Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
THE FOLD
Federal Scientists Search for Lost H-Bomb
Kyrgyzstan blocks British, German nuclear imports
Kyrgyz Security Service Seizes Arms - Grade Plutonium
Kyrgyzstan Nabs Man on Plutonium Charge
ERA charged over Ranger contamination
U.K. Needs Nuclear Power to Meet Demand, GE Says (Update1)
Ministers consider nuclear option
China approves 8 bln dlr nuclear power project in Guangdong
Areva expects tenders for nuclear units in China 'fairly soon'
The war's littlest victim
Prosecutor Opens French Nuke Test Probe
Russia against UN Security Council taking up Iran's nuclear issue
'Tests so far show no nuclear activity in northern Iran'
Israel Takes Issue With Iran Weapons
Israel Weighs 'All Options' to Stop Iran Nuke Plan
Kepco office searched over deadly leak
New defense chief sees SDF playing more active role in global security
US has no objection to NKorea delaying nuclear talks
N. Korea Is Used to Justify System
North Korea's number two to visit China amid simmering nuclear standoff
Pentagon's Booster Project Veered Off Course
Interceptor System Set, But Doubts Remain
Federal Scientists Search for Lost H - Bomb
MILITARY
US - Led Forces Focus on South, East for Afghan Election
U.S. Military Beefs Up Security Ahead of Afghan Poll
Sudan Official Calls Darfur a 'Smoke Screen' for Plotters
U.N. Wants African Monitors in Darfur Camps
Pursuit of Sudan Tribes May Lead to War
U.S. to build 8 subs in deal with Taiwan
1,000 firearm charges cited
Blair: WMD call was wrong
Blair Admits Mistake on WMD Claim
Lockheed Martin, European groups win contract for NATO missile defence
7 Cos. Penalized for Iran Weapons Sales
Pentagon Contracts Given to Single Bidders
The Pentagon's Stealth Rainmaker
Outsourcing the Pentagon
The Shadow Pentagon
China says Taiwan war-mongering
Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks as Widespread
Children on Both Sides Killed on Northern Border of Gaza Strip
NATO Awards Missile Work to Lockheed
Russia Reluctant to Send Iran to UN Over Uranium
A mole called Mega
Growing Pessimism on Iraq
British spies ID'd in Balkan backlash
Growing Pessimism on Iraq
Operation American Repression?
Navy Keeps Tight Lid on SEAL Identities
Lindh Asks Bush to Reduce Sentence
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision
Is Your Bong Breeding Terrorists?
House GOP Shifts on Intelligence Bill
Agency Tests Security Blimp in Washington
Sudan Conflict Reaches U.S. Immigration Courts
Cadaver Dogs' Handler Sentenced
Hiring Under COPS Appears Set to End
Police Step Up Security for IMF Meetings
American Taliban Soldier Seeks Less Prison Time
Two Sentenced to Death in Yemen for Bombing U.S.S. Cole
POLITICS
Congress Passes Bill to Keep Government Running
Parties Bicker Amid Abramoff Inquiry
New Zogby/Williams Identity Poll
Cheney changed his view on Iraq
Has Kerry Found His Footing?
At House Hearing, Quips, Insults and Some Official Business
The Politics of Fear
International Observers Predict Trouble in U.S. Vote
One man's opinion:
ENERGY
Western Governors Offer New Power Study
Wind and Nuclear Power - a Generation Gap?
OTHER
Israel Divestiture Spurs Clash
Lawmaker Upset by World Bank Aid to Iraq
ACTIVISTS
'Vanity War:' Former Air Force chief of staff criticizes Bush
Elderly Quaker Jailed for Anti - War Protest
Native Hawaiians Sue to Block Land for Army Strykers
Mordechai Vanunu speaks
Protesters disrupt rallying call
U.S. activists accuse Jewish settlers of assault
-------- NUCLEAR
THE FOLD
BY ZACHARY R. DOWDY STAFF WRITER;
Colby Itkowitz and Paola Singer
September 29, 2004
Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/ny-d3988319sep29,0,4058811.story?coll=ny-lipolitics-print
Third in a series leading up to this week's presidential debate, which is to focus on foreign policy.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice invoked the most graphic of images in the run-up to the war with Iraq, stoking fears of Armageddon to justify invading that country.
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons," Rice said on national television, speaking of the now-deposed Saddam Hussein in September 2002. "But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
The specter of a mushroom cloud from the detonation of a nuclear bomb has haunted world leaders since the horrendous effects of the bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.
President George W. Bush reiterated the prospect of an Iraqi nuclear bomb as he made the case to go to war in January 2003, but inspectors have found only remnants of a dismantled nuclear weapons program in Iraq.
Fear of another mushroom cloud in an age of ever more brazen terrorism has world leaders scrambling anew to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce existing arsenals through the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, other agreements, and diplomatic pressure.
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union raced to stock up on tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. Other countries such as Britain, France and China have long declared their stockpiles of bombs, too. Today, State Department officials say the United States has reduced its stockpiles by at least 13,000 and is no longer producing nuclear weapons.
In a sign of progress toward controlling proliferation, Libya's program was dismantled last year, the culmination of a series of steps the once isolated nation has taken toward reconciliation with other nations.
But two countries that Bush has labeled part of an "axis of evil" - Iran and North Korea - are being closely watched out of fear they seek to use nuclear weapons to settle old scores or become regional superpowers.
One potential target of Iran, Israel, is widely suspected of possessing nuclear weapons, but has refused to confirm or deny those claims.
Pakistan and India, too, both of which celebrated before an international audience when they declared they had working nuclear bombs, have irked officials at the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency.
Tensions between the two south Asian nations have simmered since their independence from Britain in 1947.
Nearly 190 countries have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which provides a blueprint for disarmament and management of nuclear weaponry. It went into effect in 1970, with 43 countries as signatories.
But North Korea, which signed on in 1985, withdrew last year. And neither Israel, India nor Pakistan have joined the signatories. Central to the treaty is the promise that countries will use their nuclear programs for peaceful energy purposes only.
But recently, Iran came under close scrutiny when it announced it would convert 37 tons of raw uranium into fuel for nuclear centrifuges, making some observers worry that Iran wants to build a bomb.
NORTH KOREA - BUSH RECORD / POSITION:
Bush initially pushed for absolute and permanent dismantlement, but later settled on a suspension of the program. The administration now asks North Korea to freeze its weapons activities for three months and disclose the extent of its weapons program, something that will hopefully lead to complete dismantlement.
KERRY RECORD / POSITION:
Kerry has been bitterly critical of the Bush administration for allegedly mishandling the threats posed by "hostile states" armed with nuclear weapons. "North Korea's nuclear program is well ahead of what Saddam Hussein was even suspected of doing - yet the president took his eye off the ball, wrongly ignoring this growing danger," he said earlier this month.
IRAN - BUSH RECORD / POSITION:
For Iran, where weapons-grade traces of uranium were found and where the existence of chemical weapons stockpiles is suspected, Bush has encouraged UN-imposed economic sanctions. "It is very important for the world to come together to make it very clear to Iran that there will be universal condemnation if they continue with a nuclear weapons program," Bush said last September about the country's violations of nonproliferation agreements.
KERRY RECORD / POSITION:
Kerry has proposed to challenge the country's claim that it is developing nuclear programs for energy purposes by offering to provide the resources needed for those purposes in exchange of a turnover of dangerous materials. "We will greatly accelerate work to secure nuclear materials at risk and invest the time and leadership needed to address the nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran. I will appoint a national director of intelligence so that there is one individual with responsibility and accountability for intelligence operations," he said In July.
DIPLOMACY
BUSH RECORD / POSITION:
Bush said this summer, "We're working with responsible governments and international institutions to convince the leaders of North Korea and Iran that their nuclear weapons ambitions are deeply contrary to their own interests."
KERRY RECORD / POSITION:
Kerry's most immediate goal for North Korea is the cessation of its nuclear weapons program, with total dismantlement following soon after. He has advocated for strong diplomacy, saying "we need a president who knows how to negotiate with North Korea directly. The North Koreans need to understand that we're not about to engage in the kind of preemptive war we did in Iraq, and they also need to understand that they've got to stop reprocessing the nuclear materials."
MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD
BUSH RECORD / POSITION:
The President wants to invest in research for a missile defense shield. His 2004 fiscal year budget provides more than $9 billion to begin the deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic missile threats, including new interceptors to be deployed during the next two years.
KERRY RECORD / POSITION:
Kerry has been an opponent of a strategic missile defense during his 19 years in the Senate, but he has not said he would undo or even halt Bush's initial deployment. He has said that he would cut the $10 billion level of missile defense spending by an unspecified amount, redirect the money to creating two new Army divisions and insist on more rigorous testing for antimissile programs.
"LOOSE NUKES"
BUSH RECORD / POSITION:
Bush this year launched a Global Threat Reduction Initiative designed to remove nuclear bomb material entirely from vlunerable storage sites throughout the world. The plan hasn't been funded, however, and is dependent on congressional cooperation.
KERRY RECORD / POSITION:
Kerry said last week that he would have a program to secure all loose nukes within four years and seek a "verifiable" global ban on the production of nuclear weapons.
- Colby Itkowitz and Paola Singer SOURCES: NATIONAL JOURNAL, NEWSDAY, CNN.COM, VARIOUS SPEECH TRANSCRIPTS
The nuclear club
Eight countries are known or believed to have nuclear weapons:
United States: Established Manhattan Project in 1941. Conducted first test explosion of atomic bomb on July 16, 1945, a month before dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan to end World War II. Has 5,968 strategic warheads, 1,000 operational tactical weapons, 3,000 reserve strategic and tactical warheads.
Russia began program in 1943 after espionage in U.S. and England. Detonated first atomic bomb on Aug. 29, 1949. Has 4,978 strategic warheads, 3,500 operational tactical warheads and 11,000 stockpiled warheads.
Great Britain shared data with U.S. from two Germans who wrote 1940 memo on creating fission explosive device. Started own program in 1947. Detonated first atomic bomb on Oct. 3, 1952. Has 200 strategic warheads.
France had a member on British team working on atomic projects in Canada and the U.S. during WWII; he founded French Atomic Energy Commission. Exploded first atomic bomb on Feb. 13, 1960. Has 350 strategic warheads.
China is said to have stolen technology from U.S. over past 20 years but developed most technology internally. Detonated first atomic bomb on Oct. 16, 1964. Has 300 strategic warheads and 120 tactical warheads.
India built reactor in 1955 helped by Canada and U.S.; used it to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Exploded first bomb on May 18, 1974. Is believed to have 45-95 warheads.
Pakistan began program in 1972 after loss of East Pakistan in war with India; helped by German-trained metallurgist who reportedly brought stolen uranium enrichment technologies. Conducted tests May 28, 30, 1998. Is thought to have 30- 50 nuclear warheads.
Israel got help from France for reactor construction. Is said to have started making weapons in 1968. Has not conducted tests and does not admit having nuclear weapons. Believed to have 75-200 warheads.
SOURCES: http://www.armscontrol.org ; http://news.bbc.co.uk ; http://college.hmco.com ; http://www.fas.org , http://nuclearweaponarchive.org , http://cns.miis.edu , http://www.rense.com
-------- accidents and safety
Federal Scientists Search for Lost H-Bomb
Federal Scientists Take Closer Look at Lost Hydrogen Bomb Lost Off Georgia Coast
The Associated Press
Sept. 29, 2004
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040929_1558.html
SAVANNAH, Ga. - The U.S. government is sending a team of 20 scientists to check out a report of unusual radiation readings that could be coming from a hydrogen bomb that was lost off the Georgia coast in 1958.
A crippled B-47 bomber dumped the H-bomb into the Atlantic Ocean 46 years ago after the plane collided with a fighter jet during a training flight. Navy divers searched the shallow, murky waters near Tybee Island for nearly 10 weeks before declaring the bomb irretrievably lost.
Derek Duke, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has been looking for the 7,600-pound bomb for five years, claimed recently that he found a football field-size area off the coast with higher-than-normal radiation levels. He suspects it marks the burial spot of the lost Mark-15 bomb.
The scientists from the Pentagon and the National Labs met with Duke on Wednesday and plan to examine the area on Thursday.
"Our goal is to survey this area that Mr. Duke has found and make a determination on what that source of radiation is," said Billy Mullins, a government nuclear weapons expert leading the investigation. "If we determine it is the Mark-15, we will have to determine what is the best course of action for that."
He declined to comment about what the government's options would be from removing the bomb to leaving it alone if his team locates it.
The investigators plan to take a boat into Wassaw Sound with an array of sophisticated equipment to measure radiation and take soil and water samples.
"If it's not there, then I'll have to end up siding with the Air Force it may be irretrievably lost," Duke said. "We'd all like to see this weapon recovered ... if it can be done safely."
The bomb, believed buried in 10 to 15 feet of mud at the bottom of the sea, became one of 11 "Broken Arrows" nuclear bombs lost during air or sea accidents, according to U.S. military records.
The Air Force has long insisted that there is no risk of a nuclear blast from the Georgia bomb because the plutonium capsule needed to trigger one was removed before the ill-fated flight.
"This bomb was not capable of causing a nuclear explosion in 1958 and it is not capable of an explosion today," said Lt. Col. Frank Smolinsky, an Air Force spokesman.
Duke, who lives in Statesboro, has disputed that point over the years, citing a Pentagon memo from 1966 that referred to the bomb as a "complete weapon." The Air Force has said that memo was wrong.
Duke approached Air Force officials more than three years ago, but they decided at the time not to renew the search for the bomb. The Air Force argued that it was better left undisturbed, because it contains uranium and 400 pounds of conventional explosives.
-------- asia
Kyrgyzstan blocks British, German nuclear imports
BISHKEK (AFP)
Sep 29, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040929132140.v0dtj08n.html
Kyrgyzstan's government announced Wednesday it was blocking controversial plans to import nuclear waste from Britain and Germany for reprocessing.
The government said it was banning imports of uranium-bearing graphite for treatment at the Kara-Balta ore reprocessing facility.
"The ban on imports of uranium-bearing material to Kyrgyzstan applies not only to Britain but to other countries, including Germany," a Kyrgyz government spokeswoman told AFP.
The announcement came after British media announced that British Nuclear Fuels would be sending 1,800 tonnes of such material from its first generation Magnox reactors to Kara-Balta.
The ban also applies to a plan approved by a Kyrgyz government commission in June by which a German firm RWE NUKEM GmbH was to send 1,700 tonnes of a similar material for reprocessing at Kara-Balta.
"The decision was made due to the absence of guarantees concerning the safe-keeping of the uranium-bearing material and in accordance with international security norms," the government's statement read.
While environmental groups and Kyrgyz Prime Minister Nikolai Tanayev had opposed the imports, Kara-Balta's management said they anticipated much-needed funds from such deals with which they could renew the decaying facility.
This impoverished country's Soviet-era nuclear sites are seen as threatening continued growth in the number of foreign tourists attracted to its spectacular mountain landscapes.
----
Kyrgyz Security Service Seizes Arms - Grade Plutonium
By REUTERS
September 29, 2004
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6362703
BISHKEK (Reuters) - Kyrgyzstan's national security service has detained a man who tried to sell weapons-grade plutonium-239, a senior security official said on Wednesday.
``That was plutonium, no doubt about it,'' Tokon Mamytov, deputy head of the National Security Service, told Reuters. ``That (plutonium-239) is the isotope used to make arms.''
Mamytov said the detained was a Kyrgyz national but gave no further details.
He said the radioactive material had been packed in 60 ampoules but did not say how much it weighed. Mamytov said investigators were trying to establish the identity of the potential buyer and where the radioactive substance had come from.
Mamytov said the intercepted haul of plutonium highlighted an alarming growth of black market trade in nuclear materials. ``We did not have this before,'' he said.
He said at the start of this year Kyrgyz special services had arrested three Kyrgyz citizens trying to sell 110 grams of highly radioactive and toxic caesium-137 for $110,000.
----
Kyrgyzstan Nabs Man on Plutonium Charge
September 29, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Kyrgyzstan-Radioactive-Smuggling.html
BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan (AP) -- A man was arrested for trying to sell plutonium in an undercover investigation, the Kyrgyz security agency said Tuesday amid rising worries of a growing black market trade in radioactive materials.
National Security Service agents posing as buyers arrested the man on Sept. 21 after confirming that he was in possession of plutonium-239, agency spokeswoman Chinara Asanova said.
Asanova did not say how much of the radioactive material -- which can be used in atomic weapons and as a reactor fuel -- was confiscated. But she said it was held in 60 small containers.
The suspect's identity was not released.
Plutonium-239 is not used in Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic in central Asia, Asanova said, and it was not known where it was obtained.
The National Security Agency is concerned about rising interest in radioactive materials in the black market, she said.
Earlier this year, it arrested Arzykul Usupov, 49, who allegedly tried to sell nearly 4 ounces of the highly toxic material cesium-137, which could contaminate large areas if used as part of a ``dirty bomb,'' Asanova said.
Another man, Atamyrza Biyaliyev, 48, was arrested for alleged cooperation with Usupov.
The two were looking for foreign buyers, apparently after finding out that terrorist organizations might be interested in such material, Asanova said.
In July, Usupov was sentenced to five years in prison and Biyaliyev to two years.
Kyrgyzstan has inherited radioactive waste sites from the Soviet nuclear industry that contain 6,002,824 cubic feet of radioactive uranium waste. The sites are poorly secured and also pose a threat to the region's drinking water reservoirs.
-------- australia
ERA charged over Ranger contamination
Facing legal action: ERA is alleged to have breached the mine management act.
abc.net.auABC TV
29 September 2004
http://www.abc.net.au/darwin/news/200409/s1209668.htm
Mining giant Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) is facing possible fines of $165,000 over a water contamination incident at the Ranger uranium mine earlier this year.
Northern Territory mining authorities have today laid charges against the company in the Darwin Magistrates Court.
In March this year, workers at the mine drank and showered in water contaminated with 400 times the legal limit of uranium.
After more than four months of deliberations, the Northern Territory Department of Resource Development has today confirmed it is proceeding with legal action against ERA.
It is alleged that the company failed to comply with its operating conditions by allowing the contamination of drinking water, improperly discharging that water and subjecting employees to unreasonable radiation doses.
The case is expected to be heard in the Darwin Magistrates Court in November.
ERA has made a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange informing shareholders of the charges.
The company says it is taking legal advice on the prosecution and will not be commenting further.
Confirmation of the charges coincides with the release of a sensitive Northern Territory Government report into Ranger's operations.
The report identifies 159 staff, mine visitors and locals who may have been exposed to contaminated water when it was mixed with the mine's drinking supply.
It also highlights a six-month backlog of maintenance issues at the site.
It reveals that in one case, the maintenance problems prompted staff to erect a tarpaulin under a machine in an unsuccessful attempt to divert leaking process water.
-------- britain
U.K. Needs Nuclear Power to Meet Demand, GE Says (Update1)
(Bloomberg)
September 29, 2004
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=a6B03nugUN7w&refer=uk
Sept. 29 -- The U.K., Western Europe's third- largest energy consumer, needs to build nuclear reactors to meet government emissions limits and rising demand, the head of General Electric Co.'s nuclear unit said in an interview.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's government is deliberating whether nuclear plants should replace 30-year-old reactors that generate a percent fifth of the U.K.'s supply. Britain will miss a goal for 10 of power to come from wind and renewable sources by 2010, a House of Lords committee said in July. The target was set to help meet emissions guidelines agreed to in Kyoto, Japan.
``It's vital for the U.K. to support nuclear energy,'' said Andrew White, chairman and chief executive officer of General Electric's global nuclear unit, in London. ``I don't see a good energy policy in the U.K. to meet Kyoto and secure supplies.''
Nuclear plants may be needed soon to avoid blackouts because half of Britain's reactors will shut by 2010, according to the Adam Smith Institute, a London-based think-tank. New plants would reduce dependence on Russian and Norwegian imports as U.K. natural gas reserves dwindle, an Adam Smith report said last year.
Blair, 51, said Sept. 14 that while the government hasn't ruled out nuclear power, ministers aren't pushing for it. He said then the government won't make a decision until a report about nuclear waste is finished, expected in 2006. Environmental groups including Greenpeace oppose its use.
A delegation of Finnish politicians and industry officials are visiting London this week to advise the U.K. government on how to gain popular support for nuclear energy and for a waste dump. They are scheduled to speak at the Labour Party conference in Brighton, England, today.
Anti-Nuclear Activists
Nuclear stations and renewable energy sources don't emit carbon dioxide, unlike coal and gas-fired plants. British Energy's Sizewell nuclear station, on the south east coast, can generate electricity for 2 million people, while the largest U.K. wind farm can supply about 30,000.
Nuclear energy is opposed by some members of Blair's party who started their political careers as protesters with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Margaret Beckett, secretary for the environment, and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott are some of the opponents, The Guardian newspaper said last year.
``I challenged the new energy minister in the House of Commons, he was sitting on the fence'' about nuclear power, said Robert Key, a Conservative party member of parliament for Salisbury, in an interview.
Military Legacy
The Committee for Radioactive Waste Management finishes a report about handling waste in 2006. Radioactive waste is the 3 percent of uranium that can't be reused and has to be either reprocessed at a site such as Sellafield, in Northern England, or stored underground. England and France reprocess the uranium by keeping containers under water for as many as five years.
Finland has dug a cavern at Olkiluoto some 500 meters beneath the earth's surface to store nuclear waste. The U.S. is developing a similar site in the Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
``Bury is the best option, because there's no chance of anybody attacking, stealing the material,'' said John Clarke, director of commercial operation at Sellafield, in an interview. ``The problem the government has is to find a site, because nobody wants a site near them.''
Britons mostly oppose nuclear power because the technology was first developed to build an atomic bomb, said Timo Seppala, communications manager at Posiva Oyj, Finland's nuclear waste- management company, which is building the Olkiluoto underground site.
``Finland doesn't have the military legacy, that makes things easier'' to win support for nuclear, Seppala said.
`Dirty and Dangerous'
Environmentalists including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth oppose nuclear energy for being ``dirty and dangerous,'' Greenpeace says on its Web site. Nuclear waste ``has no solution'' and will ``threaten ourselves and future generations.''
Nuclear stations have to store the spent uranium and plutonium fuels under water for months because they are radioactive. Any spillage of the waste could lead to cancer if absorbed by humans, the Greenpeace Web site says.
Blair doesn't have to wait for the report on waste before deciding on nuclear energy, said Gordon Campbell, chairman of British Nuclear Fuels Plc, which owns the nuclear reprocessing plant in Sellafield.
``Psychologically you may need a waste decision to decide on build-up, but not technically, the two aren't necessarily related,'' he said in an interview. ``It's quite a difficult political decision. The government, from whichever party, is going to see people who oppose to it.''
Waiting for the report on disposing of nuclear waste also risks causing a shortage of engineers in the 5 billion-pound ($8.9 billion) industry, which employs 60,000 people in Britain, mostly at British Energy Plc and BNFL.
``The longer we wait, the more skills you lose, the harder it will be to get new build,'' said Clarke at his office in Sellafield, Cumbria. ``The U.K. indigenous skills are getting fewer and fewer.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Elena Moya in London at moya@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tim Coulter at tcoulter@bloomberg.net
-----
Ministers consider nuclear option
BBC
29 September, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3700464.stm
Ministers are considering enhancing the role of nuclear power in Scotland as a way to guarantee long-term electricity supplies, it has emerged.
The strategy has been sparked by concerns over the security of gas supplies from countries like Russia.
Options would include extending the life of existing nuclear power plants or even building a new one - which could prompt environmental objections.
A series of power cuts have led to fears about guaranteeing supplies.
One example in London last year led to a loss of power which included part of the underground system.
Scotland has three nuclear power stations. Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway - which now being decommissioned - exports power to England.
Two others - Hunterston B in Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian - meet 50% of Scotland's electricity demand.
British Energy said Hunterston should last until 2011 and it expected Torness to stay in production until 2023.
Decommissioning scheme
The news emerged as the operators of the Dounreay nuclear plant unveiled plans for its notorious disposal shaft.
The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) outlined how it proposed to "stabilise" the shaft to prepare for the removal of all its radioactive waste.
The shaft was used as a store for dangerous material from the Caithness site.
It is being emptied as part of the £4bn decommissioning plan for the site.
-------- china
China approves 8 bln dlr nuclear power project in Guangdong
BEIJING (AFP)
Sep 29, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040929083013.hrvhehko.html
China's State Council, the country's cabinet, has approved an 8.0 billion dollar nuclear power project in southern Guangdong province, state press said Wednesday.
State-owned power company China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co. Ltd. would invest the money in the project, which would involve six generating units with a combined installed capacity of 6,000-9,000 megawatts, to be built at Yangjiang, the China News Service reported.
Construction work of the project was expected to start soon, it said, citing Tang Xiaofeng, vice general manager of the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co. Ltd.
The approval came down from the cabinet, on September 2, the report said.
It was not clear if the plants would be built with international technology or be domestically made.
China Guangdong Nuclear Power currently operates the Daya Bay nuclear plant and Phase I of Lingao nuclear plant with total installed capacity of 4,000 megawatts.
China is planning to boost nuclear power development to meet the country's surging demand for electricity.
The issue has become more urgent as the energy-hungry eastern provinces have been suffering from major power shortages.
China put its first nuclear power plant into operation in 1991 at Daya Bay and now operates nine nuclear power plants with a total installed capacity of 7,000 megawatts, which represents about 1.8 percent of the country's total installed power generating capacity.
According to government plans, a total of 32 new 1,000 megawatt reactors are expected to be brought on line by 2020.
-----
Areva expects tenders for nuclear units in China 'fairly soon'
PARIS (AFP)
Sep 29, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040929103329.h0mw7pwh.html
Areva chief executive Anne Lauvergeon said Wednesday that the French nuclear engineering group expected the Chinese government to announce tenders for three nuclear generating units "fairly soon".
She said during a conference call after first-half results last night: "The latest news is that the Chinese government approved the building of at least six new nuclear units ... Things are moving swiftly."
"I don't know the details of the amount," she said, adding: "This is one of the details we are discussing."
State news agency China News Service reported Wednesday that China's cabinet had approved an eight-billion-dollar (6.5-billion-euro) nuclear power project in the southern Guangdong province, involving six nuclear generating units with a combined installed capacity of 6,000-9,000 megawatts.
-------- depleted uranium
The war's littlest victim
He was exposed to depleted uranium. His daughter may be paying the price.
NY Daily News
September 29, 2004
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/236934p-203326c.html
Guardsman Gerard Darren Matthew, sent home from Iraq with mysterious illnesses, holds baby daughter, Victoria, who has deformed hand. He has tested positive for uranium contamination.
In early September 2003, Army National Guard Spec. Gerard Darren Matthew was sent home from Iraq, stricken by a sudden illness.
One side of Matthew's face would swell up each morning. He had constant migraine headaches, blurred vision, blackouts and a burning sensation whenever he urinated.
The Army transferred him to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington for further tests, but doctors there could not explain what was wrong.
Shortly after his return, his wife, Janice, became pregnant. On June 29, she gave birth to a baby girl, Victoria Claudette.
The baby was missing three fingers and most of her right hand.
Matthew and his wife believe Victoria's shocking deformity has something to do with her father's illness and the war - especially since there is no history of birth defects in either of their families.
They have seen photos of Iraqi babies born with deformities that are eerily similar.
In June, Matthew contacted the Daily News and asked us to arrange independent laboratory screening for his urine. This was after The News had reported that four of seven soldiers from another National Guard unit, the 442nd Military Police, had tested positive for depleted uranium (DU).
The independent test of Matthew's urine found him positive for DU - low-level radioactive waste produced in nuclear plants during the enrichment of natural uranium.
Because it is twice as heavy as lead, DU has been used by the Pentagon since the Persian Gulf War in certain types of "tank-buster" shells, as well as for armor-plating in Abrams tanks.
Exposure to radioactivity has been associated in some studies with birth defects in the children of exposed parents.
"My husband went to Iraq to fight for his country," Janice Matthew said. "I feel the Army should take responsibility for what's happened."
The couple first learned of the baby's missing fingers during a routine sonogram of the fetus last April at Lenox Hill Hospital.
Matthew was a truck driver in Iraq with the 719th transport unit from Harlem. His unit moved supplies from Army bases in Kuwait to the front lines and as far as Baghdad. On several occasions, he says, he carried shot-up tanks and destroyed vehicle parts on his flat-bed back to Kuwait.
After he learned of his unborn child's deformity, Matthew immediately asked the Army to test his urine for DU. In April, he provided a 24-hour urine sample to doctors at Fort Dix, N.J., where he was waiting to be deactivated.
In May, the Army granted him a 40% disability pension for his migraine headaches and for a condition called idiopathic angioedema - unexplained chronic swelling.
But Matthew never got the results of his Army test for DU. When he called Fort Dix last week, five months after he was tested, he was told there was no record of any urine specimen from him.
Thankfully, Matthew did not rely solely on the Army bureaucracy - he went to The News.
Earlier this year, The News submitted urine samples from Guardsmen of the 442nd to former Army doctor Asaf Durakovic and Axel Gerdes, a geologist at Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The German lab specializes in testing for minute quantities of uranium, a complicated procedure that costs up to $1,000 per test.
The lab is one of approximately 50 in the world that can detect quantities as tiny as fentograms - one part per quadrillionth.
A few months ago, The News submitted a 24-hour urine sample from Matthew to Gerdes. As a control, we also gave the lab 24-hour urine samples from two Daily News reporters.
The three specimens were marked only with the letters A, B and C, so the lab could not know which sample belonged to the soldier.
After analyzing all three, Gerdes reported that only sample A - Matthew's urine - showed clear signs of DU. It contained a total uranium concentration that was "4 to 8 times higher" than specimens B and C, Gerdes reported.
"Those levels indicate pretty definitively that he's been exposed to the DU," said Leonard Dietz, a retired scientist who invented one of the instruments for measuring uranium isotopes.
According to Army guidelines, the total uranium concentration Gerdes found in Matthew is within acceptable standards for most Americans.
But Gerdes questioned the Army's standards, noting that even minute levels of DU are cause for concern.
"While the levels of DU in Matthew's urine are low," Gerdes said, "the DU we see in his urine could be 1,000 times higher in concentration in the lungs."
DU is not like natural uranium, which occurs in the environment. Natural uranium can be ingested in food and drink but gets expelled from the body within 24 hours.
DU-contaminated dust, however, is typically breathed into the lungs and can remain there for years, emitting constant low-level radiation.
"I'm upset and confused," Matthew said. "I just want answers. Are they [the Army] going to take care of my baby?"
We track soldiers' sickness
For the last five months, Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez has chronicled the plight of soldiers who have returned from Iraq with mysterious illnesses.
His exclusive groundbreaking investigation began with a front-page story on April 4 that suggested depleted uranium contamination was far more widespread than the Pentagon would admit.
- At the request of The News, nine soldiers from a New York Army National Guard company serving in Iraq were tested for radiation from depleted uranium shells - and four of the ailing G.I.s tested positive.
- The day after Gonzalez's story appeared, Army officials rushed to test all returning members of the company, the 442nd Military Police, based in Rockland County.
- By week's end, the scandal had reverberated all the way to Albany, as Gov. Pataki joined the list of politicians calling for the Pentagon to do a better job of testing and treating sick soldiers returning from the war.
- Gonzalez's exposé sparked a huge demand for testing. By mid-April, 800 G.I.s had given the Army urine samples, and hundreds more were waiting for appointments.
- Two weeks later, the Pentagon claimed that none of the soldiers from the 442nd had tested positive for depleted uranium. But The News' experts found significant problems with the testing methods.
-------- europe
Prosecutor Opens French Nuke Test Probe
September 29, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-France-Nuclear-Tests.html
PARIS (AP) -- The Paris prosecutor's office said Wednesday it has opened an investigation into France's controversial nuclear weapons testing program that lasted through 1995.
The investigation is based on a civil suit filed in November by 11 people who say they were victims of nuclear testing in Algeria, a former French colony, and in French Polynesia.
Between 1975 and 1996, France detonated at least 123 nuclear weapons in the volcanic rock beneath Mururoa Atoll, about 750 miles southeast of Tahiti. The French exploded another eight under nearby Fangataufa Atoll.
France tested its first atomic bomb on Feb. 13, 1960, in the Algerian Sahara.
The two judges handling the case will have to determine if there is a link between the nuclear testing and their illnesses.
The suit was filed by 11 former soldiers and civilians, or their relatives, who took part in nuclear tests or claim they were exposed to radioactive fallout. Six of them suffer medical problems they claim were caused by radiation. The five others are family members of two people who died.
The civil suit does not target specific officials but alleges that French authorities ``in charge of nuclear tests were not unaware of the risks to which they exposed civilian and military personnel charged with carrying out these tests (and) populations living close by.''
On a visit to Tahiti in July 2003, French President Jacques Chirac said tests have shown there were no ill effects to health from France's nuclear detonations in Polynesia.
-------- iran
Russia against UN Security Council taking up Iran's nuclear issue
Mideast - AFP
Wed Sep 29, 2004
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040929/wl_mideast_afp/russia_iran_un_iaea_040929105411
MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia is against bringing up Iran's nuclear program at the UN Security Council and thinks the issue should be handled by the body's nuclear watchdog.
"Moving this question to the Security Council, which is a political body, does not correspond to the interests of the issue," Igor Ivanov, chief of Russia's Security Council, told reporters Wednesday.
"This question falls under the mandate of the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency,) and the IAEA is ready to continue this work," he said at a press conference.
The IAEA has called on Tehran to immediately halt all activities related to uranium enrichment, a process that can make the explosive material for nuclear weapons.
The United States claims Iran is hiding a covert weapons development program and wants the agency to bring Iran before the UN Security Council in November.
Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons and insists it has a right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program.
Russia is building the Islamic state's first nuclear power plant at Bushehr, a project that the United States and Israel insist could be used as a cover for Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons.
"Iran has shown in a justifiable matter that it must have access, like other countries, to new technologies, including nuclear technology used for peaceful means," Ivanov said.
"This is a viable justification and that is why Russia is cooperating with Iran."
Russia has said on several occasions that it will continue its nuclear cooperation with Iran as long as the nation complies with the IAEA.
-----
'Tests so far show no nuclear activity in northern Iran'
September 29, 2004
The Pakistan News International
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2004-daily/29-09-2004/main/main14.htm
VIENNA: Initial tests of soil samples have revealed no signs of nuclear activities at a site in northern Iran that the United States says Tehran could have used to run secret uranium enrichment programs, diplomats said on Tuesday.
The diplomats, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, warned against assuming that the investigation of the site Lavizan Shiyan was complete. "We have still not looked at all results," of environmental sampling at Lavizan, which the US State Department earlier this year said had undergone a complete dismantling and razing as part of an attempted nuclear cover-up.
American officials cited commercial satellite photography as showing major dismantling of buildings and said that topsoil had been removed from the site as part of attempts to hide nuclear experiments meant to make weapons.
The IAEA is investigating nearly two decades of covert nuclear activity by Iran. Tehran maintains its program is meant to generate electricity, but the United States claims it is a weapons program.
US officials have linked the alleged razing of Lavizan Shiyan to the extensive redo at the Kalay-e Electric Co, just west of Tehran, two years ago before agency inspectors were allowed to visit the latter site. Although buildings were repainted and otherwise sanitised, samples taken from Kalay-e showed traces of enriched uranium, which, at sufficiently high levels, can be used to make nuclear warheads.
A senior diplomat, who is familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier, said that the agency "needed to have all testing finished", including environmental samples beyond the soil that was carted away from Lavizan Shiyan, before it could draw definitive conclusions.
-------- israel
Israel Takes Issue With Iran Weapons
September 29, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Iran-Weapons.html
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel will consider ``all options'' to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said in an interview published Wednesday, marking the latest in a series of Israeli threats against Iran's nuclear program.
Concern about Iranian nuclear development intensified last week when Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said the country had started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, an important step in making a nuclear bomb.
The declaration came in defiance of a resolution passed by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, demanding Iran freeze all uranium enrichment -- including conversion.
Israel considers Iran its most dangerous enemy and worries that Iran's nuclear weapons program is intended as a threat against it. Iran denies it is developing nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear development program is aimed at generating electricity.
Mofaz told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot that Israel had to be prepared to deal with what he called the Iranian ``threat.''
``All options have to be taken into account to prevent it,'' he was quoted as saying.
Mofaz said there was a chance a moderate regime would emerge in Tehran to stop the development of nuclear weapons, but if not, measures had to be taken to prevent their deployment.
``The question is what comes first, nuclear ability or regime change,'' Yediot quoted him as saying.
Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel is ``taking measures to defend itself'' -- a comment that raised concern Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear installations along the lines of its 1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak near Baghdad.
Speculation has also been fueled by recent Israeli weapons acquisitions, including bunker-buster bombs and long-range fighter-bombers.
----
Israel Weighs 'All Options' to Stop Iran Nuke Plan
(Reuters)
By Dan Williams
Wed Sep 29, 2004
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=5YNAQ51AXJ4G4CRBAE0CFFA?type=topNews&storyID=6365145
JERUSALEM - A military strike is among Israel's options to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said on Wednesday in the latest threat by the Jewish state against its arch-foe.
Asked by a newspaper if Iranian atomic facilities could be bombed -- a tactic Israel used to destroy Iraq's main reactor in 1981 -- Mofaz said: "All options for preventing this (Tehran obtaining nuclear weapons) will be considered."
"The important thing is to stop the current (Iranian) regime reaching a nuclear option," Mofaz told Yedioth Ahronoth daily.
Iran says its nuclear program is being pursued solely to meet civilian energy needs.
But Tehran, which rejects Israel's right to exist, stirred world suspicion this month by defying calls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) not to prepare raw uranium for enrichment -- a process that can be used to make atomic bombs.
Washington is leading diplomatic pressure on Iran to come clean on its atomic program.
"The American ... demands for invasive inspection, threat of sanctions -- appear to be the right thing to do," Mofaz said.
"On the other hand, the Iranians are doing everything possible to buy time. The question is what will happen first -- nuclear capability or a change in the regime?"
Israeli officials say Iran could produce atomic weapons by 2007, fueling speculation Israel may strike militarily first.
Widely believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear power, Israel plans to buy 500 "bunker buster" bombs from its U.S. ally that could be delivered by long-range jets and prove effective against Iran's facilities, many of which are underground.
"It is possible that Western agencies, doubtful about the success of the diplomatic effort, prefer to have Israel act in their place," the liberal Haaretz newspaper said on Wednesday. "Nobody has asked Israel to refrain from a belligerent act."
Tehran has vowed to retaliate for any such attack. Defense analysts believe it could order proxy forces to attack U.S. interests in Iraq and other Gulf states, or step up support for Palestinian militants fighting Israel.
"Iran's defense capabilities would be unable to prevent an attack (on its facilities)," said Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "The conclusion is that the Iranian leadership would rely basically on a 'reactive strategy'."
-------- japan
Kepco office searched over deadly leak
Police seek out evidence of professional negligence at Mihama reactor
japantimes.co.jp
Sept. 29, 2004
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040929a2.htm
FUKUI (Kyodo) Police searched a Kansai Electric Power Co. branch office Tuesday in Fukui Prefecture as part of an investigation into a deadly nuclear plant accident in August.
Fukui police investigators enter the Wakasa branch office of Kansai Electric Power Co. in Mihama, Fukui Prefecture.
Around 8:30 a.m., 120 police officers swarmed into Kepco's Wakasa branch office in Mihama, which oversees operations at the company's 11 nuclear reactors in Fukui, to search for evidence on whether the utility committed professional negligence resulting in the worst fatal accident at a nuclear plant in Japan.
Police also searched plant offices of Kepco and its maintenance affiliate, Nihon Arm Co., earlier this month.
Fukui Prefectural Police plan to examine documents at the Wakasa office to determine if company officials were responsible for failing to check a coolant water pipe at the Mihama Nuclear Power Plant for nearly 28 years until the badly corroded pipe ruptured Aug. 9, spewing superheated steam.
Five workers were killed and seven others injured in the accident at the No. 3 reactor in Mihama. The workers had been doing preparatory work for regular checks of the reactor.
Kepco is suspected of failing to conduct checks even after Nihon Arm warned it last November that the pipe in question had been overlooked during annual inspections.
Police want to know exactly when Nihon Arm notified the utility by examining documents at the Wakasa office, including the company's inspection plans and records, investigative sources said.
-----
New defense chief sees SDF playing more active role in global security
The Japan Times:
Sept. 29, 2004
By NAO SHIMOYACHI
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040929f2.htm
The new Defense Agency chief suggested Tuesday that Japan should be allowed to engage in collective defense and make a more active contribution to international security.
Yoshinori Ono said in an interview that overseas missions by the Self-Defense Forces, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, are "very much restrained" by the government's long-held interpretation that Japan possesses the right to collective defense -- which is guaranteed under international law -- but is constitutionally prohibited from exercising this right.
"Fortunately, we have constitutional research committees working at both houses of the Diet. I'd like them to discuss this issue further" to make it clear that Japan can "possess and exercise" the right, remarked the Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker.
The government has sent SDF troops overseas to join peacekeeping and other missions in the last decade, though it has carefully avoided missions that would require the use of force, such as the maintenance of security.
It has interpreted the Constitution as allowing Japanese troops to use weapons strictly in self-defense. The government has therefore dispatched SDF troops overseas only for humanitarian and logistic support missions.
Ono, 68, said that as Defense Agency chief, he will pursue ways in which the SDF can make a more active international contribution within the current framework of the Constitution.
But he also noted that SDF activities overseas have been "very much restrained, as is symbolized in the phrase 'rear-area support,' due to the government's interpretation concerning collective defense."
"The only possible way I can think of now is to have thorough discussions in public and in the Diet on what to do with this right to collective defense as well as how we should contribute to international peace," he said.
"I hope public opinion will mature that way and eventually the Diet's constitutional research committees will show a certain direction."
A number of LDP lawmakers hold similar views -- that the Constitution should be revised because it represents an obstacle to Japan's efforts to make an active contribution to international security. This is a sensitive issue for Cabinet members, nevertheless, since these individuals are obliged to comply with the Constitution as public servants.
The veteran lawmaker is known as a leading policy expert within the LDP. A former Finance Ministry bureaucrat, he has occupied many party and government posts in different areas, including parliamentary vice science and technology minister and vice education minister.
The job of Defense Agency chief, which Ono was given Monday, is the first Cabinet position for the lawmaker, who has been elected to the House of Representatives six times.
He headed the LDP policy panel on national defense when the current basic defense program was created in 1995.
The government is now working to update the defense program by November to better counter new threats such as terrorism and ballistic missile attacks.
-------- korea
US has no objection to NKorea delaying nuclear talks until after US elections
Asia - AFP
Wed Sep 29, 2004
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040929/wl_asia_afp/us_nkorea_nuclear_040929192716
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said it had no objection to North Korea wanting to resume six-party talks on ending the Korean nuclear crisis after the November 2 US presidential elections.
"If the North Koreans have come to the conclusion they want to wait for the result of the election, fine, let them do so, Deputy US Secretary of State Richard Armitage said.
But he cautioned North Korea against assuming it would get a better deal in return for ending its nuclear weapons drive after the November 2 presidential elections, in which President George W. Bush is being challenged by Democratic Senator John Kerry.
Bush favours multilateral talks to resolving the nuclear question while Kerry prefers direct talks with the Stalinist regime.
"If North Koreans have come to the conclusion they want to wait to see if they can get a better deal, that is a big miscalculation for them," Armitage told reporters after testifying in the House of Representatives on the upcoming Afghanistan presidential polls.
Three rounds of six-party talks to end the nuclear crisis in the Korean peninsula had been held so far among the United States, the two Koreas, Japan, Russia and host China.
But North Korea has refused to attend the fourth, scheduled for this month, blaming both US "hostile" policy and secret nuclear experiments in South Korea.
Some reports said Pyongyang wanted to wait for the outcome of the US elections.
US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton had warned Tuesday that North Korea might have to be brought back to the UN Security Council if it refused participation in the talks.
"I think it would be fair to say that if, at some point, North Korea continues to stonewall, then I think the Security Council is the next logical step," Bolton said.
North Korea was referred to the Security Council early last year after it withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and expelled International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors following Washington's charge that it was involved in nuclear weapons activities.
The council made no decision on the issue.
Armitage said Tuesday that the United States would first discuss with the other parties in the six-party process before deciding on the "next step" if North Korea was not interested in negotiating.
The Security Council was "an option," he said, adding however that both China and Russia could use their influence to prod North Korea to remain engaged.
"The Chinese friends are not without influence, the Russian friends, even South Korean and Japanese friends," he said.
Armitage said President Bush was "very patient" on resolving the North Korean issue and stressed that the six-party process was still key to any effective resolution to the crisis.
"They are still important, they are important today, they will be important November 3," he said, adding that other participants in the discussions had very similar views about the need for denuclearization in the Korean peninsula and "that is a good basis to move forward."
The standoff over North Korea's nuclear ambitions flared in October 2002 when Washington accused Pyongyang of operating a nuclear weapons program based on enriched uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement.
Pyongyang has denied running the uranium-based program but has restarted its plutonium program.
A North Korean minister said this week Pyongyang had turned plutonium from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into weapons to serve as a deterrent against a possible nuclear strike by the United States.
----
N. Korea Is Used to Justify System
But U.S. Experts Question Extent of Nation's Missile Capabilities
Washington Post
By Bradley Graham
September 29, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58086-2004Sep28?language=printer
In justifying the accelerated deployment of a nationwide anti-missile system, the Bush administration has cited a growing missile threat, particularly from North Korea.
But the extent of North Korea's missile program is open to debate. The U.S. intelligence community concluded several years ago that North Korea had already acquired some kind of long-range missile capability. A number of outside experts, however, doubt that nation has been able to surmount all the technical challenges to firing a nuclear-tipped missile at the continental United States, about 6,000 miles away.
"It would require a huge technological leap for them," said Joseph Cirincione, a specialist in weapons proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "I don't see the evidence that they've made the necessary breakthroughs."
Complicating any assessment is a shortage of reliable information about North Korea's development effort, given the country's penchant for secrecy. If it has long-range missiles, it has yet to launch one.
Beyond North Korea, the urgency of any new missile threat to the United States is subject to even greater dispute. U.S. officials frequently cite Iran as not far behind North Korea in its pursuit of longer-range rockets. But the most that Iran has demonstrated so far is the Shahab-3, a missile barely capable of reaching southern Europe, let alone the United States.
In general, administration officials say, the spread of ballistic missile technology to about 30 nations has increased the prospects of more countries acquiring the ability to strike at the United States. But these statistics tend to blur the distinction between shorter-range missile arsenals, which are widespread, and longer-range stockpiles, which remain confined to a few advanced countries. Sizable financial as well as technological obstacles confront poorer nations trying to develop long-range missiles.
The last National Intelligence Estimate on the ballistic missile threat, representing the consensus view of all U.S. intelligence agencies, was issued in December 2001. It warned that North Korea had developed a long-range missile known as the Taepo Dong 2 and could start flight-testing it at any time.
Last year, George J. Tenet, who was then director of the CIA, told a Senate committee that North Korea had the ability to strike the West Coast of the United States with a long-range missile, making it a member of a group that for decades had included only Russia, China, Britain and France. Earlier this year, the Pentagon updated its own intelligence assessment of North Korea's missile program, but has declined to discuss any new findings.
Several U.S. officials, interviewed on the condition they not be named, acknowledged large gaps in U.S. knowledge of how advanced the North Korean effort may be. "There are a lot of things that we don't know about the North Korean program," said a senior White House official who follows the issue.
U.S. intelligence analysts have offered some informed judgments, describing two possible, basic versions of the Taepo Dong 2: a two-stage model that could deliver a small nuclear device as far as 6,000 miles -- far enough to reach Alaska, Hawaii and western parts of the United States -- and a three-stage model that could travel 9,000 miles.
An earlier, less powerful version, the Taepo Dong 1, flew for the first -- and so far only -- time six years ago. It soared over Japan in a failed attempt to put a broadcast satellite into orbit.
The following year, North Korea announced a moratorium on flight tests of the Taepo Dong and has held to it since. But ground tests of engines and other improvement efforts have not stopped, U.S. officials and outside specialists said. In recent days, U.S., Japanese and South Korean officials have reported signs that North Korea may be preparing to launch a ballistic missile, although the likely range and purpose of the flight have remained unclear.
"There is some evidence that North Korea has continued to work on the TD-2 or other types of long-range missiles since the August 1998 TD-1 test, but information on the level of effort and the level of success is very fragmentary and elusive," the International Institute for Strategic Studies said in January. "As a result, a firm judgment on the status of the TD-2 cannot be rendered because too little information is available."
One source of heightened U.S. concern has been the emergence in the past year of a new North Korean intermediate-range missile. While not able to reach the United States, the new missile is described by some U.S. and South Korean analysts as having a range of more than 2,000 miles. This would give North Korea the ability to strike Guam, a U.S. territory with a substantial U.S. military presence.
Unlike earlier North Korean missiles, which were derived from Soviet Scud technology, the new land-based missile is said to be based on a more powerful Soviet model, the submarine-launched SS-N-6. U.S. officials worry this technology, which North Korea is suspected of obtaining in the mid-1990s, could become a building block for a new long-range missile.
"The fundamental point is, basically, the North Koreans could decide at any time to flight-test a longer-range system," said Vann H. Van Diepen, a senior State Department official who works on proliferation issues. "They've been in that configuration literally for years."
Once it flies the Taepo Dong 2, North Korea may not wait for more tests to start deploying the missile, U.S. officials say. A decade ago, after flying its medium-range No Dong missile for the first time, North Korea began offering it for sale to other countries.
The launch of the Taepo Dong 1 in 1998 surprised U.S. intelligence agencies by demonstrating that North Korea had developed the ability to achieve multiple staging in a missile flight. But to reach the United States with a nuclear-tipped missile, North Korea would have to overcome other technical hurdles, defense specialists said.
It would need, for instance, to make major advances in propulsion and guidance. It would need to develop a warhead that could withstand the heat and stress of reentry from space. And it would have to produce a nuclear device small enough to fit on the tip of a missile.
"You get as many people arguing that their design can't be that far along as you do people saying yes indeed it can be," said Dennis M. Gormley, senior fellow at Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
-----
North Korea's number two to visit China amid simmering nuclear standoff
BEIJING (AFP)
Sep 29, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040929022023.ovd7xt5a.html
North Korea's number two leader will visit China next month amid growing concern over stalled efforts to curb the secretive country's nuclear ambitions, a Beijing source said Wednesday.
Kim Yong-Nam, the Stalinist nation's top legislator, will go to China some time in October, Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan told a group of Japanese journalists, according to a source familiar with the meeting.
Tang, a former foreign minister, made the remark without being prompted, the source said.
China is facing a minor diplomatic embarrassment as it now looks all but impossible that six-country nuclear talks will take place in Beijing by the end of the month as originally planned.
The six nations -- China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia -- last met in Beijing in June, agreeing on little else than convening again before late September.
North Korea is being widely blamed for the missed deadline, with some speculating it may want to await the outcome of the November US presidential elections before returning to the negotiating table.
-------- missile defense
Pentagon's Booster Project Veered Off Course
Program Illustrates Difficulties in Pursuing Workable Missile Defense System
Washington Post
By Bradley Graham
September 29, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58252-2004Sep28?language=printer
Of all the things that could go wrong in developing a missile defense system, Pentagon officials figured that the booster would be among the least of their worries.
They figured wrong.
Despite decades of U.S. experience building rockets to launch satellites, space shuttles and other craft -- and despite the involvement of such industry giants as Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. -- the booster project veered far off course. Its persistent problems have led to a two-year hiatus in intercept tests and driven the Pentagon to fall back on an alternate booster design.
The troubled booster program illustrates the difficulties the Pentagon has confronted in pursuing a workable missile defense system -- and doing so within the administration's compressed timetable of deploying by the end of 2004. Interviews with many who have worked on the project or have closely observed it point to a long history of miscalculations.
Projections were overly optimistic, technical challenges were underestimated, designs were faulty, and workmanship was poor. Repeatedly over the past few years, program officials have declared the corner turned, only to acknowledge months later, with renewed frustration, that problems have persisted.
"The booster story typifies the risks we run when we think we know too much, when we're very comfortable with something," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, who recently left the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) after five years as director. "We didn't pay attention to the risks involved in that part of the program."
The booster's role is to carry a "kill vehicle," a 120-pound package of sensors, computers and thrusters. Once in space, the kill vehicle separates from the booster and speeds toward an enemy warhead, destroying it in a high-speed collision.
In producing the booster, Pentagon officials had hoped at the outset to save money and accelerate development by relying on commercially proven motors assembled largely from off-the-shelf components.
"Back in 1999, we thought off-the-shelf technology was kind of a slam-dunk," Kadish said in an interview.
But the missile defense mission presented some particular design challenges. In contrast with satellite shots, where the trajectories are known, the booster in a missile intercept mission must be prepared for a wide variety of flight paths, ranging from relatively flat to very lofted. The flatter trajectories, Kadish said, "require more thrust control, and that became more of a challenge than most designers appreciated."
Additionally, Pentagon officials wanted the interceptors packaged in canisters to make transporting and handling easier. That affected performance, though, and complicated maintenance and repairs.
Boeing, which already had responsibility for overseeing the entire missile defense system, won the contract in 1998 for producing the booster. Quality-control and design problems began to emerge early.
One especially nettlesome problem arose from a requirement that the interceptors might have to stay in the ground for years before being fired. This precluded use of hydraulic systems to control the boosters' nozzles, because such systems are susceptible to leakage and malfunction.
So the only option was a battery-powered system. But none had ever been produced for such a powerful booster.
Other problems followed. In the spring of 2000, technicians discovered a weakness in the system for controlling the roll, pitch and yaw of the booster, and they struggled with a redesign. They also found heat damage in a metal line that piped hot gases to the rocket's thrusters. The line had to be re-engineered.
Still another setback resulted when the writing of computer code used to guide the kill vehicle turned out to be more cumbersome than expected. That added more weeks to the schedule.
By then, Kadish and other senior MDA officials had lost confidence in Boeing's management team. The company shook up its missile defense group, replacing the executive in charge and others. But problems continued into 2001 -- among them, poor bonding in adhesives for some booster components.
A test launch in August 2001 succeeded, but a second test in December 2001 flopped. Immediately after launch, the rocket tumbled end over end, spewing gas and fire out its front end as well as its rear. An investigation showed that the dome of the motor had been cracked when the booster was moved to the launch site.
With the booster program by then 161/27 years behind schedule, Pentagon officials approved a plan to re-bid the project. To increase the chance of getting an effective booster, they decided in early 2002 to authorize two separate development efforts based on two different designs.
One contract went to Orbital Sciences Corp., which had a good record supplying NASA and the Pentagon with small rockets, target missiles and lightweight satellites. Orbital's proposal promised a faster, cheaper booster. But the company had never built a large, three-stage missile -- the kind the Pentagon was seeking for the missile defense system.
The second contract went to continue Boeing's design -- but not with Boeing in charge. The project was taken over by Lockheed Martin, which had more experience building boosters and had already supplied boosters for early flight tests.
"It's not unheard of, but it is unusual," said Lockheed's Doug Graham, recalling the decision to have his company take on the task of completing Boeing's design.
Said Jim Evatt, a Boeing senior vice president: "We did run into normal developmental and technical issues on our booster. But if Lockheed had not wanted to build it, we would have continued with the program."
Lockheed made some changes in Boeing's design. It added a cold-gas attitude-control system to reduce the booster's tendency to roll after launch. It also integrated an avionics package into the booster, doing away with the glue pads that had attached the package to the dome and were prone to come loose. Additionally, the company reconfigured the booster's flight computer.
But Lockheed officials put off other desired improvements, intent on meeting the Pentagon's deadline. The transition from Boeing had already taken 15 months, about half a year longer than expected.
"There were other things they wanted to do, but, quite frankly, cost and schedule wouldn't allow them," said Col. Damian Bianca, manager of the interceptor program for the MDA.
By last fall, program officials were still hopeful the booster could be ready for deployment this year. Then disaster struck.
A couple of fluke explosions occurred at a propellant-mixing complex in San Jose belonging to Pratt & Whitney's Chemical Systems Division, supplier of the upper-stage motors for Lockheed's booster. The second blast, in September 2003 -- triggered when a contractor mistakenly cut a pressurized line -- killed the man and caused Pratt & Whitney to suspend mixing operations.
Lockheed, driven to look for another motor supplier, lost any chance of having its booster ready in time to satisfy President Bush's 2004 deployment date. Meeting that deadline would depend on Orbital, the other booster supplier.
Founded in 1982 by three friends not long out of Harvard Business School, Orbital had concentrated on research and development, not soon-to-be-deployed weapons systems. With several hundred million dollars in annual revenue, the company was still a bit player in an industry characterized by a few big-name firms that earned over $20 billion a year.
Orbital seized on the booster project as a ticket to the major leagues -- and also a way out of debt. Like almost all U.S. satellite builders and rocket companies in the 1990s, Orbital had gone deeply into debt investing in commercial satellite networks.
Pentagon officials decided to take a chance with the small, financially burdened firm because of its record of solid performance. They also liked the fact that its design would be based on the company's Pegasus rocket, which had failed just three times in 31 launches of small satellites.
"Was there concern going with a smaller company? A little bit, but not overwhelming," recalled Maj. Gen. John Holly, manager of what the MDA calls the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. "They were not as big as Lockheed but they had a proven track record."
In early 2002, the company was given one year to produce a prototype booster for a test launch. The launch, which took place 13 months later, was a success.
"I think that really broke the ice," said J.R. Thompson, Orbital's president. "We changed from being a stalking horse to being a real contender to provide the booster."
But converting Pegasus into a missile defense booster wasn't simple. Pegasus is launched from underneath an airplane and has wings and control fins to help it fly. Orbital had to strip off the wings and fins and figure out how to shoot it from a silo.
"There were two ways missiles got out of silos in the U.S. missile experience," said David W. Thompson, one of Orbital's founders and currently its chief executive. One was by using the rocket's own thrust. The other was by injecting a compressed gas into the system before igniting the rocket engines.
"We couldn't do either one of those," he said. "Instead, we needed a system that could actively steer the vehicle as it flew out of the silo, and the tolerances were pretty tight. We described it as taking the Enterprise out of space dock at warp power, so you had to be pretty careful about how you did that."
The missile defense mission presented Orbital with additional challenges. The guidance and navigation components were complex. So was the software used to link the interceptor to the system's command and control network.
Further, space launches normally allowed plenty of time to get ready. With Pegasus, for instance, the countdown tended to span a couple of days. But with missile defense, the booster would need to blast off within minutes. That meant a design that could allow for both long-term storage in a silo and short-notice activation.
"I think we went into it with our eyes pretty wide open and had made a pretty realistic assessment of the technical challenges in front of us," said Ronald J. Grabe, a former astronaut who runs Orbital's launch vehicles business unit.
One approach Orbital considered but rejected was canisterizing the booster as the original Boeing -- now Lockheed -- design had done. While the canister made it easier to move the booster, it also complicated maintenance. Doing without a canister, Grabe said, "seemed to us to be a little more straightforward."
The initial demonstration launch in February 2003 marked the first time Orbital had included a steering nozzle on the first stage of its Pegasus rocket. The launch also achieved successful separation of the first and second stages.
"With that flight, we addressed about 60 to 70 percent of what we thought were the high-risk items," David Thompson said.
A second launch in August 2003 demonstrated many remaining items. And a third launch in January this year was the first to fly with the full deployment configuration, using a mock kill vehicle. By then, Pentagon officials were talking to Orbital about speeding up production.
Originally, the Pentagon had planned to use a mix of Orbital and Lockheed boosters in the initial deployment of 16 interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California through 2005. With Lockheed sidelined until 2006, Orbital has expanded production to meet the full demand for boosters in this first batch.
The booster project has become Orbital's single biggest program, representing just under 30 percent of company's total revenue last year and employing 25 percent of its workforce.
But the Orbital booster has yet to be flight-tested with an actual kill vehicle. The first such test, due months ago, has been postponed repeatedly as a result of technical issues with the booster as well as with the kill vehicle, which is made by Raytheon Co.
-----
Interceptor System Set, But Doubts Remain
Network Hasn't Undergone Realistic Testing
Washington Post
By Bradley Graham
September 29, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58080-2004Sep28?language=printer
At a newly constructed launch site on a tree-shorn plain in central Alaska, a large crane crawls from silo to silo, gently lowering missiles into their holes. The sleek white rockets, each about five stories tall, are designed to soar into space and intercept warheads headed toward the United States.
With five installed so far and one more due by mid-October, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is preparing to activate the site sometime this autumn. President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.
But what the administration had hoped would be a triumphant achievement is clouded by doubts, even within the Pentagon, about whether a system that is on its way to costing more than $100 billion will work. Several key components have fallen years behind schedule and will not be available until later. Flight tests, plagued by delays, have yet to advance beyond elementary, highly scripted events.
The paucity of realistic test data has caused the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator to conclude that he cannot offer a confident judgment about the system's viability. He estimated its likely effectiveness to be as low as 20 percent.
"A system is being deployed that doesn't have any credible capability," said retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, who headed the U.S. Strategic Command in the mid-1990s. "I cannot recall any military system being deployed in such a manner."
Senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House insist the system will provide protection, although they use terms such as "rudimentary" and "limited" to describe its initial capabilities. Some missile defense, they say, is better than none, and what is deployed this year will be improved over time.
"Did we have perfection with our first airplane, our first rifle, our first ship?" Rumsfeld said in an interview last month. "I mean, they'd still be testing at Kitty Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted perfection."
This notion of building first and improving later lies at the heart of the administration's approach, which defense officials have dubbed "evolutionary acquisition" or "spiral development." Bush has scaled back President Ronald Reagan's vision of a vast anti-missile network and pursued a less ambitious system. At the outset, the system will be aimed only at countering a small number of missiles that would be fired by North Korea, which is 6,000 miles from the West Coast of the United States.
But Bush also has funded an expanded array of missile defense projects, including land- and sea-launched interceptors, an airborne laser, and space-based weapons. So far, he has spent $31 billion on missile defense research and development, and his plans call for an additional $9 billion to $10 billion a year for the next five years. Beyond that, the administration has provided no final price tag. In 2005, the cost of missile defense will consume nearly 14 percent of the Pentagon's entire research-and-development budget.
While more money has gone into missile defense under Bush than into any other military R&D project, the Pentagon has exempted the missile defense program from the traditional oversight rules meant to ensure that new weapons serve the needs of military commanders. Administration officials say the procedural shortcuts and the increased spending have yielded record gains in record time. The urgency, they say, is justified by a growing U.S. vulnerability to attack from hostile states pursuing long-range missiles -- most notably North Korea and Iran.
Critics warn that such haste has made waste -- and is unnecessary. The urgency, they suspect, has been more a reflection of politics than concerns about the missile programs of North Korea and Iran, which still face significant technical hurdles. The deployment is being timed, they contend, to help Bush's reelection campaign.
They also caution that fielding a U.S. anti-missile system before it has undergone realistic testing risks inducing a false sense of security and locking the United States into flawed technology.
"The design gets frozen in order to build something, so development is stopped," said Philip E. Coyle III, the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator during the Clinton administration. "You can't be building a house and changing the floor plan at the same time." Out With the Old
Normally, when a weapons system is conceived, the Pentagon sets specific requirements that must be approved by a committee of senior military officers. The project is then assessed periodically by the Defense Acquisition Board, a group of high-ranking defense officials from various offices.
This accountability apparatus has been shunted aside in the case of missile defense. No requirements document was drawn up, and the traditional reviews and assessments have been bypassed. Instead, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), which is responsible for developing the system, has been allowed to devise its own goals, test schedules and program reviews.
When Rumsfeld authorized this extraordinary autonomy in January 2002, he said that technological challenges and urgent national security concerns justified it. As a former executive in the pharmaceutical industry, Rumsfeld by his own account was influenced by the vigorous trial-and-error competition that often precedes the creation of new drugs.
Other historical models also inspired Pentagon authorities. One was the National Reconnaissance Office, established in great secrecy in the 1960s to develop and operate spy satellites. The other was Israel's decision, in 2000, to declare its Arrow anti-missile system operational after just one successful intercept test.
"Since we have urgent needs, we sometimes cut corners in developing systems, meaning we field them before we've developed everything," said Arieh Herzog, director of the Israeli Missile Defense Organization. He said he held "many talks" about Israel's approach with Lt. Gen. Ronald T. Kadish, MDA director at the time.
Opponents in Congress and elsewhere say this approach has been taken too far in the case of the U.S. system. They warn that the lack of established baselines for the missile defense program has made it difficult to hold the Pentagon accountable for performance and cost.
"We're in this hugely expensive race to build something, but we don't know how much it'll cost in the end or what it'll do," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
An audit by the Government Accountability Office, released in April, cited an absence of reliable, complete baseline estimates of system performance and cost. Without this information, the GAO said, policymakers in the Pentagon and Congress "do not have a full understanding" of the system's overall cost and actual capabilities. The audit concluded that the system being fielded this year remains "largely unproven." Supporting Cast
Pentagon officials say the program remains subject to extensive internal supervision, even with the departure from traditional procedures. Michael W. Wynne, the Pentagon's acting head of acquisitions, told a Senate committee in March that he meets weekly with the MDA's director. In contrast with other programs he oversees from a distance, Wynne described his contacts with top MDA officials -- and with Rumsfeld -- as "more direct and generally carried out in face-to-face discussions."
Wynne said other senior Pentagon officials also have had a say in shaping and scrutinizing the program. He pointed to the Missile Defense Support Group, which consists of mid-level representatives from Rumseld's office, the Joint Staff and each of the military services. The group has met 47 times since its creation in March 2002.
"No program in the department receives more scrutiny -- either in level or frequency -- than the Missile Defense Program," Wynne testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
But interviews with support group members revealed they have played only an advisory role. Several said the group often learned of some important decisions after the fact.
"We're not a critical-decision review group," said Glenn F. Lamartin, a senior Pentagon acquisition official who chairs the group. "We're a support group. We provide advice. Our engagement is different than if we were operating under the old system of review and oversight."
Lately, some senior military commanders have signaled an interest in shifting back toward some sort of formal requirement process. The Strategic Command, which will oversee operation of the missile defense system, has proposed a "warfighter involvement program" to give commanders a greater voice in the system's development.
Another important source of internal review is supposed to be Thomas P. Christie, the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator. But he is in an awkward position.
By law, his Operational Test and Evaluation office is mandated by Congress to judge the readiness of major weapons systems before they are deployed, which it does by comparing the results of "operational" tests with the requirements for the system. In the case of missile defense, however, no formal requirements exist, and the test data so far come from early "developmental" flights, not more realistic operational ones.
Christie's estimate that the system may be only 20 percent effective contrasts with a prediction from the MDA of more than 80 percent effectiveness. The difference reflects disagreement over which test data to include in computing the estimates.
Christie wants to count all flight results, including earlier test failures. The MDA argues that causes of those failures have been fixed, so the data can be discarded. Its estimates are based largely on computer simulations and testing of individual components.
The MDA's director, Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. "Trey" Obering III, said in an interview earlier this month that both sides were trying to settle on a common set of data. Two other senior defense officials said this week that an agreement had been reached on "selection criteria" for the data and that the gap between the disparate estimates had begun to narrow.
The numbers, which are classified, carry considerable importance because a future U.S. president would rely on them in a crisis.
"He will want to know what his options are and will turn to his commanders and ask how sure they are that the system will work," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the assessment. Delays Persist
After Bush took office, Pentagon officials outlined a plan of stepped-up flight intercept tests. The plan held, more or less, through the end of 2002 and several successful intercepts. But unexpected difficulty in producing a new booster rocket has stalled intercept tests since December 2002.
The booster's job is to carry a "kill vehicle," a 120-pound package of sensors, computers and thrusters. Once in space, the kill vehicle separates from the booster and closes in on an enemy warhead, destroying it in a high-speed collision.
Earlier flight tests used a surrogate booster that flew at only half the speed of the booster that is being produced for the system. MDA officials said they have not wanted to try more intercepts until that new booster can be incorporated into the tests.
By spring of this year, the new booster was ready, but the discovery of a faulty circuit board in the kill vehicle prompted Pentagon officials to order a lengthy bottom-up review of all components. In mid-August, the missile interceptor was again set to go when technicians found a glitch in the booster's flight computer. Replacing the computer created another delay.
Earlier this month, Obering, the MDA's director, announced a further postponement after discovering modifications that had been made to the interceptor without thorough ground testing.
This leaves the administration proceeding with deployment after only eight intercept tests -- the most recent conducted 21 months ago. Five tests resulted in hits, but all used the same limited test range in the Pacific and employed surrogates for tracking radars as well as for the booster.
A key X-band radar -- a towering structure being built to float at sea on two motorized pontoons the size of Trident submarines -- will not be ready for another year at least. Also still in development is a satellite network to replace a three-decade-old constellation of early-warning satellites. Both the X-band and the new satellites are critical in assisting the kill vehicle to distinguish the warhead from decoys and debris.
Physicists and defense experts, including some affiliated with the Union of Concerned Scientists, continue to dispute the MDA's claims that the system will be able to identify a warhead in a field of decoys -- a process known as "discrimination." Tests so far, using only relatively simple targets, have done little to resolve the issue.
Pentagon officials say the system has been subjected to an extensive array of ground tests and computer simulations. The failures on intercept attempts, they note, resulted from problems with the quality of individual parts, not from basic design flaws.
"If you really look at where we've encountered problems, they have not been things that required technological breakthrough. They have been in attention to detail and quality," said Maj. Gen. John Holly, the MDA's manager for what is formally known as the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system.
But both Christie and the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory board, have cited limits to the computer models. And the persistent quality control problems have led a number of scientists, defense specialists and Democratic lawmakers to argue that the system's sheer complexity makes it highly vulnerable to the malfunction of a single part. 'We Needed a Date'
The Pentagon has aimed at having the Alaska site ready by Sept. 30. Kadish, the former MDA director, said that date was chosen by his agency in early 2002 for "internal management purposes," not by political appointees with an eye toward the Nov. 2 presidential election.
"We needed a date for people to work to," he told the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee in March.
At the time the date was picked, the Alaska site was being conceived primarily as a "test bed" that would allow for more realistic flight testing and cold-weather ground operations. It could be used in an emergency to thwart a real attack, defense officials figured, but that would not be its main purpose.
In the summer of 2002, the plan began to change. Pentagon officials proposed turning the site into a fully operational anti-missile facility and deploying more interceptors there while still using it as a test area. Bush approved the plan a few months later, ordering deployment in 2004.
Despite the slippage in the test program, the administration has held fast to that deadline. In recent weeks, Bush and Rumsfeld have reiterated their intention to activate the system by year's end.
This will not be the first time Pentagon officials have pushed a new weapon system into service while it is still in its experimental phase. The Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), a ground surveillance aircraft, was rushed into action in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and Predator and other unmanned reconnaissance aircraft were hurriedly deployed in the Balkans and Afghanistan.
But JSTARS and the drone aircraft were far simpler to develop than missile defense. Coyle, the former Pentagon weapons evaluator, compared the idea of deploying while testing the missile defense system to building a picket fence, one picket at a time, over several years. Until the whole thing is complete, such a fence is not much use, he said.
Coyle and others also worry that placing the system on alert will distract from further testing and development. They point to the experience in the 1990s of a shorter-range anti-missile system known as Theater High-Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD. The Army required the developer of that system to produce 40 prototype missiles, reliable and rugged enough to use in a combat emergency. The pressure to deploy something early led to compromises in design and testing, which hampered the program and contributed to years of delay.
Pentagon officials are still wrestling with what balance to strike between keeping the system functioning and suspending operations to run tests.
"You could say that if you put it on alert, it might be a distraction to the development and evolution of the system," Rumsfeld said. "But you could say just the opposite -- that by putting it on alert, you force up a whole series of issues that you need to think through, work through."
Rumsfeld has made it clear that in the absence of an international crisis involving a heightened threat of missile attack, he would favor giving priority to continued testing. Nevertheless, the administration does not intend to wait for more proof of performance before expanding the system.
In addition to 16 interceptors already ordered for the Alaska site at Fort Greely -- plus four for an alternate California site at Vandenberg Air Force Base -- the 2005 budget provides money for 10 more interceptors in Alaska. Talks also are underway with several countries about establishing an interceptor site in Europe. 'The Sky Did Not Fall'
In the early months of the Bush administration, congressional Democrats plotted to block White House plans to expand work on missile defense. After the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were struck on Sept. 11, 2001, they tried to argue that the attacks showed that the United States had more to fear from low-tech terrorism than high-tech missiles.
But the attacks, by giving new emphasis to homeland defense, have played to the advantage of missile defense proponents. Amid a general surge in military spending, Bush has received nearly all of the money he has sought for missile defense.
Democratic lawmakers opposed to Bush's program concede the debate has shifted. It is no longer an ideological battle, centered on arms control concerns, over whether to deploy at all. Now, they say, it is a more practical argument over how much to build and how fast.
"The debate is now about whether or not we continue to press ahead at the full speed we're going, with record amounts of money being spent, despite the fact that there's been no realistic testing," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Rumsfeld, addressing an audience of government officials and contractors last month, said the upcoming deployment is "somewhat of a disappointment for those who were convinced it would fail." Noting cordial discussions he had held only days earlier with Russian officials about missile defense, he chided arms-control advocates who had forecast that the U.S. initiative would upset relations with Moscow.
"The sky-is-falling group was wrong," he said. "The sky did not fall. It's still up there."
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Federal Scientists Search for Lost H - Bomb
September 29, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Lost-H-Bomb.html
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) -- The U.S. government is sending a team of 20 scientists to check out a report of unusual radiation readings that could be coming from a hydrogen bomb that was lost off the Georgia coast in 1958.
A crippled B-47 bomber dumped the H-bomb into the Atlantic Ocean 46 years ago after the plane collided with a fighter jet during a training flight. Navy divers searched the shallow, murky waters near Tybee Island for nearly 10 weeks before declaring the bomb irretrievably lost.
Derek Duke, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has been looking for the 7,600-pound bomb for five years, claimed recently that he found a football field-size area off the coast with higher-than-normal radiation levels. He suspects it marks the burial spot of the lost Mark-15 bomb.
The scientists from the Pentagon and the National Labs met with Duke on Wednesday and plan to examine the area on Thursday.
``Our goal is to survey this area that Mr. Duke has found and make a determination on what that source of radiation is,'' said Billy Mullins, a government nuclear weapons expert leading the investigation. ``If we determine it is the Mark-15, we will have to determine what is the best course of action for that.''
He declined to comment about what the government's options would be -- from removing the bomb to leaving it alone -- if his team locates it.
The investigators plan to take a boat into Wassaw Sound with an array of sophisticated equipment to measure radiation and take soil and water samples.
``If it's not there, then I'll have to end up siding with the Air Force -- it may be irretrievably lost,'' Duke said. ``We'd all like to see this weapon recovered ... if it can be done safely.''
The bomb, believed buried in 10 to 15 feet of mud at the bottom of the sea, became one of 11 ``Broken Arrows'' -- nuclear bombs lost during air or sea accidents, according to U.S. military records.
The Air Force has long insisted that there is no risk of a nuclear blast from the Georgia bomb because the plutonium capsule needed to trigger one was removed before the ill-fated flight.
``This bomb was not capable of causing a nuclear explosion in 1958 and it is not capable of an explosion today,'' said Lt. Col. Frank Smolinsky, an Air Force spokesman.
Duke, who lives in Statesboro, has disputed that point over the years, citing a Pentagon memo from 1966 that referred to the bomb as a ``complete weapon.'' The Air Force has said that memo was wrong.
Duke approached Air Force officials more than three years ago, but they decided at the time not to renew the search for the bomb. The Air Force argued that it was better left undisturbed, because it contains uranium and 400 pounds of conventional explosives.
-------- MILITARY
-------- afghanistan
US - Led Forces Focus on South, East for Afghan Election
September 29, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-afghan-election-security.html
KABUL (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan are stepping up efforts to improve security before next month's election, focusing on the south and southeast where militants have been most active, a military spokesman said on Wednesday.
But members of the 18,000-strong force will not be stationed at any of the 25,000 polling booths on Oct. 9 when Afghans take part in their first ever direct presidential ballot.
Presidential candidates and non-governmental organizations have complained that the international community has failed to do enough to provide a safe environment for the election.
The majority of the 18 contenders want the poll postponed until security improves because remnants of the ousted Taliban militia and allies including al Qaeda are seeking to disrupt the vote.
U.S. military spokesman Major Scott Nelson said coalition forces would provide quick reaction forces in the event of violence and support the fledgling Afghan National Army.
Afghanistan's Joint Electoral Management Body would hire private security to monitor polling stations, Afghan police would throw a cordon around them and the Afghan National Army would in turn surround them, he told a news briefing.
``In Zabul province, Uruzgan, places in the south and southeast where we've had problems in the past, are areas where we'll certainly focus on enhanced security,'' he added.
The Afghan authorities have been provided with 60,000 sets of riot gear to allow police to control crowds without having to resort to lethal fire after at least seven people were killed in unrest in the western city of Herat earlier this month.
Nelson praised Pakistan for bolstering security along its frontier in southwestern Baluchistan province, which borders Afghanistan.
U.S. officials have been critical of Islamabad for failing to do enough to halt the flow of Taliban militants from its soil into Afghanistan, although Pakistan, a key ally in the U.S.-led war on terror, says it is doing all it can.
On Monday, coalition troops near Shkin, close to the Pakistan border, came under fire from foreign militants they suspect were from the Taliban.
As the militants retreated toward Pakistan with a view to fleeing there, U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan contacted the Pakistani authorities who blocked the gunmen's exit, helping coalition forces round up 15 militants.
``This would never have happened a year ago, two years ago,'' Nelson said.
Taliban guerrillas and their allies have vowed to disrupt the election, and more than 1,000 people have died in militant-related attacks since August last year.
They view the poll as a sham coordinated by the United States, and have vowed to rid Afghanistan of foreign troops. In addition to coalition forces, around 8,000 NATO-led peacekeepers are positioned mainly in Kabul.
--------
U.S. Military Beefs Up Security Ahead of Afghan Poll
Reuters
By Mike Collett-White
Sep 29, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=3&u=/nm/20040929/wl_nm/afghan_dc
KABUL (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Afghanistan (news - web sites) vowed on Wednesday to bolster security in the volatile south and southeast ahead of a landmark election, as Taliban guerrillas bent on disrupting the poll launched a fresh wave of attacks.
With 11 days to go before millions of Afghans vote in the country's first direct presidential ballot, security remains the main concern, prompting most of the 18 candidates to call for the election to be postponed.
Remnants of the ousted Taliban want to disrupt the voting, which they dismiss as a "sham" orchestrated by the United States and the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. Over 1,000 people have died in militant-related attacks since August last year.
"The international community must stand firm against a small minority of terrorists who oppose stability and democracy and are trying to deny the Afghan people the right to choose the president," said U.S. military spokesman Major Scott Nelson.
"We are planning to step up our efforts even further in the coming weeks," he told a regular news briefing in Kabul.
According to Nelson, soldiers from the 18,000-strong U.S.-led force in Afghanistan would not be deployed to the 25,000 polling stations around the country on Oct. 9, but would provide emergency backup wherever violence may flare up.
In a huge operation involving tens of thousands of local and foreign security personnel, police will patrol polling booths while troops from the fledgling Afghan National Army will throw a security ring around the sites to prevent militant attacks.
Afghan and U.S. officials are particularly concerned about the south and southeast of the country, and aid groups have been highly critical of the U.S. military and NATO for not doing enough to stabilize the regions before holding the election.
"In Zabul province, Uruzgan, places in the south and southeast where we've had problems in the past, are areas where we'll certainly focus on enhanced security," Nelson said.
In Brussels, a NATO official said the expansion of the alliance force ahead of the election would be complete by Oct. 1, following recent deployments of Spanish and Italian troops.
"The totality of the (NATO) commitment is about to be met in the next couple of days," the official said.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the NATO force had been boosted in past weeks by around 2,500 to a total 9,000 soldiers, with further troops on standby outside the country bringing the total to 10,000.
FRESH ATTACKS
Suspected Taliban guerrillas ambushed a remote district headquarters in the southern province of Zabul early on Wednesday, killing three Afghans soldiers and wounding three more, said senior local police official Jailani Khan.
Four militants also died in the gun battle that raged for several hours in the Khake Afghan district.
Taliban fighters attacked a convoy of U.S. coalition and Afghan forces in Dai Chopan district of Zabul, and at noon (3:30 a.m. EDT) a U.S. military vehicle was hit by a remote-controlled explosive device, said Taliban spokesman Latif Hakimi.
Khan confirmed there had been two attacks, but he could not confirm Hakimi's account of a total of 11 dead or wounded. The U.S. military was not immediately available for comment, but Taliban spokesmen tend to exaggerate enemy losses.
In the northern city of Kunduz, four foreign peacekeepers serving in a civilian-military Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) were wounded when two rockets were fired at their base.
A spokesman for the NATO-led peacekeeping force would not give their nationality, but the Kunduz PRT is run by German forces. An investigation is underway, the spokesman added.
President Hamid Karzai, who enjoys the support of the international community as an Islamic moderate and reformer, is widely expected to win the election, and has rejected calls for the ballot to be postponed.
Political analysts say the poll is vital for President Bush ahead of his own re-election bid in November, because it will be portrayed as a foreign policy success story to offset instability in Iraq.
(Additional reporting by Mirwais Afghan in Kandahar)
-------- africa
Sudan Official Calls Darfur a 'Smoke Screen' for Plotters
September 29, 2004
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/international/africa/29sudan.html
KHARTOUM, Sudan, Sept. 28 - A senior Sudanese official on Tuesday called the Darfur crisis a "smoke screen" to hoodwink the international community into aiding political opponents who seek to overthrow the government. He warned that disarming pro-government militias, if done hastily and carelessly, could cause a violent ethnic war.
The government is faced with the prospect of United Nations Security Council sanctions and growing calls from abroad to rein in the notorious pro-government Arab militias operating in Darfur, a large region in western Sudan.
Turning the tables, the senior official, Najib el-Kheir Abdelwahab, the minister of state for foreign affairs, demanded international assistance in distinguishing troublemakers from legitimate tribal leaders.
"You identify them," he told reporters after a meeting with the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, Ruud Lubbers, and other diplomats. "Who are they? By pointing to some tribal leaders, I think, if we are not cautious on that we will be igniting ethnic and tribal conflagration in the country. And this can lead very swiftly to the dismemberment of Sudan."
His comments underscored what for the government has emerged as a formidable political challenge: how to rein in the militia forces that have served as its allies in the war against rebels in Darfur and have become notorious for leaving a trail of killing, rape and wanton destruction.
Independent human rights reports have argued that the militias have been armed and on occasion trained by the government.
The Bush administration has demanded that the militias, known in Arabic as the Janjaweed, be disarmed. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said the killings, rape and destruction in Darfur amounted to genocide.
A State Department official said Tuesday night that the Sudanese government needed no help in identifying those responsible. "The international community doesn't need to tell them who is who," the official said. "They know the elements they are communicating with."
Mr. Abdelwahab said the Bush administration's interest in Sudan reflected its desire to corral American black and Jewish voters in the November election - black voters prompted by sympathy for African victims, and Jewish groups who Mr. Abdelwahab said were "duty bound to support black Africans in Sudan against Arab hegemony.''
The government has said it has already arrested some Janjaweed whom it considers outlaws and incorporated other militia members into its own security forces - a fact that has given little solace to people who have been attacked.
The war in western Sudan began in early 2003 with a rebellion led by black Africans protesting the economic and political marginalization of Darfur. It has caused a stark crisis of human suffering, pushing 1.2 million people from their homes, sending nearly 200,000 across the border to Chad and cutting a deep divide between Arab and black African tribes that have lived for centuries in the country's arid west.
Disarmament remains one of the most sensitive issues in a round of peace talks to open on Oct. 22 in Abuja, Nigeria. The rebels have refused to disarm before the pro-government militias are disbanded.
The government has argued that disarmament cannot be one-sided. United Nations officials have suggested a large expansion of an African Union peacekeeping force to supervise any disarmament.
Mr. Lubbers, after a five-day tour of Sudan and visit to its refugees across the border in Chad, applauded the government for offering access to aid agencies and agreeing to resume negotiations with rebels.
And yet, he said, sporadic attacks continue even today, and civilians have virtually no confidence in their government. "The level of trust among uprooted people for the authorities has gone to almost zero," Mr. Lubbers said.
At a news briefing on Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Lubbers said Sudan had agreed to an expanded role for United Nations agencies to help restore confidence in Darfur. For one thing, he said, United Nations refugee agency officials will verify that civilians returning home to Darfur are doing so voluntarily. Mr. Lubbers said government officials had told him that 190,000 people had gone back to Darfur.
Even with widespread international condemnation of the violence, the only international troops in Darfur now are those sent by the African Union - and those are there only to monitor cease-fire violations. The Sudanese government has maintained that it alone is responsible for protecting its territory and has refused any enforcement by foreign peacekeepers.
Mr. Lubbers was to have met with President Omar Hassan el-Bashir on Tuesday, but met instead, for undisclosed reasons, with his first vice president, Ali Osman Taha. Last Friday, Mr. Lubbers suggested that the government in Khartoum share power with its rebel foes.
His comments came as the government announced a failed coup plot and extra soldiers fanned across the capital. Government officials have attributed the reported coup attempt to an opposition party linked to one of the two Darfur rebel groups, known as the Justice and Equality Movement.
Drawing international attention to the plight of Darfurians, Mr. Abdelwahab argued, is part of a campaign by the opposition to intensify outside pressure on the government.
"They would like to use the suffering of the people of Darfur as a smoke screen to conduct certain partisan operations," he said. "One of them is the overthrow of the government in Khartoum."
--------
U.N. Wants African Monitors in Darfur Camps
September 29, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-sudan-un.html
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - African monitors should deploy in camps to help protect the almost 1.5 million people displaced by the conflict in Darfur and should also monitor police to help build trust with the local community, the United Nations said on Wednesday.
Radhia Achouri, the U.N. advance mission spokeswoman in Khartoum, said the general security situation had not improved, with increased banditry a major concern for aid agencies working in the remote western region of Sudan.
The United Nations also noted several reported attacks by rebels on police and government military bases in the west during the past two weeks.
Achouri told reporters the United Nations was recommending ``more effective proactive monitoring so that African Union monitors will be deployed on the ground in the IDP (internally displaced persons) camps.''
She said the United Nations wanted up to 5,000 AU monitors, a figure the U.N. special envoy to Sudan Jan Pronk has suggested would be needed, to act as a deterrent to attacks on the camps and help protect aid workers.
The monitors were originally to be deployed mainly in major towns, but under plans to expand their mandate the United Nations wants to spread their presence. The AU currently has 150 monitors and just over 300 troops to protect them in Darfur.
``We'd like the monitors also to monitor the police of Sudan,'' she added, saying this could help lessen mistrust between the government and those affected by the fighting.
After years of skirmishes between Arab nomads and non-Arab farmers over scarce resources in arid Darfur, rebels took up arms in February 2003 accusing Khartoum of neglect.
The rebels have also accused Khartoum of supporting Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, to loot and burn non-Arab villages and drive them off their land. Khartoum denies the charge, calling the Janjaweed outlaws.
Rights groups also accuse pro-government militias of a systematic campaign of rape against non-Arab tribes in Darfur. Sudan denies any rape campaign.
Sudan's council for human rights on Wednesday officially asked rights group Amnesty International to provide them with evidence of the 200 cases of rape in Darfur the group discovered during a recent trip to the west.
The Sudanese Media Center, an agency close to the government, quoted a council member as saying the number of rape cases was not as high as 200, and the government commission to investigate rape in Darfur had found only 50 cases so far.
EXTRA FORCES
Achouri said the United Nations had not received a formal acceptance of the expanded number of troops from the government, because the number had yet to be specified. But the U.N. hoped to have the extra force on the ground by the end of October.
Achouri said the United Nations had only received 53 percent of the $365 million needed to deal with what it has described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
A U.N. Security Council resolution threatens Sudan with possible sanctions if it fails to stop the violence in Darfur, which the United States has called genocide. A cease-fire agreed in Chad in April has proved shaky.
Asked about the current level of violence, Achouri said: ``Our assessment so far is the security situation overall ... did not improve but did not worsen.''
She said the AU was investigating reports of rebel attacks in the past few days, including one on a police station outside the huge Kalma camp, near the capital of South Darfur state on Sept. 25 in which two policemen were reported killed.
She added banditry had been hampering aid access and made some roads to dangerous to pass.
--------
Pursuit of Sudan Tribes May Lead to War
September 29, 2004
By ELLEN KNICKMEYER
Associated Press Writer
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SUDAN_DARFUR?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) -- A man accused of coordinating Sudan's Janjaweed militia is a legitimate tribal leader, and attempts to pursue him could lead to the "dismemberment" of the country, a top Sudanese official said.
The U.S. State Department has named Sheik Musa Hilal and six other Sudanese as suspected coordinators of the government-allied Janjaweed, the Arab militia largely blamed for the violence in Darfur.
But Sudan's state minister for foreign affairs defended Hilal as a prominent tribal chief. Hilal "has nothing to do with the Janjaweed. He is a tribal leader, of a very big, very significant tribe," Minister Najeib el-Kheir Abdelwahab said in an interview Tuesday.
Sudan welcomed any international attempt to pinpoint Janjaweed leaders, Abdelwahab said. But "by not adequately identifying the leaders of the Janjaweed, by pointing to some tribal leaders ... if we are not cautious about that, you will ignite a significant tribal conflagration." "And this can lead ... to the dismemberment of Sudan," the Sudanese minister warned. Separately, the U.N. refugee chief said Khartoum has agreed to a stepped-up U.N. civilian role and possible expansion of an African Union monitoring team in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, where 19 months of conflict have left more than 50,000 dead and uprooted 1.4 million.
Darfur's bloodletting started in February 2003, when two non-Arab African rebel groups launched attacks primarily on government and military targets to press demands for a greater share of power and resources for Darfur.
Hilal has led Darfur's Arab Um Jalloul tribe for the past two decades. According to some international officials, Hilal used government funds to rally Arabs and set up militia training camps to quash the rebellions.
The Sudanese military and Janjaweed militia are accused of bombing runs and horseback raids that destroyed non-Arab villages. Residents have been killed, raped and driven from their homes. The United States, European Parliament and others say the campaign amounted to genocide.
At the United Nations, Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said the Bush administration is inflating the severity of the situation by calling it genocide in a bid to deflect attention from Iraq.
He said the United States was describing the violence as genocide "because of an internal agenda linked to the elections, linked to the competition with the Democratic party to win the votes of African Americans."
International officials and many of Darfur's displaced say bombing in the region has eased or stopped in recent weeks, as the U.N. Security Council reviews the genocide accusation and decides whether to impose sanctions on Sudan's oil industry.
Meanwhile, the U.N. refugee chief ended a five-day mission to Sudan and said the Arab-dominated government has taken steps to lessen the violence.
But attacks persist, and Darfur's people now have "zero trust" in their government to protect them, said Ruud Lubbers, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
As a result, Sudanese leaders agreed to a stepped-up civilian U.N. role to monitor rights violations, including teams of women to investigate complaints of Darfur's women and girls, Lubbers told reporters.
Sudan also says it is open to discussing expansion of what is now a tiny, 80-man African Union monitoring force here, Lubbers said.
Looking ahead, the refugee chief again urged Sudan to consider giving Darfur autonomy, calling it the only long-term solution to the conflict.
"I think in the interests of my people (the refugees), they need to get signals that people are seriously talking about the future of Darfur - so it really needs to move forward," Lubbers said Tuesday.
Lubbers' call has gone further than that of any other international official and angered Sudan's government.
President Omar el-Bashir skipped a meeting with Lubbers on Tuesday, and Vice President Ali Osman Taha instead attended, Taha aides said.
It was not clear if the change was a snub or a reflection of Sudan's unsteady political situation. The government said it had foiled a coup attempt against it earlier this month.
In Geneva, Louise Arbour, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said she would tell Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the U.N. should boost staff in Sudan.
"I will be advocating as forcefully as I can the need for an expansion of the international presence on the ground," Arbour said. "There are still very serious violations of human rights."
Associated Press reporter Tarek El-Tablawy contributed to this report from the United Nations.
-------- arms
U.S. to build 8 subs in deal with Taiwan
September 29, 2004
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040929-123355-3804r.htm
The United States plans to build eight diesel-electric submarines for Taiwan as part of an $18 billion arms package, a decision likely to irritate China, which has opposed the sale of weapons to Taipei.
Taiwan's new representative to the United States, David Tawei Lee, said yesterday that the submarines would be built "probably in Mississippi, in [former Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott's state."
Such a decision would end years of speculation about who would build the submarines, which had been promised to Taiwan in 2001.
The United States no longer builds diesel submarines, and other nations that do - notably Germany and the Netherlands - were not willing to take the risk of angering China.
"The Americans will have to start from scratch," said Mr. Lee, adding that the shipyard - most likely Ingalls in Pascagoula - would have to purchase the blueprints abroad.
Taiwan's legislature had been expected to vote in October to approve the $18 billion arms purchase from the United States, but Mr. Lee said the deal has become a guns vs. butter debate as lawmakers gear up for legislative elections in December.
"This has become a political issue, an election issue," Mr. Lee said at a luncheon with editors and reporters from The Washington Times at Taiwan's Twin Oaks estate in Northwest Washington.
Mr. Lee said the vote may be put off until after the elections in Taiwan, formally known as the Republic of China.
A State Department official said yesterday that the Pentagon has been looking for a way to "make the submarines available" to Taiwan, but that he did not know whether a decision had been made.
President Bush, shortly after taking office in 2001, broke away from previous administrations and cleared the way for the sale of the submarines as part of a larger weapons deal.
On Saturday, people took to the streets in Taiwan to protest spending $18 billion on the arms package rather than social projects such as education.
The package also includes anti-submarine airplanes and Patriot anti-missile systems, as well as ships equipped with advanced electronic battle management systems.
Taiwanese leader Chen Shui-bian said Sunday that only "by engaging in arms buildup and preparing for war can wars be avoided," Agence France-Presse reported.
Taiwan says the arms deal is crucial to counter a growing military threat from China.
Mr. Lee said Taipei's government remained completely committed to the purchase, but would consider waiting until after the elections to bring the $18 billion budget to a vote.
"We want to ensure the package will be passed at the appropriate time, to assure the U.S. government will not get the wrong message from the [political] disputes in Taipei," he said.
A spokesman at the Pentagon would say only that the United States would "continue to assist Taiwan in meeting its legitimate self-defense needs in accordance with our obligations."
"We normally don't discuss specific details," the spokesman said.
Brian Cullin, a spokesman for Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, which owns the Ingalls shipbuilding site, said his company was "keenly interested" in obtaining contracts for the Taiwan submarine deal, but that the matter was in the hands of the U.S. and Taiwanese governments.
"I think it's extremely likely we would be involved, and we certainly want to be involved," Mr. Cullin said.
"Right now, we are standing by. The government is well-aware of our interest, and we're just awaiting a decision," he said.
The company issued a statement recently after closing a satellite office in Taiwan that Northrop Grumman remained in the hunt for Taiwanese contracts for submarines and surface combatant ships.
Based in Pascagoula, Miss., 66-year-old Ingalls Shipbuilding is the largest private employer in the state, with nearly 11,000 workers.
Harvey Feldman, who helped craft the Taiwan Relations Act and is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said Northrop Grumman and other companies could build the submarines - but "for a price."
"That price might be high," he added.
Mr. Feldman said he doubted the submarines would be built, and questioned whether they were the ideal weapons for Taiwan against other submarines.
Citing naval analysts, Mr. Feldman said it could take eight to 10 years to train an effective submarine force. A force of anti-submarine warfare helicopters equipped with dipping sonars would be easier and faster to deploy.
China, Mr. Feldman added, would publicly react by saying that "this is a horror and the most heinous act the United States could possibly do, that it threatens the entire foundation of Sino-American relations."
But "what they would say amongst themselves might be something quite different because they know how long it takes and how difficult it would be to train an efficient submarine force," he said.
David R. Sands contributed to this report.
----
1,000 firearm charges cited
September 29, 2004
By Matthew Cella
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040928-111004-1938r.htm
Prosecutors in the District said yesterday they have filed charges in about 1,000 cases since last year for violations of the city's gun-possession laws, among the most restrictive in the country.
Among the violations were 977 for carrying a pistol without a license, said Channing Phillips, a spokesman for interim U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein. He also said 633 of the pistol-violation cases, or two-thirds, resulted in convictions.
Officials gave the numbers on the eve of the House of Representatives' effort to repeal sections of the District's gun laws, which are the most restrictive on carrying an unlicensed pistol and on the possession of unregistered guns and ammunition.
House members are expected to vote today on legislation to ease the District's firearms restrictions, which have been in effect since 1976. Lawmakers are targeting 16 subsections of the D.C. Code that apply to criminal charges for owning a gun in the District.
The bill, titled the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, has support from 228 of the House's 435 members. A similar bill introduced in the Senate was withdrawn last week.
The House bill does not attempt to change sections of D.C. Code that mandate strict penalties for criminals using guns and for those who sell guns to minors.
For example, felons convicted of firearms possession would still get up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. And felons who use a firearm during the commission of a violent crime would still receive a maximum 15-year prison sentence.
The 1,000 charges included 27 for unregistered guns and 13 for unregistered ammunition, said Tarifah Coaxum, a spokeswoman for D.C. Attorney General Robert Spagnoletti.
Miss Coaxum said prosecutors dropped about 15 of the 40 unregistered-guns and unregistered-ammunition cases, but the number of convictions is unclear because some cases are pending and defendants in others may have pleaded guilty to lesser charges.
The bill also leaves intact the maximum $10,000 fine or one-year prison term for those who distributed firearms or ammunition to a person younger than 18. However, it would eliminate the maximum one-year penalty or $1,000 fine for first-time offenders of the gun-possession law, and the maximum five-year penalty or $5,000 fine for second offenders.
Possessing unregistered ammunition always is a misdemeanor.
However, carrying a pistol without a license in the District can be either a felony or a misdemeanor charge, depending on whether the offender was carrying the pistol someplace other than his or her home or business.
Possession of an unregistered firearm also can be a felony or misdemeanor, depending on whether the offender distributed a weapon to a child or if the offender had a previous firearms offense.
Most misdemeanors are prosecuted by the District's Office of the Attorney General, and felonies are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The proposed House legislation would repeal a total of 10 laws governing gun registration. It also would repeal the law that makes possession of ammunition illegal and the law that requires legal firearms to be stored unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.
It would amend the D.C. Code to allow the owning of guns by more people than just police, arson investigators and military and security personnel. But it would leave in place a ban on sawed-off shotguns, short-barreled rifles and machine guns.
The bill amends the definition of a machine gun to strike semiautomatic weapons that can fire more than 12 shots without manual reloading. The amended subsection would define a machine gun as a weapon that can fire "more than one shot by a single function of the trigger."
The legislation also would no longer allow the D.C. Council to impose new laws that would "discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms."
-------- britain
Blair: WMD call was wrong
Blair has admitted the evidence over WMDs was wrong
Wednesday 29 September 2004,
Agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/44FF7986-94C1-43DD-AADC-D0DF54AB645A.htm
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has offered his Labour party and the British electorate a partial apology for waging war on Iraq.
But as two more British soldiers died in Iraq and a captive remained under threat of death, his hopes of bouncing back from wrecked public trust ratings are far from sure.
"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons ... has turned out to be wrong," Blair said on Tuesday, his nearest yet to a mea culpa.
"The problem is, I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam," he said. "The world is a better place with Saddam in prison, not in power."
Blair's speech was interrupted twice by protesters, one yelling that the prime minister "had blood on his hands". They were quickly bundled out of the hall.
Key issue
For most of his speech, Blair focused on domestic issues which he hopes will define his campaign to win a third term at a general election expected in May.
But aides said he knew that would not resonate with his party or the wider public, if he did not tackle Iraq head-on.
Blair expressed support for captive Kenneth Bigley and his family The prime minister made the case for war on the assertion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction(WMDs) ready to use. The fact that none has been found more than a year after major military action ended has soured British public opinion.
"Whatever disagreements we have had, we should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done," he said.
Security
Blair implied the invasion of Iraq was legitimate due to security fears in Britain - a line often taken by US President George Bush - and a change in his own initial stance.
"The only healing can come from understanding that the decision, whether agreed with or not, was taken because I believe, genuinely, that Britain's security depends on it.
"If I don't care and act on this terrorist threat, then the day will come when all our good work on the issues that decide people's lives will be undone because the stability on which our economy ... depends, will vanish," he said.
He also mentioned British engineer Kenneth Bigley who is held captive in Iraq and the two soldiers killed in Basra on Tuesday.
"I want to express our condolences to the latest British casualties in Iraq, and I want to, on behalf of all of us, express our support and solidarity with Ken Bigley and all the Bigley family."
Bigley's brother, Paul, has accused Blair of not doing enough to help secure the captive's release.
--------
Blair Admits Mistake on WMD Claim
Decision to Oust Hussein Defended at Party Forum
By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56472-2004Sep28.html
BRIGHTON, England, Sept. 28 -- Prime Minister Tony Blair responded to antiwar critics within his ruling party Tuesday by acknowledging he had been wrong to claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he insisted that Britain and the United States were still right to topple Saddam Hussein.
Addressing Labor Party members at an annual conference that has been overshadowed by events in Iraq, Blair conceded that his decision to join with the Bush administration in last year's invasion and the continuing military activity had divided his party and the country. Still, he gave little ground to critics, and said "whatever disagreements we have had," we "should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done."
Two British soldiers were killed Tuesday morning in an ambush outside the city of Basra in southern Iraq, bringing to 68 the number of British military personnel who have died in the conflict -- 24 from enemy fire and 44 in friendly fire incidents and accidents. Meanwhile, Kenneth Bigley, a British civil engineer kidnapped nearly two weeks ago, remains the captive of Muslim extremists who have threatened to execute him, provoking fears here that they might do so during the conference.
Blair and his supporters have sought to lay the groundwork for an anticipated reelection campaign next spring by shifting the focus of political debate away from Iraq and toward his government's domestic achievements over the past seven years, including its stewardship of Britain's booming economy.
As loyalists chanted "Four more years," Blair appeared on a dais in front of a huge screen pledging "A Better Life for All." Before he spoke, a series of campaign pledges were projected behind him, ranging from achieving full employment in every region in Britain and cutting crime by 15 percent to increasing the number of bicycle lanes. In his speech, he also proposed further tax relief for middle- and working-class families, more vocational training, pension reforms and improvements in education, health and child care.
Still, despite two landslide electoral victories and the economic gains of recent years, opinion polls suggest the government's popularity has eroded steadily over the past 18 months, to the extent that Blair's staunchest loyalists have acknowledged the problem.
"The public haven't walked away from us in terms of values," said Alan Milburn, a cabinet secretary whom Blair has placed in charge of the reelection campaign. "What they need to know is that we haven't walked away from them."
In a speech that appeared to be aimed more at party regulars than the country at large, Blair pleaded for understanding. The prime minister, who came to power preaching a "third way" ideology that sought middle ground between free-market capitalism and social justice, told the delegates he had searched in vain for a middle ground on Iraq.
"There has been no third way this time," he said. "Believe me, I've looked for it."
Before Blair's speech, organizers handed out leaflets demanding, "Just say sorry, Tony." But Blair refused to comply.
"I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong," he said, "but I can't, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison, not in power."
Although he made few concessions to critics here who contend he has slavishly followed President Bush's lead on Iraq, Blair offered a foreign policy agenda distinct from Washington's, saying he would make it "a personal priority" to revive the stalled Middle East peace process. He also emphasized action on global warming and on fighting poverty and disease in Africa.
"But understand this reality," he added. "Little of it will happen except in alliance with the United States of America."
Loyalists said they were satisfied with the speech. "I think it went down very well," said David Menon, a parliamentary candidate from the Midlands city of Derby. "He talked positively about the issues that really matter to the people. It will make it easier to go out on the doorstep and campaign."
But critics said the speech had done nothing to heal the party's wounds over Iraq. "There is a fissure running through this conference and through the party, and this speech won't help," said Robert Marshall-Andrews, a member of Parliament. "In a sense, I think he went out of his way to provoke people."
Some were heartened by Blair's effort to quell factional fighting between his supporters and people aligned with his longtime political partner and sometime rival, Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer, the cabinet member in charge of the economy. Blair called Brown, widely seen as his successor, "a personal friend for 20 years and the best chancellor this country has ever had."
Outside the cordoned conference center at this Victorian-era seaside resort, scene of an intense police security operation, thousands of demonstrators protested against the party's plan to ban fox hunting. Inside, one demonstrator was removed after crying out to Blair that there was "blood on your hands" over Iraq. A few minutes later, a half-dozen fox-hunting supporters were ejected after they also shouted at Blair.
-------- business
Lockheed Martin, European groups win contract for NATO missile defence
PARIS (AFP)
Sep 29, 2004
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040929092205.n4t987xg.html
Several European makers of military air equipment, including EADS, and the US company Lockheed Martin have won a contract from NATO worth 3.0 billion dollars (2.44 billion euros) to design and build a MEADS missile defence system, the MEADS group said on Wednesday.
MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System) is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin Corp, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), MBDA-Italia and Lenkflugkorpersysteme (LFK) in Germany.
The contract followed a series of successful system demonstrations, and an agreement between the US and Italy to develop the advanced ground-mobile air and missile defence system, it said.
Germany is expected to sign the agreement following parliamentary procedures later this year.
MEADS is a mobile air defence system designed to replace the Patriot missile systems in the US and Germany, and Nike Hercules systems in Italy.
The United States is providing 58 percent of the finance for the programme, Germany 25.0 percent and Italy 17.0 percent.
----
7 Cos. Penalized for Iran Weapons Sales
September 29, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iran-Sanctions.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States penalized seven Chinese companies for selling unconventional weapons and missile technology to Iran, the State Department said Wednesday.
Sanctions also were imposed against two Indian companies and one each in Belarus, North Korea, Russia, Spain and Ukraine, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.
``There was credible evidence that these entities had transferred one of several categories of items to Iran'' since January 1999, Boucher said. ``That would be equipment listed on multilateral export lists, items that have a potential of making a contribution to weapons of mass destruction or cruise or ballistic missiles.''
He said the penalties, imposed Sept. 23 under the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, apply to the individual companies, not their countries or governments.
As a result of the penalties, the U.S. government cannot go ahead with transactions with these companies, issue any new licenses and must suspend licenses that may have been issued for high-technology items controlled by the United States.
Boucher said 23 companies have now been punished under this law, but said he could not be specific about whether the cases involved transfer of unconventional weapons technology or missile technology.
Boucher also would not say whether it was unusual for a company from Spain, a NATO ally, to be on the list.
``Globally if we find somebody in whatever place that's violating the law, shipping the technology, then we apply the law,'' he said.
----
Pentagon Contracts Given to Single Bidders
September 29, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Pentagon-Contracting.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Only a little more than one-third of the $900 billion in Pentagon contract grants over the past six years were awarded after full and open competitive bidding, a private watchdog group reported Wednesday.
The Center for Public Integrity found that a majority of Defense Department contracts were awarded either to single bidders on a sole source basis or to a contractor that had prevailed over a set of competitors limited by government regulations.
The study examined Defense Department records of more than 2.2 million contract actions between Oct. 1, 1997, and Sept. 30, 2003. During that period, more than half the Pentagon's budget was given to contractors.
Pentagon contracting has become an issue in the presidential election as a result of the experience of Halliburton, a Houston-based energy and construction company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Democrat John Kerry has said the Bush administration showed favoritism in giving Halliburton noncompetitive contracts in Iraq and elsewhere. Cheney has denied any involvement in the Halliburton contract decisions.
Halliburton has won more than $7 billion in Iraq contract work that involves oil field restoration work as well as feeding and housing U.S. troops. The study found that of the $4.3 billion in all types of defense contracts that Halliburton was awarded in the 2003 budget year, only about one-half were based on competitive bidding.
The study did not examine the propriety of those awards.
The report found that Pentagon records designated only 40 percent of Defense Department contracts during the six years as resulting from ``full and open competition.'' But even that figure overstated the competition. It dropped to 36 percent of all Pentagon contracts after deducting the competitive contracts that drew only a single bidder.
Some 44 percent of contracts were given under ``other than full and open competition'' -- usually as sole source contracts. An additional 7 percent fell under other categories (most often as small business set-asides), and 8 percent gave no competition information at all, the study found. The total comes to only 99 percent because of rounding.
A message left with a Pentagon spokesman Wednesday was not immediately returned.
Dave Shea, a spokesman for Raytheon, the third largest Pentagon contractor and the third largest recipient of no bid contracts, told the center that Raytheon's sole source contracts ``are for systems that are unique, where Raytheon is the only one capable of providing those systems to the Department of Defense.''
The study's manager, Larry Makinson, said that some contracts awarded under set-asides for small businesses and other types of companies ``are very competitive, but not fully competitive'' because larger or other types of companies cannot bid.
Makinson said most of the contracts that had no information about competition were purchases from what is known as the federal schedule. ``The Pentagon would say these were competitive because maybe 15 years ago somebody bid on it, but these purchases often aren't competitive now,'' Makinson said.
Originally designed to allow the government to buy commodities such as paper and pens without seeking bids, the federal schedule maintained by the General Services Administration is a catalogue or price list from approved suppliers who went through a competition at some point to demonstrate the government was getting a good price.
Government officials can buy from one company off this schedule without seeking bids. But the study found that this process designed for goods has grown to encompass services such as guards, dentists, translators, interrogators and even contractors to evaluate contract bids. The study said it was much harder to evaluate in advance what would be the best price for such services.
The study found that most contracts awarded to the biggest defense contractors were won without ``full and open'' competition. Of the Pentagon's 10 biggest contractors, which received 38 percent of its contract dollars, only one -- Science Applications International Corp. -- won more than half its dollars through an open bidding process. Three of the top 10 -- United Technologies, General Electric and Newport News Shipbuilding (now owned by Northrop Grumman) -- collected less than 10 percent of their contract dollars through open bidding.
On the Net:
Center for Public Integrity study: http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx?aid385
----
The Pentagon's Stealth Rainmaker
How revolving doors and large donations allow a defense lobbying firm to dominate
The Center for Public Integrity
By Alex Knott
September 29, 2004
http://www.publicintegrity.org./pns/report.aspx?aid=388
WASHINGTON, - With scores of revolving door connections, more than $1 million in campaign contributions and clients that receive most of their contracts from the Pentagon without competition, only one defense lobbying firm can claim to give its clients "an inside track to business opportunities with the federal government."
The Defense Lobby Shop
The PMA Group, a lobbying firm that specializes in defense contracting, has reported receiving $21.7 million in lobbying fees since 1998 from large defense companies-the most paid to any defense lobbying firm, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.
A PMA spokesman said he would not comment on the Center's report.
The fees paid to PMA appear to have paid off for these 41 defense contractors and their parent companies, who collectively won $266 billion in contracts from the Pentagon during the last six years. That amounts to almost 30 percent of the dollar value of all contracts awarded by the Department of Defense.
Though these companies spent another $121 million employing in-house lobbyists and occasionally other lobbying firms, PMA clients' total lobbying versus contracts works out to a ratio of almost $1,859 in contracts for every dollar spent on lobbying.
Congressional Targets
Of the $266 billion that PMA clients and their parents received in defense contracts, $167 billion-nearly two out of three dollars-were received from contracts that were awarded without "full and open" competition. In fact, PMA clients account for 47 percent of all such non-competitive contracts handed out by the Pentagon since 1998.
Lobby firms like PMA have become a staple of political influence. In all, defense contractors have reported spending $537 million on outside lobbying firms like PMA during the last six years, while they have spent $1.4 billion on in-house lobbying.
PMA's has cultivated a closeness to the Pentagon and to Washington power brokers. PMA's lobbyists routinely make large donations to the lawmakers they lobby, and many at the firm have revolving door connections to Congress and defense agencies that authorize and maintain the contracts of their clients. 'Revolving Doors' keep money flowing inward
Take Paul Magliocchetti, the president and owner of PMA Group. Magliocchetti worked 10 years as senior staff member of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives where decisions are made about how much to spend on defense contractors. He also spent nine years working for the Defense Subcommittee during his tenure in the House where he worked on oversight of the $30 billion annual Navy procurement budget. He has also showered $56,000 in campaign contributions since 1998 on members of Congress and leadership committees.
Magliocchetti is hardly an exception at PMA, where almost every one of the lobbying firm's listed employees has passed through this proverbial revolving door, meaning that they have either worked for the Pentagon or Congress and in some cases both.
In fact, the Center found that 30 of the 31 upper-level employees that PMA lists on its Web site have prior employment with some branch of the armed forces or with the House and Senate.
PMA's lobbyists have connections to decision makers at almost every stage of the procurement process.
Recommendations for defense contracting and financial needs come from the Pentagon and branches of the Armed Services, where 16 PMA employees used to work. These recommendations and governmental actions are negotiated through the Defense Department's legislative liaisons offices, where at least 11 PMA lobbyists used to work. The House and the Senate, where 14 PMA employees used to work, vote on bills authorizing the amounts and designations for defense contracting. Many of the core decisions about what is included in each of these bills are made by the Appropriations committees, where six PMA employees used to work.
A key to PMA's success has been deploying lobbyists who remain largely focused on just a few large appropriations bills that are approved every session. In fact, the four bills that drew most of the group's attention during 2003 were appropriations measures totaling more than $65 billion. Campaign Contributions Sweeten the Pot
Another way that lobbyists stay familiar in the minds of the lawmakers they lobby is by giving hundreds of thousands to congressional election campaigns.
PMA is one of the few lobbying firms that maintains a sizable Political Action Committee. The PMA PAC has given more than $975,000 to 340 House and Senate lawmakers.
In addition to these donations, the PMA employees that have registered to lobby have made more than $271,000 in donations to congressional campaigns, leadership and party committees, the Center found. More than 80 members of Congress were the recipients of these donations and many of the largest donations went to members of the House and the Senate who serve on key committees such as Appropriations.
-----
Outsourcing the Pentagon
Who benefits from the Politics and Economics of National Security?
The Center for Public Integrity
By Larry Makinson
September 29, 2004
http://www.publicintegrity.org./pns/report.aspx?aid=385
WASHINGTON, - The war in Iraq, with its urgent agenda of getting the job done and getting it done quickly, relied to an unprecedented degree not only on the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are expected to fight America's wars, but on a second American army: tens of thousands of civilian contractors hired on for the duration. This new, and often dangerous, role for civilians on the battlefield has raised a host of new questions about the role of private contractors in the nation's defense.
One of the biggest contracts awarded in the war in Iraq went to Kellogg Brown & Root, a key subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the firm Vice President Dick Cheney ran as CEO before he stepped into the White House and became one of the prime movers urging the president to invade Iraq. Of the $4.3 billion in defense contracts Halliburton won in fiscal 2003 only about half were awarded based on competitive bidding. Another $1.9 billion in contract dollars was awarded on the basis of "urgency" without bidding and without going to any other contractors.
The connection between Halliburton and the Vice President has led to no end of speculation about how that particular firm was chosen. While this report does not address that issue specifically, it does examine the practice of awarding no-bid contracts to well-connected defense contractors. Indeed, one might pose a new question on the role of contractors in the American military: Was the war in Iraq an example of the Pentagon's new way of doing business, or was it an outgrowth of a way of doing business that has been much longer in duration, albeit conducted off the field of battle without a worldwide-or even any-audience?
To find the answers, the Center began in early 2004 to investigate the patterns of Defense Department contracting. Our prime source was the Pentagon's own procurement databases-public information that had been posted for years on an obscure Defense Department Web site.
The Center examined more than 2.2 million contract actions totaling $900 billion in authorized expenditures over the six-year period from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal 2003 (Oct. 1, 1997-Sept. 30, 2003). Most of the research was focused on the biggest contractors, those that won at least $100 million in prime contracts over the period studied. Some 737 prime contractors, mainly but not exclusively for-profit corporations, fit that criteria, along with several thousand of their subsidiaries and affiliates.
After nine months of research, the Center has found:
- Half of all the Defense Department's budget goes out the door of the Pentagon to private contractors. This percentage has stayed virtually constant over the past six years; as the Pentagon's budget has expanded with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so have the dollars going to contractors.
- Only 40 percent of Pentagon contracts were conducted under what it terms "full and open competition." (That percentage drops to 36 percent if you deduct those "full and open" contracts that attracted only a single bidder). Some 44 percent of contracts were given under "other than full and open competition"-usually as sole source contracts. Another seven percent fell under other categories (most often as small business set-asides), and eight percent gave no competition information at all.
- The Pentagon's contracting force is top-heavy, and growing more so. Out of a total universe numbering tens of thousands of contractors, the biggest 737 collected nearly 80 percent of the Defense Department's procurement dollars. The 50 biggest contractors got more than half of all the money; the top 10 got 38 percent.
- Topping the list was Lockheed Martin, with $94 billion in defense contracts over the six-year period. Boeing was second with almost $82 billion. Well behind those leaders were Raytheon (just under $40 billion), and Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, with nearly $34 billion apiece. Those five companies tower over all other defense contractors. It's worth noting that they collect additional billions, not included in the figures cited, through joint ventures with other companies.
- Most of the contracts awarded to the very biggest defense contractors were won without what the Pentagon calls "full and open" competition. Of the 10 biggest contractors, only one-Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC)-won more than half its dollars through an open bidding process. Three of the top 10-United Technologies, General Electric and Newport News Shipbuilding (now owned by Northrop Grumman)-collected less than 10 percent of their contract dollars through open bidding.
- Larger contractors were also more likely to win favorable terms on their contracts. One-third of the dollars awarded to the top 737 contractors came in cost-plus contracts that offer little incentive for keeping costs under control. Among smaller companies, only 11 percent of the award dollars were for cost-plus contracts.
- Industry consolidation was another major factor in creating a top-heavy group of Pentagon contractors. Over the six-year period of this study, more than 60 contractors were acquired or merged with even larger contractors. This was true both among companies whose main business is defense, and those in other sectors, particularly energy and telecommunications.
- The list of top contractors includes 43 joint ventures, in which major defense firms partnered together forming new companies to manage specific contracts or weapons systems. Four of these joint ventures collected $1 billion or more in contracts over the six-year period and together they accounted for nearly $19 billion in revenues to their partner companies. Lockheed and Boeing again led all others in revenues from joint ventures; Lockheed collected $2.3 billion from six different joint ventures, Boeing earned almost $2.1 billion from five.
- While most of the top 737 Pentagon contractors were American corporations, nearly 100 were foreign-owned. Included on the list were the governments of Canada, Germany and Japan, as well as the Italian Post, Telephone & Telegraph Ministry. The leading foreign corporations were British-based BAE Systems, BP and Rolls-Royce; and Maersk Inc., a Danish shipping giant.
- Political influence, as measured through lobbying expenses and campaign contributions, was a major undertaking by many of the largest Pentagon contractors. But a surprising number of companies on the top contractor list gave little or nothing to political candidates and parties, and chose not to invest in Capitol Hill lobbyists. Indeed, those contractors that spent the most on contributions and lobbying were from business sectors other than defense. The three leaders in political contributions between 1998 and 2003 were AT&T ($9.9 million), SBC Communications ($9.2 million) and FedEx ($8.0 million). Only two of the 10 biggest political contributors among the group were primarily defense companies-Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Nearly a quarter of the top Pentagon contractors made no political contributions whatsoever during the six-year period, and only 202 of the 737 gave $100,000 or more in contributions, either through PACs, soft money, or individual donations from their executives, employees and families. Overall, the top contractors gave nearly $214 million in campaign contributions, two-thirds to Republicans.
- The story was much the same in lobbying expenditures, though the dollar amounts were far higher. Just under half the leading defense contractors reported spending money on Washington lobbyists, but those that did spent a total of $1.9 billion in the effort. Again, the biggest spenders were not primarily defense companies, though the biggest of the Pentagon's contractors did rank near the top. Leading the list was Altria Group (the former Philip Morris), with just under $94 million in lobby expenditures. General Electric was second, with $88.4 million. AT&T was third ($71.6 million), followed by Lockheed Martin ($71.5 million), Boeing ($64.4 million) and Northrop Grumman ($61.2 million).
- President George W. Bush received more than $4.5 million in campaign contributions from the 737 leading defense contractors during the six-year period of this study; his Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry collected just $332,000. In 2004, however, the proportions switched dramatically. Kerry collected twice as much as Bush between Jan. 1, 2004 and the end of July-$1.6 million versus $824,000 for the president. Including that late money, Bush received nearly $5.4 million from the leading defense contractors; Kerry drew just under $2.0 million.
- Small business contractors are given special preference at the Defense Department, as they are in other federal agencies, since Congress set informal quotas encouraging the government to do more business with smaller companies. Surprisingly, however, the list of "small businesses" includes many dozens of companies with more than $100 million in defense contracts over the past six years. Some 189 of the leading contractors had at least half their contract dollars designated as going to small businesses. For 127 companies, at least 90 percent of their money was classified that way. Leading them all was Chugach Alaska Corp., whose status as an Alaska Native corporation classifies it as a small, disadvantaged business eligible not only for preferences in bidding but for small business set-aside contracts. Taking full advantage of its status, Chugach Alaska won $1.4 billion in defense contracts between fiscal 1998 and 2003. The biggest non-minority small business contractor was GTSI Corp., which retained its small business status despite having long since grown out of it. The company collected nearly $1.2 billion in small business contracts over the past six years-72 percent of their overall total.
- A lucrative loophole in the small business rules has enabled contractors to retain their small business status through the life of each contract-even if they've grown or been acquired by a much larger company. Titan Corp., a San Diego-based defense electronics firm, with a long string of acquisitions over the past six years (and nearly $2.4 billion in defense contracts), won nearly $550 million of contracts under the small business classification. Other companies have done the same, prompting calls that the small business status be reviewed on a much more frequent basis than it has been. Regulations to require that, at least on a limited scale, are due to take effect later this year.
- The Pentagon's shopping list has undergone a gradual, and largely unnoticed, transformation in the past two decades. In 1984, almost two-thirds of its contracting budget went for products rather than services. By the early 1990s, the ratio between the two had evened out. By fiscal 2003, 56 percent of Defense Department contracts paid for services rather than goods. Many of these were for routine jobs-like KP duty or building maintenance-that used to be done by low-ranking military personnel. But the Pentagon also contracts for services that are highly sophisticated, strategic in nature, and closely approaching core functions that for good reason the government used to do on its own. The Pentagon has even hired contractors to advise it on hiring contractors. - The accuracy of the Defense Department's records-particularly regarding the corporate ownership of its largest contractors-leaves much to be desired. The Center found more than $35 billion in contracts where the ultimate corporate parent was misidentified. In some cases this led to major discrepancies between the amount of contracts actually won by major corporations and the totals reported publicly by the Pentagon.
More details on these findings can be found in the sections that follow. In addition, the report includes detailed statistical contracting profiles for each of the 737 largest prime contractors-the companies that won $100 million or more in defense contracts over the past six years. The profiles include breakdowns of each company's total contract dollars, the types of contracts they won, the competition they faced, a list of their key subsidiaries, breakdowns of their lobbying and campaign contributions, and a list of the chief products and services they sold to the Pentagon.
After nine months of research, however, this report may raise more questions than it answers. It brings to the surface for the first time the patterns of the Pentagon's contracting practices and many details of the $900 billion in taxpayer money the Defense Department paid out to its private suppliers. Both this report and the detailed profiles are designed to provide an important new body of research materials for a new wave of informed reporting about the ever-more-expensive, and profitable, business of defending America.
The pages that follow offer analyses of Pentagon spending habits from the following perspectives:
The Biggest Contractors
Competition
Cost-Plus Contracts
Joint Ventures
Foreign Contractors
Political Influence I: Campaign Contributions
Political Influence II: Lobbying
Small Business: Bigger Than You Think
What the Pentagon Buys
The Rise in Service Contracts
Accuracy in Pentagon Reporting
--
The Biggest Contractors
The Center's research examined the past six years of defense contracts, aiming to identify and profile every corporation that collected at least $100 million in prime contracts. A total of 737 contractors met that criterion and all are profiled in detail elsewhere in this report.
Most, but by no means all, of the top contractors were for-profit American corporations. But the list also includes three government agencies, 17 non-profits, 10 universities, four foreign governments, six hospitals or hospital networks, and nearly a hundred foreign corporations (many of which operate U.S. subsidiaries). Here are the 100 biggest Defense Department contractors over the past six years:
The 100 Biggest Defense Contractors, FY 1998-2003
Top 100 Contractors Rank Name Location 98-03 Contracts
1 Lockheed Martin Bethesda, Md. $94,056,641,059
2 Boeing Co Chicago, Ill. $81,645,655,400
3 Raytheon Co Waltham, Mass. $39,904,717,897
4 Northrop Grumman Los Angeles, Calif. $33,829,847,656
5 General Dynamics Falls Church, Va. $33,280,959,821
6 United Technologies Hartford, Conn. $17,953,516,117
7 General Electric Fairfield, Conn. $10,600,007,101
8 Science Applications International Corp San Diego, Calif. $10,598,835,883
9 Carlyle Group Washington, D.C. $9,334,962,462
10 Newport News Shipbuilding Newport News, Va. $8,852,781,214
11 TRW Inc Cleveland, Ohio $8,725,744,602
12 CLASSIFIED DEFENSE CONTRACTOR Washington, D.C. $8,267,851,367
13 Computer Sciences Corp El Segundo, Calif. $6,789,832,719
14 Halliburton Co Houston, Texas $6,768,728,331
15 Textron Inc Providence, R.I. $6,629,835,387
16 Litton Industries Woodland Hills, Calif. $6,478,824,475
17 Honeywell International Morristown, N.J. $6,135,622,361
18 Health Net Inc Woodland Hills, Calif. $6,111,054,478
19 Humana Inc Louisville, Ky. $5,683,896,585
20 L-3 Communications New York, N.Y. $5,233,392,435
21 ITT Industries White Plains, N.Y. $5,079,977,541
22 BAE Systems Farnborough, England $4,814,022,157
23 Bechtel Group San Francisco, Calif. $4,407,883,109
24 Dyncorp Reston, Va. $4,144,957,980
25 Triwest Healthcare Alliance Phoenix, Ariz. $3,747,753,606
26 Alliant Techsystems Edina, Minn. $3,232,676,891
27 Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc McLean, Va. $3,031,707,940
28 Boeing Sikorsky Comanche Team Philadelphia, Pa. $2,866,440,580
29 FedEx Corp Memphis, Tenn. $2,741,817,111
30 MITRE Corp Bedford, Mass. $2,581,129,647
31 Oshkosh Truck Corp Oshkosh, Wis. $2,571,553,972
32 Aerospace Corp El Segundo, Calif. $2,494,160,391
33 Stewart & Stevenson Services Houston, Texas $2,449,600,260
34 Titan Corp San Diego, Calif. $2,389,803,664
35 Exxon Mobil Corp Irving, Texas $2,385,708,270
36 Jacobs Engineering Group Pasadena, Calif. $2,375,316,745
37 URS Corp San Francisco, Calif. $2,366,845,558
38 Longbow LLC Orlando, Fla. $2,298,648,038
39 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Mass. $2,297,676,759
40 Electronic Data Systems Corp Plano, Texas $2,291,485,707
41 Veritas Capital Management New York, N.Y. $2,208,194,107
42 Government of Canada Ottawa, Canada $2,207,393,181
43 Dell Computer Round Rock, Texas $2,190,422,159
44 BP London, England $2,107,226,427
45 Motorola Inc Schaumburg, Ill. $2,036,815,650
46 Johnson Controls Milwaukee, Wis. $2,033,875,329
47 Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin Joint Venture Oralndo, Fla. $2,029,406,010
48 Harris Corp Melbourne, Fla. $2,022,433,071
49 IT Group Inc Monroeville, Pa. $1,991,658,451
50 Cardinal Health Dublin, Ohio $1,934,142,520
51 US Dept of Energy Washington, D.C. $1,932,845,653
52 Maersk Inc Copenhagen, Denmark $1,913,819,561
53 Rolls-Royce London, England $1,893,580,507
54 Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Md. $1,869,047,201
55 Renco Group New York, N.Y. $1,845,481,266
56 North American Airlines Sterling, Va. $1,822,483,777
57 Anteon International Fairfax, Va. $1,796,873,303
58 WorldCom Inc Ashburn, Va. $1,764,171,786
59 Philipp Holzmann AG Frankfurt, Germany $1,723,275,972
60 Marconi Corp London, England $1,721,135,168
61 Rockwell Automation Milwaukee, Wis. $1,701,279,408
62 Parsons Corp Pasadena, Calif. $1,692,331,604
63 Federal Republic of Germany Koblenz, Germany $1,671,428,334
64 GTSI Corp Chantilly, Va. $1,619,414,562
65 Engineered Support Systems Inc St. Louis, Mo. $1,573,708,929
66 Goodrich Corp Charlotte, N.C. $1,533,440,992
67 General Motors/GDLS Defense Group Joint Venture Shelby Township, Mich. $1,518,037,285
68 ARINC Inc Annapolis, Md. $1,494,791,315
69 AT&T Corp Bedminster, N.J. $1,485,237,074
70 CACI International Arlington, Va. $1,483,947,675
71 Royal Dutch Shell The Hague, Netherlands $1,476,146,182
72 Federal Prison Industries Washington, D.C. $1,421,848,002
73 Veridian Corp Alexandria, Va. $1,399,931,479
74 Chugach Alaska Corp Anchorage, Alaska $1,377,589,626
75 Washington Group International Boise, Idaho $1,358,513,193
76 Procter & Gamble Cincinnati, Ohio $1,325,762,986
77 Sierra Health Services Las Vegas, N.V. $1,316,880,115
78 Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus, Ohio $1,285,901,619
79 IBM Corp Armonk, N.Y. $1,236,706,457
80 ManTech International Fairfax, Va. $1,206,103,879
81 Anthem Inc Indianapolis, Ind. $1,191,963,918
82 Unisys Corp Blue Bell, Pa. $1,187,394,747
83 Shaw Group Baton Rouge, La. $1,139,031,714
84 Texas Instruments Dallas, Texas $1,104,848,545
85 Cubic Corp San Diego, Calif. $1,101,568,281
86 Ocean Shipholdings Inc Houston, Texas $1,094,875,569
87 Valero Energy Corp San Antonio, Texas $1,065,856,752
88 CH2M Hill Englewood, Colo. $1,062,648,971
89 AmerisourceBergen Corp Wayne, Pa. $1,047,753,030
90 Vectura Holding Co New York, N.Y. $1,043,080,885
91 Tyco International Portsmouth, N.H. $1,006,250,942
92 Charles Stark Draper Laboratory Cambridge, Mass. $1,004,007,493
93 Bell Boeing Joint Project Office (V22 Osprey) Patuxent River, Md. $986,978,469
94 General Atomics San Diego, Calif. $981,366,405
95 United Industrial Corp Hunt Valley, Md. $981,110,025
96 McKesson Corp San Francisco, Calif. $980,913,729
97 Tetra Tech Inc Pasadena, Calif. $974,375,724
98 GTE Corp Irving, Texas $944,080,766
99 Hensel Phelps Construction Greeley, Colo. $937,492,801
100 Equilon Enterprises Houston, Texas $935,047,849
@ This is a category, not a company. Neither the names of the contractors or the services and goods they supply are publicly disclosed.
Competition
A glance at the list of the Pentagon's top suppliers shows that nation's biggest defense firms won the bulk of their contracts without going through the competitive process. Of the 10 biggest defense contractors over the six year period of this study, only one-Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC)-won more than half its contracts through full and open competition.
To cite one example, Raytheon is the third largest contractor and the third largest recipient of no bid contracts. Company spokesman Dave Shea said Raytheon's sole source contracts "are for systems that are unique, where Raytheon is the only one capable of providing those systems to the Department of Defense."
Boeing spokesman Doug Kennett said the Pentagon negotiates sole-source contracts "when the Defense Department believes it's in their best interest."
Here are the details on how the 20 biggest contractors won their contracts, 1998-2003:
Name Total Contracts Full & Open Not Full & Open Other No Info
Lockheed Martin $94,056,641,059 25% 74% 1% 0%
Boeing Co $81,645,655,400 40% 60% 0% 0%
Raytheon Co $39,904,717,897 31% 67% 1% 1%
Northrop Grumman $33,829,847,656 33% 59% 2% 6%
General Dynamics $33,280,959,821 30% 69% 0% 0%
United Technologies $17,953,516,117 3% 95% 2% 0%
General Electric $10,600,007,101 9% 88% 1% 2%
Science Applications Intl Corp (SAIC) $10,598,835,883 74% 6% 7% 12%
Carlyle Group $9,334,962,462 38% 60% 0% 2%
Newport News Shipbuilding $8,852,781,214 2% 98% 0% 0%
TRW Inc $8,725,744,602 70% 24% 2% 3%
CLASSIFIED CONTRACTOR $8,267,851,367 16% 82% 0% 2%
Computer Sciences Corp $6,789,832,719 75% 10% 1% 13%
Halliburton Co $6,768,728,331 65% 34% 1% 0%
Textron Inc $6,629,835,387 5% 95% 0% 0%
Litton Industries $6,478,824,475 38% 56% 1% 6%
Honeywell International $6,135,622,361 31% 62% 4% 3%
Health Net Inc $6,111,054,478 99% 0% 1% 0%
Humana Inc $5,683,896,585 87% 13% 0% 0%
L-3 Communications $5,233,392,435 34% 54% 4% 8%
NOTE: Totals in this and all other charts naming defense contractors include both the corporate parent and their subsidiaries and affiliates.
Looking at the entire universe of defense contracts over the past six years, some 40 percent of contracts were awarded through "full and open competition"-a process involving either sealed bids, competitive proposals, or a combination of the two.
Even within that 40 percent slice of the Pentagon pie, not all the dollars were given to the most competitive bidder. Ten percent of the "full and open" contracts-and 4 percent of overall defense spending-went to contracts were only one bidder responded.
The biggest slice of the pie went to contracts classified by the Pentagon as "other than full and open competition." Most of these (about two-thirds) were awarded because there was only one source for the product or service the Pentagon was buying.
Levels of competition varied widely depending on the industry of the contractor and the type of products or services the Pentagon was buying. Some categories-like construction and medical services-were very competitive, while others were not competitive at all. Here are the categories at both extremes where the Pentagon spent at least $1 billion:
Least Competitive Categories
Category Total Less than Full & Open Competition
Guided Missiles $22,747,653,356 96%
Fire Control Equipment $4,121,932,856 87%
Engines, Turbines and Components $23,254,881,284 85%
Aircraft Components and Accessories $14,875,527,520 84%
Trucks, Trailers, Ground Assault & Other Motor Vehicles $14,892,149,100 80%
Ships, Small Craft, Pontoons and Floating Docks $31,231,838,029 80%
Weapons $7,484,413,528 79%
Quality Control, Testing and Inspection Services $4,398,926,543 78%
Aircraft and Airframe Structural Components $86,530,378,638 77%
Engine Accessories $2,518,265,449 75%
Lease or Rental of Facilities $2,668,382,442 74%
Miscellaneous Products $10,542,274,617 71%
Ammunition and Explosives $13,165,716,488 70%
Ship and Marine Equipment $1,464,987,161 65%
Vehicular Equipment Components $2,997,653,029 61%
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Components $11,964,285,604 59%
Food and Beverages $11,785,260,160 58%
Communications and Detection Equipment $28,317,777,970 55%
Instruments and Laboratory Equipment $6,496,703,459 51%
Most Competitive Categories
Category Total Full & Open w/multiple bidders
Fuels, Oils & Lubricants $24,450,584,124 81%
Medical, Dental and Veterinary Equipment & Supplies $7,810,113,138 80%
Chemicals and Chemical Products $2,634,514,879 80%
Space Vehicles $2,867,529,030 78%
Medical Services $24,563,339,971 78%
Construction of Structures and Facilities $42,396,893,851 76%
Operation of Government-Owned Facilities $11,218,471,798 66%
Hazardous Substance and Natural Resources Management $9,234,078,017 64%
Technical Representative Services $6,253,625,480 64%
Maintenance & Repair of Real Property $34,430,112,159 61%
Lease or Rental of Equipment $2,021,813,249 51%
Materials Handling Equipment $1,745,198,018 51%
Equipment Maintenance, Repair & Rebuilding $42,372,061,870 50%
Cost-Plus Contracts
There's a significant difference in the types of contracts won by the biggest contractors versus smaller ones. Among the Pentagon's 737 biggest contractors, 33 percent of the contract dollars were awarded on a cost-plus basis, meaning the government would make up the difference for overruns and contractors had little incentive to control costs. Among smaller contractors, only 11 percent of the contract dollars came through cost-plus contracts.
The progression is gradual, as seen in the following chart
And here are the details on the types of contracts won by the 20 biggest contractors:
Name Total Contracts Cost-Plus Fixed Price Time & Materials Other No Info
Lockheed Martin $94,056,641,059 50% 47% 2% 1% 0%
Boeing Co $81,645,655,400 27% 70% 2% 0% 0%
Raytheon Co $39,904,717,897 38% 58% 3% 1% 0%
Northrop Grumman $33,829,847,656 42% 50% 2% 2% 4%
General Dynamics $33,280,959,821 39% 60% 0% 0% 0%
United Technologies $17,953,516,117 22% 77% 0% 0% 0%
General Electric $10,600,007,101 10% 88% 0% 0% 1%
Science Applications Intl Corp (SAIC) $10,598,835,883 52% 21% 15% 2% 11%
Carlyle Group $9,334,962,462 44% 46% 9% 0% 1%
Newport News Shipbuilding $8,852,781,214 78% 22% 0% 0% 0%
TRW Inc $8,725,744,602 71% 23% 2% 0% 3%
CLASSIFIED CONTRACTOR $8,267,851,367 11% 9% 1% 79% 0%
Computer Sciences Corp $6,789,832,719 41% 26% 24% 1% 8%
Halliburton Co $6,768,728,331 63% 34% 0% 3% 0%
Textron Inc $6,629,835,387 51% 48% 1% 0% 0%
Litton Industries $6,478,824,475 36% 56% 2% 2% 5%
Honeywell International $6,135,622,361 22% 72% 3% 3% 0%
Health Net Inc $6,111,054,478 1% 99% 0% 0% 0%
Humana Inc $5,683,896,585 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
L-3 Communications $5,233,392,435 38% 49% 7% 1% 5%
Deidre Lee, the Pentagon's chief of procurement, defends the policy of cost-plus contracting and maintains that it may actually cost the government less in the long run. If contractors were required to give a firm price for risky new defense systems, she argues, the bids would be sky high to protect the companies' risk. "What we don't want is to put someone in a financial position in which they cannot perform," she says.
Others disagree, among them Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), an outspoken critic of the government's contracting practices, who has called cost-plus contracts "notoriously prone to abuse." Joint Ventures
Another example of the concentration of defense contractors is the major role played by joint ventures-organizations formed by multiple partners to manage specific contracts or produce weapons systems. While rival defense companies may often be fierce competitors, they are also frequent partners in these joint ventures. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman jointly formed Longbow LLC, which manufactures the Longbow Hellfire missile system. Boeing and Sikorsky Aircraft (a subsidiary of United Technologies) developed the Comanche helicopter until the Army cancelled the project in February 2004.
The list goes on and on, and a total of 43 joint ventures earned at least $100 million each in defense contracts over the past six years. Four of them earned more than a billion apiece, and the partners in those four ventures are an echo of the top independent contractors: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Motors, United Technologies and Raytheon.
When compiling contract totals, the Pentagon treats these joint ventures separately from their partners, and so does this report. But the chart below gives a sense of their important role in supplementing the bottom lines of the companies that run them. Here are the revenue figures for the 20 biggest beneficiaries of joint venture contracts. The totals are based on each company's share of ownership.
Rank Joint Venture Partner Total Share No of JVs
1 Lockheed Martin $2,270,866,941 6
2 Boeing Co $2,074,007,386 5
3 Raytheon Co $1,834,994,679 4
4 United Technologies $1,495,634,029 2
5 Northrop Grumman $1,365,727,709 3
6 General Dynamics $1,019,471,331 3
7 General Motors $759,018,643 1
8 ChevronTexaco Corp $525,804,320 2
9 Royal Dutch Shell $523,626,795 1
10 Textron Inc $493,489,235 1
11 BAE Systems $322,128,066 2
12 Computer Sciences Corp $314,947,399 1
13 AECOM Technology Corp $285,125,810 1
14 Day & Zimmermann Inc $260,452,688 2
15 General Electric $221,844,482 1
16 DynCorp $209,225,175 2
17 Thales $207,073,905 2
18 Parsons Corp $157,091,765 1
19 Rockwell Collins Inc $147,289,256 1
20 Halliburton Co $140,495,373 1
Foreign Contractors
It may come as a surprise to people who've always assumed that America's defense is in the hands of Americans to learn that the list of top Pentagon contractors includes 95 companies, or in some cases government agencies, with headquarters in foreign countries. Three foreign governments made the list-Canada, Germany and Japan-as did the Italian Post, Telephone and Telegraph Service.
The German and Japanese contracts primarily pay for costs associated with U.S. bases located in those countries. The Canadian contracts are all through the Canadian Commercial Corp., a government-owned agency that handles contracts from Canadian exporters, and according to its own description "wraps the Canadian flag around their proposal, providing a government-backed guarantee of contract performance."
But most of the Pentagon's foreign suppliers are corporations-many with U.S. subsidiaries. The biggest supplier by far is the United Kingdom, whose companies earned more than $14 billion in defense contracts. Germany is second with $5.9 billion (including the contracts with the government itself). Next are the Netherlands, France, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Bermuda and South Korea-all with contracts exceeding $1 billion between 1998 and 2003.
Some of the companies are multinationals-like DaimlerChrysler or Royal Dutch Shell-that have a considerable U.S. presence. Others have U.S. subsidiaries, or, like Japan's Sumitomo Heavy Industries, they provide products and services used by U.S. forces overseas.
The list of foreign companies also includes Tyco International., which operates mainly in the United States, though the company is actually incorporated in Bermuda. (Bermuda is also home to the consulting firm Accenture). And the roster includes a contractor listed as "European Utility Companies" that refers not to a single firm, but a whole category of utilities suppliers based throughout Europe.
Here's the list of countries whose governments or corporations have received major Defense Department contracts over the past six years:
Country Total Contracts No of Contractors
England $14,467,558,907 19
Germany $5,875,778,292 11
Netherlands $2,898,934,824 7
France $2,793,612,113 7
Canada $2,207,393,181 1
Denmark $1,913,819,561 1
Japan $1,888,060,336 8
Bermuda $1,641,013,751 2
South Korea $1,505,901,909 8
Saudi Arabia $915,458,201 2
Greece $744,127,512 1
Sweden $672,661,339 3
Kuwait $651,366,569 1
United Arab Emirates $506,285,005 2
Italy $440,520,415 3
Belgium $422,022,106 2
Bahrain $419,219,209 2
Qatar $399,636,545 1
Singapore $358,651,458 1
Spain $308,251,413 1
Switzerland $284,346,086 2
Greenland $258,745,272 1
Luxembourg $144,833,745 1
Netherlands Antilles $144,424,966 1
New Zealand $128,625,559 1
Israel $127,402,358 1
Political Influence I: Campaign Contributions
All told, the 737 biggest defense contractors spent nearly $214 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and leadership PACs during calendar years 1998 to 2003. The money came from PACs, soft money donations (before they were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) and individual contributions from company executives, employees and their families. Two thirds of the total went to Republicans.
President George W. Bush received more than $4.5 million during that six-year period; his Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry collected just $332,000. The top 10 contractors alone gave Bush $444,000, versus $56,000 to Kerry.
During 2004, however, it was a different story. Between January and the end of July, Kerry collected twice as much as Bush-$1.6 million versus $824,000 for the president. When those figures are added, Kerry drew just under $2.0 million in campaign contributions from major defense contractors since 1998; President Bush received nearly $5.4 million.
While the top 10 defense contractors were all major political donors, the biggest contributors among the wider group of 737 major defense contractors were not defense companies per se, but those from other industries that are hugely dependent on regulatory, tax and other decisions made in Congress. Only two of the top 10 contributors, and five of the top 20, were defense companies.
Telecommunications and energy firms were prominent on the top donor list, as were two accounting firms. All of them provide goods or services to the Pentagon, but their main business interests-and likely their main motivations for making political contributions-lie outside the defense sector. Here are the 20 biggest contributors among the top defense contractors:
Top Contributors Among Major Defense Contractors
Name 98-03 Contributions Dems Repubs Sector
AT&T Corp $9,860,460 42% 58% Communications/Electronics
SBC Communications $9,160,163 41% 59% Communications/Electronics
FedEx Corp $8,017,939 31% 69% Air Transport
Lockheed Martin $6,625,986 38% 61% Defense
Verizon Communications $5,412,571 35% 65% Communications/Electronics
Boeing Co $5,313,529 41% 59% Defense
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $5,277,168 23% 76% Accountants
General Electric $4,885,867 41% 59% Misc Manufacturing
KPMG LLP $4,763,127 22% 77% Accountants
Southern Co $4,585,519 29% 71% Electric Utilities
WorldCom Inc $4,373,051 36% 64% Telecommunications
General Dynamics $4,367,384 40% 60% Defense
Northrop Grumman $3,715,150 34% 66% Defense
Bell Atlantic Corp $3,356,856 38% 61% Telecommunications
CSX Corp $3,329,960 20% 79% Railroads
Raytheon Co $3,226,729 41% 59% Defense Electronics
DaimlerChrysler $2,797,639 34% 64% Automotive
BP $2,607,565 29% 71% Oil & Gas
Pepsico Inc $2,535,039 19% 80% Food Processing & Sales
FPL Group $2,506,708 11% 89% Electric Utilities
On the other hand, the 10 biggest defense industry contractors-that is, those companies that make aircraft, ships, munitions and so on-were all generous contributors, with total contributions ranging from $1.6 million to $6.6 million. All gave a majority of their dollars to Republicans.
Contributions by the 10 Biggest Defense Industry Contractors
Name 98-03 Contributions Dems Repubs
Lockheed Martin $6,625,986 38% 61%
Boeing Co $5,313,529 41% 59%
Raytheon Co $3,226,729 41% 59%
Northrop Grumman $3,715,150 34% 66%
General Dynamics $4,367,384 40% 60%
United Technologies $2,238,693 42% 58%
General Electric $4,885,867 41% 59%
Science Applications Intl Corp (SAIC) $2,117,163 37% 63%
Carlyle Group $1,640,945 31% 69%
Newport News Shipbuilding $1,593,104 28% 72%
Chris Ullman, a spokesman for the Carlyle Group, took exception with any characterizations that campaign contributions come from the company itself. "The Carlyle Group has never given any contributions to politicians or political organizations. Individuals who work here are free to do so, but it has nothing to do with the company," he said.
The study found that many companies that won substantial defense contracts were only minor players in the political arena, or even stayed out of it altogether. Some 171 of the top contractors-nearly a quarter of the total-gave no contributions whatever between 1998 and 2003. Another 181 gave less than $10,000-an amount so small it barely registers on the political Richter scale. Only 202 contractors gave $100,000 or more during the six-year period of this study.
Who Got the Money
The top 737 defense contractors gave $61.6 million in campaign contributions to Republican Party committees and $26.4 million to Democratic Party committees. The rest of their contributions went directly to candidates, or to the "leadership PACs" they operate. The overwhelming majority of dollars went to incumbent office holders.
Here were the top recipients of direct contributions to their campaign committees, between 1998 and 2003:
Top Recipients to Candidate Campaign Committees
Recipient To Candidate To Leadership PAC Total
President George W Bush (R) $4,546,679 $0 $4,546,679
Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) $939,165 $28,500 $967,665
Rep John P Murtha (D-PA) $932,224 $0 $932,224
Sen Richard C Shelby (R-AL) $928,518 $95,400 $1,023,918
Rep Tom DeLay (R-TX) $873,074 $21,625 $894,699
Sen John McCain (R-AZ) $850,585 $64,100 $914,685
Sen Trent Lott (R-MS) $835,052 $50,910 $885,962
Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA) $812,652 $36,750 $849,402
Rep W J "Billy" Tauzin (R-LA) $733,396 $6,000 $739,396
Sen Don Nickles (R-OK) $696,748 $51,200 $747,948
Rep Heather Wilson (R-NM) $688,502 $0 $688,502
Rep James P Moran (D-VA) $683,222 $14,000 $697,222
Rep Tom Davis (R-VA) $673,922 $83,975 $757,897
Rep Henry Bonilla (R-TX) $664,571 $30,200 $694,771
Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA) $659,407 $15,350 $674,757
Rep Michael G Oxley (R-OH) $653,900 $11,800 $665,700
Sen Spencer Abraham (R-MI) $648,326 $15,000 $663,326
Rep Roy Blunt (R-MO) $646,481 $9,650 $656,131
Sen Christopher S Bond (R-MO) $632,845 $0 $632,845
Al Gore (D) $626,264 $45,200 $671,464
Not surprisingly, the list is top heavy with members of the House and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittees-the panels that supply the money for the Pentagon's budget. But giving money directly to lawmakers is not the only way to win their gratitude. Many members of Congress operate "leadership PACs" that they use to deliver much appreciated dollars to other members and to up-and-coming candidates seeking a seat in Congress for the first time. Raising money for those leadership PACs has become an art form on Capitol Hill, and defense contractors, as the following chart illustrates, have been generous supporters. Here are the members of Congress whose personal PACs collected the most from the top defense contractors:
Top Recipients to Leadership PACs
Recipient To Leadership PAC To Candidate Total
Rep J Dennis Hastert (R-IL) $1,100,173 $46,200 $1,146,373
Rep Jerry Lewis (R-CA) $1,002,199 $54,750 $1,056,949
Rep Richard A Gephardt (D-MO) $620,550 $68,950 $689,500
Rep Joe Barton (R-TX) $565,172 $20,200 $585,372
Rep Don Young (R-AK) $497,870 $66,350 $564,220
Rep Martin Frost (D-TX) $489,644 $39,450 $529,094
Sen Tom Daschle (D-SD) $471,170 $68,775 $539,945
Rep David Dreier (R-CA) $397,750 $14,000 $411,750
Sen Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $376,482 $75,052 $451,534
Sen John B Breaux (D-LA) $364,273 $23,950 $388,223
Sen John Ashcroft (R-MO) $359,306 $94,585 $453,891
Sen James M Inhofe (R-OK) $356,697 $56,550 $413,247
Sen Larry E Craig (R-ID) $310,790 $32,250 $343,040
Rep Deborah Pryce (R-OH) $284,493 $9,900 $294,393
Rep Charles B Rangel (D-NY) $265,750 $24,700 $290,450
Rep John S Tanner (D-TN) $246,041 $1,800 $247,841
Rep Jim Nussle (R-IA) $242,250 $26,844 $269,094
Rep Mark Foley (R-FL) $214,603 $7,500 $222,103
Rep Frederick Upton (R-MI) $210,694 $6,250 $216,944
Rep John R Kasich (R-OH) $207,450 $48,550 $256,000
Political Influence II: Lobbying
As with campaign contributions, the top defense contractors were of many different minds when it came to spending money on Washington lobbyists. Only half the top 737 contractors filed lobby reports with Congress indicating they'd spent at least $10,000 in their lobbying efforts. Many contractors reported spending only nominal amounts, while the biggest reported spending tens of millions. In all, the leading defense contractors spent nearly $1.9 billion on Washington lobbyists between 1998 and 2003.
Again, many of the biggest spenders on lobbying were companies-like Altria Group (the former Philip Morris)-whose main interests lie outside defense. But as with campaign contributions, the top 10 defense contractors all ran top-dollar lobbying efforts.
Top Lobbying Spenders Among Major Defense Contractors
Name 98-03 Lobby Totals Sector
Altria Group $93,855,700 Agribusiness
General Electric $88,416,756 Misc Business
AT&T Corp $71,551,000 Communications/Electronics
Lockheed Martin $71,454,870 Defense
Boeing Co $64,390,810 Defense
Northrop Grumman $61,150,346 Defense
General Motors $55,441,483 Transportation
SBC Communications $50,784,687 Communications/Electronics
Verizon Communications $50,018,152 Communications/Electronics
Sprint Corp $46,781,585 Communications/Electronics
Exxon Mobil Corp $37,161,942 Energy & Natural Resources
General Dynamics $37,011,522 Defense
Southern Co $36,085,000 Energy & Natural Resources
IBM Corp $34,758,000 Communications/Electronics
Bell Atlantic Corp $31,539,272 Communications/Electronics
DaimlerChrysler $31,500,680 Transportation
Textron Inc $31,382,000 Defense
Motorola Inc $31,255,333 Communications/Electronics
Raytheon Co $27,461,500 Defense
Royal Dutch Shell $25,780,768 Energy & Natural Resources
Lobbyist Spending by the 10 Biggest Defense Contractors
Name 98-03 Lobby Spending
Lockheed Martin $71,454,870
Boeing Co $64,390,810
Raytheon Co $27,461,500
Northrop Grumman $61,150,346
General Dynamics $37,011,522
United Technologies $24,133,633
General Electric $88,416,756
Science Applications Intl Corp (SAIC) $12,510,250
Carlyle Group $15,221,560
Newport News Shipbuilding $12,855,000
Small Business: Bigger than you think
For decades, the federal government has gone out of its way to help small businesses make inroads into the vast federal purchasing market, giving preference to small companies that compete for federal contracts. Under an informal quota system set by Congress, federal agencies are encouraged-though not legally required-to farm out 23 percent of their procurement dollars to small businesses.
While most people's conception of "small business" may conjure images of small retail establishments, professional offices, or family-run factories, the government's definition extends much more widely. Indeed, some 189 of the Pentagon's biggest contractors-those winning at least $100 million in prime contracts over the past six years-showed at least half their contract dollars as going to small businesses. Of those, 127 companies got at least 90 percent of their contracts under the small business designation.
The biggest "small business" was Chugach Alaska Corp., considered a disadvantaged small business since its owners are Alaska Natives who enjoy minority status. Chugach Alaska won nearly $1.4 billion in defense contracts between 1998 and 2003; some 95 percent of that total was marked as going to small disadvantaged businesses. The biggest non-minority "small business" was GTSI Inc., a Virginia-based supplier of computer equipment. Some $1.2 billion of the firm's total $1.6 billion in contracts were designated as having gone to small businesses. Six other corporations earned half a billion dollars or more in small business contracts over the six-year period.
The government's rules defining what constitutes a small business vary widely by industry. Companies wholesaling goods to the government must have fewer than 500 employees to qualify. Certain industries-from phone companies to airlines to small arms manufacturers-may have as many as 1,500 employees and still be classified as small in the eyes of the government. Others are designated small businesses based on their annual revenues.
But some companies that are large by anyone's definition have taken advantage of the government's interest in helping small business by acquiring companies that have won contracts thanks to their small business status. Under rules which have prevailed for years, a company can retain its small business status throughout the life of the contract-even if the company is no longer small. Since some government contracts may last as long as 20 years, critics have complained that this loophole is actually helping companies it wasn't meant to, and that more frequent reappraisals of a company's small business status should be required.
In December, the Small Business Administration is scheduled to adopt a new regulation that will require all small businesses contracting with the government to recertify their small business status every five years. In 2002 the General Services Administration adopted a similar requirement for those businesses that sell goods or services through the GSA Schedule-a fast-track ordering system that lets federal employees choose items off a list of pre-approved suppliers.
But neither of those rules have yet had much effect on big defense contractors, and the table below shows how much money the leading "small businesses" collected in Pentagon contracts between 1998 and 2003. (Set-aside contracts, shown in the chart below, are those that can only be awarded to small businesses.)
Name Small Business Contracts Total Contracts Small Pct Set-Aside Pct
Chugach Alaska Corp $1,317,304,425 $1,377,589,626 96% 88%
GTSI Corp $1,170,934,893 $1,619,414,562 72% 3%
CLASSIFIED CONTRACTOR $852,966,582 $8,267,851,367 10% 0%
Ocean Shipholdings Inc $816,091,394 $1,094,875,569 75% 0%
Metro Machine Corp $654,996,983 $660,195,544 99% 0%
L-3 Communications $581,947,903 $5,233,392,435 11% 3%
Wornick Co $561,372,502 $607,488,496 92% 0%
Titan Corp $549,537,387 $2,389,803,664 23% 10%
Engineered Support Systems Inc $522,233,418 $1,573,708,929 33% 21%
Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp $457,257,838 $464,206,666 99% 1%
Ameriqual Group $440,118,830 $440,118,830 100% 0%
Paramount Petroleum Corp $432,191,289 $432,191,289 100% 77%
Digital System Resources Inc $429,655,087 $460,235,430 93% 13%
Holly Corp $423,826,222 $514,203,000 82% 80%
Spectrum Astro Inc $423,027,650 $423,727,650 100% 0%
Sparta Inc $410,448,703 $425,508,397 96% 41%
Dynetics Inc $409,567,922 $435,244,949 94% 40%
NLX Corp $395,071,192 $395,169,661 100% 33%
Earl Industries $391,544,499 $391,900,184 100% 0%
CAS Inc $388,010,361 $420,512,551 92% 33%
What the Pentagon buys
Aircraft, ships, tanks, missiles, bombs and ammunition-these are the nuts and bolts of a modern military, but they're only the beginning of the Pentagon's ever-growing shopping list. Twenty years ago, nearly two-thirds of the Defense Department's procurement budget went for products; these days a majority of the dollars pay for services. The transition came in the early 1990s and it hasn't reversed since. In 2003, 56 percent of the U.S. military's contracting dollars went for services. Here's a chart showing the transition:
Still, the generals and admirals do buy a good bit of hardware-especially hardware that flies. Out of more than 2,200 detailed budget categories that describe what the Pentagon bought, fixed-wing aircraft was by far the single most expensive item, totaling $68.6 billion between 1998 and 2003. That was also the top category in every single fiscal year going back at least as far as 1984.
But the aircraft themselves are just the beginning. When the many additional categories are added in-for such items as helicopters, aircraft engines, research and development, maintenance, components and the like-the cost escalates to $157 billion over the past six years.
Aggregating the detailed budget categories-for both products and services-into larger groups, here are the top 20 items the Pentagon contracted out from 1998 to 2003:
Rank Category Total
1 Research & Development $140,206,855,854
2 Aircraft and Airframe Structural Components $86,530,378,638
3 Professional, Administrative & Mgmt Support Services $73,583,447,989
4 Construction of Structures and Facilities $42,396,893,851
5 Equipment Maintenance, Repair & Rebuilding $42,372,061,870
6 Maintenance & Repair of Real Property $34,430,112,159
7 Data Processing and Telecommunication Services $33,010,309,515
8 Ships, Small Craft, Pontoons and Floating Docks $31,231,653,405
9 Communications and Detection Equipment $28,317,777,970
10 Medical Services $24,563,339,971
11 Fuels, Oils & Lubricants $24,450,584,124
12 Engines, Turbines and Components $23,254,881,284
13 Guided Missiles $22,747,653,356
14 Utilities, Food Service, Janitorial & Housekeeping Services $22,604,076,518
15 Transportation, Travel and Relocation Services $18,096,765,679
16 Data Processing Equipment, Software & Supplies $17,394,506,239
17 Trucks, Trailers, Ground Assault & Other Motor Vehicles $14,892,149,100
18 Aircraft Components and Accessories $14,875,527,520
19 Ammunition and Explosives $13,165,716,488
20 Architect and Engineering Services - Construction $12,195,567,488
The research and development component has always been a huge budget item at the Defense Department, and Pentagon contractors are paid to study everything from weapons systems to employment growth & productivity. Broken down into more detail, here are the main subjects they were researching and developing:
Research & Development Category Total
Ammunition $1,963,914,225
Defense Aircraft $27,936,525,895
Defense Electronics & Communications Equipment $17,280,934,955
Defense Missile & Space Systems $21,844,945,949
Defense Ships $3,779,334,874
Defense Tank & Automotive $1,737,942,398
General Science & Technology $1,592,345,867
Space $7,372,810,325
Weapons $7,896,155,075
The Rise in Service Contracts
The rising importance of outside contractors in providing services to the Pentagon is of more than academic interest. As explored in the accompanying Shadow Pentagon report, it has major implications not just for contracting but for national security. When the normal functioning of defense operations becomes so dependent on contractors that the thought of running a war without them becomes unthinkable - as it has in Iraq - basic questions naturally arise about missing links in the military's overall command and control.
In that respect, what's happening in the Pentagon is a mirror of what's been happening throughout the federal government. The "Reinventing Government" initiatives of the Clinton administration have given way to new moves during the Bush administration to reduce the government payroll by having private contractors compete with the federal workforce for a huge array of jobs.
Angela Styles was the new administration's point person for following through on President Bush's campaign promise to open up 450,000 federal jobs to competition with the private sector. As Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy in the Office of Management and Budget, Styles was the top government official dealing with federal contractors. She saw firsthand the extent to which the government has come to rely on private contractors. "There is no question, without the contractors, you can't be on the battlefield," Styles told the Center for Public Integrity. "These people prepare all the equipment they have. They really are walking behind the tanks in Iraq."
Styles, who left the Bush administration in 2003, argues that the widespread growth of contracting for services has expanded beyond the ability of government to oversee it. "I don't know of any function within the government that would actually operate without contractors at this point," she said. "I mean it's a partnership that maybe we stumbled into," she said. "You walk into a government building, you've got a federal employee working next to a contractor, they may have the exact same duties, they may have precisely the same duties, they interact with the public, they make decisions." And yet, she adds, the public employee falls under government rules; the outside contractor answers to their private employer.
Given the dependence of the government on its private, rented workforce, that lack of management troubles Styles. "I don't have a problem with the model where there are 10 percent employees and 90 percent contractors; as long as you recognize what the problems are and make it work," she said. "But that is not what is happening now. You have this 50-50 mix, you've done something with human capital in the federal government where there are no incentives to stay. And they are buying things they don't understand, which is the problem on the front end because you are buying something where you can't understand the pricing, you can't understand what you are buying, you can't compare the people you are buying from. You are not going to manage that contract."
Adding to the problem has been the federal government's expanding reliance on streamlining procurement by ordering items - and services - not through the traditional bidding process, but from a catalog or "schedule" maintained by the General Services Administration. "The theory behind schedules was probably a nice idea in the fist place," Styles said. "It was supplies, it was commodities. It was things that lower level officials could figure out whether they were getting a good price for. It was pens and pencils. It was basic computers. But over time, the problem is that this has evolved to services."
Being a giant organization, the Defense Department also buys a lot of the same things everyone else buys, only more so. The Pentagon's electric bill, for instance, came to $3.7 billion over the six-year period. They paid $3.8 billion for fuel oil, $2.8 billion for dairy foods and eggs, $2.6 billion for family housing facilities, and $2.3 billion for custodial and janitorial services. Like a lot of us, the Pentagon even has a "miscellaneous items" category-only theirs amounted to $10 billion over the past six years.
Some of the other things the Pentagon spent money on over the past six years:
Pharmaceuticals $5.6 billion
Nuclear Reactors $3.6 billion
Bombs $3.1 billion
Advertising $2 billion
Dentistry services $1.2 billion
Guard services $1 billion
Personal armor $991 million
Landscaping/groundskeeping services $989 million
Men's outerwear $973 million
Batteries (chargeable and non-rechargeable) $961 million
Trash/garbage collection $910 million
Men's footwear $886 million
Rivets $359 million
Expert witnesses $219 million
Women's outerwear $168 million
Intelligence services $141 million
Badges and insignia $46 million
Insect and rodent control services $40 million
Debt collection services $25 million
Flags and pennants $17 million
Tobacco products $11 million
Accuracy in Pentagon reporting
Combing through six years of Pentagon databases is both a revealing and a frustrating experience. Since conclusions about the patterns in defense contracting are only as good as the data they rely on, much of the Center's time in the research was spent double-checking the accuracy of the databases. Since one of our most important goals was compiling a list of the top contractors, much of the research was aimed at assuring that all the subsidiaries and affiliates were connected to the right corporate parent.
Putting it mildly, this was not an easy job. Many defense contractors, like corporations in other business sectors, have in recent years accelerated the pace of buying and selling subsidiaries, linking together through mergers, divesting themselves of unwanted properties, sometimes even changing their names. Keeping up all this is a major undertaking, especially over a six-year period. (Had Google not been invented, it would probably have been nearly impossible.)
In the process of compiling the data, it quickly became clear that the Pentagon's database of contractors was rife with errors concerning the corporate parentage of contractors. The database includes three IDs (derived from Dun & Bradstreet code numbers): one for the contractor, one for their corporate headquarters, and one for the ultimate parent. While some smaller companies were easy to track, and had a single, consistent ID for all three fields, many others had duplicate IDs and outdated or incorrect information about their corporate parentage.
These errors are serious, since without accurate data, compiling a list of leading contractors is simply not possible.
Some of the Pentagon's errors in matching companies to their correct corporate parents is understandable, given the obscure nature of the company names. It's not immediately obvious, for instance, that Braintree II Maritime Corp (or Braintree III and Braintree IV, which are also contractors) are subsidiaries of General Dynamics, and the Pentagon database sometimes lumps them correctly and sometimes doesn't.
One of the most baffling examples was a series of contracts written to five companies with similar names and a common address in Norfolk, VA-Expander Transport Corp., Expediter Transport Corp., Exporter Transport Corp., Expresser Transport Corp., and Extender Transport Corp. In fact, all five are subsidiaries of Maersk Inc., a Danish shipping company that operates out of the same office. Those five companies earned a combined $780 million in Pentagon contracts between 1998 and 2003, but only $260 million of the total was correctly affiliated with Maersk. In all, Maersk shows up in the Defense Department database as collecting just under $967 million in contracts during the six year period. In fact, the company's awards totaled $1.9 billion. The Center found dozens of similar examples.
And then there are the cases of outright mistaken identity. According to the DOD database, NewTech Inc., a small roofing contractor in South Carolina, was on the receiving end of some $245 million in defense contracts between 1998 and 2003. The company is listed by Dun & Bradstreet as having 15 employees. Its office address, on Hilton Head Island, is no longer correct and the company telephone has been disconnected. More perplexing, the contracts were all for weapons testing and evaluation at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. In fact, the $245 million in contracts went to a New Mexico company with a similar name-a mistake the Pentagon database has still not caught up with after at least six years.
It should be noted that these were not cases of the dollars themselves being routed to the wrong company, but rather of the Pentagon's misreporting of where the money went in its procurement database. (Though it should also be noted that details on where the money actually did go are not publicly available.)
In all, the Center found that the 737 biggest contractors were identified in the database under a total of 1,612 different "ultimate parent" IDs. The total of incorrectly listed parents came to some $35 billion. The Center did not attempt to standardize IDs for smaller contractors, but a quick glance at the database shows that the problem there is similar.
Given all the inaccuracies in the Defense Department's database, it is always possible that other errors remain to be discovered. If and when they are, the Center's rankings, profiles and reports will be updated accordingly.
-----
The Shadow Pentagon
Private contractors play a huge role in basic government work-mostly out of public view
By Dan Guttman
September 29, 2004
The Center for Public Integrity
http://www.publicintegrity.org./pns/report.aspx?aid=386
WASHINGTON, September 29, 2004 - As war fighting came to dominate the news in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, names like Halliburton and Bechtel became as familiar to the average American as the names of any general, division or soldier in the field. Fallujah first attracted wide public attention when insurgents killed and crowds mutilated the remains of four employees of Blackwater Security Consulting. Employees of CACI International and Titan were accused of taking part in the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. That the use of contractors on the battlefield and in nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan is front page news comes as a surprise to many, but it is a consequence of a decades-long policy to keep government smaller by relying on the private sector.
What the War on Terror has shown is the extent to which private contractors have become part and parcel of Pentagon operations. Where once contracts went to build ships, planes, tanks and missiles, today the majority of contract dollars buy services-the time of people-and information technology. Increasingly the private workforce works alongside officials, in Pentagon meeting rooms as well as on Iraqi battlefields, performing what citizens consider the stuff of government: planning, policy writing, budgeting, intelligence gathering, nation building.
In March 2002, a year before the start of the Iraq war, then-Secretary of the Army Thomas White told top Defense Department officials that reductions in Army civilian and military personnel, carried out over the previous 11 years, had been accompanied by an increased reliance on private contractors about whose very dimensions the Pentagon knew too little. "Currently," he wrote, "Army planners and programmers lack visibility at the Departmental level into the labor and costs associated with the contract work force and of the organizations and missions supported by them."
In April, the Army told Congress that its best guess was that the Army had between 124,000 and 605,000 service contract workers. In October, the Army announced that it would permit contractors to compete for "non-core" positions held by 154,910 civilian workers (more than half of the Army's civilian workforce) and 58,727 military personnel. It should have been no surprise, then, when contractors were needed to meet the surge of wartime reconstruction, that the Pentagon itself was hard-pressed to estimate the numbers of its contract employees in Iraq.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld toured Abu Ghraib Detention Center in Iraq on May 13, 2004. (photo: Jerry Morrison / DOD) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld toured Abu Ghraib Detention Center in Iraq on May 13, 2004. (photo: Jerry Morrison / DOD)
The inability to keep a count of contractors is only the most obvious of the problems the Pentagon faces. It has been longstanding bipartisan White House policy that "inherently governmental" work-the basic and most sensitive work of government-must be performed by government officials. Yet in Iraq, at Abu Ghraib, where contractors were involved in interrogations and collecting intelligence, this rule was not only violated, but apparently violated without notice to the Commander in Chief in time of war. Government by contract
The onslaught of service contracting challenges oversight on multiple counts. The Defense Department, along with other government agencies, keeps precise count of the numbers of those employed as officials-civil servants, political appointees, servicemen and women. But Defense itself lacks the most basic information on its contract workforce. When, in 2002, the Secretary of the Army declared that the Army lacked "visibility" over its service contract workforce, he called for its collection. By mid-2004 the data gathering had yet to begin. As the General Accounting Office, the watch dog arm of Congress, observed, "there is only limited visibility or control at the DOD or military department level, and information systems that provide reliable data and are capable of being used as a management tool are lacking."
Poor data goes hand in hand with inadequate management. In a 2003 report, the GAO noted that "our work, and the work of DOD's Inspector General, has found that spending on services is not being managed effectively. Too often, requirements are not clearly defined, alternatives are not fully considered, vigorous price analyses are not performed, and contractors are not adequately overseen."
Many service contracts buy commercial services-maintenance and laundry services, for example. But a significant amount of the Pentagon's procurement budget goes to purchase a core government workforce-contract employees, consultants, and other service workers. The third largest category of Pentagon spending, the Center found, following research and development and aircraft, is "professional, administrative and management support services." In the decade from FY 1994 to FY 2003, expenditures on these workers increased from $7.3 billion to $17.1 billion.
Then-Secretary of the Army Thomas White in a July 2001 photo. (photo: DOD) Then-Secretary of the Army Thomas White in a July 2001 photo. (photo: DOD)
Defense's Inspector General has repeatedly found Pentagon control of this contracting deficient. In 2003, the IG reported that out of 113 service contract actions reviewed (with an estimated value of $17.8 billion), at least 98 had one or more problems, including inadequate competition, lack of surveillance, or inadequate price reasonableness determinations.
Defense does not know the numbers of contractors performing basic government work-that is, drafting rules, policies, budgets, and other official documents. But a measure of its increasingly commonplace nature can be found on the Web sites of the department's contractors. Private companies announce that they're hiring analysts to prepare the Defense Department's budget, or boast of having written the Army Field Manuals on Contractors on the Battlefield.
For insiders in the corridors of the Pentagon, the pervasive role of contractors in the replacement of civil servants is a given. Government Executive reports that the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness-the senior official responsible for the official workforce "acknowledges that he often attends meetings in which he is the only civil servant in a room full of contractors."
But the role of contractors in the Department's basic work remains largely and effectively out of public view. For example, in late 2002, the Department's Total Information Awareness data mining project provoked great (and bipartisan) outcry; government as "Big Brother" was threatening the privacy of untold citizens. Largely unnoted was that the program was being run by contractors, with a thin layer of official oversight. If the program really had been operated by Big Brother, Bill of Rights privacy protections would have limited their work; but it is much less clear how Constitutional provisions govern contractors.
The oversight challenge is not simply one of fewer officials managing more contractors. It also lies in the possibility that in two critical respects-knowledge of information technology (IT) and capability to bridge organizational chart barriers-contractors are not simply the shadow government, but may become the primary government.
Information technologies are the lifeblood of 21st century military command and control. The Pentagon (and taxpayers) paid for the creation of the Internet, and much else that undergirds today's cyber world. But it paid contractors to learn about the new technology, and did not pay to train and retain a sufficient, official IT workforce. As Government Executive noted,
"Even before the current push to outsource, contractors were doing at least three-quarters of the federal government's IT work, according to the market research firm INPUT in Chantilly, Va."
Contractors managing contractors
At the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon downsized civilian and military workforces. By the mid-1990's it became apparent that the workforce needed to oversee contractors had been disproportionately downsized. As a 2000 Defense Department Inspector General Audit report recorded: "DoD reduced its acquisition workforce from 460,516 to 230,556 personnel, about 50 percent, from the end of FY 1990 to the end of FY 1999; however, the workload has not been reduced proportionately." Though there was a slight (3 percent) decrease in the dollar value of Defense procurement over the period, "the number of procurement actions increased from about 13.2 million to about 14.8 million, about 12 percent."
The end result is that, increasingly, contractors must manage one another.
The Pentagon now relies on contractors themselves to collect and analyze basic data on contracting-including data on the dimensions of its service contracts ("spend analyses" performed by Pentagon mainstay Booz Allen Hamilton) and data on the dimensions of the official procurement workforce (Jefferson Solutions).
Defense's stable of contract procurement advisors includes the Rand Corporation-a private nonprofit that the Pentagon created and funded to act as a think tank. Rand (and its alumni in the department) was central to Cold War defense contracting, famously associated with Secretary of Defense McNamara's efforts to bring service buying under central control. From 1998 to 2004, Rand received $474 million in noncompetitive contracts from the Pentagon.
But much of this work is done today by private, profit-making companies. And recent efforts to streamline government have accelerated the process. Where once the Pentagon had to go through time consuming, competitive procedures to hire contractors to manage contracting, 1990's procurement "streamlining" permits it to purchase "off the shelf" "outsourcing" and "privatization" assistance. Booz Allen Hamilton's Web site illustrates the "soup to nuts" contract management easily procured from contractors:
Acquisition Program Management. In the context of acquisition program management, Booz Allen Hamilton has experience in all dimensions of support for major government acquisition programs.... Booz Allen will assist the Government in developing and establishing acquisition program objectives, strategies, plans, and schedules that will help the acquisition program through the various stages of the life cycle and its associated review process.
"Inherently governmental functions"
As contractors expand their role both on the battlefield and within the walls of government, one might well ask what sorts of things they're not doing. This was a concern from the very beginnings of government by contract. In the mid-20th century, when White House officials grew concerned that contracting out might go too far, the principle was established that "inherently governmental functions" should never be performed by anyone outside government. The principle has been embraced by every Administration since then. It was most recently reiterated by the Bush Administration in a May 2003 revision of Circular A-76, which declares that, "agencies shall...Perform inherently governmental functions with government personnel."
Today, that principle may be more fig leaf than bulwark. Decades of personnel ceilings necessarily meant that work was contracted out without regard for whether it was inherently governmental.
In 1998, Congress passed the FAIR Act, which required agencies to inventory civil service work, and identify specific jobs as "commercial" (which may be contracted out) or inherently governmental (which may not be). Iraq shows the workings of the framework established by White House policy and the FAIR Act. The Army not only identified jobs as inherently governmental (or not), but provided reasoning for its determinations.
In December 2000 the Army determined that intelligence work-such as that assigned to contract employee interrogators at Abu Ghraib-is inherently governmental. A memo by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs explained why sensitive intelligence work must be performed only by government officials:
"Private contractors may be acquired by foreign interests, acquire and maintain interests in foreign countries, and provide support to foreign customers. The contract administration oversight exerted over contractors is very different from the command and control exerted over military and civilian employees. Therefore, reliance on private contractors poses risks to maintaining adequate civilian oversight over intelligence operations."
The Army memo directed that the rule barring contractors from intelligence work be added to the next edition of the Army Contractors on the Battlefield Field Manual. The volume, which was itself written by an Army contractor, did not include the determination. In Iraq, the Army engaged contractor employees for interrogation work at Abu Ghraib, disregarding its own determination that outsourcing such work poses risks to national security. As the story of the involvement of contractors in the Iraqi prison abuse scandal unfolded, it became evident that the contract for interrogators (with CACI International Inc.) illustrated the way in which reforms designed to simplify contracting had given way to broad and ready abuse.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on mistreatment of detainees in Iraq, in this May 7, 2004, photo. (photo: Jerry Morrison / DOD)Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on mistreatment of detainees in Iraq, in this May 7, 2004, photo. (photo: Jerry Morrison / DOD)
The CACI contract was an offshoot of an agreement between CACI (actually a company acquired by CACI) and the General Service Administration (GSA) under what the government calls a supply schedule arrangement. GSA supply schedule contracts are a product of the 1990's reforms that reinvented government. At their best, they are a (cyber) catalog of services that can be bought by agencies government-wide with limited time wasted. In theory, the initial agreement with GSA is obtained through competition, so the contractor is permitted to sell services under the schedule to other agencies with little or no further competition required. When the Defense Department found itself in urgent need of person power in Iraq, it turned to GSA schedules with a vengeance.
The CACI interrogators were purchased under a supply service contract which, according to the GSA schedule, was to provide for Information Technology services. Not surprisingly, the underlying agreement with GSA did not provide for "interrogator services." Moreover, GSA had turned over the agreement to the Department of Interior to administer (for a fee), so the Army contract to purchase interrogators for Iraq ran through the agency in charge of the national park service. On July 16, 2004 the Department of Interior's Inspector General reported that six orders placed with CACI "were issued predominantly for interrogation, intelligence, and security services in Iraq. Neither the GSA nor our review could find any existing schedule that provided for these services."
Prior to calling on CACI to provide interrogation under the GSA agreement, evidently no one in GSA or Interior or the Army checked to determine whether the new work was permitted under the GSA schedule. (As a technical matter, an attempt to buy services outside the scope of a GSA schedule violates requirements that opportunity for competition be provided.) Nor, it appears, did GSA or Interior- legally responsible for the contract and receiving fees for its administration-feel obliged to monitor the use to which the contract was put in Iraq. Nor, it appears, did GSA, Interior, or the Army check to see if the work had been determined to be inherently governmental and, therefore, something that the Army could not outsource to the employees of a private company.
The misuse of supply service contracts shown by the CACI contract was not unique, but of a piece with many other Iraq contracts, and many further contracts entered into well before the war.
In fact, Defense's Inspector General noted-in a March 2004 report on 24 contracts awarded for the Coalition Provisional Authority between February and August 2003, by the Department of Defense Contracting Command-Washington-that 18 of the 24 contracts were awarded through use of GSA supply schedules.
The IG reported that Defense contracting officers "misused" the GSA schedules in awarding 10 of the 18 schedule related contracts. The IG portrayed a pattern of abuse, even lawlessness. The IG found that in calling on contractors to provide services under the schedules, Defense contracting officers themselves did not review the GSA schedules, but took the word of contractors as to whether the service called for by the Pentagon was within the scope of the GSA schedule. The IG further found that in 10 instances, Defense was using contractors to buy "personal services" -in essence, buying workers to serve as part of the official workforce, a practice contrary to procurement rules. The IG concluded that of the 24 contracts, 13 did not have adequate surveillance.
Nor was Iraq the first instance of reported abuse of the supply schedules. In 2003, GAO explained that "since early 2000, both the Inspector General and we have found continuing problems with DOD's use of the General Services Administration's Federal Supply Schedule program... in September, 2001 the DOD Inspector General concluded that 304 of the 423-or 72 percent-task orders it had reviewed were awarded on a sole-source or directed-source basis and 264 were improperly supported." A question of oversight
Throughout the growth of contracting, separate bodies of law applied to officials (and soldiers) and contractors. American governmental bodies reflect a long tradition of laws enacted to prevent abuse of power by government officials. These laws begin with the Constitution, which defines and limits the conduct of officials, but not necessarily of third parties, even where they may act on the government's behalf.
The official workforce is also governed by a dense web of statutory provisions that do not apply to third parties. The Freedom of Information Act applies to "agency" records. Contractors, in this context, are not "agencies," even where they perform decisional roles. Similarly, government officials are subject to a body of conflict of interest provisions, pay caps, limits on political activity, and labor rules that do not similarly constrain contractors who perform similar, even the same, work.
The use of "contractors on the battlefield" in Iraq provides dramatic illustration of different rules applied to similarly situated government and contractor employees (although the differences primarily involve rules governing soldiers, not civilian officials). Contract employees may avoid risky combat zone work - and, ultimately, quit - with no fear that their absence will subject them to penalties under the Uniform Code of Military Justice . The differing rules may also disadvantage contractor employees. For example, daunting questions loom regarding how the protections accorded by international law to state combatants apply to battlefield contractors.
More than two centuries of law have been enacted to protect Americans against Big Government. These laws begin with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and include ethics and transparency laws, restrictions on the political conduct of officials, limits on official pay, and the uniform military code of justice. These laws apply to officials, not contractors, on the presumption that officials are in control. The rules do not apply-or protect the public-when, as is increasingly the case, contractors are doing the basic work of government, and government lacks the expertise and experience to control the contractor workforce.
These rules do not contemplate a reality where contractors advertise that they will be writing the President's Defense Budget, where they routinely write official documents including Army Contractors on the Battlefield Field Manuals, or where they are deployed, in violation of the Army's own rule, to perform sensitive intelligence work in wartime.
Dan Guttman, a Fellow at Johns Hopkins University, is a government contracting expert who serves as a consultant to the Center for Public Integrity. He is a co-author of The Shadow Government.
-------- china
China says Taiwan war-mongering
bbc
29 September, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3699460.stm
China has stepped up its war of words with Taiwan, accusing the island's premier of "clamouring for war".
A senior Chinese official said recent comments about missiles by Premier Yu Shyi-kun were "a serious provocation".
Mr Yu said last week the island needed to complete a big US arms purchase, and also suggested it should have offensive missiles to deter Chinese attack.
The Chinese official said the comments proved Taiwan's government wanted independence.
China views Taiwan as part of its territory, and has threatened to invade if the island ever declared independence.
"Any person, any force using whatever methods to attempt to seek Taiwan independence and make enemies with 1.3bn Chinese people is doomed to failure," said Li Weiyi, spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office.
Arms race
The latest row was prompted by a speech Mr Yu made last week, in which he appeared to argue that Taiwan should be allowed to acquire offensive weapons.
He said Taiwan could deter Chinese attack if the two sides were locked in a "balance of terror", similar to that which existed between the US and former USSR.
"If you fire 100 missiles at me, I should also be able to fire 100 missiles at you, or at least 50. If you attack Taipei and Kaohsiung, I should at least be able to strike Shanghai," Mr Yu told supporters.
Taiwan's military capability is at present almost entirely defensive.
But the island's leaders are increasingly worried by China's positioning of several hundred missiles across the Taiwan Strait. A recent Pentagon report said some of Taiwan's political and military leaders had suggested acquiring weapons capable of striking against China as a cost-effective means of deterrence.
But most analysts think it is extremely unlikely that Taiwan's main ally, the US, would allow it to buy or build a significant offensive arms capacity, since that would risk war with China.
Mr Yu made his comments in response to criticism of his government's plan to buy $18bn of US defensive weapons, including anti-missile systems, planes and submarines.
The proposed deal sparked a protest at the weekend by thousands of protesters, who argued it could spark an arms race.
They say the money would be better spent on public welfare projects.
-------- iraq
INSURGENCY
Iraq Study Sees Rebels' Attacks as Widespread
September 29, 2004
By JAMES GLANZ and THOM SHANKER
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/international/middleeast/29attacks.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 28 - Over the past 30 days, more than 2,300 attacks by insurgents have been directed against civilians and military targets in Iraq, in a pattern that sprawls over nearly every major population center outside the Kurdish north, according to comprehensive data compiled by a private security company with access to military intelligence reports and its own network of Iraqi informants.
The sweeping geographical reach of the attacks, from Nineveh and Salahuddin Provinces in the northwest to Babylon and Diyala in the center and Basra in the south, suggests a more widespread resistance than the isolated pockets described by Iraqi government officials.
The type of attacks ran the gamut: car bombs, time bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, small-arms fire, mortar attacks and land mines.
"If you look at incident data and you put incident data on the map, it's not a few provinces, " said Adam Collins, a security expert and the chief intelligence official in Iraq for Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group Inc., a private security company based in Las Vegas that compiles and analyzes the data as a regular part of its operations in Iraq.
The number of attacks has risen and fallen over the months. Mr. Collins said the highest numbers were in April, when there was major fighting in Falluja, with attacks averaging 120 a day. The average is now about 80 a day, he said.
But it is a measure of both the fog of war and the fact that different analysts can look at the same numbers and come to opposite conclusions, that others see a nation in which most people are perfectly safe and elections can be held with clear legitimacy.
"I have every reason to believe that the Iraqi people are going to be able to hold elections," said Lt. Col. William Nichols of the Air Force, a spokesman for the American-led coalition forces here.
Indeed, no raw compilation of statistics on numbers of attacks can measure what is perhaps the most important political equation facing Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and the American military: how much of Iraq is under the firm control of the interim government. That will determine the likelihood - and quality - of elections in January.
For example, the number of attacks is not an accurate measure of control in Falluja; attacks have recently dropped there, but the town is controlled by insurgents and is a "no go" zone for the American military and Iraqi security forces. It is a place where elections could not be held without dramatic political or military intervention.
The statistics show that there have been just under 1,000 attacks in Baghdad during the past month; in fact, an American military spokesman said this week that since April, insurgents have fired nearly 3,000 mortar rounds in Baghdad alone. But those figures do not necessarily preclude having elections in the Iraqi capital.
Pentagon officials and military officers like to point to a separate list of statistics to counter the tally of attacks, including the number of schools and clinics opened. They cite statistics indicating that a growing number of Iraqi security forces are trained and fully equipped, and they note that applicants continue to line up at recruiting stations despite bombings of them.
But most of all, military officers argue that despite the rise in bloody attacks during the past 30 days, the insurgents have yet to win a single battle.
"We have had zero tactical losses; we have lost no battles," said one senior American military officer. "The insurgency has had zero tactical victories. But that is not what this is about.
"We are at a very critical time," the officer added. "The only way we can lose this battle is if the American people decide we don't want to fight anymore."
American government officials explain that optimistic assessments about Iraq from President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi can be interpreted as a declaration of a strategic goal: that, despite the attacks, elections will be held. The comments are meant as a balance to the insurgents' strategy of roadside bombings and mortar attacks and gruesome beheadings, all meant to declare to Iraq and the world that the country is in chaos, and that mayhem will prevent the country from ever reaching democratic elections.
In a joint appearance last week in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Bush and Dr. Allawi painted an optimistic portrait of the security situation in Iraq.
Dr. Allawi said that of Iraq's 18 provinces, "14 to 15 are completely safe." He added that the other provinces suffer "pockets of terrorists" who inflict damage in them and plot attacks carried out elsewhere in the country. In other appearances, Dr. Allawi asserted that elections could be held in 15 of the 18 provinces.
Both Mr. Bush and Dr. Allawi insisted that Iraq would hold free elections as scheduled in January.
"The question is not whether there are attacks," said one Pentagon official. "Of course there are. But what are the proper measurements for progress?"
Statistics collected by private security firms, which include attacks on Iraqi civilians and private security contractors, tend to be more comprehensive than those collected by the military, which focuses on attacks against foreign troops. The period covered by Special Operations Consulting's data represents a typical month, with its average of 79 attacks a day falling between the valleys during quiet periods and the peaks during the outbreak of insurgency in April or the battle with Moktada al-Sadr's militia in August for control of Najaf.
During the past 30 days those attacks totaled 283 in Nineveh, 325 in Salahuddin in the northwest and 332 in the desert badlands of Anbar Province in the west. In the center of Iraq, attacks numbered 123 in Diyala Province, 76 in Babylon and 13 in Wasit. There was not a single province without an attack in the 30-day period.
Still, some Iraqis share their prime minister's optimism when it comes to the likelihood that elections, and a closely related census, can be carried out successfully amid so much violence. "We are ready to start," said Hamid Abd Muhsen, an Iraqi education official who is supervising parts of the census in Baghad. "I swear to God."
James Glanz reported from Baghdad for this article and Thom Shanker from Washington.
-------- israel / palestine
Children on Both Sides Killed on Northern Border of Gaza Strip
September 30, 2004
By GREG MYRE
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/international/middleeast/30mideast.html
JERUSALEM, Sept. 29 - A Palestinian rocket attack killed two Israeli children, ages 2 and 4, and Israeli soldiers killed five Palestinians on Wednesday in bloodshed that claimed young lives on both sides of the Gaza Strip's northern border.
Israeli troops also shot dead two people suspected of being militants who were trying to evade arrest in the West Bank, the army said.
In response to the Israeli deaths, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel would probably broaden the scope of an already large invasion in northern Gaza aimed at halting the rocket attacks.
"This is a very severe act of terror and Israel will respond with full force," said the spokesman, Raanan Gissin. "One can expect a widening of our military operation in Gaza over the next few days."
Dozens of Israeli tanks, bulldozers and other armored vehicles charged into northern Gaza late on Tuesday after Palestinian rocket salvos earlier in the day.
On Wednesday, Israeli soldiers clashed repeatedly with Palestinian gunmen and stone-throwing youths on the outskirts of the Jabaliya refugee camp, a leading source of the rocket fire, the military said.
The Palestinian dead included three boys, ages 13, 16 and 17, who were among the stone throwers, Palestinian witnesses said. Two were killed in Jabaliya, and the third in a separate incident outside the Jewish settlement of Netzarim, farther to the south, Palestinian hospital officials said. One Palestinian gunman was fatally shot and another Palestinian was killed in a missile strike. More than 20 Palestinians were wounded, several of them teenagers wearing school uniforms, said Dr. Mahmoud al-Asali, the head of Kamal Adwan Hospital.
Despite the large Israeli military presence, Palestinians unleashed a rocket on Wednesday night that came crashing down on a pathway between two residential buildings in Sederot, an Israeli town just beyond Gaza's perimeter fence.
The blast killed the children, Dorit Anisso, a 2-year-old girl, and Yuval Anisso, a 4-year-old boy, the Israeli media reported. The two were related, but it was not clear whether they were cousins or siblings.
The attack came as Jews prepared for the holiday of Sukkot, the fall harvest celebration, which began at sundown. About a dozen people were wounded.
At the site, several women collapsed to the ground in grief. A shredded pair of children's sandals remained in a puddle of blood. A trail of blood led up a set of steps and into a house where one victim had been taken before an ambulance arrived.
The Islamic faction Hamas claimed responsibility.
The crude, homemade Qassam rockets are wildly inaccurate, but are a constant threat to Sederot's residents. Palestinians have fired several hundred in recent years, and the Wednesday incident was the second time Israelis were killed. A man and a boy were killed by shrapnel in an attack in Sederot in June. The Palestinians also stage frequent mortar attacks, and an Israeli-American woman was killed at a Jewish settlement in Gaza on Sept. 24.
In Jabaliya, Said Abu Eish, 13, left his home on Wednesday morning carrying his school bag, with instructions to go directly to the classroom because he had exams, his mother said.
But a short while later, another son returned home with Said's bag, she said. The boys had gone to throw stones at Israeli tanks, and Said was shot and killed, his mother said as she wept at her home.
Taghreed El Khodary contributed reporting from Gazafor this article.
-------- nato
NATO Awards Missile Work to Lockheed
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page E03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58499-2004Sep28.html
An international group led by Lockheed Martin Corp. received a $3 billion contract yesterday to develop a program that will eventually replace the Patriot missile system.
The new missile system is designed to be wheeled onto the battlefield by soldiers to shoot down jet fighters, drones and some ballistic missiles. Lockheed has been working on the program since 1999, but did not sign the contract to start developing the Medium Extended Air Defense System, known as MEADS, until yesterday.
The Pentagon is developing the system with Germany and Italy, which are contributing 25 percent and 17 percent, respectively, to its cost. The United States is expected to order 48 of the systems, while Germany is expected to buy 25 and Italy 9. France was part of the original program, but dropped out years ago.
The contract was issued by a NATO unit, NATO Medium Extended Air Defense System Organization, which was created to manage the international program.
The Patriot was designed in the 1960s and 1970s to fight the Soviet Union and is too heavy to quickly traverse the battlefield, said Jim Cravens, president of Lockheed's team, known as MEADS International. The Patriot system is also based on proprietary software that cannot be quickly linked with other weapon systems, he said.
The development phase of the program is worth $3 billion. When the company begins manufacturing the system and selling it to other countries the program's value is expected to more than double, Cravens said. "This looks to be a very, very robust program," he said. MEADS will not be operational in the United States until 2014, he said.
The other members of MEADS International are MBDA-Italia, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. and Lenkflugkorpersysteme in Germany.
-------- russia / chechnya
Russia Reluctant to Send Iran to UN Over Uranium
REUTERS
September 29, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-russia.html
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is against reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council for what the United States and some other countries say are breaches of U.N. nuclear rules, a top Kremlin official was quoted as saying on Wednesday.
``Taking this issue to the U.N. Security Council -- which is a political body -- will hardly do us any favors,'' Igor Ivanov, head of Russia's Security Council and a former foreign minister who widened nuclear ties with Iran, told Interfax news agency.
However, diplomats at the International Atomic Energy Agency said the comment did not mean that Russia would definitely block a referral of the IAEA's concerns to the U.N. Security Council, which could sanction Iran.
Russia's criticism of Iran has strengthened since Tehran threatened this month to defy a call by the IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, for it to stop work on enriching uranium -- a process that can be used to develop nuclear arms.
Moscow for months opposed referring the agency's concerns up to the Security Council, where Russia holds a veto. But last week President Vladimir Putin, who is being pressed by the United States to stop building a nuclear power station at Bushehr in Iran, urged Tehran to heed the IAEA's demands.
Many diplomats now believe that if Iran presses ahead with enrichment work then Moscow would support U.S. demands to refer Iran to the Council in November for possible economic sanctions.
``Russia will not prevent the U.S. from sending Iran to the Security Council,'' one non-American Western diplomat on the IAEA board told Reuters at the agency's headquarters in Vienna.
Washington says Iran wants nuclear arms and may use Russian know-how to acquire them -- a charge Iran and Moscow deny.
Although Russia has promised to abandon Bushehr if Iran breaches any IAEA rules, the plant's launch has been delayed for years in what diplomats in Moscow see as a sign Putin may share privately some of the U.S. concerns over Iran's intentions.
-------- spies
A mole called Mega
29 September 2004
Jane's Information Group
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr040929_1_n.shtml
The scandal over a suspected Israeli mole in the Pentagon who allegedly passed highly sensitive policy documents on Iran to Israeli agents in Washington has rekindled suspicions long held by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and others in Washington, that Israel systematically spies on its strategic ally and benefactor.
The FBI probe currently under way goes far beyond the allegations that a lone analyst was providing the Israelis with US secrets.
Shortly before George Tenet retired as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in June, he alleged that an Israeli agent was operating in Washington. Tenet was challenged to identify the agent but for reasons that were never explained apparently did not do so. For years, the FBI has been convinced that there is at least one high-level Israeli mole in Washington.
The Tenet episode underlined growing unease in some quarters in Washington about the influence that Israel's right wing has in US President George W Bush's administration through the pro-Likud neo-conservatives, largely in the Pentagon, and the politically powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and loosely associated organisations, such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, is known to seek out Jews around the world to serve as informal agents, known in Hebrew as sayanim or 'helpers'.
The Israeli government and AIPAC have strenuously denied that they were involved in the current scandal. But Israel's intelligence organisations have been spying on the US and running clandestine operations since Israel was established. These operations range from spiriting an estimated 200 lbs of weapons-grade uranium for its secret nuclear arms programme in the 1960s to widescale industrial espionage.
Much of this is conducted by the secret Scientific Liaison Bureau, known by its Hebrew acronym Lakam, run by the Ministry of Defence and its equally little-known successor, Malmab (the Security Authority for the Ministry of Defence).
--------
Growing Pessimism on Iraq
Doubts Increase Within U.S. Security Agencies
By Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58183-2004Sep28?language=printer
A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.
While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged, officials say.
People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments."
"Things are definitely not improving," said one U.S. government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq.
"It is getting worse," agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. "It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago."
This weekend, in a rare departure from the positive talking points used by administration spokesmen, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged that the insurgency is strengthening and that anti-Americanism in the Middle East is increasing. "Yes, it's getting worse," he said of the insurgency on ABC's "This Week." At the same time, the U.S. commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "we will fight our way through the elections." Abizaid said he believes Iraq is still winnable once a new political order and the Iraqi security force is in place.
Powell's admission and Abizaid's sobering warning came days after the public disclosure of a National Intelligence Council (NIC) assessment, completed in July, that gave a dramatically different outlook than the administration's and represented a consensus at the CIA and the State and Defense departments.
In the best-case scenario, the NIC said, Iraq could be expected to achieve a "tenuous stability" over the next 18 months. In the worst case, it could dissolve into civil war. The July assessment was similar to one produced before the war and another in late 2003 that also were more pessimistic in tone than the administration's portrayal of the resistance to the U.S. occupation, according to senior administration officials. "All say they expect things to get worse," one former official said.
One official involved in evaluating the July document said the NIC, which advises the director of central intelligence, decided not to include a more rosy scenario "because it looked so unreal."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and other White House spokesmen, called the intelligence assessment the work of "pessimists and naysayers" after its outlines were disclosed by the New York Times.
President Bush called the assessment a guess, which drew the consternation of many intelligence officials. "The CIA laid out several scenarios," Bush said on Sept. 21. "It said that life could by lousy. Life could be okay. Life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."
Two days later, Bush reworded his response. "I used an unfortunate word, 'guess.' I should have used 'estimate.' "
"And the CIA came and said, 'This is a possibility, this is a possibility, and this is a possibility,' " Bush continued. "But what's important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality's right here in the form of the prime minister. And he is explaining what is happening on the ground. That's the best report."
Rumsfeld, who once dismissed the insurgents as "dead-enders," still offers a positive portrayal of prospects and progress in Iraq but has begun to temper his optimism in public. "The path towards liberty is not smooth there; it never has been," he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. "And my personal view is that a fair assessment requires some patience and some perspective."
This week, conservative columnist Robert D. Novak criticized the CIA and Paul Pillar, a national intelligence officer on the NIC who supervised the preparation of the assessment. Novak said comments Pillar made about Iraq during a private dinner in California showed that he and others at the CIA are at war with the president. Recent and current intelligence officials interviewed over the last two days dispute that view.
"Pillar is the ultimate professional," said Daniel Byman, an intelligence expert and Georgetown University professor who has worked with Pillar. "If anything, he's too soft-spoken."
"I'm not surprised if people in the administration were put on the defensive," said one CIA official, who like many others interviewed would speak only anonymously, either because they don't have official authorization to speak or because they worry about ramifications of criticizing top administration officials. "We weren't trying to make them look bad, we're just trying to give them information. Of course, we're telling them something they don't want to hear."
As for a war between the CIA and White House, said one intelligence expert with contacts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon, "There's a real war going on here that's not just" the CIA against the administration on Iraq "but the State Department and the military" as well.
National security officials acknowledge that the upcoming presidential election also seems to have distorted the public debate on Iraq.
"Everyone says Iraq certainly has turned out to be more intense than expected, especially the intensity of nationalism on the part of the Iraqi people," said Steven Metz, chairman of the regional strategy and planning department at the U.S. Army War College. But, he added, "I don't think the political discourse that we're in the middle of accurately reflects anything. There's a supercharged debate on both sides, a movement to out-state each side."
Reports from Iraq have made one Army staff officer question whether adequate progress is being made there.
"They keep telling us that Iraqi security forces are the exit strategy, but what I hear from the ground is that they aren't working," he said. "There's a feeling that Iraqi security forces are in cahoots with the insurgents and the general public to get the occupiers out."
He added: "I hope I'm wrong."
Staff writers Walter Pincus and Robin Wright contributed to this report.
--------
British spies ID'd in Balkan backlash
September 29, 2004
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH
By Harry de Quettevilleand Hugh Griffiths
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040928-105802-2143r.htm
LONDON - British spies across the Balkans are being moved after they were publicly identified in several news reports planted by disgruntled local intelligence services.
Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, better known as MI6, has been forced to withdraw its chief officer in the Serb capital, Belgrade, and another spy in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, is about to leave.
A third man, who also has been branded a British spy in the Balkans, this week left the office of the High Representative in Bosnia, Paddy Ashdown, to take up a post elsewhere.
Another two British intelligence officers working in the Croatian capital, Zagreb, so far have remained in place despite their cover being blown in the local press.
The series of exposes in the three capitals has markedly undermined British intelligence operations in the Balkans, previously thought to have played a vital role in the transfer of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the war crimes tribunal at The Hague.
But the continuing efforts of MI6 officers to capture The Hague's most-wanted men have riled many intelligence agencies in the Balkans, some of which are suspected of continuing ties to suspected war criminals.
MI6 is heavily involved in the hunt for former Bosnian Serb political leader Radovan Karadzic and his military commander, Gen. Ratko Mladic, who are linked to a range of war crimes.
Those include killing Srebrenica's surrendering male population and organizing the siege of Sarajevo.
Also being sought is the main Croatian war crimes suspect, Ante Gotovina, who is accused of forcing 150,000 Serbs from their homes in 1995.
"MI6 operated not so much a spy network as a network of influence within Balkan security services and the media," said James Lyon, director of the International Crisis Group in Serbia and Bosnia. "It is some of those people who are now upset."
In Serbia, MI6 station chief Anthony Monckton was forced to leave his post last month, after a campaign against him led by the country's DB intelligence agency, where his work investigating the 2003 assassination of reformist Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic won him few friends.
In Croatia, the willingness of the government to accede to British requests to bring eavesdropping equipment into the country and launch large-scale listening campaigns in the hunt for war criminals has irked elements of its counterintelligence service, the POA.
In both countries, senior local officials are thought to have leaked the names of the British spies to newspapers and magazines, which then printed their details.
-------
Growing Pessimism on Iraq
Doubts Increase Within U.S. Security Agencies
Washington Post
September 29, 2004
By Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58183-2004Sep28?language=printer
A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.
While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged, officials say.
People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments."
"Things are definitely not improving," said one U.S. government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq.
"It is getting worse," agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. "It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago."
This weekend, in a rare departure from the positive talking points used by administration spokesmen, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged that the insurgency is strengthening and that anti-Americanism in the Middle East is increasing. "Yes, it's getting worse," he said of the insurgency on ABC's "This Week." At the same time, the U.S. commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "we will fight our way through the elections." Abizaid said he believes Iraq is still winnable once a new political order and the Iraqi security force is in place.
Powell's admission and Abizaid's sobering warning came days after the public disclosure of a National Intelligence Council (NIC) assessment, completed in July, that gave a dramatically different outlook than the administration's and represented a consensus at the CIA and the State and Defense departments.
In the best-case scenario, the NIC said, Iraq could be expected to achieve a "tenuous stability" over the next 18 months. In the worst case, it could dissolve into civil war.
The July assessment was similar to one produced before the war and another in late 2003 that also were more pessimistic in tone than the administration's portrayal of the resistance to the U.S. occupation, according to senior administration officials. "All say they expect things to get worse," one former official said.
One official involved in evaluating the July document said the NIC, which advises the director of central intelligence, decided not to include a more rosy scenario "because it looked so unreal."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and other White House spokesmen, called the intelligence assessment the work of "pessimists and naysayers" after its outlines were disclosed by the New York Times.
President Bush called the assessment a guess, which drew the consternation of many intelligence officials. "The CIA laid out several scenarios," Bush said on Sept. 21. "It said that life could by lousy. Life could be okay. Life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."
Two days later, Bush reworded his response. "I used an unfortunate word, 'guess.' I should have used 'estimate.' "
"And the CIA came and said, 'This is a possibility, this is a possibility, and this is a possibility,' " Bush continued. "But what's important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality's right here in the form of the prime minister. And he is explaining what is happening on the ground. That's the best report."
Rumsfeld, who once dismissed the insurgents as "dead-enders," still offers a positive portrayal of prospects and progress in Iraq but has begun to temper his optimism in public. "The path towards liberty is not smooth there; it never has been," he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. "And my personal view is that a fair assessment requires some patience and some perspective."
This week, conservative columnist Robert D. Novak criticized the CIA and Paul Pillar, a national intelligence officer on the NIC who supervised the preparation of the assessment. Novak said comments Pillar made about Iraq during a private dinner in California showed that he and others at the CIA are at war with the president. Recent and current intelligence officials interviewed over the last two days dispute that view.
"Pillar is the ultimate professional," said Daniel Byman, an intelligence expert and Georgetown University professor who has worked with Pillar. "If anything, he's too soft-spoken."
"I'm not surprised if people in the administration were put on the defensive," said one CIA official, who like many others interviewed would speak only anonymously, either because they don't have official authorization to speak or because they worry about ramifications of criticizing top administration officials. "We weren't trying to make them look bad, we're just trying to give them information. Of course, we're telling them something they don't want to hear."
As for a war between the CIA and White House, said one intelligence expert with contacts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon, "There's a real war going on here that's not just" the CIA against the administration on Iraq "but the State Department and the military" as well.
National security officials acknowledge that the upcoming presidential election also seems to have distorted the public debate on Iraq.
"Everyone says Iraq certainly has turned out to be more intense than expected, especially the intensity of nationalism on the part of the Iraqi people," said Steven Metz, chairman of the regional strategy and planning department at the U.S. Army War College. But, he added, "I don't think the political discourse that we're in the middle of accurately reflects anything. There's a supercharged debate on both sides, a movement to out-state each side."
Reports from Iraq have made one Army staff officer question whether adequate progress is being made there.
"They keep telling us that Iraqi security forces are the exit strategy, but what I hear from the ground is that they aren't working," he said. "There's a feeling that Iraqi security forces are in cahoots with the insurgents and the general public to get the occupiers out."
He added: "I hope I'm wrong."
Staff writers Walter Pincus and Robin Wright contributed to this report.
-------- us
Operation American Repression?
An Army officer in Iraq who wrote a highly critical article on the administration's conduct of the war is being investigated for disloyalty -- if charged and convicted, he could get 20 years.
Salon.com
By Eric Boehlert
Sept. 29, 2004
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/salon37.htm
An Army Reserve staff sergeant who last week wrote a critical analysis of the United States' prospects in Iraq now faces possible disciplinary action for disloyalty and insubordination. If charges are bought and the officer is found guilty, he could face 20 years in prison. It would be the first such disloyalty prosecution since the Vietnam War.
The essay that sparked the military investigation is titled "Why We Cannot Win" and was posted Sept. 20 on the conservative antiwar Web site LewRockwell.com. Written by Al Lorentz, a non-commissioned officer from Texas with nearly 20 years in the Army who is serving in Iraq, the essay offers a bleak assessment of America's chances for success in Iraq.
"I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality," wrote Lorentz, who gives four key reasons for the likely failure: a refusal to deal with reality, not understanding what motivates the enemy, an overabundance of guerrilla fighters, and the enemy's shorter line of supplies and communication.
Lorentz's essay contains no classified information but does include a starkly critical evaluation of how the Bush administration has conducted the war. "Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality," Lorentz wrote. "It is tragic, indeed criminal, that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional."
The essay prompted a swift response from Lorentz's commanders. In an e-mail this week to Salon, Lorentz, declining to comment further on his piece, noted, "Because of my article, I am under investigation at this time for very serious charges which carry up to a 20-year prison sentence." According to Lorentz, the investigation is looking into whether his writing constituted a disloyalty crime under both federal statute (Title 18, Section 2388, of the U.S. Code) and Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
According to the UCMJ, examples of punishable statements by military personnel "include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration."
Under UCMJ guidelines, the maximum punishment in the event of a conviction would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for three years.
Prosecutions are rare, however, says Grant Lattin, a military lawyer and retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, because members of the military "have the constitutional right to express their opinions pertaining to the issues before the public. Short of there being classified material and security issues, people can write letters about military subjects. If you look at the Army Times, you'll see letters from people on active duty complaining about this and that."
For instance, in September 2003, Tim Predmore, an active-duty soldier with the 101st Airborne Division, based in northern Iraq, wrote a scathing letter to his hometown newspaper, the Peoria Journal Star in Illinois. "For the past six months, I have been participating in what I believe to be the great modern lie: Operation Iraqi Freedom," Predmore's letter began. "From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned," he continued, labeling the war "the ultimate atrocity" before concluding, "I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies."
Going beyond the UCMJ and prosecuting disloyalty as a federal crime is "extraordinarily rare," Lattin says, noting that the last published case was in 1970, in U.S. vs. William Harvey. Under Title 18, Section 2388, it's a crime, punishable up to 20 years in prison, "when the United States is at war, [and a person] willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States."
In the Harvey case, a Vietnam-era soldier was accused of making disloyal statements by urging a fellow soldier not to fight in Vietnam. "Why should the black man go to Vietnam and fight the white man's war and then come back and have to fight the white man," Harvey told the soldier, adding that he "was not going to fight in Vietnam and neither should [you]." The case was brought before the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, which noted "the language of the comments were on the line between rhetoric and disloyalty," as well as the fact that "disagreement with, or objection to, a policy of the Government is not necessarily indicative of disloyalty to the United States." The court alternately upheld and reversed portions of Harvey's conviction for disloyalty.
As for Lorentz's case, Lattin, who served as a Marine judge advocate, says it's not uncommon for commanders to threaten soldiers with legal action in order to make a point: "If they know there's an offense for a disloyal statement, I wouldn't be surprised if he said, 'Knock it off.'" Lattin doubts that in the end Lorentz will face prosecution for his writings. "After this gets to lawyers and prosecutors who think about the consequences and the First Amendment, I don't think this will go anywhere."
About the writer Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.
--------
Navy Keeps Tight Lid on SEAL Identities
Associated Press
By SETH HETTENA
Sep 29, 2004
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040929/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_prisoner_abuse_navy_1
SAN DIEGO - When Marine reservists were implicated last year in the abuse of Iraqi detainees at a makeshift lockup outside Nasiriyah, their names were quickly released. And it wasn't long before the public learned the names and backgrounds of U.S. soldiers seen grinning in photos taken at the Abu Ghraib prison.
But the Navy is keeping a much tighter lid on the identity of seven of its elite SEAL commandos who have been charged with assaulting Iraqi prisoners. Few details have been released since charges were first announced Sept. 2.
Navy Capt. Raul A. Pedrozo, the judge advocate for Naval Special Warfare Command in Coronado, where the SEALs are based, denied a Freedom of Information Act filed by The Associated Press requesting the identities of the accused and additional details. Among the reasons Pedrozo cited was that U.S. law exempted identities of members of "sensitive units" from disclosure.
The enormous volume of classified evidence may be complicating things, said John Tranberg, a civilian defense attorney who is representing one of the SEALs charged in the case, an enlisted sailor whom he declined to name.
The accused SEALs were members of "capturing units" taking part in sensitive operations in Iraq (news - web sites), often at the direction of the CIA (news - web sites), said Tranberg, who recently represented a Marine reservist convicted of abusing prisoners in Iraq. The SEALs ranged in rank from enlisted sailors to junior officers.
He declined to provide details.
Charges against the SEALs include aggravated assault with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm, obstruction of justice and conduct unbecoming an officer.
The Navy said some of the charges stem from the Nov. 4, 2003, death of Manadel Al-Jamadi, a suspect in an attack on the International Committee of the Red Cross office.
While subduing Al-Jamadi, a SEAL allegedly struck him on the side of the head with a gun butt. Two CIA personnel brought Al-Jamadi to the Abu Ghraib prison and put him in a shower room, where was found dead less than an hour later.
The military is usually loath to divulge details on the operations of its special forces, which are being used worldwide to fight terrorists. The hand of the CIA in the SEALs case poses an even thornier problem for military prosecutors - one that a defense attorney could exploit to his client's advantage, said John Hutson, a former judge advocate of the Navy from 1997 to 2000.
Defense lawyers handling extremely sensitive cases will ask to call covert CIA operatives into court "to make this case so painful to the government to prosecute that the government blinks," Hutson said.
"It's not unheard of that cases are dropped because they simply can't or won't provide the information to the accused or his defense counsel," said Hutson, president and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H.
Pedrozo said names of the SEALs will be provided if and when an Article 32 hearing - the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing - is convened. Releasing the names before then would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and would deprive the accused of the right to a fair trial, he said.
The Navy has not yet assigned defense attorneys or an investigating officer in the case, said Cmdr. Jeff Bender, a spokesman for Naval Special Warfare Command. Those requests are pending.
-------- war crimes
Lindh Asks Bush to Reduce Sentence
Attorneys for U.S. Taliban Fighter Say Fellow Soldier Wasn't Charged
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56992-2004Sep28.html
Attorneys for John Walker Lindh, the suburban Californian convicted of fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, asked President Bush yesterday to commute Lindh's 20-year prison sentence.
The lawyers cited what they called disparities in the treatment of Lindh and Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who the government says also fought for the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. While Lindh pleaded guilty and is serving his sentence at a California prison, the government last week agreed to release Hamdi from custody and fly him home to Saudi Arabia.
"Mr. Hamdi was comparable in many ways to John Walker Lindh, and that's what causes us to believe it is basically unfair to have Lindh serve the remainder of his sentence," James J. Brosnahan, an attorney for Lindh, said at a news conference yesterday in San Francisco. "People need to understand that Lindh is an American, he has family here and he never fought against America."
Lindh's mother, Marilyn Walker, added: "I hope America can find it in her heart to forgive John."
Legal experts said it is highly unlikely that Bush, who has made the war on terrorism the centerpiece of his reelection campaign, would agree to reduce Lindh's sentence. Under the Constitution, only the president can issue pardons or commutations.
"Not a chance," said Chris Schroeder, who ran the White House Office of Legal Counsel for two years during the Clinton administration. "Putting aside the perhaps crass political reasons," Schroeder said, "Lindh's prosecution was so recent that folks who made the decisions to go ahead and eventually settle the case are still part of the Department of Justice, and they will make their views known."
Federal prosecutors in Alexandria would not comment on Lindh's commutation petition, which was filed yesterday and does not specify how many years Lindh wants taken off his sentence. Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, would say only that all clemency petitions are reviewed by the Justice Department, which makes recommendations to the president.
The debate refocused attention on a case that aroused passions across the country. Lindh converted to Islam as a teenager in Marin County, Calif., and studied Arabic in Yemen and Pakistan before venturing to Afghanistan. Prosecutors say he fought for the Taliban before and after Sept. 11 until his unit surrendered to Northern Alliance forces in November 2001.
Lindh initially faced charges that could have sent him to prison for life, including conspiring to kill Americans abroad. He pleaded guilty in July 2002 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria to one count of providing services to the Taliban and one count of carrying explosives during a felony.
At his sentencing, Lindh, then 21, tearfully apologized and said he never supported terrorism or fought against Americans. Yesterday, his attorney recalled the emotion surrounding Lindh's case, which he said was especially heated because it was prosecuted in Northern Virginia, near the Pentagon, and so close to Sept. 11.
"There comes a time after the heat of war when people begin to look more fairly at a situation," said Brosnahan, who called on Bush to show "compassion" for Lindh.
According to Justice Department statistics, commutations are rarely granted. President George H.W. Bush granted three of 735 petitions, and President Bill Clinton granted 61 of 5,488 petitions. Government officials could not provide statistics on President Bush, but Lindh's attorneys said he has granted only two commutations, both in drug cases.
Lindh's attorneys emphasize the similarities between Lindh and Hamdi, whose flight home to Saudi Arabia is expected any day. The U.S. military captured Hamdi with pro-Taliban forces in Afghanistan in 2001 and held him in solitary confinement for nearly three years after declaring him an enemy combatant. Hamdi did not face criminal charges.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE
-------- courts / tribunals
Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision
September 29, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-rights-patriot.html
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Surveillance powers granted to the FBI under the Patriot Act, a cornerstone of the Bush Administration's war on terror, were ruled unconstitutional by a judge on Wednesday in a new blow to U.S. security policies.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, in the first decision against a surveillance portion of the act, ruled for the American Civil Liberties Union in its challenge against what it called ``unchecked power'' by the FBI to demand confidential customer records from communication companies, such as Internet service providers or telephone companies.
Marrero, stating that ``democracy abhors undue secrecy,'' found that the law violates constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches. He said it also violated free speech rights by barring those who received FBI demands from disclosing they had to turn over records.
Because of this gag order, the ACLU initially had to file its suit against the Department of Justice under seal to avoid penalties for violation of the surveillance laws.
Although the ACLU's suit was filed on behalf of an Internet access firm, the ruling could apply to other entities that have received FBI secretive subpoenas, known as national security letters.
The ACLU said that the Patriot Act provision was worded so broadly that it could effectively be used to obtain the names of customers of Web sites such as Amazon.com or eBay, or a political organization's membership list, or even the names of sources that a journalist has contacted by e-mail.
``This is a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department's misguided attempt to intrude into the lives of innocent Americans in the name of national security,'' said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero.
``Even now, some in Congress are trying to pass additional intrusive law enforcement powers. This decision should put a halt to those efforts,'' he said.
PATRIOT ACT
He said the suit was one of the being held in U.S. facilities like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold ``enemy combatants'' indefin0 million prize intended to boost commercial-space travel. The stubby, short-winged craft took off from the Mojave airport shortly after dawn attached to its carrier ship, the White Knight, and then separated and blasted off toward spaceAA (Reuters) - A Yemeni court sentenced two al Qaeda militants to death on Wednesday for the 2000 bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole which killed 17 sailors. Four other militants received jail terms of five to 10 years for the attack in f small earthquakes. The volcano last erupted in 1980, killing 57 people and destroying more than 200 homes. Acres of evergreen spruce forest were flattened and ash billowed across North America.
Washington Baseball Fans Await$1.50 a barrel, after news of the Nigerian cease-fire.
-------- drug war
Is Your Bong Breeding Terrorists?
The DEA brings reefer madness to the Big Apple
reason.com
Nick Gillespie
September 29, 2004
http://www.reason.com/hod/ng092804.shtml
Two cheers for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), whose latest public relations effort usefully reminds us that propaganda is not simply intellectually dishonest. It's also morally repulsive.
Even critical news accounts of the DEA's traveling exhibit, "Target America: Drug Traffickers, Terrorists, and You" don't quite convey the truly repugnant nature of this taxpayer- and government-contractor-funded display of drug war hysteria. Originally created in 2002, the exhibit debuted in a newly expanded version on September 14 in the lobby of One Times Square-the famous triangular building in arguably the busiest intersection in America-and there it will stay until January 2005, courtesy of the folks at the DEA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the biometric technology maker CrossMatch, and many others.
Target America is intended to underscore how "narco-terrorism is only one of the many costs and consequences to society of illegal drug abuse." To that end, the exhibit features a mangled 1994 Thunderbird that reportedly blew up during a methamphetamine run. Titled "What Remains," the installation features pictures of children and spouses and several tricycles strewn around for effect. Completing the grim scene is an endless TV loop that features punk rock icon Henry Rollins solemnly reminding anyone passing by that meth kills.
Other installations include "short histories" of the cocaine and opium trade. Whatever the creators intended, these brief accounts do little more than prove the uselessness of trying to ban intoxicants that people have wanted to use throughout recorded history. The history of cocaine-which notes that people have used it for over 4,000 years!-fairly screams that coke has always been it. Similarly, the history of opium traces that drug's origins back to 3,400 B.C. The unintended message to visitors: You might as well try to keep the sun from rising as try to keep people from these things. Far from documenting the need for such eradication efforts, the histories reveal them to be Sisyphean tasks-and not particularly heroic ones at that.
In the end, the exhibit's reason for being is to equate casual drug use with "narco-terrorism"-and it's that equation which sets a new standard in government mendacity. (Well, perhaps not exactly new: This message was pioneered by a post-9/11 series of television ads produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy that rightly elicited widespread derision.) The idea here is that terrorist groups sometimes traffic in illegal drugs to fund their deadly activities; if you use illegal drugs, then you are complicit in terrorist actions.
Like any good propaganda claim, it's not so much flat-out wrong as it is woefully-and purposefully-incomplete and misdirected. Some terrorist groups have indeed trafficked in illegal drugs because of the huge, black market profits involved and the lack of legal oversight. Similarly, drug traffickers (especially in Latin America) have committed acts of terrorism to protect their trade. Needless to say, the one clear solution to such problems is nowhere discussed in "Target America." If the drug trade were legalized, black market profits-and violence-would disappear. When is the last time terrorists used, say, the tobacco trade to finance their operations?
Yet just a few miles uptown from the site of the demolished World Trade Center, "Target America" links the drug trade with the 9/11 attacks in a way that is simultaneously vague, evasive, and unmistakable. Its official account of drug-related terrorism includes such acts as the 1975 bombing of a Wall Street bar by Puerto Rican separatists and the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-events that, however horrific, had nothing to do with drug trade. Indeed, "Target America" explicitly acknowledges that drug money is not the only source for terrorism funding-even as all of its images strive to create the impression that a Midwestern meth kitchen is somehow a branch office of al Qaeda.
The focal point of "Target America" is an evocative hunk of wreckage from Ground Zero-of twisted metal, concrete, and wire-that features an endless tape loop of news broadcasts about the 9/11 attacks. Nearby displays feature intercut photos of the attacks, of Bin Laden, of meth labs, of drug users. The intended messages are unmistakable: If you've smoked a joint, then you are implicated in one of the most horrific mass murders in world history. If you are against the drug war, then you are for the terrorists.
As Drug Policy Alliance head Ethan Nadelman has asked rhetorically, "With this exhibit, is the DEA saying that Governor George Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg, and hundreds of thousands of other New Yorkers who have used illegal drugs are responsible for [9/11] and other acts of terrorism?"
The short answer is a barely qualified yes. "While not always involving the same groups, drugs and terror frequently flourish in the same environments," reads part of the exhibit's text. "It is no small wonder...that opium production and terrorism flourishes in Afghanistan, just as coca production and terrorism flourish in other countries such as Colombia."
But you could just as easily point out that it is no small wonder that drug prohibition and terrorism-and all other sorts of criminal behavior-flourish in the same environments.
The brightest ray of hope regarding "Target America"? When I spent 30 minutes or so checking out the exhibit on a recent weekday morning, I was the only visitor. The rest of New York was far too busy to bother with such a display. And, one assumes, far too smart to buy its message.
Nick Gillespie is editor-in-chief of Reason and the editor of Choice: The Best of Reason.
-------- homeland security / national intelligence
House GOP Shifts on Intelligence Bill
Party Leaders Indicate Willingness to Resolve Differences With Senate
By Charles Babington and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58119-2004Sep28.html
House Republican leaders vowed yesterday to work with senators to restructure the nation's intelligence operations this fall, a shift in emphasis after weeks of comments and actions that often stressed the House's differences with the Senate.
The two chambers still have many contentious issues to resolve, but the House overture appeared to surprise and please senators, members of the Sept. 11 commission and relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Some of them privately had complained that the House seemed uninterested in compromise, a perception House GOP leaders appeared eager to dispel yesterday.
Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, showed up at a late-morning news conference hosted by the co-sponsors of a bipartisan Senate bill to create a national intelligence director and national counterterrorism center. Hoekstra cited no specific compromises the House was ready to make in its 335-page bill, which several committees will take up today. But his presence suggested a shift in tone for a GOP leadership that often dismisses Senate efforts to achieve bipartisan accord and shows distaste for compromise.
"We have a tremendous amount in common," Hoekstra said of the House bill -- scheduled to reach the full chamber next week -- and the Senate bill, which senators began amending yesterday. Before the Nov. 2 elections, he said, "we are going to have a final piece of legislation that will make it to the president's desk that will have the strong endorsement of the 9/11 commission, [and] will have the strong endorsement of the [victims'] families."
Noting that the House bill includes many law enforcement and immigration control provisions absent from the Senate bill, Hoekstra said: "Their bill may grow a little; our bill may shrink a little."
Former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, said at the news conference that "the best news I've had in recent days" was seeing Hoekstra at the event. Hamilton praised the leaders of both chambers but said the commissioners believe the Senate bill "is the right vehicle for legislation."
Both bills call for a national intelligence director and counterterrorism center, two cornerstone recommendations of the commission, whose 567-page report issued in July remains a bestseller. But they differ in many areas that eventually must be resolved by a House-Senate conference committee if the legislation is to become law.
The Senate bill, sponsored by Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), would give the intelligence director more authority over spending and personnel than would the House measure, which would keep more of that authority in the Pentagon. The House bill also would make it easier for federal agents to deport immigrants and to track terror suspects under circumstances that some civil liberties groups say are unwise and unwarranted.
Although there are signs of an emerging consensus over the legislation, the two senior members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), have indicated strong concern about the proposed intelligence reform. A senior Senate aide said that Stevens and Byrd were closely watching deliberations over the legislation but have "no idea where the Senate is headed."
Meanwhile, the White House raised several objections to the Senate bill. A two-page "statement of administration policy" said the bill would "construct a cumbersome new bureaucracy in the Office of the [intelligence director] and in the Executive Office of the President with overlapping authorities"; improperly "attempt to define" programs to be included in the National Intelligence Program; unwisely merge the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council; and "require the president to select a single department or agency to conduct all security clearance investigations." The White House statement objected to the Senate proposal to declassify the amount of money spent on intelligence operations. The Sept. 11 commission recommended the declassification, but the House bill rejects it.
A former senior White House official has also sharply criticized the commission's proposals included in the Senate bill.
"I think there's a real potential to do more harm than good in this legislation," Richard A. Falkenrath, former deputy homeland security adviser to President Bush, told a public meeting of the Brookings Institution last week. He left the White House in May and is now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.
"The commission's limited understanding and assessment of the present organization of performance of the Executive Branch raises doubts in my mind about whether they really know what problem they're trying to solve today," Falkenrath said.
--------
Agency Tests Security Blimp in Washington
(AP)
September 29, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4522843,00.html
WASHINGTON - Here's a head-turner for a security-nervous city: A large white object was spotted in the skies above the nation's capital in the pre-dawn hours Wednesday.
Pentagon police said the Defense Department is testing a security blimp - fully equipped with surveillance cameras. The white blimp was spotted early Wednesday morning hovering at various times over the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.
The 178-foot-long device, which is expected to remain in the skies until Thursday, is conducting a mission for the Defense Department.
Authorities say the airship is equipped with infrared cameras designed to provide real time images to military commanders on the ground. The equipment on the blimp already is being used to protect troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Army says the device will make at least one 24-hour flight in the District of Columbia area. It has been in the region since last week, and is also being used for test runs over the U.S. Marine Corps Base in nearby Quantico, Va., and the Chesapeake Bay.
-------- immigration / refugees
Sudan Conflict Reaches U.S. Immigration Courts
September 29, 2004
By RACHEL L. SWARNS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/national/29asylum.html?pagewanted=all
ELIZABETH, N.J., Sept. 28 - The immigration judge called the case, and the asylum seeker from Africa took his seat in the courtroom here. After raising his right hand and swearing to tell the truth, he began a methodical account of his suffering at the hands of the Arab militias that have killed and maimed thousands of black Africans in the Darfur region of Sudan. The man, Fadl Ibrahim Mohammed, presented the scars on his body as evidence.
"They burned and left scars here," said Mr. Mohammed, 36, speaking in Arabic through a court-appointed interpreter as he extended his left arm to the judge last week. "They also broke my teeth with the bottom of a rifle."
Mr. Mohammed testified about the razing of his village, torture by the militia members and the journey from Sudan to Newark Liberty International Airport. His voice shook only once, when he described the bombs falling from planes and the broken bodies around him in a refugee camp along the border with Chad.
"At that time, my father got killed and my brothers," he said. "And three of my children and my wife."
The destruction of entire communities in Darfur by Arab militias equipped by the Sudanese government often seems a distant conflict even as it has brought condemnations from the White House, Congress and the United Nations. But in recent weeks, the faraway crisis has quietly begun spilling into American immigration courts.
This month, judges began hearing from both Mr. Mohammed and a second asylum seeker who were described by lawyers as among the first to seek refuge in the United States from the violence in Sudan. Officials say they believe that only a few refugees from that conflict have found the means or opportunity to make their way to this country.
Mr. Mohammed, who has been detained by immigration officials since his arrival in Newark in June, says he is battling for his life, trying to prove to American authorities that he is a cattle herder and trader fleeing the killings in Sudan.
Immigration officials are now challenging his claim, suggesting he may be an imposter from Chad playing on the sympathies of American officials, who declared this month that the violence in Darfur constituted genocide.
The advocacy group Human Rights First has rallied to his defense and enlisted a lawyer to handle his case. A judge is expected to determine this week whether Mr. Mohammed will be deported or granted asylum. The second asylum seeker, whose identity as Sudanese is also being questioned, is expected to have his petition decided in a few weeks.
The cases are unfolding in modest courtrooms behind the metal doors of the immigration detention center here, where the two men are being held. Amid the exhibits and affidavits, judges and lawyers are piecing together the stories of two men who say they were caught in the conflict that has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.
Government officials familiar with Mr. Mohammed's petition for asylum say it is a wrenching case, with some evidence to support his claim and some nagging questions that undermine it.
Such cases are often hard to decide because of the difficulties in producing documentary evidence from war-torn countries, the number of immigrants willing to lie to remain in the United States, and because the stakes are so high, said Bill Strassberger, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.
Immigration lawyers and government officials say it is rare for asylum cases to go unchallenged by government lawyers, who routinely raise questions about petitioners' identities, documents and claims of threats.
"No one wants to send someone back to face persecution," Mr. Strassberger said. "But one of the first things we have to establish is that the person is who he says he is and that his story is his story."
"It can be very sympathetic," he said, "but is it true, is it accurate and does it apply to that person?"
Mr. Mohammed's lawyer, Michael W. Hanna, said his client had presented compelling evidence despite his difficulties in gathering documents from a war zone. The Arabic-speaking airport official who questioned Mr. Mohammed in Newark believed he was from Sudan, even though he was carrying a passport from Chad, in part because he found a letter in Arabic in Mr. Mohammed's luggage that suggested he was from Sudan.
The Department of Homeland Security initially advised him that it believed he was "a native of Sudan and a citizen of Sudan."
But in court, Patrice Rodman, a lawyer for the department, questioned how Mr. Mohammed had managed to get a passport from Chad if he was not a citizen there. Ms. Rodman also challenged his assertion that he did not speak French.
How then, she asked, could he have convinced the authorities in Chad, where French is the official language, that he was a citizen?
Mr. Mohammed, who says he fled his village after it was attacked in 2003, said he had been lucky enough to be driven to the capital of Chad by men who he believed were relief workers shortly after his refugee camp was bombed that year.
He said he was hospitalized there for about a week, then lived mostly in hiding to avoid the authorities in Chad who were arresting Sudanese in the country illegally. After several months he obtained a passport using another man's identity documents and borrowed enough money for a plane ticket to America.
Because Chad has an Arabic-speaking minority, he said, officials never questioned why he did not speak French.
"I thought, with God willing," Mr. Mohammed said through the translator, "I would be able to live in the United States."
For his asylum hearing, Mr. Mohammed arranged for a relative in Sudan to send his lawyer a Sudanese identity document that contained his photograph. He has also presented his father's identity document. Tests here indicated that his document had not been tampered with, but could not determine its authenticity.
In court, Ms. Rodman also noted that he lacked medical records from the hospital in Chad. She said there was little reason to believe him because he had lied to officials in Chad to get a passport and presented himself to the first American inspector as a citizen of Chad.
"Do you have any other documents to establish your identity?" she asked.
Mr. Mohammed said he did not. He said he had lied because it was the only way to escape.
Mr. Hanna, his lawyer, said: "Fleeing a war zone in such a situation complicates the gathering of evidence and that has to be taken into consideration. He's a cattle herder from Sudan. It's not as if he knew anything about American asylum law.''
Mr. Hanna said that his client suffered from depression and worried about his second wife and his two remaining children, who were separated from him in Sudan.
But in court, Mr. Mohammed indicated that he still hoped he would find safe haven in this country. "I was looking for peace and safety," he testified. "That's why I came to the United States."
-------- police
Cadaver Dogs' Handler Sentenced
Associated Press
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58530-2004Sep28.html
DETROIT, Sept. 28 -- A woman once recognized as one of the nation's best trainers and handlers of cadaver-sniffing dogs was sentenced Tuesday to 21 months in prison for planting bones and other fake evidence in cases she worked.
Sandra M. Anderson, 43, of Sanford, Mich., pleaded guilty in March to five felony charges, including obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal authorities.
In addition to the prison term, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Duggan ordered Anderson to pay more than $14,500 in restitution to several law enforcement agencies.
--------
Hiring Under COPS Appears Set to End
Program Helped Add 118,000 Police Officers
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A25
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58046-2004Sep28.html
Gaithersburg Police Chief Mary Ann Viverette wanted to start a new unit focusing on burglaries, car thefts and other street crimes in the fast-growing Maryland suburb, but she did not have the money to hire more officers.
So Viverette turned to the Justice Department's popular Community Oriented Policing Services program, or COPS, which allowed the Gaithersburg police to hire four new officers -- and have the federal government pick up most of the tab. In its first 10 months, the chief said, the unit has made more than 100 arrests.
"We would not have been able to do this without the COPS program," said Viverette, whose department has a total of 44 officers. "It really gave us the leverage at budget time so that we knew we could afford to hire them."
But 10 years and more than 118,000 police officers later, the COPS hiring program -- championed by President Bill Clinton and criticized by some Republicans -- appears to be coming to an end. After several years of sharp cutbacks under President Bush, the program handed out its last scheduled round of grants for hiring police officers earlier this month, and the administration's 2005 budget proposal contains no money for more. It is not clear whether Congress will intervene to rescue the program.
Bush administration officials say the Universal Hiring Program, as the grants are known, has more than met its original goal of putting 100,000 new police officers on U.S. streets, and stress that COPS will continue to offer grants for new technology, school-resource officers and law enforcement training. The administration has allocated $97 million for such programs in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, along with money for additional law enforcement initiatives in other parts of the Justice Department.
"When people talk about decreasing the COPS program, that is not the whole story," said John Nowacki, a Justice Department spokesman. "We've met the goal of hiring 100,000 officers, and the Bush administration has provided more funding for state and local assistance than any other time in history."
But the decision to phase out grants for regular police officers has drawn sharp criticism from law enforcement organizations and many Democrats. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic presidential nominee, said earlier this month that police officers were "tired of a president who takes cops off the street with one hand and puts . . . military assault weapons back on with the other," referring to the Sept. 13 expiration of the federal ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons.
"The Bush administration has gone out of its way to dismantle a program that put more than 100,000 cops on the beat at a time when terrorism makes it more important than ever," said Phil Singer, a Kerry spokesman.
Since its inception in 1995, the COPS program has handed out more than $9 billion in grants for the police hiring program, spokesman Gilbert Moore said. Under the terms of the program, the federal government paid for 75 percent of the cost of each officer over the first three years; localities were required to come up with the other 25 percent, and also had to agree to fully fund a fourth year on their own.
A series of outside studies over the years, however, revealed problems in the way the COPS program was administered, including findings by the Justice Department's inspector general in 1999 that thousands of officers were not retained after the grant periods had expired and that some departments were illegally using grant money for existing operations.
Many conservatives also objected to dedicating federal funds for local law enforcement, and argued there was scant evidence that COPS contributed to the plunging crime rates of the 1990s.
"Programs such as COPS with a long history of poor performance are prime candidates for reductions because they not only have failed to achieve their goals, but also have assigned to the federal government functions that fall within the expertise, jurisdiction, and constitutional responsibilities of state and local governments," a Heritage Foundation report concluded in 2003.
But the program was highly popular among local governments and police executives, particularly in small and rural communities with a limited ability to expand their police forces on their own.
Ed Mosca, chief of the 22-officer police department in the resort town of Old Saybrook, Conn., said he was able to make about a half dozen hires through COPS over the last decade, including establishing a community-policing unit at a local shopping mall. Mosca said that small departments such as his often struggle to keep up with personnel and technology needs and that the urgent focus on counterterrorism preparedness since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has added significantly to the pressure.
"The demise of the program will certainly have an impact on us, and I'm fearful of what that will mean," said Mosca, who is the legislative chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "Departments of our size would not have embarked on such programs without COPS."
Two of those hired by Mosca's department, however, are school-resource officers, a program that is slated to continue under the Bush administration's proposed budget. The "COPS in Schools" program, begun in 1999, has awarded nearly $750 million for the hiring of more than6,500 officers, COPS spokesman Moore said.
Nowacki said other programs that would continue or be expanded under the COPS moniker include $17 million for training and technical assistance, $20 million for tribal law enforcement programs and $10 million for police training. Some other programs that had previously been administered by COPS have been moved to other Justice agencies or the Department of Homeland Security, Nowacki said.
But many police chiefs say that what they really need are more officers.
"The manpower needs are our most important needs right now," Viverette said. "The best thing I can do for the community is put officers on the street. Without COPS, it's not as likely that we will be able to continue to add to our manpower."
--------
Police Step Up Security for IMF Meetings
September 29, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terror-Threat.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Police in the nation's capital are stepping up security for this weekend's International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings amid a continued threat of terrorist attacks against certain financial institutions.
The extra precautions stem from an Aug. 1 decision by the Homeland Security Department to raise the terror threat to orange -- the second-highest on a five-point scale -- for the IMF and World Bank, as well as financial centers in New York and Newark, N.J.
Streets will be closed to all automobile traffic beginning Friday across a large swath of downtown Washington and pedestrians will be allowed access to certain areas only if they have identification showing a local address where they live, work or attend school. Parking garages in the area will be emptied of cars.
``These measures are being taken to ensure the safety and well-being of the persons involved in the meetings as well as the general public who may live, work or in any other way come in close proximity to this event,'' District of Columbia Police Chief Charles Ramsey said in a recent letter to area businesses and residents.
FBI and Homeland Security officials said Wednesday they have no new intelligence indicating an attack on the meetings might occur. The heightened alert for the financial institutions was announced after arrests of al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan and Great Britain produced evidence the buildings had been under surveillance for possible attack.
Although that intelligence was at least three years old, law enforcement officials said the heightened alert was necessary because al-Qaida is known to plan its attacks years in advance.
The meetings are taking place amid a full-scale effort by the FBI, Homeland Security Department and other agencies to head off what a steady stream of intelligence shows is al-Qaida's determination to launch an attack that would disrupt this year's presidential election.
The debate Thursday in Miami between President Bush and Democrat John Kerry is the latest in a series of high-profile events to occur amid this threat. Homeland Security spokeswoman Katy Mynster said officials have no specific information that terrorists are planning to target the debate, but she said an assessment of tactics used by terrorists in past attacks has been sent to Florida officials.
The IMF/World Bank meetings have in the past drawn violent protests, but since the 2001 terror attacks those demonstrations have waned. Debbie Weierman, spokeswoman for the FBI's Washington field office, said officials have no indications that violence should be expected at this weekend's meetings.
One subject that could generate demonstrations is the demand by some groups for 100 percent elimination of debt that impoverished countries owe to the IMF and World Bank.
In his letter, Ramsey urged people living and working in the vicinity of the Washington financial institutions to help by ``remaining vigilant and reporting conduct that strikes you as being odd or circumstances that appear unusual or suspicious.''
These could include people who appear to be overly interested in security practices or who may be trying to impersonate a legitimate worker, such as a utility worker. People taking pictures, unattended vehicles and packages and people who ``simply seem out of place'' should also be scrutinized closely, the letter said.
-------- prisons / prisoners
American Taliban Soldier Seeks Less Prison Time
September 29, 2004
By DEAN E. MURPHY
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/national/29lindh.html?pagewanted=all
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 28 - John Walker Lindh, the American captured in Afghanistan after he had joined the Taliban, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to reduce his 20-year prison sentence after hearing news that another captured man was being released, his parents and lawyers said.
"Despite what people think, or may think, John Lindh took no action whatsoever against his native country," Mr. Lindh's mother, Marilyn Lindh, said at a news conference here on Tuesday. "I hope America can find it in her heart to forgive John."
One of the lawyers, James J. Brosnahan, said the request came in response to the government's decision to release Yaser E. Hamdi, an American-born Saudi who is expected to return to his family in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Hamdi, who was not convicted of a crime, and Mr. Lindh were captured in late 2001 when their Taliban units surrendered to the Northern Alliance.
"It seems to us a matter of justice, and if I may use the word, compassion, for the president to consider reducing John Lindh's sentence," Mr. Brosnahan said.
He said the request was filed with pardon officials in the Justice Department, as required by law, but he said Mr. Lindh was requesting a reduced sentence and not a pardon.
"We have not specified how much it should be reduced," Mr. Brosnahan said. "Hamdi served three years, and we say they are comparable."
A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.
In July 2002, when Mr. Lindh reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in Virginia that included the 20-year sentence, the chief prosecutor, Paul J. McNulty, described the plea as "an important victory for the people of the United States in the battle against terrorism."
Mr. Lindh pleaded guilty to two felonies: providing service to the Taliban and carrying explosives while doing so. The more serious charges in a 10-count indictment against him, including conspiring to kill Americans and engaging in terrorism, were dropped by the government.
Mr. Lindh is being held at a medium-security federal prison in California, where his parents said they visited him monthly.
"John is doing very well," his father, Frank Lindh, said at the news conference.
-------- terrorism
Two Sentenced to Death in Yemen for Bombing U.S.S. Cole
September 29, 2004
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/international/middleeast/29CND-COLE.html?oref=login&hp
CAIRO, Sept. 29 - A judge in Yemen sentenced two men to death and four others to prison terms up to 10 years for the deadly attack in 2000 against the warship U.S.S. Cole. The convictions today are the first stemming from the water-borne suicide bombing that provided an early glimpse of the brazen nature of Osama bin Laden's global terror network.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi-born associate of Mr. bin Laden and Jamal al-Badawi, a 35-year-old Yemeni, were sentenced to death for planning the attack that killed 17 American sailors on board the destroyer.
Mr. Nashiri, in custody at an undisclosed location in the United States, was tried in absentia.
Law enforcement officials have suggested that Mr. Nashiri, arrested in the United Arab Emirates and transferred into American hands in 2002, was the mastermind behind the Cole bombing on Oct. 12, 2000, and also played a key role in the bombings of United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
In the Cole attack, two men in a small dinghy laden with explosives bashed into the side of the destroyer as it was refueling in the southern Yemeni port of Aden, killing the sailors and opening a gaping tear in its hull.
Cries of "God is Great!" erupted from the defendants when Judge Najib al-Qaderi read the sentences and relatives in the packed courtroom yelled that the sentences were unjust.
"These are American sentences!" yelled Mr. Badawi, bearded and wearing a long white rope, after he heard his death sentence. "The judge and the entire Yemeni government are tools in the hands of the Americans!"
Several American observers in the court room did not comment about the case, and neither the United States Embassy in Sanaa nor the State Department returned telephone calls seeking the American reaction.
Lawyers who helped defend the men objected to the entire proceedings, noting that the suspects were judged by an exceptional court set up for the very purpose of trying terror suspects and therefore outside the country's constitution.
"The procedures that took place completely breached the right to a fair defense," Mohammed Naji Allaw, a defense lawyer who had previously withdrawn from the case to protest the proceedings, said in a telephone interview. To cite one example, he said, the men were tortured to extract confessions during their four years of imprisonment.
All six defendants were found guilty of belonging to Al Qaeda. Fahd al-Qusaa, who received a 10-year sentence, was supposed to film the bombing but overslept and missed the attack, the judge said. Mr. Qusaa underwent training in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and a video camera was discovered in the apartment he fled after the bombing.
Maamoun Msouh was sentenced to eight years for helping Badawi by handling money and forging identity papers, the latter crime also carrying five-year sentences for two former Interior Ministry employees, Ali Mohammed Saleh and Murad al-Sirouri.
Mr. Badawi said he would appeal his death sentence and the five other defendants are also likely to seek to have the sentences overturned. They can take their cases to the Court of Appeals and eventually the Supreme Court. In addition, President Ali Abdallah Salih must confirm all death sentences, which are carried out by firing squad.
In previous political cases the president has either annulled or lessened sentences and even pardoned some individuals, Mr. Allaw noted, but he also noted that the president's ability to dismiss any judge prevents them from making independent decisions.
The death sentences imposed today, although among the first for violence linked to Al Qaeda, are not rare in Yemen. Last month the same special court sentenced 15 defendants to terms ranging from three years to death for various terror plots and attacks. Those imprisoned for 10 years included five supporters of Al Qaeda for the 2002 bombing of the French supertanker Limburg in an attack similar to that on the Cole. The militant sentenced to death was convicted of fatally shooting a police officer at a checkpoint.
Yemen is Mr. bin Laden's ancestral homeland and was considered a safe haven by members of Al Qaeda fleeing the United States fight against Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But the country has been trying to distance itself from a reputation for harboring terrorists with the arrests of hundreds of suspects and by allowing steps like the United States using a missile to assassinate an important operative for Al Qaeda in 2002.
-------- POLITICS
-------- budget
Congress Passes Bill to Keep Government Running
By REUTERS
September 29, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-congress-budget.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress on Wednesday passed a stop-gap bill to keep the government running into November avoiding some tough election-year votes as Republican admitted they could not finish their budget work.
The House of Representatives voted 389-32 to support the bill to fund government programs outside defense at 2004 levels until Nov. 20 and the Senate then approved it unanimously.
The bill also grants President Bush's request to shift $3.5 billion away from reconstruction projects in Iraq to improve security and gives officials authority to write off 95 percent of Iraqi debt owed to the United States.
``Tomorrow at midnight, the government runs out of money,'' said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, a Florida Republican.
Lawmakers are supposed to clear the 13 spending bills required to fund the government by Sept. 30 each year.
They do not often meet that deadline but with the election looming, this year is worse than usual. Only one bill-- defense spending -- has been signed into law.
Republican infighting over the record budget deficit and debate over sensitive election-year spending requests from lawmakers have held up the process.
Democrats also say that Republicans, who control the House and Senate, have deliberately slowed the process to avoid voting on controversial issues like cuts to veterans' health-care funding, before the election.
``This Congress is failing to meet even the most basic expectations the country has for it,'' said Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
Young said most of the remaining bills will end up in one huge omnibus spending package. Congress is set to recess for the election on Oct. 8, so will have to return afterward for a so-called lame duck session to vote on that bill.
Republican leaders are still hoping to finish a bill funding Homeland Security before the break. Discussions on this have slowed as Congress waited for Bush's aid requests for hurricane-hit Florida, a pivotal state in the elections. Congress approved $2 billion earlier this month but a further $10.2 billion still must be approved.
Republican leaders must also decide how to deal with the third increase in the nation's debt limit in three years. Republicans want to put off the embarrassing vote on adding to the debt until after the election. Democrats blame Bush's tax cuts for turning the surplus he inherited into a huge deficit and will seize the chance to question Bush's policies.
The Treasury Department has said it would run up against the $7.384 trillion debt ceiling soon and has asked Congress to raise the limit. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said on Tuesday the government will be close to hitting the limit next week.
Treasury can use accounting maneuvers to stay beneath the ceiling and continue servicing its debt but has said it cannot be financed like this after mid- to late November.
-------- corruption
Parties Bicker Amid Abramoff Inquiry
GOP Lawmakers Dispute Democrats' Talk of Damage to DeLay's Credibility
By Susan Schmidt and Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58186-2004Sep28.html
The investigation of powerful GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his business associate Michael Scanlon led to partisan sparring yesterday as a Senate committee prepared to begin a hearing today into the millions of dollars in lobbying and public relations fees the pair were paid by Indian tribes that operate gambling casinos.
Democrats contended that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ability to campaign for fellow Republicans has been damaged by news reports on the business dealings of Scanlon, a former spokesman for the Texas Republican, and Abramoff, and the indictment last week of three DeLay aides on charges of illegally raising political money.
Greg Speed, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said: "This is another example of the growing ethical cloud surrounding Tom DeLay and his political operation. It's clearly having an impact on his ability to travel and support Republican campaigns. Just [Monday], DeLay had to go into virtual hiding while campaigning for Billy Tauzin in Louisiana."
Speed cited an article in Tuesday's New Orleans Times-Picayune headlined "DeLay's stumping for Tauzin is scaled back after scandal." The article said DeLay's appearance "was scaled back to a 1 1/2-hour private fund-raiser" and quoted a Tauzin spokesman as saying it was because the majority leader was pressed for time. The spokesman denied any connection with the indictments or other controversies.
But aides to DeLay and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), both of whom have had extensive dealings with Abramoff, said the hearings will not hurt the GOP's top House leaders.
John Feehery, spokesman for Hastert, said today's hearing before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee "will hurt [Abramoff and Scanlon]; it won't hurt us. This is not behavior we condoned."
Similarly, an aide to DeLay, who did not want to be identified, said that no one in the legislator's office has had contact with Scanlon for the past four years. A statement from DeLay said, "What I can tell you is that if anybody is trading on my name to get clients or to make money, that is wrong and they should stop it immediately."
The Indian Affairs Committee and a federal grand jury are investigating at least $50 million in lobbying and public relations fees Abramoff and Scanlon garnered from Indian tribes that operate gambling casinos. The FBI and a task force of five federal agencies are investigating campaign contributions the two men directed the tribes to make to members of Congress, and whether tribal funds were misused in the contracts the two men obtained or the fees they collected, government sources said.
The Indian Affairs Committee is seeking testimony from both men today but may not be able to question either one.
Tribal officials have told The Washington Post that Abramoff, whose lobbying fees must be disclosed to the public, encouraged them to hire Scanlon's firms for large amounts of money that did not have to be publicly revealed. Senate investigators discovered in March that Scanlon paid Abramoff at least $10 million. Neither the tribes nor Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig, was aware of the payments, they have said.
E-mails obtained by The Post show that Abramoff and Scanlon worked with conservative religious activist Ralph Reed to help Texas shut a casino operated by the Tigua Indians in 2002, then persuaded the tribe to pay them $4.2 million to lobby Washington lawmakers to reopen it.
Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Abramoff, said late yesterday that Abramoff plans to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination today rather than answer questions posed by the Indian Affairs Committee. But Abramoff's lawyer, Abbe D. Lowell, said last night that a final decision had not been made.
As of last night, Scanlon's appearance was in doubt because U.S. marshals have not been able to locate him to serve him with a subpoena, according to congressional sources. Scanlon's lawyers, Stephen L. Braga and Plato Cacheris, did not return phone calls seeking comment yesterday. Braga informed the committee last week that he has not been authorized to accept service of a subpoena for Scanlon's testimony, the congressional sources said. Cacheris is out of the country, his office said yesterday.
Led by Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), the committee has obtained the cooperation of several tribes and subpoenaed records from banks, Scanlon's public relations companies and Greenberg Traurig. Abramoff resigned under pressure from the firm in March after the firm said it had become aware of his involvement in certain "unacceptable" transactions.
The panel is expected to reveal e-mails between the two men showing how they obtained tens of millions of dollars in tribal business. Among those scheduled to testify are Bernie Sprague, sub-chief of the Saginaw Chippewas of Michigan, and Richard Milanovich, chairman of the Agua Caliente tribe in Palm Springs, Calif. Both men opposed hiring Abramoff and Scanlon but were outvoted.
Abramoff was defended earlier this week by Grover Norquist, a conservative activist who heads Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington anti-tax group. He told National Public Radio that part of the controversy may stem from a rivalry between Abramoff and lobbyist Scott Reed, a McCain backer who began working as a lobbyist for the Saginaw Chippewas earlier this year, after the tribe fired Abramoff.
Norquist has been close to Abramoff and Ralph Reed since their days as college Republicans. Tribal representatives have told The Post that Abramoff urged them to contribute to Americans for Tax Reform. The Saginaw Chippewas gave the group $25,000 on Nov. 13, 2002, according to a tribal representative. The Agua Caliente also donated about $20,000 to the group, according to sources close to the tribe.
-------- propaganda wars
New Zogby/Williams Identity Poll
9/29/2004
ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=871
60% of Young Male Voters Say War in Iraq, "Not the Right Decision"; 59% Say President Bush Misled America and Executive Branch- Highly Responsible for the Problems that US faces Today, New Zogby/Williams Identity Poll Reveals
Most political pundits believe that the final month of the 2004 presidential campaign will center around the war in Iraq. If so, then young men are likely to cast a vote of "no confidence" in George W. Bush. These are the findings of a new Zogby/Williams Identity poll conducted by Zogby Interactive from September 3 through September 7, 2004. The interactive survey was conducted online among 850 males between the ages of eighteen and thirty years old.
The survey reveals that 60 percent disagree with the statement that George W. Bush made the right decision to go war with Iraq. (Only 40 percent think Bush made the correct decision.) These attitudes remain firmly held when other aspects of the war are probed. For example, 63 percent disagree with the claim that Bush made the right decision to go to war, even if the intelligence data were flawed. Strong opposition to the war among the nation's young men has created a crisis of confidence in the president's leadership: 59 percent believe President Bush misled the American people from the beginning about the need to go to war with Iraq.
These negative assessments of the Commander-in-Chief are held by all major racial and income groups among the young men surveyed. For example, when asked if George W. Bush made the right choice in going to war, 36 percent of whites "completely agree;" among Hispanics and African-Americans, the figures are 30 percent and 18 percent respectively. Those at the bottom of the income scale have very negative opinions about the President's decision to go to war: of those earning less than $15,000, only 27 percent "completely agree" with Bush's decision. As income levels rise, support for the President's judgment about the Iraq war decision rises only modestly. For example, of those earning $75,000 or more, 36 percent "completely agree" with Bush's decision.
There is some evidence that suggests a lack of support for the Iraq War is translating into a crisis of confidence in government. When young men were asked which persons or institutions were "highly responsible" for the serious problems and challenges we face as a country today, the number one response was the executive branch (59 percent), followed by the media (56 percent), Congress (55 percent), citizens (50 percent), special interests (48 percent), voters (46 percent), education (43 percent), and corporate America (40 percent). Certainly, the Iraq War has contributed to the lack of confidence in Congress and the President. The corporate scandals (e.g., Enron, Martha Stewart, etc.) have also not gone unnoticed as corporate America and special interests come in for heavy criticism.
But some institutions emerged relatively unscathed in the blame game. For example, only 14 percent of respondents thought local governments were "highly responsible" for the country's problems. Other large institutions were also exempt: for example, just 16 percent mentioned labor unions as "highly responsible" for the country's challenges; religious institutions were cited by 26 percent; and 31 percent specified the courts, with 38 percent specifically mentioning the Supreme Court.
This crisis of confidence is also evident when young men are asked whether the major institutions of government are ready to undertake the missions presented to them. The United Nations led the list with 68 percent saying it was either "completely" or "somewhat unprepared" to undertake its mission. But the agencies of the U.S. government hardly fared much better: 58 percent thought the Department of Homeland Security was either "completely unprepared" or "somewhat unprepared" to undertake its mission; Congress, 55 percent; the President, 54 percent; the Transportation Safety Administration, 50 percent; CIA, 49 percent; and the judicial system, 43 percent. Only the Pentagon emerged relatively unscathed with just 31 percent saying it was unprepared. (The media also came in for special criticism with 63 percent saying it was unprepared for its mission.
Twenty-five years ago, President Jimmy Carter went on national television and delivered his "crisis of confidence" speech. Noting the widespread lack of public trust in government, Carter declared: "The gap between our citizens and our government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual." These are exactly the same sentiments expressed by the nation's young men when asked in this survey about George W. Bush and Iraq.
Specifically, 55 percent say their level of trust in the U.S. government has either "gone down" or "disappeared completely" when they think about the war in Iraq. Likewise, when asked what would keep them from joining the military, the number one response was "disagreement with American foreign policy" (32 percent). Finally, when asked how people in their communities would respond if they decided to join a branch of the U.S. military, 17 percent thought their fellow citizens "wouldn't care;" 15 percent said they "might try to change my decision;" 24 percent believe "they would think I've lost my mind." These responses total an astounding 56 percent; only 43 percent believe their neighbors "would be proud of me."
This does not mean that the young males surveyed have lost either their sense of duty or patriotism. When asked what would most motivate the respondent to join the U.S. military, 30 percent mentioned "defending my country from foreign invasion;" 23 percent cited "patriotism." And when queried as to what issues the respondent would fight and die for personally, the leading answer was "my family" (41 percent) followed by America (24 percent).
Of all the branches in the U.S. armed forces, the Air Force is cited by a plurality (36 percent) as the one they would join if they could. (This relatively high response undoubtedly reflects love of technology that young men often exhibit.) This was followed by the Navy (21 percent), Marines (17 percent), National Guard (14 percent), and Army (13 percent).
According to Mark Williams, co-founder of the Zogby Williams Institute; "the bottom line sentiment contained in these polling data is clear: among young men aged 18-30, there is a crisis of confidence in the major institutions of the U.S. government and its leaders. The source of that crisis is clear: the war in Iraq."
The Zogby/Williams Identity Poll was conducted by Zogby Interactive online. Respondents were invited to participate from panels of likely voters who have agreed to take part in online surveys. Respondents followed instructions leading them to the survey located on secure servers at Zogby Interactive headquarters in Utica, New York. All surveys were completed from Friday, September 3 through Thursday September 9, 2004. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. Slight weights were added to race to more accurately reflect the population.
-----
Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in '92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
By CHARLES POPE
September 29, 2004
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html
WASHINGTON -- In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait. President George H.W. Bush was criticized for pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in power and eventually setting the stage for the invasion of Iraq ordered by his son, President George W. Bush, in March 2003.
The comments Cheney made more than a decade ago in a little-publicized appearance have acquired new relevance as he and Bush run for a second term. A central theme of their campaign has been their unflinching, unchanging approach toward Iraq and the shifting positions offered by Democratic nominee John Kerry.
A transcript of the 1992 appearance was tracked down by P-I columnist Joel Connelly, as reported in today's In the Northwest column.
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
About 146 Americans were killed in the Gulf War. More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.
"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.
"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."
Last week, Cheney attacked Kerry for his alleged inconsistencies. "Senator Kerry ... said that under his leadership, more of America's friends would speak with one voice on Iraq. That seems a little odd coming from a guy who doesn't speak with one voice himself. By his repeated efforts to recast and redefine the war on terror and our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Senator Kerry has given every indication that he lacks the resolve, the determination and the conviction to prevail in the conflict we face."
Cheney's office did not respond to requests for comment about his 1992 statements, nor did the White House. The Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, also asked about the 1992 statements, did not respond.
Despite his reservations 12 years ago, Cheney was one of this administration's vocal and unrelenting supporters of invading Iraq. The decision was based on Saddam's reported development of nuclear, biological and other weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Cheney said posed a direct and imminent threat to the United States.
No weapons, however, have been found.
That debate will intensify tomorrow when Bush and Kerry square off in a debate that is expected to focus heavily on the future of Iraq and more broadly the war on terror.
The Bush campaign launched a new ad yesterday accusing "Kerry and congressional liberals" of "putting our protection at risk."
"Strength builds peace. Weakness invites those who do us harm," the ad says, a suggestion that Kerry would be a weak leader in wartime and a country headed by him would be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The ad accuses Kerry of "refusing to support our troops in combat" and trying to severely slash intelligence budgets and eliminate military weapons after the first attack on the World Trade Center.
Throughout the campaign, Bush and especially Cheney have ridiculed Kerry for changing positions on the war in Iraq and presenting a confusing and distorted picture of the future of that country.
But in his 1992 remarks in Seattle, Cheney foreshadowed a future in Iraq that is remarkably close to conditions found there today, suggesting that it would be difficult to bring the country's various political factions together and that U.S. troops would be vulnerable to insurrection and guerrilla attacks.
"Now what kind of government are you going to establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there," he said.
The end result, Cheney said in 1992, would be a messy, dangerous situation requiring a long-term presence by U.S. forces.
"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today, we'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home," Cheney said, 18 months after the war ended. P-I Washington correspondent Charles Pope can be reached at 202-263-6461 or charliepope@seattlepi.com
-------- us politics
Has Kerry Found His Footing?
Antiwar.com
by Patrick J. Buchanan
September 29, 2004
http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=3670
After the swift boat attacks of August and the Rathergate debacle - CBS' botched attempt to paint President Bush as an insolent National Guard officer deserving of court martial - John Kerry seems to have found his footing. Kerry seems a liberated man.
He is now pummeling the president on the great issue of this campaign. "The invasion of Iraq was a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy, al-Qaeda," declares Kerry. It has turned Iraq into a haven for terrorists. He describes "the real war."
"[T]o destroy our enemy we have to know our enemy. ... They are not just out to kill us, they want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region's governments and pave the way for a new empire: an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia. That's their goal."
Truth be told, this is exactly what we confront. So, Kerry has rolled the dice to offer himself as a leader to disengage us from what he calls a mistaken, mismanaged war, to redirect our fire at al-Qaeda:
"As president, I pledge to you, America, I will finish the job in Iraq. ... I will refocus our energies on the real war on terror. I will wage this war relentlessly, with a single-minded determination to capture or kill the terrorists, crush their movements and free the world from fear."
Kerry has belatedly occupied the terrain on which he will fight, but he has obstacles to overcome if he is to win.
First, he must offer an exit strategy, a way out of Iraq. This he has not done. Second, he must explain why, if Iraq was a detour in the war on terror, he voted to give Bush a blank check to go to war. Why did he say, a month ago, that he would have voted to authorize an invasion, even had he known Iraq had no role in 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction?
Moreover, history is not on Kerry's side. In wartime America, the peace candidate and the dovish party always lose.
Gen. McClellan was defeated by Lincoln in 1864 after Sherman took Atlanta. William Jennings Bryan was routed by McKinley when we were bogged down in a Philippine insurrection even bloodier than Iraq. Nixon routed McGovern, the antiwar candidate, in 1972, 49 states to one.
Eisenhower and Nixon ousted ruling parties in unpopular wars in 1952 and 1968. But Truman and LBJ had been bloodied in primaries and did not run again. And Ike was more hawkish than Adlai Stevenson and Nixon more hawkish than Hubert Humphrey, who had promised a bombing halt.
Now, the Republicans are moving ruthlessly to play the ace of trumps in American politics, the patriot card, against Kerry.
When Kerry scoffed at assurances by Prime Minister Allawi that the war was going well and elections would be held in January, Bush charged him with undercutting an ally. "This brave man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq," said Bush, "and Sen. Kerry held a press conference to question [his] credibility."
Allawi, too, piled on: "When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence."
Cheney was brutal: "I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Sen. Kerry showed for this man of courage. ... Iyad Allawi is our ally. ... John Kerry is trying to tear him down and to trash all the good that has been accomplished. ... His words are destructive."
When Kerry called Allawi America's sock puppet - "you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips" - Sen. Orrin Hatch tore into him: "You know what is really underneath the shirt of Prime Minister Allawi? Scars from an ax attack by Saddam's henchmen. And do you know what is underneath those scars? A brave and patriotic Iraqi heart, beholden to no one but the cause of a free Iraq."
"When you undermine our principal ally in a war against terror and tyranny," roared Hatch, "you are undermining our cause."
I.e., John Kerry is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Indeed, if you trash our allies in Iraq as "some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted," as Kerry did, call Iraq's prime minister a sock puppet and denounce a sitting president as an incompetent war leader, you have to expect what Kerry is now receiving.
The New York Times may wail about "an un-American way to campaign," but Bush and Cheney are fighting for their political lives and places in history. Do not expect this pair to go gentle into that good night.
So, America is going to find out what the candidate they call "the Frenchman" is made of. And, frankly, we should, before we go to the polls. Stop the whining. Let's get it on.
--------
At House Hearing, Quips, Insults and Some Official Business
September 29, 2004
New York Times
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/politics/campaign/29CND-HOUSE.html?hp
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - The House committee hearing began as a serious discussion about the coming elections in Afghanistan. It ended in insults, so partisan and personal that the committee chairman expressed relief upon adjournment.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage told the House International Relations Committee that he expected the Taliban to try to disrupt the elections in Afghanistan "perhaps even by attempting a large-scale attack on election day itself," Oct. 9.
Mr. Armitage did not suggest that he thought the elections might fail, or that the new Afghanistan might stumble on the road to democracy. In fact, Mr. Armitage had several friendly exchanges with lawmakers of both parties.
The mood seemed to change when Representative Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, seized on President Bush's declaration in Ohio last week that "as a result of the United States military, the Taliban is no longer in existence."
So, Mr. Menendez asked Mr. Armitage, "did you fail to give the president a briefing that the Taliban is still in existence?"
Mr. Armitage said the president meant that the Taliban "is not shackling 28 million people anymore," not that it had literally vanished.
The reply did not entirely satisfy Mr. Menendez, who said, "I think we have to stop sugar-coating the realities of what is happening in Afghanistan and in our other conflicts and be honest with the American people."
Mr. Armitage did not respond directly to Mr. Menendez's "sugar-coating" metaphor, choosing instead to use one of his own. "The Taliban is very much running from hidey hole to hidey hole," he said.
Moments later, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, opined that "nitpicking the president of the United States' words is not really constructive in this type of situation." Mr. Rohrabacher said Mr. Bush had driven the Taliban out instead of unwisely tolerating it, as he said President Bill Clinton had.
A bit later, emotions warmed even more as Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, asserted that Mr. Bush had misled the American people by taking the country to war against Iraq ("It wasn't difficult, because many people have a difficult time getting the details straight"), while the main mission was still Afghanistan.
"And I have never seen such a misuse of our power," Mr. Payne observed.
That was too much for Representative Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who heads the committee. He said that "calling the commander in chief a liar by every hour on the hour" was simply wrong, and was helpful to "the other side," by which he appeared to mean America's terrorist enemies.
Moments later, Representative Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said he and his colleagues were "sick and tired" of hearing their patriotism questioned whenever they exercised their responsibilities and rights, as citizens as well as members of Congress.
Mr. Hyde did not mollify Mr. Ackerman a bit. "Nobody questions your patriotism," Mr. Hyde said. "It's your judgment that's under question."
The two lawmakers interrupted each other a few more times, until Mr. Ackerman said, "What's obvious, Mr. Chairman, is that you are a rather vicious partisan."
"Now you're really getting personal," Mr. Hyde observed.
"Well," Mr. Ackerman countered, "I think that willful ignorance is kind of personal also, Mr. Chairman."
"Just remember," Mr. Hyde shot back, "ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever."
"I know that," Mr. Ackerman said, "and I'm glad that you've memorized that." He went on to say that Mr. Hyde's insults notwithstanding, he had never called the president a liar.
If nothing else, the session underlined the importance of specificity in language, especially on the eve of President Bush's foreign-policy debate with Senator John Kerry, and the dangers of hyperbole.
"The time has expired, happily," Mr. Hyde said on adjournment.
---------
Analysis
The Politics of Fear
Kerry Adopts Bush Strategy of Stressing Dangers
By Jim VandeHei and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58117-2004Sep28.html
With voters expressing anxiety about Iraq, nuclear attacks and the threat of terrorism in the first presidential election since Sept. 11, 2001, John F. Kerry and his supporters are adopting President Bush's strategy of playing on the public's security fears and sometimes using incendiary charges to stoke them.
Kerry, the Democratic National Committee and party officials have warned voters in recent weeks, sometimes without evidence, that a second Bush term could lead to greater casualties and another Vietnam in Iraq, a military draft, a secret call-up of reservists and even a nuclear attack on U.S. soil. They are also suggesting Osama bin Laden could remain a haunting and elusive threat unless the Democratic presidential nominee takes charge.
In a dramatic strategic shift that two of his top advisers called "high-risk," Kerry and his campaign are using a string of speeches, statements and television ads to argue that the United States will be more susceptible to higher casualties in Iraq and future terrorism threats at home if Bush is reelected.
At the same time, Kerry's friends, surrogates and financial supporters are using ominous language to warn of catastrophes, including the potential of a "mushroom cloud," if Bush wins. "It's definitely riskier, because Kerry is making people think about what we see in polls people are reluctant to think about," Democratic consultant Bill Carrick said. "Nobody wants to think about beheadings, casualties or fatalities."
Some Democrats worry that Kerry could inadvertently help Bush by spooking voters about dangers ahead, because polls have consistently shown the president with a clear edge on whom voters consider the strongest leader and the one most able to deal with terrorism. Recent public polls suggest Kerry's strategy so far has not changed the dynamics of the race.
A senior Kerry adviser said the only way Bush can be defeated is if Democrats win, or neutralize, the debate on Iraq by playing up chaos and casualties there and convince voters the war undermined the hunt for bin Laden and other terrorists. The adviser said Kerry will make the argument the central theme of tomorrow's debate, when millions of Americans get their first look at the two candidates side by side.
The Democratic offensive comes as Bush and Republicans are increasingly suggesting the election of Kerry would better the chances of another Sept. 11, or worse.
With both campaigns embracing what often amounts to the politics of fear, voters are getting a heavier-than-ever dose of speeches and television ads from Bush, Kerry and political groups designed to convince them the other ticket would make the world more dangerous and increase the likelihood of casualties or catastrophe. Historians say this tactic is more pervasive than in past presidential campaigns, including Jimmy Carter's portrayal of Ronald Reagan as a warmonger in 1980 and Lyndon B. Johnson's famous "daisy girl" ad that warned of nuclear war if Barry M. Goldwater was elected in 1964.
To be sure, Bush has spent more time and money trying to convince voters his opponent cannot be trusted to keep the country safe in troubled times, sometimes slicing and dicing the Democratic nominee's words to create a false impression of Kerry's positions, analysts say. For instance, Brooks Jackson of the nonpartisan FactCheck.org said a recent Bush ad was "egregious" in splicing together footage of Kerry remarks to make his "reasonably consistent stand on Iraq sound like he was all over the lot." In the past, the Bush campaign has cited Jackson's organization as a reliable, independent source about ads.
Bush again pounded Kerry as weak on terrorism with a new ad that began running yesterday in several states, including on one of the few radio stations with clear reception in Spring Green, Wis., where Kerry is preparing for tomorrow's debate. "Weakness invites those who would do us harm," the ad states.
"It's not surprising that both campaigns are looking for the leverage point: scaring the hell out of the American public about what would happen if the other guy wins," said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University's College of Communication. "The surprise is: Why did Kerry wait so long to start slugging at Bush?"
The answer is that Kerry's team had gambled on building up the Massachusetts senator's image in the belief that voters were familiar with Bush's weaknesses and the turmoil in Iraq. "We don't have to join their game," Kerry adviser Tad Devine said in July after Bush ads repeatedly depicted Kerry as indecisive and weak on defense. At the time, Kerry calculated -- aides now say miscalculated -- that his Vietnam and Senate résumé would be enough to satisfy voters of his ability to serve as commander in chief and allow him to focus more heavily on health care, education and the economy.
But starting two weeks ago, Kerry scrapped plans to focus on domestic issues when public and private polling showed Bush pulling away in several key areas, including whom voters trust most to win in Iraq, defeat terrorism and keep the United States safe.
Kerry launched his new offensive on Sept. 15 with a quick strike on Bush's handling of Iraq, saying the president is creating a "fantasy world" by denying casualties, indiscriminate killings and chaos throughout the country. Soon after, Kerry charged that Bush had a secret plan to call up reservists and National Guard members if he is reelected, though Kerry's campaign has not offered any evidence to support the allegation. A few days later, Kerry said it is possible the draft would be reinstated under Bush, which the White House vehemently denied.
Virtually every day, Kerry has warned that if Bush is reelected, the situation in Iraq will worsen and continue to divert attention from nuclear threats and terrorism.
One Kerry ad appears to hold the president accountable -- and paint him as out of touch -- for "over 1,000 U.S. soldiers dead, kidnappings, even beheadings of Americans." It continues: "Still, Bush has no plan what to do in Iraq. How can you solve a problem when you can't see it?" Another spot blames Bush for "the Iraq quagmire" and points out that "the Pentagon admits terrorists are pouring into Iraq" -- suggesting that the war has actually made Americans less safe.
Democrats and outside groups are striking a more ominous tone. "A mushroom cloud over any American city is the ultimate nightmare, and the risk is all too real," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said Monday. "The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely -- not less likely -- and it should never have happened."
The DNC this week aired a commercial mocking Bush for not fulfilling his vow to capture bin Laden "dead or alive," and a new ad yesterday cited the 1,000 U.S. combat deaths and said of Bush: "But no one can tell him he's wrong."
Kerry's allies are also trying to personalize the war. Cindy Sheehan, a California Democrat whose son was killed in Iraq, will appear in a tearful ad being released today by the liberal group Real Voices. "I thought the president was rushing us into this war," she said in an interview yesterday. "I just felt betrayed."
George Soros, one of the Democrats' biggest financial backers, has begun a speaking tour to issue his warning of the long-term international consequences of reelecting Bush. Wesley K. Clark, who is advising Kerry, said Soros is "sounding the alarm for the American people."
--------
International Observers Predict Trouble in U.S. Vote
September 29, 2004
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-campaign-observers.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - International observers predicted problems in the U.S. presidential election with new voting machines and warned the result could again be delayed, four years after a disputed count determined who won the White House.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe observers issued a report this week on preparations for the Nov. 2 vote, after a visit earlier this month.
The group highlighted concerns over the machines, voter eligibility rules and allegations of intimidation aimed at lowering the turnout of ethnic minorities.
``In general, the nationwide replacement of voting equipment, inspired by the disputes witnessed during the 2000 elections, primarily in Florida, may potentially become a source of even greater controversy during the forthcoming elections,'' the group said in the report which was posted to its Web site (www.osce.org/odihr).
Many new machines do not produce a paper ballot that would be needed in the case of a manual recount, the observers, who were invited by the Bush administration, said.
Uneven application of rules on provisional ballots -- which can be cast even when the voter's eligibility is unclear -- ``may cause post-election disputes and litigation, potentially delaying the announcement of final results,'' they added.
In 2000, voters split down the middle in Florida, which was ridiculed worldwide as it spawned court battles over whether and how to count imperfect ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled George W. Bush won the state by 537 votes, and the decision gave him the presidency.
With polls showing this year's election between Bush and Democrat John Kerry could also be tight in several states, civil rights groups have raised concern that voters could be disenfranchised and the 2000 debacle could be repeated.
The OSCE, which groups 55 countries, will publish an unprecedented report of its observations after Nov. 2, although it will not judge the overall fairness of the vote.
``We are very proud of our election system ... we are happy to open up our elections for people to observe, comment, offer advice maybe even learn something,'' a senior State Department official said.
While Democrats have welcomed the OSCE mission, Republicans have been quick to note the limitations on the group, which did not make recommendations to help avoid election-day problems.
``This type of report is not binding. You can criticize and comment all you like but the constitutional authority over our elections rests with Congress and the states,'' Laura Zuckerman, spokeswoman for Rep. Steve Buyer, an Indiana Republican who sponsored an amendment this year to ban federal officials using money to invite U.N. observers.
--------
One man's opinion:
Evidence indicates that Wellstone crash was no accident
Thu, Nov. 20, 2003
Point of View
by JIM FETZER
Duluth News Tribune
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/opinion/7306797.htm
Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone was a serious man who cared profoundly about his fellow citizens. He took courageous stands against an administration that he viewed with profound suspicion, arguing eloquently against tax cuts for the rich, the subversion of the Constitution, and violating international accords. He would have led the opposition to the war in Iraq if only he had had the chance. Everyone knew it and he may have died because of it.
For nearly a year now, evidence has been accumulating about the event that ended the life of this magnificent human being. Whatever caused the crash was not the plane, the pilots or the weather. In spite of what you may have heard, the plane was exceptional, the pilots well-qualified and the weather posed no significant problems. Even the National Transportation Safety Board's own simulations of the plane, the pilots and the weather were unable to bring the plane down.
This means we have to consider other, less palatable, alternatives, such as small bombs, gas canisters or electromagnetic pulse, radio frequency or High Energy Radio Frequency weapons designed to overwhelm electrical circuitry with an intense electromagnetic field. An abrupt cessation of communication between the plane and the tower took place at about 10:18 a.m., the same time an odd cell phone phenomenon occurred with a driver in the immediate vicinity. This suggests to me the most likely explanation is that one of our new electromagnetic weapons was employed.
The politics of the situation were astonishing. The senator was pulling away from the hand-picked candidate of the Bush machine. Its opportunity to seize control of the U.S. Senate was slipping from its grasp. Its vaunted "invincibility" was being challenged by an outspoken critic of its most basic values. Targeted for elimination, he was going to survive. Here's one man's opinion: Under such conditions, the temptation to take him out may have been irresistible.
Among the striking indications that something was wrong with the NTSB in its inquiry into the causes of the crash is that Carol Carmody, a former employee with the CIA, the head of the team, announced the day after that the FBI had found no indications of terrorist involvement. Yet it is the responsibility of the NTSB to ascertain the cause of the crash, which has yet to be determined to this very day.
So how could the FBI possibly know?
The FBI's prompt arrival was peculiar. As Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press reported (www.rumor millnews.net, Oct. 29, 2002), "According to Rick Wahlberg, then St. Louis County sheriff, a team of FBI agents was quickly on the crash site about noon, less than an hour after (assistant manager Gary) Ulman and the (fire) chief had first located the site and found a way to access the wreck. This FBI team had come from the distant Twin Cities in record time!"
When Bollyn "asked Ulman if he had notified the FBI about the accident, Ulman said he had not spoken with the bureau at any time. Asked how the FBI got to the site so quickly, Ulman said that he assumed they had come from Duluth. AFP contacted the Duluth office of the FBI and was told that the team of 'recovery' agents had not come from Duluth but had traveled from the FBI office in Minneapolis."
I calculate that this team would have had to have left the Twin Cities at about the same time the Wellstone plane was taking off.
Gary Ulman confirmed to me that the FBI had been on the scene no later than 1 p.m.
I have reviewed the log books maintained by the Sheriff's Department at Eveleth and have discovered that they are grossly incomplete and cannot confirm when the FBI showed up.
The FAA has told me that its records of private aircraft arriving in Duluth that morning have been destroyed, even though they might verify the FBI's early arrival.
And the NTSB has canceled sessions where it would ordinarily take input from the public.
Michael Ruppert (fromthe wilderness.com, Nov. 1, 2002) has reported, "The day after the crash I received a message from a former CIA operative who has proven extremely reliable in the past and who is personally familiar with these kinds of assassinations. The message read, 'As I said earlier, having played ball (and still playing in some respects) with this current crop of reinvigorated old white men, these clowns are nobody to screw around with. There will be a few more strategic accidents. You can be certain of that.' "
If you think that's a stretch, consider: Hundreds of young Americans have been put in harm's way by a war that was promoted on the basis of lies about weapons of mass destruction, collaboration with Osama bin Laden, and Sept. 11.
Some 3,000 Americans were killed when the Twin Towers collapsed, and yet the president and the vice president of the United States have done everything they can to obstruct a open and honest investigation of the causes of that traumatic event. And when a leak from his own administration leads to the exposure of a CIA operative concerned with weapons of mass destruction, the President tells us "we may never know."
This is a corrupt administration.
One of the oddest events since the election is that Wellstone's successor in the U.S. Senate, Norm Coleman, has been placed in charge of the Senate Investigations Committee.
That is an extraordinarily sensitive responsibility to be placed upon a freshman senator with no previous experience. My guess would be that it has never happened before. But the reasoning behind it may not be that difficult to fathom: Would anyone be less inclined to pursue the Wellstone death?
One man's opinion: The evidence presented here and elaborated elsewhere in detail establishes a prima facie case that this death was no accident, that the motives were political and begs the question: Was the White House involved?
An investigation by the St. Louis County prosecutor would be most welcome.
In the chorus of memories for a man who made a difference, let us bear in mind that truth is our only defense against an onslaught of lies that have dominated a media that appears too weak or too complicit to resist. JIM FETZER, a professor in the philosophy department at University of Minnesota Duluth, is the editor of three books on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK" (October 1997); "Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then" (August 2000); "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK" (September 2003).
Jim Fetzer's website is http://www.assassinationscience.com - a goldmine of other information.
-------- ENERGY
-------- alternative energy
Western Governors Offer New Power Study
September 29, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Western-Energy.html
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- New power plants and transmission lines are needed to unlock coal, hydropower and wind-energy reserves in the Rocky Mountain states, which could lower costs for consumers while sending more exports to California, a study commissioned by Western governors recommended Wednesday.
The study charts the most critical and economic projects for the next 20 years and recommended billions of dollars in new and upgraded transmission lines and power plants in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming.
Now those states need someone to pay for the improvements, which would mainly benefit power-hungry California.
``Every seller needs a buyer,'' said California Deputy Energy Secretary Joseph Desmond, who said his state needs to add 1,000 megawatts of power capacity a year just to keep up with demand. But without cost details, Desmond made no specific commitments at a conference Wednesday of regulators and engineers in Salt Lake City.
In their next step, the governors of Rocky Mountain states plan to lobby utilities and other investors to take a look at the risks of building new power plants or transmission lines. The effort also would need regulatory approvals and may involve condemning parcels of private land for new transmission corridors.
The Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study recommends $4 billion worth of upgrades and additions to the transmission lines and $10 billion in new power capacity from coal, hydropower, natural gas, wind and geothermal energy.
Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal and former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt initiated the study in the wake of California's energy crisis four years ago. The governors of Montana, Colorado and Idaho signed on to coordinate the Rocky Mountain's energy future.
``We'll do our part, but we need people in the private sector to step up,'' said Montana Gov. Judy Martz, calling energy a matter of national security. ``This is not a partisan issue.''
As a first step, the study recommended nearly $1 billion worth of projects to beef up the region's electrical transmission capacity.
On the Net:
http://psc.state.wy.us/htdocs/subregional/Reports.htm
--------
Wind and Nuclear Power - a Generation Gap?
Story by Nicholas Brautlecht
REUTERS GERMANY:
September 29, 2004
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/27397/story.htm
BRUNSBUETTEL, Germany - In this north German town a huge crane is helping to build the world's largest wind power plant, a prototype for offshore wind farms from 2006.
Just across a meadow of grazing cows sits another source of energy, one generation older and a symbol of a different political ideology.
Built in the 1970s, the Brunsbuettel nuclear power station is still part of the backbone of German energy production, but will soon reach the end of its life cycle because of Germany's drive to phase out nuclear energy.
"I think it's a really charming scene," said Fritz Vahrenholt, chairman of Germany's Repower, the company producing the wind turbine.
"Nuclear reactor meets wind plant. Here the future and over there the past and none of them produces carbon dioxide (CO2)," he told Reuters.
The construction of Repower's 14 million euro ($16.99 million) turbine comes as Germany is caught in a controversial debate over the reasons for the country's rising energy prices, in which the subsidized wind power industry plays its part.
Consumer groups say Germany's four leading utilities, including RWE and Vattenfall Europe, were abusing their power in a market which lacks competition and a state regulator.
The industry, on the other hand, says price hikes were necessary, partly because of politically induced costs for green energy such as wind power which would force it to spend billions of euros on grids linking offshore wind farms with the mainland.
Some electricity consumers are echoing that criticism, saying they are tired of supporting green energy production by way of their power bill and of the "giant asparagus" on the horizon.
SIGHTSEEING AND SAUSAGES
Repower expects sightseers, not protesters, to arrive at Brunsbuettel and has put up a sausage stand to cater for them.
"We have had calls from fan clubs keen to know more about our turbine and the giant crane on the site," said Martin Skiba, who is responsible for Repower's "5M" prototype project.
The best time for Brunsbuettel sightseeing in the coming days will ironically be during calm winds as that will be the time for Repower's workers to install the three rotor blades.
It will be a particularly challenging task as each of the 62-meter (203 feet) blades weighs 18 tons or the equivalent of a dozen average passenger cars.
The tower will be more than 180 meters (590 feet) high when measured from the base to the tip of a rotor blade, almost twice the height of New York's 93 meter (305 feet) Statue of Liberty.
Once Repower's flagship starts rotating, it is expected to produce 17 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity a year at the Brunsbuettel site, enough to power 4,500 average households.
This is much more than other wind turbines, but very little compared to its 806 MW strong nuclear neighbor, which generates around 6,000 GWh per year.
NUCLEAR ENERGY - GONE WITH THE WIND?
One question therefore remains: Will wind power be able to compensate Germany's lost capacity as nuclear plants are phased out and other aging plants closed?
Germany must replace nearly half of its 100,000 MW generation capacity in the next two decades and critics say renewables will never be able to fill that gap.
Wind power, they add, is too reliant on weather conditions.
"Wind power can only complement other energy sources. It cannot replace them," Vahrenholt said.
"I am sure there will be a revival of coal-fired energy production with new technologies such as the isolation of carbon dioxide (CO2) during the generation process."
Germany, which depends on nuclear power for a third of its electricity, still has no clear plan on how to replace reactors such as the one in Brunsbuettel.
"That's why it's foolish to shut the reactors so soon. It would overstrain the German economy. We need more time and have to extend the running times for nuclear plants by 5-7 years."
Whether Vahrenholt's view is shared by others in the industry and future governments is hard to predict.
But if he turns out to be right, Brunsbuettel's wind and nuclear power plants might be neighbors for longer than expected.
-------- OTHER
Israel Divestiture Spurs Clash
Jewish Leaders Condemn Move by Presbyterian Church
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58039-2004Sep28.html
Jewish and Protestant leaders clashed over Israel yesterday as the heads of several major U.S. Jewish organizations condemned the Presbyterian Church's decision to begin selective divestiture in companies operating in Israel.
After a polite but tense meeting in New York, Presbyterian officials and leaders of the Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism promised to continue their dialogue. But neither side gave any ground.
"Holding something over the head of Israel to change its conduct, while holding nothing over the heads of the Palestinians to change their conduct . . . has caused utter dismay in the Jewish community," Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, told reporters. "It is unbalanced, it is unwieldy, it will not work."
Jewish-Presbyterian relations have been in turmoil since the 2.4 million-member Presbyterian Church's General Assembly voted 431 to 62 in July to "initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel" and also decided to continue funding messianic congregations that target Jews for proselytizing.
The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk, or highest elected official, of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), said the church does not plan a "blanket divestment" of its $7 billion in investment funds from companies operating in Israel. Rather, he said, it will target businesses that it believes bear particular responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians and will give them a chance to change their behavior before selling their shares.
Presbyterian officials cited one possible example: Caterpillar Inc., which manufactures bulldozers used by Israel to demolish Palestinian homes that are built without permits or belong to families of suicide bombers.
Kirkpatrick said the church would also pull its money out of any companies that are complicit in supporting terrorism.
Rabbi Paul Menitoff, executive vice president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, said the Presbyterian resolution was a "lopsided" action that blamed one side in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
"There is plenty of guilt and plenty of blame to go around," he said. "But . . . the expectation is that there will be a certain fairness in the critique."
Jewish leaders also expressed concern that other Protestant groups, such as the worldwide Anglican Communion, appear to be considering punitive measures toward Israel. Last week an Anglican delegation toured Palestinian areas and reportedly called for divestiture to end the "draconian conditions" of Israel's "continuing occupation."
The Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative advocacy group in Washington, issued a report this week saying that mainline Protestant denominations devoted 37 percent of their human rights declarations over the past four years to criticism of Israel, far more than any other foreign country.
-------- imf / world bank / wto (economics)
Lawmaker Upset by World Bank Aid to Iraq
AP
September 29, 2004
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040929/ap/d85d593o0.html
With its ample resources and a professional staff numbering 10,000 people, the World Bank seems like an ideal instrument for getting Iraq back on its feet.
Rep. Mark Kirk certainly agrees with that view but says bank support for Iraq is trifling: $3.6 million in delivered postwar assistance, according to his figures.
World Bank, State Department and independent experts disagree with much of Kirk's thesis. But they can't ignore him because he is a member of the House committee responsible for appropriating foreign aid, including U.S. support for World Bank operations.
Kirk says the bank, a U.N. institution, came through handsomely for Germany and Japan with reconstruction projects after World War II _ but is not doing the same for Iraq now.
"Iraq should be the No. 1 mission for the World Bank," says Kirk, R-Ill. He says school textbooks promised by the bank under a $40 million program have yet to materialize. He contrasts that with the prompt textbook deliveries of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Nonsense, says Sebastian Mallaby, author of a new book, "The World's Banker," an in-depth account of the bank and its mercurial Australian president, James Wolfensohn.
The bank's value, says Mallaby, is not in its ability to deliver books but in fixing school systems.
"Attacking the bank for being slower than USAID's text book delivery is like complaining that surgery takes longer than popping two aspirin," Mallaby says.
Of the 184 countries that run the bank, the United States is by far the most influential. The bank's mission is to fight poverty. It is providing $20.1 billion for 245 projects in poor countries worldwide this year.
The bank says it isn't shortchanging Iraq and is committed to helping its reconstruction. Responding to Kirk's charges that the bank has no personnel in Iraq and bars volunteers from working there, a spokesman noted that a bank staffer in Iraq was killed by insurgents in August 2003 and several others were seriously wounded. International aid agencies trying to operate in Iraq remain subject to armed attacks.
The bank is trying to overcome the absence of personnel in Iraq by deploying experts in neighboring Jordan. Communications with Iraqi officials in Baghdad are carried out through teleconferences.
Kirk says the recent U.S. decision to redirect $1.8 billion in U.S. aid to Iraq toward security at the expense of reconstruction projects makes a more assertive World Bank role in Iraq more imperative.
State Department officials are confident that the bank will become increasingly active now that Iraqi political authority has been restored. For legal reasons, the bank role in Iraq was sharply restricted beforehand.
The bank's ties with Iraq also should pick up once its international credit is restored, a step wealthy countries are expected to take at a meeting before the year's end. Iraq is now eligible for low-interest World Bank loans but has not applied for any.
Despite the constraints, the bank has trained more than 600 Iraqi civil servants in key ministries, the spokesman said. In addition, a $60 million school rehabilitation project is in the works as well as a $55 million private sector development project.
The bank also manages a trust fund into which donor countries have contributed more than $350 million.
While disputing Kirk on several points, Mallaby agrees that the bank help for Iraq might have been deliberately unhurried because of the influence of some European "shareholders" in the bank which have opposed U.S. policy toward Iraq all along.
"The United States was giving the World Bank a green light while several European governments were giving it a red one. That's why the bank was slow," Mallaby says.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ George Gedda has covered foreign affairs for The Associated Press since 1968.
-------- ACTIVISTS
'Vanity War:' Former Air Force chief of staff criticizes Bush actions on Iraq
LAS VEGAS SUN
September 29, 2004
By Jace Radke <jace@lasvegassun.com>
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-gov/2004/sep/29/517588131.html
While stumping for Sen. John Kerry in Las Vegas Tuesday, retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, former Air Force chief of Staff, called the Iraq war a "vanity war" and accused President Bush of creating an imaginary world.
"We've lost 1,000 of our sons and daughters, the situation on the ground is a mess and it has cost us $200 billion," McPeak told a group of about 30 veterans at a downtown American Legion Post. "It's not a test of patriotism to call attention to this stupidity.
"This administration has been careless with our sons and daughters and careless with our money. We have to make a change."
McPeak, a former Thunderbird pilot who was stationed at Nellis Air Force Base, is the subject of a national television ad that calls attention to the fact that he was a Republican and supported Bush in 2000, and is now an independent supporting Kerry.
McPeak, who lives in Oregon, was the chairman of Oregon's Veterans for Bush group in 2000, and said he voted for Bush that year and Sen. Bob Dole in 1996.
After voting for Bush, McPeak said he, "very rapidly convinced myself that I had made a mistake."
McPeak said he watched as the Bush administration made what he characterized as a series of mistakes in foreign policy capped by the Iraq war. He did say that he agreed with the decision to go to Afghanistan, but said the administration has since spun out of control.
"Unfortunately, after legitimately going into Afghanistan the administration diverted the attention to Iraq," McPeak said. "Afghanistan is a key battle in the war on terrorism, but now it has turned sour on the edges as attention is shifted to Iraq II."
McPeak entered the Air Force in 1957 and was a pilot in Vietnam. He was joined by other veterans for Kerry who also spoke for the senator and against the president.
State Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, who attended Tuesday's rally, said he felt President Bush has not shown the needed leadership called for in his office.
"We've heard a lot about the events of 30 or 35 years ago in Vietnam, but it has been nothing more than an obvious attempt to take the attention away from where it should be focused: Iraq," Care said.
----
Elderly Quaker Jailed for Anti - War Protest
September 29, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Quaker-Jailed.html
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A 90-year-old Quaker was among half a dozen people who decided Wednesday to spend seven days in jail rather than pay a $250 fine for blocking the entrance to a federal courthouse during an anti-war protest last year.
Lillian Willoughby, of Deptford, N.J., sat in a wheelchair in court as she spoke for about five minutes about the war in Iraq, which she said had recently claimed the son of a good friend.
``Here I sit in this 21st century and I think that it is time for this madness to stop,'' Willoughby said.
Willoughby was among 107 arrested March 20, 2003, for blocking the entrance to the federal courthouse across the street from the Liberty Bell the day after the start of U.S. bombing in Iraq. She was sentenced along with five others. It was not immediately clear when they would report to jail.
``I've been arrested before but never spent time in jail,'' Willoughby said. ``This is the start of a great adventure.''
Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard W. Goldberg said he believes Willoughby will serve her time.
``Except for that fact that she is 90, she is in reasonably good health and the Federal Detention Center officials believe they can handle this,'' Goldberg said.
--------
Native Hawaiians Sue to Block Land for Army Strykers
September 29, 2004
HONOLULU, Hawaii, (ENS)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-29-09.asp#anchor2
Three Native Hawaiian organizations Monday filed a lawsuit in federal court in Honolulu to block the transfer of 1,400 acres of private land to the U.S. Army. The land transfer is part of the Army's plan to transform an infantry brigade stationed on Oahu to one built around the Stryker armored vehicle.
Last month, the Hawaiian organizations filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the Army to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and consider in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) locations besides Hawaii before proceeding with any Stryker-related actions.
Monday's motion filed by 'Ïlio'ulaokalani Coalition, Na 'Imi Pono, and Kïpuka, represented by Earthjustice, seeks to intervene in a condemnation action the United States Department of the Army initiated on September 22, 2004, to acquire Campbell Estate land.
The Hawaiian organizations seek to challenge a settlement filed on Friday, in which the Army and the Campbell Estate agreed to a $15.9 million payment for the condemned land.
The Stryker interim armored vehicle is a 19-ton, eight-wheeled armored vehicle that provides the Army a family of 10 different vehicles on a common chassis. Stryker vehicles have armor protection and can sustain speeds of 60 miles per hour. The Army plans to field a total of 2,112 Strykers to six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
The plan for Hawaii is to transform the 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division (Light) to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team.
The EIS makes it clear that the transformation will adversely impact Hawaii's environment and public health. Regarding air quality, it states, "Emission sources associated with the Proposed Action include emissions from construction activities, ordnance use, engine emissions from military vehicle use, fugitive dust from vehicle travel on unpaved roads, wind erosion from areas disturbed by off-road vehicle maneuvers, and engine emissions from personal vehicle use associated with added personnel."
Airborne particulate matter 10 micrometers in size (PM10) will be produced in concentrations that are typically in the range of several thousand micrograms per cubic meter, the EIS says.
"It takes only a few hours of such concentrations to produce a 24 hour average that exceeds the state and federal 24 hour average PM10 standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter,"acknowledges the EIS, saying, "PM10 emissions are important because the PM10 size fraction represents airborne particles small enough to be inhaled into the lower respiratory tract, where they can have adverse health effects."
Citizens commenting during the EIS process for the Hawaii Stryker transformation, including the three Hawaiian organizations, have repeatedly asked the Army to consider alternatives to fielding Strykers in Hawaii. Alternatives suggested include conducting the brigade transformation on the mainland.
The EIS ignored these requests, yet acknowledged that significant, unavoidable impacts to cultural resources, native ecosystems, endangered species, air quality, recreation, noise levels, and soils would result from bringing the Strykers to Hawaii.
"The Army's actions just confirm what we saw throughout the EIS process," said William Aila of Na 'Imi Pono. "The Army couldn't care less what Native Hawaiians or the people of Hawaii think. They're the Army and they're marching ahead, or, in this case, over us."
"The law requires the Army to do a bona fide analysis of alternatives before committing to any course of action," said attorney David Henkin of the public interest law firm Earthjustice, which is representing the three groups. "How can the Army genuinely consider alternate locations when it's committing millions of dollars to transformation in Hawaii?"
The Hawaii Stryker Brigade Combat Team EIS is found at: http://www.ttsfo.com/sbcteis/
----
Mordechai Vanunu speaks
Jonathan Lucraft
29 September, 2004
The World Today
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1209662.htm
ELEANOR HALL: Mordechai Vanunu made headlines around the world when he blew the whistle on Israel's secret nuclear weapons program in the mid-1980s.
The Israeli nuclear technician was arrested soon after in a Mossad operation, was tried in secret, convicted of treason and spent 18 years in prison, 11 of them in solitary confinement.
In April this year he was released from prison, but his freedom has remained restricted, with Israeli authorities forbidding him from speaking to foreigners.
Despite this, Mr Vanunu this morning gave his first interview to an Australian media outlet, speaking to the community radio station, Radio Adelaide's Jonathan Lucraft.
MORDECHAI VANUNU: The restrictions are not working and unreasonable and not according to the human rights and the democratic system and they will finish them in six months - at least the restriction not to speak to foreigners and not to travel really inter-state.
JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Are you taking a chance by talking to us?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: I'm not taking a chance, I'm making a very good calculation and according to the human rights and freedom of speech that everyone as a human being should have and I'm exercising it and I believe the Israel Government and Israel organisations are realising that what they decided is not good.
They will not do anything wrong with my speaking to you either.
JONATHAN LUCRAFT: When the restrictions are lifted, what will you do then?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: If they will let me go I would leave Israel immediately, I would like to see the world, to exercise my freedom. If they will not let me go, let me speak, then I will speak much more to the media and to the people around the world and here.
JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Now, 18 years in a Mossad prison, 11 of those years in solitary confinement. How did you fight the effect of those years on your mind?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: The effect was very hard and strong, but I was firm and strong from the beginning to protect my freedom, my free will, my humanity, that was my struggle from the beginning.
The power organisation of Israel gives what they can to fight me, to cause me some harm, damages in health, mind, and they succeed little bit, but I survived and I am now free, but it was very hard, a very difficult time and I wish no one would suffer what I suffered, and then when I speak to you and try to be human being like everyone.
JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Do you feel though that those years in solitary confinement had an effect on you?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: I think no. The only effect is maybe some part of my health has been damaged. We see in the future how my health will react and how my health will survive in the next future.
JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Now, you converted from Judaism to Christianity. Did this help, or did it make it harder for your captors?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: My conversion to Christianity was in Sydney, Australia, in 1986, it was before this case. So when I find myself in prison I decided my Christianity is going to be my way to freedom, my boundary, my defence against Israel's power organisation, brainwash or psychologic warfare. So in some way, in many ways it helped me very much.
JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Do you believe that you're a traitor to Israel?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Five million Jews are regarding me as a traitor, but six billion people around the world think me as a hero and a good man who bring the message to all the human beings that we should survive and prevent the use of nuclear weapons and to prevent the nuclear preparations and to prevent nuclear war in the future.
JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Now, any knowledge that you had of the Israeli nuclear weapons program is now, it's nearly 20 years old and it's well out of date.
Why do you think the Israeli Government is still, apparently, frightened of you?
MORDECHAI VANUNU: Maybe the real fear is that my free spirit, my free belief to express my views in politics, in everything, not only nuclear secrets, I have many interesting views and I'm telling them without fear and expressing that to anyone in all the world, in all the media, and that is not good for Israel.
They don't like it, and also, the Israel Government and state have teached all the world, especially the west, Europe, United States, Australia, Canada, they teach them to fear and now to be under blackmail by Israel propaganda of Holocaust and all this propaganda.
Now come a man and speaking from inside about their crimes, their mistakes, their stupid policy of nuclear weapons and all the world's watching all this, and that is their real concern.
ELEANOR HALL: Mordechai Vanunu speaking to Radio Adelaide's Jonathan Lucraft.
----
Protesters disrupt rallying call
Associated New Media
29 September 2004
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWLABOURBlairtues20blairupd?source=
Prime Minister Tony Blair faced angry protests as he urged his party to set aside its differences over Iraq and seize the chance of an historic third term in power.
Thousands of hunt supporters marched outside Brighton's conference centre as the Premier appealed to the party faithful, while his address was twice interrupted by hecklers inside the hall itself.
The Prime Minister told Labour's conference he would not apologise for ousting Saddam Hussein from power, while acknowledging mistakes were made in the run up to war.
But he appealed to delegates: "Whatever disagreements we have had, (we) should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done."
He unveiled a 10-point manifesto pledge to take his party into the next election, appealing to activists: "Let's get out and do it."
Despite tight security the Premier was interrupted even as he began his 55-minute speech with a heckler shouting: "You have got blood on your hands."
Mr Blair hit back: "That's fine, sir. You can make your protest. Just thank goodness we live in a democracy and you can." After he was interrupted a second time, apparently by hunt supporters, the Premier said: "Excuse me, but if there's any more of you do you mind standing up now?"
The Prime Minister went on to deliver his rallying cry, saying: "Here we are, facing the possibility unique in our 100-year history of governing Britain for a third successive term. Never done it before, never debated it before, never imagined it before."
Mr Blair defended his apparent focus on foreign policy, saying: "It's not that I care more about foreign affairs than the state of our economy, NHS, schools or crime. It's simply that I believe democracy there means security here and that if I don't care and act on this terrorist threat then the day will come when all our good work on the issues that decide people's lives will be undone because the stability on which our economy, in an era of globalisation, depends, will vanish."
-----
U.S. activists accuse Jewish settlers of assault
Reuters
29 Sep 2004
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2972594.htm
HEBRON, West Bank, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Two American peace activists said they were beaten and robbed by a group of masked men from a Jewish settlement in the West Bank on Wednesday while escorting Palestinian children to school.
Israeli police said they were investigating all angles in the assault outside Maon settlement that left Kim Lamberty, 44, with a broken arm and Chris Brown, 39, with a punctured lung.
A settler spokesman said he had no knowledge of the attack and condemned it.
Lamberty and Brown are members of Christian Peace Maker, a group that monitors Israeli-Palestinian friction in the West Bank, where settlers live in 120 heavily guarded enclaves built on land captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
They said the five attackers kicked them to the ground, beat them with a chain and stole a passport, cellphone and money. The children they were taking to school at Palestinian village close to the divided West Bank city of Hebron fled the scene.
"These guys were definitely Jewish settlers. They came at us from an outpost just outside Maon," Lamberty told Reuters, saying she and Brown had filed a complaint with police.
Palestinians and human rights groups often accuse settlers, many of whom carry guns, of vigilante violence and a campaign of harassment.
Settlers have been a main target of Palestinian suicide bombings, armed infiltrations and shooting ambushes since a Palestinian uprising started in September 2000.
Asked about Wednesday's attack on the U.S. activists, Josh Hasten, a spokesman for the YESHA settler council, said: "We know nothing of this specific incident but are opposed to any violation of the law."
-------
------- 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.