting as the subordinate and surrogate for the president here," should not have to pay the price of submitting to discovery "in order to challenge the constitutionality of a process that's invasive to fundamental presidential prerogatives and responsibilities."
While the argument was lively enough in its exploration of the niceties of civil procedure, it must have been a baffling letdown to any spectators drawn to the courtroom by the various controversies swirling around this case such as whether Justice Antonin Scalia's duck-hunting trip with Mr. Cheney should have required him to recuse himself or what role disgraced Enron executives might have had in shaping the panel's recommendations.
For his part, Justice Scalia, who rejected the Sierra Club's motion for his recusal, was an active questioner of all three lawyers who appeared in the case, Alan B. Morrison for the Sierra Club, Mr. Olson and Paul J. Orfanedes for Judicial Watch.
In the 21-page opinion he issued last month explaining his decision to remain in the case, Justice Scalia noted that he had a longstanding friendship not only with the vice president, but also with Mr. Morrison.
The list of names of industry officials who consulted with the panel has the potential to embarrass an administration that has included a number of top officials with ties to the industry, including Mr. Cheney, a former chief executive of Halliburton.
The federal district court here said the groups were entitled to try to prove that the industry executives were so intimately involved in the process as to have become de facto panel members, thus requiring it to conduct business in public under a 1972 law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The federal appeals court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the administration's appeal.
The case, Cheney v. United States District Court, No. 03-475, presents the justices with choices they may not find particularly appealing. If they decide they lack jurisdiction to intervene, the case will return to the federal district court here, and discovery will proceed.
That would be a substantial victory for Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, even if the groups ultimately lose in their effort to apply the Federal Advisory Committee Act. On the statutory question of what the Federal Advisory Committee Act means, the court appeared quite hostile to the groups' assertion that it can cover unofficial, "de facto members." But the justices would be able to address that issue only if they decide that the case is properly before them.
To make an exception to the usual rules and find that they do have jurisdiction, the justices need a reason. One reason might be the one that Mr. Olson gave, that "the Constitution explicitly commits to the president's discretion the authority to obtain the opinions of subordinates and to formulate recommendations for legislation" and that "Congress may neither intrude on the president's ability to perform these functions nor authorize private litigants to use the courts to do so."
That is a broad assertion of executive authority that clearly left some justices uncomfortable. Several suggested that before entertaining it, the lower courts should require the president to make specific claims of executive privilege, which can then be tested on appeal. Presidents generally regard claiming executive privilege as politically unattractive, and the Bush administration has tried to avoid it.
"We don't know what might be subject to executive privilege and sustained, perhaps, and what would not be," Justice David H. Souter told Mr. Olson, adding, "And it seems to me, until we know exactly what that is, there's a pretty good argument that the final judgment rule should not be subject to exception at this point."
Mr. Olson replied that claiming executive privilege would itself be burdensome, requiring the president and vice president "to spend time with documents," and that it would not necessarily cover everything that the separation of powers entitled the president to withhold. Further, he said, "it is the process itself" that the administration found objectionable.
In the argument, the justices explored one other option for excusing the administration from the usual rule against appealing a discovery order. If the information the groups could obtain from pretrial discovery would be essentially identical to what they would obtain by ultimately winning their suit, then the discovery order might well be seen as equivalent to a final order, several justices suggested.
"As I understand it, discovery is just what you want at the end of the case," Justice Stevens said to Mr. Morrison.
And Justice Souter asked Mr. Orfanedes, "If you get some discovery and you win your case, what do you get when you win that you will not already have gotten by the discovery?"
Both lawyers tried to assure the justices that if their case is successful, they would ultimately obtain more information, including minutes and drafts prepared by the task force. Mr. Olson disputed this, saying, "The discovery is vastly broader than the relief that would be available" under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
That law imposes various requirements on committees set up to advise executive branch officials, including a balance of views among the membership. Committees composed entirely of executive branch officials are exempt from the law. But in a 1993 ruling on the health-care task force led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the appeals court said the act could apply to a panel formally composed just of government officials if outsiders could be shown to be de facto members.
In the Cheney case, the district court said that precedent entitled the plaintiffs to discovery sufficient to show whether outsiders had in fact participated on that basis. The Supreme Court has never approved the appeals court's "de facto membership doctrine."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer was among several justices who suggested Tuesday that this interpretation had unduly expanded the law.
--------
Bush administration tells U.S. court Cheney papers must be secret
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
By James Vicini,
Reuters
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-04-28/s_23250.asp
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration argued at the Supreme Court on Tuesday that records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force should be kept secret to protect the president's ability to get discreet advice when preparing legislation.
Cheney, who did not attend the hour-long arguments, is opposing a federal judge's order to produce documents about White House contacts with the energy industry in early 2001 amid charges of secretiveness over this and other issues.
"This is a case about the separation of powers," said Solicitor General Theodore Olson. He said disclosure of the records would intrude on the president's power to get opinions from subordinates in making legislative proposals to Congress.
Democrats in Congress have accused the Republican administration of lack of openness and accountability, pointing also to its reluctance to turn over some documents to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Sierra Club environmental group and Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, sued to find out the names and positions of Cheney's task force members and to learn about their contacts with industry executives.
They claimed Cheney, the former chief executive of energy and construction company Halliburton Co., drafted a policy that favored the industry at the expense of the environment by consulting business executives.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who refused to remove himself from the case even though he went on a duck-hunting trip with Cheney in January, seemed supportive of the government's argument.
He repeatedly asked whether outside officials could be considered members of the task force, and thus covered under the federal open-government law at issue, when they did not vote on the various recommendations.
Several justices questioned the government's argument that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the dispute.
"Why should we accept your position on jurisdiction?" Justice David Souter asked Olson. He said the case could go back to a federal judge for an order on what must be turned over and that the government then could appeal.
Nixon Watergate Tapes Case Cited
Olson said appellate courts have jurisdiction over the case, just like the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in its 1974 historic ruling to require then-President Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes.
Several justices asked Olson why the administration had not asserted executive privilege - a legal doctrine that can be invoked by the president to shield certain documents from disclosure.
Olson replied that the objections in the Cheney case go to the entire process and executive privilege would not cover all of the issues. "Executive privilege may not cover every scrap of paper," he said.
Alan Morrison, representing the Sierra Club, argued the government does not have the right to withhold the documents.
Paul Orfanedes, representing Judicial Watch, cited five meetings between task force members and executives of Enron Corp., the Houston-based energy giant that collapsed into bankruptcy late in 2001. He said Cheney met with Ken Lay, then a top Enron executive.
Justice John Paul Stevens replied, "What does that prove?" Stevens added, "Just because they talked to a lot of people doesn't prove anything to me."
A ruling in the case is due by the end of June.
--------
Sealing Cheney records defended
April 28, 2004
By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040427-105455-5337r.htm
The Bush administration told the Supreme Court yesterday that Vice President Dick Cheney is protected by the Constitution from having to reveal the inner workings of the White House energy task force he headed in early 2001.
U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson told the justices that the case before them is "about the separation of powers" and that forcing the White House to release confidential papers would jeopardize the president's ability to receive candid advice.
Mr. Olson, who serves as the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said attendance records from the task force meeting nearly three years ago should not be revealed because of a "pure, unadorned allegation" that business executives were involved.
The case stems from lawsuits filed in lower courts by two advocacy groups, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, that seek the names of those on the task force. The groups say Republican operatives, lobbyists and energy insiders such as former Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay were members.
Although the White House has released about 36,000 pages of the energy task force's papers, it has withheld the vice president's records.
By doing so, the White House violated a federal statute requiring such information be available to the public, says the Sierra Club, the nation's oldest and largest environmental organization, and Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit watchdog group.
Justice Antonin Scalia appeared yesterday as perhaps the least likely justice to see a need for forcing the release of Mr. Cheney's documents.
"What does that prove?" asked Justice Scalia at one point, in response to a statement by Judicial Watch lawyer Paul J. Orfanedes that releasing the records would show the vice president had met with Mr. Lay and others.
"Involvement of private individuals in the committee does not mean de facto membership," Justice Scalia said.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said it is common for government officials to meet with private individuals for advice when shaping policy. Forcing officials to disclose explicit details of such meetings runs the risk of "putting the government in a cocoon," he said.
However, the finer points of the case have been overshadowed by events outside the courtroom. It became known early this year that Justice Scalia had gone duck hunting with the vice president in the weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Justice Scalia has refused a motion filed by the Sierra Club asking that he recuse himself from the case.
"There are, I am sure, those who believe that my friendship with persons in the current administration might cause me to favor the government in the case brought against it," Mr. Scalia said in a brief responding to the motion. "That is not the issue here."
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by July.
-------- drug war
Afghan Poppy Crop Up 50 Percent This Year - USDA
April 28, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-afghan-usa-poppy.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghan farmers are expected to harvest 50 percent more poppy plants this year, hindering the government's efforts to curb opium trade, a top U.S. Agriculture Department official said on Wednesday.
USDA Deputy Secretary Jim Moseley, who traveled to Afghanistan last week to review its agricultural development, said the world's leading producer of opium could only hope to turn the tide on poppy production beginning next year. Poppy plants are used to make heroin and morphine.
``We have to understand that we are not going to do anything about it this year in terms of (Afghan poppy) production,'' Moseley told reporters. ``What we have to do is look at what we may be able to do in 2005.''
Moseley recommended Afghanistan provide farmers easier access to financing and loans through local banks.
Afghan farmers, which represent 80 percent of the population, must also be presented with better crop alternatives -- such as spices and fruit, Moseley said.
``You've got to get their family income so it is not dependent on growing poppy seeds,'' he said.
The United Nations estimated Afghan's poppy crop last year at a near-record 3,600 tonnes, more than three-quarters of global supply. Under the USDA's estimate, this year's poppy crop would be about 5,400 tonnes.
Opium production has complicated the task of restoring central government authority in Afghanistan, enabling warlords to run small armies and it gives them an extra financial incentive to retain their autonomy.
``The money is not flowing into the government from poppies,'' Moseley said. ``Some of it ultimately flows into those individuals that use it for terrorist activities.''
The Taliban had almost eradicated poppy production in its final year in power.
After the Taliban were ousted by U.S. forces in late 2001, farmers returned to growing opium poppies because they were a more lucrative crop.
During the one week trip, the USDA delegation met with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and several other government ministers.
-------- homeland security
Lack of Emergency Training Is Cited by New York Officials
April 28, 2004
By MARC SANTORA and MICHELLE O'DONNELL
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/nyregion/28respond.html
ALBANY, April 27 - More than two years after 9/11 and nine years after a Japanese cult released a toxic gas on the Tokyo subway system, the majority of New York City's emergency medical technicians are not properly trained to enter a contaminated zone and treat victims, officials said Tuesday.
Of 3,000 paramedics and emergency medical technicians in the city, only 133 have the necessary training.
"We find it appalling," said Robert A. Ungar, counsel to the Uniformed Emergency Medical Technicians-F.D.N.Y. "It is as if we haven't learned anything."
Mr. Ungar blamed the federal government's funding formula for shortchanging New York City by not providing money for more training.
Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the city Fire Department, agreed with Mr. Ungar that New York should be getting more federal money, but he defended the use of the resources that are available.
In the past two years, the Fire Department has increased the number of crews trained to work in a contaminated area. Those on call, at any given time, have increased to 16 or 17 from 10, Mr. Gribbon said. Officials are working to get that number above 20. Each crew consists of one ambulance staffed by two people.
Mr. Ungar put the cost of training 3,000 emergency medical service workers so they could work in a contaminated zone at $1.4 million. But Mr. Gribbon said the Fire Department wants to go further.
Currently, every worker gets basic hazardous awareness training. Mr. Ungar wants them to get an additional eight hours of training so they would be able to work in an area contaminated by chemical agents. The Fire Department wants all of its members to have the maximum level of readiness, which requires 64 hours of training and would cost significantly more than $1.4 million.
Mr. Gribbon also said the emphasis, so far, has been on getting firefighters trained to work in contaminated areas. The city has trained more than 1,000 firefighters, he said.
"The purpose here is to have a sufficient number of trained people to go into the area and offer assistance to the first responders who need help or the people who need help," Mr. Gribbon said. "These people are rarely going to treat victims in a bad environment. You want to get them out."
Outside experts familiar with New York's emergency services said that progress is being made, but that the emergency services had, at times, been neglected.
"People have always looked at E.M.S. as a stepchild and don't recognize the critical role E.M.S. plays in these kind of events," said Jerome Hauer, who worked as New York's Director of the Office of Emergency Management for nearly five years under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.
He said he started at the agency after the sarin gas attack in Japan in 1995. After conducting a drill in New York, he said, "we found a number of holes in the preparedness."
The city began outfitting ambulance crews with little red bags that contained an antidote to nerve agent attacks and training personnel to work in a contaminated area.
The antidotes that are available only work in the event of a release of nerve agents, such as sarin or parathion, or cyanide. Mr. Hauer said.
Mr. Ungar made his comments on Tuesday during a news conference by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat from Manhattan.
Mr. Silver proposed legislation that he said was designed to prevent and respond to terrorism, which Republicans have attacked him for ignoring. In his plan, he called for federal money to be set aside specifically to train medical technicians in the city.
"Our first responders are being shortchanged the funding, the equipment, the training that will help them save lives," Mr. Silver said.
He was also sharply critical of the Pataki administration for failing to make progress in developing a statewide communications system. Many officers said radio operations are as bad now as they were on Sept. 11.
Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for Gov. George E. Pataki, said the Assembly was wrong and reckless.
"New Yorkers know that no one is fighting harder to prepare our first responders than Governor Pataki,'' she said.
Marc Santora reported for this article from Albany and Michelle O'Donnell from Long Island.
--------
$5 Billion in Antiterror Aid Is Reported Stuck in Pipeline
April 28, 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JOEL BRINKLEY
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/politics/28HOME.html
WASHINGTON, April 27 - More than $5 billion in federal money to help communities brace for terrorist attacks has not yet reached the local authorities and remains stuck in the administrative pipeline, Congressional officials said Tuesday.
That is more than 80 percent of the money approved by Congress to help cities, counties and states since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and efforts to prepare for possible attacks may be lagging as a result, a new Congressional analysis has found.
"The money's sitting there waiting for them," said Representative Christopher Cox, Republican of California, chairman of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, which prepared the assessment. "They can't spend it. Nothing happens."
The Sept. 11 attacks revealed alarming gaps in the ability of local officials to respond to terrorist attacks on major urban areas, and Congress responded with an investment of billions of dollars in grants. The money is intended to help so-called first responders buy chemical and radiological detectors, improve their emergency communication systems, expand training and take a variety of other steps to help deter terrorist attacks and respond to them.
Mr. Cox's committee staff found in its assessment that while the Department of Homeland Security was doing a much better job of speeding along local grants for the vast operation, a huge bottleneck had developed at the state and local level.
Many states have such cumbersome procedures, and their needs are so ill-defined, that it can take months or sometimes years for federal money to reach local police, fire and emergency response teams, the analysis found.
Part of the problem, the report said, is that most states reimburse local departments and communities only for money they have already spent. In Utah, for instance, localities had received less than $8,000 out of more than $19 million awarded under two domestic security programs as of last October because many communities said they did not have the money to spend out of pocket, the report said.
Even when the money reaches local officials, some communities are spending it on projects with little direct effect on domestic security, officials found.
In contrast, Mr. Cox pointed to both New York State and New York City as "a model for other states to follow" in awarding domestic security grants, in part because officials had a clear sense even before the Sept. 11 hijackings of what they needed to do to brace for an attack. Government officials in New York "don't need the government to hold their hand and say, `This is what you should be doing,' " Mr. Cox said.
The result has been that officials in New York have had much greater success in getting federal domestic security grants into the hands of the local departments that need it, officials said. Of the $89 million that has actually been spent for grants on one urban counterterrorism program, New York City accounted for virtually all of it - $82 million.
Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman, said the Department of Homeland Security recognized the tremendous logistical problems that states and communities faced in handling the new grants. That is why the department created a special panel last month to examine ways to improve the process, Mr. Roehrkasse said.
Canada Tightens Security
TORONTO, April 27 - Canada's government announced a plan to tighten security at ports and border points and improve intelligence gathering on Tuesday after a stinging report by the auditor general disparaging the government's efforts to guard against terrorism following the Sept. 11 attacks.
The plan, which formally commits the government to deal with counterterrorism internationally, comes just days before Prime Minister Paul Martin travels to Washington to meet with President Bush.
-------- investigations
Bush, Cheney Prepare for 9/11 Questioning
By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47646-2004Apr27.html
President Bush has met with White House aides and has been consulting with Vice President Cheney in preparation for Bush and Cheney's appearance before the Sept. 11 commission tomorrow morning, administration officials said yesterday.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush's aides have decided not to allow a recording or make a transcription of the appearance, in part because of the classified information that will be discussed. The 10-member commission will be allowed to have one staff member present to take notes.
The decision, following a practice President Ronald Reagan used in 1987 when appearing before a commission probing the Iran-contra matter, removes the possibility that the transcript would become a political issue and precludes any subpoena.
White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and another lawyer from the counsel's office, who will take notes, will appear with Bush and Cheney, officials said. Commission interviews with former president Bill Clinton and vice president Al Gore were taped, but not all of the more than 1,000 other interviewees agreed to recordings, officials said.
The great care being taken by the White House -- it has required that the two men appear jointly, in private, and not be under oath -- reflects the political and governmental significance of tomorrow's meeting. The White House originally sought to limit the time of questioning and number of questioners. Bush has so far weathered the inquiry well, according to public opinion polls.
His appearance with Cheney is one of the last major steps the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is taking before it issues a report this summer in the midst of the presidential campaign.
Bush and Cheney have done joint preparation, some of it by phone, according to a senior administration official. Bush has also been preparing for his testimony with Gonzales, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. "I expect he will continue to visit with those individuals over the next couple of days," McClellan said. "And the counsel's office provided him some materials from that time period to look over. And he will continue to look over some of those documents from that time period to refresh his memory."
Tomorrow's session, which is to be held in the White House and begin at 9:30 a.m., is expected to go about two hours, but this is at the commission's discretion, officials said. McClellan said Bush will "answer whatever questions they have."
The commission's public hearings this spring have given attention to potentially damaging charges about Bush's actions before the attacks, including complaints from former White House counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke that Bush virtually ignored terrorism before the attacks. The commission's work also led to the release of an Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence briefing to Bush saying al Qaeda wanted to attack inside the United States and was interested in hijackings.
But those developments, while raising doubts about the administration's performance, have not dented Bush's standing on terrorism. A Washington Post poll this month showed that 61 percent of Americans thought the government "could have done more" to prevent the attacks, up from 53 percent in 2002; 56 percent said the Bush administration did not do enough to follow intelligence leads about a possible attack, up from 46 percent in 2002. Two-thirds said they were following the commission's work closely.
Americans are split on whether Bush bears responsibility for not doing more. But 58 percent of Americans said they would trust Bush more than Democratic challenger John F. Kerry to lead the fight against terrorism.
Advisers to Kerry say the questions raised by the commission, including concerns about the reasons for waging war in Iraq, have not influenced voters because they are more concerned with current actions. "The conclusion I come to is people are not so much reevaluating the past as convinced the president is wanting in the present," Kerry pollster Mark S. Mellman said.
The two political parties continued to joust over the commission and its members yesterday. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) issued a statement criticizing commissioner Bob Kerrey's appearance on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," during which host Jon Stewart jokingly offered advice on questioning Cheney.
Previously, Democrats had complained about Republican commissioners' coordination with the White House, and GOP lawmakers had called for the disqualification of Democratic commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick because of her work on terrorism in the Clinton administration's Justice Department.
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton met privately yesterday with House Republican leaders, and then with House Democratic leaders. After the meeting with GOP lawmakers -- some of whom have sharply criticized the commission for partisanship and questions of credibility -- Kean and Hamilton declined to comment to reporters, except to say it was "a good meeting." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters that the hour-long session in Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office "made me feel a lot better" about the commission's work.
Staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.
--------
Aide Denies Knowing About Memos
Bush Nominee Says White House Found Out From Media
Associated Press
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47649-2004Apr27.html
No one at the White House knew about Democratic memos on judicial nominees being taken from Senate computers by GOP Senate aides, one of President Bush's lawyers told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.
"I don't know of anyone who was aware of this matter until we heard about it through the media," said Brett Kavanaugh, who serves as Bush's assistant and staff secretary. He was testifying before the panel at his confirmation hearing after being named a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Senate Democrats have complained that two of committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch's aides intruded into their computer files on judicial nominations and distributed them to Republican groups. On Monday, the Justice Department asked David Kelley, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to investigate and determine whether a crime had been committed.
Before Kavanaugh was named an assistant to Bush, he was one of the president's lawyers working on getting judicial nominations through the Senate.
Kavanaugh, who said he met with one of the accused aides several times, testified that he never suspected that Democrats' files might have been broken into by GOP aides.
Republicans said Kavanaugh, 39, would be perfect for the D.C. appeals court, which decides important government cases involving separation of powers, the responsibilities of federal officials and the authority of federal agencies.
"Mr. Kavanaugh is a person of high integrity, of skilled professional competence and outstanding character," Hatch said.
Democrats agreed on Kavanaugh's skills and personality, but said they were concerned that he might continue to advocate for the Republicans from the bench.
"From the notorious Starr report, to the Florida recount, to this president's secrecy and privilege claims . . . to controversial judicial nominations, if there's been a partisan political fight that needed a good lawyer in the last decade, Brett Kavanaugh was probably there," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
Kavanaugh said he knew the difference between being a good lawyer and a good judge. "I will faithfully follow the law and defend the law as passed by Congress," he pledged.
He also parried questions from Democrats about his work with then-independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr on the report about President Bill Clinton's relationship with White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky and his efforts on Bush's judicial nominees.
"I don't think it's appropriate for me to say whether the House got it wrong in deciding to impeach [Clinton] or the Senate got it wrong in deciding not to prosecute," Kavanaugh said.
After Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked whether the White House has nominated a single judge who is not antiabortion, Kavanaugh said, "I don't know, and we don't ask nominees or candidates questions like that."
--------
Justices Hear Challenges to Post-9/11 Presidential Powers
April 28, 2004
By DAVID STOUT
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/national/28CND-SCOTUS.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, April 28 - The lawyer for an American citizen held in a Navy brig since being captured in Afghanistan more than two years ago told the Supreme Court today that his client's treatment was contrary to America's law and heritage.
"We have never authorized detention of a citizen in this country without giving him an opportunity to be heard, to say, `Hey, I am an innocent person,' " the lawyer, Frank W. Dunham Jr., told the justices on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana-born Saudi-American, who the federal government says was fighting on behalf of the Taliban. But Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said nothing in Mr. Hamdi's treatment is unusual or illogical. "It has been well established and long established that the government has the authority to hold both unlawful enemy combatants and lawful prisoners of war captured on the battlefield," Mr. Clement said. "No principle of the law or logic requires the United States to release an individual from detention so that he can rejoin the battle."
The perspectives of Mr. Clement and Mr. Dunham were so different that they might have been talking about different cases.
Mr. Dunham complained that his client had not even been able to proclaim his innocence. "He hasn't been able to look at the facts that have been alleged against him and give any kind of an explanation as to his side of the story, which may well turn out to be true," the lawyer said.
Mr. Clement seemed to suggest a bit later that that was not really the point. "It has never been the case that prisoners of war are entitled to counsel to challenge their capture or their detention," he said.
If a prisoner of war is charged with a specific crime, then the Geneva Convention specifies that he should have counsel, Mr. Clement went on. But if a prisoner is simply held in preventive detention, he is not allowed counsel, he said.
The court heard arguments not only in Mr. Hamdi's case but in a companion case involving José Padilla, another American citizen being held in a Navy brig without having been charged. The cases are widely acknowledged to be of historic importance, involving the limits of presidential power and the balance between individual freedom and national security.
What the justices decide in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla will be of huge importance to President Bush and his top advisers. Perhaps more important, the court's rulings in these two cases could affect American presidents and American law for many decades.
The cases arise from the Bush administration's response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Part of that response has been the open-ended detention of people whom the administration has labeled "enemy combatants."
President Bush and his aides have argued that they are operating within the Constitution and, indeed, doing what they have to to fulfill their duty to protect the country. Those who disagree have argued that Mr. Bush and his aides are shredding the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold.
The dimensions of the issues at hand, and the uncharted legal terrain on which they were argued, were illustrated in exchanges between Mr. Dunham and members of the court.
"The allegation here is that - as I understand it, is that Mr. Hamdi is an enemy combatant, whatever that means," Mr. Dunham said. "We don't find it defined in any case, we don't find it defined in any statute, and it hasn't been defined by regulation or by anything that's been filed in this case."
"Well," Justice Antonin Scalia broke in, "it's an English word. It means somebody who is combating."
"That's correct," Mr. Dunham conceded.
"I assume it means someone who is, has taken up arms against the armed forces of the United States," Justice Scalia said. "I mean, do we have to quibble about that word?"
"No," Mr. Dunham replied. "I mean in its ordinary sense, Your Honor, you're absolutely right."
Surely, Justice Scalia went on, Mr. Dunham was not suggesting that "every captured enemy in a war" has a right to a habeas corpus proceeding in which he could challenge the legality of his detention, as distinct from his guilt or innocence.
"Or would you?" Justice Scalia pressed. "I don't know."
"No," Mr. Dunham said. "I wouldn't allow every person captured to go through a habeas proceeding. But there's a different legal status of a U.S. citizen from an enemy alien captured on a battlefield."
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wondered aloud how jurists were supposed to handle a case like the one presented today, both legally and factually. "Are we supposed to send a Gulfstream over with 10 people who witnessed the capture?" the justice asked. "I mean, how does this work?"
Mr. Dunham said a Gulfstream executive jet was really not necessary with modern technology. "We have fax machines, we have phones that have pictures, you can get depositions," he said.
"When it comes to U.S. citizens, you don't simply detain them," Mr. Dunham said at another point. "You prosecute them, like they did with John Walker Lindh." Mr. Lindh, a Californian, was captured while fighting for the Taliban and pleaded guilty to violating an antiterrorism law. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The cases argued today have attracted worldwide attention, as demonstrated in a statement issued by Amnesty International. "We believe the president must ensure national security and capture enemies that would harm us," Alexandra Arriaga, director of government relations for Amnesty International USA said today. "But the United States and the world must be guided by the rule of law. Every person deserves a fair trial to determine his or her guilt or innocence, and to be held accountable for crimes."
The central figure in the other case heard today, José Padilla, was born in Brooklyn, moved to Chicago, where he became a gang member and committed numerous street crimes, then traveled in the Middle East where, federal authorities say, he associated and plotted with Al Qaeda terrorists. Two years ago, he was arrested at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago on suspicion of plotting with terrorists to detonate a radioactive device in the United States.
Neither Mr. Hamdi nor Mr. Padilla has been charged with a crime.
Mr. Hamdi and Mr. Padilla are being held in the same Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. Neither was allowed to see a lawyer for two years. Later, they were given limited access to lawyers, although the government insisted, in effect, that it was doing the prisoners a favor rather than granting them their rights.
The legal questions in the two cases are similar, but the lower-court histories are not.
The question in the Hamdi case is whether the military can keep a United States citizen, seized overseas during military operations, in indefinite custody without his being able to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., concluding that the government had provided enough evidence, said yes.
The question in the Padilla case is whether the military can keep a United States citizen, seized within the United States, in indefinite custody without his being able to challenge his enemy-combatant label. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, said no, holding that Congress had not authorized such detentions and that the president lacked the authority to impose it by himself.
Several former United States attorneys general filed a brief on behalf of the administration, asserting that in times of war "the Constitution is not designed to maximize the government's efficiency to achieve victory - even at the cost of `collateral damage' that would be unacceptable in the domestic realm."
But the American Bar Association, in a brief on behalf of Mr. Hamdi, said that "where the deprivation of liberty is complete, ongoing, potentially without end, and based entirely upon a secret record, the need for counsel could not be more compelling . . . . The federal habeas corpus statutes grant Hamdi, like any other person held by the government, the right to present his side of the story."
Last week, the court heard another case involving post-Sept. 11 measures. The question was whether federal courts have jurisdiction over the open-ended detention of noncitizens at the United States Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has said no.
The justices are expected to decide all three cases before their summer break.
--------
Bush-Cheney 9/11 Interview Won't Be Formally Recorded
April 28, 2004
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and PHILIP SHENON
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/politics/28BUSH.html
WASHINGTON, April 27 - The White House said on Tuesday that there would be no recording or formal transcription of the historic joint interview of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The interview, to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday at the White House, will be recorded by two note takers, one from the White House. Under a pact with the White House that allowed all its 10 members in the interview, the commission is permitted to take a note taker, but not a recording device. The panel said it did not press for a formal transcription of the session, letting the White House decide.
The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, told reporters that the session would not be officially transcribed because the White House considered it a "private meeting" that would include highly classified information.
"Let's keep in mind that it is extraordinary for a sitting president of the United States to sit down with a legislatively created commission," Mr. McClellan said.
An adviser to Mr. Bush said a larger consideration was the concern that an official transcript would set a precedent for appearances by presidents before other commissions and create legal problems down the road.
Mr. Bush will not be under oath, and the White House has been adamant that what he says should not be considered official testimony.
"He is not testifying, he is talking to them," the adviser said. "A transcript implies testimony. This would open a Pandora's box of all sorts of precedent-setting and legal issues. We were reluctant for the president to do this, anyway."
Legal scholars said the lack of an official transcript would give the White House some deniability and make it more difficult to use the president's words as evidence in a future suit against the government.
"It gives them more maneuverability in case someone slips up or says something he regrets," Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have cleared much of their schedules to be ready for the session. Mr. Bush has prepared with Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, as well as with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, who will sit in on the interview. Mr. Cheney's office declined to give details of his preparations. White House officials would not say whether Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had prepared together.
Commission members say they believe that they are under no formal time limit for the interview. Although the White House had offered one hour each for interviews of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, they dropped that as part of an accord in which the president and vice president could be interviewed together.
The panel chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, a Republican, said White House officials had not told him that the questioning would have to be cut off at a specific time.
"The only thing they've told me so far," Mr. Kean said in an interview last week, "is to please respect the fact that this is the president of the United States, and I'm sure members of the commission will do that."
Former Representative Timothy J. Roemer, a Democrat on the panel, said: "I believe that it is very important that we get all 10 commissioners in the process. We should make sure that all 10 commissioners have ample opportunity to ask questions. I certainly have a lot of questions and probably not a lot of time to ask them."
Mr. Roemer noted that "we were able to get about four hours with former President Bill Clinton and three" with former Vice President Al Gore and that Bob Woodward spoke more than three hours with Mr. Bush for his Iraq war book.
"I don't know that the metric should be what Bob Woodward got on the Iraq war," Mr. Roemer said. "But certainly the seriousness of 3,000 people dying on 9/11 would suggest that we need ample time."
Mr. Kean said the panel would focus on Sept. 11, but he would not be more specific. Members have said they want to know about interactions among Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other officials on Sept. 11 and, specifically, when Mr. Bush issued an order letting military pilots down civilian airliners. The commission is investigating whether the order was relayed quickly to fighter pilots who might have had a chance to shoot an American Airlines jet before it struck the Pentagon.
Mr. Roemer said he wanted "to know about the sense of urgency in the administration in the summer" in dealing with a flood of reports about terrorist threats, "the time period when alarm bells were going off and people's hair was supposed to be on fire." He said testimony to the panel suggested that many people in the administration paid too little attention to terrorism that summer.
Mr. Kean said he was humbled to be part of the session. "This is real history," he said. "Presidents just don't do this. Presidents don't meet with commissions like this."
Mr. Kean added that the panel had no ground rules but was asking its staff to prepare essential questions.
--------
Feds Probe Ashcroft Campaign Finances
April 28, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ashcroft-FEC.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department is reviewing allegations that Attorney General John Ashcroft violated campaign finance laws during his unsuccessful 2000 bid for re-election to the Senate.
The department's Public Integrity Section is examining whether violations identified by the Federal Election Commission warrant a full criminal investigation. If such a probe is launched, it could eventually be handed to a special counsel to avoid conflicts of interest with existing Justice Department officials.
The FEC determined in December that Ashcroft's former political action committee, Spirit of America, and his Senate re-election committee violated campaign finance laws by renting out a mailing list that resulted in an excessive, unreported $110,000 contribution to the campaign. PACs are allowed to give only $5,000 per election to a campaign.
The two committees agreed to pay a $37,000 fine in the FEC case. But several watchdog groups, including the National Voting Rights Institute and Public Citizen, have been pushing for a broader investigation focused on whether Ashcroft properly reported ownership of the mailing list on government financial disclosure forms.
``Either Ashcroft owns the list or he doesn't. If he owns the list, then he didn't disclose it anywhere,'' said Lisa Danetz, staff attorney for the National Voting Rights Institute. ``If he doesn't own it, then he was personally involved in a sham transaction.''
Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, in an April 14 letter to the National Voting Rights Institute, disclosed that the matter had been referred to the Public Integrity Section. The existence of the letter was first reported Wednesday by The Washington Post.
Ashcroft was defeated in his 2000 race for re-election to the Senate from Missouri. President Bush subsequently appointed him attorney general.
On the Net:
National Voting Rights Institute: http://www.nvri.org.
-------- justice
Justice Department Reviewing Ashcroft
FEC Data Pointed to Possible Violations
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47648-2004Apr27.html
The Justice Department's Public Integrity Section is reviewing allegations that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft may have violated federal campaign finance and disclosure laws based on information developed by the Federal Election Commission.
The section is responsible for determining whether allegations merit investigation as potential criminal violations of campaign finance and disclosure laws and for making recommendations as to whether a special counsel would be needed when a potential conflict of interest with senior Justice officials exists.
At issue is the valuable campaign fundraising list of then-Sen. Ashcroft (R-Mo.). He had claimed ownership of the fundraising list during an FEC inquiry, but had not reported it as an asset on his Senate or Justice Department financial disclosure statements.
Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine disclosed the review in an April 14 letter to the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), an election law interest group, which disclosed it to The Washington Post.
The institute triggered the original FEC investigation almost three years ago, which resulted in a determination in December that Ashcroft's 1998 leadership political action committee, Spirit of America, and his Senate reelection campaign committee, Ashcroft 2000, had committed at least four violations of federal campaign laws. The two committees agreed to pay a $37,000 fine to settle the issue.
The violations arose when the Spirit of America PAC in 1999 and 2000 earned $165,000 from renting its mailing list to outside groups and transferred $112,000 of that money to the Ashcroft 2000 campaign committee. Election laws, the FEC ruled, permitted the PAC to donate $5,000 for the primary and $5,000 for the general election to his Senate campaign committee.
During the FEC inquiry, Ashcroft campaign committee lawyers described him as the owner of the PAC mailing list, which would have exempted the fund transfers from any limitations. The FEC last year rejected that assertion because Ashcroft did not disclose his ownership or the rental income in his 1998 and 1999 Senate financial disclosures. He also did not report the mailing list as an asset in his required filings as attorney general.
Because the FEC can deal only with civil violations, the NVRI asked Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey Jr. on Jan. 15 to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Ashcroft or his committees had broken any criminal laws. On March 4, having received no answer from Comey, the NVRI asked the inspector general to investigate "potential civil and criminal violations of federal law" by Ashcroft and the two campaign committees.
Fine wrote to the NVRI that the "matters in your previous letter to the deputy attorney general . . . had been referred to the Public Integrity Section for its review." There was no reference to the possible appointment of a special counsel.
Lisa Danetz, an NVRI lawyer, said yesterday that "we hope and expect that the Justice Department will diligently investigate the charges against the attorney general."
Ashcroft, who lost his reelection campaign before being appointed attorney general by President Bush, has avoided direct involvement with his fundraising committees' legal problems, even though he was the founder and a major figure in both. To make their case, committee lawyers instead used documents he signed, including one that they said established his ownership of the mailing list. The attorney general was not interviewed during the FEC inquiry.
Mark Corallo, Ashcroft's spokesman at Justice, said last month that the attorney general's disclosure statement "is complete."
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- alternative energy
Norway Testing New Clean Energy System
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 28, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Norway-Alternative-Energy.html
OSLO, Norway (AP) -- A windblown island off Norway is being used to test ways of overcoming a big drawback of alternative energy: How to store it.
Such renewable energy sources as wind, waves and solar power provide a clean alternative to climate damaging fossil fuels and potentially dangerous nuclear power.
But sometimes the wind dies, the sea calms, and the sun doesn't shine, leaving those who depend on them for power facing a blackout unless they have a backup supply.
Oslo-based Norsk Hydro ASA on Tuesday presented its project to test a combination of technologies, wind power and hydrogen fuel, to overcome that problem on the island of Utsira, off Norway's western coast.
``It is the first full scale project of this type in the world,'' said project manager Paal Otto Eide, whose company is leading the 40 million kroner ($5.8 million) effort.
The concern built two 600-kilowatt wind turbines to use with a hydrogen generator and a fuel cell in providing all the electricity for 10 homes on Utsira, Norway's smallest municipality with just 240 residents.
When it's windy, which is usual in Utsira, about 18 kilometers (11 miles) from the mainland, the wind turbines will produce more electricity than needed by the 10 homes.
The excess power will be used to produce hydrogen fuel so a hydrogen combustion engine and a fuel cell make electricity at windless times.
``What is important is to store the excess energy,'' said Eide. ``Utsira is a demonstration of what we could imagine as a hydrogen community in the future.''
Hydrogen, one of the most common elements on earth, is seen by many as a pollution-free fuel of the future, and is a key part of projects around the world, including tests of hydrogen powered cars.
It can be derived from such sources as natural gas or methane, or can be made by electricity -- in this case from the wind turbines, in a process known as electrolysis that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen.
The wind turbines and the hydrogen engine are already producing electricity on Utsira, 200 miles west of Oslo. The full switch from the traditional power grid is set for July 1 for the test, which will last two or three years.
Norsk Hydro is a major oil and natural gas producer, and like many energy companies is preparing to also meet demand for alternative fuels. The group was founded in 1905 to produce mineral fertilizers by using electricity from its hydroelectric plant, hence the Hydro part of its name.
``We want to prove that this is possible, not economically viable, but technically possible,'' said Eide.
Though the Oslo-based group declined to guess when such a system might be put to commercial use, it already sees potential markets.
Eide said many remote areas around the world depend on costly and polluting diesel generators for electricity, which could make an alternative, such as the wind and hydrogen supply, attractive.
Norway, the world's third largest oil exporter, produces virtually all its own electricity with hydroelectric plants.
----
Energy Department announces $350 million in research grants for hydrogen fuel technology
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
By Sarah Karush,
Associated Press
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-04-28/s_23253.asp
DETROIT - The Energy Department announced $350 million in grants Tuesday to more than 130 research institutions and companies, including the Big Three automakers, to put hydrogen-fueled cars on the road by 2015.
The projects, which are worth $575 million with private funding, are aimed at removing some of the obstacles to developing the cleaner-burning technology for widespread use.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the projects will address problems such as how to store hydrogen and how to make hydrogen fuel cells that are durable and affordable.
"It's a very comprehensive program that has brought together for the first time the major energy and the major automotive companies of the world to work on this extremely important challenge," Abraham said.
Hydrogen does not create any pollution or greenhouse gases. But unlike oil or coal, hydrogen must be produced; there are no natural stores of it waiting to be pumped or dug out of the ground.
Detroit's Big Three automakers - General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler - each will lead research teams, as will Texaco Energy Systems LLC and Air Products and Chemicals Inc. Other companies chosen to take part in the projects include Shell Oil Products, BP, and foreign automakers.
The grants represent nearly one-third of $1.2 billion that President Bush has pledged for hydrogen research. Most of the money will be distributed over five years.
"I think we can use technology and innovation to go beyond the false choices of the past," Bush said this week during a campaign stop in Minneapolis.
----
U.S. Hydrogen Highway Paved With Public-Private Research Funds
DETROIT, Michigan, (ENS)
April 28, 2004
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2004/2004-04-28-04.asp
The hydrogen cars of the future got a $575 million jumpstart Tuesday as Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced federal funding and private matching funds for dozens of science and research projects to establish a hydrogen economy.
The federal government will spend $350 million on projects involving 30 lead organizations and including more than 100 partners, Abraham said. Recipients include industry, universities, and Energy Department national laboratories.
Private matching funds of $225 million were also announced. "The financial commitment of the private sector dramatically increases the probability of success that we will overcome the technology challenges in this important endeavor," Secretary Abraham said.
Most of the funds go to American organizations, but two foreign entities will be funded - hydrogen industry leader Ballard Power Systems of Vancouver, Canada; and the Russian State Scientific Research Institute of Moscow for a chemical hydrides project.
The secretary made his announcement in Detroit where the auto industry has already spent billions to get hydrogen powered cars rolling. Many of the largest automakers used the federal announcement to showcase their fuel cell vehicle plans funded by cost-share contracts from the Department of Energy (DOE).
Ford and DaimlerChrysler AG each publicized new initiatives to put fuel cell cars on American roads this year. DaimlerChrysler intends to add 37 fuel cell cars to U.S. fleets by summer.
The Ford fuel cell vehicle, the Focus (Photo courtesy Ballard Power Systems) Ford and BP held joint news conferences Tuesday in Detroit, in Sacramento, California, and in Orlando, Florida to announce the roll out of 30 Ford Focus fuel cell cars later this year and BP's plans to build fueling stations to support them in these three cities.
The Ford Focus uses an 85kW fuel cell stack supplied by Ballard Power Systems, a world leader in proton exchange membrane technology. The fuel cell vehicle is hybridized with the addition of a nickel metal-hydride battery pack and an energy producing regenerative braking system.
Another partnership led by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. includes four automakers who will roll out a total of 80 fuel cell vehicles, and test the use of hydrogen as a fuel in real-world conditions. Partnership members Toyota, Honda and Nissan will contribute a total of 65 fuel cell vehicles to the project. BMW, will provide up to 15 7 Series cars, the only test vehicles using internal combustion engines.
This five year program will use federal funds, as well as donations from partnership members, to finance construction and testing of 24 hydrogen filling stations in California. The stations will vary from using renewable resources such as wind power to using a hydrogen pipeline. Some stations will be fixed; others will be relocatable.
Energy company ConocoPhillips, the National Fuel Cell Research Center at the University of California at Irvine, the University of California at Davis, and the California South Coast Air Quality Management District are all partners in this project.
President George W. Bush examines a hydrogen fueling system by Air Products at the National Building Museum, February 2003. (Photo courtesy DOE) Karl-Heinz Ziwica, vice president of engineering U.S. with BMW of North America, said his company has been researching liquid hydrogen technology for 20 years. "Our research has demonstrated that hydrogen is completely viable as a fuel and the technology exists to advance its use in vehicles with internal combustion engines or with fuel cells," he said. "The more challenging step to the realization of hydrogen powered vehicles is the development of a supporting infrastructure of fueling stations and service facilities."
Another DOE cost-share contract was awarded to ChevronTexaco, in cooperation with Hyundai Motor Co. and UTC Fuel Cells. ChevronTexaco intends to provide the design and construction of up to six hydrogen fueling stations to be operated in California, including sites at the University of California-Davis and the Hyundai America Technical Center in Chino. An additional station may be located in the Northeast to test performance under cold climate conditions. Hyundai will provide a fleet of up to 32 Tucson fuel cell vehicles, powered by UTC Fuel Cells power plants.
"Public-private partnerships are key to addressing transition challenges for a hydrogen economy," said Dr. Donald Paul, ChevronTexaco vice president and chief technology officer.
The partnerships to showcase hydrogen fleets and fueling stations formed in response to the Energy Department's solicitation to companies to build and demonstrate a fuel cell vehicle fleets and the infrastructure to support them.
The federally funded projects come under four general headings:
1. Centers of Excellence for exploratory research in hydrogen storage will each include a DOE national laboratory leader and several university and industry partners. These centers will address the major technical barrier to on-board hydrogen storage - storing enough hydrogen to enable greater than 300 mile driving range without impacting cargo or passenger space.
In addition, individual universities, research institutes, and small businesses will explore new materials for hydrogen storage.
The Department of Energy (DOE) share for this National Hydrogen Storage Project is $150 million over five years with an additional private cost share of about $20 million.
2. Vehicle and infrastructure learning demonstrations. Automakers and energy companies will work together with their teams under this project to demonstrate integrated and complete system solutions operating in real world environments. These demonstrations will assess the research program's progress toward meeting the goal of making a commercialization decision by 2015. The expected DOE share is $190 million over five years with an additional private cost share of about $190 million.
3. Fuel cell research projects that address critical cost and durability issues for consumer electronics and other applications. These teams will develop fuel cells for consumer electronics devices, for auxiliary power generation, and for off-road applications. The DOE share is $13 million dollars over three years with an additional private cost share of approximately $10 million.
These selections are in addition to the $75 million in fuel cell awards announced by Secretary Abraham last year.
4. Hydrogen technology education projects include middle school and high school curricula and teacher professional development. These projects pair hydrogen technology experts with professional educators and experienced curriculum developers to create hands-on activities and lessons to engage students in the developing hydrogen economy.
Teacher professional development is an essential component. Teachers nationwide will learn how to use the materials and receive training to build their expertise and enhance their ability to educate students.
The hydrogen education projects also include the development of materials to introduce the public to the hydrogen vision, as well as provide a better understanding of how fuel cells work; how hydrogen is produced, delivered, and stored; and the facts about hydrogen safety.
At the opening session of the National Hydrogen Association's annual conference in Los Angeles Tuesday, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District and ChevronTexaco announced a cooperative agreement to build a state-of-the-art hydrogen energy station in Oakland, California, that will produce hydrogen fuel for fuel cell fleets.
Dr. Paul of ChevronTexaco unveiled an image of the AC Transit/ChevronTexaco hydrogen energy station during his keynote speech. The station is now under development and is scheduled to be completed by August 2005.
The hydrogen produced at the station will fuel AC Transit's fleet of three 40 foot Van Hool/UTC/ISE fuel cell buses which are under construction and due to be delivered for passenger service in the fall of 2005. It will also fuel future fleets of cars, SUVs, and small trucks.
Honda FLX fuel cell vehicle goes for a test drive at the 2003 Clean Cities Conference in Palm Springs, California. (Photo by Tom Brewster courtesy NREL) The station will have the additional capability of utilizing excess hydrogen production to generate high quality electrical power from a stationary fuel cell. Unique to the station's design is the use of small scale, onsite steam reforming of natural gas, to produce hydrogen in the most cost efficient manner for commercial applications.
Both AC Transit and ChevronTexaco are members of the California Fuel Cell Partnership which conducts real world demonstrations that aid in hydrogen technology development.
On April 21, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an Executive Order officially launching California's Hydrogen Highway Network. To turn this plan into reality, several leading auto manufacturers have said that they could have tens of thousands of competitively priced hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road by the end of this decade if the fueling infrastructure were available. The governor outlined plans for a public-private partnership to ensure that before 2010 California has such a network of hydrogen fueling stations in place.
Abraham said that President George W. Bush has made a $1.2 billion commitment for research funding to bring hydrogen and fuel cell technology from the laboratory to the showroom.
A hydrogen economy has "the long-term potential to deliver greater energy independence by reducing America's dependence on foreign sources of energy," said Abraham Tuesday in Detroit. "It offers immense environmental benefits that current energy technologies cannot meet. This multi-million dollar commitment to research is a down payment on a more energy and environmentally secure future."
Abraham will make additional stops at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, which will coordinate a research group, and at the National Hydrogen Association meeting in Los Angeles.
-------- energy
Nuclear Power Operators Warned About Grid Failure
WASHINGTON, DC, (ENS)
April 28, 2004
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2004/2004-04-28-09.asp#anchor1
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Tuesday warned the operators of nuclear power plants to schedule maintainence when there is little chance of losing power due to summer demand overloading the power grid. While nuclear reactors generate power, they also rely on offsite power supplies when in maintenance mode.
On August 14, 2003, the largest power outage in the history of the United States occurred in the Northeastern United States and parts of Canada. Nine U.S. nuclear power plants "tripped," meaning they shut down, the NRC reminded its licensees. Eight of these, along with one nuclear power plant that was already shut down, lost offsite power.
"Although the onsite emergency diesel generators functioned to maintain safe shutdown conditions, this event was significant in terms of the number of plants affected and the duration of the power outage," the agency said.
The loss of all alternating current power at a nuclear power plant, referred to as a "station blackout," involves the loss of offsite power combined with the loss of the onsite emergency power supplies, typically an emergency diesel generator.
The agency expressed concern that, "Risk analyses performed for nuclear power plants indicate that the loss of all AC power can be a large contributor to the core damage frequency, contributing up to 74 percent of the overall risk at some plants."
Although nuclear power plants are designed to cope with a loss of offsite power (LOOP) event through the use of onsite power supplies, LOOP events are considered to be precursors to station blackouts. "An increase in the frequency or duration of LOOP events increases the risk of core damage," the agency warned.
In a regulatory summary, the NRC suggests licensees evaluate grid reliability when contemplating upcoming maintenance. Utilities should consider rescheduling maintenance during periods when offsite power may be unavailable, the agency said.
The summary recommends "reliable communications between plants and their transmission system operators, in order to increase awareness of overall grid conditions."
The agency said it plans to conduct "focused inspections" this spring of all licensed plants to assess their compliance with these requirements.
-------- genetics
Benefit of genetics: glowing testicles
April 28, 2004
(UPI)
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040428-114232-1156r.htm
Edinburgh, Apr. 28 -- Scientists at Scotland's Roslin Institute have inserted a jellyfish gene into pigs and chickens to make them glow, the BBC reported Wednesday.
Transgenic pigs and chickens have been produced at Roslin using lentiviruses to carry the green fluorescent protein gene, found naturally in jellyfish.
Both chickens and pigs carrying the gene can be detected in normal light by a slight greenish tinge, but when viewed in blue light, all areas not covered with hair or feathers are seen to glow brightly.
In the case of chickens, it is the head and feet; and in pigs, it is the ears, snout and testicles.
The institute's scientists say they hope to use their transgenic technology to make animals that are resistant to disease or can be used to study disease.
-------- health
High Lead Found in Boston Area
Water EPA-State Decision Influenced by D.C. Utility's Handling of Contamination
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47845-2004Apr27.html
Federal and state regulators ruled yesterday that the drinking water delivered to 2.5 million customers in the Boston region has lead levels above the acceptable national standard, a decision prompted in part by lead problems in the District's water supply.
Yesterday's ruling came after months of scrutiny by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts regulators who reviewed every water test conducted last year by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). All water utilities must perform annual lead analyses to comply with the national Safe Drinking Water Act.
The utility was seeking to invalidate tests from 18 households, most with high lead levels. Approval of the rare request would have allowed the utility to declare itself in compliance with federal law.
But the handling of lead problems in the District has raised concerns about eliminating test results and prompted some members of Congress to demand that the EPA monitor the issue more aggressively.
After reviewing the tests in the Boston region, the EPA and the state yesterday told the MWRA, the largest water utility in New England, that it could not invalidate the tests. The decision means the utility is considered to have high levels of lead in its water and is out compliance with federal law, an MWRA spokesman said yesterday.
By law, customers in Boston and its suburbs must be notified that the water could pose health risks to vulnerable populations, such as young children and pregnant women.
The high lead readings were concentrated in 10 of 28 suburban communities. MWRA officials said they expect that those 10 would have to begin replacing roughly 7 percent of their lead service lines in the next year, a requirement when 10 percent of the test results exceed the federal lead standard of 15 parts per billion.
EPA Region I officials said the state will now verify the utility's test results for each community, and MWRA officials said that review will officially determine which of the suburban communities must replace lead service lines.
The MWRA had unsafe lead levels from 1997 to 2001, forcing Boston to replace hundreds of lead service lines. But the utility was in compliance in 2002 and 2003. Last year, the utility declared that it had reduced its lead levels to a safe level.
Utility spokesman Jonathan Yeo said yesterday's decision was disappointing "but not surprising."
"Now we'll be back to where we were for years," Yeo said. "There's only so much a water supplier can do. In the end, it's the source of lead in people's faucets or in the pipes in their homes."
Boston has replaced more than two-thirds of its lead service lines, which is supposed to reduce lead levels in water. Regulators said the surrounding communities where high lead levels were found may not have replaced many lead service lines.
Massachusetts began its review of the utility's plan to toss out some test results in late January just as news broke about Washington's lead problem. Tap water tests conducted by the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority last year found lead levels that exceeded the federal standard in thousands of District households.
As the severity of Washington's problem unfolded in February and March, members of Congress demanded that the EPA determine whether it was missing or mishandling lead threats elsewhere. The EPA's top water administrator, Benjamin Grumbles, vowed at a congressional hearing to make sure Washington's lead problem wasn't repeated and to find out whether similar problems were lurking in other communities' water supplies.
"Region I got interested early on because of the interest in lead nationally because of D.C.'s problem, and to make sure everybody is regulating consistently across the country," said Damon Gutterman, a water monitoring supervisor in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
State environmental authorities considered allowing the MWRA to strike 18 samples out of 425 taken in the required annual measurement of the region's water quality. EPA officials questioned whether eliminating some samples might unfairly manipulate the results and violate the law.
Results of a federally required water test are supposed to be invalidated only when a water sample has been tampered with, a sample container has broken or the sample was taken from the wrong location, according to EPA officials. Not reporting results from a required water sample is considered a clear violation and could be considered criminal.
The MWRA said about half of the 18 samples at issue should be discarded because of errors made by homeowners; half were unusually high compared with previous years' results. In several meetings over the past four months, EPA officials warned the state that the law specifically prohibited rejecting a sample because of homeowner error or unusually high results.
EPA officials said in interviews yesterday that they expressed concern about MWRA's invalidation proposal before learning of Washington's problem. But they acknowledged that the EPA is scrutinizing water utilities and lead issues more closely after the Washington experience.
"The agency obviously has an increased awareness about the lead issue now since D.C.," said Karen McGuire, a senior water official at the EPA's Region I office. "Does the D.C. situation inform us and help us learn? Absolutely, yes."
Some of what the EPA is learning about the Boston region's water supply is similar to what surfaced in Washington.
A former WASA manager who was fired has alleged that the Washington utility tossed out some test results with high lead readings in order to avoid running afoul of federal law in 2001, two years before the utility found excessive levels in thousands of District homes.
WASA maintains that it consulted with the EPA about rejecting those results, but the EPA says it never approved invalidating any WASA tests. The dispute is the subject of an extensive EPA audit launched last month into all WASA water testing dating back to 1994.
Except in the District and Wyoming, state officials have primary responsibility for regulating the nation's 60,000 water utilities.
Staff researchers Meg Smith and Bobbye Pratt contributed to this report.
--------
Experimental Smallpox Vaccine Protects Monkeys From Dying
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48089-2004Apr27.html
Researchers at the U.S. Army laboratories at Fort Detrick in Frederick reported a major advance yesterday in the search for a safer smallpox vaccine.
An experimental vaccine made from pieces of the live virus currently used as a smallpox vaccine protected monkeys against monkeypox, their version of the fatal illness. The protection was not absolute -- the animals got mildly ill and developed the characteristic pox rash -- but it was good enough to keep them from dying.
The federal government currently vaccinates many members of the military against smallpox, a disease that was eradicated 26 years ago but that some experts believe might be used as a bioterrorism weapon. Both federal and state governments have urged hospitals to vaccinate a small number of physicians, nurses and technicians as the first step in homeland defense against the infection.
Both efforts, however, have been marred by problems. The military program has experienced an unexpected number of cases of a rare complication, a heart-muscle inflammation called myocarditis. The program for health care workers has barely gotten off the ground because many people refuse to accept the small but real risks of the vaccine, which is a live virus related to smallpox that replicates in a person's body after inoculation.
The new experiments, done in rhesus monkeys, suggest that a virtually risk-free "subunit" vaccine made from virus DNA might be an acceptable substitute for the old, whole-virus version.
"This is an extremely primitive version of a vaccine that might ultimately be used in the future," said Jay W. Hooper, a virologist at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick who led the experiment.
Hooper and his colleagues gave three monkeys a vaccine composed of four genes from vaccinia, the virus used as a smallpox vaccine. Three monkeys got a vaccine to an entirely different disease, Hantaan virus. Two monkeys were given the standard smallpox vaccine.
Then all the monkeys were injected with monkeypox virus.
The animals that got the experimental vaccine developed between one and 30 pox marks each -- a sign they were infected -- but all three survived. The animals that got the Hantaan vaccine, however, developed severe monkeypox, were covered with pox marks, and died. The animals that got live smallpox vaccine got no skin rash and did not become ill.
Two monkeys also got a vaccine that contained only a single monkeypox gene. It worked, but only barely. The animals got more than a hundred pox marks and became severely ill but lived.
The researchers plan to repeat the experiment using genes from monkeypox itself to see if it protects better. After that, they may create a similar vaccine using genes from smallpox virus, an effort that would require them to work at a high-security lab at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the only place in the United States that holds samples of the virus.
A research group at the National Institutes of Health recently reported that a highly weakened strain of vaccinia, called modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA), also protected monkeys from monkeypox. If further tests are successful, it might also be an acceptable substitute to the vaccine now in use.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Activists share lab expansion concerns
By Guy Ashley
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Wed, Apr. 28, 2004
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/8538725.htm
LIVERMORE - More than 100 people, most opposed to nuclear weapons research at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, turned out Tuesday for a hearing on plans to expand lab use of plutonium and other highly radioactive weapons materials.
Citizens blitzed the lab's 10-year environmental plan from many directions. Some focused on details of the 2,000-page draft plan, while others raised fundamental questions about a national expansion of the weapons research that drives it.
The afternoon hearing, the first of five this week on the Livermore plan, came amid a new wave of controversy about the security of federal facilities like Livermore and concerns in Congress that they may be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Investigators from the federal General Accounting Office reported to a House committee Tuesday that security upgrades at nuclear weapons sites ordered after the Sept. 11 attacks may not be achieved by a 2006 deadline -- and that it might be necessary to remove plutonium and weapons-grade uranium from Livermore and other facilities due to terrorism fears.
At the Livermore hearing, an official from the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration told participants the 10-year plan focuses on the needs of the federal stockpile stewardship program. That program aims to maintain the country's nuclear weapons through experiments and computer simulations rather than underground nuclear tests.
"Implementation of stockpile stewardship requires increased operations at LLNL," said Tom Grim, who is overseeing the environmental statement for the NNSA.
Proposals that go above and beyond the lab's current programs include housing twice the plutonium on the lab site -- up to 3,300 pounds of plutonium to be stored at the lab at any one time -- and working with nearly 10 times the radioactive tritium it does now, according to lab officials.
The lab also would start research on how to make new plutonium "pits," the nuclear core of nuclear weapons and use tritium in testing the world's largest laser, now under construction.
Critics of a program expansion at the lab dominated the public comment period of Tuesday afternoon's meeting. Many in the audience held signs and offered boisterous expressions of opposition.
"We're the most powerful nation on earth, with the most military might. Why do we need more?" said Ellie Gilbert of Walnut Creek, who said she went to the meeting because she was concerned about her children and grandchildren who live near the lab.
"We believe it would actually enhance our security as a nation to ramp down" weapons research, said Marylia Kelley, executive director of the watchdog group Tri Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment.
"And we believe it will increase our security as a community if the (Department of Energy) removes plutonium from Livermore."
In Washington on Tuesday, the chairman of a house subcommittee examining nuclear security said the government "has too many facilities housing nuclear materials" and that consolidation is needed.
"We know the terrorists will not wait that long to try to exploit lingering vulnerabilities in our nuclear complex defenses," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., responding with alarm to reports that it may take as many as five more years to achieve mandated security updates at nuclear facilities.
Security fears have long focused on Livermore, because it is the closest to dense residential areas of the approximately seven facilities nationwide handling weapons-grade nuclear materials.
But singling out Livermore amid the crush of concern about facilities nationwide is misleading, said David Schwoegler, a lab spokesman.
"Our protection strategy takes into account the entire spectrum of feasible threats," Schwoegler said, adding that the federal Energy Department's annual security review at the lab was recently concluded and resulted in the highest rating possible.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
--------
G.O.P. Protesters Plan to Infiltrate Convention as Volunteers
April 28, 2004
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/nyregion/28convention.html
It is accepted as an article of faith among protesters planning to demonstrate against the Republican National Convention this summer that agents seeking to undermine their efforts have infiltrated their ranks. But now the protesters are talking about infiltrating the convention to undermine the event itself.
"Really?" said Kevin Sheekey, president of the New York City Host Committee, when told that protesters were talking about flooding the ranks of volunteers to disrupt convention operations.
The city is obligated to find a total of 8,000 New Yorkers to volunteer to help things run smoothly, and would-be protesters are hoping that by signing up, they can work from the inside during the convention, scheduled Aug. 30 through Sept. 2.
"A lot of people are talking about it in general," said William Etundi Jr., a founder of counterconvention.org, a Web site that serves as a bulletin board for anti-convention activities. "The Republicans are coming to New York City, so maybe the real New York should come to them."
Until now, the host and the guest have been treating each other with kid gloves, each insisting that it is a relationship of choice that benefits everyone. As the convention preparations quicken and the organizers reach out beyond the city leadership with the volunteer drive, that sense of mutual advantage may be revealed as more wishful than actual.
It is hard to know exactly how much traction the idea of protesters posing as volunteers will have.
Still, there is evidence that the idea of volunteering, then not showing up, or showing up and using anti-Republican language has interested many people.
The biggest public proponent of the idea is a 37-year-old computer consultant from Philadelphia, David A. Lynn, who has created a Web site called shadowprotest.org. It is calling on protesters to volunteer at both the Republican convention and the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in Boston earlier in the summer. Mr. Lynn has issued press releases, and tried to sell his idea across the Internet, where it has picked up some momentum.
Boston appears largely immune to the tactic since the host committee there had signed up 12,000 volunteers by the end of March, the host committee said.
But New York, which has a long way to go to reach its target, has so far registered only about 1,400 potential volunteers. Marilyn Shaw, director of volunteer services for the host committee, said all volunteers would be vetted by law enforcement before they are signed up. She also said volunteers would be expected to attend many meetings before getting their volunteer shirts.
"I'll be honest with you," she said. "We meet and greet them so many times they become our best friends."
Some people are thinking more Trojan horse than friend.
"I think they don't understand either just how much of New York City is not prepared to welcome them," said Amanda Hickman, who described herself as a community gardener from Brooklyn. "I don't think that has clicked."
Hard feelings or not, the city host committee is going ahead with its recruiting efforts. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg called last week on a predecessor, Edward I. Koch, to help recruit volunteers. But officials said they never considered the prospect that the effort might be co-opted by protesters.
"Those sort of things would harm the city," Mr. Sheekey said. "Those wouldn't be anti-R.N.C. protests. Those would be people protesting New York City."
--------
Anglican bishop offers Vanunu unlimited sanctuary in church
By Yossi Melman,
Haaretz Correspondent
28/04/2004
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/420975.html
Anglican Bishop Abu Al Assal has offered Mordechai Vanunu unlimited sanctuary at St. George's church's guest house in East Jerusalem. The Bishop, who returned on Monday from a trip to Jordan and Lebanon, put an end to waves of speculation about Vanunu's future residence - one report had Vanunu about to move to a larger Anglican church in Nazareth. Last night, Bishop Assal held a dinner for Vanunu, to express his support for the former nuclear technician who was recently freed from Shekma Prison. Vanunu and his brother Meir have not left the grounds of St. George's church for days.
This week, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which is representing Vanunu, and Israeli security officials worked out procedures for examining journals and letters confiscated from Vanunu's prison cell. Under the terms of this agreement, ACRI attorney Dan Yakir will receive a special security clearance, and will be authorized to review the disputed materials.
The most controversial item is a journal which Vanunu says he wrote in 1991, and which reportedly features written explanations and drawings relating to production processes at Dimona nuclear reactor.
Yehiel Horev, the chief security officer for the Defense Ministry, has indicated that this journal justifies the imposition of security restrictions on Vanunu, on the grounds that he still possesses classified information about the reactor and the will to disclose it. ACRI says the journal belongs to Vanunu and that it is needed for the preparation of a High Court petition calling for lifting current restrictions on him.
-------
No permit for anti-war rally at convention
April 28, 2004
By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--gopconvention0428apr28,0,2858559.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
NEW YORK -- An anti-war group planning a massive demonstration at the start of the Republican National Convention in Manhattan has been denied a permit to rally in Central Park because the crowd would be too large.
The parks department denied the request by United for Peace and Justice organizers, who applied last June for a permit to rally in the park's Great Lawn after marching from 23rd Street and Eighth Avenue. The march permit request, submitted separately to the police department, is pending.
The anti-war group was preparing an appeal, which is part of the parks permit process, group leader Leslie Cagan said Wednesday.
"Now we just have to do another piece of organizing, to put pressure on the city to change their mind," Cagan said. "We take on issues like war and nuclear disarmament, so we have to keep a parks permit in perspective."
The permit denial letter said the Aug. 29 event, expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters, would exceed the 13-acre Great Lawn's capacity of 80,000 people; only 10 acres of the space is usable because of trees, benches and walkways. United for Peace and Justice indicated on its permit that it expected 250,000 demonstrators.
"In the view of the parks department, an event attended by 250,000 people would cause enormous damage to the lawn," the letter said.
The group plans to state in its appeal that numerous events with more than 80,000 people have taken place on the lawn, including a 1981 Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel concert that drew at least 400,000 fans and a 1982 anti-nuclear demonstration attended by more than 750,000 people, considered the largest protest in the city's history.
The Department of Parks and Recreation maintains that no gatherings of that magnitude have taken place on the Great Lawn since the area was restored in 1996. Organizers of a free Dave Matthews concert last September controlled crowd size by issuing 70,000 tickets, although about 15,000 additional people attended, parks officials said at the time.
"The Great Lawn itself cannot hold more than 80,000 people, and the overflow would be forced onto the adjacent landscape, causing damage to those areas of the park as well," the permit denial said.
Parks department spokeswoman Megan Sheekey said the city has offered to help the group find another location. United for Peace and Justice, which organized the February 2003 anti-war rally that drew tens of thousands of people to a 20-block stretch of First Avenue, said it planned to appeal in the next few days and hadn't ruled out taking the matter to court.
Another group denied a parks permit during the convention also is considering legal action. Led by the activist Aron Kay, who made a name for himself by throwing pies at public officials, the group last month requested permission to set up a 20,000-person camp in Tompkins Square Park from Aug. 27 to Sept. 12.
The application said the East Village encampment would be for sleeping, eating, protest meetings, poetry readings, bongo-playing, yoga and massage, among other activities. The city denied the request because parks close at 1 a.m. and "a neighborhood park can't accommodate an event of that size," Sheekey said.
In a separate development, a coalition of unions representing police officers and firefighters has requested permits to demonstrate during the convention. Union members claim they are underpaid compared with their counterparts in other cities and are underfunded for fighting terrorism _ complaints they plan to voice when the Republicans come to town.
No decision has been made on those permits, but "the rules of protest will apply to them like everybody else," Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.
"I don't know that I think protesting at the Republican convention is a very intelligent way of getting a better contract," he said.
The four-day convention begins Aug. 30 and is expected to bring about 50,000 people and 15,000 journalists to the city.
-------
No permit for anti-war rally at convention
By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer
April 28, 2004,
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--gopconvention0428apr28,0,2858559.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
NEW YORK -- An anti-war group planning a massive demonstration at the start of the Republican National Convention in Manhattan has been denied a permit to rally in Central Park because the crowd would be too large.
The parks department denied the request by United for Peace and Justice organizers, who applied last June for a permit to rally in the park's Great Lawn after marching from 23rd Street and Eighth Avenue. The march permit request, submitted separately to the police department, is pending.
The anti-war group was preparing an appeal, which is part of the parks permit process, group leader Leslie Cagan said Wednesday.
"Now we just have to do another piece of organizing, to put pressure on the city to change their mind," Cagan said. "We take on issues like war and nuclear disarmament, so we have to keep a parks permit in perspective."
The permit denial letter said the Aug. 29 event, expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters, would exceed the 13-acre Great Lawn's capacity of 80,000 people; only 10 acres of the space is usable because of trees, benches and walkways. United for Peace and Justice indicated on its permit that it expected 250,000 demonstrators.
"In the view of the parks department, an event attended by 250,000 people would cause enormous damage to the lawn," the letter said.
The group plans to state in its appeal that numerous events with more than 80,000 people have taken place on the lawn, including a 1981 Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel concert that drew at least 400,000 fans and a 1982 anti-nuclear demonstration attended by more than 750,000 people, considered the largest protest in the city's history.
The Department of Parks and Recreation maintains that no gatherings of that magnitude have taken place on the Great Lawn since the area was restored in 1996. Organizers of a free Dave Matthews concert last September controlled crowd size by issuing 70,000 tickets, although about 15,000 additional people attended, parks officials said at the time.
"The Great Lawn itself cannot hold more than 80,000 people, and the overflow would be forced onto the adjacent landscape, causing damage to those areas of the park as well," the permit denial said.
Parks department spokeswoman Megan Sheekey said the city has offered to help the group find another location.
United for Peace and Justice, which organized the February 2003 anti-war rally that drew tens of thousands of people to a 20-block stretch of First Avenue, said it planned to appeal in the next few days and hadn't ruled out taking the matter to court.
Another group denied a parks permit during the convention also is considering legal action. Led by the activist Aron Kay, who made a name for himself by throwing pies at public officials, the group last month requested permission to set up a 20,000-person camp in Tompkins Square Park from Aug. 27 to Sept. 12.
The application said the East Village encampment would be for sleeping, eating, protest meetings, poetry readings, bongo-playing, yoga and massage, among other activities. The city denied the request because parks close at 1 a.m. and "a neighborhood park can't accommodate an event of that size," Sheekey said.
In a separate development, a coalition of unions representing police officers and firefighters has requested permits to demonstrate during the convention. Union members claim they are underpaid compared with their counterparts in other cities and are underfunded for fighting terrorism _ complaints they plan to voice when the Republicans come to town.
No decision has been made on those permits, but "the rules of protest will apply to them like everybody else," Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.
"I don't know that I think protesting at the Republican convention is a very intelligent way of getting a better contract," he said.
The four-day convention begins Aug. 30 and is expected to bring about 50,000 people and 15,000 journalists to the city.
-------
------- 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.