NucNews - February 25, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- iran Iranian nuclear negotiator would welcome US help in talks Fri Feb 25,10:41 AM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050225/wl_mideast_afp/irannucleargermanyeu_050225154147 BERLIN - Iran (news - web sites)'s chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said here that he would welcome US assistance in talks with European nations over his country's controversial nuclear programme. "The negotiating partners are the three European nations" Germany, France and Britain, Rowhani said, but "Iran would welcome it if the United States helped." Rowhani, who was speaking after a meeting with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, did not clarify what he meant by "help". The three European countries are seeking to persuade Iran to abandon the nuclear fuel cycle that can be used to make atomic weapons, in return for a lucrative economic package. But the United States suspects Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and is skeptical about the progress of the talks with the Europeans. White House national security advisor Stephen Hadley (news - web sites) said this week: "The question is how can we help. It's not just a question of the carrots and sticks discussion." Rowhani was speaking the day after Iran said it opposed any US role in the talks alongside the European Union (news - web sites) nations. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said on Thursday that "if the Americans joined the talks, the best that could happen is that they would bring nothing to the negotiations and in the worst-case scenario they would sabotage everything." US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) said in Bratislava on Thursday, on the final leg of his European trip, that the United States and Europe were "on the same page" over Iran, which represented his strongest endorsement yet of the EU talks. Washington still wants to bring Iran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. The Europeans are trying, however, to persuade Iran to comply with international obligations in return for trade, security and technology deals. Iran insists its nuclear programme is a peaceful effort to make electricity but refuses to abandon uranium enrichment, saying it has the right to carry out enrichment under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Fischer acknowledged that "the positions of each side are complex and difficult to reconcile" but said "the central aim is to ensure that the nuclear progress made by Iran is used solely for peaceful purposes." ---- U.S. May Give EU Till June to Coax Iran on Nukes Fri Feb 25, 2005 08:42 AM ET (Reuters) By Louis Charbonneau http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KAEN0ACRY35SYCRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=7741359 VIENNA - In its drive to stop Iran gaining any ability to make nuclear weapons, the United States is ready to give European allies only until June to cajole Tehran before Washington seeks U.N. sanctions, U.S. diplomatic documents show. U.S. officials in Vienna circulated a position paper for discussion to members of the U.N. nuclear watchdog's governing board on Thursday, as President Bush concluded a tour of Europe in which he repeatedly praised European Union efforts to persuade Tehran to give up on enriching uranium. Washington will not push the International Atomic Energy Agency board to refer Iran's case to the Security Council when it meets next week and no resolutions condemning the Islamic republic are expected to be adopted then, diplomats on the 35-nation board told Reuters. But the next quarterly meeting in June will be different. The draft position paper, seen in full by Reuters, shows Washington is ready to give EU-Iran negotiations until that meeting to achieve their aim. If they fail, it will renew its campaign to have the IAEA refer Iran to the Security Council. Before the June meeting, the United States wants IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to report again on Iran's nuclear program: "We believe it is essential that the director-general provide to the board in advance of the June board meeting another comprehensive written report describing in full the IAEA's inspection activities in Iran," the document said. "The board in June must then be prepared to take further action as needed," it added, a phrase diplomats said meant referral to the Security Council in New York. The board of governors begins meeting on Monday to discuss the nuclear programs of Iran, Egypt and North Korea. For the first time in nearly two years, ElBaradei has this time not submitted a written progress report on the IAEA probe of Iran to the board ahead of its quarterly meeting. In those two years, the agency has found no hard evidence disproving statements by Iran that its atomic ambitions are purely peaceful and aimed at generating electricity. "Ultimately only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran's fissile material production efforts can give us any confidence that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions," the U.S. draft position paper said. EUROPEAN NEGOTIATIONS Washington questions why a country with Iran's vast reserves of natural gas and oil wants to develop nuclear power. On the European Union's behalf, France, Britain and Germany have been trying to persuade Iran by offering trade and other economic benefits to abandon its program for enriching uranium -- a process that can provide both fuel or explosive material. Tehran has temporarily frozen its enrichment program as a confidence-building measure but refuses to terminate it. "Certainly cessation will have no place," Sirus Naseri, a senior Iranian delegate to the IAEA, told Reuters. However, a senior British official told reporters in London on condition of anonymity the Europeans need an "objective guarantee" that Iran will not pursue atomic weapons. "The only objective guarantee worthy of its name is a permanent cessation of fuel cycle activities," he said. Tehran's chief negotiator, Hassan Rohani, predicted a fourth round of talks with the EU trio in March would yield positive results: "We are confident that with effective measures from all four sides, we can see a positive result in March," he said after talks with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. But in comments published in the French newspaper Le Monde after a meeting in Paris on Thursday, he said talks were going slowly: "In a general, I note that the Europeans are incapable of coming good on their promises," he was quoted as saying. During Bush's visit, European leaders tried to persuade him to join their diplomatic initiative on Iran. Although the United States has so far refused to participate in a plan it believes is doomed to failure, Bush said he would at least think about actively joining forces with the Europeans. (Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers in London and Philip Blenkinsop in Berlin) ---- Russia's energy chief flies to Iran to seal nuclear deal Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:38 AM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050225/wl_mideast_afp/russiairannuclear_050225153845 MOSCOW - Russia's atomic agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev flew to Iran to sign a vital agreement on the return of nuclear fuel that will finally allow Russia to launch the Islamic state's first nuclear power plant. Russia refused to launch the plant near the southern town of Bushehr until Iran agreed to return all of the nuclear fuel provided for the plant by Russia. Like Washington -- which had fought furiously to convince Russia against the project -- Moscow feared that Tehran could reprocess the material to make a nuclear weapon. Iran initially refused to sign the fuel deal sighting the dangers of transporting radioactive material back to Russia but Moscow refused to budge. The two sides finally made headway last month and Russia is now on track to launch the 800-million-dollar (606-million-euro) project at the start of next year. "The agreement on the return of nuclear fuel will be signed on Saturday," Rumyantsev's spokesman Nikolai Shingaryov told AFP. Rumyantsev will visit Bushehr itself on Sunday and meet with his Iranian counterpart to "discuss wider cooperation in the nuclear sphere," the spokesman said. Russia has examined the option of building a second reactor at Bushehr along with new nuclear plants at other locations. The West argues Iran has no need for nuclear energy because of its massive oil supplies. However Tehran counters that its oil wells are actually far removed from the population while the pipeline network remains underdeveloped. In Bratislava on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart George W. Bush agreed during summit talks that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. -------- korea North Korea ready to return to nuclear talks: Chinese minister Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:10 PM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050225/wl_asia_afp/nkoreanuclearchina_050225171040 ASTANA - North Korea is committed to a nuclear-free status of the Korean peninsula and is prepared to resume its participation in six-party negotiations on this issue, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said here. "I believe the conditions are there for continuing the negotiations," Li said following talks in the capital of Kazakhstan with his counterparts of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional forum which also comprises Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Chinese President Hu Jintao had recently transmitted a message to the North Korean leadership stressing the need for nuclear-free status, security and peace on the Korean peninsula and calling on Pyongyang to return to the talks as soon as possible, Li said. "In its response," North Korea "said it fully accepts that the Korean peninsula must be free of nuclear weapons and is ready to take part in the six-party talks," he added. The six parties are: North Korea, South Korea, Russia, the United States, China and Japan. However no firm date has yet been set for the talks' resumption, although Russia too said things were now looking optimistic. "There is a real chance for a renewal of six-way dialogue," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the region meeting. "We are all waiting for the moment of when the date becomes clear," he said. "The five members (except for North Korea) are actively working on achieving this goal. Top nuclear negotiators from South Korea, the United States and Japan are expected in Seoul in Saturday in an attempt to revive the talks which have been in limbo since an inconclusive third round in Beijing in June last year. North Korea announced earlier this month that it possessed nuclear weapons and was withdrawing from the talks because of a "hostile" attitude from the United States, a move many experts played down as a routine negotiating tactic. The announcement prompted China to dispatch a senior envoy to Pyongyang and Beijing announced afterwards that North Korea was in fact ready to talk. The United States however voiced skepticism, with a State Department spokesman saying that "all of these statements" about North Korea's willingness to return to the negotiating table "don't amount to them showing up." In his first public response to the North Korean announcement that it was pulling out of the six-party talks, South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun called Friday for calm. He admitted that he was facing an "unexpected situation" but said South Korea would stick to its principle of resolving the 28-month-old standoff over North Korea's nuclear program peacefully through dialogue. At a summit meeting in Bratislava on Thursday, US President George W. Bush said he and Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed that North Korea had to abandon its nuclear weapons drive. -------- russia On-shore spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Murmansk to start operation in April 2006 The Murmansk Shipping Company is positive about the development of the Russian-British project on construction of the on-shore container storage facility for spent nuclear fuel at the nuclear icebreaker’s base Atomflot in Murmansk. 2005-02-25 15:40 Bellona http://193.71.199.52/en/international/russia/waste-mngment/37280.html The British party was presented by the Crown Agents Company, the Murmansk Shipping Company and the Federal State Unitary Enterprise, Atomflot presented Russia. According to Interfax news agency, the complete contract for the construction part of the facility was signed in the end of January with the price-tag £4.6m. Earlier a £2.6m contract for non-standard equipment delivery had been signed. According to the project the facility should be ready in April 2006. At the moment all the environmental evaluations concerning the construction are completed. This is the first project sponsored by the western donors in the North of Russia, which passed the public environmental evaluation conducted by Bellona-Murmansk. Unfortunately, most of the companies continue to work in the old way and do not trust NGOs, treating them as an obstacle. However, all the donor countries stipulate participation of the non-governmental organisations in the decision-making process when the interests of the society could be disturbed during implementation of some state or business projects. No double standards should be used in Russia. All the western experience regarding interaction of the business and the NGOs should be applied in Russia, of course, taking into consideration local legislation and mentality. Bellona has been always in favour of the dialog between the donor country representatives and the Russian authorities on all levels, especially concerning the projects on nuclear and radiation safety. “I am glad that the British representatives known in Russia as conservative people were the first to make such a step. I think, I will express the common opinion of the participation in the first stage of the project: we are satisfied with the joint work” said in an interview to Bellona-WEB director of Bellona-Murmansk Sergey Zhavoronkin. The Great Britain might also fund the construction of 50 universal containers TUK-120 for spent nuclear fuel storage and shipment. “The positive decision of this issue has a principal meaning for us as no state commission would accept our facility without storage containers for the spent nuclear fuel” an Atomflot representative said to Interfax. Spent fuel at the moment to be kept on board the nuclear fuel service ship Lotta, which can contain 16 active zones, but the place for two zones is just available at the moment. Once land storage is complete it can be offloaded, freeing the vessel to collect waste from even more submarines. The ship's efficiency will be improved as well as removing the hazard of a ship full of SNF from the Arctic waters. Crown Agents is working with the UK Department for Trade and Industry, the Murmansk Shipping Company and The Federal State Unitary Enterprise, Atomflot to oversee the construction project. The United Kingdom under the G8 Global Partnership, which amongst other issues counters the proliferation of nuclear material and promotes nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union states, made funding available. Completion is expected in 2006 at a cost of £16.2 million. -------- terrorism Bush, Putin agree to act to prevent nuclear terrorism February 25, 2005 By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050224-111000-6978r.htm President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed yesterday to step up cooperation in securing weapons and material to prevent nuclear terrorism. A joint statement issued after the summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, said the increased cooperation is targeted at countering "one of the gravest threats the two countries face, nuclear terrorism." The move followed the release of a U.S. intelligence report to Congress that concludes that Russia is having problems protecting its weapons facilities and nuclear energy plants from "insiders" and terrorists. The new cooperation will include improving emergency responses to a nuclear or radiological incident, sharing nuclear security management practices, and boosting the "security culture" in both nations. The two sides also agreed to develop low-enriched uranium for use in U.S. and Russian reactors being built in third countries that now use high-enriched uranium. Low-enriched uranium is more difficult to use in making nuclear arms. Additionally, the two sides pledged to set up a U.S.-Russian Senior Interagency Group on nuclear security, headed by Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman and Russian atomic energy agency Director Alexander Rumyantsev. The intelligence report states that "we assess that undetected smuggling has occurred and we are concerned about the total amount of material that could have been diverted over the last 13 years." A senior Bush administration official in Slovakia told reporters that the nuclear cooperation pact is aimed at controlling weapons and material and to make sure "these materials never fall into the hands of terrorists." The directors of the CIA and FBI told Congress last week they are worried that terrorists will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in a major attack in the future. Other intelligence officials have said they believe Chechen terrorists pose the greatest risk of obtaining nuclear weapons on Russia's black market. Moscow has 4,000 strategic nuclear warheads and bombs, most of them kept in storage facilities. Russia also has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. Russian officials have said all nuclear arms are secure but the intelligence report says Moscow may not be able to sustain recent U.S.-supplied security upgrades because of the costs. While Russian weapons security is improving, "risks remain, however, and we continue to be concerned about vulnerabilities to an insider who attempts unauthorized actions as well as potential terrorist attacks," the report says. The unauthorized launch of a Russian nuclear weapon was judged "highly unlikely" by U.S. intelligence. However, "our concerns about possible circumvention of the [weapons security control] system would rise if central political authority broke down," the report says. The report by the National Intelligence Council, an analysis branch under CIA Director Porter J. Goss, discloses for the first time that terrorists conducted surveillance of Russian nuclear facilities and transportation routes. It says terrorists "have targeted Russian nuclear storage sites." In 2002, Russian authorities on two occasions stopped "terrorist efforts to reconnoiter nuclear weapon storage sites," the report states. "In addition, two Chechen sabotage and reconnaissance groups reportedly showed a suspicious amount of interest in the transportation of nuclear munitions," it says. "The groups were spotted at several major railroad stations in the Moscow region, apparently interested in a special train used for transporting nuclear 'bombs.' " Regarding the loss of material, the report says covert nuclear smuggling had taken place. "We find it highly unlikely that Russian authorities would have been able to recover all the stolen material." In 1998, 18.5 kilograms of radioactive material was stolen from Chelyabinsk, a closed nuclear facility. A Russian official at the time said the loss was "quite sufficient material to produce an atomic bomb." ---- Former Weapons Experts Fight Terrorism By Terrence Henry Friday, February 25, 2005 National Journal http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_2_25.html#F970C353 WASHINGTON — In the first years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. officials and nuclear security experts worried about what would happen to the large number of nuclear-, chemical-, and biological-weapons scientists from the old state, an intellectual work force estimated at 35,000 to 60,000. As the Russian ruble fell in value, weapons labs and study centers that had benefited from steady wages and strong state support under communism now stood on their own. In the first three years after the Soviet collapse, state funding for science dropped 75 percent. Soon, for many scientists in the former Soviet Union, better money could be found outside the country, perhaps by working on weapons programs for countries such as Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan. A Russian television documentary this winter claims that in the first half of the 1990s, thousands of Soviet specialists in the fields of nuclear and missile technology left for the Middle East, some of them going to Iran, Iraq, and Libya. “Our scientists are willing to work anywhere they are paid,” the program alleged. Even before 9/11, the destructive potential of these unemployed scientists was easily imagined: In the spy thriller The Sum of All Fears, terrorists fashion a nuclear weapon with the help of rogue Russian nuclear scientists. But with the establishment of several grant programs in the mid-1990s, and a decade of partnerships between these former weapons scientists and American companies and the U.S. government (which provided funding), the possible brain drain of weapons scientists from the former Soviet Union to countries or terrorist groups seeking weapons seems largely to have been averted. In fact, a growing number of former Soviet weapons scientists today are working on programs to better protect against, detect, and treat the victims of potential terrorist attacks. One group helping to make such programs possible is the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation, a nonprofit organization that coordinates grants and projects between weapons scientists in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and U.S. research institutions and companies. It was authorized by Congress in 1992 as part of the Freedom Support Act and was established in 1995 by the National Science Foundation. CRDF, whose goal is to employ the scientists in their hometowns and at their original facilities, has helped to find work on civilian projects for almost 12,000 scientists — 2,200 of whom are former weapons scientists. The group is based in the Rosslyn section of Arlington, Va., and is led by former State Department and National Science Foundation official Charles T. Owens. Owens describes CRDF's mission as more than simply charitable: “We felt that if we took a science project proposed by the scientists, gave it a rigorous technical review, and then provided support, in the end they would have done something worthy of support from their own government or other sources.” Funding for CRDF comes from several government agencies and private institutions: the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the State Department, and the MacArthur Foundation, among others. Responsibility for the projects lies with the former weapons scientists themselves: They propose a project with a U.S. partner and apply for a grant through CRDF; if the project is approved, the scientists use their own staff and facilities in Russia or the other countries of the former Soviet Union to complete it. As part of the agreement, the scientists receive 80 percent of the grant funding, ensuring that they are gainfully employed. Of its many projects, CRDF has 17 that focus on antiterrorism: nine to detect weapons; three to better protect against attacks; and five to better treat victims of terrorist attacks. Twelve of these projects employ scientists who used to work on weapons. More than $1.5 million has been committed to antiterrorism projects in the past year. Vladimir Ryzhikov of the Ukrainian Institute of Single Crystals and Craig Smith of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California jointly led a successful project to create the next generation of X-ray technology using radiation detection crystals. The device will allow baggage screeners at airports and border crossings to determine whether material inside is organic or inorganic. Smith describes the technology as a smarter way to look inside luggage: Under the old system, “if something comes up that looks questionable, we open up the bag and inspect it,” Smith says. “What looked like dynamite on the screen might turn out to be a stick of salami, i.e., something with similar density and shape. What this device allows is for different types of chemical materials to be discriminated, one from the other. So you would have different colors for different types of materials — you might have a bright red color to indicate the presence of a chemical in an explosive.” A Ukrainian team did the bulk of the research on the project. Now that a system has been developed, the team has received additional funding from the Ukrainian customs agency to incorporate the device into luggage screening there. The device should speed up screening, result in far fewer baggage inspections, and be harder for terrorists to foil. For Ryzhikov, the transition from working on military weapons to peaceful civilian programs was fairly easy. “It wasn't a big change for us, because we knew it was one we had to make,” he says. “Once the Soviet Union fell, there was no longer a need for much of the military science work our institute had been doing. So we've had to adapt; but now our work is being used for both medical benefits as well as protecting our borders.” A project to improve defenses against terrorist attacks is being led by Edgar Mataradze of the Institute of Mining Mechanics in Tbilisi, Georgia, and Ted Krauthammer at Pennsylvania State University. The two scientists and their staffs are working on a system that responds to explosions in underground structures by activating a set of protective measures. These measures would help control the blast pressure and reduce the impact of an explosion. Such technology could have reduced the level from the 1993 terrorist attack at the World Trade Center, and it may have applications to buildings above ground as well. “I think it was a very rewarding experience, working with colleagues overseas,” Krauthammer says. “These kinds of programs give not just the Russians but also us the opportunity to work on projects that perhaps otherwise we couldn't have done here in the United States. Because they have different regulations over there ... you [can] do things that otherwise would have been impossible.” To find better ways to treat victims of terrorist attacks, scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences in Chernogolovka, Russia, are working with a team from the University of Michigan on a device that can rapidly detect the level of chemical agents that have entered a person's bloodstream following a chemical attack. Although these programs are enjoying success, the possibility remains that some scientists will go to work for other countries, or worse yet, for terrorist groups. A 2002-2003 survey of 602 Russian scientists in weapons-related fields by Deborah Yarsike Ball, an analyst in the Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and International Security Directorate at Livermore, found that those who received foreign grants were considerably less likely to work in another country such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, or North Korea. An alarming 21 percent said they were “willing” to consider relocating to these countries — the most popular of the options. CRDF President Owens noted, “If the scientists decided to try for a grant, they've got a good shot. There are opportunities all around. But we still don't capture all of the people that have weapons experience.” Ryzhikov, the Ukrainian scientist working on luggage screening, believes the programs are effective: “Here in the Ukraine, there are at least 5,000 former weapons scientists. But for the most part, many of them are working on a number of projects now. And I can say that for my institute, at least, no one has left for somewhere like North Korea or Iran.” Ryzhikov's counterpart, Craig Smith, agrees that the former weapons scientists would rather work in their own countries with help from the United States: “I know that there are a lot of scientists and institutes out there [in the former Soviet Union] that are very hungry for work and continue to try and break in to get additional grants. So I think it's very important to make sure that, with these programs, you're not just giving them a fish, you're teaching them how to fish.” An earlier group that Smith had worked with in Ukraine had been recruited by the Iranian government to staff an aerospace factory; grants from the United States kept them afloat and working in Ukraine. It is, however, easy for these scientists to slip through the cracks: No public database exists to track former weapons scientists; it is unknown if such monitoring takes place secretly within the U.S. or Russian governments. Experts in the field say that more funding and attention to these projects would continue to ensure that many of the scientists are employed in worthwhile (and potentially profitable) pursuits. That success, in turn, would encourage other former weapons scientists to seek the funding and support available from the United States and Europe. Indeed, the projects could be expanded to include not just the former weapons scientists, but the security personnel who guard the former weapons sites. Currently, several sites holding fissile materials that could be used in nuclear weapons have inadequate security and accounting. Charles Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit group dedicated to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, advocates expanding these joint programs to pay guards at the nuclear sites in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Speaking recently at a meeting of the International Science and Technology Center, a group that coordinates grants and work between the U.S. and Russia, Curtis cautioned, “Today, when we also must fight the terrorist threat of nuclear materials, it is not only the recruitment of scientists that presents a worry; it is also the recruitment of security personnel. These individuals may be more susceptible to terrorist offers — because of lower pay, less oversight, or, possibly, a lack of understanding of the proliferation danger.” [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] ---- Tetra Tech Gets Nuclear Detection Deal Friday February 25, 1:31 pm ET (AP) http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050225/tetra_tech_inc_1.html Tetra Tech Gets $100 Million Contract to Design, Build Nuclear Detection Systems Abroad PASADENA, Calif. -- Tetra Tech Inc. said Friday that it received a contract worth up to $100 million to support a government plan to install nuclear material detection systems in other countries. The environmental consulting and services provider said the three-year deal, awarded by Ahtna Government Services Corp., is part of the government's strategy to lessen the risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorism abroad. Tetra Tech has performed similar work for the National Nuclear Security Administration -- the agency organizing the project -- including a nuclear detection system in Greece ahead of the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. Under the contract, Tetra Tech will be responsible for network planning, product engineering and overseeing local contractors. Tetra Tech shares rose 35 cents, or 2.2 percent, to $16.57 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- alabama Browns Ferry gets ready to use weapons uranium From Staff, AP Reports, THE DECATUR (Alabama) DAILY FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2005 http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050225/bferry.shtml ATHENS — Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant is using on-site storage for the first shipment of commercial reactor fuel made from the government's stockpile of weapons-grade uranium. The plant plans to use the fuel this spring. The plant received the delivery in January, more than seven years after Tennessee Valley Authority struck a deal with the Department of Energy to put surplus Cold War weapons material to use, generating electricity for its residential and business customers. During the next four years, 39 metric tons of highly enriched uranium will be diluted or "downblended" into low-enriched commercial reactor fuel. That's enough to provide electricity to every household in the United States for 122 days. For TVA, it will be more than enough for 10 reactor refuelings, which occur every 18 months to two years. Browns Ferry spokesman Craig Beasley said Thursday that shipment storage is in fuel pools on the refueling floor at the plant. Workers will load the fuel into the reactors for use. DOE is spending about $500 million on the project, and that's estimated to be about half the cost of continuing to store or dispose of the material. The first shipment arrived Jan. 23. Most of the uranium comes from the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn. Additional sources are the Idaho National Laboratory and BWX Technologies in Lynchburg, Va. Fuel costs TVA gets the uranium free, but will pay about $165 million to prepare it for the Browns Ferry reactors. Still, the federal agency, which supplies electricity to about 8.5 million people in Tennessee and six surrounding states, expects to save 20 percent to 25 percent on fuel costs. "Converting this material to reactor fuel is by far the lowest-cost option for dealing with this material," said Bill Brumley, NNSA's Y-12 site manager. "Downblending it and burning it as fuel in power reactors eliminates its use for weapons, lowers costs and provides a benefit to the public." TVA Chief Nuclear Officer Karl Singer called it an "excellent example of how federal agencies and contract partners can work together to provide safe, reliable and efficient generation to meet the energy needs of the Tennessee Valley and the nation in an environmentally sound manner." Environmental concerns Not everyone is happy. Environmentalists are appealing a decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to let Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. process the material at its Erwin, Tenn., plant without a full environmental impact statement study or public hearing. "We are little bit torn about this," said Will Callaway, executive director of the Tennessee Environmental Council, which is among the suing organizations. "It was hard to argue with the question of downblending and the benefits that that serves. Certainly if that promotes further removal of nuclear warheads, that is a good thing," he said. "But that facility has got to ensure environmental compliance and they need to answer lingering questions about ground water and potential surface water contaminations." NFS, which for years supplied nuclear fuel to the U.S. Navy, spent $26 million on new facilities for the DOE-TVA processing work and added about 130 employees. Framatome Advanced Nuclear Products fabricates the product into fuel assemblies in Richland, Wash. "The operation has gone very well," NFS spokesman Tony Treadway said. "We have had no major bumps in the road and processing is going on on a daily basis." TVA will use the recycled weapons material, which tests suggest will perform the same as regular fuel, only in its two currently operating reactors at Browns Ferry. The decision is in part political because TVA's two other nuclear stations in Tennessee are involved in making the bomb material tritium for DOE. Watts Bar makes tritium and Sequoyah is a backup source. -------- california Diablo Canyon funding gets OK PG&E to charge customers for nuclear plant improvements that still need approval David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, February 25, 2005 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/25/BUGJUBGLEC1.DTL State regulators gave Pacific Gas and Electric Co. preliminary approval Thursday to charge its customers $706 million to refurbish the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, a decision that all but guarantees the disputed project will move forward. San Francisco's PG&E wants to replace eight steam generators at the plant, tucked into a sea cove near San Luis Obispo. The plan has drawn fire from environmentalists, who never wanted the plant, and consumer advocates, who question spending hundreds of millions on a $5.8 billion facility just 20 years old. State energy regulators have not yet formally approved the renovation plan. But on Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission said PG&E's customers will probably pick up the tab for the work. That bill could range anywhere from $706 million to $815 million, the most the commission said it would be willing to charge customers. PG&E could, however, win approval for higher costs if it later convinced the commission that those charges were necessary. Commissioners noted Thursday that they weren't voting on the renovations themselves and probably won't until summer, when a full environmental review of the project is due to be finished. But PUC President Michael Peevey described the nuclear plant as a boon to California, generating power without pumping climate-changing gases into the atmosphere. "We have a bird in the hand here, so to speak," he said. To Diablo Canyon's critics, Thursday's unanimous vote was a clear sign that the commission will approve the renovations and extend the nuclear plant's life span. "Sounds like a go-ahead to me," said Jane Swanson, a spokeswoman for the Mothers for Peace, a local residents group. Her organization argued that the commission shouldn't grant preliminary approval before completion of the environmental review. "Having this, PG&E is going to order the generators and say, 'We got the green light,' " she said. The utility has, in fact, already signed a $209 million contract with Westinghouse to replace the generators. Without replacements, PG&E would have to close the plant in 2013 or 2014, company spokesman Jeff Lewis said. That would force the utility to find 2,260 megawatts of substitute energy elsewhere, or roughly 20 percent of the power PG&E delivers across its vast service area. Although Thursday's decision isn't final, PG&E asked for it anyway. The company, Lewis said, wanted some assurance that the commission would eventually approve the expensive project. And in order to meet the company's goal of replacing the first of the generators in 2008, PG&E needs to start working on it immediately, he said. "It takes about 40 months to get these (generators) fabricated," Lewis said. "They aren't exactly off-the-shelf items. So the timing worked out that we needed to get the ball rolling on this before the final approval." The Diablo Canyon plant has provoked protests throughout its life. It lies slightly more than 7 miles from the nearest town, Avila Beach, and 2 1/2 miles from an earthquake fault. Its cooling water, pouring into Diablo Cove, has been blamed for harming local sea life. More recently, some residents have started to view it as a tempting target for terrorists. Then there are the costs. Construction expenses, originally estimated at $350 million, ballooned to $5.8 billion over time. The Utility Reform Network, a watchdog group frequently critical of PG&E, questions whether it makes financial sense to refurbish the plant. Beyond the cost of replacing the steam generators, PG&E could one day be forced by the federal government to add new security measures to the plant, TURN attorney Matt Freedman said. Another quake in the area could prompt seismic upgrades. Commissioners are pushing ahead with the project, Freedman believes, because the threat of future blackouts has made them leery of letting any existing power plant close. State officials have been warning for months that Southern California could face electricity shortages again as soon as this summer. "That's the political environment we're in right now," Freedman said. "Everybody's been scared by the threat of blackouts." E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com. -------- tennessee First weapons-to-fuel nuclear shipment made to TVA reactor Friday, February 25, 2005 Associated Press http://www.whnt19.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989417 KNOXVILLE, Tenn. The first shipment of commercial reactor fuel made from the government's stockpile of weapons-grade uranium has arrived at a Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear station in Alabama. It will be ready for loading this spring at the Browns Ferry station near Athens, Alabama. The delivery comes more than seven years after T-V-A struck a deal with the Department of Energy to put surplus Cold War weapons material to use generating electricity for T-V-A's residential and business customers. Most of the uranium came from the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge. Additional sources were the Idaho National Laboratory and B-W-X Technologies in Lynchburg, Virginia. -------- utah Utah loses key battle over N-waste Federal panel rejects last state objections to Skull Valley storage By Patty Henetz The Salt Lake Tribune 02/25/2005 http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2584216 A utility consortium planning to store 44,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste on the Skull Valley reservation reached a major milestone Thursday when a panel of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) judges swept aside the last of Utah's administrative objections. The two Atomic Safety Licensing Board rulings - on separate appeals from the state and Private Fuel Storage (PFS) - cleared the way for the NRC to approve a license for the consortium to build and operate the facility 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The ruling is a significant setback in the state's efforts to stop construction of the facility. In an unusual split decision, the licensing board voted 2-1 to set aside its own earlier decision that the possibility of an F-16 fighter jet crashing into the spent nuclear fuel facility posed unacceptable risk of releasing radiation. The PFS appeal of that decision argued that even if a jet did crash into the open-air array of 4,000 172-ton waste storage casks, the casks' durability meant the chance of radioactive release would not exceed federal risk standards. Two of the three panel judges agreed. The dissenting judge argued that the number of F-16 crashes analyzed was insufficient to reach that conclusion. The licensing board also dismissed a state argument that the waste stored temporarily in Utah in welded casks at the PFS facility would not be accepted for transfer to a federal nuclear repository. The state made that argument after an Energy Department official in October told state officials and The Salt Lake Tribune the casks wouldn't pass muster because they wouldn't be packaged according to federal contract requirements. That ruling, too, was unusual. Despite ruling against the state, the licensing board said the issue "was too important to be ignored," and advised the nuclear regulatory commissioners to address it in "some other manner." The rulings were the last of 125 "contentions" the licensing board heard in the nearly eight years since Private Fuel Storage signed a lease with Goshute representatives to build 500 concrete pads on 100 acres of desert in Skull Valley. John Parkyn, who heads the consortium of eight electric utilities backing PFS, hailed the decisions as "a great advancement for the nuclear industry in America." The $3.1 billion project complements the proposed permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., "and will provide an important alternative to the need to continue addressing storage for spent fuel at 72 separate locations across the United States," Parkyn said. Parkyn has said PFS could begin accepting shipments of spent fuel rods by 2007. The Yucca project, however, is in trouble. The Energy Department has pushed back its expected date to file a license application to the end of this year. Meanwhile, scientific and political problems for the repository continue to multiply. Originally scheduled to open in 1998, Yucca now probably won't open until 2015, if ever. Utah Sen. Bob Bennett said he has a letter from each of the utilities in the PFS consortium promising not to move forward with the Skull Valley facility as long as Yucca Mountain remains on track. The licensing board decisions are "not happy news," Bennett said, "but it's also not an immediate and final statement that says, 'This stuff is going to start shipping the day after tomorrow.' " Nuclear power utilities increasingly are building dry cask spent nuclear fuel storage facilities of their own, on or near reactors, because of the growing doubt about Yucca Mountain's viability. That could make PFS less attractive financially. Private Fuel Storage also faces significant legal and logistical hurdles. The governance of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes is in dispute, as is the legality of the lease PFS signed with the tribe in 1997. Leon Bear, who continues to act as chairman despite challenges from tribal members, will go to trial in April on charges he stole tribal money and cheated on his federal income tax. And dissident Goshutes have said they would mount a federal court challenge if the NRC issues a license to Private Fuel Storage. But Bear on Thursday was optimistic. "We got some good news. Good news for us; I don't know if it's good news for the state. We're very pleased about the rulings on those contentions," he said. Bear said he expected the construction of the facility to take two years, and acknowledged tribal unrest over the PFS plan. "There's opposition, of course. I think they are going to continue to be opposed to the project," he said. "But they are a minority in the group. As long as the majority continues to be part of the project, I think that's the whole ball of wax." But Margene Bullcreek, who has led the dissident charge, said the NRC was wrong to assume Bear is a legitimate leader. "Mr. Bear is saying he's in when he's not really in. How can the NRC pass this on?" she said. "We've never seen the contracts, and we're not going to see them. It's unnerving; it's not the way we do things with our tribal leadership." If the NRC issues the license, which is likely, the PFS plan must still get final approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM approval is complicated by a moratorium on wilderness studies on the Utah Test and Training Range, the nation's largest overland military training range, which sits next to the proposed waste site. The moratorium prevents the BLM from approving necessary rights of way for a proposed transfer station adjacent to the Union Pacific rail line or the 32-mile track that would connect the transfer station to the Private Fuel Storage site. U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, whose district includes the training range and the Goshute reservation, has sponsored legislation that would establish a wilderness area near the reservation. The proposal would have allowed fighter jet overflights but blocked rail shipments of waste to the Goshute facility. The bill failed in December, but Bishop says he will push it again during this session of Congress. Sen. Orrin Hatch said that while he "strongly disagreed" with the board's rulings, he expected them. "There seems to be a bias within the NRC in favor of the nuclear industry on this issue," he said. Second District Rep. Jim Matheson called the rulings "a bitter disappointment," and promised to explore every avenue possible to halt the storage of spent nuclear fuel in Utah. Anti-nuclear environmental activists expressed outrage at Thursday's rulings. "The idea that shipping tens of thousands of tons of high-level nuclear waste to Utah for a pit stop before transporting it further to a hypothetical permanent repository will improve the safety and security of the waste is ludicrous," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's energy program. Jason Groenewold, director of Healthy Environment Alliance Utah, called the licensing board's actions "absurd." "The feds are trying to say with a straight face that we should not worry about what happens if a jet crashes into the nuclear waste storage site, which is like saying don't worry about what happens if Charles Manson moves into your neighborhood," Groenewold said. "We have to redouble our opposition or we'll get bowled over." Utah Assistant Attorney General Denise Chancellor said the state wouldn't receive until today the full text of the jet-crash ruling, which will include information kept out of the publicly released version because of national security concerns. But she vowed the state would not give up its fight to block the facility. "We will certainly exercise all our available legal remedies," she said. "We've got some very, very good lawyers on this," added Mike Lee, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s general counsel. The state can appeal the licensing board's rulings to the the board itself or to the NRC's five-man commission, or can take an appeal either to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court. The state has an appeal currently before the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to overturn a lower court decision that Utah had no right to pass laws aimed at stopping Private Fuel Storage. - Reporter Robert Gehrke contributed to this report. Atomic Safety Licensing Board conclusions: * Issue: The state argued that the casks used to ship spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors to Utah were inadequate for later transfer to a permanent disposal site. Ruling: The licensing board said the state lacked sufficient evidence. * Issue: Private Fuel Storage appealed an earlier decision, arguing that the chance a fighter jet might crash into the waste casks and release radioactivity wasn't a large enough risk to halt construction. Ruling: The board agreed. What's next? * The state can appeal the decisions to the licensing board and to the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission. * If those appeals fail, the state can go to a federal appellate court and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. PFS also faces more roadblocks: * The Bureau of Indian Affairs must give final approval to the lease agreement with the Goshutes, a step complicated by tribal governance challenges and questions about the legality of the 1997 lease. Leon Bear, who claims to be tribal chairman, refused to hold an election in November, the conclusion of a 4-year term that also has been contested. Bear is scheduled to go to trial in April on federal charges he stole tribal money and cheated on his income taxes. * The Bureau of Land Management must approve rights-of-way for a transfer facility next to the Union Pacific rail line and for a proposed 32-mile rail spur that PFS would build to the Skull Valley facility. But the BLM can't sign off because Congress placed a moratorium on changes to its land-use management plan that shows no signs of being lifted. * And, PFS can't proceed until it has adequate service contracts with utilities wishing to use its proposed facility, a process made difficult by the federal agency obstacles. ---- Member's dissent in ruling gives Utah some ammunition By Joe Bauman Friday, February 25, 2005 Deseret Morning News http://deseretnews.com/dn/view2/1,4382,600114633,00.html?textfield=nuclear The 2-1 split decision by the nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing board gives Utah some ammunition to continue fighting against the construction of a nuclear fuel storage facility in Skull Valley, Tooele County. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is an independent agency of the NRC, ruling on important matters. But ultimate authority is vested in the commission itself. On Thursday the board shot down arguments by the state of Utah about safety at the site. The board said flights by F-16s over Skull Valley did not make the location too dangerous for the plant Private Fuel Storage wants to build on Goshute Indian land. That was the ruling of two board members, Michael C. Farrar, who is the chairman, and Paul B. Abramson. But member Peter S. Lam disagreed. All three are administrative law judges. "I dissent from the majority opinion for the basic reason that the proposed PFS facility has not been demonstrated to meet an established safety standard for accidental aircraft crash hazards," Lam wrote. A probability and a structural analysis on which the decision was based "both suffer from major uncertainties," he wrote. "These uncertainties fundamentally undermine the validity of the analyses." Only 57 F-16 accident reports were deemed suitable for analysis and only 15 documented the impact speed, he wrote. "Even if Utah's challenges to the suitability of some of these reports were entirely disregarded, these reports collectively represent a small sample." Also, he disagreed with the other board members on the ability of the storage casks to remain intact in case of a crash. "When, as a result of an F-16 crash, the strain in the carbon steel shells of the concrete overpack reaches the failure strain set by the DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) ductility ratio standard, the overpack should be considered to have failed in performing its intended function," Lam wrote. "All parties' analyses in the evidentiary record show that the strain in the overpack's carbon steel shell significantly exceeds the DOE ductility ratio failure strain. Therefore the overpack is expected to fail in an F-16 crash scenario." E-mail: bau@desnews.com ---- Panel backs nuclear waste dump at Utah reservation Friday, February 25, 2005 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Feb-25-Fri-2005/news/25938413.html SALT LAKE CITY -- A federal licensing board approved a proposed nuclear waste dump Thursday, reversing an earlier ruling that there was too much risk of a plane crash from a nearby air base. The 2-1 vote by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board sent the proposal to the full Nuclear Regulatory Commission for final approval. The approval was a blow to state officials, who long have fought the plans to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel rods at the facility on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation. The location is about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City and near the sprawling Utah Test and Training Range. Board members said Thursday that further analysis showed that even if an F-16 did crash into the site, it would be unlikely to cause a "radiological release" unless the plane were traveling at a particular speed and angle. The federal government plans to someday bury the waste at a proposed Yucca Mountain facility in Southern Nevada, although Nevada has battled the proposal in Congress and the courts. Utah officials contended that rods could end up permanently in Utah because the Energy Department isn't obligated to transport them to Nevada, but the licensing board rejected the argument, saying the state didn't have facts to support its stance. -------- MILITARY -------- arms A Shell Game in the Arms Race February 25, 2005 By MATTHEW GODSEY and GARY MILHOLLIN The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/opinion/25milhollin.html PRESIDENT BUSH has enjoyed a surprisingly jovial reception in Europe this week, but there has been a serious point of contention: the desire of European countries to lift the 15-year ban on arms sales to China. Given concerns that the Chinese are willing to sell military, and perhaps even nuclear, technology to the highest bidder, Mr. Bush's stance seems admirable. Unfortunately, his reasonable skepticism about China's intentions hasn't translated into a solid commitment. For example, earlier this month Under Secretary of State John Bolton scolded China for allowing its companies to spread weapons technology, saying the embargo was just as important "today as it was in 1989." Yet such talk is undermined by the State Department's own failure to check Chinese companies' reckless sales, and by weaknesses in American trade laws. In the end, China knows it has little to fear from Washington. Case in point: Sinopec, China's state-owned oil and gas giant, has subsidiaries that the State Department has hit with sanctions four times since 1997 for selling to Iran materials that could be used to make chemical weapons. However, because these subsidiaries do little or no business with the United States, the punishments - curbs on trade with America - were purely symbolic. Sinopec itself has extensive ties with American companies, dealings Washington could block. Yet we refuse to punish it for anything its offshoots do. The reason is simple: American sanctions laws were written so that the government can hold a parent company responsible only if it "knowingly" assists a sale by its subsidiary, a burden of proof our intelligence agencies can rarely meet. Why? Because our government is largely unwilling to hurt the financial interests of American firms that do business with companies like Sinopec. This laxity on our part leaves Sinopec free to sell whatever it likes to Tehran. In 1997, the same year the State Department first cited subsidiaries of Sinopec for "knowingly and materially contributing to Iran's chemical weapon program," Iran promised to increase oil exports to China by 40 percent. The following year, Iran chose the Chinese company over a host of European rivals to renovate oil refineries in Tehran and Tabriz, and to construct an oil terminal on the Caspian Sea. In 2001, when the State Department again censured a subsidiary for continuing sales to Iran of products useful for poison gas production, Sinopec won the right to explore Iran's Zavareh-Kashan oilfield. Then, last October, Sinopec pulled off its biggest coup: a $70 billion deal in which the Chinese company will buy hundreds of millions of tons of liquefied natural gas and will help Iran develop its Yadavaran oil field. The fact is, the United States could lower the boom on Sinopec by cutting its ties to the American economy. In 2000, Sinopec raised some $3.5 billion by selling shares on the New York Stock Exchange, with Exxon-Mobil buying a large stake. Halliburton has since provided Sinopec a design for a new chemical plant; Bechtel has helped it build a petrochemical complex in China; and ConocoPhillips has aided it in oil and gas exploration. And, believe it or not, in 2002 Sinopec received a $429,000 grant from the United States Trade and Development Agency. The purpose was to help an import-export subsidiary to develop an electronic procurement system. No matter that another Sinopec subsidiary, the awkwardly named Jiangsu Yongli Chemical Engineering and Technology Import/Export Corporation, was under sanctions for sales to Iran, or that Sinopec ranked among the 100 richest firms in the world according to Fortune magazine. Uncle Sam still wanted to help it market its products. Sinopec is hardly the only beneficiary of American kindliness. Our weak laws have spared Sinosteel, China Aviation Industry Corporation I and II, and China North Industries Group Corporation, even though subsidiaries of these state-owned conglomerates have been sanctioned for selling missile technology to Iran and Pakistan. In large part, we can lay the blame for this charade on a compliant government and on political pressure from American companies, whose lobbyists work to ensure that federal sanctions laws are written to protect their corporate interests. This is a travesty, because cutting off access to our economy is the most powerful leverage we have, and our failure to use it shows we aren't serious about punishing rogue states and their corporations. Our laws need to be rewritten so that Sinopec and other companies that abet the spread of weaponry through their subsidiaries are kicked out of American capital markets, forbidden to deal with our companies and denied access to American goods and technology. Only then will they have an incentive to change their ways, and only then can our government honestly claim that it is trying to shut down the global arms bazaar. Matthew Godsey and Gary Milhollin are, respectively, a research associate and the director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which produces iranwatch.org. ---- Shocking Weapons: Taser Launches Campaign to Market New Model to U.S. Public Friday, February 25th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/25/1455244 Taser International - the maker of Taser electro-shock weapons - announced this month that they will begin a major campaign to market a new model of the weapon to consumers. We speak with the head of Amnesty International, which issued a new report on Taser, as well as a lawyer representing the family of a man killed by police with a Taser gun in January 2005. [includes rush transcript] Earlier this month, Taser International -- the maker of Taser electro-shock weapons, announced that they will begin a major campaign to market a new model of the weapon to consumers. Currently, 95% of Taser's weapons are sold to law enforcement agencies in the U.S. Tasers are shaped like handguns and administer a 50,000-volt shock by shooting someone from a distance, or by applying the weapon directly to the skin. Taser made this announcement despite growing concerns over the safety and use of the weapons by police forces around the country. The weapon has become increasingly popular in police agencies who claim that lives are saved by using a Taser rather than a firearm. Taser International declined our request for an interview -- but this is what Orange County Florida Sheriff - Kevin Beary - had to say about his department's use of Tasers at a conference sponsored by the company in Orlando in 2003. * Sheriff Kevin Beary, of Orange County Florida. Yesterday, the Orange County Sheriff's Department told Democracy Now that they are reviewing their policy on the use of Taser weapons. Amnesty International has documented more than 80 Taser-related deaths since 1999 -- 60% of which occurred in the last year. Amnesty has called for a suspension of the use of the Taser until it can be determined if they are killing people. In an Amnesty Report titled - "Excessive and Lethal Force?: Deaths and Ill-treatment Involving Police Use of Tasers" - the human rights organization concluded that - "far from being used to avoid lethal force, many US police agencies are deploying Tasers as a routine force option to subdue non-compliant or disturbed individuals who do not pose a serious danger to themselves or others. They have been used against unruly school children - mentally disturbed or intoxicated individuals - unarmed suspects fleeing minor crime scenes - and people who fail to comply immediately with a command." * William Schultz, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA. * John Burris, Civil Rights Attorney representing the family of Greg Saulsbury killed by police with Taser gun in January of this year in Pacifica California. Burris is also looking into representing families of 2 other victims killed by Tasers. RUSH TRANSCRIPT JUAN GONZALEZ: Taser International declined our request for an interview. But this is what Orange County Florida Sheriff Kevin Beary had to say about his department's use of tasers at a conference sponsored by the company in Orlando in 2003. SHERIFF KEVIN BEARY: I can tell you that the Orange County Sheriff's office in the late 2000 had six testing evaluation tasers. Since then, we bought 500 more tasers. And if things look good at the end of the year budget, we're going to go to full implementation. Now I'll also tell you that since we've put the tasers on the street, we've dropped our injuries to deputies by 80%. And, folks, for the administrators in this room or the training people, you need to go back and make sure that this tool is properly placed in your use of force makers. Don't put it out there all the way to deadly force or you won't get the results. You need to put it in “when that sucker wants to fight, it's time to put him down.” We went from 13 uses of firearms situations in the year 2000 to four in 2001 and I went 15 months without a shooting, and let me make one thing perfectly clear. The taser is fabulous, absolutely a great tool. AMY GOODMAN: Yes, Orange County Florida Sheriff Kevin Beary speaking in 2003. On Thursday, the Orange County Sheriff's Department told Democracy Now!, they're reviewing their policy on the use of taser weapons. Amnesty International has documented more than 80 taser-related deaths since 1999, 60% of which occurred in the last year. Amnesty has called for a suspension of the use of taser until it can be determined if they're killing people. In an Amnesty report entitled "Excessive and Lethal Force?: Deaths and Ill-treatment Involving Police Use of Tasers,” the human rights group concluded that, “far from being used to avoid lethal force, many U.S. police agencies are deploying tasers as a routine force option to subdue noncompliant or disturbed individuals who don't pose a serious danger to themselves or others. They have been used against unruly school children, mentally disturbed or intoxicated individuals, unarmed suspects fleeing minor crime scenes and people who fail to comply immediately with a command.” We're joined now by the executive director of Amnesty International, William Schultz. Welcome to Democracy Now! WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Pleasure to be with you. AMY GOODMAN: Well, can you talk about this report? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Amnesty International does not oppose tasers across the board. There may well be circumstances where police should use tasers instead of using handguns or wooden batons. The problem is that police has been convinced by Taser International that these are non-lethal weapons. The result is that the police are using them far too frequently in situations that they would never have used lethal weapons in before, against 6-year-old school children, against 71-year-old grandmothers. They are using them far too frequently, and these weapons may well be killing people. They may well not be lethal. Just this past week -- AMY GOODMAN: They may be lethal? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: They may well be lethal. Just this past week, the Summit County medical examiner in Ohio linked tasers to the death of an individual who had been tased three times by the Akron police. Taser International says there is no connection. It says, these people would have died anyway. But we have at least 12 medical examiners or pathologists saying, we think there may well be a question. And all that Amnesty is saying is very simple: Let's find out. Let's have an independent medical examination systematically determine whether these are dangerous weapons or not, and if they are dangerous, then let's have the police adopt appropriate protocols, guidelines, and restrictions for their use. JUAN GONZALEZ: Now your report documents cases where people, who were subjected to a taser, to being shot with tasers, ended up dying. But do you touch on the issue that some police forces raise, that the use of tasers has lead to a reduction of the amount of lethal force used, in other words, firearms being shot at individuals? Although, I know it is hard to compare but has there been a significant reduction in the use of lethal methods by police? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Well, I think until we know whether indeed tasers are also a lethal weapon, it is hard to tell the answer to that question. What we know for sure is that a police department that might have its officers drawing their guns out of their holsters, their handguns six times a month may well now be tasing someone 1,000 times a month. Now if tasers are in fact designed to be non-lethal alternatives to the use of force, why is it that time and again we are seeing tasers used in circumstances that police would never have used handguns or wooden batons? AMY GOODMAN: You -- JUAN GONZALEZ: I'm sorry. AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead. JUAN GONZALEZ: In terms of this whole issue of now tasers being marketed to the public in general, and for $1,000 a piece, what are the restrictions that already exist on the books in various states on this? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Well, in most states, there are virtually no restrictions. It is true that in some states, if you buy a taser from a gun shop, you have to go through a background check. On the other hand, you can buy an M-18 taser off the internet without any kind of background check whatsoever. And so we face a situation where absolutely anyone can buy a taser without training, without having to be forced to go through any kind of restrictive regimen at all. They can use them against their children, we've seen this happening already, use them against their spouses, against their elderly parents, against the police. And this is one reason that Amnesty joins with most police departments in calling for the absolute ban on sale of tasers to civilians. AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what tasers and stun guns are and how they're alike and how they're different? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Well, a taser is a weapon that fires a dart that is attached to a wire from the gun to the victim, to the subject, and the prongs of the arrow, of the end of the taser, embed themselves in the body of the victim, such that an electric shock of up to 50,000 volts is sustained. For the police version, it is a five-second shock, but it can be repeated any number of times. And I might say parenthetically that many of the deaths we've seen are with the repeated use of tasers. The civilian versions are a little different. They inflict a 10-second shock. When you repeat it, you can shock for up to 30 seconds with a civilian version of tasers. It is even, in that sense, a tougher weapon than the police weapon. Stun guns are -- don't have this connecting wire. They often have to be applied directly to the body and, therefore, can't be applied at a distance. AMY GOODMAN: What about this campaign? And I’m sorry Taser [International] didn't join us or offer up a representative but what about Taser's campaign now to push tasers to civilians, to consumers? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Well, I personally and Amnesty International finds that outrageous. As I say, there may well be some circumstances under which for the police it is a very appropriate alternative to the use of a handgun. Obviously Amnesty would rather see someone taken down through an electric shock that doesn't do any harm than through a gun that can kill the person, of course that's true. That's common sense. But Taser is clearly misrepresenting the nature of its weapon and it is now trying to propagate this weapon throughout the population. I think we have enough child abuse and spousal abuse and attacks on the police without giving the public still one more weapon. JUAN GONZALEZ: We're also joined on the phone by John Burris, who is a civil rights attorney representing the family of Greg Saulsbury, killed by police with taser guns in January of this year in Pacifica, California. Burress is also looking into representing families of two other victims killed by tasers. Welcome to Democracy Now! JOHN BURRIS: Yeah. Good morning. JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you tell us the circumstances of your client's death as a result of a taser shooting? JOHN BURRIS: Yes. Gregory Saulsbury, African American male, 30 years old, was at home with his family. He was acting bizarre, to say the least. The family was very concerned about his mental and emotional welfare. He was being sort of contained within a family room when the father of Gregory Saulsbury asked the family to call the paramedics, specifically to call paramedics so that he can get some medical treatment. Within about three to five minutes, the police arrived at the door without the paramedics. The family advised the police that they did not need their assistance, they needed paramedics. The police basically said we're going to handle this first and young Gregory looked up, saw the police. When he stood up and when he did that, the police bum rushed him, if you will, attacked him, jumped on top of him. Three or four officers and they immediately began to taser him and repeatedly tased him for a period of time. The father was saying to them, what are you doing? The young man was essentially saying, dad, they're killing me, they're killing me. He was responding to the electrical shock. The police ultimately removed the father from the room and the young man died there in the room. He had been repeatedly shot multiple times by the taser. So, we have since then, of course, looked at this whole case. I think one of the issues that's been raised is, there is this argument that the person would have died anyway. You know, when I look at that and I hear that, I have two other cases I’ve looked at, you will find basically healthy young people, people with no previous history of heart conditions, they are either under the influence of drugs or they're very excited, they've been running, etc. And it raises a real question about if you know that's the case and you are giving people electrical shock when they are in an excited situation, whether or not you should do that at all. Now we've had a second autopsy performed on Mr. Saulsbury, the results have not come back. We certainly do not believe that this 30-year-old African American male, who otherwise is in good health, would have died, notwithstanding anything if the tasing had not been done. Our view is that the taser was inappropriately used; he was repeatedly shocked. He was unarmed, essentially it was an enclosed situation. He had no weapon, he didn't have a t-shirt on and there were no circumstances where deadly force would have been used at all and thus it should not have been used. There were a lot of other ways to approach this but I think that the issue that we're seeing with the taser is that it is being used unnecessarily, under circumstances to take care of every condition and even if no deadly force would have been used, even if batons wouldn’t have been used, they are essentially being substituted as a way to take care of every situation regardless of whether or not force was warranted or not. AMY GOODMAN: John Burris, civil rights attorney and William Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International. We'll be right back in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are William Schultz, the executive director of Amnesty International. We're also joined on the phone by John Burris, who is representing the family of a man killed after a taser gun was used on him by police. William Schultz, is Amnesty calling for a moratorium on or a ban on the police use of stun guns and tasers, in particular? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: We're calling for a moratorium on the police use of tasers until those systemic, independent medical tests have been undertaken and we know what kind of restriction or protocols ought to be adopted by the police. JUAN GONZALEZ: Taser, of course, is the firm that got quite a bit of attention a few months ago when Bernard Kerik was nominated by President Bush to be head of Homeland Security. He was on the board of Taser. WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Yes, that's right. JUAN GONZALEZ: And apparently he and several other executives of the members of the board of directors all sold their shares, their options in Taser just before The New York Times article was about to come out that would document some of these problems and the company stock has since had a major hit as a result of all of these allegations. Your sense of this situation, the situation of the company itself right now? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Well, I'm really not qualified to comment on the economic health of the company. Of course, Amnesty's interests here have nothing to do with whether Taser prospers or not. Ours are solely human rights related. I will say that I think that the more deaths that occur in propinquity to the time when a taser was used on a subject, the more that happens, the more lawsuits you are going to see, the more reticence you are going to see, as we already are, on the part of police departments and city councils around this country to adopt tasers. That's why I think it behooves Taser International to join us in calling for independent tests, by something like the institutes of health, for example, or an independent research institute connected with the university's medical school. Because I think we all need to know the truth. JUAN GONZALEZ: To your knowledge, are there any other countries that use tasers for their local law enforcement? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Well, certainly stun guns are widely used around the world. In fact, stun guns are one of the most common instruments of torture, and Amnesty has regularly documented their use in many, many countries for the purposes of torture, and other police departments in different parts of world do use stun guns to the extent to which Taser International has exported tasers. I think we need to ask them. AMY GOODMAN: John Burris, you wanted to comment? JOHN BURRIS: I just want to say that there is a growing body of medical knowledge out here that really has raised real questions about the impact that the taser has on one's heart. A cardiologist here in the University of California, San Francisco, was very clear that under certain circumstances, you can clearly initiate a cardiac arrhythmia in a person who was otherwise healthy, given the amount and the number of times it that a taser has been issued, and I think that that is going more and more. We're seeing more in terms of pathologists. And if you -- the important part for me as a civil rights lawyer is the city and the municipalities who are using this, are they being placed on notice? And notwithstanding what Taser is doing, municipalities ought to take another look because they are now being placed on notice. The more these deaths occur and the more they're being employed without clear guidelines, not only to the officers themselves, and some kind of protocol to set forth, the cities themselves and police agencies are really setting themselves up for major damages, notwithstanding what Taser does because they now have to go back to Taser and should say to Taser, you have told us these things are proper, but what about these kinds of conditions where people are dying, and what do you say about that? And tell us how this particular weapon does not create this increased risk of harm and potential death to the various people under certain kind of conditions? Until that happens, I think we’re going to have a flood of lawsuits, and it’s going to endanger many more cities than otherwise should be based upon this propaganda campaign that has been -- and these sort of goods they’ve been sold by Taser. JUAN GONZALEZ: Finally, I'd like to ask William Schultz, in your study of the various taser incidents, did you notice any racial or ethnic disparities in the use of the taser weapon by these police departments or is it just generally across the board excessive use? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: It's -- taser is an equal opportunity inflictor of suffering. AMY GOODMAN: And children. Talking about a handcuffed 9-year-old girl in Arizona who was tasered. A 6-year-old mentally disturbed boy in Florida? WILLIAM SCHULTZ: That's right. We tracked a number of cases where one cannot imagine that had the police been faced with this problem, with a 6-year-old, 9-year-old, 71-year-old grandmother, that they would have drawn their guns and shot the person. If they had, there would have been an enormous outrage about that. This is a beautiful example of how the police are using these weapons too frequently and on inappropriate subjects. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, John Burris, for joining us, civil rights attorney representing the families of one of the people who were killed after a taser was used on them. And William Schultz, just asking you to stay for one minute. You have come out with a number of other reports, particularly I'd like to just ask you briefly about the latest in Togo and what you have found. WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Well, Togo is a fascinating situation because, of course, the son of the former president seized power there with the support of the military in violation of the Togolese constitution, which called for the head of the parliament to become president. And after some pressure, united pressure by other African leaders, something that we have rarely seen before, there have begun to be some steps to reverse that. The president has announced that there will be elections, whether they will be fair elections, we don't know yet. There certainly needs to be intervention there in the form of election monitors. The president – the son of the president clearly wants to stay in power. But at least the African community is stepping up to the plate in this respect in ways that they haven't always before. On the other hand, they haven't yet confronted Robert Mugabe, who is perhaps a far more important despot whose reign is affecting far more people than Togo. Togo is, of course, one of the smallest countries in Africa. Zimbabwe is one of the most important countries in Africa and it behooves the African community to be just as outspoken about Robert Mugabe's violations as it has been against those in Togo. AMY GOODMAN: Well, William Schultz, I want to thank you very much for being with us -------- iraq 25 Killed as Insurgents in Iraq Carry Out a Wave of Attacks February 25, 2005 By EDWARD WONG The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/international/middleeast/25iraq.html TIKRIT, Iraq, Feb. 24 - Insurgents unleashed a wave of attacks across central and northern Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 25 people and injuring dozens, less than a week after two days of suicide attacks left more than 70 people dead. In the most lethal assault on Thursday, a suicide bomber detonated a car packed with explosives at police headquarters here in Saddam Hussein's hometown, killing at least 10 Iraqis and wounding at least 35, American military officials said. The blast set nearby cars ablaze and could be heard for miles. The bomber was apparently wearing a police uniform, underscoring the fact that insurgents have infiltrated Iraqi security forces and have stolen equipment from the Iraqi police and military. The explosion took place on a day when senior Iraqi security officials met with the top American general in Iraq and other American commanders here, but it is unclear whether the attack was timed to coincide with the meeting. Elsewhere, two American soldiers were killed in separate incidents by roadside bombs, the deadliest type of weapon employed by insurgents against the American military. But most of the day's fatalities were Iraqis, and most were in the so-called Sunni triangle, where opposition to the American presence and the Iraqi government run high. The violence indicated that the insurgency, led by the formerly governing Sunni Arabs, has not quieted down despite the elections. In fact, the vote on Jan. 30 may have left the Sunni Arabs feeling more disenfranchised than ever, since potential Sunni voters and politicians largely boycotted the electoral process, allowing the long-oppressed Shiites and Kurds to seize an overwhelming majority of seats in the constitutional assembly. As the victorious politicians jockey to form a new government, they will have to confront one of the toughest problems plaguing Iraq: how to bring recalcitrant Sunni Arabs into the political process and persuade them to lay down their arms and accept their minority status in the new society. Shiite and Kurdish leaders have said they intend to give senior positions in the incoming government to Sunni Arabs. Some of the attacks on Thursday raised the specter of sectarian civil violence, as did the violence last Friday and Saturday, when insurgents repeatedly attacked Shiite pilgrims during major religious celebrations. In the insurgent stronghold of Iskandariya, south of the capital, a suicide car bomber blew himself up in front of the office of a prominent Shiite political party, killing at least five people, including three police officers and a child, The Associated Press reported, citing government officials. The Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, won a large share of seats in the 275-member constitutional assembly and is expected to be a powerful force in the new government. Sunni Arab politicians hold only a tiny percentage of seats, and there are concerns that they might be ignored in the new government. That could further fuel the insurgency. Other attacks on Thursday included two roadside bomb explosions in the embattled Sunni city of Qaim, near the Syrian border, killing four Iraqi national guardsmen, The A.P. reported. Another roadside bomb in the northern oil center of Kirkuk killed at least two policemen and injured three. In Baghdad, gunmen opened fire inside a bakery, killing two people and wounding a third. The bombing here in Tikrit took place at 9 a.m., during a shift change at police headquarters. Charred body parts and twisted strips of blackened metal from automobiles were flung across the scene. American soldiers occupying Mr. Hussein's former palace complex, a few miles away on a bluff overlooking the Tigris, could hear the explosion. "We certainly heard it," said Capt. Robert Giordano, a spokesman for the 42nd Infantry Division. "It was a big one." The meeting here between senior American commanders and Iraqi officials included Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, and Falah al-Naqib, the Iraqi interior minister. Until a little more than a week ago, this city and the northern part of the Sunni triangle were controlled by the First Infantry Division. Though the insurgency is not as entrenched here as in western Anbar Province or the besieged northern city of Mosul, violence appears persistent. Salahuddin Province, which includes Tikrit and the troubled city of Samarra, had more attacks than any other province from late December to late January, according to a report from a Western security company. On Feb. 14, the First Infantry Division handed control to the 42nd Infantry Division, composed mostly of National Guard members and Army reservists. American commanders have said insurgents often try to step up attacks when military units transfer authority, as a way of testing the strength of the arriving unit. The two soldiers killed on Thursday were from Task Force Liberty, headed by the 42nd Infantry Division. One died when at least two bombs detonated north of Samarra at 9 a.m., military officials in Tikrit said. Two soldiers were wounded in the blast. Another soldier died in an explosion near the town of Qaryat in Diyala Province, northeast of Baghdad. Diyala is a mixed Sunni and Shiite Arab region that has long resisted the American military and Iraqi security forces. The American military said Thursday that it was still investigating an incident on Nov. 13 in which a marine appeared to have shot a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a mosque in Falluja during a major American invasion of the city. The shooting was captured on video by Kevin Sites, a cameraman for NBC News, and subsequently broadcast by several television news networks. The military said its investigation would determine whether the marine "acted in self-defense, violated military law or failed to comply with the law of armed conflict." -------- pakistan / india India to raise defence budget, eyes new arms Friday February 25, 2005 The News International, Pakistan http://jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2005-daily/25-02-2005/main/main16.htm NEW DELHI: India is expected to increase annual defence expenditure by at least 10 per cent to pay for a modernisation programme, military experts said on Thursday, before next week’s federal budget. India is looking to wrap up a long running deal this year to buy six submarines from France and advanced rocket launcher systems from Russia, despite the lessening of tensions with Pakistan. New Delhi has also sought bids for 126 new combat planes for its accident-prone air force, and this week hosted a US defence team making a presentation on the expensive Patriot anti-missile system. "We are in the middle of a modernisation programme, and you would expect the government to sustain it. There would be a modest increase in the budget," said Uday Bhaskar, who heads the government-funded Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Finance Minister P Chidambaram, who will present the budget for 2005-06 (April/March) on Monday, set defence expenditure at Rs 770 billion ($17.5 billion) last year — a rise of nearly 17 per cent compared with the previous year. -------- un Straw reiterates support for India’s UNSC bid Friday February 25, 2005 By Shahed Sadullah The News International, Pakistan http://jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2005-daily/25-02-2005/main/main10.htm LONDON: Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated here on Wednesday that Britain supported the Indian bid for a permanent UN Security Council seat, although his government was not in favour of any new permanent members being given veto powers. Speaking exclusively to The News, the foreign secretary, who appeared reluctant to come out with an unequivocal answer on the question of British support for India on its bid for a permanent UNSC seat, said the UN had started with some 44 countries when there were five permanent members of the Security Council and now that it had 191 members, some reform of the Security Council was due.Asked about support for India’s membership of the council when India stood in violation of the same council’s resolutions, the foreign secretary stated that it was his opinion that most people wanted peace and progress in Kashmir. There could be little argument over that! The foreign secretary’s statement is in direct contradiction to an assurance given by the Chairperson of the All-Party Kashmir Parliamentary Group in the House of Commons, Labour MP Lorna Fitzsimons, who had less than 48 hours earlier categorically stated that Britain was not supporting India to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Speaking at a meeting organised by her in honour of the visiting AJK Opposition leader Barrister Sultan Mehmood in the House of Commons late on Tuesday, in which MPs Mohammad Sarwar, Khalid Mehmood, Gordon Prentice, David Lidington and the Executive Director Kashmir Centre London Prof Nazir Shawl were also present, Fitzsimons had said: "I am absolutely assured that Britain is not supporting India for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council." While this was also reiterated by Straw, who pointed out that it was up to the UN to make a decision in this regard, he left little doubt that India which represented almost a fifth of the world’s population, enjoyed British support in its membership bid as Britain favoured a wider representation on the council. The foreign secretary dispelled any impression that the timing of his visit to India was in any way determined by the visit of the Indian foreign minister to Pakistan, and while he was delighted that the two countries had been able to come to an agreement on the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar bus service, he emphasised that both India and Pakistan were sovereign states and took these decisions themselves. He, however, added that the interests of both were dear to the British government and that he had been closely involved in affairs in the subcontinent in 2002 when there was a real danger of an armed confrontation between the two countries. He recounted an occasion when he even had to interrupt his Christmas dinner to speak to US Secretary of State Colin Powell to discuss the India-Pakistan issue. During that year, Straw pointed out, he had made three trips to the south Asian subcontinent. Straw said knowing Natwar Singh and Khurshid Kasuri as he did, he was certain that both had worked very hard to achieve this agreement. -------- us Marine Corps creating training unit to aid local militaries in foreign hot spots By Jon R. Anderson, Stars and Stripes European edition, Friday, February 25, 2005 http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26524&archive=true WASHINGTON — Taking a page from the Army’s special forces playbook, the Marine Corps is creating a unit designed to train local militaries in hot spots around the world, according to the commandant. “We’re now in the process of standing up a training unit within the Marine Corps,” Gen. Mike Hagee told a gathering of reporters Thursday in Washington. Tentatively dubbed the Foreign Military Training Unit, the new organization will come in the wake of several training missions the Corps has taken on in recent years in far-flung locations such as Niger, Chad and the former Soviet republic of Georgia. “It’s a capability that we’ve had, we’ve just never had a unit devoted to this,” said Hagee. The FMTUs will be built in partnership with the Army special forces and the joint U.S. Special Operations Training Command. Indeed, FMTUs will be treading into one of special forces’ core missions — gunfighters with intensive language training and culture savvy, capable of quickly inserting into a trouble spot to train up local forces. “One of the things we don’t have that the Green Berets have are all these language skills,” said Hagee. “So, this is going to be a joint effort, especially initially when we’re going to be looking for help from them on some of the language skills and some of the cultural understanding.” Hagee said the unit will be manned with about 400 Marines and will probably be based on the East Coast. Plans call for the unit to be fully operational by the end of the year. The FMTUs will fall under another new Security Cooperation Education Training Center based at Quantico, Va., according to a Marine spokesman. Meanwhile, Hagee said he was discussing with Special Operations Command chief Army Gen. Ryan Brown the creation of a Marine Corps special operations headquarters to fit under Brown’s command. Currently, the Marine Corps is the only service to not have a “component command” under SOCOM. “I have to be honest,” said Hagee. “I don’t like headquarters upon headquarters upon headquarters. But sometimes there’s a purpose for a headquarters, and that’s what we’re looking at right now.” Both initiatives come as the service looks to add 3,000 Marines to active rolls this year. If approved by Congress, that would bring the Corps’ strength to 178,000 troops. The manpower infusion will allow the Marines also to create two new infantry battalions and add more Light Armored Vehicle units. Hagee said the first infantry battalion will be based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., under the II Marine Expeditionary Force by the end of the year. He said it was still unclear where the second infantry battalion would go. The biggest hurdle in standing the new units up, he said, was not finding enough Marines to fill the battalions but having adequate facilities for them to live and work. Funds earmarked in the Bush administration’s $80 billion supplemental funding request now being considered by Congress will build new barracks and support buildings, he said. ---- Exercise near Bragg causes two schools to close temporarily Associated Press February 25, 2005 http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-685193.php ASHEBORO, N.C. — Two schools in Randolph County, N.C., shut down for nearly a half-hour Thursday after getting reports that armed camouflaged soldiers were nearby. The soldiers were taking part in Operation Robin Sage, a military training exercise for Special Forces troops out of Fort Bragg. A soldier died while participating in a similar exercise because of poor communication between the military and local officials. Officials of Balfour Elementary School and North Asheboro Middle School weren’t notified the soldiers would be training near the schools, The Courier-Tribune of Asheboro reported. Local law-enforcement officers are usually informed of the military’s plans for a range of exercises, including mock assaults, kidnappings and reconnaissance. The Asheboro Police Department knew about Wednesday’s plans but not Thursday’s. A similar lapse in February 2002 resulted in the death 1st Lt. Tallas Tomeny, 31, of Montgomery, Ala., after a confrontation with a Moore County sheriff’s deputy who didn’t know about the training exercise. The deputy had stopped a pickup truck carrying Tomeny and Sgt. Stephen Phelps, who were wearing civilian clothes. The soldiers tried to disarm the deputy, apparently believing he was part of the exercise, and the deputy shot them. Following the shootings, the military developed new rules for the exercises, including a promise to communicate better with local officials. Participating civilian police and deputies were instructed to wear identifying blue hats and blue armbands during the exercise. Officials at Fort Bragg did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Thursday night. School-resource officer Linda Garner of North Asheboro got a report about 1 p.m. of three armed men in camouflage heading toward the school. The school immediately went into lockdown while Garner called 911. She was informed of the military exercise and requested confirmation. Nearby Balfour was also locked down for about 25 minutes until Garner received verification. “I think a lot of the students just thought it was a drill,” Garner said. “We have them frequently.” Carla Freemeyer, public information officer for Asheboro City Schools, said the schools were not aware of the military plans. However, she said officials were pleased that lockdown prodigals were successfully followed. Asheboro Police Capt. Timmy Lee said the soldiers were trying to reach a business. “We don’t know if they got lost or if they even knew they were getting close to a school,” he said. On Wednesday, an employee of Randolph Oil on Asheboro reported a kidnapping outside of her business, unaware that it was a staged training exercise. Police were already nearby and quickly reconciled the matter, Lee said. ---- Lawmakers battle over size of US forces By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington Published: February 25 2005 23:38 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a66e4b0e-8784-11d9-ab48-00000e2511c8.html As the US struggles to defeat the insurgency in Iraq and maintain its commitments around the globe, Congress is grappling with the issue of whether the Pentagon should increase the size of its armed forces. Lawmakers have already authorised the Pentagon to use emergency war budgets to increase temporarily the size of the army by 30,000 to 512,000 soldiers. But Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, has opposed legislative changes that would force the army to increase permanently its so-called “end strength”. Mr Rumsfeld says it would be premature to expand the military while the Pentagon was transforming the army into lighter and more easily deployable units he says will increase efficiencies in the military. “For the present, we have all the flexibility that is needed under the emergency provisions,” Mr Rumsfeld told Congress last week. The Pentagon hopes the Iraqi security forces being trained will gradually reduce the burden on US forces. However, the Bush administration has resisted outlining a timetable for a US military withdrawal from Iraq. During last year's presidential race, John Kerry, the Democrat challenger, briefly forced President George W. Bush on to the defensive by suggesting that the White House was considering introducing the draft. While talk of conscription has since disappeared, lawmakers are increasingly arguing that Mr Rumsfeld should budget for a larger army now, saying that the Pentagon could always reduce numbers later if the efficiencies from transformation were sufficient. “Rumsfeld has deliberately manipulated the semantics in a very deliberate way because what it makes it sound like is that opponents want to set in stone a change to the size of the ground forces that will never be reconsidered, and of course that is nonsense,” said Michael O'Hanlon, defence analyst at the Brookings Institution. In response to questions from Democrats on the Senate armed services committee last month, Paul Wolf-owitz, deputy defence secretary, appeared to signal that the increasing strain on the military was causing the Pentagon to consider asking Congress to budget for apermanent increase in 2007. But the Pentagon saysMr Wolfowitz spoke out of turn. “Paul Wolfowitz in his exchange with Senator Clinton . . . realises that he may have left an incorrect impression, and is taking steps with the committee to clarify the matter for the record,” said Larry Di Rita, Pentagon spokesman. “The army is uncertain as to how large a force it needs as it works through its redesign,” Mr Di Rita added. Mr Rumsfeld has also received advice from the Defence Science Board, a panel of defence experts and academics appointed by the Pentagon, which last August concluded that the US would either have to increase the size of the armed forces or scale back its stabilisation missions. Increasingly impatient with the Pentagon, some lawmakers have introduced legislation to force the Pentagon to increase the size of the military. Jack Reed, a Democrat senator, and Chuck Hagel, a moderate Republican senator, are proposing adding money to the 2006 Pentagon budget to boost the army by 30,000 soldiers a move the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says would cost $2.5bn (€1.9bn, £1.3bn) in 2006. It would also reduce stress on the National Guard and reserves. In addition to stretching the active military, the conflicts in Iraq have placed enormous strains on the reserves and the National Guard, which is at its busiest since the second world war, according to John Goheen, spokesman for the National Guard Association. More than half the 460,000 guard members, for example, have been deployed since the September 11 2001 attacks. Heavy reliance on the guard can be seen by the fact that 170 guard members have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, whereas they had no fatalities during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq in 1991. “There is certainly a strain on the guard . . . thequestion is at what point does the strain reach a breaking point,” said Mr Goheen. “The consensus would be that we have not reached that point yet; however, we cannot continue like this a great deal longer.” -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence Port Authority to Improve Airport Security Inspections February 25, 2005 By PATRICK McGEEHAN The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/nyregion/25airport.html The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, embarrassed by a recent series of security gaffes, agreed yesterday to spend an additional $105 million to try to make its three major airports safer and to speed the journey from the curb to the gate. The bulk of the money, $80 million, will go toward strengthening the borders of the airports -Kennedy International, La Guardia and Newark Liberty International - by installing new systems for detecting intruders. An additional $14 million will be spent to install closed-circuit camera systems, similar to those used to spot cheaters in casinos, at all security checkpoints. The most noticeable and, probably, most welcome changes would be for customers of Continental Airlines at Newark's Terminal C, where passengers must now go through a three-step process to check in: ticketing, luggage scanning and personal screening. Under the proposal approved by the authority's board of commissioners, Continental would move the existing luggage scanning machines behind the ticket counters, where bags will receive more scrutiny, said William DeCota, the director of aviation. Within 90 days, Mr. DeCota said, Continental should also install three new machines to scan luggage at the check-in counter before the bags move onto the larger machines behind the scenes. Those smaller screeners should be able to sense whether anything inside is likely to explode, Mr. DeCota said. Because the machines are more sensitive than those currently in use, he said, only about 1 percent of the passengers will require a more thorough search at check-in. Anthony Coscia, the chairman of the Port Authority, said the security enhancements would put the agency "literally at the front of the class" in providing safe air travel. But, he added, "I caution everybody about thinking that we have solved the problem. Everyone in this system has to do a lot more." The Newark airport has lately been plagued by security lapses, the most recent coming two weeks ago when a butcher knife in a woman's purse went undetected by screeners in Terminal A. In December, a fake bomb used to test security in Terminal C slipped by the screeners and wound up on a flight to Amsterdam. Mistakes like those left Port Authority officials fuming about the federal Transportation Security Administration, which supervises the screening of passengers and baggage at airports. In October, Mr. Coscia wrote to Rear Adm. David Stone, chief of the administration, demanding improvements to security at Newark. "Admiral Stone was very responsive," said Mr. Coscia, who met with him two weeks ago in Washington. He added that the administration and Continental had agreed to pay for the new baggage-screening system. The board of commissioners also approved a $75 million contract to build a five-level parking garage across from Terminal 8 at Kennedy and $48 million to soundproof 30 schools near the airports. Of the $48 million, $14.4 million would be spent on Beach Channel High School in Rockaway Park and $13.9 million on Kearny High School in Kearny, N.J., according to a presentation by Mr. DeCota. The board also approved, without comment, the assumption of a contract for commuter ferry service across the Hudson River by the BillyBey Ferry Company, formed by William B. Wachtel, a Manhattan lawyer. The agreement supersedes one that the Port Authority had with New York Waterway, the ferry operator that fell into financial distress. New York Waterway would have paid the authority as much as $3.5 million over the next five years, but Mr. Wachtel's company will pay only about a third of that, the authority said. It added that the new operator had pledged not to raise fares for the first six months. -------- prisons / prisoners Terror Suspect's Family Protests Jail Rules February 25, 2005 By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES DAO The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/national/25terror.html WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 - The parents of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the American student accused of plotting the assassination of President Bush, said Thursday that the government was restricting their access to their son by limiting what they could tell the public about their jailhouse conversations. But Justice Department officials said the jailhouse restrictions under consideration were standard in terrorism cases as a way of preventing jailed suspects from passing coded messages to outside accomplices. Prosecutors have imposed tight restrictions on about a dozen terrorism defendants since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, officials said, including Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a prisoner whose lawyer, Lynne F. Stewart, was convicted two weeks ago of smuggling messages out of jail. The family of Mr. Abu Ali, who was held without charges for 20 months in Saudi Arabia before United States officials returned him to Virginia on Monday to face charges of providing support to terrorists, said the government asked one of their lawyers to agree to a set of tight conditions before family members could visit him in custody in Alexandria. Family members said they were told that to see Mr. Abu Ali they would have to agree not to discuss anything he told them with the news media, to have an F.B.I. agent present for the meeting and to speak only in English. The family characterized the restrictions as an unfair effort by the Justice Department to silence them. Relatives have complained in the news media in recent months about Mr. Abu Ali's prolonged confinement and possible torture in Saudi Arabia. "I will not sign any papers," Omar Abu Ali, the suspect's father, said Thursday after a court hearing in a lawsuit the family has brought against the United States government. "They're not allowing us to see him - we haven't seen him for three years, we fought this long to get him back, and we deserve to see him." Justice Department officials said relatives would be free to see Mr. Abu Ali if they agreed to the restrictions. "The family has access to the defendant that is consistent with standard procedures in a case that involves national security concerns," said Bryan Sierra, a spokesman for the Justice Department. A department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no agreement has been reached, confirmed the general outline of the jailhouse restrictions the family cited, including a ban on making any comments to reporters about what Mr. Abu Ali tells them. But the official said the department had reached no final decision on what restrictions would be imposed. "If the family says he told them, 'The sky is clear, but it may rain tomorrow,' that could be a message to terrorists," the official said. "They can go out and talk to the media about their son, his innocence, whatever they want, but they have to agree not to convey anything directly from him that could be construed as a message." The official said the department was concerned that even if relatives were not aware they were conveying a coded message, their doing so could help put a plot into effect. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft broadened restrictions for those in custody in terror cases. The "special administrative measures" gave the Justice Department the power to monitor lawyer-client conversations as long as the lawyer was notified in advance. Lawyers for Mr. Abu Ali have been allowed to see him since he was returned to the United States on Monday, but officials said their conversations have not been monitored, and unlike some other defendants in terrorism cases, Mr. Abu Ali was not shackled or confined at the meetings. Defense lawyers said Mr. Abu Ali showed them marks on his back that appeared to be from whippings. Relatives said Thursday that while Mr. Abu Ali was in custody in Saudi Arabia he told them that his jailers in Riyadh had sometimes whipped him for three straight days, kept him in solitary confinement for months, blindfolded him and denied him food. The family maintains as part of its lawsuit that American officials were aware of the abuses and effectively orchestrated his detention with the cooperation of the Saudis. But the Justice Department, in a filing on Wednesday, denied accusations of torture. Prosecutors said Mr. Abu Ali had told United States officials that he had been "well treated" in Saudi custody and that an American doctor who examined him after he was transferred to United States custody found no evidence of physical mistreatment. The Justice Department said the evidence indicated "that the defendant's claims of mistreatment are an utter fabrication intended to divert attention from his criminal involvement with an Al Qaeda cell in Saudi Arabia." In a six-count indictment unsealed on Tuesday, prosecutors charged that Mr. Abu Ali provided material support and resources to terrorists, including technical materials and training, while he was studying in Saudi Arabia in 2002 and 2003. While he is not charged directly with trying to assassinate the president, the indictment says his support of Al Qaeda was "to be used in preparation for, and carrying out, the assassination of the president of the United States." Prosecutors charged that Mr. Abu Ali and a Saudi associate linked to Al Qaeda who has since been killed had talked about ways of having Mr. Abu Ali shoot Mr. Bush or detonate a bomb near him. Mr. Abu Ali's father said Thursday that he considered the charges "all lies." -------- POLITICS -------- corruption Democrats Criticize Social Security Official February 25, 2005 By ANNE E. KORNBLUT The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25social.html WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 - In the midst of a fractious debate over changes to Social Security, a senior official of the agency that administers the program has been joining Republican members of Congress at public events around the country devised to promote personal retirement accounts. James B. Lockhart III, the deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration, said Thursday that he had appeared with four Republican members in recent days to provide information, not to endorse the diversion of some payroll taxes to personal accounts. But several Democrats are objecting to Mr. Lockhart's role in an aggressive campaign to promote administration proposals for restructuring Social Security. "The administration is running one of the most sophisticated grassroots lobbying strategies in history, and they are using federal employees and taxpayer dollars to do it," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey. "Social Security employees should be spending their time serving the needs of Social Security recipients, not advancing a political agenda." Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said the agency "is supposed to serve all the people and should not be giving the appearance that it is taking sides." "It is absolutely inappropriate for officials from the Social Security Administration to hit the hustings in support of the president's plan," Mr. Schumer said in a statement. In a telephone interview on Thursday from Houston, where Mr. Lockhart took part in a town hall meeting with Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, Mr. Lockhart said his objective was "to help educate the American public about the need for reform in Social Security, and that it should be sooner rather than later." "Personal accounts are one of the alternatives that definitely have to be considered when you're looking at reforming Social Security," he said. "We're trying to be nonpartisan about this," he said. "We're trying to lay out the facts." Mr. Lockhart said he had attended events with Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona, Representative Rob Portman of Ohio and Mr. DeLay - all Republicans who support restructuring the Social Security. Mr. Lockhart said that he had not been invited to appear with any Democrats, but he said that Mary Mahler, the Social Security Administration's communications director for the Chicago region, had attended an event with a Democratic member of Congress over the weekend. Mr. Lockhart's travels come at a time when the administration's efforts to advance its policies are under scrutiny. A few weeks ago, employees at Social Security objected to a publicity drive that they said had twisted facts about the solvency of the system to create an appetite for personal accounts. On Wednesday, a watchdog agency in Washington filed a lawsuit against the Social Security Administration for failing to respond to a request under the Freedom of Information Act about any contracts it has with public relations firms. Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the agency has "a demonstrated pattern of misrepresenting important information to the public" by promoting the notion that the benefits program will be bankrupt by 2042. Although most Democrats agree that the system is in trouble, they dispute the degree and timing of the problems. -------- propaganda wars / press In Russian Media, Free Speech for a Select Few By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 25, 2005; Page A18 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51587-2005Feb24?language=printer If President Bush thought he would receive support from Russian reporters when he raised the cause of free speech, he did not know much about the Kremlin press pool. "What is this lack of freedom all about?" one Russian reporter challenged Bush during his joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday. "Our regional and national media often criticize government institutions." Bush seemed surprised. "Obviously, if you're a member of the Russian press, you feel like the press is free," he replied. "You feel that way? That's good." Bush added, "That is a pretty interesting observation for those of us who don't live in Russia to listen to." The exchange illustrated more about the state of freedom in Russia than met the eye. While Putin travels around with a contingent of reporters just as Bush does, the Kremlin press pool is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin's rules of the game. Helpful questions are often planted. Unwelcome questions are not allowed. And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool. The Kremlin press pool is like so many institutions in Russia that have the trappings of a Western-style pluralistic society but operate under a different set of understandings, part of what analyst Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center calls "the illusion of democracy." Television channels air newscasts with fancy graphics but follow scripts approved by the Kremlin. Elections are held, but candidates out of favor with the Kremlin are often knocked off the ballot. Courts conduct trials, but the state almost never loses. Parliament meets but only to rubber-stamp Kremlin legislation. Putin offered an example of that at the news conference when defending his decision last fall to abolish elections of regional governors. "The leaders of the regions of the Russian Federation will not be appointed by the president," he said. They will be approved by "regional parliaments, which are directly chosen by secret ballot." Putin compared this to the Electoral College, which selects U.S. presidents. "It is not considered undemocratic, is it?" In fact, under the new system, Putin will appoint governors. His selections have to be ratified by regional legislatures, but if such a legislature rejects his choice twice, it will be dissolved. As for secret ballots, Russian regional leaders have proved adept at generating the outcomes they wish. Although some print media in Russia remain lively and critical of the government, coming to Putin's defense at yesterday's news conference in Slovakia were two reporters who belong to the Kremlin press pool. The first was Andrei Kolesnikov, a correspondent for Kommersant, a business newspaper owned by Putin critic Boris Berezovsky. But Kolesnikov just released two books about his time covering Putin that the Kremlin likes. Kolesnikov challenged Bush, asserting that "it's impossible to call Russia or the U.S. fully democratic" and questioned Bush about the "enormous powers of the security services" in the United States that had resulted in "the private lives of citizens falling under the control of the government." The second reporter, who questioned Bush's assertion that Russian media are not free, works for Interfax, a news service that often closely hews the state line. He asked Bush "about violations of the rights of journalists in the United States, about the fact that some journalists have been fired." While he did not specify what he meant, Russian media several years ago highlighted the cases of a couple U.S. journalists at obscure news organs who lost jobs after criticizing Bush's post-Sept. 11 legislation. Bush noted that whenever reporters are fired in the United States, it is not by the government. In Russia, on the other hand, Putin's Kremlin used a state-controlled company to take over the only independent television network, NTV. When the ousted NTV journalists took over a different channel, TV-6, the state shut it down. When they tried again with a network called TVS, Putin's press minister yanked it off the air and replaced it with a sports channel. The general manager installed at NTV after the Kremlin takeover was later fired when his coverage of the Moscow theater siege in 2002 angered Putin. Then NTV's most independent remaining hosts, Leonid Parfyonov and Savik Shuster, were taken off the air after the government bristled at their talk shows. Shuster's show was called "Freedom of Speech." Kolesnikov's predecessor at Kommersant, Yelena Tregubova, was kicked out of the Kremlin press pool because, she said, she would not follow official instructions. She later wrote a tell-all book that peeved the Kremlin. When Parfyonov interviewed her for NTV, the segment was yanked after it had already aired in eastern time zones. When a small bomb exploded outside her apartment door last year, Tregubova fled the country. If Bush does not trust the Russian press to get the story of yesterday's news conference right, he can at least go to the Kremlin's own Web site. On it was posted a transcript of the joint news conference. Only all of Bush's statements and answers were deleted. ---- Liars and Cheats In his new book, When Presidents Lie, Eric Alterman describes the four biggest lies ever told in the Oval Office. By Paul Waldman American Prospect Online 02.25.05 http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9244 In October of 1962, upon being caught in a direct and unambiguous lie -- that the Pentagon knew of no offensive weapons in Cuba, when in fact Defense Department officials were debating whether to invade the island in order to remove those very weapons -- Arthur Sylvester, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, made the audacious claim, “It’s inherent in [the] government’s right, if necessary, to lie to save itself.” Begging the question of just whom the enemy was, Sylvester added, “News generated by the actions of the government … [are] part of the arsenal of weaponry that a president has.” Like so many before and since, the Kennedy administration seemed to conflate its own political advantage and the public good. Those of us who have written polemics against one president or another are prone to believe that our target is the worst liar to have ever sat in the Oval Office. This conclusion may come from a detailed examination of a particular president’s record, but as often as not it springs from the usually unstated premise that lies in the service of goals with which we disagree are inherently worse than lies told to advance more worthy ends. (Of course, one may also be correct; after all, some president has to be the worst.) Though he is no stranger to the polemic, Eric Alterman -- a Nation columnist and author of What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News and The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America (with Mark Green) -- attempts to sidestep partisan questions in his most recent book, When Presidents Lie: A History of Deception and its Consequences, not only by going after Democratic presidents but by stating outright that his goal is not to “take the president or his advisers to task for the morality or even the hypocrisy of their lies,” but to “focus exclusively on the real-life consequences of the lies, in terms of both the policies the presidents pursued and the debased discourse they inspired.” Alterman narrows his focus to four cases where the president lied to the country about matters of war and peace: Franklin Delano Roosevelt misrepresenting the Yalta Agreement to hide the fact that he had essentially consented to postwar Soviet domination of Eastern Europe; John F. Kennedy concealing the fact that he had ended the Cuban missile crisis by making a deal with Nikita Khrushchev to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba; Lyndon Johnson using the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which by the most credible accounts never really occurred, to begin the Vietnam War in earnest; and Ronald Reagan misleading the country about the substance of the Iran-Contra affair and his involvement in it. All lies are, of course, not created equal. Some, like Reagan’s, are told to cover up criminal activity that is utterly indefensible once brought to light. Others, like Kennedy’s concealment of the deal on the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, hide actions that are eminently reasonable but carry political risks. But Alterman’s point is that lies almost inevitably lead to more lies -- “The more a leader lies to his people, the more he must lie to his people” -- and that the consequences for policy prove disastrous. This may be a tad too deterministic; after all, for all we know there may be still-hidden cases in which a president lied, the lie was contained, and everything turned out splendidly. Alterman cites plenty of deceptions that were either strategically unnecessary or simply a function of one or another individual’s own personal feelings, such as Kennedy’s efforts to discredit Adlai Stevenson after the Cuban missile crisis, seemingly born more of personal antipathy than anything else. But perhaps the most troubling thing that emerges from the stories Alterman tells is the degree to which lying infects large parts of the executive branch. Once the president lies, those around him begin to lie as well, and dishonesty spreads like a cancer. Ironically, the case of Johnson and Vietnam, in which the official lies were most abundant, may be the one in which the original lie mattered least. When Alterman details just how dishonest the Johnson administration was about nearly every detail of the burgeoning war, the reader ends up questioning how much the Tonkin Gulf incident really mattered in the end. Were it not for the Tonkin Gulf, Johnson could easily have found another excuse to proclaim the villainy of the Vietnamese communists, and Congress would almost surely have gone along as it did. The cascade of deception that followed was not, as is so often the case, in the service of preventing the original lie from being discovered. Many of the lies Alterman documents seem to come in the form of assuring the public that a disastrous policy was not only a good idea in the first place but is going well at the moment -- we’re making progress in Vietnam, our allies in Central America aren’t really massacring civilians, etc. The exception is the Cuban missile crisis, which, particularly compared with the other events Alterman discusses, turned out pretty well in the end. While it may be true that the crisis established a standard of manly toughness vis-à-vis communism that the tormented Johnson wasted thousands of lives trying to live up to, Vietnam might just as well have occurred as it did regardless. But the central deception of the Cuban missile crisis -- that it was resolved not through a clever and wise negotiation but by showing the Soviets that we were tough and strong until they limped back home in defeat -- had ramifications that were mostly symbolic. Alterman argues that the “lessons” of Munich, Yalta, and Cuba -- respectively, that our enemies cannot be “appeased,” that communists cannot be trusted, and that our enemies will back down if we show sufficient backbone -- “formed the intellectual DNA of U.S. foreign policy and the American people’s understanding of the world.” Indeed, in the months preceding the Iraq War, one finds references to Munich turning up in American media at a rate of well over 10 per day. Alterman concludes the book with a chapter on George W. Bush and the “post-truth presidency,” an apt assessment of where we have come to. Seeing as Alterman began the book many years ago as a graduate dissertation, it is not too surprising that Bush’s presidency provides only a brief coda. But Bush’s relationship to the truth and its consequences for our politics are worthy of lengthier contemplation. Two things distinguish Bush from his predecessors on the subject of lying. First, Bush’s grandest lies have not been about covering up what has already happened but about persuading the public to go along with what he has decided to do but has yet to implement. Tax cuts, Iraq, now Social Security -- each major policy move has been accompanied by a campaign of deception. Lying is not a defensive reaction to a crisis but a carefully crafted strategy. Second, and perhaps most troubling, is that Bush seems unconcerned about getting caught. Indeed, the administration’s damn-the-torpedoes fearlessness is the source of much of its political success. That it would actually hire, along with a series of other Iran-Contra figures, a perjurer like Elliot Abrams -- who has recently been promoted to deputy national-security adviser in charge of democracy promotion, of all things -- is testimony to its utter audacity. Go ahead, these officials seem to be saying, call us a bunch of liars -- we really don’t care. One of the common threads running through this history is that in case after case, the press went along with whatever the administration told it. Watergate may have temporarily cured reporters of this credulousness, but the remission lasted only so long. When the history of the Bush administration is written, the abject cowardice of the press in confronting an administration that held it in undisguised contempt and lied in its face will be one of the most depressing chapters. As citizens, we have no defense from official deception but the reporters who are tasked with discovering the truth and holding presidents to account on our behalf. As Alterman writes, if public officials “feel free to lie to the press -- and, by extension, the nation -- with impunity, then democracy becomes pseudo-democracy, as the illusion of accountability replaces the real thing.” Even when they have mustered the courage to point out fabrications in a story buried on page A19, the media’s mighty arrows of truth telling have bounced off this White House like a child’s toy with defective suction cups. “In each case,” Alterman says about Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Reagan, “the president or his party was made to pay for his deceptions along with the country they so cavalierly misled.” As of yet, not only has neither Bush nor his party paid a price for the lies about Iraq but there is little reason to think they will anytime soon. In no small part, the administration is able to evade consequence for its mendacity because its supporters have adopted a siege mentality, hunkered behind the castle walls of their loyalty to the president. Presented with irrefutable evidence that the war in Iraq was sold on a series of deceptions, many of them simply stick their fingers in their ears and chant, “La la la, I can’t hear you.” According to the University of Maryland’s Project on International Policy Attitudes, just before the 2004 election, 47 percent of Bush supporters believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and another 26 percent thought it had a major weapons program. Three out of four Bush supporters also thought Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda. These people seem to have resolved the cognitive dissonance created by the collision of the truth with their support of Bush by adopting a new set of “facts” more in line with what their leader had told them. One trembles to contemplate the lesson of the Bush administration’s deceptions: Admit nothing, even when caught; continue to lie, even after the lie has been exposed; define anyone who questions the lie as an enemy of the nation or, failing that, of “the troops.” If your partisans stand firm (and particularly if your party controls Congress, so no pesky oversight hearings will take place), you can get away with just about anything. As Alterman makes clear, lies have consequences, often in blood. As we hear that forces within the Pentagon are seriously contemplating military action against Iran and Syria, one wonders just what they will tell us to justify the next military adventure. Will we believe them? And will it make a difference? Paul Waldman is editor-in-chief of The Gadflyer (www.gadflyer.com). His latest book is Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn’t Tell You. -------- us politics Senator Critical of Proposal on Filibusters February 25, 2005 By NEIL A. LEWIS The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25judges.html WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 - The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday that his party's proposal to change the Senate's rules if Democrats continued to block President Bush's judicial nominees would wreak havoc in the Senate. Moreover, the chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, suggested that his party might not even have the votes to enact the rules change. Mr. Specter's outspokenness was especially notable coming when Republican leaders were hoping to present a unified front to bolster the credibility of the threat they are brandishing against the Democrats. It is not the first time that Mr. Specter has been at odds with his party. After the November election, party conservatives tried to prevent him from becoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee after he remarked that strongly anti-abortion judicial nominees might be rejected in the Senate. Since becoming chairman, Mr. Specter has tried to position himself as a potential peacemaker on the issue of judicial confirmations. He told reporters that he hoped to persuade his fellow Republicans not to seek a rule change that would allow them to override any filibusters the Democrats might mount to block judicial nominees. He also hoped to persuade Democrats to support some of Mr. Bush's nominees to break a logjam of nearly four years. "I sense there is an interest on both sides of the aisle in trying to work out this issue," he said. Mr. Specter, 75, who recently announced that he has Hodgkin's disease, agrees with his party that Democrats should not have mounted filibusters in Mr. Bush's first term to block 10 appeals court nominees. But he also was the first Republican to assert prominently that his party had behaved badly when it blocked - "slow-walked," he said - many of President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees in an effort to keep them off the bench. "So each side ratcheted it up," he said. "Until you have a situation today which might be accurately characterized as no one wants to back down and no one wants to lose face." The battle over judicial nominations resumes next Tuesday when Mr. Specter will conduct a hearing into the first of Mr. Bush's appeals court candidates since his re-election. The committee, which has a 10-to-8 Republican majority, will hold a hearing on President Bush's nomination of William G. Myers III to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, has said his party might use its majority to declare filibusters out of order on judicial nominations. Such a move is sometimes called the "nuclear option" because it would probably set off retaliation from Democrats that could include shutting down the work of the Senate. Using that option - Republicans now call it the "constitutional option" - would call for 51 votes, a simple majority. The Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate, but the change is considered so drastic that at least some of them might not go along. Mr. Specter said he was going to "exercise every last ounce of my strength to solve this problem without the nuclear option." The Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, has said that if the Republicans made good on their threat and ruled filibusters out of order, he would see to it that Senate business came to a halt. Mr. Specter said Thursday that he took Mr. Reid at his word, saying, "If we come to the nuclear option, the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be in hell." He said that Dr. Frist wanted to avoid a confrontation if he could and that some of the Bush nominees who were blocked might now be confirmed. Mr. Specter said he thought Mr. Myers would be able to attract at least 58 votes in the Senate, just two short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. He said that Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, might be persuaded to vote in favor of the Myers nomination because he has asserted he would vote for conservatives to achieve ideological balance on a liberal court. The Ninth Circuit is generally regarded as a liberal court, and Mr. Myers, a longtime lobbyist for the mining and timber industries, would bring a conservative point of view, Mr. Specter said. Mr. Schumer, while praising Mr. Specter's efforts, said it was unlikely he would vote in favor of Mr. Myers because it did not appear probable that Mr. Bush would nominate some liberals to conservative appeals courts. He said he had already voted to confirm some conservatives to the Ninth Circuit, including Jay S. Bybee, who was recently in the news as the author of an August 2002 Justice Department memorandum narrowly defining torture under a federal law that prohibits it. Only pain like that accompanying "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function" qualifies as torture, Mr. Bybee wrote. Mr. Specter also said it was important to end the antagonism over judges because it was likely that there would soon be a Supreme Court nominee to consider. He said Mr. Bush would reach out to Democrats as he considered Supreme Court candidates. "You need to bring the country together on this nomination if you possibly can," Mr. Specter said. -------- world politics Putin loses his smile after lecture from Bush on democracy By Andrew Osborn in Bratislava The Independent 25 February 2005 http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=614535 President George Bush subjected Russia's Vladimir Putin to a public lecture on the fundamentals of democracy yesterday, injecting a chill into a relationship that has - until now - been characterised by bonhomie. Meeting in the Slovakian capital, Bratislava, Mr Bush emerged from a three-hour meeting with the Russian President joking and smiling and full of warm words. But his frequent references to "Vladimir" and the "fella" were peppered with targeted criticism of the state of democracy in Russia with which the more hawkish members of his administration are said to have lost patience. An unsmiling, visibly irritated Mr Putin squirmed as he listened to Mr Bush tell a press conference he had been told that Washington had "concerns about Russia's commitment in fulfilling" the "universal principles" of democracy. "Democracies always reflect a country's customs and culture, and I know that," Mr Bush said. "Yet democracies have certain things in common; they have a rule of law, and protection of minorities, a free press, and a viable political opposition." Mr Putin had wanted to talk about the two countries' joint efforts to combat terrorism but was forced instead to defend his domestic reforms and his commitment to democracy. For a man who is seldom subjected to such face-to-face criticism and is famously cool under pressure, he looked at times as if he was about to lose his composure. "I respect some of his [Mr Bush's ideas] a lot and take them into account. Others I won't. [Such issues] should not be pushed to the foreground. New problems should not be created that could jeopardise our relationship. We want to develop the relationship." Russian officials tried to play down the tension by suggesting the two men's relationship had matured to a level where they could now tell each other things they did not want to hear. The two men could not, however, have looked more different. Mr Bush looked satisfied that he had obliged Mr Putin to justify his views on democracy and claimed a statement from the Russian leader vowing not to roll it back was the meeting's most important moment. Mr Putin said: "Russia chose democracy 14 years ago without any outside pressure. It made this choice for itself, in its own interests and for its people and its citizens. It was a definitive choice and there is no turning back." A return to totalitarianism was impossible, he added. However he indulged in none of the informal small talk beloved of Mr Bush and looked relieved to exit the stage with a stiff handshake, his face taut with pressure. In Russian official circles, the meeting is likely to be seen as a humiliation. Mr Bush also used an earlier speech to revel in the success of revolutions in the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia, revolutions which Moscow opposed. Mr Bush said he hoped for similar progress in Belarus and Moldova. Agreements did emerge. These were to prevent Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, to safeguard nuclear facilities in both countries, to regulate the sale of shoulder-fired missiles and to accelerate Russia's entry into the World Trade Organisation. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Wales Looks To Spur Hydrogen Fuel Transport Network Story by Neil Chatterjee REUTERS UK: February 25, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29711/newsDate/25-Feb-2005/story.htm LONDON - Wales is looking to use its gas production facilities to develop the UK's first hydrogen fuel transport network within a decade, its regional government said on Thursday. South Wales has seven hydrogen producing facilities and a pipeline infrastructure, and plans to become a centre for alternative fuel technology companies. "We already have some hydrogen powered vehicles and aim to eventually create a distribution network, with some local refuelling stations in the next five years," said Steve Patterson of the Welsh Development Agency. "Longer-term we can turn Wales into a hotspot for clean energy production that can then be rolled out to the rest of the UK," he told Reuters. The Welsh Development Agency is working with gas producers, vehicle manufacturers and universities in its "Hydrogen Valley" project, which aims to have depots fuelling company delivery vans, buses and taxis. However, a wider distribution network able to support motorists may still take 20 years, Patterson said. The European Union is trying to cut industrial and transport emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as part of its commitments to the United Nations Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The costs of producing, storing and distributing hydrogen are the main obstacles to a so-called hydrogen economy, together with the high manufacturing costs for fuel cell vehicles, which make electricity from hydrogen and emit only water vapour. Fuel cells are touted as a green power source for the 21st century, though environmentalists say they are only as clean as the energy used to produce the hydrogen. At the moment hydrogen producers in South Wales such as BOC use energy-intensive steam reforming to make the gas. "We're looking at zero-emission production for the future, by using surplus energy from wind farms or biomass," Patterson said, adding tidal power was a possible resource. "We can also use gasification of coal, as we have massive amounts of coal." A German study released on Thursday said Europe could build a network of hydrogen filling stations for 3.5 billion euros over the next 15 years, less than previously thought. Energy majors such as Shell and BP need fuel buyers to justify building a distribution network, but fuel cell vehicle costs remain well out of reach for the average driver. ---- Green Biofuel Seen Competitive in a Decade Story by Emma Ross-Thomas REUTERS SPAIN: February 25, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29712/newsDate/25-Feb-2005/story.htm MADRID - Bioethanol, an environmentally friendly fuel currently more expensive than gasoline, should become competitive with the conventional car fuel in 10 years, the head of Europe's leading bioethanol firm said on Thursday. Biofuels, made from products such as wheat and barley, are more expensive to produce and in some European countries including Spain the government offers tax relief on green fuels to offset the extra cost. But Javier Salgado, CEO of Abengoa Bioenergy, says the company moved into the market convinced it could be profitable without government subsidies once the right technological advances have been made. "I think we will reduce costs bit by bit and we will see a scenario where it will compete with gasoline very probably in 10 years," Salgado told Reuters in an interview. Soaring crude prices have boosted biofuels' profile, but Salgado said his company was not banking on prices like Thursday's $49 a barrel continuing. They budget on $28 a barrel crude. At the moment he reckons crude would have to cost $70 a barrel for bioethanol to compete in Europe although in the United States, where raw materials are cheaper, he said it already began to make sense at $45 to $50 a barrel. "This year ethanol has helped gasoline prices fall," Salgado said, referring to the United States, where the unit of Abengoa is based. The European Union, in an attempt to reduce greenhouse gases in line with its Kyoto Protocol obligations, last year set a non-binding target that fuels should contain 2 percent of biofuels in 2005 and 5.75 percent in 2010. Britain has said it will not comply with the target while Spain's government said this month it would review its national energy plan, including the bioenergy component, with a view to complying with Kyoto. Whatever happens to crude prices, Salgado expects the market to increase four-fold in the next five years. EXPANSION EYED, FLOTATION NOT RULED OUT Abengoa's information technology division Telvent listed on Nasdaq last year and Salgado said he did not rule out floating the bioenergy division. "There's no concrete plan to, but I can't say we're going to rule out that option," he said. The bioenergy unit of Abengoa, which last year produced 260 million litres of ethanol in Spain and about 400 million litres in the United States, is due to open a 200 million litre plant in northern Spain at the end of this year. It wants to start up another two in Europe in the next five years, and is most interested in Germany and Britain although a perceived lack of political will in the UK puts them off for now. It is also bidding for a project in France. Unlike Spain, where a grain deficit pushes up production costs, Germany, France and Britain all have excess grain. Salgado said he expected in the future limits on biofuel content in gasoline -- currently five percent in Europe and 10 percent in the United States -- would be raised, opening the way for a boom. Europe has a long way to go to catch up with Brazil, where gasoline is blended with 25 percent ethanol -- made from cheap local sugar. "There will be a boom, an important boom, and there will be no ceiling," Salgado said. ---- Britain's Blooming Biodiesel Could Prove Flighty Story by Karin Strohecker REUTERS UK: February 25, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29706/newsDate/25-Feb-2005/story.htm LONDON - British biodiesel production is set to gain ground against its leading European neighbours, but experts fear low governmental incentives and little commercial leeway could suck the green energy out of UK tanks. Spurred by global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, European Union member states are searching for greener ways to quench their thirst for energy. Transport generates a quarter of UK emissions and -- being almost exclusively fuelled by fossil energy -- would need to play a crucial role in the quest to reduce CO2 output, a British government white paper said in 2003. Lagging behind leading producers Germany, France and Italy, the UK's output is set to soar this year with a number of projects starting production or construction. Yet analysts say the government needs to strengthen incentives to boost biodiesel. For the Raffaello Garofalo, general secretary for the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), it is the government that needs to spark new momentum. "What drives the biodiesel market is not the market itself, but mainly the legislative and financial support framework that is coming from the EU and the member states," said Garofalo. TAX BOOST Different member states apply various measures to boost biodiesel, ranging from mandatory mixing obligations to cutting or abolishing taxes. In the UK biodiesel gets a tax break of 20 pence, or just over 40 percent of the duty on fossil fuels. Although this had been a step in the right direction, analyst Josh Dadd from Britain's Home Grown Cereal Authority (HGCA) said the tax-break was not high enough to make production from rapeseed oil commercially viability. "Potential investors will tell you that the economics do not work producing biodiesel from virgin rapeoil because at the moment it is more expensive to produce biodiesel even with the 20 pence tax break," said Dadd. "Investors want another eight pence on top of the 20 pence." EBB data showed the UK lagging behind and producing only 9,000 tonnes of biodiesel in 2003, compared to Germany's 715,000 tonnes or France's 357,000. Analysts expect 2004 biodiesel production across the EU to rise by 30 percent. In the UK alone, a number of major projects are set to fuel the green energy sector within the next few months and some of them have found their own solutions to the quest for commercial viability. Switching feedstocks is one. For Argent Energy, private owner of the first large-scale British project starting output within the next two months, green energy comes out of used cooking oil and animal waste products. Jim Walker, the company's vice-chairman, is set to turn waste into profitable biodiesel at his plant in Scotland, expected to produce up to 50,000 tonnes per year. "There is about 100,000 tonnes of used cooking oil...collected in the UK every year," he said. "It is a very useful raw material." FLEXIBLE FEEDSTOCKS With cooking oil available between 170 to 190 pounds per tonne -- roughly half the cost of rapeseed oil -- and tallow or animal fat providing back up at a modest premium over the used oil, economic viability is not a problem, said Walker. "We have a commercial proposition even with only 20 pence tax break." Other companies, like green start-up Biofuels Corp. are also set to work with feedstock cheaper than European rapeseed. The company will bring its 250,000 tonnes a year plant on stream at Teesside in northeast England in the third quarter of 2005. Chief executive Sean Sutcliffe thinks international markets could be the key component for biodiesel production. "The price outlook for palm oil and ultra low sulphur diesel remains positive," he said in a recent statement. But some experts fear UK policy will drive biodiesel producers to import raw materials and export the end product with little room left to satisfy environmental plans. The EBB's Garofalo thinks other European markets offering better margins through incentives could prove more profitable to UK producers and leave little green fuel left in UK tanks. "In a way they hope the regime will change in the UK," he said. "In another way they know that if they are close to a harbour they will be able to export to those countries in Europe where detaxation is higher. They can benefit from the detaxation in Germany, France, Italy and elsewhere." -------- ACTIVISTS Antiwar Movement Gears Up for Global Protests on War Anniversary by Katherine Stapp Inter Press Service February 25, 2005 http://www.antiwar.com/ips/stapp.php?articleid=4950 At Fort Bragg, the largest U.S. army installation in the world and home to the famed 82nd Airborne Division, the mood is not exactly buoyant. "There are people here who are being deployed for the third time," said Lou Plummer, a veteran with a son on active duty. "At least 50 people from the base have been killed in Iraq." The total US death toll since the start of the war is now 1,487, according to Pentagon officials. As for the number of civilians killed, the British group Iraq Body Count estimates a figure between 16,000 and 18,000. In a sign of mounting discontent, the military also concedes that about 5,500 servicemen have deserted, although Plummer believes the real number is probably much higher. This picture is somewhat bleaker than the one painted a year ago by Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne – also known as "America's Guard of Honor" – who brightly told reporters in Baghdad that "we're on a glide-path toward success." "We have turned the corner, and now we can accelerate down the straight-away," he said in a Jan. 6, 2004 briefing. "There's still a long way to go before the finish line, but the final outcome is known." Not so fast, say antiwar activists like Plummer, who is helping to organize a mass protest rally near the base in Fayetteville, North Carolina on Mar. 19 to coincide with the second anniversary of the US invasion. "The message is not 'bring them home after they fix stuff', it's 'bring them home now'," said Plummer, an active member of the national peace group Military Families Speak Out. "Organizing in Fayetteville requires sensitivity that you wouldn't need to have in a nonmilitary town," he added. "You have to respect people who oppose the war but are afraid to go public because they have a spouse in the military and could lose their benefits." Even so, he says that interest in his group – which represents 2,000 military families – and in the March antiwar events has been "overwhelming." The Fayetteville rally is being conceived and planned by veterans and relatives of soldiers, with delegations coming from as far away as the Pacific island state of Hawaii. Speakers will include Daniel Berg, the father of Nick Berg, a US civilian beheaded in Iraq; Lila Lipscomb, the grief-stricken mother of a US soldier featured in the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11; and David Potorti, a peace activist whose brother died in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Last weekend, Plummer attended a conference in the southern state of Missouri that drew several hundred representatives of pacifist groups, former combatants, soldiers' families, and others from 35 US states and Canada. They gathered to discuss the direction of the antiwar movement for the first time since the start of President George W. Bush's second term. The meeting was coordinated by United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), an umbrella coalition of 1,000 national and local antiwar groups. Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of UFPJ, said the conference winnowed dozens of proposals down to a six-point action plan for the coming year. "We plan to launch a nationwide grassroots educational campaign to reach out to people who are our allies and constituents that we believe are with us but haven't become part of the movement," she told IPS. Activists will highlight the occupation's economic drain on communities, build alliances between clergy and laity concerned about Iraq, and step up lobbying in Congress. One novel initiative, already started in the state of Vermont, would campaign against the use of the National Guard in Iraq. "They're supposed to be under the control of the governors in each state, and were never designed to fight wars overseas," Cagan said. UFPJ members decided it made the most sense to focus narrowly on Iraq, she said, although their strategies are hardly devised "in a vacuum": "Iraq is where Bush is most vulnerable, and through the lens of that work we can focus on other issues as well." While polls show a fairly even split on whether the war was a good idea to begin with, more than a third of US citizens say that the relative success of the recent elections in Iraq does not mean Bush's policy is working, and three-quarters believe that "most of the challenges in Iraq remain ahead," according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted last week. Fifty-nine percent believe the US should pull its troops out in the next year, compared to 39 percent who want to wait for a stable government in Iraq. The Fayetteville rally is just one of many taking place around the United States next month, with New York City hosting a Central Park gathering expected to attract up to a quarter million people. The international peace movement has become increasingly sophisticated in coordinating events across the globe: in February 2003, more than ten million people marched simultaneously in 60 countries against the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. This year, antiwar actions are also planned in Britain, Greece, Italy, France, Iceland, Germany, Denmark and other European cities, as well as in Brazil, Korea, Japan, South Africa, Bangladesh and Australia, many listed on the Web site of International Mmobilization Against the War and Invasion of Iraq. In Sydney, the main focus will be on opposing the presence of foreign troops, but also specifically to condemn the Australian government's decision this week to send another 450 soldiers to Iraq, activists say. Mar. 20 falls on Palm Sunday this year, the traditional day on which Australians have held peace rallies. Antiwar actions will take place across the country. "While the ongoing aim is still to end the violent occupation of Iraq, many people will be attending to express their opposition to Australia's new troop commitment, which has been very unpopular around the country," said Tim Vollmer of Western Sydney Peace Group, noting that opinion polls indicate 70 to 80 percent of the public opposes the move. In Sweden, activities are being coordinated by the Network Against the War, which represents 40 political parties, religious organizations, peace and solidarity groups, and others. "The manifestation (on) Mar. 19 in the absolute center of Stockholm will put forward four demands: US out of Iraq; end the occupations of Iraq and Palestine now; preserve the U.N. for peace (and) defend international law; no Swedish support for US war policy," said Network spokesman Goran Drougge. "We try to reach out as broadly as possible with these demands. We use as examples of the war policy the systematic torture at Guantánamo, Afghanistan and Iraq. We speak about the costs of war in the form of dead and wounded people," he said in an e-mail interview. BanglaPraxis, a public interest research and advocacy group in Dhaka, Bangladesh, is also planning to join the weekend protest actions. "We will organize a small gathering – the recent situation in Bangladesh does not make it easy for us to organize anything loud," said Zakir Kibria, a spokesman for the group. "But of course, most people feel that what the US has been doing in Iraq is a crime." "Bush and his second-term election was a surprise to people here," he added. "Most people didn't believe that US citizens were going to reward Bush after what he has done." ---- Peace coalition to assist objectors By KHURRAM SAEED ksaeed@thejournalnews.com THE JOURNAL NEWS - Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050222/NEWS03/502220345/1022/NEWS06 For more information Fellowship of Reconciliation: 845-358-4601 Peace-Out: http://www.peace-out.com Central Committee on Conscientious Objection: 888-236-2226 Center on Conscience & War/GI Rights Hotline: 800-394-9544 (Original publication: February 22, 2005) During the Cold War, when Army Lt. Jeff Schutts was stationed in Germany, he used to take part in war games in which the military would kill 30 million people in a day. Gradually, the thought of having a hand in killing other people kept him up at night. Schutts, who joined the ROTC at 18, looked for a way to respect his principles. Describing himself yesterday as a former "superpatriot" from small-town Illinois who was humiliated by the Iran hostage crisis, Schutts discovered he might qualify as a conscientious objector, a right afforded to military personnel. He filed for CO status in 1988 but was denied. Schutts, 40, was discharged in June 1990 and lives in Canada, where he belongs to a group that helps American soldiers who have fled the United States because they were refused CO status or were unaware of their rights. "Nobody in the military is telling you that 'you're a CO, and here's the form to get out,' " said Schutts, who lives in Vancouver. Schutts was one of 30 peace activists from the United States and Canada who spent four days last week at the Fellowship of Reconciliation in Upper Nyack developing strategies to help members of the armed forces who want out on religious or ethical grounds. Ibrahim Ramey, FOR's disarmament coordinator, said some of those who saw the horrors of war in Iraq had experienced a "moral change of heart," and the coalition's goal was to let them know that options were available. The umbrella group plans to launch its "I Will Not Kill" campaign May 15. It will feature a Web site with information, resources and links to groups for would-be conscientious objectors. According to the law, a conscientious objector is a person who is "conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form." The belief that motivates a person to apply for CO status might come from religion or philosophy, but it cannot be applied selectively. The applicants must oppose all wars, not just those of which they do not approve. Of 92 CO requests filed with the Army, Navy and Marines last year, 41 were approved. The Air Force approved nine applications in 2004 but did not provide the total number of applicants. Some COs ask for discharge, others for noncombatant duties. Joseph Varbaro of Port Chester, who served in the Army during World War II, said COs "are looking to get out and that's not right." "I think they should go to jail," he said. Varbaro was drafted at 18. He said he believed young people today enlisted in the military without properly thinking it through. "Two months later, they want to get out, and the Army sends them out," he said. "I don't know why the Army does that." Arlene Inouye, a Los Angeles teacher and founder of the Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools, said some young people, particularly the urban poor, who enlisted in the military didn't realize what they were getting into. Some who joined the war on terror later realized they were not prepared to take human life. Oskar Castro, a coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee in Philadelphia, said CO status is different today from the Vietnam War era. Then, applicants weren't deployed until their case was heard by a military board because they were being drafted. An Army spokeswoman said CO applications from active duty personnel generally were processed and forwarded to Army headquarters within 90 days from the date soldiers submitted them to their commanding officers. Applications from reservists are processed within 180 days. Receiving final word on CO status can take much longer. Carlos Emmanuel San Pedro, a 19-year-old from Oxnard, Calif., who attended the FOR conference, spent a year and a half in the Civil Air Patrol, doing drills, flying in Cessnas and completing survival training school. San Pedro, whose father fought in Afghanistan in 2002, thought he would join the Air Force one day. San Pedro's father, a former Marine, told his son to think hard about joining the military and the decisions he might have to make. San Pedro realized he could not support war and instead joined a peace group — Alternative to Military: Options and Resources — to help those in uniform struggling with their beliefs. -------- From: "Norm Cohen" Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:44pm Subject: Fwd: NRC long overdue in deciding whistleblower case Below as text is Dave Lochbaum's letter to NRC opposing continued foot-dragging by NRC on Dr Harvin's whistleblower case. Norm Washington Office: 1707 H Street NW Suite 600 · Washington DC 20006-3919 · 202-223-6133 · FAX: 202-223-6162 Cambridge Headquarters: Two Brattle Square · Cambridge MA 02238-9105 · 617-547-5552 · FAX: 617-864-9405 California Office: 2397 Shattuck Avenue Suite 203 · Berkeley CA 94704-1567 · 510-843-1872 · FAX: 510-843-3785 February 25, 2005 Dr. Nils J. Diaz, Chairman Mr. Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner Mr. Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner Dr. Gregory B. Jaczko, Commissioner Dr. Peter B. Lyons, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 SUBJECT: INEFFECTIVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: Dr. Nancy Kymn Harvin went to NRC Region I in September 2003 with numerous well-documented allegations concerning the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants. Dr. Harvin had worked at the site for five years as a direct report to the President and Chief Nuclear Officer of PSEG Nuclear. The allegations ranged from nuclear safety concerns expressed to her by NRC-licensed operators and PSEG senior managers to long-standing safety-related equipment problems to safety conscious work environment (SCWE) issues to the retaliatory nature of her own termination in March 2003. NRC Region I launched multiple investigations into Dr. Harvin's allegations. It is nearly 18 months later and the NRC has yet to reach a conclusion on Dr. Harvin's discrimination allegations. I was told nearly a year ago that this case was the top priority for Region I's Office of Investigations. Obviously, the NRC is not abiding by the goals in its internal policies and procedures for addressing allegations within 180 days and for completing Office of Investigations (OI) field investigations within ten months. Quite frankly, no matter what that decision the NRC eventually makes, it cannot be right for the simple reason that timeliness is an essential component of a right decision. Even if the NRC reaches the right answer on the merits of Dr. Harvin's allegation, it will arrive far too late for the agency's overall decision to be right. "Justice delayed is justice denied" was coined for situations like this one. The glacier pace of this NRC inquiry is distressing on many levels. First, its duration is implicitly accepted by the agency itself as being too long; hence the aforementioned goals and the fact that the NRC would likely sanction any licensee taking so long to investigate such serious SCWE allegations. Second, this is by no means an isolated case. NRC inquiries into allegations of discrimination and/or retaliation often take far longer than the agency's stated goals and routinely take longer than the NRC's parallel inquiry into technical concerns associated with harassment and intimidation allegations. Third, the pace is unfair to all parties involved. When the NRC does not substantiate an allegation, the cloud of suspicion hanging over the site is detrimental to the maintenance of a good SCWE. When the NRC substantiates an allegation, the delay in correcting its causes and consequences is unjustified. And fourth among this abridged list, the pace dissuades other plant workers from coming to NRC with their concerns. Dr. Harvin has told me that, in retrospect, she would not have gone to NRC Region I in September 2003 had she known its inquiry process would take this long. She told me she went to the NRC with full faith in the agency's concern about public safety. She believed that was posted on the NRC's website about the right of workers to engage in protected activities without fear of discrimination and retaliation. Although Dr. Harvin knew that going to the NRC would likely be perceived as "whistleblowing" and blackball her from industry employment, she believed the safety issues at Salem and Hope Creek warranted her action. Dr. Harvin feels betrayed by the NRC, believing that her action only yielded NRC inaction. I must note that Dr. Harvin did not initially contact me until about two weeks after she had gone to NRC Region I. Had she contacted me in advance, I would have very strongly advised her against making the trip. Going to the NRC with allegations of discrimination and/or intimidation is just not a viable option. The NRC does not take such allegations seriously. Some of the NRC's past inquiries into worker's retaliation allegations have taken so long that the five-year statute of limitations expired along the way. Even if the NRC is able to wrap things up under the five-year wire, it is unreasonable to ask any person to sacrifice so much for so long just because the NRC won't complete investigations in a timely manner. Instead, I steer workers like Dr. Harvin to Members of Congress and media representatives or advise them to let the issue go. I do not know why the NRC is so often unable to meet its established goals for OI field investigations into allegations of discrimination and/or intimidation. I note that the NRC has never, ever missed its established goal for license renewal approvals and very, very seldom misses its established goals for other licensing actions. The NRC has demonstrated its ability to meet schedule goals it deems important. Whatever its cause, the lethargic approach to investigations of harassment and intimidation must be corrected. The status quo impedes the NRC's ability to meet its strategic goals of (a) maintaining safety, (b) improving efficiency and effectiveness, (c) improving public confidence, and (d) reducing unnecessary burden. We urge you to compel the NRC staff to correct this problem and to also develop the metrics needed to monitor backsliding from that corrected state. Sincerely, David Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 223-6133 cc: Hubert J. Bell, Inspector General A. Randolph Blough, Director - Division of Reactor Projects, Region I Guy Caputo, Director - Office of Investigations Lisamarie Jarriel, Agency Allegation Advisor ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Suzanne Leta" To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: NRC about long overdue in deciding whistleblower case Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:32:23 -0500 Please see the attached letter from Dave Lochbaum, a former whistleblower himself, concerning the NRC's delay in deciding the case of Dr. Kymn Harvin. Dr. Harvin is a former senior manager turned whistleblower at PSEG's Salem reactors. PSEG's Salem and Hope Creek plants are have been under Exelon management since mid-January. Suzanne Leta Energy Associate NJPIRG 11 N. Willow St Trenton, NJ 08608 609 394 8155 x310 sleta@n... ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Lochbaum Subject: UCS letter to NRC about long overdue Good Day: Attached is an electronic version of a letter placed in the mail this morning to the NRC Chairman and Commissioners. A former nuclear worker went to the NRC nearly 18 months ago with allegations, including one that her termination was in retaliation for having conveyed safety concerns to senior management. Despite internal procedures that specify allegations to be addressed within 180 days and investigations to be completed within 18 months, the NRC has yet to announce a decision on this matter. "Justice delayed is justice denied." Chalk up another case of NRC denying justice to a nuclear plant worker. That brings the score to about three zillion and forty eight to zero. Thanks, Dave Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006-3962 (202) 223-6133 (office) (202) 331-5430 (direct line) (202) 223-6162 (fax)