NucNews - December 10, 2004 -------- NUCLEAR MIT, Columbia Begin New Energy Experiment: Half-ton Levitating Ring Is Key To Work Source: Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Date: 2004-12-10 http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2004/12/041206192640.htm CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- MIT and Columbia University students and researchers have begun operation of a novel experiment that confines high-temperature ionized gas, called plasma, using the strong magnetic fields from a half-ton superconducting ring inside a huge vessel reminiscent of a spaceship. The experiment, the first of its kind, will test whether nature's way of confining high-temperature gas might lead to a new source of energy for the world. First results from the Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX) were presented at a meeting of the American Physical Society the week of Nov. 15. Scientists and students described more than 100 plasma discharges created within the new device, each lasting from 5 to 10 seconds. X-ray spectroscopy and visible photography recorded spectacular images of the hot, confined plasma and of the dynamics of matter confined by strong magnetic force fields. A dedication for LDX, the United States' newest approach to nuclear fusion, was held in late October. Fusion energy is advantageous because its hydrogen fuel is practically limitless and the resulting energy would be clean and would not contribute to global warming as does the burning of fossil fuels. Scientists using the LDX experiment will conduct basic studies of confined high-temperature matter and investigate whether the plasma may someday be used to produce fusion energy on Earth. Fusion energy is the energy source of the sun and stars. At high temperature and pressure, light elements like hydrogen are fused together to make heavier elements, such as helium, in a process that releases large amounts of energy. Powerful magnets, such as the ring in LDX, provide the magnetic fields needed to initiate, sustain and control the plasma in which fusion occurs. Because the shape of the magnetic force fields determines the properties of the confined plasma, several different fusion research experiments are under way throughout the world, including a second experiment at MIT, the Alcator C-Mod, and the HBT-EP experiment at Columbia University. LDX tackles fusion with a unique approach, taking its cue from nature. The primary confining fields are created by a powerful superconducting ring about the size of a truck tire and weighing more than a half-ton that will ultimately be levitated within a large vacuum chamber. A second superconducting magnet located above the vacuum chamber provides the force necessary to support the weight of the floating coil. The resulting force field resembles the fields of the magnetized planets, such as Earth and Jupiter. Satellites have observed how these fields can confine plasma at hundreds of millions of degrees. The LDX research team is led by Jay Kesner, senior scientist at MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC) (who earned his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970), and Michael Mauel, a professor of applied physics at Columbia University (who earned his degrees from MIT, S.B. 1978, S.M. 1979, Sc.D. 1983). Kesner and Mauel's colleagues on the experiment include five graduate students (Alex Boxer, Jennifer Ellsworth, Ishtak Karim and Scott Mahar of MIT and Eugenio Oritz of Columbia) and two undergraduates (Austin Roach and Michelle Zimmermann of MIT). The team also includes Columbia scientists Darren Garnier and Alex Hansen, as well as Rick Lations, Phil Michael, Joseph Minervini, Don Strahan and Alex Zhukovsky of the PSFC. The work is sponsored by the Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences. This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Massachusetts Institute Of Technology. ---- Prometheus Pre-empted? New Nuclear Fission Missions Evaluated Space.com By Leonard David 10 December 2004 http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/jimo_update_041210.html NASA is reviewing a list of fission-powered missions that could pre-empt the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) effort now being eyed for space travel no sooner than 2015. A special study team has identified six potential candidate missions that could be done sooner, have shorter mission durations, and would be far less difficult to implement. JIMO has been touted as the flagship mission for Project Prometheus. JIMO would be the space agency’s first mission using nuclear electric propulsion. In September, NASA selected Northrop Grumman Space Technology as the contractor for the proposed Prometheus JIMO spacecraft. The Prometheus JIMO mission has been billed as part of an ambitious mission to orbit and explore three planet-sized moons -- Callisto, Ganymede and Europa -- of Jupiter. The moons may have vast oceans beneath their icy surfaces. A nuclear reactor would enable the mission. JIMO would orbit each icy world to perform extensive investigations of their composition, history, and potential for sustaining life. However, an analysis of alternative mission ideas was completed last month at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The six ideas are: · Technology Demonstration Mission to test fission power system in deep space with no specific science goal or destination. · Lunar Geophysical Orbiter that in extended mission mode could serve as a telecom asset for future lunar missions. · Next Generation Mars Telecommunications Station. · Near Earth Object (NEO) Asteroid Mission that would involve stopovers at multiple objects, perhaps landing hardware on a NEO to assess the ability to modify the trajectory of a celestial body. · Venus Orbiter, more like a Magellan II spacecraft that would carry out low altitude runs over the cloudy planet with state-of-the-art radar. · Astrophysics Mission that would use high power levels from a fission power source, likely sending collected science information at very high data rates. In addition to these missions, a Europa Orbiter mission for a 2012 launch, using chemical propulsion, would have the spacecraft energized by radioisotope power system (RPS) technology. Further work on fleshing out these candidate ideas will be undertaken by the JPL-led study group, looking at variants and options for each mission. -------- accidents and safety TMI lowers power after leak Non-radioactive steam leak was never a danger to the public, plant said. York Daily Record By SEAN ADKINS December 10, 2004 http://ydr.com/story/business/52150/ At bottom: · SIREN TEST A non-radioactive steam leak in Three Mile Island's Unit 1 Thursday afternoon has forced the plant to reduce power. Shortly after noon, an alarm alerted the control room staff to a problem within the plant's intermediate building, said Ralph DeSantis, spokesman for AmerGen Energy, which runs the Dauphin County nuclear power plant. Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the intermediate building is a vital area of the plant, between the reactor and steam/turbine buildings. The building houses pumps, valves and pipes between the plant's reactor and turbine systems. Two workers entered the building and found the steam leak on an instrument line fitting, DeSantis said. The leak posed no danger to the public or to plant workers, he said. Plant operators reduced power by 22 percent. Unit 1, which typically produces 890 megawatts of power, enough to power about 300,000 homes, was producing 150 megawatts Thursday afternoon. Customers will not experience a lapse in power as a result of the steam leak, DeSantis said. By Thursday evening, plant crews had stopped the leak and had started to develop a plan to permanently repair it, he said. No workers were injured during the event, DeSantis said. Plant officials do not know when the plant will resume full power. "They will need to troubleshoot this and make repairs," Sheehan said. "Our resident inspectors are following up on this." Reach Sean Adkins at 771-2047 or sadkins@ydr.com. SIREN TEST AmerGen Energy tested all of its emergency sirens surrounding Three Mile Island Wednesday evening. All 96 sirens, within 10 miles of the Dauphin County nuclear plant, sounded, said Ralph DeSantis, spokesman for AmerGen Energy. But six sirens — four of them in York County — did not fully rotate — a problem the company fixed Thursday, he said. -------- africa Brit company not welcome in SA - protesters Independent Online (South Africa) Melanie-Ann Feris December 10 2004 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=124&art_id=vn20041210033028891C478383 'Voetsek, we don't want you." These were the harsh words from environmental campaigners to the British company investing in South Africa's nuclear reactor project. A delegation of the Nuclear Energy Costs the Earth Campaign gathered outside the British Trade Investment offices in Johannesburg on Thursday to hand over a memorandum denouncing the British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) as a "nightmare" investor that should not be part of the pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) deal. BNFL is a partner with Eskom and the state-owned Industrial Development Corporation in a company formed to oversee the commercialising of the mini-nuclear reactor. Eskom is seeking approval to build a demonstration model at Koeberg outside Cape Town. "This bankrupt British company, wasting billions of British taxpayers' pounds, is not welcome in South Africa," said Mashile Phalane, co-ordinator of the campaign in Johannesburg. The campaign is supported by, among others, Earthlife Africa, the Environmental Justice Network Forum, the Catholic Bishops Conference, Justice and Peace, and Cosatu. The campaigners listed several reasons why BNFL was allegedly a "nightmare" investor, including that: # BNFL was technically bankrupt, with debt of more than £30-billion (about R350-billion) and without the assets to cover the debt. # BNFL was not very good at making nuclear fuel. After eight years the £600-million Mox (mixed oxides of plutonium and uranium) fuel plant in Sellafield, England, had not generated any income and had to buy Mox from the Belgians to fulfil a contract, and then called in their rivals, French Cogema, to try to help fix their fuel factory. # The British government had been restructuring BNFL into a new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, to come into existence in April 2005. Its selling of reactors, nuclear fuel manufacture and reactor servicing activities might be sold off to private investors, if any could be found. # The governments of Ireland and Norway officially complained in 2003 that BNFL at Sellafield was polluting their lobster, shellfish and salmon by discharging technetium-99 in the sea. # BNFL hid and falsified information. Former British environment minister Michael Meacher said that even when he was minister he was refused access to figures which the government used to justify the Mox plant. Last month, BNFL asked the British government to declare the movements of radioactive waste secret, to the alarm of environmental activists. # BNFL did not stick to the rules. In February 2003, it was fined $123 750 (about R700 000) for repeated nuclear-safety violations at its Oak Ridge clean-up project. Tom Ferreira from the PBMR said they were surprised about the objections, saying he did not know where the protesters got their information from. "They (BNFL) are not bankrupt. They have been a good investor for the past four years." - Environment Reporter -------- britain Ireland to inspect nuclear plant bbc 10 December, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/4085443.stm The Irish government has been granted unprecedented access to the Sellafield nuclear processing plant in Cumbria as part of a unique partnership. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) and Irish police will be allowed to visit the site. The agreement comes after legal action brought by Ireland. There have been fears from the Irish government that Sellafield radiation may be responsible for poor health in some people on the east coast. The east coast of the country lies across the Irish sea from Sellafield. The RPII will also have access to the UK's radiation monitoring system. 'Total closure' Irish environment minister Dick Roche described the agreement as a "positive development in our shared interest in managing our respective positions on the nuclear energy issue". But Mr Roche stressed that the total closure of Sellafield is the Irish Government's objective. Stewart Eldon, British Ambassador to Ireland, said: "The governments discussed a wide range of issues to ensure that the system of inter-governmental notification and co-operation is as robust and effective as it can be." The Irish government has also been increasingly concerned about the catastrophic effect a possible terrorist attack on Sellafield would have on Ireland. ------ Lords attack failures on radioactive waste By Fiona Harvey Published: December 10 2004 02:00 Financial Times (UK) http://news.ft.com/cms/s/408c1d14-4a50-11d9-b065-00000e2511c8.html The government has been condemned for its failure to develop a coherent policy on radioactive waste management. A report by the House of Lords science and technology committee found that the government instructed a new advisory body to start with a blank sheet on drawing up a strategy, without consulting its scientific experts. Lord Oxburgh, chairman, was "dismayed" by the lack of urgency. "The UK has generated radioactive waste for more than half a century and still hasn't decided how to deal with it," he said. -------- British Energy's woes continuing bbc.co.uk 10 December, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4084421.stm Struggling nuclear power firm British Energy has seen its losses rise almost fourfold, as it continues attempts to try to turn itself around. For the first half of its current financial year - until 30 September -its pre-tax loss was £234m ($449m) compared to £60m a year earlier. The firm said it has been hit by a number of "unplanned outages" or production halts at its power stations. These include stoppages for inspections at its Hartlepool and Heysham plants. Price woes Back in November, British Energy won an extension to a deadline for a restructuring deal aimed at ensuring its financial future. Creditors agreed to move the deadline for the deal back to 31 March. British Energy said, however, that the debt-for-equity swap - which will cut the stake of existing shareholders to 2.5% - should be completed in January. In 2002, a slump in wholesale power prices pushed the company towards the brink of insolvency. -------- depleted uranium British Court adjourns uranium claim case BBC Last Updated: Friday, 10 December, 2004, 09:55 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/4084785.stm The case of a former defence worker who claims he became ill after exposure to depleted uranium has been adjourned. Richard David, 49, is suing aircraft parts company Normalair Garrett - now owned by Honeywell - for compensation. The firm denies depleted uranium was ever used at the plant in Yeovil, Somerset, where he worked until 1995. Mr David, who lives in Seaton in Devon, asked the High Court for more time to gather evidence. The hearing is due to resume next April. Mr David claims the metal's existence at the plant was denied because it is an official secret. But he says he now suffers from a catalogue of illnesses, including respiratory and kidney problems, bowel conditions and painful joints. He worked as a component fitter on fighter planes and bombers, but left work because of his health problems. He claimed medical tests had revealed mutations to his DNA and damage to his chromosomes that could only have been caused by ionising radiation. -------- Human Rights Day 2004: Women's Organization Accuses U.S. of War Crimes in Iraq commondreams.org December 10, 2004 http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1210-01.htm NEW YORK, NY -- -- MADRE, an international women’s human rights organization, issued the following statement on the anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “There is no water, no food, no medicine, no electricity and no fuel . . . the children of Fallujah are dying and the people are eating flour.” -Fardous al-Ubaidi, head of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society. (San Diego Union Tribune, 1/12/04) “From our viewpoint, this is very, very successful.” -General Richard B. Myers Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (The Today Show, 11/11/04) December 10 marks the fifty-sixth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a groundbreaking international agreement created to avoid a reoccurrence of Nazi crimes against humanity. If US soldiers in Fallujah were given copies of the Declaration, they would see that they are being ordered to commit some of the very crimes that the Declaration and successive human rights instruments were intended to prevent. Since November 7, the US has been trying to conquer the Iraqi city of Fallujah from insurgents who have controlled the city since April. US soldiers have forced fleeing Fallujan families back into the bombing zone—a war crime (1); in one case shooting dead a family of five as they tried to escape across the Euphrates River. (2) Amnesty International estimates that about half of Fallujah’s 300,000 residents managed to flee before the attack. (3) But tens of thousands more are caught inside the burning city, where more than 70% of homes and shops have been bombed to the ground.(4) History teaches that the majority of those who stay behind in combat zones are women caring for those too vulnerable to flee—children, the elderly, the sick and the wounded. By mid-November, the International Red Cross was estimating that at least 800 civilians had been killed in Fallujah. (5) Pentagon spokespeople conveniently count all dead Iraqis as insurgents and refuse to record the number of civilians killed or wounded. Yet images of the smashed city reveal that “precision bombing” is only a public relations term. In fact, the cluster bombs, air strikes and long-distance tank fire favored by the US have caused indiscriminate destruction—a war crime. (6) Then there’s the very deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure—also a war crime (7) which began with the takeover of Fallujah General Hospital on November 7. According to the military, the hospital was targeted because it was a “center of propaganda”, that spread rumors of civilian casualties during last April’s assault. (8) During the siege, patients were rounded up and ordered to lie on the floor with their hands tied behind their backs—another war crime. (9, 10) Two days later, the US bombed Fallujah’s Central Health Center—a war crime (11)—killing 20 nurses and doctors and an uncounted number of patients. (12) There is also mounting evidence that the US is using banned weapons— napalm, phosphorous bombs and depleted uranium—in Fallujah—a war crime. (13, 14) In a show of Washington’s “moral values” the US military has refused to allow emergency aid to be brought into Fallujah—a war crime. (15,16) And the US has also refused to allow doctors to evacuate wounded people to hospitals outside the city—also a war crime. (17, 18) Independent journalists who have tried to cover Fallujah have been detained and shot at by US forces—a war crime. (19) A US Order issued in March 2004 gives the US-installed Iraqi government sweeping powers to control the media. (20) Prime Minister Allawi recently issued a letter telling news media to “stick to the government line on the US-led offensive in Fallujah or face legal action.” (21) Media repression and a compliant mainstream press has left us with little corroborated information about the plight of families trapped in Fallujah. We do know that the first thing US forces did was to cut off the water supply—a war crime. (22, 23) For over a month since then, women and their families have been trapped in their houses by curfews and US snipers, without food, water, medical care, or electricity. (24) In Fallujah, as elsewhere, war against civilians means war against women, who, as society’s primary caretakers, struggle to ensure their families’ survival in the face of bombing, dehydration, starvation and infectious disease. US forces have left Fallujah’s women and their families to face this scourge without providing electricity, sewage or other necessary services—also a war crime. (25, 26) Despite the growing food crisis, US troops have distributed very little food aid, although ABC reported on one distribution point where soldiers handed out Frosted Flakes and bagel chips. (27) A recent statement by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Bellon, head of the Marine regiment stationed in downtown Fallujah, underscores the callous mindset that would offer American snacks to starving Iraqis. Bellon contends that the US has failed to win “respect” from Iraqis because it has communicated weakness by asking, "What are your needs? What are your emotional needs?' All this Oprah [stuff].” (28) Iraqis, according to Bellon, "want to figure out who the dominant tribe is and say, 'I'm with you.' We need to be the benevolent, dominant tribe.” Back to the Future What will the US do with the people of Fallujah once the city is “pacified”? Marine officials have announced plans to create “military-style” work battalions brigades to require all Fallujan men to help rebuild their city once US troops have finished destroying it. (29) And the entire population will be sent to “citizen processing centers" where a database of their identities will be compiled through DNA testing and retina scans. People will then be issued residency badges that they will be forced to wear at all times. Endnotes 1. See Articles 35, 49 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 48, 51 and 57 of the First Protocol. 2. The New York Times, 11/13/04; ABC News, 11/14/04. 3. Amnesty International, 11/12/04. 4 United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, 11/10/04 5. InterPress Service, 11/16/04 6. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 35, 51 and 85 of the First Protocol. 7. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 35, 51 and 85 of the First Protocol. 8. The New York Times, 11/8/04 9. Articles 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 19 and 22 of the First Geneva Convention. 10. San Francisco Chronicle, 11/8/04. 11. Articles 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 19 and 22 of the First Geneva Convention. 12. The Nation, 12/13/04. 13. Article 23 1907 Hague Convention; Article 35 Fourth Geneva Convention. 14. Interpress Service, 11/26/04. 15. Article 23 and Articles 59-61 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 70 First Protocol. 16. United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, 11/10/04; The Washington Post, 11/16/04. 17. Article 20 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; Article 15 First Protocol. 18. United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, 11/30/04. 19. Article 79 of the First Protocol. 20. Interpress Service, Nov 18, 2004. 21.Interpress Service, 12/18/04. 22. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 51 and 54 of the First Protocol. 23. The Nation, 12/13/04. 24. MSNBC.com, 11/10/04. 25. Articles 55 and 56 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 69 First Protocol. 26. ABC News Online, 12/3/04. 27. ABC News Online, 12/3/04. 28. Boston Globe, 12/5/04. 29. Boston Globe, 12/5/04; The New York Times, 12/1/04. -------- europe Norway: Nuclear waste languishes aftenposten.no 10 Dec 2004, http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article928998.ece Three years after an expert committee urged the building of a new central repository for Norway's most dangerous nuclear waste radioactive material is being stored behind garage doors. After 50 years of operation, four research reactors at Kjeller and Halden have produced 16 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste - chiefly uranium fuel - and 10.1 kilograms of plutonium. This was poses an extreme potential health hazard for thousands of years and an extra security risk as an attraction for terrorists seeking radioactive material for a so-called 'dirty bomb'. Storehouses for low and medium level nuclear waste are built, but no facility exists for securing the most dangerous waste. "We believe it is completely indefensible to have highly radioactive fuel rods stored under reprehensible conditions in the middle of a built-up area," said Erik Martiniussen of environmental group Bellona. "In the center of the city of Halden there are over 10 tons of highly radioactive waste. To get to one of these storage points all you need to do is pass a thin garage door made of aluminum," Martiniussen said. The PST (Norwegian Police Security Service) have carried out a security assessment of the Kjeller and Halden facilities but refused to disclose how they were finally rated. In September 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA carried out a ten-day long inspection of the nuclear facilities at Kjeller and Halden and eventually issued strong criticism of the lack physical security. Consultant Heide M. Eidet at the Ministry of Trade and Industry agreed with Bellona that improvements were coming slowly but denied that they were dawdling. Eidet said the matter required careful investigation and that they expected to complete the second phase of preparations in the course of the next two to three years. "Afterwards the issue will likely go to political treatment where it will probably take a lot of time to discuss where storage should be placed," Eidet said. Aftenposten's Norwegian reporter Jan Gunnar Furuly Aftenposten English Web Desk Jonathan Tisdall -------- india / pakistan Pakistan rules out any access to disgraced nuclear scientist Agence France Presse Dec 10, 2004 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041210/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistannucleariaeakhan_041210095147 ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan said it would not allow any foreign country or agency directly or indirectly to question disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. "Pakistan has full confidence in the efficacy of its investigative system and procedures," foreign office spokesman Masood Khan told AFP on Friday. His comments followed a report in London's Financial Times which said Pakistan was expected to allow UN nuclear investigators to put questions in writing to Khan. Quoting western diplomats, the newspaper said such indirect access would fall short of face-to-face interviews which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been seeking. But it could still prove an important step in the IAEA's efforts to untangle the network of manufacturers and middleman that supplied sensitive machinery and know-how to Libya, Iran, North Korea (news - web sites) and perhaps others, the paper said. The spokesman said Islamabad "has received no such request." "For questions and investigations, no outside agency or person will be given access to Dr A.Q. Khan or any other Pakistani scientist. There will be no direct on indirect investigations or testimonies," the spokesman said. "Speculation in this regard is baseless." Khan, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear programme, in February took full responsibility for transfers of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. President Pervez Musharraf gave him a conditional pardon and has said that no government or military body was involved in the proliferation scandal. The foreign office spokesman said Pakistan would continue to extend its cooperation with the IAEA and the international community "to neutralise the proliferation market." In September the IAEA said it had asked to interview Khan directly but Pakistan had refused. -------- iran Iranians Unite Behind Nation's Nuclear Plans By Megan K. Stack December 10, 2004 Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nuclear10dec10,0,5058113.story?coll=la-home-headlines TEHRAN — From this country's divided political sphere to its disaffected streets, one thing binds Iranians of all ideologies: a fervent belief in the Islamic Republic's right to its nuclear program. Even Iranians who oppose weapons development, including some members of the government, insist that the nation has a right to the technology. In a country that still tends to think of itself as a superpower, nuclear capabilities represent progress and modernity to a people hypersensitive to any perceived inequities. "Iran has paid dearly, really dearly, to prove its independence internationally," said Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's former representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency. "Maybe we made mistakes in the past, but we want to decide our own destiny. We don't want others to decide for us." While Iran's nuclear negotiations with Britain, France and Germany dragged on at the IAEA's Vienna headquarters in recent weeks, student organizations and hard-line political parties staged angry pro-nuclear demonstrations on the streets of Tehran. Conservative newspapers ran menacing editorials warning negotiators against caving in to Western demands. "Depriving Iran of a nuclear fuel cycle," warned an editorial in the Kayhan newspaper, "is not a forgivable sin." The message to negotiators was plain: Iran was in no mood to relinquish its nuclear research. Any Iranian agreement to relinquish nuclear research or uranium enrichment would spark political uproar at home, analysts here say. "None of the political groups can dare to say that we don't need nuclear technology," said Sayed Mustafa Taj-Zadeh, an advisor to Mohammad Khatami, the country's mostly sidelined reformist president. Iran insists that its nuclear work is meant only for energy, but the U.S. accuses it of secretly working to build weapons. In Iran, the nuclear debate has become the defining issue in the heated struggles between reform and conservatism, and engagement with the West or continued isolation. The bloodshed in Iraq has made Iranians more confident that the U.S. can't afford to back up its threats with military force, and strengthened the case for taking a hard stand against Western demands. In the compromise reached last week between Iran and negotiators for the three European nations, the Islamic Republic agreed to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce either nuclear fuel or material for atomic warheads. But symptoms of Iran's internal struggle over the nation's nuclear future were plain during the European talks. The negotiations were delayed by Tehran's flip-flopping on key issues, greeted with outrage by Iran's hard-liners and marked by Iranian rhetorical shifts over what, exactly, had been agreed. The nuclear standoff with the West comes at a time when Iran's conservative mullahs have consolidated power and are running the country virtually unopposed. The brief spell of reformist fever and whispers of a cultural and international opening that swept the country in the late 1990s and early in this decade have been smothered, analysts say. Iran's hard-line Guardian Council, which answers to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, banned reformist candidates from running for parliament in February, ensuring that its conservative allies would sweep the elections. President Khatami will remain in office until spring but has proved a relatively weak politician who has been in effect neutralized by his rivals' overwhelming force. Power, however, hasn't created consensus among Iran's conservatives. They remain sharply divided among themselves, especially on the question of nuclear weapons. In a country sandwiched between two nations that have been invaded by U.S.-led troops, religious conservatives believe that a nuclear arsenal is a crucial tool to solidify the Islamic Republic's power in the region and create a defense against attack. Hard-liners in Iran's parliament already have threatened to force the government to resume uranium enrichment. But other conservatives now advocate an easing of Iran's defiance in favor of a more diplomatic approach that would, they hope, lead to a warming of trade ties with the West. Known as the "neoconservatives," they advocate a crackdown within Iranian society coupled with an opening to the outside world. They contend that Iran can benefit from the economic and trade incentives offered by Europeans in exchange for a nuclear deal. Many Iranian leaders now argue — at least in public — that nuclear weapons are a liability that would only invite attack from abroad. Iranian politicians and clerics have repeatedly said that nuclear weapons violate the nation's religious convictions, and the Foreign Ministry says Khamenei has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, against them. "There are two schools of thought about nuclear weapons," said Taj-Zadeh, the presidential advisor. "Some people think they will threaten our security. But others think that with nuclear weapons we can defend ourselves before Israel or even the United States. They think if we have the weapons, the United States won't attack us like Iraq and Afghanistan." The latter perspective has been taken up enthusiastically on the street. Many ordinary Iranians unabashedly support the development of nuclear weapons, which are seen by many as symbols of international status. Others simply believe that Iran should have the most potent weapons available, particularly when neighbors such as Russia, Pakistan, India and archrival Israel have nuclear arsenals. "If Israel is going to threaten our country, it's our right to have nuclear weapons to defend ourselves," said Bahar Daeihagh, 21, a student in Tehran who was at a downtown shopping center Sunday. "Nuclear technology has gone global, and everybody has it. Iran should also have it." Even when politicians and analysts here frame the nuclear question as one of national sovereignty and technological evolution, questions of weapons and defense strategy lurk just beneath the surface. Built into the nationalistic rhetoric is the oft-repeated position that Iran won't compromise on questions of national security. Long months of violence in Iraq have also left their mark on Iran's political psyche. The U.S. invasion of Iraq may have sowed fear among other governments in the region, but Iran's hard-liners have since grown more confident. Spirits in Tehran have been lifted by the conviction that America can't handle its troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan and would be disinclined to open a third front by confronting Iran. "When Iraq was attacked, most of the fundamentalists were frightened, but slowly, little by little, both the people and the authoritarian elite saw that the Americans couldn't deal with Iraq," said Hamid Reza Jalaipour, an Iranian sociologist and prominent reformist. "And then the authoritarians got very cocky, and said, 'Look, nobody can change us.' " The swelling confidence has been reflected in the recent threats by Iranian hawks. Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, said last month that the Islamic Republic had become capable of mass-producing a missile, known as "shooting star" in Persian, with a range long enough to strike Israel. That announcement came on the tail of Shamkhani's threat to follow the U.S. example of preemptive strikes. "We will not sit with arms folded to wait for what others will do to us," Shamkhani told the Arabic-language Al Jazeera satellite TV channel. "Some military commanders are convinced that the preventive operations which the Americans discuss are not their monopoly." Pragmatic Iranians, however, insist that the government can't afford to defy U.S. demands. Britain, France and Germany have offered to sell nuclear fuel to Iran and to extend trade deals in exchange for the permanent suspension of enrichment. The incentives, coupled with an opportunity to improve ties with the U.S. by cooperating in Iraq and Afghanistan, present Iran with a rare chance to improve its international status. It remains to be seen whether hard-liners will hold sway. -------- russia Russia alerts world of new mobile nuclear missiles by 2006 MOSCOW (AFP) Dec 10, 2004 http://www.spacewar.com/2004/041210132728.0uutp7j6.html Moscow revealed the first hints of its secretive new nuclear weapons priorities Friday with a top Russian general saying that a new generation of strategic missiles would soon be mobile on land -- and that this was far from the only thing that Moscow had in store. President Vladimir Putin put the world on alert last month with an announcement that Russia has conducted tests on new nuclear systems and that they had so far gone according to plan. But he gave no further details. Putin's defense chiefs said separately that Russia was also equipping its nuclear bombers with massive conventional cruise missiles -- just like the United States has done for years -- and that a pre-emptive "anti-terror" strike could be made any time anywhere in the world. Western states have scrambled for clarification of Moscow's cryptic and mixed messages -- all delivered in a steady sequence amid a geopolitical confrontation over the new leadership of Ukraine. But some Russian military secrets were opened Friday by General Nikolai Solovtsov, the head of Russia's nuclear force, who said Putin primarily meant that Moscow within the next few years would deploy land-mobile strategic nuclear missiles for the first time. "He was talking about the mobile Topol-M," Solovtsov said of Russia's latests nuclear threat. The missiles have been developed in a Moscow laboratory and are comparable to the feared Minuteman weapon from the United States. "But this was not the only thing that he was talking about," the general added. "We are developing some other things as well," he said while refusing to give further details. "And yes, these will be different things from what anyone else has," he said with a smile. Solovtsov said Russia would not have any land-mobile strategic nuclear weapons in 2005 -- as had been originally promised -- but would deploy at least three by 2006. "From then on, we will get from six to nine rockets a year," he said. Russia's nuclear message is often covered by layers of mystery and contradictions. Putin frequently announces new advances in public while the military complains in private of a lack of money and a fast reduction of available rockets and missile troops. The general confirmed for the first time that Russia will have to scrap its railroad missile system within a matter of months because the main components are built in Ukraine -- which has scrapped its nuclear program. "We are not likely to see such a thing again in our lifetime," Solovtsov said. But Solovtsov said the Russian army, short on cash but powerful on technology, would rely on its nuclear force for years to come despite agreements with Washington to warhead limits. "Unfortunately, there is no alternative to nuclear arms," Solovtsov said. "This is why so many other countries are trying to get them." Moscow had tried to put mobile intercontinental nuclear missiles in place since the Soviet era but they were never officially deployed as part of the country's nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile analysts suggest that Russia is also in the latter stages of developing a hypersonic missile along with one that works as a cruise missile once re-entering the earth's orbit to avoid rockets that could shoot it down. None of this technology is officially acknowledged as being available in the United States. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said separately Friday that Moscow would defend its border and national interests, opening up the possibility of preventive strikes on suspected terror bases while ruling out use of nuclear weaponry in doing so. "Russia," he said, "is far from being the only country to announce its readiness to carry out preventive strikes on terrorist bases." "We do not rule out the possibility of carrying out preventive strikes on terrorist bases at any location in the world," Ivanov said. But he added: "The only limit is exclusion of strikes with nuclear weapons." -------- u.s. nuc facilities Lockheed Martin gets one more year at lab By FROM STAFF REPORTS Friday, December 10, 2004 Tri-Valley Herald http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10671~2588613,00.html The defense firm Lockheed Martin has won an additional year on its contract to run Sandia National Laboratories, with sites in Livermore and New Mexico. The National Nuclear Security Administration, the nuclear-weapons arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, said Thursday that it had awarded the one-year extension based on Sandia's management rating for 2004 of "outstanding." The agency wrote year-by-year extensions into Lockheed's last contract to run Sandia and now is proposing to do the same for the contract to run Los Alamos National lab. "Allowing a contractor to earn annual extensions for exceptional performance offers a unique and powerful incentive for leaders of management and operating contractors," said Linton Brooks, chief of the nuclear agency. Lockheed's extension pushes the end of its current Sandia contract back from 2008 to 2009. Among other things, Sandia managers improved efficiency of their lab operations and were able to turn more money into "mission work" -- nuclear weapons research and engineering -- that the federal government had not funded. Lockheed employs about 800 at the Sandia-California site in Livermore and more than 8,000 at its main site in Albuquerque. --------- Citizens group, EPA seem to be in a standoff Friday, December 10, 2004 By PAUL M. KRAWZAK Copley Washington correspondent http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=9&ID=196997&r=0&external=&newCookie=yes&userID=148007 WASHINGTON — Concerned Citizens of Lake Township has marshaled witness testimony, the views of its own experts and a report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ombudsman in arguing that independent testing is needed to prove a radioactive threat at the Industrial Excess Landfill. Federal and state environmental officials are just as adamant that years of ground-water sampling have failed to reveal any radiation at the Superfund site, beyond normal, background levels resulting from global nuclear fallout. Rumors that the military disposed of radioactive materials at the landfill have swirled for years. The old gravel pit never was licensed to accept radioactive waste, but several people, including former landfill owner Charles Kittinger, testified they saw military trucks delivering stainless steel eggs filled with radioactive plutonium in the 1960s. U.S. District Court Judge John M. Manos investigated Kittinger’s allegations three years ago and concluded they lacked credibility. EPA officials oversaw testing of ground water for radiation in the 1990s, and again in 2000 and 2001. The agency also tested soil near the landfill. “U.S. EPA disagrees that there has ever been any reliable indication of radioactive contamination at or near IEL,” Richard C. Karl, acting director of the EPA Superfund Division in Chicago, wrote to the citizen’s group Feb. 13. He said anytime there’s a “sporadic elevated detection” of radioactivity at the landfill, there’s been a specific concern about the analysis and “the data has not been reproducible.” Contrary to the EPA’s view, two radiation experts hired by the citizen’s group to analyze test results found reason for concern. Wayne State University geologist Mark Baskaran and Northern Arizona University chemist Michael E. Ketterer shared their views in a letter to the EPA on May 4. “There appear to be numerous ground-water samples that contain plutonium activities in large excess of what can reasonably be considered background,” they wrote. According to the two, the levels were many times higher than what is usually measured as background radiation. They also said some samples contained “activity ratios” that are more consistent with nuclear waste than stratospheric fallout. Baskaran and Ketterer identified “serious analytical limitations” with the testing techniques used. They urged the EPA to allow them to use more sophisticated techniques to collect more ground water samples and reanalyze existing samples. The request has so far been denied. A separate, government-sponsored review also found that past tests lacked the sensitivity to rule out nuclear waste. In an analysis commissioned by EPA Ombudsman Paul D. McKechnie, Manitoba radiation expert Melvyn Gascoyne wrote that, “in many cases the analytical procedures used to detect specific types of radioactivity were insufficiently sensitive.” For example, the tests showed “small amounts” of plutonium, but Gascoyne said the techniques were not precise enough to ensure accurate results. Other test results for uranium suggested radioactive waste materials at the site, but Gascoyne said the techniques were “not adequate to give a precise value.” He concluded that EPA sampling was “adequate for showing that the ground water conforms to drinking-water standards.” “To remove all doubt as to whether any minor concentrations of radioactive waste are present and are leaking ... into the ground water,” Gascoyne said, “it would be necessary to use methods capable of one to three orders of magnitude more sensitivity” than past tests. Despite Gascoyne’s finding, the ombudsman did not recommend that EPA conduct further radiation tests. Because Gascoyne said the tests were sufficient to declare drinking-water standards for radioactivity were met in 2000 and 2001, “we believe such sensitive testing is not needed at IEL,” McKechnie wrote. EPA officials questioned whether any test would “establish unequivocally” the absence of radioactive contamination. They also recalled that the EPA Science Advisory Board, after reviewing earlier test results, concluded that it was “highly unlikely that radioactive contamination is, or was, present.” -------- california Coast to be opened in Diablo deal Coastal Commission grants public access in exchange for allowing PG&E to build a radioactive waste storage complex The Dec 10, 2004 San Luis Obispo Tribune Nathan Welton http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/10375887.htm The public will gain access to three miles of coastline north of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant within the next two years, the state Coastal Commission decided Wednesday. The access was granted in a unanimous vote in exchange for allowing Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to build a new, above-ground radioactive waste storage complex on the plant's grounds. It was the last regulatory hurdle the company needed to clear; its plans have already been approved by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "From our perspective, the important thing was that we got a unanimous approval to go ahead and start this project," said PG&E spokesman Jeff Lewis, noting that he expected construction to begin in April. His company wanted to build the complex but didn't want to give the public coastal access because of security and safety concerns. But neither PG&E, nor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace -- a nonprofit group opposed to the facility -- intend to fight the commission's decision with a lawsuit. The complex will consist of up to 138 steel and concrete storage casks, all mounted on a number of concrete pads. Each cask will hold spent reactor fuel rods, which are highly radioactive. Because officials believe the storage facility -- and the waste it houses -- will likely cause nearby lands to be off-limits to the public for years to come, the power company is legally required to compensate the public in new coastal access. As a result, people will be able to visit the bluffs from Montaña de Oro State Park to Crowbar Creek, as well as at least one beach, probably at Point Buchon, along that stretch. They'll also have increased hiking access on the Pecho Coast Trail, which is currently on the power plant's property. What's more, commissioners approved improvements to the Port San Luis Lighthouse and added an outreach program that would teach schoolchildren about the environmental conditions in the vicinity. The utility company has six months to detail the public access plan and two years to implement it. Third District county supervisor-elect Jerry Lenthall was also at the hearing in San Francisco, testifying, he said, as a concerned citizen and fulfilling what he called a promise to his district to be a public safety watchdog. "At a time we're spending millions of dollars to harden our facilities and ensure our safety from terrorism and general intrusion," he told commissioners, "(the public access requirement) just doesn't make any sense to me." Environmental groups, including Mothers for Peace and the Sierra Club's Santa Lucia chapter, were opposed to the storage facility for safety reasons, worrying it could become a permanent waste repository if Nevada's Yucca Mountain never opens. That project is slated to become the nation's main nuclear waste storehouse. Mothers for Peace spokeswoman Rochelle Becker said she was disappointed that the commission staff did not try to limit the number of spent fuel rods that could be stored at the site -- something other states, such as Connecticut and Minnesota, have fought for. She noted that her organization's expert geologists disagreed with the state's over the type, severity and location of earthquakes that could happen on the site. "They made an irresponsible decision," she said, "and they based it on inadequate information." Coastal Commission executive director Peter Douglas, however, said the federal government has jurisdiction over the state regarding safety concerns on the plant. -------- idaho Residents worry about possiblity of moving plutonium production to Idaho By The Associated Press December 10, 2004 http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/12/10/news/regional/3d5c705e66362a8787256f650061764d.txt IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) -- Residents are wary of a Department of Energy plan to start producing plutonium-238 at the Idaho National Laboratory. "Aren't you giving Idaho the dirty part of it?" Paul Bacca asked energy department representatives this week at the first of seven public meetings to be held on the matter in Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, Tennessee and Washington, D.C. The batteries that use plutonium-238 to power space travel are already assembled in Idaho, at Argonne-West. But production and isolation of the nuclear fuel is currently done at laboratories in South Carolina, Tennessee and New Mexico. The Department of Energy wants to consolidate the operations in Idaho to save on costs and eliminate security issues involved in transporting nuclear power across roughly 8,000 miles. But Bacca, a former Argonne National Laboratory-West worker who researched plutonium, questioned the benefit on contaminating another building when the facility that the energy department now uses will be functional for 20 or 30 years. Tim Frazier, who oversees the energy department's radioisotope power systems project, agreed that the production and isolation of plutonium-238 creates the most nuclear waste. "The least dirty parts are already out there," at Argonne National Laboratory-West, he said. "The other parts of the process are dirty by nature." If the project is consolidated in Idaho, the energy department has said it will build a new $230 million processing facility. That would be a unique opportunity for the program, which so far has moved into existing buildings, Frazier said. Other residents said they worry that if the local laboratory gets the plutonium operation, it could be excluded from getting other energy department programs in the future. Some also fear the operation would take up too much space in the Advanced Test Reactor to allow for the current production of medical isotopes. But two people at the meeting voiced support for moving plutonium production to Idaho because of its importance to space exploration. "When I heard the DOE wanted to move the plutonium-238 program to Idaho, I said 'Whoopee,' because I knew exactly what those (space batteries) did," said Nick Nichols, an amateur astronomer and a former INEEL communications manager. -------- michigan Coalition wants Cook closed Environmental groups protest license renewals for nuclear reactors. southbendtribune.com By JIM MEENAN December 10, 2004 http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2004/12/10/local.20041210-sbt-MICH-B1-Coalition_wants.sto Questioning Cook's license renewal A multistate group is challenging American Electric Power's bid to the US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 20-year license extensions for the twin reactors at Cook Nuclear Plant in Bridgman. Concerns cited include: # Possible weaknesses in Cook's radiation containment building. # Claims of risky reactor cooling procedures at the plant. # The large amount of additional high-level radioactive waste that would be generated. # Cook's vulnerability to a terrorist attack. American Electric Power Co.'s attempt to renew its license for its twin reactors at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant in Bridgman is facing stiff opposition from environmental and public interest groups. Groups in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, as well as a national watchdog on the nuclear power industry, are involved in the opposition. In fact, those groups don't want the licenses renewed for 20 years when the current licenses expire in 2014 and 2017, for units one and two, respectively, and they want the plant closed down. The coalition filed a three-page written statement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wednesday, citing weaknesses in Cook's radiation containment building, risky reactor cooling procedures and the large amount of additional radioactive waste that would be generated during the 20-year period. The coalition believes the concerns provide evidence that the regulatory commission should reject the application for extension. A decision is not expected until sometime in the middle of 2005. The group claims that in late 2000, after Cook's three-year forced shutdown due to major safety concerns, Ross Landsman, veteran Nuclear Regulatory Commission structural engineer, expressed concern that the agency was allowing the two reactors to start without adequate containment. "We fear that no substantial repairs to this 'soft spot' have ever been done," said Gary Karch, Niles spokesman for Don't Waste Michigan. Karch said there could be a release of radioactivity in a serious accident. Not surprisingly, Bill Schalk, spokesman for Indiana Michigan Power, a subsidiary of AEP, sees that and other issues raised by the coalition quite differently. He agreed that there was a question of structural integrity of the interior containment wall of the units. "We presented a repair plan, and it was accepted by the NRC," Schalk said. "We believe the issue is resolved, and there is no soft spot." Schalk also acknowledged there was a differing opinion filed within the NRC. "He (Landsman) disagreed with our experts and (the NRC's) experts, and it's his right to file," Schalk said. "It was considered and not accepted." Schalk also called Cook one of the safest plants in the country prior to Sept. 11, adding additional steps have been taken since. The group also questioned why the utility would file so long in advance for a renewal when the first unit's license is not even up until 2014. Schalk said the reason a utility files so early is because if the renewal is rejected, 10 years is a reasonable amount of time needed to secure replacement power of such magnitude. Kevin Kamps, nuclear waste specialist of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, expressed concern over the amount of nuclear waste already on the Cook site. "They are sitting on 1,000 cubic metric tons of waste at Cook -- high-level, radioactive waste," he said. Even if the proposed Yucca Mountain site in Nevada is opened for nuclear waste, Kamps believes Cook will always be stuck with at least 1,000 tons of waste, and much more if it does not open. Schalk said there are a lot of opportunities for storage of nuclear waste, but the primary site is Yucca Mountain. "It's safe where it is right now until it is ready," he added, saying that should happen in 2014. Kamps indicated the coalition is frustrated with a past lack of action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Based on the past, we have always been ignored by the NRC," he said. "We will see what happens. If we get rejected, we will turn to Congress." Schalk said the company's primary objective "has been and will always be the safe operation of the plant and the protection of the public's health and safety." Staff writer Jim Meenan: jmeenan@sbtinfo.com -------- new jersey Residents offer Oyster Creek solutions Asbury Park Press By NICHOLAS CLUNN 12/10/04 http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1139214,00.html TINTON FALLS -- Retiree Sam Attner has a single solution for the two controversies concerning the way New Jersey should get its energy: have offshore windmills replace the aging Oyster Creek nuclear power plant. Attner's idea was pitched among many others during a special meeting called by Assemblyman Michael J. Panter Jr., D-Monmouth. He held the meeting to gather perspectives he plans to consider when drafting the state's official position on whether the nuclear plant should be allowed to operate beyond 2009 -- when its operating license expires. Panter asked the approximately 50 people gathered in the Seabrook Village retirement community auditorium to give him their recommendations on what the state Legislature should do about the Oyster Creek operator's plans to apply for a 20-year renewal from federal regulators in about seven months. Panter told Attner he would look into his suggestion, which stemmed from news about two firms wanting to build windmill farms off the Jersey coast. Acting Gov. Codey said Tuesday that he intends to impose a moratorium on the placement of offshore windmills until the state comes up with a policy for the devices. "I would like to see windmills all over the country," said Attner, a Seabrook resident. Panter heard many ideas from Shore area residents and advocacy groups. The opinions given represented multiple sides of the license-renewal issue. One activist called on state officials to immediately close the reactor, which generates 650 megawatts of electricity. Others said they wanted the plant closed when its license expires, although many in that category cited different reasons. Stephen Collins, a vacuum instrument designer from Oceanport, said state officials should not turn to fossil fuel-powered plants to compensate for the loss of Oyster Creek if the reactor closed. The plant's closure, he said, would hurt the state's energy supply. "When the environmentalists talk out of the other side of their mouth, they're talking about global warming," Collins said. Emissions from fossil fuels, such as coal, have been blamed for what some scientists call global warming. The meeting allowed the public more chances to speak than during a public hearing that was held in Brick on Dec. 2. Advocacy groups on both sides of the issues dominated that meeting, which the Assembly Environmental and Solid Waste Committee hosted. Panter, the committee vice chairman, said he held his meeting after many constituents told him they could not attend the one in Brick. Monmouth County residents, he said, wanted to speak about license renewal or learn more about it. Panter said he wants the committee to unanimously agree on a resolution addressing the license renewal but would move ahead alone if the panel -- five Democrats and two Republicans -- failed to find a consensus. Panter said he wasn't sure when he would draft the resolution. License-renewal critics have said that a state position calling for the reactor's decommissioning would sway the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the sole agency responsible for deciding whether Oyster Creek should operate for an additional 20 years. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com -------- new mexico Firm gets one more year at lab By FROM STAFF REPORTS Friday, December 10, 2004 Tri-Valley Herald http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10671~2588613,00.html The defense firm Lockheed Martin has won an additional year on its contract to run Sandia National Laboratories, with sites in Livermore and New Mexico. The National Nuclear Security Administration, the nuclear-weapons arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, said Thursday that it had awarded the one-year extension based on Sandia's management rating for 2004 of "outstanding." The agency wrote year-by-year extensions into Lockheed's last contract to run Sandia and now is proposing to do the same for the contract to run Los Alamos National lab. "Allowing a contractor to earn annual extensions for exceptional performance offers a unique and powerful incentive for leaders of management and operating contractors," said Linton Brooks, chief of the nuclear agency. Lockheed's extension pushes the end of its current Sandia contract back from 2008 to 2009. Among other things, Sandia managers improved efficiency of their lab operations and were able to turn more money into "mission work" -- nuclear weapons research and engineering -- that the federal government had not funded. Lockheed employs about 800 at the Sandia-California site in Livermore and more than 8,000 at its main site in Albuquerque. -------- MILITARY -------- business To ‘Impact’ India, firm gets into digital management KNOWLEDGE ERA : With solutions for preservation of data, focus to be on e-governance projects, media companies. Express News Service December 10, 2004 http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=109811 Pune, December 9: E-GOVERNANCE seems to be the new buzzword and IT companies have been quick to seize the opportunity. Impact Systems Inc, which has a development centre in Pune, is launching a digital asset management business with a special focus on the Indian market. The aim is to target media and e-governance projects in the country. Impact Systems partner and head (India development centre) Dhananjay Datar said it had already initiated talks with the government and large media companies for the project. It would help them manage their digital assets and also let them derive more value of it. With the knowledge management era setting in, preservation of digital assets is of paramount importance. And for this, digital asset management tools have become a necessity. ‘‘Even the government is looking at preserving its digital management assets and moving to knowledge management,’’ Datar said. The company has already embarked on it by starting a pilot project. The project helps in creating a repository of its digital assets — data, audio and video — which can be stored and retrieved online without any difficulty. Besides, there is a search mechanism that will help in retrieving the data fast. With a strong foothold in the document and content management space, digital asset management was the next logical step for the company, according to Datar. The US-headquartered company with its Asia development centre in Pune, has been focusing on the US and European markets. ‘‘This will be our first foray into the Indian market,’’ he said. Datar also said the company had bagged a $5.5-million deal from the US-based Uranium Disposition Services (UDS) LLC. Impact will implement its document management solution — Documentum — at UDS. UDS processes government’s inventory of depleted uranium, a co-product of weapons production activity, for the US Department of Energy. Datar said documentation in this project was important as it was a sensitive area and there had to be well-defined audit trails in the whole process. ‘‘This is what Impact’s Documentum product does,’’ he said. This is not the first time that Impact had worked on a nuclear project. Earlier, too, it had worked with Framatone, which is into nuclear project management. ‘‘It gave us some domain knowledge in the nuclear area,’’ he said, adding it helped them to understand the critical requirements of the project. And definitely it helped in getting the UDS project. For, UDS chose Impact Systems from 10 companies that had bid for the project. -------- nato NATO partners' stance irks Powell washingtontimes December 10, 2004 http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20041209-102120-5379r.htm BRUSSELS — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell expressed irritation yesterday with six NATO members that have barred their military officers from an alliance-approved program to train Iraqi forces. Although NATO has recruited trainers from the alliance's integrated military command, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Greece and Luxembourg are opposed to the plan. Their defiance involves only a small number of officers, but shows that hard feelings about the war persist within the alliance almost two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Mr. Powell, in Belgium for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, discussed the issue with colleagues yesterday. The secretary said at a press conference that the six governments had created a situation that was "quite awkward" by holding back officers assigned to the NATO staff. Such actions "hurt the credibility and cohesion" of NATO's international staff organization, Mr. Powell said on what is likely his last visit to the alliance's headquarters before Condoleezza Rice takes over as his successor. The six countries dismiss U.S. objections, saying they had made their stance clear when the training mission was agreed to in June. "There has been no change of mind. We will send no troops to Iraq," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said. "Given the current security situation, we think it is more efficient and useful if training takes place outside of Iraq," French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer welcomed pledges by other countries, including Poland, Hungary, Norway and the Netherlands, to send more staff to the training mission, located within Baghdad's international green zone. "The number of personnel will go from 60 to 300, including trainers and support staff," Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said. "I am a very happy man as secretary-general." NATO sources said the new contributions would take the total number of trainers in Iraq to nearly 100, with the rest as support staff, and that they should start as soon as possible. The 26-member alliance also aims to set up a military academy on the outskirts of Baghdad with more trainers, but Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said it would not be ready before early next year. Mr. Powell said the alliance also committed itself to support Afghanistan's spring parliamentary elections and to expand NATO-led operations into western Afghanistan. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented his country in a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council. In a joint statement, the council appealed to all parties in Ukraine "to continue to avoid the use or instigation of violence, to refrain from intimidation of voters, and to work to ensure a free, fair electoral process that reflects the will of the Ukrainian people." Mr. Powell said he was pleased that NATO and Russia had found common ground on Ukraine. It was announced yesterday that President Bush will visit NATO and the European Union on Feb. 22 in a bid to rebuild ties at the start of his second term. Mr. Powell's colleagues gave him two ovations, honoring him for an association with NATO that goes back 40 years. -------- russia / chechnya Chechnya Tore Rights Movement Apart The Moscow Times By Nabi Abdullaev December 10, 2004 http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/12/10/002.html Editor's Note: This is the first of several reports about the effect of the Chechen conflict on Russia on the 10th anniversary of the start of the first war. The military conflict in Chechnya has taken a heavy toll on human rights groups and liberal political parties, which were held in high public esteem when the first war started 10 years ago Saturday but have now been relegated to the far sidelines. Liberal activists have largely lost their voice due to public disappointment in liberal ideas and an effective smear campaign by military and government hawks. But missteps by some leading activists, including their emphasis on the rights of Chechens but silence about the plight of Russian civilians in Chechnya, also contributed by making the human rights movement easy prey for critics. "Chechnya has contributed greatly to the shrinking of the political playing field in Russia and to the pushing of liberal political parties and the free press to the margins," said Alexander Cherkasov, co-director of Memorial, the country's largest human rights group. "The moral authority of human rights champions has been undermined because the slogans of liberalism and democracy that the Russian leadership borrowed from them in the early 1990s were discredited by the leadership by the end of the decade," he said. The accusation that hurt human rights activists the most was that they defended the rights of Chechens but neglected the plight of Russians in de facto independent Chechnya in 1991-94 and 1996-99. Many ethnic Russians were harassed and forcefully evicted from their homes by local gangs. "Former Soviet dissidents and the first democrats of the early 1990s -- the leaders of the human rights movement in Russia -- had their white garments smeared by pro-war and anti-Chechen propaganda to such an extent that they were accused of taking money from Dudayev. This was not fair," said Valentin Gefter, head of the Moscow-based Institute of Human Rights. Gefter conceded that human rights activists did not pay a lot of attention to the rights of ethnic Russians under separatist President Dzhokhar Dudayev, who ran Chechnya from 1991-96. However, he said, "we defended all peaceful citizens, the vast majority of whom, naturally, were Chechens, and our critique was proportional to the amount of violations by both sides." Still, the difference in how Russians and Chechens were treated -- a difference that was repeatedly highlighted by nationalists -- served as a turning point in the public's perception of the objectivity of human rights activists. Since the former dissident leaders of the human rights movement suffered Soviet repression, they tend to divide the world between "us" and "them," with the "them" being the state, said Alexei Makarkin, a political analyst from the Center for Political Technologies. "They saw Chechens as a people who had been repressed by the same forces that repressed them, who fought against communism, and who spoke the same language as them," he said, referring to the initial democratic rhetoric of some Chechen separatist leaders like former President Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, who later introduced strict Islamic law in the republic. Yury Korgunyuk, an analyst at the Indem think tank, said Chechnya helped cast the spotlight on the seeming double standards of activists, who criticized Russian nationalism but at the same time defended the nationalism of smaller ethnic groups. Activists thought Chechens had "a legitimate claim for independence and did not notice that this was a direct path to rampant crime," Korgunyuk said. The human rights movement played a high-profile role in the first, 1994-96 Chechen war. In the early days of the conflict, then-Russian ombudsman Sergei Kovalyov led a group of prominent human rights activists to Grozny to demand from Dudayev's presidential palace that Moscow stop carpet-bombing the city. Activists facilitated the return of hundreds of federal soldiers taken prisoner by Chechen fighters during the first war. Kovalyov himself kick-started negotiations with Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev after Basayev seized a hospital with more than 1,500 hostages in the southern town of Budyonnovsk in 1995. But even Budyonnovsk did not manage to avoid controversy. After the crisis ended, Kovalyov outraged many by calling Basayev "a Robin Hood armed with a grenade launcher." He later explained that he considered Robin Hood a bad person. Activists led by Kovalyov collected the vast bulk of evidence of human rights violations by the military in Chechnya and presented them to the public, contributing greatly to a perception that the first war was dirty. Dudayev awarded Kovalyov with the Order of Honor, the republic's highest honor. Seeing that they were losing the fight both on the ground and in public opinion, the military and security forces needed a scapegoat and decided to shift blame onto the outspoken but politically toothless activists, Cherkasov and Makarkin said. In an emotional outburst in 1995, then-Defense Minister Pavel Grachev described as "little vermin" all human rights activists and liberal State Duma Deputy Sergei Yushenkov, who had protested military brutality in Chechnya. Top military brass still feel the same way about activists, retired General Gennady Troshev wrote in a 2002 book. Troshev led one of the second divisions that attacked Chechnya in the first war. However, it was the start of the second war in 1999 that delivered the biggest blow to the authority of the human rights movement, Makarkin said. "The first war in Chechnya was not popular, so only groups with vested interests, like the military, criticized the rights people," he said. "But the second war started at a time when most of the public was demanding a crackdown on Chechens, and the voice of the rights people was rejected by almost everyone." The military campaign, which continues to this day, began about the time that hundreds of people died in apartment bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities. Authorities blamed the attacks on Chechen rebels. Since then, Chechen extremists have adopted terrorism as a major style of warfare -- alienating the Chechen cause for independence among the public and making it difficult for activists to find any sympathy for Chechens whose rights are violated by military and security personnel in Chechnya, Gefter said. A striking example of how far apart the Russian leadership and human rights activists now stand emerged after the Beslan school attack, which was organized by Basayev. While President Vladimir Putin called for a war on terror and preventative strikes against Chechen rebel bases anywhere in the world, Memorial issued a statement pressing the Kremlin to start negotiations with Chechen rebels. Putin has repeatedly refused to hold talks with even moderate separatists, labeling all Chechen rebels as terrorists. With little backing from the government and the public, the human rights movement seems to be increasingly turning to the West for support -- leading to accusations that activists are siding with foreign governments that shame Russia with their criticism of Chechnya and obstruct Moscow's efforts to fight terrorism. Gefter and Cherkasov said no one is taking sides. "Everyone agrees that human rights is not an internal issue," Gefter said. Korgunyuk said the movement is looking to the West to survive. "To continue their work, they need to earn money," he said. "With virtually nobody interested in them here, the only place they have to turn to is the West." -------- space Nuclear-Powered Mission To Neptune Could Answer Questions About Planetary Formation (SPX) by Jane Sanders Dec 10, 2004 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/outerplanets-04m.html Atlanta GA In 30 years, a nuclear-powered space exploration mission to Neptune and its moons may begin to reveal some of our solar system's most elusive secrets about the formation of its planets -- and recently discovered ones that developed around other stars. This vision of the future is the focus of a 12-month planning study conducted by a diverse team of experts led by Boeing Satellite Systems and funded by NASA. It is one of 15 "Vision Mission" studies intended to develop concepts in the United States' long-term space exploration plans. Neptune team member and radio scientist Professor Paul Steffes of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Electrical and Computer Engineering calls the mission "the ultimate in deep space exploration." NASA has flown extensive missions to Jupiter and Saturn, referred to as the "gas giants" because they are predominantly made up of hydrogen and helium. By 2012, these investigations will have yielded significant information on the chemical and physical properties of these planets. Less is known about Neptune and Uranus -- the "ice giants." "Because they are farther out, Neptune and Uranus represent something that contains more of the original – to use a 'Carl Saganism' – 'solar stuff' or the nebula that condensed to form planets," Steffes said. "Neptune is a rawer planet. It is less influenced by near-sun materials, and it's had fewer collisions with comets and asteroids. It's more representative of the primordial solar system than Jupiter or Saturn." Also, because Neptune is so cold, its structure is different from Jupiter and Saturn. A mission to investigate the origin and structure of Neptune -- expected to launch between 2016 and 2018 and arrive around 2035 -- will increase scientists' understanding of diverse planetary formation in our solar system and in others, Steffes noted. The mission team is also interested in exploring Neptune's moons, especially Triton, which planetary scientists believe to be a Kuiper belt object. Such balls of ice are micro planets that can be up to 1,000 kilometers in diameter and are generally found in the outermost regions of our solar system. Based on studies to date, scientists believe Triton was not formed from Neptune materials, like most moons orbiting planets in our solar system. Instead, Triton is likely a Kuiper belt object that was accidentally pulled into Neptune's orbit. "Triton was formed way out in space," Steffes said. "It is not even a close relative of Neptune. It's an adopted child…. We believe Kuiper belt objects like Triton were key to the development of our solar system, so there's a lot of interest in visiting Triton." Though they face a number of technical challenges -- including entry probe design, and telecommunications and scientific instrument development -- the Neptune Vision Mission team has developed an initial plan. Team members, including Steffes, have been presenting it this fall at a variety of scientific meetings to encourage feedback from other experts. On Dec. 17, they will present it again at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. Their final recommendations are due to NASA in July 2005. The plan is based on the availability of nuclear-electric propulsion technology under development in NASA's Project Prometheus. A traditional chemical rocket would launch the spacecraft out of Earth orbit. Then an electric propulsion system powered by a small nuclear fission reactor – a modified submarine-type technology -- would propel the spacecraft to its deep-space target. The propulsion system would generate thrust by expelling electrically charged particles called ions from its engines. Because of the large scientific payload a nuclear-electric propelled spacecraft can carry and power, the Neptune mission holds great promise for scientific discovery, Steffes said. The mission will employ electrical and optical sensors aboard the orbiter and three probes for sensing the nature of Neptune's atmosphere, said Steffes, an expert in remote radio sensing of planetary atmospheres. Specifically, the mission will gather data on Neptune's atmospheric elemental ratios relative to hydrogen and key isotopic ratios, as well as the planet's gravity and magnetic fields. It will investigate global atmospheric circulation dynamics, meteorology and chemistry. On Triton, two landers will gather atmospheric and geochemical information near geysers on the surface. The mission's three entry probes will be dropped into Neptune's atmosphere at three different latitudes – the equatorial zone, a mid-latitude and a polar region. Mission designers face the challenge of transmitting data from the probes through Neptune's radiowave-absorbing atmosphere. Steffes' lab at Georgia Tech has conducted extensive research and gained a thorough understanding of how to address this problem, he noted. The mission team is still discussing how deep the probes should be deployed into Neptune's atmosphere to get meaningful scientific data. "If we pick a low enough frequency of radio signals, we can go down to 500 to 1,000 Earth atmospheres, which is 7,500 pounds of pressure per square inch (PSI)," Steffes explained. "That pressure is similar to what a submarine experiences in the deep ocean." However, that depth will probably not be required, according to the mission team's atmospheric modelers, Steffes said. The probes will be able to obtain most information at only 100 Earth atmospheres, or 1,500 PSI. -------- Debate on Secret Program Bursts Into Open nytimes.com By DOUGLAS JEHL December 10, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/politics/10intel.html?ex=1103645451&ei=1&en=eafef18712967392 WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - An intense secret debate about a previously unknown, enormously expensive technical intelligence program has burst into light in the form of scathing criticism from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. For two years, the senators have disclosed, Republicans and Democrats on the panel have voted to block the secret program, which is believed to be a system of new spy satellites. But it continues to be financed at a cost that former Congressional officials put at hundreds of millions of dollars a year with support from the House, the Bush administration and Congressional appropriations committees. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the panel, denounced the program on Wednesday on the Senate floor as "totally unjustified and very, very wasteful." Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, later called it "unnecessary, ineffective, over budget and too expensive." Neither senator would say much more about what he was referring to. Even in private on Thursday, most Congressional and intelligence officials who were asked refused to comment about the name, purpose or cost of the program. But former Congressional and intelligence officials who oppose it said it would duplicate capabilities in existence or in development, as part of the country's vast network of satellites, aircraft and drones designed for eavesdropping and reconnaissance. Among the possibilities suggested by private experts, including John Pike of Globalsecurity.org, a research organization in Alexandria, Va., were that the system might be a controversial unproven program to launch a reconnaissance satellite that adversaries could not detect. Former Congressional officials said they would discount speculation that the debate had to do with any antisatellite space warfare capability. A number of satellite programs in development, including a Future Imaging Architecture system that Boeing is developing, have been the subject of considerable public controversy, because of technical problems and cost overruns. But current and former government officials said they did not believe that the Boeing program was the subject of the new dispute. In addition to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Wyden, two other Democratic senators made their opposition public on Wednesday, saying the money dedicated to the acquisition program could better be transferred to other intelligence gathering as part of what is widely understood to be the $40 billion intelligence budget. The program being disputed by the senators is to be financed this year, but current and former government officials said Republicans as well as Democrats intended to redouble their efforts to block it. The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did not respond to a request for comment about the dispute. The Republican chairman of the House military appropriations subcommittee, whose support for the program has been instrumental in keeping it alive, also did not respond to a request for comment. The most specific public hints on the program were by Mr. Wyden, who said on the Senate floor, "This issue must be highlighted, because it is not going away." "Numerous independent reviews," he said, "have concluded that the program does not fulfill a major intelligence gap or shortfall, and the original justification for developing this technology has eroded in importance due to the changed practices and capabilities of our adversaries. There are a number of other programs in existence and in development whose capabilities can match those envisioned for this program at far less cost and technological risk." The Senate Intelligence Committee first expressed concern about the program three years ago, and it has voted to block it for the last two years, Congressional officials said. A former Defense Department official said of the program: "This is something that does not pass muster and is indicative of the inability of intelligence agencies to prioritize or make decisions. There are billions of dollars of waste in the intelligence budget." A former Congressional official said that "hard decisions should have been made to make choices" when Congress first authorized and appropriated the money several years ago. "Instead," the former official said, "the decision was made to just go ahead with go with everything." Even the $40 billion figure attached to the current intelligence budget remains no more than an estimate, because spending figures remain classified by law. But much of the budget is widely understood to be devoted to the design, construction and operation of satellites and other platforms used to collect images, signals and other forms of technical intelligence. Many critics have long complained that human intelligence programs remain underfinanced, at least in relative terms. In a directive last month, President Bush asked the C.I.A. to spell out a plan and a timetable to increase its clandestine service by 50 percent. A compromise negotiated between the House and Senate this week provides authorization for continued financing for the disputed program. It was approved by 13 of the 17 senators on the Intelligence Committee and all of their House counterparts. Because the financing had been approved in a military appropriations bill, Congressional officials said, the authorizing committees did not have the power to transfer the money to other intelligence programs. But an unclassified version of the conference report released on Wednesday reported that Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, both Democrats, along with Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Wyden, had refused to sign the compromise. The report said the senators believed that the money dedicated for what was described only as "a major acquisition program" ought to be "expended on other intelligence programs that will make a surer and greater contribution to national security." -------- spies FBI steps up AIPAC probe By Richard Sale UPI December 10, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041208-045115-7516r.htm An FBI investigation into alleged Israeli espionage against the United States and the possibility a pro-Israel lobby group was involved in passing classified U.S data to Tel Aviv has intensified because a confessed Pentagon spy has stopped cooperating with federal law enforcement officials, U.S. government sources said. Larry Franklin, a Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia office who worked for the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans confessed last August to federal agents he had held meetings with a contact from the Israeli government during which he passed a highly classified document on U.S. policy toward Iran, these sources said. The document advocated support for Iranian dissidents, covert actions to destabilize the Iranian government, arming opponents of the Islamic regime, propaganda broadcasts into Iran, and other programs, these sources said. The FBI was also interested in finding out if Franklin was involved or could name any Pentagon colleagues who were involved in passing to Israel certain data about National Security Agency intercepts, these sources said. Franklin was caught quite by accident last summer as part of a larger investigation, these sources said. In 2001, the FBI discovered new, "massive" Israeli spying operations in the East Coast, including New York and New Jersey, said one former senior U.S. government official. The FBI began intensive surveillance on certain Israeli diplomats and other suspects and was videotaping Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, who was having lunch at a Washington hotel with two lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group. Federal law enforcement officials said they were floored when Franklin came up to their table and sat down. The FBI confronted Franklin in August 2004, and there seemed to be progress on the case, but after Franklin hired Washington lawyer Plato Cacheris, Franklin's cooperation abruptly ceased, federal law enforcement officials said. The turnabout apparently infuriated the FBI, former federal law enforcement officials said. Franklin could not be reached for comment. Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief, who has good ties with law enforcement officials said, "The FBI was extremely displeased." An FBI consultant told United Press International: "The FBI were hopping mad. The FBI had been kicked very hard in their macho. They are very, very macho." On Dec. 1, FBI agents visited the AIPAC offices in Washington and seized the hard drives and files of Steven Rosen, director of research, and Keith Weissman, deputy director of foreign policy issues. The FBI also served subpoenas on AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Communications Director Renee Rothstein, and Research Director Raphael Danziger. All are suspected of having acted as "cut outs" or intermediaries who passed highly sensitive U.S. data from high-level Pentagon and administration officials to Israel, said one former federal law enforcement official. One current FBI consultant said Rosen's name had first been given to the FBI in 1986, along with 70 possible incidents of Israeli espionage against the United States. No action was taken against him, this source said. Rosen's attorney did not return phone calls. AIPAC has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the affair. In a public statement, the group said its continuing access to the White House and senior administration officials would be "inconceivable...if any shred of evidence of disloyalty oar even negligence on AIPAC's part" had been discovered. At the time of Franklin's arrest, Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon, repeated his government's denials, saying on CNN: "I can tell you here, very authoritatively, very categorically, Israel does not spy on the United States." Another Israeli government statement referred to America as "a deeply cherished ally." But a former federal law enforcement official said Israeli spying against the United States had been "widespread" for many years, and that during the Cold War, Israeli penetration of U.S. operations was second "only to the Soviet Union." "Few people realize that the Israeli Counterintelligence Desk at the Bureau was second in size only to the CI Soviet desk," he said. A former very senior CIA counterintelligence official told UPI that in 1998-99, the CIA discovered an Israeli couple, who were subcontracted to a U.S. phone company, were working for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. "They did incredible damage -- they got incredibly sensitive data, including key words identifying individuals or projects," this source said, adding he himself gave the case to the FBI. Perhaps the most notorious Israeli operation was the recruitment of Jonathan Jay Pollard, a former U.S. Navy analyst, who was convicted in U.S. federal court and sentenced to life in prison for selling military documents to Israel. UPI reported in 1987, quoting FBI officials, the FBI had traced stolen Pollard data up into the Eastern Bloc where it was traded in return for the Soviet Union raising the emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel. -------- us G.I.S' PAYCHECKS FUND TRUCK ARMOR Military Advantage December 10, 2004 http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001269.html m915.jpgSo the Pentagon leadership has finally recognized that they need to armor up their trucks. But they've settled on a damn peculiar way of paying for the work. They're dipping into soldiers' paychecks to do it. Let me explain. For this fiscal year, 2005, Rummy & Co. asked for $25.7 million to secure its fleet of trucks. And Congress granted the request, when it passed the Pentagon's budget in July. But by November 19th, the Pentagon brass realized they had screwed up, Defense Department documents show. There was no way $25.7 million could pay for armoring the M915 trucks, Medium Tactical Vehicles, and other vehicles hauling supplies through Iraq; to do the job right, more like $580 million would be needed. The chiefs had under budgeted, more than twenty-fold. The problem was, the Defense Department's budget for the year was already passed. And it was too early, yet, for a second, "supplemental" funding bill. So, instead, the Pentagon's eyeshades decided to "reprogram" money, from one military project into another. Now, the accountants could have taken money from hulking, multi-billion dollar items, like the F-22 fighter or the creaky missile defense program. But no. Instead, the cash – along with about a billion dollars in other funds -- was taken from the Army's payroll. From the accounts to pay soldiers in the field. With that money gone, there's now only enough cash left in the register to keep paying soldiers until May or so. If a "supplemental" budget bill – rumored to be $75 billion or more -- isn't passed by then, there will be no paychecks for G.I.s. Congress will never let that happen, of course. No politician in his right mind is going to keep soldiers from getting paid. So, in the end, G.I.s will get the money they've been promised. But, still, wouldn't it have been better to get this armor money together in the first place? The war has been going on since last March. Planning for it started in 2002. And only on November 19th did the Pentagon realize it needed more money to armor up its trucks? ----- Army tight spot December 10, 2004 Washington Times Inside The Ring http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm Pentagon insiders tell us the Army is getting itself into a bind over its new reorganization of combat divisions. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the chief of staff, has broken up divisions into brigade units of action. They will be more self-contained than existing brigades. Their replenishment teams, called forward support companies (FSC), will virtually embed with the brigade. Therein lies the problem. Pentagon policy bars mixed-sex units, such as the FSC, from "collocating" with combat units. Here's the bind: If the Army notifies Congress it plans to appeal the collocation rule, it may be overruled by lawmakers. If it creates all-male FSC so as not to violate the ban, it won't have enough soldiers, internal Army documents show. The answer for the Army is to attach the FSC to a support brigade. But even the Army's own documents say this "could be perceived as subterfuge to avoid reporting requirements" to Congress. Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, says the Army's chart making is just a dance to placate Congress. In actuality, the FSC will have to embed with a combat brigade to do its job. "That unit is going to be with the maneuver battalion 100 percent of the time," says Mrs. Donnelly. She has written to congressional leaders, telling them the Army is violating the rules. She is hoping the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gets involved. -------- US Army plagued by desertion and plunging morale timesonline.co.uk From Elaine Monaghan in Washington December 10, 2004 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1397131,00.html WHILE insurgents draw on deep wells of fury to expand their ranks in Iraq, the US military is fighting desertion, recruitment shortfalls and legal challenges from its own troops. The irritation among the rank and file became all too clear this week when a soldier stood up in a televised session with Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, to ask why the world’s richest army was having to hunt for scrap metal to protect its vehicles. The same night, interviews with three soldiers who are seeking refugee status in Canada, where they have become minor celebrities, dominated prime time television. They are among more the than 5,000 troops that CBS’s 60 Minutes reported on Wednesday had deserted since the war began. Many experts say that America’s 1.4 million active-duty troops and 865,000 part-timers are stretched to the point where President Bush may see other foreign policy goals blunted. The bleed from the US military is heaviest among parttimers, who have been dragged en masse out of civilian life to serve their country with unprecedented sacrifice. For the first time in a decade, the Army National Guard missed its recruitment target this year. Instead of signing up 56,000 people, it found 51,000. “This is something that the President and the country should be worried about,” said Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defence under Ronald Reagan and now a military analyst who opposes the war. A further sign of strain can be seen in the Army’s decision this year to mobilise 5,600 members of a pool of former soldiers that can be mobilised only in a national emergency. More than 183,000 National Guard and reserve troops are on active duty, compared with 79,000 before the invasion of Iraq. Forty per cent of the 138,000 troops in Iraq are part-timers who never expected to be sent to the front line. Instead, as a woman soldier pointedly reminded Mr Rumsfeld on Wednesday, they face “stop loss” orders that delay their return to civilian life. Another soldier lost his court battle this week to stop the Army extending his one-year contract by at least two years. At least eight soldiers have turned to the courts, accusing the military of tricking them into enlisting for a fixed term without warning them that they could be forced to stay longer. Once they get out, soldiers are increasingly resisting hefty bonuses to re-enlist, an incentive that had helped to meet recruitment targets in the past. The crisis may be even deeper than the statistics suggest. Active-duty Army recruiters exceeded their target of 77,000 by 587 this year only by dipping into a pool of recruits who had not planned to report until next year, and by dropping educational standards, Mr Korb said. At 10 per cent, the death rate among war casualties is the lowest in history. But maimed men and women are flocking home with horror stories about the war, which is claiming more and more casualties. Between June, when the Iraqi interim Government took over, and September, the average monthly casualty rate among US forces was 747 a month, compared with 482 during the invasion and 415 before the coalition government was disbanded. With elections looming next month, the toll is expected to mount. Most soldiers keep their anger under wraps, partly out of patriotism but also out of loyalty to their units. “There’s a thin green line that you don’t cross,” said a veteran with the 4th Infantry, who deployed to Iraq last year to help to plan counterinsurgency operations and train Iraqi forces. But at his home base in Fort Carson, Colorado, he has resisted a $10,000 re-enlistment incentive and plans to get out as soon as he can. He illustrates the long-term problem the Army faces. He served for five years, first in Korea, then in Iraq, where he was a combat soldier for almost a year. The Americans received little training for the counterinsurgency they face. “Every day you wake up alive, is a gift from above,” the soldier said. Few experts are surprised to hear that a recent army survey discovered that half the soldiers were not planning to re-enlist. Experts are divided over how stretched America’s military really is. But they agree that another conflict would put the military in overdrive. Another war would require a shift to a “no-kidding wartime posture in which everybody who could shoot was given a rifle and sent to the front,” according to John Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org. ----- US Credibility Under Friendly Fire Antiwar.com by Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.) December 10, 2004 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/dsmith.php?articleid=4142 "When truth becomes war's first fatality, Trust quickly becomes the second." "Since my son's death … I don't trust them [the Pentagon] one bit." One need only read the article in the Los Angeles Times to sense the loss felt by Mrs. Mary Tillman whose son, former pro-football star Corporal Pat Tillman, was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. The Times story followed a two-part Washington Post article that recounted the confluence of accidents, botched orders, mistaken identity, phantom enemy, and lack of fire discipline that led to Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire. As disheartening as this story is on a personal level, just as significant systemically is the press account of calculated, deliberate announcements from the Pentagon that cannot be excused as misstatements based on incomplete or inaccurate information. To briefly recap: April 30: events leading to Tillman's death, including his heroism, are released, along with announcement of the posthumous award of the Silver Star, a medal given only for valor under fire; the military already had statements from other participants on the mission that contradicted the official version. May 3: a memorial service commemorating Tillman's life is held; participants include football colleagues, Senator John McCain, and flag-rank military representatives. May 29: the Pentagon concedes Tillman's death was from friendly fire. June-November: the media gradually uncover the details of a botched mission, one which apparently did not involve a close-in firefight with Taliban fugitives (as described in the citation for the Silver Star), and one that leaders of the local Afghan militia accompanying the U.S. troops were told by U.S. commanders not to discuss with media representatives. In Afghanistan as in Iraq, the Pentagon is repeating its ill-fated public information policies of the Vietnam era that contributed to the breakdown of trust between a significant portion of the U.S. public, the uniformed military, and those elected and appointed to lead the nation. Despite the Republican victory on Nov. 2, 2004, the U.S. remains deeply divided about Iraq – the president's handling of the war (40% favorable, 55% unfavorable), whether invading was the right (46%) or wrong (48%) course, and how well the war is going (45% very or somewhat well and 53% somewhat or very badly). Deception and the Media No one is calling for the end of deception and denial stratagems on the battlefield or at the strategic level of war, when applicable. Deceiving an enemy is a force multiplier that touches on basic principles of war, such as surprise and economy of force. Many in Washington and in the country also would not object to employing the media, with its foreknowledge, in propaganda or misinformation campaigns carefully directed against hostile regimes. (However, once started, this can prove to be a perilous path.) But in a democracy, a line is crossed when a government knowingly and deliberately lies or even misleads media that government knows full well will be reporting news to the U.S. public. Besides the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death, the most recent deliberate deception of the media was the Oct. 14, 2004 statement by a Pentagon spokesperson that an assault on Fallujah had begun. Given that such an operation had been discussed for weeks, news outlets were primed for an announcement. But this was not the assault, which was not confirmed until some hours after the Pentagon statement had been broadcast to the U.S. and the world. There is the deeper history of the ill-fated Pentagon Office of Strategic Influence, created after Sept. 11, 2001, whose job was to provide news to foreign media, including false stories, in an attempt to influence policy in both unfriendly and friendly nations. The Office had barely begun to function when it was disbanded in 2002. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reportedly distributed its missions to other entities in the Pentagon involved in propaganda and disinformation. If this were not enough to make the U.S. media and public wary of official pronouncements, the 2004 summer study [.pdf] by the Defense Science Board (DSB) should engender concern. The DSB, an advisory body, said that the lack of a strategic communications plan is a contributing factor in "America's negative image in world opinion and diminished ability to persuade" Islamic nations of the reasonableness of U.S. actions. The suggested remedy in the DSB document, as reported by the New York Times, is a "comprehensive reorganization of government public affairs, public diplomacy, and information efforts" beginning with the creation of a strategic communications structure in the National Security Council. But this (or any other) agency will not be effective unless or until they first understand the motives of those opposed to the U.S. ("Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies") and how best to use information to break down this opposition – i.e., to at least tolerate Western concepts, culture, and practices. The problem facing the U.S. government internationally – a lack of credibility arising from the dissonance between words and actions – is in danger of being replicated in the domestic arena through deliberate manipulation of the press. The bargain between the press and the Pentagon – "We don't do anything to endanger the troops or operations. They don't lie to us" – articulated by CNN's Aaron Brown on Dec. 1, 2004, also applied to the government in general at one time. For a White House that preaches the virtues and necessity of credibility – as in the United Nations' – there is a gaping hole in its understanding of the critical role that credibility plays in the social contact between those who are governed and those governing. Once that is broken, so too is political power – witness Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. As one who spent part of his military career keeping secrets (intelligence) and another part trying to tell the Army's story as best as possible, there was never any question but that what counted most in both endeavors was the full truth to the chain-of-command in the first instance and to the public in the second. Lying is death – physical if in combat, of credibility everywhere else. Even the latter can be irretrievable. ----- Armor Scarce for Big Trucks Transporting Cargo in Iraq nytimes.com By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT Dec. 10, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/international/middleeast/10military.html?oref=login&hp&ex=1102741200&en=1f449acee0fdaacc&ei=5094&partner=homepage WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Congress released statistics Thursday documenting stark shortages in armor for the military transport trucks that ferry food, fuel and ammunition along dangerous routes in Iraq, while President Bush and his defense secretary both spoke out to defuse public criticism. Soldiers confronted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday with complaints that the Pentagon was sending them to war without enough armored equipment to protect them. One soldier who challenged Mr. Rumsfeld was apparently prompted by a reporter traveling with his unit. The commander of American ground forces in the Middle East responded Thursday to the complaints with a vow to provide armored transportation into Iraq for all troops headed there. "The concerns expressed are being addressed, and that is, we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment," Mr. Bush said. "And I have told many families I met with, we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones in a mission which is vital and important." The House Armed Services Committee released statistics on Thursday showing that while many Humvees are armored, most transport trucks that crisscross Iraq are not. The committee said more than three-quarters of the 19,854 Humvees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait carry protective armor, which can vary in quality. The most secure are factory-armored Humvees, and the Pentagon has received only 5,910 of the 8,105 that commanders say they need. But only 10 percent of the 4,814 medium-weight transport trucks have armor, and only 15 percent of the 4,314 heavy transport vehicles. The uproar has exposed some of the most crucial challenges facing the Pentagon: how to equip and train troops for a war whose very nature has changed. A resourceful insurgency has seized on an American vulnerability - the shortage of armored vehicles - and attacked supply lines with roadside bombs. These trucks are driven primarily by reservists, while a much greater percentage of active-duty soldiers are deployed in direct combat, and disparities between these troops have already prompted the Defense Department to begin sweeping changes in the way soldiers are trained and equipped. These issues gained new intensity and widespread attention because they were raised not in the safe confines of a Capitol Hill hearing or a Pentagon suite, but by a scout with the Tennessee National Guard who directly pressed the secretary of defense in the deserts of Kuwait just days before the soldier is to be sent into Iraq for a year. At Camp Buehring, a staging base for American troops entering and leaving Iraq, the scout, Specialist Thomas Wilson, said his unit had been forced to dig through local landfills to find scrap metal to bolt onto their trucks for protection against roadside bombs. The incident was startling in part because of the soldier's willingness to challenge a cabinet official, but it emerged Thursday that a newspaper reporter embedded with the troops had helped orchestrate the questioning. Mr. Rumsfeld, after leaving Kuwait for India, said it was valuable for senior officials to hear concerns directly from troops, but he offered no immediate changes in how the Army was reacting to the problems. "I think that it's good for people to raise questions," he said. "It gives senior military leadership that has the responsibility for these matters a chance to hear them, talk to them." Gone are the days when the American military could plan for fighting along dangerous front lines while relying on a relatively safe rear area for logistics. "Last year, we began to see an increase in improvised explosive device attacks against our forces, primarily against convoys that were moving throughout Iraq," said Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb, commander of coalition ground forces in the Middle East. "And they began having an impact on our soldiers, a deadly impact, as we all know." In a hastily arranged video news conference from Kuwait, General Whitcomb said the Army had since rushed armored vehicles to take troops into Iraq, and had hastened to add armor to others. "I've got enough metal, I've got enough folks, and I've got enough time to meet our schedule that ensures that no combat unit in a wheeled vehicle goes into Iraq now that is not in an armored vehicle," he added. "So we're continuing to work feverishly to ensure that they meet our requirement, and that's that nobody goes north without it." Continuing shortages have prompted soldiers going to Iraq to scrounge for steel and ballistic glass, improvising shields that have come to be called hillbilly armor. ----- Navy Sailor Charged As "Deserter and Fugitive" After Refusing Iraq Deployment democracynow.org December 10th, 2004 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/10/1449250 We speak with Navy sailor Pablo Paredes, who the military is calling a deserter and a fugitive after he refused to board his ship in San Diego as it prepared to ship out for the Persian Gulf. He joins us from California where he is now underground. [includes rush transcript] Today we'll speak with a Navy sailor who the military is calling a deserter and a fugitive. He could be arrested at any moment by the military or another law enforcement agency. On Monday, Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes refused to board his ship in San Diego as it prepared to ship out for the Persian Gulf. Remarkably, Paredes sat on the ship's pier as his fellow sailors boarded. For nearly two hours, he spoke to reporters explaining why he was refusing to board. Paredes told the journalists he was young and naive when he joined the Navy and "never imagined, in a million years, we would go to war with somebody who had done nothing to us." He says he fully expected to be arrested that day on the pier. But the arrest never happened. A Navy spokesman said the 23 year-old from the Bronx, New York wasn't taken into custody because he hadn't violated any regulations. Navy procedures stipulate that an officer can't be listed as missing until an official roll has been called aboard ship. Paredes believes he wasn't detained because of the media presence. On Sunday, he had called newspapers and radio and TV stations to announce his anti-deployment intentions. But shortly after he left the pier that day, he was classified as a "deserter and fugitive." He is now underground. In a moment, we are going to be joined live by Pablo Paredes. But first, we turn to an interview Paredes gave shortly after he refused to board the ship. * Pablo Paredes, interviewed shortly after he refused to board the ship. Courtesy of Jim Carter, San Diego Military Counseling Project. * Pablo Paredes, speaking to us on the line from San Diego. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: In a moment we will be joined live by Pablo Paredes. But first we turn to an interview he gave shortly after he refused to board the ship. The interview was conducted by Jim Carter of the San Diego military counseling project. PABLO PAREDES: My name is Pablo Paredes. I'm from New York. When I joined the military in 2000, the Navy, I was first taken through a few school commands, technical training, electronics training and some specifics on the system that I now work on. That took me from Chicago to Virginia, back to Chicago, back to Virginia, and eventually to Japan. That was my first duty station in performing my actual duty, which is a ‘tech’ basically, a technician and operator on the NATO Sea Sparrow Missile system. JIM CARTER: The Sea Sparrow? PABLO PAREDES: Yes, the Sea Sparrow, that’s the U.N. approved ship’s defense missile system. JIM CARTER: So, ship surface to air? PABLO PAREDES: Yes, surface to air, exactly. JIM CARTER: All right, and so now you’ve decided that you’re not willing to stay in the military. Do you want to tell me a little bit about that? PABLO PAREDES: That's correct. Well, first thing I want to say is that when I joined the military I didn't have any -- I was quite young. I think it’s crazy that we join at 18. Nobody is ready to make that decision at 18. I joined at 17. We are not ready. We don't know what the world is about. We think we do, but we do not. So I didn't know anything about politics, about the world. I didn’t care. I was a young kid. I wanted to play basketball and go out and have fun and get drunk and do crazy things. And the next thing you know, it was on a whim. It was absolutely on a whim. I woke up one day and said I don't have many choices and this military guy keeps calling me. You know I’m going. Let's go. So I say I will leave this week and I just went, and it was a rash decision, six years of my life I signed away and little by little I discovered what kind of person I was. I started studying, I started reading up on politics, on society and what's going on in the world. Being sent to Japan was huge because it took me out of the box. We all live in this sheltered kind of place where we don't understand what occurs in that world and we don't understand what occurs outside of it. We don't understand other kinds of thinking and other kinds of approaches and points of view. But once I was shipped out and I just totally had to look in on that world instead of being inside of it, it gave me a new perspective and I realized what kind of person I really was. And I realized that war not something I'm about. I realize that the military is something I'm completely against, especially the way this country uses it, at least throughout history, I meant. I see nothing but a system of muscle for an ideology that is not necessarily promoting peace or promoting positive things in all of history. JIM CARTER: A lot of people would say, What about September 11? PABLO PAREDES: Right. And I understand that the country has a military and has a job to do and I realize now I never wanted to be part of that and I don't know why I joined, like I said, it was a rash decision. But you know when you consider September 11, I would in no way want to be part of the reaction -- which is all you can call it -- to September 11. But I would understand as a voter and an individual and a civilian that the country would go to some kind of war, that there could be some kind of reaction that there would be some kind of retribution. So on that playing field, Afghanistan made some sense. But after that, Iraq, so-called weapons of mass destruction, “Saddam Hussein is the devil” rhetoric, you know, I mean, I didn't follow any of it. I didn't understand it. And I'm a kid that if you sit me down and explain something to I do understand, it is real hard for me not to grasp something if you explain it to me carefully, and I heard just about everybody that believes in it explain it to me carefully, and I still don't understand it. I don't understand why we are in Iraq. JIM CARTER: What led to you this final decision? What was the decision? PABLO PAREDES: Ok, the time that I’ve spent in the military since I’ve kind of found who I am and what I am about and what I agree and disagree with, I felt somewhat like a hypocrite because here I am, every chance I get, telling the world, telling my friends, telling everybody around me how this country is doing the wrong thing, that this war we’re in is horrible, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, but meanwhile, I'm a part of the system, you know. I'm part of the muscle of what this system is all about. AMY GOODMAN: That is Pablo Paredes. The army has designated him a deserter and a fugitive. He was being interviewed by Jim Carter of the San Diego Military Counseling Project. He joins us live now on the phone in hiding. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Pablo Paredes. PABLO PAREDES: Thank you for having me. Good morning. AMY GOODMAN: It good to have you with us. Can you tell us your status right now, what your plans are? PABLO PAREDES: Ok. Before I do that can I clear a couple of things up? AMY GOODMAN: Yes. PABLO PAREDES: A lot of times I'm being called an officer and I'm not an officer. There’s a big difference. An enlisted person comes in the Navy on a contract with no college experience and the Navy is pretty much that where they are starting out in life. An officer usually has a degree or some kind of extensive military schooling that leads to the title of officer and I'm not an officer. An officer has the right to resign. An enlisted person does not. So that is why that is important. Separate from that, the word ‘deserter’ is being tossed around a lot, and that implies that you do not intend to return and that is not my stand at all. I do intend to return and I face the music, so I want to make sure that no one says that I’m a deserter. AMY GOODMAN: So why are you in hiding then? PABLO PAREDES: Well, I'm not in hiding. I haven't actually told -- I haven't actually, you know, like run or used a false name or changed my hair color. I'm not a fugitive either. I'm not staying at my place of a residence because there have been rocks thrown through the window so it’s not the safest place. I don't have a connected telephone but I did that before the six-month deployment. So I haven't officially been contacted and no press release has been released by the military saying what my status is. I assume that my status as of now is U.A. which is unauthorized absence and it is not the most incredible charge. I mean many people get very minor offenses for U.A. I think the major thing is how public I have been with this and I don't think the Navy has decided how they will deal with me as far as that concerned. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you, did you have any discussions with your fellow soldiers beforehand about the war, about your feelings, and get a sense of how others of them are regarding the situation? PABLO PAREDES: Ok. Well, I will answer what you are asking me, but first another couple of corrections. I'm not a soldier, I'm a sailor. I'm not in the Army, I’m in the Navy and that is very important because if I were in the Army or Marines for that matter, then my job would be a lot more dangerous and I want it to be very understood that my job which is an electronics technician is a job that has never put me and would have not put me this harm's way on this deployment. So I want people to carefully understand that this is not a decision based on personal fear for my own safety, because there's not really any fear. My job is very safe. I can look forward to working in an air conditioned space and using the internet as I please. There is no danger really involved in my job. There's only pretty much benefits. There's extra pay for going to the Persian Gulf. There's the hero status that comes with coming back from there. And I just want people to understand that this was based on principles and not on fear, because there's really no danger to my job and there would have been a lot of danger to the marines that I would have dropped off and that would have eventually gone to Iraq and I can't be part of that. Now as far as how I'm getting reactions within the Navy, as everyone probably understands the military is highly conservative institution. So, I have definitely gotten some very negative responses. I understand that and I expect that, and to some extent I would rather have the debates that I have been having where everyone who emails me with hate mail and be on the talk shows that really don't respect what I'm doing, because it is not about preaching to the choir. I'm not going to change anything by preaching to a whole bunch of people who feel the same way as I do. What it’s all about is shocking those that don't really understand what going on and maybe initially think that what I'm doing is unpatriotic, or maybe initially think that I'm a coward and maybe I’m afraid of war and when they really sit down and listen to me, if someone would want to do that, and realize that there's no danger to me and that I’ve just – to some people, I have thrown away my life for some sort of principle, that they question what the principle is, and maybe inform themselves on why I'm doing this. That is what I'm hoping. AMY GOODMAN: Pablo Paredes, we have break for 60 seconds. Then we will come back to you, who could be arrested at any moment by the military or another law enforcement agency. We will be back with him in a minute. AMY GOODMAN: Our guest on the line right now is Pablo Paredes. He is Petty Officer Third Class, refused to board his ship in San Diego as it prepared to ship out for the Persian Gulf. Juan. JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes, I would like to ask you, on the day that you refused to board, as you were there at the pier with the group of reporters, was there -- what was the reaction from your fellow sailors? Did any of them try to dissuade you, come down and talk to you? Give us a sense of that day. PABLO PAREDES: It was a very sensitive situation because I had obviously gone very public with what I intended to do. So I think many of the officers on the boat itself were very sensitive and careful about the way they were perceived by the media. So I believe that most of the average sailors on the boat were instructed not to speak to me because they made it a point to just not even look in my direction. Now, some of the Chief Petty Officers and a couple of the officers on the boat, mainly the Duty Section Officer, came down -- and this is the most important person on the boat at the time, the Duty Section Officer, is the highest ranking by way of his position at the moment he is the most important person on the boat -- and he came down and he tried to talk me out of what I was doing and told me the possible repercussions of it. And more of a scare tactic, telling me it was a felony and this and that, and I explained to him that I was serious about what I was doing and I turned in my I.D. and told him that I was ready to face the repercussions. But in just about the sweetest the military has ever been to anybody I was given back my I.D. and I was told I was free to go those were his exact words, “You are free to go. We are not going to arrest you. We are not going to detain you. There's nothing we can do right now. So was it kind of a weird situation. I fully expected to be detained and the process to begin. But I guess for fear of being caught on camera, you know, bringing down the hammer, they decided they would tell me I was free to go even though I mean every camera to the planet witnessed that I missed ship's movement which is one thing that is against the Navy regulations. And I refused to go on the boat. So, I didn't understand the logic there that we don't want to get caught on camera. AMY GOODMAN: Pablo, We have an update to a story we covered earlier this week. A federal judge has ordered a National Guard Specialist David Qualls to report to duty to go to Iraq. On Monday, Qualls and seven unnamed U.S. soldiers sued the government to challenge its “stop loss” policy that has forced thousands of soldiers to remain in the military beyond their scheduled retirement. David Qualls has sought a temporary restraining order to block the military from sending him to Iraq before the lawsuit was decided. Now, he of course, has a lawyer and we interviewed that lawyer, Jules Lobel, in Pittsburgh. In the Center For Constitutional Rights that is representing them. Do you have a lawyer? That's what I'm in the process of doing. That is a large part of why I haven't turned myself in yet. What I’m trying to do is make sure I have a lawyer and that that lawyer has a definite plan and he advises me on the best way to turn myself in and anything surrounding that. I don't want to go in there without anybody to fight with me at least legally because then I could be turned over to a JAG lawyer which is a military lawyer and I do not know, you know, where his loyalties lie. JUAN GONZALEZ: How do you answer those folks who say you enlisted in the military, it is your responsibility as a sailor to follow orders and if the country goes to war to prosecute that war? What is your response to that? PABLO PAREDES: My response to that is that I definitely am not neglecting the fact that I signed on the line. If I were neglecting that I signed on the line I would be trying to get out of the punishment. So I definitely am about that commitment. I understand that I made a commitment. Whether it was a mistake or not and whether it was right that I was sought out because I was in a situation where I wasn't in a financially stable situation and the military takes advantage of that as they always do, as they prey on those kinds of citizens. But I still understand that I signed the paper and there was a commitment and that's why I'm willing to face the punishment. Now, as far as being a robot and just, you know, do as I say and don't question it and things like that, I think that is very dangerous situation for a human being and I don't think you stop being a human being because you become a Navy sailor or an Army soldier. I don't think it is to that extent. In fact, even within the rules that are afforded to us we are told if at any time you find a order to be unlawful you have not only a right but a duty not to follow it. And I feel that way about any order that has to do with this war. AMY GOODMAN: Well, Pablo Paredes, we want to thank you for being with us. We will at this point to cover what you do and what happens to you. Thank you. PABLO PAREDES: Thank you very much. AMY GOODMAN: Pablo Paredes is a Petty Officer Third Class, refused to board the ship in San Diego to Iraq. He could be arrested at any moment. The military has called him a deserter and a fugitive. ----- Rumsfeld challenged on troop safety Aljazeera.Net 10 December 2004 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/779C0E14-4121-40EF-BCCF-0B0CCAA28DFC.htm US troops who are about to be deployed in Iraq have put the Pentagon on the defensive, challenging Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over their safety. As Rumsfeld spoke to 1800 of 10,000 troops stationed at Camp Buehring in the Kuwaiti desert on Thursday, a soldier was loudly cheered as he highlighted the need for basic equipment. "Our vehicles are not armoured. We are digging up pieces of rusting scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that has already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best for our vehicles to take into combat," he complained. Rumsfeld replied that he had discussed security for US convoys o