Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Nuclear workers protest against planned closure of reactors
UN inspectors see signs Iran may have tried to make bomb-grade
U.N. Nuclear Head Says Not Ready to Clear Iran
US tried to plant WMDs, failed: whistleblower
North Korea Crisis Talks End on 'Wholesome' Note
N Korea vows never to accept complete dismantling
North Korea Decries U.S. Nuke Demands
North Korean nuclear crisis expected to feature at G8 talks
Nuclear Talks in Beijing End
U.N. Chief: N. Korea Is Security Problem
Brazil's Envoy Criticizes Bush Nuclear Policy
Nuke penetrator
Questions arise on fuel testing plan
High Flux Isotope Reactor Marks 400Th Cycle
State rejects DOE proposal to end groundwater treatment
MILITARY
Turkey cancels three multi-billion-dollar defence tenders
Amnesty slams "dangerously ineffective" EU arms export rules
JAPAN Defense Agency plans for attack from China
Pricetag for US operations in Iraq to rise steeply
Iraq's bin Laden? Zarqawi's rise
Rumsfeld Visits Prison in Iraq
U.S. Forces Push Fight in Najaf, and Clashes Erupt in Karbala
Congress Seeking to Clarify Iraqis' Role Under Self-Rule
12 Palestinians Killed in Border Fighting
Israel Ready to Widen Patrol Zone in Gaza Near Egypt
Israel Tries to Kill Islamic Jihad Chief in Gaza
NATO wants Bulgaria to do more in Afghanistan
Vajpayee quits as Congress routs BJP
Gandhi Moves to Form New India Government
India Vote Signals Return of Gandhis
Former Guantanamo detainees write to Bush with torture claims
Second Iraqi identifies himself in prison abuse photographs
Precise Rules for Handling Iraq Detainees
Soldier Details Abuse, Offers to Plead Guilty
Accused Soldier Paints Scene of Eager Mayhem
Iraqi Tells of U.S. Abuse, From Ridicule to Rape Threat
The Needle in the Database
Book Details U.S. Protection Of Former Nazi Officials
Documents Show U.S. Relationship With Nazis During Cold War
Rumsfeld dismisses criticism
Support the troops
Military Faulted on Assault Cases
Top Commander in Iraq Bans Several Interrogation Methods
Abu Ghraib Guard Paints Harrowing Portrait of Abuse
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld with US troops at Abu Ghraib prison.
War Crimes Complaint Filed by a Lawyer Against Britain
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Mexican's Oklahoma Death Sentence Commuted
Execution of Mexican Is Halted
All Around the Capital, Preparing for an Emergency
50 years later, Brown disappointments
Ashcroft announces intelligence sharing
Britons Allege Guantanamo Abuse in Letter to Bush
Zarqawi beheaded Berg, CIA finds
A systematic process learned from Cold War
POLITICS
House Backs 10% Tax Bracket
Congress Hesitant to Write 'Blank Check'
Should Tax Cuts Be Paid For?
Senators Assail Request for Aid for Afghan and Iraq Budgets
9/11 Draft Reports Say City Rescuers Lacked Coordination
Giuliani Set to Testify at 9/11 Hearings
Wolfowitz Draws Democrats' Ire
Editor resigns over fake Iraq photos
Joseph Wilson
Bush Continues to Push His Credentials for War on Terror
New Technology Loosens Controls Over Images of War
Analysis Bad Signs For Bush
Senate Panel Approves Continuity Measure
OTHER
Terror distracts from the poor and the environment
ACTIVISTS
China Gives Prison Term To Dissident Based in U.S.
Ashcroft Fishes Out 1872 Law in a Bid to Scuttle Protester Rights
China Gives U.S.-Based Activist 5-Year Sentence on Spy Charge
U.S. takes Greenpeace to court in unusual trial
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- europe
Nuclear workers protest against planned closure of reactors in Bulgaria
SOFIA (AFP)
May 14, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040514180249.ifodxrwt.html
Hundreds of nuclear workers from 15 countries on Friday protested in Sofia against the planned closure of two reactors at Bulgaria's nuclear power plant at Kozloduy as demanded by the European Union.
Representatives of the World Council of Nuclear Workers ran into the square in front of the Bulgarian parliament, the finish line in a 300-kilometre (186-mile) protest relay-run in which they set off from the north of the country on Thursday.
"Our message to the Bulgarian government is simple: please let Kozloduy live," said the president of the council, Andre Maiesseau.
He urged the government to keep the two Soviet-era 440-megawatt reactors Brussels wants shut down by 2006, functioning, and two reopen two similar reactors shut down in 2002.
The two reactors to be shut down were recently given a good bill of health by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the EU has stood firm that they should be closed down.
Bulgaria hopes to join the bloc in 2007.
The protestors, who come from countries like France, Spain and Sweden, handed a petition to Energy Minister Milko Kovachev, demanding "a review of the closure" of the two plants involved.
"The power plant at Kozlodoy is modern and secure. The closing down of the reactors will be a political mistake," the petition read.
The Kozloduy plant, which is situated on the banks of the Danube, has two other more modern 1,000-megawatt reactors that do not raise any concerns.
The facility provides 47 percent of Bulgaria's electricity and there are fears that electricity prices will rise once its output is diminished.
-------- iran / inspections
UN inspectors see signs Iran may have tried to make bomb-grade uranium: diplomats
VIENNA (AFP)
May 14, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040514010852.wp1yqjm5.html
UN atomic energy inspectors see a pattern of radiation contamination in Iran which could indicate attempts to enrich uranium to bomb-grade level, diplomats close to the agency said as it waits for a report from Iran on its nuclear program.
The report is due in mid-May, possibly next week, and comes as International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are completing months of investigations into US allegations that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons.
The IAEA is to hold a meeting of its 35-nation board of governors in Vienna on June 14.
Reflecting the current thinking of investigators, one diplomat said that if the Iranians "weren't working on something that hasn't been declared, the contamination should be evenly spread throughout Iran's nuclear installations."
Radioactive dust spreads in a uniform pattern but particles of highly enriched uranium have been found in specific sites, hinting that "someone brought material or equipment and then removed it."
IAEA inspectors have reported two such concentrations -- at a Kalaye Electric Company workshop in Tehran and at the Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plant 250 kilometres (150 miles) south of the Iranian capital.
The diplomat refused to confirm if other sites had been found but said that the Kalaye company had many sites in Tehran and throughout Iran.
Another diplomat confirmed that contamination had been found at other sites but downplayed the importance of this.
"They've moved equipment and we find what we expect to find. Unfortunately we don't learn much about it," he said. He did not provide details.
Highly enriched uranium (HEU) can be the raw material for a nuclear bomb, with weapons-grade uranium enriched to over 80 percent of the U-235 isotope, usually by cascades of centrifuges.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in April that no traces of HEU have been found beyond the two sites at Kalaye and Natanz.
The traces found at "one room in the Kalaye Electric Company workshop" were particles of "uranium enriched to 36 percent," according to an IAEA report on Iran filed in February.
Iran has been asked to explain this "particularly in light of its declaration that it has not enriched uranium to more than 1.2 percent U-235 using centrifuge technology," the report said.
Nuclear expert David Albright told AFP from Washington that one would only try to take 36-percent enriched uranium and enrich it further in the framework of a weapons program.
He said this could be done in "small experiments" to test centrifuges to know how many would be needed in an cascade of centrifuges to carry out enrichment.
IAEA inspectors are looking for other sites where there is such telltale 36-percent enriched contamination and have been systematically visiting "places that have to do with Iran's nuclear program," including dual-use facilities not obviously related to suspect atomic weapons work, the first diplomat said.
The Iranians have said the contamination is from imported equipment, with Pakistan believed to be a source for such equipment through an international black market.
But the diplomat said that equipment imported from Russia or fuel used in IRT research reactors was likely to be the source for this particular kind of enriched uranium.
The diplomat said the Iranians were "surprised" about the thoroughness of the IAEA quest, which has included visits to factories where machines are made that balance the rotors in centrifuges, special furnaces used to make uranium metal and sites where mass spectrometers are in operation.
Last October, Iran gave the IAEA what it said was a complete declaration of its nuclear activities.
It was later found to have made a number of omissions, including its acquisition of designs for sophisticated P-2 centrifuges.
Iran is now to deliver a further report under the provisions of an additional protocol it signed in December to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
This report should be more complete than the one in October since the additional protocol mandates a tougher inspections regime.
IAEA inspectors will then file their own report to the IAEA board ahead of its meeting in June.
--------
U.N. Nuclear Head Says Not Ready to Clear Iran
May 14, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-elbaradei.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United Nation's nuclear watchdog is not ready to clear Iran over whether or not its nuclear program is weaponized, the head of the agency said on Friday.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, said Tehran ``had the know how'' to enrich uranium but he had no proof that it had been processed to a military level.
``We will close the file when we have dealt with all the issues that require to be investigated,'' said ElBaradei, whose board of governors will meet in June on Iran's nuclear activities.
ElBaradei told diplomats and business leaders at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in New York that the issues were technical, not political.
``It will come to an end when it comes to an end -- when I am satisfied based on the technical advice I get that 'yes' now we can bring that issue to a close and 'yes' we can say that Iran's program is dedicated exclusively for peaceful purposes and we are not there yet,'' ElBaradei said.
Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna, Pirooz Hosseini, said on Thursday that his government was ready to present a complete account of its nuclear activities and plans to the agency by mid-May.
The United States says Iran's nuclear program is a front for building a nuclear bomb and has called for the board to report Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for breaching the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Tehran says it is only interested in generating electricity and wants the agency to take Iran off its agenda after the June meeting.
OCTOBER REPORT
In October, Iran gave the IAEA what it said was a full declaration of its atomic operations. But it omitted a number of research projects that could relate to a weapons program, such as advanced ``P2'' centrifuges that can make arms-grade uranium.
Iran said last week it had given P2 designs to the IAEA, but the agency has yet to resolve traces of bomb-grade uranium found in the country last year.
ElBaradei said he believed the U.N. Security Council system for dealing with nuclear materials had not been adjusted to the post-Cold War era.
He suggested a moratorium or ban on the right of every country to develop plutonium and highly enriched uranium. He said he plans to appoint experts to examine how to develop better security around enrichment and processing.
``At least if we don't have a ban right now let us have these facilities under multinational control,'' ElBaradei said.
He said the long-standing diplomatic wrangle over North Korea's nuclear program sent ``the worst signal'' to would be proliferators.
``If you want to protect yourself, accelerate yourself. You are inured in a way, then people will sit around the table with you. And if you don't do that, you tough it out, you might be subject to pre-emption.''
The United States and North Korea disagree over Pyongyang's alleged pursuit of a highly-enriched uranium program for nuclear weapons.
The nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials said North Korea had disclosed it was working on a secret program to enrich uranium for weapons, in violation of an international agreement.
North Korea, which denied the disclosure, then pulled out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expelled U.N. inspectors and took a plutonium plant out of mothballs.
-------- iraq
US tried to plant WMDs, failed: whistleblower
Pakistan Daily Times
May 14, 2004
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9
According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration's assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to "plant" WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by "friendly fire", the Environmentalists Against War report.
Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. According to Al Martin Raw.com, "Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense."
The information that is being leaked out is information "obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA. "According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq," reports Al Martin Raw.com, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides "Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence".
Al Martin is a retired Lt Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider," and is considered one of America's foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and "the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace".
According to Al Martin Raw.com, "the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others". According to the Al Martin Raw.com story, another aspect of Ms Rogers' report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when "the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called 'friendly fire'. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted."
"They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds," reports Al Martin. "These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray," Martin continues. "There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of 'friendly fire', 'mistaken identity', and some of them-their whereabouts are simply unknown." Ms Rogers' story sounds like an updated 21st-century version of Treasure Island meets Ali Baba and the Bush Cabal Thieves, writes Martin.
"This was a contingent of CIA/DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it," Ms Rogers said. "They were relying on the CIA's ability to organise an effort to seize these assets and to be able to extract these assets because the CIA claimed it had resources on the ground within the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government who had been paid. That turned out to be completely bogus. As usual."
"CIA people were supposed to be handling it," Martin continues. "They had a special 'black' aircraft to fly it out. But none of that happened because the regular US Army showed up, stumbled onto it and everyone involved had to scramble. These new Iraqi "asset seizures" go directly to the New US Ruling Junta. The US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer is reportedly drinking Saddam's $2000 a bottle Napoleon-era brandy, smoking his expensive Davidoff cigars and he has even furnished his office with Saddam's Napoleon-era furniture.
-------- korea
North Korea Crisis Talks End on 'Wholesome' Note
Fri May 14, 2004
(Reuters)
By Jack Kim and John Ruwitch
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5146319
BEIJING - Six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions ended in the Chinese capital on Friday snagged on the stark differences between North Korea and the United States.
But a South Korean official said the three days of discussions ended on a "wholesome" note, suggesting there had been no breakdown.
The open-ended inaugural working-group talks, bringing together host China, the two Koreas, the United States, Russia and Japan, are intended to pave the way for higher-level talks by the end of June on ending North Korea's nuclear programs.
A North Korean delegate said earlier that his government could not go ahead with talks unless the United States dropped its demands for a complete dismantling of its atomic arms programs. Pak Myong-kuk was talking to reporters in a hastily called news conference outside the high walls of the North's embassy in the early hours of the morning.
The hermit state's reiteration of its long-held position underscored remarks by Russia's envoy on Thursday that he saw no chance of a breakthrough at the second-tier talks and China's view that major differences persisted between the protagonists.
A U.S. embassy spokeswoman said Washington's policy had not changed. "The U.S. objective remains a complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of North Korea's nuclear program," she said.
The nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials said North Korea had disclosed it was working on a secret program to enrich uranium for weapons, in violation of an international agreement.
North Korea, which denied the disclosure, then pulled out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expelled U.N. inspectors and took a plutonium plant out of mothballs.
North Korea's Pak said Pyongyang was prepared to discuss the scope, timing and length of a freeze of its nuclear activities and methods of verifying it.
"But the United States repeated its position that it would be willing to discuss the problem only under the precondition that we pledge a CVID," Pak said.
"We expressed the position that we would not be able to continue discussing a freeze for compensation," Pak said of the talks. But he left the door open for further discussions, saying Pyongyang would continue the process with patience.
North Korea's deputy delegate to the United Nations said the best way to resolve the standoff with the United States would be to replace the 51-year-old Korean War armistice with a peace treaty.
Han Song-ryol told USA Today in a interview his country would hold on to nuclear weapons unless "all the countries with troops on the Korean peninsula" reached a permanent peace.
In Seoul, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said his government was surprised and discouraged by Pak's statements.
"However we were a little bit relieved by the statement that, although they have some strong reservations and opposition to the American position on CVID, the North Koreans would continue attending the working group," he told the Asia Society.
Host China, one of the few countries to maintain relatively close ties with the isolated North, has said repeatedly that it is opposed to nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, but is also keen to see Washington make concessions.
With a U.S. presidential election due in November, however, Washington may be unwilling to make compromises, analysts say. (Additional reporting by Jonathan Ansfield in Beijing and Alan Wheatley in Seoul)
----
N Korea vows never to accept complete dismantling of nuclear program
BEIJING (AFP)
May 14, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040514085251.qn26irxz.html
North Korea vowed Friday to never accept US demands for a complete dismantling of its nuclear programs, calling it a humiliating measure that can only be imposed on a country defeated in a war.
In a statement issued outside the North Korean embassy in Beijing, foreign ministry official Park Myong-kuk expressed frustration at the US hardline stance but pledged to push on with six-nation talks in the Chinese capital.
"We had expected the US to talk differently about what kind of reciprocal measures the US and related countries will take if we freeze our nuclear program," said Park, a member of the North's delegation at the working group meeting, which entered its third day Friday despite the apparent stalemate.
"But the US repeated the same position as at the previous talks that discussions (on compensation) are possible only when we commit ourselves to CVID (complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement)."
He called the US demand "the kind of humiliating measure that can only be imposed on a country defeated in a war".
The row over North Korea's nuclear program has been deadlocked since October 2002, when Washington said the Stalinist state had broken a 1994 nuclear freeze by launching a secret weapons drive.
The early morning statement followed warnings by China that "major" differences remain on solving the 19-month-old standoff and underscored remarks by Russia's envoy on Thursday that chances of a breakthrough soon were remote.
Prior to the talks, Pyongyang had reiterated a demand that it be rewarded, politically and economically, for giving up its nuclear program, while the US government had ruled out any immediate pay-off.
Washington wants a clear-cut commitment from the North for a "complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement" before any compensation can be considered.
A key sticking point is whether North Korea should give up its entire nuclear program, or only the military part.
Washington did not have an immediate response to the North Korean statement, but reiterated its strict position.
"With respect to this issue, our policy is clear. The US objective remains the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program," a US embassy spokeswoman said, citing a statement from Washington.
In Seoul, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon voiced optimism that a solution could be found, but said Pyongyang must take the lead.
"North Korea should completely dismantle all nuclear programs including those based on plutonium and highly enriched uranium. This will be the way to guarantee its national security and economic prosperity," he told the Asia Society.
"We anticipate that through the working group we could ... eventually foster an atmosphere to reach a peaceful resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue."
No closing date has been set for the working-level talks, which are the first since a second round of high-level six-party meetings ended inconclusively in Beijing in late February.
They are aimed at setting a date for the third round of six-party talks, expected before the end of June.
Also taking part in the negotiations is China, South Korea, Russia and Japan.
While there has been widespread speculation that the United States and North Korea will hold bilateral meetings during the working level talks, they have yet to happen, according to the US embassy spokeswoman.
US newspapers, meanwhile, said North Korea has proposed a peace treaty to be signed by Seoul, Pyongyang and Washington as a means to resolve the nuclear issue, in an apparent sign of Pyongyang's growing frustration with the Beijing negotiations.
The US spokeswoman said the issue had not been raised at this week's talks.
----
North Korea Decries U.S. Nuke Demands
Friday May 14, 2004
By AUDRA ANG
Associated Press Writer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4090151,00.html
BEIJING (AP) - U.S. and North Korean envoys held a rare one-on-one meeting Friday, and the North denied claims that Pakistan provided it with uranium enrichment technology, a North Korean official said at the end of three days of nuclear talks.
There was no immediate word on whether envoys made progress on the North's demand for aid in exchange for freezing its nuclear program. The United States and its allies say assistance will come only after North Korea pledges to dismantle the program completely - a stance that the North rejected earlier Friday as ``humiliating.''
The six-nation ``working level'' talks held in the Chinese capital ended without setting a date for a third round of high-level talks, said Pak Myong Kuk, a member of the North's delegation. He said that date would be set later ``through diplomatic channels.''
``The talks are over,'' Pak told reporters outside the North Korean Embassy.
The U.S. Embassy in Beijing had no comment. China's Foreign Ministry said the talks would officially close Saturday but wouldn't give any other details.
The head of Russia's delegation, Valery Sukhinin, told the Itar-Tass news agency that new high-level talks would take place before July, following one more round of working-level talks.
Other participants in the talks are South Korea and Japan.
In the one-one-one meeting Friday, the United States told North Korea about claims that Pakistan had provided the North with uranium enrichment technology, Pak said.
``Such information is false,'' Pak said. ``As we have said before, there were only missile deals between us and Pakistan.''
The former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, said in February that he had transferred sensitive technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya.
``The United States fabricated claims based on false information,'' Pak said. He said Washington was trying to create an ``anti-North Korea atmosphere.''
The talks this week were meant to work out technical details and help create an agenda for new high-level negotiations. Host China says it hopes those talks can take place by July.
In a separate announcement Friday, Japan said Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will travel to North Korea for wide-ranging talks with leader Kim Jong Il on May 22. The discussions will include the nuclear issue.
The dispute erupted in October 2002 when the United States said North Korea admitted operating a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement.
The issue of uranium technology has been a key sticking point in the talks.
North Korea says it has a nuclear weapons program based on plutonium, but denies American claims that it also has a second secret program based on highly enriched uranium, which can be used to make bombs.
Washington is insisting that North Korea pledge to give up both programs as part of a comprehensive settlement - a condition the North rejects.
North Korea reportedly demanded aid in exchange for freezing the nuclear program at the start of this week's talks.
Early Friday, the North angrily accused the United States of refusing to discuss energy or economic assistance.
The U.S. position ``is the kind of humiliating measure that can only be imposed on a country defeated in a war,'' said the earlier statement, also read by Pak to reporters who were summoned to the North's embassy.
But still, Pak said, the North promised to ``maintain patience'' and stick to the ``six-party process with patience.''
Responding to the North's complaints, a Japanese government spokesman said diplomats were trying to persuade it to accept the notion of permanently scrapping the program.
Negotiations are ``now at the stage of fully explaining why this principle has been established internationally and is needed, how to achieve it and how other countries are doing so,'' spokesman Hiroyuki Hosoda said in Tokyo.
----
North Korean nuclear crisis expected to feature at G8 talks
WASHINGTON (AFP)
May 14, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040513235156.xul2aq8d.html
The North Korean nuclear crisis is expected to feature during talks among foreign ministers of the Group of Eight on Friday, the US State Department said Friday.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell will host the meeting, largely to prepare for the June summit of wealthy, highly industrialized nations that includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.
"I would expect, since many of these governments are concerned about North Korea, that we will discuss North Korea," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters.
He declined to say whether any decisions on the North Korean problem would be incorporated in the chairman's statement at the end of the meeting.
A working group meeting of China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the United States is being held in Beijing in a bid to break a 19-month impasse on how North Korea would meet its security needs in exchange for giving up its unproven and untested nuclear weapons program.
Pyongyang and Washington have both said they will not budge from their tough positions that had led to the deadlock.
Boucher said that Powell would hold a separate meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi on Friday.
They were "most directly concerned with North Korea to talk about it as well," he said.
Japan has been weighing economic sanctions against Pyongyang following public anger over North Korea's abduction of Japanese nationals in the 1970s and 1980s.
----
Nuclear Talks in Beijing End
May 14, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Koreas-Nuclear.html
BEIJING (AP) -- U.S. and North Korean envoys held a rare one-on-one meeting Friday, and the North denied claims that Pakistan provided it with uranium enrichment technology, a North Korean official said at the end of three days of nuclear talks.
There was no immediate word on whether envoys made progress on the North's demand for aid in exchange for freezing its nuclear program. The United States and its allies say assistance will come only after North Korea pledges to dismantle the program completely -- a stance that the North rejected earlier Friday as ``humiliating.''
The six-nation ``working level'' talks held in the Chinese capital ended without setting a date for a third round of high-level talks, said Pak Myong Kuk, a member of the North's delegation. He said that date would be set later ``through diplomatic channels.''
``The talks are over,'' Pak told reporters outside the North Korean Embassy.
The U.S. Embassy in Beijing had no comment. China's Foreign Ministry said the talks would officially close Saturday but wouldn't give any other details.
The head of Russia's delegation, Valery Sukhinin, told the Itar-Tass news agency that new high-level talks would take place before July, following one more round of working-level talks.
Other participants in the talks are South Korea and Japan.
In the one-one-one meeting Friday, the United States told North Korea about claims that Pakistan had provided the North with uranium enrichment technology, Pak said.
``Such information is false,'' Pak said. ``As we have said before, there were only missile deals between us and Pakistan.''
The former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, said in February that he had transferred sensitive technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya.
``The United States fabricated claims based on false information,'' Pak said. He said Washington was trying to create an ``anti-North Korea atmosphere.''
The talks this week were meant to work out technical details and help create an agenda for new high-level negotiations. Host China says it hopes those talks can take place by July.
In a separate announcement Friday, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said he will travel to North Korea for wide-ranging talks with leader Kim Jong Il on May 22. The discussions will include the nuclear issue.
``It was decided because we felt there was a chance to make progress,'' Koizumi told reporters. ``Things were at a standstill and there was a need for a breakthrough.''
The dispute erupted in October 2002 when the United States said North Korea admitted operating a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement.
The issue of uranium technology has been a key sticking point in the talks.
North Korea says it has a nuclear weapons program based on plutonium, but denies American claims that it also has a second secret program based on highly enriched uranium, which can be used to make bombs.
Washington is insisting that North Korea pledge to give up both programs as part of a comprehensive settlement -- a condition the North rejects.
North Korea reportedly demanded aid in exchange for freezing the nuclear program at the start of this week's talks.
Early Friday, the North angrily accused the United States of refusing to discuss energy or economic assistance.
The U.S. position ``is the kind of humiliating measure that can only be imposed on a country defeated in a war,'' said the earlier statement, also read by Pak to reporters who were summoned to the North's embassy.
But still, Pak said, the North promised to ``maintain patience'' and stick to the ``six-party process with patience.''
Responding to the North's complaints, a Japanese government spokesman said diplomats were trying to persuade it to accept the notion of permanently scrapping the program.
Negotiations are ``now at the stage of fully explaining why this principle has been established internationally and is needed, how to achieve it and how other countries are doing so,'' spokesman Hiroyuki Hosoda said in Tokyo.
--------
U.N. Chief: N. Korea Is Security Problem
May 14, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Nuclear-ElBaradei.html
NEW YORK (AP) -- North Korea poses the world's No. 1 security problem, and the way the international community responds to its nuclear program will be an important precedent, the U.N. nuclear chief said Friday.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons ``sends the worst signal to the would-be proliferators'' that if they accelerate their weapons programs, they will be ``immune'' and powerful countries will negotiate with them.
``We need to make sure that that is not the lesson that people would learn from North Korea,'' he said. ``I think it's the No. 1 international security concern. The way we deal with it, the way the international community responds to North Korea, is very important for the future precedent-setting.''
During an hour-long question-and-answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations, ElBaradei addressed the key issues on the IAEA's agenda, including Iran, Libya and Pakistan.
The United States and other nations accuse Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program and are pushing the United Nations to impose sanctions. Iran said last month it gave the IAEA the complete story about traces of weapons-grade uranium and documents pertaining to advanced centrifuges that could be used to produce atomic bombs. It also says it has suspended uranium enrichment and stopped building centrifuges.
ElBaradei, who is to present an assessment of Iran's nuclear activities to the IAEA board of governors in June, said his inspectors ``are getting all the access we want, which is good news, but we still need additional information.''
``We don't have proof so far that they have done any weaponization, nor have we seen that they have enriched uranium to the military level,'' ElBaradei said.
``If you ask me whether they have the know-how to develop highly enriched uranium, the answer is yes,'' he said.
He accused North Korea of never complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and criticized the U.N. Security Council for never condemning Pyongyang's withdrawal from the treaty in January 2003.
The nuclear dispute flared in October 2002 when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted it had a clandestine nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement with Washington. The United States and its allies suspended fuel shipments promised under the 1994 deal, and Pyongyang retaliated by expelling U.N. monitors, restarting nuclear fuel facilities and withdrawing from the treaty.
ElBaradei said North Korea used loopholes in the 1994 agreement and the control system aimed at banning trade in nuclear materials to start a weapons program. It also developed a second track of highly enriched uranium production, he said.
Pakistan admitted in February that its leading nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, passed technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. ElBaradei said the IAEA's priority now was to determine who was involved.
``It spread all over the place,'' he said. ``We are now getting good cooperation from the Pakistani government in trying to help us resolve some issues in Iran, in Libya, and understand the full extent of the black market.''
On Libya, ElBaradei said he believes Moammar Gadhafi's decision to stop programs for developing weapons of mass destruction was a result of broad changes in the international landscape rather than the Iraq war.
``I think he has concluded that it's in their interest to regularize relationships in the West,'' partly because years of sanction have hurt Libya's economy, he said.
-------- latinamerica
Brazil's Envoy Criticizes Bush Nuclear Policy
May 14, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-brazil-usa.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Brazil called the Bush administration's demand that it submit to more stringent inspections of its nuclear facilities ``very unpleasant'' on Friday, saying it wanted the United States and others to agree to disarmament programs before making further concessions.
In unusually strong criticism of the Bush administration's nuclear policy, Brazil's ambassador to Washington, Roberto Abdenur, said: ``Having gone so far in terms of our non-proliferation commitments, it is very unpleasant to be under pressure, sometimes intense pressure, as if we have evil intentions.''
The Bush administration has been urging Brazil to accept more intrusive, visual inspections of a new uranium enrichment plant in Resende, scheduled for completion in October.
Brazil and the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, have been talking since December about ways to establish ``a set of procedures'' to safeguard the Resende facility without jeopardizing commercial secrets, Abdenur said.
But Abdenur suggested Brazil may accept more inspections provided other nations agree to disarm their nuclear weapons.
``We believe firmly it is not enough to have an increasingly stricter and narrow non-proliferation (agreement) without balanced movement, parallel movement, in the area of disarmament,'' he said at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank.
Abdenur, who became ambassador in April, previously served as Brazil's representative to the IAEA.
He criticized the Bush administration for demanding more inspections for Brazil even as the White House has asked to be allowed to develop low yield nuclear weapons.
``We are worried at the fact that, more recently, the U.S. has come out with a new defense strategy which gives more, and not less, value to the use of nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear weapons states, even on a preventive basis,'' he said.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Nuke penetrator
May 14, 2004
Washington Times
Inside the Ring
By Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked during a Senate hearing this week about Pentagon plans to develop an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon.
"A decision to go forward with an earth penetrator has not been made," Mr. Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee. "The decision to determine whether it's possible to have one that could help solve some potential problems has been made."
The Bush administration is spending $485 million in the next five years to study whether it's possible to make a high-yield nuclear bomb capable of burrowing through solid rock before detonating. The bomb is the ideal weapon for hitting underground weapons-of-mass-destruction sites - nuclear, chemical and biological arms facilities protected by deep bunkers.
Earth-penetrating nuclear bombs are not unique to the Bush administration, as some antinuclear weapons advocates say. The Clinton administration had been studying the use of nuclear weapons to destroy underground facilities since the early 1990s.
Mr. Rumsfeld made clear that he supports the bomb, if it can be built. He noted underground facilities in North Korea and Iran.
The secretary said underground military sites are "pervasive in country after country," noting that "North Korea is a perfect example."
"We have found this in country after country, and the question is: If that is a problem, what might be done about it?" Mr. Rumsfeld said.
The first choice for dealing with the problem would be a conventional bomb, but a penetrating nuclear bomb is something "at least in my view, worth studying."
Any decision to build the new bomb would involve Congress, he said.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- north carolina
Questions arise on fuel testing plan
Regulators, Duke meet today on design change
Fri, May. 14, 2004
Charlotte Observer
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/8663604.htm?1c
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Duke Power in Charlotte today with new questions about Duke's planned tests next year of nuclear fuel that contains plutonium.
The NRC was expected to finish by August its review of Duke's application to test mixed-oxide or MOX fuel at its Catawba nuclear plant on Lake Wylie. NRC filed a safety evaluation of the plan last month. But not until mid-April did regulators learn Duke is already testing a new design of reactor fuel assemblies in the same Catawba reactor.
Now the NRC plans to write a supplement to the safety evaluation in light of the new information. It's not clear how long that will take, NRC staff said.
NRC officials want Duke to answer a number of technical questions about the new assembly designs. They've asked, in particular, about the flow of cooling water around those assemblies.
Duke says the new design won't make any difference in judging how MOX fuel performs in a reactor, including results of a severe accident at Catawba.
The new assembly design is different in a couple of ways from the one Duke more commonly uses. The "grids" that hold individual fuel rods vertically in place are stronger, Duke says, and the metal cladding on the rods is slightly different.
Duke's application said four MOX fuel assemblies would be loaded in a reactor along with 189 assemblies of the same design. In fact, the reactor will have the four MOX assemblies along with eight "next generation" assemblies and 181 conventional assemblies.
-------- tennessee
High Flux Isotope Reactor Marks 400Th Cycle
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Fri 14-May-2004,
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/504998/
Description
Oak Ridge National Laboratory's High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), one of the world's most powerful research reactors, is marking a milestone this month -- its 400th fuel cycle since it began operation in 1966.
Newswise - Oak Ridge National Laboratory's High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), one of the world's most powerful research reactors, is marking a milestone this month -- its 400th fuel cycle since it began operation in 1966.
A fuel cycle represents the time -- about 25 days -- it takes for the reactor's uranium fuel to become depleted. During operation, HFIR uses the nuclear fission process to produce the world's most intense neutron beams for materials research and isotope production.
"HFIR's unique characteristics are of immense value to both the scientific community, which uses its neutron beams for a wide range of studies on materials, and to industry, which relies on the neutrons for isotope production and advanced materials analysis and development," said ORNL Director Jeff Wadsworth.
HFIR's research community has recently benefited from a series of upgrades supported by DOE's Office of Science. New beam lines, which channel neutrons to experimental instruments, have been installed. A new experiment hall has been constructed, and a "cold source" is in preparation that literally chills the energetic neutrons, slowing them and making them more useful for studying polymers and biological materials.
The reactor also has a new cooling tower and beryllium reflector as part of an ongoing program to upgrade components and infrastructure for another three decades of operation.
Researchers from all over the world come to Oak Ridge to perform experiments at the HFIR. In 2006, the reactor will be joined by the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) to make ORNL the world's leading center for neutron research.
"SNS and HFIR are complementary. The combination of a world class research reactor with SNS, the world's most powerful pulsed neutron source, is unbeatable," said Jim Roberto, Associate Laboratory Director for Physical Sciences.
While the HFIR produces steady-state beams of neutrons, the SNS will produce neutrons in pulses from an accelerated beam striking a target. HFIR and SNS will be equipped with a suite of state of the art instruments for neutron scattering experiments.
Neutron scattering is a powerful tool for determining the structure and properties of materials at the atomic scale. The technique was developed at ORNL in the 1950s by Cliff Shull and Ernie Wollan. Shull later won the Nobel Prize in Physics for this work.
The reactor also produces radioisotopes used in nuclear medicine. HFIR is the only domestic source of californium-252, an isotope used in industrial analysis. These nuclear materials are processed and refined at the nearby Radiochemical Development and Engineering Center.
"The HFIR team is to be congratulated on this milestone," Roberto said. "HFIR is a unique national facility that owes its success to the long term dedication of hundreds of people."
Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a multiprogram laboratory managed for the Department of Energy by UT-Battelle.
-------- washington
State rejects DOE proposal to end groundwater treatment
By SHANNON DININNY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
Friday, May 14, 2004
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Hanford%20Groundwater
YAKIMA, Wash. -- State officials have rejected a request by the U.S. Department of Energy to temporarily discontinue treating some contaminated ground water at the Hanford nuclear reservation, according to a letter released Friday.
The Energy Department last month had proposed halting treatment of contaminated ground water near one of nine former nuclear reactors along the Columbia River, largely because the current method of treatment is insufficient. Federal officials have been working to develop a new treatment plan by an October deadline.
But state Department of Ecology officials rejected the proposal to eliminate the current program, saying they would prefer the Energy Department propose its new course of action in writing before making changes.
The area in question is about a square-half-mile along the Columbia River near N Reactor, where radioactive strontium-90 from Hanford ground water was entering the river. In sufficient doses, strontium-90 can cause cancer.
"Until we see the alternative in writing, and not being sure what the benefit is exactly of the treatment, we want to err on the side of safety," said John Price, environmental restoration project manager for the Ecology Department.
The Energy Department had not yet responded to the letter, but an official said Friday that the department would continue with the treatment as requested.
"The treatment part of it is more expensive than pumping. We're not really pulling out very much strontium and we're not really treating it, so we might as well shut it off," said John Morse, technical director for ground water for the Energy Department.
"But we're fine with doing" what the state wants, he said.
Since the 1990s, the Energy Department has been pumping water out of the ground and treating it in an attempt to remove the strontium-90 before injecting the water back into the ground. Both sides agree the current pump-and-treat method has been largely ineffective.
"The treatment only removed about 1 percent of the radioactivity in the ground water, but it is intercepting that ground water before it reaches the Columbia River," Price said. "It provides some small benefit, we're just now sure how significant the benefit is."
Among the new proposals is to bury a barrier of apatite, a mineral that would absorb the strontium-90.
Cleanup of the area in question has been closely watched by state and community officials. In 1990, a maverick scientist shipped two jars of "hot" mulberry jam - made from berries in the area - affixed with radiation warning labels to then-Gov. Booth Gardner and then-Energy Secretary James Watkins.
For 40 years, the 586-square-mile reservation in south-central Washington made plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons, beginning with the top-secret Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb.
Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion, with the work to be finished by 2035.
-------- MILITARY
-------- arms
Turkey cancels three multi-billion-dollar defence tenders
ANKARA (AFP)
May 14, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040514184925.p3gunz9k.html
Turkey on Friday announced that it had called off three long-running multi-billion-dollar tenders for tanks, helicopters and unmanned aircraft, saying that it will seek to manufacture them at home.
No reason was given for the cancellation taken at a meeting of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul, army chief Hilmi Ozkok and defence industry officials.
"It has been decided to meet the needs of the Turkish armed forces with new models based on domestic production and original designs and by making maximum use of national resources," said a statement issued after the meeting and carried by the Anatolia news agency.
It added that it would encourage domestic firms as well as partnerships between Turkish and foreign firms to take an interest in the projects.
The statement gave no further details, but Anatolia said the cancelled tenders amounted to nearly 11 billion dollars.
One of the tenders, worth some five billion dollars, was for the manufacture of 1,000 tanks, with four countries -- Germany, France, the United States and Ukraine -- vying for it.
The second tender was for the purchase of 145 attack helicopters, a project also worth five billion dollars.
In July 2000, Turkey shortlisted Bell Helicopter Textron of the United States and a consortium between Kamov of Russia and the Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI).
The third tender, worth nearly one billion dollars, involved the joint production of nine unmanned aircraft in Turkey.
--------
Amnesty slams "dangerously ineffective" EU arms export rules
LONDON (AFP)
May 14, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040514003748.vby3h0lx.html
European Union rules on arms exports by member states are "dangerously ineffective" and need to be toughened up immediately, rights group Amnesty International said in a report released Friday.
Armaments, security equipment and services originating in the EU are contributing to "grave human rights abuses", the London-based group said in a study entitled "Undermining Global Security: the European Union's arms exports".
The bloc's arms sales are huge, with its the major exporters -- Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden -- accounting for a third of all weapons deals worldwide.
The 1998 EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports has "serious flaws" and needs to be reformed to stop armaments getting through to repressive regimes, Amnesty said.
Among problems identified were the involvement of an Italian joint venture company to make vehicles used as mobile execution chambers in China and the use of British components in Chinese military aero engines, despite the EU's arms embargo against Beijing.
Surplus weapons from new members the Czech Republic and Poland were also supplied to governments with a history of diverting weapons to third countries, such as Yemen, the report charged.
"The enlarged EU now has an opportunity to become a more coherent and effective international voice for positive change. But in order to do this, the EU must put its own house in order," Amnesty said in a statement.
-------- asia
JAPAN Defense Agency plans for attack from China
May 14, 2004
Washington Times
http://www.washtimes.com/world/briefly.htm
TOKYO - The Defense Agency has drawn up a plan to deploy 7,200 ground troops to Japan's southernmost islands in the event of a military conflict between China and Taiwan to prevent China from invading them, confidential documents from the agency that were obtained by Kyodo News showed yesterday.
It is the first time that internal agency documents have been found to assume that China might attack Japanese territory. The agency's Ground Staff Office thinks it is possible that China would invade the remote islands in Okinawa prefecture to block joint support operations for Taiwan by Japan and the United States, according to the documents.
Military experts think that the office is trying to emphasize the importance of the Ground Self-Defense Force in an expected restructuring of Japan's military. The experts criticize the scenario as unrealistic and a "made-up threat."
-------- iraq
Pricetag for US operations in Iraq to rise steeply: Wolfowitz
14 May 2004
AFP
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/84866/1/.html
WASHINGTON : The pricetag for US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year will greatly exceed the 25 billion dollars requested just last week by the White House, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told lawmakers Thursday.
"It will sure be much larger than 25 billion dollars," Wolfowitz said, adding that a request for another tranche of funds will likely be sent from the Pentagon to the Congress "early next calendar year."
"Our higher projected troop levels increase the risk that certain accounts, especially operation maintenance army, could have difficulty cash flowing operations beyond the February-March time frame in 2005.
"This reserve fund will eliminate that risk and provide a margin of safety," Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He refused however, to be pinned down on just how expensive the operations in Iraq were like to go.
"It continues to be impossible to know what our total supplemental funding needs will be for the next fiscal year -- particularly after the election in Afghanistan and after sovereignty is transferred in Iraq," Wolfowitz said.
"Depending on the circumstances, we could face the need for either more troops or fewer troops, for more intensive operations or less intensive operations."
Democrats in the committee criticized the George W. Bush administration for allegedly squandering funds already granted by Congress to fund operations in Iraq.
"The administration has acted too unilaterally in many ways in the Iraq war," said US Senator Carl Levin.
"They've failed to budget for the costs of the war. Now they want, apparently, as I read these letters, what amounts to a blank check for the supplemental costs," Levin said.
"We've been pressing to write a check, but not a blank check," Levin said.
"We need to support our men and women in uniform who are performing very difficult and challenging tasks under dangerous circumstances, but we should do so in a way which provides the accountability that the taxpayers expect and deserve."
----
Iraq's bin Laden? Zarqawi's rise
CIA says the Jordanian-born terrorist leader is the person shown killing a US civilian on video
By Peter Grier and Faye Bowers
The Christian Science Monitor,
May 14, 2004
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0514/p03s01-usfp.html
WASHINGTON - A one-legged poison expert from Jordan could be the brutal new star of Islamic terrorism.
The man in question - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - isn't yet the equal of Osama bin Laden, say experts. But he may be fast gaining influence and importance in the loosely organized world of Islamic militants by orchestrating attacks aimed at the US presence in Iraq.
Intelligence officials now say that Mr. Zarqawi was indeed the lead perpetrator of the murder of American businessman Nicholas Berg.
"After the intelligence agency conducted a technical analysis of the video posted on the Internet on May 11, we have determined - with high probability - that the speaker on the tape is that of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, and that he is the person shown decapitating American Nicholas Berg," says a CIA official.
Zarqawi has also claimed responsibility for bomb attacks on the UN headquarters in Baghdad and an Italian police station in Nasiriyah, among others.
If nothing else, his rise to prominence shows how a new generation of terrorist leaders may be stepping in to replace those eliminated by US efforts.
"He has a long reach ... I'm sure [Zarqawi] has supporters scattered around the globe who would support his efforts if need be," says a US government official.
Establishing responsibility for terrorist attacks is an extraordinarily difficult intelligence task. Many times masterminds prefer to stay in the shadows, for obvious reasons. Groups or individuals sometimes claim credit for things they didn't do, in an attempt to puff their reputations and gain money and recruits.
Importance exaggerated?
Some experts believe the US may be exaggerating Zarqawi's role in Iraq in an attempt to more closely link the US presence there with a war on terrorism.
That said, Zarqawi, or someone purporting to be him, has issued a series of audio and video tapes in recent months that claim responsibility for a wide range of horrific actions.
In one 33-minute tape he called on Sunni Muslims to "burn the earth" under Americans' feet. In others he boasted that he was behind some of the worst bombings in Iraq since the US took control of the country last year.
On Tuesday, an Islamic website released a video it said showed Zarqawi personally killing Mr. Berg, a young Pennsylvanian who had traveled to Iraq in search of work constructing communications towers.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's real name is Ahmad Fadil al-Khalaylah. He takes his nom de guerre from the Jordanian town of Zarqa, where Palestinian terrorists blew up three hijacked airliners in 1970 in a pioneering act of anti-Western violence.
Zarqawi first appeared on the radar screens of Western intelligence agencies in 1999, when Jordanian authorities tied him to an aborted plot to blow up a tourist hotel in Amman during millenium celebrations.
Zarqawi, the son of wealthy Jordanian landowner, escaped to Afghanistan. There he ran an Al Qaeda training camp that specialized in chemical and biological agents, according to US intelligence.
Wounded in the leg during a bombing raid in the Afghan war in 2001, he ended up in Iraq, where doctors reportedly fitted him with a prosthetic limb.
US intelligence subsequently tracked him around the Middle East. Among known contacts is a meeting with Hizbullah leaders in south Lebanon in August 2002.
In October 2002, two gunmen assassinated US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Caught, the gunmen fingered Zarqawi as the mastermind of the plot. For this, last month he was sentenced to death in absentia in Jordan.
The Al Tawhid network
Zarqawi's decentralized network is known as Al Tawhid. In the past, one of his main avowed goals has been to topple the Jordanian royal family.
That probably remains one of his aims, say terrorist experts. But they add that he seems to have expanded his operations with the advent of the US war on terror.
"Zarqawi is building a state-of-the-art operational and support network beyond the Middle East into Europe and North America," says Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism expert based in Singapore, and author of "Inside Al Qaeda. "He works with about a dozen other Islamist groups ... Al Ansar Al Islami [and] Al Qaeda among them."
But Zarqawi is both an ally and competitor of these groups, according to the testimony of a captured follower. He vies with the better-known network of Osama bin Laden for contributions from the faithful, credit for attacks, and even for prized terrorist recruits.
With the advent of the US wars in the region, he appears to have shifted his aims and moved his base of operations inside Iraq itself.
No. 1 in Iraq
In terms of terror prominence, Zarqawi "would be No. 1 in Iraq, but Osama bin Laden is still No. 1 overall," says a US government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
In recognition of the danger he poses, the US has promised a reward of at least $5 million for information leading to Zarqawi's death or capture.
Not everyone in the intelligence community, however, agrees that Zarqawi is behind the beheading of Berg.
"We don't think he is behind this decapitation," says a European intelligence official. "He is more sophisticated than that."
In fact, the intelligence official from that country, a partner with the US in the war on terror, refers to Zarqawi as a "gentleman terrorist" because of his predilection for the use of poisons over more brutal methods.
--------
Rumsfeld Visits Prison in Iraq
Defense Secretary, During Unannounced Trip, Vows 'Justice' for Perpetrators
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23098-2004May13?language=printer
BAGHDAD, May 13 -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in an unannounced visit to Iraq on Thursday, declared that allegations of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers were "a body blow to us" but vowed that those responsible would "be brought to justice."
Traveling with Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rumsfeld spent about seven hours in Iraq. He visited Abu Ghraib prison, the U.S.-run facility at the center of recent allegations of abuse, gave two speeches and attended a series of meetings.
Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad at about 1 p.m. as part of a hastily planned trip to give U.S. troops a pep talk and get briefed by generals about conditions at Abu Ghraib. Military officials said they learned about Rumsfeld's visit about two days before he arrived and that it was kept secret for security purposes.
Rumsfeld told reporters aboard an Air Force E-4B jet that his trip was not intended to quell Iraqi concerns about the abuses, but he spent much of his time in the country addressing the issue. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said he spoke to Rumsfeld in "the broadest terms" about the situation. Rumsfeld was also given a detailed briefing by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who supervises detainee operations in Iraq.
In speeches to hundreds of U.S. troops, one in a sweltering hall at the edge of Abu Ghraib and the other beneath an ornate chandelier in the marble foyer of a palace once used by ousted president Saddam Hussein, Rumsfeld repeatedly said that he had faith in U.S. troops and that the abuse allegations should not irreparably damage morale.
"In recent months, we've seen abuse here under our responsibility, and it's been a body blow for us," Rumsfeld said at Abu Ghraib. "It doesn't represent America. It doesn't represent American values. It doesn't represent the values of you here in this room."
"The people who engaged in abuses will be brought to justice," the secretary said. "The world will see how a free and democratic society functions."
In southern Iraq, meanwhile, U.S. forces continued to skirmish with militiamen loyal to Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr, news services reported. Large explosions were reported in the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, but it was unclear what had caused them.
West of Baghdad, near Fallujah, roadside bombs killed a Marine, the U.S. military reported. Authorities also said a soldier and a Marine died Wednesday of wounds in Sunni Muslim-dominated areas.
Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq occurred a day after members of Congress viewed photographs and video clips of prisoner abuse by U.S. military police, soldiers and civilian contractors hired by the government to perform interrogations.
Rumsfeld said lawyers are advising against the release of any more pictures of prisoners being abused, but he rejected the notion that withholding them would suggest a coverup.
"I've stopped reading newspapers," Rumsfeld told the troops. "You've got to keep your sanity somehow. I'm a survivor."
Detainees at Abu Ghraib, who have access to radios in their massive tent enclosures, appeared to know that Rumsfeld might be coming. They streamed to the concertina-wire fences, their raggedy clothes flapping in a hazy wind, and many displayed thumbs-down gestures as Rumsfeld's convoy moved slowly past.
Two detainees held up a cloth on which "What are you going to do about this scandal?" was written in English. "Help," another sign said.
Injured detainees, many of them hit by mortar rounds that have pounded the Camp Ganci portion of the prison, waved crutches, and one displayed a bandaged stump of a leg.
As part of an effort to avoid abuses at the prison, Miller said he had separated commands for military intelligence and military police. An internal Army investigation presented to Congress this week detailed the overlap between the units and alleged that weak leadership contributed to the abuses in two wings of the prison. Many inmates who had been seen as important sources of intelligence have been removed from those wings, 1A and 1B, in the past few months. The wings now hold about 20 prisoners, including five women whom authorities want to keep separate from the male-populated main compound for safety reasons.
Many of the generals and current commanders at Abu Ghraib agreed with Rumsfeld's contention that leadership failures within the 800th Military Police Brigade and the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade led to a serious breakdown in standards and values, ultimately leading to the abuse. Miller called the situation a "simple leadership failure," and Sanchez attributed the abuse to a lack of training, discipline and leadership.
Col. David E. Quantock, commander of the 16th Military Police Brigade, based at Fort Bragg, N.C., said he found serious problems at Abu Ghraib when he took command of detention operations there in late January.
"Leadership oversight was not in place when I took over," Quantock said in an interview. "The door was open for abuses. We had soldiers we put trust in who didn't deserve that trust."
In his comments to reporters, Rumsfeld said the Geneva Conventions were in effect in Iraq during and after major combat operations last year. He also said instructions approved by President Bush and cleared by Pentagon lawyers made clear that prisoners should be handled in a way that conformed with international standards for the humane treatment of detainees.
"The test is what is decided and what is issued, and then is it adhered to," Rumsfeld said. "And what we know is that the lawyers cleared what was issued down through the system. What we can't know at any given moment of every day is whether each person is executing them consistent with what was approved by the lawyers down through the system."
In addition to his visit to Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld held a town hall meeting with soldiers in Baghdad. During the session, he congratulated troops for their efforts to liberate the country.
--------
U.S. Forces Push Fight in Najaf, and Clashes Erupt in Karbala
May 14, 2004
By TERENCE NEILAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/international/middleeast/14CND-IRAQ.html?hp
American forces stepped up their fight against militants loyal to the rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr today, sending tanks and helicopters into the center of the holy Shiite city of Najaf and pounding positions held by Mr. Sadr's Madhi Army.
The golden dome of the Shrine of Imam Ali, one of the most sacred sites to Shiite Muslims, was damaged in the fighting. The United States military denied attacking the shrine, and a senior officer at a briefing in Baghdad suggested that an Arabic-speaking journalist should direct questions on the matter to Mr. Sadr's militiamen.
In answer to another question, the officer, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, said American forces were fired upon from a cemetery in Najaf "from north to south," adding, "I haven't seen it, but if there is a hole in that shrine, go ask Moktada who put that hole in the shrine."
He continued: "I suspect that he will tell you that it was coalition forces. But I suspect if you look very carefully, the coalition does not yet have ammunition that can shoot to the north and then turn around and head south."
Four holes, each about 12 inches long and 8 inches wide, were visible on the dome, The Associated Press reported.
Clashes also continued in Karbala, with insurgents firing rockets and mortars around two central holy sites, the Shrine of Hussein and the Shrine of Abbas. American Apache attack helicopters circled overhead, but American forces held back from attacking the shrines.
United States soldiers seized a second mosque in the city, where they found a significant weapons cache and plastic explosives wired to ammunition and ready to blow it up.
Several American soldiers were wounded in the fighting and an assistant to Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Sistani, called for both sides to leave the holy city.
Outside Baghdad, more than 300 Iraqi detainees, some weeping and waving to friends, were released from the Abu Ghraib prison, a day after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made a surprise visit there. Hundreds of relatives had stood outside the prison since early morning, waiting for the prisoners' release.
As the fighting raged, Mr. Sadr delivered Friday prayers in the town of Kufa, adjacent to Najaf. He said the execution of the American hostage Nicholas Berg was intended to draw the world's attention away from the crimes against Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.
He condemned "the infidels and despots" who have expressed concern for the American hostages but have disregarded Iraqi prisoners, and said those who worked with the Americans under occupation are mistaken.
Mr. Sadr, who faces an arrest warrant in the murder of a moderate rival cleric in April 2003, described President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain as "the heads of tyranny."
Iraqi residents in Najaf said they could hear the sound of gunfire and mortars close to the Shrine of Imam Ali. The shelling by American forces continued for hours.
Troops of the United States Army were in the main streets while the militiamen occupied alleys and side streets, firing their weapons, including automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, and trying to take cover at the same time. Many frightened residents remained in their homes, witnesses said.
Much of the fighting in Najaf happened in the city's vast cemetery, a maze of footpaths and tombs that offers hiding space for men of the Mahdi Army. Several tanks rumbled into the cemetery, known as the "Valley of Peace."
In Karbala, a Husseini Hospital official said today that from Thursday night and into this morning 4 Iraqis had been killed and 13 had been wounded. Friday prayers were canceled because of the fighting.
But efforts were under way by city officials to negotiate an end to the fighting, Iraqis said.
Today's battles, coupled with other recent clashes in Karbala, have eclipsed efforts by Iraqi political and tribal leaders to seek a peaceful solution to the confrontation as a planned transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis approaches on June 30.
On Thursday, Muslim clerics and political leaders in Karbala named Shakir Abdul-Amir, a former major general in Hussein Saddam's army, to mediate an end to the fighting.
American officials have said they would welcome Iraqis who wanted to resolve the conflict with Mr. Sadr peacefully, but there was no indication that peace efforts were yielding results.
Edward Wong contributed reporting from Karbala for this article.
--------
SOVEREIGNTY
Congress Seeking to Clarify Iraqis' Role Under Self-Rule
May 14, 2004
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/politics/14CONT.html
WASHINGTON, May 13 - The Bush administration, seeking to quell questions about the limitations on the sovereignty of a future government in Iraq, said Thursday that the leaders of that interim government would negotiate their own control over security and other matters once they are chosen later this month.
Testifying under tough questioning on Capitol Hill, Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy, would probably complete the task of consulting with various parties and appointing the Iraqi leaders by the end of May.
After that, Mr. Grossman said, it will be up to the Iraqis chosen in the process led by Mr. Brahimi to help determine how to change Iraqi law "to show what authority this Iraqi interim government will have."
The administration has faced demands in Congress and at the United Nations Security Council to clear up what the powers of the interim government will be when self-rule is restored to Iraq on June 30. This government will be in place until elections early next year.
Among the questions being asked at the Security Council, which is expected to give its blessing to the new government and call for more international help for Iraq, are what powers that government will have over its own troops, the Iraqi criminal justice system and prisons, and Iraqi oil revenues.
A senior European diplomat said he and other European colleagues were frustrated because the Bush administration had kept them in the dark on these questions. "When I ask people in the administration about this, they roll their eyes and say the process takes time," he said.
Mr. Grossman, who last month used the phrase "limited sovereignty" to describe Iraq after the American occupation officially ends on June 30, said on Thursday that there would be limits on Iraq's "authority" but not its sovereignty.
His comment brought skeptical responses from several members of the House International Relations Committee, where he was testifying.
At one point, Representative Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, repeatedly asked what would happen if the new government became so incensed by American conduct in Iraq, such as in the scandal over treatment of prisoners, that it asked American forces to withdraw. Would American forces have to comply?
Mr. Grossman at first said that this could not happen because any government would recognize the importance of keeping American forces on hand - the line taken repeatedly by American officials for months. Finally, when pressed, he answered "yes" - American forces would have to leave.
He was then contradicted by Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, director of strategic plans and policy for the military's joint staff, who said that such a request would only be valid if made by an elected government - something that would not exist until next year.
Mr. Grossman then said that General Sharp "perhaps did a better job than I did" in answering the question.
The statement by Mr. Grossman that all these urgent matters will have to be decided next month was echoed by Ahmad Fawzi, a spokesman for Mr. Brahimi in Baghdad.
"The people who will have to negotiate all these sensitive items will be the new caretaker government," Mr. Fawzi said. "That is why no one has answers to those questions. Anybody who says they have answers to these questions is not involved in the process."
But many experts and diplomats, especially those at the Security Council, say it is dangerous to leave the terms of Iraqi sovereignty until almost the last moment, and then to throw whatever is decided to the Security Council.
"Why is the Bush administration making life so hard by taking this case, which is complicated and complex, into the Security Council in raw form without any discussions ahead of time?" asked a European diplomat. "The Security Council is not your friendliest place on earth."
But an administration official, defending the American approach, said it would not be acceptable to Iraqis or credible in the eyes of the world for tough issues like Iraqi sovereignty to be decided by the United States or other Western countries on the Security Council.
While these matters were being debated Thursday, a new directive from President Bush came to light giving the State Department major control over how to spend American reconstruction money in Iraq once sovereignty is transferred, taking authority away from the Pentagon.
In recent months, the State and Defense departments have squabbled over who will control reconstruction spending, but State Department officials expressed satisfaction on Thursday that their department would have all the authority it needed, while calling on the Pentagon for help.
In a directive signed by Mr. Bush on May 11 and obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Bush declared that the American ambassador to Iraq "shall be responsible for the direction, coordination and supervision" of all American personnel except for military personnel.
The directive also said that the Defense Department would set up a Project and Contracting Office to provide "support" for activities in Iraq. State Department officials said that the wording was carefully confined to "support" and not "control."
The fight over construction spending is important in light of the fact that of the $18 billion appropriated by Congress for Iraq's reconstruction, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz testified last month that only $6.4 billion had been "committed" for various projects.
Lawmakers in Congress charge that the slowness in spending money has contributed to Iraqi resentments of the American presence.
-------- israel / palestine
12 Palestinians Killed in Border Fighting
Deaths Come as Israeli Forces Search for Soldiers' Remains;
Calls Mount for Gaza Withdrawal
By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23574-2004May13.html
JERUSALEM, May 13 -- Hundreds of Israeli soldiers searched the border area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt on Thursday for the remains of five soldiers killed in a huge explosion Wednesday. The patrols sparked frequent fighting in which at least 12 Palestinians were killed, Israeli army officials and Palestinian security and hospital officials said.
Seven Palestinian men were killed in a 1 a.m. missile strike by an Israeli AH-64 Apache helicopter and four others died in a second Apache attack at 10:30 a.m., Palestinian security and hospital officials said. In addition, a 19-year-old man was shot to death by an Israeli sniper outside his home, they said.
The deaths on Thursday marked one of the deadliest periods in Gaza since the Palestinians began their uprising in September 2000. Since Tuesday morning, at least 27 Palestinians have been killed and 280 have been injured, while 11 Israeli soldiers have been killed and five wounded in the fighting.
The Israeli losses prompted renewed calls from Israelis for the withdrawal of troops and 7,500 Jewish settlers from Gaza. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed a pullback, but his Likud Party voted the measure down two weeks ago in a nonbinding referendum, even though opinion polls show that as many as 70 percent of Israelis support it. Sharon is trying to revive the plan.
The Maariv newspaper ran a headline on its front page Thursday decrying "The Curse of Gaza." Well-known actor Shlomo Vishinsky, who lost a son in the blast Wednesday, called Sharon a "patsy for the Likud" in Israel's largest daily, Yedioth Ahronoth.
No militant groups claimed to be holding any remains of the soldiers killed in Wednesday's blast -- unlike an incident Tuesday in which militants held soldiers' body parts as bargaining chips. But the process of collecting the bodies was hindered by the large debris area and the hostile, open environment, according to Capt. Jacob Dallal, an army spokesman.
The blast Wednesday occurred in a cleared strip known as the Philadelphi corridor, which separates Egypt and Gaza near the border town of Rafah, an area of sophisticated cross-border smuggling operations.
The explosion occurred about 6 p.m., when a militant from the radical group Islamic Jihad fired a shoulder-launched, rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of three Israeli armored vehicles that had stopped along the border to blow up the entrance of a smuggling tunnel, according to Israeli army officials and a statement by Islamic Jihad. The rocket hit an armored personnel carrier containing 1,750 of pounds of explosives, causing a tremendous blast that killed five soldiers, injured three others and reportedly sent debris flying a far as half a mile away.
Israeli soldiers fanned out to secure a wide area around the blast site so Palestinian militants would not seize any body parts and hold them for ransom, as happened on Tuesday in a bomb attack in which six soldiers were killed. Jewish tradition considers it imperative to maintain the sanctity of a dead body and collect all of its parts for burial.
Palestinian militants collected body parts in the first attack, including the head of an Israeli soldier, and paraded them through Gaza City, demanding the release of Palestinian prisoners being held by Israel. Images also were shown on Arab satellite television channels. Israeli troops responded with an incursion into the Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun in a massive search operation that ended early Thursday when Egyptian intermediaries helped return the body parts from the first blast in exchange for Israel withdrawing its troops.
In the wake of the two explosions, the army has ordered its troops to stop carrying large amounts of explosives in armored personnel carriers pending a review, according to Israeli Army Radio.
At least 15 Palestinians were killed and 245 were injured during the Zeitoun operation. Residents returned Thursday to torn up streets, broken water lines and downed power lines. At least six buildings were demolished during the raid, leaving at least 30 families homeless.
Special correspondent Islam Abdulkarim in Gaza City contributed to this report.
--------
Israel Ready to Widen Patrol Zone in Gaza Near Egypt
May 14, 2004
By JAMES BENNET
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/international/middleeast/14CND-GAZA.html?hp
JERUSALEM, May 14 - Israel will substantially widen an Army-patrolled zone at the southern end of the Gaza Strip near the Egyptian border, a step that will involve demolishing many Palestinian buildings, a senior Israeli official said today.
He called the step necessary to protect Israeli soldiers who hunt for Palestinian smuggling tunnels in that area, where five soldiers were killed Wednesday when militants blew up their armored vehicle.
Fighting raged in that area again today, as soldiers continued trying to retrieve their comrades' remains from the sand.
Palestinian militants reported killing at least two soldiers who were trying to guard the searchers, near the Rafah refugee camp. The Israeli Army confirmed only that it had casualties.
Israeli forces killed one Palestinian with a missile strike. Another Palestinian died when an explosive detonated prematurely. Thirteen Palestinians were wounded, one of them seriously, according to an official at Al-Najar Hospital in Rafah.
With helicopter gunships overhead escorting dozens of armored vehicles, witnesses said that some residents of Rafah were gathering their belongings and fleeing, while others shut themselves in their homes. "There's continuous shelling," said Naser Barhoom, the head of an Islamic charity in the area, speaking by telephone. "Tonight, I'm going to leave with my family."
Today's fatalities brought to at least 29 the number of Palestinians who have died in a spike in violence in Gaza this week. Thirteen Israelis soldiers have been killed, eleven of them in the destruction of two armored vehicles on routine missions. The Israeli deaths have generated a fierce debate within Israel about the value of retaining Jewish settlements in Gaza.
In the fighting today, bulldozers leveled several Palestinian homes near the Israeli zone where the five soldiers were killed. The army said that Palestinians were using the buildings to stage attacks. The zone is now about 4.5 miles long and 250 yards wide.
Even before this week's violence, the United Nations agency that oversees Palestinian refugee camps reported that, in the first 10 days of May, 1,100 Palestinians were left homeless in Gaza by Army demolition of 131 residential buildings. In all, the agency says, more than 17,000 Palestinians in Gaza have lost their homes to Israeli demolition since the start of the conflict in September 2000.
Israel says it demolishes Palestinians buildings only to protect soldiers and settlers, or to punish militants.
Much if not most of the destruction has been in Rafah, a flashpoint where soldiers and militants trade blows nightly. Palestinians dig tunnels from Rafah into Egypt to smuggle weapons, cigarettes, and other contraband. The Army reports uncovering some 80 such tunnels over the course of the conflict.
Israeli officials say they have weighed measures like digging a salt-water canal along the zone to flood any tunnels. That idea was abandoned as too costly and as objectionable to Egypt.
Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, the chief of staff, told Israel Radio that buildings facing the Israeli-patrolled strip were routinely abandoned, then used by militants to dig tunnels or launch attacks.
"We've been forced to destroy houses here in the past, and apparently we'll be forced to destroy more houses in the future," he said.
Israel Radio reported that the Army intended to demolish hundreds of buildings near the Israeli-patrolled zone.
The senior Israeli official said he did not know how many buildings would be destroyed. He said that in some places, the Army would widen its present strip by "a couple of hundred meters."
He said, "We cannot tolerate the continued firing at our forces, which are like sitting ducks."
The soldiers who died Wednesday were killed as they prepared to lower sacks of explosives weighing hundreds of pounds into a hole drilled into a smuggling tunnel. At that moment, a militant fired a rocket-propelled grenade at them, detonating the explosives, the Army said.
--------
Israel Tries to Kill Islamic Jihad Chief in Gaza
May 14, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast.html
GAZA (Reuters) - Israel tried to assassinate the top leader of the militant Palestinian group Islamic Jihad in a missile strike in Gaza City on Saturday in apparent retaliation for the killing of 13 soldiers this week.
Islamic Jihad officials said four missiles hit a building housing Mohammed al-Hindi's office but that he safely fled the area. The attempt on his life drew a vow from his followers of an ``earthquake-like'' revenge attacks against the Jewish state.
The air raid followed Israel's assassinations of the two senior Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip in recent weeks and threats to keep striking at the militants' upper echelons based in the coastal territory.
The missile barrage came hours after two Israeli soldiers were killed by Hamas militants in a refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip in the latest in a series of ambushes that has dealt the Middle East's mightiest army its worst blow in two years.
Polls showed deepening support in Israel for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza pullout plan, now stalled by hard-liners in his own rightist party, as this week's losses reminded Israelis of the high cost of the hard-to-defend Gaza settlements.
The Gaza violence has also raised concern among Israeli military planners that Palestinians have adopted the tactics of Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas that eventually ended Israel's occupation of south Lebanon in 2000.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Islamic groups sworn to Israel's destruction, are the driving force behind a campaign of suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of Israelis during three and a half years of conflict.
Hamas claimed responsibility for killing six soldiers in a troop carrier on Tuesday during a raid in Gaza City, and Islamic Jihad said it was behind a similar bombing that killed five servicemen on Wednesday.
Israel killed 28 Palestinians, including civilians, during four days of fierce fighting in Gaza.
VOW OF REVENGE
``We will respond to the cowardly attempt on the life of our leader by punishing the Zionist enemies,'' Islamic Jihad official Khader Habib told Reuters. ``There will be an earthquake-like response that will shatter the Zionist entity.''
Helicopters first struck an Islamic studies center where al-Hindi worked and then hit the building of a Jihad-linked group that supports families of Palestinians who have killed or been killed in the conflict with Israel, witnesses said.
Islamic Jihad officials had originally said al-Hindi's home had been targeted, but later said they had been mistaken.
Medics said at least 13 people were wounded in the air strikes. The Israeli army had no immediate comment.
On Friday, militants shot dead two soldiers in Rafah while troops were destroying buildings along a nearby Gaza-Egypt border corridor that Israel controls and plans to widen by demolishing homes.
An army statement said a soldier had helped a Palestinian woman carry bags into her apartment and was shot dead by snipers outside the building. When a rescue team arrived, militants shot at them as well, killing another soldier.
Israeli political sources had said dozens or even hundreds of Palestinian homes on the edge of the ``Philadelphi'' buffer zone would be razed in coming days in a bid to deny cover to militants who attack troops daily.
The new plan seemed aimed at countering critics who have accused the army of leaving its forces vulnerable in the border buffer zone, which runs six miles and is now 250 yards wide in some places.
Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat condemned the corridor's expansion as being in ``total contradiction'' to what Sharon had presented as ``disengagement'' from points of conflict.
-------- nato
NATO wants Bulgaria to do more in Afghanistan
SOFIA (AFP)
May 14, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040514134230.985nqjkb.html
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on Friday called on Bulgaria to provide extra help in the expansion of the NATO-led security assistance force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
"I have asked my Bulgarian interlocutors to see if Bulgaria for instance could do more in Afghanistan, in the framework of building the so-called provincial reconstruction teams," he said after a meeting with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Passi.
The United Nations has approved an expansion of the force, which is currently limited to Kabul and the northern town of Kunduz, to other towns and provinces across the war-ravaged country.
According to the Bulgarian defence ministry, NATO has asked the country to send more troops, as well as making a contribution to transportation and medical services.
Bulgaria, which became a member of NATO in March, has 66 men in Afghanistan.
ISAF is made up of about 6,500 soldiers from 29 countries.
"Nato is in Afghanistan to prevent that country from becoming a safe harbour for terrorists again, because terrorism is everywhere.
"And we support the government of president Hamid Karzai. And we expand into the region gaining stability and security there", said Scheffer.
At the end of the talks Scheffer was ceremoniously driven round the grounds of the foreign ministry in a 25-year old Trabant car, a traditional honour conferred on NATO secretary generals by Bulgarian leaders since the fall of communism of which the Trabant was a symbol.
-------- pakistan / india
Vajpayee quits as Congress routs BJP
Sonia tipped as next PM; pledges strong, secular govt; nine ministers among losers
Friday May 14, 2004
News International, Pakistan
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/may2004-daily/14-05-2004/main/main1.htm
NEW DELHI: Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee resigned on Thursday after a shock election defeat that paved the way for Italian-born Sonia Gandhi's Congress party to take power in the world's largest democracy.
The result was a resounding rejection by the rural poor of Vajpayee's "India Shining" campaign motto, although the Congress was not expected to turn its back on a policy of gradually liberalising Asia's third-largest economy.
With counting almost over, Congress and its allies won 219 seats in the 545-seat parliament and the BJP-led coalition 188. Left parties which have promised to support Congress were home in 63 constituencies and 69 seats went to others.
A beaming Gandhi met reporters after the results. "The Congress party will take the lead to ensure our country has a strong, stable and secular government at the earliest," she said in her brief comments.
Vajpayee, in a televised concession speech to the nation, heralded his peace push with Pakistan and economic growth as his key achievements. After chairing a cabinet meeting, Vajpayee, accompanied by Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani, went to Rashtrapati Bhawan and handed over his resignation to President APJ Abdul Kalam. The president accepted his resignation and asked him to continue till alternative arrangements were in place.
Ecstatic, if surprised, supporters beat drums and danced in the streets in New Delhi as the extent of the upset by Congress and the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty became apparent. Gandhi, tipped as the next prime minister, was meeting Congress leaders to discuss forming a government, which party officials said could happen within days with the support of Left after their strong gains. Still Gandhi personally remained non-committal on whether she wanted to lead the country, saying only that Congress would meet on Saturday to decide its candidate and that "normally" the biggest party gets the premiership.
Asked by reporters if she will be prime minister, Gandhi said: "The leader of the Congress party will be elected by the elected members of the Congress party (in parliament) which will be held on the 15th" of May. Asked if the person elected on Saturday would become prime minister, she said: "Normally this is what happens." She gave the same answer when asked if the largest party in a ruling alliance should get the prime ministership. "This is what happens," she said.
However, many in Congress, which left power in 1996 after ruling India for 45 years, were pushing for Sonia to become the prime minister. "All the workers want it, party officials want it. Now she will have to decide whether she wants to be the prime minister," senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel said.
Results indicated that millions of rural poor people abandoned Vajpayee, believing they had been left out of his economic boom and rejecting his Hindus-first message in favour of the secularism of Congress party. It was the rural India that turned out to vote in decisive numbers, not the burgeoning middle class that has been the main winner from the boom, cheap loans and an opening economy, as claimed by the BJP.
The strong campaigning by Gandhi, who drew massive crowds, and resentment that the benefits of growth and economic reforms were not reaching ordinary Indians, lifted Congress. Sonia Gandhi, the 57-year-old widow of slain former premier Rajiv Gandhi, has revived India's oldest party after the death of her husband in 1991. Both she and her son Rahul won seats in the new parliament.
The BJP-led coalition lost one-third of its MPs, including nine of Vajpayee's 27-member cabinet. They included External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, Junior Home Minister ID Swami, Human Resources Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, Tourism Minister Jagmohan, Food and Civil Supplies Minister Sharad Yadav, Petroleum Minister Ram Naik, besides Nitish Kumar, Sahab Singh Verma and Shah Nawaz Hussain. Most of them stayed away from a cabinet meeting Vajpayee called on Thursday evening, just before submitting his resignation. "I am half heart-broken and half-stunned," said senior party leader and key campaign strategist Pramod Mahajan.
Among others, Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani romped home but Shivraj Patil, a top Congress leader and a former speaker, lost to BJP rival. Stand-up Bollywood comedian Govinda of the Congress party defeated India's Petroleum Minister Ram Naik in Bombay.
Vajpayee secured his Lucknow seat in northern Uttar Pradesh state. And Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said he will now assume a new role as the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha. After an hour-long cabinet meeting, she said Vajpayee will be the leader of BJP as well as NDA.
----
Gandhi Moves to Form New India Government
Friday May 14, 2004
By LAURINDA KEYS
Associated Press Writer
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INDIA_ELECTIONS?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
NEW DELHI (AP) -- Sonia Gandhi worked swiftly Friday to build a new coalition government, but the euphoria of her election victory faded as stock markets plummeted on fears that her leftist allies plan to wind back fundamental economic reforms.
The uncertainty has been compounded by Gandhi's refusal to state outright whether she will grab the prime ministership and become India's first foreign-born leader as early as Saturday.
Congress, the party that led India to freedom from British colonial rule and then ran the country for 40 years, is returning to power after an eight-year hiatus.
It is riding a surge of discontent among poor voters who disagreed with the Hindu fundamentalist views of outgoing Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and felt his economic policies had made their lives worse.
The leftists appealed to pensioners with dwindling savings and people who lost their jobs to increased competition or privatization of state companies. They won 63 seats in the new Parliament - their best-ever showing. Gandhi's hopes of forging a workable government hinges on their support.
Harkishan Singh Surjeet, of the Communist Party of India-Marxist - a key Congress ally - sent jitters through investment circles when he declared that the sale of profit-making state-owned companies must stop.
A.B. Bardhan, general secretary of the Communist Party of India, another leftist ally, said the government's privatization ministry "can go to the devil."
The statements caused investors to pull their money out of state oil companies and banks, even India's premier high-tech firms.
The Bombay Stock Exchange, the Sensex, tumbled 6.11 percent on Friday to close at 5069.46 points - the worst one-day plunge in four years. The National Stock Exchange dove 7.92 percent to close at 1581.40 points - its biggest single-day decline since it began operations a decade ago.
Congress party leaders said nothing to calm investors. But after the markets closed, a senior Congress leader, Anand Sharma, told The Associated Press, "This is a temporary hiccup."
"Where is the panic? We are the original reformers," he said, referring to economic liberalization that began in the late 1980s when Sonia Gandhi's assassinated husband, Rajiv, was prime minister.
As concerns over economic policy raged, the key issue of who will head the new government remained unresolved.
Gandhi, 57, is originally Italian, but has held Indian citizenship for 15 years.
As they rallied support from allied smaller parties to form a government, she and other Congress leaders were hesitant to state outright that she will take the top job, once also held by her mother-in-law, Indira Gandhi, who was assassinated.
Congress general secretary Oscar Fernandes said the party, as the largest member of the planned coalition, would choose the next premier. Their elected Parliament members will meet Saturday, and an announcement could be made then.
However, Sharad Pawar, a key ally who visited Gandhi on Friday, said the coalition partners will decide "in a day or two" who will be prime minister. Pawar had opposed Gandhi as prime minister when she had a chance to form a government in 1999, because he objected to her foreign birth.
Meanwhile, crowds gathered outside a wall surrounding Gandhi's house. About 300 people set off fireworks, hurled garlands, and chanted "Long Live Sonia Gandhi."
Her son - newly elected Parliament member Rahul Gandhi - and her daughter Priyanka Vadra joined the Congress leader in shaking hands across the metal barricades. A roar went up as Rahul, 34, climbed over a fence and plunged into the crowd.
Until the national leadership issue is resolved, defeated Prime Minister Vajpayee will remain at the helm. Although he has officially resigned, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam asked him to stay on until the new government is formed.
The final tallies for 539 Parliament seats show Congress and its allies plus the leftist parties winning 279 seats, a majority of the 545-seat Parliament. Four more constituencies will revote later this month and two members are appointed.
Vajpayee's Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies had 187 seats, and other smaller parties and independents had 73.
During his nearly six years in office, Vajpayee, 79, energized the economy, but that success couldn't deliver quick prosperity to millions of rural poor.
Some 300 million Indians live on less than a dollar a day. Most poor lack even the most basic infrastructure, electricity and potable water.
--------
India Vote Signals Return of Gandhis
Premier Vajpayee Quits As Ruling Coalition Falls
By John Lancaster
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23091-2004May13?language=printer
NEW DELHI, May 13 -- Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Hindu nationalist leader who presided over an economic boom in India, its emergence as a declared nuclear power and a widely applauded peace initiative with Pakistan, resigned Thursday night after a secular opposition alliance led by the Congress party scored a stunning upset in parliamentary elections.
Although a new government has not been formed, Congress party officials said Vajpayee is likely to be succeeded as prime minister by party leader Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born widow of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and the head of modern India's most famous political dynasty.
The counting of results Thursday from elections that were spread over the past three weeks brought a dramatic and unexpected reversal for Vajpayee, 79, and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the coalition that has governed India since 1998.
Only a few weeks ago, pollsters had predicted that the ruling coalition would coast to victory on the strength of India's recent economic growth, Vajpayee's personal appeal and his popular moves toward peace with Pakistan.
But if the government's campaign theme of "India Shining" played well with the growing -- and predominantly urban -- middle class, it apparently failed to resonate in the impoverished rural villages where most of India's billion-plus people still live.
With the count nearing completion Thursday night, official results showed that Congress and its allies would easily surpass the 272 seats required for a majority in the Indian Parliament's lower house, the Lok Sabha, and that Congress would occupy more seats than the BJP for the first time since 1996.
"When you gave us the mandate last time, stability, good governance and development were the challenges facing the nation," a somber, reflective Vajpayee said in a brief televised address Thursday night. "It is for you and history to judge what we have achieved during this period."
He added, "My party and alliance may have lost, but India has won."
Vajpayee's concession speech signaled a remarkable turnaround for the Congress party, which led India for almost half a century after independence from Britain in 1947 but in recent years had lost ground to the BJP. For much of its history, Congress was led by Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, and his descendants. Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, served twice as prime minister and was assassinated in 1984. She was succeeded by her son, Rajiv, who was assassinated in 1991, two years after losing the office.
At a news conference Thursday night, Sonia Gandhi emphasized her party's secular credentials -- an implicit contrast with the BJP, whose leaders have often been accused of sowing enmity between Hindus and India's large Muslim minority.
But she also pledged to continue Vajpayee's peace effort, which began last year and has blossomed into regular high-level contacts between two nuclear-armed rivals that nearly fought their fourth war in 2002.
"From the beginning, we've been supporting Vajpayee's initiative with Pakistan," Gandhi said. "We said dialogue must be initiated with Pakistan. There is no question of us not following in that policy."
Some analysts questioned whether Gandhi would enjoy the same latitude as Vajpayee in negotiations with Pakistan over the divided Himalayan region of Kashmir. "It's going to be very difficult for Sonia Gandhi, as a foreigner, to make concessions to Pakistan over Kashmir," said Prem Shankar Jha, a columnist for Outlook magazine.
The prospect of a government led by the Congress party and its allies also is likely to cause some apprehension in Washington. The Bush administration enjoyed warm relations with Vajpayee's government, with which it shared common views on economic policy and the need to confront Islamic extremism. Congress party leaders have been critical of the BJP's closeness to Washington and have said its economic reforms have hurt the poor.
Congress party officials said the new coalition, which includes communists, would likely move more slowly than the BJP-led government on privatization of state-owned industries, although they noted that it was a Congress government that launched India's economic liberalization in 1991.
"We will accelerate reforms, but we will pursue disinvestments with safeguards," party spokesman Abhishekh Singhvi said in an interview. "We will not disinvest just for the sake of selling and raising money, but to get rid of inefficiency and losses. Our big focus will be on employment and agriculture."
On foreign policy, Singhvi said that while "it is important to maintain continuity," the party favored a return to "the doctrine of nonalignment" that defined Indian foreign policy during the Cold War. "The doctrine is all the more important in a . . . world where one country is a supercop," he said. "Will we advocate becoming a part of the U.S. bloc? Obviously not. We are open to trade but will not fall at somebody's feet."
Vajpayee's party rose to prominence in the early 1990s as the embodiment of a philosophy of cultural nationalism known as Hindutva -- literally, Hinduness. Soon after coming to power in 1998, Vajpayee and the BJP-led government cemented their nationalist credentials by detonating a nuclear device, prompting Pakistan to do the same. BJP politicians, though not Vajpayee himself, were subsequently accused of fomenting anti-Muslim violence in the state of Gujarat in 2002.
Despite the party's links to Hindu extremists, Vajpayee has cultivated a moderate image that has only been enhanced by his peace overtures to Pakistan. That, coupled with his gentle demeanor and dry sense of humor, won him broad support in India, especially among young people. The pragmatic demands of coalition politics, meanwhile, spurred the BJP to soften its emphasis on Hindu nationalism.
In state elections last fall, the BJP decided to stress development issues over cultural themes. The results were so positive that the government decided to call early national elections, which began on April 20.
Going into the parliamentary contests, BJP strategists sought to capitalize on Vajpayee's popularity as well as what they called the "feel-good factor," which was symbolized by India's success in attracting service jobs outsourced from the United States and other developed countries. Congress and its allies, meanwhile, emphasized the continuing poverty in the countryside as well as the dislocations wrought by globalization and economic reform; one campaign ad featured youths staring disconsolately at a locked factory gate.
In the end, it was that bleak message that resonated with voters.
"The ground reality and the results have called the bluff of the artificial atmosphere of feel-good that the NDA had created," Ahmed Patel, Gandhi's political secretary, told reporters. Patel was referring to the National Democratic Alliance, the formal name of the BJP-led coalition.
Although exit polls had indicated a tightening race in recent days, BJP officials acknowledged that they were totally unprepared for the outcome. "There was an invisible undercurrent in the Indian electorate against the NDA that none of us could gauge," Sushma Swaraj, a minister in Vajpayee's government, told reporters at the BJP headquarters this afternoon. "The results are totally against our expectations. We will have to sit in the opposition."
Swaraj added, however, that the election results were "not a verdict for Sonia Gandhi to become prime minister either. . . . We should not conclude that people of India have accepted a foreigner as prime minister. My mind still does not accept Sonia Gandhi as the prime minister."
Special correspondent Rama Lakshmi contributed to this report.
-------- prisoners of war
Former Guantanamo detainees write to Bush with torture claims
AFP
Friday May 14, 8:12 PM
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040514/1/3k9qi.html
Two British Muslims released from Guantanamo Bay have said they were subjected to the same acts of torture that Iraqis suffered at the hands of US troops, their lawyer said.
Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, from Tipton, near Birmingham in England's West Midlands, have written to US President George W. Bush to detail a string of abuses which, they claimed, were inflicted upon them by US interrogators.
The alleged abuses at the military-run camp in Cuba for terrorism suspects included being shackled for hours, being made to stand naked, being subjected to snarling dogs and being forced to endure shivering temperatures.
Their claims emerged as the Bush administration is rocked by undisputed evidence that US troops abused and tortured Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, near Baghdad.
Barbara Olshansky, a US lawyer representing Rasul and Iqbal, told BBC radio that they had written to Bush to make clear that their experience in Guantanamo Bay "didn't happen in a vacuum".
"This is very much part of the policy of the American military in handling all these various situations around the world," said Olshansky, of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.
"They were very clear that they were shackled for hours on end, and made to stand in stressed positions when being questioned by the military interrogators," she said.
"They were subjected to threatening dogs, freezing cold temperatures, being made to stand naked -- the same type of humiliation and stress techniques that were used in Iraq," she added.
----
Second Iraqi identifies himself in prison abuse photographs
By Justin Huggler
UK Independent
14 May 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=521077
Saddam Saleh, an Iraqi who says he was one of the naked prisoners shown in the photographs of abuse inside Abu Ghraib jail, has accused American soldiers of torturing him for 18 days.
He said he saw several senior figures connected with the Saddam Hussein regime being held in the now notorious area of Abu Ghraib shown in the pictures, including Saddam's nephew and the owner of the house where the former dictator was hiding when he was captured last year.
Mr Saleh is the second Iraqi to come forward and identify himself as one of those in the Abu Ghraib photographs. He says that he is one of the naked Iraqis shown standing in a row, while Private Lynndie England points at their genitals and grins, the third from the right.
He says he knows that he is the man in the photograph despite the fact he was wearing a hood because American soldiers brought the picture to him in his cell and pointed his own naked body out to him, apparently to humiliate him further. That would back up Private England's claim that she had been ordered to pose for the photo so it could be used to weaken prisoners for interrogation.
He recalls being ordered to stand in a line and hearing the click of the camera, but said that he did not know until he was shown the photograph that a woman soldiers was posing in front of the line of prisoners.
He alleges that he was held completely naked for 18 days, and that American soldiers beat him, tortured him with an electric shock baton, set dogs on him, and at one point urinated on him.
It is impossible to confirm Mr Saleh's allegations, and some Iraqis who have claimed they suffered abuse in US-run prisons since the Abu Ghraib pictures emerged have been accused of lying. Mr Saleh has US prisoner release papers which give his prisoner number as 200144, and the dates he was held as 1 December, 2003, to 28 March this year. The document is signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Craig A Essick.
Mr Saleh says he wants to be allowed to give evidence at the first court martial of a soldier for mistreating prisoners, scheduled for Baghdad next week.
--------
INTERROGATIONS
Precise Rules for Handling Iraq Detainees
May 14, 2004
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/international/14RULE.html
The rules for interrogation of those detained by Americans became the subject of debate yesterday at a Senate hearing in Washington.
An Army document for the military command in Iraq lists approved approaches for all detainees. Their descriptions come from the Army's standard field manual on interrogations. In bold-faced capital letters, the document states "everyone is responsible for ensuring compliance" to the rules, adding that "violations must be reported immediately" to the officer in charge.
Here is a glossary of some of the techniques:
DIRECT Straightforward questioning. The field manual says this method is "often called no approach at all, but it is the most effective."
INCENTIVE Rewards for cooperation. This can include giving detaines things to which they are already entitled. The field manual notes, "This can be effective only if the source is unaware of his rights or privileges."
INCENTIVE REMOVAL Taking away privileges from an uncooperative detainee. "Interrogators may not withhold a source's rights under the Geneva Conventions," the manual says.
EMOTIONAL APPROACH The "emotional love" variation relies on engaging feelings for family, homeland or comrades. The "emotional hate" variation focuses on a detainee's "genuine hate, or possibly a desire for revenge"; the manual states, "This approach is usually most effective on a member of a racial or religious minority who has suffered discrimination in both service and civilian life."
PRIDE AND EGO In the "up approach," the interrogator, using a "flattering somewhat-in-awe tone of voice," speaks highly of the detainee and the information he can reveal. In the "down approach," the interrogator plays on a detainee's sense of inferiority.
FUTILITY This approach, used to make a detainee believe it is useless to resist, is "most effective when the interrogator can play on doubts that already exist in the source's mind."
'ESTABLISH YOUR IDENTITY' The interrogator pretends the detainee is actually an infamous criminal facing very serious charges and is trying to pose as someone else. In order to refute these accusations, the detainee may disclose details about his unit or operations.
FILE AND DOSSIER APPROACH Interrogators confront the detainee with a dossier that they claim includes everything significant about the detainee. The field manual suggests the file "may be padded with extra paper, if necessary."
RAPID FIRE One or more interrogators may be involved in this approach, in which questions are fired so quickly that the detainee does not have time to answer before the next question is asked. This is intended to lead to contradictory answers; in trying to straighten out the confusion, the detainee is likely to disclose more information.
Other tactics listed require the commanding general's approval of a request submitted in writing, for example:
CHANGE OF SCENERY
DIET In an article Wednesday in Stars and Stripes, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who developed interrogation techniques in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and Iraq, said this means keeping prisoners hungry. The field manual says its use must be supervised by medical personnel.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION This could include using loud music and bright lights to disorient detainees.
SLEEP Interrogators reverse detainees' sleep schedules, keeping them awake at night and allowing them to sleep during the day. According to General Miller, interrogators may deprive detainees of sleep. This may be done for no more than 72 hours, the field manual says.
ISOLATION This is allowed for more than 30 days.
PRESENCE OF TRAINED DOGS
SENSORY DEPRIVATION Using blindfolds, earmuffs and other materials. The field manual states this can be done for no more than 72 hours.
STRESS POSITIONS A detainee is made to sit or stand in painful positions. The field manual says this can be done for no more than 45 minutes.
The Army manual outlines these specific safeguards for detainees:
Techniques used in interrogation must be noted in writing.
"Approaches must always be humane and lawful.
"Detainees will NEVER be touched in a malicious or unwanted manner.
"Wounded or medically burdened detainees must be medically clear prior to interrogation."
The Geneva Conventions apply to operations in Iraq.
--------
Soldier Details Abuse, Offers to Plead Guilty
By Christian Davenport
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25640-2004May13?language=printer
One of the military police officers charged in the abuse scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has offered to plead guilty and has provided military investigators with a detailed account of how guards humiliated and beat detainees, in one case hitting a prisoner so hard he became unconscious.
Spec. Jeremy C. Sivits, one of the seven members of the 372nd Military Police Company facing charges in the case, told investigators in a sworn statement that other prison guards forced detainees to strip, masturbate and pile on top of one another. Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II forced two detainees to punch each other, Sivits told investigators, according to a transcript.
In another instance, he said, Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr. put a sandbag over a detainee's head and "punched the detainee with a closed fist so hard in the temple that the detainee was knocked unconscious."
"I walked over to see if the detainee was still alive," Sivits said, according to the transcript. He lay there motionless with his eyes closed for about two minutes, Sivits said, before he moved "for the first time, like he was coming to."
Transcripts of two statements Sivits made in January were provided by Harvey Volzer, a lawyer representing Spec. Megan M. Ambuhl, another soldier charged in the case. Sivits's father has said that the family cannot afford a civilian lawyer, and the identity of Sivits's military attorney could not be learned last night.
Sivits, 24, of Hyndman, Pa., admitted in the statement that he photographed the abuse but never reported it. His offer to plead guilty in the case has been accepted by the staff judge advocate overseeing his court-martial, according to a memo reviewed by The Washington Post and lawyers representing some of the other charged soldiers. It could not be determined which charge the plea offer pertained to.
Sivits has been ordered to face a special court-martial, a proceeding similar to a misdemeanor trial in which defendants face a maximum prison sentence of one year. That, combined with the plea, indicates that he has agreed to testify against other soldiers in the case, Volzer and legal experts have said.
On Wednesday, military authorities announced that Frederick and Sgt. Javal S. Davis, 26, of Nottingham, Md., would face general courts-martial, proceedings that can result in much more severe sentences. They will be arraigned next Thursday, the Associated Press reported yesterday. Sivits's trial is set for Wednesday.
In his statement, Sivits implicated five of six other soldiers charged in the case. Lawyers representing the soldiers or their families have denied anything illegal was done.
Most of Sivits's statement concerns the night of last Oct. 3. Frederick had asked him to come to holding cells in the Abu Ghraib prison where some new detainees had just arrived.
Sivits said that after he and Frederick got there, some detainees were put in a pile on the floor. Sivits said Davis ran into the room and "lunged into the air and landed in the middle of where the detainees were."
Davis, 26, then stomped "on either the fingers or toes of the detainees," he said, causing them to "scream loudly." Sivits said Frederick later hit a detainee in the chest "for no reason."
"The detainee took a deep breath and kind of squatted down," Sivits said. "The detainee said he could not [breathe]. They called for a medic to come down to try to get the detainee to [breathe] right."
Bill Lawson, Frederick's uncle, said Frederick "shoved" one prisoner who was trying to "start some kind of a scuffle." Frederick has maintained that "he has never lifted a finger against any prisoner in Iraq," Lawson said.
At another point, he said, a detainee with gunshot wounds to his leg was handcuffed to a bed. Graner then apparently picked up an object and struck the man's wounds "with a half baseball swing," Sivits said. The detainee begged Graner to stop, saying, " 'Mister, Mister please stop,' or words to that effect."
Sivits said Graner responded by saying, "in a baby-type voice, 'Ah, does that hurt?' "
Sivits said he thought Graner hit the captive because "he was still angry because this detainee had tried to kill one of our soldiers."
Paul Bergrin, a Newark lawyer who is representing Davis, said Sivits's statement was "fabricated" and "self-serving."
"This is in order to cover up for his own misdeeds and mischievous behavior," he said.
Guy Womack, an attorney for Graner, said Sivits's statement " is of dubious value because he's trading information to try to help himself."
He also said he is not convinced that the person identified in Sivits's statement is his client. Throughout the statement, Graner's name is spelled "Grainer" and his rank is given as corporal, not specialist.
Sivits said he saw two other soldiers, Specs. Lynndie R. England and Sabrina D. Harman, posing for photos with naked detainees.
Sivits told investigators that the abuse would not have happened had higher-ranking members been present. "Our command would have slammed us," he said. "They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."
That statement echoes testimony given by one of the initial investigators on the case. During Ambuhl's Article 32 hearing, a session similar to a grand jury proceeding, Tyler Pieron, an Army criminal investigator, said the abuses occurred "after the chain of command had changed shifts and gone home."
Both Sivits and Pieron said that a sergeant first class at one point witnessed an incident and ordered the soldiers to stop. Pieron said he thought the sergeant saw Davis stepping on a detainee.
"They were surprised at how angry he was when he told them to stop," Pieron said.
Sivits said he did not report the abuse to his commanders because Graner told him not to, "and I try to be friends with everyone. I see now where trying to be friends with everyone can cost you."
--------
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
Accused Soldier Paints Scene of Eager Mayhem at Iraqi Prison
May 14, 2004
By KATE ZERNIKE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/national/14SIVI.html?pagewanted=all&position=
When a fresh crop of detainees arrived at Abu Ghraib prison one night in late October, their jailers set upon them.
The soldiers pulled seven Iraqi detainees from their cells, "tossed them in the middle of the floor" and then one soldier ran across the room and lunged into the pile of detainees, according to sworn statements given to investigators by one of the soldiers now charged with abuse. He did it again, jumping into the group like it was a pile of autumn leaves, and another soldier called for others to join in. The detainees were ordered to strip and masturbate, their heads covered with plastic sandbags. One soldier stomped on their fingers and toes.
"Graner put the detainee's head into a cradle position with Graner's arm, and Graner punched the detainee with a lot of force, in the temple," Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits said in his statements to investigators, referring to another soldier charged, Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr. "Graner punched the detainee with a closed fist so hard in the temple that it knocked the detainee unconscious."
"He was joking, laughing," Specialist Sivits said. "Like he was enjoying it."
"He went over to the pile of detainees that were still clothed and he put his knees on them and had his picture taken," Specialist Sivits said. "I took this photo."
Specialist Sivits's two statements, given to investigators in January and released by a lawyer for another soldier on Thursday, recount the evening's activities in graphic but unemotional language, portraying a night of gratuitous and random violence. Lawyers for the soldiers have explained the abuse captured in hundreds of photographs now at the center of the Abu Ghraib scandal by saying the soldiers were operating on the orders of military intelligence in an effort to get detainees to talk.
Last night, lawyers for the other charged soldiers repeated that. They said that in a bid for leniency, Specialist Sivits, 24, the first to be court-martialed, is expected to plead guilty on Wednesday and testify against the others.
But Specialist Sivits described a scene of twisted joviality not authorized by anyone in the chain of command and with no connection to any interrogations.
"She was laughing at the different stuff they were having the detainees do," Specialist Sivits said, describing Pfc. Lynndie R. England, another soldier charged.
The soldiers knew that what they had done was wrong, Specialist Sivits told investigators, at least enough to instruct him not to tell anyone what he had seen. Specialist Sivits was asked if the abuse would have happened if someone in the chain of command was present. "Hell no," he replied, adding: "Because our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."
The evening began with Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II casually telling Specialist Sivits to join him where the detainees were held. They escorted the detainees from their holding cells and piled them up. "Graner told Specialist Wisdom to come in and `get him some.' Meaning to come in and be part of whatever was going to happen," Specialist Sivits told investigators, referring to Specialist Matthew Wisdom.
"A couple of the detainees kind of made an ahh sound as if this hurt them or caused them some type of pain when Davis would land on them," he said. Sergeant Javal C. Davis responded by stepping on their fingers or toes, Specialist Sivits said, and the detainees screamed.
The platoon sergeant standing on a tier above the room heard the screams and yelled down at Sergeant Davis to stop, surprising the other soldiers with the anger in his command, Specialist Sivits said. But within two minutes, the platoon sergeant left, and the soldiers resumed the abuse.
"Next Graner and Frederick had the detainees strip," Specialist Sivits said. "Graner was the one who told them to strip in Arabic language." The detainees hesitated. Specialist Graner and Sergeant Frederick took them aside and instructed them again. Specialist Graner told them to sit.
"I do not know what provoked Graner," Specialist Sivits said, "but Graner knelt down to one of the detainees that was nude and had the sandbag over his head" and punched the detainee unconscious.
"I walked over to see if the detainee was still alive," Specialist Sivits said. "I could tell the detainee was unconscious, because his eyes were closed and he was not moving, but I could see his chest rise and fall, so I knew he was still alive."
Specialist Graner said little. He had wounded his hand. "Damn, that hurt," Specialist Sivits quoted him as saying. After about two minutes, Specialist Sivits said, the detainee moved, "like he was coming to." Specialist Graner walked over to pose with the pile of detainees.
Sergeant Frederick was standing in front of another detainee. "For no reason, Frederick punched the detainee in the chest," Specialist Sivits said. "The detainee took a real deep breath and kind of squatted down. The detainee said he could not breathe. They called for a medic to come down, to try and get the detainee to breathe right. Frederick said he thought he put the detainee in cardiac arrest."
Specialist Graner, meanwhile, was having the other detainees make a tower, all of them in a kneeling position like a formation of cheerleaders.
"Frederick and Graner then tried to get several of the inmates to masturbate themselves," Specialist Sivits recounted.
"Staff Sergeant Frederick would take the hand of the detainee and put it on the detainee's penis, and make the detainee's hand go back and forth, as if masturbating. He did this to about three of the detainees before one of them did it right."
After five minutes, they told him to stop. Specialist Graner then had them pose against the wall, and made one kneel in front of the other, Specialist Sivits said, "So that from behind the detainee that was kneeling, it would look like the detainee kneeling had the penis of the detainee standing in his mouth, but he did not.`
Specialist Sabrina Harman and Private England "would stand in front of the detainees and England and Harman would put their thumbs up and have the pictures taken."
Asked why the event took place, Specialist Sivits replied: "I do not know. I do not know if someone had a bad day or not. It was a normal day for me, aside from the stuff I told you about."
Asked to describe Sergeant Frederick's attitude, he replied, "Same as ever, mellow." Specialist Harman, he said, looked somewhat disgusted, but laughed, too, and so did Specialist Sivits, in his own account.
"What part did you think then was funny?" investigators asked. He replied, "The tower thing."
The evening was not an isolated case of violence, Specialist Sivits said. He described another night when a dog was set upon a detainee, and another when a detainee was handcuffed to a bed.
"Graner was in the room with him," he said. "This detainee had wounds on his legs from where he had been shot with the buckshot." Specialist Graner, he said, would "strike the detainee with a half baseball swing, and hit the wounds of the detainee. There is no doubt that this hurt the detainee because he would scream he got hit. The detainee would beg Graner to stop by saying `Mister, Mister, please stop,' or words to that effect."
"I think at one time Graner said in a baby type voice, `Ah, does that hurt?' " Specialist Sivits added.
Guy L. Womack, a lawyer for Specialist Graner, said he had not seen the statement from Specialist Sivits but doubted that his client would have hit a detainee.
"I don't think he was that kind of guy," Mr. Womack said. "He would have done it if he was ordered to do it." He said that military intelligence soldiers were in one of the graphic photographs, indicating that they were aware of what was going on.
"Sivits, as you know, has entered a plea agreement with the government, getting lenient treatment for testifying against other people," Mr. Womack said, "and by definition if he doesn't say something negative about other people he would not get this deal."
Similarly, a lawyer for Sergeant Frederick dismissed the statement. "Sivits is a rollover guilty plea, and that may provide comfort to some," said the lawyer, Gary Myers. "But it has no impact upon the defense of any other case because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the guilt or innocence of my client."
Specialist Sivits's lawyer has not responded to requests for comments.
As for Specialist Sivits, investigators asked him in his statements whether he thought any of the incidents were wrong. "All of them were," he replied.
Why did he not report the incidents? He replied: "I was asked not to, and I try to be friends with everyone. I see now where trying to be friends with everyone can cost you."
"I was in the wrong when the above incidents happened," he said. "I should have said something."
Michael Moss and James Risen contributed reporting for this article.
--------
PRISONER
Iraqi Tells of U.S. Abuse, From Ridicule to Rape Threat
May 14, 2004
By IAN FISHER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/international/middleeast/14PRIS.html?pagewanted=all&position=
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 13 - The rough road to confession began with the ridicule of the naked and hooded prisoner's name: Saddam.
The now-former prisoner, Saddam Saleh Aboud, 29, said that escalated into a threat of rape by an American soldier named Ivan in the 1-A block of Abu Ghraib prison. Then, he said, he was chained in a sitting position to the bars of a cell for 23 hours in a day. Loud music thumped, he said. He urinated where he sat.
Every few days, he said, he was uncuffed for other treatments: douses of cold water, barking dogs, something called "the scorpion," in which his arms were cuffed to his legs, behind his back.
Fellow prisoners, he said, told him later it lasted 18 days. He said he did not know, and that it did not matter. He was ready to talk.
"They began talking to me," Mr. Aboud said. "They asked, `Do you know the Islamic opposition?' I said, `Yes.' " They asked, `Do you know Zarqawi?"' referring to a Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to Al Qaeda. "I told them, `I am his driver, I swear to God.' "
"They asked me about Osama bin Laden," he said. "I said, `I am Osama bin Laden but I am disguised.' "
He said he meant every word. "I was only afraid that they would take me back to the torture room," he said. "I would prefer to be dead."
Mr. Aboud spoke, reluctantly at first, for several hours on Thursday after a chance encounter with a reporter at the office of a human rights group here in Baghdad, where he had gone to register what he said was torture during four months at Abu Ghraib.
Despite his anger and shame at what he said the Americans had done to him, he even told of some kind behavior by soldiers.
"I just want to clarify one thing," he said at one point. "Most of the American soldiers were not bad."
As with other accounts by Iraqis of abuse, it was impossible to verify his claims - and the job gets ever harder amid the widespread rage, the possible desire for compensation and the sheer volume of detailed coverage of the case.
It is possible, however, to weigh his account with the growing record from the military and other witnesses.
His name and prisoner number, 200144, is not included in a damning military investigation of the abuse. But the dates he gave matched those of the worst abuse, and he mentioned several cellmates with names similar to those in the report.
With no prompting, he also provided first names of several important figures in the report and accurately described some of their roles: a sergeant named Ivan; a woman named "Lynn or Lynnie," he said, and whom he recognized in the pictures released two weeks ago; a civilian named Steven, who he said seemed in charge of interrogations.
Condemned in the report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba were Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, of the 372nd Military Police Company; Pfc. Lynndie England, identified as the woman holding a leash tied around the neck of one prisoner in a photo; and Steven Stefanowicz, a civilian interrogator who General Taguba said in his report instructed military police officers to elicit confessions using unapproved methods.
Mr. Aboud's allegations of the methods of abuse largely squared with those in General Taguba's report. He also mentioned, again with no prompting, a central allegation of the report: his belief that the orders for torture came from superiors.
"I think this was carried out under orders," he said. He offered as evidence that the man named Steven appeared to be the one directing the soldiers and that several higher-up officers regularly visited the cellblock - at times, he claimed, during actual mistreatment.
He said he asked one of the interrogators, " `Why do you torture us?' " and that the man replied, " `It's not in our control.' "
He also said that the soldiers themselves, as a group, seemed conflicted about what they were doing.
While some seemed to enjoy it, he said, one soldier unchained him for several hours, only to rush back and chain him again when his superiors were coming.
At one point, one female soldier, whom he identified as "Mrs. Lise," yelled at a man who punched him during questioning.
Mr. Aboud, a trader and Sunni Muslim from near the northern border with Syria, said he was arrested on Nov. 29, 2003, when he reported to the Iraqi police a car on Saddoun Street in downtown Baghdad that he believed was wired with a bomb. He was blunt that he did not do this out of concern for American soldiers, whom he views as occupiers who must leave Iraq.
"If this car would have exploded at an American site, I would support that," he said. "But this would have killed innocent people."
The Iraqi police, he said, handed him over to American soldiers. After spending five days at two small United States bases, he said he was sent to Abu Ghraib, to Cell Block 1-A, known as the "hard site" for the worst prisoners. He had seen the prison before: He said he had spent three years in Abu Ghraib as a political prisoner and was released in a general amnesty that Saddam Hussein declared in October 2002.
He said he was settled into cell No. 42 and was given an orange prison outfit. Soon after, he said, he was hooded, taken to a hallway in the block and ordered to strip naked. Then he was told to stand on a box, with his hands laced over his head. One interrogator began to mock his first name, Saddam. He said that he heard the click of cameras but that he did not recognize himself in any of the released pictures of the abuse.
"Then they started to beat me," he said. He said he was struck with a broomstick, first on his hands, then on his arms, his shoulders and his stomach. Then he fell to the ground. One soldier, who prisoners called "the crazy soldier" because he seemed unbalanced, urinated on him, he claimed. Then they threw cold water on him. He was taken back to his cell.
The next day, he said, he was taken to a room where he said the sergeant named Ivan was sitting in a plastic chair. "He told me his famous sentence, which has always stayed in my ears," said Mr. Aboud, who understands some English and speaks it a little. "He said, `If you do not confess, I will have my soldiers rape you.' "
"That is not a man," Mr. Aboud said, switching from Arabic into broken English. "No. 1, animal. No. 2, crazy. Not an American."
He was not interrogated, however, but taken to a cell where his feet were slipped through cell bars and his hands cuffed just above them. He said he was forced to sit like that, naked, for 23 hours out of 24, with loud music blasting from a stereo. "If they would have played for me good music, maybe I could have slept - boom, boom, boom!" he said.
Every few days, he said, he was uncuffed and taken for some other abuse, but never asked any questions. At least four times, he was placed in the "scorpion" position and kicked while lying on the ground, he said. Twice, he said, soldiers brought him naked before two snarling dogs. Days blurred into each other, relieved only once by the kind soldier who uncuffed him and whispered, "Go and get some rest."
After what his prison mates said were 18 days - he believed it was on Dec. 23 - he was taken back to his cell. On the next day, he said, the interrogation began. There were three soldiers, he said, and two civilians who he believed were from military intelligence. The man named Steven, in his 30's with a goatee, stood silent. The soldiers, he said, deferred to Steven.
"Steven was responsible for everything," he said. "He was the one who told them what to do. He did not do any torturing himself."
He said the interrogators did not have to work hard: For the next few days, he said, he confessed to anything they asked. He admitted to belonging to the insurgency, of knowing top terrorists, of being Mr. bin Laden, of being a member of a militant Shiite Muslim group, even though he is a Sunni. He said he made up stories about where the resistance was hiding in the western desert.
But, he said, they never asked him about the car bomb that he said he reported to the Iraqi police. And after the interrogations began, he said, he was never tortured again.
If his account his true, this time coincides with the beginning of the military investigations into the abuse. Several of the most abusive soldiers, he said, disappeared from the block. He said he was finally released in March, after one month out of 1-A, in a tent in the prison yard.
He said he was innocent, but suggested that he might not remain so, at least by American standards. An amateur photographer, he said he filmed the fighting in Falluja last month. He will not smoke American cigarettes. He said he now hates the colors red, white and blue. He said he is not a fighter, but pitched back to a reporter the question of whether he would become one.
"You can analyze your own question," he said. "What would you do if I occupied your country, tortured people and violated all the laws of your country? Would you resist me?"
-------- spies
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Needle in the Database
May 14, 2004
By CHRISTOPHER WHITCOMB
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/opinion/14WHIT.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Intelligence is the lifeblood of America's war on terrorism, but many question our ability to manage it. How did we not know about those 19 hijackers? How could we have identified weapons stockpiles that didn't exist, overstated Qaeda ties to Saddam Hussein and misinterpreted Iraqi support for an American invasion? How could we have lost Osama bin Laden altogether?
The answer goes far beyond turf wars between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. The United States has built the world's most comprehensive spyworks, but it is a dysfunctional system that poorly understands its own strengths.
The problem breaks down in two ways.
First, the government's intelligence community is made up of 15 semi-autonomous and poorly integrated agencies. In addition to the F.B.I. and C.I.A., there are intelligence wings at the Energy and Treasury Departments. The military has intelligence cells within all five branches as well as a Defense Intelligence Agency.
Though these agencies ultimately serve at the discretion of the president, each has its own director, its own mission. The F.B.I., for example, is a law enforcement agency charged with gathering evidence for criminal prosecutions. The intelligence arm of the State Department, on the other hand, has a diplomatic mission and concentrates on matters of strategic international alliance - like smoothing ruffled feathers after military campaigns. It generally seeks information that will hold up to international scrutiny.
And then there is the Department of Defense; by definition a war-fighting enterprise, dependent on timely, credible information for target identification and tactics. The Joint Military Intelligence Program and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities agencies focus on foreign targets, who do not have the same constitutional protections as American citizens. Information they gather will almost never end up in court because military personnel are prohibited from working in civilian law enforcement. (Posse comitatus.)
The lack of nexus can cause problems. Example: in October 2000 I joined a team of 75 investigators sent by the Justice Department to Yemen to investigate the bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole. The State Department sent its ambassador to supervise. The Defense Department provided an intelligence cell.
Within days of our arrival, cooperation among the three departments broke down completely. The ambassador - whose mission was to maintain favorable relations with a strategic ally - took offense at F.B.I. and military procedures. When the Yemeni military locked onto our C-5 Galaxy cargo planes with surface-to-air missile radar, for example, she admonished the Air Force for using counter measures. When the Yemeni military surrounded our hotel and prohibited us from leaving, the ambassador justified their actions by arguing that our possession of personal sidearms offended the Yemenis. We spent weeks fighting among ourselves instead of bringing the Cole bombers to justice.
Confused yet? This is just the primer.
The second and most divisive problem is secrecy. The government classifies intelligence in two major categories (Secret and Top Secret), but because secrets beget secrets, individual agencies get to restrict information further according to their own rules. They use compartmented clearances, many of which are protected by code words and so closely held that their very mention is a felony. Individuals receive information on a need-to-know basis. The results can be dizzying.
Let's say a C.I.A. asset in Syria attends a meeting in which terrorists talk about plans to detonate a dirty bomb in a mall in Iowa. Common sense might dictate that the case officer immediately pass this information on to the local police or the F.B.I. - but that could never happen.
Why? For starters, very few law enforcement agencies in the United States have any sort of security clearance. Police officers may be in position to stop a bomber, but their best intentions could compromise sources and methods that have taken years to develop.
In addition, other people are going to want that information first. If nuclear material is involved, the Department of Energy will want to play a role. The State Department will need time to figure out the impact this will have on relations with Syria. The Federal Emergency Management Agency will be notified for "consequence management," as will dozens of local, state and federal agencies. And don't forget the politicians.
So instead of passing the information straight to local authorities, raw intelligence will be processed through a sieve of analysis, classification and interagency vetting. Eventually, the new C.I.A.-F.B.I. Terrorism Threat Integration Center will hand it to the F.B.I.'s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which will give a sterilized briefing to Iowa authorities. All in all, hundreds of agencies, working groups, special activities cells, data clearinghouses and decision-makers will play a role.
Simply deciding who gets access to what can take hours. Clearances must be checked; databases scoured, operations assessed, sources and methods protected. Agency gatekeepers will determine "need to know" parameters while lawyers will scour statutory restrictions, memorandums of understanding and presidential decision directives. Then there are technical problems between agencies that use different computer systems, reporting protocols, command structures and legal guidelines. You get the idea.
Of course, blame usually falls on the F.B.I. and C.I.A. - agencies the public thinks it understands. "Why can't they work together?" people ask, ignorant of the fire walls that separate the agencies in order to protect the personal privacy and civil rights of all Americans.
Why don't they get along? Because they shouldn't. Law enforcement and the intelligence community are pegs designed not to fit in the same hole. One works on rule of law to gather legally admissible evidence; the other digs up intelligence that may be used even when it doesn't meet a standard of reasonable doubt.
The solution?
First, the government should integrate all intelligence programs in a single agency. Make the Central Intelligence Agency just what it is supposed to be: central. The director of central intelligence serves, at least in principle, as the president's chief intelligence officer. Give him the resources and authority to go with the title.
Second, we should divide the C.I.A. into counterterrorism, war-fighting and diplomatic directorates to better manage all national security objectives. Make the C.I.A. a service provider for other government agencies; create a common strategic goal.
Third, the government should define the differences between foreign and domestic spying but provide for both. It is naïve to think we don't need some sort of internal surveillance capacity.
Finally, we need to standardize the classification process and make secrets accessible to the people who need them. Classification should be a means of channeling information, not hoarding it. Knowledge of a Qaeda plot is useless if we can't pass it on to local and state authorities.
I spent 15 years with the F.B.I., working on domestic and international investigations as an agent, a sniper on the Hostage Rescue Team and an intelligence coordinator. I saw firsthand how national security depends on our ability to interpret and manage information and how picking out the right data can be like trying to sip water from a fire hose. Until the intelligence community learns to coordinate its resources, we run the risk of choking on the very information brave people are dying to protect.
Christopher Whitcomb, former intelligence director for the F.B.I.'s Critical Incident Response Group, is the author of "Cold Zero" and the forthcoming novel "Black."
--------
Book Details U.S. Protection Of Former Nazi Officials
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25251-2004May13.html
Declassified government documents shed new light on the secret protection and support given to former Nazi officials and Nazi collaborators by U.S. intelligence agencies in the years following World War II, according to a book released yesterday by historians who have been reviewing the records for the government.
The book, "U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis," is based on 240,000 pages of FBI records, 419 CIA files on individuals and 3,000 pages of U.S. Army information detailing the Army's postwar relationship with former officers of the German Wehrmacht's intelligence service, which are now available to the public through the National Archives. The records are the latest portion of about 8 million pages declassified since 1999 under two post-Cold War federal laws that opened up secret government files relating to war crimes by the World War II German and Japanese governments.
The book is "an outstanding contribution to our understanding of the Holocaust and the world of intelligence," Steve Garfinkel, chairman of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group, said in a statement. The working group includes representatives from the departments of Defense, State and Justice, as well as the CIA, FBI, National Security Council and U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The subject of postwar collaboration between U.S. intelligence and former Nazis who were thought to be useful in the struggle against the Soviet Union has been documented extensively, but the book's authors said that the trove of previously inaccessible documents enabled them to fill in many blanks in the historical narrative.
A set of FBI files analyzed in the book by historian Norman J.W. Goda of Ohio University shows that former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover resisted taking action against Viorel Trifa, a former officer in the pro-Hitler Romanian Iron Guard who emigrated to the United States in 1950. This helped Trifa stay in the country until he was stripped of his U.S. citizenship in 1984.
According to a chapter by Timothy Naftali of the University of Virginia, former SS officer Otto von Bolschwing was recruited as an agent in 1949 by the CIA, which decided to protect him from war crimes prosecution by claiming falsely that it had no files concerning his past -- which included a close association with Adolf Eichmann and a supporting role in anti-Jewish violence in Romania.
In 1953, the agency pressured the Immigration and Naturalization Service to let von Bolschwing enter the United States, where he eventually obtained citizenship. A Justice Department investigation later resulted in his being stripped of citizenship before his death in 1982.
Naftali also writes that the documents contain evidence of the extensive employment of ex-SS officers by the Gehlen Organization, a CIA-subsidized German intelligence group set up by Reinhard Gehlen, the Wehrmacht's former intelligence chief on the Eastern Front in World War II.
Supported by the United States as a source of information about Soviet military activities in Eastern Europe, the Gehlen Organization developed into the official intelligence service of West Germany, known as the Federal Intelligence Service.
But the Gehlen Organization produced relatively little good information, Naftali writes.
"This is the most troubling for me," Naftali said in an interview, "given the context of Iraq, where we once again have to reconstruct a foreign national security system, and we have to do it fast."
--------
Documents Show U.S. Relationship With Nazis During Cold War
May 14, 2004
By ELIZABETH OLSON
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/politics/14nazi.html
WASHINGTON, May 13 - The American government worked closely with Nazi war criminals and collaborators, allowing many of them to live in the United States after World War II, and paying others who worked for West Germany's secret service, according to declassified documents from the F.B.I., C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies released Thursday.
The disclosures came as part of a project to place more than eight million government documents in the public domain, under legislation passed by Congress in 1998 to create the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group, or I.W.G.
"Although we have long known the outlines of the U.S. government's covert dealings with Nazi war criminals, the full scope of these relationships has never been fully documented or revealed," said Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the working group and a former congresswoman from New York. "Until the work of the I.W.G., these relationships remained one of the great post-World War II secrets."
The 240,000 pages released Thursday reveal a pattern of American cooperation with questionable people who were protected on the grounds that they had valuable intelligence to offer during the cold-war period.
It was not that such collaborators fell through the bureaucratic cracks and were overlooked by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said Norman J. W. Goda, an Ohio University history professor whose examination of the material is included in the book, "U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis," that the working group released Thursday.
"We had assumed that the I.N.S. dropped the ball, making only perfunctory background checks on these people," Mr. Goda said. "But the records show that immigration officials did investigate and tried to have these people deported."
"The problem," he said, "was that there were preferences in the C.I.A. and the F.B.I.," particularly of J. Edgar Hoover, the F.B.I. director, "to keep these people in the country so they could report on any Communist trends inside their own community."
Ultimately, Mr. Goda concluded, "such men added nothing except grist for the mill for their own propaganda."
Mr. Goda and other historians who studied the documents said that at least five associates of the Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann, each of whom had a significant role in Hitler's campaign to kill Jews, had worked for the C.I.A. The records also indicate that the C.I.A. tried to recruit another two dozen war criminals or Nazi collaborators. Some of them received employment and, in two cases, United States citizenship, according to the documents. The documents did not deal with those people who concealed their Nazi pasts in order to gain entry into the United States.
Also, several dozen people with criminal or dubious backgrounds were paid by the United States while they were employed by West Germany's secret service.
Timothy J. Naftali, an intelligence historian at the University of Virginia who examined the documents and also wrote chapters in the I.W.G. book, said: "We had no policies for helping Gestapo members, no disqualifiers unless the public knew about the crimes. It was kind of a 'don't ask, don't tell' culture."
The Interagency Working Group's mandate to examine declassified intelligence documents has been extended by one year, and its staff members said there would be a report in 2005 about activities in Asia and a final report later to summarize the group's findings.
-------- us
Rumsfeld dismisses criticism
May 14, 2004
By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040513-113320-9300r.htm
ABU GHRAIB, Iraq - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told troops in a surprise trip to the Abu Ghraib prison yesterday that he is "a survivor" who knows better than to take too seriously a score of calls from the press and politicians for his resignation over prisoner-abuse charges.
"I've stopped reading the newspapers," he said to cheers and applause from U.S. soldiers at the detention camp at the epicenter of the scandal that has plagued the Pentagon in recent weeks. "It's a fact. I'm a survivor."
Instead, he said, he has been reading Civil War history books that give him perspective on how well the war on terror is going, comparing U.S. losses in Iraq to "horrendous ... battles, where a thousand, 2,000, 3,000, were lost in two or three days."
"We'll get through this tough period, let there be no question," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "What's happening here is reported widely in the United States and around the world as not working."
The defense secretary arrived with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers to give the soldiers stationed here a much-needed pep talk.
Gen. Myers took the time to thank the troops and their families.
"Thank you for your service. Thank your families for their service, too. They serve just like you do. And if it's difficult - and I imagine everybody in this room has a story," the general said. "If you've got a family back home, what could go wrong did go wrong the day you left. It just happens that way."
Mr. Rumsfeld praised the U.S.-trained Iraqi police and security forces.
"They are not trained like you are, they're not equipped like you are, they're not led like you are, and frankly, they haven't been brought up like you have," he said.
"But they're human beings. They're getting trained, they're getting equipped. It's their country, and they are going to have to take over security for this country and God bless them for having the guts to do it," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers flew by Chinook helicopter to Abu Ghraib from Baghdad, cutting through a thick haze of dust to reach the prison just west of the Iraqi capital.
After rallying the troops, the pair toured the facility, which has been renamed "Camp Redemption" at the suggestion of the Iraqi Governing Council, the general said.
They traveled in an armored bus, weaving slowly over a rutted road through a barbed-wired encampment full of gruff and restless-looking Iraqi prisoners. As the short convoy rolled past, the prisoners in one cellblock followed by foot and with their eyes from behind the fencing.
"There's a good chance" that the prisoners knew it was the U.S. defense secretary passing by, said Col. David E. Quantock, the commander of the 16th Military Police brigade, which is in charge of detention at the prison. "They've got radios in there, there's a good chance."
Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers didn't visit the cellblock where the abuse photos were taken.
Talking with reporters during the tightly guarded flight from Andrews Air Force Base to Kuwait, Mr. Rumsfeld quelled any suspicions about the motivation of his trip.
"If anyone thinks that I'm there to throw water on a fire, they're wrong," he said.
The trip's flight schedule and travel plans were kept secret until the secretary arrived in Baghdad yesterday afternoon, and security was tight during the visit.
He said he was making the trip to meet with commanders and troops on a variety of matters, although the prison-abuse scandal has grabbed headlines as the main story out of the war zone in recent weeks.
Although Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters that his surprise visit was "not an inspection tour," he also said he and Gen. Myers "care about the detainees' being treated right."
"We care about soldiers' behaving right," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "We care about command systems working, we have an obligation."
After touching down for a brief meeting in Kuwait City with the Kuwaiti defense officials, Mr. Rumsfeld and his entourage took off in a C-130 transport plane for Baghdad International Airport.
The sudden trip to Iraq came on the heels of what has perhaps been Mr. Rumsfeld's most difficult week as President Bush's defense secretary. Critics in Congress and some in the press have called for him to resign over the prisoner-abuse scandal, contending that he was slow to act on the matter.
Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers left Andrews Air Force Base just after 1 p.m. Wednesday after another hours-long round of testimony before Congress about the scandal and whether U.S. forces might have violated the Geneva Conventions in Iraq.
One Defense official, who spoke on background with reporters after taking off from Andrews, said there "is no doubt" that the Geneva Conventions apply in Iraq.
However, Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers stopped short of acknowledging that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were clear violations of the conventions. Mr. Rumsfeld did say that the photographs that have emerged from the scandal portrayed "something over the edge," and he stressed that the "real problem" was not the photos, but "the actions that have taken place on detainees."
Asked why he would not say outright that the conventions had been violated, the secretary said, "There haven't been any convictions ... we have to avoid saying things that end up having guilty people (prison guards) released from penalties because of our words."
Asked what the Defense Department's reaction would be if a future Iraqi government, or any other country that adheres to the Geneva Conventions, sought to try or punish U.S. soldiers for violating the conventions, Mr. Rumsfeld said: "The United States government is going to take care of the people who end up being convicted of some wrongdoing, and [the issue] will be moot."
Instead, he wanted to focus on the positive developments in Iraq.
"You don't read a lot about the fact that the schools are open, the hospitals are open, the clinics are open, that they have got a new dinar [currency], and their dinar has been steady and strong," the secretary said, adding that Iraqi government ministries, and provincial and city governments are up and running.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
----
Support the troops
Inside the Ring
May 14, 2004
Washington Times
By Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm
A Marine Corps officer in Fallujah says in an e-mail that much progress has been made in killing insurgents and taming Iraq. But he worries about poll numbers.
"The Marines fought hard in Fallujah and took a lot of very evil people out of the fight," the officer wrote. "That effort, and the associated loss of Marine lives, was not in vain. We're already seeing a significant decrease in the enemy's ability to attack our forces. The supply lines are open again and everything is flowing freely through the country. Their efforts to cut us off in order to break our willpower failed. The Iraqi people are tired of the enemy, and they are turning them over to us left and right.
"We're reading that everyone back home is starting to lose faith in our efforts in Iraq. The last CBS poll put the numbers under 50 percent for the first time. I know that doesn't mean a loss in support for the troops, but supporting 'the troops' while not supporting the mission doesn't do much for us.
"The Marines are in high spirits. The troops in Fallujah are doing what Marines do best, and they're true professionals. Everyone else is driving forward, wondering what all the fuss back home is all about. We don't feel that we're losing anything. In fact, we're finally addressing issues that should have been addressed some time ago."
Rummy's surprise
Aides to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld woke up one day last week to read front-page headlines reporting that President Bush privately chided their boss for not briefing the White House fully on the Iraq prisoner-abuse scandal. "I don't know where that came from," said one source. This source said the two men agreed that the public relations end of the Army investigation could have been handled better. "There was no chiding," the official said.
Columnist Fred Barnes said on Fox News that the White House press office on its own put out the word of a presidential scolding, thinking that it would make the commander in chief look good.
Perhaps worried that the calculated leak inflamed the scandal story further, the White House organized a huge show of support for the embattled Mr. Rumsfeld on Monday at the Pentagon, where Mr. Bush dubbed him a "superb" defense secretary.
Feminine mystique
Elaine Donnelly, who leads the Center for Military Readiness, has fought the Pentagon's decision in the 1990s to put women in combat roles.
The pictures out of the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad are only reinforcing her views.
"There is no excuse for what happened at Abu Ghraib," Mrs. Donnelly says. "I am disturbed by the role that a few female soldiers played in it. It seems that a gradual but sweeping degradation in civilized values is happening before our eyes. No surprise to me, since we are forcing women to compete in the ultimate male world, the world of war, which is anything but civilized."
DIA ducking
The Defense Intelligence Agency is ducking for cover amid the numerous investigations of prisoner abuse in Iraq. So far, the military-intelligence side of the investigation is limited to the activities of the Army's 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, which was the unit supplying interrogators at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. That investigation is being led by Army Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, the former deputy commander of the Army Intelligence and Security Command, who is reviewing the methods and procedures used by intelligence personnel.
To date, there are no accusations that the Defense Intelligence Agency is implicated in any prisoner abuse, neither its director, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, nor the head of the Directorate for Human Intelligence, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Michael E. Ennis.
DIA members of the Iraq Survey Group, which is searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, visited the Abu Ghraib prison twice in the past to interview detainees. Most of the agency's work has focused on speaking to high-ranking detainees at the Baghdad International Airport prison.
"The agency has not heard of any allegations involving our people," said a DIA spokesman.
--------
Military Faulted on Assault Cases
Panel Calls Policies, Programs on Sexual Misconduct 'Incomplete'
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25567-2004May13.html
A Pentagon task force found broad fault yesterday with the U.S. military's handling of sexual assault cases, citing a lack of adequate support for victims and an investigative process often hampered by delays and manpower shortages.
In a 99-page report, the task force called existing Pentagon policies and programs aimed at preventing sexual assault "inconsistent and incomplete" and said training efforts are limited and vary "from location to location." It also described numerous barriers blocking the reporting of assaults and concluded that "accountability for resolving sexual assault problems is diffused."
The report, ordered by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld three months ago, comes after scores of alleged assaults against female soldiers in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, which have confronted senior defense officials with the most extensive set of sexual misconduct cases in years.
Although Pentagon authorities have claimed strides in preventing and punishing such misconduct, the new report points to serious lapses still in the military's ability to protect female service members from assaults, to provide medical care and counseling to victims of attacks, and to punish violators.
"We do have a number of programs in place, [but] they're at the individual military department level," David S.C. Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel, said at a news conference. What the task force report emphasizes, he acknowledged, "is the need for a more cohesive . . . and more consistent effort by the department as a whole."
The report provided no new figures for alleged assaults in the U.S. Central Command's area of operations beyond the 24 in 2002 and 94 in 2003 previously reported. But among the things that need fixing is the system of Pentagon record-keeping, which the task force characterized as far from complete and not well integrated.
Across the Defense Department, the report said, there were 901 alleged cases of assault in 2002 and 1,012 in 2003. But Chu said those figures probably represent only a small fraction of the number of assaults because of the reluctance of victims to come forward.
While all the military services have programs to combat sexual harassment in the ranks, the report criticized the lack of any "clearly defined" Pentagon-wide "policy or program aimed at preventing sexual assault." No uniform definition of "sexual assault" even exists in the military, said the report, which for its purposes took the term to mean rape, forcible sodomy, indecent assault or attempts at any of these.
Missing, too, in the Defense Department is a senior-level "person or office" responsible for the needs of sexual assault victims. Nor is there any standardized "training of providers and standards of care for victims of sexual assault," the report said.
To remedy this, the task force recommended establishing "a single point of accountability for all sexual assault policy matters" within the Pentagon. It also urged setting standardized policies for prevention, reporting and accountability of sexual assault cases, and broader dissemination of information about sexual assault to troops.
The report, which was based on visits to 21 military locations in the United States, the Pacific region and the Persian Gulf area and on "contact" with 1,300 people, found widespread concern in the ranks about the readiness of commanders to believe complaints of assault and to act on them. Participants in focus groups spoke of a "stigma" attached to those who complain. They said reporting a sexual assault would probably damage a service member's reputation.
"The perceived lack of privacy and confidentiality within the Department of Defense is thought by many to be one of the most significant barriers to reporting by military sexual assault victims," the report said. At the same time, it noted, there is often a need to balance a victim's desire for confidentiality against the requirement of exposure to prosecute a case.
Once an assault is reported, "actions to segregate alleged victim and alleged offender are not always timely," the task force concluded. In general, it found, some commands had reputations as "very supportive" while others were regarded as responding "with indifference or disbelief."
The report cited a "backlog" in the processing of DNA evidence at the Army's Criminal Investigation Laboratory as one factor hampering investigations. It also noted a scarcity of investigators and military lawyers who can handle assault cases.
Such personnel are in even shorter supply in combat zones such as the Persian Gulf area, the report said, while the risk of assault and the potential for mishandling of cases in these high-stress environments may be greater because of the transitory nature of the military population, the lack of privacy between male and female soldiers, and other factors.
Some investigations of alleged assaults in the gulf region were conducted by commanders instead of appropriate investigative agencies, which may have compromised some cases, the report said.
Since being briefed on the report last month, Rumsfeld has sent a directive to the major regional commanders to review their procedures for dealing with sexual assault cases and to come to a high-level conference later this month prepared to discuss what more can be done, Chu said.
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), who has pressed the Pentagon to improve its handling of assault cases, issued a statement criticizing the task force's recommendations as "mostly vague and not entirely immediate." She also said they "fall short of many of the other reports and recommendations we've seen over the years."
--------
Top Commander in Iraq Bans Several Interrogation Methods
May 14, 2004
By TERENCE NEILAN and MARK J. PRENDERGAST
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/international/middleeast/14CND-ABUS.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1084586382-bmLNFB8kW8yoZM55V0Yb4Q&pagewanted=all&position=
The American military's top commander in Iraq has banned several methods of interrogating prisoners that are at the heart of the scandal over the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Pentagon officials said today.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters in Washington that the commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, had issued orders that tactics like depriving prisoners of sleep, hooding them for long periods of time or forcing them into "stress positions" to weaken their resistance to interrogation would no longer be allowed.
The action came on the same day that the military authorities in Iraq filed seven charges, including cruelty and maltreatment of detainees, against an Army specialist in connection with the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
The other charges against the specialist, Charles A. Graner Jr., include willfully failing to protect detainees from abuse at the prison outside Baghdad; adultery; and committing indecent acts.
A military judge will arraign Specialist Graner on May 20 along with two other soldiers implicated in the scandal, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II and Sgt. Javal C. Davis, but no date has been set for court-martial, a spokesman for the American command, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, said in Baghdad.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, the military's interrogation techniques came under fire from lawmakers, who said some of the methods used in Iraq violate the Geneva Conventions.
The deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace of the Marines, acknowledged that taken individually some of the techniques could be interpreted as violations of the Geneva Conventions. Mr. Wolfowitz even allowed that a senator's hypothetical example of a prisoner who was hooded, naked and forced to crouch for 45 minutes "goes quite beyond what is permitted."
On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified that the American military in Iraq was adhering to the conventions.
Some of the techniques approved by General Sanchez last fall, including sensory deprivation, the use of guard dogs to intimidate prisoners, and stress positions like prolonged periods of standing or crouching, required the general's approval. But officials said on Thursday, and reiterated today, that the general had never approved the use of those tactics at Abu Ghraib.
Those statements are in keeping with Bush administration assertions that the use of those tactics on prisoners at Abu Ghraib had not been authorized and was the work of soldiers acting on their own.
The one tactic that General Sanchez's order did not curtail is the keeping of a prisoner in solitary confinement for more than 30 days, although that will still require the general's approval.
Specialist Graner, 35, a former marine who served in the first American military operation in Iraq more than a decade ago, has become a central figure in the Abu Ghraib scandal, and a subject of controversy.
His fellow soldiers in the 372nd Military Police Company, which is based in Maryland, say they considered him a voice of strength and experience. Iraqi detainees, however, feared and loathed him, saying he routinely beat, humiliated and intimidated them, military investigators have said.
His former service as a guard at one of the toughest, most secure prisons in Pennsylvania, State Correctional Institution Greene, has also been raised as a subject of concern by some people, including Representative John P. Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and a former marine.
Specialist Graner was not among dozens of corrections officers accused in a major mistreatment scandal at the state prison in the 1990's, and a suit accusing him of beating a handcuffed inmate was dismissed. But he was fired, and Congressman Murtha has questioned how Specialist Graner could later have been given a supervisory role at Abu Ghraib.
Two photographs, seemingly contradictory in nature, have also become an issue.
Specialist Graner's lawyer, Guy Womack, has said his client was just following orders in Iraq, and today The Wall Street Journal published a photograph showing Specialist Graner, hands on hips, watching as an overweight man in military clothes apparently adjusted a small number of shackled, naked men clutching each other as they lay on the floor of Abu Ghraib.
The photograph, in which numbers have been etched on five men so they can be identified, was supplied to Mr. Womack by Specialist Graner, the lawyer told the newspaper.
Mr. Womack says he was told by Specialist Graner that four of the soldiers in the photograph were from military intelligence and that the man seen adjusting the Iraqis was a civilian under contract to military intelligence.
"Look at that guy - he's too fat to be in the Army," Mr. Womack told The Journal, citing the man adjusting the detainees. "And look at my M.P. - he's not giving orders, he's taking them."
The photograph is expected to be used as a cornerstone in Specialist Graner's defense.
Another photograph, however, showing Specialist Graner flashing a muscular thumbs-up beside a pyramid of hooded, naked Iraqis has become one of the iconic images of the abuse.
Another soldier, Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, has told investigators that Specialist Graner punched a prisoner with such force, after cradling his head in his arm, that it knocked the detainee unconscious."
Specialist Sivits, 24, who is expected to plead guilty when his own court-martial on abuse charges opens next Wednesday, says Specialist Graner was joking and laughing, "Like he was enjoying it."
One of the other men charged with abusing prisoners, Sergeant Davis, said today that he had roughed up detainees but that he had not taken part in the scenes of humiliation that were circulated around the world.
"You won't see me in any photographs," he told ABC News. "I didn't take any photographs. I'm not in any of those."
The sergeant, who said he was "shocked" by the images, added: "I'm innocent of what you see on television every day. It just hurt my heart."
But he conceded that he took part in "softening up" prisoners scheduled for interrogation by stepping on fingers and toes.
--------
Abu Ghraib Guard Paints Harrowing Portrait of Abuse
Times Staff Writer
By Richard A. Serrano
May 14, 2004
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/lat-guard.html
WASHINGTON - The first soldier scheduled for court-martial in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal has told military authorities a harrowing tale of abuse, including an episode in which a guard used a nightstick to beat an Iraqi detainee who had been shot in the legs and handcuffed to a bed.
As the prisoner screamed, "Mister, Mister, please stop!" Military Police Spc. Charles A. Graner struck him twice with a police baton, fellow guard Spc. Jeremy Sivits told military investigators.
Sivits, whose statements are contained in investigative records obtained by The Times, provided the most detailed account to become public by one of the defendants in the abuse scandal. He described an atmosphere in which several military policemen repeatedly laughed, joked and mocked Iraqi detainees as they stripped them naked, struck and kicked them and forced them to hit each other.
Seven military police troops have been accused in the scandal that has shaken the Bush administration's efforts in Iraq and at home, and investigations are continuing. Sivits, who faces lesser charges than his colleagues because of his cooperation with prosecutors, is expected to plead guilty at a special court-martial next week in Baghdad.
Sivits portrayed Graner, a former Pennsylvania prison guard who was accused of misconduct there, as a ringleader of the Abu Ghraib abuses. He said Graner was always "joking, laughing, pissed off a little, acting like he was enjoying it."
Once, Sivits added, "Graner said in a baby-type voice" to an injured detainee, "Ah, does that hurt?' "
Graner denies military charges of maltreatment and indecent acts, said his civilian attorney, Guy Womack. Womack has said Graner was following orders and would not have known his conduct might be illegal.
Sivits also gave fresh details about the other suspects in the beating of prisoners, for the first time describing their moods as Iraqis were stripped and abused.
And he said all of this was done without the knowledge of their superiors in the Army chain of command.
"Our command would have slammed us," he said. "They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."
Some of the guards have said they acted on orders from above or from military intelligence to soften up inmates for questioning.
Sivits said Graner told him not to say anything.
Sivits said he first became aware of the abuse, and began photographing much of it, on Oct. 3, 2003, a month earlier than Nov. 7, the date previously thought to have marked the beginning of harsh treatment in the overcrowded and often-chaotic prison outside Baghdad.
Another guard tipped off criminal investigators Jan. 13 of this year, and Sivits was interviewed before noon the next day by military detectives at Abu Ghraib.
His interview with Army investigators, which is likely to be a key element in prosecution of the other six guards, noted the coldness of guards and the anguished cries of detainees. It also makes it clear that investigators focused from the start on Graner and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II as the ringleaders.
In addition to Graner, the five other defendants have declared their innocence and were not available for comment.
Sivits said Frederick seemed "mellow" as he hit prisoners and watched other guards join in. "He was really not saying too much. Just kind of enjoying it," Sivits said.
He described Pfc. Lynndie England, the woman seen smoking and smiling in some of the photos, as "laughing at the different stuff that they were having the detainees do."
England has contended that she was ordered to pose in front of the abused inmates.
Sivits said Spc. Sabrina Harman, seen next to a pile of naked male prisoners, was sometimes smiling, but "there was a few times she had a look of disgust on her face."
"She did write the word rapist on the side of the leg of one of the inmates. She did this after she had found out from the processing sheets that he had raped someone. She wrote it with a dry erase black marker," he added.
The one defendant Sivits did not mention was Spc. Megan Ambuhl. She is not seen in any of the photos yet made public, and a military hearing officer has recommended that two of the four charges filed against her be dropped.
"Their weakest case involves her," said her lawyer, Harvey Volzer. "She was just watching. Nevertheless she is worried about having a conviction, which would basically be for guilt-by-association."
Sivits emphasized that it was Graner and Frederick who led the guards in nightly revelries.
"I was laughing at some of the stuff that they had them do," he conceded. "I was disgusted at some of the stuff as well. As I think about it now, I do not think any of it was funny."
Asked specifically what was not funny, he said, "The tower thing" - referring to prisoners being forced to strip and form a pyramid on the floor.
He described Graner striking inmates, and Sgt. Javal S. Davis, another of the suspects, running across the floor and jumping on them when they were handcuffed and piled on the floor.
"A couple of the detainees kind of made an 'ah' sound as if this hurt them or caused them some type of pain when Davis would land on them," he said. "After Davis had done this, Davis then stomped on either the fingers or toes of the detainees. When he stomped the detainees, they were in pain, because the detainees would scream loudly."
Sivits recalled that the prisoners usually were reluctant to strip in front of each other, and that Graner forced them to do so anyway. He said Graner once punched a detainee in the head so hard the man fell unconscious. "His eyes were closed and he was not moving," Sivits said.
They later had to check to see that he was still breathing.
Later still, Graner was shaking his fist, saying, "Damn, that hurt."
Another time, Sivits said, Graner punched a detainee in the chest.
"The detainee took a real deep breath and kind of squatted down," Sivits said. A medic was called and Frederick thought the man was having a heart attack, Sivits said.
"I tried to show the detainee how to breathe slowly," Sivits said. "It was as if his breath was gone."
Sivits said Frederick forced naked detainees to masturbate, showing them how to move their hands back and forth until "one of them did it right." Then, Sivits said, "Harman and England would put their thumbs up and have the picture taken."
Another, he said, was handcuffed to a bed, with wounds on his legs from where "he had been shot with buckshot." He said Graner did not care, and instead would wield a police baton and "strike the detainee with a half baseball swing."
Said Sivits, "The detainee would beg Graner to stop by saying, 'Mister, Mister, please stop.' "
Another time two inmates were told to strike each other. At first, they refused, Sivits said, then complied. "One of the inmates punched the other, then the other struck that one back. They hit each other once each."
Sivits told the investigators that he now believed the behavior of guards was wrong, including his own, and in violation of the Geneva Convention prohibiting prisoner abuse.
"To be honest, it was mistreating the prisoners," he said. "I know the war has stopped, but I know if they are POWs that is abuse of the Geneva Conventions."
He was asked why he did not report the abuse when it was happening.
"I was asked not to," he said. "And I try to be friends with everyone. I see now where trying to be friends with everyone can cost ya."
Even though some of the abuse was directed at prisoners who had caused a riot, and some who were found with knives, or "shanks," Sivits said, "I was in the wrong ... I should of said something."
In another development Thursday, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) released copies of e-mail sent to him in March and April from Lt. Col. Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th Military Police Battalion who was relieved of duty and given a recommendation of reprimand.
Phillabaum said he assisted Army investigators in putting together the case at the prison he helped run, and yet he said, "I feel that I am being made a scapegoat by the Army."
He added, "I have suffered shame and humiliation for doing the best job that anyone could have done given the resources I had to work with." He also complained that military authorities were rushing to conclude that "the incident was a leadership problem and not the responsibility of the seven soldiers who took the photographs."
---------
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld with US troops at Abu Ghraib prison.
May 14, 2004
By Ann Scott Tyson
The Christian Science Monitor
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0514/p01s01-usmi.html
WASHINGTON - The Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal is exposing a Pentagon increasingly at war with itself, leading to a crisis of leadership even as tens of thousands of US troops risk their lives battling insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For months, discord has been growing in Pentagon corridors over the Iraq war, as senior US military officers criticize what they see as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's risky war plan and the lack of a clear political end game. Mr. Rumsfeld, in turn, has often chastised what he sees as hidebound, overly conservative military thinking.
Now, the clash between Rumsfeld's push-the-envelope approach and inherent military conservatism is again in full display over allegations that Pentagon policymakers blurred the traditional military chain of command in order to better gather intelligence.
In a dramatic surprise visit to Baghdad on Thursday, Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a direct attempt to demonstrate leadership and bolster morale of the 135,000 troops there.
Amid growing domestic concern that the United States could be losing the war in Iraq, and a string of shocking violence including what he called the "body blow" of prisoner abuse, Rumsfeld upheld a vision of certain victory.
"One day you're gonna look back, and you're gonna be proud of your service, and you're gonna say it was worth it," said Rumsfeld in a voice solemn with emotion. Drawing a historical analogy, he spoke of the "horrendous casualties" and "vicious" debate over the Civil War and attacks on President Lincoln, assuring troops that today, as then, steadfastness would bring success.
In a moment that was vintage Rumsfeld, the former cold warrior evoked his long-standing belief in American world leadership that critics have attacked as arrogance, declaring that "the United States is the ... best hope of humankind."
The embattled Defense secretary also used the friendly Baghdad troop rally to defy US lawmakers and others in Washington who are clamoring for his resignation: "I'm a survivor," he said. He brushed aside media criticism as shortsighted. "I've stopped reading newspapers," he said to a round of applause.
Still, critics doubted whether such efforts would be able to repair the deep divides that already exist within the Pentagon over the execution of the war.
Among senior US military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon, there is a feeling that military gains on the battlefield have been consistently undercut by policy miscalculations.
These include decisions about the number and types of troops needed to stabilize Iraq after the war, the ongoing lack of a clear political goal for Iraq, as well as the prison abuse scandal that many see as losing the vital fight to win Iraqi "hearts and minds."
For example, one US commander, Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded 82nd Airborne Division troops in Fallujah, told the Washington Post this week that while the US is still winning the counterinsurgency at the tactical level of fighting, it is loosing the war strategically because of a lack of coherent policy.
The fact that such a senior commander is speaking out reflects a regret expressed by other high-ranking officers that they did not openly oppose what many earlier saw as poor Pentagon planning for postwar Iraq.
"Shame on us," says one senior Army officer. He says that while Army planners knew of the potential pitfalls, they and their advice were essentially shut out of the postwar planning effort and they were told instead to focus on defeating the Iraqi Army and toppling the Saddam Hussein regime.
In many cases, the tension between military brass and Rumsfeld centers around efforts by the secretary's inner circle to shake up longstanding military practices and assume greater risks in an approach he has summarized as "leaning forward."
This has included using smaller numbers of troops, streamling what he sees as a slow, cumbersome military planning process, and also placing a high emphasis on gathering "actionable intelligence."
Rumsfeld named one of his most trusted aides, Stephen Cambone, as undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, a new office that has stirred controversey for allegedly skewing prewar intelligence and now promoting the use of aggressive interrogation techniques.
In testimony before Congress this week, it was an Army general who investigated abuses at Abu Ghraib prison who publicly contradicted Mr. Cambone by asserting that military police should not have been involved in preparing Iraqi detainees for interrogation.
Such conflict - some critics would say chaos - at the upper levels of the Pentagon illustrates a lack of leadership that many say is hurting morale among the military rank and file.
"People don't think they are well led at the highest civilian leadership," says retired Air Force Lt. Col Karen Kwiatowski, who left the Pentagon's policy office just before the war started and has emerged as one of a few from the military who have publicly criticized the Pentagon leadership. "The credibility of [deputy defense secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld is lower than it ever was," she says.
-------- war crimes
SADDAM HUSSEIN
War Crimes Complaint Filed by a Lawyer Against Britain
May 14, 2004
By MARLISE SIMONS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/international/europe/14SADD.html
PARIS, May 13 - A French lawyer said Thursday that he had filed a war crimes complaint against Britain at the International Criminal Court in The Hague for abuse of prisoners in Iraq. But there were immediate questions about whether the court would ever have jurisdiction in the case.
Jacques Verges, a Paris-based lawyer who also says he is representing Saddam Hussein, said he was unable to file a complaint against the United States because it does not recognize the court and "has put itself above international law."
But he said he filed the suit against the British government, which does recognize the court's jurisdiction, because there was ample evidence that British nationals had committed war crimes and had abetted crimes committed by American troops.
Mr. Verges, who is often accused of being a publicity seeker, has made a specialty of taking up shocking or sensational cases. He said he was acting on behalf of relatives of his imprisoned clients, Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz, Iraq's former foreign minister.
The International Criminal Court in The Hague declined to comment. "As a matter of policy, the office of the prosecutor does not comment on communications, not even if they arrive or not," a court spokesman said by telephone.
Mr. Verges made available a copy of the complaint, a 16-page document that accuses Britain of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and of the laws and customs of war. It quotes extensively from press reports and from reports by Amnesty International and the International Red Cross. "I just faxed it this afternoon," Mr. Verges said by telephone.
Mr. Verges said that he had filed the suit at the request of relatives of his two clients, Mr. Hussein and Mr. Aziz, because they may also be victims of abuse. "We don't know, because they are kept in a secret place," he said, adding that Mr. Hussein's rights as a prisoner of war had already been violated by the release of degrading pictures of him, in contravention of a stricture of the Geneva Conventions.
It is not clear whether the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction in the case against Britain. The court, created by the Rome Treaty in 1998, became effective July 2002 with the mandate to try "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community." But in essence it is a court of last resort and has jurisdiction over grave crimes only if a nation's own courts are unwilling or unable to act.
Britain's own announced investigations into charges of abuse and killing of Iraqi prisoners therefore will take precedence over any possible inquiry by the court.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- death penalty
Mexican's Oklahoma Death Sentence Commuted
Associated Press
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A26
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25399-2004May13.html
OKLAHOMA CITY, May 13 -- Gov. Brad Henry (D) commuted the death sentence of a convicted murderer from Mexico to life without parole Thursday in a case in which state and foreign officials said the inmate's life should be spared.
Henry's decision came the day the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals voted 3 to 2 to give Osbaldo Torres an indefinite stay of execution. The court granted Torres's request for a lower-court hearing on the state's failure to inform him of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate after his arrest.
The governor's decision, which makes the appeals court's decision moot, came after the Pardon and Parole Board recommended clemency for Torres on May 7. Torres had been scheduled to die next Tuesday for the 1993 deaths of Francisco Morales and Maria Yanez.
"My heart goes out to the family of Mr. Morales and Ms. Yanez," Henry said in a statement. "This was a difficult decision, but I believe clemency is warranted by a number of issues involved in this case."
Torres, 29, is one of 51 Mexicans on death rows nationwide cited in a March 31 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The world court found that the inmates' rights were violated because they were not told they could receive help from their governments as guaranteed by the 1963 Vienna Convention.
Mexican officials urged the state not to execute Torres, and the European Union also had asked that the execution be stayed.
Henry said he made his decision after hearing arguments from the state attorney general's office, Torres's appellate defense attorneys and the victims' relatives.
--------
Execution of Mexican Is Halted
May 14, 2004
By ADAM LIPTAK
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/national/14death.html
In the first case to put in effect a sweeping ruling by an international court in the Netherlands concerning Mexicans on death row here, an Oklahoma appeals court yesterday halted the execution of one of those inmates, Osbaldo Torres. He had been scheduled to be executed on Tuesday.
Hours later, Gov. Brad Henry commuted Mr. Torres's death sentence to life without parole.
The court and the governor cited the decision six weeks ago of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and noted that Mr. Torres's right to contact Mexican officials under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations had been violated.
The international court ruled in April that 51 Mexicans on death row in the United States must be given fresh opportunities to argue that they were harmed by such violations.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters, yesterday ordered just that, holding that Mr. Torres was entitled to a new hearing.
The commutation will apparently have no effect on the hearing, as Mr. Torres remains free to argue that he is not guilty or that he deserves a lighter sentence than life without parole. And legal experts said the appeals court's decision would remain an important precedent in any event.
The main ruling in yesterday's 3-to-2 decision was terse. But the state court could not have ruled as it did but for the decision of the international court, according to the opinions of a concurring judge and the two dissenters.
Judge Charles S. Chapel, in a 12-page concurrence, said his court was obligated to comply with the international court's decision, given the United States' treaty obligations. Judge Chapel also suggested that Mr. Torres's trial might have come out differently had the Mexican government been informed of his arrest. He noted that Mexico helps its citizens obtain qualified capital counsel, investigators, translators, expert witnesses and evidence.
A dissenting judge, Gary L. Lumpkin, said the international court's decision was not binding in Oklahoma. Judge Lumpkin discounted the argument that Mexico "would have hired more expensive, experienced lawyers and provided more experts."
That was commendable, he wrote, but it was "not the legal standard."
Mexican officials, who had submitted a brief on Mr. Torres's behalf in Oklahoma and urged Mr. Henry, a Democrat, to commute the sentence, said they were pleased.
Donald F. Donovan, a New York lawyer who represented Mexico in The Hague, said: "The court has recognized that it needs to comply with the ruling of the International Court of Justice because the United States agreed to comply with it. It is an absolutely correct but landmark decision."
-------- homeland security
All Around the Capital, Preparing for an Emergency
Exercise Examines Federal Response To Terrorist Attack
By Sari Horwitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25276-2004May13.html
It was the unthinkable: A terrorist attempted a suicide bombing at a D.C. Metro station. Two hours later, three Cabinet secretaries were killed in a car accident after attending an event at the National Press Club.
At the same time, airports in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago experienced electronic interference in their air traffic control systems. And intelligence reports indicated an imminent threat of a major terrorist attack in Washington.
With that made-up catastrophic scenario in hand, more than 2,500 federal employees from 45 agencies left the Washington area Tuesday night and Wednesday. They headed to more than 100 secret sites to participate in the nation's first test of how the government could continue operating in the face of a massive terrorist attack.
"There has never been an exercise of this nature or of this magnitude, even during the Cold War," said Michael Brown, the undersecretary for emergency preparedness and response at the Homeland Security Department. "Our attempt was to get people focused on plans in the event of another 9/11. You don't want to wait until disaster hits."
The government-wide exercise, dubbed "Forward Challenge '04," was run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The goal was to train federal employees to operate as a shadow government away from their work sites. Reynold N. Hoover, FEMA's director of national security coordination, said some federal offices across the country also participated in the two-day trial run.
In the exercise, the president makes the decision to notify agencies to implement their "continuity of operations" (COOP) plans. At 9 p.m. Tuesday, a federal employee acting as the president made that notification after the three members of his Cabinet -- not identified to reporters -- were killed.
By Wednesday, under the fake scenario, hackers had coordinated an attack on government computers and penetrated several power grid computer systems, severe weather was reported and the D.C. water supply "was at risk."
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and several top aides went by helicopters yesterday to a secure facility outside Washington to observe the exercise. Speaking to reporters by videoconference from the undisclosed location, Ridge said the exercise, which officials planned for a year, had gone well, but he gave no details.
Homeland Security officials would not provide details on what federal employees did at the secret sites outside Washington. They said only that the employees practiced everything from the basics of getting into locked buildings on the sites and turning on the lights in an emergency to communicating by phone and computer with other agencies.
Exercise participants also worked on implementing succession and delegation of authority plans, and tested their ability to access records and databases.
Some participants stayed overnight at the undisclosed sites, and officials compared the sleeping facilities to motel rooms.
Brown said members of Congress and the judicial system were involved in COOP planning, but no one from Congress or the courts participated. State and local officials also were not part of yesterday's exercise.
The participants did not have to face the realistic obstacle of trying to leave Washington along with thousands of other residents during a major terrorism incident.
"Any exercise like this will have some artificiality," Brown said.
In March, the General Accounting Office found that none of the 23 major departments and agencies it studied had fully complied with a six-year-old presidential directive to develop emergency plans in accordance with guidelines from FEMA. The report concluded that the agencies had not developed adequate plans for the continuation of essential government services during emergencies.
The study also found that FEMA, now part of the Department of Homeland Security, fell short on oversight of the plans and that its guidance for agencies lacked detail.
Yesterday, Brown called the GAO report "off base" and praised the performance of the agencies that were part of the exercise.
Asked whether any lessons had been learned from the exercise, FEMA's Hoover said it was "premature" to discuss deficiencies because the exercise was ongoing. An after-action report will be done by early July, he said. The costs of the exercise, funded by the individual participating agencies, were not available yesterday.
-------- human rights
50 years later, Brown disappointments
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By George Archibald
May 17, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040517-124748-6802r.htm
Fifty years after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered racial integration of public schools in the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision, middle-class flight has resegregated most big-city public-school systems.
"Why are we not all joyfully dancing, celebrating our collective release from the bondage of prejudice and inequality?" asks Ellis Cose in a report to the Rockefeller Foundation about the results a half-century after the court ruled that state-enforced racial separation in public facilities was unconstitutional.
"The answer is simple: Brown, for all its glory, is something of a bust," concludes the report titled "Beyond Brown v. Board: The Final Battle for Excellence in American Education."
A major reason for the "bittersweet" celebration of the 1954 case that "wrestled American apartheid to the mat," Mr. Cose says, is the huge academic achievement gap between white and minority students, which Education Secretary Rod Paige calls the country's new civil rights crisis.
"It's clear that after 50 years, we still have a lot of work to do," Mr. Paige said last week at a forum at the Cato Institute to commemorate the landmark decision.
"Today, only one in six African-Americans can read proficiently upon leaving high school. The achievement gap in reading between blacks and whites is staggering. Nationally, it's 28 percentage points at the fourth-grade level at or above proficient, and in the District of Columbia, it is more than double that," the secretary said.
According to the latest fourth-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 60 percent of black students and 56 percent of Hispanics are "below basic" - meaning that those students cannot read and understand basic reading material at their grade level. For Asians, it was 30 percent "below basic," and for whites, it was 25 percent.
Mr. Paige noted, moreover, that black students, per capita, have almost three times more disciplinary problems than whites in kindergarten through 12th grade, as measured by suspensions, and earn proportionally about half the number of college degrees as whites do.
Nonetheless, Mr. Paige said the Brown decision was historic beyond the plain words spoken from the bench by Chief Justice Earl Warren: "We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
Those words did much more than end state-mandated segregation, but "began a process of healing in America, still needed almost 100 years after the Civil War," Mr. Paige told a Harvard University audience in April.
"The Brown decision affirmed the constitutional promise of equality and justice for all Americans. It set this country on a new course, affirming civil and human rights while demanding the full respect and protection of the law for all people."
'Massive resistance'
But the pace of change was much slower than predicted by Thurgood Marshall, the top lawyer for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), who argued the Brown case. He said school segregation would perish within five years of the decision and predicted that by 1963, "all forms of segregation in America would be nothing but a memory," recalled the Cose report.
"Massive resistance" in defiance of the decision, particularly in the 11 states of the Confederacy, continued "well into the 1970s," said Mr. Paige, who grew up in rural Mississippi.
Lower courts would not enforce the decision.
"Countless politicians, governors, state legislatures, citizens, schools, and social institutions passionately worked to undermine the decision. Court cases were filed and then refiled again and again to delay implementation of the decision or to obfuscate the result.
"There was widespread violence. The sheer magnitude and force of the resistance have no domestic equivalent today, but in the Carolinas, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and elsewhere, it was a second civil war. In Virginia, one school system, Prince Edward County, shut down for five years rather than accept desegregation. In some states, governors and other elected officials and the police actually led the resistance," Mr. Paige said.
"Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he spoke of their lips dripping with words like 'interposition and nullification.' They were proud to resist Brown. They looked for any means to continue segregation. And as long as segregation persisted, we were, in Dr. King's words, 'exiles in our own land,' " he said.
Mr. Cose said the fallout from the Brown case "helped jump-start a whole series of changes."
"It led to the sit-ins, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the freedom marches. It helped give a jump-start to the movement," he said in an interview.
But at the same time, the social upheaval, political activism, violence and rising crime in many U.S. cities throughout the 1960s and 1970s prompted a large exodus to suburban areas, which Harvard social scientists Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom call "middle-class flight."
At the same time, immigrants flowed into U.S. cities. As a result, although white students make up 61 percent of the national school population, almost all the largest central-city schools systems throughout the country now have a majority of minority students.
The District's public-school students are 85 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent white. By contrast, private schools in the District are more racially balanced, with 53 percent minority and 47 percent white students.
In Atlanta, public-school students are 93 percent minority; Dallas, 92 percent; Chicago, 91 percent; Los Angeles and Houston, 90 percent; Baltimore, 89 percent; and Boston and New York City, 85 percent. Private schools in those cities also are more evenly balanced between white and minority students.
Effect on achievement
"There is a constitutional obligation to remedy the deliberate separation of students on grounds of race; there is no mandate to create racially balanced schools," the Thernstroms wrote in their book, "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning." "Racial imbalance may simply reflect residential patterns, which are beyond the purview of school authorities."
Of the 26 largest urban school districts in the country, only one, Salt Lake City, has a white majority, according to the Thernstroms' study.
"Just two more (Tucson, Ariz., and Albuquerque, N.M.) were as much as 40 percent white.
"Seven of these giant school districts had white enrollments below 10 percent, and another 10 were less than 20 percent white. In such districts, the most heroic efforts will not suffice to put the typical black or Hispanic pupil into a majority-white school. There simply aren't enough whites to go around."
Researchers differ on whether racial integration and diversity of schools makes a difference in academic achievement, although almost all agree that nothing can be done to change the racial mix.
The Thernstroms reviewed available studies through publication last year of "No Excuses" and concluded, "Racial composition, in itself, makes almost no difference."
One random-selection study of reading and math scores of 13- and 17-year-olds on the 1992 NAEP tests, conducted by David J. Armor of George Mason University and Christine Rossell of Boston University, showed no difference.
"Whether African-American students attended schools that were 10 percent or 70 percent black, the racial gap remained roughly the same," the Thernstroms concluded. "If every school precisely mirrored the demographic profile of the nation's entire student population, the level of black and Hispanic achievement would not change."
But they said results were different for one small group of 13-year-old blacks in the NAEP sample who attended schools that were more than 80 percent white. The black teenagers in that setting "did dramatically better" in reading. In those schools, the black-white gap in performance was cut by about two-thirds.
The pattern was similar, though less pronounced, for black 17-year-olds, and for Hispanics in both age groups. It did not, however, apply to math scores.
However, the sample of black and Hispanic students in overwhelmingly white schools was "too small to make the results statistically significant, and the difference might have been the result of self-selection or the inadequacy of the measures of socio-economic status - the crude definitions of who was poor and who was affluent," they said.
The money battle
Liberal policy experts emphasize the comparative poverty of most inner-city families and the fact that local school funds mainly come from real-estate taxes, meaning that poor districts have less money and educational resources than wealthier suburban districts.
"I think that's one of the problems, because there's a lot of correlation between race and poverty, and schools tend to be funded from the local tax base," Mr. Cose said.
Parents in Clarendon County, S.C., were plaintiffs in Briggs v. Elliott, a 1952 segregation case folded in with three others to join the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education appeal.
"The saga of Clarendon County began with a simple request for a school bus," said the Cose report.
"Clarendon County's white schoolchildren already had 30 buses at their disposal. Though black children outnumbered whites by a margin of nearly three to one, they had not a single bus ... which often meant walking miles through the mud."
With the help of Mr. Marshall and the NAACP, the county's black parents finally filed a lawsuit asking not only for a bus, but "equivalent facilities as the doctrine of 'separate but equal' supposedly guaranteed," the report said.
"And so you have a problem in places like Clarendon County or Jasper County, some of the counties I talk about in the report, where they may get the same amount of money from the state, but they get a lot less from the local districts because they don't have as large a tax base to draw from, so they end up with significantly fewer resources, and I think that's one of the reasons," Mr. Cose said.
"The fact is, there is a complex array of reasons, it's not just budget, but I think resources are certainly one of the reasons why there is a big achievement gap. Like some of the schools I went to don't have labs or don't have basic resources, don't have up-to-date books and things of that nature. Clearly, you're going to be behind."
Currently, lawsuits are under way in 27 states that challenge school-financing arrangements.
"I don't think that this is ultimately going to be solved by lawsuits, but I think they are raising a very important question, which is, what kind of resources do you really need to educate someone to be a competent, functioning citizen? I think we need to have a major national discussion about this and arrive at some consensus, and I think it's happening to some extent from all these lawsuits."
Last week, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, a liberal nonprofit advocacy group, issued results of a survey of more than 3,300 teachers in California, New York and Wisconsin conducted by the Peter Harris Research Group, intended to show "a two-tiered education system" five decades after Brown. The report said:
• High-risk California schools serving students from poverty and minority families are 12 times more likely than low-risk schools to have 20 percent or more teachers uncredentialed.
• Twice as many California and New York teachers in high-risk schools see teacher turnover as a serious problem.
•85 percent of teachers in New York state's high-risk schools - 68 percent of teachers in all New York City schools - said children were "not prepared for school," compared with 34 percent in lowest-risk schools statewide.
•61 percent of Milwaukee teachers cited "weak incentives to teach in high-risk schools."
-------- police
Ashcroft announces intelligence sharing
By Associated Press
Friday, May 14, 2004
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=27907
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is putting together a nationwide strategy to ensure that state and local authorities get access to federal law enforcement intelligence about terrorism and crime, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Friday.
"This plan represents law enforcement's commitment to take it upon itself to ensure that the dots are connected, be it in crime or terrorism," Ashcroft said.
The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan represents input from law enforcement groups representing 1.2 million law enforcement officials from all levels of government. Under the plan, the Justice Department and FBI will more routinely share information with these state and local officials.
"We recognize there is no one agency that can be successful on its own," said FBI Director Robert Mueller. "In order to address these threats, we must change."
The FBI also has put into place a new policy to ensure that more of its information can be broadly disseminated to law enforcement officials by reducing the amount that is classified as top secret or secret. The plan also seeks to overcome turf squabbles and jurisdictional issues that have long blocked information sharing, especially between the FBI and other agencies.
"We're knocking down these barriers each and every day," said Melvin Carraway, chairman of a panel that developed the plan and superintendent of the Indiana State Police.
The failure to share information about terrorist threats among federal, state and local agencies has been repeatedly cited as a key reason the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were not detected or disrupted. In the years since the attacks, the FBI has made intelligence gathering, analysis and sharing one of its top priorities.
-------- prisons / prisoners
Britons Allege Guantanamo Abuse in Letter to Bush
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25398-2004May13.html
Two British men who were released from the Guantanamo Bay prison and repatriated in March charged in a letter sent yesterday to President Bush that they had been physically abused during their two years in detention there.
Shafiq Rasul, 26, and Asif Iqbal, 22, said U.S. military officials' statements that no Guantanamo Bay detainees were stripped naked, physically abused or humiliated were "completely untrue."
"From the moment of our arrival in Guantanamo Bay and indeed from long before, we were deliberately humiliated and degraded by the use of methods that we now read U.S. officials denying," the pair said in the letter, which was also sent to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Yesterday evening, U.S. military officials strenuously stood by those assertions. "Their allegations are simply false," said Army Col. David McWilliams, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command, the military unit that oversees the jail for alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Cuba where about 600 detainees are held. "Those things they allege didn't happen in Guantanamo." He noted that he had not read their letter to the president and was responding to descriptions of their claims related by a reporter.
Also yesterday, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is granted unrestricted access to detainees at the U.S. military facility, said it had sent a report to U.S. government officials early this month that summarized its findings after a visit to the island jail in February and March. But Red Cross officials, citing their policy, declined to describe the report's contents.
The former detainees' allegations follow U.S. acknowledgment that some troops guarding Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison physically abused and humiliated them. While many human rights groups have asserted that prisoners have been held far too long in Guantanamo Bay without due process, the government has acknowledged only a handful of excessive-force cases there.
Rasul and Iqbal wrote that during interrogations, they were chained to the floor for so long that at times they urinated in their chairs. They added that one innovation launched by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the former Guantanamo Bay commander who recently helped redesign interrogation techniques in Iraq, was what interrogators called "short-shackling." This technique forced detainees to squat without a chair with hands chained between their legs to the floor, they wrote.
"If we fell over, the chains would cut into our hands," their letter said. The interrogations sometimes lasted many hours, and the air conditioning sometimes made the room uncomfortably cold, they added. "There was strobe lighting and loud music played that was itself a form of torture," they wrote. "Sometimes dogs were brought in to frighten us."
McWilliams said, however, that "our protocols at Guantanamo absolutely forbid us to strip detainees naked for interrogations, to physically abuse them or to subject them to extremes of hot or cold. . . . The kinds of things that would humiliate a detainee or cause harm, we don't use."
On Sunday, The Washington Post quoted defense officials saying that in April 2003, the Pentagon approved interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay that allowed the reversal of some detainees' normal sleep patterns, as well as exposing them to heat, cold and "sensory assault," including loud music and bright lights.
The classified list of about 20 techniques was approved at the highest levels of the Defense and Justice departments, and was the first publicly known evidence of an official policy that allowed interrogators to use physically or psychologically stressful tactics.
Rasul and Iqbal made similar claims of abuse to reporters when they were released and sent home two months ago. Among their other assertions were that they were tricked into falsely confessing that they had met al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden and Mohamed Atta, who planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
-------- terrorism
Zarqawi beheaded Berg, CIA finds
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Bill Gertz
May 14, 2004
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040513-113319-4327r.htm
The CIA concluded yesterday that the hooded terrorist shown beheading an American civilian in a videotape is al Qaeda-linked terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi.
"After the intelligence community conducted a technical analysis of the video posted on May 11, the CIA assessed with high probability that the speaker on the tape is Zarqawi and that person is shown decapitating American citizen Nicholas Berg," a U.S. official said.
Zarqawi, 37, is a Jordanian of Palestinian descent who is leading anticoalition terrorist operations in Iraq against U.S. and allied forces, according to American intelligence officials.
He was the hooded man who appeared in the middle of five men in the video of the slaying of Mr. Berg, 26, the Pennsylvania businessman found decapitated in Baghdad on Saturday.
Although he would not specify whether Zarqawi wielded the knife, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told reporters in Baghdad that "indications that we are getting is that Zarqawi did it."
Mr. Berg's father, Michael, yesterday blamed President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for his son's death.
"My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. This administration did this," Mr. Berg's father told a Philadelphia radio station. He said the terrorists "did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend."
Asked about the father's comments, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The Berg family is going through a very difficult period, and they remain in our thoughts and prayers."
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry told Fox News that he had spoken to Michael Berg to express sympathy.
"I mean, as a parent, if I lost one of my children that way, visibly, learning about it the way he did, I'd personally give up whatever I'm doing and I'd spend the rest of my life trying to bring those people to justice," he said, adding that Mr. Berg "feels let down by those who should have been protecting his son."
Meanwhile in Iraq, a Mosul police chief said Mr. Berg was never arrested by Iraqi authorities and a friend said that Mr. Berg planned to leave Iraq through Turkey.
Mosul Police Chief Maj. Gen. Mohammed Khair al-Barhawi said his department had never arrested Mr. Berg and said he had no knowledge of the case. "The Iraqi police never arrested the slain American," he told reporters. "Take it from me ... that such reports are baseless."
Questions about Mr. Berg's travel and kidnapping in Iraq remain unanswered.
A defense official said he was a contractor looking for work who was abducted by Iraqis and who was never in U.S. custody, as some news reports have said.
Some U.S. officials say Mr. Berg was arrested by Iraqi police March 24 based on suspicion he was involved in improper activities. He was then released and disappeared until video of his killing was posted on an al Qaeda-linked Web site Tuesday.
Zarqawi is an Islamist extremist who is close to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, but who in the past was not part of the formal network of al Qaeda terrorists.
For the past year, he has been the focal point of foreign fighters and terrorists in Iraq who have been attempting to drive the U.S.-led coalition out of the country.
The U.S. military and intelligence community have launched an intensive manhunt for Zarqawi because it is believed that stopping him and his group is key to stabilizing Iraq.
Recent Zarqawi terrorist operations included the bombing of U.N. headquarters in Iraq in August that killed 22 persons, including U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello. Some 150 others were wounded in the bombing.
A second attack linked to Zarqawi took place in November when a truck filled with explosives blew up a building used by Italian military police in southern Iraq. The blast killed 12 persons and injured several others.
A third bombing, the August attack on the Imam Ali Mosque in Al Najaf, was also linked to Zarqawi. That blast killed 125 persons, including Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, the spiritual leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
At least three other bombing attacks in the past year have been linked to Zarqawi, an explosives expert who has been operating inside Iraq before the U.S.-led coalition ousted the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said at a Senate hearing Wednesday that Zarqawi has tried to foment a sectarian civil war in Iraq between Muslim Shi'ites and Sunnis.
"He will do anything to stop the progress in Iraq," Gen. Myers told the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Rumsfeld said at the same hearing that Zarqawi operates a terrorist network separate from the one directed by bin Laden.
"He hasn't sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "He's running his own network, but he's the next-best thing. He's as close to [bin Laden] as you can get without having decided that he wants to give up his own independence and swear allegiance to him."
"He's not a member of al Qaeda, but has long-standing ties with a number of senior al Qaeda leaders," a U.S. official said. "He continues to have ties with Ansar al Islam and terrorists in other Middle Eastern and European countries."
Shadi Abdallah, a Jordanian-born Muslim, told German authorities that Zarqawi and bin Laden tried to recruit him into their terrorist factions during training in Afghanistan in 2001. Mr. Abdallah joined the Zarqawi group, known as Al Tawhid, because of the group's links to Islamists from Jordan. Mr. Abdallah is serving a four-year prison term in Germany on terrorist-related charges. Details of the interrogation were disclosed earlier this week in the Christian Science Monitor.
Zarqawi wanted Mr. Abdallah to conduct terrorist attacks in Germany. "An attack in Germany would have made Al Tawhid very famous," Abdallah reportedly said in an interrogation. "It would have sent the same [message] as the attacks of al Qaeda on September 11, namely that our organization is as active in other parts of the world."
-------- torture
A systematic process learned from Cold War
By Paul Vallely
UK Independent
14 May 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=521074
Experts in torture are not surprised by the details in the stories of abuse which continue to emerge from US-run prisons in Iraq. And the more that emerges, the less it seems to be the work of a handful of sadists or perverts. Rather they are in line with sophisticated techniques of modern torture.
At the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in London, which has dealt with tens of thousands of torture cases over the past three decades, one of its senior staff, Sherman Carroll, said yesterday: "The idea of it being 'a few bad apples' won't wash. It looks increasingly like a systematic process. And there have clearly been conscious attempts by psychologists to make the techniques culturally relative to a Muslim population," he added, referring to reports of enforced nakedness, the simulation of oral sex, forced masturbation and naked human pyramids which seemed calculated particularly to offend followers of Islam.
The techniques, which rest on principles of psychological disorientation rather than inflicting physical pain, were pioneered in Russia and China after the Second World War. They included humiliation, hooding, disorientation and depriving prisoners of sleep, warmth, water, food and human dignity. The KGB and Chinese secret police passed them on to the North Koreans who used them on Britons during the Korean War.
British military intelligence applied similar methods in colonies such as Kenya, Aden and Cyprus. They were carried over to Northern Ireland, too. In 1970 a unit from the British Army's intelligence wing deprived 12 IRA suspects of food and sleep, placed hoods over their heads and forced them to lean against walls with only their fingertips while playing into their ears a piercing high-pitch screech of "white noise". When the incident became public, the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that the practices were inhumane, degrading and unlawful. Edward Heath's government banned the techniques in 1971.
In these years, when the Cold War rather than terrorism was the main threat to the West, the tide turned against torture. In 1984 the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was enacted. The international community, with the US State Department at the head, set up operations to monitor torture. The State Department still produces annual reports, with Burma, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Turkey being censured in the latest.
But although both the UK and the US signed up to the convention, both continued to train selected military personnel in them. At Ashford, Kent, and at a former US base at Chicksands, the tactics are used to train soldiers who may be captured behind enemy lines. In R2I - resistance to interrogation - training a strict 48-hour time limit is imposed. Stripping naked and sexual humiliation is part of the system of ill-treatment and degradation.
But in 1997 it became clear that the United States employs such techniques on its enemies. Then two CIA interrogation manuals became public. They spelt out the theory that detention should prolong the shock of capture by disrupting the things on which the prisoner's sense of identity depends: continuity in surroundings, habits, appearance, relations with others. "Detention should be planned," one manual says, "to enhance feelings of being cut off from anything known and reassuring."
Psychological rather than physical pain is more effective, one manual says: "The threat of coercion usually weakens or destroys resistance more effectively than coercion itself." Threats trigger fears more damaging than pain itself. Actual pain often produces false confessions, whereas psychological pain undermines the prisoner's "internal motivational strength".
In June last year President George Bush denied that the US was using torture, in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay or Iraq. But on Wednesday his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted that sleep deprivation, dietary changes and stress positions were being used.
Pentagon lawyers, according to the US pressure group Human Rights Watch, have drawn up a 72-point "matrix" of acceptable stress, including: stripping prisoners naked, subjecting them to bright lights or blaring noise, hooding them, exposing them to heat and cold (from 110F to 10F), and binding them in uncomfortable positions. The more stressful techniques must be approved by senior commanders, but all are permitted. The lawyers' advice, and the matrix allowing "graduated levels of force", are being kept secret. It is thought to argue that torture conventions do not apply where detainees are formally in the custody of another country.
Since then a battery of 50-odd special "coercive techniques" was introduced in Iraq last autumn after Major-General Geoffrey Miller left Guantanamo Bay to take over as US commander in charge of military jails there.
Apologists for the harsher regime insist that it stops just short of torture. Human rights campaigners disagree. The UN Convention says torture means "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental," is inflicted, says Sherman Carroll of the Medical Foundation.
Such techniques do not work, critics say. "Torture produces hallucinations," says Mr Carroll, "and confessions that may be lies." There are also concerns that interrogators are notoriously poor at regulating the "graduated levels of force". In Israel what was called "moderate physical force" was once lawful and security forces ended up torturing as many as 85 per cent of Palestinian security detainees - thousands of people - before Israel's Supreme Court in 1999 outlawed acts such as shaking prisoners, hoods, 'frog crouching', 'chair perching' and sleep deprivation.
Despite this, according to Human Rights Watch, the practice seems to have increased in the past year and the head of the American defence contracting firm implicated in the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison visited an Israeli "anti-terror" training camp in the occupied West Bank earlier this year.
But US officials insist that torture does work. The leading al-Qa'ida suspect Abu Zubaydah, under "intensive questioning", they say, revealed details of a plot to build a dirty bomb.
Yet even if it does yield fruits, critics insist that torture is always unacceptable. "Victims of Saddam's regime are re-visiting the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture," says Sherman Carroll. "The recent photos have brought flashbacks of their torture under Saddam."
-------- POLITICS
-------- budget
House Backs 10% Tax Bracket
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25284-2004May13.html
The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to permanently extend the 10 percent income tax bracket that President Bush and Congress created in 2001, approving its third significant tax cut in as many weeks despite concerns over a record budget deficit.
The measure, approved 344 to 76, enjoys broad support because it is aimed at low-income Americans.
Last year, Congress expanded the lowest 10 percent tax bracket to cover more income than when the bracket was created in 2001. But to save money, the expansion of the bracket was set to expire at the end of the year, effectively raising taxes on 73 million people, including 22 million low-income workers. The House voted yesterday to make permanent that expansion and also to make permanent the 10 percent bracket, which is set to expire after 2010.
"We cannot snuff out this recovery by yanking out the tax relief that was so central to getting the economy back on track," said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
Both parties support an extension. But the House bill's 10-year cost -- $218 billion -- prompted heated rebukes from Democrats, who proposed paying for the tax cut extension by raising taxes on couples earning $1 million and singles earning $500,000, or more. The Democrats would also have extended the bottom bracket beyond 2010 only if a plan was in place by then to balance the budget by 2014.
The debate was sharpened by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz's formal request yesterday for $25 billion more to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We have to pay for this war," Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) said during the tax debate. "There ought to be some truth in what we do here."
Nevertheless, the Democratic measure was rejected largely along party lines, 227 to 190.
In the face of rising war costs and a deficit likely to top $400 billion this year, the House has passed tax measures worth $510 billion over the next decade. More are coming. Next week, the House is likely to vote to permanently extend the $1,000 child credit, originally passed in 2001, then accelerated last year. The cost: about $172 billion over 10 years. The cuts would follow three successive tax cuts since 2001, totaling $1.7 trillion.
"Every American is responsible for the mortgage that has been laid on them in the last 36 months," said Rep. John S. Tanner (D-Tenn.), who labeled the House's actions "breathtaking fiscal irresponsibility" and "financial madness."
But the Bush administration is strongly pushing the tax cuts. After yesterday's House vote, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow implored the Senate to "quickly follow suit." He said that "preventing a tax increase is essential for taxpayers at all income levels, especially those in the lower 10 percent bracket."
Most Republicans argued that the tax cuts so far have provided a much-needed economic stimulus that is beginning to put people to work and to generate more tax revenue. Republicans used yesterday's debate to counter charges that the tax cuts enacted since Bush took office have primarily benefited the rich.
"When we hear time and time again that the Republican Party only stands for the wealthy, well, today's the test," said Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.). "Let's see who stands up for working families."
--------
Congress Hesitant to Write 'Blank Check'
Pentagon Seeks Free Rein on War Money
By Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24139-2004May13.html
President Bush asked Congress yesterday to approve a new $25 billion "contingency fund" for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but members of both parties in Congress indicated strong reservations about giving the Pentagon the free hand it is seeking to spend the money.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the open-ended request would give the Pentagon flexibility to deal with the highly fluid situation in Iraq, and was not meant to subvert Congress's constitutional mandate to give prior approval to spending.
But after military setbacks and recent allegations of Americans abusing Iraqi prisoners, key senators seemed far more reluctant to give the Pentagon free rein.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said that the administration was asking for a $25 billion "blank check," and added that she would not support it "without further specificity and a greater understanding of where we are getting" in Iraq. That view was echoed by Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Susan Collins (Maine), who also called for tighter congressional oversight.
If the new request is granted, Congress will have approved nearly $100 billion to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost all of that has been provided outside the annual Pentagon budget, through emergency appropriations that set up special accounts from which the military could draw money without seeking congressional approval.
The money now being sought would be in addition to the Pentagon's regular fiscal 2005 budget request of $401 billion. The administration is seeking approval to use the extra money to pay for military operations or classified programs. The president would be required to notify Congress of its plans at least five days in advance and to deem the spending to be for "emergency" needs.
But it was clear during more than three hours of senatorial grilling of Wolfowitz that lawmakers are increasingly concerned about the rising costs of the war and the way it is being financed.
"We need to find a way to act quickly to support our troops while still holding the executive branch accountable for how these funds will be used," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the panel's ranking Democrat.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman C. W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) has said he will seek "accountability" by the Pentagon.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, indicated yesterday that he supports giving the administration flexibility to shift money within its budget, and indicated he would favor increasing the funding to as much as $50 billion, well above a limit set in a Senate budget proposal.
Responding to tough questions from senators in both parties, Wolfowitz acknowledged that, with war costs running about $4.5 billion a month, far more money will be needed next year than is now on the table. "There will be a request for a full year supplemental early next year. It will sure be much larger than $25 billion," he said.
Levin called the $25 billion figure "window dressing," and he accused the White House budget office of "fudging" in a letter to Congress saying the money would be used "should there be a need."
Driving up the costs of the war in Iraq is the fact that military commanders are keeping 135,000 to 138,000 troops there, about 20,000 more than anticipated.
Yesterday, several senators suggested that even this number might not be adequate to maintain stability, raising doubts about the Pentagon's most recent cost estimates.
On Wednesday, Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) charged that commanders were afraid to ask for more troops, fearing that they would be "gone" if they diverged from the Bush administration line that force levels were adequate.
That theme was picked up yesterday by McCain, who said that he would support additional troops, but that the administration was seeking a "blank check."
--------
Should Tax Cuts Be Paid For?
GOP Moderates Keep Splitting on Issue and Losing
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25192-2004May13?language=printer
On March 31, with their eyes on record budget deficits, 11 Republican moderates in the House penned a letter to their leadership, demanding that any congressional budget resolution this year require that future tax cuts be offset by spending reductions or tax hikes.
Yet yesterday, four of the signatories -- Amo Houghton (N.Y.), Mark S. Kirk (Ill.), Thomas E. Petri (Wis.) and Todd R. Platts (Pa.) -- bowed to their leaders' demands and voted against that position. On the 207 to 211 tally, those four votes effectively scuttled the motion.
The congressional standoff over the 2005 budget has highlighted the difference between the handful of Republican moderates in the House and those in the Senate. Both groups have taken public stands for tighter budget rules. Both have professed strong concern for a budget deficit likely to top $400 billion this year. But where a few GOP senators have stood their ground, many of their House counterparts have given in.
"As a Republican moderate, it's difficult to decide when the best time is to make your move," Kirk explained. "In the end, we also have to make sure the House leadership is supportive of the direction we're going. To try to move legislation without their support will be an unsuccessful strategy."
The House and Senate passed broad 2005 blueprints for spending and tax cuts nearly two months ago, hoping to come to a quick budget agreement. That way, Congress's 13 annual spending bills could be completed before the fall campaigns heat up. Instead, negotiations have been gridlocked over one issue: paying for tax cuts.
Four Republican senators -- Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine), John McCain (Ariz.) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) -- joined Democrats to approve a bill that would reinstate strict "pay as you go" rules that governed spending and tax cuts in the 1990s but have since lapsed.
The House resolution would demand offsetting spending cuts only for entitlement spending increases, leaving the chamber free to continue cutting taxes without paying for them.
On March 30, House Democrats offered a nonbinding motion to tell negotiators to accept the Senate position. At one point during the vote, the resolution held a 212 to 206 advantage, but GOP leaders held open a five-minute vote for 28 minutes while they worked to switch votes. Finally, the vote was gaveled shut at 209 to 209, killing the motion on a tie. Platts and Kirk helped defeat it.
Last week, the Democrats tried again -- and again they failed. Yesterday was the third try. Again, passage seemed possible when 12 Republicans voted for the measure, but again, four Republicans changed their votes to bring the motion down.
Centrist Democrats, who have repeatedly seen their efforts at compromise fall short, derisively joked that a House Republican moderate is someone who throws a 10-foot rope to a drowning man 20 feet offshore. Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), president of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership, did not dispute the characterization.
"Frankly, it bothers me, too," he said. ". . . I've made it clear we've got to win some votes if we take a stand."
Meanwhile, the tax cuts have kept coming. While budget negotiations have plodded on, the House has passed four tax cuts totaling $510 billion over 10 years.
Moderates who opposed the pay-as-you-go resolutions defended their votes, even as they stood by their letter supporting the concept. Petri spokesman Nielson Wright noted that the motions were not binding. House negotiators probably would have ignored them anyway.
"Having signed the letter, [Petri] made his point," Wright said, "but he has to pick and choose his fights and not go and stick his finger in the eye of the leadership at every occasion."
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-Okla.), an opponent of such restrictions on tax cuts, also said passage of the House measures probably would have made little difference.
But other moderates strongly disagreed. If left to their own devices, a majority in both chambers support stricter controls on tax cuts and spending, said Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), who voted for both Democratic motions. Passage "would have given the moderate Republican senators a chance," he said. "It's just sending a signal to them to stand firm."
Snowe agreed: "It would have given us something to point to."
Arcane as budget rules may be, the issue of "paying for" tax cuts has become central to GOP politics, budget experts said.
"What we're seeing playing out here is what the level of future taxes will be," said Robert Reischauer, a Democrat and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "It's vital to the Republican Party."
June E. O'Neill, another former CBO director and a Republican, said the GOP leadership's position has "intellectual merit." Applying the same rules to tax cuts as spending hikes creates an equivalency where none should exist, she said.
"A tax cut does have stimulatory and growth effects that are not true for government expenditures," she said.
But for GOP moderates, the merits of the opposing arguments appear lost amid tactical tussles, and between the pull of party loyalty and the push to stand their ground.
"I've taken on this role to be inside the tent, to be the midway point between the moderates and the conservatives on this issue," Kirk said.
To that, Bass countered: "It's all the way you work. I don't sign letters every day, and when I do, I try to do what I say I'm going to do."
--------
Senators Assail Request for Aid for Afghan and Iraq Budgets
May 14, 2004
By ERIC SCHMITT
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/politics/14MILI.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, May 13 - Senate Democrats and Republicans attacked Bush administration officials on Thursday for submitting a vaguely worded request to add $25 billion to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beginning on Oct. 1.
The new money would be added to the more than $400 billion already sought for military uses worldwide in fiscal 2005. Lawmakers complained that the new request lacked specific details and sought to circumvent the Senate's oversight role.
"This is a blank check," Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said.
Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, spoke for virtually all senators when he predicted that the Senate would approve the extra money to pay for fuel, body armor, troop transportation and supplies, but not without some strings attached.
"I'm going to support this $25 billion," Mr. Byrd said. "But we're going to put limitations on it."
With war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan approaching $5 billion a month, the total cost for next year will be $50 billion to $60 billion, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told senators. "If you look at our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a big bill," he said.
At a contentious three-hour hearing in which a Senate Democrat accused Mr. Wolfowitz of botching his job and two senior senators clashed over the questioning by the Armed Services Committee, interrogation techniques came under fire from some lawmakers, who said the methods used in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions.
Under questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, Mr. Wolfowitz and Gen. Peter Pace of the Marines, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that taken individually some of the approved techniques could be interpreted as violating the conventions. Mr. Wolfowitz said Mr. Reed's hypothetical example of a prisoner who was hooded, naked and forced to crouch for 45 minutes "goes quite beyond what is permitted."
On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified that the American military in Iraq was adhering to the conventions.
The double-barreled jousting over two sensitive parts of Iraq policy, cost and the treatment of prisoners, underscored growing unrest on Capitol Hill over operations there.
The hearing veered early toward a major partisan clash when Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, objected to an effort by the committee chairman, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, to limit the scope of questions to the $25 billion reserve fund.
"I've been on this committee for 24 years, I've been in the Senate 42 years, and I have never been denied the opportunity to question any person that's come before a committee, on what I wanted to ask for it," Mr. Kennedy said, his voice booming. "I resent it and reject it on a matter of national importance. And we're talking about prison abuses."
Mr. Warner backed down, noting that Mr. Wolfowitz's opening statement had opened the door to a broader line of questioning.
That decision allowed Mr. Reed's questioning, first to General Pace. He said: "If you were shown a video of a United States marine or an American citizen in the control of a foreign power, in a cellblock, naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?"
"I would describe it as a violation, sir," General Pace replied.
Mr. Reed then cited a list of interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq last October by the top commander there, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez of the Army. Some techniques required General Sanchez's approval, including sensory deprivation, solitary confinement beyond 30 days and "stress positions" like prolonged periods of standing or crouching.
"As I read General Sanchez's guidance, precisely that behavior could have been employed in Iraq," Mr. Reed said.
Military officials said later that General Sanchez had never been asked to approve such treatment and that Mr. Reed's example would not have been approved.
General Pace and Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged that neither of them had seen the list of approved techniques, "Interrogation Rules of Engagement," until just before the hearing on Thursday morning and that they did not know whether senior military officials had reviewed them. Senate Democrats said the title was not a good one because "rules of engagement," in military language, govern the use of force.
The most heated exchanges were between Mr. Reed and Mr. Wolfowitz.
"What I've heard from you is dissembling and avoidance of answers, lack of knowledge," Mr. Reed said.
"I'm not dissembling, Senator Reed," Mr. Wolfowitz responded. "I have the same reaction as General Pace. What you described to me sounds to me like a violation of the Geneva Convention. It's the first time I've heard that it was in General Sanchez's direction."
"I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, that you're not doing your job, then," Mr. Reed said.
Senator Warner and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the panel, briefly intervened. But Mr. Reed quickly returned to questioning Mr. Wolfowitz.
"Mr. Secretary, do you think crouching naked for 45 minutes is humane?" Mr. Reed said.
"Not naked, absolutely not."
"Sensory deprivation, which would be a bag over your head for 72 hours. Do you think that's humane?"
"Let me come back to what you said, the work of this government--"
"No, no. Answer the question, Mr. Secretary. Is that humane?"
"I don't know whether it means a bag over your head for 72 hours, senator."
"Mr. Secretary, you're dissembling, nonresponsive. Anybody would say putting a bag over someone's head for 72 hours, which is--"
"I believe it's not humane."
On his flight to Iraq on Thursday, Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him that the Geneva Conventions were open to interpretation.
"There are always going to be differences of views as to whether something does or doesn't" adhere to the conventions, he said. "The test is what is decided and what is issued, and then is it adhered to."
By the end of the Senate hearing, Mr. Wolfowitz seemed frustrated with the questions about prisoners and had raised a white flag on the complaints from senators about the request for the reserve money, promising to work with the committee to provide details.
"There's some room to work on something that gives the troops the flexibility they need and gives the Congress the oversight it needs," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
When the administration introduced its military budget this year, officials said they did not intend to seek more money in 2004, relying on the $87 billion approved in November. But the security situation in Iraq is more dangerous than military officials expected. The Pentagon now plans to keep about 135,000 soldiers in Iraq through 2005, instead of reducing the ranks to about 115,000 troops this summer.
In its formal four-page submission, the White House gave a minimal summary for the $25 billion, noting that the largest part, $14 billion, was for Army operations and maintenance. Mr. Wolfowitz emphasized that the request was just to tide the Pentagon through the end of this year and early next year, when the administration would make a much larger spending request.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, questioned Mr. Wolfowitz's credibility in predicting what will occur in Iraq, from its cost to the national treasury to the number of American lives that will be lost. "You have made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions," Mrs. Clinton said.
But even staunch White House allies like the Republican senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Wayne Allard of Colorado told Mr. Wolfowitz and the deputy White House budget director, Joel D. Kaplan, that the Senate needed more details.
"We need to strike the right balance here between the administration's understandable need for flexibility and the Congressional need to closely oversee spending," Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said. "You don't need this dispute."
Separate from Thursday's hearing, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, raised questions about Iraqi prisons in another context, urging Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate how the Justice Department had selected civilians to oversee the prisons, including an official from Utah who has been linked to accusations of prison abuse in the United States.
The official, Lane McCotter, resigned in 1997 under pressure as director of Utah Corrections Department after an inmate died while shackled naked to a restraining chair for 16 hours. He became an executive at the Management and Training Corporation of Centerville, Utah, which ran a private prison in New Mexico that the Justice Department criticized for unsafe conditions and lack of medical care for inmates.
-------- investigations
9/11 Draft Reports Say City Rescuers Lacked Coordination
May 14, 2004
By JIM DWYER and KEVIN FLYNN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/nyregion/14response.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Draft reports from the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks praise the bravery of New York's emergency responders while two of the largest buildings in the world were crumbling, but say their efforts were severely hampered by institutional problems, according to people who have seen some or all the findings.
The three main emergency agencies that went to the World Trade Center - the Fire Department, the New York Police Department, and the Port Authority Police Department - did not coordinate their responses and frequently did not or could not share valuable information, according to those who have seen the reports, which were prepared by the commission staff for hearings next week in New York. For example, the staff cited a message from a city police helicopter that the north tower was "glowing" and about to fall that was not heard by firefighters.
In a cautious exercise intended to balance historical fidelity with sensitivity to the grim and terrifying challenges of the day, each emergency agency receives some criticism. The drafts say the Fire Department lost track of units and was unable to communicate with them, according to officials who have been briefed on the contents. Three hundred and forty-three firefighters died at the trade center.
The commission is concerned that New York's Fire and Police Departments have not yet formally agreed on how to share responsibility during a major crisis and could encounter the same problems they experienced at the trade center, according to a commission official who asked not to be identified. "That remains a big, big question," the official said.
The reports say improvements made by the Port Authority inside the towers after the 1993 bombing - better stairway lighting and glowing paint along the steps - helped in the evacuation, as did the preparation of tenants. In one section, the draft says civilians are the very first people to respond in an emergency and notes that the fire wardens in a number of private concerns in the buildings performed admirably, as did the building staff.
However, it notes that many people reported public address announcements telling or urging them to stay inside the south tower after the north tower was hit.
People trapped in the south tower tried to go to the roof, unaware that the doors were locked. The report says the owners of tall buildings should tell their tenants not to go to the roof during fires, but says the Port Authority did not provide that instruction during fire drills at the trade center.
The emergency response to the plane crash and fire at the Pentagon was described in the draft as relatively smooth.
The reports were described as "living documents" still subject to revision, according to one person who was briefed yesterday by the commission staff, but it is clear that the versions presented next week will be regarded by many in government as a weighty verdict on the performance of the agencies and individuals. Many of the parties have been lobbying the commission's staff members in hopes of shaping that verdict.
As the commission staff members read the reports, including the criticism, they will stop to play videotapes and audio tapes recorded inside the towers, hoping to capture the extreme environment in which fire commanders and other responders were making decisions.
The report discusses the lack of reliable communication between firefighters and fire commanders that morning. A fire chief ordered a member of the building staff - not a member of the Fire Department - to operate a key piece of radio equipment, a device known as a repeater that boosts radio signals inside a building. After some tests, the fire chiefs believed the repeater was broken and stopped using it, forcing them to rely on the strength of their hand-held radios to stay in touch with firefighters upstairs. The report suggests that the repeater may actually have been working, though the significance of that finding is unclear.
Fire chiefs have maintained that the critical communication gap that day was the failure of any police chiefs to go to the fire command post as required under the city's emergency protocol. Without contact with a police commander, the fire chiefs have told the commission, they lacked critical observations made by police helicopters about deteriorating building conditions.
The lack of communication was not absolute, according to the draft, which cites accounts from members of police units who said they checked in with fire personnel as they entered the buildings.
The staff reports on emergency response, planning and crisis management will be made public during two days of hearings next week. Portions of the reports were shared yesterday with officials from the Police and Fire Departments, the city's corporation counsel's office, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and lawyers from Giuliani Partners, the consulting firm owned by former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.
The commission also announced yesterday that it had decided to invite Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to testify at the panel hearings, which are to begin Tuesday. Mr. Bloomberg, who spoke to the panel at its first hearing in March 2003, was not on the witness list released earlier this week, but a member of the commission, Bob Kerrey, said that the commission needed to hear from him.
Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission, said the panel had thought there was no need to have Mr. Bloomberg testify again, then reconsidered. "We thought since this was our last hearing in New York, it would be appropriate to hear from its first official."
A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Edward Skyler, said the mayor had not decided whether he would appear.
"Since the commission has now invited the mayor, dis-invited the mayor and now invited him again, we need to learn more about his role and the timing before we answer," he said. "In any event, we continue to cooperate with the commission and its staff as the hearings approach."
--------
Giuliani Set to Testify at 9/11 Hearings
May 14, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission-Giuliani.html
NEW YORK (AP) -- More than two years after leaving office, former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani will testify before the Sept. 11 commission next week in an appearance that could put him in the awkward position of criticizing fellow Republicans in the Bush administration just as he is seeking a more prominent role in the party.
For instance, Giuliani will probably be asked by the commissioners whether the city was aware that President Bush had reviewed an intelligence briefing a month before the attacks that said terrorists might be casing buildings in New York.
``His heroic status will give him a nice welcome and respect, but I see the commission as digging for all the truths they can,'' said Douglas Muzzio, a public policy professor at Baruch College. ``I don't see them softballing him.''
He will appear before the panel on Wednesday, just a few miles from ground zero.
For most of his political career, Giuliani has been a maverick, breaking ranks with the Republican Party when he saw fit. But since the World Trade Center attack, he has become one of the party's most dependable fund-raisers, relentless campaigners and vocal supporters of the Bush administration.
Observers say that Giuliani, 59, needs the party as much as the party needs him and cannot afford to alienate the GOP leadership with his testimony -- if he is interested in running for office again, or winning the keynote speaker slot at the Republican National Convention this summer in New York, or perhaps getting a position in a second-term Bush Cabinet.
``The bottom line is he doesn't want to burn bridges, either in his consulting work or as a future politician,'' said Mike Paul, a political analyst and former Giuliani aide.
Giuliani has said he may get back into politics in 2006 with either a run for governor or for the Senate against Democratic incumbent Hillary Rodham Clinton. While battling prostate cancer, Giuliani dropped out of the 2000 Senate race won by the former first lady.
Giuliani declined to be interviewed for this article but told The Associated Press last month that he had not seen or heard any intelligence that could have prompted the government to react differently before Sept. 11.
``When a horrible thing happens, then you go back and -- with the benefit of hindsight -- you see something three or four months earlier that alerted you to it,'' he said. ``But, so far, I haven't seen anything that would have created that kind of alert.''
Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, Giuliani became one of America's most recognizable figures, hailed for his calm and resolute leadership. Since then, however, he has been largely absent from the political fray he once reveled in as New York's famously cantankerous mayor.
Some of his exile has been self-imposed, though a good part of his battle with irrelevance is what happens to any politician without portfolio.
When Giuliani suggested that the entire trade center site be set aside as a giant memorial, for example, he was ignored. And on the eve of the second anniversary of the attacks, when he derided plans for the Freedom Tower and other office buildings at the site, his opinion did not change anyone's plans.
Nevertheless, he has kept busy.
His consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, has struck deals with corporate entities as various as the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, WorldCom, the makers of OxyContin and the owners of the Indian Point nuclear power plants.
He has received an honorary knighthood from the queen of England, been inducted into the Port Wine Brotherhood in Portugal and, closer to home, has had students turn their backs on him during a commencement address at Syracuse University.
He has been escorted by armed guards through the streets of Mexico City while trying to come up with ways to reduce crime there (leading to the newspaper headline, ``Giuliani Patrols, Guarded by 400'').
He has made dozens of campaign commercials and speeches for candidates around the country, appeared in the Adam Sandler movie ``Anger Management'' and claimed not to have bothered watching a made-for-TV movie about his life, starring James Woods.
He has advised the governments of Colombia and Trinidad and Tobago on crime, and given paid speeches in places as small as Jackson, Tenn., and Sioux Falls, S.D.
And he also got married (after agreeing to pay his second wife more than $6.8 million), and wrote a book called ``Leadership'' that has sold more than 1 million copies.
And all of it is due to his leadership during a period most New Yorkers would rather forget, a period that transformed Giuliani from a lame-duck politician making headlines because of his marital woes to a status approaching secular sainthood. That status reached its pinnacle when he was named Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2001.
``Sept. 11 changed his entire positioning,'' Paul said. ``It was like moving from a caterpillar to a butterfly.''
--------
Wolfowitz Draws Democrats' Ire
Hearing on Iraq Spending Request Becomes Attack on Approach to War
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25266-2004May13.html
Senate Democrats lit into the Bush administration's Iraq policies yesterday, using an uncharacteristically contentious hearing on additional war spending to attack the Pentagon's number two official in personal and bitter terms.
After listening to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz testify before the normally stately Armed Services Committee for several hours, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said, "What I've heard from you is dissembling and avoidance of answers, lack of knowledge, pleading process -- legal process."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) then hit Wolfowitz, who is seen as a major architect of the Bush administration's approach to Iraq, with a virtual indictment. "You come before this committee . . . having seriously undermined your credibility over a number of years now," she said. "When it comes to making estimates or predictions about what will occur in Iraq, and what will be the costs in lives and money, . . . you have made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions."
She quoted to him from his previous testimony from the run-up to the war, in which he asserted that the Iraqi people would see the United States as their liberator, that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction and that the estimate of Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, that it would take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq was "outlandish."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), usually the committee's fiercest critic of the Bush administration's stance on Iraq, seemed almost tame by comparison. He used his questioning time simply to criticize the administration's "arrogance" and remind colleagues to fulfill their constitutional duties.
Wolfowitz, a former Yale political scientist who seems to enjoy political debate more than most senior Bush officials, ignored many of the attacks, including most of Clinton's charges. But he told her that in disagreeing with Shinseki's estimates on the troop requirements for postwar Iraq, he was siding with another senior Army general closer to the action -- Gen. Tommy R. Franks, then chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for Iraq and the Middle East.
"I didn't have time to respond . . . to the whole list" of Clinton's points, Wolfowitz said in an interview last night. "I plan to."
Wolfowitz did respond directly to Reed's attack, which followed a heated and confusing exchange on whether U.S. commanders permitted military interrogators to violate the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of military prisoners of war and civilian detainees.
"I'm not dissembling," he said. He tried to weave his way though the hypothetical questions Reed had posed about the rules of engagement for interrogations in Iraq, saying he had not been told that senior commanders in Iraq had approved questioning techniques that violate the Geneva accords.
Cutting him off, Reed said, "Well, I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, that you're not doing your job."
Reed did not establish whether commanders had approved harsh interrogation methods that would violate the Geneva Conventions, and the Defense Department said in a statement last night that Reed was wrong. But in an indication of how besieged Pentagon officials have become, Wolfowitz said he had not seen the Army's rules for interrogations of Iraqis -- a document that was released at an Armed Services hearing three days ago and carried in some newspapers.
"I saw this document for the first time this morning," Wolfowitz said. He said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is focusing on the detainee abuse scandal and had asked him to deal with the Defense Department's other pressing business.
The hearing -- the third held by the panel on Iraq in seven days -- was striking because under the leadership of Chairman John W. Warner, a courtly Virginia Republican, the committee long has been staid in dealing with the Bush administration and on most military matters.
Warner seemed briefly to lose control of the committee yesterday, faced down by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) over whether Wolfowitz could be questioned on broad matters of Iraq policy or only the narrower issue of additional spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which together are costing about $4.5 billion a month.
When Warner admonished him to keep his questions to the budget issue, Kennedy erupted. "I've been on this committee for 24 years, I've been in the Senate 42 years, and I have never been denied the opportunity to question any person that's come before a committee, on what I wanted to ask," he said. "And I resent it and reject it on a matter of national importance."
Warner persisted, provoking a formal challenge from Kennedy. "Well, Mr. Chairman, then you're going to have to rule me out of order, and I'm going to ask for a roll call of whether the committee is going to rule me out of order," he snapped.
At that point, Warner backed down and said Wolfowitz's preliminary remarks had invited such broad questioning. "You have opened it up in your opening statement," Warner told Wolfowitz.
In the interview last night, Wolfowitz said he believed the hearing was "pretty civil." He added: "We actually agreed to reach a compromise on the key issue, which was how much flexibility would the Congress give the administration in its [spending] request."
-------- propaganda wars
Editor resigns over fake Iraq photos
14th May 2004
UK Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=302874&in_page_id=1770
Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has stepped down "with immediate effect", Trinity Mirror have announced.
The Daily Mirror said it "apologised unreservedly" for publishing the pictures which were the subject of a "calculated and malicious hoax".
A spokesman said: "The Daily Mirror published in good faith photographs which it absolutely believed were genuine images of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner.
"However there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that these pictures are fakes and that the Daily Mirror has been the subject of a calculated and malicious hoax.
"The Daily Mirror therefore apologises unreservedly for publishing the pictures and deeply regrets the reputational damage done to the QLR and the Army in Iraq.
"The paper will continue to cooperate fully with the investigation.
"The Board of Trinity Mirror has decided that it would be inappropriate for Piers Morgan to continue in his role as Editor of the Daily Mirror and he will therefore be stepping down with immediate effect."
Des Kelly, Deputy Editor, will assume the role of acting Editor.
----
Joseph Wilson:
Inside the Lies that Led to War and
Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity
May 14, 2004
Democracy Now!
Interview
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/14/143211
Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson on the outting of his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame; the Bush administration's lies on Iraq; character assassination; and his time as the acting ambassador to Iraq before the Gulf War when he met with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. [includes rush transcript] Ambassador Joseph Wilson was the last US official to meet with Saddam Hussein before the start of the so-called Gulf War 12 years ago. As the acting US ambassador to Iraq in the weeks leading up to the war, the White House consulted Wilson daily. He was formally commended by the Bush Sr. administration for his bravery and heroism in the weeks leading up to the war. In that time, Wilson helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, negotiated the release of more than 120 American hostages and sheltered nearly 800 Americans in the embassy compound.
But Wilson's work in Iraq that won him praise from the current president's father is not what he is now known for. For months, he was at the center of a controversy that could prove to be one of the clearest cases of documentable criminal conduct by an administration since Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal.
In the months leading up to the invasion, the CIA sent Wilson to investigate whether Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger - the White House's key case that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program.
Through his investigation, Wilson found the claim highly unlikely and reported back his findings. Despite this, the Niger-connection became a key piece of the administration's justification for the war and President Bush included it in his State of the Union address in January.
Seven months later, Wilson went public. In a New York Times Op-Ed he said he had told the CIA long before the president's January speech that the uranium claims were fraudulent.
A few days after Wilson blew the whistle, conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote a column in which he cited two senior administration officials and stated that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative dealing with weapons of mass destruction. At the time Wilson charged that it was an attempt by the Bush administration to intimidate other whistleblowers from going public.
Wilson has just come out with his memoirs "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity." And as he travels across the country on his book tour, the Bush White House continues to attack him. When Wilson appeared on MSNBC's ''Countdown'' to talk about his book, host Keith Olbermann held up three identical e-mail messages from the White House and explained that the ''talking points'' they contained were calculated to poke holes in Wilson's book.
Ambassador Joseph Wilson
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Joe Wilson joins us from the Firehouse Studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Delighted to be here, Amy. Sounds like you have a busy schedule.
AMY GOODMAN: It's great to have you with us. I didn't get these emails from the White House. So -
AMBASSADOR WILSON: What I have said to my friends who have received the emails, the response of the White House should be rather that send notes to journalists who ask questions disputing what I said in my book they would be better off going up and telling the truth to the special counsel. It's now been six, seven months since the counsel has been in business. Despite the President's having said he wanted to get to the bottom of this, we haven't been able to bring the investigation to closure. If they just go up and tell the Special Counsel the truth, that would be a step in the right direction, rather than continuing to stonewall.
AMY GOODMAN: Have you seen these talking points being sent to reporters?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I haven't. I have no interest in seeing them. The people ask me what are the questions they want. I answer to the best of my ability. I'm not going to engage in sort of going back at the White House on this, other than to suggest they tell the truth to the special counsel.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's go back for a minute. For people who are not familiar with this or the specific details.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: Because with TV being eight-second, nine-second sound bites, it's really hard to get this whole history and what happened. Talk about what you said in your New York Times op-ed piece, why you said it, and then what happened. What unfolded?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: The title of my piece is, "What I Did Not Find in Africa." What it cataloged was a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA, acting in response to a question by the Vice President. It was to check out allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium from the country. It was a very important question because, after all, Iraq would have only one use for uranium, and that would be nuclear weapons programs. That would be the one piece of incontrovertible evidence that he was attempting to reconstitute nuclear weapons programs, which would have lent some credence to the notion that the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud. I cam back and said there was nothing to this. Mine was one of three reports in the files of the US Government that said there was nothing to this, which should have been reassuring to those who sent us out, including the Vice President and the National Security Advisor. Instead, of course, the President makes the statement in the State of the Union Address and, as it turns out, he referred to British intelligence, which happened to be the same information. They referred to British intelligence because the CIA wouldn't clear his making that claim unless it was caveated by going through a third intelligence service. So, there was a real, active deception there. This is not just an accident. This was not a slip of the tongue. These were people who wanted to put something in there that was actively deceptive to the US Congress and to the American people.
AMY GOODMAN: What was your understanding of who put it there?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well, I don't know.
AMY GOODMAN: He doesn't write his own speeches.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I don't know how they review the State of the Union Address. When I was part of the Clinton White House, people around Clinton told me two days before president Clinton would give his State of the Union Address, he and the Vice President would take the entire day and go over the speech line by line. 16 words takes up two lines. The Vice President knew the answer. The Vice President allowed that to stay in the State of the Union Address. Last week before the State of the Union Address was given, there are typically only five copies in the hands of the National Security Adviser, who also knew, as well as the political office of the Chief of Staff and Vice President. They knew over there, but, as I said, it was a case of real, active deception.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you call President Bush a liar?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well, what I would say is that what I have always said it's time and time again the President has proven far more loyal to his senior staff than they have proven to him. Somebody in his staff inserted it. The fact checkers up the chain of command did not get it out. The President uttered it, and later took responsibility for it.
AMY GOODMAN: You wrote this letter, what you did not find in Africa.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I wrote an opinion piece, what I did not find in Africa, 36 hours later, the next day, essentially, the White House acknowledged that the 16 words should never have been in the State of the Union Address. And for me that was it. I said my piece and I called my government to account. I had done my civic duty. In a democracy, citizen has the right to challenge his government what he knows his government has not told the truth. At that point, the President had a choice to make. He could either find the person who put the offending remark in his State of the Union speech, find the guy who put the lie in his mouth, and fire him, which is what I think most people would have done. Instead, he decided to take it out on the person or he or somebody in the administration decided they would take it out on the person who had brought this truth to light. Within a week -- in fact, actually within a couple days -- I talk about a private meet organize conversation that Novak had with a stranger on the streets of Washington -- within two days of my article appearing, Bob Novak was wandering the streets of Washington telling absolute strangers that my wife -- what her name was and what her employment was.
AMY GOODMAN: Wait, this is before he wrote the column?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: This is not only before he wrote the column, it's before he had the confirmation that gave him what he thought he needed to write the column.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what was he doing? Can you specifically say?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Sure. He was walking down the street and a stranger came up to him and said, "You're Bob Novak, and can I chat with you?" That happens to public figures all the time. I'm sure it happens to you. Novak said, sure. They started talking. During the course of the conversation, this fellow said to Novak, "What about Wilson?" And Novak said, "Wilson is an asshole and his wife is a CIA operative -- his wife, Valerie Plame is a CIA operative."
AMY GOODMAN: This is what Robert Novak told your friend?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Right. And it just so happened that that stranger to Bob Novak was a friend of mine and he came to see me afterwards and related the story to me. I find that, quite apart from what I think of the article, the fact that he would be recklessly wandering the streets talking to strangers, giving that information that come up to him on the street extraordinarily reckless and unethical.
AMY GOODMAN: What did you do about it?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I called him and he apologized and he wrote the story despite the CIA told him, of course, no.
AMY GOODMAN: Didn't Robert Novak know who you were, know your whole history?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well, he might claim that he didn't, but, of course, in an article that appeared in an Evans & Novak article in 1990, there were three paragraphs devoted to me which started out by saying he's like the village shepherd, shepherding his flock taking care of the villagers trying to evacuate. He commented this is the stuff of heroism. I read that article to him, by the way, before he wrote his article.
AMY GOODMAN: On the telephone.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: On the telephone, yeah. I said, "Look, before you write the article, you might refresh your memory about me, these are things that you ought to know." I sent him over the articles that I had written on the subject, and gave him a little bit of my background and read the excerpt from the Evans & Novak article in 1990.
AMY GOODMAN: What did he say?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well, he actually put some of that in his article. The article itself was not as much of a hatchet job as you usually get from Novak. The only thing that was remarkable about the article, frankly, was the dumping in the middle this, this reference to my wife. If you go back and read it that's going, it adds nothing to the substance of the story that he's trying to promote. You ask yourself, why did he put it in. My other question to Novak is when he called the CIA and the CIA said no, what part of n-o didn't he understand?
AMY GOODMAN: So, where did he get it?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: He got it from two senior administration officials, he claims. His story has changed three or four times since he first wrote the article. It was later reported, of course, in The Washington Post that two senior administration officials called six journalists pushing my wife's name and her employment on them. After Novak's article appeared, it's very clear that the White House political officer and Karl Rove himself, as well as the communications office, tried to distract people's attention from the story, the 16 words in the State of the Union Address, the lie in the President's mouth, and tried to turn people's attention to Wilson and his wife, when it was never about Wilson's wife, and it was only marginally about Wilson, because I had managed to challenge the government. It was all about who put the 16 words in the State of the Union Address, and why was the President of the United States engaged in a campaign to actively deceive the Congress of the United States and the American people.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Ambassador Joseph Wilson. His wife, Valerie Plame, exposed as an undercover CIA operative. Robert Novak said this was leaked to him by a top Bush administration official. You got a call from Chris Matthews?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Right, sure. A week after the article appeared. Before I had responded. I was not going to respond to Novak's article publicly. I was not going to comment and did not comment on my wife's employment other than to say, hypothetically, if she was what Novak asserts, he might be in violation of the law and refer all questions to the CIA, which was appropriate. I was laying low. But the Communications Office was calling around all of these journalists and over the course of the weekend, I was getting calls every day from people saying, first all was the White House is telling us so many off-the-wall things. We cannot go with them, but we'd like you to come on so we can ask you questions. I didn't rise for that bait. Andrea Mitchell called me and said -- and said the White House is saying that the real story here is Wilson and his wife. Finally, Chris Matthews called me and said, I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says, and I quote, "Wilson's wife is fair game."
AMY GOODMAN: Wilson's wife is fair game.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Fair game. Now, my wife is a career civil servant. She's apolitical. She exercises her democratic rights like every other citizen, but she does not participate in partisan politics or the partisan political activities. She's not in the public arena or the public square. How Mr. Rove could conclude that she is fair game is frankly, beyond me. But what I will say is that this sort of attitude just has to stop. We don't accept it in our towns and villages. We should not accept it in our political campaigns, because it is exactly the same thing they did to John McCain and John McCain's wife in South Carolina. I go through that story and I talked to John McCain the other day. He thanked me for bringing that story out of what happened in South Carolina. This has got to stop. It is frankly un-American to decide that the way to get at somebody -- you have a dispute on ideas, or in this case on veracity, and you decide that instead of debating it, the truth, in this case, the truth or lie issue, you are going to drag my wife out in the public square and administer a beating to distract people's attention from your lies.
AMY GOODMAN: Very briefly, what happened to John McCain when he was running against Bush for president?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well, in South Carolina after the Bush machine was defeated in New Hampshire, they attacked to the right and they ran what they call a push-pull campaign in South Carolina where they accuse McCain's wife, John McCain's wife, Cindy, of being a drug addict and criminal. She had an addiction. She had been addicted to pain pills when she had severe back problems, and that had changed her behavior. But it was a real illness problem. This is not -- this is not doing this for laughs. Then, of course, they went after-- John McCain has an adopted child who is southeast Asian, so, there was the whole race card played there. John McCain is the father of an un-white child.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Ambassador Joseph Wilson. We'll be back in him in just a minute.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. We're talking to Ambassador Joseph Wilson. He's just come out with his memoir. It's called "the politics of truth. Inside the lies that led to war and betrayed my wife's CIA Identity." We have just been talking about the chronology of the exposure. They said your wife was a CIA Operative working in weapons of mass destruction. What does that mean?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well, what it means is that -- not to go into too much detail, but what it means is that operation is set up to protect the United States from weapons of mass destruction landing in our country, and doing harm to our citizens. Whether those weapons are chemical, biological or, of course, nuclear.
AMY GOODMAN: I always wondered, since the Bush administration did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if in a sense they were killing two birds with one stone. One, they were going after you, punishing you for writing your op-ed piece, and two, because perhaps your wife understood that there weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if she did, that was an assumption on my part, that they were taking her out as well?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I don't think so. I think that they were just simply very clumsy and brutal and ruthless. The Communications Office at the White House has demonstrated time and time again that that's their style. Given the choice between a meat cleaver and an ice pick, they will pick up the meat cleaver every time. As a consequence, they get a lot of blood all over them themselves when they do this, and deservedly so, I might add.
AMY GOODMAN: Who do you think exposed your wife?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: My understanding from people I talked to, although I don't have direct knowledge, I think it's important for people to understand. The stories are around in Washington and what it's like to be in the information exchange there. My understanding is there was a meeting in the offices of the Vice President, chaired most likely by the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Mr. Libby, at which time they decided -- a decision was made to do a work-up on me. A work-up means run an intelligence operation against a private US citizen to find out everything you can about him, his family, his habits, all of that sort of stuff. And during the course of that work-up, that intelligence operation run against me, they turned up Valerie's name and her employment. Hence, they were poised to use it as soon as my opinion piece appeared in July. That explains how that information got out to six journalists by two senior White House officials, literally within days.
AMY GOODMAN: So, who exactly are you pointing the finger--?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think Scooter Libby is involved up to his eyeballs in this. Everybody who was at that meeting would have been part of the conspiracy to run the intelligence operation against me and ultimately to make the decision to leak. I don't know who made the phone calls, but beyond the people who actually picked up the phone are the people who made the decision to have them make that phone call. What I will say about them, whoever they are, they fall into the category of what the former President Bush called the most insidious of traitors. Whether or not they can be prosecuted and convicted is frankly, immaterial. What is irrefutable in all of this is that they betrayed the national security of the country. They are, the minute that the investigation was opened, the most insidious of traitors.
AMY GOODMAN: How did they hurt your wife? What does it mean to have your cover blown at the CIA?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: When have you lived your life as an actor in a play that never ends, to have it come to an end, it disrupts, obviously, professionally all of your networks, all of your assets, any operations you might have been running. It puts you at risk going overseas. She hasn't traveled overseas since. We don't know the extent to which she will be surveiled. It puts you -
AMY GOODMAN: She was working undercover of what, an energy company?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Yeah. That was the energy analyst. In the context of her friends, friends all wonder what part of the relationship was true and which part of it was a lie. Fortunately, all of her friends have been very, very supportive. We have talked about this more in terms of the crime being against the national security of the country. It is really how does the United States suffer as a consequence of having a national security asset involved in protecting this country against weapons of mass destruction, taken off the table because somebody decided that his political agenda was more important.
AMY GOODMAN: What's the law broken when you expose--?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Think there's a number of statutes that are broken. The one most frequently sited is the Intelligence Identity's Identification Act. That law was passed in 1982 after Phillip Agey, a rogue CIA Operative began publishing the names of undercover CIA officers and two were assassinated, one in Athens, Greece, and one in Beirut.
AMY GOODMAN: He claims he is not responsible for that.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I understand that. The names were out there. He may not have been responsible for it. The law was passed, I think as a consequence of his activity, whether he was responsible for it or not, but the fact is that two CIA operatives whose names were exposed were assassinated, one in Athens, Greece, and one in Beirut.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what does this investigation mean right now? What kind of information is being given over? I mean, we hear words like independent investigator. We look at the 9/11 commission, so called independent, and you have them handing -- having their notes confiscated when they hear Cheney and Bush give their testimony. Afterwards their notes are confiscated. What does independent mean? Who is doing this investigation?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: What they have done in this case is the Attorney General has recused himself because of possible conflict of interest. He has turned over to a special counsel.
AMY GOODMAN: Conflict of interest with?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Well, because he has other relationships. I must say in that world, you have different relationships at different stages of your life and it's appropriate. The recusal process is designed to protect the public's interest when there is a potential conflict of interest. That doesn't necessarily mean that one party is guilty of nefarious behavior or not, it's a good way to put up a wall.
AMY GOODMAN: In this case, he paid Karl Rove--
AMBASSADOR WILSON: He did not say when he recused himself why, what part of the relationship might have been a potential conflict. It's been handed over to the US Attorney in Illinois, Pat Fitzgerald, a very serious guy and is committed to getting the bottom of this, of that I am certain. He is ably assisted by an FBI investigative team, and this they, too, are absolutely committed to getting to the bottom tomorrow of this, and of that, I am certain. The fact that after six or seven months of this, or really the investigation was open in the end of September, in nine or ten months, the fact that they have not been able to get to the bottom of this, is a clear indication that the White House is stonewalling. Senior White House officials have not heeded the President's call to cooperate fully. They are insubordinate or they have assessed that the President was not serious in asking them to cooperate. I think my judgment is that if the President were to call Karl Rove in, ask him two questions, did you do it? If not, who did? And march everybody up there to the special counsel's office and tell them to tell the truth, we would solve this in a matter of days.
AMY GOODMAN: It's interesting, I was listening to Karen Hughes, close advisor to President Bush, explaining why Bush shouldn't have to hand over a lot of documents to the 9/11 commission. She said, because there's very sensitive information in some of these, that might, for example, expose the identity of a CIA operative.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Oh, the great irony of that. Karen, of course, is part of this White House Iraq group, which is another little group that grew up during the run-up to the war to shape the message of the -- of the government to support the prosecution of the war. Also in that group were Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, among others.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Scooter Libby and the Vice President going to the CIA repeatedly, as something that one our other guests, Ray McGovern, former long-time CIA analyst said is unprecedented, going to the CIA to investigate or to put pressure, not clear.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I have heard all of those stories. I don't -- not being part of the CIA and part of the intelligence apparatus, and part of the analytical branch, you don't have particular knowledge of what they may or may not have done, other than what I have heard third-hand. The stories are they made repeated trips out there. And the other stories that are coming out with respect to the Defense Intelligence Agency was that these guys would really browbeat the analysts. It may not have been Cheney and Libby, but it was people who had communications channels back to them, who were sitting there and asking these guys the same questions 30 times until they got the answer they wanted. So, it's very clear that at least in the minds of some of the analysts there was a deliberate attempt on the part of administration to get them change their analytical conclusions to conform with the political decision that had already been taken. Now, in the case of Niger yellow cake, that's very clear that's what happened. They essentially rejected the three reports that were in the files. And they used these documents that turned out to be a forgery.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the acting ambassador in Iraq leading up to the Gulf War more than a decade ago. Can you describe your last meeting with Saddam Hussein?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Sure. I met with him about four days after the invasion of Kuwait. He was supremely self-confident then. I characterized him in an article that I wrote as a lion at the watering hole. Every time he would look up, his staff that would sit along the wall would stiffen, as antelopes would do when the lion would look at them. He was clearly in command, and true to his ruthless form, was able to intimidate others just by a glance. I had not slept in four days. I was pretty pissed off because we had a number of Americans that had already been taken hostage and others, 2,000 Americans who were driven underground in Kuwait. The meeting was -- took over about an hour to do. It started out with his giving me his rationale for invading Kuwait, and then he offered what he called "the deal". He said, if you do not resist my occupation of Kuwait, do not try to drive me out of Kuwait, I can guarantee you a steady supply of oil at a good price and I will serve as essentially as your interests here in the gulf. If, on the other hand, you decide to drive me out of Kuwait, you will not be able to Saddam Hussein the losses of 10,000 of your soldiers in the Asian desert. You have neither the political will nor the intestinal fortitude to accept those losses. In response, my response was get out of Kuwait. You're in violation of the UN. Charter, the OAU Charter and the Arab League Charter. Two, quit looting American properties, and quit threatening our embassy down in Kuwait, our diplomats in Kuwait. Three, you need to let all foreigners, particularly all Americans, leave the region. You're in violation of the various conventions regarding getting civilians out of harm's way. Those are the points that I made. I left it to the President to decide what the military response was going to be.
AMY GOODMAN: Weren't you given a different message than April Glassby, the ambassador before you, on the issue of whether the US cared about him invading Kuwait?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: It was a much different scenario, and I write in the book that I think April Glassby has been much maligned. In fact, she went into the meeting and she repeated to Saddam Hussein exactly what US, and indeed international policy, towards Arab, Arab ordered states, has been from time in memorial, which is while we don't take a position on the merits of either side of the case, we are -- we urge both sides to seek international arbitration. As I point out in the book, I had lunch with a participate in that meeting, an Iraqi participant in the meeting a year ago in April. About four months before he died. He had been the UN ambassador in New York and had been also their ambassador in Washington, D.C. He was at that meeting. He said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light. April Glassby gave him the message that he expected to hear. On the other hand, what he said, they were surprised by the tone of the letter they received a couple of days afterwards, which was signed by Bush, President Bush, which was drafted in the State of the Union Address. I put that in there not as a criticism of any of the parties in this, but I think it's important to understand that at times of great stress, what to -- what two foreign governments react to and what do they think. Hopefully this will help a future generation of diplomats and policymakers craft their messages a little bit more clearly to make sure their intent is not misunderstood.
AMY GOODMAN: That tone being -
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Conciliatory.
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush, Sr.'s tone being conciliatory.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Holding out the promise of better relations for better behavior.
AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of your relationship with President Bush, Sr., what did he -- how did you deal with him? What did the Bush administration say you to at the time when you're talked about -- I'm not -- not by the Bush administration officials today, but by reporters. It is rarely raised your relationship with Bush, Sr.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: That was well over a decade ago. But President Bush was always very supportive, and I think I point out in the book that we at the embassy were extraordinarily proactive in our approach. We understood early on that if we did not want to be managed from Washington, we were going to have to manage Washington. And so we tried to do that, and so, in my mission when we did this, we had a great input into the deliberations in Washington. We were actually offering up things in fact, there's one story where one of the first NSC meetings, National Security Council meetings, the President was brainstorming with the senior staff and came up with an idea and somebody point the out to him that Joe Wilson had already done that two days ago. That gave me enormous credibility. And afterwards, I'm told, that in subsequent meetings when people were come up with ideas, the President would ask what does Joe Wilson think about that. There was a level of credibility. He received a number of messages from him commending my staff and myself for the positions we were taking, and our courage. The day after I got back from Baghdad, I was received in the Oval Office by the President, and the war cabinet and my general service officer and I were both received, he introduced the two of us as true American heroes.
AMY GOODMAN: You're an adviser now to John Kerry?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: What I do, is I have a senior advisory title to the campaign. I sit as a senior adviser on the Foreign Policy Advisory Committee. We advise the foreign policy people hired by the campaign. We try to bring this policy stuff and distill it down for the campaign.
AMY GOODMAN: We only have a minute. Many people are surprised that John Kerry has not taken a stronger stand on Iraq and that he's called for more troops to be sent in. Your thoughts on that?
AMBASSADOR WILSON: I think that is probably as much a reaction to the way the Bush people have tried to malign John McCain.
AMY GOODMAN: John Kerry.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: John Kerry, rather. If you go back and look at the speech he gave first at Georgetown and a subsequent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. He outlines clearly what he thinks needs to be done. If you look at what the Bush administration is, they're backing into his position about as quickly as possible. Now, with respect to more troops out there, I think one of the things that's important to understand and all you need to do is compare and contrast the way we did Bosnia with how we're doing Iraq, force protection. We do not have enough people out interest to protect ourselves.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Your memoir, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity. " Thanks for joining us.
AMBASSADOR WILSON: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: That does it for today's program.
----
Bush Continues to Push His Credentials for War on Terror
May 14, 2004
New York Times
By MARIA NEWMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/politics/campaign/14CND-CAMP.html?hp
Conceding that he is an a "tough race" to win re-election, President Bush told a group of supporters in Missouri today that he deserves to be given another term because "we have a war to win."
At a time when polls show that public support for the war in Iraq is waning, Mr. Bush said he would not back down from his decision to send troops there in an attempt to transform it into a democratic nation.
"People say, `can you win the war on terror?' Of course we can," Mr. Bush said. "We can win the war on terror by being strong and never yielding to an enemy."
Mr. Bush also talked of compassion in his speech to a Republican National Committee crowd in Bridgeton, Mo. It was a theme he emphasized at a dinner Thursday night with the American Conservative Union in Washington, and one he planned to return to later today in Wisconsin.
"It is very important for people to understand that government can hand out money, but it can't cause people to love one another," Mr. Bush said. "And yet, many of the problems of society require love and compassion."
In response, the campaign of Mr. Bush's probable Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, arranged for Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri to counter Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservative" theme.
"It isn't compassionate to eliminate after-school programs for children, or cut housing assistance for 250,000 families," Mr. Gephardt, 63, who ended his own presidential bid after finishing fourth in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, said in a conference call to reporters, according to The Associated Press.
Several polls show Mr. Bush's job approval rating falling in the last week; support for the war is also falling, following continued violence there and the scandal caused by the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers. . A poll this week by the Pew Center for the People and the Press showed that Mr. Bush's approval rating fell to 44 percent, from 48 percent in April. The poll also showed Mr. Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator, leading Mr. Bush by 50 percent to 45 percent.
Mr. Bush said today that he deserved to be re-elected because he was better on defense than his likely opponent, and also because he had a better plan on the economy.
"When the campaign is all said and done, people will realize we've got a plan to make the country safer and stronger and better," he said.
He said that he had submitted a budget to Congress that forecasts cutting the deficit in half in five years.
He said that Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, had proposed $1.9 trillion in spending that Mr. Bush said would require raising taxes on "working Americans."
"He says he's going to pay for it by taxing the rich," Mr. Bush said. "You can't raise even close to $1.9 trillion by taxing the rich."
"He's going to fill the tax gap by taxing the working people of this country," he said.
Mr. Kerry has talked about a tax on the wealthy, but he also has emphasized cutting the deficit. Under Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry has pointed out, the deficit has ballooned and threatens to become a "fiscal cancer that will erode any recovery and threaten the prospect of lasting prosperity in our nation."
Mr. Bush won Missouri in the 2000 election, and his opponent, former Vice President Al Gore, took Wisconsin, but neither state was decided by a large margin. Missouri and Wisconsin are among 17 states that were decided by less than 7 percentage points in that election.
Today, Mr. Kerry also announced that he had won the endorsement of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, an organization that in the last election backed Mr. Bush. It is the only major national police organization, the Kerry campaign said, that has backed the winner of the last three Presidential elections.
"After three and a half years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a president with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement," the organization's president, David Holway, said in Washington.
Mr. Kerry said that Mr. Bush has cut funding for programs that put police officers on the street and has threatened the overtime pay of thousands of police officers.
"I'm committed to what we need to do to make America safer," Mr. Kerry said. "And this is not the moment to have firehouses, two-thirds of which are under-staffed; not the moment to have police departments, where they're losing officers because the federal government is cutting half a billion dollars - about one-eighth of what we spend in Iraq every month is being cut per year.
"And yet, the one thing this administration fights for is a great big whopping tax cut for the people who earn more than $200,000 a year - over a trillion dollars - at the expense of our police officers."
--------
THE INTERNET
New Technology Loosens Controls Over Images of War
May 14, 2004
By AMY HARMON
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/technology/14TECH.html
In an era when pictures and video can be captured and distributed across the world with a few clicks, the traditional establishment - the military, the government, the mainstream media - appears to be losing control of the images of war.
Digital technology, Internet experts and military historians said, is forcing a major shift in the expectation of what can be kept private, and it may ultimately hold everyone more accountable for their actions.
This week, millions of people logged on to the Internet to watch the gruesome video of the decapitation of Nicholas Berg, an American in Iraq, by Islamic terrorists. And some of the hundreds of pictures of American soldiers in Baghdad abusing Iraqi prisoners appear to have been snapped informally by the soldiers, burned to CD's and e-mailed home. Had they not eventually surfaced in the mainstream media, they would almost certainly have made their way onto the Internet, analysts said.
"This is, as far as I know, the first instance where digitally generated images made by an amateur photographer have erupted onto the scene of current events and had an impact," said A. D. Coleman, a New York photography critic and historian. "But it won't be the last."
In some ways, the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison are part of a long amateur tradition among military personnel. During World War II, German soldiers photographed the concentration camps, and it was common during the Vietnam War for soldiers to carry cameras. But most of those pictures were circulated only privately, Mr. Coleman noted, or are still moldering in shoe boxes.
The searing images of previous wars - like the photograph of a naked Vietnamese girl running from the flames of a napalm-bomb attack - were filtered by governments or news organizations, the only entities that could reach large audiences. But digital technology allows individuals an equivalent power.
A Defense Department spokesman said e-mail from the troops in Iraq was usually not monitored because it would be too cumbersome. Military regulations state only that "operationally sensitive" information cannot be sent over the Internet.
Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future, said technology had turned some of the dire predictions of total government surveillance on their head. "Little Brother has a cellphone camera and he is watching back," Mr. Saffo said. "Like it or not, the military has just turned extremely transparent."
Last month, a Web site dedicated to combating government secrecy published hundreds pictures of military coffins arriving from Iraq at Dover Air Force Base, images that it had obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The pictures, previously suppressed by the Department of Defense, were immediately downloaded and published by mainstream news organizations.
A week earlier, Tami Silicio, who worked for a Pentagon contractor, used her digital Nikon Coolpix camera to photograph coffins being loaded onto a transport plane in Kuwait. She e-mailed the shot to a friend in the United States, who sent it to The Seattle Times, which published it. Ms. Silicio was then fired from her job; her superiors said she had violated Department of Defense and company policies.
"This is a behind-the-walls world," said Jay Rosen, chairman of the journalism department at New York University. "But because of the democratization of the tools, those walls don't really exist."
But one major problem with digital pictures, Mr. Rosen cautioned, is the ease with which they can be doctored.
The availability of the images seems to be setting off a political debate that may not otherwise have taken place. On Yafro.com, a social networking site where anyone can post digital photographs, a discussion is raging over an image posted by "Fun11B," who says he is a soldier in Iraq, of Iraqi prisoners sitting in a gymnasium with bags over their heads. "Just some prisoners that we got one night," the caption reads.
Jason Schaefer of Boulder, Colo., wrote: "You make me want to vomit. And you make me ashamed of my own country."
In response, Fun11B wrote, "You are truly brainwashed by the recent incidents that you have seen on the news to believing that all we do over here is torture and kill innocent Iraqi civilians," and explained that the blindfolds were a temporary security measure until the prisoners could be transported.
The outpouring of war images may be less politically motivated than a natural outgrowth of the new documentary culture that has millions of people snapping photographs of their lives.
At Fotolog.net, an online repository of digital images, people from around the world upload 70,000 images daily.
Consumption Junction, one of the sites showing the video of Mr. Berg's execution, has archived nearly 7,000 amateur videos over the last five years. About half a million people had downloaded the video in the first 24 hours after it was posted Tuesday.
"People just capture whatever goes on in front of their eyes, and then it's on the Internet two minutes later and it has a worldwide audience," said Marc Brown, co-founder of Buzznet, another online archive for amateur photographers. "That's the whole ethos of this technology."
-------- us politics
Analysis Bad Signs For Bush
In History, Numbers Approval Rating Is Lowest of His Term
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25367-2004May13.html
Six months before the November election, President Bush has slipped into a politically fragile position that has put his reelection at risk, with the public clearly disaffected by his handling of the two biggest issues facing the country: Iraq and the economy.
Bush continues to run a close race against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in national polls, and his reelection committee has spent prodigiously to put Kerry on the defensive in the opening phase of the campaign, with some success. But other indicators -- presidential approval being the most significant -- suggest Bush is weaker now than at any point in his presidency.
Bush's approval rating in the Gallup poll fell to 46 percent this week -- the lowest in his presidency by that organization's measures. Fifty-one percent said they disapprove -- the first time in his presidency that a bare majority registered disapproval of the way Bush is doing his job. A Pew Research Center survey released Wednesday pegged Bush's approval at 44 percent, with 48 percent disapproving.
In contrast, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who were reelected easily, had approval ratings in the mid-50s at this point in their reelection campaigns and remained at or above those levels into November. But Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter had fallen to about 40 percent in their approval ratings at this point in their races and, after continuing to fall even further, lost their reelection bids.
Given the volatility of events, the amount of time before Election Day and hurdles Kerry must overcome, Bush has plenty of time to recover. His advisers said that they recognize the weakness in the president's current standing but that he is far more resilient politically than his detractors suggest. They also argue that in this climate, perceptions of Kerry will be just as important as perceptions of the incumbent, and they have poured tens of millions of dollars into television ads attacking Kerry as a politician lacking clear convictions.
Frank Newport of the Gallup Organization pointed out that, in Gallup's surveys, no president since World War II has won reelection after falling below 50 percent approval at this point in an election year. "Looking at it in context, Bush is following the trajectory of the three incumbents who ended up losing rather than the trajectory of the five incumbents who won," he said.
But Newport was quick to add that history may be an uncertain guide, given the volatility of events in Iraq. "There is the potential for this to be a disruptive year that doesn't follow historical patterns," he said.
This president's problems are linked directly to deteriorating perceptions of how he is dealing with Iraq and the economy. A solid majority of Americans now disapprove of his handling of both. As a result, his overall approval rating has declined. But Bush's advisers said his standing in October, not May, is what counts.
Matthew Dowd, senior adviser for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said Bush occupies a unique position compared with former presidents. In past campaigns, Bush's predecessors have either been above 53 percent in approval by the time of the election and been reelected, or have been below 46 percent and been defeated.
"We're in that place where no presidential reelection campaign has ever been," he said. "People say this is a referendum on the president. It's both a referendum on the president but also a referendum on the alternative."
At this point in the race, strategists in both parties said, a president's approval rating may be a clearer and more reliable measure of where the contest stands than head-to-head matchups with the other party's candidate. They say the public first makes a judgment about the incumbent and then looks more seriously at the challenger.
Douglas Sosnik, White House political director during Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign, told the Democratic Leadership Council meeting in Phoenix last week that an incumbent's eventual vote is linked more directly to his approval rating than to any other measure and thus serves as a leading indicator early in the race. Dowd, too, has said repeatedly that the president's eventual vote percentage will track closely with his approval rating.
Sosnik argued that the danger for Bush is that negative perceptions of his performance could harden over the next 90 days, and that even improvements on the ground in Iraq or in the economy will not save him by that point in the campaign.
But Sosnik said yesterday that the extraordinary uncertainty that surrounds the campaign could render historical patterns moot. "Perhaps we are in a new era in politics where the lessons of history no longer apply," he said in an e-mail message. "Based on President Bush's current job approval rating, he had better hope so."
Bush ended 2003 on a sharp spike of support after the capture of Saddam Hussein and hit 64 percent approval in mid-December. But that brief period of rallying behind the president lasted for only a month, and by mid-January his approval rating had fallen to 53 percent in the Gallup poll. He remained in the low-50s throughout the first months of the year, but in the past month, as the violence in Iraq increased and then the scandal over prisoner abuse hit with full force, his standing fell again.
A senior Bush adviser, who asked not to be identified in order to speak openly about the campaign, said: "This is a response to current affairs. When there are difficulties in the world, an incumbent by definition has a short-term hit on his numbers." But he predicted that the closeness of the race only raises the stakes on Kerry to make himself acceptable to voters.
Kerry advisers dispute the GOP view that Bush's approval numbers can easily rebound, arguing that, in a divided nation, he will struggle to get above 50 percent. "I think what you see is a 50 percent president, with that 50 percent being punctured by events," Kerry pollster Mark Mellman said.
He noted that Bush saw his approval ratings soar after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and again when the United States went to war against Iraq. But over time, he said, those numbers receded. "It's very hard to see where the natural line is here because it's almost always sloped as a result of some event," he said. "But I don't think there's anything to suggest there's a natural place for this president to be anything more than 50 percent."
Sour attitudes about the country's direction also are hurting the president, and analysts such as Sosnik said that measure, too, is a leading indicator of the political mood. But Republican pollster Bill McInturff said presidents can win reelection even if a majority of voters say the country is heading in the wrong direction, as they do now. He said he believes the public's mood will brighten if Iraq ceases to dominate the news as it has for the past month.
"Obviously as a campaign we would prefer to be above 50 [percent] than below 50, but you play the cards you're dealt," Dowd said. "Nothing Senator Kerry is doing is affecting our numbers. It's events in the world and how people view the situation in the world or the situation in Iraq."
--------
Senate Panel Approves Continuity Measure
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25193-2004May13.html
A Senate panel approved a constitutional amendment yesterday that supporters say would ensure Congress could function in the aftermath of a devastating terrorist attack or other disaster.
The amendment would give Congress new powers to ensure the prompt replacement of lawmakers who are killed or incapacitated in such a strike. The Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, headed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who sponsored legislation, passed it on a voice vote.
But one absent member, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), sent colleagues a letter saying it was "unwise to go forward" without consulting the House, and without first considering remedies that do not require changing the Constitution.
Constitutional amendments require two-thirds majority approval in the House and Senate and the ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Cornyn's measure would open the door for temporary appointees to fill in for gravely injured senators. The Constitution permits governors to appoint temporary replacements for senators only in the event of death.
More controversially, the proposed constitutional amendment would allow Congress to pass a law permitting the appointment of temporary replacements for killed or injured House members. That idea is deeply unpopular with House GOP leaders, who believe the constitutional requirement that all House members be elected makes the chamber uniquely reflective of the people's will.
Cornyn acknowledged the opposition in the House but said the continuing threat of a terrorist attack meant that the Senate should press the issue.
"We ought not make the perfect be the enemy of the good," said Cornyn, who added that he was optimistic his proposal would win full committee approval and reach the Senate floor this year. "It's important that we do something and move forward."
On April 22, the House passed a measure that would require states to hold special elections within 45 days if at least 100 members are killed in an attack. Separately, the House Rules Committee is exploring whether changes in House rules could help mitigate the possibility of incapacitated members.
The House Judiciary Committee also last week sent to the full House a proposed constitutional amendment by Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) that would allow governors to appoint temporary replacements to the House. But the panel recommended that lawmakers defeat it.
Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, said Cornyn's amendment was unlikely to make it that far. Lungren noted that three times during the Cold War the Senate approved amendments allowing for the appointment of House members. The House, led one of those times by Republicans and the other two times by Democrats, rejected all of the measures, he said.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said at the subcommittee meeting yesterday he agreed that requiring all House members be elected makes that chamber "very special." Although he rarely believes constitutional amendments are necessary, the threat of a Congress that cannot function warrants such a step, he said.
"The Constitution of this country was not a rough draft. We should not treat it as such," Feingold said. ". . . . This is a rare situation where a constitutional amendment is justified."
-------- OTHER
-------- poverty
Terror distracts from the poor and the environment, says World Bank
Reuters
By Alister Doyle,
Friday, May 14, 2004
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-05-14/s_23893.asp
OSLO, Norway - Terrorism and the war in Iraq have distracted rich nations from long-term goals of curbing poverty and protecting the environment, World Bank President James Wolfensohn said Thursday.
"Most donors are distracted significantly," Wolfensohn said during a visit to Oslo, saying they were "looking at the immediate problems and taking their eyes off the long-term problems. You have a preoccupation with crisis at the moment, and in a way, development and environment have been pushed to the back burner," he said, adding that nations were focusing most on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.
Wolfensohn said rich countries needed to do more to free trade and to raise aid to reach U.N. 2015 goals ranging from eliminating hunger to improving education in the Third World.
"We're not making progress on trade, and we're not seeing huge aid flows," he told a joint news conference with Norwegian Development Minister Hilde Frafjord Johnson. He said developing nations had to act to make democratic reforms and stamp out corruption. "It's not just a question of bitching about the rich countries," he said.
Many scientists say environmental threats including climate change - bringing more floods, storms, deserts, and raising sea levels - is the main long-term threat to life on Earth.
Wolfensohn said rich nations were distracted by apparently diminishing concerns about the slow pace of economic growth and "concern about terrorism, which is anything but diminishing."
30,000 Silent Deaths
"It seems that the silent death of 30,000 children every day does not have the same attention as the crisis deaths of the hot spots of the world," Norway's Johnson said.
Wolfensohn said the world seemed likely to meet a main 2015 goal of halving the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day because of strong economic growth in China and India, the most populous nations.
The U.N.'s so-called millennium goals for 2015 also include primary education for all, promoting gender equality, reducing child mortality, combating AIDS and malaria, and ensuring environmental sustainability.
"The goals could be met if everybody got together," Wolfensohn said. "It's just not happening at the pace it should."
-------- ACTIVISTS
China Gives Prison Term To Dissident Based in U.S.
Five-Year Sentence Comes Despite American Urgings
By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, May 14, 2004; Page A12
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23923-2004May13.html
HONG KONG, May 13 -- China sentenced a prominent dissident and longtime U.S. resident to five years in prison on Thursday despite repeated appeals for his release by Congress, the Bush administration and human rights groups.
Yang Jianli, 40, who runs a foundation in Boston that advocates democratic reform in China, received the sentence immediately after being convicted by a Beijing court of spying for Taiwan and entering China on a false passport, the official New China News Agency reported.
Yang denied the charges during a closed-door trial in August. He was detained in 2002 when he returned to China after more than a decade in exile in the United States.
Yang's case has generated strong support in the United States, where he earned doctorates in political economy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and in math at the University of California at Berkeley. Yang is a permanent resident of the United States, and his wife and two young children are citizens.
Senior Bush administration officials have pressed for Yang's release in meetings with Chinese leaders, and both the House and the Senate unanimously passed resolutions urging China to free him. Last month, on the second anniversary of Yang's detention,67 members of Congress signed a letter to President Hu Jintao calling his treatment "extraordinarily inhumane."
"I'm saddened beyond words," said his wife, Christina Fu, by telephone from Boston. "Although I realize that things could be worse, five years is still very heavy on our family and our children and also for his parents."
Jared Genser, a family attorney, said he hoped the Chinese government would react to international pressure by deporting Yang, as it has other prisoners. He urged the State Department to file a strong protest in Beijing and asked members of Congress to contact the Chinese ambassador in Washington. "These next couple of days are critical," Genser said.
Yang fled to the United States after taking part in the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and was exiled. But in April 2002, he used a friend's passport to return to China and observe large-scale labor protests in the northeastern part of the country.
Police arrested him and charged him with entering China illegally, a crime that carries a maximum one-year prison term. Prosecutors later accused him of spying for Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing claims is part of China.
Yang is the latest in a series of Chinese living overseas who have been arrested upon returning to the mainland and then convicted of spying for Taiwan with little or no evidence presented in public. His attorneys said China violated its own laws by holding him without trial for 14 months and waiting more than nine months after the trial to issue a verdict.
When Yang protested his detention last month by refusing orders to fold his blanket, wear a uniform or answer when addressed by his prisoner number, he was placed in solitary confinement with his wrists handcuffed behind his back until they bled, Genser said.
A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Liu Jianchao, defended the government's handling of the case, saying Yang was allowed to present a full defense in court. "The Chinese judicial departments have been trying this case and made a sentence in accordance with the law," Liu said.
----
Ashcroft Fishes Out 1872 Law in a Bid to Scuttle Protester Rights
Sailor-mongering act rises from history as the feds try to cripple Greenpeace
By Bill McKibben
May 14, 2004
Los Angeles Times
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/latimes147.htm
Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, is the author of many books on the environment, including "Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age" (Times Books, 2003).
In April of 2002, a cargo ship, the Jade, was steaming toward Miami carrying a cargo of mahogany illegally cut from the Brazilian Amazon. Two Greenpeace activists tried to clamber aboard the ship and hang a banner that read "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." None of which is unusual.
The trees of the Amazon are logged day after day, year after year, despite a host of treaties and laws and despite the fact that scientists agree that an intact rain forest is essential for everything from conserving species to protecting the climate. And Greenpeace, day after day, tries to call attention to such crimes. It pesters rich, powerful interests about toxic dumping and outlaw whaling and a hundred other topics that those interests would rather not be pestered about. The Miami activists were arrested, spent a weekend in jail, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to time served. All in a day's work.
But here's where it starts getting weird: More than a year after the ship boarding, the Justice Department indicted Greenpeace itself. According to the group's attorneys, it's the first time an organization has been prosecuted for "the speech-related activities of its supporters."
How far did the government have to stretch to make its case? The law it cited against boarding ships about to enter ports was passed in 1872 and aimed at the proprietors of boardinghouses who used liquor and prostitutes to lure crews to their establishments. The last prosecution under the "sailor-mongering" act took place in 1890. The new case could be like something straight out of "Master and Commander."
The matter goes to trial next week in a federal district court in Miami, and if Greenpeace loses, the organization could be fined $20,000 and placed on probation. The money's no big deal; outraged supporters would probably turn such a verdict into a fundraising bonanza. But the probation would be. The group might well be prevented from engaging in any acts of civil disobedience for years to come. If it crossed the line, the group's officers might be jailed and its assets seized. Since civil disobedience is what Greenpeace does best, the Justice Department might in effect be shutting the group down.
That would be too bad, and not just for Greenpeace. The potential precedent here - that the government can choke off protest by shutting down those who organize it - undermines one of the most important safety valves of our political life.
During the civil rights era, Southern sheriffs used every law they could think of to jail protesters - loitering was a favorite charge. Imagine some group being put on probation because it had helped organize sit-ins. But even J. Edgar Hoover didn't try to criminalize the NAACP. As the veteran civil rights campaigner Julian Bond said recently, "If John Ashcroft had done this in the 1960s, black Americans would not be voting today, eating at formerly all-white lunch counters, or sitting on bus front seats."
As is the norm, this attack on political liberties is excused by the need for "port safety" in the wake of 9/11. But I've watched Greenpeace for years, and its members are the furthest thing from terrorists; according to the group, "no Greenpeace activist has ever harmed another individual," despite a record of direct action dating to its founding. in 1971.
If port safety truly were the issue, the federal government would have made far more progress toward inspecting cargo arriving by sea. Confidence in the vigor of governmental scrutiny was not enhanced when it managed not to find the Jade's illegal mahogany and let it sail on from Miami. Two days later it unloaded 70 tons of the wood in Charleston, S.C.
The real threat Greenpeace represents is that its members tell the truth, and do it obnoxiously, out in public, where it can't be missed.
The Bush administration knows its environmental record is poor, and it knows that hanging banners matters. (That's why the White House printed up the "Mission Accomplished" flag for the president's May 1, 2003, aircraft carrier photo op). To spare itself embarrassment, the administration is willing to endanger core political freedoms that go back to the very founding of the republic.
How far back? Dec. 16, 1773, at least, when a crew of patriots disguised as Mohawks illegally boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and dumped overboard all the cargo of tea. As the raiders paraded away from the docks, British Adm. John Montague shouted: "Well, boys, you have had a fine pleasant evening for your Indian caper, haven't you. But mind, you have got to pay the fiddler yet."
Now 230 years later, it's Atty. Gen. Ashcroft playing the part of the British officer, and the words are just as chilling.
----
China Gives U.S.-Based Activist 5-Year Sentence on Spy Charge
May 14, 2004
By JOSEPH KAHN
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/international/asia/14chin.html
BEIJING, May 13 - A Chinese court sentenced a United States-based political activist on Thursday to five years in prison on charges of spying for Taiwan, in a case that has prompted protests by Washington.
The activist, Yang Jianli, was detained in April 2002 after he traveled to China to meet with dissidents and labor protesters, and was accused of spying.
The official New China News Agency, which announced the decision on Thursday, said the trial had been conducted in a closed court in line with national security laws.
Mr. Yang, a Chinese citizen who has permanent residency in the United States, is a veteran of the 1989 democracy protests in Beijing. He later left the country and moved to the Boston area, where he started the Foundation for China in the 21st Century, which advocates political change in China.
Banned from entering China, he visited the country using a friend's passport and traveled domestically using a false identity card, family members acknowledged. He was detained while trying to board a commercial flight.
Last year, another United States-based dissident, Wang Bingzhang, was sentenced to life in prison on charges of spying for Taiwan and plotting to bomb a Chinese Embassy abroad. Gao Zhan, a United States-based sociologist, was jailed on spying charges after she conducted academic research in China in 2001. She was later released.
The State Department and members of Congress repeatedly protested Mr. Yang's detention without trial, which his supporters say lasted far longer than the term permitted under Chinese law, as well as the conditions of his imprisonment.
Last month, on the second anniversary of his detention, members of Congress addressed a letter to the president of China, Hu Jintao, calling Mr. Yang's treatment "extraordinarily inhumane" and demanding his immediate release.
Mr. Yang's wife, Christina Fu, who led an international campaign on his behalf, could not be reached for comment on the sentence.
The five-year sentence is fairly light for an espionage charge. The charges against Mr. Yang may stem from small research grants made to a group in California he was affiliated with in the early 1990's. The grants had links to the Taiwanese government, but China did not provide evidence of any connection between them and alleged espionage work a decade later, according to lawyers involved in Mr. Yang's case.
A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry in Beijing, Liu Jianchao, rejected charges that the trial was unfair.
"The Chinese judicial departments have been trying this case and made a sentence in complete accordance with the law," Mr. Liu told
--------
U.S. takes Greenpeace to court in unusual trial
Reuters
By Michael Christie,
Friday, May 14, 2004
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-05-14/s_23887.asp
MIAMI - Greenpeace, charged with the obscure crime of "sailor mongering" that was last prosecuted 114 years ago, goes on trial Monday in the first U.S. criminal prosecution of an advocacy group for civil disobedience.
The environmental group is accused of sailor mongering because it boarded a freighter in April 2002 that was carrying illegally felled Amazon mahogany to Miami. It says the prosecution is revenge for its criticism of the environmental policies of President Bush, whom it calls the "Toxic Texan."
Sailor mongering was rife in the 19th century when brothels sent prostitutes laden with booze onto ships as they made their way to harbor. The idea was to get the sailors so drunk they could be whisked to shore and held in bondage, and a law was passed against it in 1872. It has only been used in a court of law twice, the last time in 1890.
Greenpeace says the decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office to prosecute the organization rather than just the activists who boarded the APL Jade freighter is a sea change in policy, and a conviction would throttle free speech everywhere.
It would also be a sharp blow against Brazilian efforts to halt the trade in a hardwood so precious it is known as "green gold." It yields fatter profit margins than cocaine and is blamed for the destruction of vast swathes of the Amazon.
"Illegal logging goes on, and they're bringing it to Miami and making loads of money, and we're going to trial," said Sara Holden of Greenpeace International.
The case is unprecedented, not just because of the bizarre nature of the crime.
Six Greenpeace activists were charged after the 2002 protest in choppy waters off Miami, pleaded guilty, and sentenced to time served: the weekend they spent in jail. But U.S. prosecutors were not satisfied and 15 months later came up with a grand jury indictment of the entire organization for sailor mongering.
Free Speech Concerns
U.S. prosecutors argue Greenpeace did something like that when two "climbers" clambered aboard the Jade to hang a sign demanding, "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging."
If convicted, Greenpeace could be placed on probation and pay a $10,000 fine.
As significant as the prosecution itself are the implications, free speech campaigners say. Not once since the Boston Tea Party have U.S. authorities criminally prosecuted a group for political expression.
"It's ominous," said attorney Maria Kayanan of law firm Podhurst Orseck, which worked with the American Civil Liberties Union on a "friend of court" brief to back a Greenpeace demand that the government reveal who ordered the prosecution.
"It will be very chilling because advocacy groups whose members chose to engage in acts of protest which happen to violate the law will be loathe to act at all."
Greenpeace hopes to focus on mahogany during the trial, which will begin Monday with jury selection in the U.S. District Court in Miami, under Judge Adalberto Jordan.
In one line of defense, its attorneys will argue that the activists were highlighting a crime and giving Washington an opportunity to live up to its commitment to protect mahogany as a signatory to global treaties listing the wood as endangered.
Greenpeace Amazon campaigner Paulo Adario said a mahogany tree could be bought in the Amazon for $30. Once turned into dining tables and chairs for sale in New York or London, that same tree could be worth as much as $120,000.
Along the way, Amazon Indians are driven from their villages, officials bribed, and activists assassinated. Country-sized chunks of rain forest fall to chainsaws as other loggers take advantage of the roads the mahogany hunters carve to get at less valuable woods that would not otherwise have been worth trying to reach.
"Mahogany is a red wood, it's red like blood, it's red like shame," Adario said by phone from the Amazon port of Manaus. "The U.S. government should help us to change at least the shameful color of mahogany, (but) they are prosecuting us."
-------
------- 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.