NucNews - December 7, 2004 -------- NUCLEAR -------- business Siemens denies it plans to sell nuclear plant safety technology to China (AFX) December 7, 2004 http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/041207/323/f82ur.html MUNICH - Siemens AG (Xetra: 723610.DE - news) denied a press report it wants to sell China several hundred million euros of nuclear power plant safety technology for 20 planned atomic reactors. 'There is no tender, therefore this issue is not being discussed,' a Siemens spokesman said. Stern magazine issued a pre-release of an article to appear Thursday which stated that Siemens was aggressively lobbying the German government to obtain permission to sell the technology. The magazine did not state where it obtained the information. alfred.kueppers@afxnews.com -------- china 4th nuke plant in pipeline in Guangdong (Busines Weekly) By Zheng Caixiong 2004-12-07 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/07/content_398056.htm South China's Guangdong Province is planning to construct its fourth nuclear power plant to help ease the power shortage in the nation's prosperous Pearl River Delta region. The province is now busy selecting a site from four candidate places in Huilai County and Lufeng City in its eastern coastal part. The electricity shortage in Guangdong Province this year is expected to exceed 3 million kilowatt hours or more than 10 per cent, due to its rapid economic growth. And the situation would last several years in the future in Guangdong which lacks sufficient coal, crude oil and other energies to sustain its economic growth. Guangdong has to purchase electricity from bordering Hong Kong and China's southwestern provinces. A 40-person instruction group consisting of nuclear experts, designers and government officials have recently reconnoitred the four places and they will soon decide on the construction site, according to an executive from Guangdong Nuclear Power Co Ltd. "All the sites have their advantages," Yu Jiechun, an executive from Guangdong Nuclear Power Co Ltd, said. In addition to their good geographical location, all the four sites have enough fresh water supplies and enjoy advanced land and water transportation facilities, said Yu. He believed construction of the new nuclear power plant would begin before 2010, and will contribute to Guangdong's rapid economic development. But Yu refused to give more details on the new nuclear power plant. Meanwhile, Guangdong is speeding up the preparation work for construction of the country's biggest nuclear power plant in its coastal city of Yangjiang. The nuclear reactor of the Yangjiang plant will officially begin construction before 2006, said Yu. And the infrastructural facility construction for the project has already been well under way on the construction site in Shahuai in Yangdong County. Located in the western coastal area of Guangdong Province, Yangjiang Nuclear Power Plant will include six generating units. Each has an installed production capacity of 1 million kilowatts. The first two generating units will be able to start operating before 2010, while the whole six generating units will come on stream in 15 to 20 years. The project will be able to annually generate electricity of more than 45 billion kilowatt hours when all the six generating units start operation. Covering an area of 472,485 square metres, construction of the nuclear power plant is estimated to cost more than US$8 billion. It is, so far, the largest nuclear power plant on the Chinese mainland. Guangdong will have an installed nuclear power production capacity of more than 12 million kilowatts after the Yangjiang plant starts full commercial operations. And Guangdong's nuclear electricity will be able to represent more than 20 per cent of the province's total. Currently fuel power accounts for the lion's share of Guangdong's electricity industry while nuclear power accounts for less than 10 per cent. Yu said Yangjiang Nuclear Power Plant is of great significance to Guangdong's economic growth, especially to economic construction of the western area of the Pearl River Delta region. And the Yangjiang Nuclear Power Plant will also help strengthen Guangdong's status as China's biggest nuclear power industrial production base. By 2012, Guangdong will have an installed production capacity of nuclear power reaching eight million kilowatts, becoming the biggest nuclear production base in China. Guangdong will be able to generate more than 50 per cent of the country's total nuclear electricity in 2012. The country's other nuclear power production bases include Zhejiang and Jiangsu provinces, both in the eastern coastal areas. Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant in Zhejiang Province, China's first nuclear power plant, started operations in 1991. China has planned to have an installed nuclear power production capacity of more than 36 million kilowatts by 2020. Now Guangdong has already two nuclear plants in operation. Daya Bay and Ling'ao nuclear power stations have a total installed capacity of four generating units, with 1 million kilowatts each. The two power plants that are situated in eastern part of the Pearl River Delta started commercial operation in 1994 and 1995 respectively. Most of the equipment and technologies of the Daya Bay and Ling'ao nuclear power plants, including the nuclear reactors, were imported from France, one of the world's giants in nuclear power industry. And the US$4-billion Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant which has two 900,000-kilowatt generating units is also one of the largest Sino-foreign joint ventures on the Chinese mainland. Guangdong Province holds 75 per cent of the stakes while its partner Hong Kong Nuclear Power Investment Corp Ltd has the remaining 25 per cent. -------- india / pakistan King America's amoral queen rediff.com December 07, 2004 http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/dec/06kanch.htm Indian folklore is replete with stories about amoral kings pandering to every desire of their equally amoral favourite queens, and then making up to their favourite concubines in high dudgeon by promising better, and more expensive, gifts. In the end, of course, queens were left with pearls and rubies, while concubines had to console themselves with tinsel and baubles. Such, then, is the story that has been unfolding ever since Pakistan was accorded the vaunted status of 'Major Non-NATO Ally' of the United States of America in March this year. That was only one of the gifts showered on Islamabad by Washington. The US has happily written off $4 billion owed by Pakistan and promised another $3 billion in aid and assistance. After all, General Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan and chief of that country's armed forces, is America's blue-eyed boy in this part of the world. Therefore, when the Pentagon officially confirmed what has been known for long, that America would resume supply of weapons and weapon systems to Pakistan, starting with a big $1.2 billion package, it did not come as a surprise. The US Congress is yet to clear the three separate deals, including the P-3C Orion surveillance aircraft (valued at $970 million), six Phalanx close-in weapon systems and upgrades ($155 million) and an ammunition complement of 2,000 TOW-2A missiles and 14 TOW-2A Fly-to-Buy missiles ($82 million) and, theoretically, could raise objections. But that is unlikely to happen, specially now that President George W Bush has won a second term in office. Pakistan is also likely to get the F-16s, which have been grounded for nearly a decade-and-a-half. The American Administration had agreed to provide Pakistan with 40 F-16s as a reward for backing US efforts to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan. But in 1990, the US Congress adopted legislation that scuppered the delivery of these fighter jets because of Pakistan's covert nuclear programme. Pakistan's bomb is no longer hidden in the basement. Not only is Pakistan now overtly nuclear, it has been found hawking bomb-making technology, surreptitiously and disingenuously gathered in the first place, to North Korea, Iran and Libya. The CIA's recently declassified documents detail Dr A Q Khan's nefarious role in nuclear proliferation, something which he could not have done without the knowledge of, and sharing the booty with Musharraf. Cockily confident that he has both the US State Department and Pentagon wrapped around his little finger, Musharraf has demanded that the parked F-16s should be upgraded with state-of-the-art gadgetry and armed with top-of-the-line air-to-air missiles. When the F-16s take off for Pakistan, they will meet these, and perhaps more, requirements. For the past decade, especially during the years when the National Democratic Alliance was in power, India was able to block the supply of US arms to Pakistan through skilful diplomacy and with the help of professional lobbyists. Also, the India Caucus in the US Congress played no insignificant role in refashioning Washington's indulgent attitude towards a wayward Islamabad and in generating greater sensitivity towards New Delhi's concerns. It now increasingly appears that status quo ante shall once again prevail, notwithstanding the 'Next Step in Strategic Partnership' dialogue that has entered phase two. The US justification for granting Major Non-NATO Ally status to Pakistan and resuming the supply of sophisticated weaponry is, at best, specious. Washington may claim that Islamabad has been a loyal ally in the fight against terrorism, but has little to show as evidence to back up this spurious claim. No less deserving of scorn is the American claim that the P-3C Orion surveillance aircraft, Phalanx close-in weapon systems and Fly-to-Buy missiles (as also the F-16s that are likely to be delivered) are meant to help Pakistan fight terrorism. There is also the misplaced view, shared by both neo-cons and liberals, that by pumping in money and arms, the US will strengthen 'moderate Islam' and weaken 'fundamentalist Islam' in countries like Pakistan. Hence, the military is preferable to mullahs. Apart from the fact that it is facetious to set apart 'moderates' from 'fundamentalists,' this view, like most American policies, is utterly silly and mendacious -- the mad mullahs of Pakistan did not appear, genie like, from thin air, but are monsters created by that country's military and generals like Pervez Musharraf and Zia-ul Huq who have used Islamic fanaticism to further their political ambition. India, understandably, is disturbed by the resumed inflow of sophisticated American weaponry into its neighbourhood. Not only will it add to Pakistani belligerence towards India, but also trigger a fresh wave of competitive spending on conventional arms. New Delhi has conveyed both concern and apprehension to Washington, but without any apparent success in dissuading the Americans from embarking on a patently disastrous misadventure that would be no different from its previous flawed policy of providing military aid to Pakistan that ultimately resulted in Taliban taking over Afghanistan and was largely responsible for cross-border jihadi terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. Yet, the US realises that in the post-9/11 world India is as much a valuable ally as Pakistan. Economic commonsense based on emerging market realities is only one of the considerations weighing heavy on the American administration. The other centres round India's importance as a regional power and its expanding strategic relations both in the west and the east. Moreover, the US would not want to be seen as the hand that rocks the cradle of terrorism. So, we have carefully planted news stories, a week before US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's visit to New Delhi on December 9/10, about how the US is willing to provide India with top-of-the-line military hardware including the Patriot anti-missile system, C-130 stretched medium lift transport aircraft, P-3C Orion 'Plus' maritime surveillance planes", and, 'even F-16 fighters.' Media has been selectively used to pass on the information that US weapons systems manufacturer Raytheon may be making a formal presentation soon. So, India need not sulk and grudge Pakistan the gifts being showered on it. If most of the world believes, perhaps unfairly, that the Americans are stupid, then Indian policy-makers and those in the government of the day are not known for extraordinary intelligence, either. The very fact that the American 'offer' has not been officially either repudiated or outright rejected shows how easily South Block can be placated with placebos. A sly reference has also been made in the selective media leaks as to how Rajiv Gandhi was able to secure engines and flight control systems for the LCA from the US in the 1980s despite the Cold War that still raged and India was nowhere in America's good books. The truth is that the Americans subsequently reneged on the deal and the LCA project suffered on account of that. The American administration and GE should know about this, as should those in New Delhi who have been preening over the US offer. There is more. Even if the US were to actually supply India all this weaponry, Pakistan would still score higher. With its exalted status as America's Major Non-NATO Ally, Pakistan is entitled to bid on contracts for repair of American defence equipment, participate in American research and development projects to improve conventional defence capabilities, American financing to underwrite the sale or long-term lease of defence equipment and services to that country, US-owned war reserve stockpiles on its territory and obtain US foreign assistance to purchase depleted uranium ammunition. Meanwhile, India's traditional and loyal friends are watching Washington's moves and counter-moves with perhaps greater interest than New Delhi. If India were to step into the spider's parlour, France would take a second look at its options, as would Russia. In fact, the Russians have already raised the issue of signing a pact on protecting intellectual property rights as a condition precedent for further supply of high-technology defence equipment. If India's policy-makers and the UPA government were to ignore the all important reliability factor and be naïve enough to be seduced by the American pie, then Russia would be smart enough to look for new buyers, Pakistan included, for its weapons and weapon systems. It's clearly a case of pearls and baubles, rubies and tinsel. There are no prizes for guessing who's the favourite queen and who's the favourite concubine of King America. Comments are welcome. Responses will be posted at http://kanchangupta.rediffblogs.com My regular blog is at http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com -------- iran Time to engage Iran? Times Republican By PAT BUCHANAN 12/7/2004 http://www.timesrepublican.com/columns/story/127202004_colcol.asp Iran does not want a clash with the United States. And unlike Milosevic and Saddam, neither of whom wanted a war, either, Iran is determined not to give the neoconservatives the pretext to launch one. This is behind Tehran's grudging acceptance of the British-French-German initiative to arrest Iran's nuclear program by forcing a shutdown of its facilities for enriching uranium. Iran claims the fuel was to be used in power plants. America says - and Europe fears - that any Iranian facility that enriches uranium for power plants could also be used to enrich uranium for atom bombs. As of today, there is no hard evidence that Iran has a bomb or the fissile material to build one, or the operating facilities to produce the plutonium or highly enriched uranium needed to create one. But there are reasons to believe Iran is entertaining a nuclear option. First, its nuclear program had been kept secret. Second, given what happened to neighboring Iraq, the mullahs, in facing President Bush, might well prefer the nuclear ambiguity of a North Korea's Kim Jong-Il to the nuclear nakedness of a Saddam Hussein. Third, Iran is surrounded by nuclear neighbors, many of them hostile. U.S. forces are in Turkey, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and Afghanistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, as does India. Russia, which occupied northern Iran after World War II, is a great nuclear power, as is China. Israel, which has threatened to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, has hundreds of nuclear weapons. But there are also arguments for Iran's not going nuclear. While having a bomb might deter some enemies, to be caught secretly building one could provoke Israel or the Americans into a pre-emptive strike, and the Saudis and Turks into building their own bombs. How would that make Iran more secure? However, if Iran would suffer grievously in a war with the United States - losing its nuclear facilities, navy and air force, and being set back years - it is hard to see how America would benefit. U.S. strikes would likely unite the Iranians behind the regime, and retaliation might come in the form of "volunteers" for a Shia uprising in Iraq and attacks on U.S. interests across the Middle East. Pro-American governments could be destabilized and an oil boycott imposed that could send prices to $70 or $80 a barrel. But if neither we nor Iran would benefit from war between us, is there common ground on which we might stand to attain a cold peace? Indeed, there is. Iran has already benefited from the U.S. ouster of the detested Taliban and Saddam, and it would surely not object to a Shi'ite government in Baghdad. And we both have a vital interest in a Persian Gulf kept open. Yet, the conflicts between us cannot be minimized. First, the Iranian revolution is a failure, having created neither a great nor universally respected nation. Unlike the French Revolution, it has been unable to export or replicate itself. Twenty-five years after the fall of the shah, no nation looks to Iran as a model or inspiration. Twice, Iranians have voted in landslides for reformers to ameliorate mullah rule. But while Tehran has an incentive to integrate the nation into the modern world, any such integration would dilute revolutionary purity and zeal, and could further estrange the regime from the people. What makes detente with America almost impossible is that the ayatollah's revolution was as much anti-American as anti-Shah. Enmity toward the "Great Satan" legitimizes the regime. But should America suddenly no longer be an enemy, but a partner, Iran's people might ask: Why not open our country up to tourism, trade and cultural contact with America? For communist Europe, that was the end. What are the elements of coexistence between us? Return to Iran of the billions she is owed by the United States, an end to U.S. sanctions and an invitation into the World Trade Organization. For America, it would require an end to Iran's sponsorship of terror, cooperation in Iraq and restraint on Hezbollah as we try to broker a peace between Palestinians and Israelis. As for its nuclear program, the United States could ensure Iran's access to peaceful nuclear power in return for a verifiable agreement not to build nuclear weapons. The problem? Iran may believe having a bomb is a better guarantor of her security than any U.S. promise. And, frankly, who could blame them? As for the neocons' insistence on "regime change" in Iran, that is a deal-breaker, which is why Israel and the neocons have made it their non-negotiable demand. They don't want a deal. They want a war. But what is best for America? ----- EU, Iran to launch nuclear talks next week (Reuters) By Parisa Hafezi Dec 7, 2004 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7016213&pageNumber=0 TEHRAN - Iran's top nuclear negotiator said on Tuesday that he will meet French, British and German officials next week to launch talks aimed at permanently resolving the standoff over Tehran's nuclear plans. "Next week there will be a meeting between Iranian and 'EU three' officials in one of the European capitals," Hassan Rohani, secretary of Iran's powerful Supreme National Security Council, was quoted as saying on Iranian state television. "Possibly I will have a meeting with the 'EU three' foreign ministers and (Javier) Solana," he said, adding that head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, had asked to attend the meeting. Solana is the EU foreign policy chief. Washington accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons under cover of its atomic energy programme and has demanded that the U.N. consider imposing economic sanctions on Tehran as punishment. Iran denies the charge, insisting its plans are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity. Western diplomats in Vienna, where the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is headquartered, said that the foreign ministers of the European Union's "big three" states were planning to meet Rohani briefly when the talks opened. "The Iranians insisted on 'EU three' foreign ministers. They wanted a big show at the beginning of the talks," said a Western diplomat who follows negotiations between Tehran and the EU aimed at maintaining a freeze of Iran's sensitive atomic work. PACKAGE OF INCENTIVES He said the meeting of the ministers and Rohani would last around an hour and would be largely "symbolic". The date and location were still up in the air, though diplomats in Vienna said they assumed it would take place on Monday. When the ministers finish, the talks will pass to less senior officials, who will work out details of a package of economic and political incentives aimed at persuading Iran to give up all work on uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, activities that can produce atom-bomb material. Washington is not doing anything to undermine the EU-Iran talks but is convinced they will fail, diplomats in Vienna say. They also said the Iranians' expectations for the talks were so high that it would be difficult not to disappoint them. Western diplomats said the Iranians want the talks to conclude within months and the Europeans envisioned them taking years. Iran has threatened to resume enrichment activities if the talks with the EU do not start yielding quick results. Rohani made it clear that Tehran was entering the negotiations determined to keep its nuclear programme, though he indicated that the Iranians might be open to persuasion. "As we have openly told the Europeans, Tehran is determined to keep its nuclear technology and Iran will not give it up easily," Rohani said. Last week, Iran froze key parts of its nuclear programme after a week of marathon negotiations between EU and Iranian negotiators. The board of governors of the IAEA passed a resolution calling on Iran to maintain the freeze but referred to the suspension as "non-binding" and "voluntary". Iran says the freeze will be short-lived. ----- Iran probing four suspected nuclear spies, judiciary says TEHRAN (AFP) Dec 07, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041207134703.1fghymkz.html Iran's judiciary said on Tuesday it was investigating four people suspected of spying on the Islamic republic's nuclear programme, contradicting reports that their trial had already begun. "The trial of the nuclear spies will probably take place in secret after the end of the investigation," judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimi-Rad told the student news agency ISNA. His comments were confirmed on state television by Abbas Ali Alizadeh, the head of Tehran's justice department. On November 18, Ali Mobacheri, the head of Tehran's revolutionary courts, told the government newspaper Iran that the trials had already begun. He said the accused had "infiltrated nuclear facilities" and "were spying for foreign countries". The accused have not been identified, and officials have also not specified for which countries they were allegedly spying. But the paper said that "in the past these individuals also spied for Iraq". In August, Iran's Intelligence Minister Ali Yunessi announced the arrest of a number of "spies" who sent information on Iran's nuclear programme to foreigners. He said the People's Mujahedeen, an armed opposition group based in Iraq that the regime in Tehran labels as "hypocrites", had played the central role in the espionage. The group's political wing, the National Council for Resistance in Iran, in 2002 revealed two nuclear sites Iran had been hiding, including a uranium-enrichment plant in Natanz. Last month the group alleged Iran was hiding a uranium enrichment facility in Tehran and aimed at getting the atomic bomb next year. The group also said the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan who has admitted to running an international nuclear smuggling network, delivered bomb designs and weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to Iran. Iran insists that its nuclear activities are purely peaceful. -------- Tehran's nukes a global threat, Israeli warns THE WASHINGTON TIMES By Tom Carter December 07, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041206-100256-5889r.htm Iran's relentless pursuit of a nuclear weapon is the biggest danger facing Israel, the Middle East and the world, a senior foreign-policy adviser to the Israeli government said yesterday. "We have no doubt that Iran is trying to move ahead on building nuclear capability," Zalman Shoval, a former ambassador to the United States, said in a luncheon meeting with reporters and editors at The Washington Times yesterday. Since January 2002, when President Bush declared that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," Iran — with Russian help — has been pursuing what it describes as a peaceful nuclear program. But the United States and others suspect that the nation's real goal is to develop nuclear weapons. The United States pushed a hard line on dismantling Iran's nuclear program, but Europe balked. And in late November, the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a resolution on a safeguards agreement with Iran, which includes surveillance cameras. But Mr. Shoval, one of several foreign-policy advisers to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said yesterday he was skeptical of the European "step-by-step" plan. "Iran is formally and ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel, and a nuclear Iran is an immense danger," he said. "Iran is using the express elevator getting to the nuclear bomb." Mr. Shoval said this was not simply an issue for Israel, but one that puts the world at danger. He charged that Iran was "directly" involved in arming and training terrorists who attack Israel. "Once Iran gets their hands on nuclear weapons and the delivery system, everyone in the Middle East will want one. It will be a completely new ballgame and a very dangerous one. If the world looks away from this, it will be a very tough awakening," he said. He said he had no knowledge of any Israeli plan to strike pre-emptively at Iran's nuclear facilities. Mr. Shoval, who served as Israel's ambassador to the United States from 1990 to 1993 and again from 1998 to 2000, was in Washington to discuss Israeli-Palestinian relations at a seminar at the Brookings Institution. He said that he planned to meet with several Bush administration officials in the National Security Council and that he had met with his "old friend" Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a pro-Israel hard-liner who has been mentioned as a possible successor to Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage. Mr. Shoval said the Bush administration has "done the right thing" by refusing to push Israel into negotiations with the Palestinians while terrorist attacks continue. But with the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, he said, he is "fairly optimistic" that there is an opportunity to move forward on Israel's plan to disengage from the Gaza Strip and the "road map" peace plan. "We want to see a Palestinian side with a reformed leadership, more transparency, a civilian government, rule of law," he said. "If something like that really develops, it will create the foundation for a viable democratic Palestinian state. If all these things happen, we will have arrived at stage two of the road map, a Palestinian state with provisional borders." He said an Israeli-Egypt prisoner swap on Sunday that sent convicted Israeli spy Azzam Azzam home after eight years "was a positive sign, and we may see more." "Tunis, Morocco, perhaps one of the Gulf states will return to a better relationship [with Israel]," he said. He said pressure from the Europeans — who are expected to offer Mr. Bush help in Iraq and U.S.-European rapprochement if he urges Israel to compromise more — would be counterproductive. More useful, he said, would be if the Arab states used 1 percent or 2 percent of their recent $50 billion to $75 billion oil windfall to help rebuild the Palestinian economy. "International conferences are never good for Israel, and in the foreseeable future, we will not be able to arrive at a permanent peace plan that the Palestinians can live with and we can live with. But this does not mean we cannot move forward," he said. "Hopefully, these guys will say, 'Let's not miss another chance,' and work for Palestinian statehood in one form or another. Today, especially after Arafat, everyone understands [disengagement] is the only game in town." ------- Bush administration planning to increase pressure on Iran Knight Ridder Newspapers By Warren P. Strobel Dec. 07, 2004 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10361796.htm WASHINGTON - As 150,000 U.S. troops battle to stabilize Iraq, some officials in the Bush administration are already planning to turn up the heat on another member of the president's axis of evil. Officials in the White House and the Defense Department are developing plans to increase public criticism of Iran's human rights record, offer stronger backing to exiles and other opponents of Tehran's repressive theocratic government and collect better intelligence on Iran, according to U.S. officials, congressional aides and others. Iran has embarked on a nuclear program that some specialists fear cannot be prevented from producing an atom bomb; is trying to extend its influence in Iraq and remains a prime sponsor of Hezbollah and other international terrorist groups. U.S. intelligence officials also believe some top lieutenants of Osama bin Laden have sought refuge in Iran. However, with the U.S. military now stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new campaign may be intended not to build support for military action against Iran, but to pressure Iran to change its behavior so military action isn't necessary. It's far from clear, however, whether a more aggressive U.S. campaign to condemn the Iranian regime and court pro-Western forces would have any effect. The major Iranian opposition group, the Iraq-based Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK), remains on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups, but it's provided much of the intelligence about Iran's weapons programs. The new, more aggressive tack is said to have the backing of secretary of state-designate Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser. Among the steps under consideration, the officials said, are stronger public condemnations of Iran's human rights practices and treatment of women; increased U.S. broadcasting into the country; and financial backing for pro-Western groups. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized spokesmen and, in some cases, because final decisions haven't been made. Rice previewed some of the ideas during a White House meeting last week with leaders of major Jewish-American groups, according to one individual who was present and others who were briefed on the session. "We have to do more to help the human rights community and the dissidents inside Iran," Rice told the group, according to one participant's notes of the meeting, which also focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An administration official, asked about Rice's reported comments, said they reflected a "heightened attempt" to expose Iran's behavior. "We're trying to make plain for the international community the strategic challenge that Iran poses," he said. At the same time, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which overseas U.S. international broadcasting, has proposed to the White House a major increase in broadcasting into Iran by Voice of America television, a U.S. official said. The proposal, which is expected to win approval, would increase daily broadcasts from 30 minutes a day to about three hours, the official said. "We expect that the White House will be as supportive of this plan as it was for increasing broadcasting to the Arab world," the official said. He couldn't provide cost estimates for the expansion. The United States already operates a Persian-language radio service, Radio Farda, which broadcasts to Iran 24 hours a day, seven days a week. More U.S. broadcasting to Muslim audiences was one of the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 Commission. The administration was never able to agree on an Iran policy during Bush's first term. The State Department favored engagement and international action, while officials in the Defense Department and Vice President Cheney's office proposed backing the MEK and considering military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. How to handle Iran is now shaping up as a major foreign policy issue for Bush's second term. But with the bulk of U.S. combat divisions tied down in neighboring Iraq, the president appears to have no good military options against Iran, which is almost four times larger than Iraq and has nearly three times its neighbor's population. A limited U.S. air strike on Iran's far-flung nuclear facilities would cause worldwide outrage, could endanger U.S. troops in Iraq and would have no assurance of success. European allies favor diplomacy to curb Iran's nuclear program. However, top Bush administration officials are now hinting that the White House is eager to start withdrawing troops from Iraq by the middle of next year. One rationale, a senior administration official said, is to give the president greater flexibility in dealing with Iran. Calls for supporting Iranian dissidents have been fueled by an accelerating takeover of the country's institutions by conservative clerics, ending hopes for reforms backed by President Mohammad Khatami, whose term ends next year. But while many Iranians, particularly the young, are fed up with their rulers and even pro-American, they're also deeply suspicious of foreign meddling in Iranian politics. Iranians who accept U.S. assistance for democratization are likely to be branded agents of the "Great Satan." Former assistant secretary of state Lorne Craner said that when Congress made $2 million available in a fiscal 2004 appropriations bill for democratization activities in Iran, "We started looking around for what might be doable. ... It wasn't clear we'd be received warmly in Iran." But Craner, who left government last year, said that could change if the U.S. government showed it was serious. "When you say you're willing, people start showing up," he said. The omnibus spending bill passed by Congress last month includes a provision, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., for $3 million to promote democracy in Iran. Some of the funds could be used to stage a conference in the United States that would bring together Iranian dissidents, human rights advocates and nongovernmental organizations. That approach echoes the actions of the U.S. government toward Iraq during the 1990s, when it helped forge fractious Iraqi dissidents into the Iraqi National Congress. The INC and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, helped persuade the Bush administration to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, but much of the intelligence the INC provided on Iraq's weapons programs and terrorist ties has proved to be wrong. The Bush administration also is considering adding Iran to a broader U.S.-backed program to promote democracy in the region, known as the Middle East Partnership Initiative. "We are exploring ways to begin working with groups inside (Iran)," J. Scott Carpenter, the State Department official who runs the program, told the New York Sun newspaper last month. Carpenter did not return a phone call seeking comment. -------- japan Pacifists push to declare Japanese city 'defenseless' TOKYO (AFP) Dec 07, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041207124505.nudyi14b.html Alarmed by what they see as Japan's drift to militarism, pacifists led by a prominent lawyer are trying to declare a small city defenseless using an obscure international protocol. The group is pushing for the western Japanese city of Hirakata, whose 400,000 people face no obvious external threats, to be declared a "non-defended locality" under a 1977 additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of war. Under the protocol, which Japan ratified in June, such a city cannot legally be attacked nor can it be used in support of military operations. "We don't want to allow war to happen. So we will tie the hands of the Japanese government," lawyer Takeo Matsumoto told reporters Tuesday. "This is based on international law," Matsumoto said. "There is a right to declare oneself non-defended." Japan since last year has stationed troops in Iraq in a departure from its pacifist US-imposed constitution of 1947. Japan is also considering building long-range missiles to face perceived threats from North Korea and China. The pacifist group said it aimed to turn back the momentum towards the military and return to pacifism that coincided with Japan's rapid development from the ashes of World War II. "I was shocked by the terrorist attacks of September 11 three years ago," said Yukiyo Ota, a spokeswoman for the group. "When citizens kept getting killed in Afghanistan and then Iraq, I felt something had to be done." Some 18,600 residents of Hirakata, a university city 375 kilometersmiles) west of Tokyo, signed a petition last month supporting the idea of declaring the city undefended, a municipal official said. A panel of local lawmakers is set to study the proposed declaration Thursday, the official said. A similar movement has been underway in recent years to declare Berkeley, California an "un-defended locality." The US university town has already declared itself "nuclear free," meaning no work on nuclear weapons can take place in city limits. Matsumoto, a high-profile human rights lawyer, won a Supreme Court ruling in October that held the government responsible for mercury poisoning that killed hundreds of people from 1960 in Minamata Bay, southern Japan. -------- korea UN atom chief certain North Korea has made fuel for 4 to 6 bombs By David E. Sanger and William J. Broad December 7, 2004 The New York Times http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/nuke.html VIENNA Nearly two years after international nuclear inspectors were ejected from North Korea, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency says he is now certain that the nuclear material his agency once monitored there has been converted into fuel for four to six nuclear bombs. The assessment, by Mohamed ElBaradei, in an interview at the agency's headquarters, aligns with the private assessments of many U.S. intelligence officials. But it goes well beyond anything that the CIA or President George W. Bush and his aides have said in public. Some Bush administration officials have said they were not eager to update their public assessment of North Korea's abilities, out of a concern that it could create pressure for action - either greater efforts to force the collapse of the North Korean government, or greater concessions in negotiations, as North Korea has demanded. In the interview, ElBaradei said his judgment that North Korea had converted its stockpile of spent nuclear fuel into weapons-grade plutonium was not based on new intelligence. Instead, he said, it was based on the agency's years of accumulated knowledge of North Korea's abilities and the amount of time that had passed since North Korea ejected inspectors and began removing the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods that inspectors had been monitoring and that can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium. "I'm sure they have reprocessed it all," he said. The production process of turning the rods into bomb fuel "is not that difficult," he said, and enough time has passed for North Korea to have solved any production problems. The United States has insisted that North Korea has enough nuclear material to make only one or two weapons, based on an estimate made in the early 1990s. Because the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency have never seen that material or any nuclear weapons, the conclusion was an educated guess and has been the subject of considerable debate. But it was also assumed that one or two weapons posed relatively little threat: North Korea could not afford to sell its plutonium, or even conduct a nuclear test, if those actions would eradicate its stockpile. If ElBaradei's new estimate is right - and several U.S. experts interviewed in recent days said they believed that it probably was - then that equation changes, and North Korea could have far more leverage. Richard Armitage, who is departing as the deputy secretary of state, warned Congress nearly two years ago that if North Korea reprocessed its fuel rods there was a far more significant risk that it could sell the material. The comment alarmed some administration officials, who have striven to convey a sense that there is not a great strategic difference if North Korea holds one or two weapons or if it holds seven or eight. But internally, there has been significant debate on that subject at the White House and the Pentagon. Last month, General Leon LaPorte, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, told reporters in Seoul that he was increasingly concerned that "North Korea, in its desire for hard currency, would sell weapons-grade plutonium to some terrorist organizations." A spokesman for the National Security Council, Sean McCormack, said he was unaware of any change in the official assessment of North Korea's abilities. ElBaradei's assessment puts him in a position opposite to the one he was in two years ago, when the Bush administration pressed him to find evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. ElBaradei balked, saying there was little evidence of activity since the 1991 Gulf war. His view was later supported by the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group. But in the case of North Korea, it is ElBaradei who appears more willing to raise alarms. That may reflect, in part, the breakdown in communication between his agency and the United States on North Korea. The agency, an arm of the United Nations, has been largely frozen out of what little new intelligence the United States has gathered about North Korea's activities since inspectors left. One senior official of the agency said that was to be expected because "without inspectors in North Korea, there's not much we could do with the intelligence." Nearly two years after international nuclear inspectors were ejected from North Korea, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency says he is now certain that the nuclear material his agency once monitored there has been converted into fuel for four to six nuclear bombs. The assessment, by Mohamed ElBaradei, in an interview at the agency's headquarters, aligns with the private assessments of many U.S. intelligence officials. But it goes well beyond anything that the CIA or President George W. Bush and his aides have said in public. Some Bush administration officials have said they were not eager to update their public assessment of North Korea's abilities, out of a concern that it could create pressure for action - either greater efforts to force the collapse of the North Korean government, or greater concessions in negotiations, as North Korea has demanded. In the interview, ElBaradei said his judgment that North Korea had converted its stockpile of spent nuclear fuel into weapons-grade plutonium was not based on new intelligence. Instead, he said, it was based on the agency's years of accumulated knowledge of North Korea's abilities and the amount of time that had passed since North Korea ejected inspectors and began removing the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods that inspectors had been monitoring and that can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium. "I'm sure they have reprocessed it all," he said. The production process of turning the rods into bomb fuel "is not that difficult," he said, and enough time has passed for North Korea to have solved any production problems. The United States has insisted that North Korea has enough nuclear material to make only one or two weapons, based on an estimate made in the early 1990s. Because the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency have never seen that material or any nuclear weapons, the conclusion was an educated guess and has been the subject of considerable debate. But it was also assumed that one or two weapons posed relatively little threat: North Korea could not afford to sell its plutonium, or even conduct a nuclear test, if those actions would eradicate its stockpile. If ElBaradei's new estimate is right - and several U.S. experts interviewed in recent days said they believed that it probably was - then that equation changes, and North Korea could have far more leverage. Richard Armitage, who is departing as the deputy secretary of state, warned Congress nearly two years ago that if North Korea reprocessed its fuel rods there was a far more significant risk that it could sell the material. The comment alarmed some administration officials, who have striven to convey a sense that there is not a great strategic difference if North Korea holds one or two weapons or if it holds seven or eight. But internally, there has been significant debate on that subject at the White House and the Pentagon. Last month, General Leon LaPorte, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, told reporters in Seoul that he was increasingly concerned that "North Korea, in its desire for hard currency, would sell weapons-grade plutonium to some terrorist organizations." A spokesman for the National Security Council, Sean McCormack, said he was unaware of any change in the official assessment of North Korea's abilities. ElBaradei's assessment puts him in a position opposite to the one he was in two years ago, when the Bush administration pressed him to find evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. ElBaradei balked, saying there was little evidence of activity since the 1991 Gulf war. His view was later supported by the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group. But in the case of North Korea, it is ElBaradei who appears more willing to raise alarms. That may reflect, in part, the breakdown in communication between his agency and the United States on North Korea. The agency, an arm of the United Nations, has been largely frozen out of what little new intelligence the United States has gathered about North Korea's activities since inspectors left. One senior official of the agency said that was to be expected because "without inspectors in North Korea, there's not much we could do with the intelligence. ----- U.S. 'ready to talk with N. Korea' (AP) December 7, 2004 http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/06/north.korea.nuclear.ap/ WASHINGTON -- U.S officials met twice last week with North Korean officials in New York to tell them the United States was ready to resume nuclear negotiations and wanted to resolve the issue diplomatically, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "We told the North Koreans that the six-party process is the venue for resolving the nuclear issue and we called on North Korea to follow through on its commitment to the six-party talks," Ereli said Monday. He said the United States requested the meetings because it was felt a face-to-face presentation of the U.S. position might be effective. Ereli said the United States has meetings with North Korea's U.N. diplomats in New York from time to time when they serve a useful purpose to pass messages and make points known. He said he did not know how North Korea responded to the U.S. presentation made by Joseph DeTrani, the State Department's special envoy for North Korea negotiations Ereli said DeTrani left Sunday on a trip to China, South Korea and Japan to continue consultations on getting the nuclear negotiations going again. Russia also is involved in the talks. Three rounds of six-nation talks aimed at persuading the North to halt weapons development have taken place since last year but without a breakthrough. North Korea boycotted a fourth round scheduled for September and analysts believed it was holding out for a change in the White House. On Saturday North Korea said after the talks in New York it had concluded that Pyongyang should hold off on nuclear negotiations until the United States changes its "hostile" policy toward the country. The report, from Pyongyang's official news agency KCNA, said officials met on Tuesday and Friday. Late last month, an international consortium said it had extended for another year a freeze on a project to build two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea. The four main partners in the New York-based Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization -- the United States, Japan, South Korea and the European Union -- had previously suspended the project for a year through December 1, 2004. The freeze will be extended until December 1, 2005, the group said in a statement. The light-water reactor projects were started after a 1994 deal in which North Korea agreed to dismantle its plutonium-producing Russian-model heavy water reactors. -------- missile defense Arms experts issue missile-defence alert Globe and Mail By JEFF SALLOT Dec 7, 2004 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041207.wmissile07/BNStory/National/ Ottawa — Arms-control experts from the United States and Canada warn that the Pentagon's missile-defence program is part of an elaborate strategy to use outer space as a battlefield in the future. Meanwhile, federal Liberals from Quebec say a tide of opposition to Canadian participation in the program is rising in that province, elevating the political importance of the missile issue to the level of last year's debate on the Iraq war. Jonathan Dean, who was a disarmament negotiator for the U.S. government during the Cold War, told the Commons foreign affairs committee that research on ballistic missile defence (BMD) systems is part of a Pentagon push to develop weapons to shoot down satellites. Peggy Mason, Ottawa's former ambassador for arms control, told a news conference she fears the United States is trying to drag the federal government into BMD because Canadian territory is an ideal spot from which to launch anti-satellite weapons. The U.S. Air Force recently released a military doctrine document on "counterspace operations" that describes the need for offensive weapons capable of destroying space stations and satellites. These weapons could include "directed energy weapons," such as lasers, that could be "space-based," the 56-page document says. The document, published by the secretary of the Air Force five months ago, says the U.S. military must be able to control "the high ground of space" from future enemies and to "destroy adversary space capabilities." It does not say who the enemy might be, but adds that there is every reason to believe outer space will become a "battlespace" in this century. Such prospects alarm Mr. Dean, now a security consultant for the Boston-based Union of Concerned Scientists. He said there are far better ways for the United States to protect itself from a potential enemy, including enforceable treaties to keep weapons out of outer space. A Cold-War-era treaty banning nuclear warheads in space did not foresee other kinds of weapons, such as laser guns and so-called kinetic kill vehicles. In 2006, the Pentagon plans to test one of the components of a space weapons system, a satellite sensor that could be used to target missiles, Mr. Dean said. Ms. Mason, who was prime minister Brian Mulroney's ambassador for disarmament, said the BMD interceptor rockets that the United States is deploying in Alaska and California are not particularly good at their stated task of shooting down incoming ballistic missiles. But the rockets "work as an offensive anti-satellite weapon," she said. They would also be "very useful if stationed in other countries for offensive operations," Ms. Mason said, warning that this might be why U.S. President George W. Bush is so keen on Canadian participation in BMD. Liberal caucus sources, including MPs who are generally receptive to the idea of Canadian participation, say Mr. Bush stirred up a hornet's nest with his appeal for Ottawa's co-operation during two public appearances on his visit last week. BMD "is a major issue for all of Canada, like Iraq," Quebec Liberal MP Denis Coderre said, referring to the government's decision not to join the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq last year. The Quebec wing of the Liberal Party voted on the weekend to "abstain" from the U.S. program. Mr. Coderre predicted that the issue will come to a head no later than March, when the party holds a national policy convention. Liberal youth and women's groups are proposing resolutions condemning the BMD program. -------- russia RUSSIA TO STOP SUPPLY FUEL TO INDIA'S NUKE, TO BUILD NEW INSTEAD (RIA Novosti) December 7, 2004 http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5182582&startrow=1&date=2004-12-07&do_alert=0 NEW DELHI/MOSCOW, - India's nuclear power industry is invulnerable and can be self-reliant, the newspaper Hindu on Tuesday quotes Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the National Atomic Energy Commission, as saying in Chennai. It was Kakodkar's reaction to the recent words by Alexander Rumyantsev, head of the Federal Nuclear Energy Agency, that Russia is not going to ship fuel (low-enriched uranium) for the first two reactors of the Tarapur facility, founded 100 kilometres off Mumbai, Maharashtra. Rumyantsev also said that Russia will not participate in manufacturing another two reactors for the Kudankulam facility in the southern state Tamil Nadu. Anil Kakodkar rejected the assertions that India's oldest Tarapur nuke can only fire low-enriched uranium. To him, the MOX fuel (mixed uranium-plutonium oxide), production of which has begun in India, is partly used in Tarapur reactors. In the Kudankulam plant two power units with VVER (water-moderated energy) reactors of 1,000 megawatts each is being built, with the involvement of Russian specialists,. In 1996 the International Atomic Energy Agency banned the shipment of modern nuclear technologies to India after its refusal to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Kudankulam units are in the making upon the bilateral agreement concluded way back in 1988, before the ban came into force. In 2001, minding its critical shortage of fuel, Russia shipped 58 tonnes of nuclear fuel to the Tarapur plant, casing the disgruntlement of the nuclear suppliers' group. The Russian state-run enterprise Technopromexport is going to participate in tenders for the construction of new electrical facilities in India. The possibility of its partaking in the Northern Karampura and Subansiri tenders were discussed at the meeting in New Delhi between Indian Energy Minister Said and Sergei Molozhavy, chairman of Technopromexport. "Indian electricity workers note the high professionalism of Russian specialists and their abidance by the contract commitments. We hope this will let us expand the presence of our company on the Indian energy market", Molozhavy said on results of the meeting. Currently, Technopromexport is working in India on two project of about 100 million dollars total cost. They are retooling the Obra thermal power plant and supplying hydromechanical equipment for the Indira Sagar hydropower station. Technopromexport also participates in the tender for the supply of furnace fuel for the Bar thermal power plant. Since the 1960s, Technopromexport has put into operation in India eleven power facilities of over 3,000 megawatts, or approximately ten percent of the national energy system. -------- terrorism Tom Maertens: Nuclear terror: Be afraid Star Tribune December 7, 2004 http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5122763 Even if you paid close attention to electoral campaign issues, you could be excused for thinking that George W. Bush and John Kerry did not agree on anything. But you'd be wrong. Both stated explicitly that the greatest danger facing the United States was nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Graham Allison, former assistant secretary of defense, longtime adviser to the Pentagon and presently a Harvard professor, has been saying this for years. He has now laid out the case in detail in "Nuclear Terrorism." You won't be reassured. Experts say it's a question of "when," not "if," terrorists will attack us with nuclear weapons. Indeed, some U.S. analysts believe Al-Qaida already has a nuclear weapon. How hard is it to make a nuclear weapon? In 1977, a Princeton undergraduate set out to design a nuclear weapon as his thesis project. The resulting blueprint, using unclassified sources, would have been a perfect terrorist weapon: a bomb the size of a beach ball with a 10-kiloton yield, at a cost of $2,000. Detonated in the center of a large city, it might have killed and injured millions. Members of the Princeton faculty who had worked on the WWII Manhattan Project submitted it to the government, which immediately classified it "Secret." The difficult part of building a bomb is not the design but obtaining highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the fissile material. No fissile material, no nuclear weapon. This is why Allison believes that catastrophe is preventable: The number of sources for such material is finite, albeit rather large. We must secure this material using the "gold standard" that has prevented the loss of gold from Fort Knox, he writes. This is the first of what he calls the "Three No's": No Loose Nukes. Russia has more nuclear weapons and fissile material than any country in the world. Allison estimates this material could be secured for $40 billion or less, and urges that the program be expedited. The second is No New Nascent Nukes. This would be directed at preventing the construction of national production facilities for enriched uranium or plutonium, the key to bombmaking, by countries like Iran. The final principle is No New Nuclear Weapons States. The immediate target of this would be North Korea. Allison laments that the Bush administration has no strategy for North Korea except to deny that a crisis exists, an approach that he believes is intolerable for a great power and one which future historians will see as gross negligence. Pakistan is also high up in his threat hierarchy. It has a record of selling nuclear technology, and its nuclear scientists have apparently already provided weapon design information to Al-Qaida. As for Iraq, Allison says it would not have made the top 20 most likely suppliers of nuclear material. For this reason, he believes the U.S. invasion was a strategic blunder and a diversion from the real fight against terrorists. The Bush administration, he writes, has failed to develop a coherent strategy for combating nuclear terrorism, despite its tough talk. Graham Allison has written a very readable book that will tell you the essential facts about nuclear terrorism along with some things you may wish you didn't know. Tom Maertens was NSC director for nuclear issues in both the Clinton and Bush White Houses. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Perfect for a nuclear family: Home on the missile range Denver Post By Will Shanley December 07, 2004 http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~33~2580767,00.html A missile silo complex built in Arapahoe County during the Cold War to withstand a direct nuclear blast is up for sale. It can be yours for the low, low price of $1.5 million. The underground missile complex, one of six former Titan I missile facilities in Colorado, is on the former Lowry Bombing and Gunnery Range east of Aurora. The underground site, titled Complex 1-C, is owned by Utah-based investor Lan England, who purchased the facility in 2001 from a private owner. The facility includes control and power domes and three launch silos. A series of underground tunnels connects the structures. Prospective buyers could include technology companies looking for a secure site for documents, computer files and archives, or an eccentric homeowner looking a new subterranean mansion, said Steward Mosko, senior vice president for Denver-based Fuller Co., the real estate firm handling the sale. "You can look at it as a $1.5 million fixer-upper," Mosko said. Built in 1960 at a cost of $130 million, the complex was used to store Titan 1 missiles, one of the nation's first intercontinental ballistic missiles. The weapons were designed to carry nuclear warheads and became operational in 1962. By 1965 the missiles were phased out, causing the silo and its weapons to be decommissioned. "They are very, very rare," said England, 50, noting that only 18 Titan 1 complexes were constructed in the U.S. "They were built to survive a direct nuclear blast." While the 210-acre site formerly held plutonium-based nuclear warheads, there is no evidence of radioactive contamination, said Hector Santiago, a project manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which helped monitor the environmental impact of the facility over the past several decades. Nationwide, former missile silos have gained a following from technology companies looking to find highly secure sites for data centers, said Ed Peden, owner of Kansas-based 20th Century Castles LLC, which specializes in selling underground properties. "Since Sept. 11, that has been a major thrust," Peden said. He brokered the sale of a missile silo near Grover in the late 1990s. "These are some of the strongest structures on the planet. Something like this will never be built again." Even so, the facility will need improvements. England estimates that, depending on use, the facility will need $200,000 to $300,000 to make the 55,000 square feet of usable space operational. What would be required is to "completely gut the domes and put in a new infrastructure," England said. "The domes are the most liveable and remarkable." England, based in Salt Lake City, said he bought the property intending to use it as a secure data center, but the plan never materialized. He said he might retain the facility if a buyer cannot be found. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- massachusetts Investigation Continues at Nuclear Metals Site in Concord, Mass. Contact: Dave Deegan, public affairs office, 1617-918-1017 For Immediate Release: Dec. 7, 2004; EPA Release # am04-12-06 http://www.epa.gov/region1/pr/2004/dec/am041206.html BOSTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has given approval for the consultant working on the Nuclear Metals Inc. Site in Concord, Mass. to begin work this week to excavate buried drums from an area of the site. The drum excavation will take place in an area adjacent to the cooling water pond, located behind the former Starmet facility. The drum disposal area is being investigated by the consultant, de maximis, inc. as part of an extensive study, called a Remedial Investigation, which has been underway at the site since October. The study includes: * locating and characterizing the contents of buried drums and metal debris in two areas at the site; * investigating and characterizing the make-up of site septic tanks and leach fields, storm drains, transformer areas and an underground storage tank area; * characterization and survey of site buildings and contents to evaluate remedial needs and estimate those costs; * investigating site soils, sediment, surface water, groundwater, wetlands and bog; * characterizing the content of residual soil contamination associated with the former holding basin; * describing site-related human health and ecological risks; and, * developing clean-up alternatives. Previous investigations found the drum disposal area contained about 60 buried drums. To more thoroughly characterize the contents of the drums and determine the extent of contamination in the soil surrounding them, the drums will be excavated and stockpiled on-site in secure containers. The contents of the drums will be sampled and samples will be sent to a laboratory for analysis. Soil surrounding the drums will also be sampled. Once the contents of the drums are confirmed, an evaluation of disposal options will be performed. During this phase of the investigation, workers will initially be using “Level B” or “supplied air” and protective equipment, and the air around the work area as well at the perimeter of the property will be monitored to ensure contamination is not being released or migrating off-site. After the drums are excavated, which is expect to take less than two weeks, the excavated area will be sampled and backfilled. The larger investigation of the entire property will continue through spring 2005. The drum disposal area is one of 17 areas being investigated by de maximis, inc. as part of an agreement reached between EPA and the responsible parties at Nuclear Metals in June 2003. According to the agreement, a study of the site will be completed and used to evaluate cleanup options. Specifically, the agreement calls for the responsible parties to pay for the Remedial Investigations/ Feasibility Study and Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analyses. According to the agreement, these studies will cost about $8 million, and can be increased to a cap of $10 million. From 1958 to the present, the site was used by various operators as a specialized research and metal manufacturing facility licensed to possess low-level radioactive substances. Site operators used depleted uranium, beryllium and other hazardous substances at the site. From 1958 to 1985, wastes contaminated with depleted uranium were disposed of in an unlined holding basin. EPA has also identified other areas on the site that were used to dispose of manufacturing wastes, building materials and laboratory equipment. The current site owner/operator, Starmet (formerly Nuclear Metals, Inc.), manufactured depleted uranium munitions for the U.S. Army at the site from the 1970s until 1999. In 2003, EPA entered into an agreement with the U.S. Army, the U.S. Department of Energy, Whittaker Corp., MONY Life Insurance Co. and Textron Inc. to conduct extensive studies at the site to develop cleanup options. The Nuclear Metals Inc. site was added to the National Priority List in June 2001, making it a Superfund site. The EPA list is made up of the country s most serious hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term cleanup. Additional information can be found at http://www.nmisite.org or http://www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/nmi. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Rumsfeld expected to discuss South Asian arms sales with India NEW DELHI (AFP) Dec 07, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041207135343.lkc22pd1.html US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expected to discuss plans to sell F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan during a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh this week, newspapers reported Tuesday. Rumsfeld is scheduled to arrive in the Indian capital late Wednesday and meet with Singh on Thursday morning. Rumsfeld will discuss US-India relations with Singh, including arms sales, according to an official familiar with the visit. Sales of new weapons that could upset the balance of power in the volatile South Asian region have rankled both countries with Pakistan concerned India could get Patriot missiles and India concerned about possible sales of fighter jets and naval surveillance aircraft to Pakistan, according to the Indian Express newspaper. The Patriot, a ground-based missile system that can defend against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft, is seen linked to India's support of a proposed global missile shield, the newspaper said. In response, Pakistan may have already asked to buy up to 25 F-16 fighter jets in 2005 when President Pervez Musharraf visited Washington last week and met President George W. Bush. The two nuclear-armed countries, which have fought three wars in the past half-century, are in peace talks over the disputed Himalayan state of Kashmir while developing new medium- and long-range missile systems at the same time. -------- britain National ID in Britain? December 07, 2004 Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041206-085213-8841r.htm In the months following September 11, Congress pushed national identification cards as a purported tool in the fight against terror. The idea was rejected as too intrusive on liberties, too susceptible to abuse, too dubious as a counterterror tool and too logistically challenging to implement even if it were. Now we hear the British are hatching their own national ID card plan. On Nov. 23, the British government announced plans to issue national identity documents for the first time since their post-World War II discontinuation in 1952. We would urge them to reconsider. As we've pointed out before, we hope that the war on terror does not require a police state, nor the precursors to one. Unfree societies require the showing of "papers," not free ones. The bad news is it seems the British are no longer convinced of that fact. We hope they are wrong. Shortly after the September 11 terror attacks, an overwhelming majority of Britons indicated support for ID cards — about 85 percent, by one polling firm's reckoning. Now, with the endorsement of both Queen Elizabeth II and Tony Blair, it's clear much of the establishment strongly favors the plan too. Not all of it does. A revolt has been brewing in recent weeks among conservative opposition members of Parliament, civil libertarians and even members of Mr. Blair's own Labor Party. Prominent among the revolters were former Shadow Home Secretary Lord Hattersley, a Laborite, who said the ID card plan went "too much in the direction of authoritarianism and too little in that of civil liberties," and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who accused the government of trying to win votes by stirring fears of terrorism. Scottish leaders, too, are uncomfortable with the encroachment. As displeased MPs consider the issue, we'd like to remind the British public of what, precisely, they are bargaining for. "You will want this to be part of your life," said Neil Fisher of QinetiQ, one of the companies building the technological systems for ID cards, to the BBC in April. "You will want, in what's fast becoming a digital society, to be able to authenticate your identity for almost any transaction that you do, be it going to the bank, going to the shops, going to the airport," he said. We cannot, in logic, categorically reject the prospect that it may become necessary, in the efforts to detect terrorist planning, for the government to keep track of a citizen's every action and purchase. But we are not at that point yet. And we hope national survival will never require said police-state conduct. Certainly the case has not yet been made. Britain should hold her historic freedoms tight and not yield them to shadow fears. -------- chemical weapons Dutchman held for 'Iraq genocide' bbc.co.uk 7 December, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4074803.stm Prosecutors in the Netherlands say they will charge a 62-year-old Dutchman suspected of assisting ex-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in genocide. A spokesman for the chief prosecutor's office said the suspect had supplied Saddam Hussein with thousands of tons of base materials for chemical weapons. The chemicals were allegedly used in the 1988 Iraqi bombing of Halabja. It is alleged that suspect Frans van Anraat was aware of the final purpose for the base materials he supplied. "The man is suspected of delivering thousands of tons of raw materials for chemical weapons to the former regime in Baghdad between 1984 and 1988," prosecutors said in a statement. The notorious chemical attack on Kurds in Halabja killed an estimated 5,000 civilians. Chemical weapons were also used by the Iraqi army against Iranian forces in their 1980-1988 war. 'Major supplier' Prosecutors said the Dutchman had been a suspect since 1989, when he was arrested in Milan, Italy, at the request of the US government. But he was later released and fled to Iraq, where he remained until 2003. After the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, he returned to the Netherlands via Syria, the Associated Press reported. The United Nations suspects the man was a major chemical supplier to the former Iraqi regime, having made 36 separate shipments, including mustard gas and nerve gas originating from the United States and Japan. The chemicals where shipped via the Belgian port of Antwerp, through Aqaba in Jordan to Iraq, the prosecution statement said. The man was arrested in Amsterdam on Monday and will be brought before a court in the town of Arnhem later this week. -------- iraq The Economic Situation in Iraq Still Crushed Under the "Bremer Orders" Islam Online By Dahr Jamail 07/12/2004 http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2004/12/article_02.shtml Sabah is currently jobless. Abu Ahmed Al-Hadithi, 40, sells vegetables in Al-Adhamiyah market. "The economic situation is so bad now," he said while standing near bins of vegetables. "The costs of gas and food are going up so high; so even if we make more now, everything is costing more." His situation is common amongst Iraqis who are struggling to survive under the occupation. Looking expectantly for customers, Mr. Al-Hadithi added, "In Saddam's days we grew all our own vegetables to sell … but now so many are coming from outside of Iraq and it is causing us to sell them for less. So I make less profit now, and I have nine people to take care of, and it has made my life very difficult. - Ordinary Iraqis Now: What Has Changed - Are Iraqis Better Off? - Capitalizing on the Wealth of the Poor Many of the vegetables in Iraq now have been poisoned by Depleted Uranium [DU]. "We can't take any vegetables from the south now; the DU makes them all lose their ripeness and become poisonous for us." The struggles facing Abu Ahmed Al-Hadithi are a direct result of Bremer's Order number 12-former US civil administrator in Iraq L. Paul Bremer authored the "100 Orders," which control the Iraqi economy. Order number 12 effectively suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for good entering or leaving Iraq," which caused an overnight influx of cheap foreign consumer goods into the country. This led to conditions which Antonia Juhasz-a project director at the International Forum on Globalization and a Foreign Policy in Focus scholar-describes as effecting Iraqis by, "devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors." "[The DU] makes [tomatoes] lose their ripeness and become poisonous for us." The authority of the 100 Orders was conveniently signed over to the US-installed interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on Bremer's last day in Iraq. Allawi, an Iraqi exile of 25 years, has close ties to the CIA and the British intelligence. Juhasz writes in a Los Angeles Times commentary dated August 5 that the Bremer Orders "lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term US economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people." One of the Bremer Orders in particular-No. 39-effectively allows for, "(1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" - which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses," Juhasz writes. Abu Gouda, who used to work in the Ministry of Military Industry, now sells vegetables. In sum, those measures do not provide preference for Iraqis in doing business in their own country, while they allow foreign companies to buy Iraqi businesses and perform all of the reconstruction/rehabilitation work without being required to spend any of their money in the Iraqi economy. Examples of Iraqis suffering as a result of the Bremer Orders are abundant. Abu Gouda, 50, used to work in a factory of the Ministry of Military Industry. He earned one of the largest monthly salaries at the factory. Now he too is selling vegetables in the Al-Adhamiya market. "I make between 8-10000 Iraqi Dinars per day, and this is just enough to feed my family of seven." Sabah Ahmed used to serve on the council of his neighborhood in Bahgdad. He is currently out of a job and doesn't know what he will do. "The economic situation is very bad," he said with dismay. "The people are in a critical situation because of the increase in prices. Gasoline, transportation, everything is going up so much. "We have no security, which means that our economy cannot function." "We have no security, which means that our economy cannot function." Another man, who asked to be referred to as "Haider," works in a small gold store in the Khadimiyah gold market. "There is a big problem with gold coming from the United Arab Emirates into Iraq, because it is driving all the prices down here, so I am struggling to make a living." Ali also works in the market in the Kadhamiya district of Baghdad. He is responsible for supporting his eight daughters, wife, father, and mother after his older brother was killed by occupation forces. "This is not my real job, but I have to do this. I make 4,000 Iraqi Dinars [$2.70] daily… but my family needs 10,000 ID daily [$7], and I pay 3,000 ID [$2] for transportation." Many Iraqis have become desperate to make a living under the untenable circumstances caused by the illegal US occupation of their country. A man who asked to remain anonymous used to work as a warrant officer. "Now I am jobless, so I am selling sweets." He complained that he is struggling to get by because most people are no longer able to afford sweets. This is compounded by the security situation, which causes fewer people to leave their homes and obliges merchants to work shorter hours. Others have resorted to working in the black market in order to maintain their families. "I used to drive my car as a taxi, but now I make more money filling my tank with fuel at the pumps, then selling it here in the black market," an Iraqi said on condition of anonymity. After pausing to watch cars pass by, he added somberly, "Only in this way am I making enough money." Inflation constitutes another aspect of the crippling situation. "The currency is worth less than before; although the pay rates are higher, the balance is negative because of the increase in prices," Abu Omar, an unemployed lawyer, explained. While Iraqis struggle to survive, and unemployment is up to 70% amidst the bloody occupation, foreign companies operating in Iraq are posting record profits. Halliburton saw an increase of 80% in revenues in the first financial quarter of 2004 compared to the same quarter last year. This is primarily due to their operations in Iraq, where the company received the lion's share of reconstruction dollars from the US government. Bechtel, recipient of the second largest amount of contract funding in Iraq, has seen a 158% increase in revenues generated outside of the US since last year, which pulled the company out of a slump in this sector. It must be noted that the Bremer Orders are illegal under international law, because they violate the Hague regulations of 1907, which illegalize the transformation of an occupied country's laws. While the orders continue to hurt, rather than assist, Iraqis, there seems to be little hope for an improvement in the quality of life in the war-torn country. Dahr Jamail is an American journalist of Lebanese descent. Currently based in Iraq, his articles focus on Iraqis and how the occupation of their country affects their daily life. ----- Amnesty's appeals for Fallujah Electronic Iraq 7 December 2004 http://electroniciraq.net/news/1745.shtml Two-year-old Mustapha Ahmed Abed, a victim of the battles in Fallujah, is cradled by a male relative, as his mother lies in a near by bed at the Naaman hospital in Baghdad. (AFP/Ali Al-Saadi) In November of 2004, Amnesty International issued three separate calls for protection of Iraqi civilians in the escalating violence in Falluja. A month later, reports keep pouring in describing the indiscriminate killing and mistreatment of countless civilians, including children. In stark contrast to the Bush administration's more optimistic accounts of the situation in Iraq, a recent CIA report painted a grim picture of Iraq's politics, economics, and security, with no prospect of improvement in sight. U.S. military spokespersons have provided estimates of the number of deaths among insurgents (said to be in the hundreds), but not of civilian deaths or injuries. Some pundits have speculated that civilian casualties may have been deliberately downplayed in the U.S. media to keep those details from influencing the recent elections. But, conspiracy theories aside, the fact remains that combatants on both sides of the Iraq war are not taking adequate precautions to ensure the safety of civilians and civilian property, and the public has a right to know the facts. Among the most recent incidents cited by Amnesty International are the following: # On 8 October, an air raid on Falluja reportedly killed 11 people and wounded 17 others in what the U.S. military said was "a precision strike" against a hideout of Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, while doctors and residents reportedly said that the strike had hit a house during a wedding party. # On 20 October, four children and their parents were said to have been killed in another air strike against the city. # On 9 November, 20 Iraqi medical staff and dozens of other civilians were reportedly killed when a missile hit a clinic. It is not known whether the missile was fired by the U.S.-led forces or by insurgents. # Also on 9 November, a nine-year-old boy reportedly died after being hit in the stomach by shrapnel. His parents were unable to take him to hospital because of the ongoing fighting. He died a few hours later as a result of blood loss and was buried by his parents in their garden because it was too dangerous to leave their home. These tragedies, and the countless others like them, fly in the face of claims by the Bush administration that its purpose in Iraq is to liberate the Iraqi people. The Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which was adopted in 1949 and which entered into force in 1950, dictates that "persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that they "shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity." Special effort is to be made to protect hospitals and other medical facilities, as well as wounded, sick, and aged persons, children under 15, expectant mothers, and mothers of children under seven. These standards apply not only to parties in armed conflict, but also to an occupying power, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. The Bush administration owes it to the citizens of the U.S., the citizens of Iraq, and the citizens of the world to put an immediate stop to these war crimes and to do everything possible to ensure that no such incidents occur in the future. Furthermore, the following precautions proposed by Amnesty International should be undertaken immediately by both sides in the conflict: # Non-combatants, including the civilian population and prisoners, must not be used in military operations (e.g., as human shields). # Civilians who do not want to take part in the conflict must not be persecuted for refusing to do so. # Combatants and weaponry must not be deliberately placed among the civilian population. # Combatants must refrain from indiscriminate attacks and from the use of indiscriminate weapons which might inadvertently put civilians and civilian objects at risk. These weapons include, but are not limited to, cluster bombs, landmines, thermobaric weapons (e.g., "daisy cutters"), napalm, and munitions using depleted uranium. # There must be no taking of hostages. Any existing hostages must be released immediately and without condition. # The wounded and sick must be collected and cared for. # Humanitarian organizations must be allowed to safely provide for the humanitarian needs of the civilian population. # All violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law must be investigated, and those responsible for unlawful attacks, including deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, and the killing of injured persons, must be brought to justice. Until these measures are untaken fully and completely by all parties in the Iraq conflict, there can be no real prospect for true liberation. Mary Shaw is a writer and activist based in Philadelphia, PA. She currently serves as Philadelphia Area Coordinator for Amnesty International, and her views on human rights and social justice issues have appeared in numerous online forums and in newspapers and magazines worldwide. She can be reached via maryshawonline.com. -------- nato EU, NATO should not duplicate defence efforts: Estonian FM TALLINN (AFP) Dec 07, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041207134721.1e1gbvt7.html The European Union must take into account NATO capabilities in drawing up European defence policies to avoid duplicating their efforts, Estonian Foreign Minister Kristiina Ojuland said Tuesday. "Ensuring security in Europe and the world, the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and NATO must complement each other," Ojuland told a parliamentary hearing on foreign policy. "Therefore, when planning the further development of the ESDP, appropriate NATO developments must be taken into consideration," she said. Estonia, which joined both the EU and NATO earlier in this year, is concerned whether it can afford to be involved in the defence structures of both organisations. Estonia is participating in the EU's military operation in keeping peace in Bosnia and Hercegovina, and will take part in EU battle groups, which the EU agreed to establish last month. "Estonia is also taking part in this endeavour, but the form and extent of our participation is still being defined," Ojuland said. She said that as a NATO member, Estonia continued "to actively contribute to NATO operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan". "We have to keep the promises made and the commitments we took upon ourselves during NATO accession, including the maintaining of defence expenditures at the level of two percent of GDP," Ojuland said. "Only thus can we be reliable allies, and hope, that we will be heard in the foreign policy realm." Critics have said the state budget should be used for more pressing issues, such as fighting HIV/AIDS and improving the medical system, rather than for defence spending. -------- pakistan / india Musharraf wins praise, but no jets Asia Times By Ashish Kumar Sen Dec 7, 2004 http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FL07Df06.html WASHINGTON - After their White House meeting at the weekend, US President George W Bush defended Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf, saying he was "very pleased" with Pakistan's efforts to fight al-Qaeda. Asked if he was disappointed that the Pakistani army had "downgraded" the search for Osama bin Laden, Bush told journalists that Pakistani troops had been "incredibly active and very brave in the South Waziristan [tribal area], flushing out an enemy that had thought they had found safe haven". He hailed Musharraf as a "determined leader to bring to justice not only people like Osama bin Laden, but to bring to justice those who would inflict harm and pain on his own people. I am very pleased with his efforts, and his focused efforts," Bush said, with Musharraf by his side. Shortly afterward, Musharraf admitted that the trail for bin Laden had grown cold, but said that the US was in part to blame because it had not committed enough troops in Afghanistan. In an interview with CNN before departing from Washington for London on Sunday, Musharraf said Pakistan had posted thousands of troops along the mountainous border with Afghanistan but "we don't know where he [Osama bin Laden] is. He might be anywhere." In previous interviews, Musharraf had suggested that bin Laden had kidney problems and needed dialysis. Asked if he still believed that, the Pakistani leader said he now knows only that bin Laden is alive. "All the intelligence said that he had - he suffers from - kidney problems, that he got dialysis machines into the area. But since then, he is alive, that I am sure of. I don't really know how much he is suffering," he said. US officials have, both in private and in public, expressed concern about Pakistan's cooperation in the effort to nab al-Qaeda and Taliban members. Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who served as the chief of the bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center before he resigned from the CIA earlier this year, raised some of this concern in his book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Writing under the nom de plume "Anonymous", Scheuer said: "At day's end, Islamabad cannot endlessly play America's game vis-a-vis Afghanistan and count on the survival of the government and Pakistani sovereignty. Whether under President Musharraf or his successor, Islamabad will support the Taliban's effort to retake Afghanistan," he wrote. He acknowledged the existence of reports that "Pakistani intelligence moved al-Qaeda fighters to safety in Pakistani Kashmir; that post-invasion help was provided al-Qaeda by Pakistan's surrogate Kashmiri insurgent groups, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e Mohammed; and that the Islamist-dominated government of the North West Frontier Province will not allow serious actions by Pakistan's army against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the border areas." Following his meeting with Musharraf at the weekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Bush administration was "concerned" that bin Laden was still unaccounted for. "We would like him to not be on the loose. He's a terrorist. He is on the loose, but he's also under enormous pressure. He is being searched for," Powell said. He added that Pakistan "is fully engaged in those tribal areas." Musharraf has in recent weeks ordered a "relocation" of 7,000 Pakistani troops from South Waziristan. "They make some adjustments to their force requirements from time to time," Powell explained, adding, "but President Musharraf reassured us of his full engagement - and Osama bin Laden is on the loose, but under pressure and being chased, and eventually he will be brought to justice." The al-Qaeda leader resurfaced in a videotaped message on the eve of the US presidential elections, warning Americans that their security depends not on whom they elect president, but on US policy. The message was the first from the al-Qaeda leader since December 2001. In Islamabad there is a growing perception that Pakistan is not getting enough in return for its cooperation in the US-led "war on terror". Bush dismissed these concerns, saying he didn't view relations "as one that there's a score card that says, you know, well, if we all fight terror together, therefore, somebody owes somebody something. Friends don't sit there and have a score card that says, well, he did this, or he did that, and therefore, somebody is - there's a deficit. Our relationship is much bigger than that. Our relationship is one where we work closely together for the common good of our own people and for the common good of the world," he added. On Sunday, Musharraf said the US-led invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. Asked whether he considered the invasion a mistake, the Pakistani leader said, "With hindsight, yes. We have landed ourselves in more trouble, yes. People at the lower level don't like the visibility of foreign troops who are in their country," he added. However, he said he did not believe US and coalition troops should pull out immediately. "[An early withdrawal] would create more problems in the region. Now that we are there, we need to stabilize the situation." Initial accounts indicate Musharraf didn't receive much more than words from Bush. The Pakistani leader discussed the sale of F-16s to Pakistan, but Powell later said "no decisions were made". "You know there's always the issue about F-16s, but no decisions were made at the meetings today," said the outgoing secretary of state. New Delhi has strongly opposed the sale of the jets to Pakistan. Pakistani Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat first stirred speculation about the sale when he told reporters in September that the US would soon accede to Pakistan's 15-year-old campaign to acquire the F-16s, providing at least 18 of the jets. In an interview with Jane's Defense Weekly, Saadat said the transfers would likely be announced after the November 2 US presidential election. The sale of the jets was blocked in 1990 when the US government stopped a shipment of 28 F-16s to Pakistan in accordance with the Pressler amendment. This required the administration to cease military exports to Islamabad if it was suspected of possessing a "nuclear explosive device". In a September 23 letter to Bush asking the president not to clear the sale of the jets, Congressman Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey and a former co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, accused the Bush administration of "contributing to increased security concerns throughout South Asia, and particularly to India". Bush and Musharraf discussed Pakistan's relations with India and Powell said he, too, later had a "longer discussion" on the subject. In an interview with the Washington Post, Musharraf was optimistic about the renewed peace initiative with India. "I think we've broken new ground," he said, noting a joint statement issued in New York. "I see this very optimistically. But as I said, these are mere words. We need to convert them into action." Powell said he believed "both sides are trying to find a way to move forward", referring to a recent meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Musharraf on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly and the possibility of a similar meeting at a regional conference early next year. Bush praised the Pakistani leader for showing "great courage in that relationship [between India and Pakistan], leading toward what we hope will be a peaceful solution of what has been a historically difficult problem". During their closed-door meeting, at which Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Powell and his designated successor, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice were also present, Bush discussed with Musharraf the possibility of obtaining more information from the disgraced father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Dr A Q Khan about his nuclear black market. Musharraf ruled out granting any outsiders access to Khan. The request shows "a lack of trust in us and it shows a lack of trust in our capabilities", he told CNN. "If anyone thinks that he can question A Q Khan better than us, well I don't agree with that at all." Musharraf and Bush also discussed the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which the Pakistani leader described as the "source of all problems". An Israeli-Palestinian agreement, he said, would "pull the rug from under the feet of all the extremist organizations". Ashish Kumar Sen is a Washington DC-based journalist. -------- prisoners of war FBI witnessed Guantanamo 'abuse' Agence France-Presse December 7, 2004 http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11614846%5E1702,00.html FBI agents witnessed "highly aggressive" interrogations and mistreatment of terror suspects at the US prison camp in Cuba starting in 2002 - more than a year before the prison abuse scandal broke in Iraq - according to a letter a senior US Justice Department official sent to the US army's top criminal investigator. In the letter obtained by The Associated Press, the FBI official suggested the Pentagon didn't act on FBI complaints about the incidents, including a female interrogator grabbing a detainee's genitals and bending back his thumbs, another where a prisoner was gagged with duct tape and a third where a dog was used to intimidate a detainee who later was thrown into isolation and showed signs of "extreme psychological trauma." One US Marine told an FBI observer that some interrogations led to prisoners "curling into a foetal position on the floor and crying in pain," according to the letter dated July 14, 2004. Thomas Harrington, an FBI counterterrorism expert who led a team of investigators at Guantanamo Bay, wrote the letter to Major General Donald J Ryder, the army's chief law enforcement officer who's investigating abuses at US-run prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo. Harrington said FBI officials complained about the pattern of abusive techniques to top Defence Department attorneys in January 2003, and it appeared that nothing was done. Although a senior FBI attorney "was assured that the general concerns expressed, and the debate between the FBI and defence department regarding the treatment of detainees was known to officials in the Pentagon, I have no record that our specific concerns regarding these three situations were communicated to the Department of Defense for appropriate action", Harrington wrote. Harrington told Ryder he was writing to follow up a meeting he had with the general the week before about detainee treatment, saying the three cases demonstrate the "highly aggressive interrogation techniques being used against detainees in Guantanamo". "I refer them to you for appropriate action," Harrington wrote. Brigadier General Jay Hood, the commander of the mission in Guantanamo, said allegations of mistreatment and abuse were taken seriously and investigated. "The appropriate actions were taken. Some allegations are still under investigation," Hood told AP. "Once investigations are completed, we report them immediately." None of the people named in the letter are still at the base, a Guantanamo spokesman said, but it wasn't clear if any disciplinary action had been taken. The letter identified the military interrogators only by last name and rank, and mentioned a civilian contractor. Lieutenant Colonel Gerard Healy, an army spokesman, confirmed the authenticity of the FBI letter, as did the FBI. Healy said the female interrogator - identified only as Sergeant Lacey in the letter - was being investigated, but the army would not comment further or fully identify her. The US military says prisoners are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit violence, torture and humiliating treatment of combatants. Still, at least 10 incidents of abuse have been substantiated at Guantanamo, all from 2003 or this year. They range from a guard hitting a detainee to a female interrogator climbing on a prisoner's lap. Those incidents pale in comparison to alleged abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, a scandal that erupted when photographs surfaced of US troops forcing Iraqi prisoners to strip and pose in sexually humiliating positions. Some prisoners were bound and hooded. At Guantanamo, some detainees have been held without charge and without access to attorneys since the camp opened in January 2002 at the remote US naval base on Cuba's eastern tip. The US has imprisoned 550 men accused of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or the Al-Qaeda terror network; only four have been charged. No detailed incidents of abuse from 2002 had publicly surfaced before the FBI letter. None of the three 2002 cases cited were detailed in any of 5000 documents received by the New York-based American Civil Liberties Union under two Freedom of Information Act requests, said Anthony Romero, the union's executive director. "Despite the government's statements, there seems to be increasingly little doubt that torture is occurring at Guantanamo," Romero said. He said the information in the FBI letter "raises questions about the government's willingness to be forthcoming in these legal proceedings and shows that even the FBI has been uncomfortable with some of the tactics used at Guantanamo". One of the documents the ACLU received was a letter from an FBI agent to Harrington and dated May 10. It underscored the friction between the FBI and the military, mentioning conversations that were "somewhat heated" over interrogation methods. "In my weekly meetings with the Department of Justice we often discussed techniques and how they were not effective or producing intelligence that was reliable," according to the exchange, which was heavily redacted to remove references to dates and names. "I finally voiced my opinion ..." the FBI agent says. "It still did not prevent them from continuing the ... methods." Three of the four incidents mentioned in the letter obtained by the AP occurred under the watch of General Geoffrey D Miller, who ran the Guantanamo camp from October 2002 to March 2004, and left to run Abu Ghraib prison. Last month, General Miller was reassigned to the Pentagon, with responsibility for housing and other support operations. According to the letter, in late 2002 an FBI agent observed an interrogation where Sergeant Lacey whispered in the ear of a handcuffed and shackled detainee, caressed him and applied lotion to his arms. This occurred during Ramadan, Islam's holy month when contact with females is considered particularly offensive to a Muslim man. Later, the detainee appeared to grimace in pain, and the FBI agent asked a Marine who was present why. "The Marine said (the interrogator) had grabbed the detainee's thumbs and bent them backward and indicated that she also grabbed his genitals. The Marine also implied that her treatment of that detainee was less harsh than her treatment of others by indicating that he had seen her treatment of other detainees result in detainees curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain," Harrington wrote. In September or October of 2002, FBI agents saw a dog used "in an aggressive manner to intimidate a detainee," the letter said. About a month later, agents saw the same detainee "after he had been subjected to intense isolation for over three months ... totally isolated in a cell that was always flooded with light. By late November, the detainee was evidencing behaviour consistent with extreme psychological trauma ... talking to non-existent people, reported hearing voices (and) crouching in a corner of the cell covered with a sheet," the letter said. In October 2002, another FBI agent saw a detainee "gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head" because he would not stop chanting from the Koran. ------ FBI Letter Details Abuses at Guantanamo Associated Press By PAISLEY DODDS Dec 7, 2004 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GUANTANAMO_ABUSE?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- FBI agents witnessed "highly aggressive" interrogations of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in 2002, and warned the same questionable techniques could have been used in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke, according to FBI documents obtained by The Associated Press and the American Civil Liberties Union. In a letter obtained by AP, a senior Justice Department official suggested the Pentagon didn't act on FBI complaints about four incidents at Guantanamo, including a female interrogator grabbing a detainee's genitals and bending back his thumbs, another where a prisoner was gagged with duct tape and a third where a dog was used to intimidate a detainee who later was thrown into isolation and showed signs of "extreme psychological trauma." One Marine told an FBI observer that some interrogations led to prisoners "curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain," according to the letter dated July 14, 2004. Thomas Harrington, an FBI counterterrorism expert who led a team of investigators at Guantanamo Bay, wrote the letter to Maj. Gen. Donald J. Ryder, the Army's chief law enforcement officer who's investigating abuses at U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo. Harrington said FBI officials complained about the pattern of abusive techniques to top Defense Department attorneys in January 2003, and it appeared that nothing was done. Although a senior FBI attorney "was assured that the general concerns expressed, and the debate between the FBI and DoD regarding the treatment of detainees was known to officials in the Pentagon, I have no record that our specific concerns regarding these three situations were communicated to the Department of Defense for appropriate action," Harrington wrote. Three of the four incidents mentioned in the letter obtained by AP occurred under the watch of Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who ran the Guantanamo camp from October 2002 to March 2004, and left to run Abu Ghraib prison. Last month, Miller was reassigned to the Pentagon, with responsibility for housing and other support operations. The ACLU planned Tuesday to release internal government memos that underscore the friction between the FBI and the military over interrogation methods. The documents are among 5,000 the New York-based ACLU received under two Freedom of Information Act requests, said Anthony Romero, the union's executive director. In one document obtained by the ACLU, an FBI agent recalls Miller wanting to "Gitmo-ize" the Abu Ghraib prison, where photographs surfaced of U.S. troops forcing Iraqi prisoners to strip and pose in sexually humiliating positions. Troops often refer to the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo as "Gitmo." "I am not sure what this means, however, if this refers to intelligence gathering as I suspect, it suggests he (Miller) has continued to support interrogation strategies we not only advised against but questioned in terms of effectiveness," reads the memo dated May 13, 2004, from an FBI agent whose name was redacted. In another ACLU-obtained letter from an FBI agent to Harrington and dated May 10, an agent questioned whether harsh interrogation techniques turned up good information. "In my weekly meetings with the Department of Justice we often discussed techniques and how they were not effective or producing intelligence that was reliable," according to the exchange, which was heavily redacted to remove references to dates and names. "I finally voiced my opinion ...," the FBI agent says. "It still did not prevent them from continuing the ... methods." Romero said the information "raises questions about the government's willingness to be forthcoming in these legal proceedings and shows that even the FBI has been uncomfortable with some of the tactics used at Guantanamo." In the letter obtained by AP, Harrington told Ryder he was writing to follow up a meeting he had with the general the week before about detainee treatment, including "highly aggressive interrogation techniques being used against detainees in Guantanamo." "I refer them to you for appropriate action," Harrington wrote. Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the current commander of the mission in Guantanamo, said allegations of mistreatment and abuse are taken seriously and investigated. "The appropriate actions were taken. Some allegations are still under investigation," Hood told AP. None of the people named in the letter are still at the base, a Guantanamo spokesman said, but it wasn't clear if any disciplinary action had been taken. The letter identified the military interrogators only by last name and rank, and mentioned a civilian contractor. Lt. Col. Gerard Healy, an Army spokesman, said the female interrogator - identified only as Sgt. Lacey - is being investigated, but the Army wouldn't comment further or fully identify her. The U.S. military says prisoners are treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit violence, torture and humiliating treatment. Still, at least 10 incidents of abuse have been substantiated at Guantanamo, all but one from 2003 or this year. According to the letter obtained by AP, in late 2002 an FBI agent observed an interrogation where Sgt. Lacey whispered in the ear of a handcuffed and shackled detainee, caressed him and applied lotion to his arms. This occurred during Ramadan, Islam's holy month when contact with females is considered particularly offensive to a Muslim man. Later, the detainee appeared to grimace in pain, and the FBI agent asked a Marine who was present why. "The Marine said (the interrogator) had grabbed the detainee's thumbs and bent them backward and indicated that she also grabbed his genitals." In September or October of 2002, FBI agents saw a dog used "in an aggressive manner to intimidate a detainee," the letter said. About a month later, agents saw the same detainee "after he had been subjected to intense isolation for over three months" in a cell flooded with light. "By late November, the detainee was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma ...," the letter said. In October 2002, another FBI agent saw a detainee "gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head" because he would not stop chanting from the Quran. Many detainees at Guantanamo have been held without charge and without access to attorneys since the camp opened in January 2002. The United States has imprisoned some 550 men accused of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or al-Qaida; only four have been charged. American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org -------- spies House approves intelligence overhaul USA TODAY 12/7/2004 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-06-bush-terror-bill_x.htm WASHINGTON - The House voted Tuesday to overhaul a national intelligence network that failed to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, combining under one official control of 15 spy agencies, intensifying aviation and border security and allowing more wiretaps of suspected terrorists. "We have come a long way toward taking steps that will ensure that we do not see another September 11th," said House Rules chairman David Dreier, R-Calif. Now "we have in place a structure that will ensure that we have the intelligence capability to deal with conflicts on the ground wherever they exist." The House voted 336-75 to send the Senate legislation to create a new national intelligence director, establish a counterterrorism center, set priorities for intelligence gathering and tighten U.S. borders. The measure would implement the biggest change to U.S. intelligence gathering and analysis since the creation of the CIA after World War II to deal with the newly emerging Cold War. The new structure should help the nation's 15 intelligence agencies work together to protect the country from attacks like the ones that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, lawmakers said. If the measure had been passed three years ago, "we might have had a chance not to go through the horrible experience that we did on Sept. 11," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. The White House and key congressional leaders agreed Monday on a compromise, reviving a bill stalled in the face of opposition from House Republicans demanding tough immigration restrictions and concerned about protecting Pentagon control of military intelligence. President Bush put his prestige on the line, saying repeatedly he wanted the bill long before it was clear his fellow Republicans would send it to him. John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said the bill could come up for a vote as early as today. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, said Monday they agreed on bill language that "we believe protects with necessary clarity the time-tested (military) chain of command." Hunter and Warner had worried that the powerful civilian intelligence czar created by the bill would focus on longer-term threats, diminishing the flow of intelligence to troops in battle. They said the compromise means that in wartime, a field commander would have first call on spy satellites and other intelligence resources. But the bill would still shift substantial power over intelligence spending from the Pentagon to the civilian intelligence chief. And the newly created "director of national intelligence" would retain final say over missions by the nation's spy satellites, much as the CIA director does today. "I was focused on getting what we needed to protect our military forces. We got that, and as a result of that, I'm going to sign that report," Hunter said Tuesday morning on the Fox News Channel. "Personally, I believe strongly that nothing in the original bill in any way hindered military operations or readiness," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Tuesday morning on CNN. "But by making this small change, we were able to provide some additional comfort to Congressman Hunter and get him on board." Even if some Republicans oppose the bill, supporters in the House and Senate say they have enough votes to pass the legislation. "We hope that this support will provide the final momentum necessary to take intelligence reform across the finish line," Collins and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., the lead Senate negotiators, said Monday in a joint statement. The intelligence bill came to Capitol Hill with strong backing of the 9/11 Commission, whose year-long investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks showed how a splintered intelligence community lost the trail of the Sept. 11 terrorists as information failed to flow between intelligence agencies. (Related story: Roadblocks lifted for 9/11 intel-reform bill) "We have a 57-year-old system ... that allowed 3,000 people to die on our homeland," commission member Tim Roemer told reporters Monday as he and family members of 9/11 victims lobbied for the bill. "We need to change it." Not even members of the 9/11 Commission, some of the bill's strongest backers, promise it will prevent another attack. Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton argued last summer that other changes, such as improved U.S. relations in the Middle East, are essential to blunting the terror threat. Debra Burlingame, sister of one of the pilots of the jet that was crashed into the Pentagon, said "the jury is still out" as to whether a new intelligence chief would be effective or "nothing more than another layer of bureaucracy." Left unresolved are the concerns of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who was pressing for tougher immigration restrictions. The Bush administration is drafting an immigration reform measure for next year. -------- House Approves U.S. Intelligence Overhaul By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS December 7, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Congress-Intelligence.html?oref=login&hp&ex=1102395600&en=8dc17f33eb52d8ea&ei=5094&partner=homepage WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Tuesday to overhaul a national intelligence network that failed to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, combining under one official control of 15 spy agencies, intensifying aviation and border security and allowing more wiretaps of suspected terrorists. ``We have come a long way toward taking steps that will ensure that we do not see another September 11th,'' said House Rules chairman David Dreier, R-Calif. Now ``we have in place a structure that will ensure that we have the intelligence capability to deal with conflicts on the ground wherever they exist.'' The House voted 336-75 to send the Senate legislation to create a new national intelligence director, establish a counterterrorism center, set priorities for intelligence gathering and tighten U.S. borders. The measure would implement the biggest change to U.S. intelligence gathering and analysis since the creation of the CIA after World War II to deal with the newly emerging Cold War. The new structure should help the nation's 15 intelligence agencies work together to protect the country from attacks like the ones that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, lawmakers said. ``I have always said that good people need better tools. Here come the tools to help good people succeed,'' said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. The GOP-controlled Senate plans to pass the bill Wednesday and send it to President Bush for his signature. Congressional approval would be a victory for Bush, whose leadership was questioned after House Republicans refused to vote on the bill two weeks ago despite his urging. ``The president was monitoring the debate on C-SPAN in the conference room on Air Force One,'' White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. ``The president is very pleased with House passage. He knows that this bill will make America safer. ... He greatly looks forward to Senate passage and ultimately to signing the bill into law.'' Heavy and persistent lobbying by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and families of attack victims kept the legislation alive through the summer political conventions, the election and a postelection lame duck session of Congress. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also pushed hard in recent days. Bush's support was ``important for the future of the president's relations with members of Congress,'' said Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the lead Senate negotiator. Families of several Sept. 11 victims held hands and wept as the House passed the legislation. Bill Harvey, a New Yorker whose wife, Sara Manley, was killed at the World Trade Center a month after the couple wed, said the victory was also a sad reminder. `The vote took 15 minutes, and it was pretty emotional. I thought about her during the 15 minutes of the vote,'' he said. The Sept. 11 commission, in its July report, said disharmony among the nation's 15 intelligence agencies contributed to the inability of government officials to stop the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The government failed to recognize the danger posed by al-Qaida and was ill-prepared to respond to the terrorist threat, the report concluded. ``We are going to create a more aggressive, a more vibrant and a more organized intelligence community that is going to give policy-makers the information that they need to make the appropriate decisions,'' said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. ``It's also going to give and continue to give very, very good information to our war-fighters.'' The bill includes a host of anti-terrorism provisions, such as allowing officials to wiretap ``lone wolf'' terrorists and improving airline baggage screening procedures. It increases the number of full-time border patrol agents by 2,000 per year for five years and imposes new federal standards on information that driver's licenses must contain. House GOP leaders held up action on the bill for two weeks because Armed Services chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., was concerned that the new intelligence director might insert himself into the chain of command between the president and military commanders in the field. The legislation moved forward after Hunter and the bill's negotiators came to an agreement Monday on language clarifying the president's control. ``The president as well as his team worked with Congressman Hunter as well as all the congressional leaders on making sure that all concerns were addressed,'' White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. The compromise language ensures that battlefield commanders will take orders from ``the secretary of defense and above him from the president of the United States,'' Hunter said, and they have ``every military asset under his command, including intelligence assets.'' Some Republicans, however, still don't like the measure, with 67 voting against final passage. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., is upset because it doesn't prohibit states from giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants or change asylum laws to make it more difficult for terrorists to get into the country. ``Good intelligence is useless without good homeland security,'' Sensenbrenner said Tuesday. Sensenbrenner and his supporters extracted a promise from GOP leaders that their illegal-immigration provisions would be attached to a separate bill when the new Congress convenes next year. Other Republicans said they would oppose the whole overhaul bill because they saw it as useless. ``I believe creating a national intelligence director is a huge mistake,'' said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill. ``It's another bureaucracy, it's another layer of government. It would not have prevented 9/11 and it will not prevent another 9/11.'' -------- us Several Military Recruiting Vehicles Burned in Recent Days Tuesday December 07, 2004 7:30am (AP) http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1204/192625.html Silver Spring, Md. - Fire investigators in three area counties are trying to determine whether government passenger cars used by military recruiters are being targeted for arson. The three latest cases involved cars authorized for Army use that were parked outside of a recruiting office in the 8,200 block of Georgia Avenue in Silver Spring. They were burned early Monday. The case is similar to an incident that occurred outside of a military recruiting office in Fairfax last Monday. The Washington Post reports that a car parked near a recruiting station in 7,600 block of Richmond Highway was burned. Another vehicle was burned early Friday in the 13,900 block of Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway. Arson investigators in Prince George's County are checking their records to see if they have any cases that fit a similar profile. -------- Suing the Pentagon December 07, 2004 Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041206-085211-4890r.htm No one ever said military life was easy or predictable, and Iraq and Afghanistan have only made it harder. Still, it was only a matter of time before someone sued the Pentagon over it. This week, that's precisely what happened. Eight servicemen filed a lawsuit yesterday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the Pentagon's stop-loss policy. The Pentagon, which has been using stop-loss to retain enlistees beyond their intended periods of service, defends the policy as a means of keeping unit cohesion and maintaining overall manpower levels. But the servicemen are saying stop-loss violates their enlistmen contracts and deprives them of liberty without due process. The plaintiffs are David Qualls, a 35-year-old Guardsman from Arkansas and one-time Army enlistee, and seven servicement identified only as John Doe. All eight are posted overseas. Six of them, including Mr. Qualls, are in Iraq. Legal experts say the case has little chance of succeeding, just as in the Vietnam era similar suits challenging the Pentagon's deployment decisions failed. In the most significant of these, the 1968 Supreme Court decision Morse v. Boswell, the court handed down an 8-1 decision against plaintiffs from a Vietnam-bound Army reserve unit who claimed the Pentagon had not trained them adequately for service. That suit, like most of the era, was largely symbolic. Experts say Qualls v. Rumsfeld is much the same: a symbolic strike against a war and the policies that underwrite it. To judge by the suit's pushers, that's probably correct. Among the plaintiffs' lawyers is Jules Lobel, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a left-wing outfit that is also scurrilously seeking to label Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a war criminal for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Clearly the suit means more than servicemen's rights to the people financing it. Still, it's worth reflecting on what the suit means both for manpower and for the state of the military culture, because on both accounts it portends ill. On the manpower issue, it's yet another reminder that the services are stretched too thin. There are currently about 145,000 reservists on active duty. That's too many. It's estimated that the stop-loss policy has kept several thousand of them from coming home as they were originally scheduled to. We rarely hear from these soldiers. Most of them serve with pride and committment. Some hunker down and serve as requested. They all deserve our gratitude, but they also deserve a Congress and president who will fix the problems they're putting in overtime to allay. The permanent expansion of the Army ranks by 20,000 being discussed in Washington this week is a good start, but it's nowhere near enough. Then there is the question of military culture. What the lawsuit demonstrates is that in some respects even the military can't escape the country's increasing litigiousness. It's hard to imagine that World War II-era GIs ever thought to sue the government over unexpected service. These days, servicemen are still mostly proud to serve when they sign up for the military. But the minority who isn't is increasing, and seems unlikely to go away. -------- 2 U.S. soldiers accused of executing 2 unarmed Iraqis Los Angeles Times Edmund Sanders December 7, 2004 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/07/MNG56A7P2G1.DTL Baghdad -- U.S. military prosecutors alleged Monday that American soldiers shot to death two unarmed Iraqi men in their homes, then tried to cover up their crimes by claiming that the Iraqis had reached for guns. In chilling detail, the prosecutors and other U.S. soldiers described in a makeshift courtroom here how the two accused U.S. servicemen casually executed the Iraqis even though the civilians posed no immediate danger. Sgt. Michael P. Williams, 25, of Memphis, Tenn., and Spc. Brent W. May, 22, of Salem, Ohio, are the second pair of soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment from Fort Riley, Kan., to face murder charges stemming from separate incidents in August. Williams and May could face the death penalty if convicted. Williams and May were charged in September, but details of the killings were made public for the first time Monday at a preliminary hearing for May. Monday's hearing focused on the killing of an unidentified Iraqi man on Aug. 28, when the regiment conducted house-to-house searches in Sadr City. Soldiers approached a small one-story home and found a family sleeping in the courtyard to escape the summer heat, several soldiers from the unit testified Monday. Soldiers detained the family while they searched the home. Soldiers found a revolver and an AK-47 assault rifle. Because of Iraq's security problems, it is not uncommon for Iraqi families to keep guns in their homes. The law permits each household to carry one weapon for protection. After finding the weapons, Williams entered the house with May. The two motioned for the Iraqi man to follow them inside, soldiers testified. Once inside, Williams and May stood in front of the Iraqi. "You know what you have to do," Williams told May, according to an account of the incident presented by military attorneys. "Can I shoot him?" May asked Williams. "Shoot him," Williams replied, according to attorneys. May fired two shots. "I shot him in the head twice, took a picture of him and walked outside," May told Special Agent James Suprynowicz, a military investigator, in a statement several weeks later. It was read Monday. After the shooting, May bragged about the incident to fellow soldiers, prosecutors alleged. When his commanding officer asked him what happened, May replied that the Iraqi tried to grab a gun. In the sworn statement later, May admitted that he fired two shots at the unarmed Iraqi man, according to Suprynowicz. He told investigators that he shot the man "because I was ordered to," Suprynowicz testified. After soldiers dragged the bleeding man from the house, his wife became hysterical, wailing, throwing dirt in the air and beating herself with her hands. Soldiers watched in shock as she laid her baby on top of the man's bleeding body. Lt. Col David Batchelor, task force commander of the 1-41st, who arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting, said he ordered soldiers to leave the scene because the unit needed to get to its next mission. Military investigators visited the house about a month later, but the family had moved. Military investigators say they have been unable to identify the victim or his family. Soldiers who took part in the Aug. 28 raid said they immediately suspected that their two colleagues murdered the Iraqi. When May and Williams took the Iraqi back into the house, "we figured something fishy was going on," Spc. Tulafono Young testified. "Sgt. Williams wanted to kill the guy." Under cross-examination, Young was forced to admit that he is under investigation in a separate incident for shooting at a truck waving a white flag and that he initially lied to investigators in that probe. The second killing occurred less than 30 minutes earlier, soldiers testified, when troops discovered an AK-47 during a search of another house. After the rifle was found, Williams ordered that an Iraqi man, who had been handcuffed and was being held on his knees in front of the house, be brought inside, according to military attorney Capt. Daniel Estaville, who summarized the statements of witnesses. Williams cut off the plastic handcuffs, laid the rifle near the Iraqi and said aloud to other soldiers in the room, "I feel my life has been threatened." Williams then shot the man twice, Estaville said. The victim has not been identified. Keith Higgins, a civilian attorney who is representing May, said evidence would show that May was ordered to kill the Iraqi by Williams, his superior officer. Attorneys for Williams could not be reached for comment. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- courts / tribunals Military judge sees no jury tainting Washington Times December 7, 2004 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041206-102115-2224r FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) -- A military judge ruled yesterday that statements by President Bush and top military leaders about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison do not appear specific enough to taint the jury pool for next month's trial of a reputed ringleader in the case. But Col. James Pohl, the judge, said he might reconsider his ruling if it becomes clear that prospective jurors might have been influenced to the degree that Spc. Charles Graner may not receive a fair trial. Defense attorney Guy Womack tried to persuade Col. Pohl that Mr. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and high-ranking military officials proclaimed Spc. Graner guilty of abuses at Abu Ghraib and made it impossible to find an impartial jury. At various times and venues last spring, the president called the suspected incidents "abhorrent" acts for which those found guilty would be punished, while Mr. Rumsfeld referred to "terrible activities" at Abu Ghraib. "They all heard [the statements] and it was their chain of command saying it," Mr. Womack said. "It would be hard for the [jurors] to completely put that out of their minds." But Mr. Womack acknowledged that the word "guilty" was never used in any of the statements in question, nor was Spc. Graner ever mentioned by name by the high-ranking officials. The Abu Ghraib scandal came to light last spring with the discovery of digital photographs depicting physical abuse and sexual humiliation of detainees. In one of those photos, Spc. Graner was shown giving a thumbs-up sign behind a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners. In another, he is seen cocking his fist as if to punch a hooded detainee. He has been accused of jumping on prisoners, stomping on their hands and feet and punching one man in the head hard enough to knock him out. Mr. Womack says Spc. Graner was ordered by higher-ranking soldiers and other government agents to be rough with detainees to soften them up for interrogators. Spc. Graner, an Army reservist from Uniontown, Pa., is scheduled for trial at Fort Hood beginning Jan. 7. He sat quietly beside Mr. Womack during the 2½-hour hearing. Mr. Womack also raised the prospect that the judge might have been tilted against Spc. Graner, which prompted Col. Pohl to subject himself to a round of unusual questions normally reserved for would-be jurors. "Given all the knowledge you have about this case, do you feel that you could be influenced one way or another?" Mr. Womack asked. "I do what I think is right," Col. Pohl shot back. "I don't work for anybody when it comes to the trial." Col. Pohl also rejected a defense request that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former U.S. land forces commander in Iraq, be compelled to testify at Spc. Graner's trial. -------- drug war Heroin traffic finances bin Laden THE WASHINGTON TIMES By Rowan Scarborough December 06, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041206-124320-5344r.htm Osama bin Laden is using cash from the Afghanistan heroin market to finance his life on the run, paying bodyguards and buying off warlords in Pakistan, says a congressman who has visited the region. Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican, said in an interview that bin Laden's al Qaeda terror organization is reaping $28 million a year in illicit heroin sales. Some of the money is funding bin Laden's fugitive status as he pops back and forth between Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal areas and Afghanistan's eastern mountain regions. Mr. Kirk, who won passage of legislation in November to overhaul the U.S. terrorist rewards program, said post-September 11 initiatives have cut off the terror leader's traditional sources of money - a family fortune and Islamic charities. "We now know al Qaeda's dominant source of funding is the illegal sale of narcotics," said Mr. Kirk, a member of the House Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee. The congressman made an extensive fact-finding trip to Afghanistan last January, where he met with military-intelligence officials. Mr. Kirk said that, while bin Laden has lots of allies in the Waziristan tribal lands east of Kabul, Afghanistan, he does not speak the native tongues and cannot trust everyone as his entourage moves from place to place. "He is a foreigner in a strange land," Mr. Kirk said. "He must have money to buy off the local warlords. Operating a clandestine, heavily armed organization takes money and running narcotics is the natural way." A Pentagon adviser on drug policy said Mr. Kirk is "on target." "We know of individuals in Afghanistan who continue to fund al Qaeda with drug proceeds," the Pentagon adviser said. The congressman believes the way to catch bin Laden is to cut off his money. "We have to nail the drug-lord financing first," he said. "Once you hit his income, you head off his ability to pay local warlords." This is where Mr. Kirk's legislation comes in. The Counter-Terrorist and Narco-Terrorist Rewards Program Act authorizes the State Department for the first time to make rewards to people who inform on drug lords. Bin Laden's major supplier, U.S. authorities say, is Haji Bashir Noorzai, a former Taliban financier who smuggles heroin from the Kandahar area to al Qaeda in Pakistan. The Pentagon adviser said Noorzai helped finance al Qaeda when it operated with the Taliban. The alliance continues to this day. In return for money, Noorzai gets al Qaeda operatives who move his drugs offshore. The legislation, which Mr. Bush will sign once Congress finishes work on the fiscal 2005 spending bill later this month, also authorizes the payment of goods, such as tractors or trucks instead of cash to informants. The idea is that illiterate rural Afghans or Pakistanis will find more value in farm equipment than in huge sums of money. News of the new rewards will be broadcast on radio stations in Afghanistan. The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican, and Rep. Tom Lantos, California Democrat, also lets Mr. Bush raise the reward on bin Laden and other terror fugitives from $25 million to $50 million. "If we are able to take out a couple of kingpins, suddenly bin Laden would have to miss a payment to his warlords," Mr. Kirk said. He said the U.S. obtains "credible reports" on al Qaeda and drugs from "people who have contact with the outer ring of the bin Laden organization." Bush administration officials are reluctant to publicly discuss bin Laden's drug ties. This is because more members of Congress may press the Pentagon to do something it does not want to do: order troops to begin attacking drug convoys. Commanders say their 20,000 troops already have a full plate of missions battling Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents. Instead, the administration has announced a series of new counternarcotics programs that will greatly rely on Afghan police and soldiers to stem the burgeoning poppy crop that, in turn, yields record amounts of heroin. Afghanistan's yearly opium production is estimated at $2 billion. One piece of evidence of al Qaeda drug connection arose last winter, when the U.S. Navy intercepted small boats in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Pakistan and seized large quantities of heroin. Mr. Kirk said the U.S. military interrogated four crewmen and learned they were al Qaeda operatives taking the drugs to the United Arab Emirates. In Quetta, Pakistan, a kilo of heroin fetches $2,000; in the United Arab Emirates, the same quantity brings $10,000."This was an attempt by al Qaeda to develop a downstream retail market at which they could increase their profits five times," he said. Bin Laden has remained at large since he holed up in the mountain region of Tora Bora in December 2001 and then slipped across the border into Pakistan as the Taliban regime fell.Earlier this year, Pakistan for the first time in history sent thousands of troops into the tribal lands to attack militants. But after a sweep through South Waziristan, the general in charge declared Nov. 26 that bin Laden is not there. "[Bin Laden] requires his own protection, and the kind of security apparatus that he is supposed to have around him, that gives a very big signature," Lt. Gen. Safdar Hussain told Reuters. "There is not an inch of South Waziristan or the tribal area which we have not swept time and again, and if he was here in the tribal areas, I can assure you that he wouldn't have escaped my eyes and ears." But the Pentagon adviser cautioned that "just because they throw up their hands and say he's not here, don't believe he's not." "You've got to remember that area has strong support for bin Laden." -------- Border Patrol seizes pot worth $15 million December 07, 2004 By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041206-102114-3377r.htm U.S. Border Patrol agents have seized more than nine tons of marijuana valued at about $15 million in 13 law enforcement actions along the U.S.-Mexican border in Arizona and Texas in the past four days, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar said yesterday. Border Patrol spokesman Mario Villarreal said agents assigned to the McAllen, Texas, sector took into custody during the four-day stretch the largest marijuana seizure recorded at an immigration checkpoint. He said agents discovered a tractor-trailer containing 229 bundles of marijuana weighing 5,736 pounds, with an estimated street value of more than $4.5 million. The contraband, he said, was mixed with boxes of produce bound for Atlanta. Mr. Aguilar called the seizures "a victory for public safety and health, and proof that while our priority mission is keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country," the Border Patrol continues to focus on other important responsibilities. "In fact, making the border safe from terrorists is making the border less hospitable to drug traffickers as well," he said. The Border Patrol is a part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security. The Border Patrol is charged with the management, control, and protection of the nation's borders at and between the official ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws. -------- homeland security / national intelligence Tax-Return Provision in Spending Bill Dropped By Dan Morgan and Helen Dewar Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, December 7, 2004; Page A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41271-2004Dec6?language=printer The House voted unanimously last night to scuttle a controversial provision empowering Congress's appropriations committees to examine Americans' tax returns, clearing the way for a $388 billion government-wide spending bill to be sent to President Bush as early as today. Voting 381 to 0, the House killed the provision in response to a demand by the Senate that the language be dropped before the big spending bill -- which was approved by both houses late last month -- could be sent to the White House for Bush's signature. Democrats and some Republicans contended that the provision, added to the bill by a mid-level House Appropriations Committee staff member with drafting help from the Internal Revenue Service, could lead to abuse of taxpayer privacy. GOP leaders said it was intended only to ensure effective oversight of IRS spending. Before the vote, Republicans and Democrats traded politically barbed charges over who was responsible for the chaotic process of jamming most spending bills for the year into one big package -- a process that led to inclusion of the tax provision without the knowledge of key lawmakers. House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) accused the Senate -- which, like the House, is under GOP control -- of forcing Congress to resort to a catchall bill because it did not complete action on its individual appropriations measures before Congress's pre-election recess. "This whole comedy of errors of the omnibus appropriations bill wouldn't have happened if the other body [the Senate] passed their bills. . . . The other body didn't do its job," Young said. Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, blamed House Republican leaders. "The House has egg on its face because the House leadership has an agenda on appropriations bills" that so underfunded some critical services it was unacceptable to the Senate before the elections, Obey said. This, he added, led to the 3,000-page omnibus bill, which few if any lawmakers read before voting on it. The bill funds 12 domestic departments of government, along with the State Department and foreign aid. Separate bills to fund military programs, homeland security and the District of Columbia were passed earlier. The omnibus bill provides for growth of less than 1 percent for domestic programs, the smallest percentage increase since the mid-1990s. Soon after convening in January, the new Congress will be faced with a major new funding demand from the Pentagon for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount has not been determined, but sources have said it could be in the $75 billion range. The tax-return flap began when an aide on the House Appropriations Committee added the IRS provision during the final hours of drafting a House-Senate compromise version of the omnibus bill. Although the purpose was to allow staffers on the House and Senate appropriations committees to enter IRS sites where returns were being processed without violating rules pertaining to taxpayer privacy, the language gave staffers broad authority to see tax returns. IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson acknowledged in a letter Friday to Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) that his agency had drafted the language at the request of the House staff and "failed to recognize that the language provided did not include the parallel protections" contained in a separate law governing taxpayer privacy. Everson, who supported the provision's repeal, said IRS officials who provided the language "had little time to prepare it and believed that it would be perfected by House Legislative Counsel or otherwise properly vetted." Senior House members learned of the provision's existence early on Nov. 20 and took several steps to limit the political damage. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) engaged in a dialogue on the House floor with Young, in which he said he understood the provision was intended to provide access to IRS facilities for oversight purposes but not to tax returns, data or tax information. Young concurred with that interpretation. Later that day, he issued a statement of "regret that some have misinterpreted" the provision or the purpose for it. The problem was that the provision clearly did give Appropriations Committee staffers the power to examine tax returns. Although the omnibus bill was rushed through the House with little controversy, the provision stirred a storm on the Senate floor later that day. Senators of both parties denounced it as a violation of taxpayer privacy, and Democrats suggested that GOP leaders were aware of the provision. In the House, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) accused Republicans of abusing House rules requiring a three-day delay so members can read bills before they go to the floor and held up final action on the measure until yesterday to bring pressure on GOP leaders to stop short-circuiting the rules. Americans "expect and deserve a government that respects their privacy," Pelosi said during yesterday's debate. -------- terrorism Pakistan, UK for addressing root causes of terror Musharraf holds talks with Blair, shares vision for 'enlightened moderation'; two leaders call for resolution of Kashmir, Palestine issues The News International By Hummaa Ahmad & Shahed Sadullah December 07, 2004 http://jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2004-daily/07-12-2004/main/main1.htm LONDON: President Pervez Musharraf and British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that they were in full agreement over the need to address those political issues which were behind the rise of terrorism and to ensure their just solution if the battle against terror was to be won. Read between the lines their joint statement meant an increased effort to resolve the issues of Palestine and Kashmir, both of which are seen by President Musharraf as root causes behind the political discontent that leads to terror. President Pervez Musharraf and Tony Blair met on Monday here at 10 Downing Street for talks on matters that focused on the current relationship enjoyed by Pakistan and the United Kingdom and in the purview of international strategic issues that have impacted on the region since 9/11. In their earlier private talks together, President Musharraf and Blair agreed to broaden the relationship between Pakistan and the United Kingdom into a renewed and re-energised partnership for peace and prosperity in the context of common international strategic objectives, particularly against extremism and terrorism. Musharraf shared with Blair his vision for "enlightened moderation" for a modern Islamic state, and the far-reaching measures taken by Pakistan to root out extremism and terrorist operations. The President underscored the need to address the principal causes of terrorism around the world which were largely mired in poverty and injustice and the failure to resolve political disputes. They agreed on the need for a judicious resolution of conflicts, including the Middle East and South Asia. The joint statement, issued at the end of their meeting, also said that Pakistan and the UK were close allies in countering terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. The two leaders also welcomed the deepening defence relationship between Pakistan and the UK and agreed on further evolving the Defence Cooperation Forum into a wide-ranging dialogue to include regional and global security, including peace-keeping and training. The two countries already enjoy close cooperation at various levels, with Britain being at the forefront of European countries involved in trade and development assistance, which was an area where mutual cooperation would be nurtured and continue to grow. In this sphere, Blair praised the turnaround in Pakistan's economy and in achieving its annual growth rates of over 6.5 per cent. The UK is the second largest foreign investor in Pakistan and the ongoing work of the Pakistan-Britain Trade and Investment Forum plus the Pakistan-Britain Business Advisory Group was further cementing and promoting the already close trading potentials between the two countries. He also welcomed Pervez Musharraf's commitment to the process of democratisation in Pakistan and the country's readmission to the Councils of Commonwealth. Tony Blair expressed his appreciation of the ongoing links with approximately one million people of the Pakistani diaspora living in the UK which has only served to foster and enhance the historic links between the two nations. He agreed with the President that enhanced bilateral ties meant the creation of jobs and in turn a way towards poverty alleviation and ultimately the objective in fighting terrorism. During a question and answer session with members of the media regarding the day's meeting, President Musharraf and Prime Minister Blair spoke about Afghanistan. Blair expressed the hope that "there is some cause for optimism" about the developments in Afghanistan whereas in the case of Iraq the strategy was to see through to make sure that Iraq becomes a "viable democratic state". When asked about the way the war on terror was being fought, President Musharraf said there was a need to look at the strategic long-term direction and what were the root causes which cause the problem. Only through the resolution of political disputes which simultaneously hit directly at the issues related to terrorist activity can a way forward be ensured. Blair endorsed the view by saying that it would "be foolish to ignore core political problems" and that the UK was going to hold peace talks on the Middle East in this effort as now was the time to grasp the opportunity and in this the counsel of President Musharraf would be "extremely valuable". Turning to the issue of Kashmir, President Musharraf warned against being anchored in the past and that a way forward should be the order of the day. Blair encouraged further efforts to find a lasting resolution to the outstanding issues between India and Pakistan including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute while taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiris. Asked by this correspondent about Prime Minister Blair's views on the importance of the Kashmiris with regard to their own land and their future considering the large numbers of Kashmiris settled in Britain today, and how much of a say they should have in the matter, Blair agreed that it was matter for both India and Pakistan to consider. To this President Musharraf underscored the importance of their involvement and that any resolution to the future outcome was not bound to happen without the inclusion of the Kashmiris. President Pervez Musharraf said there were two dimensions to the war on terror; the first was on a military level, a physical response to the phenomenon, while the second was to hit at the core issues that give rise to such extremism, the political disputes which produce feelings of anger and frustration leading to extremism. The President felt that the situation in the world at the moment was ripe for the solution of these disputes. Like President Bush last Saturday, Prime Minister Blair was unequivocal in his praise for President Musharraf, his courage in the role played by him in the fight against terror and for his strong leadership in what was a difficult time for the world. The President denied a suggestion that the Taliban or al-Qaeda were being "allowed" to work out of Pakistan, stating that in the last two decades it was Pakistan that had borne the brunt of terrorist activities. Some 600 al-Qaeda functionaries of various levels had been apprehended or accounted for by the government of Pakistan and the President claimed that following these measures, Pakistan's main towns and cities could now be said to be "reasonably clean" "We have broken al-Qaeda's back in Pakistan," the President said, adding that his government had broken the organization's structural base and network. "Pakistan" he claimed confidently, "is winning the war on terror." The situation in Afghanistan had also been discussed and President Musharraf felt that there was reason for hope on the basis of his recent visit to that country. Prime Minister Blair, in response to a question, repeated the well-established British line on Kashmir, namely that the British government was ready and willing to give every possible support to both India and Pakistan in the current dialogue process and agreed that no solution to Kashmir was possible without the participation of the people of Kashmir. While the meeting was in progress, two rival groups held demonstrations outside Downing Street. One, organized by the Hizb ut Tahrir, was against the government and while the other by the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, was in favour, typically reflecting the division that follows the Pakistani community everywhere. Earlier in an interview, the President welcomed British mediation over Kashmir saying he would welcome British involvement in negotiations with India over Kashmir. Musharraf said "I would love Britain to play a role" as an intermediary in the decades-old dispute. But he accepted that for 30 years India and Pakistan had agreed to strict bilateral negotiations. Until last year this had yielded little but he was "very hopeful" that both sides were now able to move forward, especially with British help behind the scenes. General Musharraf said he had told President George W Bush that a key to wiping out terrorism worldwide was to resolve the Palestinian question. "We must address the root causes, and get to the source of what produces terrorism," he said. That would "kill 50 percent of the problem" in Iraq, he added. Musharraf said of Bush "I know him by now," adding: "I think he wants to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli question. I sense urgency in him." The Pakistani presidential entourage included Dr Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's High Commissioner in attendance, during the talks as well as Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri-who met also with Jack Straw, his British counterpart, in addition to Sheikh Rashid, the information minister and Humayun Akhtar, the minister for commerce. -------- Attack on U.S. consulate jolts Saudis, helps raise oil prices (AP) 12/7/2004 http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-07-saudi-explosion_x.htm JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia - Analysts said Monday's assault - a strike on a highly guarded American target after Saudi Arabia had cracked down on militants - will likely encourage terrorists to attack again. It also helped push oil markets higher, with crude futures in after-hours electronic trade on the New York Mercantile Exchange rising 14 cents to $43.12 from the overnight close. Monday's closing price was 44 cents higher than last week's. Five consulate employees - one Yemeni, a Sudanese, a Filipino, a Pakistani and a Sri Lankan - were killed and another four were injured. The Interior Ministry on Tuesday named three of the assailants, none of whom appear on the kingdom's list of 26 most wanted militants. The Ministry had said Monday there were five assailants, four of whom had been killed and the fifth captured. Tuesday, it specified only four as assailants, taking care not to indicate whether or how the fifth - who had not yet been identified - was involved. (Related story: Confusion leaves unanswered questions) The attack came a week after the deputy leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, warned in a videotape that Washington must change its policies or face further attacks by the terror group. Saudi and U.S. officials have blamed the terror network led by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden for all major militant attacks in the kingdom since May 2003. The Saudi government has condemned the attack and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal was reported to have called the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Oberwetter. (Related story: Foreigners aimed in previous attacks) "The kingdom is determined to root out terrorism and preserve its security and stability," the state-guided newspaper Okaz quoted Saud as telling the ambassador. Oberwetter, speaking to journalists at a Jiddah hotel complex Tuesday, praised the consulate's security measures that forced the attackers to leave their car at the gate and attack on foot, but acknowledged there was room for improvement. Oberwetter also extended his condolences to families of the victims and said the Saudis are doing well on security. "The Saudi government is doing everything it can," he said. "When we have asked for help, we have received it. They're doing a good job." The Marines inside the consulate also "performed their duties heroically," Oberwetter said. He did not say whether they had engaged in the gunbattle, and other U.S. officials have also declined to specify what role the Marines played during the attack. The Interior Ministry said five Saudi security officers were hospitalized for wounds in the consulate gunbattle, and most had been discharged by midday Tuesday. Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Mansour al-Turki has said one officer was seriously injured. The ministry statement identified three of the attackers as Fayez bin Awad al-Juhaini, Eid bin Dakhil Allah al-Juhaini, Hassan bin Hamid al-Hazimi. It did not say whether the al-Juhainis were related or provide details about them. The significance of the attack, analysts say, was the target, timing and element of surprise - three factors that may force a closer look at the Saudi government's efforts in fighting terror. "Here is an American consulate that was targeted. It was penetrated. They managed to go through the security, which should have been as tough and as solid as a shield. It shows that American targets in Saudi Arabia, no matter how well protected, are vulnerable to these kind of attacks," said Abdul Khaleq Abdulla, an Emirates-based political analyst. The consulate - like all U.S. diplomatic buildings and other Western compounds in Saudi Arabia - has been heavily fortified since last year's series of bombings against targets housing foreigners. "This was a very hard target to attack, and they pulled it off. Whether Saudi security forces were lax, following their successes over the past few months, is debatable," said Diaa Rashwan, a Cairo-based expert on Muslim militants. Attacks on Western targets in Saudi Arabia started in 2003, when car bombs hit three compounds housing foreign workers in Riyadh. Since then, the government has cracked down on Islamic militant cells and charities suspected of funneling money to terrorists. In May, militants took over a resort complex in Khobar and held hostages for 25 hours, killing 22 people, including 19 foreigners. In another attack that month, militants stormed offices of Houston-based ABB Lummus Global Inc. in Yanbu, killing six Westerners and a Saudi. The attackers dragged the body of an American from the bumper of their car. Militants in Riyadh, the capital, also kidnapped and beheaded Paul M. Johnson Jr., an engineer for a U.S. defense company, in June. -------- torture 'Torture' of Guantánamo Britons to be outlined guardian.co.uk December 7, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1368452,00.html The first British lawyer to visit Guantánamo Bay is tonight expected to describe what he found there and outline allegations of torture made by a British detainee. Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights lawyer, represents two of the four Britons still detained at the US military facility in Cuba. One of those he represents, Moazzam Begg, 36, from Birmingham, claimed in a letter made public in October that he had been subjected to "vindictive torture" and death threats by the US authorities. Ahead of a press conference later in London, Mr Stafford Smith said: "Britons are being tortured at Guantánamo and I am appalled that Prime Minister Tony Blair repeatedly uses information extracted under torture to support his contention that my British client Moazzam Begg is a threat to security." He went on: "It is bizarre and very sad that in 2004 America wants to debate whether torture is a good thing. How many thumbscrews does it take to convince people that torture may get confessions, but does not elicit the truth?" The Britons are among some 600 detainees who have been held as "enemy combatants" at Camp Delta in Guantánamo Bay, some for almost three years. Up until recent months, they have been held without charge or trial, and without any access to lawyers. Some trials have now begun but human rights groups are still highly critical of the legal situation and conditions. Last week a leaked International Committee of the Red Cross document accused US interrogators at Guantánamo Bay of psychological and physical treatment of prisoners that was "tantamount to torture". Four of the five Britons who were released from Camp Delta in February - Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal al-Harith - have filed US lawsuits for £5.5m each in compensation. The other Britons still detained are Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon; Martin Mubanga, 29, and Richard Belmar, 23, both from London. Mr Stafford Smith also represents Mr Belmar. Mr Stafford Smith, who believes he is the first Briton other than MI5 officers and government officials to enter the military base, will address the annual general meeting of the centre for crime and justice studies at King's College, London, this evening. The centre's director Una Padel said: "The way detainees at Guantánamo Bay are treated has a direct relevance to the treatment of all prisoners here and in the United States. "In the UK we have clear standards about how suspects should be questioned and about the conditions under which they can be detained in police and prison custody. It is monstrous that the government is supporting the detention and interrogation of Britons at Guantánamo when their experiences so clearly breach the standards set out in British law." -------- POLITICS The price of People Power The Ukraine street protests have followed a pattern of western orchestration set in the 80s. I know - I was a cold war bagman The Guardian Mark Almond December 7, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1367965,00.html People Power is on track to score another triumph for western values in Ukraine. Over the last 15 years, the old Soviet bloc has witnessed recurrent fairy tale political upheavals. These modern morality tales always begin with a happy ending. But what happens to the people once People Power has won? The upheaval in Ukraine is presented as a battle between the people and Soviet-era power structures. The role of western cold war-era agencies is taboo. Poke your nose into the funding of the lavish carnival in Kiev, and the shrieks of rage show that you have touched a neuralgic point of the New World Order. All politics costs money, and the crowd scenes broadcast daily from Kiev cost big bucks. Market economics may have triumphed, but if Milton Friedman were to remind the recipients of free food and drink in Independence Square that "there is no such thing as a free lunch", he would doubtless be branded a Stalinist. Few seem to ask what the people paying for People Power want in return for sponsoring all those rock concerts. As an old cold war swagman, who carried tens of thousands of dollars to Soviet-bloc dissidents alongside much better respected academics, perhaps I can cast some light on what a Romanian friend called "our clandestine period". Too many higher up the food chain of People Power seem reticent about making full disclosure. Nowadays, we can google the names of foundations such as America's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and a myriad surrogates funding Ukraine's Pora movement or "independent" media. But unless you know the NED's James Woolsey was also head of the CIA 10 years ago, are you any wiser? Throughout the 1980s, in the build-up to 1989's velvet revolutions, a small army of volunteers - and, let's be frank, spies - co-operated to promote what became People Power. A network of interlocking foundations and charities mushroomed to organise the logistics of transferring millions of dollars to dissidents. The money came overwhelmingly from Nato states and covert allies such as "neutral" Sweden. It is true that not every penny received by dissidents came from taxpayers. The US billionaire, George Soros, set up the Open Society Foundation. How much it gave is difficult to verify, because Mr Soros promotes openness for others, not himself. Engels remarked that he saw no contradiction between making a million on the stock market in the morning and spending it on the revolution in the afternoon. Our modern market revolutionaries are now inverting that process. People beholden to them come to office with the power to privatise. The hangover from People Power is shock therapy. Each successive crowd is sold a multimedia vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity by western-funded "independent" media to get them on the streets. No one dwells on the mass unemployment, rampant insider dealing, growth of organised crime, prostitution and soaring death rates in successful People Power states. In 1989, our security services honed an ideal model as a mechanism for changing regimes, often using genuine volunteers. Dislike of the way communist states constrained ordinary people's lives led me into undercover work, but witnessing mass pauperisation and cynical opportunism in the 1990s bred my disillusionment. Of course, I should have recognised the symptoms of corruption earlier. Back in the 1980s, our media portrayed Prague dissidents as selfless academics who were reduced to poverty for their principles, when they were in fact receiving $600-monthly stipends. Now they sit in the front row of the new Euro-Atlantic ruling class. The dowdy do-gooder who seemed so devoted to making sure that every penny of her "charity" money got to a needy recipient is now a facilitator for investors in our old stamping grounds. The end of history was the birth of consultancy. Grown cynical, the dissident types who embezzled the cash to fund, say, a hotel in the Buda hills did less harm than those that launched politico-media careers. In Poland, the ex-dissident Adam Michnik's Agora media empire - worth €400m today - grew out of the underground publishing world of Solidarity, funded by the CIA in the 1980s. His newspapers now back the war in Iraq, despite its huge unpopularity among Poles. Meanwhile, from the shipyard workers who founded Solidarity in 1980 to the Kolubara miners of Serbia, who proclaimed their town "the Gdansk of Serbia" in October 2000, millions now have plenty of time on their hands to read about their role in history. People Power is, it turns out, more about closing things than creating an open society. It shuts factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free market in everything - except opinion. The current ideology of New World Order ideologues, many of whom are renegade communists, is Market-Leninism - that combination of a dogmatic economic model with Machiavellian methods to grasp the levers of power. Today's only superpower uses its old cold war weapons, not against totalitarian regimes, but against governments that Washington has tired of. Tiresome allies such as Shevardnadze in Georgia did everything the US wanted, but forgot the Soviet satirist Ilf's wisdom: "It doesn't matter whether you love the Party. It matters whether the Party loves you." Georgia is of course a link in the chain of pipelines bringing central Asian oil and gas to Nato territory via Ukraine, of all places. Such countries' rulers should beware. Fifty years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the "politics of the permanent purge" typified Soviet communism. Yet now he is always on hand to demand People Power topple yesterday's favourite in favour of a new "reformer". "People Power" was coined in 1986, when Washington decided Ferdinand Marcos had to go. But it was events in Iran in 1953 that set the template. Then, Anglo-American money stirred up anti-Mossadeq crowds to demand the restoration of the Shah. The New York Times's correspondent trumpeted the victory of the people over communism, even though he had given $50,000 and the CIA-drafted text of the anti-Mossadeq declaration to the coup leaders himself. Is today's official version of People Power similarly economical with the truth? · Mark Almond is lecturer in modern history at Oriel College, Oxford mpalmond@aol.com -------- Kuchma warns PM against standing The Guardian Nick Paton Walsh in Kiev December 7, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1367880,00.html Ukraine's outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, yesterday appeared to withdraw support from his anointed successor, advising him not to stand in the repeat of the run-off vote, and pledging to sack him as prime minister before the new election if parliament agreed to constitutional changes. Mr Kuchma backed Viktor Yanukovich over the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, in the election that led to a 13-day crisis in Ukraine. But, in an interview with the New York Times published yesterday, he said: "Though Yanukovich said he would run, I don't know. If I were he, I would not, from any point of view." Speaking for the first time since the supreme court decision that the run-off should be repeated, Mr Yanukovich told supporters he had appointed a new campaign chief, and would reshuffle his regional campaign office "We are confident of our victory," he said. "I will prove in the December 26 vote that I have the support of the majority of the Ukrainian people." Mr Kuchma pledged yesterday to sign into law a parliamentary request to sack the cabinet, including Mr Yanukovich, once MPs had passed a series of changes to the constitution that would weaken the post of president and strengthen parliament. Opposition MPs are pushing for changes that they say would ensure a fair vote, while pro-government MPs want to link the legislation with constitutional changes that would weaken the power of the presidency. The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and the Polish president, Alexander Kwasniewski, arrived in Kiev yesterday to try to break the deadlock. If Mr Yanukovich were to drop out of the vote before December 16, the Socialist candidate Oleksandr Moroz - who came third in the first round of the presidential vote - would step in. If Mr Yanukovich withdraws any later, Mr Yushchenko will run alone. Mr Kuchma's softening of position came as his ally, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, indicated that he might accept a Yushchenko administration. "I said many times in the beginning and during the election campaign that we would work with any elected leader," Interfax reported him as saying. Meanwhile, protesters continued to blockade government buildings. Frustrated officials said that the blockade was bringing the country's economy to its knees. -------- investigations AIPAC Probe Intensifies Jewish Times Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger DECEMBER 07, 2004 http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/4374.stm A federal prosecutor's decision to bring an investigation involving the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to a grand jury is, at the least, an unwanted distraction at a critical time for the top Israel lobby - and some worry that it could hamper the organization's effectiveness. FBI agents searched AIPAC's headquarters here Wednesday, seizing files associated with two senior staffers who were interviewed in August amid allegations that a classified Pentagon document was leaked and passed on to Israel. The agents also served subpoenas on four other senior staffers to appear before a grand jury later this month. The four were Howard Kohr, the group's executive director; Richard Fishman, the managing director; Renee Rothstein, the communications director; and Raphael Danziger, the research director. Though AIPAC in past months had sought to portray the investigation as dying down, sources told JTA that federal investigators have interviewed several former AIPAC employees in recent weeks. AIPAC officials deny that any staff member has done anything wrong. "Neither AIPAC nor any member of our staff has broken any law," AIPAC said in a statement. "We are fully cooperating with the governmental authorities. We believe any court of law or grand jury will conclude that AIPAC employees have always acted legally, properly and appropriately." But the grand jury deliberations will preoccupy key AIPAC staffers at a time that Israel's government is seeking administration and congressional support for renewed talks with the Palestinians and ahead of a planned, controversial withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. "It is obviously a very serious matter," said Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former prosecutor. "It does not necessarily mean there will be indictments or that we know who the targets are, but a grand jury has a great deal of power, they can call witnesses, documents, people who go can't bring lawyers - it's usually all very exhausting." Officials from other American Jewish organizations continued to stand by AIPAC, and expressed outrage over the course of the investigation. "The behavior is very disturbing, that 10 guys raid an organization that has always been willing to cooperate," said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, of which AIPAC is a member. "The pattern here has the appearance of being problematic - behavior that has been going on months, if not years." Supporters of the pro-Israel lobby have suggested that the investigation is a witch hunt led by one or two FBI rogues with a history of harassing Jews and Jewish organizations. Those close to AIPAC vigorously defended its integrity. "I can never remember a moment when the senior team, from Howard Kohr right down the line, weren't fully cognitive of what was appropriate and dignified," said Steve Grossman, AIPAC's president from 1992-'97. "I cannot think of a single moment when I felt that any information being transmitted or discussed was in any inappropriate. They always understood the art of the appropriate." Because of the secret nature of FBI investigations and grand jury procedures, few people know the focus of the search, and whether AIPAC or the two staffers interviewed in August - Steve Rosen, the director of foreign policy issues, and Keith Weissman, the foreign policy deputy director - are even the targets. AIPAC insiders had been telling people since August that the case seemed to be petering out. Wednesday's subpoenas and searches upended that notion, and the case is once again front and center for the group. Most of AIPAC's senior staff and lay leadership dropped their usual activities Wednesday and Thursday and were preoccupied with the new developments. Other former AIPAC employees suggested the group could be under investigation for acting as an agent for Israel. Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, a foreign agent is any individual or group that works under the direction of a foreign government. AIPAC, however, has always maintained that it represents American supporters of the Jewish state, not Israel itself. If the grand jury probe leads to indictments and convictions of senior AIPAC staffers, the organization could suffer damage, a top Washington lobby watcher said. "If it turns out that AIPAC staffers were involved in illegal activities, it will hurt AIPAC's reputation on the Hill," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "It will present a problem in terms of people having to deal with them." What ensues depends on whether those at the center of any emerging scandal acted as rogues or were part of a pattern, Noble said. "AIPAC is a powerful lobbying group, it does have a certain amount of capital, but that can be used up quickly in a really damaging situation," Noble said. A former top Justice Department official suggested that going to a grand jury meant the investigation had become adversarial. "You can't automatically sound the alarm, but more often than not it means that they don't believe" that those under investigation have been "totally cooperative," said Bill Mateja, a former U.S. Attorney in Texas who until last month was the top federal corporate fraud official. Less often, Mateja said, a U.S. attorney will refer a matter to a grand jury simply to wrap it up, "crossing the t's and dotting the i's." Mateja said it was significant that Weissman and Rosen were not among those subpoenaed. Levenson said targets of a probe almost never appear before a grand jury in the early stages of the investigation. "Usually the people who are brought in at the initial stages are designated as witnesses, rather than targets," she said. "You work from the outside in. The targets are the people in the middle of the bull's-eye." When investigators first arrived at AIPAC's offices in August, seizing computer files and interviewing Rosen and Weissman, many suggested that AIPAC was secondary to an investigation into Larry Franklin, a Pentagon employee suspected of passing the group classified documents on Iran. However, insiders say the investigation has appeared to be moving away from Franklin and toward Rosen and AIPAC. Levenson said the fact that a grand jury has been convened should serve as a warning bell. Media reports have said AIPAC has been the target of a government investigation for more than two years, and that senior administration officials were made aware of it before President Bush spoke to AIPAC in May. AIPAC officials confirm that Wednesday's activities focused on Rosen and Weissman. A spokesman for the attorney representing Rosen and Weissman, who remain active employees at AIPAC, had no comment on the investigation, and an attorney for AIPAC did not return request for comment. An FBI official confirmed the search but had no further comment, and a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office also would not comment. Several people said they were surprised that Fishman and Rothstein were subpoenaed. Fishman predominantly is involved in management and fund raising, and Rothstein is best known for coordinating AIPAC's policy conferences. Steve Pomerantz, a former FBI investigator who consults for Jewish organizations, said the nature of the subpoenas suggests that FBI investigators know what they're looking for. "This is not a fishing expedition," he said. "It's clear to me they have some specific information which is leading them in a specific direction." A grand jury investigation would allow the U.S. Attorney's Office to compel witnesses to answer questions, without a lawyer present and on the record. Witnesses could be offered immunity from prosecution if they believe their answers would incriminate them, Pomerantz said. The AIPAC investigation had seemed to be dormant for months, with some speculating that it was put on hold because of the presidential election. In the meantime, AIPAC had garnered strong support from lawmakers and American Jewish leaders, even using the investigation in its fund-raising drive. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser and nominee for secretary of state, spoke to AIPAC's national summit in Florida in October. Some Jewish organizational officials have raised concerns in the past about David Szady, the senior FBI counterintelligence official overseeing the probe, and whether he targeted Jews inside the agency. Pomerantz said he had never seen anything to suggest that Szady is anti-Semitic. In any case, he said, the idea that an individual could hijack the nation's premier law enforcement agency for a personal agenda was far-fetched. "The FBI is not suicidal," he said. "They are not taking on AIPAC lightly or without full knowledge that this is a powerful organization seen positively by this administration." This story reprinted courtesy of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. To read more, pick up a copy of the Jewish Times at one of our newsstand locations. -------- propaganda wars Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power by Thom Hartmann Published on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 by CommonDreams.org http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1207-26.htm What if there really was no need for much - or even most - of the Cold War? What if, in fact, the Cold War had been kept alive for two decades based on phony WMD threats? What if, similarly, the War On Terror was largely a scam, and the administration was hyping it to seem larger-than-life? What if our "enemy" represented a real but relatively small threat posed by rogue and criminal groups well outside the mainstream of Islam? What if that hype was done largely to enhance the power, electability, and stature of George W. Bush and Tony Blair? And what if the world was to discover the most shocking dimensions of these twin deceits - that the same men promulgated them in the 1970s and today? It happened. The myth-shattering event took place in England the first three weeks of October, when the BBC aired a three-hour documentary written and produced by Adam Curtis, titled "The Power of Nightmares." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm If the emails and phone calls many of us in the US received from friends in the UK - and debate in the pages of publications like The Guardian are any indicator, this was a seismic event, one that may have even provoked a hasty meeting between Blair and Bush a few weeks later. http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html According to this carefully researched and well-vetted BBC documentary, Richard Nixon, following in the steps of his mentor and former boss Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed it was possible to end the Cold War and eliminate fear from the national psyche. The nation need no longer be afraid of communism or the Soviet Union. Nixon worked out a truce with the Soviets, meeting their demands for safety as well as the US needs for security, and then announced to Americans that they need no longer be afraid. In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "détente." On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said, "Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world." But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War. And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work. "The Soviet Union has been busy," Defense Secretary Rumsfeld explained to America in 1976. "They’ve been busy in terms of their level of effort; they’ve been busy in terms of the actual weapons they ’ve been producing; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding production rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their institutional capability to produce additional weapons at additional rates; they’ve been busy in terms of expanding their capability to increasingly improve the sophistication of those weapons. Year after year after year, they’ve been demonstrating that they have steadiness of purpose. They’re purposeful about what they’re doing." The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone. But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good. According to Curtis' BBC documentary, Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology. The BBC's documentarians asked Dr. Anne Cahn of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during that time, her thoughts on Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, and Wolfowitz's 1976 story of the secret Soviet WMDs. Here's a clip from a transcript of that BBC documentary: " Dr ANNE CAHN, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80: They couldn't say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, 'we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.' "INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence. "CAHN: Even though there was no evidence. "INTERVIEWER: So they’re saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn’t exist… "CAHN: Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it." The moderator of the BBC documentary then notes: " What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality in the Soviet Union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn’t found, but they were wrong about many of those they could observe, such as the Soviet air defenses. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state of collapse, reflecting the growing economic chaos in the Soviet Union. Team B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the Soviet régime. The air-defense system worked perfectly. But the only evidence they produced to prove this was the official Soviet training manual, which proudly asserted that their air-defense system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly. The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world." Nonetheless, as Melvin Goodman, head of the CIA's Office of Soviet Affairs, 1976-87, noted in the BBC documentary, " Rumsfeld won that very intense, intense political battle that was waged in Washington in 1975 and 1976. Now, as part of that battle, Rumsfeld and others, people such as Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to get into the CIA. And their mission was to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union, Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war." Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that undetectable weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration. But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs. Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and impressive WMDs, but we also now know that they were, in fact, decaying from within, ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what the US did - just as the CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states - as I had - during that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic and political system wasn't working, and their military was disintegrating. As arms-control expert Cahn noted in the documentary of those 1970s claims by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld: "I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean, they looked at radars out in Krasnoyarsk and said, 'This is a laser beam weapon,' when in fact it was nothing of the sort. ... And if you go through most of Team B’s specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong." "INTERVIEWER: All of them? "CAHN: All of them. "INTERVIEWER: Nothing true? "CAHN: I don’t believe anything in [Wolfowitz's 1977] Team B was really true." But the neocons said it was true, and organized a group - The Committee on the Present Danger - http://www.fightingterror.org/ - to promote their worldview. The Committee produced documentaries, publications, and provided guests for national talk shows and news reports. They worked hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in defense spending, particularly for sophisticated weapons systems offered by the defense contractors for whom neocons would later become lobbyists. And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in the United States, and making themselves and their defense contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the world. The Cold War was good for business, and good for the political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Reagan. Similarly, according to this documentary, the War On Terror is the same sort of scam, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people. And by hyping it - and then invading Iraq - we may well be bringing into reality terrors and forces that previously existed only on the margins and with very little power to harm us. Curtis' documentary suggests that the War On Terror is just as much a fiction as were the super-WMDs this same group of neocons said the Soviets had in the 70s. He suggests we've done more to create terror than to fight it. That the risk was really quite minimal (at least until we invaded Iraq), and the terrorists are - like most terrorist groups - simply people on the fringes, rather easily dispatched by their own people. He even points out that Al Qaeda itself was a brand we invented, later adopted by bin Laden because we'd put so many millions into creating worldwide name recognition for it. Watching "The Terror of Nightmares" is like taking the Red Pill in the movie The Matrix. It's the story of idealism gone wrong, of ideologies promoted in the US by Leo Strauss and his followers (principally Wolfowitz, Feith, and Pearle), and in the Muslim world by bin Laden's mentor, Ayman Zawahiri. Both sought to create a utopian world through world domination; both believe that the ends justify the means; both are convinced that "the people" must be frightened into embracing religion and nationalism for the greater good of morality and a stable state. Each needs the other in order to hold power. Whatever your plans are for tonight or tomorrow, clip three hours out of them and take the Red Pill. Get a pair of headphones (the audio is faint), plug them into your computer, and visit an unofficial archive of the Curtis' BBC documentary at the Information Clearing House website. (The third hour of the program, in a more viewable format, is also available here.) For those who prefer to read things online, an unofficial but complete transcript is on this Belgian site. But be forewarned: You'll never see political reality - and certainly never hear the words of the Bush or Blair administrations - the same again. Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," The Edison Gene, and "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy." -------- The ugly sounds of silence Times Argus December 7, 2004 http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041207/NEWS/412070378/1022 After the nationwide electronic malpractices of Nov. 2, a letter in my local weekly proclaimed that George W. Bush had been elected because of his firm stand on abortion and same-sex marriage. Calling Bush's 51 percent of the votes "a large majority," the writer of that letter said that this majority until then had been "the silent majority" and that now was the time for us to unite once again into a strong nation. I'm glad to see that the writer recognizes that powerful weaponry does not make a nation strong, but I'm not glad to point out that we're pretty united already. What makes me say that in the face of the divisiveness we see wherever we look is the dreadful feeling, the same as must have haunted Germany in the 1930s, that one powerful element is already uniting us: silence - silence on both sides of our aisles, so to speak. Silence in the churches and the mainstream media on the unbearable hypocrisy in the Bush administration's opposition to the killing of fetuses, while at the same time it sends grown men and women to kill and be killed in the awful Bush-generated violence in the Middle East. Silence about the use of depleted uranium there, lethal stuff that will cause abortions and deformities for the next 4.5 billion years. Silence about Bush's flippant use of the words "freedom" and "democracy" while he's making a mockery of them at home and instructing our military forces to invade and occupy and mercilessly bomb a beaten-down country whose resistance fighters are not giving up. Silence in the streets and in the media about the betrayal and wrongful use of the National Guard and the subsequent crippling of our communities. Silence about the squelching of equality and tolerance in the case of same-sex marriage, and silence about the shameful use of diversity as an excuse for divisive politics. Silence in the churches and the media about the Bush administration's assaults on the American environment and indeed all of God's creation, silence about the obscene extent of poverty among us, and silence about our bottomless national debt. I'm afraid it's not so much the election that, the letter stated, "sent a strong and clear message to the world" as this shared silence of all of us. It's not only the 51 percent that, in the words of a British editorial, was "America's way of giving the world the finger," but also the 49 percent that's standing by and not expressing its outrage and the terribly urgent need for change so loud and clear that even the mainstream media would get it and have no choice but to echo it. Louise Sandberg Corinth -------- us politics House roll call vote on intelligence reform 12/07/2004 - Updated 10:44 PM ET http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-07-intel-rollcall.htm The 336-75 roll call Tuesday by which the House passed a bill to overhaul the nation's intelligence network. A "yes" vote is a vote to approve the bill. Voting "yes" were 183 Democrats, 152 Republicans and 1 independent. Voting "no" were 8 Democrats and 67 Republicans. "X" denotes those not voting. There are two vacancies in the 435-member House Alabama Democrats - Cramer, Y; Davis, X Republicans - Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, Y; Everett, N; Rogers, Y Alaska Republicans - Young, X Arizona Democrats - Grijalva, Y; Pastor, Y Republicans - Flake, N; Franks, Y; Hayworth, N; Kolbe, Y; Renzi, Y; Shadegg, Y Arkansas Democrats - Berry, Y; Ross, Y; Snyder, Y Republicans - Boozman, N California Democrats - Baca, Y; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Davis, Y; Dooley, X; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lantos, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Y; Matsui, Y; Millender-McDonald, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; SIA!nchez, Linda T Republicans - Bono, N; Calvert, N; Cox, Y; Cunningham, Y; Doolittle, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, N; Herger, Y; Hunter, Y; Issa, N; Lewis, Y; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, Y; Ose, N; Pombo, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N; Thomas, Y Colorado Democrats - DeGette, Y; Udall, Y Republicans - Beauprez, Y; Hefley, N; McInnis, N; Musgrave, Y; Tancredo, N Connecticut Democrats - DeLauro, Y; Larson, Y Republicans - Johnson, Y; Shays, Y; Simmons, Y Delaware Republicans - Castle, Y Florida Democrats - Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Davis, X; Deutsch, Y; Hastings, X; Meek, Y; Wexler, Y Republicans - Bilirakis, Y; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, L Georgia Democrats - Bishop, Y; Lewis, Y; Majette, Y; Marshall, Y; Scott, Y Republicans - Burns, Y; Collins, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Isakson, Y; Kingston, N; Linder, Y; Norwood, X Hawaii Democrats - Abercrombie, X; Case, X Idaho Republicans - Otter, N; Simpson, N Illinois Democrats - Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Emanuel, Y; Evans, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, X; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y Republicans - Biggert, Y; Crane, N; Hastert, Y; Hyde, Y; Johnson, Y; Kirk, Y; LaHood, N; Manzullo, N; Shimkus, Y; Weller, Y Indiana Democrats - Carson, Y; Hill, Y; Visclosky, Y Republicans - Burton, Y; Buyer, Y; Chocola, Y; Hostettler, N; Pence, Y; Souder, Y Iowa Democrats - Boswell, X Republicans - King, N; Latham, Y; Leach, Y; Nussle, Y Kansas Democrats - Moore, Y Republicans - Moran, Y; Ryun, Y; Tiahrt, Y Kentucky Democrats - Chandler, Y; Lucas, X Republicans - Lewis, N; Northup, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y Louisiana Democrats - Jefferson, Y; John, Y Republicans - Alexander, Y; Baker, Y; McCrery, Y; Tauzin, Y; Vitter, Y Maine Democrats - Allen, Y; Michaud, Y Maryland Democrats - Cardin, Y; Cummings, Y; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Van Hollen, Y; Wynn, Y Republicans - Bartlett, N; Gilchrest, Y Massachusetts Democrats - Capuano, Y; Delahunt, Y; Frank, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Meehan, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y Michigan Democrats - Conyers, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Stupak, Y Republicans - Camp, N; Ehlers, Y; Hoekstra, Y; Knollenberg, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Smith, X; Upton, Y Minnesota Democrats - McCollum, Y; Oberstar, N; Peterson, Y; Sabo, N Republicans - Gutknecht, N; Kennedy, Y; Kline, Y; Ramstad, Y Mississippi Democrats - Taylor, Y; Thompson, Y Republicans - Pickering, Y; Wicker, Y Missouri Democrats - Clay, Y; Gephardt, Y; McCarthy, Y; Skelton, Y Republicans - Akin, Y; Blunt, Y; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hulshof, Y Montana Republicans - Rehberg, N Nebraska Republicans - Osborne, Y; Terry, Y Nevada Democrats - Berkley, Y Republicans - Gibbons, Y; Porter, Y New Hampshire Republicans - Bass, Y; Bradley, Y New Jersey Democrats - Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Menendez, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, X; Rothman, Y Republicans - Ferguson, Y; Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Saxton, Y; Smith, Y New Mexico Democrats - Udall, Y Republicans - Pearce, Y; Wilson, Y New York Democrats - Ackerman, Y; Bishop, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Hinchey, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Towns, Y; VelIA!zquez, Y; Weiner, Y Republicans - Boehlert, X; Fossella, Y; Houghton, X; Kelly, Y; King, Y; McHugh, Y; Quinn, Y; Reynolds, Y; Sweeney, N; Walsh, Y North Carolina Democrats - Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; McIntyre, Y; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Watt, Y Republicans - Ballenger, X; Burr, X; Coble, N; Hayes, Y; Jones, N; Myrick, N; Taylor, N North Dakota Democrats - Pomeroy, Y Ohio Democrats - Brown, Y; Jones, X; Kaptur, Y; Kucinich, N; Ryan, Y; Strickland, Y Republicans - Boehner, Y; Chabot, N; Gillmor, Y; Hobson, Y; LaTourette, Y; Ney, Y; Oxley, Y; Portman, Y; Pryce, Y; Regula, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, Y Oklahoma Democrats - Carson, Y Republicans - Cole, Y; Istook, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N Oregon Democrats - Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, Y; Hooley, Y; Wu, Y Republicans - Walden, Y Pennsylvania Democrats - Brady, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, X; Hoeffel, Y; Holden, Y; Kanjorski, Y; Murtha, N Republicans - English, Y; Gerlach, Y; Greenwood, Y; Hart, Y; Murphy, Y; Peterson, Y; Pitts, N; Platts, Y; Sherwood, Y; Shuster, Y; Toomey, Y; Weldon, Y Rhode Island Democrats - Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y South Carolina Democrats - Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y Republicans - Barrett, N; Brown, Y; DeMint, Y; Wilson, Y South Dakota Democrats - Herseth, Y Tennessee Democrats - Cooper, Y; Davis, Y; Ford, Y; Gordon, N; Tanner, Y Republicans - Blackburn, N; Duncan, N; Jenkins, N; Wamp, N Texas Democrats - Bell, X; Doggett, Y; Edwards, Y; Frost, Y; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson-Lee, Y; Johnson, E Republicans - Barton, N; Bonilla, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, N; Carter, Y; Culberson, N; DeLay, Y; Granger, Y; Hall, Y; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, N; Neugebauer, N; Paul, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, N; Thornberry, Y Utah Democrats - Matheson, Y Republicans - Bishop, N; Cannon, X Vermont Independent - Sanders, Y Virginia Democrats - Boucher, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, Y Republicans - Cantor, Y; Davis, Jo Ann, N; Davis, Tom, Y; Forbes, N; Goode, N; Goodlatte, Y; Schrock, Y; Wolf, Y Washington Democrats - Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, Y Republicans - Dunn, Y; Hastings, Y; Nethercutt, Y West Virginia Democrats - Mollohan, N; Rahall, X Republicans - Capito, Y Wisconsin Democrats - Baldwin, Y; Kind, Y; Kleczka, Y: Obey, N Republicans - Green, N; Petri, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, N Wyoming Republicans - Cubin, N -------- OTHER -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) Terror financing in the Mideast December 07, 2004 Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041206-085203-1521r.htm The Middle East has taken an important step toward joining the Western world in the fight against terror financing and money laundering. Last week, 14 Arab states launched a regional task force to coordinate their strategy in that regard. The welcomed, if belated, move could be particularly significant if the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank begin tying the granting of funds to counter-terror financing efforts. U.S. and other officials, recognizing the importance of the movement of funds to terrorist organizations, have been pushing for improved vigilance since September 11. The creation of the Middle East and North African Financial Action Task Force (MENAFATF) could have a material impact on the way charities are regulated in the region and could help counter the movement of terrorist financing and the proceeds of criminal activities through a global hawala, or unofficial money transmitting system. MENAFATF includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. The body will implement the 40 recommendations of the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and will become the regional body for coordinating efforts, sharing information and identifying areas of concern and possible solutions for combating terrorist financing and money laundering. It will also implement U.N. treaties and U.N. Security Council recommendations. "It institutionalizes in a real and concrete way the region's efforts to establish standards, processes and connectivity to deal with money laundering and terrorist financing," Juan Carlos Zarate, the U.S. Treasury's terrorist financing assistant secretary, told journalists in Bahrain. The region has sorely needed such a coordinating organization, since it remains the principal source of terrorist financing. Saudi Arabia, the country of chief concern, has implemented a slew of regulations to prevent the funding of illicit charities, but has yet to prosecute a single individual or to prevent officials affiliated with its embassies from delivering jihad-inspiring messages abroad. These are the kinds of gray enforcement issues MENAFATF will have to deal with, if it is to be effective. For their part, the IMF and World Bank are considering taking a closer look at terror financing when disbursing aid. U.S. officials have been pressing Mideast countries to modernize their regulations on the flow of money. The launching of MENAFATF is a response to that pressure. The United States should continue calling attention to the importance of countering terror financing, since it provides an avenue for stopping attacks before they occur. We need to create a greater sense of urgency than currently exists in Europe, the Middle East and some precincts of Washington. -------- ACTIVISTS Pacifists push to declare Japanese city 'defenseless' TOKYO (AFP) Dec 07, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041207124505.nudyi14b.html Alarmed by what they see as Japan's drift to militarism, pacifists led by a prominent lawyer are trying to declare a small city defenseless using an obscure international protocol. The group is pushing for the western Japanese city of Hirakata, whose 400,000 people face no obvious external threats, to be declared a "non-defended locality" under a 1977 additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of war. Under the protocol, which Japan ratified in June, such a city cannot legally be attacked nor can it be used in support of military operations. "We don't want to allow war to happen. So we will tie the hands of the Japanese government," lawyer Takeo Matsumoto told reporters Tuesday. "This is based on international law," Matsumoto said. "There is a right to declare oneself non-defended." Japan since last year has stationed troops in Iraq in a departure from its pacifist US-imposed constitution of 1947. Japan is also considering building long-range missiles to face perceived threats from North Korea and China. The pacifist group said it aimed to turn back the momentum towards the military and return to pacifism that coincided with Japan's rapid development from the ashes of World War II. "I was shocked by the terrorist attacks of September 11 three years ago," said Yukiyo Ota, a spokeswoman for the group. "When citizens kept getting killed in Afghanistan and then Iraq, I felt something had to be done." Some 18,600 residents of Hirakata, a university city 375 kilometersmiles) west of Tokyo, signed a petition last month supporting the idea of declaring the city undefended, a municipal official said. A panel of local lawmakers is set to study the proposed declaration Thursday, the official said. A similar movement has been underway in recent years to declare Berkeley, California an "un-defended locality." The US university town has already declared itself "nuclear free," meaning no work on nuclear weapons can take place in city limits. Matsumoto, a high-profile human rights lawyer, won a Supreme Court ruling in October that held the government responsible for mercury poisoning that killed hundreds of people from 1960 in Minamata Bay, southern Japan. ----- Nigerian protesters shut down oil pumps (AP) December 07, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/business/20041206-093138-1623r.htm LAGOS, Nigeria - Protesters besieged oil platforms run by Royal Dutch/Shell Group Cos. and ChevronTexaco Corp. for a second day yesterday, shutting down 90,000 barrels a day in production from Africa's leading oil exporter, company officials said. Hundreds of protesting villagers from Kula community, including women and children, on Sunday invaded two oil pumping facilities owned by Royal Dutch/Shell in the Ekulama oil fields and another belonging to ChevronTexaco at Robert-Kiri island in the swamps of the oil-rich delta, demanding to see top officials of both companies. Shell pumps 70,000 barrels daily from the two stations, and ChevronTexaco pumps 20,000 barrels daily from its own station. A Royal Dutch/Shell spokesman in Lagos said the protesters are blocking dozens of oil workers on the platforms from leaving. Representatives have been sent to the villagers for negotiations, the spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ChevronTexaco has reported the protest to the authorities of Rivers state, in charge of the region, spokesman Deji Haastrup said. Protest leaders and officials of the two oil multinationals met later yesterday with a governor's representative in the Rivers capital, Port Harcourt. They agreed to set up a committee to consider the villagers' demands for jobs and other benefits, Rivers spokesman Emmanuel Okah said. Most of the protesters left the Royal Dutch/Shell facilities yesterday, leaving behind about 20 people to ensure they were not reopened, the Royal Dutch/Shell spokesman said. Nigeria, at 2.5 million barrels a day, is Africa's leading oil exporter, the world's seventh-largest exporter, and the fifth-biggest source of U.S. oil imports.