NucNews - January 21, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Chemical weapons may be shipped by rail to disposal sites January 20, 2005 By Jay Reeves Associated Press http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-609593.php BIRMINGHAM, Ala. ó The Army said Wednesday it will study the possibility of shipping chemical weapons between storage and destruction sites, a move opponents said could mean tons of aging, lethal munitions being sent across country by truck or train. While the Pentagon said the review was only preliminary, opponents said such a plan could endanger lives by exposing weapons to accidents on roads or terrorist attacks. Potential destinations could include the Armyís chemical weapons incinerator at Anniston, Ala., which has destroyed tons of weapons filled with sarin nerve agent since it began work in August 2003. A recent Pentagon memo asks the Army to study means of protecting chemical agents ìwhen relocation among sites is consideredî because of tight funding and a looming deadline to complete the weapons destruction. The memo was made public by the Chemical Weapons Working Group, which opposes weapons incineration. The Army said it had yet to begin a review of the Pentagon request and will also consider alternatives to shuffling lethal weapons between sites. ìIt is premature at this time to comment on the content of the evaluations,î Michael A. Parker, who directs the Army Chemical Materials Agency, said in a statement. He said safety ìwill be a cornerstone of any alternatives we consider.î But opponents accused the Pentagon of violating years of promises by even raising the possibility of moving chemical weapons between storage sites. The Army is currently destroying weapons in Alabama, Maryland, Oregon and Utah, and disposal is expected to begin later this year in Arkansas and Indiana. The Army plans to soon begin destroying 1,269 tons of VX at the Newport Chemical Depot, about 30 miles north of Terre Haute. The VX neutralization is expected to create 4 million gallons of a chemical byproduct called hydrolysate that requires additional treatment before disposal. The Army wants to transport the hydrolysate to a DuPont plant in New Jersey for treatment and disposal in the Delaware River ó a plan that has sparked opposition in New Jersey and Delaware. In Alabama, the military advocated incinerating weapons at the Anniston Army Depot, located 50 miles east of Birmingham, as a safer alternative than sending the Cold War-era munitions elsewhere for destruction. ìTransportation of chemical weapons directly violates the most basic premises of the Armyís chemical weapons program: that each site destroy its own stockpile, that no community become a toxic dumping ground, and that no danger is posed to the citizens of other states by transporting these weapons by truck or rail through their neighborhoods,î said Rufus Kinney of Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration, in Anniston. Activists say the Army is proposing funding levels that wonít allow for destruction of weapons stored at Pueblo, Colo., and Richmond, Ky. Opponents said Anniston could be a logical destination for weapons now stored in Kentucky since the Alabama incinerator already is functioning. A spokesman for incinerator operator Westinghouse referred questions to the military. Craig Williams, director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group, said the transportation review casts doubt on years of assurances by the military, which faces a treaty deadline of 2012 to destroy all the nationís chemical weapons stockpile. ìThere is absolutely no basis for anyone, at any site, at any level of government to believe or have confidence in any commitments made by these people,î said Williams. In Colorado, Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar said they received assurances Tuesday that the Pentagon would not attempt to incinerate or move chemical weapons stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot despite cost overruns and delays in the program to neutralize them chemically. The Army said it has destroyed almost 11,000 tons of chemical weapons, or more than 34 percent of the U.S. stockpile. The incinerator at Anniston was the Armyís first to burn major amounts of the agent near a populated area. Emergency planners say some 35,000 people live within nine miles of the plant. -------- australia US to be Aussie nuclear dump By Amanda Hodge January 21, 2005 The Australian http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12003697-421,00.html THE US will become Australia's nuclear dumping ground in a remarkable 10-year agreement that takes the pressure off the Howard Government to find a domestic waste site. The agreement to take spent fuel rods from the proposed new Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney was sealed at ministerial level late last year following talks between the US Department of Energy and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The deal was revealed yesterday in a letter from ANSTO released by the country's nuclear watchdog, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. This removes the last major obstacle to the approval of a replacement nuclear reactor at the Lucas Heights facility and eases the pressure on Canberra to resolve the dump issue. The question of where to store the nation's nuclear waste became a federal election issue last October after John Howard backed away from a plan to force a repository on South Australia. The two added fuel to environmental arguments that the federal government had failed to make progress in finding a dump location - a condition for the granting of an operating licence for the new reactor. The commonwealth generates more than 90 per cent of the nation's nuclear waste, and more than 80 per cent of this is now stored at Lucas Heights. ANSTO spokesman Steve McIntosh yesterday hailed the US agreement as a coup for Australia. "We have always viewed the spent fuel question as the biggest hurdle we had to jump and that seems to be out of the way," Mr McIntosh said. ARPANSA chief John Loy is expected to decide within 12 months whether to approve the new reactor's operating licence. Yesterday he said the agreement was an "important new development which I will take into account in my considerations on the licence". A spokesman for federal Science Minister Brendan Nelson refused to comment on the dump issue, saying only that the Government was "committed to ensuring the Australian research community had access to world-class facilities". The agreement has not impressed the NSW Government, which yesterday reiterated its opposition to the storage and transport of nuclear waste through the state. The US decision represents a special exemption for Australia, in part to reward ANSTO for helping develop a low-enriched uranium fuel capable of producing radio-pharmaceuticals but not open to potential abuse. The US already accepts spent fuel containing uranium previously enriched in the US from 41 countries, including Australia, to reduce the risk that residual uranium will be used for nuclear weapons. But the proposed Lucas Heights replacement research reactor will use low-enriched uranium fuel which does not come under this agreement and is not easily reprocessed. ---- Our new 'neutron factory' By Leigh Dayton January 21, 2005 The Australian http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12003698-421,00.html FOR now, its name is a mystery - but when Australia's replacement reactor is up and running next year it will crank out subatomic particles for science, industry and medicine. "It's a neutron factory," said Ross Miller, an engineer with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation at Sydney's Lucas Heights, where the reactor is being built. Mr Miller is also assistant project manager for the reactor, slated to take over from ANSTO's 44-year-old High Flux reactor. That machine produces most of Australia's radioactive elements, or radioisotopes, for medical and industrial applications, as well as neutron beams for studying the structure of materials. Like any reactor, the new machine will generate neutrons through controlled fission of nuclear fuel, in this case Uranium 235. But unlike a conventional power reactor, which needs at least 100 tonnes of uranium fuel, the so-called research reactor will use just 7.7kg of U235, packed into 16 fuel assemblies, or rods. According to Mr Miller, the start-up fuel will be made by Argentina's atomic energy agency, CNEA, from uranium enriched by the US Department of Energy. Enrichment boosts the generation of neutrons during fission. Since a power reactor is designed to produce heat - with neutrons as "waste" - it operates at greater temperatures and pressure than a research machine, and generates far more power as heat. Comparative figures tell all: temperature 380C and 48C; pressure 160 atmospheric pressures and one atmospheric pressure; power 4000 megawatts and 20 megawatts. Even the fuel-laden core differs dramatically, 4m by 5m compared with a mere 35cm square by 60cm high. As Mr Miller said, "The fundamental difference is in the intent of the two reactors, heat versus neutrons". -------- china Chinese missiles January 21, 2005 Washington Times Inside the Ring http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm China has deployed a brigade of up to eight new road-mobile DF-31 long-range missiles. That's the latest assessment from the authoritative International Institute for Strategic Studies publication, "The Military Balance." China also has 24 DF-5A long-range strategic missiles and 112 intermediate-range DF-4, DF-3A and DF-21 missiles. The assessment that eight DF-31s are operational goes beyond the Pentagon's latest report on Chinese military power made public in May. The Pentagon report stated that the DF-31 is still in development with deployment expected "later this decade." The Pentagon stated that China also is working on two longer-range versions of the DF-31, one that is a solid-fuel ground-based mobile missile and a solid-fuel submarine-launched version. China also is building up its strategic nuclear forces. It is expected to add 10 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) to its arsenal this year and 30 more ICBMs by 2010, the Pentagon report said. -------- europe Italy's Berlusconi revives nuclear debate ROME (AFP) Jan 21, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050121165443.lfgi6p7p.html Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has rekindled the debate on nuclear energy as part of discussions on how to curb country's dependence on costly imports of electricity from abroad. An on-line Internet survey by an Italian national newspaper of its readers revealed on Friday that over two thirds of them were in favour of a return to the nuclear option following declarations by Berlusconi on Thursday. The Italian leader had inaugurated a new high-voltage line connecting Italy with Switzerland designed to avoid the sort of chaos experienced in 2003, when a problem with the electricity supply plunged the entire country into darkness. "Italy is still paying a great deal of money for its electricity," Berlusconi said as he launched the new line, a deal designed to avoid future problems with the supply. "We must start a major review of our supply and reflect on the question of nuclear energy," he declared. The survey, which appeared on newspaper Corriere della Sera's website showed that 70 percent of Italians were in favour of a return to nuclear power. Italy turned its back on the nuclear option in a 1987 referendum held shortly after the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. The country's four nuclear power stations were closed down. Italy consumes 17 percent more electricity than it produces, buying its surplus needs from France, which produces nuclear energy, and Switzerland. ---- Italy Should Not Dismiss Nuclear Power - Berlusconi REUTERS ITALY: January 21, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29151/story.htm http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050120/wl_nm/energy_italy_nuclear_dc_1 ROME - Italy should not dismiss the idea of having its own nuclear power stations, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said on Thursday, indicating a possible move away from Italy's traditional anti-nuclear stance. Italians voted to close Italy's nuclear power plants in a 1987 referendum but it imports electricity from France where nuclear power is one of the main sources of energy. "The government is preparing a study to look at the future and giving the country energy reserves," Berlusconi said in a speech at the opening of a new electricity line. Berlusconi, in power for almost four years, hinted that if he is reelected next year, the nuclear question will be back up for discussion. "One legislature is too short to impose a new energy plan and find answers to the questions which weigh on our system like whether or not to use nuclear power." Berlusconi said Italian industry was "paying the penalty (for buying electricity generated) in foreign power stations". "For the poor choices made in the past our companies pay 20-30 percent more," he said. As for safety -- one of the main concerns of the opponents of nuclear power -- Berlusconi said "if something negative happened" north of the Alps, Italy would also be affected. As well as having to import much of its energy, Italy is struggling to keep down carbon dioxide emissions, a requirement of the Kyoto Protocol climate change treaty which comes into force this year. Nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide, the main man-made greenhouse gas blamed for causing climate change, but most environmentalists still oppose it because nuclear waste can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. -------- iran Cheney Warns of Iran As a Nuclear Threat Vice President: 'We Don't Want a War' By Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A02 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24677-2005Jan20?language=printer Vice President Cheney said yesterday that Iran is a top threat to world peace and Middle East stability, accusing Tehran of sponsoring terrorism against Americans and building a "fairly robust new nuclear program." In an interview aired on MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning" show a few hours before President Bush's inaugural address, Cheney warned that Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities if the United States and its allies fail to solve the standoff with Tehran diplomatically. "Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney said. In 1981, Israel sent warplanes to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor. "We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it," he said. Iran says its nuclear facilities were built to support a peaceful energy program; the Bush administration disagrees. In the interview with Don Imus, the vice president made a rare admission, saying he had miscalculated how quickly Iraqis would be able to recover from Saddam Hussein's government and begin running their country. "I think the hundreds of thousands of people who were slaughtered at the time, including anybody who had the gumption to stand up and challenge him, made the situation tougher than I would have thought," he said. "I would chalk that one up as a miscalculation, where I thought things would have recovered more quickly." The White House has been widely criticized for its postwar planning in Iraq, especially its failure to prepare for the insurgency that is threatening stability and the upcoming elections for a 275-member national assembly. Bush condemned Iran as part of an "axis of evil" shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, heightening tensions and raising the possibility of U.S. military action to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power in the volatile Middle East. In his inaugural address, Bush did not mention Iran, but he vowed to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes." Some foreign policy experts predict Bush might use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear program during his second term, but the president and Cheney have promised to pursue diplomacy first. "Certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," Cheney said. The current Bush policy calls for European nations to take the lead in negotiating for a full and verifiable halt to Iran's nuclear program. Bush has said on several occasions that all options are on the table if Iran does not comply. If current negotiations fail, Cheney said, the United States would ask the U.N. Security Council to impose international sanctions on Iran to force compliance with the nonproliferation treaty. "You look around the world at potential trouble spots; Iran is right at the top of the list," he said. The administration has offered no concrete evidence to support its assertion regarding Iran. The Pentagon has denied a report in the Jan. 24 issue of New Yorker magazine that the United States is conducting secret reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify potential nuclear targets. ---- Cheney: Israel May Attack Iran Friday, January 21st, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1530248 Hours before the inauguration, Vice President Cheney warned that Iran had become the top threat to world peace. He accused Iran of building a "fairly robust new nuclear program." Cheney didn't rule out a U.S. attack but suggested that Israel might strike Iran first. He said "Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards." Israel has carried out such attacks before. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Cheney's comments come just days after the New Yorker magazine reported that the US has already sent troops into Iran to search for possible sites to attack. On Tuesday Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice named Iran as one of six so-called "outposts of tyranny." Also named were North Korea, Burma, Cuba, Belarus and Zimbabwe. ---- Cheney blunt about threat Iran presents Published Friday January 21, 2005 THE LOS ANGELES TIMES http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=54&u_sid=1315763 WASHINGTON - In bluntly threatening terms, Vice President Dick Cheney has removed any doubt that in its second term the Bush administration intends to confront the theocracy in Iran directly. Cheney, who often has delivered the Bush team's toughest warnings internationally, said Thursday that Iran is "right at the top" of the administration's list of world trouble spots and expressed concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to destroy Iran's nuclear program, he said in an MSNBC interview. The tough talk was part of the administration's attempt to halt what Iran contends is a peaceful, civilian nuclear energy program but Washington believes is a clandestine weapons program. In recent days, the Bush administration has issued increasingly stern warnings in hopes that threats of sanctions and international isolation would convince Iran to shun nuclear weapons. But Cheney's words marked the first time that a senior official has amplified the threat by suggesting that the United States could be unable to prevent military attack by its close allies in Jerusalem, analysts said. The startling reference to an Israeli attack was "the kind of strong language that will get their attention in Tehran," said one allied diplomat in Washington, who asked for anonymity. "There's a rhetorical escalation here: they've ratcheted up the threat level by bringing Israel in," said Henri J. Barkey, a former State Department official during the Clinton administration. "They're using the fact of the inauguration, and the uncertainty people have about where they're going in the next term, to say, 'Look, we're not going to let up on Iran.' " Despite Iranian denials, Cheney said the United States believes Tehran has a "fairly robust, new nuclear program." Cheney said America supports European efforts at talks but added, "At some point, if the Iranians don't live up to their commitments, the next step will be to take it to the United Nations Security Council and seek . . . international sanctions." -------- korea China, Canada vow commitment to nuclear-free Korean Peninsula (Kyodo) Friday January 21, 5:05 AM http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050120/kyodo/d87o1q8o0.html China and Canada on Thursday affirmed their commitment to a nuclear weapon-free Korean Peninsula and expressed their support for a negotiated settlement of North Korea's nuclear ambitions. In a joint declaration issued after summit talks between visiting Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing, the two countries also said the two countries will continue to cooperate in the fight against terrorism and transnational organized crime. "Canada and China affirm their commitment to a nuclear weapon-free Korean Peninsula, and express their support for a peaceful multilateral solution" to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula through the six-party talks, the declaration said. The six-way talks involve China, Japan, North and South Korea, Russia and the United States. "Canada and China extend deepest condolences to the people of the affected countries for the tragic loss of life and damage to communities as a result of the earthquake and tsunami of December 26," the declaration said. "The leaders express their continuing commitment to assist these countries to fully recover from the catastrophic effects of the disaster." On the question of human rights, the joint declaration said, "Both sides express support for the broadening and expansion of dialogues and exchanges in the field of human rights." The joint declaration also said, "We welcome the upcoming Olympic games in Beijing in 2008 and Vancouver in 2010 and expect that the games will provide the venues for further enhanced exchanges of people and national treasures." The two leaders also agreed to set up a strategic working group, which will initially "focus on enhancing our partnership in the fields of multilateral cooperation, natural resources and energy (such as scientific exchanges and policy dialogue), and trade and investment." In a separate statement on two-way energy cooperation, the two countries said they will promote cooperation to increase energy security and promote environmental sustainability in the energy sector. "In particular, the two countries have identified oil and gas, nuclear energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner energy (including renewables) as priority areas where they will work together to advance their longer term mutual interests, in accordance with their respective laws and regulations," the statement said. -------- mideast UN Inspectors Visit Egypt Plutonium Lab - Diplomats By REUTERS Published: January 21, 2005 Filed at 1:11 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-egypt.html VIENNA (Reuters) - Inspectors from the U.N. nuclear watchdog are in Egypt inspecting a laboratory that was designed to reprocess plutonium, a substance that can be used to fuel atomic weapons, Western diplomats said on Friday. Egypt is the most recent country to become the focus of an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agencyfor failing to inform it of activities and facilities that could be used to produce fuel for atomic bombs. The IAEA dispatched the inspectors after learning that Egyptian scientists had been conducting undeclared experiments with uranium. The experiments partly came to light after some of the scientists involved in the project published their research. The diplomats said the facility was probably built in the 1980s and may never have been used. However, the IAEA was inspecting the laboratory, located near Cairo, to determine whether any work with plutonium had been done there. An IAEA spokeswoman declined to comment saying all investigations were confidential. There is no evidence that Egypt had a secret atomic weapons program, though the diplomats said Cairo might have been toying with future nuclear options in an unstable region. Egypt, a North African country of around 76 million people, has a history of conflicts with neighboring Israel, which is widely assumed to possess an arsenal of atomic weapons. The diplomats said it was too early to say whether the IAEA board of governors would have to take action on the matter, as it did with Iran, Libya and South Korea's failures to inform the U.N. body of their nuclear work. ``It depends on what the IAEA inspectors find, but we should discuss it at least, to dispel doubts,'' a Western diplomat from an IAEA member country told Reuters on condition of anonymity. ``(Egypt) will have to be discussed by the (IAEA) board at some point,'' another diplomat said. If Cairo was guilty of only minor breaches of U.N. rules on reporting facilities and activities to the IAEA, the investigation could be wrapped up quickly, the diplomats said. Egypt's Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif said earlier this month that his country has ``a peaceful nuclear program for nuclear energy directed fundamentally toward generating electricity and desalinating water.'' Diplomats said several Egyptian nuclear scientists, who may have acted without government approval, experimented with making uranium metal and preparing uranium for enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel in power plants or bombs. ACTIVITIES NOT ILLEGAL Although these activities are not illegal, they failed to report them to the IAEA so that it could monitor them to ensure that no nuclear materials were diverted to cover arms-related activities. ``We need to know the full extent of what Egyptians were doing,'' David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Institute for Science and International Security think-tank in Washington, told Reuters. One Western diplomat said the Egyptian scientists' work appeared relatively minor compared to what happened in South Korea, where government scientists used laser technology to produce small amounts of uranium that was nearly pure enough for a weapon and reprocessed a tiny quantity of plutonium. Diplomats in Vienna said nuclear black marketeer and father of Pakistan's successful nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was known to have visited Egypt on several occasions. While the reasons for the well-traveled Khan's visits were unknown, it would be good to rule out the possibility that he sold Egypt the nuclear fuel production equipment he sold Iran and Libya, they said. The IAEA investigation is especially embarrassing for the agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, who is Egyptian and hopes to win a third term at his post later this year. ---- Is Egypt really after nuclear device? UN inspectors now looking at nuclear lab in Egypt, worried about undeclared work By Michael Adler – VIENNA 2005-01-21 http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=12482 UN inspectors investigating undeclared nuclear activity in Egypt that could be related to atomic weapons development are checking out a reprocessing lab for making plutonium, diplomats said. The lab, apparently put together in the 1980s but never used, raises questions about an Egyptian nuclear program which is peaceful but may also be carefully structured to be able to move towards weapons development if Cairo decided to take this step, diplomats said in recent comments. "It's not empty, the Egyptian story," said a diplomat close to the UN's nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency, commenting on the ongoing investigation and hinting there are more undeclared activities than inspectors of the Vienna-based IAEA had originally thought. But the diplomat, who asked not to be named, said Egypt's undeclared work was small scale and not even comparable to South Korea, a non-atomic-weapons state which has admitted to carrying out rogue nuclear experiments. A second diplomat said the main question with Egypt is not what it is hiding but the range of its nuclear activities, in a country that is a regional power concerned about alleged nuclear weapons programs in Israel and Iran. "Egypt is building a physical and manpower infrastructure which, added to past know-how and experience, enable it to master an important part of the nuclear fuel cycle technology. "This infrastructure could be used to promote a military nuclear program," the diplomat said. A third diplomat played this down, however, saying the Egyptian installations are "rundown, dirty, dilapidated." The IAEA has been intensively investigating Egypt since the middle of 2004 after it was tipped off to possible undeclared nuclear experiments, with much information coming from open-source scientific publications by Egyptian scientists, one diplomat said. The experiments the IAEA is looking into involve making uranium metal, which could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium, and carrying out the first steps of uranium enrichment by making uranium tetrafluoride (UF4), one diplomat said. An IAEA mission in late December brought back a mass of data, including swipes made at locations to find radiation or particles indicating sensitive nuclear work. This data is currently being evaluated with IAEA officials saying that the agency's 35-nation board of governors will be notified only if there are significant findings. The IAEA is empowered by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to insure that atomic materials are not being diverted away from peaceful use in countries which have ratified the NPT, as Egypt did in 1981. NPT states are required to disclose all their nuclear-material-related activities to the IAEA. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit earlier this month denied that his country had done anything counter to NPT. A diplomat close to the IAEA said no uranium was actually enriched, referring to the process that makes nuclear fuel but can also make the explosive core of atomic bombs. The reprocessing laboratory is at Egypt's Inshass center, 35 kilometres (20 miles) northeast of Cairo, where there are two research reactors. The lab consists of "hot laboratories, procured from France in the early 1980s, which allow for treatment of spent fuel and laboratory-scale plutonium separation," a diplomat said. Non-proliferation expert David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), said the IAEA will have to answer the question: "Is this reprocessing lab ever going to operate. Is it going to separate plutonium in the future?" "It is time to lay out what Egypt has got. For years people have wondered about Egypt," Albright said, saying there was a gap between statements by Egyptian leaders about readiness to develop nuclear weapons if necessary and Egypt's strict adherence to international safeguards under the NPT. -------- russia More Cooperation Between Russia and West Could Reduce Nuclear Threats, Experts Say By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire January 21, 2005 http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_1_21.html#AA1A7F2B WASHINGTON — Increased Russian-Western military cooperation in the world’s hot spots would ease resolution of disputes involving nuclear nonproliferation, two prominent experts said here today (see GSN, Jan. 12). Moscow and NATO should step up general military cooperation and personnel exchanges to move beyond an outdated agenda defined by arms control, focusing instead on common threats, said RAND Corp. Senior Adviser Robert Hunter and Russian Academy of Sciences Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies Director Sergei Rogov. “Russia-NATO relations cannot be any more based on arms-control agreements,” Rogov told reporters at the National Press Club. “Many premises of the Cold War arms-control agenda are irrelevant today.” Although preventing a new arms race remains important, Rogov said, “We can concentrate on a positive agenda, and that’s why we give so much emphasis in [a recent report edited by Hunter and Rogov] on Russian-NATO military cooperation.” Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, said such cooperation could improve U.S.-Russian understanding on Iranian nuclear development and other areas of disagreement. The Russian-Western “21st-century agenda,” he said, is one that “begins with weapons of mass destruction and terrorism” but must also include cooperation in areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel and the Palestinian territories. The United States should also take greater pains to avoid the appearance of seeking to contain Russia, Hunter said. Rogov agreed that to “get rid of the legacy of mutual suspicion,” Washington should seek to cooperate with Russia on threats emanating from Central Asia and the Middle East, rather than unilaterally deploying military resources near Russian soil. U.S. deployment of ships in the Black Sea or missile interceptors in Eastern Europe, Rogov said, could be “misinterpreted” as being intended to counter Russia — “It would be very difficult for us to interpret it in a different way.” Instead, he said, the United States should cooperate with Russia and draw on existing Russian resources — early warning systems and ballistic missile defenses, for example — to address threats in the region that affect both powers. Rogov said he and some colleagues are working on a report funded by the Nuclear Threat Initiative in which they discuss new multilateral approaches to reducing the nuclear threat. He said Russia and the United States must leave behind the doctrine of mutually assured destruction and seek more often to involve the world’s other nuclear powers in arms-control initiatives. “France, the United Kingdom, China — they are not limited” by even the “watered-down” U.S.-Russian arms-control regime, Rogov said. He added that nuclear weapon states outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, such as India and Pakistan, must also be brought on board. Rogov also advocated NATO-Russian and U.S.-Russian cooperation on planning for counterproliferation actions, citing the possibility that a radical Islamic group could take over a country that possesses weapons of mass destruction. “This is, in my view, the task for counterproliferation,” he said. “This is something that requires action.” [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] ---- Nuclear Industry 'Wasteful' By Vladimir Kovalev ST PETERSBURG TIMES (Russia) STAFF WRITER Friday, January 21, 2005 http://www.sptimes.ru/archive/times/1037/top/t_14651.htm Western donors and Russian taxpayers are propping up an outdated and dangerous Russian nuclear power system that is being managed by dubious methods, Norwegian-based environmental organization Bellona says. In the last 10 years, the G-8 group of leading industrial nations, the European Union and the United States have spent billions of dollars keeping the Russian nuclear industry safe and afloat, Bellona spokesman Igor Kudrik said Thursday in a telephone interview from Oslo. The United States alone has transferred up to $10 billion to Russia in the decade and another $20 billion is scheduled to be noted by G-8 by 2010, Kudrik said. "The problem is that while the Russian nuclear industry is undergoing bureaucratic changes, the infrastructure itself still works the way it did during the Cold War and is able to keep operating only because of cash coming from Russian and Western taxpayers," he said. Bellona is about to release in Russian a report called "Russia's Nuclear Industry: the Need for Reform." The report argues that the infrastructure of the country's nuclear sector must be changed, because otherwise the money donated by the foreign counties will be wasted. Representatives of the Federal Nuclear Power Agency said Thursday they were too busy to comment on the Bellona report. "Most of the western financing coming to Russia to promote nuclear safety is being spent only on keeping this Soviet-style industry running," Kudrik said. Russia is still developing many nuclear technologies that the West is on its way to abandoning, including the closed fuel cycle, which involves reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. This has been proven to be unprofitable, but is still used in Russia because it is considered one way for the nuclear power industry to survive, the authors of a new Bellona report states. "The main reason that Russia ... and a mere handful of other countries ... rely on this environmentally dangerous and proliferation-friendly system is based on outmoded assumptions from the 1970s that natural uranium prices would skyrocket, and thus a plan involving plutonium-based fuel was needed to keep the industry in place," the conclusion of the report says, "The United Kingdom and France reprocess, but both countries, even with their well-developed infrastructures, have found reprocessing to be unprofitable. This is because later findings indicated that natural uranium stocks would last until late in the 21st century." In another example of purported mismanagement, the environmentalists pointed out an incident involving a nuclear submarine that sank in 2003. Bellona says this is a telling example of international programs being carried out without proper environmental safety. "These problems became very clear after August 2003, when the written-off nuclear submarine K-159 sank," Kudrik said. "It was being taken to be broken up when it sank in stormy weather." When the vessel with 800 kilograms of spent uranium fuel on board ran into the storm off the Kola Peninsula, it sank in 240 meters of water with 9 of its 10-man crew going down with it. Although the submarine was not a part of an international decommissioning project, Bellona said that the sloppy approach to the disposal of the vessel could mean that western-financed projects could result in similar dangerous incidents. In June 2003 Norway allocated $13 million for transportation, removal of nuclear fuel and destruction of two decommissioned submarines of the same type. "These submarines were towed to the dismantlement points the same way as K-159 was," the report says. In November, the report was presented to the European Parliament and was received with great interest by the international audience, according to the authors. "The presentation lasted about four hours; usually during things like that people hang around in a session hall, walking here and there," Kudrik said. "This time everybody stayed where they were." Foreign countries financing nuclear safety measures should come up with a master plan for all of Russia, not only for specific areas such as the Kola peninsula, which is a huge graveyard for nuclear submarines, he said. "There are lots of other places that should be taken into account - the regions of Southern Siberia and the Mayak reprocessing plant [in the Chelyabinsk region], for instance," Kudrik said. Meanwhile, victims of a Soviet-era nuclear industry disaster - 10 men who took part in the cleanup of the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown - continued a hunger strike they started last week in the town of Sestroretsk, a suburb of St. Petersburg On Thursday, one of the hunger strikers was taken to a hospital, Interfax reported. "This morning one of our fellow's temperature shot up and, taking into account that this weekend he already felt bad, we called an ambulance," Sergei Kulish, head of the group, was quoted as saying. "He was diagnosed as having pneumonia. Another two [hunger strikers] got medical assistance, but did not have to leave.". On Wednesday the hunger strikers spoke to Alexander Rzhanenkov, a representative of City Hall, who said the federal government has allocated 40 million rubles ($1.4 million) to cover city debts to Chernobyl disaster workers, Kulish said. He said the group would not quit the hunger strike before the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on financial compensation. ---- RUSSIA, FRANCE TO JOINTLY COMBAT TERRORISM AND PREVENT WMD`s PROLIFERATION 2005-01-21 17:43 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5332015&startrow=1&date=2005-01-21&do_alert=0 MOSCOW, January 21. - Russia and France a planning events aimed at combating terrorism and preventing the proliferation of mass destruction weapons, Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov told a press-conference held in Moscow at the end of the fourth meeting of the Russian-French Security Council. In his words, this direction of cooperation will be taken into account, in particular, "in planning bilateral and multilateral military exercises, whether Operation Active Endeavor in the Mediterranean or special war games to work out the principles of armaments which will be efficient in combating terrorism." "As the defense ministers (of Russia and France), we are aware that the problem of terrorism cannot be solved by purely military methods," Mr. Ivanov said. The defense ministries of both countries are aware of "their niche and the methods of struggle which can be successful in combating terrorism". He also noted good security services cooperation, expression the hope that "in the future, we will also have good cooperation in the military-technological field". In Mr. Ivanov's opinion, Russia and France have no problems in solving issues related to combating terrorism and preventing the proliferation of mass destruction weapons "in the bilateral format". "In the past two years, especially confidential relations have formed with France in this field," Mr. Ivanov added. "These are two topical subjects in the field of international security. Russia, France, NATO and the European Union are equally exposed to these threats," he said. -------- terrorism FBI tip prompts security boost Boston reacts as uncorroborated report says 16 people might be planning an attack By SYLVIA LEE WINGFIELD Associated Press Jan. 21, 2005, 9:36PM http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3003530 BOSTON - Airport and transit authorities responded to an FBI report of a possible terrorist plot against Boston by boosting security — adding patrols, activating radiation detectors and posting pictures of some of the suspects. FBI agents were looking into an uncorroborated tip that 16 people — 13 Chinese nationals, two Iraqis and one other person whose nationality was not released — might be planning an attack. The agency announced Wednesday that it was investigating four Chinese nationals, and a Transportation Security Administration official said later that a security briefing indicated the FBI also was looking for two Iraqis. The number jumped by 10 Thursday "as a result of the ongoing investigation" but did not signal that credible evidence about a plot had emerged, FBI spokesman Joe Parris said. The 14th person was identified on the FBI's Web site as Jose Ernesto Beltran Quinones. "Information is still uncorroborated and from a source of unknown reliability and motive," Parris said. Use of nuclear oxide feared Another federal law enforcement official in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, said the tip was received by the California Highway Patrol. The tipster claimed the four Chinese — two men and two women — entered the United States from Mexico and were awaiting a shipment of "nuclear oxide" that would follow them to Boston. Several radioactive compounds take form as oxides and could be used in a dirty bomb, expert Charles Ferguson said. Plutonium and americium oxides, in the right amounts, would be dangerous to human health, while uranium oxide would be less so, he said. "They vary in potency," said Ferguson, science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "If it was plutonium, we could have a problem on our hands." At Logan Airport, where two of the planes were hijacked for the Sept. 11 attacks, the tip was being taken seriously, according to Dennis Treece, director of corporate security. The most visible sign was more patrols. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the city's transit agency, also increased security and activated radiation detectors in response to the threat, said Deputy Chief John Martrino. He said the detectors are put in use whenever the city is on higher-than-normal security alert. Pictures of four Chinese suspects released by the FBI were taped inside booths where subway tokens are sold by transit employees, and operators of underground parking garages started searching vehicles. Looking for alternate routes Barbara Fisher of suburban Belmont, waiting for the subway at Boston's South Station, said she wondered if she should plan another way to get to her vocational training classes if the subway shut down. But she said she was reassured when authorities said the threat was uncorroborated. "You can't be too nervous," she said. "I'm not changing my life." Patrice Diaz-Migoyo, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he believes it's hard to assess threats because of past government intelligence failures and secrecy. "Do I personally feel threatened? No," he said, standing inside an upscale downtown shopping mall where security is usually tight. "Should I? I have no means to judge." ---- Boston boosts security as FBI adds 10 names to list of those sought in reported terror threat By SYLVIA LEE WINGFIELD Associated Press Writer Friday, January 21, 2005 http://www4.fosters.com/January2005/01.21.05/news/ap_na_0121a.asp BOSTON (AP) — Airport and transit authorities responded to an FBI report of a possible terrorist plot against Boston by boosting security — adding patrols, activating radiation detectors and posting pictures of some of the suspects. FBI agents were looking into an uncorroborated tip that 16 people — 13 Chinese nationals, two Iraqis and one other person whose nationality was not released — might be planning an attack. The agency announced Wednesday that it was investigating four Chinese nationals, and a Transportation Security Administration official said later that a security briefing indicated the FBI also was looking for two Iraqis. The number jumped by 10 Thursday "as a result of the ongoing investigation" but did not signal that credible evidence about a plot had emerged, FBI spokesman Joe Parris said. The 14th person was identified on the FBI’s Web site as Jose Ernesto Beltran Quinones, but his nationality was not given. "Information is still uncorroborated and from a source of unknown reliability and motive," Parris said. Another federal law enforcement official in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, said the tip was received by the California Highway Patrol. The tipster claimed the four Chinese — two men and two women — entered the United States from Mexico and were awaiting a shipment of "nuclear oxide" that would follow them to Boston. Several radioactive compounds take form as oxides and could be used in a dirty bomb, expert Charles Ferguson said. Plutonium and americium oxides, in the right amounts, would be dangerous to human health, while uranium oxide would be less so, he said. "They vary in potency," said Ferguson, science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "If it was plutonium, we could have a problem on our hands." At Logan Airport, where two of the planes were hijacked for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the tip was being taken seriously, according to Dennis Treece, director of corporate security. The most visible sign was more patrols. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the city’s transit agency, also increased security and activated radiation detectors in response to the threat, said Deputy Chief John Martrino. He said the detectors are put in use whenever the city is on higher-than-normal security alert. Pictures of four Chinese suspects released by the FBI were taped inside booths where subway tokens are sold by transit employees, and operators of underground parking garages started searching vehicles. Barbara Fisher of suburban Belmont, waiting for the subway at Boston’s South Station, said she wondered if she should plan another way to get to her vocational training classes if the subway shut down. But she said she was reassured when authorities said the threat was uncorroborated. "You can’t be too nervous," she said. "I’m not changing my life." Patrice Diaz-Migoyo, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he believes it’s hard to assess threats because of past government intelligence failures and secrecy. "Do I personally feel threatened? No," he said, standing inside an upscale downtown shopping mall where security is usually tight. "Should I? I have no means to judge." But he said the news reports brought back memories of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. "My first reaction, because I lived in Greenwich Village on September 11th, was annoyance if I happened to be in the two cities that got struck," he said. The Rev. John R. Odams, pastor of Pilgrim Church, United Church of Christ, in Boston’s Dorchester section, said he wasn’t worried. "Emotional terrorism is probably a greater threat to us," he said as he waited for a train. "We need to look at the bigger picture. "It seems there are so many other dangers in our society that end up getting ignored — housing, homelessness, poverty — that are in some ways more threatening," Odams said. ---- Reports of 'Dirty Bomb' Threat Mean High Anxiety in Boston Officials Issue Lookout But Express Skepticism By Jonathan Finer Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23292-2005Jan20?language=printer BOSTON, Jan. 20 -- As local media maelstroms go, it had all the makings of a perfect storm. An anonymous tip about a "dirty bomb" threat sent this city into a tizzy Wednesday evening, with nerves already frayed by a rush-hour snowstorm and speculation that an attack might be timed to coincide with the eve of the presidential inauguration in Washington. But in a briefing Thursday afternoon, Massachusetts officials said that although they had gathered new information about the four Chinese and two Iraqi nationals sought for questioning, an investigation had not increased their alarm or corroborated the tip. It is still not known, they said, whether any of the people had even entered the country. "There are some who would say that the information has a degree of unreliability to it," Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said in response to a reporter's question. Romney had dashed home from inaugural festivities after news reports of the threat broke. "Could this be a hoax? Why, of course," he later added. If so, some Bostonians and visitors wondered Thursday, had the frenzied response fueled a panic that officials said they were trying to avoid? "It just seems like sensationalism and fear-mongering -- a real overreaction," said Erin Baldwin, 34, a graphic artist from San Francisco who arrived Thursday for a long weekend getaway with her husband. Others said they were glad that precautions were taken. "It's kind of comforting that they took this thing seriously, even if it turns out to be nothing," said Eric Ronci, 23, a senior at Boston's Suffolk University. Government officials in Washington said Thursday that they largely discount the notion that Boston was to be attacked, but they have not ruled it out. Some officials believe the tip was provided about one human-smuggling ring by a rival gang. The tip traveled a circuitous route from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego to its counterpart in Boston, which shared it with local officials. The FBI notified two offices in the Department of Homeland Security, but not the headquarters. That led to confusion when local officials, reporters and members of the public began querying federal agencies, officials said. On Wednesday, Homeland Security intelligence chief Patrick M. Hughes made several phone calls to state homeland security directors around the nation to explain the government's skepticism about the reported threat. "This is just like thousands of other tips we receive all the time," one FBI official in Washington said. "We have to run it out and see if there's anything to it." As news of the supposed threat broke Wednesday afternoon, politicians called for calm, while scrambling to show they were taking the threat seriously. Media reports described state officials gathering in a suburban bunker to plot strategy before an evening briefing from Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. Romney, who has been stung here recently by newspaper reports of his broader political ambitions and frequent forays outside the state, said he returned to Boston to reassure residents. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) also returned to his state Wednesday. The office of U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan distributed the names and photographs of two Chinese men and two women that were immediately splashed across television screens Wednesday night, even as federal officials were playing down the validity of the tip. None of the named suspects appears on a terrorist or drug enforcement watch list, Sullivan said. Jon Parris, an FBI spokesman, said late Thursday that authorities have added 10 more Chinese suspects, names that were developed as a result of the ongoing investigation. He said the information is still uncorroborated and the source is of unknown reliability and motive. By that point, popular and acerbic radio hosts Howie Carr and Jay Severin were devoting their dueling drive-time call-in shows to the unfolding events. Sometime after the photographs were published, a public transit bus driver notified police that he thought he had dropped off two of those pictured in Somerville, a suburb north of Boston, the Boston Herald reported Thursday. But police descending on a Dunkin' Donuts franchise made no arrests. "The interest continued to escalate, and there was a risk that there could be a public panic," Sullivan said when asked to explain the government's multifaceted response. Staff writers Dan Eggen, John Mintz and Josh White in Washington contributed to this report. ---- Radiation Sensors Deployed as Boston Probes Threat Jan 21, 2005 12:51 PM (ET) By Greg Frost (Reuters) http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050121/2005-01-21T175147Z_01_N21604486_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BOSTON-DC.html BOSTON - Police carrying radiation detectors patrolled Boston's subway system on Friday after the FBI added another 10 names to a list of people it wants to question over a reported "dirty bomb" plot in the city. Authorities reassured area residents that there was no cause for panic two days after an uncorroborated tip triggered a Federal Bureau of Investigation manhunt. Media reports spoke of threats to explode a so-called "dirty bomb" which disperses low-level radioactive material. The top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts would not rule out the possibility of a hoax, while Boston newspapers reported on Friday that officials were eyeing revenge as a possible motive for the anonymous tip received by California police. "It could be a drug deal gone bad and (the tipster is) using this threat of a terrorist attack to bring a ton of heat down on someone," the Boston Herald quoted one unnamed law enforcement official as saying. While there was no change in the terror alert status either nationally or in Massachusetts, authorities appeared to be treating the potential threat seriously. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the region's mass transit system, deployed more officers than normal around downtown Boston and some were using radiation sensors, according to Deputy Chief John Martino. "As is the case with any alert we deploy teams of officers with radiological detectors throughout the system," Martino told Reuters, adding that such deployments were also standard for big events such as the Boston Marathon and July 4. The FBI, which on Wednesday night released the names and photographs of two Chinese men and two Chinese women it sought for questioning in connection with the potential threat, released the names of another 10 people on Thursday night. The FBI called the 10 people -- nine men and one woman -- "persons of interest in the unspecified potential threat to the City of Boston." But as with the four names released on Wednesday night, the FBI said none of the names had ever shown up on any "watch list." Eight of the nine men had Chinese names, while the ninth was named Jose Ernesto Beltran Quinones. The FBI released passport numbers and possible dates of birth for six of the 10 people. The lone woman, Yu Xian Weng, was listed with two passport numbers and two possible dates of birth. Officials at the Chinese Embassy in Washington were not immediately available for comment. -------- ukraine Ukraine's Leader Looks Back in Melancholy By C. J. CHIVERS January 21, 2005 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/international/europe/21kuchma.html?pagewanted=print&position= KIEV, Ukraine, Jan. 16 - He continues to govern, exercising the remains of his power as he orders Ukraine's troops home from Iraq. He waits, and he says he plans a role in the life of a nation that, in what is now known as the Orange Revolution, almost allergically rejected the course he had set for it. After 10 years in power, decades of influence and then scandal and opprobrium in his final term, President Leonid D. Kuchma's last hours in office are upon him. He admits to melancholy and says that his pride over Ukraine's advances since declaring its independence in 1991 is tinged with regret that he is leaving a nation divided. He concedes he might be arrested. His ambivalence is clear. "One cannot be completely satisfied; many things I see now at a different angle," he said, leaning forward from a silk-covered, gold-leafed armchair inside the presidential administration building that last month was blockaded by demonstrators chanting, "Criminals, out!" "However, looking back at my life, I think it could not be done in any different way," he said, quickly adding, "If I had known where I would stumble and fall, I would have put a cushion there." In an interview in his office, Mr. Kuchma spoke in considerable detail about events that shook his nation, and offered a tentative self-assessment of his role. [Mr. Kuchma is now formally a lame duck. Early Wednesday the Supreme Court rejected an election challenge by his former prime minister, Viktor F. Yanukovich, clearing the way for President-elect Viktor A. Yushchenko's inauguration to go ahead as scheduled on Sunday.] Speaking on several subjects, Mr. Kuchma flashed a range of emotions. At times he laughed, sometimes waving away questions or referring them to members of his government. He was reflective, occasionally self-critical. And he spoke with noticeable care, whether from caution or courtesy, about former political underlings. He also credited everyone involved in the ultimately peaceful revolution - from the government troops and both presidential candidates, to the oppositionists who filled Kiev's streets - for having managed, however harrowingly, to avoid violence. "I saw it as a war of nerves," he said. "Who would cave in first? Thank God everybody's nerves were strong." Now comes a period of assessment, a process he says will take time. As a former missile-plant director who inherited the reins of a dysfunctional post-Soviet nation, Mr. Kuchma, 66, was a technocrat turned head of state, and brought with him a high intellect, management experience and a political base in a powerful clan as he confronted almost insurmountable problems. He departs with a much healthier nation but a darkly complicated legacy. To his critics and the opposition that paralyzed Kiev in November and December, he is a president who presided over the corrupt privatization of the nation's resources, steering wealth toward supporters, relatives and eastern clans. He has been accused of ordering the murder of a journalist, Georgy Gongadze, in 2000, of approving the sale of radar systems to Saddam Hussein's Iraq and of rigging the election for Mr. Yanukovich, his disastrous choice as successor. Having found himself caught between the competing interests of Russia and the West, he satisfied neither. His stature on the world stage has shrunk. Yet Mr. Kuchma accomplished critical tasks, including a sustained collaboration with Washington in nuclear disarmament and the closing of Chernobyl, the nuclear power plant that in 1986 suffered the worst nuclear accident in history. He leaves a country with a rapidly expanding economy, with independent parliamentary factions, an opposition television station and an often lively press. These would be all but unimaginable instruments of democracy in many former Soviet republics led by their former Communist Party men. Moreover, Mr. Kuchma is willingly stepping aside, confronting his critics with a paradox. However messy the transition has been, Mr. Kuchma will be able to note that with his leaving, Ukraine has taken a step toward joining a club - along with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Georgia - of former republics of the Soviet Union that are developing democratic governance. "Ukraine has happened as a country," he said. "All these years Moscow doubted that Ukraine might be a truly independent country. And we settled everything with our neighbors, and should say we had no less problems than any other post-Soviet republic. But we managed to resolve them in civilized, democratic manner without shedding a single drop of blood." Asked how he thought he might be regarded in 10 years, he tried to bridge the divergent images - the autocrat who submitted to democracy, the autocrat who resisted it until he had no choice - and acknowledged error. "We failed to come to terms with the elite and take a softer road in politics," he said. "I mean we failed to register in our Constitution a truly democratic system of power and the responsibility of the authorities. And the attempt to give more power to the president had its side effects." He spoke also of sorrow. Under his stewardship, deep splits appeared in Ukraine. Many rise from historical differences in language, religion, ambitions and culture, and have been stoked by the clash between Mr. Yushchenko, a Ukrainian-speaking Westernizer with support in Kiev and western Ukraine, and Mr. Yanukovich, the former prime minister from eastern Ukraine who favors the Russian language and leans politically toward Moscow. He said he hoped to be part of a national reconciliation, and will lead a foundation to promote unity. His critics have said the president was often unsure of his course: toward more open societies to Kiev's west, or toward Russia, and an authoritarian hand. Volodymyr Polokhalo, director of the Institute of World Economics and Foreign Affairs of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, said Mr. Kuchma wanted the sort of authoritarian rule now wielded by Mr. Putin and Belarus's Aleksandr G. Lukashenko but was not able to establish it. "He lacked the skill and the will," he said. But Mr. Polokhalo also noted Mr. Kuchma's political savvy against his competitors. In December, in exchange for a repeat election, he coaxed the opposition into constitutional changes that should reduce the powers of his successor, navigating the electoral crisis in a way that preserved influence. "He outdid everyone in a very narrow space," he said. But time now runs short, and soon the opposition will command the law enforcement authorities that have long been under his hand. Some of his opponents have spoken of arresting him. Asked how he regarded such possibilities, Mr. Kuchma said he feared nothing. "I can look straight into my people's eyes because I can give an account of everything I did," he said. "It is absolutely absurd for me to be afraid of any legal action. Of course, I cannot exclude that some attempts will be made, but I look upon it philosophically. "If this witch hunting will become the main characteristic of the new administration," he added, then the new administration "does not have any future because the country will be thrown into a new confrontation." Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting for this article. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- colorado The Rocky Flats Horror Picture Show Ex-FBI agent charges feds with radioactive coverup at Rocky Flats By Amanda Griscom Little 21 Jan 2005 Grist Magazine http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/01/21/little-rockyflats/ The plotline sounds as absurd as a made-for-TV movie: An FBI agent exposes deadly contamination at an old nuclear-weapons plant, but the federal government conceals the findings. Years later, Congress votes to convert the tract into a wildlife refuge and open it to school field trips and public recreation. The site becomes a poster child for eco-friendly nuclear-waste disposal -- with a dangerous radioactive secret lurking below the surface. Fact, of course, can be stranger than fiction -- even bad Sunday-night-on-CBS fiction -- and former FBI agent Jon Lipsky is one of several insiders who say the above scenario is unfolding right beneath Uncle Sam's nose. In 1989, Lipsky led an FBI raid on the Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant in Colorado after receiving reports that the plant posed a huge public-health threat. His raid, which took place over 18 days and involved more than 100 FBI and EPA officials, gave way to a nearly three-year criminal investigation into widespread radioactive contamination of the air, water, and soil at the 6,240-acre site and the surrounding suburbs of nearby Denver. The raid prompted the Department of Justice to assemble a special grand jury to investigate the evidence against U.S government officials and Rockwell International, the private defense contractor that managed Rocky Flats from 1975 to 1989 on behalf of the Department of Energy. Rockwell pleaded guilty to certain counts of negligence and paid a fine, but never fessed up to the full extent of the crimes Lipsky says he witnessed. The case was settled with a plea bargain agreement, and the Department of Justice sealed the contamination evidence from the public. Next month, Lipsky will be party to a lawsuit against DOJ in conjunction with Wes McKinley, the former leader of the Rocky Flats grand jury, and Jacque Brever, a former chemical operator at the plant who suffers from radiation exposure, in an effort to unseal the documents. The plaintiffs are concerned, in particular, about a 2001 congressional decision to turn Rocky Flats into a wildlife refuge, which may have as many as 16 miles of trails for hiking and horseback riding. On Dec. 31, Lipsky retired early from the FBI to protest the agency's orders that he keep mum about the Rocky Flats controversy. "I left so I could help expose the truth," he told Muckraker. "Without the truth there can be no real understanding of the extent of this environmental crime, and there can be no thorough cleanup." Lipsky describes the DOE's ongoing cleanup effort at the nuke site, scheduled to be completed by 2006, as "woefully inadequate -- a farce." As for the decision to make Rocky Flats a tourist destination, he said, "There is nothing safe or sane about it." Before the vote on the Rocky Flats designation, Lipsky wrote an open letter to Congress putting his objections in no uncertain terms: "I am an FBI agent. My superiors have ordered me to lie about a criminal investigation I headed in 1989. The Justice Department covered up the truth ... I have refused to follow the orders ... Some dangerous decisions are now being made based on that government cover-up." He exhorted members of Congress to read the book The Ambushed Grand Jury, a chronicle of the cover-up by Colorado lawyer Caron Balkany, who is representing Lipsky et al. in their lawsuit, and McKinley, the former grand-jury member, who was just elected to the Colorado state legislature. The DOE dismisses Lipsky's charges as bunk. Department spokesperson Karen Lutz flatly denies that there's anything to be concerned about. "Our Rocky Flats cleanup effort has been going on for 15 years, and the whole time it has been meticulous, thorough, and transparent, with full community participation. We've had this under a microscope -- the oversight has been incredibly vigilant. There is nothing legitimate about these allegations." The Department of Justice did not respond to Muckraker's request for comment. The critics counter that DOE wanted to keep the public in the dark to cut corners on cost, not to mention protect itself from criticism for environmental negligence. The department allocated $7 billion to the cleanup, a sum initially criticized as far too low to enable a thorough job. And less than 8 percent of the allocated sum is even being used to decontaminate the site, the plaintiffs say; the rest is going to administrative costs and decommissioning the plant. Former Rocky Flats employee Jacque Brever, who claims to have read more than 16,000 documents on the cleanup, told Muckraker that the effort is "so bad you wouldn't even believe it." She said several fields and hillsides that had been dumping grounds for toxic and radioactive wastes have been excluded from the cleanup. Additionally, she said, the sampling techniques for determining contamination levels are misleading, and the standards for soil and water purification are weak. "There is no question in my mind that the grounds are still hot [radioactive] at that site, and will be for a long time," she said. "That plant was spewing radioactive ash and effluent for nearly 40 years. We dumped radioactive stuff in areas they're not even looking at. We buried drums that corroded underground, and they're looking only at the surface of the soil." Brever worked at the plant for 10 years and her fiancé for 19 years. Both spent most of their careers in "hot" areas of the facility where they were directly exposed to plutonium. Brever now has thyroid cancer and her fiancé has a rare form of eye cancer, both illnesses associated with long-term exposure to radioactivity. They haven't been able to get financial compensation for their medical treatment, she said, because some key records pertaining to their exposure have been suppressed. "We're having difficulty proving our case. That's why we're taking it to the courts -- to get the rest of our records released." Allard (left) and Udall introduce the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act. The effort to transform Rocky Flats into a wildlife refuge was lead by Colorado Rep. Mark Udall (D) and Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard (R). But at the time, says Lipsky, Udall and Allard, like everyone else, didn't have access to all the facts. "Congress didn't know that there was midnight plutonium burning. Congress didn't know that there was extensive offsite contamination. Congress didn't know the site had an irrigation system that dispersed radioactive liquid from the holding ponds throughout the surrounding fields to skirt discharge constraints." McKinley has announced that he will introduce a bill in the Colorado legislature that would require officials at the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge to warn visitors of the site's past. "People shouldn't visit a so-called park that for half a century has been a radioactive waste dump without knowing about the malfeasance that happened there," he said. "You get warning labels on hot coffee, why shouldn't you be warned that you could be walking on 'hot' ground?" What concerns attorney Balkany the most is that the Rocky Flats cleanup could be used to fuel the myth that nuclear waste can be safely handled. "I believe the main goal of the DOJ and the nuke industry at Rocky Flats is greenwashing. It helps both nuclear power and the nuclear-weapons industries to convince people that industries and government can deal with their waste in a safe way," she said. This could be of particular interest to the Bush administration, given that just last week, in President Bush's first newspaper interview since his reelection, he told The Wall Street Journal of his hopes to spark a nuclear-power renaissance, glorifying nuclear power in ways that many would deem delusional: "I believe nuclear power answers a lot of our issues," he said. "It certainly answers the environmental issue." He later added: "It's a renewable source of energy." Who's ever heard of renewable energy that creates cancer-causing waste? "Just watch," said Brever. "They're going to hold up Rocky Flats as the nuclear-waste success story, the flagship. It's going to happen all over the country: Washington is going to make nuclear-waste dumps into plutonium playgrounds." Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing, classified documents, or other useful tips on environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the people behind them. Please send 'em to muckraker@grist.org. Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine. -------- massachusetts Massachusetts: Nuclear plant site transfer eyed Friday, January 21, 2005 By DAVID A. VALLETTE dvallette@repub.com http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1106297348127550.xml ROWE - The town has picked up support in its quest to take ownership of the land that was once home to the dismantled Yankee Nuclear Power Station. State Rep. Daniel Bosley, D-North Adams, said he favors the plan to transfer the land to the town. "It seems to make the most sense, he said. The town was host to Yankee for decades and has good ideas for its future, said Bosley. Also, the Yankee Rowe Community Advisory Board, which includes members from Massachusetts and Vermont towns in the vicinity of the power plant, is poised to recommend that Yankee Atomic Electric Co. give the property to Rowe. A formal vote to support Rowe's quest will be taken at a future meeting of the board, said its chairman, Chuck Bellows of Charlemont. The support, which was issued during a discussion of the future of the property Thursday night by Yankee officials, was welcome, Ellen L. Babcock, town coordinator, said yesterday. Exactly what will happen to Yankee's land when the company completes removal of all pieces of the plant, scheduled to take place sometime this fall, should be decided by then, said Joseph Lynch, Yankee's site closure project director. The plant shut down for good in 1992, after three decades of operation, after Yankee determined the cost of renovations needed to renew its federal operating license would be too high. The dismantling has gone on ever since. With removal of the buildings and facilities, and cleanup of residual contamination in soil and water, the property will be safe for any new uses, Yankee officials have stated. Yankee owns 1,822 acres, including 1,735 in Rowe and 87 acres across the Deerfield in Monroe. All but the 88 acres that included the plant buildings and a buffer zone will immediately become available this fall. The 88 acres will remain off limits until casks containing spent fuel rods are removed. They must go to a federal depository yet to be created. The rest of Yankee's territory is primarily open or wooded land which the town proposes to operate as a park, and also for selective tree cutting to sell for municipal income. Bosley said he likes the forestry plan, given that it would help the town make up for lost taxes from losing Yankee. He said the property also includes a former railroad bed that could be a new rail trail for bicycling, skiing and hiking. Yankee has also had discussions The Trustees of Reservations, Franklin Land Trust, New England Forestry Foundation, Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Department of Natural Resource Conservation at the University of Massachusetts, and the state Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, said Lynch. He said Rowe is the front runner. -------- us nuc waste US to be Aussie nuclear dump By Amanda Hodge January 21, 2005 http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,12003697%255E421,00.html THE US will become Australia's nuclear dumping ground in a remarkable 10-year agreement that takes the pressure off the Howard Government to find a domestic waste site. The agreement to take spent fuel rods from the proposed new Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney was sealed at ministerial level late last year following talks between the US Department of Energy and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The deal was revealed yesterday in a letter from ANSTO released by the country's nuclear watchdog, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. This removes the last major obstacle to the approval of a replacement nuclear reactor at the Lucas Heights facility and eases the pressure on Canberra to resolve the dump issue. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Straw urges Europe to end ban on arms sales to China By Jasper Becker in Beijing 21 January 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=603016 Jack Straw arrived in Beijing last night to tell his Chinese hosts that Britain will help to lift EU sanctions imposed after the Tiananmen Square massacre, despite US and Japanese objections..... -------- china London embraces arms to China By Al Webb THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 21, 2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050120-095852-8401r LONDON -- Britain has switched sides and thrown its support behind a European Union plan to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo against China, a move that threatens to trigger a rift in Britain's "special relationship" with the United States. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw recently told Parliament that the European Union's ban against arms sales to the Asian giant, imposed in the wake of the 1989 massacre in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, probably would be lifted by June. Mr. Straw has since elaborated, telling Britain's Financial Times newspaper this week that London would have to work to ease tensions with Washington over the policy shift. "The presentational problem we have in Washington is the people read the headline, 'They've lifted the embargo,' and it then takes time to explain that the embargo has a very limited application," he told the newspaper. "The challenge in terms of foreign policy is not to eliminate differences or franchise out policy but to manage those differences." The European Union had $544 million of arms exports to China in 2003, up from $275 million dollars in 2002, according to its annual report on arms exports cited by the Financial Times. Britain has been the United States' strongest ally in the war in Iraq, but seeds of discord between the two have been sown in recent months. The British shift involves turbulent domestic politics as well as anger directed at Prime Minister Tony Blair's government over charges of U.S. protectionism in military sales. The conflict in Iraq is widely unpopular in Britain, and Mr. Blair -- bidding for a third term in an election widely expected this spring -- is anxious to lose the "Bush's poodle" label applied by some critics. "There is clear evidence that his relationship with Bush, his association with the war in Iraq is an electoral liability," said John Peterson, professor of international politics at the University of Edinburgh. The Blair government's shift on the arms for China issue, analysts say, also reflects a simmering feud with Washington over efforts in the U.S. Congress to reject Britain's earlier request that it be exempted from complex U.S. arms-export regulations. Fury erupted seven months ago when British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon wrote to the Pentagon to describe Congress' rejection of the waiver as a "potentially serious blow to U.S.-UK relations." "They would put us under pressure domestically to review our own policies and to consider whether we were prepared to place significant defense contracts with U.S. suppliers in the face of what could only be seen as a demonstrably uneven playing field," Mr. Hoon said. His comments were interpreted as a warning that unless Britain was allowed to share in U.S. military technology secrets, London would stop buying American military equipment. As if to underscore that point, the British defense secretary announced three months later that the country had placed its biggest order for military trucks in a quarter century -- a contract worth $2.1 billion -- with a German-owned company, Man ERF, rather than an American supplier. Publicly, the Blair administration has sought to soften the blow of its shift on arms sales to China. The timing of its announcement that the embargo would be ended by June was seen as an attempt to avoid an open fight with President Bush ahead of his trip to Europe in February, which is to include a stop in London. -------- nato NATO on track in Iraq, could consider further role Jan 21, 2005 BRUSSELS (AFP) http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050121155319.b8il3ou0.html NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer insisted Friday that the alliance's Iraq training mission was on track despite signs it may be cut in size -- and said NATO would consider a further role if asked by Baghdad. De Hoop Scheffer reiterated that the military alliance, which agreed to send the training mission last June but then struggled for months to agree the details, planned to have a 300-strong training force in the war-scarred country. "We are on schedule," he told reporters, adding that the next phase of setting up the mission would start next month. His comments came after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's top commander in Europe said that his officers on the ground were considering a reduction in the size of the mission. The possible cut is being mulled because Iraq's army has more capacity than expected to train its own troops, and not because NATO is having problems drafting the force, US General James Jones underlined earlier in the week. US officials at NATO said last month that they wanted as many NATO troops as possible into Iraq early this year, in particular to train Iraqi forces ahead of this month's elections. So far some 100 NATO staff are on the ground. But De Hoop Scheffer denied this was due to problems finding troops. "We are not having trouble finding trainers," he said, while conceding: "We still have to find a few." The NATO chief meanwhile said it was too early to talk about what further role the 26-member alliance -- which was plunged into unprecedented crisis by the Iraq war -- could play in the country. But he signalled that an enlarged presence could not be ruled out, although only if the new Iraqi government asked for it. "If the Iraqi government after the elections would come to NATO and make other requests to NATO, the allies would certainly discuss those requests. But it's too early for me to say" what their answer would be, he said. Anti-Iraq war NATO members like France and Germany have refused to send their troops to Iraq, but have agreed to train Iraqi forces outside the country. ---- NATO urges EU, US to coordinate Iran pressure Jan 21, 2005 BRUSSELS (AFP) http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050121155030.1hh7q5nb.html NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said Friday that Europe and the United States must coordinate a "carrot and stick" approach to Iran over its nuclear plans. The issue may very well be discussed when US President George W. Bush comes to Brussels next month for summits at NATO and with the European Union, he added. "It's of the utmost importance that the European Union and the United States of America see eye to eye on Iran. Only this way can we prevent that nations or alliances can be played out against each other," he said. "What we need is an approach where there's the carrot but also the stick. And I hope that the European Union and the United States of America can both use the carrot and the stick," he told reporters. Bush said this week that he could not rule out military action if Iran could not be persuaded to abandon a nuclear energy programme which Washington believes is a cover for developing the bomb. But the EU's "big three" -- Britain, France and Germany -- are holding crucial talks with Iran aimed at finding a long-term solution to allay international fears about the nuclear programme. De Hoop Scheffer said that Iran will not be on the formal agenda of a February 22 summit at the alliance, but said he would not be surprised if it is discussed when Bush visits Brussels. "They might very well discuss" Iran, he said, adding: "The important thing is that on Iran the European Union and the United States of America find each other." During his Brussels visit the US president will attend a NATO summit in the morning, before meeting the EU's Luxembourg presidency in the afternoon. Both NATO and the EU were deeply divided over the 2003 Iraq war. Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have vowed to turn the page on the dispute, and are hoping that this month's Iraq elections will be a new step in doing so. -------- prisoners of war U.S. Prisons in Iraq Nearly Full With Rise in Insurgent Arrests Detainee Releases Suspended Until After Jan. 30 Elections By Jackie Spinner Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A12 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24875-2005Jan20?language=printer ABU GHRAIB, Iraq, Jan. 20 -- Major U.S.-run detention facilities in Iraq are nearing capacity, with the number of suspected insurgents in custody on Thursday at the highest level since March, according to detention officials. The U.S. military has about 7,900 so-called security detainees -- people suspected of participating in the insurgency or otherwise threatening Iraq's security -- at its three primary holding facilities in Iraq, officials said. In addition, releases have been suspended until after Jan. 30, when Iraqis are to elect a National Assembly. Military officials said the surge in detainees reflected the expansion of the insurgency campaign aimed at disrupting Iraq's first democratic elections in nearly half a century. "It's been steadily growing since September," said Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, commander of U.S. detention operations in Iraq. He said that an average of 50 people were being arrested every day and that U.S. and Iraqi security forces had recently been capturing as many as 70 in a day. The number of detainees includes about 650 arrested during fighting in Fallujah, which U.S. and Iraqi security forces recaptured from insurgents in November. Though U.S. and Iraqi officials have repeatedly said that foreign fighters are heavily involved in the insurgency, the detainee population includes just 334 foreigners. The total does not, however, include 1,200 suspected insurgents being held at smaller facilities run at the military brigade and division levels; about 75 percent of those individuals typically are freed after a few days. After being processed by the units that capture them, detainees are brought to Abu Ghraib, a prison 20 miles west of Baghdad where reports of abuse sparked a global scandal eight months ago. At that time, Abu Ghraib held more than 7,000 detainees in overcrowded, dirty compounds. The Army, which operates the detention facilities, now houses most long-term detainees at Camp Bucca, near the port of Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. As of Thursday, Abu Ghraib held 2,708 detainees, Camp Bucca had 5,044 and Camp Cropper -- a facility near Baghdad that holds what are known as high-value detainees, had 103. Brandenburg said releases had been put on hold so soldiers in the field could focus on providing security before the elections. When detainees are released, the units that captured them must come to Abu Ghraib to pick them up and return them to their communities, often a two-day mission. The general said a board that determines which detainees should be freed was still meeting, but had recommended that releases not be carried out until early February. "As long as we don't get past our capability to sufficiently care for detainees, we'll be okay," Brandenburg said. The mistreatment by soldiers at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003 was documented in photographs and videos showing naked detainees being frightened, beaten and forced into humiliating sexual positions. President Bush ultimately apologized for the abuses, which military leaders acknowledge helped fuel the insurgency in Iraq. Eight soldiers were charged with abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib -- all but one of them from the Army's 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cresaptown, Md. Two soldiers accused of being the ringleaders, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick and Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr., have been sentenced to eight years and 10 years in prison, respectively. Soldiers who guard detainees now work under strict guidelines. Soldiers from the 391st Military Police Battalion, which took over from the 372nd last February, have expressed little sympathy for the accused soldiers. Although they were not involved in the abuse, soldiers from the 391st and the 152nd Field Artillery National Guard unit -- brought in to help guard the prison -- found themselves in the spotlight when the scandal broke. The military has also overhauled all of its detention facilities since the scandal, which highlighted the poor living conditions of both the detainees and the soldiers. Prisoners at Abu Ghraib now live in heated tents with electricity and have access to showers and to cold water in the summer. They also have extensive medical and dental care. One night this week, detainees in yellow jumpsuits and winter coats and hats lined up at a fence for plates of hot food. Inside a wooden guard hut, U.S. soldiers crowded around a table and their own dinner: pizza and cheeseburgers. "It's changed 100 percent for the detainees," said Staff Sgt. Mathew Quint, 40, of Houlton, Maine. Quint, a member of the Maine National Guard's 1st Battalion, 152nd Field Artillery Regiment, said he was pleased that a military court last week gave Graner a 10-year prison sentence and dishonorable discharge. "He's trying to pass the buck," Quint said. "A soldier knows better." During his year at the prison, Pfc. Christian King, 22, also of Houlton, said he had learned a lot about Iraq by talking to detainees. "The detainees from Baghdad don't really have that bad an opinion of us," he said. "The detainees from Fallujah tend to use it as their Alamo. They haven't been exposed to the good we've done. They've only talked to the insurgents." King said the hardest thing he has had to do was forget that the detainees are accused of being insurgents who tried to kill American soldiers. "You have to put it out of your mind," he said. "Our job here is not to punish them, to take revenge. Our job is to protect them." He and his fellow soldiers have been in the spotlight because other people "screwed up here," said King, who said he would resume his studies at the University of Maine when he got home. "The guys in my unit have done everything in their power to make this a better place." Sgt. Michael Tantillo, 25, of New York City, one of the new replacement guards from the 18th Military Police Brigade, 306th Battalion, said he expected his job to be easier now that changes had been made and new rules were in place. "These guys had it a lot harder," he said, gesturing toward King and Quint. Tantillo said that when he looks into the detainees' tents, he sees "a lot of innocent faces of war and a lot of killers." "But it's not our job to judge them," he said. "It's our job to keep them there." ---- Britain Tries to Tone Down Debate Over Prisoner Abuse By ALAN COWELL January 21, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/international/europe/21britain.html?pagewanted=print&position= LONDON, Jan. 20 - The British military authorities and politicians sought Thursday to limit public debate about allegations that three British soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners shortly after they occupied Basra in 2003. But the attempts to restrain discussion, both at a court-martial in Germany where the men are on a trial and in Parliament in London, could not avert widening revulsion in other European countries. The outcry has been all the more intense since the publication this week of photographs of Iraqis - seemingly forced to simulate sexual acts and apparently subjected to threatened beatings in May 2003 - that are uncannily reminiscent of photographs taken by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. "These images take your breath away," the conservative German newspaper Die Welt said in an editorial on Thursday about the photographs. "Why do people who have shed their inhibitions to such an extent feel the need to document their conduct with photos?" In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair moved swiftly on Wednesday to try to prevent the scandal from adding to the political costs of Britain's deployment in Iraq, mainly in the south around Basra. And as Steve Richards, a newspaper columnist in Britain pointed out, Mr. Blair can draw some comfort from the reluctance of his political opponents to be seen seeking advantage of the damaged reputation of the British Army. "The broader political repercussions in Britain are complicated and do not necessarily work against Mr. Blair," Mr. Richards wrote Thursday in The Independent, which opposed the Iraq war. In Parliament on Wednesday, moreover, Mr. Blair and his adversaries seemed united in ascribing the abuses in Basra to a tiny minority of British troops. But Berlin's left-wing Tageszeitung asked in an editorial on Thursday, "How many bad eggs do you need in order to describe the entire basket as bad?" In France, the photographs were reproduced by newspapers covering what Le Figaro called "Britain's Abu Ghraib," a comparison also made in El Mundo of Madrid. At the court-martial of the three British soldiers on Thursday in Osnabrück, Germany, the presiding judge advocate, Michael Hunter, suggested that the extent of the debate - including Mr. Blair's comments in Parliament - could well be influencing the trial. "I ask that great care be taken by those who find it necessary to make public statements not to say anything that might prejudice the fairness of the trial," he said. The same concern surfaced on Thursday in Parliament here when an opposition Conservative legislator, Eric Forth, took issue with the publication of 22 photographs apparently showing abuse in Basra. "Do you not think this was wrong?" he asked Peter Hain, the leader of the House of Commons. In reply, Mr. Hain let it be known that the attorney general had raised the issue with newspaper editors - apparently in an effort to tone down the coverage - but did not go into detail. "What is important here is that there is a fair trial, and I think we should do nothing to jeopardize that," he said. Michael Martin, the House of Commons speaker, said he would permit lawmakers to make "passing reference to the general standards of conduct of British forces." But, Mr. Martin said, he would not allow legislators to comment directly on cases before courts or courts-martial. In Munich, the liberal Süddeutsche Zeitung said in an editorial that the photographs would be used by "radicals and terrorists who have no interest in the stabilization" of Iraq. On Thursday, word reached here of an explosion 20 miles south of Basra at an entrance to a British logistics base - the first indication of unrest in the area since the photographs were published. The British Defense Ministry said late Thursday that nine British soldiers had been wounded in the attack. Britain's Press Association reported that a group claiming links to Al Qaeda had taken responsibility for the attack and said it was in response to British abuse of Iraqi prisoners. -------- un U.N. conference adopts plan for nations to prevent disasters 1/21/2005 10:21 PM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-01-21-un-tsunami_x.htm KOBE, Japan — The world's nations, united in shock over the Indian Ocean catastrophe, agreed Saturday to work together to better guard their people against natural disasters, by taking steps ranging from strengthening building codes to expanding the monitoring of nature's upheavals. In a first concrete step four weeks after an earthquake-tsunami killed between 157,000 and 221,000 people, according to varying government tallies, the World Conference on Disaster Reduction laid groundwork for the first tsunami early warning system in the Indian Ocean, expected to be in place next year. The five-day, 168-nation U.N. conference concluded — after dozens of workshops and a final night of closed-door negotiation — by adopting a "framework for action," resolving to pursue "substantial reduction" of disaster losses in the next 10 years. This is "one of the most critical challenges" facing the world, a final declaration said, because cyclones, floods, earthquakes and other events set back human progress, especially in poor nations. Some were disappointed that the conference documents were nonbinding, committed no new money to risk reduction and set no hard targets for assessing progress. Japan, for example, had proposed setting a goal of cutting water-related disaster deaths in half by 2015, but the U.S. delegation and others opposed such ideas. The international Red Cross said it would continue to advocate for firm targets and more aid for disaster preparedness in poor countries. "The international community has 2005 to make concrete its promises," said the relief agency's Eva von Oelreich. The chief U.N. official here, Jan Egeland, said he believed the 10-year action plan could halve disaster casualties by 2015. But "we must not fail in the implementation challenge." The Kobe conference, in a Japanese port city that suffered a crippling earthquake 10 years ago, brought together 4,000 diplomats, development specialists, scientists, economists, aid workers and others in an effort to channel experience and resources into building better human defenses against the worst of nature. Each day delegates could see the need — in the latest news video from coastlines ravaged by the giant waves spawned Dec. 26 by the great Sumatra earthquake. "It heightened our awareness of the importance of stepping up our joint efforts," said Marco Ferrari of Switzerland, drafting committee chairman for the conference, which was planned months before the Indian Ocean tsunami. In sideline meetings, richer nations pledged at least $8 million toward the estimated $30 million cost of a tsunami early warning network for the Indian Ocean, like the one long in place for the Pacific. With U.N. coordination, they hope to deploy the alert system by mid-2006. In the past 10 years, natural disasters have killed almost 700,000 people, affected more than 2.5 billion and cost an estimated $690 billion in economic losses, according to Belgium's university-based Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The 24-page overall action plan calls on states and international organizations to "take into consideration" and "implement as appropriate" a lengthy series of steps to reduce vulnerability and guard against natural hazards. They range from establishing national disaster agencies, developing risk maps, and collecting better statistics on disaster impact, to building disaster-resistant hospitals, schools and other critical facilities, to teaching schoolchildren about disaster risks, and establishing alert systems easily understood by large, poor populations. The framework also cites "a need to enhance international and regional cooperation and assistance in the field of disaster risk reduction." Although the world has pledged some $4 billion in relief aid for the Indian Ocean victims, the Kobe conference did not commit richer nations to boosting financial aid long-term for disaster prevention. Some aid organizations sharply criticized the lack of concrete commitments. "Disaster prevention is not an optional extra. It's an urgent necessity," said Marcus Oxley, of Britain's Tearfund group. The drafting committee needed lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise in another area — climate change. The United States, oil-producing countries and some others resisted mentions in the final documents of the fact that a scientific consensus warns that global warming, believed largely caused by emissions of such "greenhouse gases" as carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fossil-fuel burning, is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. In the end, some references were retained and others were deleted, including a sentence reading, "The increased disaster risks are an important motivation towards mitigating greenhouse gas emissions." The Kyoto Protocol, effective Feb. 16, mandates reductions in such emissions by industrial nations, but the United States, the biggest emitter, rejects the pact, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- courts / tribunals Saudis vindicated January 21, 2005 Embassy Row http://www.washtimes.com/world/embassy.htm Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz says he is "very gratified" that a U.S. federal court this week dismissed a lawsuit that said Saudi Arabia bankrolled the September 11 terrorist attacks. The ambassador said the decision reflects the conclusion of the September 11 commission report, which vindicated Saudi Arabia. The U.S. District Court in New York threw out the lawsuit that named Saudi government officials, major financial institutions and prominent businessmen. "The decision of the court is consistent with the findings of the 9/11 commission, which concluded after exhaustive investigation that there is no evidence of involvement in or financial support for terrorism by the Saudi government or the royal family," Prince Bandar said. The lawsuit named Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz and the Saudi ambassador to Britain, Prince Turki al-Faisal. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of victims of the terrorist attacks. The plaintiffs also included more than 40 insurance companies. -------- homeland security / national intelligence Tight Security, Strong Opinions Dominate a Day Full of Divisions By Timothy Dwyer Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25043-2005Jan20.html Overwhelming security dominated the nation's 55th presidential inauguration yesterday, turning America's Main Street into an avenue of checkpoints and confrontations. Thousands of police officers stood nearly shoulder to shoulder along Pennsylvania Avenue as President Bush began his inaugural parade by cruising through a gantlet of protesters, riding in his armored limousine surrounded by a wedge of SUVs filled with heavily armed officers. Security was so tight that officers took apples and bananas away from people to eliminate anything that could be thrown. Bags bigger than the prescribed size were confiscated, and spectators were told to leave water bottles outside the checkpoints. It was the first inauguration held since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, as well as the first since the war began in Iraq. Strong feelings engendered by both events were prevalent, whether in the words of Bush's inaugural address or in the chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" that rose spontaneously from a mostly invited crowd when protesters tried to disrupt his speech. Divisions defined the day. In downtown Washington, miles of security fences and concrete barriers lined the streets, creating a buttoned-down zone unlike any in the city's history, and much larger than authorities described earlier. Police estimated that 265,000 people attended the swearing-in and 150,000 watched the parade. About 10,000 people participated in the parade, which included more than 70 marching bands and 14 floats. Despite the cold, the overwhelming police presence and the occasional confrontation, the grand show that comes to town every four years went on with all its usual flourish and flair. Last night, nine inaugural balls glittered across the city. This inaugural experience seemed to depend on where spectators stood in front of the Capitol, along the parade route and on the political spectrum. Those who came to celebrate Bush's second term weren't about to let anyone ruin their day. When the president neared the end of his inaugural address, several women stood up from seats in front of him and began shouting anti-Bush slogans. As security guards moved in, a man in suit and tie rolled up a snowball and hit one of the women in the face. The crowd stood and cheered. As Bush spoke, he looked out from the Capitol steps to the Mall and a view of snow-covered Washington and its magnificent sentries, the memorials. The crowd was a blur of fur coats and hats that all but masked the miles of fence thrown up in the name of security in an era of domestic terror. The increased security around Bush's limousine also reflected that reality, and the president did not get out of the vehicle until his motorcade turned the corner onto the portion of Pennsylvania Avenue that is always closed to traffic. It was the most secure segment of the parade route, lined with bleachers filled with ardent supporters who cheered as he walked the final steps with his wife, Laura. Anti-Bush demonstrators turned out in greater numbers and with more anger than during the 2001 inauguration. A clash between riot police and demonstrators who were behind a security fence -- during which an officer fell to his knees after being struck in the back by an object thrown at him -- was indicative of the heightened tension, as were the occasional releases of pepper spray by officers in attempts to quell the protesters. Chilled to the bone and weary from a day of waiting in lines, some spectators said they were nevertheless humbled to have witnessed the inaugural festivities. "I was happy to be around people who could protest and people who could celebrate, at the same time," said Alison Sorkin, 21, a senior at American University. Edmund Morris, a biographer of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, said the tensions were the result of the war. "It is the same passions of the 1960s playing out again almost 40 years later in the sense that it is the same dividing argument," he said. "That is, there is a war on, and young liberals are exercised about it to a similar degree as then." "They feel . . . the war is immoral because it is a superimposition of American values on Arab values, and Americans and Iraqis are dying in the process," Morris said. "This is much more of a religious war than in Vietnam, and that just makes it worse, because nothing stirs passions more than religious issues," he added. The protesters' loud and often profane speech seemed to gain them little, and it proved costly to some who came just to watch the parade. Dick Rasmussen, an Air Force pilot from Woodbridge, said he, his wife and three sons, ages 13, 11, and 9, were unable to enter the route at Seventh Street just after noon because a rowdy group of protesters began hurling snowballs and rocks as they stood in line. He said people began pushing, so he and his family left the area for fear of being trampled. "A lot of protesters were yelling about the inauguration costing $40 million," Rasmussen said. "But look how they were acting. That's when their argument goes out the window. Well, we spent how much money to protect regular Americans against you. If you're going to protest, protest peacefully." Shortly before 3 p.m., a group of black-masked self-styled anarchists rushed the security gate at 13th and E streets NW, apparently trying to break through. Repelled by security, they stood chanting until a phalanx of about 20 riot officers arrived to disperse them. By the time the presidential motorcade arrived at 13th Street, the protesters had moved to the sidewalk in front of 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., the National League of Cities building, where they beat on drums and set fire to two American flags. Guests on a fifth-floor balcony were stunned to see the flags go up in flames. "Oh, boo!" shouted Charles Lyons, past president of the National League of Cities. "I'm a Democrat! Go to hell!" shouted another guest in agreement. As guests from other balconies began throwing ice at the protesters, they responded by shouting, "Jump!" and "Peace now!" Meanwhile, the group began trying to set fire to a curtain of red, white and blue bunting stretched across the building's facade. "It hurts me so deeply to see the lack of tolerance here today," Ginny Bankov said as the protesters melted back into the crowd. "It saddens me to see the destruction and vulgarity. I just want everybody to be safe." Because access points were limited by security, there were plenty of places where those who came to celebrate had to endure profane lectures from those opposed to the president and the war. After Bush finished his speech at the Capitol, those with tickets to the bleachers along the parade route were forced to squeeze down a narrow path through a zone thick with protesters who mocked and derided them, some shouting obscenities. "How are you enjoying your tax break?" shouted one man. "Draft Republicans first," shouted another. Some spectators reported getting sprayed with water by protesters. Another who decried the behavior of the protesters was D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), who attended the swearing-in, then rode in the parade just behind Vice President Cheney from the Capitol to the Wilson Building. Williams called the president's speech "inspirational" and said the inauguration was "very well done." He said he was saddened and angered by what he described as inappropriate displays, including obscene gestures and protest signs and vulgarities shouted in front of children. "It really does piss me off that people are so selfish that they can't give him this one day," Williams said. Bush "was elected by the American people. Who are you preaching your message to?" He also said he was very proud of the performance of the city's police force as well as that of officers who came to Washington from across the country to help. Many businesses in the secure section of the city were closed. Some restaurants stayed open for business or for private parties. Spectators waiting for the parade went on search missions for bathrooms and hot coffee. A Starbucks at Indiana Avenue and Seventh Street NW suddenly became an unplanned security threat as dozens of people crowded into the coffee house for mochas, lattes and hot chocolate. Authorities threw up a metal detector and created a makeshift conveyor belt out of brown crates and cardboard from the nearby restaurant. One Secret Service agent recommended shaking coffee cups to check for rocks. Vicki Whitsett of Hale County, Ala., didn't even get a cup of coffee but was forced to go through the makeshift security checkpoint because she had escorted some high school students into the Starbucks. "I'm fed up. I've had it up to here with security. You don't want to talk to me," she said. Tension sometimes arose between those who had tickets for bleacher seats and those who had to find a place to stand. And some got unexpected surprises. With the parade about to begin at any minute, security officers surveyed the nearly empty bleachers in front of the National Archives. An officer called over several parade volunteers. Unticketed spectators would be allowed to fill the seats, but "be selective," he warned. An inauguration volunteer from Sacramento chatted with three shivering high school girls from Houston. He offered them front-row seats in the bleachers. They gratefully accepted. They had waited in line for two hours to catch a glimpse of the president. He's a fellow Texan, after all. Some ticket holders were moved from their section to the more sparsely occupied risers. By the start of the procession, the bleachers were full. Not everyone who attended yesterday's festivities voted for Bush. Some were Democrats who came to the inauguration to demonstrate a lack of post-election bitterness. Zenobia Williams, 45, a hospital technician from Oklahoma City, voted for Sen. John F. Kerry in November. She obtained a ticket to the Bush inauguration from a Republican friend. "He's still our president," said Williams as she opened her mink coat so security officers could wave a wand before allowing her to enter the West Lawn of the Capitol. "I feel everybody has to have personal closure," said Terree Schmidt, 53, head of a community clinic in Seattle and a Kerry voter who went through her congressman's office to obtain a ticket for a seat near the podium. "The election's over, and we need to support the president now." For many, such as Gayle Lake, whatever they had to endure was worth it. After spending hours fighting her way through crammed security checkpoints and missing the president's motorcade, she sat on a nearly abandoned bleacher on 15th Street waiting for the parade to finish so she could go back to her hotel. "This used to be a free country," said Lake, 56, a Republican donor and real estate agent from Sacramento. "We can't lock ourselves down. We can't become such a military state. At least I'm experiencing it first-hand. Not a lot of people get to say that." ---- Security keeps protests in check By Matthew Cella, Christina Bellantoni and Jon Ward THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 21, 2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050120-115318-6696r Thousands of law-enforcement officers from scores of local, state and federal agencies ensured that yesterday's inaugural festivities occurred with little incident, only brief skirmishes between protesters and police. The nearly 7,000 officers on duty made a few arrests during the inaugural parade. The most serious incident occurred when a small group of protesters tried to charge the secure perimeter and scuffled with authorities. The Metropolitan Police Department arrested three persons, including a protester who was burning a flag and two who had assaulted officers, said spokesman Quentin Peterson. Two officers were treated for minor injuries. U.S. Park Police spokesman Sgt. Scott Fear said officers arrested four women who crossed police lines along Pennsylvania Avenue. The women, who were protesting the wearing of fur, had completely disrobed. U.S. Capitol Police said five persons were arrested at First Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Authorities also took into custody a man who had thwarted inaugural security at the previous two inaugurations, getting close enough to shake hands with President Clinton and President Bush. Richard Weaver was taken into custody at First Street and Independence Avenue SW on an outstanding warrant for trespassing. D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services spokesman Alan Etter said at least 73 persons were treated and 33 of them were transported to hospitals with a range of illnesses and injuries. He said several people were treated after police used pepper spray to disperse protesters at 14th and H streets NW. John Marshall Park, at Pennsylvania Avenue and Fourth Street NW, was at the center of the demonstrations along the parade route. Protesters with the group Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) had a permit to demonstrate and assembled a 20-foot high bleacher, complete with a podium and a sound system. About 50 counterprotesters from the group Protest Warriors tried to take their signs into the ANSWER rally, but rally organizers refused to let them enter despite a Capitol Police officer's warning that the space had to remain open. The entire area between Third and Seventh streets NW, where most of protesters congregated, was closed, with no portable bathrooms and no way to re-enter the area without standing in line again. Construction along Pennsylvania Avenue narrowed sidewalks, making movement difficult. "They're just making it more of a hassle than it has to be," said Natalie Estevez, 26, from Ithaca, N.Y., who was searching for a bathroom. She wore a sign that said, "Bring the troops home now." Organizers of a loosely organized protest called Turn Your Back on Bush said about 5,000 people turned away as the presidential limousine passed, but the actual protest looked smaller. East of Seventh Street, toward the White House, the crowd along the parade route was more solidly pro-Bush, and several spectators were taunting protesters. Protesters and Bush supporters had spirited debates, which police largely ignored even when they became laced with profanities. But protesters inside the perimeter provided little trouble -- unlike those protesters who remained outside the fences. Just before the presidential limousine passed Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street NW at about 3:30 p.m., a group of protesters at the steps of the Willard InterContinental Hotel tried to storm a fence keeping them outside the secure perimeter only to be pepper-sprayed by police officers in riot gear. When it appeared that the situation had calmed, other protesters set fire to a wooden box made to look like a coffin. A small group continued protesting for the next hour to taunt officers, at times rushing the fence and banging it. Police responded each time by discharging streams of pepper spray. At one point, a demonstrator made a snowball about the size of an orange and tossed it behind him into a crowd of police and Bush supporters. Within seconds, two large men jumped him, pushed him down to the ground and punched him in the face repeatedly. A crowd quickly gathered, and women screamed for the beating to stop. Blood was visible on the young man's face and on the pavement. He was then led away by police. The entire downtown area, from the Capitol to the White House, was closed to cars. Pedestrians passed through checkpoints, where authorities patted down those attending inaugural events. The checkpoints became bottlenecked around midmorning, resulting in waits as long as three hours to enter the perimeter. ---- Inch of snow shuts down air marshals By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 21, 2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050121-122815-8690r Hundreds of federal air marshals were grounded and unable to access critical information to pinpoint potential terrorist activity for eight hours on the eve of President Bush's inauguration after snow paralyzed the Mission Operations Center in Washington, said several air marshals and a supervisor. The marshals said they could not reach the Mission Operations Center (MOC) by telephone to be placed on other flights after hundreds of flights were rerouted because of the snow, and marshals seeking information on reports of a dirty bomb in Boston were unsuccessful. "They were flying blind," said the supervisor, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "An inch of snow shut down the Federal Air Marshals system's [ability] to gather, receive or request information." "It basically put the entire aviation security system and flying public at risk because the air marshals were not able to properly do their jobs," the supervisor said. The supervisor said MOC sent out a message at about 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday that the "system was shut down and they were not answering phones or anything" because they did not have enough staff working. "Guys were literally stuck all over the U.S., and the problem is that when we see suspicious activity and need to check names against the watch list, no one was even available for an eight-hour period," the supervisor said. Dave Adams, spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, said marshals were told not to call MOC unless their flights were canceled, but that it was operating and properly staffed. He said it is "understood" calls concerning suspicious activity could be made to MOC. "We had a significant amount of people to handle over 551 schedule changes due to inclement weather, based on airline changes," Mr. Adams said. He declined to say how many employees were working the phones. He did say all of the MOC's consoles were staffed. "We fly the airline's schedule, not ours. When the airlines are canceling flights, we have to adjust accordingly, and that's what we were doing," Mr. Adams said. Air marshals said their calls to MOC weren't getting through and that they were getting disconnected after 20 rings. "The guys in the field were stuck and didn't know what was going on, other than they were not to call MOC because they did not have enough people staffing it," the supervisor said. "The president's inauguration was the whole purpose of increased coverage. If they can't handle one inch of snow, what if it is truly an emergency? It was just a total meltdown," the supervisor said. One stranded air marshal who was on duty Wednesday evening to fly over Washington said he called MOC for a half-hour before someone finally answered the phone. Instead of protecting that flight about 8 p.m., it was nearly 1 a.m. before that marshal was on an airplane flying over Washington. When told the "meltdown" was caused by weather delays in Washington, the air marshal said: "It's called the Weather Channel. They should watch it and be prepared to staff for it." A second air marshal called it "ridiculous" that they were ordered not to call MOC, "especially with the high threat risk" of the inauguration. "For something to go down and the guys not be able to call in, is unacceptable," the air marshal said. -------- police Crowd Control, Not Terror, Causes Tense Moments 13,000 Officers and Troops Keep Watch, Pursue Leads and Tangle With Demonstrators By Spencer S. Hsu, Sari Horwitz and Del Quentin Wilber Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A32 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25022-2005Jan20?language=printer At 11:15 a.m. yesterday, as President Bush waited in the U.S. Capitol for his swearing-in ceremony, the command center of the FBI's Washington field office was humming with activity. There was no shortage of matters to investigate. Early in the day, a trucker in Ohio asked a fellow driver for directions to Washington so he could blow up a bridge. An abandoned Ryder truck turned up under Interstate 395 at South Capitol Street. A suspect dubbed the "Handshake Man," who breached security at earlier inaugurations and greeted the president, was arrested at the Capitol. Authorities also looked into a man who threatened to bring radioactive cesium to 14th and H streets NW. They dealt with an unstable man who walked into Fort Myer, vowing to cause a tsunami at the Key Bridge. And FBI agents handled reports of suspicious packages along the most heavily guarded street in the country yesterday: Pennsylvania Avenue, site of the inaugural parade. "That is as secure a stretch of road as exists anywhere in the world today," said Michael E. Rolince, on-scene commander at the FBI's Command and Tactical Operations Center, where about 30 agents monitored video feeds, answered telephones and tracked incident reports on a giant computer screen. In the end, massive anti-terrorism preparations for what federal authorities promised would be the most secure inauguration in U.S. history turned into an exercise in crowd control, as an army of 13,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers and military troops chased down tips, policed public disturbances and reported few major incidents. "This is the kind of stuff we do day in, day out," Rolince said. About 14 arrests throughout the day were made by U.S. Capitol Police, U.S. Park Police, Federal Protective Service officers and District police. The arrests were mostly for trespassing or clashing with law enforcement officers within a secure zone of more than 100 downtown blocks, authorities said. Those detained included four women characterized by Park Police as anti-fur protesters, who disrobed in the January cold and crossed the parade route. D.C. police said that 10 officers were injured in incidents involving antiwar demonstrators and other protesters and that several were hospitalized. Among the general public, 33 people were taken to hospitals, mostly for exposure to the cold or for slip-and-fall injuries, and nearly 300 people were treated at 29 first-aid stations, according to a D.C. emergency official, Roderick Blair. Bush took the oath of office at the Capitol without incident and later, surrounded by Secret Service agents, left his motorcade to walk a stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House. Meanwhile, authorities established a security gantlet that they hoped would place a "sterile" seal around downtown, processing tens of thousands of people through 22 checkpoints while holding traffic as far as a half-mile away. D.C. police estimated that as many as 150,000 people attended the parade, and Capitol Police said 265,000 attended the swearing-in ceremony. "Frankly, our scenarios and planning envisioned a nightmare, but today was kind of dreamy," Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer said. Authorities expressed special satisfaction that they had apprehended Richard C. Weaver, 59, a Sacramento minister who shook Bush's hand after breaching the security bubble around his 2001 inauguration. Weaver did the same with President Bill Clinton at Clinton's second inauguration in 1997. A celebrity gate-crasher, Weaver claims to have met five presidents and handed them notes or coins. He showed up at the Capitol yesterday, but he got nowhere near the president. Capitol Police Officer Christopher Talford identified Weaver from photographs and arrested him on a warrant. "It was great work, and that's what we like to see on days like this especially," Capitol Police spokesman Michael Lauer said. There were flare-ups, however, and the number of arrests and public disruptions exceeded those four years ago after Bush's disputed 2000 election victory. Police reported nine arrests in 2001. The biggest altercations occurred at 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW after 3 p.m. At least two D.C. riot control officers were injured in a melee with protesters jammed in behind a security fence. Demonstrators eventually knocked down a half-dozen metal barricades. Police doused the crowd with pepper spray, causing several to vomit and stagger. The disruption lasted more than a half-hour, while demonstrators threw snowballs, plastic water bottles and at least a half-dozen light fixtures pulled from street lamps. One officer was struck in the back by a part of a lamp; another was hit by a falling partition. When Bush's motorcade passed, a piece of fruit, apparently an orange, struck his armored limousine, FBI agents said. Near the Willard Hotel, at 14th and Pennsylvania, police confronted a group that lighted a bonfire of U.S. flags, fake coffins, cardboard and other items. At 13th Street NW, protesters set fire to bunting on the National League of Cities building. "We took a hell of a beating," said D.C. Cmdr. Cathy Lanier, head of the D.C. police department's special operations division. She said officers were "very restrained," despite complaints from some demonstrators. "We were getting hit with poles, sticks, barricades. We have broken bones and everything. We definitely had to fight to maintain our parade route," Lanier said. Still, the unrest was far from the worst that authorities had planned for. For months, security officials planned a lockdown encompassing the skies, the ground and waterways for miles surrounding the first inauguration since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Although homeland security and intelligence analysts said they had no credible information of a terrorist threat, the U.S. Secret Service led more than 70 federal, state and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies in preparing for a host of possibilities, focusing especially on the risk of truck bombs and suicide attacks. By yesterday, unauthorized boat traffic was barred from 16 miles of waterways along the Potomac and Anacostia rivers in the District. Small private aircraft were barred from 3,000 square miles over the Washington-Baltimore area, a ban enforced by F-15 and F-16 fighter patrols and Army antiaircraft missile units. Rail shipments of hazardous materials were halted through the city, and a CSX Corp. rapid-reaction team stood watch. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that he was unable to estimate security costs for the inauguration. Local inauguration-related costs have been estimated at $17.3 million. D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) objected that the Bush administration was requiring the District, Maryland and Virginia to cover $11.9 million of those costs out of federal homeland security grants, instead of reimbursing them as in the past. The security cordon stretched beyond previously announced levels. Street closings spread as far as one-half mile from the parade route, twice as far as publicized. D.C. health officials complained that the Secret Service prevented one aid station from opening and delayed the opening of another for hours. Secret Service spokesman Tom Mazur denied the report, saying, "All the first-aid and health stations were operational." To the public, security restrictions seemed tight and sometimes arbitrary. On the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue at 12th Street NW, security officers barred people from carrying fruit, coffee or hot beverages through the checkpoint, a restriction not enforced elsewhere. Police were, by and large, polite and meticulous. At one barrier, a D.C. police official addressed the crowd through a megaphone. "Hello, I'm Commander Hilton Burton, from the Metropolitan Police Department. The Metropolitan Police Department has established barriers at Pennsylvania Avenue and 15th Street. If you cross that police line, you will be arrested. Thank you." Protester Penny Timbers, 62, a federal employee from Falls Church who carried a sign saying, "Worst President Ever," said she was frisked so thoroughly by a police officer that "I was wondering if she would look in my underwear. . . . It's not thrilling, but I expected it." Still, some in the crowds were disheartened or disgusted with the show of force. "This is freedom?" complained Joe Schad, 62, a retired colonel from Winchester, Va., who came to turn his back on the president's motorcade. "They've got enough soldiers up here to blow up half the city," he said. By 4 p.m., as Bush was safely ensconced in a hardened parade-reviewing stand in front of the White House, security officials were ready to declare the day a success. "If it was football game, this is a win," acting Park Police Chief Dwight Pettiford said. "You always want to come away with a W." At the FBI command center, supervisory agent James W. Rice II, coordinator of the national capital response squad, briefed a new shift about Bush's evening schedule. "It's all over at 1 a.m. At 1:01, we get the heck out of here. . . . But we stand back up tomorrow morning at 6 a.m." ---- Undercover Police Dressed Like Activists Arrest Anti-Inauguration Protesters Democracy Now Friday, January 21st, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1531230 Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill reports on two undercover officers dressed like activists, wearing Arab neck scarves, who arrested a demonstrator. [includes rush transcript] The security apparatus for the inauguration was unprecedented. More than 7,000 law enforcement officers from over 100 different agencies were deployed on the streets and throughout the DC area. There were also National Guard and Army officers at various checkpoints throughout the parade grounds. There were also undercover police, some of whom were dressed like protesters. Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill reports on two undercover officers dressed like activists, wearing Arab neck scarves, who arrested a demonstrator. * Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! producer and correspondent. AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! correspondent and producer. He joins us now in our Washington studio. Welcome, Jeremy. JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, Amy, we were in the streets quite a bit yesterday, you and I and the crew from Democracy Now!, and we got caught in some of the most violent exchanges that occurred yesterday at the heart of a scene early on in the day when about 1,500 or so Black Bloc protesters broke off from the main dawn march and held a spontaneous march through the city and attempted to gain access to the parade ground. Then the police responded with quite a significant amount of brutality, hitting people, using some form of chemical agent, spraying people with high velocity, sort of mini cannons. And so we were kind of moving with that crew throughout the day. AMY GOODMAN: I have to say, in that situation, what we found, one of the things as we were pushed up against the stores, people we thought were just passers-by, who were also there, suddenly at the moment where the police moved in were pushing us into the crowd, and it turned out, they were undercover police officers. They were dressed in suits. JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. And they also as well were people in military uniform. I remember one naval officer guy who was about in his 40s shoving people, methodically shoving them back into the direction of what was being sprayed at the crowd. The police were also using these metal whips that almost look like a larger version of an antenna on a car. They would whip them out and they were hitting people with them. So there were a number of these exchanges that happened in this area around 13th and Pennsylvania, ultimately is where it ended up, at one of the main access routes to the parade grounds where people were lining up. There were a number of confrontations throughout the day between Black Bloc protesters and then women in mink fur coats, men in cowboy hats, and some of the most creative demonstrations took place there where people were charging toward the lines where the supporters of Bush were lining up to get in, and some of the protesters would charge toward them. Then they would flee and they actually forced the police to shut down two of the access points for people going on to the parade ground. We were sort of monitoring the situation in that area, and as the day moved on and the parade ended, people started filing out of the parade grounds, and there was some people burning an American flag, and there was some arguments going on between Bush supporters and protesters. And we were interviewing people, and I noticed that a large column of riot police were sort of in a methodical way exiting the parade ground through a security tent. It appeared as though they were marching in formation, not simply leaving. And so I thought, I'm going to go check this out. This may be another attempt to confront demonstrators. Perhaps spray them again. So I started to walk over there. As I walked toward this column of the riot police that were coming out, I noticed two, what I thought were, activists who seemed to be kind of swaying into the line of riot police. So I paid attention to them, because I thought this was extraordinary. They looked like they were about to fall into them, and I thought they were going to get their heads cracked. One of them was a young woman, who had a very colorful mohawk, and the other was white male, about 6'2", who was wearing a kafia, an Arab scarf, and a ski jacket. Both of them looked like any number of people we had seen in the streets. And so I thought they were falling into this column of riot police and that the riot police were trying to arrest the woman and that the man in the kafia was pulling her away, but as I watched it more closely, I realized that the man in the kafia, the Arab scarf, was actually trying to get this woman with the mohawk to the ground. And ultimately he put his knee in her back, he pulled out metal pair of handcuffs, not the plastic cuffs, from behind himself and he cuffed her. And the riot police seemed like they had no idea what was going on. Another man comes over also dressed like a protester, wearing a black leather jacket, also with a kafia, an Arab scarf, around him, and he sort of intervened and essentially got the riot police to understand that these two were officers who were arresting this young woman, with the mohawk. Once the demonstrators, other demonstrators, realized what was going on, they began to chant, let her go, let her go. And so surrounded by this massive riot cops, these two undercover police officers dressed not just like protesters, but like protesters wearing Arab scarves around their necks, which is very common now among Palestinian solidarity activists who are opposed to the war in Iraq. It has sort of become a symbol of the resistance in this country and around the world. And so they marched this young woman all the way up the street and put her into a police wagon, and the police beating people along the way. So this is very similar to what we also witnessed in Miami when we saw at the F.T.A.A. meetings, a plain clothes officer arrest an activist, actually taser another activist. AMY GOODMAN: And we're going to talk more about the tactics of undercover police officers and lawsuits here in the District against the use of undercover police officers in one case of a lawsuit as provocateurs next week. JEREMY SCAHILL: Amy, I want to add we will put the pictures of these undercover police officers on the Democracy Now! website and people can go to that at democracynow.org to see these plain clothes officers exactly as we have described them. AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! producer and correspondent. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations By Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A25 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24581-2005Jan20?language=printer President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world. Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well. Bush's speech "brought to a high level the gap between the rhetoric and reality in U.S. foreign policy," said Thomas Carothers, co-author of a new book, "Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracy in the Middle East." "The rhetoric is seamless, but the policy is very muddled. In fact, the war on terrorism has pushed the U.S. to be friendlier with nondemocratic regimes," said Carothers, director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Administration officials say Bush's goals are a "generational challenge" and should not be judged by the results of one or even two terms. In the speech yesterday, Bush said that "success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people." But often in the first term, Bush's objectives on democracy were set aside for more pressing and immediate concerns, such as need for cooperation in the war on terrorism. Autocratic rulers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, moreover, would be likely to be replaced by opponents of U.S. policy if free and fair elections were held there today. Since shortly before the invasion of Iraq, the president has advocated democracy in the Middle East in a series of bold statements and speeches. But the follow-up has often fallen short. In a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy on Nov. 6, 2003, Bush pointed to Egypt, ruled for almost a quarter of a century by President Hosni Mubarak, and declared that the Arab country "should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East." But Mubarak, who appears likely to run for president this year in yet another tightly controlled election, has sidestepped possible U.S. pressure to reform by providing key assistance in bids to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To this day, the government of Egypt retains veto power over which nongovernmental groups can receive any of the nearly $2 billion in annual U.S. aid. Egypt has helped the war on terrorism in less savory ways. Bush expressed support yesterday for "democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile." But in late 2001, U.S. authorities forcibly transferred an Australian citizen to Egypt, where, he alleges, he was tortured for six months before being flown to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Human rights experts said Bush's commitment to freedom is undercut by such actions, as well as the administration's treatment of detainees and terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, was struck by the fact that Bush mentioned "liberty" repeatedly but did not use the phrase "human rights" as an overriding goal. "The decision to speak in terms of liberty instead of human rights was deliberate," Roth said. "Liberty is an abstract concept, but human rights bind everyone, including the Bush administration. It's easy to say I'm for liberty but difficult to say I'm for human rights when he's overseeing what we know is a conscious policy of coercive interrogation, including inhuman treatment and sometimes torture." During her confirmation hearings this week, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice also stressed that she would focus on spreading democracy and freedom around the globe. Several senators questioned her on the inconsistency of the administration's approach, notably Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.). He challenged her to explain why the administration looks the other way when it comes to countries with near-dictatorships, such as Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, while heaping scorn on nations with some level of elections, such as Venezuela and Iran. "Some of this is a matter of trend lines and where countries have been and where they are now going," Rice replied. Countries are "going to move at different speeds on this democracy test. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But what we have to do is that we have to keep this item on the agenda." Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup, reneged last month on a promise to give up his title as army chief of staff, eliciting little protest from the administration. At her hearings, Rice said she felt that Pakistan has "come a long way" in recent years because Musharraf broke ties with the Taliban, which had ruled Afghanistan, and assisted in fighting al Qaeda. The State Department, in its annual human rights report, has cited Uzbekistan for its "very poor" human rights record, including the torture and killing of citizens in custody for political reasons. There is virtually no freedom of speech or of the press. Yet Bush met with Uzbekistan's president in 2002 and signed a declaration of "strategic partnership," and senior officials such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have visited the country. The United States "values Uzbekistan as a stable, moderate force in a turbulent region," the State Department said late last year. Jennifer L. Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, said Bush's goals are laudable, but "my sense from the first four years is that you didn't see that consistency of message in all parts of the administration." She noted that the administration signed free-trade deals with Morocco and Bahrain, which, after some promising steps toward political reforms, have begun to crack down on human rights groups. ---- Wolfowitz on war January 21, 2005 Washington Times Inside the Ring http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said this week that President Bush's second administration will stay focused on counterterrorism. "Clearly, one of the important things the president wants to focus on is continuing the progress that's been made in rooting out global terrorist networks and getting governments out of the business of supporting terrorism," Mr. Wolfowitz told Indonesia's Tempo magazine. Mr. Wolfowitz said a second key policy is pursuing the Greater Middle East Initiative announced in November. The initiative seeks to support democratic reform in the Middle East, especially the Arab world. Mr. Wolfowitz said the president was "fairly frank and critical about our failure to do that in the past and our too willingness to accept dictatorships in Arab countries as somehow serving American interests or this was the best that Arabs can do." "I believe strongly it doesn't serve American interests, and I think Arabs can do much better than that," he said. "And that if you want to demonstrate a better alternative to what the radicals are offering, I think the real alternative is freedom and democracy. I think the president believes that." Mr. Bush also plans to invest political capital into resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, he said. Asked whether the Bush administration will launch another war after Iraq, Mr. Wolfowitz said: "I don't think any of us feel that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake or that the war in Iraq was a mistake. But, I think they also ought to think about the fact that the war in Iraq was really started 15 years ago by Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, and he never really stopped being at war with us and with Saudi Arabia and with Kuwait. "War is a terrible thing even when it's the right thing to do as it was in Afghanistan or it was in Iraq, and none of us, none of us want wars. I certainly hope that there isn't another war in the second Bush administration." Mr. Wolfowitz said the success in Iraq will show Iran and Syria that "there's a much better way to live as Arabs and Muslims than living under terrible dictators." "And I think it's going to have a big effect on them, and a lot of change can happen without wars," he said. -------- us politics Bush's inaugural is a family affair By Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 21, 2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050120-115317-6771r They were robust, cheerful, upright. And there were many of them. The Bush clan came to town yesterday -- fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, uncles, aunts, grandmothers, toddlers -- to salute one of their own. "What a welcome," former President George Bush said softly, just before stepping onto the sunlit podium at the U.S. Capitol, minutes before his son President Bush took his second oath of office. The elder Mr. Bush smiled broadly. With wife Barbara -- patriotic in a red wrap, blue jacket and white gloves -- he joined the assembled statesmen and guests to bear witness to his son's second inauguration, both as a former president and a father. First lady Laura Bush -- clad in winter white and drawing comments such as "the ideal first lady" and "gorgeous" from press observers -- held the family Bible as her husband of 27 years recited the solemn words that ushered him into a second term. She was flanked by their daughters, Jenna and Barbara. The sisters charmed many news correspondents, who called the twins adorable, spirited and possibly chilled as the wind blew, bands played and speeches continued. "Thanks for coming, Mom and Dad," Mr. Bush said to his parents during the celebratory lunch that followed the ceremony. "Barbara and Jenna, I love you dearly," the president continued, then thanked his family for its "unconditional" love. "It's an important part of keeping perspective in the nation's capital," he said. The quintet of parents, wife and daughters, which comprises the core of the president's family circle, is just the beginning, though. On Wednesday, what the White House could describe only as "extended family" gathered in the East Room for an official portrait before the inaugural events commenced. There were more than 100 of them -- including the president's three bothers, a sister and 18 children sitting cross-legged on the rug. The Bush family has produced two presidents, one senator, two governors -- and maybe several presidential aspirants, if rumors of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's White House potential persist. And then there is twentysomething nephew George Prescott Bush and Pierce Bush, a freshman at Georgetown University. Bush fans call this throng "family." Bush critics prefer "dynasty," a term that does not sit well with the president, who rejects notions of East Coast aristocracy in favor of down-home simplicity. "At times, the president is reluctant to talk about his family. He wants to be his own man. But he also revels in it," noted John King, CNN's senior White House correspondent, yesterday. The Bushes are, he said, "the nation's only first family. And they are truly close." But Bush solidarity extends beyond blood, some say. "If you're on the Bush team, then you're family, too," observed Fox News' Shepard Smith. ---- Address lays groundwork for global freedom mission By Donald Lambro THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 21, 2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050121-122815-4709r President Bush's inaugural address sends the United States on a new, expansionist and far more aggressive global mission to free oppressed countries from dictators -- a sharp departure from his 2000 campaign that warned against becoming the world's policemen. In a 21-minute speech to the nation and the world aimed at defining and focusing the second term of his presidency, Mr. Bush devoted the major portion of his address to advancing "the cause of freedom" through a much more muscular foreign and national security policy that seeks to topple "the rulers of outlaw regimes." The president's rhetoric did not go as far as the pre-Vietnam War pledge in President Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address to "pay any price, bear any burden" to advance liberty throughout the world. But Mr. Bush did lay out an ambitious, perhaps unprecedented internationalist doctrine that could deploy U.S. military power far beyond America's present commitments to turn once-oppressive Afghanistan and Iraq into peaceful and free democracies. Mr. Bush said that it is now "the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Lest his intentions be interpreted as military adventurism, the president cautioned: "This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. "Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way," he said. But Mr. Bush also promised that "all who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." Some foreign-policy analysts saw strategic maneuvering in Mr. Bush's statement to reposition the United States if it is forced to act against another repressive regime. "He obviously wants to preserve this freedom of maneuver, if he decides some time in the future that we have to up the pressure on North Korea -- to help provide a theoretical and thematic justification," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institution. William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, criticized Mr. Bush's call for a more activist military role in the world as "dangerous, eloquent nonsense," rejecting the implication in the president's remarks "that anyone's lack of liberty threatens us." Mr. Bush's newly defined foreign policy is a far cry from his frequently stated opposition in the 2000 presidential campaign to sending American troops around the world to topple repressive regimes that do not threaten the United States. On Oct. 3, 2000, in a presidential campaign debate with Vice President Al Gore, Mr. Bush said: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that." The September 11 attacks changed all that, and Mr. Bush sent U.S. military forces into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban regime that supported terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and then into Iraq to topple dictator Saddam Hussein. When U.S. forces took control of Afghanistan, long a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, and installed a new government allied with the United States, critics suggested that Mr. Bush was engaged in nation building. The administration denied it. "What the president could not have made any plainer during the campaign, which he repeated emphatically today, is the purpose of the military is to fight and win wars. The purpose of the military is not, as he said ... during the course of the campaign, to use troops all around the world as social workers or policemen or school walking guards," then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said on Oct. 12, 2001. There long has been strong opposition among some conservative Republicans to the tendency to become the world's policemen by sending troops to topple dictatorships in various parts of the world. Pat Buchanan became the leader of this bloc when he challenged the first President Bush for renomination in 1992, denouncing Mr. Bush's decision to go to war to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He since has left the Republican Party. In fact, the first President Bush won broad support for the war in the Persian Gulf, as he did when he invaded Panama to topple military strongman Manuel Noriega and put him in prison. Today, the second President Bush has drawn similarly strong support within the Republican Party for his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, including neoconservatives led by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, whose political allies have been a major force behind a more aggressive military posture around the world. Mr. Bush's speech yesterday was in sharp contrast to his first inaugural address in 2001, which was devoted almost exclusively to domestic and economic concerns and dealt only briefly with defense issues. But even in his 2001 speech, Mr. Bush declared his belief in maintaining a global military posture that was ready to defend U.S. interests anywhere in the world. "The enemies of liberty in our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom," he said then. ---- 'There Is No Justice Without Freedom' Federal News Service Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A24 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23747-2005Jan20.html The full text of President Bush's second inaugural address: Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, members of the United States Congress, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed. At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use but by the history we have seen together. For a half a century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical. And then there came a day of fire. We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth. Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal, instead, is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way. The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but, fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause. My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve and have found it firm. We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators. They are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty. Some I know have questioned the global appeal of liberty, though this time in history -- four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen -- is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it. Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did, "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know to serve your people, you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side. And all the allies of the United States can know we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies defeat. Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens. From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet, because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well as a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world. A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause -- in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy, the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments, the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives, and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice. All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself, and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country but to its character. America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home -- the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty. In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal. In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character, on integrity and tolerance toward others and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever. In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time. From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause? These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes. And I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free. We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our founders declared a new order of the ages, when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty, when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now," they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the author of liberty. When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength, tested but not weary, we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom. May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America. ---- Cynthia McKinney: "We Should Export Dignity Not Dictatorship" Democracy Now Friday, January 21st, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1531236 We hear an address by Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) speaking out against the Bush administration at an anti-inauguration protest staged by the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition. [includes rush transcript] Among the many speakers at the counter-inauguration protest at John Marshall Park yesterday was Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. McKinney won back her seat last fall after losing a re-election bid two years ago when she came under fierce attack for her support for Palestinian rights, and her early call for a 9/11 investigation of the Bush Administration. This is what she had to say. * Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), speaking at the A.N.S.W.E.R. Inauguration Protest, January 20, 2005. AMY GOODMAN: As we turn now to Congress member Cynthia McKinney. Yes, she's back. She’s in Congress representing Georgia. And yesterday, she was at the inauguration, well, at the counter-inauguration. She was protesting and speaking out. Cynthia McKinney. CYNTHIA McKINNEY: We come here today because we believe in a just America, a good America, a strong America, able to help people here and all over the world. We see humanity as our family, and we know that we are indeed our brothers’ keepers. Therefore, we should export books, not bombs; doctors, not depleted uranium; dignity, not dictatorships. As a country, we must reclaim our heart and lead with love. I also want to say thank you to the voters of the Fourth District of Georgia and, of course, to all of you, because I have been sworn in as your representative in the United States Congress. And in Congress, we will be a voice for peace, dignity, justice once again. So lift me up in your thoughts and in your prayers, because I need it. Our country also needs you. Thank you very much. AMY GOODMAN: Georgia Congress member Cynthia McKinney speaking yesterday at the counter-inaugural protests in Washington, D.C. ---- Scenes from the Streets of DC: Democracy Now! Speaks With Supporters and Critics of Bush's Inauguration Democracy Now Friday, January 21st, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1531219 Democracy Now! takes to the streets of Washington DC to speak with protesters, who faced off against the massive security apparatus deployed in the nation's capital, as well as supporters of President Bush's second inauguration. [includes rush transcript] Amid the massive security operation in Washington DC for the inauguration, thousands of people marched through the capital to demonstrate their opposition to a wide range of policies of the Bush administration, particularly the occupation of Iraq. Many thousands more made it onto the actual parade route and held antiwar signs. Some people turned their backs as Bush's motorcade passed by. In addition to the disruption of the inauguration just before Bush was sworn in, there was at least one other action during the ceremony. Activists from CODEPINK were detained by police after they chanted during Bush's speech. Meanwhile, in the streets outside the parade route, activists faced off against a sizable police presence. A number of times throughout the day, police fired chemical agents at demonstrators and beat people with metal whip-like canes. Democracy Now! camera crews were on the streets. Here is some of the action. * Protesters speaking on the streets of Washington DC. Thousands of Bush supporters were waiting in long security lines to get onto the parade grounds. In a number of cases, men in cowboy hats and women in mink fur coats were fully immersed in crowds of young activists - mainly Black Bloc - wearing bandanas on their faces. The activists forced the closure of at least 2 entry points leaving many Bush supporters out of the parade. We talked with some of these stranded Bush supporters in the streets outside of the inaugural parade. * Supporters of President Bush speaking outside of the inaugural parade. AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! camera crews were on the streets, and we talked to some of those engaged in protest. CHARLES HOMER: My name is Charles Homer. I'm from Brandywine, Maryland, and I'm here to protest the inauguration of the war President, George Bush. AMY GOODMAN: Why come out today? Why are you protesting? CHARLES HOMER: I'm here because we should be working towards peace and George Bush started a war based on lies, and he wants to continue his war for defense contract money or whatever reasons he has and I'm against it. CHARLES HOMER: George Bush is not helping to heal wounds. I think he's throwing salt in the wounds by continuing this war, and as of today 1,370 people, Americans, have been killed in Iraq, and he's calling for, you know, more troops to go over there. I say, bring 'em home. COOKIE SMITH: I'm from Wilmington, Delaware. I'm here because I am really against Bush's policies, especially in the Iraq war, and also here at home with all of the violence and problems that are going on here at home. I think we need to concentrate on that. I think we need to come out of Iraq right away. He is saying there's not going to be a draft, but I don't believe that. I have a 23-year-old daughter, several nephews and nieces that are in that age group, and I say my daughter and my nieces and nephews can go when Barbara and Jenna go. AMY GOODMAN: Are you with a group? COOKIE SMITH: Turn Your Back On Bush. AMY GOODMAN: So, you're going in to do that? COOKIE SMITH: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: What is “Turn Your Back On Bush”? What do they do? COOKIE SMITH: It's an organization. We're peaceful. We're non-violent. We're here to turn our back on Bush when he rides by. We are going to turn our backs, because we don't believe his policies and his -- what he has done for the country for the past four years. A lot of us, we are not wealthy. We didn't get the big tax cuts. Really want to unite this nation but, you know, Bush is the not the person to do it. ELIZABETH MCALLISTER: I'm Elizabeth McAllister, with the Joan House community in Baltimore, I'm walking today because of the obscenity that this administration is, and the coronation is part of the obscenity. PROTESTER: We were approaching the police line, suddenly they started pepper spraying us. We got pushed from behind and we got pushed back from ahead. The cops pushed me back. They knocked my glasses off and they pepper sprayed me from right here. As then I tried to get up, they kicked me a few more times and they threw me down as I tried to get back -- they must have thrown me down three or four times as I tried to get back to the other people who were going away. NATHAN CULPITZ: I'm Nathan Culpitz, and I'm here because I'm sick of what George Bush is doing to our country. AMY GOODMAN: Where are you from? NATHAN CULPITZ: From New Hampshire. AMY GOODMAN: You came from New Hampshire? NATHAN CULPITZ: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: Why? NATHAN CULPITZ: Because I don't like what Bush is doing and I don't support him. I just don't think that he deserves to be President of this country. AMY GOODMAN: Some people are saying this is a day when everyone should come together. It's the inauguration of everyone's President. NATHAN CULPITZ: I agree, I think we should come together against the President. We're together but not together for the President. AMY GOODMAN: Hi, and who are you? MR. CULPITZ: I'm his father. AMY GOODMAN: Yes. MR. CULPITZ: I brought him down for his birthday. I'm so furious because they won't let us in to see the inauguration because we have these un-American backpacks. AMY GOODMAN: Did you have tickets? MR. CULPITZ: I didn't know you needed tickets. I thought it was a public event. PROTESTER: We have backpacks with food and clothing in them and they won't let us in because we have backpacks. PROTESTER: During the inauguration period there was a senior citizen standing in front of us. She had a sign and she couldn't see and she was obviously tired and wanted to sit down. There was a small place where people with tickets were being let in, and woman said, okay, now, any senior citizens or young children who don't have tickets can come in, and when the old lady asked to go in, she said, “You have to get rid of the sign.” AMY GOODMAN: What did the sign say? PROTESTER: The sign had a picture of Bush and Cheney behind bars, and it said, “I have a dream”. AMY GOODMAN: Just some of the voices of protest in the streets of Washington, D.C. on this Inauguration, 2005. As other activists faced off against police in the streets, thousands of Bush supporters were waiting in long security lines to get into the parade grounds. In a number of cases, men in cowboy hats and women in mink fur coats were fully immersed in crowds of young activists wearing bandanas on their faces. The activists forced the closure of at least two entry points leaving many Bush supporters out of the parade. We talked with some of those stranded Bush supporters in the streets outside the inaugural procession route. PAT ROAN: I am Pat Roan. I'm from Dallas, Texas. I love Bush. I love his family, and I love America. AMY GOODMAN: And do you know his family? PAT ROAN: Actually, they go to our church. And -- in Dallas at Highland Park Methodist, and occasionally when Laura is in Dallas, she comes and sits right in front of us. AMY GOODMAN: What do you like about President Bush? BUSH SUPPORTER: I like his beliefs. I like his policies, and I think he's a truly honest man, and I think he's going to lead our country into a better role in the world -- and the world into a better world. AMY GOODMAN: What was his message today? BUSH SUPPORTER: His message today, I think, was about freedom and bringing freedom to the world. AMY GOODMAN: And how was the inauguration? MATT: Fantastic. What a patriotic day. AMY GOODMAN: And what do you most like about President Bush? MATT: His faith-valued ways to run the -- United States, and all of the things that he is doing. Obviously, we have to break into a war to make some right things happen. I think a lot of people demonstrating do not understand what's going on in Iraq. And if they understood, they would understand why we are there. AMY GOODMAN: Why are we there? MATT: To clean up a dynasty of Hussein. He was dominating and killing everybody and a lot of folks don't fully understand that. AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned about the service men and women who are coming home in body bags, wounded. MATT: Absolutely. I mean that's just the cost of national and worldwide freedom, so… That’s a definite -- that has to happen. AMY GOODMAN: What's your name? MATT: Matt. AMY GOODMAN: And what's your name? JOHN: John. AMY GOODMAN: Where are you from? JOHN: Indianapolis as well. AMY GOODMAN: What did you think of the inauguration. JOHN: Fabulous display of democracy in this world. AMY GOODMAN: What is the issue that is most important to you? JOHN: World peace, and you get world peace by doing away with people that don't want peace. And if you don't show strength through what we stand for, then somebody else is going to be stronger and has to take us over. So, we have to show our strength and put our foot down and do away with tyranny. AMY GOODMAN: You said do away with people who don't want peace, what do you mean by that. JOHN: People like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, the dictators of the world that are more interested in their own greed and power than allowing people to have their freedom and peace in this world. VIVIAN HUDSON: We have enjoyed it very much. We're very pleased with George Bush winning, very, very pleased. AMY GOODMAN: What was his message? VIVIAN HUDSON: His message was: “Ownership of society for everybody.” Everybody in this country is going to own their part of the American dream. AMY GOODMAN: Where are from you? VIVIAN HUDSON: I am from Cuba, and I own a part of the American dream, because instead of fooling around, I work hard, and I made it. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the protest here today? VIVIAN HUDSON: I think they are entitled, because that's what America is about. You know, everybody has freedom of speech. AMY GOODMAN: Thank you. Your name? VIVIAN HUDSON: Vivian Hudson. AMY GOODMAN: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: For soldiers who come back and say it's wrong, and for the poll that just said that most people actually think the Iraq invasion was wrong, the situation is bad now in Iraq, what do you say? BUSH SUPPORTER: I disagree because I think that the people, especially the women there are much better off than they were before. And I think we did make some mistakes, but I think President Bush is admitting what he has done wrong. Maybe a little bit -- he was a little bit ahead of himself on some things, but overall, I think he is a good man. He is a fabulous person, and they don't understand. He has got a good heart. AMY GOODMAN: Hi. How did you enjoy the inauguration? LINDA WORDEN: Just fine. This is the first chance to support the troops. I enjoyed it immensely. I was here four years ago and It was drizzling. So, this is much better weather. AMY GOODMAN: Where are you from? LINDA WORDEN: Rhode island. AMY GOODMAN: What was President Bush's message? LINDA WORDEN: President Bush's message is that we're going to stay on track with the war in Iraq. It's our duty and obligation to help other people that are not as free as we are. AMY GOODMAN: And how do you feel about the protests? LINDA WORDEN: They have a right to do it. They did get out of hand. They were throwing things at people. I did exchange a few words with some persons, totally on a philosophical point of view. We weren't arguing or anything. They have a right to do it. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of people protesting war and saying support our troops, bring them home? LINDA WORDEN: You're not supporting the troops by protesting the war. If you are protesting the war, you're not supporting the troops because you're not sticking up for what the troops are doing or what the troops believe in. All the media talks about are the one or two that are dissenting, but the majority of the troops over there are not dissenting with the President, and they feel good about what they're doing over there. They feel they're accomplishing something for the Iraqi people. AMY GOODMAN: And do you know anyone there? LINDA WORDEN: My son. AMY GOODMAN: Where is he? LINDA WORDEN: He's in Baghdad. AMY GOODMAN: How long has he been there? LINDA WORDEN: He has been there since last March. AMY GOODMAN: How is it for him now? LINDA WORDEN: He constantly calls me or writes me and says things are going well. He did call me and say that they have stepped things up, and -- but he feels good about what he is doing. Because he sees the people in Iraq. He trains the Iraqi National Guard. So, he knows that he's doing something good for their country. AMY GOODMAN: What's your name? LINDA WORDEN: Linda Worden. AMY GOODMAN: What's his name? LINDA WORDEN: Gregory. ---- Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark Calls For Bush Impeachment Democracy Now Friday, January 21st, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1531214 We hear a speech by former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark, speaking at an anti-inauguration protest staged by the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition at John Marshall Park in Washington DC. [includes rush transcript] Some 10,000 demonstrators converged on Washington DC to protest the presidential inauguration of George Bush amid the tightest security in inaugural history. Protesters marched in a demonstration through Malcolm X park that ended in a "die-in." Thousands more lined the parade route holding signs accusing Bush of war crimes, calling for the end of the Iraq war and turning their backs on the presidential motorcade. Members of the Black Bloc also successfully blocked many Bush supporters from reaching their seats after they forced the police to shut down two entry points to the seating area. Police reported making 14 arrests during the inauguration celebrations but targeted many more people with pepper spray. The A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition secured a permit to stage a counter-inauguration protest at John Marshall Park, which lasted throughout the day. It was the first time in inaugural history that the antiwar movement was able to have bleachers, a stage, and a sound system for a mass antiwar demonstration directly on the parade route. Dozens of speakers took to the stage throughout the day. Among them, was former US attorney General, Ramsey Clark. * Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, speaking at the A.N.S.W.E.R. Inauguration Protest, January 20, 2005. AMY GOODMAN: The ANSWER Coalition secured a permit to stage a counter inauguration protest at John Marshall Park, which lasted throughout the day. It was the first time in inaugural history that the anti-war movement was able to have bleachers, a stage, and a sound system for a mass anti-war demonstration directly on the parade route. Dozens of speakers took to the stage throughout the day. Among them, former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark. RAMSEY CLARK: Ready to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have to take the Constitution back, back from crimes against peace, from war crimes, and crimes against humanity. You know, the Nuremberg tribunal called the war of aggression the supreme international crime, and it is. And George W. Bush has waged a war of aggression against Iraq. He has killed more than 100,000 people. Are their lives worth nothing? Can we have a moment of silence in memory of all of the people that have died in Iraq, because the criminal acts of George W. Bush in waging this war of aggression? Every moment of their lives is fraught with danger right now because of us. The world is the most dangerous place it's ever been now because of what our country has done, and is doing, and we have to take it back. We can't wait four more years. There can't be any more Fallujahs. Fallujah is the 21st century equivalent of Guernica. We just went in and destroyed that city, drove the people out, killed them, thousands. We don't know how many. They won't even bother to count who's been killed or how many, or estimate how many. They just keep killing. Almost every day we're reading about another checkpoint where some family got wiped out. Because they didn't do what they were supposed to do according to the military there. Abu Ghraib is unbelievable in the innocent times of 1961. That we would torture people that way and on the instructions of the President of the United States and his highest legal advisers, torture is okay, they said. Go for it, fellas. If we can't renounce that and remove it from office, then the Constitution doesn't work anymore. We have got to do more than take back the Constitution; there has to be accountability for what's happened. The Constitution says that the President, Vice President, and other officials of the United States shall be removed from office upon impeachment for and conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors. If you care about the Constitution, you better start talking to your member of the House of Representatives and say impeachment now is now essential to the integrity of the United States government, and to the future of the United States. We've had more than 500,000 people sign on, "Vote to Impeach." We need to get 5 million, and we need to get 5 million on there quick, and then the Congress will react. The Congress understands something when the people demand it. And the power is in the people. Always has been. The question is whether the people have the will to exercise it. I think that the imperative challenge of the American people now is to live up to the Constitution and demand the impeachment of George W. Bush and the other officials of the government responsible for these crimes. Thank you very much. AMY GOODMAN: Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, protesting the second inauguration of President George W. Bush. ---- Hail to the Speech? By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 21, 2005; 10:43 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26183-2005Jan21?language=printer There was no mention of the word Iraq, and any reference to domestic policy went by in a flash. George W. Bush's paen to freedom and liberty was written to send a clear, simple message -- the war president, still at war -- and written as well for the history books. Historians are fickle, though, and I challenge anyone to instantly recollect a single line from the inaugurals of LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Bush 41 or Clinton. (Reagan did have the applause line that "government is the problem," although he left it largely intact.) Television turned the event into a blabathon, which was perhaps understandable with so much time to fill between the speech, the Capitol luncheon, the redcoats, the parade and the balls. And Bushies sure were in demand: Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, Ari Fleischer all over CNN, Andy Card popping up simultaneously on three network morning shows. It was Brian Williams's first inauguration as anchor, and Dan Rather's last. I couldn't help wondering, what was Trent Lott thinking as he emceed the events for a man who got him dumped as majority leader? Who volunteered Lott for the job, anyway? But the speech (a bit longer than George Washington's 135 words, but not overly long) is what generates headlines. Let's start with the straight news leads: USA Today: "President George W. Bush was sworn in for a second term Thursday and vowed to continue to fight terrorism with a sweeping campaign to promote democracy across the globe, a task he cast as 'the calling of our time.' " Los Angeles Times: "George Walker Bush was inaugurated for a second presidential term today, building a ceremony as old as the Republic into a salute to his goal of a new liberty around the globe." Wall Street Journal: "President Bush asserted to the world that time is running out for regimes that flout the basic tenets of democracy, as he took the oath of office for his second term." Philadelphia Inquirer: "On a sunny but chill winter day, in a capital city filled with cheering supporters, heavily armed police and barricaded streets, George Walker Bush swore for the second time to discharge the duties of the presidency, then proclaimed an ambitious new foreign-policy doctrine as America's global mission." Now for some analysis. Todd Purdum in the New York Times: "President Bush began his second term without uttering the words 'Iraq,' 'Afghanistan,' 'Sept. 11' or 'terrorism.' But those omissions seemed to be precisely the point, allowing him to cast the crises and controversies of his first four years and the ones he welcomes in the next as a seamless struggle in defense of the nation's founding creed: freedom. . . . "There remains a wide gulf between his eloquent aspirations and the realities on the ground, from Capitol Hill to the Middle East. Executing his ideas will not be easy, at home or abroad. His tone was proud, unapologetic, even defiant, and his emphasis on foreign policy muffled his outline of the domestic agenda that he and his aides have said is so important to the success of his second term." Michel Tackett in the Chicago Tribune: "This time, for George W. Bush, the inescapable theme on Inauguration Day was 'more.' In ways highly personal -- more wrinkles, more gray hair -- and in ways grandly political -- more peril ahead, more need for assertiveness and possibly more need to use force -- the president who came to office in humble pose spoke Thursday of a second term of global ambition." Peter Canellos in the Boston Globe: "George W. Bush's soaring second inaugural address was an expansion and amplification of the themes in his post-Sept. 11 address to Congress, linking the fight against terrorism to the nation's manifest destiny to promote freedom around the world. "The address harked back to earlier calls for a strong US presence in the world from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was forceful enough to blow away any shards of the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, to which Bush himself expressed fealty just four years ago. "Combined with the president's delivery, which was even more clipped and serious than usual, and the protesters heard in the background, the speech seemed likely to reinforce impressions of the president as forceful and resolute in the eyes of his supporters, but stubborn and repetitive in the eyes of detractors." Doyle McManus in the L.A. Times: "For more than a century, presidents have wrestled with the recurring conflict between America's democratic ideals and its real-world interests -- interests that sometimes led the U.S. into alliances with unpalatable dictators. "In his inaugural address Thursday, President Bush boldly declared that debate over. From now on, he said, the principal goal of the United States must be to promote democracy everywhere in the world, even where that may mean instability in the short run." John Harris in The Washington Post: "By now, four years into a presidency that has reshaped American politics and shaken the world, perhaps no one should be surprised by George W. Bush's ambition. Even so, the 21-minute address he delivered at the Capitol yesterday was startling in its reach. "His pledges to promote liberty and aid the oppressed, along with predictions of the United States leading the world to the ultimate triumph of democracy over tyranny in every land, were issued with some of the most expansive and lyrical language Bush has summoned. Several times he invoked God, and he regularly borrowed ideas, imagery and phrases from such looming predecessors as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan." Some online reactions, starting with National Review's Jonah Goldberg: "But I do think Bush was surprisingly flat in his delivery. I think he was going for somber and sailed just a bit further past that to sedated. I do think that whatever its merits or demerits, this speech will end up being passed around in places like Iran like Samizdat for years to come. In that sense, I think it was a brilliant bit of foreign policy masked as domestic rhetoric." Slate's Fred Kaplan: "President Bush's inaugural address today was a flimsy, shallow speech -- eloquent, even graceful, but in the service of clichés and slogans, not ideas or policies. The theme was attractive: 'freedom' and the necessity to spread it to around the world, not just for its own sake but to protect those who already enjoy it. Tyranny spawns resentment, hatred, and violence; freedom is the force of history that breaks tyranny. . . . "But George W. Bush is not John F. Kennedy and, more to the point, 2005 is not 1961. It is doubtful that even Kennedy's words -- so flush with idealism at the time -- would have come off so stirringly had they been written, say, eight years later, at the height of the Vietnam War. They would have raised questions, set off alarm bells. And so should Bush's paraphrasings in the middle of the present war in Iraq." Andrew Sullivan: "Who could disagree with the stirring, elegant and somewhat sweeping address the president just gave? Well: here's a rough shot. The speech was a deep rebuke to conservative foreign policy realists. Its fundamental point, it seems to me, is that security is only possible through the expansion of liberty abroad. In the long run, that's indisputable. In the short run, there are sometimes trade-offs to be made. What Bush was saying was that he will not trade liberty for security. Translation: he will stick to the democratization of Iraq. That was the main point of the address on the major policy issue in front of us. In that sense, it was an old-style liberal speech, about as far from the conservative tradition in foreign policy as can be imagined. . . . "And, of course, the relationship of rhetoric to reality is, as always with Bush, problematic. How do you reconcile the expansion of freedom with Bush's expansion of government? How do you square domestic freedom with the curtailment of civil liberties in a war on terror?" Dan Kennedy: "First, he linked the war in Iraq -- and possibly wars to come, since he never actually used the word 'Iraq' -- to an American mission of spreading liberty across the world. Second, he wrapped up his domestic agenda in that quest for liberty, casting proposals such as the privatization of Social Security in the gauzy haze of freedom. "It was a skillful performance, but that was to be expected. Anyone who still thinks that Bush is going to fumble his way through the prepared text of a major speech just hasn't been paying attention for the past four years. "To the extent that one speech can help shape the national conversation, it was also incredibly dangerous. The projection of American values is not just a neoconservative idea -- it was a central tenet of the muscular liberalism of the pre-Vietnam Democratic Party as well. But the Bush administration's planning and execution to date has been so arrogant and inept that it is terrifying to contemplate what he's got in mind next. Iran, perhaps?" Wonkette rates one of the anchors: "It's days like today that bring out the best in Chris Matthews. And by 'best' we mean, rambling, incoherent, insane brilliance. He's like Rain Man, can't help but comment on any and every thing set before him. Here's Chris on . . . the White House floor: 'Look at this great, great camera angle . . . Look at that shiny, shiny floor. . . . ' We hear they use Pledge! "We think he realized that sounded kind of gay, because he followed with this Larry Summers-esque comment to Joe Scarborough: 'And look at the girls. . . . Don't you wish you were 21 Joe, and could hang out with them?'" In the New Republic, former Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet looks for a change in tone: "As President Bush begins his second term, he's likely to sound less affable and more argumentative, reflecting the rhetoric of a new chief speechwriter who has constantly criticized the American Catholic clergy for being too tough on capitalism and too soft on abortion. Bush's second inaugural address will be the last speech written under the direction of Michael Gerson, who has drafted the president's major addresses since the 2000 campaign. A mild-mannered evangelical Christian, Gerson gave voice to Bush's 'compassionate conservatism.' "Now Gerson is moving up to a policy position, and he's being replaced by William McGurn, a former columnist for The New York Post, chief editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal, senior editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, and Washington bureau chief for National Review. To borrow a phrase from Gerson, McGurn most likely will 'change the tone' of Bush's speeches. "Gerson made Bush sound like a preacher, but McGurn made his name as a polemicist. He's a Catholic conservative, with a distinctive intellectual pedigree. Liberal Catholics such as E. J. Dionne and even some conservative Catholics such as Pat Buchanan have criticized capitalism's excesses for weakening families and communities. But McGurn favors free trade, opposes even the most basic regulations of corporate conduct, and has harsh words for an American labor movement that the Catholic Church has historically supported. . . . "Like Gerson, McGurn is a graceful writer, capable of crafting clear and original prose. But unlike Gerson, McGurn is also a brawler who loves to take hard shots at his adversaries and even his allies. He attacked Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu for opposing school vouchers but sending her own kids to private schools." Is Condi critic Barbara Boxer now the Great Liberal Hope? Here's Tim Grieve in Salon: "For the second time this month, California's junior senator has thrown a wrench into the works of the second-term White House machine. She did it two weeks ago, when she was the only senator to object to the certification of electoral votes from Ohio. And she did it this week, on the eve of George W. Bush's second inauguration, when she put hard questions to Rice and then cast a committee vote against her confirmation. Ohio's electoral votes were eventually counted, and Rice will eventually be confirmed. But largely because of Boxer, the road has been rockier than the White House had expected; the vote on Rice's confirmation will be delayed until next week so Senate Democrats can have time to debate it. "Boxer may have a reputation for tilting at windmills, but she bristles at the thought that she is engaging in protests that only delay the inevitable. 'This isn't a protest,' she told Salon Wednesday as she described her decision to confront Rice. 'I'm just doing my job of "advice and consent." ' . . . "Boxer's in-your-face approach has given some comfort to Democrats around the country who feel defeated as the Republicans celebrate inauguration week. Boxer says it's all part of a long process, one that will someday see the Democrats in control again." Where are the bloggers? That's what journalism maven Jay Rosen is wondering after the PR geniuses at Ketchum blamed Armstrong Williams for not disclosing the $241K that the firm passed on to him to pitch Bush's education policy: "How is it that one of the leading firms in the profession signs a contract with the Federal government guaranteeing that one of the biggest sins in the profession (payola) will go down, and even puts the arrangement in writing? Maybe it's not John Grisham territory, but there's enough there to make a person curious. "Bloggers are supposed to be a little more curious than most. They are supposed to apply a second degree of scrutiny as they do 'their job' in the new ecosystem of news. When the press pack goes that-a-way they ought to look this-a-way more. And they should be alert to events in the moral life of the people whose world they chronicle. "It isn't possible for Ketchum to claim ignorance of the rules the way Armstrong Williams did. Nor is it possible for people in the industry to dismiss Ketchum as a bit player or wayward individual. Remember Karen Ryan? That was a Ketchum contract too. Maybe this is the way things are done all the time in PR today. It's one of the most plausible explanations we have for the Ketchum contract, the apparent fraudulence of which is roughly parallel to the dubious memos in the Dan Rather case. But there we had bloggers who refused to let go." I guess Rather is a more tempting target than Ketchum. -------- voting Ukraine Election Winner Seeks to Mend Ties With Russia Yushchenko's Inauguration Scheduled for Sunday; Visit to Moscow, Swing Through Europe Planned By Peter Finn Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A11 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23953-2005Jan20?language=printer MOSCOW, Jan. 20 -- Ukrainian President-elect Viktor Yushchenko moved Thursday to repair relations with Russia, announcing that he will visit Moscow the day after his inauguration on Sunday. He will then make a swing through the European Union, which Ukraine hopes to join. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who supported losing candidate Viktor Yanukovych during the campaign, sent a message of congratulations Thursday to the winner. "Developing good-neighborly and equal relations with Ukraine is one of Russia's most important national priorities," Putin said in a telegram released by the Kremlin. "I am certain that consistent work to build up our strategic partnership is entirely in our peoples' long-term interests." The statement also contained the seeds of possible future discord. Putin emphasized the "particular significance of Russia and Ukraine continuing their active participation in forming the Single Economic Space." That entity would bring Russia and three other former Soviet republics -- Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan -- together as an economic union. Yushchenko's advisers said during the campaign that they had not yet studied the small print of the proposed union, but were deeply suspicious of it. Borys Tarasyuk, a former foreign minister who may again fill that post under Yushchenko, dismissed the idea as a way to reassert Russia's dominance over other former Soviet republics. Parliament scheduled the inauguration for Sunday after the Supreme Court rejected the last appeal by Yanukovych, a former prime minister. The early morning ruling dismissed his claim that millions of voters were deprived of their right to cast a ballot on Dec. 26 because of new electoral laws. The decision brought a formal end to a long legal and political conflict. "This means the presidential campaign, which should have been over last year, is finally over," said Petro Poroshenko, a key political and financial backer of Yushchenko who is a candidate for the post of prime minister in his government. Since October, Ukraine has conducted three elections, all of them declared fraudulent by one side or the other. It has been the scene of a potent and peaceful street revolution by Yushchenko's supporters, court and parliamentary battles and rising international tension as Russia clashed with the United States and the European Union over the legitimacy of the voting and the future of the country. While Putin pushes a union of former Soviet states, Yushchenko has repeatedly said that he wants to move Ukraine toward membership in the European Union, a long-term ambition that would require painful changes. On Tuesday, after leaving Moscow, he will address the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France. He will follow that with an address to the European Parliament in Brussels on Thursday. At each forum, he will discuss the steps he plans to take to accelerate Ukraine's membership bid, a spokeswoman said. He will visit Switzerland, which is not an E.U. member, for a meeting of the World Economic Forum, a gathering of international political, business and cultural leaders. His week of travel will also take him to Poland, where he will attend ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazis' Auschwitz death camp by the Soviet Red Army. Yushchenko's father was a Red Army prisoner of war there. Plans call for Yushchenko to be sworn in as president at noon Sunday in the parliament. The ceremony will be followed by a last hurrah in Kiev's Independence Square, the center of the huge orange-draped demonstrations that followed the country's second round of voting on Nov. 21 and official declarations that Yanukovych was the winner. Yanukovych remained silent Thursday, but members of his campaign said they would make an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy South Korea to Promote Bio Fuels to Reduce Oil Demand Reuters 1/21/2005 http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=29161 SEOUL - South Korea, Asia's fourth-biggest oil consumer, plans to promote the import, production and sale of bio and other alternative fuels to help curb oil demand, the energy ministry said on Thursday. Energy-deficient South Korea, which has to import all of its crude needs, is trying to reduce its heavy reliance on imported oil in a bid to lower its exposure to fluctuations in global oil prices. The country imports more than 70 percent of its crude oil from the oil-rich but volatile Middle East. From 2006, South Koreans would be allowed to import, produce and sell alternative fuels, including liquefied coal, orimulsion and bio fuels, the ministry said in a statement. "These alternative fuels were not covered by petroleum laws so suppliers were reluctant to market them aggressively due to fears about incurring penalties," said a ministry official by telephone. "Consumers have also been reluctant to buy these fuels as they were unsure about their legal status," he added. Bio fuels, which are derived from ethanol and gasoline, can be used to fuel cars, while orimulsion, a mixture of extra-heavy crude and water, can be used in power plants instead of fuel oil. The official said that liquefied coal could also be used as a car fuel. "We expect the move to help promote consumption of these alternative fuels so that hopefully demand for petroleum products can fall bit," he said. Effective from 2006, alternative fuels would carry a 14 won per litre import surcharge, the ministry said. South Korea currently imposes a similar charge on imports of crude oil and petroleum products. Meanwhile, orimulsion would carry a 10 won per litre import surcharge starting from 2009, the ministry added. Companies selling alternative fuels should maintain inventories equivalent to up to 60 days of local sales, it added. -------- ACTIVISTS INAUGURATION 2005 Protesters denounce Bush Thousands rally in S.F., Berkeley against 2nd term Wyatt Buchanan, Patrick Hoge, SF Chronicle Staff Writers Friday, January 21, 2005 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/21/BAGDFATF4S26.DTL Several thousand demonstrators rallied at Civic Center Plaza in San Francisco on Thursday night, protesting the inauguration of President Bush and calling for an end to the war in Iraq. After the rally, demonstrators marched along Market Street, effectively closing the street. Speakers at the rally gave fiery denunciations of Bush and his policies, with many shouting personal insults and some comparing his actions to that of the Nazis in pre-World War II Germany. "Today is a sad day in history. A war criminal has been sworn in as president," said Alicia Jrapko of International ANSWER, the group that organized the rally. San Francisco police did not estimate the size of the crowd as the department no longer does such counts, said spokeswoman Officer Maria Oropeza. During the rally, the central portion of Civic Center Plaza was filled with people, and the march stretched multiple blocks. Other Bay Area cities also held anti-inauguration rallies Thursday. About 200 people gathered in downtown Berkeley to hear the first of a series of readings of Langston Hughes' celebrated poem, "Let America Be America Again.'' "We're in the throes of a criminal government,'' said Berkeley poet, novelist and essayist Al Young. "It is a dire hour.'' At both rallies, demonstrators denounced the continuing war in Iraq, along with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The march was led by demonstrators holding banners calling for an end to the war and by a large contingent of people waving Palestinian flags. A handful of pro-Bush demonstrators, carrying signs that said "You lost. Go home," stood at the edge of the Civic Center rally. Many speakers denounced Bush's use of the term "freedom" in his inauguration speech and his statement after the election that he believed voters had given him a mandate with his re-election. "With less than 52 percent of the vote, George Bush has the gall to say he has a mandate. Well, George Bush, I have a man you can date but I don't know if you're man enough to handle it," said Calvin Gipson of the group Castro for All. Richard Whittaker, a math tutor from San Rafael, also said he was motivated to demonstrate because of the "mandate" issue. "I'm here to express my conviction that there is no mandate for Bush's election," said Whittaker, 58. Isobel Marcus, a 21-year-old political science student from UC Santa Cruz, said she attended the protest to express her objections to Bush's foreign and domestic policies. "I'm strongly opposed to this administration and horribly grieved that he was inaugurated today," Marcus said. Several people in the crowd held signs that said "Thank you, Barbara Boxer" and "Boxer for President 2008" as speakers praised the California Democratic senator's opposition to the election results in Ohio and her tough questions in Condoleezza Rice's secretary of state confirmation hearing this week. Waves of cheers spread through the crowd each time Boxer's name was mentioned. In Berkeley, the performers read Hughes' invocation of an unfulfilled dream for America, particularly for poor people and African Americans like himself, with the audience joining in on various passages. Leon Litwack, a UC Berkeley history professor, recalled how he chose to read Hughes' 1936 poem as a teenager when his high school in Santa Barbara gave students a chance to record their voices on vinyl. "It (the poem) made a lot of sense to me then. It makes even more sense to me now that we use it this morning,'' Litwack told the crowd of mostly older peace advocates. Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates took the stage at one point, saying the political state of the nation "couldn't be worse.'' "Every element of our society is under attack,'' said Bates, decrying the war in Iraq, the cutting of domestic social welfare programs and the loss of civil liberties. "We live in incredibly dangerous times,'' Bates said. E-mail the writers at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com and phoge@sfchronicle.com. ---- Activists Disrupt Bush Inauguration Ceremony Democracy Now Friday, January 21st, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1531209 A few seconds before Bush was sworn in by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a group of 3 activists from Eugene, Oregon disrupted the ceremony. One of the activists, Carol Melia, filmed their action. We spoke with her after they were escorted out of the ceremony. AMY GOODMAN: Well, a few seconds before President Bush was sworn in by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a group of three activists from Eugene, Oregon, disrupted the ceremony. One of them, Carol Melia filmed their action. We spoke with her after they were escorted out of the ceremony. CAROL MELIA: My name is Carol Melia. I'm from Eugene, Oregon and I'm here with my friends Peter Chabarek and Willow Rose and we came to Washington, D.C. to see the President get sworn in. About last July, I decided I wanted to come here and protest the war, no matter who won the election. I was going to be here if Kerry won and I’ve got three draft-age kids. I'm here to make sure they don't get drafted. So, in August, I called and got tickets from Senator DeFazio, and we ended up arriving on Saturday night. Today we showed up at 8:30. We waited three hours along with the other Republicans. We spent the time conversing, sharing stories about our families, and basically developing rapport. Then they started the festivities about 11:00. We decided we needed to wait for an opening. We didn't want to interrupt any noise. We decided we wanted to shout, stop the war, at some point when people would be listening so as soon as we heard them introduce Rehnquist, we realized that they were just about to do the swearing in of Bush. We left, stood up, left our seats, walked out into the aisle and shouted, "Stop the war!" THREE PROTESTERS IN UNISON: Stop the war! Stop the war! Bring home the troops! Stop the war! Stop the war! Stop the war! Bring home the troops! Stop the war! Stop the war! Bring home the troops! Stop the war!... AMY GOODMAN: Three Eugene, Oregon, activists at the inauguration ceremony. One of the people who were sitting in front of them came up to them with a bottle of water and threw it over them, knocking two of them down. Eventually, they were escorted out of the ceremony. Meanwhile, some 10,000 demonstrators converged on Washington, D.C., to protest the Presidential Inauguration of George Bush amidst the tightest security in inauguration history. Protesters marched in a demonstration through Malcolm X park that ended in a die-in. Thousands more lined the parade route holding signs accusing President Bush of war crimes, calling for the end of the Iraq war, and turning their backs on the Presidential motorcade. Members of the Black Bloc also successfully blocked many Bush supporters from reaching their seats after they forced the police to shut down two entry points to the seating area. Police reported making 14 arrests during the inauguration celebrations, but targeted many more people with pepper spray. --- "I Will Continue to Speak Out Until the Last Soldier Leaves Iraq" An Interview with Army Medic, Patrick Resta By DEREK SEIDMAN January 21, 2005 http://www.counterpunch.org/seidman01212005.html Patrick Resta, Specialist/E4, served as an Army medic in Iraq with the 30th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division. He was stationed in Iraq for eight months in 2004, returning home just about two months ago. He has recently begun speaking out against the war and occupation, and he is involved with Iraq Veterans Against the War. Thank you for doing this interview Patrick. Can you begin by telling us when you were in Iraq? Where were you and what were you doing? Thanks for giving me the opportunity to have my voice heard. I think it's vital that veterans of this conflict speak out about what it's really like out there. I was at my camp in northeastern Iraq from March 12, 2004 to November 15, 2004. My camp was located in the Diyala province, the capital of which is Baqubah. To make that a little more understandable, we were about 100 miles northeast of Baghdad and roughly 30 miles from the Iranian border. I was a medic, so that was my main focus. I would work shifts in our 3 bed ER sometimes, where we would see everything from the common cold to gun shot wounds and shrapnel injuries. I also accompanied patrols into towns and convoys to get supplies in case anyone was injured during the accomplishment of the mission. When did you enter the military, and why did you join? I joined the military shortly after high school. My main motivation was always money for college and to get some training in the medical field. I was in a position where my parents had made it clear that they were not in a position to assist me with college tuition. I think that the vast majority of people that enter the military do it for the educational benefits. You said that you think it's very important that vets speak out about what it's really like over there in Iraq. I'd like to ask you a few questions about this. First, speaking from your own experience, what's daily life like for most soldiers over there? What do you want people here to know about what's really going on? Your daily life as a soldier varies greatly by where you are in Iraq. Soldiers at the bigger camps have better and more numerous amenities than I ever did. These range from movie theaters, to swimming pools, to fast food restaurants, and stores. Living conditions also vary widely from barracks (almost like one would see here in the States), to trailers, and even tents. Daily activities also vary wildly depending on what your job is and what kind of unit you are in. I myself lived in a trailer with three other medics. If you can picture one of the metal shipping containers at a port you have a good idea of the size. It was slightly smaller. It had fluorescent lights, air conditioning, and several power outlets. I rarely, if ever, had a day off for the entire time that I was over there. As I mentioned earlier, my days consisted of working in our clinic, going on patrols or missions, or going on convoys to other camps. The thing that is most troubling to me about what is going on in Iraq is the public's reaction, or lack thereof, to it. It seems to me that the public is a little too accepting of whatever the media feeds them and unwilling to research things for themselves. I think the misconceptions harbored by the public about how things are going in Iraq are dangerous. By this I refer to the following ideas: that the Iraqi people want us there, that we are rebuilding the country, that we are helping the Iraqi people, that the Iraqi security forces are anywhere near capable of taking over, and the list goes on and on. I cover each of these topics extensively in my comments I have readied for public speaking engagements. (Contact Patrick Resta at eosonifilic@aol.com). There are also the troubling ideas the American public still harbors about soldiers in Iraq. A huge one is that most soldiers support the war and are happy to be there. During my time in Iraq, "The Stars and Stripes", which is a military newspaper, released a poll that showed a clear majority of soldiers in Iraq as unsupportive of the policies. The paper also ran many letters to the editor that were critical of the administration and the war in general. The lack of armor on vehicles continues to be a problem that costs soldiers their lives and limbs. My unit had a huge problem with this issue. I have plenty of pictures of our vehicles with plywood "armor" being sent into combat (see these pictures here: http://www.lefthook.org/) You said that it was troubling to you that most Americans still believe that a most soldiers still support the policies our government is carrying out in Iraq. Soldiers' opinions on the war vary, naturally. You were in Iraq for several months, and now you're involved with Iraq Veterans Against the War. Are a good number of soldiers questioning the war and occupation and getting fed up with what's going on? I feel that plenty of soldiers don't see the point of the efforts they're making in Iraq. As my time wore on in Iraq more and more people were getting increasingly frustrated with being there. It becomes even more frustrating when you're getting attacked pretty frequently, having people get injured, and even members of other units get killed. For a while after I first got there I would try to think of a reason for being in Iraq before I went to bed every night. I couldn't think of one. I finally saw two pictures in National Geographic that made it pretty clear why I was there, and I taped them above my cot as a reminder. The first picture shows about 30 Marines guarding the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad. The second picture shows Navy personnel escorting an oil tanker through the Persian Gulf. Being placed in that situation is only made worse by the lack of equipment. I realized rather quickly what my life was worth to this administration and to the American public. That being said, we all took our mission seriously and tried to have some positive impact to make our time in Iraq worth something. However, this was made pretty difficult with the rules that were put in place, such as only being allowed to treat Iraqis that were in danger of losing life or limb. It's depressing to realize that for the next several months or even year of your life you will be risking your life for nothing. Any rocket or mortar coming in could take your life, or arms, or legs and there is little point to it. The vast majority of the Iraqi people don't want you there, the reasons given for the war have proven false, and your continued presence only inflames the situation. You mentioned the issue of the armor on your vehicles (or lack of). This has become a more prominent issue after Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq several weeks ago, when he was confronted on it by a soldier. I read about this issue well before the Rumsfeld event-- soldiers and their families had been complaining about this for a while, to little avail. What's really going on? How do soldiers feel about all this, and why do you think the government has been so neglectful? The lack of armor continues to be a problem that soldiers are paying for with their lives and limbs. It all goes back to this administration only listening to people that tell it what it wants to hear. Like Ahmed Chalabi's continuing assertions that Americans would be greeted as if they had just liberated Paris. Part of it was wanting to keep the already ridiculous cost of this war down. Part of it was wanting to make sure as much money as possible went directly to corporations. Part of it was this administration sticking its head in the sand. To this day they still have not admitted or addressed the total lack of pre war, post war, and exit strategy planning. Truthfully, this administration never wanted an exit strategy. A long occupation of Iraq had been planned from the get go. This administration has already drawn up plans to occupy Iraq that go beyond the summer of 2006. About a week after the story broke, one of the companies that makes the armor came forward and said that they hadn't even been asked to increase production. As I said, this administration and the American public largely don't care, they don't have kids in Iraq facing RPG's with plywood armor. When the draft returns it will be interesting to compare how well soldiers are equipped then to how they were pre-draft. I have included some pictures detailing the problem. My unit of 4,000 people rolled into Iraq with between 75% to 90% of our vehicles unarmored. To give you a rough idea of the number, it would be in the range of 500 to 700. Once inside Iraq we slowly started to receive armored doors only for our vehicles. Even when I left after 8 months in Iraq we still had vehicles that were unarmored. My brigade lost its first soldier during the drive north from Kuwait. He was in an unarmored vehicle that was hit by a roadside bomb. My camp had a soldier lose part of his arm from riding in an unarmored vehicle that was hit by a roadside bomb. His arm was saved and after numerous surgeries he was told it would be a year before he would get most movement and sensation in his arm back. Situations like these are repeated daily through out Iraq. You said "when the draft returns". You think that this will happen? What are your thoughts on it? I don't have a doubt in my mind that the draft will return. The general that runs the Army Reserve wrote a memo, which was subsequently leaked to the media, in which he described the Army Reserve as "a broken force". The numbers that the National Guard and Reserve have on paper don't add up. They are in a position now where they can no longer hide the problem. In the memo the general describes having 46,500 members on the books who are either untrained or unaccounted for. This makes no mention of the number on stop loss, non deployable due to illness or injury, and those awaiting discharge. I see the draft returning in the next two to three years, perhaps sooner. The recruiting and retention problems the National Guard and Reserve have had over the years are only exacerbated by the situation in Iraq. The frequent call ups, lack of equipment that I described, and the lack of benefits when you compare what the full time military receives for the same work only serve to force people out. It reaches a point where it's clearly not worth it. I was called to active duty for two years in a three year period. Each time I had to leave school, leave my job, and leave my wife. And for what? Like I said earlier, having to put your life on hold repeatedly for no good reason gets old pretty quick. The National Guard and Reserve will begin to dwindle in the next few years and it's impossible to continue these types of occupations without them. The draft isn't a question of "if", it's a question of "when". We passed the "if" time frame a long time ago. What about the relationship between US soldiers and Iraqis? From your experience, what type of relationship exists? How were you and your fellow soldiers told to deal with people? Most Iraqi's are not overtly confrontational with American soldiers. However, if you engage them in conversation and ask their opinion (as I often did) they will not hesitate to tell you that you are not wanted in Iraq by anyone. After the WMD story turned out to be a hoax the war was then sold as a humanitarian mission. Shortly after arriving in Iraq we were instructed that we could not treat Iraqi's unless they were in danger of losing life or limb. Basically, the local nationals had to be in danger of dying before we could treat them. This was the official guidance that we received in writing, repeatedly, from way up the chain of command. The excuses ranged from not having the money/supplies to wanting the Iraqi's to get used to using their own healthcare infrastructure. Why were we there then? It was little things like this that served to quickly turn our opinion about what this war was really about. Most of the sentiment voiced publicly by the local nationals all focused on the same few ideas. The war was sold to them as a way to get rid of Saddam, which they favored. But, it quickly became evident that that's not what this war was really about. They were lied to by this administration too. They are now being occupied and they know the war is all about oil. Not only are they being occupied, but they still have no security. I was told again and again that at least under Saddam they didn't have roadside bombs littering the country and gangs of insurgents roving and ravaging the country with impunity. Again, I could talk about this for hours. I will leave my contact information (eosonifilic@aol.com) and people can contact me with individual questions and/or requests to speak about my opinions and experiences in Iraq. One thing that doesn't get enough honest attention is the number of soldiers wounded in Iraq, and what this really means. So far, well over 10,000 soldiers have been "wounded". You worked as a medic, so you have a good idea of what this means. One thing I want to make absolutely clear is my skepticism that this number is anywhere near accurate. An injury can be anything from eardrums ruptured in an explosion, gunshot wounds, shrapnel injuries, blast injuries, and on and on. Obviously, this number makes no accounting for those that are mentally traumatized by what they have seen, and the numbers that have substance abuse problems or even end up taking their own lives. Just as in Vietnam it will take years before the true effects of this conflict are known. They will continue to manifest themselves in increasing numbers of individuals as more people return home. Or more importantly, return home for the second or third time from Iraq. The VA was under manned and under funded well before September 11th, and is simply not equipped to deal with what is coming in the next few years. This interview is going to be read both by soldiers and civilians who support what you are doing-- speaking out against the war and occupation-- and by people who strongly oppose your actions. One of the arguments that your would-be opponents have is that antiwar soldiers joined the military with the knowledge that they might have to go to war even if they strongly disagreed with it-- you signed on for the job, and so you should stop complaining. This argument has come up a lot, and as the antiwar veteran and GI movement grows, it will surely go on. What's your response? This war was sold to the American public the exact same way that Vietnam was. It's the same domino theory, except instead of stopping the spread of communism we're spreading democracy. Yeah, right. Vietnam somehow posed a threat to the US, much as Iraq somehow did. A quick history lesson if I may-- Iraq was involved in a brutal trench war with Iran from 1980-1988. Then the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was followed by twelve years of crippling sanctions and pretty regular bombing. A threat? Hardly. Vietnam had Agent Orange, Iraq has depleted uranium. Vietnam veterans returned and were not cared for properly by the VA; it's already happening to Iraq veterans. The only thing missing is the draft, and it won't be for much longer. It's always those with the least to lose that speak out the loudest and beat their chests the hardest. You clearly saw that during the run up to this war, the initial invasion, and it continues to this day. We stayed the course in Vietnam until 58,000 US soldiers were dead, countless others were scarred for life, and three million Southeast Asians were dead. I don't hear too many people still preaching about our virtuous rationale for invading that country. Sadly, the draft is what ended Vietnam and I think it is the only thing that will end this war. While the American public seems to sleep fine at night while other's children are killed in Iraq, I doubt they will sleep as soundly when they are their own. When I joined the military I took an oath that I took seriously. I just wish that my elected officials took it as seriously as I did. But, why should they? Few if any of them have ever taken it before themselves. In my oath I swore to defend the Constitution and the people of America, clearly that is not what I did in Iraq. In fact, if the Constitution needs defending anywhere it is in Washington, DC. No one in the military signs up to die for nothing, I know I surely didn't. Soldiers aren't assembled at the Pentagon, they are real people with real families. Most come from poor and working class families and I believe that has something to do with the public's sick view that the life of a soldier is worth inherently less than the life of an average American citizen. If you're going to commit hundreds of thousands of troops for something this ridiculous, at least equip them so they have a fighting chance of surviving and keeping all of their limbs. Supporting our troops? Hardly. Let me break it down for you real easy: most of the kids dying in Iraq, and they are kids, are between 18 and 22. These kids will never go to college, never get married, never have kids, never have grandchildren, never retire, and never get to enjoy life. They leave behind children that will never know their fathers and widows that will never know peace. Too many people have suffered way too much already. I will continue to speak out until the last soldier leaves Iraq and the last veteran gets the care they are owed. Not another Vietnam. What made you decide to become active in opposing the war and occupation? I think this will be my shortest answer. I don't want to see anymore of my fellow soldiers get killed, get maimed, or be mentally traumatized for nothing. I don't want to see anymore Iraqi civilians get killed or injured for nothing. This administration is just creating a new generation of insurgents. Mostly, I want to point out what our soldiers are being asked to do over there and how they are being asked to do it. I want to make it clear to the public that they aren't getting the full scope of what's going on in Iraq. Most of the reporters in Iraq are scared to leave the large camps they're in. They only report what they see from the camps or what the military reports to them. None of the attacks in my area where ever reported. Can you briefly tell us about the organization your involved with, Iraq Veterans Against the War? Is the group growing? What type of activities do you do, and do you have any new future plans? Iraq Veterans Against the War is a group of people who have been in Iraq since the current war began. The group is growing and in the process of setting up local chapters through out the country. The main focus of the group is to end the occupation of Iraq and make sure that the veterans of the conflict receive the care that they were promised and have earned. My main focus will be doing as many public speaking events as I can to get our message out to the public. I invite people to check out the web site, www.ivaw.net There's an organization of military family members who oppose the war and occupation, Military Families Speak Out (www.mfso.org). How has this group helped or affected you, and why do you think it's important? My wife was involved with MFSO while I was in Iraq. They are actually the way that I first heard of IVAW. I think they are extremely important because they put a human face on what is happening in Iraq. They also point out that military members and families are not being taken care of the way they should be. Supporting our troops means a lot more than buying a $2 yellow magnet for your car and waving the flag. It means demanding answers and holding people accountable. I want to finish up by asking you the same questions I asked Jim Talib, another antiwar vet I recently interviewed. What kind of role do you think antiwar soldiers and veterans can play in the broader antiwar movement? What can antiwar civilians and soldiers/vets do to build a healthy relationship, and how can the civilian antiwar movement make itself more welcoming to soldiers who want to speak out against the war and occupation? I think that obviously as veterans of this war we are the most qualified to speak out about the conditions in Iraq. We were in Iraq and we lived it. We were at places other than the hand picked sites that reporters and Congressmen are shown. We talked to lots of soldiers and not just those that pre rehearsed interviews so they'd tell the media what the military and this administration wants the public to hear. We let the public know that lots of soldiers don't agree with this war. They don't agree with the reasons that this war was sold on, the lack of equipment, the lack of planning, and the continuing lies about conditions in Iraq put forth by this administration. The second part of the question is harder to answer. Personally, I'm not a pacifist and I've never felt I belong in the various peace groups. I'm just a veteran who understands all too well the sacrifices that are made. I can't sit and let it continue. Too many soldiers have suffered and will continue to suffer for years to come. Most of us just want to end this suffering. I can't tell you how many times I'm asked ridiculous questions about Iraq. If a veteran wants to speak about the war they will, when they are ready and able to do so. The public can't possibly ever imagine what some people go through in Iraq. Start by just introducing yourself and thanking them for coming out just like you would anyone else. A lot of veterans will never speak out against the war because they can be punished for doing so under military law. Other veterans don't want to admit that friends or family have been injured or even given their lives in an unnecessary war. They simply don't want to see it and will never admit it. I think that it is these veterans that have it the hardest. Patrick Resta can be reached at eosonifilic@aol.com. The website for Iraq Veterans Against the War is www.ivaw.net. Derek Seidman is co-editor of Left Hook. He lives in Providence, Rhode Island, and can be contacted at derekseidman@yahoo.com. His interview with antiwar vet Jim Talib can be read here: http://lefthook.org/Interviews/SeidmanTalib112904.html ---- Unwelcome and Unfazed, Demonstrators Push Messages Administration Foes Are Seemingly Everywhere; Dozens Are Arrested, Others Disappointed They're Not By Manny Fernandez and Eric Rich Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A33 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24281-2005Jan20.html They were pelted with snowballs, doused with pepper spray. They were outnumbered by police and by Bush loyalists, drowned out for the most part by the fanfare of the nation's 55th inauguration. The thousands of protesters who took to the streets to oppose President Bush's second swearing-in did succeed on at least one score: No one who came to Washington to celebrate the inauguration yesterday left without encountering them. The biggest disruption apparently occurred late last night, far from the center of inaugural action, in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Northwest Washington. Shortly before midnight, police clad in riot gear arrested 65 people they described as anarchists for allegedly parading without a permit after the encircled A symbol of the anarchist movement was spray-painted on buildings. Inspector Diane Groomes of the 3rd Police District, who was on the scene early today, said members of the group also broke out the windows of some restaurants and at least one bank in the 1700 and 1800 blocks of Columbia Road, a popular strip of restaurants and clubs. Earlier yesterday, the demonstrations unfolded along the Pennsylvania Avenue inaugural parade route and throughout parts of downtown, drawing a diversity of activists, causes and tactics. Smothered by scores of law enforcement officials and faced with barricaded streets, security checkpoints and sign restrictions, the protesters often seemed overwhelmed. They scuffled with police in at least two places near Pennsylvania Avenue, as officers waved batons and used pepper spray to subdue marchers who knocked down metal security barricades, threw water bottles and other debris and, in one instance, set an American flag aflame. Another disruption came toward the end of Bush's inaugural speech outside the Capitol, when about 10 protesters seated on the West Front stood up and shouted antiwar slogans, unfurling banners, including one that read "No War," before being led away by police. Several in the audience threw snowballs at them and started chanting "USA! USA!" Police reported 14 arrests for various offenses, most of them related to the protests. But about two dozen activists who wanted to be arrested were left lying on the cold asphalt near Lafayette Square for three hours before abandoning their "die-in." "I think [the police] had a no-arrest strategy because of all the bad publicity they've had in the last few years and the fact that they are facing a lot of lawsuits," said Mark L. Goldstone, a veteran protest lawyer. The demonstrations seemed more scattered and generally smaller than those during Bush's inauguration four years ago, when thousands took part in the largest inaugural protest since the Vietnam War. Authorities did not provide an estimate of the number of protesters yesterday, but the organizers of three of the biggest actions said more than 25,000 participated. "I felt it was my duty, almost, to show that there is a different side, that it's okay to express a different side," said Jayse Pacelli, 18, who rode a bus all night with protesters from Upstate New York and proudly carried his sign -- signed by classmates at C.W. Baker High School in Syracuse, where he is a senior -- reading, "Not my president." Participants and organizers declared success in getting out their antiwar, anti-Bush message, saying they saw yesterday's demonstration as something more than an opportunity to express disappointment over the results of the November election. They talked about their frustration with mainstream political parties, corporate greed and capitalism as often as they decried the president. Jacqui Galante of New York said success would be measured in airtime. "I guess you just have to look at the TV, and if you saw us, then it worked," said Galante, who was leaving the parade route about 4 p.m. at the end of a long, sometimes quiet, sometimes chaotic day. "It's not a cliche to say the whole world is watching," said Brian Becker, national coordinator for International ANSWER, which sponsored a lively antiwar rally. "The whole world is indeed watching Pennsylvania Avenue." The protesters had no shortage of messages. Some focused on alleged Election Day fraud, questioning the legitimacy of the 2004 process. Others attacked the president over his handling of the war in Iraq, which many called "another Vietnam." Still others said they oppose the Patriot Act, the administration's environmental record or a host of other issues. Uniting everyone was a shared resentment of the Bush administration. The day of protest began quietly, shortly after dawn outside Union Station. About 50 bicyclists set off on the first act of defiance -- a Critical Mass ride through the streets of Washington. With their route on a palm-size sheet of white paper, they headed down Massachusetts Avenue NE, trailed by a caravan of marked and unmarked police vans and patrol cars. Zack Mully, 27, said the security was overkill. "We're just going for a ride," he said. "We're not doing anything illegal." A couple of hours later, at 9 a.m., activists and Bush supporters stood shoulder-to-shoulder not far from Union Station as they waited to clear a checkpoint to gain access to the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route. For the most part, protesters kept their political views to themselves -- except for Gary Hebert. "I've just been very unhappy with a lot of George Bush's policies," said Hebert, 40. "I think he divides us and alienates a lot of America and a lot of the world." Hebert and other protesters acknowledged that their signs -- many of them bearing obscenities -- and marches would not get the attention of the president. "It's frustrating because you know the administration doesn't care what anybody thinks," said John Kane, 34, who came from Madison, Wis., to participate. A few blocks down the parade route, other demonstrators, these of a conservative mind, rallied in support of the president in an event organized by the D.C. chapter of Free Republic, a banner reading "God Bless W And Our Troops" attached to the barricades. But many didn't need a banner to show their support for the president or frustration with protesters. "You don't like our country!" one person seated on the West Front shouted to the protesters, who included a group from Code Pink: Women for Peace, who disrupted Bush's speech. But it was a 12:30 p.m. gathering of a different sort a short walk away at Logan Circle that brought out dozens of D.C. police. The circle was a meeting point for a gathering called by Anarchist Resistance, a collection of Washington area anarchists and anti-capitalists who professed to harbor a more "confrontational attitude" than many of their fellow protesters. Swelled by another group until they numbered about 300 -- many of them teenagers and twentysomethings, some concealing their faces behind black bandanas -- they marched toward the inaugural parade, improvising their route as a squad of police officers on motorcycles followed them. Protesters beat the bottoms of water coolers with drum sticks and swayed black flags on bamboo poles as they marched down 13th and 11th streets, chanting "Not our president!" "The system," said Lindsay Bradley, a 17-year-old Washington high school senior, "is just spiraling toward a huge rift between the poor and the rich. . . Something has to be done about it." The march came to a halt on D Street, at Seventh Street, a few minutes after 1 p.m. Several dozen D.C. officers blocked marchers from going any further and began trying to push back the crowd. One officer used pepper spray, causing protesters to back up but not flee. For several moments, the two sides faced off. The masked demonstrators in the front faced a row of officers with small metal batons. Protesters lobbed snowballs and other debris, including parts of bamboo poles. Then the marchers at the front appeared to surge forward, resulting in a melee that lasted several minutes. Police swung their batons and hit the crowd with pepper spray, and one officer picked up a large piece of PVC pipe and began swinging it at protesters. Several people were knocked to the pavement in the scuffle. D.C. police officials said six officers suffered minor injuries in the confrontation. At least one officer was injured in last night's confrontation in Adams Morgan, said Cmdr. Cathy Lanier, head of the police department's special operations division. The officer was transported to the hospital, but no further details were immediately available. Protesters said members of the group had walked to the commercial strip after attending a benefit concert at a nearby church. Demonstrators said the police did not warn members of the group before arresting them. "The police never told anyone to disperse," said Ginny Leavell, 21, who said she had marched with the group. "It was festive, but they didn't get very far before the police showed up.'' Along Columbia Road, several buildings had been sprayed with red paint, and the front door of a Riggs Bank branch had been shattered ---- Environment of Freedom Words, Not Deeds, at Bush Inauguration January 21, 2005 WASHINGTON, DC, (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-21-03.asp President George W. Bush took the oath of office for the second time Thursday, declaring in his inaugural address that the global expansion of freedom is "the best hope for peace in our world." But his parade to the White House was brought to a halt as police battled protesters on the inaugural motorcade route, using tear gas and pepper spray in their efforts to clear the street. The theme of President Bush's inaugural address was that leaders and nations throughout the world must choose between oppression and freedom. "We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people," he said. Human rights, he said, "must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed." But in the streets of the nation's capital, protesters outnumbered Bush supporters on the parade route. Signs calling the president a fascist and his actions war crimes framed the presidential limousine, and on television the voices of commentators attempting to downplay the protests were drowned out by the shouts of protesters. Bush did not mention environmental protection in his inaugural address. Instead the agenda for his second term was stated as the reform of American institutions, such as social security, "to serve the needs of our time," to bring "the highest standards" to schools, and to build "an ownership society." "We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance," the President said. He told Americans to exercise their own freedom with service, mercy and "a heart for the weak." He said the United States "cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time." "These questions that judge us also unite us," the President said, "because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them." At the end of his remarks, Bush said he has complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom around the world. "Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation," but because "freedom is the permanent hope of mankind." During the conflict between police and demonstrators at 14th and Pennsylvania that halted the motorcade, there were injuries on both sides. A stand-off set in, riot police lined up in front of protesters while tear gas drifted in the air. Sixteen journalists reportedly had been pepper sprayed by the end of the hostilities. Spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Department, Officer Junis Fletcher, told ENS that police arrested three people during the parade, two for assaulting police officers and one for kindling a bonfire. He said some police had been injured, but could not immediately provide the number of injured officers. Last night, protesters chanting, "Bring the War Home" were on their way to the Washington Hilton's Inaugural Ball, when some 100 riot police lined up at 18th and Belmont while all roads and alleys off Columbia were closed. Protesters say two buses appeared on 18th street, and four more on Columbia Road; police moved in and arrested demonstrators while a helicopter overhead illuminated the scene. A peaceful protester who described herself as "5'4", 125 lbs, was carrying nothing but my cell phone" was harrassed, as she wrote on the Indymedia website where anyone can post information. "I stood yesterday at 14th and Pennsylvania, at about 3 PM, with no sign, not shouting, and not approaching the fence, just to express my disagreement with this administration's policies and stand for my right to express my opinion." "I looked in the eyes of the riot police ranked three-deep on the other side of the fence." "They shouted at me to step back, even though I was several feet back from the barrier already. I moved back to the curb, at least ten feet back, where I felt I was within my rights to stand quietly. There was no one else very near me, although people were shouting and approaching the fence farther down on my right." "The police were repeatedly shooting them with pepper spray, firing directly into each person's face. I was determined to simply stand there as long as I was able. It was still a surprise to me when the man who had ordered me to step back sprayed me in the face anyway. I stood there, getting sprayed, for as long as I could, until there was so much gas and pepper in the air that I couldn't breathe anymore and had to retreat." "This morning I heard a clip from Bush's speech," she wrote, 'All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.'" "What I tried to do yesterday was exactly that: to stand for my liberty," she wrote. "Apparently my liberty is not as valuable when my oppressor is American. Is this the message? Because I disagree with my nation's politics, I lose the right to express my opinion?" ---- Protests mark Bush inauguration Friday 21 January 2005 Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3105FC8-C070-483B-A0FE-371250D947C0.htm Anti-war protesters, including some who carried cardboard coffins to signify deaths in Iraq, were out in strength as US President George Bush delivered his inaugural address. "Worst President Ever" and "Four more years: God HELP America" were on some of the placards that the protesters carried on Capitol Hill on Thursday. "It's important to show that when Bush's second inauguration goes into the record books, there was healthy dissent," said Jared Maslin, a demonstrator from New Hampshire. The chants of the protesters came towards the end of the president's speech, and he continued his address without interruption or any sign that he heard them. Capitol Hill police detained some protesters and then released them after Bush finished speaking. Earlier in the day, about 500 people rallied in a park several kilometres from the Capitol. Capitol police spokesman Michael Lauer said officers had arrested five people for protesting. An anti-war group called the Rhythm Workers Union banged on steel drums and danced in mud-caked boots. More than 300 anti-war protesters, organised by CodePink, sported beauty pageant style banners with "resist" scrawled in black. The coffin-like cardboard boxes that many protesters carried were draped in black cloth and the American flag to symbolise US soldiers and others killed in Iraq. Worldwide echo Protests were also staged around the world as Bush took the oath of office for the second term. In Geneva, protesters read poetry. In London, they staged a candlelight march outside the US embassy. Across Europe, locals and American expatriates united in their opposition to Bush marked his inauguration with some unabashed Bush-bashing - complete with "Four Moron Years" buttons. Protesters in Germany held a rally at Berlin's landmark Brandenburg Gate under the slogan: "You've Got a Voice." In Prague, supporters of Senator John Kerry held what they dubbed the "What Might Have Been Inaugural Party" and in Geneva, there was a "Counter-Inaugural Dinner" kicked off with a reading of the Langston Hughes poem Let America Be America Again. In southwestern France, Democrats Abroad screened a film called Bush's Brain. "We elected a president who lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That really burns me up," lamented Mark Miller, an American who has lived in Austria for 26 years. "Something has to be done to wake people up. Liberal is a dirty word right now, and that can't be." ---- Over 10,000 Protest Inauguration Friday, January 21st, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1530248 While Bush was vowing to spread freedom around the globe, law enforcement agents were hauling off several demonstrators who attempted to protest during the speech. Some 10,000 protesters marched in a demonstration organized by the DC Anti-War Network. Thousands more lined the parade route holding signs accusing Bush of war crimes and calling for the end of the Iraq war. Members of the Black Bloc also successfully blocked many Bush supporters from reaching their seats after they forced the police to shut down two entry points to the seating area. Police reported making 14 arrests during the inauguration celebrations but targeted many more people with pepper spray. Another 65 were arrested last night after a group of anarchists staged an unpermited march through the Adams Morgan neighborhood. Participants in the march shattered the front door of a Riggs Bank. Protests were also held across the country including in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tuscon, Atlanta, Denver, Sacramento, Milwaukee, New Orleans and Portland, Oregon