Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
'Nuclear' case opens in South Africa
COMARE Admits Error on Burnham Cancer Study
Iraqi scientists to wage war on pollution
Friendly Americans Killing Canadians
'Iraq is full of WMD'
Taking Care of Business-But Whose Business?
National Assembly approves nuclear controls bill
Inching towards - what?
Global nuclear safety regime needed: Admiral (r) Ramdas
U.S., EU Trio Agree Iran Nuke Resolution --Diplomats
What's next in Iranian nuclear saga?
Iran denies any nuclear activity at suspect site Parchin
U.S. Says New Images Show Iran Plans Nuclear Bomb
US debates military strikes on 'nuclear Iran'
U.S. Alarmed Over Suspected Iran Nuke Site
Japan to request clarification of WMD remark
N Korea stalls nuclear talks
Terror exposes threat to Russian nuclear sites
Counterterrorism efforts neglect threat of nuclear assault
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Air Force team to look for old hydrogen bomb off Tybee Island
Goodfellow to acquire 11 Arizona uranium properties
Maine Nuclear Power Plant to Come Down
4 Workers Fired in Los Alamos Lab Scandal
Entergys NY Indian Point 2 nuke off line
Bill allows B Reactor as museum
MILITARY
U.S. Men Guilty In Afghan Case
Mercenaries in Afghan Case Get 8 to 10 Years in Prison
Other-world purity of a people held in solitary confinement
Hong Kong Holds Off on Strict Internal Security Laws
Civilian Dead, and Bitterness: No Way to Bridge the Rage?
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
Distraught Iraqis blame US as more innocent blood is shed
Israeli Forces Kill 10 In West Bank Attacks
Sharon Doubts Gaza Exit Aids the Road Map
Putin's Plan for Governors Only Confirms His Control
In Rare Rebuke, Bush Faults Putin's Moves to Centralize Power
Powell: Russia Pulling Back on Democratic Reform
Powell Aide Gave Papers To Taiwan, FBI Says
State Dept. Official Arrested in Inquiry on Taiwan Contact
Annan: US invasion of Iraq was illegal
GIs claim threat by Army
Far graver than Vietnam
Bush Nominates Army Secretary
Colonel Urges Court-Martial For England
Reserve Chief Says Force Not Properly Prepared to Fight War on Terror
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Presiding Officer At Guantanamo Faces Questions
Judge Orders U.S. to Release Files on Abu Ghraib
Votes Set on 9/11 Recommendations
U.S. Says Saudis Repress Religion
France Detains 5 In 9/11 Inquiry
Transforming a Prison, With U.S. Image in Mind
POLITICS
Spending Bills Falling Victim to Demands for Increases
Post Source Reveals Identity to Leak Probers
Mea Culpa III - PART 3 REPLY FROM THE HEAD OF BBC TV NEWS
Magazine and reporter subpoenaed again on CIA leak
Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect
CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's
CBS Says It Will Check Questions on Bush Files
Kerry supports 'right vote, 'while decrying 'wrong war'
Kerry Accuses Bush Of Dishonesty on Iraq
ACTIVISTS
Indian Tribe Conducts First War Dance Since 1887
Greenpeace Protest at French Military Dock
Greenpeace protests US plutonium shipment to France
Few rally at second plutonium protest
US soldiers battle their consciences
Group might to sue school over access to students
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- africa
'Nuclear' case opens in South Africa
The two men will contest the charges, their lawyers say
Thursday, 16 September, 2004
(BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3664258.stm
South African prosecutors have begun outlining their case against two men accused of being part of a global nuclear weapons smuggling ring.
Gerhard Wisser, 66, and Daniel Geiges, 65, are accused of importing and exporting equipment capable of being used in uranium enrichment.
Their lawyers say the two men - both engineers - intend to plead innocent.
South Africa links last week's arrests to Libya's nuclear efforts, which Tripoli agreed to abandon last year.
The case came as South Africa agreed to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its investigation of the activities of the Pakistani scientist, AQ Khan.
Dr Khan last year confessed to leaking nuclear secrets illegally to countries including Libya, Iran and North Korea.
IAEA's head Mohamed ElBaradei said on Tuesday the South African investigation was providing good information about the Libyan and Iranian nuclear programmes.
Mr Meyer withdrew a bail application shortly before charges were dropped
Mr ElBaradei's comments came after South African prosecutors said last week equipment seized in the country exactly matched that in a video of Dr Khan's laboratory in Pakistan.
"This case must rank as one of the most serious in the world," South African prosecutor Chris MacAdam told the court in Vanderbiljpark, outside Johannesburg, according to Reuters news agency.
Mr Wisser of Germany and his Swiss colleague, Mr Geiges, have been living permanently in South Africa.
A third man - who was arrested last week on similar charges - decided to turn state witness to help the investigation, Mr MacAdam said.
He said the charges against the third men, South African engineer Johan Meyer, 53, were subsequently dropped.
-------- britain
CANCER SHOCK
COMARE Admits Error on Burnham Cancer Study
By Simon Angear Burnham and Highbridge
Weekly News - Front Page
Thursday 16 September 2004
http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/the_west_country/somerset_burnham_on_sea/news/SOMERSET_BURNHAM_ON_SEA_NEWS_NEWS5.html
A GOVERNMENT health watchdog admitted this week that it made an error in calculating cancer risks in Burnham - just weeks after a leaked report claimed the dangers of living near a nuclear power station could be ten times as much as previously thought.
Burnham campaign group Parents Concerned About Hinkley has forced radiation health body COMARE (the committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment) to alter its official stance on health risks in the town.
Two years ago, questionnaires were sent to residents in north Burnham to probe claims of abnormally high cancer mortality rates in the area. The survey questioned a third of people in the area.
However COMARE wrongly said everyone had been surveyed but only a third had bothered to reply. This would have distorted the results, and could mean that cancer levels in Burnham have been heavily underestimated.
No one from COMARE was available to speak to the Weekly News, but its chairman Bryn Bridges has written to Parents Concerned About Hinkley to confirm its website statement has been altered in line with PCAH research.
Anti-nuclear campaigners are now calling for a new, independent survey to finally get to the bottom of the Burnham "cancer cluster" theory.
Jim Duffy, coordinator of Stop Hinkley, another group formed to fight for the rights of residents living in the shadow of Hinkley Point power station, has welcomed a Government motion calling for COMARE to be disbanded and told the Weekly News he now hoped answers would be forthcoming.
He said: "Really' it was a bit irresposible of COMARE to lambast other research so much - perhaps, rather than knocking helpful research, a new national committee of scientists might confirm the danger of living long-term near Hinkley Point.
"I feel very sorry for people in Burnham - they live very near to Hinkley, downwind, and across the mudflats, where radiation is three times the Somerset average.
"In the past, we have been shown graphs and charts, but it would be nice to have a piece of research that is credible - all the risk factors will now have to be recalculated."
Just two months ago, a report by another Government group CERRIE - the committee examining risks from internal emitters - was leaked in the New Scientist magazine.
It claimed that health hazards for people living near sources of radiation had been hugely underestimated, and risks could actually be as much as ten times as great.
Mr Duffy added: "The whole thing has been an insult to the people of Burnham-on-Sea - but gradually, we are now getting to the truth."
-------- depleted uranium
Iraqi scientists to wage war on pollution
Thursday, September 16, 2004
By Matthew Green,
Reuters
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-09-16/s_27202.asp
NAIROBI, Kenya - Iraqi scientists will assess pollution ranging from oil spills to scrap metal from destroyed military vehicles in an effort to tackle environmental damage in the war-ravaged country, the United Nations said this week.
With violence gripping Iraq, environmentalists are struggling to draw attention to damage caused during last year's U.S.-led invasion, the 1991 Gulf War, and waste discharged by industry struggling with years of sanctions.
A pilot scheme starting in the next month will test samples from five of the more than 300 locations in Iraq considered to be contaminated by various pollutants, including a sulphur mine in the north and the Al-Doura refinery north of Baghdad.
"My country is faced with a wide range of pressing issues that must be addressed if the Iraqi people are to enjoy a stable, healthy, and prosperous future," Environment Minister Mishkat Moumin said in a statement released by the United Nations Environment Program's (UNEP) headquarters in Nairobi.
UNEP officials forecast it would take years and millions of dollars to clean up damage to air, water, and soil from chronic environmental problems compounded by wars and recent looting.
"The environmental consequences of looting seem to be quite serious.... A lot of chemicals were located at some of these factories and storage facilities," Pekka Haavisto, head of the UNEP post-conflict assessment unit, told a Geneva news briefing.
UNEP is coordinating the project in cooperation with the Iraqi government as part of a wider $4.7 million scheme funded by donors including Japan, Germany, and Britain.
The agency spent $12 million on four clean-up projects in Serbia after the Kosovo conflict, which took four years to complete.
Depleted Uranium
Environmentalists and antinuclear activists have linked depleted uranium used in U.S. and British munitions to higher rates of cancer and birth defects in Iraq following the 1991 war, although the study is not focusing on this issue.
In a separate plan, UNEP has requested $2.5 million from donors to assess sites that scientists suspect are polluted by depleted uranium, which is so dense it can pierce tank armor.
Britain's Department of Defense has informed UNEP that some 1.9 tons of depleted uranium were fired in southern Iraq during the conflict last year, according to Haavisto.
But the United States has not provided any information on where it dropped such munitions, despite requests, UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer said.
The Pentagon says it has not found any evidence that the metal causes long-term health problems.
Iraqi scientists, who have received training from UNEP, will collect samples and share them with UNEP and its network of independent laboratories in Europe.
"When the samples are shared and analyzed, we can give advice on how to protect local populations and the immediate risk at the locations," Haavisto said.
The initial sites to be assessed include a pipeline where sabotage attacks by guerrillas opposed to the interim government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi have caused discharges of oil.
Scientists also plan to visit the Al-Mishraq Sulphur State Company to assess pollution from sulphur fires, and the Midland Al-Doura Refinery Stores to investigate spills of more than 5,000 tons of chemicals, including tetraethyl lead.
Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva
----
Friendly Americans Killing Canadians
Thursday, September 16 2004
Paul Harris
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/users.php?mode=profile&uid=55
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20040915054900200
It is one of the ironies of history: The United States went to war against Iraq in 2003 on the basis that Iraq was chock-a-block with 'weapons of mass destruction' (WMD). Eventually, the Americans had to admit they were wrong and they just couldn't find those weapons. Many skeptics suspect the Bush administration lied about the WMDs in Iraq to cover a desire to invade and steal Iraqi oil.
But few understand that the United States is still lying. Iraq is full of WMDs, both used and unused, but the Bushoviks and their sycophantic media fail to alert the public because it is the Americans who are using them.
Despite going to war in Iraq on the basis of fabricated evidence about Saddam Hussein's stock of vicious weapons, the United States itself has a long history of manufacturing, storing, selling and deploying WMD. As far back as the Second World War, there is clear evidence of use by the United States of several chemicals which meet the current U.S. definition of WMD. Still, most of us who point fingers at the Americans are best familiar with their exploits in Vietnam.
Agent Orange and napalm are the best known WMDs used in Vietnam although the Americans also deployed Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink and Green (all of the 'agents' were so named because of the colour of distinguishing markers on their shipping containers). These products are actually herbicides, developed during the 1940s, and were used in Vietnam as defoliants to strip away the forests and trees in order to deny the enemy hiding places. Most of these products are known carcinogens and their extensive use in Vietnam has compromised the health of many who came in contact with them, including American forces; and they were used in far greater concentrations than would be usual.
Napalm, or jellied gasoline, was also used as a defoliant in Vietnam but, unlike the Agents, it burned the vegetation and killed by incineration anyone unfortunate enough to get in the way. Those of us old enough will remember the horrifying television images of Vietnamese children being incinerated.
This was not the first or only use of this material: napalm bombs were dropped on Japan by Allied troops during World War II and used in flamethrowers in Germany in that same war. Later, it was used by United Nations forces during the Korean War before reaching the apex of its popularity during the Vietnam conflict. Although its use was banned by the United Nations in 1980, the United States did not sign the agreement.
The U.S. claimed to have destroyed all its supplies of napalm by 2001 but that appears to be a matter of semantics rather than fact; current evidence seems to verify that they have used it as recently as 2003 in Iraq. A report carried in The Independent on August 10, 2003 quotes Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11: "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches. Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." The United States has denied using napalm but only because they have altered the petroleum distillate used and renamed the product the 'Mark 77 firebomb'. Its victims will surely appreciate the clarification.
While the United States remains the only nation to actually drop an atomic bomb on an enemy, there have been four occasions in the past 15 years where the United States has actually engaged in nuclear war: in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf Wars I & II.
BACKGROUND
American soldiers have dropped Depleted Uranium (DU) on enemy combatants since 1991. It is lethal, it is horrid, and even though it doesn't have the bluster and showmanship of a mushroom cloud, it is still a nuclear bomb.
The use of DU is illegal under all international agreements, treaties, and covenants and it is illegal even under U.S. military law regarding WMDs. But in defiance of those international treaties, and its own laws, the United States continues to use this destructive material in full knowledge that its use could result in the slow annihilation of all species, including our own.
Depleted uranium is the waste by-product of nuclear weapons and domestic nuclear power. It is deadly and is used in weapons because it is cheap and ignites and burns fiercely on hitting a solid target. When it impacts, it releases an aerosol of fine uranium oxide that is breathable and spreads great distances by wind until rain comes to weigh it down, where it falls to the ground and is absorbed into soil or water sources. The Americans have given DU to weapons manufacturers free of charge.
It was first developed for the U.S. Navy in 1968 and DU weapons were supplied to, and used by, Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Since, the U.S. has sold DU weapons to at least 29 countries. The plans for this substance, however, actually date back to 1943. A declassified document from the Manhattan Project is a blueprint for depleted uranium weapons.
Euphemistically, some in military circles refer to DU as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, the ultimate gift that keeps on giving. The half-life of the material is 4.5 billion years.
Scientists are quite certain on two points: DU is deadly; and the effects of this material will continue to contaminate the earth long after humans are extinct. They are also fairly clear that continued use of DU will mean the future is going to move ahead without us.
There should be no misunderstanding about the seriousness of this material: it meets the U.S. definition of a 'weapon of mass destruction' and while the United States is prepared to invade sovereign countries on the basis they 'might' have WMD themselves and they 'might' be willing to use them, the Americans are actually using them. And they use them in complete disregard for the people and nations on which they are dropped, even in disregard of the health of their own and allied troops. On that basis, there is some serious question as to whom has really earned the title 'Evil Empire'.
But lest we blame the United States for all acts of unconscionable callousness, we should recall earlier words relating to weapons of mass destruction: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be good ... and it would spread a lively terror..." (Winston Churchill, commenting on British use of poison gas against the Iraqis shortly after the First World War).
CANADIAN CASUALTIES
There are known Canadian victims of these American nuclear wars.
According to the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC), Captain J. Terry Riordan was the first Canadian known to have died from what is officially known as 'Gulf War Illness' (GWI). At his death, his bones were reputedly rife with depleted uranium. His widow, Susan, currently advocates to seek justice for sick and dying Gulf and Balkan veterans contaminated with DU.
For 13 years, veterans of Gulf War Part One, and subsequently the Balkan veterans, have been hounding their governments to determine if they have been contaminated by the DU used in those conflicts. They are unable to search for this evidence through conventional medicine because suitable testing equipment is not available outside of government facilities owing to the national security issues involved.
There has been a lengthy debate over the issue of GWI, and now Balkan Illness, while many allied personnel who served in those conflicts have endured unexplained and premature deaths or debilitating systemic illnesses. There is evidence of transmission of related diseases to sexual partners and children born to these veterans since the conflicts.
But while the veterans continue to pressure both the Canadian and the U.S. governments for proper DU screening programs, a series of reports from the two countries confirm the inadequacy of testing efforts by both governments and their fundamental failure to understand the ramifications of DU use. In the absence of adequate testing and follow-up, the military --- mainly the U.S. military at this point --- continues to use this material in a form of Russian Roulette with its own troops, notwithstanding the horrendous results on the nations where the weapons are being dropped.
In Canada, a joint paper prepared in 2002 by the Medical Policy Unit of the Department of National Defense, the Royal Military College and various contract laboratories conceded that their testing methods are inadequate. The paper discusses a series of radiological studies that were botched, testing completed at taxpayer expense, while ignoring the well established and well documented advice of independent researchers.
SELF ABUSE
It is perhaps the ultimate act of infamy when a nation destroys its own sons and daughters in the name of some spurious military adventure. The evidence is clear that the United States is doing precisely that to its soldiers.
In the three-week Gulf War in 1991, just 467 U.S. personnel were reported as wounded. Of the 580,400 GIs who served in that war, more than 11,000 are now dead and in excess of 400,000 are on permanent medical disability. New cases are arising by an astounding 43,000 per year. In a nutshell, more than 70% of those who served in the Gulf in 1990-91 now have medical problems.
The only substances to which these troops are known to have been exposed are vaccines and depleted uranium. Vaccines do not cause the diseases these troops have contracted. The only known exposure with the potential to cause these illness is the depleted uranium.
In response to the mounting evidence of the hazards, the American response has been to use the same material in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and for a second time in Iraq. For protestors and advocates for the afflicted, there is no comfort in knowing that this transcends politics and has now gone on through three presidential administrations.
Even worse, the Americans knew the deadly hazard inherent in this material before they ever started to use it. A military report prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1974 stated: "In combat situations involving the widespread use of DU munitions, the potential for inhalation, ingestion, or implantation of DU compounds may be locally significant." A contractor to the military, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), noted in a July 1990 report that "aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant, with potential radiological and toxicological effects."
In the words of the well-known humanitarian, Henry Kissinger: "Military men are just dumb, stupid, animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." And as if to prove his point, a report carried by both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post on February 27, 1991 quoted American troops firing DU weapons at hapless Iraqi soldiers: "We toasted him ... we hit the jackpot ... a turkey shoot ... shooting fish in a barrel ... basically just sitting ducks... There's nothing like it. It's the biggest Fourth of July show you've ever seen, and to see those tanks just 'boom', and stuff just keeps spewing out of them ... they just become white hot. It's wonderful."
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
Americans have cheered the successes of their military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, in the Balkans. Most remain ignorant of the horrendous weapons their troops used to destroy such feeble enemies. Even more, they are almost completely ignorant of the hazards faced by their own troops from the toys at their disposal.
There is no outrage in the U.S. for the dangers being faced by American troops, even less outrage for the innocent victims of this lethal onslaught. But America's craven allies, including Canada, can offer no excuses for their silence. None of the information presented in this article is secret; it is readily available from a variety of sources. In several countries, including Canada, there are victims of DU exposure who thought they were going to fight the good fight, little realizing that their best buddy was going to expose them to lethal substances, just because they could.
The American decision to initiate the use of DU weaponry, and then to continue its use even when evidence mounted to thwart any lingering doubts about the hazards, is a despicable act. This was a cold, calculated decision to inflict long-lasting harm on enemies with no regard for the innocent in those lands and no regard even for American and allied troops.
There are few observers who would excuse any other nation behaving in this way from charges of war crimes.
BRACING FOR THE NEXT AMERICAN ONSLAUGHT
Depleted uranium appears to have been given the green light in 1990 three reasons:
• to test the efficacy of 4th generation nuclear weapons still in their development stage
• to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weaponry
• to facilitate the reintroduction of nuclear weapons into the American arsenal
And it has done a marvelous job of stopping the enemy. Unfortunately, the side effects on civilian populations and the long-lasting environmental effects are horrendous. If the use of this weaponry marks the future of American strategy, and given their proclivity for military adventures, the deleterious effects of DU on the environment and on the population of various countries is assured. More, the health of American and allied troops is also compromised. The continued use of DU weapons should be sufficient reason for America's allies to decline invitations to future military excursions.
Regardless of the peril presented by the enemy, America's allies need to be concerned about the peril presented by America.
Sources include:
• 'Depleted Uranium: U.S. Commits War Crime Against Iraq, Humanity' - Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press
• 'Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMD' - Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press
• 'No protection from known danger' - Dan Fahey, Military Toxicity Project
• 'Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets - A death sentence here and abroad' - Leuren Moret
• 'Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War' - Leuren Moret
• 'The People versus George Walker Bush: International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan at Tokyo'
• 'An Examination of Uranium Levels in Canadian Forces Personnel Who Served in the Gulf War and Kosovo' - Health Physics Society Journal, 82(4): 527-532; April 2002
• 'Perpetual Death from America' - Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki
• 'Trail of a Bullet' - a special series prepared by the Christian Science Monitor www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/uranium/
• 'Details' - Paul Harris, YellowTimes.org (March 12, 2003)
• several reports prepared by the World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference www.uraniumweaponsconference.de
• various reports prepared by the Uranium Medical Research Centre - especially see the report '12 years too late?' for an extensive list of source material
----
'Iraq is full of WMD'
Thursday, September 16, 2004
By Paul Harris
YellowTimes.org
http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=2080&mode=thread&order=0
(YellowTimes.org) -- The United States went to war against Iraq in 2003 on the basis that Iraq was chock-a-block with 'weapons of mass destruction' (WMD). Eventually, the Americans had to admit they were wrong and they just couldn't find those weapons. Many skeptics suspect the Bush administration lied about the WMDs in Iraq to cover a desire to invade and steal Iraqi oil.
Few understand that the United States is still lying. Iraq is full of WMDs, both used and unused, but the Bushoviks and their sycophantic media fail to alert the public because it is the Americans who are using them.
The United States has a long history of manufacturing, storing, selling and deploying WMD. As far back as the World War II, there is clear evidence of use by the United States of several chemicals which meet the current U.S. definition of WMD.
Most of us who point fingers at the Americans are best familiar with their exploits in Vietnam. Agent Orange and napalm are the best known WMDs used in Vietnam although they also deployed Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink and Green (the 'agents' were so named because of the colour of distinguishing markers on their shipping containers). These products are actually herbicides, developed during the 1940s, but in Vietnam they became defoliants, used to strip away the trees and grasses in order to deny the enemy hiding places. Most of these products are known carcinogens and their extensive use in Vietnam has compromised the health of many who came in contact with them, including American forces.
Napalm, or jellied gasoline, was also used as a defoliant in Vietnam but, unlike the Agents, it burned the vegetation and killed by incineration anyone unfortunate enough to get in the way. Napalm bombs were also dropped on Japan by Allied troops during World War II and used in flamethrowers in Germany in the same war. Later, it was used by United Nations forces during the Korean War. Although its use was banned by the United Nations in 1980, the United States did not sign the agreement.
The U.S. claimed to have destroyed its supplies of napalm by 2001 but that appears to be a matter of semantics rather than fact; current evidence shows they have used it as recently as 2003 in Iraq. A report carried in The Independent on August 10, 2003 quotes Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11: "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches. Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." The Pentagon claims its denial of napalm use is not untrue because they have altered the petroleum distillate used and renamed the product the 'Mark 77 firebomb'. Its victims will surely appreciate the clarification.
While the United States remains the only nation to actually drop an atomic bomb on an enemy, there have been four occasions in the past 15 years where the United States has actually engaged in nuclear war: in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and in Gulf Wars I & II.
American soldiers have dropped Depleted Uranium (DU) on enemy combatants since 1991. It is lethal, it is horrid, and although it doesn't have the bluster and showmanship of a mushroom cloud, it is still a nuclear bomb.
The use of DU is illegal under all international agreements, treaties, and covenants and it is illegal even under U.S. military law regarding WMDs. But in defiance of those international treaties, and its own laws, the United States continues to use this destructive material in full knowledge that its use could result in the slow annihilation of all species, including our own.
Depleted uranium is a waste by-product of nuclear weapons and domestic nuclear power. It is used in weapons because it is cheap, ignites easily and burns fiercely on hitting a solid target. When it impacts, it releases an aerosol of fine uranium oxide that is breathable and spreads great distances by wind until weighted down by rain, where it falls to the ground and is absorbed into soil or water sources. It was first developed for the U.S. Navy in 1968 and DU weapons were supplied to, and used by, Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Since then, the U.S. has sold DU weapons to at least 29 countries. The plans for this substance, however, actually date back to 1943. A declassified document from the Manhattan Project is a blueprint for depleted uranium weapons. The Americans have given DU to weapons manufacturers free of charge. Scientists are quite certain on two points: DU is deadly; and the effects of this material will continue to contaminate the earth long after humans are extinct. They are also fairly clear that continued use of DU will mean the future is going to move ahead without us. Euphemistically, some in military circles refer to DU as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, the ultimate gift that keeps on giving. The half-life of the material is 4.5 billion years.
This is very dangerous material: it meets the U.S. definition of a 'weapon of mass destruction' and while the United States is prepared to invade sovereign countries on the basis they 'might' have WMD themselves and they 'might' be willing to use them, the Americans actually have them and actually use them. And they use them in complete disregard for the people and nations on whom they are dropped, even in disregard of the health of their own and allied troops. In the three-week Gulf War in 1991, just 467 U.S. personnel were reported as wounded. Of the 580,400 GIs who served in that war, more than 11,000 are now dead and in excess of 400,000 are on permanent medical disability. New cases are arising by an astounding 43,000 per year. In a nutshell, more than 70% of those who served in the Gulf in 1990-91 now have medical problems. The only substances to which these troops are known to have been exposed are vaccines and depleted uranium. Vaccines do not cause the diseases these troops have contracted.
In response to the mounting evidence of the hazards, the American response has been to use the same material in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and for a second time in Iraq. This transcends mere politics: it has now gone on through three presidential administrations. Even worse, the Americans knew the deadly hazard inherent in this material before they ever started to use it. A military report prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1974 stated: "In combat situations involving the widespread use of DU munitions, the potential for inhalation, ingestion, or implantation of DU compounds may be locally significant." A contractor to the military, Science Applications International Corporation, noted in a July 1990 report that "aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant, with potential radiological and toxicological effects."
Americans have cheered the successes of their military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, in the Balkans. Most remain ignorant of the horrendous weapons their troops used to destroy such feeble enemies. Even more, they are almost completely ignorant of the hazards faced by their own troops from the toys at their disposal. There is no outrage in the U.S. for the dangers being faced by American troops, even less outrage for the innocent victims of this lethal onslaught. But America's craven allies can offer no excuses for their silence. None of the information presented in this article is secret: it is readily available from a variety of sources. In several countries, there are victims of DU exposure who thought they were going to fight the good fight with their Yankee friends, little realizing that their best buddy was going to expose them to lethal substances, just because they could.
The American decision to initiate the use of DU weaponry, and then to continue its use even when evidence mounted to thwart any lingering doubts about the hazards, is a despicable act. This has been a cold, calculated decision to inflict long-lasting harm on enemies with no regard for the innocent in those lands and no regard even for American and allied troops.
There are few observers who would excuse any other nation behaving in this way from charges of war crimes.
Depleted uranium appears to have been given the green light in 1990 for three reasons: to test the efficacy of fourth generation nuclear weapons still in their development stage; to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weaponry; and to facilitate the reintroduction of nuclear weapons into the American arsenal. And it has done a marvelous job of stopping the enemy. Unfortunately, the side effects on civilian populations and the long-lasting environmental effects are horrendous.
If the use of this weaponry marks the future of American strategy, and given their proclivity for military adventures, the deleterious effects of DU on the environment and on the population of various countries is assured. More, the health of American and allied troops is also compromised.
The continued use of DU weapons should be sufficient reason for America's allies to decline invitations to future military excursions. Regardless of the peril presented by the enemy, America's allies need to be concerned about the peril presented by America.
[Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing businesses with the tools and expertise to reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. He has traveled extensively in what is usually known as "the Third World" and has an abiding interest in history, social justice, morality and, well, just about everything. He lives in Canada.]
Paul Harris encourages your comments: pharris@YellowTimes.org
YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.
----
Taking Care of Business-But Whose Business?
By: Jack Dalton
September 16, 2004
http://www.correspondences.org/archives/000664.html
Budget deficits as far as the eye can see; Balance of Trade deficits growing by $45-$50 billion per month; an unprecedented national health care crisis; Households below the poverty level increasing almost exponentially; A decreasing Veterans Administration budget that can't come close to filling the needs of the increasing numbers of veterans seeking care-including the over 25,000 veterans of the Bush/Cheney war of choice in Iraq.
The list of this nations financial woes is seemingly endless. Rising prices with decreasing wages. Corporate tax dodgers and cheats coupled with $200 billion off budget money already plowed into Iraq are breaking the "national piggy bank." This is putting even more downward economic pressure on a rapidly vanishing middle-class, with no end in sight.
Over 1,000 dead U.S. troops in Iraq and thousands more wounded, maimed in body and mind. Thousands more contaminated and poisoned by depleted uranium - while BushCo continues to deny DU's negative health impact (this is the same thing that was done to us that served in the Vietnam war and were contaminated by Agent Orange-Depleted Uranium will be worse, much, much worse).
So what's my point with all of this? Just this: Our economy, contrary to the Bush/Cheney team of "creative accountants," is headed for a serious and significant "downturn"-crash is the term I keep seeing.
With all we are faced with, what is the answer we see and hear from Congress? Yep, its pay raise time! At a time of endless deficits; rising prices; decreasing wages, etc., the "hard" working, "trustworthy," "ethical" and "honorable" members of congress will be getting a $4,000 per year pay raise!
This will be the 6th and 7th consecutive pay raise for the House and Senate members in as many years.
There isn't enough money in the national treasury to give those on disability income (V.A. or Social Security) but a 1.3% cost of living increase-most of which will be negated by the 17% increase in Medicare payments, the largest increase in the history of Medicare. At the same time, our esteemed members of congress will walk away with another $4,000 per year.
The troops in Iraq, we are constantly told, need our support. Yes, they do, but why do they still lack proper equipment? Why do they still lack proper logistical support form Halliburton which has been paid billions? Why do so many families of those serving in Iraq have to apply for food stamps? Why do they have to buy so much of their own equipment before going to Iraq?
Why do those that are in congress that have allowed these things to take place feel they deserve a pay raise? What is wrong with this picture?
Not enough money, and the social safety net is being slowly eliminated-cut spending is the neo-con mantra. These are the same people that cut un-employment insurance and yet they will gladly accept this new pay raise.
This will put the House and Senate above $162,000 per year-which does not include the massive amounts they get for expenses, staff, etc. Dick Cheney, as the head of the Senate, Dennis Hassert-Speaker of the House and Chief Justice Wm Rehnquist will jump to over $203,000 per year.
It's not the salaries that I object to; I object to their getting another pay raise on the backs of the nation's taxpayers at a time when the people of this nation cannot make ends meet. Bankruptcies this past year were the highest in the countries history. This year is stacking up to be much worse. I object due to the fact so many of our troops, Reservists and National Guard personnel have not only been decimated financially due to having been sent to Iraq, but they and their families are literally paying the bill for the war they were sent to by the Bush/Cheney cabal.
The simple fact is this current Republican controlled congress with all its "arm-chair" warriors have deliberately created this economic disaster-"Starve the Beast" is the term they use, ala Newt Gingrich.
The "Beast" being what at one time was the societal "safety net" that was created out of the "Great Depression."
It is so very clear to this writer that the only interests they are serving are their own, and the corporate interests that help keep them in office. There is definitely a re-distribution of wealth going on-and it's all upward. Even those sent into the "Heart of Darkness" that is war are suffering because of this.
These are the very same people that keep telling us we are at war and sacrifices must be made. Why is it the only people that seem to be doing the "sacrificing" are the American taxpayers (at least the ones that work for a living) and the very people that have been sent to war?
Sources and additional references:
Beyond The Baseline: 10 Year Deficit Projections http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2390/1/2/?TopicID=3
House Votes to Give Itself Pay Raise http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/congress.payraise.ap/index.html
Operation Truth http://optruth.com/main.cfm
Income and Inequality: Millions Left Behind http://www.adaction.org/Income2004.pdf
Paying the Price: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/062604_paying.htm
Windfalls of War http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/
Iraq Veterans Against War http://www.ivaw.net/news.htm
Scientific Studies of Depleted Uranium Suppressed http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-WHO-Suppressed22feb04.htm
Jack Dalton is a disabled Vietnam veteran and freelance writer that lives in Portland, Oregon. He may be contacted thru his web site at www.ommp.org thru his blog at http://jackdalton.bluelemur.com His email address is Jack_dalton@ommp.org He accepts all comments good or bad; not all are answered but all are read. Posted by Jack Dalton at September 16, 2004 05:27 PM |
-------- india / pakistan
National Assembly approves nuclear controls bill
Hi Pakistan
16 Sept 2004
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en71789&F_catID=&f_type=source
ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly on Tuesday adopted a bill for Export Control on Goods, Technologies, Material and Equipment related to Nuclear and Biological Weapons and their Delivery System with a majority vote.
The bill moved by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Khusro Bakhtiar was approved by the House with voice vote and the amendments moved by the opposition were rejected.
The bill provides for export control on goods, technologies, material and equipment related to nuclear and biological weapons and their delivery system. It will apply to every citizen of Pakistan or a person in the service of Pakistan within and beyond Pakistan or any Pakistani visiting or working abroad, any foreign national, while in the territories of Pakistan; and any ground transport, ship or aircraft registered in Pakistan wherever it may be. Khusro Bakhtiar said that an export control regime was needed to be put in place and would also help build confidence with India in the proposed nuclear CBMs acknowledged by both the countries.
The bill envisages a prison sentence of up to 14 years or a fine of up to Rs 5 million, or both, for anyone spreading nuclear technology or hardware. "By adopting this bill, Pakistan would fulfil its international obligation and strengthen its credentials as a responsible nuclear weapon state," the bill said.
About aims and objectives of the bill, Bakhtiar said being a responsible nuclear weapons state, Pakistan is cognizant of its obligations to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related technologies. "Adoption of this bill will not only build Pakistan's image internationally, but also reinforce our position in negotiations regarding international agreements on non-proliferation issues," the minister said.
The minister said nuclear capability of Pakistan is a deterrent for regional parity and created balance of power in the area. He termed 'misconception,' the argument that international community viz a viz some countries having nuclear capability and some others were adopting dual standards. The minister informed the House that Israel had already put in place similar legislative framework, adding: "So we are not abiding by any dual standard."
He reiterated that the passage of this bill has utmost importance for Pakistan, adding that under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, it is mandatory for each country to take measures to strengthen controls over sensitive materials and technologies. "All the member states are supposed to adhere to this resolution," he added.
On the issue, whether the bill should have been initiated by the Foreign Ministry or any other ministry, he said: "I have already mentioned the Chemical Weapons Convention, for which the coordinating ministry was the Foreign Affairs Ministry."
Bakhtiar said in the bill, it has been proposed for the formation of an export control authority that will have representation from all the ministries concerned, dealing with such related technologies and goods. He said after adopting the bill, Pakistan would fulfil its international obligations and strengthen its credentials as a responsible nuclear weapons state.
Earlier, the opposition parties objected that the bill was presented in hurry and they were not given enough time to prepare for a debate on it. Syed Naveed Qamar, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Liaqat Baloch, Aitzaz Ahsan, Imtiaz Safdar Warraich, Ishrat Asharf, Memoona Hashmi, Mehrin Anwar Raja, Sher Muhammad Baloch, Muhammad Hussain Mehanti, Qari Gul Rehman, Sherry Rehman, Khawaja Asif, Maulana Akbar Chitrali, Naheed Khan, Bilqees Saif, Abid Sher Ali, Shah Abdul Aziz, Maulana Amanullah and Hafiz Khalil spoke on the bill during second and third reading. These members accused the government of adopting this bill on external pressure and said, there might have been a comprehensive debate on the bill as it was very sensitive issue.
They were of the opinion that a proper procedure was not adopted to bring the bill to the House and demanded, the bill must be sent to concerned committee. These members also suggested for a special committee of the House to look into the bill if any concerned Standing Committee of the House was not there.
Earlier, the rules were suspended to present the bill to the House and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Khusro Bakhtiar moved the bill. The Speaker allowed every member to speak on the bill, who so desired, and after detailed discussion he put the motion to the House after first reading that was adopted with majority vote.
Then the bill was discussed clause by clause in the second reading and members proposed amendments to clauses 2, 4, 7 and the clause one, Preamble and Short Titles. Most of these amendments were presented by MNA Liaqat Baloch that were rejected by the House and the Bill was passed clause by clause in second reading. Then the Speaker put the bill before the House that was adopted with a majority vote.
Meanwhile, the speaker National Assembly rejected on Tuesday an opposition demand for debate on the ongoing military operation against al-Qaeda-linked militants in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. Speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain ruled "out of order" several motions tabled by opposition MPs.
Opposition parties charged that civilians, including women and children, were being killed during the offensive in South Waziristan district. "Not only Muslims, but also the Pakistanis are being killed," said, PML-N parliamentary leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan.
Also, Speaker National Assembly Chaudhry Amir Hussain on Tuesday held the opposition's privilege motions on the ministers' statements regarding the president's wearing uniform while in office, as out of order.
Opposition members Raja Pervez Asharf, Liaqat Baloch, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Tahmina Daultana had contested that recent statements from the Federal Ministers about president's wearing uniform, was tantamount to the breach of privilege of the House.
The Speaker said in his opinion the breach of privilege of the House or of the members, refers to those privileges and amenities, which are conferred on the House or a member so that the House or a member may be able to more effectively discharge his function in accordance with the law and the Constitution. The Speaker said Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen of Pakistan and this article was validly quoted by the law minister.
"A person may form an opinion and express the same regarding any issue of national importance," he said, adding, any other person or a member may also differ with his opinion. "Thus the expression of opinion on the uniform by the said members or persons do not breach the privilege of the House," he added.
He said, "in view of the above, the matter requires no intervention of the Assembly. Accordingly all the privilege motions are ruled out of order." Asim Yasin adds: earlier, Speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain reserved his ruling on the privilege motion moved by the opposition over the statements of a federal minister and the Punjab chief minister on the president's uniform.
The speaker listened to the arguments of the opposition and the treasury benches on admitting the privilege motion and reserved the ruling. The opposition had moved four identical privilege motions on Friday and the arguments for their motion on Tuesday.
Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, Raja Pervez Ashraf, Liaquat Baloch, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Sahibzada Abul Khair Muhammad Zubair demanded that the motion should be sent to House Committee on Privileges as the president had in an interview with a private TV channel claimed that he could continue with two offices, according to the Constitution. They said it is a clear breach of the Constitution and the privilege of the House. They said the Punjab chief minister and some federal ministers have also unlawfully requested the president to remain chief of Army staff even after December 31, 2004.
However, Law and Justice Minister Wasi Zafar said the 17th Amendment allowed the president to complete his tenure within uniform. "The president will take decision to shed the uniform, or otherwise, keeping in the view the supreme national interest."
Aitzaz said Musharraf is bound to stay away from political activities in accordance with his own oath as an Army officer. He said the Constitution did not allow anyone to keep two offices simultaneously. Citing the verdict of the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah case, Aitzaz said in the decision of the Supreme Court it is clearly stated that one of the reasons of dissolving the National Assembly during Nawaz Sharif tenure was that all the rights of the assembly were being used by an individual. "If the present assembly passes any law against the decision of the Supreme Court, it would be clear violation."
He said under the rules, the chief of Army staff is subordinate of secretary defence, minister for defence, prime minister and president. He said the office of the president is a political office and all the political parties participate in the election for this post. "Referendum cannot be termed as the replacement of the election."
He contended the chief of the Army staff cannot preside over meetings of the ruling Muslim League. Aitzaz said the Constitution is very clear that an Army chief cannot be made president. He held the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal responsible for giving Musharraf a year in uniform and the Presidency. He warned that Article 6 of the Constitution could be invoked at a later stage to take action against constitutional violations.
Raja Pervez Ashraf said that in an interview with a private TV channel, the president had claimed that he could continue with two offices, according to the Constitution, which was a breach of the Constitution and the privilege of the House. He said the president on television had also announced that he would put off his uniform by December 31, 2004.
Liaquat Baloch said the president made a pledge to the nation that he would leave one office and the statements of the federal ministers in which they asked the president to keep the post of the COAS were a violation of the Constitution. "The government was taking a U-turn from its commitment with the MMA." But he denied that the MMA made a commitment they would vote for Musharraf during the vote of confidence. He feared that efforts were being made for presidential form of government.
Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said the privilege motion is not against Musharraf but for upholding the Constitution. "We want supremacy of the Constitution and there is no room in the Constitution to justify military rule." MMA's Sahibzada Abul Khair Muhammad Zubair and the PML-N' s Tehmina Daultana also termed Musharraf's presidency illegal and unconstitutional.
Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Dr Sher Afgan said the president has been allowed to hold two offices up to December 31, this year and before that date no question of breaching Constitution arises. He said under Article 19 of the Constitution every citizen could express his opinion and it was not an issue of breach of privilege.
----
Inching towards - what?
By M B Naqvi
Hi Pakistan
16 Sept 2004
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en71814&F_catID=&f_type=source
Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and India have made incremental progress in their two-day negotiations on Sept 5 and 6. It can only be assessed as inching forward. But inching toward which goal? Officially it is described as normalisation of relations. The results are a far cry from what the climate of opinion in both countries wants.
Take the main achievements: to continue the LoC ceasefire, go on talking, sorting out a few, very few, problems of marginal importance like introducing a new tourist category of visas but sending back the eight problems to the original committees and to agree on a few CBMs. For the rest, more routine meetings of border security, anti-narcotics officials, Foreign Service trainees' visits etc are envisaged. They couldn't agree on military CBMs, including regarding nuclear weapons. More committees have been set up. There was no breakthrough on any significant issue.
There is silence over the ultimate goal, of course. Neither side felt it necessary to make new departures in settled policies: it looks the new Indo-Pakistan relationship has to adjust itself into the existing framework of policies. Truth is they need a rapprochement. But the quest for a true reconciliation involves going beyond merely diluting or cosmetically changing the traditional stances. The best method of reconciling is the methodology adopted by Germany and France through their treaty of 1963. These two European countries used to be traditional enemies; they had fought three big wars in 69 years, the last one of which reduced many parts of Europe into rubble. In the 59 years since the Second World War, the two have become inseparable friends and both have achieved exemplary prosperity - in freedom.
Why Pakistan and India cannot take this route to political prominence, economic prosperity and cultural enrichment? The quest for normal, good neighborliness has anyhow to cross the deep gulf of mistrust and animosity, while unchanged basic positions will continue to produce results hitherto garnered. So long as normalisation alone is sought, it will be like chasing one's own tail; old established policies will continue to keep the two at daggers drawn - without actually being able to fight. It needs to be realized that the directly antithetical policies - nominally on Kashmir - need to be changed for one good and sufficient reason: presence of nuclear weapons have effectively defanged both vis-ý-vis each other and frozen the dispute.
The traditional politics of Pakistan and India relentlessly pushes them into permanent confrontation. The next step has always been conflict. But as 1999 and 2002 experiences have shown, neither dared start an all-out war; neither side could. And it was not simple mutual deterrence emanating from the Bomb. The world will not put up with a war that may degenerate into a nuclear exchange; neither can live with the consequences of having used its nuclear capability. War between India and Pakistan is now out of the question. And yet neither side has realised that old policies of the two are incompatible with peace. They have to go.
It might be argued that no matter how antagonistic the current policies might be it is impossible to pursue good neighborliness peacefully. Well, the record of two Kashmir Wars, Rann of Kutch fracas, the 19971 War, Kargil's half war and the near war of 2002, in addition to the war scares of 1986, 1990 and 1995, speaks for itself. Unless Pakistan and India get out of the rut and reconcile with each other, they are fated to go on colliding. While war itself is undesirable per se, in the context of nuclear weapons makes it the ultimate nightmare. Plain commonsense lays down that old politics and stances have got to change if war is to be avoided. But this cannot happen unless they begin reconciling on a people-to-people basis which alone can enable changing of old politics. And thus, forging such close bonds that would create new common purposes of cooperative endeavour to enrich respective people economically and culturally becomes possible. This will also open the gates for regional integration so that a new South Asia emerges.
This is not to say that it will be easy to make war impossible and create new structures of cooperative peace and all round economic prosperity - which reaches the bottom rung of the societies. Governments alone cannot quickly or completely pull down the structures of fear, suspicion and hatred they have taken so long to build. It can be done by the cooperation of the unwashed multitude and new and more humanistic thinking. It will need chaining the beast of chauvinism by promoting a humanistic, inclusivist and pluralist thinking among all South Asian peoples. Militant chauvinisms are the mother of all hate-promoting policies that result in militarisation and produces local versions of industrial-military complex.
Keep in mind that both Pakistan and India are in a quagmire: neither can actually make truly lasting peace - in which popular welfare replaces national security as the first priority - nor go to war. Insofar as the people are concerned, they have in recent years shown that they want more people-to-people contacts, a new politics and governments that make human security and welfare their top priority in which national security is seen as requiring only defensive measures. They would like to see Indo-Pak cooperative friendship to become a base for regional cooperation and integration. Let there be a shared and peace-promoting greatness of all of South Asia. It is an alluring prospect, unless you are, like children, fascinated by swash buckling militaries and their deadly toys.
Preference for peace and economic and cultural progress of all individuals need not lead to downgrading the difficulties, viz. the forces sustaining today's animosities. Jingoistic nationalisms have produced their own nemesis: nuclear weapons. These destroy trust in a radical manner. People talk of CBMs as a panacea. When tension mounts between Islamabad and New Delhi, both start repositioning troops and tanks rather than to reassure the other side. No Indian general can be unmindful of Pakistani nukes nor any Pak Commander forgets that a Prithivi-mounted weapon is at the ready. The basic military assumption is: capability equals readiness to use it. So long as the inherent mischief of nuclear weapons is not fully taken care of, there can be no stable peace in South Asia.
People say the same thing about Kashmir dispute. It is true it is a tough problem. But atomic weapons have made it insoluble by Pakistan or India. So long as the two antagonists do not resolve the nukes problem, Kashmir too will stay intractable. Add to this the influence and machinations of local versions of industrial-military complex; they are a powerful vested interest that flourishes in enmity and tension. There are ideologues on both sides who denigrate and ridicule the humanists and peace lovers as starry-eyed Utopia seekers. This gentry falls back on recent history's overhang of sharpened Hindu-Muslim tensions. Purpose of the 'realists' is to ensure that nothing changes.
So what is to be made of the Natwar Singh-Qasuri encounter? Good that they met. Better that they propose to go on talking at various levels. Jaw jaw is always better than bang bang. But beyond it, it is the pie in the sky (tomorrow); different committees are to sort out the difficult problems. Not that one disbelieves either Natwar Singh or Khurshid Qasuri. But behind them are arrayed politicians (uniformed in Qasuri's case), backed by fearsome bureaucracies.
The point is that today's snail-paced progress is all that is available before it breaks down and both sides will try again after a few years. The mere fact that the FMs meetings ended on a Monday but the joint statement was issued on Wednesday shows how the respective backroom boys are haggling over what to include or exclude or on what spin to put. No substantial issue could be clinched and this is not an accident.
But still, few things about results of Delhi encounter need notice. Khokrapar-Munabao rail and bus have still to be discussed, as is Srinagar-Muzaffarabad link. Bombay and Karachi Consulate Generals are still in the womb of future. There is nothing about visa relaxation. The two negotiators, and their backroom boys, need to be told that until the common Indian or Pakistani is not enabled to travel easily and visit one another's homes nothing is achieved. This is the touchstone for judging their achievements. Common visitors are not to be treated as suspects.
There was a three quarters of a promise that journalists will be allowed free entry in India while Pakistan merely mumbled, as SAFMA has been demanding. The two Foreign Ministers had promised to get it through after persuading their respective Home Ministries - which in effect means intelligence agencies. It is doubtful if the spooks will be happy; they would stop all non-official travel, if they can. It needs to be repeated, with emphasis, that criterion of all progress is how easily does the common Pakistani or Indian visit the other country and how hassle free are the formalities.
----
Global nuclear safety regime needed: Admiral (r) Ramdas
By Waqar Gillani
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Pakistan Daily Times
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-9-2004_pg7_13
Former Indian naval chief Admiral (r) Laxminarayan Ramdas, now a prominent peace activist, speaks to Daily Times about his work as president emeritus of the Indian chapter of the Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD), the importance of nuclear safety measures, and how to promote peace
Daily Times: Why did you decide to become a peace activist after retiring?
Laxminarayan Ramdas: Peace is a pro-people cause and I believe that the armed forces are as much a tool of peace as they are of war, since they consist of people who would prefer peace. In fact the military has never gone to war itself, such decisions have always been made by the government. I believe that war does not solve any issue and that there is need for alternative strategies and solutions.
DT: When and under what circumstances did you join the PIPFPD?
LR: I joined the forum after my retirement in 1993 in the preliminary stages of the formation of the PIPFPD, which was created on September 4, 1994 in Lahore. My late friend and one of the founding members of the forum, Nirmal Mukhar, who had served as cabinet secretary, encouraged me to work for this cause. I think it was a blessing for me that the forum was formed at the time when I retired. I was initially supposed to become a founding member of the forum, however I could not come to Lahore when the PIPFPD was formally inducted. I joined the forum immediately after it was inaugurated and actively participated in its first convention, which was held in New Delhi in 1995. The convention addressed issues of economic and social democracy.
DT: How has the PIPFDP progressed in the last 10 years and how was the 'people to people contact' objective achieved?
LR: In my view, the forum has developed as a catalyst for social and economic development in the South Asian region, particularly India and Pakistan. It was formed at a crucial time and in the last 10 years the objective of people to people contact was significantly achieved. In fact this objective could be regarded as a basic foundation to improve the relationship and understanding between the people of the two countries.
People are no longer captive audiences ready to be used as propaganda machines by the governments and are slowly eliminating self-created biases, which has helped our cause. We have made many friends while exchanging visits, which have spread across the two countries in the shape of people to people contact. Now we have chapters in every state, major districts and cities. We now have an amalgamated membership of people representing the PIPFPD.
DT: What other significant progress has the PIPFPD made?
LR: The forum has gained momentum in the sense that the governments have started realising the need for peace in the subcontinent and have started cooperating with one another. As part of people to people contact, Kashmiris from both sides of the Line of Control have been incorporated into the membership of the PIPFPD. We feel that the future of Kashmir must be decided according to the wishes of its people and this should be the governments' top priority, besides denuclearisation.
DT: Do you think the PIPFPD should become a political platform for the people of India and Pakistan?
LR: We have no motive whatsoever to create a political platform for ourselves nor do we respresent any political party. Our only motive is to help people within the forum's prescribed agenda of peace and democracy.
DT: How do you view the recent series of dialogues between India and Pakistan in light of the declaration of January 2004?
LR: I think the January 2004 declaration between the two countries has significant value. The dialogue under the declaration was a step in the right direction and must continue so as to achieve peace. Although there have been efforts for the last 57 years to improve Indo-Pak relations, I expect some significant breakthrough in the coming five to 10 years. This development might only take place at a small scale but some issues between the two countries, hopefully, will be resolved.
DT: What is your assessment of the Kashmir issue?
LR: I cannot say anything on this issue, save that it should be resolved according to the will of the Kashmiris without either government imposing any decision upon them.
DT: Do you see Kashmir as an independent state in the near future?
LR: Again, I cannot forecast anything. However, the issue must be settled by keeping in view that Jammu and Kashmir includes a geographical horizon that extends to either side of the Line of Control, including the Northern Areas in Pakistan and some regions held by China. Kashmir has three claimants to its land, Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris themselves, which has actually hindered the chances of Jammu and Kashmir as an independent state.
The governments should encourage participation by people and stakeholders including minority groups in the process of the independence of Kashmir. This is the democratic way and the only way to solve this issue. However, only time will tell whether we see an independent Kashmir or not.
DT: Is there any chance for an amicable solution to the Kashmir issue?
LR: The only solution to this issue would be for the Pakistani and Indian governments to re-evaluate their take by meeting the aspirations and the expectations of the people of Kashmir. The Kashmiris would then be able to decide their own fate.
DT: Do you feel that other countries, such as the US, should send troops to Kashmir to initiate and upkeep the peace process?
LR: There is no role for international forces in Kashmir. It is not viable. These forces could have their own vested interests in Kashmir, which would only complicate the problem. They could end up exploiting Kashmir in the name of peace. Only the countries concerned, India and Pakistan, should resolve the problem in light of what the Kashmiris want.
DT: Do you see a breakthroughs in the near future?
LR: Personally speaking, no one, especially the media, should expect breakthroughs and developments as miracles. Setbacks are part of the negotiation process as negotiations are seldom made in black and white.
DT: What do you think will be the outcome of the present efforts to improve ties between India and Pakistan? Will this process take a bottom-up approach or could agreement between the countries start at the leadership level?
LR: Ideally, there must be agreement amongst all levels of society and hierarchy. However, it is not necessary that it should be at the leadership level in particular, it could be at any level. This is necessary to develop a foundation through which we can pave the path for a better future. More importantly, Pakistan has a different government system to India. We have a fully empowered prime minister, whereas in Pakistan executive power lies with the president and not with the prime minister, which divides the role of leadership and decsion making.
DT: Do you think Dr Manmahon Singh is an empowered prime minister, given that Sonia Gandhi is the president of the Congress party?
LR: Absolutely, people should not underestimate Mr Singh, who is not only fully empowered but also competent enough to lead the nation. He played a major role in introducing economic reforms when he was the finance minister in the early 90s, which proves that he is a man of vision. He is fully independent as Mrs Gandhi already has two responsibilities, one as president of the National Congress Party and the other as covener of the coalition.
DT: Do you think the fact that both prime ministers have also served as finance ministers have a bearing on their relationship?
LR: I think, it is a coincidence that both the Indian prime minister and Pakistani prime miniser have also served as finance ministers. However, I hope that this coincidence can help them formulate similar policies that facilitate a better understanding between the governments and the people of the two countries.
DT: Is it possible to ignore Kashmir and still improve Indo-Pak ties? Or can the two governments take unilateral decisions to resolve other issues before Kashmir?
LR: Yes, unilateral decisions can be taken by either of the two governments to improve ties. Dialogue does not mean you assign priorities to issues. Even if the Kashmir issue is not resolved, the governments can make decisions on other matters. Different matters can be taken differently and unilateral decision can also be taken.
DT: What role should the Pakistani and Indian military play in promoting peace?
LR: The military should adopt a more flexible role and act in the best interests of the nation, which is to promote peace. In this regard the military should be more liberal towards the interests of the people it represents. They are the people's army and they are for people, not people for them. They are not an imperial army. Our armies need to be compassionate and tolerant.
DT: The defence bugdet continues to increase in Pakistan and India. Should it be cut? If yes, would you have still agreed had you been serving in the Indian Navy?
LR: I think military spending is a huge burden on our national resources. Higher defence expenditure implies a trade-off where less is spent on socio-economic development. The popular reason for increased defence spending has always been the external threat to national security due to which Pakistan and India have engaged in an arms race.
Yes, I have always believed that the defence budget should be cut. I will be the first to stop criticising the government if it pays more attention to development and peace concerns and manages external issues politically.
DT: What has led to increases in the defence budgets?
LR: Increases in the defence budget of any country stem from a couple of factors. Firstly, it becomes a convenient excuse to counter threats to national security on the pretext that other countries are purchasing weapons as well. This normally results in an arms race that perpetuates further increases in the defence budget. Secondly, we are exploited by militray industrialist companies from countries like the US, France, Russia, Israel and China that sell us weapons of war. In doing so these companies dictate increases in our defence budgets. However, if we can resolve political issues with our advesaries through diplomatic means and manage our neighbourhood politically, we will not need to spend as much on the military.
DT: What would you suggest to promote peace, especially in this era of nuclear weaponisation?
LR: Firstly, I think the most important thing is to build a global nuclear safety regime that is backed by states with nuclear-weapon capability, ie, the five major nuclear weapon powers (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) India, Pakistan and possibly Israel. These states should initiate a dialogue concerning nuclear disarmament and restrictions that should be aimed at making the world safe from nuclear weapons. These states should devise an integrated approach towards total nuclear disarmament that should start with the immediate de-alerting of all nuclear weapons. We should not emulate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), instead we should fashion our own forum according to the needs of the world such that it contributes towards the stability of humanity.
DT: Would the six major nuclear-waepon powers be interested in joining or be willing to discuss nuclear issues with Pakistan and India?
LR: The initiative has to be taken by India and Pakistan. If other nuclear powers including Israel decide to join the forum then well and good. However, dialogue between Pakistan and India should start regardless, to discuss the possibility of a nuclear safety regime with the ultimate goal of total nuclear disarmament. This would particularly be in the interest of states that do not have nuclear capability.
We are inviting the other powers to discuss matters transparently. If they want to join, well and good, however we should not stop this dialogue if they do not join the forum. Out of them, perhaps China may join, perhaps Russia may join, I am not certain. But it is something that we have to try.
DT: Is it possible to have this forum at the South Asian level?
LR: I do not want to regionalise it, for the simple reason that nuclear weapons cannot be regionalised. Nuclear weapons reflect political unstability, thus, it is in the interest of all nations to join the dialogue on nuclear disarmament.
DT: Any other recommendations?
LR: The second but again the most important recommendation or rather demand is that Indo-Pak dialogues and the people-to-people contact objective should not be derailed at any cost, under any circumstances. No force should deter us from finding a democratic solution to the problems we face. We should not fall victim to extremists on either side. The process should function as smoothly as possible.
And thirdly, if possible, the governments of India and Pakistan should sign at least some agreements and concessions, so as to build confidence in the eyes of the public and show that they (governments) are genuinely interested in improving bilateral ties. These agreements may well be related to relaxing visa restrictions and promoting tourism.
Born on September 5, 1933, Mr Ramdas joined the Indian Navy in January 1949 and retired as Naval Chief in 1993. Since his retirement he has written many articles for newspapers and magazines promoting the cause of peace in the subcontinent. He is currently compiling a book that addresses peace issues and narrates his own life experiences. Mr Ramdas received the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay award for peace and international understanding in 2004.
-------- iran
U.S., EU Trio Agree Iran Nuke Resolution --Diplomats
reuters.com
By Louis Charbonneau
Sep 16, 2004
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6259782&pageNumber=0
VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States compromised with France, Britain and Germany on a toughly-worded U.N. nuclear resolution on Iran that calls for an immediate halt to Tehran's uranium enrichment program, a Western diplomat said.
"It's a text that all six countries can live with," the diplomat close to the talks told Reuters late Thursday, referring to discussions between Canada, Australia and the European Union's "big three" on Iran's nuclear program, which Washington says is a cover for a nuclear weapons program.
Iran's program for uranium enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel for power plants or nuclear weapons, is the most controversial part of Tehran's atomic plans, which it says are limited to electricity generation.
Washington says Iran is developing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear power program. Tehran denies the charge, insisting its nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful.
The preliminary agreement, which still has to be approved by most of the 35 nations on the governing board of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ended nearly a week of discussions on the text, which the diplomat said would set the stage for a November showdown over Iran's nuclear program.
Another diplomat said the United States had to abandon its demand for an "automatic trigger" deadline forcing the IAEA to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council if it did not meet a number of demands, including suspending enrichment activities.
The diplomat summarized the key points of the resolution, saying it called for the IAEA board to decide in November "whether or not to take appropriate steps" regarding Iran's commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The diplomat said that this meant that the board would decide whether to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose economic sanctions, for violating the NPT by hiding its uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades.
The draft text, which diplomats said would likely be adopted Friday or Saturday with only minor changes, also called on Iran to answer all of the IAEA's outstanding questions about its nuclear program by the time the board meets again in November.
POSSIBLE NUCLEAR WEAPONS SITE
The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program for two years. While it has uncovered many previously concealed activities and facilities, it has found no clear evidence to back U.S. accusations that Iran is developing atomic weapons.
But allegations surfaced this week that would appear to support the U.S. view. A prominent international expert said on new satellite images showed the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran may be a site for research, testing and production of nuclear weapons.
"This clearly shows the intention to develop weapons," a senior U.S. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
Iran rejected the new allegation.
"This is a new lie, like the last 13 lies based on news reports that have been proved to be lies," Hossein Mousavian, Iran's chief delegate to this week's IAEA meeting told Reuters.
Another senior U.S. official, reflecting the differing views within Washington, was more guarded when asked if Parchin provided definitive information about Iran's intentions, saying: "It's something worth keeping under observation. There are things there that people need to keep their eyes on."
-----
What's next in Iranian nuclear saga?
US and European officials couldn't agree on how to deal with Iran Wednesday at an IAEA meeting in Vienna.
The Christian Science Monitor
By Scott Peterson
September 16, 2004
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0916/p06s02-wogi.html
MOSCOW - Divided US and European officials stalled a meeting of the UN's atomic watchdog agency under way in Vienna Wednesday, as they weighed Iran's suspect nuclear file.
While the current chapter of Iran's nuclear saga appeared to be nearing an end during the meeting this week of the 35-member board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), wrangling over the wording of a resolution is exposing wide gaps between the US and Europeans over how to deal with Iran. Even as the IAEA reports "progress" with Iran on solving several outstanding issues, closed-door haggling over the latest version of the resolution - a copy of which has been seen by the Monitor - has led to an impasse. US officials tried to harden language and impose an Oct. 31 deadline to "remedy all failures identified to date" by the IAEA, while also deleting reference to the right of any state to pursue peaceful nuclear energy.
"There has been a narrowing of the gap" on unresolved issues between Iran and the IAEA, says a Western diplomat in Vienna close to the agency. "There is also the real world, [which is] not all blue sky, and an acknowledgement that scientific verification can't solve everything. There will always be gray areas."
By the next meeting in November, diplomats and analysts say, Iran could disappear from the IAEA agenda as a special case under investigation. Or it could be hauled before the UN Security Council, to face charges it violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The US-European negotiations that kept the IAEA meeting from convening for two days are highly charged. The US wants the deadline to serve as a "trigger" to send Iran to the UN Security Council if Iran doesn't apply.
"This can't go on forever it," said Hossein Mousavian, the top Iranian delegate. Iran "has taken all the confidence-building measures necessary."
But that is not the view of the European authors of the draft resolution, which had noted the "generally positive tenor of ... Iranian cooperation" with the IAEA - words the US wants deleted.
It also adds its "serious concern" about Iran's failure to fulfill promises to halt uranium enrichment activities; about plans to carry out the first step of the fuel cycle by converting 37 tons of yellowcake to uranium hexafluoride gas.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei rejects any deadlines on the work of his inspectors. The latest IAEA report found that "most of the [highly enriched uranium] contamination" found in Iran "correlates reasonably" with that found on imported components, and wasn't created in Iran.
"We haven't seen any concrete proof that there is a weapons program," Mr. ElBaradei said. "Can we say everything is peaceful? Obviously we are not at that stage."
The draft resolution underscores the frustration of Britain, France, and Germany that Iran has not lived up to an October 2003 deal to stop enrichment programs, and calls for a "definitive determination" to be made by November.
Iran says it wants only to create nuclear power, and to control its own nuclear fuel cycle - a demand permitted by the NPT, which Iran has signed. But the US believes that Iran's civilian program masks nuclear weapon ambitions.
"The point has come to the real crunch issue between Iran and the international community: Should it have access to the full fuel cycle?" says Shahram Chubin, head of research at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. "It is entitled under the NPT, but given its past behavior, including non-declaration of enrichment over 20 years, some people think that it doesn't have the right."
Iran's regime has "convinced Iranians [the fuel cycle] is an inalienable right," says Mr. Chubin. "It will be very difficult for them to dismantle certain facilities, and say they are going to accept dependency - a bad word [in Iran] - on foreigners to give them enriched uranium."
Iran's Mehr News Agency quoted "an informed source" saying that Iran may take the issue to the International Court of Justice in The Hague if it is forced to stop enrichment plans.
Waffling on enrichment activities has turned Europeans closer to Washington's view. This week, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said that Iranian actions were "highly alarming." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "Iran has to understand, it can't turn confidence on and off like a tap."
The US and Israel has also ratcheted up the pressure in recent months. Visiting Jerusalem before the Vienna meeting to "compare notes" - in the reported words of one senior US official - with Israel on the Iranian nuclear issue, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton was asked if the US would consider military action if talks fail.
"We are determined that they are not going to achieve nuclear weapons capability," Mr. Bolton said.
"It may be the IAEA right now is not finding any problem with Iranian cooperation, but I don't see anything close to a resolution," says David Albright, a former IAEA nuclear inspector in Iraq and head of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.
There is time for talks, says Mr. Albright. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had built a facility for making nuclear weapons, besides just enriching uranium. "In Iran, you can't find any place - you don't even hear of any place - like [that facility] in Iraq," says Albright.
-----
Iran denies any nuclear activity at suspect site Parchin
Sept 16, 2004
Agence France-Presse
http://news.inq7.net/world/index.php?index=1&story_id=11467
VIENNA, Austria -- Iran denied Thursday that it had carried out any nuclear-related activity at the Parchin military site near Tehran as the United States suspects.
"We categorically deny any nuclear-related testing at Parchin," a huge military complex 30 kilometers (19 miles) southeast of Tehran, Hossein Mousavian, head of Iran's delegation to a meeting of the UN atomic agency in Vienna, told Agence France-Presse.
A senior US official told Agence France-Presse the United States was concerned about high-explosives testing in Parchin that may be nuclear-related and "amounts to weapons intent."
Mousavian also denied reports that the International Atomic Energy Agency had asked to visit Parchin as part of its investigation of Iran's nuclear program.
"They did not request to go," he said.
He said that "if this is requested by the IAEA, we are fully ready to cooperate."
Mousavian said the IAEA had asked Iran "four weeks ago about reports from open sources of explosive testing but they did not mention Parchin."
Diplomats have told Agence France-Presse, however, that the IAEA had asked to visit Parchin and that the Iranians have not agreed to the visit.
Parchin is a site for a variety of defense projects, including Defense Industries Organization (DIO) work in chemical explosives, but the IAEA is wondering if Tehran may be working on nuclear weapons work there. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is strictly civilian and peaceful and that it is not developing atomic weapons.
A diplomat close to the IAEA confirmed that the agency had asked to send inspectors to Parchin but said this was not included in an IAEA report on Iran published September 1 since "whenever you are in the negotiating process, you should not mention what you are negotiating.
A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said however that the sudden spurt over Parchin was suspect, as it came just as the IAEA board of governors was meeting on Iran.
"Why every time there is a board meeting, there is a new suspect site," the diplomat said, hinting that this was part of a US-orchestrated campaign to rally opinion against Iran.
A US official had told Agence France-Presse last week that the IAEA had, according to verbal accounts, dropped the mention of Parchin in a written repport on Iran published on September 1, as well as a reference to concern about Iran's work with beryllium.
Beryllium has civilian applications but can also be used in combination with polonium to make a neutron initiator that is effectively a trigger for a nuclear bomb.
The official said the concern about Parchin was that the Iranians may be working on testing "high-explosive shaped charges with an inert core of depleted uranium" as a sort of dry test for how a bomb with fissile material would work.
A non-American diplomat confirmed the US assertion.
An IAEA spokesman refused to comment.
A US think tank with ties to the diplomatic and intelligence communities late Wednesday released seven satellite photographs of Parchin, arguing the new evidence warranted international inspections.
The pictures, presented by the Institute for Science and International Security along with ABC News, show a large industrial complex hidden in a warren of valleys and crevices created by a mountainous plateau in northern Iran.
A paved road snaking in between barren hills connects warehouse-like buildings and smaller installations.
But expert commentary accompanying the material suggests that the Parchin conventional weapons complex could also be used for nuclear work.
"This site is a logical candidate for a nuclear weapons-related site, particularly one involved in researching and developing high explosive components for an implosion-type nuclear weapon," weapons experts David Albright and Corey Hinderstein commented on the images.
----
U.S. Says New Images Show Iran Plans Nuclear Bomb
Thu Sep 16, 2004
By Louis Charbonneau
(Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6258618
Photo: http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/w148/amdf697667.jpg
VIENNA - A senior U.S. official said on Thursday that satellite photographs of a suspected nuclear industrial site in Iran demonstrated its intention to develop atomic weapons, an allegation Tehran dismissed as "a new lie."
A prominent international expert said on Wednesday that new satellite images showed the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran may be a site for research, testing and production of nuclear weapons. Iran denies having an atomic bomb program.
"This clearly shows the intention to develop weapons," a senior U.S. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
He also accused the U.N. nuclear watchdog of suppressing information on Parchin in its latest report on Iran -- a charge denied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
But another senior U.S. official, reflecting the differing views within Washington, was more guarded when asked if Parchin provided definitive information about Iran's intentions, saying: "It's something worth keeping under observation. There are things there that people need to keep their eyes on."
A top Iranian official said the accusation that Tehran was hiding an atomic site from U.N. inspectors was a carefully-timed lie intended to influence a resolution on its nuclear program being discussed this week in Vienna by the IAEA governors.
"This is a new lie, like the last 13 lies based on news reports that have been proved to be lies," Hossein Mousavian, Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA board meeting told Reuters.
Washington and Tehran have been at daggers drawn since the 1979 Islamic revolution and the present U.S. government says Iran's leadership is "evil" and set on developing nuclear arms.
David Albright, an American former weapons inspector who heads the Institute for Science and International Security think tank, made the allegation about Parchin on Wednesday, though he disagreed that it clearly showed weapons intent. He also said the IAEA had asked to inspect Parchin but had been ignored.
Mousavian said: "They have not asked to see the site, but were are ready to cooperate with the IAEA" if they want to go. Asked if there had been a request on Parchin, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky would say only that it was "discussing with the Iranian authorities ... dual-use equipment and materials."
However, diplomats in Vienna confirmed that the agency had requested to go to the site but had received no answer.
Gwozdecky dismissed as "baseless" the suggestion by the U.S. officials that the IAEA had concealed information on Parchin.
EVIDENCE DEBATE
The agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, said this week he was not convinced Iran's activities were entirely peaceful but that there was no hard evidence to prove the U.S. belief Tehran was using its nuclear power program as a front to build weapons.
Western intelligence agencies have recognized Parchin as a potential chemical, explosives and munitions production site since the 1990s. In November 2003, a Tehran parliamentarian complained publicly about spending on atomic technology and identified Parchin as a site for such activity.
"Ascertaining what the connection is between (Iran's atomic energy authority) and Parchin is very important," said another senior U.S. official. "There's no legitimate role for this kind of high explosive technology in a civil nuclear program."
Mousavian said the latest accusation was aimed at influencing talks on a draft resolution that could set the stage for a November showdown at the IAEA, which could in turn lead to Iran's case going to the sanctions-wielding U.N. Security Council, as Washington has demanded for more than a year.
France, Britain and Germany are in a sixth round of talks with IAEA board hard-liners -- the United States, Australia and Canada -- to find a compromise on the wording of a text on Iran. The Europeans favor more negotiations with Tehran.
Negotiators from the six states still had no agreement on a text but continued to talk, informed Western diplomats said.
The most contentious of the U.S.-backed proposals is for an "automatic trigger" leading to Iran being reported to the Security Council for possible economic sanctions if it does not stop its uranium enrichment program by Oct. 31. The EU trio has rejected this, favoring something more vague. (Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in Tehran, Francois Murphy in Vienna and Arshad Mohammed in Washington)
----
US debates military strikes on 'nuclear Iran'
By Guy Dinmore
September 16 2004
Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/26807678-078d-11d9-9672-00000e2511c8.html
The Bush administration's warnings that it will not "tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy debate in Washington over the merits of military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.
Analysts close to the administration say military options are under consideration, but have not reached a level of seriousness that indicate the US is preparing actual action.
When asked, senior officials repeat that President George W. Bush is removing no option from the table - but that he believes the issue can be solved by diplomatic means.
Diplomacy yesterday appeared stalled.
The US and its European allies on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency continued to wrangle over the wording of a resolution on Iran which insists it has no intention of using its advanced civilian programme to make a bomb.
Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank, says that with "enough intelligence and spadework", the US could "do a good job" of slowing Iran's programme for a while.
But, he cautions, the Bush administration would need a "game plan" for the aftermath.
That long-term approach is lacking, analysts say, and has floundered in the debate over "regime change".
Asked whether Israel would take military action if the US dithered, Mr Schmitt replied: "Absolutely. No government in Israel will let this pass ultimately."
Tom Donnelly, an analyst with PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute, says that while inflicting military damage is possible, the consequences rule out this option.
If the US started down the military road, it would have to consider going the whole way to invasion and occupation.
"We have to start thinking in terms of a post-nuclear Iran," he said, describing the Europeans as "hopeless" on Iran, and India and China boosting their energy relations with the clerical regime.
Henry Sokolski, head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, says the US and its allies are in a state of denial, that it is too late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. It already has the capacity, he says.
Neither of the US and European options "to bomb or bribe Iran" would succeed and both could make it worse.
Mr Sokolski describes as "highly irresponsible" the idea that the US can let Israel do the job.
The short-term benefits of air strikes would have to be weighed against the costs of a blow to US efforts to foster more moderate Islamic rule in Iran and the Middle East.
The military option is laid out in detail by Globalsecurity.org, a defence think-tank.
"The window of opportunity for disarming strikes against Iran will close in 2005," it warns, as key plants come on stream next year. It says Iran has two dozen suspected nuclear sites.
But it adds that the absence of significant numbers of US stealth aircraft, early warning aircraft and other assets in the region indicate that the US is not actively considering air strike options at the moment.
----
U.S. Alarmed Over Suspected Iran Nuke Site
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
Sep 16, 2004
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- A U.S. official expressed alarm Thursday about a possible nuclear-weapons-related test site in Iran and accused the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency of keeping silent on its own concerns about the issue.
The official - a senior member of the U.S. delegation at the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors - spoke as U.S and European negotiators moved closer to agreement to censure Iran for reneging on a freeze on uranium enrichment and setting a deadline for Tehran to dispel suspicions it is trying to make nuclear arms.
The official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said the United States was suspicious that Iran's Parchin complex, southeast of the capital, Tehran, is being used by the Islamic Republic to test high explosives, possibly with applications to nuclear weapons.
"This is a serious omission," on the part of IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei, said the official, alluding to the lack of specific mention on Parchin in a report written for the board by ElBaradei on the status of a probe into Iran's nuclear activities.
The official said the United States would "go to the other board members" and make sure the suspicious site is considered in any Iran resolution submitted to the board meeting.
An Iran delegation member dismissed as "a lie" reports that the agency had asked to visit the site. IAEA officials refused comment.
A diplomat who follows the agency, however, said there was an oblique mention of Parchin in the ElBaradei report, in one paragraph.
"The agency has discussed with the Iranian authorities ... information relating to dual use equipment and materials which have applications in the conventional military area and in the civilian sphere as well as in the nuclear military area," the paragraph reads.
The revelations on Parchin were likely to be used by Washington to push its case for tough Iran resolution.
The latest version Thursday - made available in full to The Associated Press - showed the two sides agreed on the need for Iran to agree to a full freeze on uranium enrichment but still negotiating language and a list of other demands.
The draft expressed "serious concern" that Iran "has not heeded repeated calls from the board to suspend ... all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." And it expressed alarm at Iranian plans to process more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the feed stock for enrichment.
It also urged Iran to suspend all such activities; called on IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei to submit a report by November reviewing the past two years of his Iran probe, and demanded Iran "resolve all outstanding issues and inconsistencies" feeding fears it may have a weapons program.
A proposal in the draft submitted by the United States, Canada and Australia would also set an Oct. 31 deadline on Iran to meet all the conditions. While no punitive action is directly threatened should it fail to do so, one western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity described the date as an "indirect trigger" that could open the way for referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
The United States is seeking European support for Security Council action if Tehran defies the call for an enrichment freeze and other demands.
Iran is not prohibited from enrichment under its obligations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But it has faced mounting international pressure to suspend such activities, which can produce uranium for generating power or making nuclear weapons, as a good-faith gesture to prove it is not seeking to make atomic weapons.
The IAEA meeting adjourned Wednesday to allow for back-room negotiations and consultations with capitals. Plans were to reconvene Friday for a vote on a final version of the Iran resolution.
Last week, Iran confirmed an IAEA report that it planned to convert more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the feed stock for enrichment.
Even before that, international concerns over Iran's nuclear program were growing, fueled by suspicions that Tehran had never really suspended enrichment activities, as it had pledged to do so a year ago.
An IAEA report gave Iran some good marks for cooperating with the most recent phase of a two-year agency probe into the country's nearly two-decade-old covert nuclear program, which surfaced publicly only two years ago. But the report also said Iran must do more to banish all suspicions that it harbors nuclear weapons ambitions.
On the Net:
IAEA: www.iaea.org
-------- iraq / inspections
Japan to request clarification of WMD remark
The Japan Times
By REIJI YOSHIDA
Sept. 16, 2004
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040916a4.htm
Tokyo will ask Washington to explain "the real intention" behind Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent statement that weapons of mass destruction will probably never be found in Iraq, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said Wednesday.
Powell told a Senate hearing Monday "it's unlikely that we will find any stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a statement that observers say could hurt Tokyo's case in supporting the U.S.-led war against Iraq last year.
Hosoda, the top government spokesman, said it is unclear if Powell was saying the U.S. had failed to discover WMD despite its all-out search, or that U.S. intelligence about Iraq's WMD program was flawed from the start.
"We'll make an inquiry. It's a matter of course," Hosoda said, without noting when the government will do so.
Hosoda said the U.S. has been conducting investigations in Iraq, and Tokyo thus cannot say on its own if such weapons exist. He also said Japan supports the war in Iraq not only because of the WMD issue, but also due to various other factors, including resolutions adopted by the United Nations, Iraq's reactions to them and Iraq's past invasions of other countries.
"We have to confirm what (Powell) exactly said and then examine if it has anything to do with past judgments of the Japanese government (on the war on Iraq)," Hosoda said.
The Japan Times: Sept. 16, 2004
-------- korea
N Korea stalls nuclear talks
bbc
16 September, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3662228.stm
North Korea has said it will not agree to further nuclear talks unless South Korea's admission about secret nuclear experiments was "fully probed".
The North's official KCNA news agency said Seoul's recent disclosure had "thrown great hurdles" in the way of further multi-party talks.
Seoul has admitted its scientists did conduct small-scale secret trials.
The admission dampened hopes that any progress would be made soon in ridding the North of its nuclear capabilities.
"[North Korea] clarified its stand that it can never sit at the table to negotiate its nuclear weapon programme unless [the] truth about the secret nuclear experiments in South Korea is fully probed," KCNA quoted a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman on Thursday.
A new round of talks - between China, the two Koreas, the US, Japan and Russia - was due to have taken place later this month.
Three previous rounds have made little headway, but analysts still see the multi-party discussions as the best chance of resolving the standoff over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.
There has been recent speculation that North Korea wanted to delay further discussions until it knew the outcome of the US presidential election.
But a foreign ministry spokesman told KCNA that the North "does not care" who becomes the next US President.
The BBC's Charles Scanlon, in Seoul, says that South Korea's disclosure appears to have strengthened the North's position, as it seeks economic and diplomatic compansation for any nuclear concessions.
Secret experiments
South Korea stunned the region on 2 September when it revealed that it had fallen foul of international nuclear accords.
A small number of South Korean scientists had conducted secret tests to produce 0.2g of enriched uranium in 2000, the government admitted.
It said the experiments were not authorised by the government, and were conducted for South Korea's civilian nuclear power industry.
Later it also admitted that a small amount of plutonium - a key ingredient in nuclear bombs - had been extracted in secret research conducted in the early 1980s.
The revelation is deeply embarrassing, both to South Korea and its ally the US, which has already chastised Seoul for the secret experiments.
North Korea said last weekend that the news of South Korea's tests had made it even more determined not to abandon its own weapons programme.
-------- russia
Terror exposes threat to Russian nuclear sites
16 Sep 2004
By Maria Golovnina
(Reuters)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L15132530.htm
MOSCOW, Sept 16 - Recent bloody attacks in Russia like the Beslan school siege have highlighted the need to prevent the worst-case scenario of nuclear terrorism, Moscow's top atomic official says.
Russia, which has the second biggest nuclear arsenal after the United States and lies fifth in terms of civil nuclear power, is under pressure to act to guard high-risk atomic sites from attack after the collapse of Soviet rule left nuclear stockpiles under-protected.
International criticism of the way Russian security forces handled attacks in August and September -- two plane crashes, a suicide bombing in Moscow and the hostage-taking in Beslan in which over 300 people died -- exposed the threat even further.
"We've declared war on proliferation. Now we need to decide how to deal with this problem," Alexander Rumyantsev, head of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters in an interview late on Wednesday.
Russia's nuclear facilities, including 30 reactors and dozens of military sites with nuclear warheads, are attractive to extremists for their arms-grade nuclear material.
"All terrorist scenarios include attacks on atomic reactors," he said.
"In the wake of these gruesome acts of terror ... we must realise we need to step up efforts to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear materials. We need new approaches."
Although protected by Interior Ministry troops, many nuclear sites lie in remote corners of Siberia where security checks may not be as meticulous as in European Russia.
Russian industry experts say hundreds of "dirty bombs" -- conventional bombs laced with radioactive material which experts say would be the most likely weapon in nuclear terrorism -- could be made from the contents of small research reactors alone. These sites would be the least guarded.
TRACING NUKES
Russia and other nuclear powers therefore need to alter legislation to make it easier to trace movements of nuclear stocks around the world, Rumyantsev said.
"Everything nuclear is obviously confidential, it concerns sovereignty ... But otherwise how are we then going to control all the sensitive materials? We need new legislation to allow this to happen," he said.
Rumyantsev said he would ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to cooperate more closely on anti-terrorism issues.
"I will tell them that these tragedies are yet more proof that no country can fight terrorism on its own," he said.
Highly enriched uranium and plutonium in reactors can be used to make a standard bomb. Spent fuel can produce a "dirty bomb" that needs little atomic content but can spread radiation after exploding.
Washington funds part of Russia's efforts to guard nuclear materials in a country where Soviet-era "atomic towns" struggle to survive amid shrinking state subsidies. Moscow says Western assistance is drying up.
Speaking to reporters earlier, Rumyantsev said a few dozen grams of weapons-grade uranium had been stolen from Russian sites over 25 years, but were recovered by security services.
About 100 kg (220 lb) of stolen raw uranium had never been found. Although raw uranium is no security hazard, Russia should try to prevent such theft in the future, he said.
"That's how things work and we have to understand that. People steal everything: timber, metals, money. And they also steel uranium," Rumyantsev said.
-------- terrorism
Counterterrorism efforts neglect threat of nuclear assault
BY DANIEL SNEIDER
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Thu, Sep. 16, 2004
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/9678498.htm
(KRT) - Three years after Sept. 11, there is no consensus on whether we are safer. But presidents and would-be presidents, along with a raft of experts, agree on one thing.
The greatest danger is that Islamic terrorists will steal or acquire a nuclear warhead or the highly enriched uranium to construct a crude device. They would smuggle the weapon into a city and explode it, potentially killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Given that threat, I posed a question to a wide range of experts on nuclear terrorism, some of whom have served in senior government posts.
Imagine, I said, that terrorists set off a nuclear weapon in some Western city. The president immediately convenes a National Security Council meeting and asks, before any hard data are in, what are the most likely sources for the weapon.
Two suspects topped all lists - Russia and Pakistan. Others making most lists included North Korea and former Soviet republics such as Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Russia's vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and its scattered stores of bomb-quality uranium and plutonium are vulnerable to theft and terrorist assault.
Two years ago I investigated Russia's arsenal of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. These are smaller bombs to blow up bridges or fit in artillery shells, many of them portable enough to fit in the trunk of a compact car.
I was able to literally walk through a hole in the wall of the command headquarters of the unit that guards all of Russia's nuclear weapons. Unchallenged, I wandered a base where security equipment, including armored trains to transport warheads, is stored and repaired. I did not come away with a good feeling about the state of Russian security.
Pakistan represents a different challenge. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man who built Pakistan's bomb, turned out to be the leading global nuclear black marketeer, selling warhead designs and equipment to Libya, Iran, North Korea and who knows who else.
"Pakistan is a shaky state in which a substantial number of people in the army and intelligence services have serious ideological ties to al-Qaida," says Harvard's Graham Allison, author of the chilling new book "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe."
North Korea, which may have a handful of nuclear warheads, is a less likely potential terrorist source. The North Koreans might, however, be willing to sell nuclear material to the black market.
More dangerous, but less publicized, are research reactors with stores of highly enriched uranium. Some 20 countries have more than a bomb's worth of material at such sites. The most vulnerable are in former Soviet republics.
Al-Qaida's desire to get a hold of enriched uranium is well-documented. If they succeed, "we have significantly underestimated the ease of manufacturing a crude but effective nuclear weapon," warns the Monterey Institute's William Potter, co-author of a new book on "The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism."
I asked the experts a second question - does the allocation of counter-terrorism resources reflect their list of likely nuclear suspects?
The universal answer was a loud no.
Programs to secure bomb-grade material in Russia and to upgrade security at weapons storage sites have either stalled or remained at pre-Sept. 11 levels.
"In the two years after 9/11, fewer potential nuclear weapons have been secured in Russia than in the two years before," says Allison, a former senior defense official.
Pakistan's cooperation is highly limited - U.S. officials have not even been allowed to directly question Khan.
The Department of Energy has spearheaded a new initiative to gather up stores of enriched uranium around the world. But "outside the DOE, I don't have the impression that the Bush administration recognizes the urgency of the problem," says Potter.
Why isn't more being done? One reason is denial - not only here but also in Russia. Many experts downplay the ability of Islamic terrorists to build a bomb or to steal one.
The Sept. 11 commission report talks of "the failure of imagination" on the part of our law enforcement and intelligence community to grasp that threat. When it comes to nuclear terrorism, the same "failure" is at work today.
Daniel Sneider is foreign affairs columnist for the San Jose Mercury News. Readers may write to him at: San Jose Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, Calif. 95190-0001, or e-mail him at dsneider@mercurynews.com.
-------- u.n.
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
Mr Annan has until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was legitimised by security council resolutions.
Mr Annan also questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January. "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now," he said.
His remarks come amid a marked deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition to maintain control over the country.
They also come as Mr Blair is trying to put the controversy over the war behind him in the run-up to the conference season, a new parliamentary term and next year's probable general election.
The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".
Both Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claim that Saddam Hussein was in breach of security council resolution 1441 passed late in 2002, and of previous resolutions calling on him to give up weapons of mass destruction. France and other countries claimed these were insufficient.
No immediate comment was available from the White House late last night, but American officials have defended the war as an act of self-defence, allowed under the UN charter, in view of Saddam Hussein's supposed plans to build weapons of mass destruction.
However, last September, Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defence, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a sceptical security council.
Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Air Force team to look for old hydrogen bomb off Tybee Island
BY TONY BARTELME
The Charleston Post and Courier Staff
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.charleston.net/stories/091604/sta_16bomb.shtml
The Air Force is sending a 20-person team to Georgia next week to study an area of ocean off Tybee Island where a group of bomb hunters think an old hydrogen bomb may be buried.
Armed with radiation detectors and other equipment, the team will take samples and use other equipment to verify whether the so-called "Tybee bomb" has been found, an Air Force spokesman said Tuesday.
A bomber dropped the 7,000-pound weapon in 1958 after the aircraft collided with a Charleston-based fighter. Despite an extensive search then, the bomb wasn't found.
Air Force officials stress that the bomb wasn't armed -- it didn't contain a plutonium capsule required for a nuclear detonation -- and therefore poses no threat to the public.
"There was no risk of a nuclear detonation in 1958, nor is there a risk of detonation in 2004," said Air Force Lt. Col. Frank Smolinski.
Officials, however, have acknowledged that the bomb contains highly enriched uranium and several hundred pounds of conventional explosives.
Earlier this year, a group led by Derek Duke, a retired Air Force colonel from Statesboro, Ga., said it found a large object near Tybee Island that was emitting radiation.
Duke and his colleagues have been searching for the bomb since the late 1990s and fear that it may, in fact, have a plutonium capsule.
Duke recently relayed his group's findings to the Air Force, which put together a team of experts from the Air Force, Navy, National Nuclear Security Administration and National Laboratories. The group is to meet Monday in Georgia and go over Duke's data Tuesday, Smolinski said.
On Wednesday, the group will boat to the site in Wassau Sound where Duke thinks the bomb might be buried in the seabed.
Experts will take samples from the sand in the seabed and measure radiation levels, Smolinski said.
Tropical Storm Jeanne may, however, push the visit back.
"Everything has been well thought out and planned," he added. "We want to emphasize that none of our activities will pose any danger of detonating the bomb -- if indeed there's a bomb there."
For Duke, the Air Force's move is a vindication of sorts.
His group, which includes retired military officers, members of the original unit that searched for the bomb in 1958 and Tybee Island residents, has been criticized for threatening national security and trying to profit off the lost bomb.
Duke said Tuesday that he was "extremely pleased" with the Air Force's decision to send a large team of experts to study the information his group uncovered. "They have been extremely professional and diligent about this."
Duke also risks the possibility that the military team won't find anything, or that the source of radiation may be something other than the missing bomb. "It was a risk I had to take," he said.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- arizona
Goodfellow to acquire 11 Arizona uranium properties
2004-09-16
Property Agreement
http://new.stockwatch.com/swnet/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=B-380189-C:GDR&symbol=GDR&news_region=C&name=Goodfellow+Resources+Ltd&title=Goodfellow
The TSX Venture Exchange has accepted for filing an agreement dated July 9, 2004, pertaining to the acquisition by Goodfellow Resources Ltd. of 11 uranium properties located in the Colorado plateau of northern Arizona from Western Energy Fuels LLC (WEF). In consideration for this acquisition, Goodfellow will pay $16,000 (U.S.) and issue one million of its common shares to WEF at a deemed value of 24 cents per share. In connection with this acquisition, Nathan A. Tewalt will become a director and the president of Goodfellow.
-------- maine
Maine Nuclear Power Plant to Come Down
Thursday September 16, 2004
By DAVID SHARP
Associated Press Writer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4498766,00.html
WISCASSET, Maine (AP) - The most visible symbol of Maine's nuclear power past - the massive domed containment building at the defunct Maine Yankee plant - will be eliminated from the landscape with a big boom this week.
Explosives will bring down the reinforced concrete structure Friday, the first time explosives have been used to knock down a commercial reactor containment building, said Justin Manafort, of Manafort Bros, which is overseeing the decommissioning.
``Other reactors have been taken down but none of this size or magnitude. The majority are done conventionally with cranes and torch cutting. We chose to use this explosive operation to bring it down,'' Manafort said.
It's no small task: the 150-foot-tall structure was designed to withstand natural disasters including hurricanes and tornadoes with 4 1/2-foot-thick walls at the base consisting of steel-reinforced concrete.
In fact, the more than 1,500 pounds of dynamite used won't reduce the containment vessel to rubble. Instead, the mighty dome is expected to topple intact onto a massive pile of rubble, where it will be broken apart by heavy construction equipment.
The pieces will be hauled away along with most other evidence that this was once the site of a 900-megawatt power plant. The decommissioning is expected to be completed next year.
Already, the visitor center and the spent fuel pool are gone, and workers recently removed the pavement from the parking lot of the administrative building. Furniture and office equipment are on their way out, and the four-floor office building will be gone this fall.
On a recent day, workers with radiological survey meters walked across the grounds to verify that contaminated soil had been removed.
The goal is to finish the physical work in January. Then there will be paperwork to be completed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have to sign off on the work, said Maine Yankee spokesman Eric Howes.
Critics said the plant was a major environmental and health threat, even though plant officials touted Maine Yankee's safety record. The plant was shut down permanently in 1997 after a string of operational problems.
Once the decommissioning is complete, the only remnants of the old power plant that will remain will be the power grid, along with a security building and newly constructed fuel storage area, Howes said.
Highly radioactive fuel rods will be kept in 60 canisters at the storage area until a federal radioactive waste repository is built, which is decades away. That worries some critics.
Nuclear watchdog Ray Shadis is troubled by the remaining fuel rods, which he contends could be targeted by terrorists despite security officers and an earthen berm built around the perimeter.
As for the land, 430 acres have been sold for development of an industrial park, and 200 acres are being given to the Chewonki Foundation, a nonprofit educational institution. Part of the grounds will be transformed into a marsh.
On the Net:
Maine Yankee http://www.maineyankee.com
-------- new mexico
4 Workers Fired in Los Alamos Lab Scandal
By MARY PEREA
Associated Press
09/16/04
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4498791,00.html
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - A security scandal at the birthplace of the atomic bomb has cost five Los Alamos National Laboratory workers their jobs, lab officials said.
Four workers were fired from the nuclear lab and one will resign under pressure for their roles in a security and safety scandal at the lab, the lab's director said Wednesday.
The fired workers were among 23 suspended this summer after two computer disks containing classified information went missing and an intern was injured in a laser accident. The discovery of the missing disks July 7 prompted a virtual shutdown of the lab, idling roughly 12,000 workers.
Of the remaining 18 suspended employees, seven were subject to other discipline such as demotion from management, salary reductions or written reprimands. One remains on investigatory leave. Ten will return to their positions with a finding of ``no wrongdoing.''
``It's very important to get this behind us,'' Director Pete Nanos said in a phone interview. Nanos spoke by cell phone from an airplane after meetings in Washington, D.C.
Nanos declined to discuss specific cases of fired employees but said that some were dismissed for ``not taking actions that you were supposed to take, or signing off on things that you hadn't done.'' Another employee had not taken appropriate precautions in a safety area.
Three of the workers will leave the lab in connection with the missing computer disks; the other two were involved in an accident in which a laser injured an intern, he said.
``These personnel actions touched all levels of employment, staff and management and varying levels of tenure,'' lab spokesman James Fallin said. He declined to be more specific about the lab departments or positions involved.
Nanos also said the northern New Mexico lab has finished its investigation into the two missing disks. Information from the probe has been turned over to federal authorities. Nanos refused to release additional details. He said other agencies are still investigating.
Nanos, who held a series of all-hands meetings with lab workers after the scandal broke, added that the ``commitment of employees right now is extremely high.''
Fallin emphasized ``that today's announcements provide very clear evidence that it's not business as usual at this laboratory. ... Accountability is the order of the day.''
The University of California operates the lab under a contract with the Energy Department. S. Robert Foley, the university's vice president for laboratory management, said the disciplinary action was important.
``This action moves (the lab) one step closer to completing the restart of all activities,'' he said.
Problems at Los Alamos have drawn criticism from Congress and senior officials at the Energy Department, putting in question the fate of the 61-year-old institution - the birthplace of the atomic bomb. The Los Alamos management contract has been put up for bid for the first time in the lab's history.
-------- new york
Entergys NY Indian Point 2 nuke off line
USA: September 16, 2004
REUTERS
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/27165/story.htm
NEW YORK - Entergy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) took its 951-megawatt Indian Point 2 nuclear power unit in New York off line by early Wednesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in its power reactor status report.
The unit was operating at 2 percent of capacity this morning, down from 70 percent this week.
Some traders noted Entergy might have shut the unit for its refuelling and maintenance outage.
The unit last shut for a refuel from Oct. 25 to Nov. 29, 2002. It is on a 24-month refuel cycle. In 2006, however, the company has said it will shut the unit after just 18 months to switch the refuelling cycle to the spring for environmental reasons and to avoid having both units down at the same time.
Meanwhile, the adjacent 1,027 MW unit 3 continued to operate at full power.
One megawatt powers about 1,000 homes, according to the North American average.
The Indian Point station is located in Buchanan about 45 miles north of New York City.
-------- washington
Bill allows B Reactor as museum
Thursday, September 16th, 2004
By Annette Cary
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/5555494p-5490517c.html
The U.S. Senate passed a bill Wednesday to help turn the nation's first full-scale nuclear reactor into a museum.
A companion U.S. House bill to study preserving B Reactor at Hanford also was approved Wednesday by the Committee on Resources, clearing the way for the bill to be considered by the House.
Both bills direct the National Park Service to conduct a study on developing both the Hanford reactor and other Manhattan Project facilities as historical sites.
"Hanford B is a scientific battlefield that must be preserved so future generations (may) study a difficult time in American history, while recognizing the accomplishments of our Cold War veterans," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who sponsored the Senate bill.
U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, who sponsored the House version of the bill, is optimistic it could be signed into law this year.
"I believe preservation of the B Reactor would help tell the story of the Manhattan Project and serve as a useful educational tool -- especially for those generations who didn't live through World War II or the Cold War," Hastings said in testimony submitted to the House committee Wednesday.
B Reactor, on the banks of the Columbia River, was the nation's first full-scale production reactor. As part of the Manhattan Project that raced to develop the atomic bomb, B Reactor produced the plutonium for the world's first nuclear explosion, the Trinity Test in New Mexico. It also produced plutonium for the "Fat Man" bomb dropped over Nagasaki, Japan on Aug. 9, 1945. Within days, the Japanese surrendered, ending World War II.
B Reactor continued to produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program until 1968.
The bills do not appropriate the money for the feasibility study, which would take two years to complete and cost $500,000 to $750,000. Hastings and Cantwell will continue work to get the money needed, but the bill approved Wednesday is an essential first step, said Jessica Gleason, spokeswoman for Hastings.
Some of the eight reactors built along the Columbia River after B Reactor have already been "cocooned" for long-term storage.
If money is not found to save B Reactor, it also likely would be demolished down to the 3-foot-thick shield walls that surround the reactor core. All openings would be sealed and a new roof installed to cocoon the reactor.
Now B Reactor is not open to the public, other than occasional tours. Tours are planned in October to mark the 60th anniversary for the reactor but are full and no more reservations are being accepted.
"To tour the B Reactor facility is to see first-hand an amazing feat of engineering and American innovation," Hastings said in testimony to the House committee. "B Reactor is largely maintained in its original state and provides visitors with a true feeling of the 1940s era and the remarkable challenges and achievements of the Manhattan Project."
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
U.S. Men Guilty In Afghan Case
Three Convicted of Running Private Jail
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22701-2004Sep15.html
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sep. 15 -- An Afghan court sentenced Jonathan "Jack" Idema and two other Americans to lengthy prison terms Wednesday, finding them guilty of running a private prison and torturing Afghan detainees in what the defendants claimed was a legitimate operation to round up terrorists.
Idema, 48, of Fayetteville, N.C., the group's leader and a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, was given a 10-year term, as was his younger associate Brent Bennett. A third man, Edward Caraballo, a journalist, received eight years, while four Afghan employees of the group were sentenced to between one and five years.
The defendants, represented by two American lawyers, presented several videotapes and documents in court that appeared to strengthen their claim that senior U.S. and Afghan officials knew of their covert operations and in some cases assisted them. U.S. military authorities here have denied any involvement with Idema and his associates aside from receiving one prisoner from them; Afghan officials who dealt with them have said they believed the group was operating with U.S. government approval.
Idema and the others were arrested in July in a police raid on their quarters in Kabul, where eight Afghan prisoners were found. The defendants said the prisoners were terrorists who had plotted to kill Afghan officials with car bombs; the detainees have testified in court that they were innocent citizens who had been tortured.
In one tape shown Wednesday, Idema and the others were shown being warmly greeted by several Afghan officials, including Kabul's police chief, when their plane landed in April. In another, they were shown discussing their work against terrorists with a U.S. Army officer; in several more tapes, Idema was shown in telephone conversations with people he claimed in court were U.S. intelligence and military officials.
Idema also recited a lengthy history of his military and intelligence missions in Afghanistan after the U.S.-led ouster of the Taliban in 2001, saying he had been issued a U.S. passport by a "special government agency" and an unlimited military visa by Afghan officials.
He named as his associates virtually every senior commander in the Afghan militia that worked with the U.S. military in its pursuit of Osama bin Laden and Taliban forces, in some cases receiving U.S. medals for their efforts.
"I operated in this country for three years at the highest levels," Idema told the court. "I can assure you that at no time did we ever conduct an operation . . . without prior approval of the corps commanders and in most cases the governors." But Judge Abdulboset Bakhtiary expressed increasing impatience with the rambling presentation of evidence and asked the defense to stick to the charges at hand.
After about five hours of legal wrangling and constantly interrupted testimony, the judge called a short recess. When the session resumed, he read out a long verdict that had evidently been prepared before the hearing.
Reviewing points from five previous hearings in the case, Bakhtiary concluded that the defendants built a "private network" of relationships in Afghanistan but did not obtain official approval, and that their stealthy mode of operation, including establishing a false business and constantly shifting homes, proved they did not want people to know what they were doing.
As in the earlier hearings, Wednesday's court session was a roller coaster of theatrical outbursts by Idema, arguments between the defendants and the court interpreter, interruptions by the judge and legal lectures and objections by the American attorneys for Idema and Caraballo.
At one point Idema insisted on taking an oath before testifying, putting his hand on a copy of the Koran and reciting a prayer in Arabic. Suddenly, an Islamic cleric in the front row of the gallery -- whom Idema once imprisoned and accused of being a terrorist -- jumped up and led an audience cheer to celebrate Idema's apparent on-the-spot conversion to Islam.
Within minutes, though, Idema had offended every Muslim in the court by showing a video of himself swearing loudly into a telephone. The court interpreter, an Afghan law professor, told the judge he would rather quit than speak the obscenities.
During breaks in the hearing, Idema held court from the defendants' dock, chain-smoking as he sat on the railing and tossing out unprintable quips to a throng of journalists and camera crews below.
During the hearing, the defense attorneys also injected numerous dramatic moments, shouting "That is a lie!" or "This is illegal!" They made sarcastic asides to the packed courtroom and demanded that the trial be halted.
The attorneys also attempted to have the case thrown out on grounds that the judge, the court and the Afghan legal system were inadequate to the task.
Robert Fogelnest, Caraballo's attorney, began reading a long statement arguing the charges should be dropped because "the legal system in Afghanistan is not yet fully functional and the rule of law is not yet fully established." But Bakhtiary cut him off, saying he should get to the facts of the case.
The rest of the unread statement, which the attorneys later distributed to the press, said the defendants believed they had been framed by the FBI in retaliation for refusing to share intelligence.
Outside the courtroom later, Fogelnest said the three Americans would appeal the verdict. He protested that the defense had not been allowed to make its case and said the U.S. government was to blame for allowing the men to be tried in an incompetent foreign court.
--------
Mercenaries in Afghan Case Get 8 to 10 Years in Prison
September 16, 2004
By CARLOTTA GALL
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/asia/16greenberet.html?pagewanted=all
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 15 - Three Americans were sentenced here on Wednesday to 8 to 10 years in prison for running a private jail and torturing prisoners, after a panel of three Afghan judges rejected their claim that they were working for a Pentagon counterterrorist group led by Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.
Jonathan K. Idema, 48, a former member of the Special Forces, and Brent Bennett, 28, an Army-trained forward air controller, were sentenced to 10 years, and Edward Caraballo, 42, a journalist filming a documentary about them, was given 8 years.
Four Afghans working for the men were given sentences of one to five years. The Americans stood still as they heard the sentences relayed by an interpreter. Behind them, the youngest defendant, a 15-year-old Afghan translator, began to cry.
The Americans immediately said that they had had been abandoned by their American masters because they had become a political liability. "This can only have been staged by the U.S. government - we were an embarrassment," said Mr. Caraballo, an award-winning cameraman who says he was filming Mr. Idema's counterterrorist operations.
General Boykin was the subject of a Pentagon investigation that in August determined that he had violated military regulations by giving speeches while in uniform in which he cast the Bush administration's war on terrorism as a battle between Christianity and Islam and claimed that Muslims worship an idol and not a "real God." The speeches came to light the previous October.
Lawyers for the Americans had tried to introduce a videotape as evidence that Mr. Idema had a relationship with counterterrorism officials in the military, and particularly with General Boykin's office. But the lead judge, Abdul Baset Bakhtiari, apparently intent on wrapping up the trial before the end of the day, cut short their defense and barely watched the videotape.
The taped conversations, handed out to journalists by defense lawyers after the trial, could have provided evidence that the men were working for some special unit with the knowledge and cooperation of people in the Pentagon. But there was no immediate way to verify the authenticity of the tapes.
American Embassy officials have said since the arrests on July 5 that as far as they knew neither Mr. Idema nor anyone in his group was working for a government agency. The military has issued statements saying Mr. Idema was impersonating government or military officials and did not represent either.
Yet the videos, recorded by Mr. Caraballo in Kabul in the months after their arrival in April of this year, seem to show Mr. Idema talking on two occasions to people in General Boykin's office. In one conversation Mr. Idema is heard telling Jorge Shim, an aide to General Boykin, that he is close to rounding up a whole cell of terrorists. The aide responds: "I told General Boykin that you called. I gave him the information and to the D.I.A.," apparently referring to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Idema says, "There are more bombs and more bombers, and we are hitting them in five hours."
The aide replies, "Five hours? Jack, I'm going to have someone from the D.I.A. contact you on your cell number, so give me a few minutes."
In another conversation, which the defense represented as having occurred days before the men were arrested by Afghan authorities, Mr. Idema is clearly asking for some help. General Boykin's aides explain that they had been trying to separate the general from Mr. Idema's activities to avoid any attention from the news media.
Mr. Idema says, "Someone's got to do something within 12 hours or I'm going to e-mail this [expletive] thing to Dan Rather. Do you think I would rot in prison if there's a problem?"
Then a man who says he is "George's supervisor" comes on the line and says, "I don't know what happened. I don't know how this happened." The speaker refers to "J2," which Mr. Idema said in court was an umbrella group of top officers in military intelligence, as he explains that people were trying to put Mr. Idema in touch with J2 intelligence officials so he could work with them.
The speaker says, "We passed all your information to the J2 staff here and to the D.I.A., and we were trying to protect our boss from getting associated with it because he does not need any other scrutiny right now by the press. So we are trying to put a firewall between your efforts and him because we did not want to connect anything there and there is no need to do that."
In Washington, a Defense Department official acknowledged that Mr. Idema had called several Pentagon officials, including General Boykin's assistant, Mr. Shim, seeking to pass along intelligence information. That information would have been sent through the appropriate intelligence channels for review, just like any other unsolicited tip.
The official said, however, that Mr. Idema was not employed by the Pentagon, and his activities had not been directed or encouraged by General Boykin or any other defense official.
The Pentagon official did not dispute the veracity of the tape-recorded conversations that Mr. Idema produced, but said he and other defense officials could not immediately confirm that the conversations had actually taken place or the assertion in one of the recordings that General Boykin's aides were trying to dissociate their boss from Mr. Idema.
Other evidence presented by the defense but not shown to the court included 70 pages of documents, mostly faxes and correspondence from Mr. Idema to Pentagon, C.I.A. and F.B.I. officials, providing reports on suspected terrorist groups.
Two documents show some return correspondence, but nothing that directly ties them to the Pentagon during the men's time in Afghanistan.
Judge Bakhtiari ruled that the men had failed to provide documentary evidence of authorization from Washington or the Afghan government for their work.
He seemed to have trouble understanding the taped telephone conversations, which were indeed hard to follow and not fully translated. Eventually, he cut short the defense, saying that the videos were inconclusive and that he needed more concrete, documentary evidence.
Mr. Idema's lawyer, John Edwards Tiffany, and Robert Fogelnest, who is representing Mr. Caraballo, said the three men had been abandoned by the United States and left to their fates in an Afghan court to avoid the far greater publicity of an American trial.
Mr. Fogelnest asked: "Is this a secret that the Americans have secret ops? How many other Jacks do they have floating around?" He used Mr. Idema's preferred first name.
The case will automatically go to an appeals court within two weeks, Judge Bakhtiari said, and if the appeals judges wish, they will call the defendants back to court. After that, the defendants may appeal the case to the Afghan supreme court. Mr. Fogelnest said they would appeal.
-------- asia
Other-world purity of a people held in solitary confinement
Richard Lloyd Parry
September 16, 2004
Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10779479%255E2703,00.html
EVEN before you have set foot in the country, as the Russian-made jet trundles along the taxiway at Pyongyang's airport, the absolute otherness of North Korea announces itself.
Two things are immediately visible across the tarmac. The first is a huge portrait of the country's founder and leader, Kim Il-sung - the world's only head of state to remain in office after his death. The second is a hump-backed ox, yoked to a cart, carrying firewood along a dirt track.
Within 160km, by many people's reckoning, plutonium rods are being processed into nuclear warheads. Last week, a huge and mysterious explosion occurred that might, or might not, have been a nuclear test.
But in the fields, on the edge of North Korea's gateway to the outside world, farmers are working the fields in a fashion unchanged for 1000 years.
Enough foreigners have come here in the past few years for the strangeness of the world's most isolated country to be well known - and yet the experience of coming is overwhelming.
There is plenty that is eerie and alarming, but the country's popular image as a crackpot state of deranged psychopaths is misleading and inadequate. North Korea is a sinister and complicated place, but it is also calm, beautiful and strangely touching.
Much of this charm comes from the absence of things that have come to seem such a natural part of Western life. There are cars, but very few. Pyongyang's roads are so wide and triumphal that the capital does not use its traffic lights - instead, young women in white uniforms direct vehicles with elegant, balletic gestures.
The city centre contains not a single commercial advertisement. The only products being promoted are love of country and the army, socialism and the personal cult of Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il.
Pyongyang's subway is the prettiest and most poetic mass transit system in the world. Escalators of astonishing length angle into the earth through Cyclopean tunnels, their walls pristinely white.
The station platforms are like the stage sets from a 19th-century opera, with murals depicting the river banks of Pyongyang in their spring glory.
This is a show city and the people who live here are the elite, permitted to reside only by licence.
But they, too, have about them the naivety of an older, simpler era. This week, in the driving rain that covered Pyongyang, they went about their business in brightly coloured wellingtons.
Even the military uniforms possess a nostalgic quaintness, with their braid and epaulettes and high, overlarge hats. Women and students wear the traditional, billowing skirts called chima chogori. No one is richly or well turned out, but there is little scruffiness.
To be a foreigner in Pyongyang is to become effectively invisible. There is no aggression or contempt, merely blankness, as if one was not there at all.
When foreigners enter the subway carriage, other passengers discreetly move away - why risk the complicated questions from the authorities that might follow a conversation with outsiders? But, with the inducement of our ever-present government minders, some were persuaded to talk.
A surgeon named Jang Ji-min was reading the newspapers that are displayed on the station platforms. He talked proudly of the Olympic silver medal won by a North Korean weightlifter. I asked him if he knew which nation had won the most medals. He knew very well - it was North Korea's communist neighbour, China. (It was, in fact, the US).
A young woman named Jon Hye-yong spoke of her studies in tourism and hotel management. Her plan was to look for a job in a hotel; her only ambition was "to repay our government for everything they have done for me".
In the late 90s, perhaps millions of North Koreans died in a famine. And yet, lacking any information other than that provided by the Government, I have no doubt she was being sincere. It is easy to react to this kind of thing with outrage or sneering and, among the party of foreigners with which I visited Pyongyang this week, there was plenty of both. But I found it a poignant experience: to see such earnestness and innocence so meanly traduced, such purity and corruption side by side.
Why has it proved impossible to create a society disciplined and proud and pure, as North Korea is, but which is also free?
A gulf of ideology and repression separates the foreigner and the North Korean but sometimes, even now, human signals crackle briefly across it. Once, on the mighty expanse of Kim Il-sung Square, I saw two young boys with their satchels. They gave startled smiles when I waved and seemed about to come and talk.
They glanced at one another, laughed and walked on. They were not ready, not this time, not yet.
-------- china
Hong Kong Holds Off on Strict Internal Security Laws
September 16, 2004
By KEITH BRADSHER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/asia/16CND-HONG.html
HONG KONG, Sept. 16 - Tung Chee-hwa, the chief executive of Hong Kong, today ruled out trying to pass internal security legislation any time soon, a strong sign that his backers in Beijing have decided to take a conciliatory stance here after legislative elections last Sunday.
Mr. Tung had tried to push stringent security laws through the legislature in July 2003, but shelved them after the plans set off huge street protests. He then reserved the right to re-introduce the proposal some day.
The controversy that summer, along with Beijing's more recent efforts last April to limit future moves here toward greater democracy, had been expected to hurt Beijing's defenders in legislative elections here on Sunday.
But pro-Beijing candidates did better than expected, capturing two-fifths of the vote and retaining a narrow majority of the seats in the legislature, a combination possible because of a complex voting system designed to limit support for democracy advocates.
Emboldened, the two largest pro-Beijing parties said on Wednesday afternoon and this morning that they would support legislation against sedition, subversion, treason, the unauthorized disclosure of state secrets and other offenses if Mr. Tung reintroduced it.
With the issue suddenly at the forefront again of public attention, Mr. Tung took the rare step at midday today of unexpectedly coming downstairs at government headquarters and telling a hastily gathered group of local reporters about his opposition to any action on the issue in the near future.
"We have no plans for the time being and will not seek to start afresh the process for legislating" on the security laws, Mr. Tung said, according to an official transcript released later. "We will consider the matter only after the community has reached a basic consensus on this question and after we have satisfactorily dealt with economic recovery, economic restructuring and constitutional arrangements. We will not consider the question now."
Under Hong Kong's mini-constitution, the Basic Law, only the chief executive can introduce the security legislation. So Mr. Tung's hostility would appear to halt any movement on the issue, unless Beijing asks him later to change his mind.
Jean-Philippe Béja, a China specialist at the Center for International Studies and Research who has been here for the past week to observe the elections, said that it was surprising that Beijing was not using Mr. Tung to push through the laws.
"As Tung Chee-hwa is quite unpopular, you'd better use him to pass all the unpopular measures," instead of running the risk that the same issue might ruin his successor's popularity, Mr. Beja said.
Mr. Tung is not expected to run for re-election when his second, five-year term expires in 2007.
Handling Hong Kong is tricky for China because of the broad attention recent events here have drawn on the mainland, Mr. Beja said, adding that "people have been watching developments in Hong Kong as a possible model for China."
China has become no less critical of other countries that take an interest in Hong Kong's affairs. A front-page article on Wednesday in the official China Daily denounced the House of Representatives in Washington for having "intervened in China's domestic affairs."
On Monday the House passed a resolution condemning China for not having followed through on pledges of greater democracy in the Chinese-British Joint Declaration of 1984, which paved the way for Britain's return of Hong Kong to China in 1997.
The constitutional arrangements cited by Mr. Tung could take a year or more to resolve. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in Beijing ruled out in April allowing the entire population to vote in the next elections for chief executive in 2007, and also ruled out in 20028 letting the general public vote for more than half the members of the Legislative Council.
But the standing committee left open the possibility of expanding the 800-member, Beijing-dominated committee here that chooses chief executives. And it left open the possibility of allowing more people to vote in elections by industries, professions and labor unions, which select the other half of the members of the Legislative Council.
The economy here is strengthening but still troubled. The government announced late this afternoon that unemployment edged down to 6.8 percent in the period from June through August, still very high by historical standards here but down from 6.9 percent during May through July.
Underemployment, defined as people in part-time jobs because they cannot find full-time work, dropped to 3.3 percent from 3.5 percent for the same periods.
-------- iraq
UNFRIENDLY FIRE
Civilian Dead, and Bitterness: No Way to Bridge the Rage?
September 16, 2004
By DEXTER FILKINS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/middleeast/16baghdad.html?pagewanted=all
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 15 - In a remarkable appearance, the commander of American forces in Baghdad stood before a roomful of Arab and Western reporters on Wednesday, trying to explain the confusing events that led to the deaths of Iraqi civilians at the hands of his men.
American generals do not often do such things, but the deaths of 13 Iraqis, including a young girl and a television cameraman, whose last moments have been replayed across televisions in the Middle East, prompted the commander, Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, to try to explain how such a lamentable thing had come to pass.
The answer, the general said, lay in the grim necessities of the fight, a duel between Iraqi insurgents who had crippled a Bradley armored vehicle and two American helicopters. Mixed in with the insurgents were a number of civilians. The helicopters loosed their rockets only after they had taken fire themselves, General Chiarelli said, from somewhere in the crowd.
"We wanted to explain, particularly to the Iraqi people, that we do everything we can to eliminate collateral damage," General Chiarelli said, in a conference room inside the American headquarters known as Camp Victory. Then he turned to the subject of the Iraqi civilians who had been killed Sunday.
"I grieve their losses and give my condolences to their families," the general said.
Yet although General Chiarelli said he was saddened by the deaths of the innocent Iraqis, he firmly defended the actions of his men.
"The actions of our soldiers and pilots were well within their rights," he said.
The appearance of General Chiarelli and his deputy, Col. Jim McConville, stemmed in part from the televised death of Mazen Tomeizi, a Palestinian producer for Al Arabiya television. Mr. Tomeizi was killed while standing in front of the burning Bradley. He died on the air.
Film broadcast on Al Arabiya showed a crowd of mostly young men and boys around the Bradley, but showed no evidence that anyone was either armed or fighting. The film shows an explosion, and Mr. Tomeizi going down. Blood splatters on the camera lens.
Yet if General Chiarelli was trying to mollify Iraqi opinion with his appearance, the skepticism expressed by the Arabic-speaking journalists suggested he still had some way to go.
"Why don't you use small weapons, rather than missiles?" asked an Arabic-speaking reporter. "We know an innocent Iraqi was killed. Why not just disperse the crowd?"
"As you say, the pilot was so sweet," another Arab-speaking journalist said, referring to a member of the American helicopter crew. "But you didn't mention anything about the journalist who was there."
The most bitter words came, not surprisingly, from a reporter at Al Arabiya, who told the Americans that they had blasted the Bradley and killed those around it even though, as the tape showed, no one near it was firing a gun.
"The tape does not show any shots coming from the tank," said the reporter, Hadeer al-Rubaie. "We have the tape. We have proof."
"Your soldiers do not have any discipline," Ms. Rubaie said. "Why don't you go out of the cities, and face the terrorists somewhere else?"
General Chiarelli and Colonel McConville addressed those questions in some detail, if not to the satisfaction of everyone present. By so doing, they spelled out the challenges faced by American soldiers in Iraq as they try to carry on in densely populated areas where civilians and insurgents are often impossible to tell apart.
The helicopter strikes against the insurgents on Sunday were the most restrained means available, the officers said. The Americans had wanted to use ground troops to retrieve the Bradley, but six of their soldiers had already been wounded.
The helicopters could have fired their rockets from three or four miles away, Colonel McConville said, which would have been much safer for the pilots. They moved in close, putting themselves in greater danger, to try to avoid Iraqi civilians.
When the helicopters passed over the battle site, Colonel McConville said, the pilots took fire from the "vicinity" of the Bradley and fired four rockets. One hit the Bradley.
Still, for all of the discussion about hostile fire, the American officers suggested that there might have been a second motive for shooting the Bradley: to ensure that no one was able to steal the vehicle's communications equipment.
American officers attending the news conference suggested that the helicopter pilots might have fired at the Bradley not because of hostile fire, but because they feared that the young men who had clambered on top of it might have been trying to strip it of its equipment.
Colonel McConville said the incident was under investigation. But the latter suggestion prompted more derisive comments from the Arabic press.
"To save equipment," Ms. Rubaie said, "you risked the lives of 100 people."
--------
THE RECONSTRUCTION
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
September 16, 2004
By DOUGLAS JEHL
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?pagewanted=all&position=
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.
The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.
"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions - included in the document.
The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said.
As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made.
"You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can't be done," Mr. McClellan said at a news briefing. "And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future."
President Bush, who was briefed on the new intelligence estimate, has not significantly changed the tenor of his public remarks on the war's course over the summer, consistently emphasizing progress while acknowledging the difficulties.
Mr. Bush's opponent, Senator John Kerry, criticized the administration's optimistic public position on Iraq on Wednesday and questioned whether it would be possible to hold elections there in January.
"I think it is very difficult to see today how you're going to distribute ballots in places like Falluja, and Ramadi and Najaf and other parts of the country, without having established the security,'' Mr. Kerry said in a call-in phone call to Don Imus, the radio talk show host. "I know that the people who are supposed to run that election believe that they need a longer period of time and greater security before they can even begin to do it, and they just can't do it at this point in time. So I'm not sure the president is being honest with the American people about that situation either at this point.''
The situation in Iraq prompted harsh comments from Republicans and Democrats at a hearing into the shift of spending from reconstruction to security. Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called it "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point," and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said of the overall lack of spending: "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous."
A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment on any new intelligence estimate.
All the officials who described the assessment said they had read the document or had been briefed on its findings. The officials included both critics and supporters of the administration's policies in Iraq. But they insisted they not be identified by name, agency or branch of government because the document remained highly classified.
The new estimate revisits issues raised by the intelligence council in less formal assessments in January 2003, the officials said. Those documents remain classified, but one of them warned that the building of democracy in Iraq would be a long, difficult and turbulent prospect that could include internal conflict, a government official said.
The new estimate by the National Intelligence Council was approved at a meeting in July by Mr. McLaughlin and the heads of the other intelligence agencies, the officials said.
Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters. Like the new National Intelligence Estimate, the assessments completed in January 2003 were prepared by the National Intelligence Council, which is led by Robert Hutchings and reports to the director of central intelligence. The council is charged with reflecting the consensus of the intelligence agencies. The January 2003 assessments were not formal National Intelligence Estimates, however, which means they were probably not formally approved by the intelligence chiefs.
The new estimate is the first on Iraq since the one completed in October 2002 on Iraq's illicit weapons program. A review by the Senate Intelligence Committee that was completed in July has found that document to have been deeply flawed.
The criticism over the document has left the C.I.A. and other agencies wary of being wrong again in judgments about Iraq.
Declassified versions of the October 2002 document included dissents from some intelligence agencies on some crucial questions, including the issue of whether Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The government officials who described the new estimate on the prospects for Iraq would not say if it had included significant dissents.
On Wednesday night, Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council, confirmed the existence of the intelligence estimate, but he declined to discuss its contents in detail because they were classified. But he said the document "makes clear why it is so important to stand with the Iraqi people as they face these challenges.''
Mr. McCormack said that in describing "different possible scenarios for Iraq's political and economic future over the course of 18 months,'' the document had made clear that "Iraq's future will be determined by a number of different factors, include the nation's economic progress, the effectiveness of Iraq's political structure, and security and stability.''
He added: "In the past, including before the war to liberate Iraq, there were many different scenarios that were possible, including the outbreak of civil war. It hasn't happened. The Iraqi people continue to defy the predictions of pundits and others.''
Separate from the new estimate, Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued other warnings on Wednesday about the American campaign in Iraq, saying the administration's request to divert more than $3 billion to security from the $18.4 billion aid package of last November was a sign of trouble.
"Although we recognize these funds must not be spent unwisely," the committee chairman, Mr. Lugar said, "the slow pace of reconstruction spending means that we are failing to fully take advantage of one of our most potent tools to influence the direction of Iraq."
Less than $1 billion has been spent so far.
The committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, one of the harshest critics of the Iraq policies, was far more outspoken. "The president has frequently described Iraq as, quote, 'the central front of the war on terror,' " Mr. Biden went on. "Well by that definition, success in Iraq is a key standard by which to measure the war on terror. And by that measure, I think the war on terror is in trouble."
--------
Distraught Iraqis blame US as more innocent blood is shed
scotsman.com
BORZOU DARAGAHI IN BAGHDAD
16th September 2004
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1080742004
Baghdad residents refuse to believe evidence indicating local insurgents mounted attack
AHMAN Mohammad, his chubby, 20-year-old face scarred with burn marks, his arms charred to the bone, lies on a blood-stained bed at Karkh Hospital and tries to make sense of the day's horror, etched in his mind like a Hieronymus Bosch painting.
"Human beings were piled one on top of the other like pieces of meat," he says, shivering. "I'm all choked up with shock. I saw it with my own eyes."
On the site of the explosion near a police recruiting station that killed dozens, bodies and remains of the dead were hauled away. Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, witnesses and residents blamed the United States for the attack.
"This was a peaceful, modest lower-middle-class neighbourhood where everyone cared about everyone," raged Hossein Ali Hossein, 41, a train driver who was sitting in a tea shop when the explosion occurred.
"I was born here," he said. "This explosion has changed everything in this neighbourhood forever."
Hours earlier, Iraqi men had crowded around a police recruiting station. Carrying red and blue folders familiar to those navigating Iraq's bureaucracy, they were trying to apply for jobs with the new police force.
Many had retired to the comfort of a teahouse to avoid the sun and possible attacks on the recruiting station. It was at the teahouse that the explosion struck.
At the scene near the police building in Haifa Street, a Baghdad area known as a haven for guerrillas and criminals, there was a nauseating odour of burnt flesh, and streaks of blood covered the streets and pavements.
The blast killed at least 47 people, making it the deadliest single attack in the Iraqi capital in six months.
Grieving and tearful civilians, along with emergency workers, collected corpses and body parts, including a severed head that lay near one of the 15 or so shops crushed by the explosion.
"There were some kids playing billiards," said Ehsan Adnan, a distraught 38-year-old who runs a music shop badly damaged in the blast. "They were killed. There were young men waiting to join the police force. They were killed. There were customers in my shop. They died as well."
He threw his broken drums and trumpets across his tiny shop. "Who can accept this?" he bellowed. "Does Jesus accept this? Does Moses accept this?"
US Apache helicopters hovered above the chaotic scene, which some were attempting to turn into a political rally. "Down with Allawi, down with Bush," one man chanted. Graffiti on the building next to a local mosque spelled out "Long Live Bin Laden".
"We blame the occupation forces and the Iraqi interim government for this explosion," said Abdul Fareed, a resident of the area.
"We ask them to remove this police facility from this area because it's a densely populated area."
Some said a US helicopter had launched an air strike on the crowd, just as it had bombed Iraqis standing atop a burning Bradley fighting vehicle in nearby Haifa Street on Sunday. "It was an American rocket, American rocket," young men screamed. "It was the Americans."
But the cheap, unpolished shrapnel from the explosion indicated clearly that it was Iraqi-made ordnance, most likely leftovers from deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's arsenal packed into a car, the style favoured by Iraq's suicide bombers.
Some bystanders shook their heads in disgust at those who blamed the attack on the US instead of the insurgents.
"The man eating that sandwich died," said Allah Hamas al-Tamimi, 31, pointing to a fried chickpea sandwich on the bench behind his cart.
He said he helped to carry at least 40 wounded, loading them into passenger cars and police lorries for the short trip to Karkh hospital.
"Some call them Wahabbis; others resistance. Some say the Americans are behind it," Mr Tamimi said. "I call them terrorists. They kill by the dozen. Is this human?"
In addition to yesterday's bomb attack, 11 police officers and one civilian were killed in a drive-by shooting in the city of Baquba, 60 kilometres north of Baghdad.
The attacks fuelled a sense of frustration and fear among those hired to protect and serve Iraqis.
"These operations are carried out by people using the latest techniques in killing people," said Brigadier General Amar, who pleaded that his last name not be published for fear that he would be targeted by the insurgents.
"If it was in our capacity to stop such things before they happened, I would even sacrifice myself for them."
Police officer Ra'ad Tawfik Hussuni, 44, said he was at a nearby garage having his car repaired when the bomb went off. He rushed out to help the victims.
"Innocent people who need jobs were killed," Mr Tawfik said. "The government can't control the saboteurs. The police are not in control."
It had started out as a quiet, ordinary day, the capital's stifling summer having at last given way to a comfortable breeze. Mohammad, the 20-year-old recruit lying in the hospital, remembers getting his paperwork together and heading to the Iraqi police recruiting station in the Karkh district, defying his mother's plea to avoid government buildings.
He remembers being told that the police weren't taking applications on this day, to come back the next day. He remembers turning on his heels dejectedly and walking away.
Next came the explosion, like a fiery thunderclap in his face. He woke up amid carnage that he can't get out of his mind.
"My mum didn't want me to join the police," says Mohammad. "She said it was too dangerous. She was right. But what could I do? We're poor."
In the hospital, Massoud Ahmad, 24, lay moaning on his bed. The bomb blasts had seared the flesh off his legs, which were now wrapped heavily in bandages.
"I wanted to be recruited. I just wanted to be a policeman. I just wanted to be hired by someone," he said. "I was standing in line, all of a sudden there was an explosion and I couldn't feel anything," he said. "I fainted and I was in an ambulance."
In another corridor, an old woman sat on the ground and wept softly.
"No, no, no," a middle-aged man gently cried as his unmoving son, face covered in a bloody white sheet, was wheeled away toward the mortuary.
A shaken Amar Safar, deputy health minister, shook his head as he scanned the hospital. "Look at the dead body," he said angrily. "That's an Iraqi. If they are fighting for Iraq and the people of Iraq, then why are they attacking the Iraqis?"
-------- israel / palestine
Israeli Forces Kill 10 In West Bank Attacks
By Molly Moore
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22845-2004Sep15.html
JERUSALEM, Sept. 15 -- Israeli military forces killed 10 Palestinians on Wednesday in the West Bank, the highest single-day death toll there in 18 months, and Israeli officials warned that troops would continue attacks against Palestinians while Prime Minister Ariel Sharon moves ahead with proposals to remove Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank.
"We have to intensify our activities. That's the instruction that the prime minister gave to the defense minister" and the military, said Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Sharon. "There has to be a heavy hand against terrorist infrastructure and leadership so when we disengage, they will be on the run and we will walk out."
Palestinian medical officials identified the dead as an 11-year-old girl struck in the head by a bullet, six militants and three Palestinian security officials. A spokeswoman for the Israeli military said troops killed nine militants. She said she had no information on the death of the child.
Troops identified by the Israeli news media as navy commandos attacked a house in Nablus, in the northern West Bank, in a predawn raid that killed five gunmen and Maram Nahleh, 11, who was inside her house about 15 feet from the garden where the shooting erupted, according to Palestinian hospital officials and a witness from the neighborhood.
Palestinian security officials said four of the gunmen were members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah political movement, and the fifth was from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Syrian-based group that has been active throughout the four-year-old Palestinian uprising.
As tanks and armored vehicles swarmed through Nablus after the early morning attack, thousands of residents poured into the streets, pelting the Israelis with rocks and gasoline bombs, according to witnesses and the Israeli military spokeswoman.
"This is a big crime that cannot be forgiven and is part of Israeli determination to escalate aggression," Arafat told reporters at his Ramallah headquarters.
Sharon's plans to remove all settlements from the Gaza Strip and four small, isolated settlements from the West Bank have provoked increasingly vocal protests from settlement organizations and death threats against him from Jewish extremists, according to Israeli officials. Twice this year, members of Sharon's Likud Party have voted against initiatives aimed at advancing the plan.
Although Sharon's government has taken only the most preliminary bureaucratic steps toward removing Jewish settlers, the Israeli military has escalated attacks against Palestinians in Gaza. Until Wednesday, Israeli forces had conducted continual, smaller-scale operations in the West Bank, but the raid in Nablus as well as another in Jenin, farther north, resulted in the bloodiest day there since the spring of last year.
Early Wednesday afternoon, Israeli troops disguised as Palestinians burst into an auto repair shop in downtown Jenin, killing one gunman, a Palestinian police officer and two civilians, witnesses told the Reuters news agency. The Israeli military spokeswoman said all the victims were armed and that troops arrested one unarmed man.
The bloodshed came as Jewish settler organizations amplified their protests against evacuating settlements. On Tuesday, Israel's security cabinet approved up to $670 million to compensate settlers who are forced to leave, and families who leave voluntarily could receive more than $300,000 in government buyouts, Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday. Israel's parliament must approve the allocations, however, before money can be handed out.
"Sharon is trying to put pressure on residents of our community even though the plan has not been approved," said Josh Hasten, spokesman for the Yesha Council, Israel's main settler organization, which opposes the withdrawal plan. "We're confident the vast majority of our residents are not going to take compensation of any form: They can't be bought," he said.
Israeli police said this week that they were investigating possible death threats made against Sharon because of his settlement withdrawal plan. A radical rabbi declared on Israel's Channel 2 television Tuesday night that was he prepared to conduct a ceremony placing a death curse on Sharon.
"He's not afraid about his own personal safety," said Gissin, Sharon's spokesman, but about "this incitement and spreading of hatred that could lead to the worst of all possible worlds, a civil war, which Israel cannot afford."
Hasten described publicity surrounding the death threats as "political exaggeration" designed to sidetrack arguments against the disengagement plan and win sympathy for Sharon here and in the United States.
Correspondent John Ward Anderson contributed to this report.
--------
Sharon Doubts Gaza Exit Aids the Road Map
September 16, 2004
By GREG MYRE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/middleeast/16mideast.html?pagewanted=all
JERUSALEM, Sept. 15 - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has acknowledged that Israel is not following the moribund Middle East peace plan, and has said an Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip is unlikely to revive it, a newspaper interview published Wednesday said.
Mr. Sharon spoke on one of the deadliest days of the past year in the West Bank as Israeli troops killed nine Palestinian militants in two raids on hide-outs. An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was fatally shot in one of the clashes, Palestinians said.
Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have met their commitments under the peace plan, known as the road map, which collapsed shortly after it was introduced in June 2003. The United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia back the plan, and while no progress has been made in the last year, no one has been willing to declare the road map dead.
In an interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, Mr. Sharon offered perhaps his most explicit statement on his reluctance to pursue the plan, which his government endorsed with reservations last year.
The Bush administration has suggested the Gaza withdrawal could restart the peace process, and it repeated that assertion Wednesday. But Mr. Sharon - who has been under strong pressure from settlers and members of his Likud Party, who oppose any sort of withdrawal plan - described the pullout as part of his "unilateral disengagement plan," which calls for Israel to act alone because he does not consider the Palestinian leadership to be a credible partner.
"It could very well be that after the evacuation, there will be a very long period in which nothing else will happen," he said. After the Gaza withdrawal, "Israel will continue its war on terrorism and will stay in the territories that will remain," he said, referring to the West Bank. He later added: "Today, we are also not following the road map. I am not ready for this.'' Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said his comments "validate our fears."
"Mr. Sharon is saying that the Gaza disengagement is not part of the road map, it is an alternative," Mr. Erekat said. "We can only hope this will be an eye-opener for the American administration."
-------- russia / chechnya
Putin's Plan for Governors Only Confirms His Control
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24576-2004Sep15?language=printer
MOSCOW, Sept. 15 -- Anatoly Lisitsyn did something remarkable not long ago. He spoke out against the Kremlin.
Lisitsyn, the governor of the industrial region of Yaroslavl, northeast of the capital, complained that the central government was hoarding tax receipts for itself while leaving the regions too strapped to pay for Moscow's promises. Then last month came a move that many Russians saw as a response from the Kremlin: Authorities charged him with abuse of power for some budget decisions.
President Vladimir Putin has made it a top priority to keep governors in line since taking office nearly five years ago. Long before he decided this week to eliminate the popular election of governors and appoint them himself, Putin effectively controlled who would lead Russia's diverse regions. People who got in the way were knocked off the ballot for supposed technical violations or became targets of prosecution that many people took to be political.
Analysts estimate that 90 percent of Russia's governors were actually chosen by the Kremlin, but they say the other 10 percent began to gnaw at Putin and his circle. A few repudiations in gubernatorial elections -- including victories by the head of a milk factory and a television comedian over favored incumbents -- embarrassed the Kremlin this year. And then this summer, several governors such as Lisitsyn dared to openly criticize Moscow's fiscal policies.
"This criticism was pretty frequent and public, and it wasn't liked by certain people who are close to the president," said Aleksei Bushuyev, director of the Information Agency and Analytical Center, a consulting firm in Yaroslavl. So Putin opted to abolish the election of governors. "This is a decision to run everything himself right from Moscow," Bushuyev said.
Critics have called the president's plan a devastating blow to Russia's fragile democracy. But many analysts and independent politicians believe Putin had already so methodically rolled back some of the reforms of the post-Soviet period that the voting had lost much of its meaning.
Genuine competition between candidates and parties has disappeared in virtually any race in which the Kremlin takes an interest. Television channels broadcast only what authorities permit. The parliament has been cleansed of any effective opposition, and business magnates have been ordered to stay out of politics or risk losing their assets and personal freedom.
The vast majority of the country's 89 regional leaders already subordinate themselves to the Kremlin, and now they will serve it officially. "It will not change the regional elite," said Stanislav Belkovsky, a political consultant. "On the contrary, it will confirm the regional elite."
Belkovsky, who has close ties to the hard-liners in the Kremlin known as the siloviki, or "men of power," said the real goal of the Putin plan is to assert control over funding sources. Anyone who wants to be a governor will be required to pay secret fees of $50 million or more to "a special fund created in the shadow of the Kremlin," he predicted.
"It's widely discussed, implicitly though not openly," said Belkovsky, who earned credibility last year when he predicted the crackdown on the oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. "People around the Kremlin, people around governors, everybody's preparing to negotiate. Governors who are not prepared to negotiate financial conditions and defend their positions will be fired for sure."
Putin has so successfully cowed the governors that virtually none of them has objected to his power play. Most have embraced the plan -- including such Western-oriented reformers as Gov. Mikhail Prusak of Novgorod.
"Those who criticize Putin's proposals by saying it's a step backward in democracy are really just a dozen people," Prusak said in an interview. "This doesn't mean that Putin will replace all the governors. What he is trying to do is replace them in hot spots where he needs them."
Many governors may be backing the plan because, like Prusak, they are nearing the end of their terms and could be reappointed under the new system. "They will all say, 'Yes, please,' and they will all say, 'We've been asking for this for years,' " said Maksim Dianov, director of the Institute of Regional Problems, a research organization. "At the moment these people become governors, they immediately become loyal to the president the next second. We don't have any exceptions whatsoever."
The situation represents a dramatic change from the era of Boris Yeltsin, Putin's predecessor, who told regional leaders to grab "all the sovereignty you can swallow" and later rued the fact that they took him at his word. Putin came to power at the end of 1999 determined to rein in governors who ruled their regions with broad authority, often ignoring federal law. He took away their seats in parliament, appointed seven presidential envoys to oversee them and seized control of some local agencies and tax revenue.
In 2002, the president disavowed any desire to appoint governors. "The leaders of the regions are elected by the people in a direct, secret ballot," he said then. "That is what the constitution prescribes, and that is how it should stay."
But when he ran into problems with regional leaders, he often removed them. Putin did not get along with the leader of Ingushetia, for instance, and replaced him with a fellow KGB veteran in the next election after a Kremlin-orchestrated campaign. Authorities disqualified from the ballot governors or candidates in regions as diverse as Kursk in the west, Chechnya in the south and Primorye in the far east.
Governors who survived competed for Kremlin favor by delivering votes in Putin's March reelection, when there were reports of ballot-box stuffing. While the president received 71 percent nationwide, the new head of Ingushetia reported a 98 percent vote for his friend Putin.
But from time to time, voters have not cooperated. Against Kremlin wishes, Mikhail Yevdokimov, a comedian in Altai, Nikolai Kiselyov, a milk factory director in Arkhangelsk, and the deputy governor of Magadan, Nikolai Dudov, all won elections. Even in Putin's home town of St. Petersburg, the Kremlin-backed candidate, Valentina Matvienko, needed a second round of voting to win the majority required to get into the governor's office.
Putin's power "was not 100 percent," said Maria Matskevich, deputy director of the Center for the Study and Forecasting of Social Processes in St. Petersburg. "There were some limits. I don't think St. Petersburg was the last point where they lost their temper, but maybe St. Petersburg was one of the reasons."
Then several governors bucked Putin's unpopular plan to overhaul the Soviet-era social welfare system, convinced that they would have to shoulder the burden. Several governors in the far east signed a joint letter complaining to the Kremlin.
"It was most dangerous for the Kremlin when governors started collective action," said Nikolai Petrov, a regional specialist at the Carnegie Moscow Center. "It came all of a sudden for the Kremlin. They were sure that governors were totally subordinated to them."
Soon, insiders close to the Kremlin began whispering that Putin's team was preparing a campaign against the governors for the fall. In May, prosecutors opened a criminal investigation of the governor of Saratov, Dmitri Ayatskov, then later went after Lisitsyn in Yaroslavl. The Supreme Court ruled against Gov. Konstantin Titov of Samara in a dispute over his next election.
"All of this shows you could only win if you have the consent of the presidential administration," said Igor Yermolenko, head of the Yabloko party in Samara. "In order to prevent this kind of situation from happening again, Putin decided to appoint governors."
--------
In Rare Rebuke, Bush Faults Putin's Moves to Centralize Power
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24542-2004Sep15.html
In an unusual rebuke of an ally, President Bush said yesterday that he was concerned that Russian President Vladimir Putin's moves to centralize power could undermine democracy.
Putin's announcement on Monday that he would seek further control over regional governments and the legislative branch has been widely interpreted as an attempt to use the fear of terrorism as a justification for imposing tyranny. Bush's silence for two days led to widespread questions about his commitment to promoting freedom in all parts of the world.
Bush, in remarks at an East Room concert and reception honoring Hispanic Heritage Month, said he is "concerned about the decisions that are being made in Russia that could undermine democracy in Russia."
"Great countries, great democracies have a balance of power between central government and local governments, a balance of power within central governments between the executive branch and the legislative branch and the judicial branch," he said. "As governments fight the enemies of democracy, they must uphold the principles of democracy."
Bush did not repeat the praise of Putin as "a man who I admire" that he offered Sunday when he stopped by the Russian Embassy to write a note in a condolence book for the more than 300 children and adults killed recently in the terrorist siege of a school in southern Russia. Bush began his administration with a warm relationship with Putin, but some presidential aides feel they have gotten little for their overtures and were angry that Putin opposed the invasion of Iraq.
Putin cited the threat of terrorism when he said in televised remarks Monday that he would ask parliament to radically restructure the nation's political system to end the popular election of governors and independent lawmakers.
Although on Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had criticized the effort to concentrate power, Bush's decision to scold Putin before television cameras reflected the White House calculation that he needed to respond directly to Putin's proposals.
Stephen R. Sestanovich, an authority on Russia who is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said many Russians have worried that Putin has concluded from the White House's public and private statements that Washington had no objection to his efforts to restrict the media and block opposition.
"The approach until now has been to let Colin Powell deliver the bad news," Sestanovich said. "The Russian read of that has been that, as long as the president didn't say too much or too publicly, they didn't have to take it too seriously. So it's good for the president to be more forthright and make it clear that it's not just Colin Powell wringing his hands."
A White House official said Bush aides had seen "misperceptions in the media" about Bush's commitment to a consistent defense of democracy. Administration officials plan to try to soften the criticism by telling their Russian counterparts that Bush intended the comments as "counsel from a friend."
Bush and Putin have not personally discussed the matter, aides said. The last time Bush talked to Putin was on Sept. 1, when he offered condolences and assistance after the siege at the school began.
--------
Powell: Russia Pulling Back on Democratic Reform
(Reuters)
By Arshad Mohammed and Saul Hudson
Sep 16, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=732&e=8&u=/nm/20040914/ts_nm/russia_usa_dc
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said on Tuesday he was concerned that sweeping political changes to fight terrorism proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) would erode Russia's democratic reforms.
"In effect this is pulling back on some of the democratic reforms," Powell told Reuters. "We have concerns about it and we want to discuss them with the Russians."
The Kremlin leader said on Monday he wanted a new election law to limit the number of political parties and to have full control on nominating regional leaders to combat terrorism following the bloody Beslan school siege in southern Russia.
Critics immediately accused Putin exploiting the grisly siege, in which at least 327 hostages died, to amass power.
While expressing sympathy for Putin's desire to go after "terrorists" following the Beslan crisis, the bombing of two Russian aircraft and a Moscow subway bombing in the last month, Powell said Russia must balance this with democratic freedoms.
"We understand the need to fight against terrorism ... but in an attempt to go after terrorists I think one has to strike a proper balance to make sure that you don't move in a direction that takes you away from the democratic reforms or the democratic process," he said.
Washington has at times been accused of turning a blind eye to widespread concerns the Kremlin was becoming increasingly autocratic, notably by muting its criticism of the imprisonment and trial of the former chairman of the Yukos oil company.
But Powell delivered an unusually blunt message to the Kremlin in January by expressing concern about Russia's democracy and its commitment to the rule of law in an opinion piece published in the newspaper Izvestia.
"It would be not the best course of action to move in a direction which (would) be seen by the international community as moving toward the rear with respect to democratic reforms," Powell said on Tuesday.
Since the Beslan tragedy, in which children made up half of the victims, Washington has played down its long-standing demand Russia seek a political settlement in Chechnya (news - web sites), where a brutal conflict has raged between Moscow and Chechen separatists for 10 years.
Putin last week rejected talks with the rebels and taunted Washington by saying: "Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?"
"I think the Russians believe that ultimately a political solution has to be found. ... But when you are faced with a terrible tragedy such as they were faced with in Beslan what you have to focus on is making sure you have identified who these murderers are, who these terrorists are and go after them," Powell said.
"There can be no political solution or political dialogue with terrorists (or) murderers ... at the same time you have to find a balance between fighting terrorism in an aggressive way and also making sure that you don't undercut the institutions of state that are based on the foundation of democracy."
-------- spies
Powell Aide Gave Papers To Taiwan, FBI Says
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24703-2004Sep15.html
A former high-ranking State Department official who is one of the nation's leading experts on China passed documents to Taiwanese intelligence agents and was charged yesterday with concealing a trip to Taiwan, court papers say.
Donald W. Keyser, who was elevated to principal deputy assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs this year, made the trip last year, according to an FBI affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. Keyser, 61, who advised Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on China issues, met with one of the agents in Taipei last September during an official trip to China and Japan, the affidavit says.
Tailed by the FBI in recent weeks, Keyser and two Taiwanese agents conducted a series of covert meetings around Washington. At a meeting July 31 at the Potowmack Landing restaurant, the affidavit says, Keyser handed the Taiwanese two envelopes "that appeared to bear U.S. government printing.''
On Sept. 4 at the same Alexandria restaurant, on the Potomac River with a view of downtown Washington, FBI agents saw Keyser pass a document captioned "discussion topics,'' the affidavit says. FBI agents stopped the three men outside the restaurant and took the six-page document, described in the affidavit as something "derived from material to which Keyser had access as a result of his employment with the Department of State."
The court documents do not say that Keyser accepted money and do not otherwise ascribe a motive. Neither Keyser nor his attorney returned phone calls yesterday.
Keyser told the FBI that the document he gave the two Taiwanese agents contained "talking points" that he often would prepare for his meetings with the two agents, according to the affidavit. He said that his trip to Taiwan had been for sightseeing and that he had not notified anyone about it, including his family. His wife is a CIA officer.
State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said the department is cooperating with the FBI, but he declined to comment further. The affidavit does not describe the documents Keyser allegedly handed over as classified, and it is unclear whether any damage could have been done to national security.
Keyser is charged with concealing the trip to Taiwan by lying in May on State Department forms for security clearance that required him to disclose foreign travel.
News of Keyser's arrest stunned some in diplomatic circles, in which he is highly regarded as a China analyst. Keyser, a Foreign Service officer for three decades, speaks fluent Mandarin and is knowledgeable about the former Soviet Union. He has served in high-ranking positions in the U.S. embassies in Beijing and Tokyo, and was deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs when he allegedly made the trip to Taiwan.
Keyser retired in July as the No. 2 person in the State Department's East Asia bureau, but he is still assigned to the department's Foreign Service Institute in Arlington.
"He is an absolutely superb specialist on China and a fine Foreign Service officer. I've never had the slightest reason to question his loyalty to the United States,'' said J. Stapleton Roy, a three-time U.S. ambassador who was Keyser's boss when Keyser was deputy director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Roy quit his job in protest in 2000 after then-Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright suspended Keyser for 30 days and reassigned him because of lax security stemming from a missing top-secret laptop computer. Keyser was one of at least six State Department employees disciplined over the loss of the computer, which contained thousands of pages of information about weapons proliferation issues and was never found. Roy said yesterday that Keyser had nothing to do with the computer's disappearance.
This is the second recent instance of a federal official being implicated in passing documents to countries friendly with the United States. The FBI is investigating whether Lawrence A. Franklin, a Pentagon policy analyst, provided a draft presidential directive on Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and whether that committee passed the information to Israel, law enforcement sources have said. No charges have been filed.
The United States has a longstanding "one China" policy, under which it maintains diplomatic relations only with China, not with Taiwan. But Chinese officials recently have expressed frustration over the Bush administration's willingness to sell arms to Taiwan. China and Taiwan are adversaries, with China insisting that Taiwan reunite with the mainland.
According to court documents, Keyser traveled to China on official State Department business about Aug. 31, 2003. He then went to Tokyo on official business, but while in Tokyo took a three-day "side trip" to Taiwan, the documents say.
While in Taiwan, Keyser met with someone referred to in court documents as "Foreign Person One." He is described as a Taiwanese intelligence agent stationed at the Taipei Economic Cultural and Representative Office on Wisconsin Avenue in the District.
Court documents say James A. Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Keyser's superior at the time, told the FBI that Keyser was not permitted to travel to Taiwan on official business because the United States and Taiwan don't have diplomatic relations and that he would have vetoed such a trip.
Experts were surprised that Keyser would travel to Taiwan right after visiting China.
"The whole idea that he could take a trip like this that was not authorized while he was deputy assistant secretary is ludicrous to me. People in that position don't just move around anonymously,'' said a former high-ranking State Department official who specialized in Chinese affairs and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the case's sensitivity.
Keyser appeared in federal court in Alexandria yesterday and later was scheduled to be released on $500,000 bond.
Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.
--------
State Dept. Official Arrested in Inquiry on Taiwan Contact
September 16, 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16spy.html?hp
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A longtime Foreign Service officer at the State Department, who until recently was a ranking official on East Asian affairs, was arrested on Wednesday and charged with concealing a trip to Taiwan, and is suspected of improperly passing documents to Taiwanese intelligence agents, law enforcement and intelligence officials said.
The diplomat, Donald W. Keyser, appeared in federal court in Alexandria, Va., and was charged with making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a government background check.
A career foreign service officer, Mr. Keyser was a top advisor on China to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell before resigning abruptly several weeks ago in the face of accusations that he had passed information to the Taiwanese, officials said.
F.B.I. agents in the bureau's Washington field office are investigating the case as possible espionage, but officials would not characterize the seriousness of the investigation. "The allegation is what it is - a case of making a false statement to the F.B.I.- and that's all we can say," said a Justice Department official speaking on condition of anonymity.
The State Department declined comment on the case because of the ongoing criminal investigation. A spokesman noted that Mr. Keyser is currently assigned to the Foreign Service Institute, a department training branch. Mr. Keyer is alleged to have met with a Taiwanese intelligence agent in Tapei last year during an official trip to China and Japan, officials said. He did not disclose the meeting as required during a background check and was the subject of an F.B.I. surveillance operation as a result, officials said.
Because the United States does not have direct diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it is rare for diplomats to travel to the country, especially in any official capacity, without specific permission.
An F.B.I. affidavit in the case said he was seen meeting with two Taiwanese agents in a series of covert meeting around Washingtonthis summer and that he handed the Taiwanese contacts what appeared to be government material, including a document titled "discussion topics," The Washington Post reports in Thursday's editions. A copy of the affidavit could not be obtained independently late Wednesday.
In a separate matter, the F.B.I. is also investigating accusations that an analyst at the Pentagon may have improperly passed information to Israel through an Israeli lobbying group.
Mr. Keyser was also involved in controversy over a security breach during the Clinton administration when a laptop computer containing highly sensitive material was discovered missing.
Assigned at the time to the State Department's intelligence and research bureau, Mr. Keyser was suspended from his job and reassigned to the office of the director general of the Foreign Service, officials said.
His boss at the time, J. Stapleton Roy, resigned in protest over the disciplinary action against Mr. Keyser and five others.
Mr. Keyser was described by colleagues at the time as a brilliant linguist with a fierce intellect and analytical ability. In March he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to highlight the need to fight terrorism in Southeast Asia.
Mr. Keyser is charged with making an undisclosed trip to Taiwan last year, but two administration officials said that charge was simply a small part of a broader investigation. For much of last year, Taiwan was engaged in a tense standoff with the Bush administration and Beijing over how far it could go in holding referendums that were clearly intended to edge the country toward independence. And on Nov. 18, 2003, a Chinese general who is in charge of Taiwan affairs warned that if necessary China would use force to stop what he called "the open promotion of Taiwan independence.''
President Bush used a November, 2003, visit to Washington by China's premier, Wen Jiabao, to declare that he was opposed to any move by Taiwan that would change the status quo between Taiwan and China. Mr. Bush was widely criticized, even by some conservatives, for siding with authoritarians in Beijing rather than a democratic Taiwan. The Taiwanese were also angry, and Mr. Keyser was involved in managing that relationship.
Mr. Keyser was involved, officials say, in the diplomacy to get Taiwan to back down from a confrontational stance against China when Mr. Chen was re-elected in March. He was also a minor player in the diplomacy to get China to back American pressure against North Korea.
It is unclear whether the documents the indictment alleges were handed off to the Taiwanese by Mr Keyser were classified, or whether they dealt with China policy, arms sales or other issues. But one colleague of his said "there is no one else who was at the heart of so many issues."
-------- un
Annan: US invasion of Iraq was illegal
The war did not have the backing of the UN Security Council
Thursday 16 September 2004,
Agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2AA1310F-798C-4666-AE76-DCB6370C75CC.htm
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has described the US-led invasion of Iraq as illegal and a violation of the UN charter.
In an interview with BBC on Wednesday, Annan also expressed fears that holding credible elections in Iraq may not be possible as planned in January 2005 in view of the escalating violence.
"I am one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution from the UN Security Council to green-light the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime," Annan said.
"I have indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal," he said.
US transgression
Annan stressed it was for the Security Council to act on UN resolutions to compel Saddam to abandon the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
"I have indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal"
"It was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be," he said.
He added that the US decision to go ahead and invade Iraq, with British forces at its side, "was not in conformity with the Security Council, with the UN charter".
Asked if he meant that the decision to invade was illegal, Annan replied: "Yes, if you wish."
The secretary general also had a grim forecast for Iraq, saying the current level of violence and unrest made credible elections early next year look highly unlikely.
"I think there have been lessons for the US and lessons for the UN and other member states," he said.
"I think that, in the end, everybody's concluded that it is best to work together with our allies and through the UN to deal with some of these issues," Annan said.
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time."
Reactions
Meanwhile, Britain, Australia and a former US official, insisted on Thursday that their countries' military action in Iraq was legal.
"The legal advice that we had, and I tabled it at the time, was that the action was entirely valid in international law terms," Australian Prime Minister John Howard told Australian radio.
Howard's view was echoed by Prime Minister Tony Blair's office, which said the British government's top lawyer - Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith - had reached the same conclusion before the invasion was launched in March last year.
British Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt said she respected Annan but disagreed with him. "We spelt out at the time our reasons for believing the conflict in Iraq was indeed lawful and why we believed it was necessary," she said.
There was no official response from Washington, but Randy Scheunemann, a former adviser to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said Annan had no right to question the legal judgment of UN member states.
"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference," he told the BBC.
Poland, another staunch backer of US-led military action in Iraq, insisted the invasion was legal, listing UN resolutions relating to Iraq.
"It must be said that the decision which the international community took on Iraq had a legal basis," the Polish Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
-------- us
GIs claim threat by Army
Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq
By Dick Foster,
Rocky Mountain News
September 16, 2004
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html
COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.
Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The effort is part of a restructuring of the Army into smaller, more flexible forces that can deploy rapidly around the world.
A Fort Carson spokesman confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under way and one of the soldiers provided the form to the Rocky Mountain News. An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don't re-enlist with the brigade were threatened.
The form, if signed, would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until Dec. 31, 2007. The two soldiers said they were told that those who did not sign would be transferred out of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team.
"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant.
The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately, essentially echoed that view.
"They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not," he said.
The brigade's presentation outraged many soldiers who are close to fulfilling their obligation and are looking forward to civilian life, the sergeant said.
"We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said.
A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty.
"I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq," said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon.
Sending soldiers to Iraq with less than one year of their enlistment remaining "would not be taken lightly," Lt. Col. Gerard Healy said from the Pentagon Wednesday.
"We realize that we deal with people and with families, and that's got to be a factor," he said.
"There's probably a lot of places on post where they could put those folks (who don't re-enlist) until their time expires. But I don't want to rule out the possibility that they could go to a unit that might deploy," said Healy.
Under current Army practice, members of Iraq-bound units are "stop-lossed," meaning they could be retained in the unit for an entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires.
A recruiter told the sergeant that the Army would keep them "as long as they needed us."
Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if a soldier signs for only three or four years of active duty.
The 3rd Brigade recruiting effort is part of the Army's plan to restructure large divisions of more than 10,000 soldiers into smaller, more flexible, more numerous brigade- sized "Units of Action" of about 3,500 soldiers each.
The Army envisions building each unit into a cohesive whole and staffing them with soldiers who will stay with the unit for longer periods of time, said John Pike, head of the defense analysis think tank Global Security.
"They want these units to fight together and train together. They're basically trying to keep these brigades together throughout training and deployment, so I can understand why they would want to shed anybody who was not going to be there for the whole cycle," Pike said.
But some soldiers presented with the re-enlistment message last week believe they've already done their duty and should not be penalized for choosing to leave. They deployed to Iraq for a year with the 3rd Brigade last April.
"I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky. Iraq has changed a lot of people.''
The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him troubled, unable to sleep and "filled with dread."
"For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said.
Soldiers' choice at Fort Carson
WHAT THE FORM SAID
• "Elect not to extend or re-enlist and understand that the soldier will be reassigned IAW (in accordance with) the needs of the Army by Department of the Army HRC (Human Resources Command) . . . or Fort Carson G1 (Personnel Office).''
WHAT IT MEANS
• Soldiers who sign the letter are bound to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team until Dec. 31, 2007.
• Soldiers who do not sign the letter might be transferred out of the brigade and possibly to Iraq.
----
Far graver than Vietnam
Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305441,00.html
'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.
But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."
Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."
Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."
W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.
"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."
After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the attack on Fallujah," said General Hoare. "I asked a three-star marine general who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn't tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.
"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There's talk of angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents."
"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."
General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."
Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."
General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."
He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Asad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said Hoare. "US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy."
General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."
· Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com
sidney_blumenthal@ yahoo.com
--------
Bush Nominates Army Secretary
Associated Press
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25051-2004Sep16.html
President Bush on Wednesday nominated Francis J. Harvey, a defense industry engineer and executive, to be secretary of the Army.
If confirmed by the Senate, Harvey would replace Thomas E. White, who quit under pressure last year after clashes with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
An earlier pick, Air Force Secretary James G. Roche, withdrew his name from consideration earlier this year when the nomination faced opposition in the Senate.
Harvey is vice chairman of Duratek Inc., a Maryland-based company that specializes in treating radioactive, hazardous and other wastes. Previously, he was president of Westinghouse Electric Corp.'s defense and electronics systems group.
--------
Colonel Urges Court-Martial For England
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25052-2004Sep16.html
An Army colonel investigating Pfc. Lynndie R. England's involvement in detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has recommended that the soldier face a general court-martial on 17 counts of abuse and indecent acts, though the officer cited England's youth and impressionability as possible explanations for her role in the alleged crimes.
Col. Denise J. Arn -- who presided over England's pretrial hearings last month at Fort Bragg, N.C. -- wrote in a Sept. 6 report that she also recommends dropping two counts of assault on detainees and another blanket charge of "maltreatment and cruelty." If convicted on the remaining charges, some of which show England engaged in sex acts with another soldier, England could face 37 years in prison.
Though not surprising that Arn recommended a full-scale military trial for the soldier who appeared in digital photos holding a detainee on a leash and pointing at hooded detainees' genitals, Arn notes that England, 21, responded "without hesitation, to the suggestions of other, older soldiers in the group," according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Post.
"It does not escape notice that Pfc. England was one of the younger participants, if not the youngest, in the incidents that gave rise to the allegations against her," Arn wrote. "From my review of the evidence, it is apparent that Pfc. England was, at the time of the offenses, the kind of person who was easily led."
Arn also said England's relationship with Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr. heavily influenced her conduct. Officials have called Graner, who is 12 years older than England, a ringleader of the abuse. Graner's lawyer has said that the MPs were following orders from military intelligence officials, a claim bolstered in part by recent Army and Pentagon reports.
A spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg said Arn has submitted the report to her superiors. Gen. John R. Vines ultimately will decide what, if any, charges against England should proceed to a court-martial.
--------
Reserve Chief Says Force Not Properly Prepared to Fight War on Terror
September 16, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/national/16WIRE-RESERVE.html?hp
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The chief of the Army Reserve said Thursday that his force of part-time soldiers has yet to fully adapt to the demands of a global war on terrorism, even though half of the 205,000 Reserve members have been called to active duty since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"We're at war, this is a hard war and we, frankly, inside the Army Reserve have been not properly prepared for it," Lt. Gen. James Helmly said, adding that he sees some signs of improvement.
Many members of the Army Reserve, like their fellow part-time soldiers in the National Guard, are not used to being mobilized for the kind of long and dangerous duty they face in Iraq.
"Every time I visit a unit I take about 45 minutes to an hour and try to talk to all of them and explain to them every initiative we have underway to properly prepare ourselves and bring the institution to a wartime footing, but it's hard," Helmly said in an interview with a group of reporters.
The Army Reserve has about 38,500 on active duty now, and those in Iraq are serving 12-month tours, which is twice as long as mobilized Reserve members spend on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia and Kosovo.
"You must prepare yourself physically, mentally, spiritually," Helmly said he advises Reserve soldiers, "such that you are prepared for a call to active duty just as if you knew the hour and the day that it would come. That's a long-term change" from attitudes developed over decades.
For years the conventional wisdom among members of the Army Reserve was that they were unlikely to get mobilized, and if they did it would be for non-combat duty in a secure rear area, far from the fighting. The war in Iraq, where no soldier is immune from attack, has shattered that belief.
Too often, Helmly said, he hears that members of a newly mobilized Reserve unit respond to the news of their activation by saying, "I didn't think it was going to happen to us," and they are not prepared.
"I frankly have started to put a boot up some people's fannies about getting everyone ready," he said.
As an example of the mindset he is working to change, Helmly described the reaction he got from the 98th Division, whose main mission is training other U.S.-based Army units, when it was told that about 800 members will be mobilized and sent to Iraq in October to help train the Iraqi army.
"I've gotten cards, letters, e-mails (saying), `How can you do that?"' he said.
In the 45 years since the 98th Division became part of the Army Reserve it has never deployed abroad, according to spokesman Steve Stromvall, although it did occupation duty in Japan in 1945-46 as an active-duty infantry division. It is scheduled to spend 12 months in Iraq.
Generally the Army Reserve's role is to provide support services like medical specialists, military police, and truck drivers. The active-duty Army gets its backup combat troops mainly from the National Guard. In Iraq, however, danger haunts every soldier, regardless of role.
"Driving that truck is one of the most hazardous damned occupations we have in Iraq, and the truck drivers and the MPs are front-line troops these days," Helmly said.
As an illustration of that, the fatalities announced by the Pentagon on Thursday included Spc. Lauro G. DeLeon Jr., 20, of Floresville, Texas, of the Army Reserve's 644th Transportation Company based in Beaumont, Texas. DeLeon was killed by a roadside bomb that exploded near his vehicle convoy on Sept. 8 near Balad, a major U.S. logistics base north of Baghdad.
At least 49 members of the Army Reserve have died in Iraq since the invasion began in March 2003, and Helmly said 58 have died overall since the global war on terrorism began in October 2001.
The numbers killed and wounded are the highest for the Army Reserve since the Korean War of 1950-53, he said.
Army Reserve at http://www4.army.mil/USAR/home/index.php
The 98th Division at http://www.usarc.army.mil/98thDIV/index.htm
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- courts / tribunals
Presiding Officer At Guantanamo Faces Questions
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24538-2004Sep15.html
The chief Pentagon prosecutor in the military trials of alleged al Qaeda fighters at Guantanamo Bay has requested that the presiding officer in the cases "closely evaluate" his impartiality and consider resigning, according to a document filed in the tribunal proceeding.
The prosecutor, Army Col. Robert L. Swann, suggested in the document filed Sept. 7 that in effect he accepted some arguments put forward by military defense lawyers last month that the presiding officer in the four cases, Army Col. Peter E. Brownback III, should consider stepping down.
In hearings last month at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, attorneys for the detainees argued that Brownback should quit because he is close friends with retired Army Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., who oversees the military trials as the tribunals' "appointing authority."
The lawyers pointed out that Brownback and Altenburg have known each other since 1977, that Brownback's wife worked for Altenburg, and that Altenburg hosted Brownback's retirement party in 1999.
At preliminary hearings for detainees last month, defense attorneys asserted that the proceedings were stacked against the defendants and suggested that four others on the panel that will decide their guilt or innocence were also unqualified to serve. The lawyers' legal strategy, in part, is to get the prosecutions moved to U.S. criminal courts.
Swann's filing shows that the prosecutors are joining the defense in expressing unease about how the cases are proceeding, experts in military law said yesterday.
"This is quite a remarkable development," said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice.
Attempts to reach Brownback through the Pentagon yesterday evening were unsuccessful.
Swann's filing asks that Brownback "closely evaluate his own suitability to serve as the presiding officer . . . with particular attention focused on whether his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The prosecutor also asked Brownback to tell Altenburg "whether good cause exists for [Brownback's] removal."
Swann also wrote that he does not "object to the defense challenges for good cause" of three other military officers who are members of the military commission. In last month's hearings, defense attorneys had asked that four panelists be disqualified. One served in intelligence operations in the Middle East, another sent detainees from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, a third commanded a Marine who perished in the World Trade Center attack, and a fourth said he could not with certainty detail the Geneva Conventions
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, who represents Yemeni detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan, an alleged chauffeur for Osama bin Laden, said yesterday that "from the beginning, the [Pentagon] prosecutors have said, wait till we get there [to the tribunals] and you'll see how fair it all is. . . . In retrospect, they've realized it wasn't fair."
At the hearings last month, prosecutors said they had no objections to Brownback remaining in place.
Swift said the current arrangement is "incestuous" because Swann's supervisor is retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway, who is also counsel to Altenburg's office.
--------
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Judge Orders U.S. to Release Files on Abu Ghraib
September 16, 2004
By JULIA PRESTON
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16aclu.html?pagewanted=all
A federal judge in New York, complaining that the Bush administration "shows an indifference" to the freedom of information laws, has ordered the Pentagon and other agencies to produce a list of all their documents on the detentions at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Oct. 15.
The ruling, issued yesterday by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in Federal District Court in Manhattan, came in a suit filed July 2 by the American Civil Liberties Union. The group sued after the federal government failed to provide any relevant documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request it made on Oct. 7, 2003.
The request was for documents about the treatment and deaths of detainees while in United States custody in Iraq, among other subjects. The group provided a list of 70 priority documents, all of which were mentioned in public reports or press accounts.
In his ruling, Judge Hellerstein wrote that the "glacial pace" of the government's response "fails to afford the accountability of government" that the freedom of information laws require. On Aug. 17 the judge had ordered the government to start producing the 70 documents, but none have been released.
"If the documents are more of an embarrassment than a secret, the public should know of our government's treatment of individuals captured and held abroad," he wrote.
He stopped short of ordering the Pentagon to turn over the actual documents by the October deadline, after Assistant United States Attorney Sean Lane argued at a hearing on Friday that there were too many of them - at least 20,000, he said - to produce that soon. Mr. Lane said that many of the Pentagon's documents could not be released for national security reasons, and that the agency was working to identify those it would seek to withhold.
The Pentagon offered to produce a list of its relevant documents by February. In imposing the Oct. 15 deadline, Judge Hellerstein said the federal agencies could make a separate, sealed list for classified documents they did not want to release. But he required the government to give an explanation for each document it would not release.
Jameel Jaffer, a staff lawyer for the group, said that the ruling was "a huge step forward" and would allow the group to begin court challenges to force the release of the documents.
-------- homeland security / national intelligence
Votes Set on 9/11 Recommendations
Senate, House Appear Headed in Different Directions on Intelligence Overhaul
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24544-2004Sep15.html
Congressional leaders said yesterday the House and Senate will vote in a few weeks on recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission, but the two chambers appear at odds on some key issues, and several recommendations appear in jeopardy.
The Pentagon would lose much of its control over satellite-based intelligence gathering systems, and a new national intelligence director would have broad powers to coordinate various agencies under plans gaining momentum in Congress.
But the House and Senate appear far from agreeing to overhaul their own oversight operations, and some House staffers predicted that any significant reconsideration of Congress's role in intelligence and anti-terrorism matters will wait until next year, if it happens at all.
The Sept. 11 commission said in its final report that a proposed reorganization of the nation's intelligence and security operations "will not work" without changes in congressional oversight.
With the presidential and congressional elections less than eight weeks away, lawmakers feel pressure to show voters they are taking action to combat terrorism before they adjourn next month. House and Senate leaders held news conferences yesterday to outline their plans.
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine) and ranking Democrat Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) unveiled a bill to rearrange the CIA and other intelligence agencies, largely along the lines the commission recommended.
"Our country has made much progress in the last three years in strengthening our defenses against terrorism. But we believe it is essential that we build on that progress by enacting the most sweeping and significant intelligence reforms in decades," Collins said.
The bill includes two major proposals that appear to have extensive support: One would create a national intelligence director with broad budgetary and policy-setting powers over most of the government's intelligence-related agencies. The other would create a national counterterrorism center to coordinate intelligence efforts "and conduct joint operational planning" among the agencies, Collins said. The bill also calls for a "civil liberties board," recommended by the commission, to ensure that anti-terrorism efforts do not trample constitutional rights.
The national intelligence director would control the budgets of the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Homeland Security Department's intelligence directorate, the FBI's intelligence arm, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon would retain control over the Defense Intelligence Agency. Collins and Lieberman said commanders and troops in the field would suffer no interference in their access to timely intelligence.
The Defense Department controls about 80 percent of the estimated $40 billion spent annually on intelligence. Control over most of the budget would switch to the national intelligence director, Lieberman said.
The Collins-Lieberman bill does not address congressional oversight changes, which a 22-member Senate task force is weighing.
The House approach is significantly different, with Democrats playing a much smaller role than their Senate counterparts. GOP leaders said six committee chairmen will forward their proposals to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) on Friday. The committees will draft legislation next week, and the House will vote the week of Sept. 27.
House leaders said the Sept. 11 commission's findings are guiding them, but they signaled that they do not feel bound by the 10-member panel's precise proposals.
"In embracing the spirit of the 9/11 commission's report, we don't necessarily need to embrace the specifics of every recommendation," Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told reporters. "I've heard 10 hours is the [time] spent by the commission in actually coming up with these recommendations."
GOP lawmakers and aides said there is significant resistance to the commission's most ambitious recommendations for overhauling congressional oversight: giving the intelligence committees authorizing and appropriating powers; creating a single House-Senate intelligence panel; and making intelligence committee membership permanent rather than term-limited.
Several members and aides said that Congress is likely to make modest changes in its approach to intelligence oversight before the Nov. 2 elections, but that there is not enough time to build a consensus for the commission's further-reaching suggestions.
Among the provisions likely to emerge in a House bill, according to a well-placed Republican aide, are increased funding for detecting explosives at airports and for biometric screening of airport employees and passengers; civil liability protection for first responders who cross state lines after terrorist attacks; calls for standardized translations of foreign names, so that, for example, Osama bin Laden would not be rendered "Usama"; and increased criminal penalties for hoaxes about terrorist acts or deaths of U.S. troops.
Sept. 11 panel members have said their recommendations can be improved upon but have cautioned against ignoring major components.
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean (R) and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton (D) praised the Collins and Lieberman proposal as "an important first step" in achieving reform. "Their bill appears to incorporate some of the most important structural recommendations contained in our report," their statement said.
Researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
-------- human rights
U.S. Says Saudis Repress Religion
8 Countries Named In Annual Report
By Glenn Kessler and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24533-2004Sep15?language=printer
The United States for the first time named Saudi Arabia yesterday as a country that severely violates religious freedom, potentially subjecting the close U.S. ally to sanctions.
"Freedom of religion does not exist" in Saudi Arabia, the State Department said in its annual report on international religious freedom. "Freedom of religion is not recognized or protected under the country's laws and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam," the report said, adding that "non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation and sometimes torture."
The United States also identified seven other nations as "countries of particular concern": Burma, China, Iran, North Korea and Sudan, which were on the State Department's list of concern last year, and Eritrea and Vietnam, which were added this year. Iraq was dropped.
Admonishing Saudi Arabia was a switch for the administration, which had resisted calls from human rights groups and key lawmakers that the State Department cite the desert kingdom, a key oil supplier and partner in the war against terrorism, in its annual report. U.S. officials have said they preferred to handle such concerns privately even as they acknowledged that for all practical purposes Saudi Arabia has one of the world's most repressive regimes.
The designation of Saudi Arabia was made as the Bush administration has come under sharp attack from Democrats -- and the hit movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- for its close relationship with Saudi rulers.
Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry took the unusual step of singling out the Saudi royal family during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, saying, "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family."
Last night, a senior adviser to the campaign, Susan Rice, said Kerry supported yesterday's decision, but she accused the administration of taking a "kid glove" approach to Saudi Arabia. "President Bush's record makes clear: The only time he will acknowledge unacceptable Saudi behavior is within weeks of an election," she said.
But administration officials denied that the long-debated action was taken for political considerations.
"Never one word of that has been spoken to me by anybody," said John V. Hanford III, ambassador at large for international religious freedom. "We are not trying to counter allegations that have no basis in fact."
Hanford said that in the past year the State Department has tried to prod the Saudi government to make changes in how it deals with religious freedom, and that there had been encouraging signs that the leadership had promoted tolerance and moderation and was seeking to remove inflammatory statements from textbooks. But he said the Saudi actions were not enough to "put them back over the threshold."
Much of the discrimination in Saudi Arabia, Hanford said, was directed at other Muslims who do not practice Wahhabi, the state-sanctioned religion, in particular Shiites. "Most branches of Islam do not have freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia," he said.
The Saudi Embassy declined to comment on the administration's action.
U.S. officials yesterday declined to say what, if any, sanctions might be contemplated against Saudi Arabia if it does not improve religious freedom. "I'm not going to start speculating at this point on what might happen next," State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher told reporters. "We will be following along, considering the appropriate measures as required."
Alexandra Arriaga, director of government relations for Amnesty International USA, said the designation should have been made "quite some time ago" but what is needed now is concentrated follow-up by the U.S. government. Bush "ought to raise this issue more forcefully," Arriaga said, such as setting benchmarks for the Saudi government, including lifting restrictions on religious minorities in Saudi law.
Lawmakers who had pressed this issue in the past hailed yesterday's announcement.
"Finally, finally, finally," said Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.). "I just commend the Bush administration for saying what everyone knew."
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), co-chairman with Wolf of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, said the action reflects "a sea change" in the view of Saudi Arabia by Congress, the executive branch and the public since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"For too many years, Saudi Arabia was above criticism. You could criticize everybody in this town, but you could not criticize the Saudis," Lantos said. "Coming face to face with the reality, not only that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis but that, directly or indirectly, Saudi Arabia or its citizens were a principal financier of terrorism -- that has now liberated even the State Department to call a spade a spade."
The International Religious Freedom Act, the 1998 legislation that requires the State Department to issue its annual report, also created a permanent, nine-member U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The commission's chairwoman, Preeta D. Bansal, called on the State Department to "follow up its designations with action," beginning with negotiations and ratcheting up, if necessary, to include a broad range of economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Although the commission is "not at this particular time recommending any particular form of sanctions," she said, if "dialogue and consultations" fail to bring improvements in Saudi Arabia's record on religion, then "the full range of options needs to be explored, possibly in an escalating way."
The commission had recommended for two years that Vietnam be named a country of particular concern. Wolf said Vietnam had avoided censure because of its rapidly growing trade with the United States, and despite evidence of egregious violations of religious liberty.
In particular, he cited the case of the Rev. Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly, a Roman Catholic priest who was branded a traitor and imprisoned in 2001 after he sent testimony to the commission about what he called "extremely cruel" treatment of religious people by the communist government.
Eritrea, the other nation new to the list this year, was cited because all religious activity outside four recognized groups was forced to end and more than 200 Christians remain in prison for their faith.
-------- prisons / prisoners
France Detains 5 In 9/11 Inquiry
Reuters
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24793-2004Sep15.html
PARIS, Sept. 15 -- Police have detained five suspected Muslim militants as part of a French inquiry into the attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, French judicial sources said Wednesday.
The DST domestic intelligence agency arrested the five on Tuesday in the eastern Alsace region, the sources said.
Prosecutors suspect the five -- two brothers, their parents and a friend of the family -- of having links to Karim Mehdi, a Moroccan who is being investigated in connection with a bomb plot on the French island of Reunion in the Indian Ocean.
Mehdi, 35, was arrested in June 2003 at Paris's main airport. Police are deciding if he will face a charge of "associating with criminals engaged in a terrorist enterprise."
Police also suspect Mehdi was in contact with the Hamburg cell, which included some of the Arab hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks.
--------
ABU GHRAIB
Transforming a Prison, With U.S. Image in Mind
September 16, 2004
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/international/middleeast/16prison.html?pagewanted=all&position=
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 15 - On the outskirts of Baghdad, in the day-old "Camp Liberty" that American military officials presented as an example of the new Abu Ghraib prison, some 300 Iraqi prisoners, cleared of wrongdoing, were being released early Wednesday morning.
A line formed behind an exit as those who would have to wait another day stood behind a barbed-wired fence surrounding the camp. An American soldier standing outside called out, "151948," upon which a shortish man in a blue robe with a small bundle under his arm walked out, was handed a ticket and immediately handed the ticket to one of the two soldiers sitting at a desk. The other soldier gave him $25, in the form of a crisp new $20 bill and a $5 bill, and a 12-page glossy pamphlet on Iraq's interim government.
The freed prisoners boarded buses to take them to central Baghdad. The buses rumbled to a start, kicking up dust on the gravel road, as some of the men, with big smiles, waved with both arms at the men they were leaving behind in Abu Ghraib.
In response to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the military has carried out dozens of changes, including streamlining the processing of prisoners to ease overcrowding and formalizing the interrogation of prisoners. The buildings containing the cell blocks where the abuses were committed have been turned over to Iraqi prison authorities; the Americans are keeping prisoners in two new camps with tents: Camp Liberty and Camp Redemption.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, led an overnight tour for journalists to showcase the changes, saying that the transformation was tantamount to "restoring the honor of America." He said the changes, including better overall training, would prevent the abuses that took place here.
According to reports into the abuses, a breakdown in leadership led to confusion about the way to handle prisoners, and to abusive interrogation techniques like isolation, the use of dogs, stripping and sleep deprivation. What is more, in late 2003 and early 2004, according to photographs and testimony, a number of American soldiers assaulted and humiliated prisoners, often with the intention of getting more intelligence on the insurgency. Two low-ranking soldiers have been convicted in court-martial proceedings, though critics say real responsibility for the abuse lies higher up.
A new interrogation system established in April contains several layers of oversight and focuses on establishing a rapport between interrogators and prisoners, instead of employing coercive tactics.
"You would be surprised at how far a can of orange soda would go," said Lt. Col. Mark Costello, who oversees interrogations at Abu Ghraib.
Late Tuesday night, inside a small wooden shack, a supervisor, a behavioral analyst and an intelligence analyst were watching on television screens and listening to an interrogation in a nearby building. In that building, through a one-way mirror, the prisoner could be seen responding to an interrogator and an interpreter.
Under the new system, before the interrogation takes place, the interrogator and analyst decide on techniques and focus, and the plan is submitted for approval to a lawyer. Lawyers will sometimes overrule a plan if a certain technique - for instance, the length of interrogation - is considered inappropriate, General Miller said. After the interrogation, a report is written and made immediately available to a national intelligence data network, he said.
"We have to get better every day or we won't win the fight," General Miller said. "They have 24 hours to think of ways to evade us."
About 2,800 prisoners are detained at Abu Ghraib, down from 10,000 at the peak of overcrowding last year. The American military is planning to reduce the population to 1,000, and turn Camp Bucca, near Umm Qasr, in the south, into its main detention site. New facilities, including a clinic, are being built here.
At Camp Redemption, also surrounded by barbed wire, prisoners sleep on cots in tents that have been equipped with air-conditioning and heating units. As General Miller walked along the perimeter of Camp Redemption, the prisoners, recognizing him, pleaded for his attention.
"One minute!" one prisoner said, holding up his index finger, as another one tried to pass him a folded piece of paper through the fence.
One man caught the general's attention, and complained, in disjointed but rapid English, that his case had taken too long to be processed.
"Have patience," the general said. "We are doing the right thing."
"Thank you, sir!" the Iraqi said. "You are so kind."
Contributing to the overcrowding was the time required to process prisoners, which used to take 120 days and has been cut to 50, General Miller said.
According to a new system set up in July, six Iraqi officials from the Ministries of Interior, Human Rights and Justice, and three American military officials review each prisoner's case. About 60 percent of the reviews lead to releases, said Col. David Quantock.
"So far we've had only 20 repeat offenders," Colonel Quantock said, explaining that a retinal scan of each prisoner allows the military to quickly determine whether a captured Iraqi has already been detained here. About 7,500 prisoners, cleared of wrongdoing, have been released from Abu Ghraib since January, when American officials first disclosed that they were investigating abuses of prisoners here.
For those not scheduled to be released yet, however, there were family visits on Wednesday morning. Relatives began their visit by posing for a photo with the yellow-clad prisoner against the backdrop of a poster of a new Iraq, with all ethnic groups living peacefully to build "Your future." As an American soldier snapped away on a digital camera, Iraqi prisoners carried babies in their arms, wrapped their arms around a relative or sat respectfully next to a parent.
A few minutes later, another American soldier handed a black-and-white printout to the prisoner and another copy to the relatives.
-------- POLITICS
-------- budget
Spending Bills Falling Victim to Demands for Increases
September 16, 2004
By CARL HULSE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16cong.html
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - With the end of the federal fiscal year just two weeks away, Congress is far from completing its required spending bills and the always difficult job is being complicated by pre-election political fights and demands for more money.
On Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee flirted with a veto threat when its members defied the Bush administration and voted to block new Labor Department overtime rules as part of a spending measure for health, education and labor programs. That action followed a similar vote by the full House last week, a position the leadership has pledged to reverse.
And late Tuesday, the Senate added $2.9 billion in emergency crop aid to a measure paying for domestic security operations. Lawmakers then approved the $36 billion overall bill, setting up negotiations with the House, where lawmakers approved no such disaster money. And the House, which like the Senate broke for the week on Wednesday in observance of the Jewish holidays, was bogged down in a floor fight over the spending measure for the Treasury and Transportation Departments.
Other spending measures are also plagued by serious disputes among Republicans as well as partisan disagreements, making it highly unlikely that Congress - which has sent just one of 13 spending bills to President Bush - will complete the remaining 12 by the end of the government fiscal year on Sept. 30. Republicans continue to hold out hope that they can finish the job and avoid a long-term extension of spending at current levels or a post-election, lame duck session to complete their work.
"We are doing everything we can to get our work done before we take the break before the election,'' Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House Republican whip, told colleagues on the floor on Wednesday. "It is certainly possible we might have to come back.''
The measure paying for the Department of Homeland Security was just the second to clear the Senate and sailed through on a 93-to-0 vote after the aid for drought-stricken farmers was included. Given the focus on antiterror efforts, lawmakers hope to reach a final agreement on the bill and get it to the president before Oct. 1.
Members of both parties argued that extreme weather conditions in parts of the West and Midwest made the farm aid necessary, particularly after Congress last week speedily approved $2 billion in hurricane aid and is considering a White House request for $3 billion more. Some senators objected to the money being added, but the leadership chose not to challenge the aid after it became clear that there were enough votes to approve it. Lawmakers say they will also add the latest request for hurricane assistance to the domestic security measure in negotiations with the House.
Before approving the measure, the Senate defeated several Democratic efforts to change the bill, including one by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York to distribute security money to communities more on the basis of threat rather than by population.
On the overtime issue, two Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, sided with Democrats in voting to block the new rules that critics say will deny millions of Americans the opportunity to collect overtime pay. The Labor Department disputes that claim.
Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said he believed that the new rules should be tested and he was dropping his past support for efforts to block the regulations. Congressional leaders used House-Senate negotiations last year to kill a similar provision blocking the rules and are likely to try to do so again this year.
Mr. Stevens is pushing to get all the spending bills enacted before the election even if this requires merging several of them into a larger omnibus measure. He wants to avoid a stop-gap bill known as a continuing resolution, saying that approach will deny agencies any increases they need in the coming months. And the Senate is hoping to approve two or more separate spending bills next week so it can begin negotiations with the House on those proposals.
As it tried to pick up the pace, the Senate Appropriations Committee also agreed Wednesday to divert $150 million in unspent Iraq reconstruction money to the relief effort in Sudan as it approved a $19.4 billion foreign aid measure that includes $2.4 billion for AIDS prevention worldwide, $220 million more than sought by the White House.
Congress has been unable in recent years to get its appropriations work done in time and lawmakers are being distracted this year by the focus on the legislation growing out of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 report.
-------- investigations
Post Source Reveals Identity to Leak Probers
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24536-2004Sep15.html
A Washington Post reporter's confidential source has revealed his or her identity to the special prosecutor conducting the CIA leak inquiry, a development that provides investigators with a fact they have been pursuing in the nearly year-long probe.
Post reporter Walter Pincus, who had been subpoenaed to testify to a grand jury in the case, instead gave a deposition yesterday in which he recounted his conversation with the source, whom he has previously identified as an "administration official." Pincus said he did not name the source and agreed to be questioned only with the source's approval.
"I understand that my source has already spoken to the special prosecutor about our conversation on July 12 [2003], and that the special prosecutor has dropped his demand that I reveal my source. Even so, I will not testify about his or her identity," Pincus said in a prepared statement.
"The source has not discharged us from the confidentiality pledge," said The Post's executive editor, Leonard Downie Jr.
Pincus and Post executives said they do not know whether the source is in legal jeopardy as a result of revealing his or her identity, saying that it is a matter for the prosecutor to decide.
Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating whether a government official illegally disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to members of the media.
Pincus wrote last October that on July 12, 2003, "an administration official" told a Post reporter that Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, a CIA analyst looking into weapons of mass destruction, to investigate alleged efforts by Iraq to purchase uranium. Pincus later publicly revealed that he was the Post reporter.
It can be a crime to reveal the identity of a covert CIA employee if the disclosure is intended to expose the employee, and if it is done by someone authorized to receive such information in the course of official duties. Pincus has said previously that he does not believe his source committed a crime.
But even as Fitzgerald appeared to have reached the end of one investigative thread, he unspooled yet another yesterday, sending new broadly worded subpoenas for documents and testimony to Time magazine and one of its reporters, Matthew Cooper. Under threat of jail for contempt of court, Cooper agreed to be questioned three weeks ago about conversations he had with I. Lewis Libby, a senior aide to Vice President Cheney.
Pincus answered questions about Libby as well. Both he and Cooper said they did so with Libby's approval, and both said that their conversations with Libby did not touch on the identity of Wilson's wife.
Fitzgerald had focused on Libby as the possible leaker of Plame's name and identity, but the new subpoenas to Time suggest he may be rethinking that theory. Four reporters have now testified at Libby's urging that he did not disclose Plame's name or identity to them.
Cooper has been subpoenaed to testify Sept. 22 about any conversations prior to July 14, 2003, that he had with government officials relating to Wilson, his trip to Africa or Plame.
July 14 was the date that syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak revealed in a column that two administration officials named Plame, a CIA "operative," as the person who suggested that Wilson undertake the trip to Niger. Novak and his attorney have refused to comment on whether he has been subpoenaed.
Three days after Novak's column appeared, Cooper co-wrote a story on Time's Web site saying that administration officials told Time of Plame's role in Wilson's trip. Time has not said when those conversations occurred, however, an issue central to the investigation. Any disclosures "post-Novak," lawyers in the case said, are likely to be viewed as non-criminal discussion of information already in the public domain.
"We did believe we had reached an end, and what we have is a new beginning," said Time's deputy general counsel, Robin Bierstedt.
Time's outside counsel, First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, said the magazine will again seek to quash the subpoenas and appeal the expected refusal by the district court.
-------- propaganda wars
Mea Culpa III
PART 3 REPLY FROM THE HEAD OF BBC TV NEWS
by David Cromwell
September 16, 2004
Z Magazine
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=6236
In Parts 1 and 2 of this alert, we asked a number of British media editors to conduct publicly available critiques investigating their failings on Iraq. We received several replies. In Part 1, we published responses from The Observer and ITN. In Part 2 we focused on the Independent on Sunday.
On 16 August, 2004, Roger Mosey, head of BBC TV news, responded:
There have actually been a number of academic studies into our coverage of the Iraq War, but the overall point I'd make is that it isn't quite as current myth would have it.
Have a look, for instance, at the Newsnight Special just before the start of the war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/07/blair_transcript.shtml
But this wasn't alone: we did a whole Iraq Day across BBC1 before the conflict began which also examined the kind of issues you raise.
(Email to David Cromwell)
We sent the following to Mosey on 18 August:
Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond - much appreciated.
Re: the Newsnight Special, we did an extensive analysis of [the Jeremy Paxman interview with Tony Blair] at Media Lens (www.medialens.org), which I co-edit. You can see the relevant media alerts of 10 and 11 February, 2003 archived under 'media alerts' at our website. Or click directly on:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030210_Blairs_Betrayal1.html
and
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030211_Blairs_Betrayal2.html
Although Jeremy Paxman valiantly tackled Tony Blair on the usual deceit that Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors in 1998 (perhaps Jeremy did so partly because he had been deluged with emails on exactly this point by Media Lens readers in advance), the interview failed dismally on a number of counts.
For example, quoting from part one of our alert:
How often have [BBC viewers and listeners] seen or heard a discussion describing the extent of the success of Unscom inspections between 1991-98? [...] In fact the remarkable truth is that the 1991-98 inspections ended in almost complete success. Scott Ritter, chief UN arms inspector at the time, insists that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" by December 1998, with 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction eliminated. Of the missing 5-10%, Ritter says: "It doesn't even constitute a weapons programme. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons programme which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited." (War On Iraq, Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, Profile Books, 2002, p.24)
Of nuclear weapons capability, Ritter says: "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated.
There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed.
The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (ibid, p.26)
One might think that this would be vital information for interviewers like Paxman now when Blair, Straw and co are declaring war regrettably essential to enforce Iraqi disarmament. Instead, these central facts have been simply ignored by our media - as far as the public is concerned Iraq did not cooperate between 1991 and 1998.
In a recent Panorama documentary, for example, Jane Corbin said merely of the 1991-98 Unscom inspectors, "their mission ended before they completed their task". (Panorama, Chasing Saddam's Weapons, BBC1, February 9, 2003)
Ritter, the most outspoken whistleblower, was not interviewed by BBC TV News or Newsnight ahead of the war. When asked why Newsnight had failed to interview such an important source, editor George Entwistle answered: "I don't particularly have an answer for that; we just haven't." (Interview with David Edwards, March 31, 2003) By contrast, Newsnight 'just had' interviewed war supporters like Ken Adelman, Richard Perle and James Rubin endlessly in the run-up to the invasion and subsequently.
I note your Guardian article of 27 July ('The BBC was no cheerleader for war'). You emphasise that "news is an account of the world as it is and not as we want it to be". But whose account of the "world as it is"? Which perspective is given prominence? Who makes the news?
Richard Sambrook replied to a Media Lens reader who had pointed out that BBC coverage accepts without question that the US and UK "coalition" is attempting to bring peace and democracy to Iraq: "We report what is said by Tony Blair and George Bush", Sambrook replied, "because they have power and responsibility and their own sources of intelligence." (Email from Richard Sambrook to Media Lens reader, 9 July, 2003)
How ironic that comment appears now, post-Hutton and post-Butler.
Also, Mr Sambrook dodged the viewer's challenge that the BBC consistently assumes and portrays US/UK foreign policy as fundamentally sincere, benign and well intentioned, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Why was it 'balanced' and 'responsible' to report and disseminate official warnings with little challenge of the supposed 'threat' posed by Iraq, day after day in the run-up to an invasion? Was this not, in fact, deeply irresponsible, given the plausibility of the contradictory view, now vindicated, and given the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and conscript soldiers in Iraq? Where is the extensive BBC coverage - any BBC coverage - to the Iraqi survey that the civilian death toll now exceeds 37,000? See:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66E32EAF-0E4E-4765-9339-594C323A777F.htm
Given that Bush and Blair have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and irresponsible, even ignoring or overruling the advice of their own intelligence services, should not the BBC now show extreme caution in propagating their views and pronouncements? The problem is that reporting official propaganda is not in fact reporting, as veteran US journalist David E. Hendrix observes: "Reporting a spokesman's comments is not reporting; it's becoming the spokesman's spokesman." ('Coal Mine Canaries', Hendrix, in 'Into The Buzzsaw', edited by Kristina Borjesson, Prometheus Books, 2002, p.172)
Yes, the BBC did and does "report many other views, including those of Hans Blix and Scott Ritter", as Mr Sambrook once noted. But facts, analyses and views that seriously challenge power are afforded minute amounts of coverage. Stating that "we also report other views" is a technically correct but conveniently meaningless response. Norman Solomon, Executive Director of the US-based Institute for Public Accuracy, describes how "scattered islands of independent-minded reporting are lost in oceans of the stenographic reliance on official sources". (Solomon, Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't Tell You, New York: Context Books, 2003, p.26)
Of course, you may dismiss all of this as the ravings from one of the "wackier websites" [a reference to a dismissive comment made by Mosey in his Guardian article]. Or, on the other hand, you may wish to address the substance of the challenges made.
I hope that you will have the time and motivation to debate further and, if so, I look forward to hearing from you.
best wishes,
David Cromwell
We received this brief reply from Roger Mosey:
25 August, 2004
Hi David
Yes, I'm always happy to debate.
But I should stress our aim is impartiality. I don't entirely know what you would envisage as the way we should report President Bush or Prime Minister Blair in the future, but it can't surely be on the basis of having proven themselves to be "untrustworthy and irresponsible"?
And, by the way, we interviewed Scott Ritter many many times - honest!
Best,
Roger (Email to David Cromwell)
Last year, Richard Sambrook, then BBC's director of news, told us that Ritter had been interviewed just twice: on September 29th, 2002, for Breakfast With Frost, and on March 1, 2003 for BBC News 24. The latter interview was broadcast at around 3:00am. Newsnight editor Peter Barron told us that Newsnight interviewed Scott Ritter precisely twice on the WMD issue: on August 3, 2000 and August 21, 2002. We also note that Mosey ignored our point about the deaths of 37,000 Iraqi civilians being given scant, indeed probably zero, coverage on BBC TV news.
Sadly, Mosey, and all those who responded to our challenge (or who flatly refused to engage with us, such as Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger), display what psychologist Steve Pinker eloquently describes as "the ubiquitous vice of self-deception, which always manages to put the self on the side of the angels." (Pinker, 'The Blank Slate', Penguin, 2002, p.280)
News coverage, we are told, is balanced and fair; all important views are properly represented. The media did their job properly on Iraq, and we can all relax. That's the message the British public is supposed to accept. In reality, news broadcasters and the press failed in their public duty to hold power to account. Worse than that, they acted as campaign managers for an illegal and immoral war (itself, merely the latest in a long list of murderous foreign 'interventions'). All of this is unmentionable in 'respectable' circles.
Somehow highly-paid media managers, editors and star commentators remain immune from fact-based and well-informed public criticism. As for the rest of us, we should be content to consume what they produce, and be satisfied with the occasional tossed scrap of carefully managed public 'feedback' and 'consultation'.
What masquerades as media 'balance' is, in fact, tacit acceptance of the status quo. In his analysis of two pre-war BBC Panorama 'phone-in' programmes, the British writer John Theobald notes that they sought "authority and democratic legitimacy by incorporating public participation and thus an aura of genuine dialogue and interaction with the public. Both reveal how what initially seem to be programmes structured with impeccable balance and plurality are in fact disguised acts of persuasion for the standpoint of the UK government, designed to contribute to the luring of sceptical viewers into support for, or acquiescence in, the US/UK government position." (Theobald, 'The media and the making of history', Ashgate, 2004, p. 182)
Indeed, one can generalise from this observation to note that the function of the mainstream media, very much including the BBC, is to lure media consumers into supporting the position of state-corporate power. Coverage of Iraq has been, and remains, a prominent and blatant example, but the pattern is long-standing and systemic.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to the editors below and ask them to conduct publicly available critiques into their own Iraq reporting.
Write to Roger Mosey, head of BBC television news
Email: roger.mosey@bbc.co.uk
Write to Helen Boaden, director of BBC News:
Email: helen.boaden@bbc.co.uk
Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:
Email: editor@medialens.org
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org
----
Magazine and reporter subpoenaed again on CIA leak
Thu 16 September, 2004
(Reuters)
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=584522
NEW YORK - A Time magazine reporter and his employer Time have received fresh subpoenas from the U.S. Justice Department seeking more information about sources for an article on the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity, The Wall Street Journal says.
The reporter, Matthew Cooper, and Time received the subpoenas on Tuesday in a probe focusing on officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush as the source of the leak.
Last month, a federal judge in Washington lifted a contempt order against Cooper and the magazine after Cooper agreed to testify about conversations he had with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney and a source for Cooper's articles about the leak. Libby waived confidentiality to allow Cooper to testify.
But the new subpoenas by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald mean Cooper might yet face jail time.
Time officials were surprised by the subpoenas. "We're very disappointed," deputy general counsel Robin Bierstedt told the newspaper.
She said Time would file a motion to quash the subpoenas. Legal experts said that is likely to fail, the newspaper said, and Time and Cooper will likely be held in contempt again.
The Justice Department probe began after syndicated columnist Robert Novak identified the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, in a July 2003 column.
Her husband, Joe Wilson, is a former diplomat whom the CIA asked in 2002 to check reports that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger. Wilson accused the Bush administration of having leaked his wife's identity as retribution for his having publicly taken issue with the claim. Disclosing the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer is a crime.
Federal judges have in recent months held several reporters in contempt for refusing to divulge their sources. U.S. law does not grant journalists an absolute level of privilege comparable to those afforded doctors and priests, but reporters have long argued that the First Amendment, protecting freedom of speech and the press, implicitly grants that privilege.
--------
Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect
CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24633-2004Sep15?language=printer
CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."
"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "
Rather spoke after interviewing the secretary to Bush's former squadron commander, who told him that the memos attributed to her late boss are fake -- but that they reflect the commander's belief that Bush was receiving preferential treatment to escape some of his Guard commitments.
The former secretary, Marian Carr Knox, is the latest person to raise questions about the "60 Minutes" story, which Rather and top CBS officials still defend while vowing to investigate mounting questions about whether the 30-year-old documents used in the story were part of a hoax. Their shift in tone yesterday came as GOP critics as well as some media commentators demanded that the story be retracted and suggested that Rather should step down.
"This is not about me," Rather said before anchoring last night's newscast. "I recognize that those who didn't want the information out and tried to discredit the story are trying to make it about me, and I accept that."
For Rather, 72, it is an all-too-familiar role. In his CBS career, he has survived an impertinent exchange with President Richard M. Nixon during Watergate, a clandestine trek through the mountains of Afghanistan, an on-air confrontation with George H.W. Bush over Iran-contra and a much-debated sitdown with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
Now, on the final leg of a career launched by a Texas hurricane, Rather is trying to weather his biggest storm. And some of his closest friends and associates are concerned.
"I think this is very, very serious," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent. "When Dan tells me these documents are not forgeries, I believe him. But somehow we've got to find a way to show people these documents are not forgeries." Some friends of Rather, whose contract runs until the end of 2006, are discussing whether he might be forced to make an early exit from CBS.
In her interview with Rather yesterday, Knox repeated her contention that the documents used by "60 Minutes" were bogus. Knox, 86, worked for Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian while he supervised Bush's unit in the early 1970s.
"I know that I didn't type them," Knox said of the Killian memos. "However, the information in there is correct," she said, adding that Killian and the other officers would "snicker about what [Bush] was getting away with."
Rather said he was "relieved and pleased" by Knox's comments that the disputed memos reflected Killian's view of the favorable treatment that Bush received in the military unit. But he said, "I take very seriously her belief that the documents are not authentic." If Knox is right, Rather said, the public "won't hear about it from a spokesman. They'll learn it from me."
But he also delivered a message to "our journalistic competitors," including The Washington Post and rival networks: "Instead of asking President Bush and his staff questions about what is true and not true about the president's military service, they ask me questions: 'How do you know this and that about the documents?' "
CBS News President Andrew Heyward defended the work that went into the Guard story. "I feel that we did a tremendous amount of reporting before the story went on the air or we wouldn't have put it on the air," Heyward said last night. "But we want to get to the bottom of these unresolved issues," including questions about the memos' typography, signatures and format. "There's such a ferocious debate about these documents."
Heyward said the account by Knox is "significant, which is why we're putting it on our prime-time program," "60 Minutes."
As a former Houston reporter, White House correspondent and "60 Minutes" regular, Rather has always taken pride in unchaining himself from the anchor desk to cover wars, political campaigns and various other crises. Determined not to be just a multimillion-dollar news reader like some younger-generation stars, he continued to anchor "48 Hours" before finally giving it up and to contribute pieces to "60 Minutes," even at the cost of being stretched thin. So it was not unusual for Rather to be crashing an investigative piece, as he did last week.
The most controversial of the three broadcast network anchors who took the reins in the early 1980s -- the others are ABC's Peter Jennings, 66, and NBC's Tom Brokaw, 64, who is retiring after the election -- Rather has long drawn the most headlines and the sharpest criticism from conservatives who view him as biased.
"Dan is a lightning rod, compared to Brokaw and Jennings, because of his personality," said Lawrence Grossman, a former president of PBS and NBC News. "He's had some very strange incidents. His colorful use of language makes him a little quirky in many people's eyes. So he's a little vulnerable."
But ABC News executive Tom Bettag, who once produced Rather's evening news, said his friend has been "quite extraordinary" in shouldering the burden. "He is the sort of person who could easily say 'this is a team effort,' but he's one of those anchors who puts it all on his shoulders and doesn't pass it down the line to anyone else," Bettag said.
Bernard Goldberg, a longtime CBS correspondent who has turned sharply critical of his former employer, said he believes that Rather was duped and will survive. But, he said, "CBS News is acting the way the Nixon administration did during Watergate. I'm really sad to say that Dan Rather is acting like Richard Nixon. It's the coverup, it's the stonewalling."
Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, said that "if it turns out CBS got this wrong, it's very damaging." He added that Rather "has a 'hot' personality that provokes strong reactions."
That may be an understatement. Rather has a penchant for down-home Texas truisms, the sort of globe-trotting that earned him the nickname "Gunga Dan" for his Afghan foray, and plain old strange behavior -- such as signing off his broadcasts for a time with the word "courage."
In 1986, he was mugged on Park Avenue with one of his attackers shouting, "Kenneth, what is the frequency?" In 1987, the network went to black because Rather had angrily walked off the set in the belief that a U.S. Open tennis match would bump his broadcast. In 1988, he got into an emotional shouting match with then-Vice President Bush, who accused Rather of being unfair. In 2001, he apologized for speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in Texas in which his daughter was involved.
His career has seemed revitalized in the past year and a half. He landed an interview with then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq and the first sitdown with Bill Clinton about his autobiography. And with producer Mary Mapes, who also spearheaded the National Guard story, Rather broke the news of Iraqi prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib -- after agreeing to a two-week delay at the Bush administration's request.
Once the most watched of the three anchors' broadcasts, Rather's show has been ranked third for several years. Now he is even the target of a new Web site, Rathergate.com.
Some media analysts are already comparing the Guard controversy to the 1993 fiasco in which NBC's "Dateline" apologized for staging the fiery crash of a truck, and the 1998 debacle in which CNN apologized for the "Tailwind" story that accused U.S. troops of using nerve gas during the Vietnam War.
"Dan knows that trying to do a story about a Republican president is immediately going to stir up a hornet's nest from the conservatives who have jumped on him since the Nixon days," Bettag said. "He could have been excused for saying 'I don't need this kind of grief.' But he didn't."
As Rather signed off to rush back into the studio last night, he sounded a defiant note.
"I try to look people in the eye and tell them the truth," Rather said. "I don't back up. I don't back down. I don't cave when the pressure gets too great from these partisan political ideological forces."
--------
CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's
Records Reportedly Faxed From Abilene
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24635-2004Sep15?language=printer
Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network.
The markings provide one piece of evidence suggesting a source for the documents, whose authenticity has been hotly disputed since CBS aired them in a "60 Minutes" broadcast Sept. 8. The network has declined to name the person who provided them, saying the source was confidential, or to explain how the documents came to light after more than three decades.
There is only one Kinko's in Abilene, and it is 21 miles from the Baird, Tex., home of retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents.
Robert Strong, who was one of three people interviewed by "60 Minutes," said he was shown copies of the documents by CBS anchor Dan Rather and producer Mary Mapes on Sept. 5, three days before the broadcast. He said at least one of the documents bore the faxed header "Kinko's Abilene."
Strong's comments came as CBS News President Andrew Heyward in an interview acknowledged that there were "unresolved issues" that the network wanted "to get to the bottom of." Since the broadcast, critics have pointed to a host of unexplained problems about the memos, which bore dates from 1972 and 1973, including signs that they had been written on a computer rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter.
"I feel that we did a tremendous amount of reporting before the story went on the air or we wouldn't have put it on the air," Heyward said in an interview last night, while acknowledging "a ferocious debate about these documents."
Asked what role Burkett may have played in CBS's reporting, Heyward said: "I'm not going to get into any discussion of who the sources are."
Burkett, who has accused Bush aides of ordering the destruction of some portions of the president's National Guard record because they might have been politically embarrassing, did not return telephone calls to his home. His lawyer, David Van Os, issued a statement on Burkett's behalf saying he "no longer trusts any possible outcome of speaking to the press on any issue regarding George W. Bush and does not choose to dignify recent spurious attacks upon his character with any comment."
In news interviews earlier this year, Burkett said he overheard a telephone conversation in the spring of 1997 in which top Bush aides asked the head of the Texas National Guard to sanitize Bush's files as he was running for a second term as governor of Texas. Several days later, he said, he saw dozens of pages from Bush's military file dumped in a trash can at Camp Mabry, the Guard's headquarters.
The Bush aides Burkett named as participants in the telephone conversation were Chief of Staff Joe M. Allbaugh and spokespeople Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett. All three Bush aides and former Texas National Guard Maj. Gen. Daniel James have strongly denied the allegations.
Suspicions that Burkett could have been a source for the CBS documents first surfaced earlier this week when Newsweek magazine reported that Mapes flew to Texas to interview him over the summer. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a CBS staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that Burkett was a source for the "60 Minutes" report but "did not know the exact role he played."
Yesterday, reporters from several news organizations were camped near Baird, Tex., outside Burkett's home, which is on a working ranch, with a gate barring access to a one-story farmhouse and a pickup truck outside. At 6 p.m. Central Time, Burkett walked to the gate on his cane with a black dog by his side to collect his mail. He refused to answer questions about whether he provided the documents to CBS.
"Get out of my way," he told the reporters. "You need to go home."
Earlier this year, Burkett gave interviews to numerous news outlets, including The Washington Post, alleging corruption and malfeasance at the top of the Texas National Guard, much of which have never been substantiated. He has also been a named source for several reports by USA Today, which reported Monday that it had independently obtained copies of the disputed memos soon after the broadcast.
Like CBS News, USA Today has declined to name the source of its memos on the grounds of confidentiality.
Burkett, who served with the Texas National Guard in an administrative capacity before his 1998 retirement, has been involved in a bitter dispute with the Guard over medical benefits after suffering from a tropical disease following a military assignment in Panama. He has told reporters that he had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized for depression after he left the Guard.
Burkett has provided different accounts of exactly what Bush records he allegedly saw in the trash can at Camp Mabry. At times, he has described them as "payroll-type documents" and performance assessments. But in an Aug. 14 posting to a Web log, www.steveverdon.com, he said he saw "a two-page counseling statement" signed by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named by "60 Minutes" as the author of its Bush memos.
Author James Moore, who relied on Burkett as a primary source for a book attacking Bush as having wriggled out of his Guard service, said in an interview yesterday that he did not think Burkett provided the memos to CBS. "His life is complicated enough already, and I don't know why he would make further complications for himself," Moore said.
On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, 39 Republican House members, led by Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), wrote a letter to Heyward demanding that CBS retract its report. Accusing the network of becoming "part of a campaign to deceive the public and to defame the president," the lawmakers said: "CBS reporters would not accept such behavior from public officials like ourselves, and we cannot accept it from them."
Separately, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), citing reports in The Post and the Dallas Morning News, asked that a House communications subcommittee investigate what he called "the continued use of CBS News of apparently forged documents" intended to damage Bush's reputation and "influence the outcome of the 2004 presidential election." But the panel's chairman, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), rejected the request, saying that the oversight of network news should be left to the viewing public and news media.
In a related development, White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that "a very real possibility." Other officials with knowledge of the situation said more documents had indeed been uncovered and would be released in the coming days.
Staff writers Howard Kurtz and Dana Milbank in Washington and Sylvia Moreno in Baird, Tex., contributed to this report.
--------
CBS Says It Will Check Questions on Bush Files
September 16, 2004
By JIM RUTENBERG and KATE ZERNIKE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16guard.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
CBS News said for the first time last night that there were legitimate questions about the authenticity of documents it presented in a "60 Minutes" report last week that raised new issues about President Bush's service in the National Guard - and said it would aggressively investigate them.
The news division continued to insist that the general thrust of the documents was accurate: that a commander felt Mr. Bush had been shirking his duties and receiving preferential treatment because of his connections. But Andrew Heyward, the president of CBS News, said the network would "redouble its efforts" to determine whether the documents were authentic.
"Because there continue to be questions swirling around the documents, it's important to keep looking into those as best we can," Mr. Heyward said in an interview last night. "I'm very confident in the report, but I want to get to the bottom of these continuing questions."
Since the documents were first disclosed a week ago on the "CBS Evening News,'' the network's news anchor Dan Rather and network executives have staunchly defended their authenticity, even as a stream of news reports presented experts who said the typography did not conform with typewriters commonly in use in the early 1970's.
In addition to Mr. Heyward's comments, CBS also presented reports on the "Evening News" and "60 Minutes" that featured the secretary to the commander who was said to have written the memorandums, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. The secretary, Marian Carr Knox, said that she did not believe the memorandums were authentic but that she had typed similar documents with "the same information" that were filed in what she called "a cover-your-back file."
In an interview by Mr. Rather, Mrs. Knox, 86, suggested last night that someone had seen the documents and tried to reproduce them, "and had changed them enough that he wouldn't get into trouble over it."
Mr. Rather conducted the interview as part of a "60 Minutes" segment in which he walked a line, raising questions about the documents' authenticity in ways the news division never has before, but insisting, at times defiantly, that the sentiment they conveyed was accurate.
He concluded the report by saying the news division would "aggressively investigate" both Mr. Bush's record and the documents.
The report was a dramatic end to a day of heavy fire for CBS and Mr. Rather, from inside and outside the network, and added to a deepening mystery that has consumed a week of the presidential campaign. Inside the network, Mr. Rather's colleagues expressed growing alarm at questions about the documents' authenticity as Republicans in Washington declared CBS irresponsible and called for a retraction and even a Congressional investigation.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said at a news briefing that the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry campaign were behind the documents, an accusation both camps denied.
Later the network released a dossier addressing the questions about the documents and presenting its evidence backing them. "Through all of the frenzied debate of the past week," the statement read, "the basic content of the '60 Minutes' Wednesday report has not been substantially challenged."
Until last night, for the better part of the week since it showed the initial report, CBS has issued various defenses of it, with network officials at times questioning the partisan motives of those saying the documents appeared to have been forged.
The memorandums initially reported on "60 Minutes" last Wednesday seemed at first to provide the network with a blockbuster: they purported to document how Mr. Killian had felt pressure to "sugar coat" Mr. Bush's record because the young lieutenant, whose father was then chairman of the Republican National Committee, was talking to someone upstairs.
One document seemed to fill in what has been a gap in the official record on Mr. Bush's service, providing an explanation for why he lost his flying wings. It indicated he had been suspended from flying for failure to perform to standards and failing to show up for a physical.
Within hours, conservative Web bloggers began poking holes in the documents, saying the typeface was too slick and could only have been produced by a computer, not a Vietnam War-era typewriter.
This sent other news organizations into a frenzy to consult document experts, and determine whether old typewriters might have had particular spacing and typefaces needed to produce the memorandums. For every expert who said the documents were patently false, another insisted they could be authentic.
Mr. Killian's family cast doubt on the documents as well. While his son, Gary, said he initially told CBS that he believed the signatures were genuinely his father's, he has maintained since the initial broadcast that he does not believe his father kept such records, and that his father held Mr. Bush in high esteem. Gary Killian had dismissed Mrs. Knox's memories as those of a "sweet old lady."
Mrs. Knox last night was equally dismissive, saying, "He has no way of knowing whether it's true or not."
CBS had said it consulted at least four experts to validate the documents before the report, but even their backing had seemed less solid in the past few days. In a broadcast on Friday, CBS offered one of the experts, Marcel B. Matley, to reaffirm the authenticity of the documents. But Mr. Matley cautioned that he could validate only the signatures, not the entire documents.
Two other experts appeared on ABC News on Tuesday, saying they had urged CBS to verify the documents further before reporting on them. One of them, Emily Will, said she warned the network that it would face an immediate barrage of questions from document experts if it went with the documents.
But what clearly got CBS's attention were statements from Colonel Killian's secretary, quoted in various news accounts on Wednesday, that while she had typed documents similar in tone and content to those in CBS's possession, she did not believe the ones it had were authentic.
"There are strange contradictions," Mr. Heyward said. "We have Knox saying the content is accurate, but the documents aren't real. We need to get to the bottom of that."
CBS News's most senior correspondents said yesterday that they were holding out hope that the network could, however, prove that the documents were authentic.
"We've got to find some way to show our viewers why we believe so strongly in this story, and that's very difficult without breaching the confidentiality of the source," said Bob Schieffer, the moderator of "Face the Nation" on CBS. He added, "I have confidence in Dan."
One thing bolstering Mr. Rather's colleagues, they said, was the confidence of him and his producer, Josh Howard that the documents are authentic.
As of late yesterday morning, at least, Mr. Howard said he still had the utmost confidence in the initial report. "Everything I've seen makes me completely confident in the documents, in the reporting, in the story, in what we've done," he said.
-------- us politics
Kerry supports 'right vote, 'while decrying 'wrong war'
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 16, 2004
http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040916-123005-6877r
DETROIT -- John Kerry yesterday said he now can see no reason why the United States went to war in Iraq, yet added that he still stands by his vote to authorize the war.
"Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see," the Democratic presidential nominee said when asked about the justification for the war by radio talk-show host Don Imus. "I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that, and I've said that."
Mr. Kerry then said, however, that it was right to threaten Saddam Hussein in order to force him to comply with U.N. weapons-inspection demands and that the senator was "prepared to use the force."
"I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable," he told Mr. Imus, saying his position "can't be clearer."
But Mr. Kerry's answers left Mr. Imus, who frequently describes himself on air as a Kerry supporter, flummoxed.
"I asked him a number of questions about Iraq, and I can't tell you what he said," Mr. Imus said after Mr. Kerry hung up.
Republicans seized on that statement.
"The bottom line: Anyone who listened to Imus, anyone who reviews the transcript, now recognizes that on the most important issue facing our country today -- the question of how we deal with global terrorism -- John Kerry's position has deteriorated into complete and total incoherence," Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters on a conference call yesterday.
Mr. Kerry was one of 77 senators who voted on Oct. 11, 2002, for the resolution titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002," which, in addition to weapons of mass destruction, cited Iraq's breach of the 1991 cease-fire and U.N. resolutions as justification for force.
But since then, Mr. Kerry has tried to walk a fine line of not repudiating his vote, while still trying to find room to criticize Mr. Bush. He has said Mr. Bush took the nation to war the wrong way, failing to build the right international coalition and failing to prepare for the aftermath of a speedy victory.
Mr. Kerry has recently taken to calling Iraq the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
Mr. Kerry has voted in the past to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States, and his campaign still contends that they think Saddam had to be dealt with.
And just last month, Mr. Kerry said even knowing now that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, it was still right to vote to authorize an invasion.
At one point yesterday, after Mr. Kerry had criticized the Bush administration for failing to plan for the postwar period and not equipping troops properly, Mr. Imus said the senator might be to blame, citing his vote against an $87 billion bill to fund the war in Iraq.
"They can't get this equipment for these troops if people like you won't vote for the funding though," Mr. Imus said.
"We did vote for the funding. We voted for the funding," Mr. Kerry responded. "I voted for the largest defense budgets in the history of our country. And I voted -- this is long after the war, that $87 billion vote. The war had started. These people were sent over there without the equipment, and they still don't have the equipment."
In yesterday's interview, Mr. Kerry said he has not read the book "Unfit for Command," the best seller written by fellow Vietnam veterans who served similar duty as Mr. Kerry on swift boats and who dispute his service record.
But despite not having read it, Mr. Kerry called it "an absolute pack of lies."
"It's been proven to be a pack of lies, and I have no interest in reading it," he said.
Author John E. O'Neill said there is "a simple reason" why the book remains the New York Times' best-selling nonfiction book for the fourth week in a row.
"It's all true," Mr. O'Neill said yesterday. "Neither John Kerry nor any of his campaign surrogates have come forward to refute a single word of my book."
--------
Kerry Accuses Bush Of Dishonesty on Iraq
President's Economic Record Assailed
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22980-2004Sep15?language=printer
DETROIT, Sept. 15 -- John F. Kerry accused President Bush on Wednesday of misleading Americans about a spiraling crisis in Iraq, saying the president has not been honest about the strength of the anti-American insurgency and the diminishing chances of free and fair elections in January.
"The president has misled America about those weapons, about the intelligence, about the war," the Democratic presidential nominee said on the Don Imus show on MSNBC. "He's misled America about what we're achieving today and what is happening on the ground in Iraq."
As part of twin strikes on Bush's credibility on the war and the economy, Kerry said the president's failures in Iraq have complicated efforts to bring U.S. troops home sooner and have created large swaths of Iraq "where there are terrorists where they were not before."
Later, in a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, Kerry also took aim at Bush's domestic policy. This is "the excuse presidency," in which Bush "has blamed just about everyone but himself and his administration for America's economic problems," Kerry said.
"For four years, the Bush administration hasn't honored the truth, and it certainly has not lived up to it," he told the business executives. Imus sought to engage Kerry on his position on the Iraq war, a subject Kerry has had trouble explaining. He asked Kerry whether "there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry said: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see."
In the past, the Kerry campaign suggested he might have, had he been president, but said Kerry did not want to answer a hypothetical question. Asked whether Kerry's response to Imus represented a shift, spokesman David Wade said Kerry meant he would not have gone to war the way Bush did, not that he would not have gone at all.
Explaining his vote in 2002 to authorize Bush to go to war, Kerry told Imus, "I voted based on weapons of mass destruction." He added: "I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times: There was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that."
Kerry said Bush's policy in Iraq has made it more difficult for the Democratic nominee to detail how he would pull all U.S. troops out of that country in four years, including some during the first six months of his administration. "Now it's obviously, with the situation on the ground, much more complicated; I have to acknowledge that," Kerry said. "But I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community. They haven't lived up to the obligations of their own resolution that they passed at the U.N."
Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, pounced on Kerry's comments, saying the Democrat "has descended into complete incoherence" on Iraq. "Indecision and vacillation are not a strategy to fight and win the war on terror," he said.
Kerry said the onus is on Bush to present a plan for winning in Iraq. "What you ought to be doing, and what everybody in America ought to be doing today, is not asking me. They ought to be asking the president: What's your plan?" Kerry told Imus. "What's your plan, Mr. President, to stop these kids from being killed?"
Wading back into the dispute over his antiwar protests after serving in Vietnam, Kerry showed no signs of offering the apology his critics are seeking for comments he made about war crimes and atrocities more than three decades ago. "Look, I went, I did my duty, I came back, I saw what I saw, and I told the truth," he said. "If some people have trouble with that still, I am sorry about it."
Here in Detroit, Kerry offered a blistering critique of Bush's economic policies in a speech aides called the most important economic address of the final two months of the campaign. "This president has created more excuses than jobs," Kerry told the Detroit Economic Club. "His is the excuse presidency -- never wrong, never responsible, never to blame. President Bush's desk isn't where the buck stops -- it's where the blame begins."
In defense of his economic record, which includes more than 1 million jobs lost under his watch, Bush frequently blames a recession he says he inherited, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and wave of corporate scandals outside of his control. And Bush has focused on large tax cuts for individuals and businesses, which he credits with producing new jobs in recent months and an improving economy. However, large deficits have returned under his watch, and projections show that they will continue.
Kerry did not offer any new proposals, but he reiterated an economic agenda that includes tax cuts for the middle class and corporations; new government spending to cut health care costs for employers and employees; a huge increase in education spending to train the next generation of workers; and a commitment to reduce the deficit that experts say will be virtually impossible to meet if he follows through on all his proposed programs.
Speaking to a crowd that included many Republicans, Kerry said he is a different kind of Democrat, one who is sensitive to and supportive of businesses. "I am an entrepreneurial Democrat," he said.
Kerry was introduced by Robert E. Rubin, Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and arguably the most respected big-name Democrat among Wall Street types. "We are on the wrong track on all fronts," Rubin said.
Kerry and Rubin cited a number of economic indicators to buttress their point: 1.6 million jobs lost (the actual number is 1.1 million); 45 million Americans without health coverage, 5 million more than when Bush took office; 4.3 million Americans who have fallen into poverty in the past four years; and falling family incomes.
"President Bush talked about his ownership society," Kerry said. "Well, Mr. President, when it comes to your record, you own it."
Staying on the same message, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), Kerry's running mate, began a two-day bus tour of economically depressed areas of West Virginia and southeast Ohio, criticizing Bush for being out of touch with unemployed workers.
Speaking to a crowd of 500 at West Virginia University at Parkersburg, Edwards said Bush's policies are hurting the well-being of the poor and of those struggling to stay in or break into the middle class. "They want to make sure they take care of their multimillionaire investment friends," he said. "This is not the way it's supposed to be in this country."
Edwards drew his biggest applause from the audience, which was heavy on union members and laid-off workers, when he responded to a question from a woman who said that her 23-year-old son recently graduated from college, and that she is worried about a draft being instituted for the war in Iraq.
"There will be no draft when John Kerry is president," Edwards said, to applause and a standing ovation.
Staff writer David Snyder in West Virginia contributed to this report.
-------- ACTIVISTS
Indian Tribe Conducts First War Dance Since 1887 to Stop Expansion of Shasta Dam
Thursday, September 16, 2004
By Brian Melley,
Associated Press
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-09-16/s_27200.asp
SHASTA LAKE, California - As darkness fell across the crescent-shaped Shasta Dam, eight barefoot Winnemem Wintu warriors armed with bows began the tribe's first war dance since 1887.
Members of the tiny American Indian tribe began the four-day protest Sunday night to stop a potential expansion of the Shasta Dam, which would destroy sacred sites that had survived its original construction.
"The war dance itself is a message, a message to the world that we can't stand to put up with this again," said Caleen Sisk-Franco, the chief who says she received the protest vision from the spirits of ancestors. "We've already lost too many sacred sites to the lake. To lose more is like cutting the legs off all the tribal members."
For more than 20 years, there's been talk of raising the 602-foot high dam that holds back three rivers, including the Sacramento, the state's biggest. Multimillion-dollar studies are underway over the possibility of raising it as little as 6.5 feet and as much as 200 feet, and the Winnemem feel an imminent threat to their way of life.
Three-quarters of the state's rain falls north of Sacramento, and Shasta Lake, with its 370-mile shore, is the largest catch basin. Electricity is produced as waters spill toward the Sacramento River, the water conduit for 22 million people and thousands of farms, said Jeff McCracken of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The bureau operates Shasta Dam, located about 110 miles south of the Oregon border.
But as the state grows by 5 million people each decade and copes with water shortages, officials said they need more water. Of the potential choices, McCracken said, expanding Shasta is one of the most promising.
Expanding the dam could help troubled salmon by ensuring steadier flows in the Sacramento River and keeping temperatures colder for fish as they head from the sea to their birthplaces to spawn, according to Bureau of Reclamation officials.
But Craig Tucker, of the environmental group Friends of the River, said a bigger dam would further inundate the Sacramento, McCloud, and Pit rivers upstream, jeopardizing world-class trout fishing and whitewater recreation.
"Their goal isn't to help the fishery," Tucker said of the dam supporters. "Their goal is to hoard more and more water."
The Winnemem Wintu population has dwindled to 125 members due to a combination of disease, disputes, and departures by members who have abandoned the culture. The tribe last held a war dance in 1887 to protest a McCloud River hatchery that captured the salmon it relied on for its way of life.
About 60 years ago, the tribe relocated the graves of 183 ancestors and abandoned many sacred sites as Shasta Lake swallowed its villages and ancient cemeteries. The tribe said it was promised land elsewhere in exchange, but the only plots received were in a cemetery below the dam.
Sisk-Franco has likened the dam expansion to flooding the Vatican. His tribe is one of hundreds nationwide that are not officially recognized, which limits its clout while negotiating with the government.
If the dam is raised, the tribe said it will forever lose Puberty Rock, where ceremonies are held for girls coming of age. Children's Rock, where young ones seek blessings and the gift of talents, would also disappear. One hundred fifty years ago, settlers killed 42 tribe members in what is known as the massacre at Kaibai Creek, and the site also would be washed away.
"When those places get threatened or occupied or expropriated or somehow taken from them, that calls for preparation for conflict," said Les Field, a University of New Mexico anthropologist.
Chanting and letting out cries, warriors held out bows and arrows in their left hands, the only obvious gesture of war, as they danced around the blazing fire with the dimly lit dam in the distance.
--------
First Lady's Speech Interrupted By Dead Soldier's Mother
Woman Blames Bush For Son's Death
September 16, 2004
NBC 10
http://www.nbc10.com/politics/3735989/detail.html
HAMILTON, N.J. -- First lady Laura Bush made a campaign stop in New Jersey Thursday.
The visit comes as her husband, President George W. Bush, gains strength against John Kerry in the Garden State.
"There is a lot of intrigue with this race in New Jersey. Imagine if we were competing at full throttle, and that's why the first lady came here today," said Sen. Joseph Kyrillos Jr., chairman of New Jersey's Republican party.
The firehouse trip was a first visit by Bush/Cheney campaign to New Jersey that wasn't a fund-raising event.
The visit didn't go exactly as planned. One woman was arrested and removed from the event.
Bush talked about more tax relief for businesses, healthcare reform and defeating terrorism. Many people in the crowd had lost relatives on Sept. 11, 2001.
"It's for our country, and our children and our grandchildren that we do the hard work of confronting terror and promoting democracy," Bush said.
During Bush's salute to the men and women in Iraq, Sue Sapir Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., was pulled outside the firehouse after she staged a war protest. Sapir Niederer's son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq. He died in February while trying to disarm a bomb. Niederer was wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" (pictured, left).
As shouts of "Four More Years" subsided, Sapir Niederer, standing in the middle of the crowd of about 700, continued to shout about the killing of her son. Secret Service and local police escorted her out of the event, handcuffed her and placed her in the back of a police van.
"Excuse me, what are you charging me with," Sapir Niederer repeated to officers as they arrested her.
Sapir Niederer was charged with defiant trespassing, even though she had a ticket to the rally.
As the first lady continued speaking, several people shouted back at Sapir Niederer. One woman yelled, "Your son chose to fight in that war."
Hamilton, a sprawling bedroom community of 90,000 near Trenton that is home to a large number of state employees, has traditionally been a swing community in local, state and national elections.
----
Greenpeace Protest at French Military Dock Against Planned US Plutonium Shipment
SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
Common Dreams
Press Release from Greenpeace
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0916-02.htm
CHERBOURG, FRANCE - September 16 - Greenpeace activists today entered the military arsenal in the port of Cherbourg, Normandy to protest a planned U.S. shipment of plutonium later this month. The activists, arriving in canoes, hung a 'Stop Plutonium' banner along the military dock. Eleven activists are currently being held by local authorities.
The 'secure' dock is where British Nuclear Fuels and French state nuclear company Areva (1) plan to unload 140 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium. The radioactive cargo will then be transported by land over one thousand kilometres to Cadarache in Southern France, to be manufactured into nuclear reactor fuel.
"Today's protest is intended to send a clear message to the Chirac and Bush administrations - plans for shipping this deadly plutonium should be abandoned before any further accidents or worse take place," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. "Last night, more than a hundred U.S. citizens protested in the port of Charleston, U.S. where the nuclear material will be loaded sending the same message - stop this madness and treat plutonium as waste not fuel."
Last week, the Cadarache nuclear plant that is due to process the U.S. nuclear material suffered an accident, which caused worker contamination inside the old plant. It was confirmed yesterday by French safety authorities that the accident was more severe than first stated (2).
Over the past two years Greenpeace in France has tracked and filmed regular transports of plutonium from Normandy to Provence, through various routes including via Paris. Many thousands of kilograms of nuclear material each year are transported in France in standard unarmed containers, and a low level of security protection.
Opposition to plans to use weapons-plutonium into commercial reactors is based upon the major security, safety and environmental hazards involved. Members of the United States Congress have challenged the Bush administration over the vulnerability of the planned transport, in particular to deliberate attack.
The Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal are due to arrive in at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station, South Carolina, where they will pick up their cargo of nuclear material. The ships plan to cross the Atlantic under a security agreement negotiated with between the UK, France and U.S. governments, including defence and homeland security departments, are lightly armed and with a squad of anti-terrorist police on each.
Notes to Editor:
1. Areva has a stockpile of between 70-80,000 kilograms of plutonium at its la Hague plant, near Cherbourg.
2. Five cells, instead of one, were contaminated.
See http://www.stop-plutonium.org for background documentation and images of the U.S. shipment and French plutonium program.
CONTACT: Greenpeace Shaun Burnie + 33 630368672 Yannick Rousselet + 33 6 85 806 559 Cecilia Goin + 31 6 212 96 908
----
Greenpeace protests US plutonium shipment to France
AFP
September 16, 2004
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=11980&name=Greenpeace+protests+US+plutoniumbr%3Eshipment+to+France
CHERBOURG, France, Sept 16 (AFP) - A group of activists from the environmental group Greenpeace broke into a military naval base here on Thursday to protest the arrival later in the year of a consignment of plutonium. The activists paddled into the base in canoes, evading police security boats, and managed to unfurl a large banner along the quay reading "Stop Plutonium," before 13 of them were arrested.
The incident "passed off without any injuries and only lasted a few minutes," a naval spokesman said.
All those detained were later freed.
The activists were protesting plans to unload 150 kilos of US military-grade plutonium, part of surplus stocks left over from the cold war, at the port in northwestern France.
The plutonium is due to be transported to the Cadarache nuclear re-processing facility in the southeast of the country.
----
Few rally at second plutonium protest
BY BO PETERSEN
The Charleston Post and Courier Staff
Thursday, September 16, 2004
http://www.charleston.net/stories/091604/loc_16plutonium.shtml
The plutonium transport ships hadn't come in when the protesters unfurled their banners Wednesday evening. Few people were in Waterfront Park. Few seemed interested.
The second demonstration opposing the overseas shipment of 300 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium powder -- with organizers suspecting the two ships were just offshore -- didn't draw the outraged public protesters hoped to stir. Only a couple dozen protesters, many wearing "Nuclear-Free Atlantic Flotilla 2004" T-shirts, made appearances.
The Pride of Charleston passes Waterfront Park on Wednesday where Greenpeace and Citizens Against Plutonium protest an impending shipment of plutonium to France. In a spatter of rain, Merrill Chapman, of the local Citizens Against Plutonium, put the best light on it.
"Everything we've done has gotten a few more people aware of what's being done, a few more people involved," she said.
Tom Clements, of Greenpeace International, whose group is supporting the local effort, conceded the response has been "less than enthusiastic. I think it's a problem that people don't know what's going on."
Two rubber-flotation hurricane boats rode around The Battery to join the protest from the water. A tandem kayak chased them. In the park, a jogger stepped up onto the grass and around the protesters. She didn't look up.
The two environmental groups oppose moving the plutonium from Los Alamos, N.M., through the Charleston Naval Weapons Station to France to be processed as MOX, or mixed oxide, fuel for nuclear reactors. The fuel would return to be used in the Catawba Nuclear Plant near Lake Wylie.
They say the environmental risks, possible terrorist threat and cost are too great. Handling and transport of the material should be minimized, Clements said. Federal spokespeople say security is in place to safeguard the material.
Few among a straggle of tourists on the park pier approached the protesters. Some wore smiles.
Susan Clark, of Boston, admired the devotion to a cause. But demonstrations over the gay marriage law in her state draw thousands, she said.
A young man and woman with the protesters played a tambourine and drums by the red, yellow and black banners. More kayaks and a canoe joined the boats in the harbor. A few chants went up. In the tandem kayak, red paddles were raised in the air.
"It's silly," said Chad Rue, a Poughkeepsie, N.Y., chemist. He has concerns about nuclear materials, he said. But, "someone's going to fuel these plants, no matter what (the protesters) do."
He likened the protest to Floridians who opposed using plutonium fuel in the Cassini spacecraft launched there and now orbiting Saturn. "I think there's legitimate concern, but I think overall people are paranoid about things they don't understand."
"When people hear about nuclear issues their eyes glaze over. In my mind we need to break through that. This is dangerous stuff. We could be endangering our environment for thousands of years," said Janet Wedlock of Sun City.
A Coast Guard ship passes in the harbor and organizers train binoculars on two ghostlike ships coming in offshore. They shake their heads, no -- the ships are ordinary freighters. Tourists rock away on the swings under the pier canopies, out of the drizzle.
----
US soldiers battle their consciences
By Roshan Muhammed Salih
Thursday 16 September 2004,
Aljazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/470548E3-DB24-4562-A687-1A925DF219E2.htm
When Sergeant Abd Allah Webster was ordered to pack his bags and deploy to Iraq this February, he refused with a heavy heart.
He knew the decision would put him at odds with his superiors and potentially cost him his liberty.
But despite the consequences, he took a stand because he believed his faith precluded him from killing fellow Muslims.
The veteran soldier claimed the Iraq war was illegal because America's main justification for invading the country - to destroy alleged weapons stockpiles - had been discredited.
Webster, who is currently incarcerated in an American base in Germany after his conscientious objector (CO) application was turned down, now faces a further year in jail.
The former sergeant, who has since been stripped of his rank, is one of an increasing number of American soldiers who have applied for conscientious objector status since the start of the Iraq war.
According to the US army, since 2003 it has received 96 applications, 48 of which have been approved.
This is more than four and a half times as many as the army received in 2001 and in 2002.
But JE McNeil, executive director of the Washington-based Centre for Conscience and War, says the military vastly underestimates the true number of applications.
"Nobody knows the true figures but it is definitely in the hundreds," she told Aljazeera.net.
Increasing numbers
"The military doesn't count the number of CO applicants who are in the middle of the process which can take up to two years.
"And many CO applicants are subsequently discharged from the army for other reasons, so they don't appear on the statistics.
"Before September 11 our organisation would only get one or two calls a month from soldiers wanting help filling out CO forms.
"But after 9/11 we were getting one call a week, and since the start of the Iraq war we have been getting at least one or two calls a day," she said.
She added: "There are definitely soldiers out there who specifically object to the war in Iraq, although they would be willing to participate in other wars. They think that it is immoral and wrong."
The US army defines a CO as someone who, for religious reasons, is opposed to all wars. If it adjudicates in favour of CO status, the army exempts a person from combat training and service and accords them a non-combat job.
However, the army routinely denies CO status to those who are only opposed to specific wars, such as Webster.
It argues that when a person enters the service he swears an oath and should subsequently fulfil his obligation.
Contentious criteria
If a person wants CO status, the army says, he can't insist that he is deployed only on his own terms.
This official interpretation has proven contentious.
"There are definitely soldiers out there who specifically object to the war in Iraq, although they would be willing to participate in other wars. They think that it is immoral and wrong" - JE McNeil, Centre for Conscience and War
Rights group Amnesty International considers a conscientious objector to be any person who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, refuses to perform service in the armed forces or participate in wars or armed conflicts.
These criteria apply to those who are against all wars as well as those who are against specific wars.
McNeil supports this interpretation and says she is lobbying the US Congress to get the army rules changed.
She adds that conscientious objectors come in all shapes and sizes.
Different reasons
Marine reservist Steve Funk, 20, realised he was against all war during his training which included having to bayonet human-shaped dummies while shouting "kill, kill".
Funk said he had a lapse in judgment when he signed up as a 19-year-old, swayed by the recruiters' pitch of new skills, camaraderie and a naive belief that it would be like the Boy Scouts.
The soldier was convicted this year of going absent without official leave, and is currently serving a sixth month jail sentence.
Camilo Mejia, meanwhile, was an experienced soldier who was horrified by what he saw while serving in Iraq.
"The fear of dying has the power to turn soldiers into killing machines," he said in a recent press conference.
"I went to Iraq and was an instrument of violence. Now I have decided to turn myself into an instrument of peace."
Mejia, who was convicted of desertion, is serving a one year prison sentence.
McNeil says most people who apply for CO status are young and enlist with blinkers on.
"These are folks who are being exploited by some of the best salespeople in the world. They are told that they will get money for a college education and they go in not really thinking about war."
Statistics show this group is comprised of mainly poor whites, black and Hispanics.
The second group, according to McNeil, think they know what war is until they get into a combat situation.
And the third group is made up of people who have combat experience but have become intellectually convinced that war is wrong.
'Victimisation'
Regardless of the merit of their convictions, conscientious objectors are widely viewed with suspicion within the army.
McNeil says other soldiers can feel threatened by COs because they are essentially questioning the military's raison d'etre.
Others view them as cowardly, unpatriotic or even hypocritical.
"Some of the soldiers, when Webster didn't go, were saying: 'This is great, now we can do our job without having to watch our backs'"
At Webster's court martial hearing in May, a colleague, Sergeant-Major John Gioia, testified that some soldiers had reservations about deploying with the sergeant, who converted to Islam in 1994.
"Some of the soldiers, when Webster didn't go, were saying: 'This is great, now we can do our job without having to watch our backs'," he said.
Webster subsequently complained of victimisation once the reason for his incarceration became known to fellow inmates.
But his wife, Susan, says people shouldn't be too quick to point the finger at those, like her husband, who refuse to fight in Iraq.
She told Aljazeera.net that no one could judge him until "they have walked in his shoes".
----
Group might to sue school over access to students
By Associated Press,
9/16/2004
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/260/region/Group_might_to_sue_school_over:.shtml
RUTLAND, Vt. (AP) An activist group plans to sue the Rutland School District so members can have access to students in an effort to convince them not to join the military.
Members of the group Alternatives to Recruitment in the Military said they had been asking school officials for a year to allow them to hand out literature and answer students' questions.
''We want kids to know the alternatives, like the peace groups,'' member Don Gray of Pittsfield said. ''The kids only hear from the recruiters if we're not there, and they exaggerate their claims. It's brainwashing by omission.''
The group hands out pamphlets and papers with titles such as ''The Military's Not Just a Job It's Eight Years of Your Life'' and ''Depleted Uranium: Wonder Weapon or Toxic Hazard?''
A poster board on the table was pasted with information about how to qualify as a conscientious objector.
''If schools allow recruiters to talk to students, they need a balance because war and the military are controversial topics,'' Gray said.
The group, made up of less than 20 members, visits a number of schools in the southern part of the state, including high schools in Springfield, Bellows Falls, Brattleboro, Townshend, Randolph, Woodstock, Wilmington and Chester, Gray said.
Rutland High School is the first school in Rutland County the group has focused its efforts on, he said. However, a year after making the initial request, Gray said school officials still haven't told them whether they are welcome.
''They think this will all go away if they ignore us, but this is a serious issue,'' he said.
School officials said they weren't trying to stonewall the group.
Rutland High School principal Peter Folaros said his concern wasn't with the anti-recruitment group in particular, but with the possibility of opening the door for a slew of political groups that might seek access to the school.
''I have no problem with the nature of this group, but what's to stop every other political group out there,'' he said. ''My concern is to do this in a way that doesn't create a political circus. I fully anticipate communicating again with this group. We're not ignoring them.''
-------
------- 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.