NucNews - January 13, 2005



-------- NUCLEAR 

Abraham Calls on Global Community to Aggressively Address Nuclear Nonproliferation

1/13/2005 12:52:00 PM US Newswire
To: National Desk, Energy Reporter
Contact: Rebecca Neale of the Energy Department, 202-586-4940

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41655

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In a lunchtime speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, DC, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called on the global community to join in implementing a comprehensive nuclear nonproliferation strategy to address 21st century challenges.

Outlining his vision for dealing with constantly evolving proliferation threats in an age of terrorism, Secretary Abraham said the international community must play a greater role in future efforts.

"Terrorists have struck not just Washington, New York, Moscow, and Beslan," he said. "The challenge of confronting terrorism falls to every nation...A global threat demands global participation."

He also called on the global community to take steps to ensure the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NMT) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- the two principle agents of the international nonproliferation regime -- can function effectively in the 21st century.

Secretary Abraham's remarks detailed the many significant strides taken by the Bush Administration to safeguard against proliferation threats, particularly since the attacks of September 11, 2001. He noted in particular the implementation last year of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which provides international support in dealing with nonproliferation efforts.

Secretary Abraham concluded his speech by discussing four broad areas the global community must address in order to construct a workable 21st century nonproliferation strategy:

-- The United States Must Fund And Finish Programs We Have Committed to Doing. Secretary Abraham cited the Megaports initiative as an example of means for deterring trafficking of nuclear and other harmful materials, not just for cargo entering the U.S., but cargo moving through the international trading system.

-- The Russian Government Must Increase Its Global Leadership Role. Secretary Abraham argued that Russia must increase its share of nonproliferation responsibility by increasing the money it devotes to domestic and international efforts and upgrading security measures within its nuclear and radiological sites, particularly providing greater access to facilities for security specialists.

-- Other Nations Must Increase Involvement In Confronting Terrorist Threats. Secretary Abraham insists the task of combating nonproliferation must elicit an international effort, from participating in nonproliferation programs that address bomb- grade materials to developing safer ways for distributing fuel for nuclear plants. The task cannot merely fall to the United States, Russia and the IAEA, but to all nations of the civilized world.

-- The IAEA and Nonproliferation Treaty Must Be Effective Nonproliferation Tools.

Secretary Abraham indicated the effectiveness of the IAEA and NPT have been called into question by developments in North Korea and Iran, making it clear that the process of the IAEA must be revamped and the NPT reevaluated to ensure they are effective vehicles for our nonproliferation aims.

The full text of Secretary Abraham's speech can be found at http://www.energy.gov.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

---

Remarks Prepared for Energy Secretary Abraham to Council on Foreign Relations

January 13, 2005 U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=17167&BT_CODE=PR_SPEECHES&TT_CODE=PRESSSPEECH

Thank you. It’s an honor to be here with you today. For over 80 years the Council has played a leading role in guiding American foreign policy. As Leslie Gelb once said, “If the Council as a body has stood for anything … it has been for American internationalism based on American interests.”

This body has not just stood for American internationalism and American interests, it has helped guarantee them. Scholars and historians have dubbed the last 100 years “the American Century,” and there can be little doubt the Council on Foreign Relations helped make it so.

As my tenure in the Bush Administration comes to a close, I wanted to discuss with you a topic which, at bottom, encompasses the most important duties entrusted to the Secretary of Energy.

The issues and challenges surrounding nuclear nonproliferation are continuously evolving. They have changed dramatically at several junctures in recent memory. We face different challenges today from those of a decade and a half ago, certainly, but also different from the ones we encountered when we took office four years ago.

Today, I’d like to take the opportunity to outline for you some of the challenges America and the world face in this arena.

And then I would like to discuss methods and strategies for constructing a workable nonproliferation regime that deals with 21st century geopolitical realities, with 21st century technologies, and with 21st century threats.

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, followed just a few years later by East Germany’s Soviet parent state, it appeared that after a half-century of hair-trigger tension, America’s major security fears would ease.

The Cold War was over.

The global standoff between superpowers was at an end.

The world saw America and the West triumphant, freedom preserved, and the promises of Marx and Lenin and Stalin discredited.

The great foreign policy and national security concern of the second half of the 20th century had been resolved, and we had won out against Soviet expansionism.

This was a great – a liberating – moment for the American spirit. For the first time in most people’s lifetimes, we were truly safe.

At least, that’s how it seemed to most Americans in the early 1990s. That’s how it seemed as Americans continued to enjoy unparalleled economic prosperity.

But slowly, slowly, as we moved ahead, it began to dawn on some that our national security problems were not entirely solved with the demise of the USSR.

Indeed, other problems, of great and terrible gravity, could be seen to emerge as a result. And so an unsettling air hung over a seemingly safe United States of America.

Because even while we celebrated the fact that the breakup of the Soviet Union left a foe in tatters, it was becoming clear that it also left the Soviet nuclear arsenal vulnerable.

During the many decades leading up to the fall of Soviet Communism, we knew that the nuclear weapons aimed at us – whether from Russia or one of its satellites – were under the closely guarded control of one centralized power in the Kremlin.

But with the Soviet Union folding its tent, and the ensuing disarray and political and economic turmoil, no longer could we count on those weapons and materials being protected.

My Senate colleague, Sam Nunn, best summed up our dilemma in a 1996 speech:

    The collapse of Soviet Communism and the end of the Cold War eliminated what many considered to be the gravest threat to world security. Yet, today the concerns of the Cold War have been replaced with new and far different threats. We have moved from an era of high risk, but also high stability, to an era of much lower risk, but also much less stability.

He was right. While we had reduced the possibilities of nuclear Armageddon between the Soviets and us, we were entering a different period – one where the potential for dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials was skyrocketing, while our enemies were not as plainly seen.

Simply put, despite winning what in effect was the Third World War, it turned out we were not as safe as we had thought.

Now, I think we must credit those men and women who sounded the alarm and raised the nation’s consciousness about the nonproliferation threats in the wake of the Cold War. People like Sam Nunn, Richard Lugar, Pete Domenici, and a number of people with the Council, helped frame an uncomfortable issue at a time when, frankly, I think many would have preferred to not worry about it.

Because of their persistence, the United States took steps during the 1990s to reach out to counterparts in the new Russian government on ways to address eliminating and securing nuclear materials.

Several important programs were launched to deal with a proliferation threat that was still being defined – programs aimed at securing or even destroying weapons and weapons-usable materials in the former Soviet Union … working with Russian customs to combat trafficking of illicit nuclear materials … engaging out-of-work weapons scientists … and physically downsizing Russia’s nuclear weapons complex.

These were steps in the right direction, and made a significant mark.

But I would suspect that even the authors and shepherds of these proposals would acknowledge they were not enough.

That point was made frighteningly clear on September 11, 2001.

The horror of 9/11 didn’t change the challenges we face; it shone a new light on them. It made the world fully aware of them.

And it convinced us that we had to broaden the scope of our nonproliferation efforts beyond just nuclear weapons, loose nukes, or weapons grade materials.

September 11th clarified the geopolitical situation and brought the threats posed by nuclear weapons and unsecured nuclear and radiological materials into the sort of very real focus that did not exist before.

The fact is that the concept of Cold War nuclear annihilation might have been horrifying, but it had also become something of an abstraction. Nations interested in their self-preservation were unlikely to risk certain destruction, so the idea of nuclear annihilation really wasn’t a part of average Americans’ everyday lives. There was, in reality, a perverse safety in the idea of mutually assured destruction.

The attacks on Washington and New York brought a different idea to the fore. It forced us to acknowledge that while the safety of mutually assured destruction might be the order of the day in dealing with nuclear weapons states, the immediate nonproliferation challenge facing the civilized world was altogether something else: nuclear terrorism … dirty bombs … radiological attack … from enemies not afraid to sacrifice their own lives for their cause.

It forced us to confront a different and altogether more likely scenario than that with which we were used to dealing.

And it forced us to recognize that our challenge isn’t just related to securing dangerous materials. To define it as such makes nonproliferation little more than a housekeeping exercise.

After 9/11, it became clear that the challenge before us actually involves thwarting the aims of senseless killers determined to sow terror and death, even at the cost of their own lives.

Has the Bush Administration risen to meet this challenge? On the whole, I think so, and I am very proud of our achievements.

During President Bush’s first term in office, we have taken significant steps to demonstrate the seriousness of our commitment, actions which have intensified and accelerated vital nonproliferation efforts.

Among the things we have done:

    * We have substantially increased our nonproliferation spending. DOE’s request to Congress last year sought a nonproliferation budget of $1.35 billion – a nearly 75 percent increase over the last—and largest—budget request of the previous Administration.

    * We have accelerated our efforts to secure 600 metric tons of weapons-usable material in Russia, and to date have upgraded security on over 50 percent of the materials at nearly 70 percent of the sites where they are found. This acceleration has cut two years off the schedule we inherited.

    * We have dramatically accelerated our work with the Russian Navy to secure their fuel and nuclear warhead sites. During my first trip to Moscow in 2001, I met with Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, the head of the Russian Navy. He made a personal appeal for the U.S. to assist Russia with security upgrades at Russian Navy warhead and High Enriched Uranium fuel storage sites on a faster, fuller basis. I gave my commitment that we would move aggressively, and we have. I am happy to report that we will have secured 100 percent of Russian Navy fuel and nuclear weapons storage sites by the end of next year.

    * In 2002, President Bush proposed – and the G-8 leaders established – the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction to bring important new resources to bear on non-proliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism, and nuclear safety.

    * The following year we launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, marshalling the international community to act effectively to stop the trade in weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials. We have begun building a global network to prevent rogue states and non-state actors from acquiring WMD by interdicting shipments at sea, in the air, and on land.

    * Under the PSI, we exposed both the AQ Khan network and shipments for Libya’s WMD program.

    * We worked with Libya and the United Kingdom to dismantle Libya’s weapons of mass destruction programs. 

    * We supported efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system. We achieved a real increase in the IAEA’s budget for safeguards and the President gained Senate advice and consent to the U.S. Additional IAEA Safeguards Protocol. And we have focused attention on the need to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities.

    * In cooperation with international partners and the IAEA, we have returned significant amounts of Russian-origin HEU to Russia from various international research reactors to be downblended and used for civil nuclear purposes. In the past two years, we have returned more than 100 kilograms from six nations.

    * Working with the IAEA, Russia, and many other countries, we have developed a comprehensive global effort to improve the security and controls of high-risk radiological materials that could be used in a radiological dispersal device, or “dirty bomb.” We held a very successful conference to launch this venture in 2003.

    * In 2003 we launched the Megaports program to begin to place radiation detection systems at the world’s major seaports. We have already completed agreements to place equipment in critical seaports in the Netherlands, Greece, Sri Lanka, Belgium, Spain, and the Bahamas, with more to come.

    * Finally, last year we led efforts to pass unanimously UN Security Council Resolution 1540, which requires states to criminalize proliferation of WMD, including by non-state actors, and to enact and enforce effective export controls, and secure proliferation-sensitive materials.

These efforts have been highly successful. They have made the world safer. Every instance in which we have worked to secure and remove dangerous materials has meant less opportunity for terrorists to acquire them.

Having said that, in my view there can be no “good enough” when it comes to these issues. Over the last several years it became apparent to us that we could – that we must – do even more. And we must do more to involve as many nations as possible.

Given the constantly evolving threat environment … given the resolve of terrorists thinking up new ways to do the unthinkable … given the need to focus not just on rogue nations but on shadowy, stateless networks … it was clear that we must find ways to further improve, further enhance, and further accelerate our nonproliferation work.

So last May, we introduced the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative – or GTRI – contains new measures to provide international support for countries’ national programs to identify, secure, remove and/or facilitate the disposition of vulnerable nuclear and other radiological materials and equipment around the world – as quickly and expeditiously as possible – that pose a threat to the international community.

GTRI is comprised of four distinct elements.

First, we will work in partnership to repatriate all Russian-origin fresh HEU fuel by the end of this year. We will also work with Russia to accelerate and complete the repatriation of all Russian-origin spent fuel by 2010. There is roughly two metric tons of this material located at more than 20 facilities in 17 countries.   

Second, we will likewise take all steps necessary to accelerate and complete the repatriation of U.S.-origin research reactor spent fuel under our existing program from locations around the world.   There are 41 countries eligible to participate in this voluntary program.  Under the acceptance policy, about 22,700 fuel elements are eligible for return.

As we accelerate and complete these tasks, our aim is to give priority to cases involving the greatest security threats and situations in which diplomatic and cooperative opportunities present themselves.

Under the third element of GTRI, we will work to convert the cores of targeted civilian research reactors that use HEU to use low enriched uranium fuel instead.

We will do this not just in the United States – where more reactors have converted to LEU than in any other single country – but throughout the entire world. We have already converted 39 research reactors to use LEU fuel, and another 35 can convert with currently available fuels. Meanwhile we are accelerating the work to develop a new higher-density LEU fuel that will enable conversion of the remaining 31 research reactors.

The fourth and final pillar of GTRI is working to identify and secure other nuclear and radiological materials and related equipment not yet covered by existing threat reduction efforts. This includes material located at enrichment plants, conversion facilities, reprocessing plants, research reactor sites, fuel fabrication plants, and temporary storage locations. There are hundreds such facilities throughout the world, serving to demonstrate the scope of our challenge.

All the elements of GTRI, particularly this last one, have been designed to reflect a threat which is ever changing and evolving. And they have been designed to broaden the international focus of our nonproliferation efforts.

We launched GTRI last September with a very successful Partners Conference in Vienna to coincide with the IAEA annual meeting. More than 100 countries have endorsed a statement of principles affirming GTRI and laying the cornerstone for a heightened international effort.

The accomplishments I have cited, from efforts to secure the Russian Navy’s nuclear warhead sites to our multilateral labors under GTRI, represent promising developments. They are positive steps. They are needed. They will help.

But even they are still not enough.

Because, as I said, we can never settle for “good enough.”

In that vein, it is worth asking what is now required to continue building the sort of nonproliferation regime that will guarantee the safety of the American people and our fellow citizens of the world?

What is the unfinished business we must undertake?

Let me begin by outlining what I see as the most significant issues still facing us, and by us I don’t just mean the United States, but the entire international community.

One, the President has said, and I agree, that the threat of nuclear proliferation is the most serious national security challenge we face today and must be addressed as comprehensively as possible.

Second, I think we need to intensify the security of radiological materials that could be used for dirty bombs and place an even greater international focus on this issue.

Third, we need to limit access to nuclear fuel cycle technologies and associated nuclear materials.

Fourth, for the programs I have mentioned to be sustained in Russia in the future, it will take more than just American financial assistance and resolve.

Finally, it is essential that the Nonproliferation Treaty and the IAEA are strengthened to make them more effective in dealing with the new challenges presented by 21st century threats.

If we are to be ultimately successful in addressing these issues and building a nonproliferation regime that deals with 21st century realities and 21st century challenges, it seems there are four broad areas that must be addressed.

Each of these areas contains elements that will help meet those specific challenges I just mentioned. And each contains elements that are necessary to ensure our nonproliferation activities are germane in the age of terrorism.

The first deals with our own responsibilities. The United States must fund and finish those programs that we have committed to doing.

We have set ambitious timetables for a host of programs – ambitious, but by no means unattainable. The Bush Administration has already demonstrated our commitment to fund these programs.

The challenge for future Presidents, Energy Secretaries, and other top U.S. officials will be to ensure that the commitments we have made continue to be honored, and to keep up the intensity of our efforts.

A good example is Megaports. With our scientific and technological preeminence, the United States is well positioned to enhance the capabilities of our international partners to detect, deter, and interdict illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials.

The equipment, training, and technical support we provide other nations will allow them to screen container cargo as it moves through their ports. This will help screen not just cargo destined for the U.S., but cargo moving throughout the international maritime trading system.

I mentioned before that we have concluded Megaports agreements with the host nations of some of the world’s busiest ports. This is helpful, but it is not sufficient. The safety and security of the free world demands that every major port around the globe be engaged in radiation detection. There are more than 20 of these worldwide that should be covered, a process that needs to happen sooner rather than later.

If we remain vigilant, and if we continue to press this issue on the diplomatic front, then we can accomplish this goal.

The second major area deals with our counterparts in the Russian Federation. Simply, the Russian government must play an even greater leadership role in the future than it has over the last ten years. That is not to minimize the contributions they have made, but only to suggest that it is absolutely imperative that they take on a larger share of the responsibility.

This means several things.

First and foremost, it means Russia needs to increase the amount of money it devotes to financing domestic and international nonproliferation efforts. The Russian economy is improving, and the government is capable of shouldering more of the financial burden. Contributing more to the financial end would clearly demonstrate Moscow’s commitment, as well as show that these efforts are permanently sustainable.

Moreover, Russia must work harder to address vulnerabilities at their nuclear and radiological facilities. At a time when terrorists are known to be scouting undersecured locations worldwide, it is absolutely essential that we meet the accelerated 2008 deadline to complete security upgrades at Russia’s nuclear weapons complex.

We’re still working to gain access to some of the facilities in Russia that, in my judgment, need to be addressed sooner rather than later. It is imperative that the Russian Federation work together with us to quickly resolve outstanding questions about access to these sites so that we can get this job done to ensure that terrorists are cut off from these locations and materials.

Finally, Moscow also will have to work more aggressively to quickly accept Russian-origin spent fuel from foreign Russian-supplied research reactors. In particular, Russian consideration of a programmatic or at least regional approach to the environmental review prior to the return of spent fuel would greatly accelerate the process.

The third major nonproliferation need for the 21st century involves other nations doing far more than at present.

The task cannot be left up to the United States, Russia, and the IAEA.

Terrorists have struck not just Washington, New York, Moscow, and Beslan. They have also struck Bali, Madrid, Tokyo, Jakarta, Nairobi, Yemen, Turkey, Tel Aviv, Saudi Arabia, Munich, Beirut, Cairo, on the seas and oceans, and in the skies. Terrorist plots have been thwarted in Vancouver, London, Berlin, the Philippines, and countless other places.

The point is that the challenge of confronting terrorism falls to every nation.

It is not just because the opportunities to acquire nuclear and radiological materials are spread all over the globe, but because every civilized nation is a target of those who have made clear they hate modern civilization. A global threat demands global participation.

That’s why we must have a broader program addressing radiological materials which could be employed to construct dirty bombs. The universe of materials that could be used in a radiological dispersal device is very wide. It includes not only spent nuclear fuel, but low-level materials common to everyday medical and industrial uses. So as we intensify efforts to strengthen the protection of weapons-grade materials around the globe, we should anticipate that enemies will turn their focus to acquiring materials for dirty bombs.

The United States has taken big steps already to combat and raise awareness of this threat. In September 2002 the U.S. proposed an international effort in this respect, and co-chaired the aforementioned partners meeting the following March.

Since then we’ve made excellent progress, working with governments around the globe to secure at-risk radioactive sources such as Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators or equipment for food irradiation.

However, our actions cannot be enough. Given the breadth of the challenge, it is clear that guarding against the threat of RDDs simply cannot succeed without the active participation of as many nations as possible.

We must also take steps to develop a safer, more orderly way of distributing fuel for civilian nuclear plants without adding to the danger of weapons proliferation.

Last year, President Bush called on the world’s leading nuclear exporters to ensure that states have reliable access to fuel at reasonable cost for their civilian reactors, so long as they renounce enrichment and reprocessing. He called on the 40 nations that comprise the Nuclear Suppliers Group to refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants.

The idea is a good one. It provides a foundation for all parties that wish to pursue the peaceful used of nuclear energy to do so without spreading the most dangerous elements of the fuel cycle. It also offers the ability to cut off what we see as the most worrisome channels employed by proliferators today. Input from other nations is required, of course, and I am confident that by working on a broad international basis we can construct a workable 21st century framework that assures nuclear fuel supply for the peaceful development and use of the atom.  

The fourth and final major step toward strengthening the 21st century nonproliferation regime requires that we ensure the IAEA and the Nonproliferation Treaty are effective vehicles for our common nonproliferation aims.

Recent years’ developments in North Korea and Iran have seemed to call the effectiveness of both the IAEA and the NPT into question.

In North Korea we have the example of a state which, under the NPT, purported to be a member of the treaty, enjoyed the benefits of membership – including automatic access to sensitive fuel cycle technologies – all the while secretly putting in place the assets needed to break out and declare itself a nuclear state.

And I think we all have the sense of something similar occurring in Iran.

So it is worth asking whether the framework for the NPT and the process by which the IAEA works are sufficient to meet the challenges of today. They were fine in dealing with the challenges that were presented in the Cold War. But how can we ensure they are capable of preventing the sort of gamesmanship that has led to the crises we face today?

Presently, we seem to have meeting after meeting after meeting on topics of serious concern … only to put matters off to the next meeting.

That must change. We must take appropriate steps to ensure that the nonproliferation tools contained in the NPT are effective, and that the Treaty’s members have the political will to ensure that no nation can exploit the Treaty to its own advantage.

For example, I personally believe we should limit the availability of fuel only to those states that have signed the Additional Protocol. The Additional Protocol should be adopted by all nations, and become a new standard for states that wish to engage in nuclear commerce.  Here too, the United States has led by example.

Furthermore, we need to put in place a more efficient and effective mechanism within the IAEA Board of Governors for dealing with countries that appear to act in defiance of the treaty. There must be an expedited process that either achieves compliance with nonproliferation obligations … or leads to swift action.

The reality is that the IAEA Board of Governors must serve as an instrument for guaranteeing the safety and security of its members, not merely as a debating club, and not as a convenient protective shield for those who in reality might jeopardize the world’s safety.

Each of us has heard it said that the 20th century began with a shot fired in Sarajevo in June 1914.

That event represented the close of one era, and the beginning of another, thoroughly different one.

Thus was borne an age that would be marked by conflict, turmoil, and bloodshed on the grandest possible scale, but also by the ultimate triumph of freedom over totalitarianism.

It is sometimes hard to recognize the historical significance of activities as they occur, but I think that years from now historians will look back and say that a new era, and a new century, were inaugurated on September 11, 2001.

And they will also look to us and ask if we did all that we could to meet the new challenges of the age.

President Bush said last year in a speech at the National Defense University: “The greatest threat before humanity today is the possibility of secret and sudden attack with chemical or biological or radiological or nuclear weapons. … America and the entire civilized world will face this threat for decades to come.”

How we face that threat is the question historians will debate.

“Responsibility is the price of greatness,” argued Winston Churchill. It is now up to us whether we affirm our nation’s greatness again by once more shouldering responsibility for its protection and the safety of our whole planet.

Given the various steps I have outlined today, I am optimistic we can succeed at meeting the challenges and facing down the threats of a new era. The events of last three years since 9/11 have constituted a very positive and aggressive start in the right direction.

But as I have made very clear today, our work is far from done. There will be far more to do, requiring resolve … patience … resilience … courage … and an abiding faith in the American cause of freedom and democracy.

I know you join me in pledging our dedication to these ideals. The Council on Foreign Relations will continue to stand for American internationalism and American interests. Because of that, it will continue its work to ensure the safety and security of the American people, and, indeed, of the world.

Thank you.
Washington, DC



-------- business

British Energy says it could re-list on Monday

Thu Jan 13, 2005 08:16 AM ET
By Gerard Wynn (Reuters)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=1LJLIX1UYTEQCCRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=7317079

LONDON, Jan 13 - Britain's largest power producer British Energy (BE) said it would re-list its shares on Monday after a restructuring which hands control to its creditors, provided Edinburgh's High Court approves the rescue plan on Friday.

Shareholders and creditors approved the 1 billion pound ($1.89 billion) debt for equity swap at the end of last year, but the indebted nuclear power group still needs court sanction to proceed with the re-listing on the London Stock Exchange.

"We don't expect any appeals against the plan," said a source close to the creditors on Thursday.

Trade in BE bonds has now dried up as liquidity shifts to the when-issued market in new bonds and new shares that have not been issued yet, indicating the market expects the re-list to proceed on Monday, one hedge fund trader said on Thursday.

When-issued shares were trading at 315 to 320 pence on Thursday, the trader added. A share price of 315 pence would give BE a market capitalisation of 1.8 billion pounds.

BE agreed the rescue deal with the British government and major creditors in 2003, giving creditors new bonds and 97.5 percent of the company in exchange for cancelling 1 billion pounds of debt, and shareholders the balance of shares and warrants on another five percent in the future.

The deal has proved successful for distressed debt investors because of a subsequent rise in energy prices. BE bond prices have soared from as low as 30 percent of face value in 2003 -- when some investors bought in -- to 275 percent earlier this week, traders say.

"The real experienced ones bought in low, kept their nerve and have done well," said a second creditor source.

BE's restructuring prospectus last November named Deutsche Bank, Duquesne Capital Management LLC, Stark Investments, Eureka Euro Fund and LGC Holdings as all holders of more than three percent of prospective BE shares.

The restructuring went through a turbulent patch last autumn after minority shareholders Polygon argued that the plan unfairly favoured bondholders and agitated for some of bondholders' gains for shareholders. Bondholders successfully sued Polygon, however, ending their interest.

British Energy intends to price 550 million pounds worth of new senior notes due 2022 on Monday to give a yield of 7 percent, a banker familiar with the deal said. (Additional reporting by Kirsten Donovan) 



-------- canada

Canadian nuclear plant retrofit on track: OPG
 
Gillian Livingston
Canadian Press
January 13, 2005

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=378f2329-8dda-45ed-8539-bcee3f51b806

TORONTO -- The retrofit of a second unit at the Pickering nuclear station is 70 per cent complete and on track to meet its revised budget of nearly $1 billion, an official said Wednesday.

The restart of Unit 1 at the Pickering A nuclear station "is proceeding at a good pace," acting chief executive Richard Dicerni said after Ontario Power Generation staff gave reporters a tour of the massive nuclear plant.

"We have been monitoring the work very closely," he said, explaining that each section of the project has been carefully outlined for tradespeople to follow, and managers are tracking each day's progress.

"We project that the major construction phase should be done by the early part of summer."

Estimates show costs are in line with the revised budget, Dicerni added.

In November, OPG warned that difficulty getting tradespeople on site last summer delayed the project, causing the budget estimate to jump from $900 million to between $975 million and $1 billion.

"We have not changed this cost projection," Dicerni said Wednesday.

The budget revision raised questions about whether the massive retrofit project would follow the embarrassing path of Pickering's Unit 4 revamp, which came in years overdue and millions of dollars over budget.

"We're quite pleased with the progress that has transpired in the past three months," Dicerni said of the Unit 1 project.

Major construction on Unit 1 is expected to be done by late June or early July. The reactor is expected to be restarted in October.

By having 70 per cent of major construction done already, OPG has easily met a key goal set out at the start of the project to have at least 50 per cent of work completed by Jan. 15.

Still, Dicerni isn't calling the project a success yet since various intricate systems have to be integrated over the next few months.

"This is a very complex project with a number of tasks that remain to be done," he said.

Bill Robinson, senior vice-president at the Pickering plant and the overall manager of the project, said the work ahead requires connecting and testing devices and systems.

"Because of the system interactions, that has to be carefully orchestrated and makes that phase of the project not more difficult, but it has to be co-ordinated much more closely," Robinson said. 



-------- iran

Iran to Monitor U.N. Nuclear Inspectors

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 13, 2005
Filed at 2:23 p.m. ET

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html?pagewanted=print&position=

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iranian officials vowed to carefully watch for any attempted espionage by international inspectors, who on Thursday were visiting a military complex that the United States alleges may be involved in nuclear weapons research.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, arrived in Iran on Wednesday for a visit to the huge Parchin military complex just outside the capital Tehran, according to state-run television.

Iran has said it will allow U.N. nuclear experts to take environmental samples from landscaped areas outside the military complex's ammunition production workshops but it won't allow them to inspect military equipment.

The IAEA has been pressing Tehran for months to be allowed to inspect the complex, long used to research, develop and produce ammunition, missiles and high explosives.

Officials at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed Thursday that a four-member team of inspectors was heading to Parchin, but would not say Thursday evening if the visit had taken place. State media also remained silent on the subject.

At IAEA headquarters in Vienna, agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said Thursday only that a visit would take place: ``I confirm that a team of IAEA inspectors is today conducting an inspection at Parchin, including the taking of environmental samples.''

In leaks to media last year, unidentified U.S. intelligence officials were quoted as saying Iran could be using a secured site at Parchin in research on high-explosive components for use in nuclear weapons. Iran repeatedly has denied allegations of a secret nuclear weapons programs, saying its nuclear activities are for peaceful energy purposes.

``Iran's red line for entry of IAEA inspectors into military sites, including Parchin, is to protect the secrets of the country's conventional military capabilities,'' top nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian was quoted as saying in Thursday's government-owned daily ``Iran.''

``We have allowed (the IAEA) visit to our military sites, but we are watchful not to allow any espionage or intelligence theft from these sites,'' the newspaper also quoted him as telling top military officials. It did not say when he addressed them.

Mousavian and other Iranian nuclear officials could not be reached for comment about the inspection, which journalists were not allowed to attend.

But Ali Akbar Salehi, a nuclear adviser to Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, said Thursday the Parchin visit was a ``transparency visit.''

Last year, Iran started implementing what is known as the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The protocol allows intrusive inspections of nuclear facilities, although it has not been approved by parliament.

``To prove its sincerity and transparency, Iran agreed to IAEA inspectors taking environmental samples that allows the agency to check whether any weapons-related activity has been carried out,'' he said.

Under international pressure, Iran suspended uranium enrichment and all related activities in November, hoping to avoid U.N. Security Council sanctions. The IAEA agreed to police the suspension of Iran's nuclear activities.



-------- iraq / inspections

White House: Iraq Weapons Search Is Over

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 13, 2005
Filed at 3:00 a.m. ET

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq-Weapons.html?pagewanted=print&position=

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House acknowledged Wednesday that its hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- a two-year search costing millions of dollars -- has closed down without finding the stockpiles that President Bush cited as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Bush's spokesman said the president had no regrets about invading Iraq.

``Based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action because this is about protecting the American people,'' said Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

The Iraq Survey Group -- made up of as many as 1,500 military and intelligence specialists and support staff -- is ending its search of military installations, factories and laboratories where it was thought that equipment and products might be converted to making weapons.

McClellan said the active search had virtually ended. ``There may be a couple, a few people that are focused on that,'' he said, adding that they would handle any future reports that might come in.

At a meeting last month, McClellan said Bush thanked the chief U.S. weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, for his work. A special adviser to the CIA director, Duelfer will deliver a final edition of a report on Iraq's weapons next month. McClellan said it is not expected to fundamentally differ from the findings of a report last fall.

Duelfer said then that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991. However, he said the government harbored intentions of recreating its weapons programs and had gone to great lengths to manipulate the U.N. oil-for-food program.

In an interview Wednesday with Barbara Walters of ABC News, Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq.

``I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction -- like many here in the United States, many around the world,'' Bush said in the interview, to be broadcast Friday night. ``We need to find out what went wrong in the intelligence gathering. ... Saddam was dangerous and the world is safer without him in power.''

In a statement, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Bush ``needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war.''

The end of the weapons hunt comes as the Bush administration struggles with a dangerous security situation in Iraq leading up to Jan. 30 elections.

Meanwhile, other countries -- notably Iran and North Korea -- are suspected of developing covert nuclear weapons programs.

When asked whether the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would damage U.S. credibility in handling future threats, McClellan said the president would continue to work with the international community, particularly on diplomatic solutions. He said pre-emptive military action was ``the last option'' to pursue.

``We are acting to make sure we have the best possible intelligence,'' McClellan said, adding that a number of changes have been made since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Almost one year ago, Bush formed a presidential commission to investigate U.S. intelligence capabilities on weapons of mass destruction, focusing not only on Iraq but on how well the intelligence community understands the threat from other countries and terror networks. Its report is due March 31.

The closing down of the weapons search was first reported in the Washington Post on Wednesday.

David Kay, who headed the Iraq Survey Group until stepping down last January, said he was not surprised the group was concluding its efforts without finding any major weapons stockpiles.

``It is like dropping a shoe a little late. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone who follows it very closely has suspected anything else over the last year. It was a matter of when the obvious would be done,'' Kay said.

He said that intelligence analysts working in Iraq had found themselves in a dangerous security situation and that many had reached conclusions about the lack of weapons as much as 18 months ago. ``How do you keep them motivated?'' he asked.

At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said the U.S. government was paying stipends to about 120 Iraqi scientists who once had been working in weapons programs. They now are working on scientific research outside weapons development.

Greg Thielmann, the former manager of the State Department office that tracked chemical, biological and nuclear weapons issues, said the United States should devote energy to employment of these scientists, who now appear to have been involved in non-weapons work under Saddam in recent years.

``Who knows what they are going to do?'' asked Thielmann, who left his position in September 2002. ``One can question whether we improved the security situation through the invasion.''



-------- japan

Kansai Elec to Shut Overheating Nuclear Generator

Thu Jan 13, 2005 03:07 AM ET (Reuters)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7314148

TOKYO - Kansai Electric Power Co. (9503.T: Quote, Profile, Research) said it would start an unplanned shutdown of the 1.175 million kilowatt No. 1 unit at its Ohi plant on Thursday because part of the reactor had overheated.

Japan's second-biggest power utility will shut the unit in Fukui prefecture, western Japan, for about 10 days, a company spokesman said.

The cause of the problem is yet to be confirmed. There was no radiation leak to the outside environment or injury as a result of the temperature rise, the spokesman said.

Separately, Kansai Electric restarted the 1.18-million kilowatt Ohi No. 3 nuclear generation unit on Thursday for a test run as part of regular inspections, the spokesman said.

With the restart of Ohi No. 3 and the shutdown of No. 1, seven of Kansai Electric's 11 nuclear power generators, all located in Fukui, will be generating power.

Kansai Electric has faced heavy criticism over maintenance procedures after an accident at one of its nuclear plants last year killed five people. 

----

Big Brother may track nuclear workers personal information

(Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Jan. 13, 2005)

http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20050113p2a00m0dm008000c.html

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is considering tracking the financial state and other private information of nuclear plant workers in a bid to avoid information leaking and sabotage, officials said Thursday.

"We intend to beef up security at (nuclear-related) facilities by discussing the possibility of investigating the background of people, including those working for subcontractors," said an official of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, which is governed by the economic ministry.

"However, the move could lead to privacy infringements so we will draw a conclusion only after hearing the opinions of experts and after investigating how foreign countries deal with this matter."

Experts in a "Crisis Management Working Group" panel of the ministry will begin the discussion, the officials said.

Members of the group are set to ask a variety of experts, such as Professor Masao Horibe, a privacy issue expert at Chuo University, on their thoughts about nuclear plant workers' private information, such as criminal records, and whether they are in debt or are addicted to alcohol or drugs, etc.

Some experts in Japan have expressed doubts over the legality of the government investigating private information on those who work for private companies.

Others have said that the government should target not only nuclear plant workers but also those who work for airports and ports as part of nationwide counter-terrorist measures.

The United States and France investigate the personal background of nuclear power plant employees, such as their financial state, etc., and whether they are addicted to alcohol or drugs as part of security measures at those facilities.

U.S. and French officials have reportedly proposed at International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meetings that private information on plant workers should be investigated.But the IAEA balked at drafting regulations.

The British government reportedly investigates whether nuclear plant workers are in debt, but doesn't track if they have any alcohol or drug problems.



-------- missile defense

U.S. Missile System May Never Be Declared Ready

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 13, 2005
Filed at 10:15 p.m. ET

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Missile-Defense.html?pagewanted=print&position=

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon may never publicly declare that its new missile defense system is fully ready to defend against long-range missiles aimed at the United States, but it already has a limited capability against a small-scale attack, a Pentagon official said Thursday.

The Bush administration's goal was to activate the system by the end of 2004.

``We haven't made a declaration that we are now hereby operational,'' said Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. ``I don't know that such a declaration will ever be made.''

Even so, ``We have a nascent operational capability,'' Di Rita said, adding that the focus is on testing and evaluating the system as it is improved and expanded and eventually put on 24-hour alert.

``It's limited,'' he said. ``It's not what everybody wishes it may be, perhaps. But some capability exists, while you continue to improve upon the capability of that system.''

Asked whether that emerging capability satisfies President Bush's goal for missile defense at this stage, Di Rita replied: ``The system is what it is. And it will get better over time.''

The spokesman did not explain why the Pentagon might never publicly declare the system fully ready. At some point the interceptor missiles will be placed on permanent alert -- a condition in which they will be capable of being fired from their silos at any time of day or night, on short notice.

Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, which is managing the program, said the interceptors have not yet been placed on alert, and he did not know when they would be.

The most recent test of the system, on Dec. 15, encountered a last-minute problem. The interceptor missile that was to be launched in pursuit of a target missile carrying a mock warhead was never fired. Di Rita said that setback had nothing to do with the decision not to declare the system ``operational.''

Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency, told reporters on Wednesday that the Dec. 15 test will be redone in mid-February, and additional tests in April, July and September will proceed as planned.

The missile defense system will initially rely on interceptors based in underground silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., as well as radars in Alaska, California, at sea aboard ships with Aegis radars, and in orbit.



-------- russia

Russian space agency denies launch site causes sickness among local children

MOSCOW (AFP) Jan 13, 2005

http://www.spacedaily.com/2005/050113043103.9c8ejx62.html

The Russian space agency has denied a report in the British weekly science journal Nature that highly toxic rocket fuel, spewed out by launches at Russia's space base in Baikonur, Kazakhstan, is causing serious illness among children living nearby.

The report, published Thursday, quotes a study saying that levels of endocrine disease and blood disorders in polluted areas are twice the regional average.

The study was conducted by a team of Russian scientists led by epidemiologist Sergei Zykov.

"No direct influence of space-related activities on the population's health has so far been established," the Russian space agency said in its response.

The study quoted by Nature focussed on children in the Altai Republic, a mountainous region on the southern fringes of Siberia.

This area was chosen because of pollution from unburnt fuel, notably hydrazine, which is used to power the early stages of some Russian launchers.

Zykov compared the health records of about 1,000 children in two polluted areas for 1998-2000, comparing them with 330 records from a nearby unpolluted control group.

He concluded that children in the worst-affected areas were up to twice as likely to need medical attention during this time, and needed to be treated twice as long, Nature said.

According to Zykov's calculations, dozens of litres (several gallons) of unburned fuel are sprayed over several square kilometers (miles) of land with every launch.

The Russian space agency said in its statement that since 1998 it had been conducting "researches to examine the influence of space-related activities on the environment and the health of the population" living near zones where fragments of Russian launchers regularly come down to Earth.

It hinted that health problems among local children might have another cause than rocket launching and might go back to Soviet-era nuclear tests carried out in the vicinity.

"Some of those areas (surveyed in the study) are officially considered as zones influenced by the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing range," the agency said.

Over 500 nuclear explosions were carried out over 40 years at Semipalatinsk, now located in northeastern Kazakhstan. The facilities were closed down in 1991, in the final days of the Soviet Union.

However, the agency stopped short of saying rocket fuel was totally harmless.

"There are no grounds for replacing the launchers' fuel with another (kind of fuel), as all other kinds of fuel also harm the environment," it said.

The Baikonur Cosmodrome is run by the Russian space agency Rosaviakosmos but both NASA and the European Space Agency pay to have craft launched from there.

----

MOSCOW EMPHASIZES QUALITY OF ITS NUCLEAR POTENTIAL

January 13, 2005 (RIA Novosti, Alexei Berezin)

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5303439&startrow=1&date=2005-01-13&do_alert=0

WASHINGTON  - The increase of the number of nuclear weapons in Russia is out of the question, announced Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov during a press conference in Washington.

"Russia has always been and will be a great nuclear power. We will develop, improve and deploy new types of nuclear weapons. We will make them more reliable and accurate, although we are not doing it coming form the logic of the "cold war," and we do not plan to increase the number of nuclear weapons - that is out of the question," the minister said.

"Russia does not need the same amount of nuclear weapons at present as it used to have during the Soviet era," the Russian minister underlined.

He said that Russia concluded test launches of a new land-based missile complex Topol-M, including its mobile version in 2004. Mr. Ivanov also announced that Russia would start the testing of a sea-based missile complex Bulava in 2005.

"I can also inform you that we are conducting the development of more advanced systems. However, I would like to reiterate that all these measures are not aimed against any particular country," the minister said.

Mr. Ivanov believes that there is a hypothetical possibility of cooperation between Russia and the U.S. in the sphere of missile defense.

"Hypothetically, such a possibility does exist, although we must protect our intellectual property and ensure confidentiality of information," the Russian minister emphasized.

Stating that the work in this direction continues, he did not specify concrete dates for its conclusion.

"In principle, military-technical cooperation between Russia and the U.S. existed before, and we do not have fundamental objections against the expansion of such cooperation," Mr. Ivanov underlined.

He said that the development of a project on Russian-U.S. military-cooperation had started a while ago. "It is a complicated agreement and we will not be able to conclude it in a few months, " he stressed.

Mr. Ivanov also underlined that it was a framework agreement, which would open possibilities for the development of technical cooperation between various Russian and U.S. enterprises and the military-technical cooperation between the two countries in general. 




-------- terrorism

U.S. Equipment to Detect Radioactivity Placed in Bahamas

NASSAU, Bahamas, January 13, 2005 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-13-09.asp#anchor2

To detect hidden shipments of radioactive materials, the United States and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas signed an agreement earlier this week to install special equipment at one of the Bahamas’ busiest seaports, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said Wesnesday. Neither country revealed exactly where the equipment will be installed.

The Bahamas will be the first country in the Caribbean to deploy this type of detection system. The United States has already installed similar systems in the Netherlands, Greece, Sri Lanka, Belgium and Spain.

Stretching in a 750 mile stretch from just off Florida, to just off Haiti, the Bahamas offer many opportunities for smugglers to pass forbidden technology and nuclear materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb or other nuclear device.

“Successful detection of radioactive materials as they cross a country’s borders is fundamental in stopping a nuclear or dirty bomb attack,” Secretary Abraham said. "Helping better protect the world’s maritime shipping network from nuclear smuggling is an important objective we are working to achieve."

Robert Witajewski, chargé d’affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Nassau, signed the agreement on behalf of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) with Ruth Millar, the financial secretary of the Ministry of Finance of the government of the Bahamas.

This agreement is part of the Energy Department’s NNSA Megaports Initiative, a program to detect, deter, and interdict illicit shipments of nuclear and other radioactive materials.

The program is intended to block terrorist attempts to use the global maritime industry for malicious purposes.

The specialized radiation detection technology deployed under this program is based on technologies originally developed by NNSA laboratories as part of overall U.S. government efforts to guard against proliferation of weapons materials. NNSA works with foreign partners to equip seaports with radiation detection equipment and to provide training to law enforcement officials. 



-------- u.s. nuc facilities

Corporate donors line up for inaugural
No regulation governs such gifts

By THOMAS B. EDSALL
and JEFFREY H. BIRNBAUM
The Washington Post
January 13. 2005 8:00AM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050113/REPOSITORY/501130372/1013/NEWS03

WASHINGTON - President Bush wants to lower barriers to building nuclear power plants, and the lobby that promotes nuclear energy could not be happier. To show its thanks, the group has given $100,000 to help pay for his inauguration.

"He's a big supporter," said John Kane, chief lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "Our donation is just a small way of supporting him."

The nuclear energy industry's contribution is part of a record-breaking outpouring of corporate cash to next week's inaugural festivities. At least 88 companies and trade associations, along with 39 CEOs and top executives - all with huge stakes in administration policies - already have donated $18 million toward a $40 million goal for the country's 55th inaugural celebration.

Wall Street investment firms seeking to profit from private Social Security accounts; oil, gas and mining companies pushing the White House to revive a stalled energy-subsidy bill; and hotels and casinos seeking an influx of immigrant labor are among the 44 interests that have each given $250,000 and the 66 that have donated $100,000 to $225,000. And the money keeps pouring in.

Practically all the major donors have benefited from Bush administration policies, especially from corporate and individual tax cuts, deregulation and the new prescription drug benefit that is part of Medicare. Most also stand to boost profits further because of Bush's second-term proposals, which include limiting medical malpractice suits, creating private investment accounts as part of Social Security and making a tax-code revision that is expected to reduce taxes on investments.

Many donors are corporations and executives that are regulated by the federal government, dependent on government tax and spending policies, or both. At least 16 donors are from the finance industry, 14 are from the energy sector, six are real estate developers, and at least five are from both the health and telecommunications industries.

In the era of campaign finance reform, such largesse is all but forbidden. Federal law limits individual donations to $2,000 per election and corporations cannot give from their own treasuries directly to candidates or parties.

But for the inauguration, the law does not apply, and the administration has decided that private interests may contribute as much as $250,000 each. That is a 150 percent increase over the $100,000 maximum accepted during Bush's first inauguration four years ago.

An Inaugural Committee spokeswoman said the higher ceiling was needed to meet its fundraising goal. The committee plans to raise $35 million to $40 million to help defray the costs of the four-day celebration, including fireworks, the swearing-in, a parade and nine balls. In 2001, the committee raised $40 million.

In 1993, President Clinton's inaugural committee spent $33 million, raised primarily from souvenir and ticket sales, although there were 13 donors who gave $100,000 apiece and one who gave $250,000.

Critics see the high contribution limit as a vehicle for groups with business before government to buy more access to the people who make big-dollar federal decisions.

"Donors are going to say it's civic participation that motivates them, but they also use their contributions to buy access to lawmakers and the administration," said Sheila Krumholz, research director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The advantage is enormous."

For corporations in particular, the benefit is almost unique. With the exception of the presidential nominating conventions, companies do not have legal ways to give significant amounts of cash to assist politicians. As a result, Krumholz said, "The Inaugural Committee provides opportunities to corporations that are hampered by the 'soft money' ban."

The only restraint on giving is the voluntary $250,000 limit, but that has been circumvented. In a few instances, both the parent company and its subsidiaries have donated.

Marriott International Inc. delivered $250,000 to the committee, as did each of two units: Marriott Vacation Club International and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC.

In addition, Ameriquest, a mortgage company specializing in financing housing purchases in heavily minority neighborhoods, gave $250,000, along with $500,000 from two subsidiaries, for a total of $750,000.

Marriott and other hoteliers are pushing hard for the type of liberalized immigration laws favored by the president to gain a larger labor pool. Ameriquest and others in what is known as the sub-prime mortgage industry are seeking legislation that would set national standards preempting tougher laws in a number of states.

A few groups are forthright about their desire to see and be seen. "We want our presence to be known here in Washington and at the inauguration," said Lucien Salvant, spokesman for the National Association of Realtors, which contributed $50,000. "We consider ourselves the chief spokesman for real estate issues and property rights, and we want people to recognize that."


Research database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report. 


-------- massachusetts

Campus Nukes 

Chana R. Schoenberger, 01.13.05, 6:30 PM ET Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/01/13/cz_cs_0113reactor.html?partner=rss

NEW YORK - The bright-blue cylinder with the rounded top down the street from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's main dome, in Cambridge, Mass., looks like a big storage tank.

But despite its central campus location, this laboratory building houses a newly busy 5-megawatt nuclear reactor, one of 30 small research and test reactors in the United States. Used to carry out experiments, not to generate electricity, these low-power reactors are located on the campuses of universities and government agencies, often in the midst of big cities like Cambridge; Madison, Wis.; and the Washington, D.C. suburbs of Bethesda and Gaithersburg, Md.

In the last decade, U.S. research reactors and the nuclear engineering departments that run them have been on a downward slide as professors and students alike despaired that the industry would build new nuclear power plants. Work continued in naval propulsion, space vehicles and nuclear waste recycling, but there was little demand for power-plant researchers.

That's all changing now. Students have been choosing nuclear engineering in record numbers over the last few years as it becomes more likely that the U.S. will build more nuclear plants soon. New programs have opened at South Carolina State and the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Texas A&M has more than doubled its enrollment, and MIT, which hit bottom with 19 undergrads three years ago, now has 49 students in its nuclear engineering department. "Practically every nuclear program in the U.S. has seen substantial increase in students since 2001," says Dr. Ian Hutchinson, head of MIT's department.

On campus, students talk excitedly about the jobs that await them. "People are realizing there needs to be some sort of change, especially with everything going on in Iraq and the oil industry going up and down, that we need a source of power where we're not relying on another country for electricity," says nuclear engineer Paige Nitsch, 22, a junior from Friendswood, Tex., who followed her father to A&M. Says MIT senior Tyler Ellis, 21, of Rapid City, S.D.: "Nuclear energy will allow us to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil, which allows us to be a more competitive economy." After getting his doctorate at MIT, Ellis hopes to work for a nuclear utility or a reactor vendor like General Electric (nyse: GE - news - people ) or Westinghouse Electric.

To gain experience, students often work at on-campus research reactors. While security is tighter than in other campus labs, research reactors haven't gone through the massive security upgrade that their commercial cousins have undertaken since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. And while security budgets have gone up, universities aren't limiting who can major in nuclear engineering to students with U.S. citizenship, meaning that just about anybody who can handle the grueling courses can find his way into the reactor. Often, the reactor's address and photo can be found right on the campus map on the university's Web site. Some schools, like Texas A&M, which has two research reactors, give tours for Boy Scout troops, medical students and high school kids.

"We don't want to have an armed fortress on campus because that deters from the educational mission," says Dr. Akira Tokuhiro, an assistant professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri-Rolla campus, who directs the school's 10-megawatt reactor, the biggest in this small reactor group. Behind the control-room console are college kids who have passed a Nuclear Regulatory Commission exam and a rudimentary background check.

But hysteria aside, a research reactor wouldn't make a very good terrorist target. Blowing up the reactor building with, say, a truck bomb would not have much more effect than the truck bomb alone, says the director of MIT's reactor, Dr. David Moncton, sparking mass panic but little dispersion of radioactivity.

As researchers work out the details of the next cohort of slimmed-down, super-efficient reactor designs, the so-called Generation IV plants, there's a growing need for research reactors and beefed-up departments. Looming study questions include whether or not to recycle the fuel, how to pick the right construction materials for reactors and how to manufacture power plants to make them cheaper to build. "If you design these plants right, you're looking at a simplification of design," says MIT Professor Andrew Kadak. "This technology will carry us through 50 to 100 years."



-------- new jersey

NRC: The Hope Creek nuclear power plant pump vibrates

Thursday, January 13, 2005
By BILL GALLO JR.
Staff Writer

http://www.nj.com/news/bridgeton/local/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1105611659285490.xml

LOGAN TWP. -- Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials Wednesday night provided more details on the recent inspection of equipment issues at the Hope Creek nuclear power plant and the agency's decision to back the restarting of the reactor.

The main focus of the meeting was the "B" recirculation pump which feeds water into the reactor core at the plant on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township. The pump vibrates while in operation, probably, officials believe, because of a bowed shaft.

But not all were happy with word the reactor would be restarted without repairs made to the pump. One opponent called the decision "chilling."

Startup procedures are expected to begin today and Hope Creek should be sending out electricity by the beginning of the week.

The plant has been shut down since Oct. 10 when a pipe broke, releasing a minor amount of radiation.

As part of the conditions for continuing to use the pump, PSEG Nuclear, the plant's operator will be subject to greater oversight from the NRC.

The utility is also installing sophisticated monitoring systems on the pump to alert control room operators if a problem develops.

Chris Bakken, president and chief nuclear officer of PSEG Nuclear, repeated the utility's commitment for the close monitoring and replacing the pump shaft during the next outage.

While calls have mounted from watchdog groups and government officials for the pump to be repaired before Hope Creek was restarted, the utility maintained that it would be safe to operate until the plant's next shutdown for refueling in about 18 months.

PSEG commissioned a study in which it was concluded the pump was safe to use. The NRC in its own investigation concluded the same and announced the results of its study just Monday.

"We did not treat this lightly. We came up with a sound answer," said Eugene Imbro chief of the NRC's Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Speaking of the bowed shaft, Imbro said "we don't expect there will be a failure. There is no likelihood the shaft will fail."

Still, Imbro added, it's "really hard to predict if that would happen. You can't really say with any certainty it will last."

Should a problem occur with the pump, the new monitoring systems and other safety backups will allow operators to take the plant off line safely, officials said.

A representative from the state Department of Environmental Protection said the agency, which had called for the pump to be repaired before the unit was restarted, was now more comfortable with the decision.

Dr. Jill Lipoti, said the DEP had engaged in "spirited, frequent and candid" correspondence with the NRC over the issue.

Earlier, Lipoti's boss, DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell had written to the NRC in late December urging that the pump be repaired.

NRC officials emphasized that they believed the plant is safe to operate.

"If we would have determined otherwise, the NRC would have taken regulatory action," said A. Randolph Blough, director of the NRC's Division of Reactor Projects.

While PSEG Nuclear did not need NRC permission to restart the plant. The federal agency could have ordered the unit to remain shutdown if its experts had determined continued operation of the pump would have been a major safety issue.

When the public had its chance to speak, most of the comments questioned the NRC's decision on allowing the continued use of the damaged pump.

Dr. Kim Harvin, a whistleblower who was fired from PSEG and is now suing the utility, called the action "disgraceful," "chilling" and a "disservice to the public." She said she predicted the pump would fail.

In a tirade against the NRC, she called on the officials at the hearing to resign.

The discussion of the equipment issues comes as PSEG Nuclear's parent company, Newark-based Public Service Enterprise Group, is being merged with Chicago-based Exelon Corporation.

It was announced in December that Exelon was buying PSEG for $12 billion.

One of the major changes already announced that Exelon was ending a team of its nuclear specialists to the Island Monday to oversee operations. One of the major staff changes is Bakken's replacement as chief nuclear officer by Bill Levis.

Levis attended Wednesday's meeting as an observer. He said Exelon was committed to the safe operation of the plants and backed the safety commitments made by PSEG.

"We understand the issue, the commitment being made and our intent to keep that commitment., said Bill Levis who takes over as chief nuclear officer at the Island on Monday. "We will stand by them."

Once the deal is OK'd by regulators, Exelon will acquire Hope Creek along with its two sister plants at the Island -- Salem 1 and Salem 2. That will give Exelon 20 plants in its nuclear fleet, making it the largest nuclear plant operator in the U.S.

PSEG Nuclear had committed to appear before the NRC prior to restarting Hope Creek, thus Wednesday night's hearing at the Holiday Inn Select here. More than 100 people filled the room for the more than three hour meeting. 



-------- south carolina

PDG Environmental Awarded New Work Valued at $3.5 Million

Thursday, January 13, 2005 04:01 AM Pittsburgh Business News

http://pittsburgh.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=7888&type_news=latest

Pittsburgh - PITTSBURGH -- PDG Environmental, Inc. , an environmental and specialty contractor, today reported that Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) has renewed its contract with PDGE's wholly-owned subsidiary, Enviro-Tech Abatement Services Co. (ETAS) for another one-year term to perform asbestos abatement at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. SRS was constructed during the early 1950's to provide the basic materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons, primarily tritium and plutonium-239, in support of our Nation's defense programs. Currently, SRS is undergoing decommissioning. ETAS completed $1.4 million during the first year of the term contract, and to date, has an additional $1.3 million of new work to perform during 2005.

PDGE's Los Angeles Office has also been awarded two contracts for asbestos abatement and demolition totaling $2.2 million. The first contract, valued at $1.4 million, is for interior demolition and asbestos-containing fireproofing removal at the Las Vegas airport. This project will begin within the next 30-60 days and be complete in three phases over the next year. The second contract is for $815,000 and involves the removal of asbestos floor tile, pipe insulation and acoustic ceilings in several buildings in Santa Monica, California. This project is scheduled to begin immediately and will be completed over a three-month period.

John Regan, Chairman and CEO, commented, "We are very pleased with these new awards. The contract for WSRC was announced in February 2004, and the extension demonstrates WSRC's confidence in ETAS's ability to continue to perform the work in a safe and timely manner. The awards will also help maintain PDGE's backlog at near-record levels."

PDG Environmental, Inc., is an environmental and specialty contractor providing asbestos and lead abatement, insulation, microbial remediation and demolition and related services dedicated to assisting its commercial, industrial and governmental clients in complying with environmental laws and regulations. Regional marketing and project operations are conducted through branch offices located in New York City, NY; Paramus, NJ; Hazelton and Export, PA; Fort Lauderdale and Tampa, FL; Houston and Pasadena, TX; Phoenix, AZ; Rock Hill, SC; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; and Los Angeles, CA. For additional information on the company, please visit http://www.pdge.com. And for more information on mold and its effect on indoor air quality, please visit http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/index.html.



-------- vermont

State challenge to VY uprate accepted

By CAROLYN LORIé
BRATTLEBORO Reformer Staff
Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:28:56 AM EST

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8862~2650600,00.html

Citing safety concerns, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board accepted a late-filed legal challenge from the state in the Vermont Yankee "uprate" case.

Last year, officials at the nuclear power plant applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to increase its power production by 20 percent. The Vermont Department of Public Service and the nuclear power watchdog group, the New England Coalition, are challenging the uprate.

At issue now before federal regulators is whether those plant technicians would have enough time in the event of an accident. Calculations cited in a recent federal report say it would take 21 minutes for the technicians to shut down the reactor, and -- if the plant's request to boost power is approved -- 21.3 minutes for the much feared core exposure to occur.

That's a margin of 18 seconds.

Plant spokesman Robert Williams said Vermont Yankee engineers had done the needed engineering analysis on the core exposure question and had found there to be an adequate safety margin. He said the plant had recently conveyed that finding to the NRC staff and would present it as well to the ACLB.

"There's absolutely no problem. The safety is maintained," Williams said. "We have that capability to shut down the reactor from outside the control room in accordance with the regulation."

Any challenges to NRC licensing procedures, such as the one put forth by the Department of Public Service, are turned over to the ACLB. Though the board is part of the NRC, it is run independently of its staff.

The Department of Public Service asked the board to look at the core exposure question this past fall. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board only rules on matters formally put before it, said Jon Block, a Putney lawyer representing the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition, and wouldn't have taken notice of a report issued by the NRC staff on Dec. 2.

That report says it is "questionable" whether plant technicians could shut the reactor down from outside the control room before enough water had boiled away to expose the core. To do so, they would need to go to the plant's "alternate shutdown panels" and activate its "reactor core isolation cooling" system, or RCIC.

It said Vermont Yankee calculated in 1999 that its technicians could shut the reactor down from the alternate panels in 15 minutes. It also cited plant calculations that at current power levels, the technicians would have 25.3 minutes before water boiling off caused the core to be exposed.

In 2001, the NRC report said, Vermont Yankee's operations department tested the speed with which it could achieve alternate shutdown and found it would take not 15 minutes, but 19.3 minutes.

The NRC ran another test during its 2004 inspection and found the time needed for shutdown had grown still more. "The total time to place RCIC in service from the alternate shutdown panels was determined to be approximately 21 minutes."

The NRC relied on Vermont Yankee's estimate of the time it would take the core to be exposed; its report made no mention of the agency doing its own calculation. On the other end of the equation -- the time it would take to shut the plant down -- the NRC found Vermont Yankee unreliable.

The report said inspectors found that Vermont Yankee "had not revised the December 1999 (time estimate of 15 minutes) to reflect the June 2001 time estimate or present day version of the procedure to place the RCIC in service from the alternate shutdown panels."

The NRC said it wasn't worried, because at the plant's current power level, technicians would still have about a four-minute margin between the 21 minutes it took to operate the alternate shutdown panels and the 25.3 minutes it would take for the core to be exposed.

The NRC said the issue was "of very low safety significance" because, "At the 100 percent power level, RCIC could be placed in service from the alternate shutdown panels..."

The NRC report appeared not to address whether the safety significance would increase if the plant were operating at a 120 percent power level, as it is seeking to do, and the time before core exposure were reduced, by Vermont Yankee's own calculation, to 21.3 minutes.

The state initially filed five challenges and then added a sixth. The coalition filed seven. In November, the board accepted two of the state's original five contentions and two of the coalition's.

The state's sixth contention challenged an application supplement submitted by Entergy officials. In the supplement, Entergy officials wrote that a new updated plan had not yet been verified but, based on calculations, it would meet NRC regulations. There are plans to verify the claim.

The state contends that Entergy's application is, in essence, incomplete because NRC regulations do not allow licensees to submit information based on assumptions. It must be verified.

Because it was filed late, the sixth state contention was considered separately. On Tuesday, the board made public its order accepting the contention.

The hearing process dealing with the challenges is already under way. According to Neil Sheehan, the NRC's Region I spokesman, the newly accepted contention will be incorporated into the process and will not delay the board's decision.

The case before the board will most likely take several months. Vermont Yankee's uprate application with the NRC was originally supposed to be decided by the end of this month.

That deadline was extended after NRC officials announced ongoing concerns about the nuclear reactor's steam dryers. Other plants that have increased power by more than 7 percent have had significant problems with steam dryers. Although they do not have a safety-related role, if damaged the steam dryers can interfere with the running of other safety-related parts.

On Wednesday, Sheehan said that a final date for the decision will most likely not be announced until after March 1.

The uprate could be approved while the hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board are still under way. If that happens, the plant could begin running at increased power even as the safety of the uprate is being challenged.

David Gram of the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Carolyn Lorié can be reached at clorie@reformer.com. 

-----

NRC: Vermont Yankee’s emergency shutdown capability 'questionable'

By DAVID GRAM
Associated Press Writer 
January 13, 2005

http://www4.fosters.com/January2005/01.13.05/news/ap_vt0113a.asp

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — If an accident at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant forced operators out of the control room, they might have just minutes to use alternate means to shut down the plant before enough water boiled away to expose the highly radioactive core.

At issue now before federal regulators is whether those plant technicians would have enough time. Calculations cited in a recent federal report say it would take 21 minutes for the technicians to shut down the reactor, and — if the plant’s request to boost power by 20 percent is approved — 21.3 minutes for the much feared core exposure to occur.

That’s a margin of 18 seconds.

A quasi-judicial board connected with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Wednesday agreed to take at least a passing look at the issue, which was raised in detail in a recent engineering assessment at Vermont Yankee by the NRC staff.

Plant spokesman Robert Williams said Vermont Yankee engineers had done the needed engineering analysis on the core exposure question and had found there to be an adequate safety margin. He said the plant had recently conveyed that finding to the NRC staff and would present it as well to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

"There’s absolutely no problem. The safety is maintained," Williams said. "We have that capability to shut down the reactor from outside the control room in accordance with the regulation."

The state Department of Public Service asked the board to look at the core exposure question this past fall. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board only rules on matters formally put before it, said Jon Block, a Putney lawyer representing the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition, and wouldn’t have taken notice of a report issued by the NRC staff on Dec. 2.

That report says it is "questionable" whether plant technicians could shut the reactor down from outside the control room before enough water had boiled away to expose the core. To do so, they would need to go to the plant’s "alternate shutdown panels" and activate its "reactor core isolation cooling" system, or RCIC.

It said Vermont Yankee calculated in 1999 that its technicians could shut the reactor down from the alternate panels in 15 minutes. It also cited plant calculations that at current power levels, the technicians would have 25.3 minutes before water boiling off caused the core to be exposed.

In 2001, the NRC report said, Vermont Yankee’s operations department tested the speed with which it could achieve alternate shutdown and found it would take not 15 minutes, but 19.3 minutes.

The NRC ran another test during its 2004 inspection and found the time needed for shutdown had grown still more. "The total time to place RCIC in service from the alternate shutdown panels was determined to be approximately 21 minutes."

In addition, the NRC reported that Vermont Yankee calculated that the time it would have before enough water boiled off to expose the core would be reduced from the current 25.3 minutes to 21.3 minutes if it is allowed to increase the plant’s power output by 20 percent.

The NRC relied on Vermont Yankee’s estimate of the time it would take the core to be exposed; its report made no mention of the agency doing its own calculation. On the other end of the equation — the time it would take to shut the plant down — the NRC found Vermont Yankee unreliable.

The report said inspectors found that Vermont Yankee "had not revised the December 1999 (time estimate of 15 minutes) to reflect the June 2001 time estimate or present day version of the procedure to place the RCIC in service from the alternate shutdown panels."

The NRC said it wasn’t worried, because at the plant’s current power level, technicians would still have about a four-minute margin between the 21 minutes it took to operate the alternate shutdown panels and the 25.3 minutes it would take for the core to be exposed.

The NRC said the issue was "of very low safety significance" because, "At the 100 percent power level, RCIC could be placed in service from the alternate shutdown panels..."

The NRC report appeared not to address whether the safety significance would increase if the plant were operating at a 120 percent power level, as it is seeking to do, and the time before core exposure were reduced, by Vermont Yankee’s own calculation, to 21.3 minutes.



-------- wisconsin

State will reconsider Kewaunee, WI, nuclear plant sale
Input is sought on deal’s new terms

By THOMAS CONTENT
tcontent@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Jan. 13, 2005 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/jan05/292677.asp

The state Public Service Commission agreed Thursday to take a second look at whether to approve the $220 million sale of the Kewaunee nuclear plant to a Virginia-based company.

The commission voted unanimously to accept a request from the owners of the plant and Dominion Resources Inc. of Richmond, Va., to reconsider its November decision rejecting the sale.

Because of changes in the deal proposed late last month by Dominion and the Wisconsin utilities, the commission agreed to accept legal filings from the utilities and the customer groups that oppose the sale.

The plant is owned by Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service Corp. and Madison-based Wisconsin Power & Light Co. They want to reduce the operating risks associated with running an aging, single-reactor plant during a period when national energy companies are acquiring nuclear reactors.

The companies say customers will be protected from nuclear operating risks through 2013 because of a power-purchase agreement that will guarantee the sale of Kewaunee’s electricity to the two state utilities until then.

Customer groups opposed to the sale have described the plan as an example of piecemeal deregulation of the state’s power plants, and they say the risks after 2013 offset the gains to customers. Groups also have concerns about the commission’s ability to enforce conditions of the sale that Dominion has agreed to in the event it later sells the plant.

Burnie Bridge, the commission’s chairwoman, said that Dominion and the utilities have tried to respond to concerns raised by the commission in November.

“I have no idea as I sit here today whether they in fact meet the intent of that,” Bridge added. “But I do think that these issues are of sufficient import that we need to take them up and decide them in a very deliberate way.”

Bridge said the commission might allow lawyers for each side to take the unusual step of presenting oral arguments to the commission after the legal briefs are filed - most likely by the end of February.



-------- MILITARY 


-------- arms 

Israel Urges Russia to Halt Sale to Syria

January 13, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Israel-Russia.html

JERUSALEM (AP) -- The planned sale of advanced Russian missiles to Syria will disrupt regional stability and Moscow should call off the deal, Israel's foreign minister said Thursday.

Israel fears that the shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles could fall into the hands of Lebanese guerrillas and be aimed at Israeli targets.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom was the first official to confirm publicly that Israel has asked Russia to halt the deal, which has clouded Israel-Russia relations. Russian and Syrian officials denied that such a deal had been reached.

``We turned to the Russians and asked that they not complete this deal,'' Shalom said. ``Syria is a country that supports terror and is supplying Hezbollah with weapons nonstop.''

The sale ``will disrupt regional stability and won't improve the chances for peace,'' Shalom said.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, warned the sale could disrupt Mideast peace efforts and he urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to consider its implications. He noted that Russia is among the international backers of the ``road map'' peace initiative.

``I trust that President Putin will not do anything that will go against the stability of the region, which is as much an interest for him as it is an interest for us,'' Solana said after a meeting with Shalom in Tel Aviv.

The deal for the sale of advanced Igla SA-18 missiles was signed a few days ago, officials said. Experts said the anti-aircraft missiles could endanger frequent Israeli flights over Lebanon and on the Israeli side of the border.

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov dismissed the claims.

``We're not in talks with Syria on such a deal,'' he said Wednesday in Washington.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said: ``The reports in this regard are very disturbing and, as in other cases with strategic implications, we conduct an ongoing dialogue with the administration.''

Relations between Israel and Russia had been steadily improving since the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who is of Russian descent, has visited Moscow three times since taking office in 2001.

He repeatedly has asked Putin to act against what Israel contends is a covert Iranian nuclear arms program and to pressure Syria to rein in its Lebanese and Palestinian proxies.

A deputy Russian foreign minister is in the region to discuss the missile issue, Israeli officials said on condition of anonymity.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said Russian-Israeli ties were sound.

``As regards military-technical cooperation with Middle East governments, Russia strictly follows generally accepted regulations and is in accordance with international agreements directed at preventing the destabilizing accumulation of weapons,'' Yakovenko said in statement Wednesday.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa also denied his country and Russia had struck a missile deal and accused Israel of trying to tar Syria's image before Syrian President Bashar Assad begins an official four-day visit to Moscow on Jan. 24.

``The campaign (against Syria) began before the visit and before the signing of any agreement,'' al-Sharaa said Thursday at a news conference in Damascus.


-------- defense contractors

Senators Criticize Proposal to Kill Lockheed Aircraft

Renae Merle
Washington Post 
January 13, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5045-2005Jan12.html

Two dozen senators yesterday criticized a Pentagon proposal that would eliminate Lockheed Martin Corp.'s C-130J Hercules aircraft to save nearly $5 billion over the next six years.

"You can't turn on the TV today without seeing a C-130 at the airport in Iraq; you can't turn on the TV without seeing the C-130" delivering supplies as part of the tsunami relief in South Asia, said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).

The C-130J transports troops and supplies around the world, including aid to the tsunami victims. (U.s. Air Force Via The AP)


Monday's Question:
Which candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee was an all-conference basketball player at Northeastern Junior College in 1960?
Howard Dean
Donnie Fowler
Wellington E. Webb
Tim Roemer


The Pentagon has proposed ending the program as part of more than $30 billion in cuts aimed at reducing the federal budget deficit and offsetting the costs of the Iraq war. The proposal also includes a cut in funding for Lockheed's F/A-22, Boeing Co.'s national missile defense system and several Northrop Grumman Corp. shipbuilding programs.

Canceling the C-130J, which is used to transport troops and supplies around the world, would cost $800 million, and billions more to upgrade the aging planes in the current fleet, said Chambliss, whose home state includes a Lockheed plant that builds the aircraft. Chambliss and 23 other senators sent a letter to President Bush yesterday calling the proposal "ill advised." Lockheed has said that if the C-130J and the F/A-22 are phased out by the end of the decade as the Pentagon proposals forecast, it would be forced to close its Georgia plant, which employs 8,000.

If the U.S. military stops buying the C-130J, it could also make it more difficult for Lockheed to compete for foreign contracts, industry analysts said. "Lots of people need some kind of tactical airlift that can get out of lousy airfields, and old planes do wear out," said Joel Johnson, vice president of international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association. "Do you want to face a position where the only medium-sized tactical airlift is produced by Airbus?"

The campaign for the C-130J kicks off what is expected to be a contentious budget season. Already, several Florida lawmakers and the state's governor, Jeb Bush, have promised to fight a proposed early retirement of the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier. The Air Force has also said it would argue for more funding for the F/A-22. "We will make our case, but we will also live with the results" of the budget process, Gen. John P. Jumper, Air Force chief of staff, said yesterday after piloting an F/A-22. "The airplane is all [the military] wanted it to be and more."

For defense contractors, the budget tightening marks a significant shift from the post-Sept. 11, 2001, boom when the Pentagon's procurement spending grew from $58 billion in 2000 to $82 billion last year, including funds from the supplemental packages for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "There is a sensitivity to the problems the president is facing, but that doesn't mean there won't be a fierce fight, individual company by individual company," said John Douglas, president of the Aerospace Industries Association.

The proposal is obviously "a line in the sand, and lines in the sand are going to take work to remove. Things that are in that [proposal] will have to be argued away with a great deal of effort and a great deal of logic because once it's there, it takes a great deal to remove it," said Marvin R. Sambur, the Air Force's outgoing acquisition chief.

The budget proposal includes broad cuts to Navy programs, which the American Shipbuilding Association has predicted would exacerbate an industry downturn already expected to lead to thousands of layoffs through the rest of the decade. "Every shipbuilding program in the budget is . . . either being reduced in the number of ships, or they're ending the program prematurely," or delaying it, said Cynthia L. Brown, president of the industry association.

Under the proposal, the Navy would continue to build one submarine a year, delaying earlier plans to double production. Currently, General Dynamics Corp. and Northrop share the work, with one contractor building half the sub then shipping it to the other shipyard to be completed. But some critics have long pegged this as an expensive and inefficient process.

The budget proposal could force the Navy to push one of the contractors out of the market, industry analysts said. Given budget pressures, the Navy may never be able to afford to build two submarines a year, said Robert Work, a senior defense analysis for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "I do believe that we're going to go to one maker," he said.


-------- mideast

Saudi Court Orders Lashings for 15 Demonstrators

January 13, 2005
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/international/middleeast/13saudi.html

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Jan. 12 - In a rare public display, the Saudi government announced on Tuesday that a religious court had sentenced 15 demonstrators, including one woman, to public lashings and prison terms for taking part in demonstrations against the government.

The punishments were announced in the newspaper Okaz. Normally, such floggings are carried out in public but without prior notice. The fact that these floggings were announced was taken as an indication that the government wanted to make an example of the demonstrators. The demonstrators, members of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia, were among a small crowd that took part in protests in Jidda in mid-December. Another demonstration took place in Riyadh at the same time. Government officials were not available for comment.

The religious Shariah court handed down sentences ranging from two to six months and 100 to 250 lashes. Under Saudi religious law, lashings are administered with a thin reed by a man holding a book under his arm, so that the arm cannot be raised above the shoulder. According to Saudi Arabia's English-language newspaper, Arab News, the state's prosecutor decried the sentences as being too lenient.

Many people were surprised by the government's announcement of the sentences of flogging, which is seen as an ultimate humiliation and carries connotations of heresy. Dissidents are often jailed, said Khaled M. Batarfi, managing editor of Al Madina, a newspaper in Jidda, "but this is much stronger and has this religious dimension of being punished for ethical crimes."

Many dissidents point out that the government recently encouraged demonstrations against terrorists. "This means that demonstrations are not contrary to Islam," said a writer and dissident, Mansour al-Nogaidan. "But in this demonstration, they were considered heathens, which is why they are getting flogged."

A London-based dissident, Saad al-Fagih, called for the Dec. 16 demonstrations, which advocated replacing the royal family with an elected leadership, an independent judiciary and a new constitution guided by Islamic law. Less than a few hundred people took part in the demonstrations, said Mr. Batarfi, who witnessed the protests in Jidda. Heavy security on the day of the planned protest - especially in the capital, Riyadh - helped thin the number of demonstrators, organizers say.

Saudi Arabia accuses Dr. Fagih of being a radical Islamist exploiting social and economic discontent in the kingdom. Last month, at the urging of the United States and the Saudi government, the United Nations placed Dr. Fagih on a list of those having connections with Al Qaeda.

"They have given us huge publicity and cleared us in the public eye," Dr. Fagih said from his home in London. "A substantial part of the community believed that we were manufactured by Western intelligence, so now this is actually quite good for us."



-------- prisoners of war

Seoul defends work on war abductions

By Jeremy Kirk
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 13, 2005

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050112-100143-6038r.htm

SEOUL — South Korean government officials have defended efforts to investigate the fate of 486 persons thought to have been abducted by North Korea since the end of the 1950-53 war and tens of thousands still missing from the conflict.

    "We are not turning our face away from this issue," Unification Ministry official Ko Kyung-bin told a group of National Assembly lawmakers and activists last week. "I must admit we have not been able to produce any tangible result."

    The discussion last Thursday focused on the case of the Rev. Kim Dong-shik, a South Korean activist who is thought to have been abducted in the Chinese city of Yangji, close to the North Korean border, in January 2000. Since 1995, Mr. Kim had helped North Korean refugees escape to South Korea through China.

    "We demand full disclosure of all information about Mr. Kim's whereabouts and how the abduction had been organized," said Do Hee-yun, secretary-general of the Citizens' Coalition for Human Rights of Abductees and North Korean Refugees, a nongovernmental group.

    Mr. Kim's case has been a tangle of stories, purported sightings and conflicting reports, but it is not clear whether he is alive.

    Mr. Do said Mr. Kim, suffering from malnutrition and the effects of rectal cancer, died in mid-February 2001 and was buried at a military base in Pyongyang. But government officials contest this account, saying Korean-Americans who have traveled to the North Korean capital said they saw him in 2002.

    In December, Yu Yeong-hwan, a Korean-Chinese agent, was arrested in Seoul. Prosecutors said he claimed he was trained by North Korea's intelligence agency to hunt down defectors in China and that he was involved in Mr. Kim's abduction.

    Chinese officials have cooperated with requests to investigate the purported abductions, said Lee Joon-kyu, a Foreign Ministry official who was general consul at the South Korean Embassy in Beijing until August. Mr. Lee said eight meetings were held with the Chinese about Mr. Kim, but the Chinese concluded again last month that there had been no progress.

    No members of the ruling Uri Party, who generally align themselves with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's administration, attended the discussion.

    Park Geun-hye, leader of the opposition Grand National Party, cited Japan's success in investigating abductions through direct negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

    "I urge the government and the members of various parties to engage more positively and aggressively," she said.

    Five Japanese abductees were allowed to return to their country in September 2002 after a meeting between the North Korean leader and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

    But Mr. Ko said Japan has more leverage with North Korea, because it could use war-reparation funds to win cooperation from the communist country.

    
----

Atrocities in Plain Sight

BOOK REVIEW
By ANDREW SULLIVAN
January 13, 2005 NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/books/review/books-sullivan.html?ei=1&en=af1d64caf464012a&ex=1106581280&pagewanted=print&position=

THE ABU GHRAIB INVESTIGATIONS
The Official Report of the Independent Panel and Pentagon on the Shocking Prisoner Abuse in Iraq.
Edited by Steven Strasser.
Illustrated. 175 pp. PublicAffairs. Paper, $14.

TORTURE AND TRUTH
America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror.
By Mark Danner.
Illustrated. 580 pp. New York Review Books. Paper, $19.95.

N scandals, chronology can be everything. The facts you find out first, the images that are initially imprinted on your consciousness, the details that then follow: these make the difference between a culture-changing tipping point and a weatherable media flurry. With the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, the photographs, which have become iconic, created the context and the meaning of what took place. We think we know the contours of that story: a few soldiers on the night shift violated established military rules and subjected prisoners to humiliating abuse and terror. Chaos in the line of command, an overstretched military, a bewildering insurgency: all contributed to incidents that were alien to the values of the United States and its military. The scandal was an aberration. It was appalling. Responsibility was taken. Reports were issued. Hearings continue.

But the photographs lied. They told us a shard of the truth. In retrospect, they deflected us away from what was really going on, and what is still going on. The problem is not a co-ordinated cover-up. Nor is it a lack of information. The official government and Red Cross reports on prisoner torture and abuse, compiled in two separate volumes, ''The Abu Ghraib Investigations,'' by a former Newsweek editor, Steven Strasser, and ''Torture and Truth,'' by a New York Review of Books contributor, Mark Danner, are almost numbingly exhaustive in their cataloging of specific mistakes, incidents and responsibilities. Danner's document-dump runs to almost 600 pages of print, the bulk of it in small type. The American Civil Liberties Union has also successfully engineered the release of what may eventually amount to hundreds of thousands of internal government documents detailing the events.

That tells you something important at the start. Whatever happened was exposed in a free society; the military itself began the first inquiries. You can now read, in these pages, previously secret memorandums from sources as high as the attorney general all the way down to prisoner testimony to the International Committee of the Red Cross. I confess to finding this transparency both comforting and chilling, like the photographs that kick-started the public's awareness of the affair. Comforting because only a country that is still free would allow such airing of blood-soaked laundry. Chilling because the crimes committed strike so deeply at the core of what a free country is supposed to mean. The scandal of Abu Ghraib is therefore a sign of both freedom's endurance in America and also, in certain dark corners, its demise.

The documents themselves tell the story. In this, Danner's book is by far the better of the two. He begins with passionate essays that originally appeared in The New York Review of Books, but very soon leaves the stage and lets the documents speak for themselves. His book contains the two reports Strasser publishes, but many more as well. If you read it in the order Danner provides, you can see exactly how this horror came about - and why it's still going on. As Danner observes, this is a scandal with almost everything in plain sight.

The critical enabling decision was the president's insistence that prisoners in the war on terror be deemed ''unlawful combatants'' rather than prisoners of war. The arguments are theoretically sound ones - members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not party to the Geneva Convention and their own conduct violates many of its basic demands. But even at the beginning, President Bush clearly feared the consequences of so broad an exemption for cruel and inhumane treatment. So he also insisted that although prisoners were not legally eligible for humane treatment, they should be granted it anyway. The message sent was: these prisoners are beneath decent treatment, but we should still provide it. That's a strangely nuanced signal to be giving the military during wartime.

You can see the same strange ambivalence in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's decision to approve expanded interrogation techniques in December 2002 for Guantánamo inmates - and then to revoke the order six weeks later. The documents show that the president was clearly warned of the dangers of the policy he decided upon - Colin Powell's January 2002 memo is almost heart-breakingly prescient and sane in this regard - but he pressed on anyway. Rumsfeld's own revocation of the order suggests his own moral qualms about what he had unleashed.

But Bush clearly leaned toward toughness. Here's the precise formulation he used: ''As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.'' (My italics.)

Notice the qualifications. The president wants to stay not within the letter of the law, but within its broad principles, and in the last resort, ''military necessity'' can overrule all of it. According to his legal counsel at the time, Alberto R. Gonzales, the president's warmaking powers gave him ultimate constitutional authority to ignore any relevant laws in the conduct of the conflict. Sticking to the Geneva Convention was the exclusive prerogative of one man, George W. Bush; and he could, if he wished, make exceptions. As Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee argues in another memo: ''Any effort to apply Section 2340A in a manner that interferes with the president's direction of such core war matters as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants thus would be unconstitutional.'' (Section 2340A refers to the United States law that incorporates the international Convention Against Torture.)

The president's underlings got the mixed message. Bybee analyzed the relevant statutes against torture to see exactly how far the military could go in mistreating prisoners without blatant illegality. His answer was surprisingly expansive. He argued that all the applicable statutes and treaty obligations can be read in such a way as to define torture very narrowly. Bybee asserted that the president was within his legal rights to permit his military surrogates to inflict ''cruel, inhuman or degrading'' treatment on prisoners without violating strictures against torture. For an act of abuse to be considered torture, the abuser must be inflicting pain ''of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure.'' If the abuser is doing this to get information and not merely for sadistic enjoyment, then ''even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions,'' he's not guilty of torture. Threatening to kill a prisoner is not torture; ''the threat must indicate that death is 'imminent.' '' Beating prisoners is not torture either. Bybee argues that a case of kicking an inmate in the stomach with military boots while the prisoner is in a kneeling position does not by itself rise to the level of torture.

Bybee even suggests that full-fledged torture of inmates might be legal because it could be construed as ''self-defense,'' on the grounds that ''the threat of an impending terrorist attack threatens the lives of hundreds if not thousands of American citizens.'' By that reasoning, torture could be justified almost anywhere on the battlefield of the war on terror. Only the president's discretion forbade it. These guidelines were formally repudiated by the administration the week before Gonzales's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation as attorney general.

In this context, Rumsfeld's decision to take the gloves off in Guantánamo for six weeks makes more sense. The use of dogs to intimidate prisoners and the use of nudity for humiliation were now allowed. Although abuse was specifically employed in only two cases before Rumsfeld rescinded the order, practical precedents had been set; and the broader mixed message sent from the White House clearly reached commanders in the field. Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, in charge of the Iraq counterinsurgency, also sent out several conflicting memos with regard to the treatment of prisoners - memos that only added to the confusion as to what was permitted and what wasn't. When the general in charge of Guantánamo was sent to Abu Ghraib to help intelligence gathering, the ''migration'' of techniques (the term used in the Pentagon's Schlesinger Report) from those reserved for extreme cases in the leadership of Al Qaeda to thousands of Iraqi civilians, most of whom, according to intelligence sources, were innocent of any crime at all, was complete. Again, there is no evidence of anyone at a high level directly mandating torture or abuse, except in two cases in Gitmo. But there is growing evidence recently uncovered by the A.C.L.U. - not provided in Danner's compilation - that authorities in the F.B.I. and elsewhere were aware of abuses and did little to prevent or stop them. Then there were the vast loopholes placed in the White House torture memos, the precedents at Guantánamo, the winks and nods from Washington and the pressure of an Iraqi insurgency that few knew how to restrain. It was a combustible mix.

What's notable about the incidents of torture and abuse is first, their common features, and second, their geographical reach. No one has any reason to believe any longer that these incidents were restricted to one prison near Baghdad. They were everywhere: from Guantánamo Bay to Afghanistan, Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi and Tikrit and, for all we know, in any number of hidden jails affecting ''ghost detainees'' kept from the purview of the Red Cross. They were committed by the Marines, the Army, the Military Police, Navy Seals, reservists, Special Forces and on and on. The use of hooding was ubiquitous; the same goes for forced nudity, sexual humiliation and brutal beatings; there are examples of rape and electric shocks. Many of the abuses seem specifically tailored to humiliate Arabs and Muslims, where horror at being exposed in public is a deep cultural artifact.

Whether random bad apples had picked up these techniques from hearsay or whether these practices represented methods authorized by commanders grappling with ambiguous directions from Washington is hard to pin down from the official reports. But it is surely significant that very few abuses occurred in what the Red Cross calls ''regular internment facilities.'' Almost all took place within prisons designed to collect intelligence, including, of course, Saddam Hussein's previous torture palace at Abu Ghraib and even the former Baathist secret police office in Basra. (Who authorized the use of these particular places for a war of liberation is another mystery.) This tells us two things: that the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere had nothing to do with these incidents; and that the violence had a purpose. The report of the International Committee of the Red Cross says: ''Several military intelligence officers confirmed to the I.C.R.C. that it was part of the military intelligence process to hold a person deprived of his liberty naked in a completely dark and empty cell for a prolonged period to use inhumane and degrading treatment, including physical and psychological coercion.''

An e-mail message recovered by Danner from a captain in military intelligence in August 2003 reveals the officer's desire to distinguish between genuine prisoners of war and ''unlawful combatants.'' The president, of course, had endorsed that distinction in theory, although not in practice - even in Guantánamo, let alone Iraq. Somehow Bush's nuances never made it down the chain to this captain. In the message, he asked for advice from other intelligence officers on which illegal techniques work best: a ''wish list'' for interrogators. Then he wrote: ''The gloves are coming off gentlemen regarding these detainees, Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken.''

How do you break these people? According to the I.C.R.C., one prisoner ''alleged that he had been hooded and cuffed with flexicuffs, threatened to be tortured and killed, urinated on, kicked in the head, lower back and groin, force-fed a baseball which was tied into the mouth using a scarf and deprived of sleep for four consecutive days. Interrogators would allegedly take turns ill-treating him. When he said he would complain to the I.C.R.C. he was allegedly beaten more. An I.C.R.C. medical examination revealed hematoma in the lower back, blood in urine, sensory loss in the right hand due to tight handcuffing with flexicuffs, and a broken rib.''

Even Bybee's very narrow definition of torture would apply in this case. Here's another - not from Abu Ghraib:

A detainee ''had been hooded, handcuffed in the back, and made to lie face down, on a hot surface during transportation. This had caused severe skin burns that required three months' hospitalization. . . . He had to undergo several skin grafts, the amputation of his right index finger, and suffered . . . extensive burns over the abdomen, anterior aspects of the outer extremities, the palm of his right hand and the sole of his left foot.''

And another, in a detainee's own words: ''They threw pepper on my face and the beating started. This went on for a half hour. And then he started beating me with the chair until the chair was broken. After that they started choking me. At that time I thought I was going to die, but it's a miracle I lived. And then they started beating me again. They concentrated on beating me in my heart until they got tired from beating me. They took a little break and then they started kicking me very hard with their feet until I passed out.''

An incident uncovered by the A.C.L.U. and others was described in The Washington Post on Dec. 22. A young soldier with no training in interrogation techniques ''acknowledged forcing two men to their knees, placing bullets in their mouths, ordering them to close their eyes, and telling them they would be shot unless they answered questions about a grenade incident. He then took the bullets, and a colleague pretended to load them in the chamber of his M-16 rifle.''

These are not allegations made by antiwar journalists. They are incidents reported within the confines of the United States government. The Schlesinger panel has officially conceded, although the president has never publicly acknowledged, that American soldiers have tortured five inmates to death. Twenty-three other deaths that occurred during American custody had not been fully investigated by the time the panel issued its report in August. Some of the techniques were simply brutal, like persistent vicious beatings to unconsciousness. Others were more inventive. In April 2004, according to internal Defense Department documents recently procured by the A.C.L.U., three marines in Mahmudiya used an electric transformer, forcing a detainee to ''dance'' as the electricity coursed through him. We also now know that in Guantánamo, burning cigarettes were placed in the ears of detainees.

Here's another case from the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib, led by Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones and Maj. Gen. George R. Fay:

''On another occasion DETAINEE-07 was forced to lie down while M.P.'s jumped onto his back and legs. He was beaten with a broom and a chemical light was broken and poured over his body. . . . During this abuse a police stick was used to sodomize DETAINEE-07 and two female M.P.'s were hitting him, throwing a ball at his penis, and taking photographs.''

Last December, documents obtained by the A.C.L.U. also cited an F.B.I. agent at Guantánamo Bay who observed that ''on a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more.'' In one case, he added, ''the detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night.''

This kind of scene can also be found at Abu Ghraib: ''An 18 November 2003 photograph depicts a detainee dressed in a shirt or blanket lying on the floor with a banana inserted into his anus. This as well as several others show the same detainee covered in feces, with his hands encased in sandbags, or tied in foam and between two stretchers.'' This, apparently, was a result of self-inflicted mania, although where the mentally ill man procured a banana is not elaborated upon.

Also notable in Abu Ghraib was the despicable use of religion to humiliate. One Muslim inmate was allegedly forced to eat pork, had liquor forced down his throat and told to thank Jesus that he was alive. He recounted in broken English:

''They stripped me naked, they asked me, 'Do you pray to Allah?' I said, 'Yes.' They said 'F - - - you' and 'F - - - him.' '' Later, this inmate recounts: ''Someone else asked me, 'Do you believe in anything?' I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you.' ''

Whether we decide to call this kind of treatment ''abuse'' or some other euphemism, there is no doubt what it was in the minds of the American soldiers who perpetrated it. They believed in torture. And many believed it was sanctioned from above. According to The Washington Post, one sergeant who witnessed the torture thought Military Intelligence approved of all of it: ''The M.I. staffs, to my understanding, have been giving Graner'' - one of the chief torturers at Abu Ghraib - ''compliments on the way he has been handling the M.I. holds [prisoners held by military intelligence]. Example being statements like 'Good job, they're breaking down real fast'; 'They answer every question'; 'They're giving out good information, finally'; and 'Keep up the good work' - stuff like that.'' At Guantánamo Bay, newly released documents show that some of the torturers felt they were acting on the basis of memos sent from Washington.

Was the torture effective? The only evidence in the documents Danner has compiled that it was even the slightest bit helpful comes from the Schlesinger report. It says ''much of the information in the recently released 9/11 Commission's report, on the planning and execution of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, came from interrogation of detainees at Guantánamo and elsewhere.'' But the context makes plain that this was intelligence procured without torture. It also claims that good intelligence was received from the two sanctioned cases of expanded interrogation techniques at Guantánamo. But everything else points to the futility of the kind of brutal techniques used in Iraq and elsewhere.

Worse, there's plenty of evidence that this kind of treatment makes gathering intelligence harder. In Abu Ghraib, according to the official documents, up to 90 percent of the inmates were victims of random and crude nighttime sweeps. If these thousands of Iraqis did not sympathize with the insurgency before they came into American custody, they had good reason to thereafter. Stories of torture, of sexual humiliation, of religious mockery have become widespread in Iraq, and have been amplified by the enemy. If the best intelligence comes from persuading the indigenous population to give up information on insurgents, then the atrocities perpetrated by a tiny minority of American troops actually help the insurgency, rather than curtail it.

Who was responsible? There are various levels of accountability. But it seems unmistakable from these documents that decisions made by the president himself and the secretary of defense contributed to confusion, vagueness and disarray, which, in turn, led directly to abuse and torture. The president bears sole responsibility for ignoring Colin Powell's noble warnings. The esoteric differences between legal ''abuse'' and illegal ''torture'' and the distinction between ''prisoners of war'' and ''unlawful combatants'' were and are so vague as to make the abuse of innocents almost inevitable. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that ''the government has never provided any court with the full criteria that it uses in classifying individuals'' as enemy combatants. It is one thing to make a distinction in theory between Geneva-protected combatants and unprotected Qaeda operatives. But in the chaos of a situation like Iraq, how can you practically know the difference? When one group is designated as unworthy of humane treatment, and that group is impossible to distinguish from others, it is unsurprising that exceptions quickly become rules. The best you can say is that in an administration with a reputation for clear lines of command and clear rules of engagement, the vagueness and incompetence are the most striking features.

Worse, the president has never acknowledged the scope or the real gravity of what has taken place. His first instinct was to minimize the issue; later, his main references to it were a couple of sentences claiming that the abuses were the work of a handful of miscreants, rather than a consequence of his own decisions. But the impact of these events on domestic morale, on the morale of the vast majority of honorable soldiers in a very tough place and on the reputation of the United States in the Middle East is incalculable. The war on terror is both military and political. The president's great contribution has been to recognize that a solution is impossible without political reform in the Middle East. And yet the prevalence of brutality and inhumanity among American interrogators has robbed the United States of the high ground it desperately needs to maintain in order to win. What better weapon for Al Qaeda than the news that an inmate at Guantánamo was wrapped in the Israeli flag or that prisoners at Abu Ghraib were raped? There is no escaping the fact that, whether he intended to or not, this president handed Al Qaeda that weapon. Sometimes a brazen declaration of toughness is actually a form of weakness. In a propaganda war for the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere, it's simply self-defeating.

And the damage done was intensified by President Bush's refusal to discipline those who helped make this happen. A president who truly recognized the moral and strategic calamity of this failure would have fired everyone responsible. But the vice president's response to criticism of the defense secretary in the wake of Abu Ghraib was to say, ''Get off his back.'' In fact, those with real responsibility for the disaster were rewarded. Rumsfeld was kept on for the second term, while the man who warned against ignoring the Geneva Conventions, Colin Powell, was seemingly nudged out. The man who wrote a legal opinion maximizing the kind of brutal treatment that the United States could legally defend, Jay S. Bybee, was subsequently rewarded with a nomination to a federal Court of Appeals. General Sanchez and Gen. John P. Abizaid remain in their posts. Alberto R. Gonzales, who wrote memos that validated the decision to grant Geneva status to inmates solely at the president's discretion, is now nominated to the highest law enforcement job in the country: attorney general. The man who paved the way for the torture of prisoners is to be entrusted with safeguarding the civil rights of Americans. It is astonishing he has been nominated, and even more astonishing that he will almost certainly be confirmed.

But in a democracy, the responsibility is also wider. Did those of us who fought so passionately for a ruthless war against terrorists give an unwitting green light to these abuses? Were we naïve in believing that characterizing complex conflicts from Afghanistan to Iraq as a single simple war against ''evil'' might not filter down and lead to decisions that could dehumanize the enemy and lead to abuse? Did our conviction of our own rightness in this struggle make it hard for us to acknowledge when that good cause had become endangered? I fear the answer to each of these questions is yes.

American political polarization also contributed. Most of those who made the most fuss about these incidents - like Mark Danner or Seymour Hersh - were dedicated opponents of the war in the first place, and were eager to use this scandal to promote their agendas. Advocates of the war, especially those allied with the administration, kept relatively quiet, or attempted to belittle what had gone on, or made facile arguments that such things always occur in wartime. But it seems to me that those of us who are most committed to the Iraq intervention should be the most vociferous in highlighting these excrescences. Getting rid of this cancer within the system is essential to winning this war.

I'm not saying that those who unwittingly made this torture possible are as guilty as those who inflicted it. I am saying that when the results are this horrifying, it's worth a thorough reassessment of rhetoric and war methods. Perhaps the saddest evidence of our communal denial in this respect was the election campaign. The fact that American soldiers were guilty of torturing inmates to death barely came up. It went unmentioned in every one of the three presidential debates. John F. Kerry, the ''heroic'' protester of Vietnam, ducked the issue out of what? Fear? Ignorance? Or a belief that the American public ultimately did not care, that the consequences of seeming to criticize the conduct of troops would be more of an electoral liability than holding a president accountable for enabling the torture of innocents? I fear it was the last of these. Worse, I fear he may have been right.

Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at The New Republic and a columnist at Time.


-------- russia / chechnya

US warns Russia on selling missiles to Syria

WASHINGTON (AFP) 
Jan 13, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050112232857.q6w9qwiu.html

The United States on Wednesday warned Russia against selling missiles to Syria amid reports that Moscow was ready to provide Damascus with a sophisticated weapon that could hit any target in Israel.

But Russia denied it had any such plans.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Washington could consider sanctions against Moscow if it went through with reported plans to sell Syria its SS-26 Iskander missile.

Secretary of State Colin Powell also raised the reported sale in talks here Wednesday with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, according to a State Department official speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The US policy on this is very clear," Boucher said. "We're against the sale of weaponry to Syria, against the sale of lethal military equipment to Syria, which is a state sponsor of terrorism."

He said the United States was aware of reports a deal was brewing and "we think those kinds of sales are not appropriate. ... The Russians know about this policy. They know about our views."

The Russian media carried reports of the planned sale as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad prepared to visit Russia on January 24 for talks with President Vladimir Putin.

The press accounts said Israel was furious at the prospect of Syria obtaining the missile, an updated version of the Scud used by Iraq in the first Gulf War, that could strike almost anywhere in the Jewish state.

However, Ivanov categorically denied any plans for such a sale.

"We have no talks with Syria about such missiles," he told reporters here. "There are no negotiations under way with Syria."

Meanwhile, Boucher declined to elaborate what action the United States would envision against Moscow if the deal went through.

"There are potential sanctions under US law," said the State Department spokesman. "But that would have to be looked at, if and when, such a sale should occur."

Powell raised the potential sale with Ivanov "in the context of a broader discussion of proliferation," the anonymous US official said. "The secretary reiterated longstanding US policy."

A senior US official, who also asked not to be named, said Washington had already made clear to the Russians its disapproval of missile sales to Syria.

"It's a policy that they (the Russians) know about," the official said. "They are quite clear on both the policy and the law that we have."

The official said the Foreign Authorization Act allows action against "people who sell lethal equipment to state sponsors of terrorism, to prevent them from various interaction with the United States."


-------- space

Bezos offers glimpse into space project

January 13, 2005
Jim Hu, Staff Writer, 
CNET News.com

http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1026_3-5535639.html

Blue Origin, the secretive space exploration company founded by Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, on Thursday quietly announced plans to build a testing facility on a remote ranch in western Texas.

The facility will be built on land owned by Bezos located north of Van Horn, Texas, a community with a population of 2,400 residents as of 2000. In its first public statement about its ambitions, Blue Origin said it plans to build a suborbital spacecraft that can launch and land vertically with three or more astronauts, according to a report in the local Van Horn Advocate newspaper. Bezos has already assembled a team of veteran rocket scientists who have worked on various aerospace and missile defense projects. The company will first build basic facilities such as an engine test stand, fuel and water tanks and an office building, and then begin flight testing in six to seven years, the report said.

"Texas has been a long-standing leader in the aerospace industry, and we are very excited about the possibility of locating here," Bezos told the local paper.

A Blue Origin representative confirmed the accuracy of the report, but declined to elaborate further.

While Bezos' space interests have been known for years, this is the first time the Amazon founder has offered any indication as to Blue Origin's ambitions. Up to now, the company has maintained a bare-bones Web site simply containing a mission statement to "help enable an enduring human presence in space."

Bezos is not the only tech veteran shooting for the stars. Last September, a venture backed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen won the $10 million Ansari X Prize for privately funded space travel after it successfully launched and landed a manned suborbital spacecraft called SpaceShipOne.

At the end of February, the first rocket produced by SpaceX, started by PayPal founder Elon Musk, will launch and deploy a military satellite into orbit. John Carmack, founder of video game company ID Software, created Armadillo Aerospace in hopes of launching his own brand of rockets into outer space.

During a press conference earlier this week in Van Horn, Bezos told the Advocate that his choice of location was partially sentimental. As a kid, Bezos spent summers on his grandfather's ranch in south Texas. He said he hopes "to give my family the same experiences on my west Texas ranch now."



-------- un

U.N. Feeding Over 1M Tsunami Survivors

January 13, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Tsunami-Aid.html

BANDA ACEH, Indonesia (AP) -- United Nations relief workers were feeding more than 1 million people across tsunami-stricken areas of southern Asia, the world body said Thursday.

The U.N. World Food Program said in its latest report on its aid efforts that it has delivered 10,741 tons of food to 1,069,000 people since the waves smashed into coastal communities around the Indian Ocean on Dec. 26 killing more than 150,000 people.

WFP spokeswoman Bettina Luescher said agency workers are feeding 300,000 survivors in Indonesia's Aceh province. Luescher said the number is expected to grow to 500,000 within two weeks.

More than 650 truckloads of food have been deployed in Sri Lanka, enough to feed 750,000 people, the agency said. Up to 2,000 families are being fed in Thailand, it said.

Still, even more aid is on its way to affected regions. Later Thursday, Australian navy ship HMAS Kanimbla was scheduled to arrive at Banda Aceh loaded with helicopters and reconstruction equipment, as well as engineers.

``Until now our focus has been the provision of life-essential needs of the tsunami survivors such as food, water and medical support. The arrival of the engineering detachment on board the Kanimbla means that we can now start providing reconstruction solutions for the longer term,'' Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill said in a statement.

Meanwhile, relief coordinators in Aceh said they have buried 75,500 bodies since the disaster. More than 105,000 people were killed in and around Aceh.

The aid effort on Aceh, which has been wracked by a separatist rebellion for nearly three decades, has been hampered by security fears and on Thursday the military said foreign aid workers must take army escorts when visiting much of the region.

Aid organizations also must register their planned movements with Indonesian authorities.

However, Luescher, the WFP spokeswoman, said so far the organization was not using military escorts.

``WFP hopes that these new requirements will not cause a bottleneck in the goal of getting relief supplies to the people who need them and that this aim remains the government's priority,'' the agency said in a statement.


-------- war crimes

Bush, God, Fox, and the International Criminal Court

by David Swanson
January 13, 2005 The Free Press

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2005/1088

Here's an interesting theory for why Bush attacked Iraq.  He did so in order to violate international law.  This is what Eric Zuesse argues in "Iraq War, the Truth," a 188-page book from Delphic Press.

The book is better than its title or its preface.  Zuesse makes a case that Bush's central motivation in launching this war was to render the United Nations and the International Criminal Court powerless.  Bush didn't attack and occupy Iraq in order to eliminate weapons that he already knew didn't exist.  And looting the oil and other resources (and the US Treasury) for corporate cronies was a side benefit.  Attacking in violation of international law, and using napalm and depleted uranium in the attack, was not a regrettable circumstance to Bush.  He would not have preferred to have UN backing, because his primary enemy was never Saddam Hussein; it was the United Nations.  What about "liberating the Iraqis"?  Bush believed that one.  He didn't expect the Iraqis to continue resisting.  But that wasn't why he started the war.

All right, but why would someone waste tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars getting into a predictable mess merely for the thrill of violating a law?  Because this was no ordinary thrill for our born again White House occupant.  This was a holy thrill.  This was paying Jesus back for saving W from alcohol and drugs.  This was the culmination of a fundamentalist Christian crusade on behalf of God's law in opposition to merely human law.  This war has been building steadily since the founding of the John Birch Society.  This is a war with God on Bush's side, fought for a righteous and holy American empire.  God's law, the law of the conqueror, the Almighty, must be proclaimed sovereign over the blasphemous pretenses of men who would seek to write their own laws, international or national.  But the international laws must be destroyed first.

The last 50 pages or so of Zuesse's book make the case that this is how Bush thinks.  But first, Zuesse lays out the clearest and most honest summary I have seen of how this war was begun, how the U.S. media promoted it, and how the U.S. public was deceived.  There's a detailed analysis here of some of Bush's most patent lies and the case that can be made out of them for impeachment. 

There's also a critique of the opposition to the war.  Zuesse believes that the US antiwar movement failed to pick up on international boycotts of US brand products because these were "crass commercial concerns."  I don't think so.  I think opponents of the war were too eager to be "patriotic."  My analysis parallels Zuesse's own of why, in his words, "religious liberals don't understand what they are up against, because they're up against religion; they are up against something that's within themselves." 

According to Zuesse, the US attack on Afghanistan was too widely viewed in the world as justified.  "Not so the invasion of Iraq.  Invading that country would be sufficiently illegal to establish the necessary precedent that the United States stands above (merely Man-made) international law, and yet it was still sufficiently arguable within the prevailing WMD context so that it might be able to pass the legal 'smell test' of the international community.  It was therefore uniquely qualified to serve this bigger strategic purpose of establishing a precedent that would destroy Man-made international Law and establish the global reign of 'God's Law.'"

Zuesse believes that if the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not act quickly to try Bush as a war criminal, then Bush will have successfully destroyed the court before it could get started.  A trial of Bush, in absentia, without seizing or punishing him, and even failing to convict him, would be enough to save the court, Zuesse thinks.  It's not clear to me, however, how much of such a trial the US media would report.  Zuesse's plan, in fact, would be to try them next:

"People such as Rupert Murdoch (all 175 of whose newspapers editorially supported this illegal invasion and followed through with pro-invasion news reporting on it) can be tried for propagandizing war crimes and the internationally recognized 'crime of aggression' (i.e. illegal invasion), upon the same grounds for which Herr Goebbels is now universally detested, and for which the leading Nazi industrialists were likewise imprisoned."  Now that's a strategy for Fox-bashing that I can get behind!

Zuesse concludes his book with this tip: "The public information officer of the ICC can be reached at pio@icc-cpi.int.

David Swanson served as press secretary for Dennis Kucinich for President and now serves as media coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association.


-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE

Hacker reads Secret Service files, e-mails

1/13/2005 Associated Press 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-13-secret-service-hacker_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the heat of a monthslong hacker investigation into an extraordinary break-in at a leading wireless carrier's network, an Internet informant approached the Secret Service with startling news: The targeted hackers were reading some of the agency's own e-mails and computer files.

The trove of illicit government data included a "highly sensitive" internal Secret Service memorandum and part of a mutual assistance legal treaty from Russia, according to court records. A hunted hacker turned his sights on his pursuers, targeting at one point the desktop computer of a Secret Service agent on his trail.

The break-in targeted the network of Bellevue, Wash.-based T-Mobile USA, which has 16.3 million customers nationwide. It was discovered during a broader Secret Service investigation, "Operation Firewall," which targeted underground hacker organizations known as Shadowcrew, Carderplanet and Darkprofits.

But in a twist, one of the government's investigators was also a T-Mobile customer and sometimes used the wireless network to communicate about the case, unaware it wasn't safe.

Nicolas Lee Jacobsen, 21, of Santa Ana, Calif., a computer engineer, has been charged with the T-Mobile break-in in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Investigators said they traced the hacker's online activities to a hotel near Buffalo, where Jacobsen was staying.

Jacobsen, who was arrested in October in California, has been released on a $25,000 bond posted by his uncle, who was ordered to keep his own personal computer locked up so Jacobsen couldn't use it. A court hearing is set for Feb. 14.

T-Mobile acknowledged the hacker was able to view the names and Social Security numbers of 400 customers, all of whom it said were notified in writing about the break-in. It said customer credit card numbers and other financial information never were revealed.

"Safeguarding T-Mobile customer information is a top priority for the company," spokesman Peter Dobrow said. Dobrow said T-Mobile discovered a break-in late in 2003 and "immediately took steps that prevented any further access to this system." But another break-in — believed to be connected to the first — occurred in 2004, Dobrow said. The company still is investigating.

Court records said the hacker in the second break-in had access to T-Mobile customer information from at least March through October last year.

In March 2004, an informant reported to the Secret Service an online offer that court papers said was traced to Jacobsen. A hacker claimed he could look up the name, Social Security number, birth date and passwords for voice mails and e-mails for T-Mobile customers. Prosecutors contend Jacobsen was behind the offer, shielding his identity using aliases that included "Anyonman" and "Ethics."

The Secret Service said its agent, Peter Cavicchia, should not have been using his personal handheld computer for government work. Cavicchia, who has specialized in tracking hackers, was a T-Mobile customer who coincidentally was investigating the T-Mobile break-in, according to court papers and a Secret Service spokesman, Jonathan Cherry.

Cavicchia, who won the Secret Service's medal of valor for his actions in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, resigned to work in the private sector. He told The Associated Press he was not asked to leave and said he was cleared during an internal investigation into whether he had improperly revealed sensitive information or violated agency rules.

"Unfortunately, I was the victim of a crime," said Cavicchia, angry that his name appears in court papers in the case. "Over my career with the Secret Service, I continually made personal and family sacrifices to do my job above and beyond the call of duty. My reputation and record speaks for itself. It's unfortunate that the Secret Service didn't take more steps to protect me."

Cherry, the agency spokesman, said the Secret Service's own e-mail servers were not affected by the T-Mobile break-in.

Cavicchia's T-Mobile handheld computer contained "very limited investigative material" that was obtained by the hacker, Cherry said, adding that no government investigations were compromised. Cherry said Secret Service policies prohibit agents from keeping work-related files on personal computers.

Cavicchia said Secret Service supervisors frequently e-mailed documents and other files to his wireless computer to review while he was traveling. "The only way for me to review documents while I was on the road was for them to send them to that address, which they knew wasn't an agency address," Cavicchia said.


-------- courts / tribunals

High Court voids 'mandatory' sentencing

January 13, 2005
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050113-010057-8824r.htm

The Supreme Court yesterday voided mandatory federal sentencing guidelines, making them voluntary and saying U.S. judges could consult them before imposing penalties.

    The court said juries, not judges, must determine any facts used to set the length of prison sentences.

    More than 64,000 people are sentenced each year under the guidelines, and defense lawyers and others predicted yesterday a deluge of appeals from those who say they were wrongly sentenced.

The 124-page decision applied to the federal system a June high court ruling in a Washington state case that said juries — not judges — had to determine whether factors that can increase a defendant's prison term are met in a given case.

    In a complex set of three opinions, the court criticized but did not scrap the 17-year-old federal sentencing guidelines, instead making them voluntary, potentially opening the way for an avalanche of appeals of federal sentences.

    "Chaos will reign in federal courthouses," predicted Kirby Behre, a former federal prosecutor who practices law in Washington. He said judges must decide how to respond to the Supreme Court decision, and prosecutors and defense lawyers will argue over it.

    Supporting a defendant's right under the Sixth Amendment to have a jury and not a judge decide whether sentencing increases are warranted were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    "It has been settled throughout our history that the Constitution protects every criminal defendant against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged," Justice Stevens wrote. "It is equally clear that the Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to demand that a jury find him guilty of all the elements of the crime with which he is charged."

    Dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer. However, Justice Ginsburg joined the four dissenters in voting to salvage the guidelines by making them nonmandatory — a point that legal scholars said yesterday could be taken to mean that judges have a free hand in sentencing.

    Christopher Wray, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Criminal Division, said the guidelines have ensured that "similar defendants who commit similar crimes receive similar sentences. Because the guidelines are now advisory, the risk increases that sentences across the country will become wildly inconsistent."

    Justice Breyer, in a dissenting opinion, said he found "nothing in the Sixth Amendment that forbids a sentencing judge to determine the manner or way in which the offender carried out the crime of which he was convicted.

    "Traditionally, federal law has looked to judges, not juries, to resolve disputes about sentencing facts," he said.

     "Ours, of course, is not the last word. The ball now lies in Congress' court," he added.
    Justice Scalia predicted that having voluntary guidelines would "wreak havoc on federal district and appellate courts quite needlessly, and for the indefinite future."

    The justices declined to make the decision retroactive for all federal inmates, meaning it applies only to cases pending or in their first appeal.

    Federal sentencing guidelines set rules for judges in deciding punishment for a defendant and attempt to reduce disparities among sentences for the same crime. The guidelines also mandate factors that can lead to stiffer or lighter sentences. Congress established the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1984, which issued the guidelines that have bound federal judges since taking effect in 1987.

    Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the panel would begin working to "establish a sentencing method that will be appropriately tough on career criminals, fair and consistent with constitutional requirements."

    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the committee's ranking Democrat, said the court's decision had "significant implications" on how to ensure a fair and constitutional process for sentencing thousands of defendants in the federal criminal justice system.

    "Congress should resist the urge to rush in with quick fixes that would only generate more uncertainty and litigation and do nothing to protect public safety," he said. "For now, the Supreme Court has fashioned a reasonable remedy that will allow courts to conduct business until Congress decides how to act."

    Barry Scheck, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), said the ruling presented a "valuable opportunity to reform the federal sentencing system so as to better distinguish among defendants and use our criminal justice resources more wisely."

    "This opportunity must not be squandered. Congress must not react with a 'quick fix' and miss the chance to solve a lingering and serious national problem," Mr. Scheck said.

    Yesterday's ruling came in two cases appealed by the Justice Department, which said the federal sentencing system was in disarray since the Supreme Court's June ruling declaring unconstitutional similar sentencing guidelines in Washington state.

    The cases involved sentences for drug-related convictions: A Wisconsin case involving Freddie J. Booker, who was charged with possessing and distributing 92.5 grams of crack cocaine, and a Maine case involving Ducan Fanfan, charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine powder.

    Under federal sentencing guidelines, the sentence authorized by the jury verdict in Booker's drug case was 210 to 262 months, but at sentencing, the judge cited additional evidence and ordered a sentence of between 360 months and life.

    In the Fanfan case, the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict under the guidelines was 78 months, but at sentencing, the judge cited additional facts authorizing a sentence of between 188 and 235 months. 



-------- homeland security / national intelligence

Homeland Security Dropping Pledge of Secrecy for Workers

Christopher Lee
Washington Post
January 13, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4959-2005Jan12.html

Workers at the Department of Homeland Security will no longer be required to sign a controversial secrecy pledge prohibiting them from sharing sensitive but unclassified information with the public, DHS officials announced this week.

The three-page nondisclosure agreement, required since May for all 180,000 department workers and contractors, had been criticized by federal employee unions and government watchdog organizations. They called it an unprecedented clampdown on free-speech rights.
	Jack Johnson, chief security officer at DHS, said in an interview yesterday that the agreements were always intended to be temporary until agency officials developed training for handling sensitive information.

"Was it perfect? -- no," Johnson said. "But it was decided that was an interim measure to ensure that employees had the appropriate amount of awareness as they were safeguarding this information. . . . Were they told specifically that it was going to be temporary? Probably not."

The form defined as "sensitive" any information that could "adversely affect the national interest or the conduct of federal programs" or violate a person's privacy -- a lower barrier than damaging national security.

Violators risked administrative, disciplinary, criminal and civil penalties. One provision required signers to consent to government inspections "at any time or place" to ensure compliance. Johnson said yesterday that such searches were to apply only to "a very narrow work space area."

Within the next month, the department will begin computer-based training sessions for employees on handling sensitive information, Johnson said. He said the criticism had led the department to "fast-track" the training program.

The decision to drop the nondisclosure agreements was first reported Tuesday by Federal Times.

In a statement, the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union called the decision positive but warned that DHS still has broad leeway in defining materials as "for official use only."

Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said department employees are still at risk of unfair disciplinary action.

"A government agency should never threaten its employees or contractors with criminal prosecution for disclosing information that is available under the Freedom of Information Act," Amey said in a written statement.

Johnson yesterday denied that DHS had asked staffers for the House Committee on Homeland Security to sign nondisclosure agreements.

Moira Whelan, minority spokeswoman for the committee, said that department agencies had, in fact, asked Republican and Democratic staff members to sign such agreements six months ago as a condition for receiving a specific piece of sensitive but unclassified information. The staff members refused, she said yesterday, and the committee reached an agreement with DHS that they would no longer be asked to sign them.


-------- justice

Whistleblower Charges Justice Dept. with Misconduct in Chertoff's Prosecution of John Walker Lindh

Democracy Now
Thursday, January 13th, 2005

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/1455248

Michael Chertoff, President Bush's Homeland Security Chief nominee, was praised by Senate Democrats and state lawyers this week as being a tough but fair prosecutor who would serve well as Tom Ridge's replacement.

But as his record comes under fresh scrutiny, questions are being raised about his handling of the case of John Walker Lindh - the so-called American Taliban. As head of the criminal division of the Justice Department, the 2002 prosecution of Lindh was one of Chertoff"s biggest triumphs.

But the case resurfaced the following year in Senate confirmation hearings after Chertoff was nominated to be a federal appellate judge. At that time, Senate Democrats questioned Chertoff extensively about concerns that the FBI might have improperly questioned Lindh in Afghanistan even though his family had hired a lawyer for him.

The questioning yielded potentially damaging admissions from Lindh that factored into his decision to later plead guilty to felony charges, resulting in his 20-year prison sentence.

At his 2003 confirmation hearing, Chertoff said he and his deputies did not have an active role in discussions about ethics warnings in the case from lawyers elsewhere in the department. But a Justice Department whistleblower tells a different story.

Jesselyn Radack was an attorney in the Justice Department's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office during the Lindh case. She raised legal and ethical objections over the questioning of Lindh without his lawyer and revealed misconduct by Department of Justice officials.

As a result, Radack was pushed out of her job at the Justice Department, fired from her next job, put under criminal investigation and put on the no-fly list. She joins us on the phone today from Washington DC. 

Michael Chertoff, President Bush's Homeland Security Chief nominee, was praised by Senate Democrats and state lawyers this week as being a tough but fair prosecutor who would serve well as Tom Ridge's replacement.

But as his record comes under fresh scrutiny, questions are being raised about his handling of the case of John Walker Lindh - the so-called American Taliban. As head of the criminal division of the Justice Department, the 2002 prosecution of Lindh was one of Chertoff"s biggest triumphs.

But the case resurfaced the following year in Senate confirmation hearings after Chertoff was nominated to be a federal appellate judge. At that time, Senate Democrats questioned Chertoff extensively about concerns that the FBI might have improperly questioned Lindh in Afghanistan even though his family had hired a lawyer for him.

The questioning yielded potentially damaging admissions from Lindh that factored into his decision to later plead guilty to felony charges, resulting in his 20-year prison sentence.

At his 2003 confirmation hearing, Chertoff said he and his deputies did not have an active role in discussions about ethics warnings in the case from lawyers elsewhere in the department. But a Justice Department whistleblower tells a different story.

Jesselyn Radack was an attorney in the Justice Department's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office during the Lindh case. She raised legal and ethical objections over the questioning of Lindh without his lawyer and revealed misconduct by Department of Justice officials.

As a result, Radack was pushed out of her job at the Justice Department, fired from her next job, put under criminal investigation and put on the no-fly list. She joins us on the phone today from Washington DC. 



-------- POLITICS


-------- propaganda wars / media

Hollow Accountability

By Richard Cohen
January 13, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5311-2005Jan12.html

It took no less a sage than President Bush to put the firing of four high-level CBS News employees in perspective: "CBS said they would act. They did. And I hope their actions are such that this doesn't happen again." This from the man who fired not a single person in his entire administration for getting nearly everything wrong about Iraq and taking the nation to war for reasons that did not exist or were downright specious. Lucky for Bush he's only the president of the United States and not the head of CBS.

Let us call the roll: George Tenet, who assured the president that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? A graceful retirement and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Don Rumsfeld, who approved a battle plan of such brilliance that a 30-day war against a weak Third World country is still going on and shows no sign of ending? He stays in the Cabinet.

Condi Rice, the national security adviser who allowed the president to tell the world of Iraq's nuclear weapons program when it had none whatsoever? She is nominated to become secretary of state.

Vice President Cheney, who insisted against all evidence and with no evidence that Iraq was fast becoming a nuclear power, and who maintained that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? He stays on the ticket and remains a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Bush's observation to the Wall Street Journal is the deepest wisdom of a man who has always been protected from his own mistakes and failures, whether it's the oil business gone bust or a wayward youth rescued by equal measures of religion and family connections. His is the privileged view of privilege itself -- that others should do what he would not. For all his pretense of aw-shucks ordinariness, Bush's inner Yale sometimes oozes out. Some people should pay for their mistakes. Some people never have to.

Those who paid at CBS happen to be some of that network's best people. They made a mistake, no doubt about it. They had professional lapses. Again, no doubt about it. But most of them had long and distinguished careers. One of them, in fact, helped break the story about abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. They deserved to be reprimanded for putting an apparently bogus (at least the documents were) report on the air. They did not deserve to be fired.

Liars get fired. None of the CBS four lied. Plagiarists get fired. None of the four plagiarized. Incompetents get fired -- and one mistake over the course of an entire career is not proof of incompetence. All these people deserved another chance. Bush would understand that. He always gets another chance.

As others have pointed out, Bush won the election. But even before that, CBS had gotten a bad case of the shakes. It bagged "The Reagans," a biopic that drew the ire of conservatives, not bothering to snip out the offending scenes or in some other way salvage the film. The network lateraled it over to Showtime, the virtually unwatched cable channel owned -- as is CBS -- by Viacom.

Later, "60 Minutes" killed a report about whether the Bush administration had relied on false documents in making the case that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. A CBS spokesman said it would have been "inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election" -- a statement just plain stunning in its implications. First of all, it was late September -- a full month before the election -- and, second, isn't affecting elections what can happen when journalists do their jobs? I mean, are we supposed to withhold the truth because, in addition to making you free, it might make you change your vote? This was a dark day for CBS and for all journalism.

Now it is even darker. The capitulation to Bush and the GOP is nearly complete. After the firings, the White House voiced its approval. So did Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who, keeping a firm grip on his emotions, did not suggest President Bush take note and do some firings himself. All over this great country, wherever right-wing pundits pund and bloggers blog, a chorus of gleeful approval was raised to the heavens. But in praising accountability, they were unaccountably silent about -- and here let me quote from the CBS report about what went wrong -- the "myopic zeal" of administration figures who got everything wrong, still do and have never been called to account for it. They had everything wrong but the target. It wasn't Iraq that was the pushover; it was CBS.

cohenr@washpost.com


----

An Inside Look at Covert Ops

by Christopher Deliso
balkanalysis.com
January 13, 2005

http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=4367

Shadow Wars: Special Forces in the New Battle Against Terrorism
David Pugliese
Esprit de Corps Books (2003)
207 pp., two maps and 97 photos (26 color)

Billed as "a must-read for anyone interested in learning more about the world of covert warfare," Shadow Wars is a fairly objective and clearly written account of the role special forces units are playing in today's "war on terror." Throughout the text, detailed exploits of American, British, Canadian, Australian, and even Russian special units are recounted. The story is told with an emphasis on military tactics and a minimum of political commentary.

The author, a journalist at the Ottawa Citizen with over 20 years' experience in writing on military affairs, clearly knows his subject – something that results in a tendency to talk shop at points. Yet while Pugliese's plethora of military acronyms and detailed discussions of weaponry may be lost on the casual reader, armchair generals will love it.

Action in Afghanistan

The book opens with a detailed account of how American and British special forces helped put down the "prison riot" at Qala-i-Jangi, which, in the author's estimation, was actually a full-fledged battle against 400-500 Taliban prisoners who seized the arsenal of the fort where they were being held. The battle saw the death of CIA operative Johnny Span, as well as a catastrophic friendly fire incident that left five Northern Alliance troops dead and five Green Berets wounded. The mishap occurred when a fighter pilot punched in the wrong coordinates on his satellite-guided "smart bomb."

U.S. Army planners would put a lot of time into analyzing what went wrong here and in other cases during the war. Pugliese makes good use of the lengthy report prepared by Stephen Biddle of the U.S. Army War College ("Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy"), which draws on scores of interviews with U.S. special forces personnel who had participated in specific controversial operations, as well as input from the generals. Supplementing such inside accounts with media accounts and specialist publications on the various special forces units involved, the author is able to shed new light on events that were already known, but incompletely. And Pugliese's detailed coverage of the role played by Canada's mysterious secret unit (Joint Task Force 2) is preceded only by another work of his – Canada's Secret Commandos: JTF2, the first-ever work on the subject.

The best part of the book is arguably the first half, devoted to the war in Afghanistan. It is certainly the most exciting part. This mysterious war took place in inaccessible mountains, and the outside world was far less saturated with images and accounts than has been the case with Iraq. In many ways, Afghanistan remains only hazily known to the general public. Pugliese attempts to remedy this situation by focusing on major events in Afghanistan (the battle of Tora Bora, Operation Anaconda, and the Qala-i-Jangi Prison uprising, etc.) that were widely reported in the press when they occurred. In his detailed recounting, we get an inside view of what went on from the perspective of the allied special forces soldiers involved in the fighting. This more intimate and certainly more exhilarating view takes up the bulk of the book's first five chapters.

Operations Gone Wrong

Despite his generally uncritical attitude toward the American war on terror on the political level, Pugliese does take an unflinching look at military failures when and where they occur. Primarily, the author would like to draw our attention to these issues because they illustrate both the challenges military strategists face and the hardships soldiers endure.

Chief among these is the battle of Tora Bora, a heavy-handed bomb-a-thon with scant ground support that allowed important al-Qaeda and Taliban (and perhaps even Osama bin Laden himself) time to flee across the mountains to Pakistan (pp. 31-34). We are also treated to a comprehensive discussion of the botched Operation Anaconda (pp. 48-58), which took place 150 km (93 mi.) south of Kabul in the Shah-e-Kot Valley, and which saw the participation of elite units from the U.S. Army, Navy SEALs, and coalition special forces from Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway, and Denmark. (The Canadian experience of this battle is recounted in Chapter 5).

In his blow-by-blow account of the latter battle, Pugliese shows how a reliance on duplicitous Afghan troops and the failure to begin the engagement with a "massive aerial bombardment" brought about a situation that would tax the special units to their utmost. The riveting description of battles in steep mountain passes against an unseen enemy, and courageous rescues of stranded soldiers is slightly bombastic, and smacks somewhat of the Hollywood "leave no man behind" syndrome; nevertheless, it does make for gripping reading. A good example is the following excerpt, from an account of a helicopter downing and rescue mission carried out in waist-deep snow during the operation:

"[T]he Chinook had put down on a flat area along the ridge on Takur Ghar. On the other side was a cliff face dropping off about 300 meters. Communications problems meant that Razor 1's pilots didn't know in advance that al-Qaeda were swarming all over the landing zone. Bullets tore into the cockpit, slamming into the legs of one of Razor 1's pilots. Other men were gunned down as they exited the MH-47.

"Moving quickly from the disabled Chinook, Air Force Staff Sergeant Kevin Vance saw the carnage al-Qaeda forces had inflicted. The helicopter's door gunner was laying on the aircraft's back ramp, an AK-47 bullet in his head. A second person was at the end of the ramp face down in the snow. He had been shot in the chest. A third dead man was sprawled on the ramp lying on his back. Another Ranger had been hit while still inside the aircraft and killed instantly....

"From his position on top of Takur Ghar, Sergeant Vance could see the Razor 2 rescue force climbing toward him as al-Qaeda started lobbing mortar bombs down on them. It would take two hours but the exhausted Rangers from Razor 2 were eventually able to reach the top of the mountain and link up with their comrades. There, for the next twelve hours, the two groups of Rangers and their Air Force special operations comrades fought off the al-Qaeda attacks." (pp. 56-57).

An Unusual Addition

Considering that Shadow Wars is largely devoted to Western forces fighting in George Bush's conventional imperial campaigns, Chapter 6 – on the October 2002 hostage crisis in a Moscow theater – may seem somewhat unusual. However, since the author does indeed try to frame his book in the context of terrorism in general (he mentions, in addition to 9/11, the Bali bombing, the Marriott Jakarta bombing, and Abu Sayyaf attacks in the Philippines), including this account of the daring Chechen seizure of a theater packed with over 800 people makes sense.

Further, Pugliese is able to find an interesting angle in recounting the story of this event and the controversial Russian response to it. Relying primarily on Russian accounts, the author discusses the immediate reaction of the premier Russian counterterrorism units, Alpha and Vympel, and the various plans they considered for removing the terrorists. During this story, we learn of several remarkable exploits, such as how the Russians were able to, unbeknownst to the terrorists, commandeer the basement of the facility, drill a hole in the wall, and insert a camera to monitor their movements. We also learn that other special teams started immediately practicing how they might storm the building on an empty theater on the other side of Moscow.

However, the conclusion of the hostage crisis engendered much controversy, as well over 100 people died from the tranquilizing gas (Fentanyl) that was used to overcome the hostage-takers. Pugliese points out the inherent difficulty involved here, as "the Russians were breaking new ground" in using the narcotic. Since it had not been used before in such a case, it would be impossible to know how much would be too much; for children, the elderly, and those with health problems, ingestion could be fatal. On the other hand, 800 people had been trapped for 58 hours inside a theater guarded by increasingly edgy Chechens who had rigged the theater with explosives and were openly declaring their desire to detonate the place and go happily to Allah.

Considering this and that the terrorists were widely scattered throughout the theater, with some completely incognito and hidden within the crowd, Russian options were limited. Any attempt to storm the building would probably allow the suicide bombers enough time to detonate at least some of their explosives, leading to an unknown number of deaths. In the end, the Russians had little choice but to use the gas if they were to retain any tactical advantage.

The controversial deaths aside, Pugliese's narrative of what happened after the gas started to take effect shows that the Russian special forces teams were anything but incompetent; they were able to eliminate all of the heavily armed Chechens before any had a chance to detonate their explosives. His account of the raid makes for exciting reading (and an even better movie). In general, Pugliese's treatment of the Moscow hostage crisis is evenhanded and illustrates the intractable dilemmas all countries face today in dealing with terrorist acts.

Softball

While commenting on political logic and decision-making is not within the purview of Shadow Wars, the author inevitably must confront these issues in the course of the narrative. The failure to be more critical of the American rationale for war and explanations of reality is, arguably, problematic because in some cases it does impinge upon military matters.

For example, Pugliese does not question the American government's 2002 claim about al-Qaeda fighters in Georgia (p. 130), a claim that was shortly thereafter denied even by Georgia's minister of defense and which always seemed like just a convenient way for the U.S. to gain a military foothold in the south Caucasus state, which it quite effortlessly did. Instead of pointing this out, the author attempts to argue that the Bush administration's new "awareness" of the Chechen-al-Qaeda link in the Caucasus was leading it toward a closer alliance with Russia. As if! The U.S. action in Georgia was actually driven by hostility to Russia, not a new desire to tackle the Chechen problem together.

We encounter this kind of a softball attitude again when the narrative moves to Iraq in Chapter 7 ("Turning Point: Operation Iraqi Freedom"). Rather than point out that the Bush administration had brazenly lied about the existence of WMD and the great danger of Saddam Hussein, the author merely says that it "would be a highly controversial issue long after the war ended" (p. 133). The failure to be more critical about the U.S. line in light of basic truths, here and elsewhere, is a clear deficiency.

Enter Iraq

Yet whatever the reader may think about the political issues clouding the whole issue of Iraq, some pleasure can be derived from following the little-known exploits of allied special forces units as they lay fiber optic cable in the sewers of Baghdad and commandeer air-dropped supplies in the western desert. One of the most interesting accounts found here, because it did not receive good coverage at the time, is the description of the U.S.-Kurdish joint operation against Ansar-al-Islam in late March 2003 (pp. 142-143). While "American officials played down suggestions that many Ansar guerrillas escaped," some did indeed live to fight another day (as Pugliese's publisher unfortunately found out).

Nevertheless, in Shadow Wars we get an incomplete picture of the war in Iraq and perhaps are missing the juiciest bits about special forces there, because the book (published in 2003) by necessity could not include operations that have taken place in 2004, when the resistance became much more formidable and well organized. While the hard-pressed American forces in Iraq have had to be bolstered by too many overweight, under-trained weekend warriors from the National Guard, the shadow warriors are still out there, fighting in the most dangerous and challenging theater of war America has seen since Vietnam.

Some Drawbacks

Perhaps the relative lack of political criticism throughout Shadow Wars was what allowed the author to gain access to scores of official photos, 26 of them in color, from the American, Canadian, British, and Australian defense departments. Although a fair amount of the pictures were taken at training locations, there are others from the battlefield. These photos, which show the various special forces units all decked out in their distinctive uniforms (Canadian abominable snowmen in their white winter garb, the Aussies in their colorful desert camouflage, bearded Green Berets disguised as Afghans on horseback, etc.) make a welcome addition to the text narration. These photos provide a helpful visual accompaniment to the sometimes puzzling descriptions of abstruse weaponry.

Aside from some mention of the Polish GROM special forces units in Iraq, we don't hear much about the other allied forces. Particularly in Afghanistan, where we're told of contributions from allegedly "pacifistic" Scandinavian and German countries, it would be interesting to know more about these forces, their capabilities, and the role that they played in the fighting. Similarly, there is scant coverage of training methods used by the U.S. and its allies. Sure, we all know that the U.S. special forces must be tough – as the stated high dropout rate among recruits attests – and for precisely this reason we would like to know more about how and what the U.S. and its allies train, and whether these methods have changed since 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

What the Future Holds

Indeed, the reader might also like to know about how U.S. special forces have been used at home since 9/11 and the new obsession with homeland security. Since there have been no attacks, we have not had a chance to see them in action; but from plans drawn up for the future, Pugliese relates one example of how the special forces are being trained for a more lively role:

"[U].S. Air Force tactical units whose job is to respond to an intrusion or takeover at America's nuclear missile silos have a new set of orders in the aftermath of September 11. Past tactics, which called for containing the situation and establishing communications with individuals who had gained access to a missile silo, are a thing of the past. Now, the first team on the ground is to immediately engage and eliminate intruders with maximum violence" (p. 184).

It's clear that the author wants to play up the threat of terrorism at home, as a gung-ho book deserves a similar ending. "Time is irrelevant to them," says a Navy SEAL commander, speaking of al-Qaeda. "Targets are everywhere." However, despite the claim that the terrorist group is a "patient organization that carefully selects its targets and painstakingly prepares its missions" (p. 186), real disagreement now exists about the size, cohesion, and ability of al-Qaeda, and to what that famous name may actually refer anymore. Still, whatever we want to call it, there is certainly more than enough danger and intrigue around today to make Pugliese's subject an interesting and important one.

On balance, Shadow Wars is a stimulating and timely read. It offers expert insight and analysis of the enigmatic military men who are, along with covert intelligence agents, the most intriguing, inaccessible, and storied characters in any government's security apparatus.


----

US guard unit defies rule on filming of soldiers' coffins: report

WASHINGTON (AFP) 
Jan 13, 2005

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050113022909.hdy3kegf.html

A US National Guard unit on Wednesday defied a Pentagon request that sought to stop television news crews filming six flag-draped soldiers' coffins arriving in Louisiana following the men's deaths in Iraq last week, according to a report by CBS News.

The Pentagon has barred US media from filming the coffins of US servicemembers arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, but the Louisiana National Guard allowed a CBS news crew to film the arrival of six soldiers' coffins at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Belle Chasse, near New Orleans, Louisiana.

Despite the Pentagon request, Lieutenant Colonel Pete Schneider, a spokesman for the Louisiana National Guard told CBS: "What we thought was, we're going to do what the family asked us to do."

Footage broadcast by CBS showed an honor guard carrying the soldiers' flag-draped coffins out of an aircraft, watched by grieving families, to six waiting hearses.

The six soldiers had served in the Louisiana National Guard, all six died last Thursday after their armored vehicle struck a roadside bomb in Baghdad.

It was the largest number of US troops killed in a single attack since last month's suicide bombing in a military mess hall at a base near Mosul that killed 14 US service members.


-------- us politics

Big-Money Contributors Line Up for Inauguration

By Thomas B. Edsall and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 13, 2005; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5058-2005Jan12

President Bush wants to lower barriers to building nuclear power plants, and the lobby that promotes nuclear energy could not be happier. To show its thanks, the group has given $100,000 to help pay for his inauguration.

"He's a big supporter," said John E. Kane, chief lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "Our donation is just a small way of supporting him."

The nuclear energy industry's contribution is part of a record-breaking outpouring of corporate cash for next week's inaugural festivities. At least 88 companies and trade associations, along with 39 top executives -- all with huge stakes in administration policies -- have already donated $18 million toward a $40 million goal for the country's 55th inaugural celebration.

Wall Street investment firms seeking to profit from private Social Security accounts; oil, gas and mining companies pushing the White House to revive a stalled energy-subsidy bill; and hotels and casinos seeking an influx of immigrant labor are among the 44 interests that have each given $250,000 and the 66 that have donated $100,000 to $225,000. And the money keeps pouring in.

Practically all the major donors have benefited from Bush administration policies, especially from corporate and individual tax cuts, deregulation and the new prescription drug benefit that is part of Medicare. Most also stand to boost profits further because of Bush's second-term proposals, which include limiting medical malpractice suits, creating private investment accounts as part of Social Security and making a tax-code revision that is expected to reduce taxes on investments.

Many donors are corporations and executives that are regulated by the federal government, dependent on government tax and spending policies, or both. At least 16 donors are from the finance industry, 14 are from the energy sector, six are real estate developers, and at least five are from both the health and telecommunications industries. The Washington Post Co. has pledged $100,000.

In the era of campaign finance reform, such largesse is all but forbidden. Federal law limits individual donations to $2,000 per election, and corporations cannot give from their own treasuries directly to candidates or parties. But for the inauguration, the law does not apply, and the administration has decided that private interests may contribute as much as $250,000 each. That is a 150 percent increase over the $100,000 maximum accepted during Bush's first inauguration four years ago.

An inaugural committee spokeswoman said the higher ceiling is needed to meet its fundraising goal. The committee plans to raise $35 million to $40 million to help defray the costs of the four-day celebration, including fireworks, the swearing-in, a parade and nine balls. In 2001, the committee raised $40 million.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton's inaugural committee spent $33 million, raised primarily from souvenir and ticket sales, although there were 13 donors who gave $100,000 apiece and one who gave $250,000.

Critics see the high contribution limit as a vehicle for groups with business before government to buy more access to the people who make big-dollar federal decisions.

"Donors are going to say it's civic participation that motivates them, but they also use their contributions to buy access to lawmakers and the administration," said Sheila Krumholz, research director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The advantage is enormous."

"The donations give executives another chance to rub up to politicians," agreed Bill Allison, managing editor at the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

For corporations in particular, the benefit is almost unique. With the exception of the presidential nominating conventions, companies do not have legal ways to give significant amounts of cash to assist politicians. Even the now-ubiquitous independent groups, called 527s, that bought millions of dollars of advertisements during the presidential campaign have proved to be ill-suited to company contributions.

As a result, Krumholz said, "The inaugural committee provides opportunities to corporations that are hampered by the 'soft money' ban." Three years ago, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold law barring companies from donating unlimited amounts of money -- also called soft money -- to the political parties.

The only restraint on giving is the voluntary $250,000 limit, but that has been circumvented. In a few instances, both the parent company and its subsidiaries have donated. Marriott International Inc. delivered $250,000 to the committee, as did each of two units: Marriott Vacation Club International and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

In addition, Ameriquest, a mortgage company specializing in financing housing purchases in heavily minority neighborhoods, gave $250,000, along with $500,000 from two subsidiaries, for a total of $750,000.

Marriott and other hoteliers are pushing hard for the type of liberalized immigration laws favored by the president to gain a larger labor pool. Ameriquest and others in what is known as the sub-prime mortgage industry are seeking legislation that would set national standards preempting tougher laws in a number of states.

Roland and Dawn Arnall of Los Angeles, the chairman and co-chairman, respectively, of Ameriquest, and their companies are more than contributors to the inauguration. They are also the single biggest source of financial support for Bush since 2002. Over the period, they gave and raised at least $12.25 million.

Dawn Arnall gave $1 million to the Republican National Committee in 2002 and $5 million to the pro-Bush 527 group called Progress for America Voter Fund. She served as a co-chairman of the New York Republican Convention Host Committee, with an obligation to raise at least $5 million.

Roland and Dawn Arnall were major fundraisers in 2004, earning the title of "Ranger" for collecting at least $200,000 for the Bush-Cheney ticket and "Super Ranger" for collecting at least $300,000 for the RNC. Roland Arnall hosted a Bush-Cheney fundraiser at his home in August 2004 that produced more than $1 million. Shortly after winning reelection, Bush announced the appointment of the Arnalls as honorary co-chairmen of the inaugural fundraising committee.

A spokeswoman said that "the Arnalls do not grant interviews."

Another $250,000 donor to the inauguration who played a major role in the 2004 election is T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman and corporate raider. He gave $2.5 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked John F. Kerry's record in Vietnam, and $2.5 million to the pro-GOP 527 organization Progress for America.

Similarly, the $250,000 inaugural contribution of Alexander G. Spanos, a real estate developer and owner of the National Football League's San Diego Chargers, was a small fraction of the $5 million he gave to Progress for America and the $1 million he gave to the New York City Convention Host Committee, which helped to fund the Republicans' presidential nominating convention last summer.

Many of the inauguration's benefactors are veteran Republican and Bush backers. Thirty-nine of the individual donors were substantial fundraisers in 2004 for the Bush reelection campaign, the Republican National Committee or both. Twenty-one entities or individuals also helped underwrite the Republican National Convention. Nine inaugural contributors funded one or more pro-Bush 527 organization.

Donors offer a range of reasons for participating in the inauguration. One is simply to get good, guaranteed seats and tickets. All donors of $100,000 or more receive benefits keyed to the four-day tribute. These include 38 tickets to 10 balls, receptions, galas and the swearing-in ceremony. Givers of $250,000 get 80 tickets to the 10 events. In addition, big donors' names, or the names of their corporations, will appear on official printed materials.

Edward L. Yingling, incoming president of the American Bankers Association, which gave $25,000, said: "We gave enough to get the sets of tickets we need for bankers, some of our staff and some friends of the industry who want to go to certain events."

Patrick Butler, vice president of The Washington Post Co., said the company, which is the parent of this newspaper, agreed to donate to be sure that it has enough tickets to the Inaugural Ball to cover its major corporate advertisers, which The Post fetes at the event every four years.

A spokesman for the Boeing Co., which gave $100,000, said the money is "to help in celebrating the defining event in the American democratic process." Boeing is dealing with federal probes into the tactics it used to win a contract to lease and sell to the Air Force 100 refueling tankers for $23.5 billion.

A few groups are forthright about their desire to see and be seen. "We want our presence to be known here in Washington and at the inauguration," said Lucien Salvant, spokesman for the National Association of Realtors, which contributed $50,000. "We consider ourselves the chief spokesman for real estate issues and property rights, and we want people to recognize that."

Research database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report. 

----

Private money to pay for $40 million inauguration
Security costs to be funded by governments

WASHINGTON (AP)
Thursday, January 13, 2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/inauguration.costs.ap/

It will take President Bush less than a minute to take the oath of office next Thursday, but before the inaugural events are over some $40 million may be spent on parades, parties and pyrotechnics.

That doesn't include the costs of the most intense security operation in inaugural history.

The amount spent on this year's festivities will rival the $40 million raised to celebrate Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and will exceed the $33 million spent by President Clinton in 1993 when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

While the partying is being paid for privately, there have been some mutterings about the scale of the celebrations at a time of war and natural disaster.

Money for the celebratory activities is being raised by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which as of the end of last week had received $18 million, much in six-figure donations from wealthy supporters and corporate sponsors.

Among the dozens of $250,000 donors are Home Depot, Bank of America Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ford Motor Co. Kevin Sheridan, a spokesman for the committee, said the fund-raisers were confident they would reach their goals. Sales of inaugural memorabilia, another source of revenue, have been even better than in 2001, he said.

The big donors are rewarded with a variety of inaugural packages, including meetings with political VIPs, tickets to the swearing-in ceremony and parade, and hard-to-get entry into the official inaugural balls and dinners.

The events begin Tuesday with a salute to the troops and a youth concert. On Wednesday there will be a celebration on the Ellipse, including a fireworks show, and three candlelight dinners.

On Thursday afternoon, after Bush takes the oath of office at the Capitol, some 11,000 people will take part in a parade from the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue, to the White House. That night there will be nine official balls.

Bleacher seats for the parade cost $15, $60 and $125 apiece, while a ticket to a ball -- with the exception of one ball for military personnel, which is free -- runs $150.

The office of the first lady said Laura Bush will personally pay for her outfits to inaugural events, which include gowns designed by Oscar de la Renta, Carolina Herrera and Peggy Jennings.

"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted if not canceled -- in wartime," Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York wrote Bush on Tuesday.

Eight congressional Democrats from the Washington area on Wednesday wrote another letter to the president complaining of what they said was the unfair financial burden being imposed on the District of Columbia.

D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams has estimated it will cost the district $17.3 million to help pay for security at the first post-September 11 inauguration, which includes 6,000 law officers and 2,500 military personnel to guard the 250,000 people at the swearing-in and the half-million expected to line the parade route.

Williams, in a letter last month to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, said he can use $5.4 million from a fund for special events in the capital, but the other $11.9 million will have to come from the city's federal homeland security budget.

The expenses, Williams said, include $5.3 million in overtime costs for police officers and $2.9 million to cover logistics costs, such as transportation, lodging, box lunches, water and granola bars.

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, which is responsible for the swearing-in ceremony, has $1.25 million to handle various production costs, such as staffing and printing, as well as catering and flowers for the luncheon in the Capitol following the oath of office.

The Architect of the Capitol also has a budget of $2.8 million as part of a construction project to spruce up the West Front of the Capitol, where the ceremonies will take place.

Inauguration day, with its street closings and heightened security, will also be a holiday for federal workers in the Washington area. That, according to the Office of Personnel Management, costs taxpayers an estimated $66 million.

----

Against War? Stop Buying It

by Andy McKenna
Anti-War.com
January 13, 2005

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/mckenna.php?articleid=4381

In the Dec. 29 New York Times, George Bush said of Osama bin Laden: "His vision of the world is one in which there is no freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and/or freedom of conscience." But in the president's zealous fervor to export democracy at the end of a gun barrel, the he has denied many people these very freedoms. From Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, for Muslims and antiwar protesters in the U.S., the Bush administration has run roughshod over civil liberties. Although I am not being detained or tortured, I am also paying a price for freedom.

As another tax year ends, many wage earners start preparing their 1040 forms for the Internal Revenue Service. Meanwhile, we members of Austin Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (ACOMT), a local peace group, are preparing to suffer the consequences of our principled refusal to pay taxes that fund war.

In 2004, ACOMT members experienced an increase in IRS seizures of our wages and bank accounts. A state worker had a bank account seized twice, and he recently received more garnishment notices from the IRS. A nonprofit employee who is a Catholic and an Army veteran was forced to reduce his income to avoid repeat levies. A Quaker emergency room physician, whose car was seized in 1991, was recently visited at her home by an IRS agent and faces possible seizure of her wages and another car. A teacher who is new to war tax resistance has already begun receiving collection notices. A housecleaner and artist continues living intentionally below the taxable level to legally avoid paying war taxes. In the fall, after 11 years of inaction, the IRS garnished my wages by taking all but $662.50 – the monthly federal poverty level – from my paychecks.

The $465 billion-a-year war machine has caused the deaths over 1,300 U.S. military personnel and as many as 100,000 Iraq civilians. According to the National Priorities Project, the Iraq war has cost Austin families $375 million to date. War tax resisters want to pay our taxes, but we cannot in good conscience pay others to kill in our names. We regularly redirect thousands of our tax dollars to humanitarian and peaceful causes. Last April 15, ACOMT gave money to the American Friends Service Committee's relief efforts in Iraq and to Austin's Nonmilitary Options for Youth. Just before Christmas, we made a donation to Casa Marianella and Posada Esperanza, two East Austin immigrant shelters. This is a drop in the bucket, but it is one drop less for the barrelfuls of blood being shed in the war in Iraq. It means a lot to the nonprofit groups struggling to fill the canyon in human-services funding left by the massive Pentagon budget. As much as 50 percent of federal income taxes (which does not include trust funds like Social Security or Medicare) go for past and present military spending, according to a federal budget analysis.

There ought to be a law (since the First Amendment apparently does not apply to us) that would enable us to direct our taxes to a Treasury Department fund dedicated to nonmilitary purposes. All of the members want to be able to legally pay their taxes for life-affirming programs. ACOMT believes the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill is the win-win solution. The legislation would restore civil liberties to this minority group of taxpayers by resolving the conflict between the tax code and First Amendment rights. It would extend the legal precedent in the Selective Service Act of 1940 so that conscientious objectors would pay their taxes for nonmilitary purposes. The bill has 44 congressional co-sponsors. ACOMT has built a statewide coalition of supporters, including several dozen Austin and Texas community groups, clergy, and over 1,000 citizens. Numerous national secular and religious organizations also endorse the effort. Despite bipartisan support, the bill sits in the Ways and Means Committee, where it has not had a hearing in over 10 years.

Thad Crouch, a former soldier, said, "In a nation founded for religious freedom, why is it against the law to love my enemies and to hold a job?"

ACOMT continues to be in contact with congressional representatives about the proposed legislative relief. The group has been in Austin for over 20 years with different members and is the Texas affiliate of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee. Our group believes that the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill is a win-win solution for us and the government. The bill would grant civil liberties to our minority class of taxpayers by extending to war tax resisters the legal protections the Military Selective Service Act gave conscientious objectors. It would increase tax revenues and decrease the IRS' collection burden. However, it would not reduce the military budget or "open the floodgates" to other taxpayers.

Over 1,000 Central Texans have signed a petition in support of the bill, and dozens of Austin clergy, community groups, and statewide organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas have endorsed it. Many national secular and religious organizations – even the president's own denomination, the United Methodist Church – support the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. The bill has the bipartisan backing of 44 congressmen, including three Texan representatives. Despite this support, it has not had a hearing in a decade, while conscientious objectors around the U.S. have endured many civil liberties violations by the IRS.

Meanwhile, the war – and Americans paying half their taxes to fund it – continues unabated. Long-time war tax resister Karl Meyer recently said, "If progressives fail to resist militarism or refuse participation in it through the one form of participation that is demanded, that is to pay taxes, they should give up their pretensions to being in opposition." Those too faint at heart to try even symbolic war tax resistance can and should safely support the Peace Tax Fund.

The upcoming election in Iraq is a supposed step toward freedom there. But in the U.S., some of us are still struggling to enjoy freedom of conscience. "Freedom must be defended," the president once remarked. He should make a New Year's resolution to follow his own advice.

(For more information, e-mail Andy McKenna.)

----

Shirley Chisholm's Gifts

January 13, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5299-2005Jan12.html

From 1977 to 1979, I worked for the late Shirley Chisholm as a legislative assistant while she was a member of the House ["Pioneering Politician, Advocate Shirley Chisholm Dies," obituaries, Jan. 4]. During her 14 years in Congress, Mrs. Chisholm gave dozens of women like me opportunities to hold professional positions on Capitol Hill at a time when most of her male colleagues confined women to secretarial or clerical positions. People would stare at Mrs. Chisholm when she walked down the hall because of her entourage of female staffers who accompanied her.

We called ourselves the "Chis-ettes," and we referred to Mrs. Chisholm fondly as "Miss C." We loved her because she embraced us and encouraged us, and she dared to tell men -- and all Americans, for that matter -- that women were in the halls of power and were there to stay.

Shirley Chisholm was a smart, endearing, classy, outspoken and determined lady who taught me two pivotal life lessons:

• I could be a "feminine feminist" in a man's world and still earn the power I needed to get the job done.

• Beauty comes in many forms, and when we limit our concept of beauty to appearance we are missing the boat.

LAURA W. MURPHY

Director

Washington Legislative Office

American Civil Liberties Union

Washington


----

Big-Money Contributors Line Up for Inauguration

By Thomas B. Edsall and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post
January 13, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5058-2005Jan12.html

President Bush wants to lower barriers to building nuclear power plants, and the lobby that promotes nuclear energy could not be happier. To show its thanks, the group has given $100,000 to help pay for his inauguration.

"He's a big supporter," said John E. Kane, chief lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "Our donation is just a small way of supporting him."

The nuclear energy industry's contribution is part of a record-breaking outpouring of corporate cash for next week's inaugural festivities. At least 88 companies and trade associations, along with 39 top executives -- all with huge stakes in administration policies -- have already donated $18 million toward a $40 million goal for the country's 55th inaugural celebration.

Wall Street investment firms seeking to profit from private Social Security accounts; oil, gas and mining companies pushing the White House to revive a stalled energy-subsidy bill; and hotels and casinos seeking an influx of immigrant labor are among the 44 interests that have each given $250,000 and the 66 that have donated $100,000 to $225,000. And the money keeps pouring in.

Practically all the major donors have benefited from Bush administration policies, especially from corporate and individual tax cuts, deregulation and the new prescription drug benefit that is part of Medicare. Most also stand to boost profits further because of Bush's second-term proposals, which include limiting medical malpractice suits, creating private investment accounts as part of Social Security and making a tax-code revision that is expected to reduce taxes on investments.

Many donors are corporations and executives that are regulated by the federal government, dependent on government tax and spending policies, or both. At least 16 donors are from the finance industry, 14 are from the energy sector, six are real estate developers, and at least five are from both the health and telecommunications industries. The Washington Post Co. has pledged $100,000.

In the era of campaign finance reform, such largesse is all but forbidden. Federal law limits individual donations to $2,000 per election, and corporations cannot give from their own treasuries directly to candidates or parties. But for the inauguration, the law does not apply, and the administration has decided that private interests may contribute as much as $250,000 each. That is a 150 percent increase over the $100,000 maximum accepted during Bush's first inauguration four years ago.

An inaugural committee spokeswoman said the higher ceiling is needed to meet its fundraising goal. The committee plans to raise $35 million to $40 million to help defray the costs of the four-day celebration, including fireworks, the swearing-in, a parade and nine balls. In 2001, the committee raised $40 million.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton's inaugural committee spent $33 million, raised primarily from souvenir and ticket sales, although there were 13 donors who gave $100,000 apiece and one who gave $250,000.

Critics see the high contribution limit as a vehicle for groups with business before government to buy more access to the people who make big-dollar federal decisions.

"Donors are going to say it's civic participation that motivates them, but they also use their contributions to buy access to lawmakers and the administration," said Sheila Krumholz, research director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The advantage is enormous."

"The donations give executives another chance to rub up to politicians," agreed Bill Allison, managing editor at the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

For corporations in particular, the benefit is almost unique. With the exception of the presidential nominating conventions, companies do not have legal ways to give significant amounts of cash to assist politicians. Even the now-ubiquitous independent groups, called 527s, that bought millions of dollars of advertisements during the presidential campaign have proved to be ill-suited to company contributions.

As a result, Krumholz said, "The inaugural committee provides opportunities to corporations that are hampered by the 'soft money' ban." Three years ago, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold law barring companies from donating unlimited amounts of money -- also called soft money -- to the political parties.

The only restraint on giving is the voluntary $250,000 limit, but that has been circumvented. In a few instances, both the parent company and its subsidiaries have donated. Marriott International Inc. delivered $250,000 to the committee, as did each of two units: Marriott Vacation Club International and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

In addition, Ameriquest, a mortgage company specializing in financing housing purchases in heavily minority neighborhoods, gave $250,000, along with $500,000 from two subsidiaries, for a total of $750,000.

Marriott and other hoteliers are pushing hard for the type of liberalized immigration laws favored by the president to gain a larger labor pool. Ameriquest and others in what is known as the sub-prime mortgage industry are seeking legislation that would set national standards preempting tougher laws in a number of states.

Roland and Dawn Arnall of Los Angeles, the chairman and co-chairman, respectively, of Ameriquest, and their companies are more than contributors to the inauguration. They are also the single biggest source of financial support for Bush since 2002. Over the period, they gave and raised at least $12.25 million.

Dawn Arnall gave $1 million to the Republican National Committee in 2002 and $5 million to the pro-Bush 527 group called Progress for America Voter Fund. She served as a co-chairman of the New York Republican Convention Host Committee, with an obligation to raise at least $5 million.

Roland and Dawn Arnall were major fundraisers in 2004, earning the title of "Ranger" for collecting at least $200,000 for the Bush-Cheney ticket and "Super Ranger" for collecting at least $300,000 for the RNC. Roland Arnall hosted a Bush-Cheney fundraiser at his home in August 2004 that produced more than $1 million. Shortly after winning reelection, Bush announced the appointment of the Arnalls as honorary co-chairmen of the inaugural fundraising committee.

A spokeswoman said that "the Arnalls do not grant interviews."

Another $250,000 donor to the inauguration who played a major role in the 2004 election is T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman and corporate raider. He gave $2.5 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked John F. Kerry's record in Vietnam, and $2.5 million to the pro-GOP 527 organization Progress for America.

Similarly, the $250,000 inaugural contribution of Alexander G. Spanos, a real estate developer and owner of the National Football League's San Diego Chargers, was a small fraction of the $5 million he gave to Progress for America and the $1 million he gave to the New York City Convention Host Committee, which helped to fund the Republicans' presidential nominating convention last summer.

Many of the inauguration's benefactors are veteran Republican and Bush backers. Thirty-nine of the individual donors were substantial fundraisers in 2004 for the Bush reelection campaign, the Republican National Committee or both. Twenty-one entities or individuals also helped underwrite the Republican National Convention. Nine inaugural contributors funded one or more pro-Bush 527 organization.

Donors offer a range of reasons for participating in the inauguration. One is simply to get good, guaranteed seats and tickets. All donors of $100,000 or more receive benefits keyed to the four-day tribute. These include 38 tickets to 10 balls, receptions, galas and the swearing-in ceremony. Givers of $250,000 get 80 tickets to the 10 events. In addition, big donors' names, or the names of their corporations, will appear on official printed materials.

Edward L. Yingling, incoming president of the American Bankers Association, which gave $25,000, said: "We gave enough to get the sets of tickets we need for bankers, some of our staff and some friends of the industry who want to go to certain events."

Patrick Butler, vice president of The Washington Post Co., said the company, which is the parent of this newspaper, agreed to donate to be sure that it has enough tickets to the Inaugural Ball to cover its major corporate advertisers, which The Post fetes at the event every four years.

A spokesman for the Boeing Co., which gave $100,000, said the money is "to help in celebrating the defining event in the American democratic process." Boeing is dealing with federal probes into the tactics it used to win a contract to lease and sell to the Air Force 100 refueling tankers for $23.5 billion.

A few groups are forthright about their desire to see and be seen. "We want our presence to be known here in Washington and at the inauguration," said Lucien Salvant, spokesman for the National Association of Realtors, which contributed $50,000. "We consider ourselves the chief spokesman for real estate issues and property rights, and we want people to recognize that." 

----

Inaugural Donors at a Glance

January 13, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Inaugural-Donors-List.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Dozens of businesses and lobbying groups made six-figure donations to sponsor official events for President Bush's inauguration next week, earning them tickets to dinners, balls and other events in which Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are expected to appear.

Corporations and trade associations giving $250,000 to become inaugural ``underwriters'' include:
	
Altria Corporate Services

American Financial

Ameriquest Capital Corp.

Argent Mortgage Co.

AT&T

Bank of America Corp.

Bristol-Myers Squibb

ChevronTexaco

Cinergy Corp.

Corporate Capital

Exxon Mobil Corp.

First Data Corp.

Ford Motor Co.

Golden Eagle Industries

Hunt Consolidated

Kojaian Ventures

Long Beach Acceptance Corp.

Marriott International

Marriott Vacation Club International

National Association of Home Builders

New Energy Corp.

Occidental Petroleum Corp.

Rooney Holdings Inc.

Sallie Mae Inc.

Southern Co.

Stephens Group Inc.

Strongbow Technologies

The Home Depot

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

Time Warner

Town and Country Credit

United Parcel Service

United Technologies

UST Inc.

Businesses and trade associations donating $100,000 to become inaugural ``sponsors'' include:

AFLAC Inc.

Bensco Inc.

Benson Football

Benson Mineral Group

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida

Boeing

California Farm Bureau Federation

Coca-Cola

Computer Associates International

Cove Partners

GMAC

Goldman Sachs

Hunter Engineering Co.

Independent Community Bankers of America

International Paper

Intervest Construction

KB Home

Linger Longer Development Co.

Microsoft

New Century Mortgage Co.

Northrop Grumman

Nuclear Energy Institute

Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

Oracle Corp.

Peabody Holding Co.

Pepsi-Cola Co.

Qualcomm Inc.

SBC Communications

TC Management Partners IV

Titus Electrical Contracting

TRT Holdings

Tyson

Union Pacific Corp.

Valhi

Waste Management Service Center

Well Care Health Plans

Source: Presidential Inaugural Committee

On the Web:

http://www.inaugural05.com

----

Corporate donors line up for inaugural
No regulation governs such gifts

By THOMAS B. EDSALL
and JEFFREY H. BIRNBAUM
The Washington Post
January 13. 2005 8:00AM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050113/REPOSITORY/501130372/1013/NEWS03

WASHINGTON - President Bush wants to lower barriers to building nuclear power plants, and the lobby that promotes nuclear energy could not be happier. To show its thanks, the group has given $100,000 to help pay for his inauguration.

"He's a big supporter," said John Kane, chief lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "Our donation is just a small way of supporting him."

The nuclear energy industry's contribution is part of a record-breaking outpouring of corporate cash to next week's inaugural festivities. At least 88 companies and trade associations, along with 39 CEOs and top executives - all with huge stakes in administration policies - already have donated $18 million toward a $40 million goal for the country's 55th inaugural celebration.

Wall Street investment firms seeking to profit from private Social Security accounts; oil, gas and mining companies pushing the White House to revive a stalled energy-subsidy bill; and hotels and casinos seeking an influx of immigrant labor are among the 44 interests that have each given $250,000 and the 66 that have donated $100,000 to $225,000. And the money keeps pouring in.

Practically all the major donors have benefited from Bush administration policies, especially from corporate and individual tax cuts, deregulation and the new prescription drug benefit that is part of Medicare. Most also stand to boost profits further because of Bush's second-term proposals, which include limiting medical malpractice suits, creating private investment accounts as part of Social Security and making a tax-code revision that is expected to reduce taxes on investments.

Many donors are corporations and executives that are regulated by the federal government, dependent on government tax and spending policies, or both. At least 16 donors are from the finance industry, 14 are from the energy sector, six are real estate developers, and at least five are from both the health and telecommunications industries.

In the era of campaign finance reform, such largesse is all but forbidden. Federal law limits individual donations to $2,000 per election and corporations cannot give from their own treasuries directly to candidates or parties.

But for the inauguration, the law does not apply, and the administration has decided that private interests may contribute as much as $250,000 each. That is a 150 percent increase over the $100,000 maximum accepted during Bush's first inauguration four years ago.

An Inaugural Committee spokeswoman said the higher ceiling was needed to meet its fundraising goal. The committee plans to raise $35 million to $40 million to help defray the costs of the four-day celebration, including fireworks, the swearing-in, a parade and nine balls. In 2001, the committee raised $40 million.

In 1993, President Clinton's inaugural committee spent $33 million, raised primarily from souvenir and ticket sales, although there were 13 donors who gave $100,000 apiece and one who gave $250,000.

Critics see the high contribution limit as a vehicle for groups with business before government to buy more access to the people who make big-dollar federal decisions.

"Donors are going to say it's civic participation that motivates them, but they also use their contributions to buy access to lawmakers and the administration," said Sheila Krumholz, research director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "The advantage is enormous."

For corporations in particular, the benefit is almost unique. With the exception of the presidential nominating conventions, companies do not have legal ways to give significant amounts of cash to assist politicians. As a result, Krumholz said, "The Inaugural Committee provides opportunities to corporations that are hampered by the 'soft money' ban."

The only restraint on giving is the voluntary $250,000 limit, but that has been circumvented. In a few instances, both the parent company and its subsidiaries have donated.

Marriott International Inc. delivered $250,000 to the committee, as did each of two units: Marriott Vacation Club International and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC.

In addition, Ameriquest, a mortgage company specializing in financing housing purchases in heavily minority neighborhoods, gave $250,000, along with $500,000 from two subsidiaries, for a total of $750,000.

Marriott and other hoteliers are pushing hard for the type of liberalized immigration laws favored by the president to gain a larger labor pool. Ameriquest and others in what is known as the sub-prime mortgage industry are seeking legislation that would set national standards preempting tougher laws in a number of states.

A few groups are forthright about their desire to see and be seen. "We want our presence to be known here in Washington and at the inauguration," said Lucien Salvant, spokesman for the National Association of Realtors, which contributed $50,000. "We consider ourselves the chief spokesman for real estate issues and property rights, and we want people to recognize that."

-0-

Research database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report.


-------- ENERGY 


-------- alternative energy

Germany's SolarWorld Seeks Place in the Sun

Story by Mantik Kusjanto and Anneli Palmen
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
GERMANY: January 13, 2005

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28969/newsDate/13-Jan-2005/story.htm

BONN - SolarWorld, one of Germany's hottest stocks the past two years, expects 25 percent growth in sales and net profit this year as customers snap up its solar wafers, cells and panels, its chief executive said on Wednesday.


"Our products have been sold out for 2005. We are now writing contracts for 2006," Frank Asbeck, 46, told Reuters in an interview at his office in the former capital of Germany.

SolarWorld and local rivals such as Q Cells and Conergy have benefited from Germany's renewable energy law that guarantees above-market prices for solar power fed into electricity network for 20 years.

The law, which went into effect last year, helps SolarWorld compete in the rapidly growing $7 billion world solar market.

Asbeck said the company plans to invest more than 150 million euros ($197 million) over the next two years to boost its capacity, currently running at full steam.

He said the investments would be financed by government funds, bank loans and equity, and there was no need for a fund raising exercise.

SolarWorld shares rose 0.8 percent to 76.35 euros by 1226 GMT following the news, reversing a fall of as much as 1.7 percent earlier, while the German technology index was flat.

Since the end of 2002, SolarWorld shares have risen around 14 times, boosting its market value to around 440 million euros from 32 million.

Asbeck has already said he expects the firm's 2004 net profit to come in higher than Solarworld's own forecast of 14 million euros.


A VISION LIKE INTEL

In addition, the company plans to raise its dividend. "A doubling from 2003 is not an unrealistic estimate," he said.

The firm, about 40 percent controlled by the Asbeck family, paid a dividend of 18 euro cents per share in 2003.

"We are focusing on being the biggest wafer producer (in the world)," Asbeck said.

"In every module (solar panel) around the world, there should be a wafer from SolarWorld, like the chip from Intel in most computers."

He said the firm's board plans to recommend issuing bonus shares to shareholders, which can help improve liquidity in the only listed pure-solar-energy stock in Germany.

According to Reuters Research, the stock trades at 34 times 2005 estimated earnings, while solar-related firms such as Tokuyama in Japan and Evergreen Solar in the United States trade at 21 times and 19 times respectively.

SolarWorld, which competes globally with bigger rivals like Sharp Corp, BP Solar, Shell Solar and Kyocera, joined Germany's technology index in December.

In 2010, analysts expect the solar power market -- which has been growing at about 30 percent a year since 1990 -- to be worth around $30 billion.

Industry body UVS said there was more solar power installed in Germany last year than any other country, with installed capacity rising some 300 megawatts to 700 megawatts -- about the size of a small nuclear or coal-fired power plant.

Despite strong growth, the share of solar power in the country's energy production remained below 1 percent.

SolarWorld also makes silicon wafers used in the solar industry and is estimated to have a 15 percent share of the world solar wafer market.



-------- OTHER


-------- environment

George Monbiot: "Climate Change Is a Far Greater Threat To Human Well-Being Than Terrorism"

Democracy Now
Thursday, January 13th, 2005

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/1455240

Residents of the coastal town of La Conchita are begin warned that the steep hills overlooking their community could collapse again as the death toll from Monday's mudslide rose to 10 with three still missing.

Rescue workers are still searching for any survivors who may remain trapped in the 30-foot-deep mound of earth that swallowed some 15 homes in La Conchita, which lies about 80 miles north of Los Angeles.

Part of a hillside that towered over the seaside enclave collapsed two days ago after weeks of drenching rain unleashed torrents of mud that buried a four-block area within seconds. Video of the mudslide showed a large portion of a towering bluff break off and then rumble down the hill toward the town, carrying trees, power lines and thick mud into homes below. Several cars were crushed, and a bus was tossed into one of the homes.

On a visit to the area, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told reporters "We have seen the power of nature to cause damage and despair, but we will match that power with our own resolve."

Authorities blamed the landslides and flooding on five days of heavy rain, which have resulted in some 20 deaths in the state. Southern California has had a total of about 17 inches of rain in the past two weeks.

    * George Monbiot, author and columnist for the London Guardian. His latest book is "Manifesto for a New World Order."

AMY GOODMAN:  We go now to George Monbiot. He is author and columnist for the London Guardian. His latest book is Manifesto for a New World Order. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

GEORGE MONBIOT: Thanks very much, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, can you talk about the extreme weather we're seeing in the California area, and then we want to talk you to a little about the tsunami.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Sure. It seems very clear that the sort of weather that you are seeing in California ties in with the predictions made by climate scientists for what would happen under a climate change scenario. No one can put their hand on their heart saying -- and say that any one weather event is -- is we know the result of climate change. What we can say is that weather events like this are in line with the predictions made by climate scientists for what would happen when climate change begins to accelerate. And what they say we're likely to see far more events of this nature. Far more freak weather, far more hurricanes, far more storms, far greater precipitation, rainfall, at certain times of the year, stronger winds, and all of the rest of it. And the frightening thing to remember is this --, that so far, as a result of human activities, we have seen a global warming of 0.6 degrees centigrade. What the climate scientists are talking about is a possible global warming of maximum scenario of 6 degrees centigrade by the end of this century. In other words, ten times as much warming as we have seen so far. If the disruptive weather which we have suffered so far in many parts of the world, we are having something similar in the United Kingdom at the moment. If disruptive weather like that results from .6 degrees, think of what the consequences of 6 degrees would be.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In terms of the reality of the Bush administration now, who is increasingly totally isolated from the rest of the world on this issue, what hope do you see over the next four years, for the world community being able to more properly address the issues of global warming?

GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, you're absolutely right Juan, to say that Bush really is isolated at moment. As far as the world is concerned the great majority of developed countries have signed up to the Kyoto protocol on climate change which is an attempt to get the rich countries together to try to limit their own carbon emissions. The United States is one of the very few which has not signed up and now the Bush administration just in the past few weeks has tried to prevent any extension of the Kyoto Protocol. There was an attempt to have a new treaty, which would come into force in 2012, which would bring about much bigger cuts in carbon dioxide and which would try to pull in the developing countries such as India and China, and the Bush administration, even though it didn't have negotiating rights because it hadn't signed the Kyoto protocol, it deliberately disrupted and destroyed that meeting so that so far there is no agreement for what's going to happen from 2012 onward. It's not just the Bush – that Bush has withdrawn from global agreements and global attempts to do something about this problem, he has actually quite deliberately gone about to try to destroy those attempts, and try to destroy any agreements to sort out climate change. And so, when Schwarzenegger talks about matching -- matching the scale of nature with the scale of our resolve, he's certainly not talking the same language as Bush is talking. Even the language which Schwarzenegger -- which Schwarzenegger is using is unmatched by his own involvement in trying to do anything serious about climate change. We have seen how he is really given drivers in particular a very easy ride, how the efforts that should being made, particularly to get people out of sports utility vehicles, are simply not being made either by Schwarzenegger or, of course, by Bush. Now, what we need to do is to campaign constantly to make sure that the Bush administration, like governments all over the world, begins to take climate change as seriously as they take terrorism. Because when it comes to the numbers of people who are likely to be affected by climate change that outweighs by many times the number of people who even under the worst case scenario could be affected by the terrorism. Climate change is actually a far greater threat to human well-being than terrorism is.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, George Monbiot, on the issue of the tsunami, you have a column called, “Killing Versus Helping.” Very briefly, explain.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes, the United States government has quite generously given $350 million to the victims of the tsunami, or at least promised that money to the victims of tsunami in Asia, and -- but that is a drop in the ocean. It's the equivalent of one-and-a-half days of its spending in Iraq. It's so far spent $148 billion there. It seems to me to be a commentary on the fundamental thickness at the heart of government, that we always find enough money for killing people and we always struggle to find enough money for helping people. And if the Bush administration really had the -- had humanity at heart and really was concerned about the people of the developing world, the $148 billion it has spent in Iraq on clearing people out of cities like Fallujah on killing possibly tens of thousands of civilians, that money would have been spent on humanitarian aid for the very poor.

AMY GOODMAN: George Monbiot, we want to thank you very much for being with us. George Monbiot, a columnist in Britain with the Guardian newspaper. We thank you. This is Democracy Now! Thank you. 

----


Chinese Company Plans Asia's Biggest Wind Farm, Report Says

Associated Press
BEIJING
January 13, 2005

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=6918

A private company plans to build Asia's biggest wind farm in the sea south of Shanghai, setting up 100 turbines in shallow coastal waters, an industry group said Thursday.

The announcement of the 2 billion yuan (US$250 million; euro190.27 million) project comes as China struggles with severe electricity shortages while also trying to reduce its heavy reliance on dirty coal-fired power plants.

Zhejiang Green Power Investment Co. is to build the project along the coast of Daishan County in Zhejiang, the province south of Shanghai, the China Electricity Council said. It didn't say when construction was to begin.

The wind farm is to have a generating capacity of 200 megawatts, according to the council, the main trade group for China's power industry.

At the end of 2004, China's total wind power capacity was 730 megawatts. 

----

Great Lakes Moratorium on Oil Drilling Could Be Lifted

WASHINGTON, DC, January 13, 2005 (ENS)

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-13-09.asp#anchor7

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a study on the environmental effects of gas and oil drilling in the Great Lakes. The information will be used by Congress to determine if the current drilling moratorium in the Great Lakes should be extended or not.

Congress required the study in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2002. The same law established a moratorium on all federal and state permits and leases for gas and oil drilling in, or under the Great Lakes.

That moratorium was extended through Fiscal Year 2005 in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003.

The geologic formations under Eastern and Middle Lake Erie and those under Lakes Michigan and Huron have some gas and oil production potential that has been mined, the Corps says.

Some 2,200 vertical wells have been constructed in Lake Erie since 1913, all in Canada. Thirteen slant drilling wells have been constructed underneath Lake Michigan since 1979, all in Michigan.

There does not appear to be any oil or gas production potential under Southern Lake Michigan or under Lake Ontario in New York.

Vertical drilling involves the construction of a drilling platform in the open lake, with a well drilling straight down. Slant drilling, also known as horizontal drilling, involves the drilling of a well at an onshore location, typically within 1,000 feet of the lake, straight down and then angled into a deep layer under the lake - down to 4,000 feet deep in the case of Lake Michigan.

Several environmental groups have expressed concern about the slant drilling wells and about pipelines proposed for transporting natural gas proposed to cross Lake Erie, affecting New York and Pennsylvania, and Lake Michigan, affecting Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.

The Corps will lead the environmental study in collaboration with other federal agencies. A panel of experts from government, academia and the private sector will be convened to review existing information and previous studies from the Great Lakes and elsewhere.

The panel will prepare a report that characterizes the environmental effects of gas and oil drilling on the Great Lakes, including the effects on the shorelines and water of the Great Lakes.

The study will be informational in nature and will not make any specific recommendations. It is not intended to serve as an environmental impact statement for any particular federal action, so public review and comment is not included in the study. The Corps says it will post information gathered for the study and the final report on its website, http://www.usace.army.mil/ 


-------- imf / world bank / wto (economics)

The Debt Threat: How Debt is Destroying the Developing World
	
Democracy Now
Thursday, January 13th, 2005

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/1455234

As a group of the world's richest countries agree to temporarily freeze debt repayments of Asian countries hit by last month's tsunami, we speak with globalization expert Noreena Hertz, author of The Debt Threat: How Debt is Destroying the World. 

The Paris Club of rich creditor nations reached an agreement on Wednesday to temporarily freeze debt repayments of countries hit by last month's tsunami to help them recover.

Club president Jean-Pierre Joyuet told a news conference that the suspension of debt would not be subjected to any of the conditions that usually accompany aid, such as an accord with the International Monetary Fund or private creditors.

According to the World Bank, the affected nations owe hundreds of billions in debt. Indonesia owes $132 billion. India owes just over $100 billion. Thailand owes $60 billion and Malaysia owes $50 billion.

So far only Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Seychelles have signaled that they will take up the offer. Other tsunami-affected countries, such as India, Malaysia and Thailand have not requested a freeze on their debt payments.

British aid agency Oxfam was critical of the Paris Club offer. They said in a statement "Rather than agreeing to cancel significant proportions of debt, they seem set to go for the easy option of a temporary suspension of repayments, which will then be reapplied in a few months."

The Paris Club is made up of an informal group of the world's richest creditor nations, including the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the U.S. It meets about 10 times a year to discuss debts owed to them.

    * Noreena Hertz, associate director of the Centre for International Business at the University of Cambridge and a leading experts on economic globalization. She is author of the new book, "The Debt Threat: How Debt is Destroying the Developing World."

AMY GOODMAN:  Joining us right now from Washington, DC, is Noreena Hertz, the Associate Director of the Center for International Business at the University of Cambridge, one of the leading experts on economic globalization. Her latest book is called The Debt Threat: How Debt is Destroying the Developing World and Threatening Us All. Noreena Hertz, welcome to Democracy Now!

NOREENA HERTZ: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s very good to have you with us. Well, what is your response to the offer of the industrialized world?

NOREENA HERTZ: Yet again something is on the table that on face value seems good, but in practice what does it mean? It means that countries, you know, who have been terribly afflicted by the tsunami are now going to see debt service repayments halted, but only for a few months. They're going to be charged interest in the interim, and in a few months' time will have a big bill to pay. This isn't really justice for countries terribly in need.

JUAN GONZALEZ: In terms of the impact of this debt on many of the countries that are affected by the tsunami, for instance, could you give us an idea of the proportion of their overall budgets that are now dedicated to paying off international debt as opposed to be able to deal with the problems of their own countries?

NOREENA HERTZ: Yes. I mean, if you take Indonesia, for example, Indonesia spent a quarter of its government revenues last year on debt service. But we -- you know, we need to think bigger than just the Asian tsunami afflicted countries. Because of course, what is good for Sri Lanka must also be good for Sierra Leone, and African life must be valued as highly as an Asian life, and African countries are facing tragedies in terms of human lives on a daily basis, and they're not getting their debts canceled.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what it means to pay the debt? Can you talk about how the whole process works?

NOREENA HERTZ: Well, what happens is that the world's poorest countries, if you look at Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, it is paying out $30 million every single day on debt service. This is a region where 26 million people are HIV-AIDS infected. Where 40 million children will lose a parent to HIV-AIDS within the next ten years, yet this region is having to pay out four times what it can afford to spend on health care, on debt service. The rich countries of the world, the World Bank and the IMF are insisting that they are put before lives, before education, before basic human needs.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, of course, the creditor nations insist that if they were to cancel all of this debt, that there would be international financial problems. However, Argentina clearly canceled or at least put a moratorium on its debt several years ago and the sky has not fallen in. In fact, things have begun to improve in Argentina to some degree. Could you talk about the response of the creditor nations to the issue of the debt mitigation?

NOREENA HERTZ: Well, you're absolutely right Juan. Argentina said to the international community, you know what? We're not going to put our people's needs before your rich countries' banks’ wants and wishes. We're going to look after our people first, and so they suspended all repayments on $100 billion worth of debt, and have done fantastically well as a consequence. Over the past two years, growth rates have shot up, unemployment is being slashed, and they have a very, very strong position moving forward. And what we might see, I think, are more countries looking at the Argentinean example and saying, you know what, why are we putting needs of our people behind those of the World Bank and the IMF? Perhaps we should also strategically decide not to repay our debts.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Noreena Hertz. Her book is called, The Debt Threat: How Debt is Destroying the Developing World and Threatening Us All. She's a professor at the University of Britain in Cambridge. In this offer that the Paris Club of rich nations has made to temporarily freeze debt repayments to tsunami-hit countries, only Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Seychelles have said they’ll take up the offer. India, Malaysia, Thailand have not requested a freeze on their debt repayments, why? What's the difference in this response?

NOREENA HERTZ: I think what is good is that what we don't have is the traditional one-size-fits-all solution imposed upon developing countries. I think that's good that countries are given a choice whether or not to have their debts canceled at this stage. For some countries, some of the more advanced developing countries, actually, it's better for them to go and borrow money on the international capital markets, in order to get investment that they need. They're worried, those countries, that if they accept this debt cancellation deal, they're going to be penalized by lenders. That's why they're deciding not to do it. But to go back to your question, Juan, about whether if we cancel debts, we're actually encouraging countries to run up kind of new bills in the future, I think we also forget how complicit we in the developed world are in the mess that the developing world finds itself in because of course, we lent monies to the world's poorest countries, not so that they could develop and improve their circumstances, but really especially during the cold war, to serve our own geo-political interests. If you look at a country like the Democratic Republic of Congo, formally Zaire, the United States, for example, lent half of the loans it gave to Africa in the 1970's to one of the most notoriously corrupt and tyrannical dictators in the world, President Mobutu who they knew was using the money to charge a Concorde for private shopping sprees and buy estates and castles all over Europe; and Indonesia, Suharto; Abache, Nigeria; Marcos in the Philippines; Saddam Hussein of course, of Iraq. We lent to terrible, tyrannical dictators what we knew weren't going to use the money for those people and yet those people are being asked to repay the debts today.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Noreena Hertz, The Debt Threat: How Debt is Destroying the Developing World and Threatening Us All, is her book. She is speaking to us from Washington where there's a Jubilee Conference going on.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Noreena Hertz who joins us from Washington, D.C., studio where she’s come in from Britain to attend a jubilee conference. Her book is called, The Debt Threat. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to ask you, in your book, you talk about a particularly pernicious type of – of debt predator. You call them “debt vultures.” Could you talk to our audience about who – what are debt vultures and give us some examples of it?

NOREENA HERTZ: Sure, Juan. Debt vultures are really the scum at the bottom of the pond. These are guys who buy up the debts of the world's poorest countries on the secondary market. You can go buy debts of a country like Peru, for example, at a real discount. Why? Because people think that the debts won't be repaid. So, you can buy Peruvian debt worth a dollar for ten cents, for example. What these guys do is, they buy out lots and lots of this debt at this big discount and then they go to the country in question and they say, ‘We're going to sue you, unless you repay your debts at face value.’ So, in the case of Peru, for example, there's a firm of debt vultures called Elliot Associates, and they went and they bought up all this Peruvian debt for about $10 billion, and then they went to the government and they said, ‘We want to get it back at face value,’ which was about 56, or a million dollars. And so, in the process --

JUAN GONZALEZ: And this Elliot Associates -- excuse me -- this Elliot Associates is based in New York City?

NOREENA HERTZ: It sure is; but we’ve got awful debt vultures in my hometown, in London, too. So it's not just a U.S. phenomenon. But what they do is then they -- You know, for the people of Peru, this is school books and medicines that the children there are therefore unable to get. And I met some of these debt vultures recently, and it was just after the hurricane had taken place in Cuba, and they’d been buying up Cuban debt. And I said, “God, you know, the hurricane how awful it was for the people;” and all they said to me was, “The people, hey, we didn't care about the people. We were just worried about what that would do for the price of debt. Capital,” they said to me, “Noreena, has no soul.”

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Noreena Hertz. She’s author of The Debt Threat a professor at the University of Cambridge in Britain. And we’re talking about the debt and as it relates to the tsunami. You talked about countries giving money to dictators like Suharto, the old dictator of Indonesia, knowing that these leaders are going to take much of that money, and yet it's the people who remain long beyond the reigns of these dictators that have to pay back. What do you think is the solution? You're in Washington. You can tell us about the conference; but would you say that countries should simply refuse to pay back debt?

NOREENA HERTZ: I think in the case of Latin America and more developed countries that actually is an option. Countries could band together; and in Latin America now, we do have a whole group of left- leaning governments. There is consensus amongst Venezuela, Uruguay, Brazil. Argentina’s doing great. And there would be a case, I think, for a strategic default. In the case of Africa it's more complicated. Because African countries are actually paying back for every dollar that they receive in aid, approximately the same amount in debt service. So, they're much more kind-of linked, and they're really, really dependent, though, on aid coming in; and were they to default, all aid from the World Bank and I.M.F. would freeze immediately. So they’ve got a more difficult challenge ahead of them. But I think we’ve got to be really clear on this: Countries that need monies so that they can provide health care and education and shelter to their people shouldn't have to repay debts that we knowingly lent to bad regimes long since gone; and all illegitimate debts–debts lent to these terrible dictators like Saddam Hussein, like Suharto, like Marcos–must also be canceled. But I think – and we're running an email campaign on www.debtthreat.com where people can send an e-letter to President Bush saying, ‘We want debts to be canceled, and we also want you to make sure that the monies saved do go to health and education and infrastructure so that they do reach the poor and needy and vulnerable in the countries in question.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Do you think that some of these third world countries don't realize the negotiating power that they do have? I remember a business man that was interviewed quite extensively about the issues told me, “Well, Juan, you know, if you borrow $1,000 from a bank and you can’t pay it back, you’re in trouble. But if you borrow $100 million from a bank and you can’t pay back, the bank’s in trouble;” and so that, you usually are in a better negotiating position when you owe a lot of money than when you owe a little bit of money.

NOREENA HERTZ: Yeah, and that's why I think in the case of Latin America, we really may see a collective default, ‘cause I think especially looking at the Argentinian success. In the case of Africa, I think there's less – less, perhaps, unanimity amongst governments, and I think there's less chance that we're going to see this kind of collective decision. But you're absolutely right, Juan. I mean, when you owe a lot of money, you’ve got power; and the developing world really needs to exercise this power. But they did do it in the case of the trade talks in Cancun, of course, last year when, for the first time, we did see this kind of collective bargaining on the part of Brazil and China and India and a whole host of developing countries, turning around to the west and saying, ‘We don't accept the rules that you are laying out. We are not going to sit at the table when you’re defining the rules. We would rather walk away.’ And this kind of collective action is -- was pretty much unprecedented in recent times. So, perhaps, we'll see more collective action around debt; but until that point, we, the creditors, we in the west, need to take responsibility for our part in this situation, and cancel the debt. And you know what? It wouldn't actually cost that much. If we were to cancel all of the debt, of sub-Saharan Africa, that would amount to $170 billion, which sounds like a lot, but it's actually the cost of U.S. military operations in Iraq so far. It's not a matter of available resources. It's a matter of what we choose to do with them.

AMY GOODMAN:Well, Noreena Hertz, we want to thank you very much for being with us, among the more remarkable quotes and figures in your book, The Debt Threat, again on the issue of sub-Saharan Africa, some 15,000 children die every day from poverty-related diseases. Yet still the governments are required to pay out some $30 million every day to the World Bank, I.M.F., and rich world creditor nations. Every $1 that's given to that region in aid, $1.50 goes out to cover debt repayments. Noreena Hertz, thanks for joining us, author of The Debt Threat. 



-------- ACTIVISTS

Protesters to rain on Bush's parade

Washington Times
January 13, 2005

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050112-113247-1286r.htm

    Protesters will march through Washington, stage a "die in" across from the White House and turn their backs on President Bush's limousine during his inaugural celebration next week, organizers said yesterday.

    As U.S. authorities prepared unprecedented security for the event next Thursday, organizers said thousands of protesters will stage a noisy counterpoint to the lavish $40 million celebration.

    One group of anti-war activists said it would carry 1,000 coffins to the White House and stage a "die in" to protest the lives lost in Iraq.

    Another group said it had obtained a permit to protest along a 200-foot section of the parade route but planned to sue for more access to the large sections of Pennsylvania Avenue set aside for Bush supporters.

    "The Bush administration, in conjunction with the National Park Service, is trying to stage-manage democracy," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, an attorney for the anti-war group International ANSWER — Act Now to Stop War & End Racism — Coalition.

    ANSWER is planning to erect its own bleachers in the space, an open plaza on Pennsylvania Avenue, just a few blocks from the Capitol, said Brian Becker, national coordinator for the group. The bleachers could seat up to 1,000 people, and the Park Service estimates up to 10,000 could fill the space standing shoulder to shoulder.

    "I don't think it's ever happened in history that the anti-war movement has ever been able to have this kind of setup," Mr. Becker said.

    A spokeswoman for the U.S. Secret Service, which is overseeing security for the event, declined comment.

    U.S. authorities plan to involve thousands of police, troops and bomb-sniffing dogs in the first inaugural event since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Spectators will pass through metal detectors before attending any inaugural events or watching the parade from the street.

    Organizers said the protests were to express opposition to a range of Bush policies, from the war in Iraq to economic programs.

    "We're facing a right-wing future that has no sympathy for the concerns of black people and the poor in this country," said Shazza Nzingha, founder of the National Alliance of Black Panthers.

    An organization called Turn Your Back on Bush wants people to stake out spots along the parade route and turn their backs on Mr. Bush's limousine when it rolls by.

    "There are a lot of people who feel Bush has turned his back on them," said field director Sarah Kauffman, adding that she is expecting busloads of participants from across the country.

    In a separate act, black-clad anarchists will wave puppets and beat drums to protest capitalism and organized government, said Lila Kaye of Anarchist Resistance.

    Mr. Bush's inauguration plans also have drawn protests from the D.C. government, which says its security costs for the event should not come out of its Homeland Security budget.

    "We the people of Washington, D.C., rejected Bush by over 90 percent" in the last election, said Washington resident Nancy Shia. "Maybe this is our punishment."


----

On Jan. 20, war protest will turn on a 'Dime'

By Craig Wilson, USA TODAY 1/13/2005 8:34 AM
	
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-12-not-one-dime-protest_x.htm

There's a movement afoot, and the interesting thing is this: No one knows where it began.

It's called "Not One Damn Dime Day," and it means just that. Proponents urge Americans not to spend any money on Jan. 20, Inauguration Day, to protest President Bush's policies in Iraq and the estimated $30 million to $40 million cost of the inauguration.

You might already have received the plea in your morning e-mails. If so, it probably was sent to you by friends or family, because the e-mail encourages everyone to share the contents with as many people as possible. And people have.

The message is simple: "Those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending."

But no one seems to know who fired off that initial e-mail. Not even retired PBS host Bill Moyers, whose name was attached to some of the missives.

Despite his well-known liberal leanings, "I wouldn't sign a petition if it was one asking Jesus to come back," Moyers says. "It's just not something journalists should do."

The creators of notonedamndime.com, Laura Carmen Arena and Jesse Gordon of Cambridge, Mass., don't have a clue who wrote the message either. They received it in their inbox like everyone else.

"After we went back a couple of people, the trail went cold," says Gordon. "No one has stepped forward to claim ownership."

Thousands of blogs and online forums have posted the e-mail, which began making the rounds in mid-December. Some speculate the message is a hoax. And others champion variations on the theme, from "Gasoline Boycott Day" (don't buy gas) to "Black Thursday (call in sick to work).

Gordon's site has been picking up steam since New Year's, especially with media attention from such outlets as the Houston Chronicle and Pacifica Radio. It's nearing 18,000 hits a day.

Some, both Democrat and Republican, aren't buying it.

"If you want to hit 'em where it hurts, get hold of a list of the president's top campaign contributors and vow Not One Damn Dime to those people's businesses for as long as we remain in Iraq," suggests D.J. Fone, 41, of San Diego.

In announcing the inaugural theme of "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service," Jeanne Phillips of the Presidential Inaugural Committee stressed that events honor the military. "We recognize this time that we are a nation at war," she says.

Others applaud the "Not One Damn Dime" concept but think "they got the date wrong. It should be April 15," says J.A. McErlean, 50, of Farmington Hills, Mich.

But participation is easy, urges the movement's originator, whomever he or she may be: "On 'Not One Damn Dime Day,' you take action by doing nothing."

Contributing: Marco R. della Cava, Maria Puente 

--------

The Stickiness of the ‘Band of Brothers’

by Gary Ashbeck
Thursday, January 13, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
 
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0113-20.htm

CBS News reported, in December 2004, that 5,500 soldiers have deserted since the US invaded Iraq. One of those soldiers, Pfc. Dan Felushko was quoted as saying: “I didn’t want, you know, ‘died deluded in Iraq’ over my gravestone.” Some of these soldiers -- like Jeremy Hinzmen -- applied for Conscientious Objector status but were denied. Hinzmen fled to Canada with his family. In October of 2004, 16 members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company defied orders to go out on what they described as a “suicide mission” for lack of armor. None of them was court marshaled and lack of armor became a bit of a thorn for Donald Rumsfeld, assisted in part by Tennessee Guard member Thomas Wilson. His direct question about armor was heard around the world. Peace activists have embraced these examples and many live in hope that others will follow in dissent.

The invasion of Iraq has been unveiled as an illegal war founded on the Bush administration’s false claims to the American public, to soldiers fighting in this war, and even to the pope. Before the March invasion began a group of opponents to the war, over 500 of them, issued a statement calling for soldiers to refuse to fight (jonahhouse.org/refuse.htm). My name was included. The statement itself violated the law because it encouraged desertion. Our number was listed and we did receive phone calls. All the signers were party to that violation and many of the signers passed out printed copies all over the country. Signers also intended to help those who would desert. It was published as an advertisement in newspapers sparking debate in the public arena but eliciting absolutely no response from any government agency. A band of Catholic Workers even held signs at the Pentagon begging the workers to refuse orders to kill.

Then my brother was called up. My first response was that he should refuse even if that refusal led to prison. I knew I could set up support. Prison you can come out of alive; war is not so certain. I never told him outright what I thought, but I dropped hints. Family situations make these comments more polarizing and thus, are sometimes best left unspoken (reminiscent of Vietnam).

The call up pained me and his participation pains me more than he will ever know. I live at Jonah House (jonahhouse.org) in Baltimore, a community dedicated to nonviolence in the steps of Jesus. I have been to Iraq and met with people all over the country, even where he is today. I am considering returning to Iraq. Every day the memories come back to me along with a persistent pain in my heart. The curious thing is that my brother and I are very much alike. I understand why he went and I hear the same from many of the other veterans with whom I am in contact. The military is the so-called “band of brothers”.

When Army Times published the story of the 16 soldiers who refused to participate in a convoy they called a “suicide mission,” the editorial pages following that issue were full of responses. “How dare they refuse when they were leaving others stranded in the field”. “How dare the Army not provide them with adequate support”. The letters published were mixed, about half for the soldiers, about half against the soldiers, and a couple noting the difficulty in placing blame. As for the 5,500 deserters, I read with great sadness that an easy solution is “5000 some bullets”.

The reason for controversy falls with the “band of brothers”. Refusing a mission leaves others without something, be it expertise, supplies, or just someone to watch another’s back. If someone dies, the sisters and brothers did all they could, they were there. This is the same reason why whole groups of soldiers reenlist; I believe it is something that we need to understand.

No matter how deeply I would like all soldiers -- especially one in particular -- to refuse duty and come back home, I think we need to understand that some soldiers may not be able to mentally handle leaving the “band of brothers.” Refusing and leaving their sisters and brothers can be a prospect worse than death. This is where I am very much like my brother. It is the same reason that I cannot do enough to stop this war. I would gladly sit in a prison for the rest of my life if I knew that would end this fiasco. I would risk my own life if it would guarantee that he could return to his wife and daughter. I am personally responsible for my brother. I am also personally responsible for all the other soldiers there and all the Iraqis whose lives are intolerable or ended because of some neo-con’s power complex.

Understanding this “band of brothers” is also important for understanding how difficult it really is for those who do refuse or dissent. It is not an easy step as the controversy which results from such an act reveals. Some, like Camilo Mejia who refused to go back after leave, are in prison today. Some are working to attain asylum in Canada, like Hinzmen. Some are only thinking about it and need to know that people are out there who will support them. They can look forward to labels of “coward” and “traitor.” People need to be out there in that support role. Despite these risks, I still pray that even more soldiers will refuse.

Certain kinds of support for the troops are evident in very visible ways. Yellow ribbons are everywhere. Groups are working to support the families and to send letters and supplies. Families have been working to send condiment packets for my brother and his companions so they can add flavor to their shoe leather rations. The price lists at the local post offices have even been combed over so more can be sent for less money. Is the same energy being applied to writing letters to congress or the president? Is the same energy applied to dissent?

Other kinds of support are needed. There are groups that are working in opposition to the war in support of our troops and taking the brunt of this controversy. Iraq veterans have formed the anti-war groups Iraq Veterans against the War (ivaw.net) and Veterans against the Iraq War (vaiw.org). Some members of these groups are still in Iraq; others could be returning to the front and are contemplating refusing. Also active are Veterans for Common Sense (veteransforcommonsense.org) and Veterans for Peace (veteransforpeace.org). I am a part of Military Families Speak Out (mfso.org), a group of people who have loved ones in Iraq and are actively working to end the war. Some MFSO families have also lost loved ones in the war. This movement has become so effective that counter-protesters specifically target us at large demonstrations, calling MFSO “Osama’s USO”. Some of our members have been harassed by the military and soldiers have been told to shut their family up. Veterans for Peace and military families have also teamed up for Bring them Home Now (bringthemhomenow.org).

I love my brother and I don’t tell him that enough. This deployment is incredibly difficult for me having dedicated myself to peace and nonviolence. Given a different time and space, I could be where he is and making the same decisions. I could never condemn him. I need to support him the best way I can. I work to bring him and the all our sisters and brothers home.

Gary Ashbeck lives at Jonah House (jonahhouse.org) a faith based peace community in Baltimore Maryland, founded in 1973 by peace activists including Liz McAlister and Philip Berrigan. His brother is deployed in Iraq. 

--------

Protest Groups, Too, Prepare for the President's Big Day

January 13, 2005
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/politics/13protests.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 - Just as Inauguration Day planners are doing everything possible to ensure that all events next Thursday celebrate the start of President's Bush's second term, protesters are gearing up to disrupt them.

From nondescript headquarters a dozen blocks from the Capitol, a coalition of groups linked by their opposition to the war in Iraq and other administration policies are organizing their own inauguration events. Those include a determined effort to jeer the presidential motorcade as it carries Mr. Bush from his swearing-in at the Capitol to a reviewing stand at the White House.

"Our goal is to make sure Inauguration Day reflects the great divisions that exist in the United States right now," said Brian Becker, national coordinator for the coalition, known as Answer, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. "Bush is trying to assert he has a mandate. We will show that a big part of the American people do not believe he has one."

Other groups are also planning demonstrations. At a news conference on Wednesday, leaders of five groups, including the National Alliance of Black Panthers and D.C. Anarchist Resistance, discussed plans that include anti-Bush rallies, marches, a bicycle ride and at least one act of civil disobedience.

The D.C. Anti-War Network is organizing a "die-in" march that it says will end with 1,000 cardboard coffins, representing people killed in recent American military actions, being taken to Lafayette Park, across from the White House.

Only one group described plans to create a presence during the presidential parade. Turn Your Back on Bush, a grassroots organization, is coordinating an effort to have people find spaces at the street curb and turn their backs to Mr. Bush as his motorcade passes.

"A great many people feel Bush has turned his back on them," said Sarah Kauffman, a field director for the group.

Ms. Kauffman and representatives of the other groups said they did not anticipate violence or the kinds of confrontations with the police that have led to mass arrests elsewhere. But Shahid Buttar, a spokesman for the D.C. Resistance Media Collective, which is helping coordinate protest events for dozens of groups, added, "There is a great deal about which no one knows."

Tom Mazur, a spokesman for the Secret Service, which is coordinating security for the inauguration events, said plans already took protest activities into consideration. He emphasized that protesters would be treated respectfully so long as their demonstrations remained peaceful.

As a safeguard, the Secret Service is prohibiting spectators from carrying signs or posters attached to handles.

"Our goal," Mr. Mazur said, "is a safe inaugural for participants as well as the general public."

Mr. Becker's coalition, Answer, has organized 15 anti-Bush events in Washington, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles since 2001, most of them criticizing administration policies in Iraq.

The demonstrations have attracted several hundred thousand people, and some have turned rowdy, leading to many arrests. Last summer, nearly 2,000 people protesting the Republican National Convention in New York, many of them as part of Answer activities, were arrested.

The coalition has always had an overriding aim, Mr. Becker said, to draw attention to policies that many Americans oppose, particularly those that involve military activities in Iraq.

Bill Line, a spokesman for the National Capital Region of the National Park Service, which controls the sidewalk along the parade route, said the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a private organization that is coordinating the major inaugural events, has received permits for most of the prime viewing space along the parade route. Bleachers have been set up, and seats are being sold for as much as $125 each.

Among the other three groups that applied for parade route access, Mr. Line said, Answer received nine permits, the largest number for locations at or near the street, although just two of them provide unobstructed views. The other two groups favor Bush administration policies.

At the larger of the two areas reserved for Answer, near the bottom of Capitol Hill, the coalition plans to make its biggest splash, constructing bleachers and filling them at no charge with people bearing signs that express outrage over the administration's involvement in Iraq.

"I'm not thinking that our presence will have a deep impact on George Bush's thinking," Mr. Becker said, describing an area that could hold as many as 10,000. "But we have a goal of building a movement as people did during the Vietnam War, making it impossible for politicians of any stripe to ignore. Wherever Bush or supporters of the war in Iraq go, we want them to be met by visible antiwar demonstrations."

Mr. Becker said Answer also had serious concerns over the lack of greater public access to unobstructed views of the parade.

Mr. Line said that people without tickets would be welcome to fill open spaces between bleachers but that it would be up to the Secret Service to allow spectators to pass through checkpoints.

Homeland Security to Help Pay

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 (AP) - The Department of Homeland Security told the District of Columbia government on Wednesday to use federal homeland security money to pay the costs it will incur for the inauguration.

A spokeswoman for Mayor Anthony A. Williams said the city was still trying to have the federal government repay it for all inaugural costs so it would not have to divert homeland security money. The federal government has traditionally reimbursed the city's inauguration costs, which are expected to be at least $17.3 million, city officials said.

----

A Wide Variety of Protest Planned for Inauguration

Manny Fernandez
Washington Post 
January 13, 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5131-2005Jan12?language=printer

Protesters unveiled more specifics about their plans yesterday for a spirited day of demonstrations to counter President Bush's second inauguration next Thursday, as one group said it was considering a lawsuit to gain more access to the parade route.

Officials, addressing plans for widespread street closings and a fireworks show Wednesday, advised federal employees who work downtown to stay home or to telecommute the day before the inauguration.

Demonstrators said they would mount nearly a dozen rallies and marches in Washington along the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route and throughout downtown. The events, planned and sponsored separately, involve a mix of activists embracing causes that include opposition to the Iraq war, women's rights and the environment. A band of self-styled anarchists also plans to demonstrate.

"This is a people's uprising," said Shahid Buttar, 30, a Washington lawyer involved in the D.C. Cluster Spokescouncil, a coordinating body for about 50 local and out-of-town protest groups.

The size of the demonstrations remains unclear. Some organizers say the crowds will be bigger than those at Bush's 2001 inauguration, the occasion of the largest inaugural protest since Richard M. Nixon's second inauguration in 1973.

Not everyone rallying will be against the president. Conservatives and Christian activists will line parts of the parade route to show their support for Bush and to urge him to nominate Supreme Court justices who oppose abortion.

Anti-Bush demonstrators said they plan a mix of tactics. Some said they hope to provide a left-leaning response to the celebratory pageantry; others said they wanted to disrupt the festivities.

Anarchist Resistance said it will stage a "festive and rowdy march" from Franklin Square. A message posted on its Web site says: "There's nothing left to salvage in this empire that is the U.S. government. It's time to bring it down."

Some less-radical protesters plan to turn their backs on the president as the motorcade passes as part of a Turn Your Back on Bush event. Critical Mass bicyclists are planning two rides, from Union Station and Dupont Circle.

The D.C. Anti-War Network is sponsoring a rally at Meridian Hill Park, also known as Malcolm X Park, in Columbia Heights and a march to McPherson Square. After the march, some participants will risk arrest by lying down at 16th and H streets NW, across from Lafayette Square, as part of a civil disobedience "die-in," organizers said.

"This administration . . . has earned themselves a protest," said Candice Kearns, 25, a junior at Naropa University in Boulder, Colo., who will ride in a caravan for 1,627 miles to get to Washington.

Like many other protesters seeking housing, Kearns is relying on the kindness of strangers: She is one of about 30 Colorado activists, all but one of whom will stay at a Mount Pleasant Episcopal church. District, Maryland and Virginia activists are opening their homes to protesters, posting accommodations on the Internet.

Some of the protests will be held within the no-drive area announced Tuesday, a large swath of downtown that will be closed Inauguration Day, with some streets closed before that.

To avoid gridlock, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management notified federal agency heads that they are allowed to let downtown employees go home early Wednesday and that they should consider urging them to take annual leave, compensatory time or unpaid leave. Workers also are urged to telecommute or take mass transit.

House Democrats from the Maryland suburbs and Northern Virginia joined Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) in writing to Bush yesterday to object to the administration's decision to require the District to pay $17.3 million in inauguration-related costs out of the region's federal homeland security grants.

"I think the president would be embarrassed that his administration is asking people in the District and the entire region to bear the . . . financial burden of the upcoming inauguration," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

"This is a cost that should be covered by the people of the entire country."

Protest organizers, some of whom expressed outrage at the multimillion-dollar price tag for the inauguration, said they are worried that heightened security will stifle dissent.

International ANSWER said it is prepared to sue the National Park Service over access to the parade route. The group accused authorities of excluding the public and demonstrators to make room for bleachers on Pennsylvania Avenue for ticket-holding Bush supporters. ANSWER plans a 9 a.m. rally at John Marshall Park, Fourth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, where members said they would erect bleachers of their own.

"The Bush administration, in conjunction with the National Park Service, is trying to stage-manage democracy," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, an attorney for the D.C.-based Partnership for Civil Justice.

She said that aside from Marshall Park, "there is virtually no open space" for demonstrators and people who don't have tickets to gather on Pennsylvania.

Park Service spokesman Bill Line denied that there were extraordinary limits on space open to the public. Line said those not in bleachers would be allowed onto open areas of the sidewalks. "The National Park Service welcomes the members of the general public into those areas, but it's ultimately up to the Secret Service as to how many people will be allowed to fill those open spaces," Line said.

He said that Marshall Park, at 95,192 square feet, is the largest space where demonstrators can gather on the parade route.

Staff writers Spencer S. Hsu and Stephen Barr contributed to this report.