NucNews - April 14, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR Nuclear power is the problem, not a solution Helen Caldicott 13apr05 The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12835747%5E12332,00.html THERE is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases. In fact Leslie Kemeny on these pages two weeks ago (HES, March 30) suggested that courses on nuclear science and engineering be included in tertiary level institutions in Australia. I agree. But I would suggest that all the relevant facts be taught to students. Mandatory courses in medical schools should embrace the short and long-term biological, genetic and medical dangers associated with the nuclear fuel cycle. Business students should examine the true costs associated with the production of nuclear power. Engineering students should become familiar with the profound problems associated with the storage of long-lived radioactive waste, the human fallibilities that have created the most serious nuclear accidents in history and the ongoing history of near-misses and near-meltdowns in the industry. At present there are 442 nuclear reactors in operation around the world. If, as the nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000 large, 1000-megawatt reactors. Considering that no new nuclear plant has been ordered in the US since 1978, this proposal is less than practical. Furthermore, even if we decided today to replace all fossil-fuel-generated electricity with nuclear power, there would only be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years. The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidised by the US government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the US is estimated to be $US560billion ($726billion), but the industry pays only $US9.1billion - 98per cent of the insurance liability is covered by the US federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing US nuclear reactors is estimated to be $US33billion. These costs - plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years - are not now included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity. It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different. In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming. Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste. In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations. Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease. Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic. The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year. Already more than 80,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 US nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material will be an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years. But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. The US Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 150km northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for America's high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults. Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the US Geological Survey. These startling revelations, according to most experts, have almost disqualified Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, meaning that the US now has nowhere to deposit its expanding nuclear waste inventory. To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists. This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the US includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases. The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation. It is important to note that children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other people. I will describe four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear power plants. Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the US, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature. Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia. Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma. Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans. Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 5kg is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 200kg per year. Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year. Because nuclear power leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons, these topics need urgently to be introduced into the tertiary educational system of Australia, which is host to 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the world's richest uranium. Helen Caldicott is an anti-nuclear campaigner and founder and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, which warns of the danger of nuclear energy. -------- accidents and safety NV: Report urges feds to keep 10,000-year radiation standard By Suzanne Struglinski Las Vegas SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU April 14, 2005 http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2005/apr/14/518602850.html WASHINGTON -- Federal officials should keep the original 10,000-year radiation standard in place for the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump and should consider allowing a higher dose limit for the time frame beyond the 10,000 years, according to a report released Monday. Factors such as climate change and human behavior become harder to predict over longer time frames, according to the report, so analysis for the new standard should change to reflect those uncertainties instead of just extending the compliance period, according to the Electric Power Research Institute. Nevada objects to the institute's suggestions, and Bob Loux, head of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects, will be sending the state's comments to the group outlining the state's concerns. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently working on rewriting the radiation standard for the proposed nuclear waste storage site at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Last year, a federal appeals court threw out the 10,000-year standard set by the agency in 2001 because it was not consistent with a recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences, as required by law. The court ruling also threw out the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing requirement that followed the radiation standard. The Electric Power Research Institute, an energy and environmental research group that promotes the benefits of nuclear power, does not take issue with the court's ruling, but in its 132-page report released on Monday it outlines what it believes are the EPA's options for setting a standard for "very long time frames." John Kessler, the Electric Power Research Institute's manager of its High Level Waste and Spent Fuel Management program said the report assumes Congress will not take action to change the court ruling, so the agency will have to follow the National Academy of Sciences' recommendation to set a standard up to "peak dose" or the time the most radiation would be released from the mountain or 1 million years, which ever comes first. It is unclear exactly when the peak dose may occur, but there is general agreement that it would be hundreds of thousands of years in the future, Kessler said. The Electric Power Research Institute. advocates that the federal government keep the 10,000-year standard as it stands now and consider the uncertainties that exist when trying to measure things out beyond that time frame. The institute recommended only using a "interglacial" and "glacial" climate change models to avoid speculating on climate change and human behaviors. It also recommends a "two-tiered dose limit:" one level for the first 10,000 years and a higher one for after that time consistent with "the increased uncertainty." The Electric Power Research Institute. is not advocating a specific dose beyond the 15-millirem per year limit now, a little more than a chest X-ray, but the report says a 100-millirem per year dose would be "considered protective under all potential exposure situations." "A good site should not be penalized for doing a good job," Kessler said. The report says radiation doses occurring in the far distant future show the repository's geological and man-made design elements are working. Kessler said that measuring or predicting the peak dose it harder though, so the EPA needs to consider that while writing the standard. Nevada's contingent opposing Yucca also questions whether consultants who worked on the report were predisposed toward their eventual conclusion because of a possible conflict of interest. Kessler worked with contractors from Monitor Scientific, a technical consulting firm based in Denver on the report. According to the company's Website, the firm did analyses and design review for the Electric Power Research Institute report, and the company's researchers have also supported the Environmental Protection Agency in "developing the technical basis for the radiation protection regulation for Yucca Mountain." ---- Nuclear Waste Site Threatened by Huge Mudslide in Kyrgystan 14.04.2005 MosNews http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/04/14/bishkekslide.shtml A huge mudslide has hit an area near nuclear waste sites in the vicinity of Mailu-Suu, a town in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan, the Itar-Tass news agency reported. The mudslide has blocked a mountainous river causing water to pour into the territory of a nuclear waste processing plant, a spokesperson for Kyrgyzstan’s Ministry for Environmental and Emergency Situations Emil Akmatov said. Experts said the mudslide had moved about 300,000 cubic meters of rock and rubble, Interfax reported. Rescue teams from the emergencies ministry could not approach the site due to the threat of a further mudslide. The nuclear waste processing plant has been closed for years but there are more than 20 nuclear waste storage facilities in the area. Due to a lack of financing the stores have seen no repairs since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Environmentalists fear that the damage done to the area could trigger a disaster that would affect not only Kyrgyzstan but the entire region. -------- australia French ruling leaves Australian nuclear waste in limbo Thursday, April 14, 2005 Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1345237.htm Greenpeace says the future of about 1,600 Australian spent nuclear fuel rods, now in France awaiting reprocessing, is very uncertain because of a French court judgement. The court has found the French nuclear company, Cogema, has been storing the rods from Sydney's Lucas Heights Research reactor without proper authorisation. Greenpeace's nuclear campaigner James Courtney says the ruling could mean the waste has to return to Australia. "The court has given Cogema three months to come up with the paperwork," he said. "If they can't do that they've been given two months to get the waste out of France." But the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation says it is not worried about the ruling. The chief of operations at Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor, Ron Cameron, says it is an internal French legal matter. "Our understanding is that Cogema have applied for an authorisation to reprocess the rods and therefore the court ruling shouldn't have any impact," he said. "We have a valid contract with Cogema for reprocessing and they will have to honour that contract." -------- depleted uranium Sunnyside Hosts Documentary On Depleted Uranium Exposure Janice Matthew believes her daughter’s birth defect was a result of her husband’s exposure to depleted uranium while serving in Iraq. by Neille Ilel, Western Queens Editor April 14, 2005 http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14347700&BRD=1865&PAG=461&dept_id=152944&rfi=6 In January 2003, some 30 years after the Vietnam War, the Institute of Medicine found a link between the herbicide Agent Orange and chronic lymphatic leukemia, a gradually spreading and often fatal cancer. It was the latest in a long list of ailments blamed on the infamous herbicide used to deforest the jungles of Vietnam. For years the military denied the harmfulness of Agent Orange. Only after decades of relentless lawsuits and public haranguing by veterans groups did the government admit that the substance was to blame for myriad ailments in hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans and their children. A new documentary put out by the People’s Video Network, “Poison Dust,” accuses the defense department of a similar crime with respect to depleted uranium exposure—willful ignorance. The movie will screen in Sunnyside at All Saint’s Church at 43-12 46th Street on Tuesday, April 19th at 7 p.m. After the screening, the film’s editor, Sue Harris and Raymond Ramos, a veteran from Springfield Gardens interviewed in the film, will speak and take questions. “We’ve known about the cancer-producing and death-producing qualities of depleted uranium since the 1850s,” Harris said. She accuses the United States government of hiding the facts related to the harmfulness of this substance because the weapons it produces are so effective. “It’s just not cost-effective to be open about this.” Is depleted uranium the Agent Orange of this generation of soldiers? “Poison Dust” seems to think so. Uranium is an extremely heavy metal, making it ideal for munitions casings as it can pierce very heavy armor. It is also radioactive. When a uranium shell punches through another metal, like a tank, the casing vaporizes into dust. It is this dust that critics say is harming soldiers, their families and exposed civilians. Soldiers interviewed in the film report being covered in dust from morning until night, even shaking it out of their beds in the morning. They complain of symptoms from headaches to swelling to chronic fatigue. One Bronx soldier’s daughter, conceived shortly after his return, has a severely deformed hand from a birth defect. He was convinced of the involvement of depleted uranium when he saw photographs of similar deformities in Iraqi children. Another soldier featured in the film, Ramos from Springfield Gardens, claims exposure to the metal while serving in Iraq. He speaks of working out following his return hoping to feel more like his old self, only to find that he was weaker and more tired. In addition, there is extensive footage of a conference on the issue, featuring testimony from scientists and Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez, who has written several expose stories on the issue. One of the most interesting techniques Harris uses in the film is weaving in the military’s history of denying the harm of environmental pollutants in wartime. An especially riveting scene in the film shows several hundred soldiers in 1945 sitting cross legged on the desert ground in New Mexico, watching a nuclear test. As the mushroom cloud erupts, the soldiers gape at it with glee, and the viewer is shocked at how ignorant everyone is of the terrible danger they’re in. It’s an effective reminder that government doesn’t always know best. And when it comes to coming clean during wartime, the military’s track record is full of blemishes. While the movie will reinforce the beliefs of those convinced about the dangers of depleted uranium exposure, it might not fully sway the undecided viewer. Throughout the film there is no rebuttal or explanation by the government or manufacturers of the substance. There are no comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It’s unclear in the film if these groups refused to participate, or if they were never asked. Either way, the one-sidedness of the coverage chips away at the film’s credibility. The experts that Harris interviews are certainly impressive, but there is a whiff of propaganda to the endeavor. “I think they have plenty of time on the air,” Harris said of her decision not to interview any government representatives. “I feel like it’s more important to get the information out.” -------- india India, US pledge to step up strategic cooperation WASHINGTON (AFP) Apr 14, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050414212244.aznuenvl.html The United States and India pledged Thursday to boost their strategic ties and launch senior-level talks on energy cooperation, including the use of civilian nuclear power. But Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh appeared to come away from a day of talks here without specific US support for New Delhi's long-cherished goal of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Singh met with President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ahead of a planned visit here by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July and a Bush trip to India sometime later. Rice, who traveled to New Delhi last month, said the discussions Thursday were part of a continuing "strategic dialogue" between the United States and the world's most populous democracy. "It is very important that the US-India relationship continues to grow as we recognize the growing importance of India as a global factor," Rice told a news conference. "This is a development we very much welcome." Washington has been discussing the growing energy needs of the South Asian nuclear arms power, but a proposed pipeline to bring in gas from Iran has been the target of mounting US criticism. Still, Rice signaled in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that the Americans were not ready to sell nuclear reactor technology to the Indians. "We're not there, that is not the case," she said. "We have agreed with the Indians that we can talk about a variety of energy sources but obviously there are NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty) implications that are quite serious about civilian nuclear power in India," she said. One unresolved political issue appeared to be India's eagerness for a seat on the UN Security Council if and when it is expanded from its current 15 members as part of sweeping reforms urged for the world body. Singh, who was on a three-day US visit, reiterated New Delhi's position: "By any criteria that you apply, India qualifies for a seat in the expanded council as a permanent member." But Rice, whose country supports Japan's drive for council membership, was non-committal about India, saying only, "We believe UN Security Council reform needs to take place in the context of broader UN reform." "It is my hope that we can do this in a way that builds consensus in the international community ... because what we do not need is acrimony as we try to move forward," she said. Singh's visit came less than three weeks after US officials announced their intention to help make India a "major world power" as part of a new strategy to boost ties to New Delhi and its rival Pakistan. US officials said Washington was willing to work with New Delhi in defense co-production and technology licensing, and covering areas such as command and control, early warning systems and missile defense. Sales of F-16 fighters jets to Pakistan were announced at the same time, producing grumbles from India. But there was no public discussion of the issue Thursday. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Singh's meeting with Bush focused on economic and energy matters and bilateral strategic cooperation. "We're going to be continuing to talk about some of the dialogue that we're having on issues like energy. And I think you'll be hearing more on that from the State Department and others as we move forward," McClellan said. -------- iran Iran's 'terrorists' helped disclose nuke program By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY 4/14/2005 11:33 PM http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-14-mek_x.htm TEHRAN, Iran — Tall and handsome, Arash Sametipour could be living a very different life in Northern Virginia if he hadn't joined the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). Sametipour, 29, of Burke, Va., says he became involved in the Iranian opposition group in the late 1990s when he developed a crush on one of its members. In love and convinced that the group was working for the good of Iran, he agreed to go to an MEK base in Iraq for military training. In 2000, he says, he was selected to go to Iran to assassinate a former police chief. The murder attempt failed and Sametipour tried to commit suicide by swallowing cyanide. But the poison had lost its potency so he detonated a grenade, blowing off his right hand. Iranian authorities jailed him for four years. One of six former MEK members produced by the Iranian government to talk to a reporter here, he acknowledges that his criticism of the MEK serves the Islamic government but says his main motivation is to stop others from joining the group. "I had a green card, and in a few years I could have had my U.S. citizenship," he says. "I ruined my life, but I don't want others to do so." Sametipour's American brother, Asef, backed up the description of how he joined the MEK. Iran's government produced Sametipour to underscore its intense frustration with a group that has long been a major source of friction between the Bush administration and the ruling clerics here. The MEK is the largest known organization working to overthrow Iran's theocratic regime, and Iranian officials have demanded the United States rein it in. The U.S. posture has been ambiguous. The MEK's violent habits — it has a history of bombings and assassinations, including the murder of six Americans — earned it a spot on the State Department list of terrorist groups in 1997. But the group gained publicity three years ago by exposing a secret Iranian nuclear program, alerting the public to the extent of Iran's apparent efforts to build a bomb. President Bush alluded to this in a March 16 news conference, when he said that the nuclear program had been revealed by a "dissident" group. Meanwhile, nearly 4,000 members of the group are in a military camp in Iraq, Camp Ashraf, 60 miles north of Baghdad. The regime of Saddam Hussein gave them refuge before the war. Since Saddam's ouster, U.S. forces have prevented MEK members from attacking Iran but do not know what to do with them. Iranian officials, including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, want Camp Ashraf dismantled, the inhabitants sent to Iran and MEK leaders, some of whom are in Europe, tried there or in Iran. Nearly 300 MEK members have already returned to Iran from Iraq. "I would expect that you forward a question to President Bush," Rafsanjani said in an interview earlier this year. "Why terrorists who have committed crimes in Iran are not returned here? Worse yet, they are permitted to enter your Congress, the U.N., and have lobbying and political activities." Supporters in the U.S. The MEK wants its people in Iraq to regain their freedom of movement. "The Iranian regime is more afraid of the Mujahedin than before because the Iranian regime is in a very shaky situation," says Mohammed Mohadessin, a senior official with the MEK's political wing, the National Council of Resistance, based outside Paris. Beyond Iraq, the group has an unknown number of adherents in Europe and the United States, and supporters on Capitol Hill and in Washington foreign policy circles. Several hundred sympathizers attended a convention in Washington on Thursday. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," said terrorism expert Neil Livingstone at a news conference in Washington in February where he and several retired U.S. diplomats and military men unveiled a new organization, the Iran Policy Committee, whose goal is to overthrow the Iranian government by supporting Iranian opposition groups. Another committee member, Ray Tanter, a Middle East expert on the National Security Council under President Reagan, said the United States should use the MEK to try to destabilize Iran's government before it acquires nuclear weapons. It seems highly unlikely that the group has the capability to bring down the Iranian government. The main indication that it still poses any threat is the amount of attention Iranian officials give to it. Army Maj. Kreg Schnell, an intelligence officer in the Iraqi province that includes Camp Ashraf, said the CIA last year detained and questioned a man who appeared to be working for the Iranians and trying to apprehend MEK members. He was looking to see if it was possible "to snatch some of them (MEK) back as an example" to others, Schnell said. Last August, Schnell said, an Iraqi army patrol was approached by two Iraqis who said they were bounty hunting for members, offering $400 a head. Founded in 1965, the MEK blended nationalism, Marxism and Islam in a potent mix that attracted thousands of students from traditional Shiite Muslim families. Aided by training from the Palestine Liberation Organization, the group began attacks on officials of the U.S.-backed shah. The group also killed six Americans in Iran during the 1970s — three military officers and three contractors involved in selling weapons to the shah. The MEK took part in the 1979 revolution that overthrew the shah and supported the seizure of U.S. Embassy hostages. But it broke with revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1980 when he barred the MEK's leader, Massoud Rajavi, from participating in presidential elections. Rajavi escaped, first to Paris and later to Iraq. The group once had strong support in Iran, but lost much of it by siding with Iraq during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, which killed or injured 750,000 Iranians. Of more than 50 people interviewed about the MEK during a recent visit to Iran, only one had anything positive to say about it. Aspects of a cult Former members and friends of members of the group describe the organization, which insists its members be celibate, as a cult. "They take your individuality and beliefs and tell you that all the love you have must go to the leadership," Sametipour says. "That's how they make terrorists." Ronak Dashti, 20, who was also introduced to a reporter by the Iranian government, said she was abducted in Turkey by MEK members who took her to Iraq. There, she says, she had to sign documents saying she had no right to contact her family and should not think about marriage. She and three other defectors described communal living, hours of menial work and nightly self-criticism sessions. Mohadessin denies that anyone is forced to join or remain in the MEK. He points to the group's success in revealing Iranian nuclear installations as evidence that it still has a large network of supporters within the country. "The message you (the United States) give is that you prefer the current (Iranian) regime" when you keep the MEK on the terrorism list, Mohadessin says. Contributing: John Diamond in Baghdad Mujahedin-e Khalq's roots Name: Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK. (The name means "the people's freedom fighters" in Farzi.) Other names/affiliates: National Liberation Army of Iran ; People's Mujahedin of Iran; National Council of Resistance of Iran. Mission: Advocates the overthrow of the clerical government of Iran, installing Maryam Rajavi, wife of the MEK leader, as president and holding elections six months later. Members: About 3,800 MEK members are confined by U.S. and Iraqi forces to Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Various leaders live in a Paris suburb. The group claims an unknown number of sympathizers inside Iran, and in Europe and the United States. History: Founded in the 1960s with an ideology that mixed Marxism and Islam, the group sought to depose the shah of Iran, killed U.S. military personnel and civilians in Iran and backed the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy. In the early 1980s, the MEK clashed violently with the Islamic government and thousands were killed. Others fled, eventually finding sanctuary in Iraq. From the early 1990s through at least 2001, MEK members attacked Iranian embassies and other facilities in several countries, killed Iranian officials and carried out attacks near the Iraq-Iran border. U.S.-led forces bombed MEK bases during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The MEK surrendered in May 2003. Status: Uncertain. Declared a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department but also apparently helpful to intelligence authorities seeking to gauge the extent of Iran's nuclear program. Sources: U.S. State Department, USA TODAY research ---- Rice Hews to Diplomatic Approach on Iran By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS April 14, 2005 Filed at 7:15 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iran.html?pagewanted=print&position= WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that going to the United Nations to try to stop an Iranian nuclear weapons program ''remains an option'' but the administration is not giving up on European allies seeking a negotiated solution. ''If this does not work then, of course, the Security Council remains an option,'' Rice said at a news conference. ''And we have made it clear with our European friends that that is, in fact, the case.'' Rice's statement extended the Bush administration's patient approach to trying to steer Iran away from a military nuclear program. Unlike North Korea, which is believed to have at least one atom bomb, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday that Iran is not likely to produce a nuclear weapon before the next decade. European diplomacy, spearheaded by Britain, France and Germany, is based on offering economic incentives to Iran as a trade-off for stopping work on nuclear weapons. Reaffirming U.S. backing, for now at least, Rice said, ''We believe that the diplomatic path that we are on is the appropriate path and we are determined to have a united front with the international community to convince the Iranians ... not to seek nuclear weapons under the cover of civilian nuclear power development.'' The Iranian government denies it is doing so. Taking the issue to the U.N. Security Council could mean imposing economic penalties on Iran, but the United States could be blocked by a veto. Israeli leaders visiting the United States this week told U.S. officials that their intelligence showed Iran is nearing a ''point of no return'' in developing a weapon. But Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said his country would not attack Iranian nuclear facilities. On the Net: State Department: http://www.state.gov United Nations: http://www.un.org ---- Rice Plays Down Iran Nuclear Threat By REUTERS April 14, 2005 Filed at 7:48 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iran-usa-rice.html?pagewanted=print&position= NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States will decide this summer whether to pursue a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program at the United Nations Security Council, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Thursday. Rice said Washington has faith in European-led negotiations aimed at ensuring that Iran's nuclear program remains non-military, and that what matters most is ``a unity of purpose'' among all the nations involved. Her remarks come shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged President Bush to take a tougher line on Iran and said the country was approaching a point of no return in its quest for nuclear weapons. Rice, however, told the newspaper the Israelis had provided ``no new revelation'' on Iran's alleged nuclear program. She also played down the immediate urgency of nuclear threats from North Korea. She dismissed as a bid for attention Pyongyang's recent declaration that it has nuclear weapons as well as its decision to walk away from multi-party talks on eliminating its nuclear program. ``I do think the North Koreans have been, frankly, a little bit disappointed that people are not jumping up and down and running around with their hair on fire because (they) have been making these pronouncements,'' Rice said in the interview. She said the United States is still depending on China to persuade the North Koreans to return to the so-called six-party talks, as the Chinese assured her they would do during her visit to Beijing last month. Rice's comments on Iran and North Korea -- the two parts of Mr. Bush's ``axis of evil'' beyond the former Iraqi regime -- suggest that the administration remains confident it can prevail on both fronts through diplomacy and the threat of deeper isolation, the Journal said. --- U.S. doubts Tehran nukes are imminent April 14, 2005 By Nicholas Kralev THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050413-100827-5624r.htm The Bush administration yesterday questioned Israel's urgent warning on the advancement of Iran's nuclear-weapons program, saying the Islamic republic is not likely to have a nuclear bomb for at least five years. The rare disclosure of an intelligence assessment on the record came a day after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Vice President Dick Cheney that Iran's illicit program had reached a "point of no return." The State Department yesterday agreed that there is no reason for Iran to be enriching uranium, which can be used to make a bomb, and that the program should be "permanently suspended." But Richard Boucher, State Department spokesman, declined to share Mr. Sharon's urgency. "The intelligence community has used, in the past, estimates that said that Iran was not likely to acquire a nuclear weapon before the beginning of the next decade," Mr. Boucher said. "That remains the case." He added that the United States is "looking for a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the issue." "But I don't think there is any dispute that Iran should not have the capabilities -- the programs that have been used and that can be used as cover for nuclear-weapons development," he said. During the Tuesday meeting, Mr. Sharon urged Mr. Cheney to pressure the Europeans to adopt a tougher stance in their negotiations with Tehran. At the same time, European diplomats were quoted by wire reports as saying that French President Jacques Chirac has been pushing the European Union to consider letting Iran enrich uranium. "What we are doing is continuing to support the Europeans in their efforts to get Iran to abandon their nuclear-weapon ambitions, and the president talked about the diplomatic efforts going on by the Europeans," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday. Under pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Tehran has temporarily suspended its uranium-enrichment program, but has vowed to restart it because it needs to produce more electricity. Iran rejects the charge that it is pursuing nuclear weapons, insisting that its program is designed only for civilian purposes. Mr. Boucher addressed another issue with Tehran yesterday, demanding an end to its interference in Lebanon. "We do know that Iran has had a military and intelligence presence in Lebanon for many years, including through elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps," he said. A senior State Department official said that although there are only between 12 and 50 Revolutionary Guard members in Lebanon, the matter is "not purely a function of numbers." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Lebanon not to delay elections planned before the end of May. She said yesterday's "resignation of Prime Minister Karami presents an opportunity to move forward." Other officials said Omar Karami's failure to form a Cabinet does not mean that such an achievement is impossible or that it should impede the political process. "We expect the consultative process required to form a new Cabinet will take place immediately," Miss Rice said. ---- US give EU-Iran nuclear talks until the summer Thu Apr 14,11:11 AM ET - AFP http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050414/ts_afp/usirannkorearice_050414151113 WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States is giving European efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program a few more months before considering tougher measures, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rice also played down the threats from Iran and North Korea, and said stabilizing the Middle East overrode the nuclear issue as the top challenge for President George W. Bush's administration. Rice said efforts by Britain, Germany and France to wean Tehran off its suspected nuclear arms programs were "the right course" but added, "obviously at some point in time the UN Security Council is an option." Asked how long Washington would wait before deciding to seek tougher UN action, Rice said, "I don't want to put a timeline on it, but I think we probably want to make an assessment this summer and see where we are and see how far we've gone." The United States has long been sceptical about the European attempt to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions with economic and security incentives. But Washington embraced the idea after Bush's trip to Europe in February. Rice's remarks, the first official hint of any deadline for the talks, came after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for tougher action to halt what he called an Iranian nuclear program near "a point of no return." The chief US diplomat sought to tone down the Israeli alarm. She said Sharon's presentation to Bush at their summit Monday "wasn't a new revelation" and the concern was less about Iran's current capability than its efforts and intentions. A State Department spokesman said Wednesday that US intelligence agencies estimated Iran was not likely to acquire a nuclear weapon before the start of the next decade. But Rice acknowledged there was no sure way to judge the status of Tehran's program. The crucial question, Rice said, is how serious Iran is about agreeing to "objective guarantees" to ensure it will not resume uranium enrichment programs aimed at developing nuclear fuel or a nuclear bomb. Little progress has been reported on this front. A senior Iranian negotiator in Tehran was quoted as saying Thursday that while his country and the Europeans had a "working basis" for an agreement, it would not entail a halt to enrichment. Rice also sought to minimize the threat from North Korea, another member of Bush's "axis of evil." She said Pyongyang's assertion it had nuclear weapons and its decision to abandon six-party talks on its nuclear program were just a bid for attention. "I do think the North Koreans have been, frankly, a little bit disappointed that people are not jumping up and down and running around with their hair on fire because (they) have been making these pronouncements," she said. She said that the Chinese, during her visit to Beijing last month, said they would try to persuade their northeastern neighbors to rejoin the talks. "I did have good discussions with the Chinese while I was there about the fact that the North Koreans cannot be allowed just to continue to string the world along," she said. Asked if she thought the nuclear issue was the main challenge facing the Bush administration, Rice replied, "No, I don't. I think the biggest test is the Middle East and the evolution of a stable and democratized Middle East." Rice expressed confidence in the capability of the United States to deter North Korea and in the ability of Iran's neighbors to keep it in check. She said the September 11, 2001, terror attacks shaped US priorities. With Washington determined to eradicate breeding grounds for future terrorist attacks, she said, "I have to think that it's change in the basic nature of the Middle East that is really the historical challenge and opportunity." -------- korea North Korea to Boost 'Atomic Potential' - Tass Thu Apr 14, 8:39 AM ET (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050414/wl_nm/korea_north_potential_dc&sid=84439559 North Korea is to strengthen its "atomic potential" in response to Washington's hostile policies, Russia's Itar-Tass news agency quoted the president of its parliament as saying Thursday. Tass, one of the few foreign news organizations with a reporter based in the communist state, said Kim Yong-nam in an address to the Supreme People's Assembly. "We will continue to expand our atomic forces as long as the United States conducts policies to isolate and suffocate (North Korea)," Tass quoted Kim as saying in an hour-long speech. Kim, who ranks second behind top leader Kim Jong-il, is the highest-ranking North Korean official to state Pyongyang's intention to boost its nuclear arsenal. Statements in the reclusive state's official media had previously spoken of a decision to strengthen its "nuclear deterrent" to counter what it called the U.S. hostile intent. Kim also called on North Koreans to "strengthen the unity of the army and the people, to strengthen our ideological position and to protect the state from the imperialists." "If war starts on the Korean peninsula we will destroy any aggressor," Kim said. The Assembly gathered to mark the "Day of the Sun," as North Korea calls the anniversary of the birth of its founder Kim Il-sung, the late father of current leader Kim Jong-il. On Feb. 10, North Korea said it possessed nuclear weapons and was dropping out of six-party talks aimed at ending its atomic ambitions. It blamed U.S. hostility for the decision to pull out. About six weeks later, the North said it was forced to increase its nuclear arsenal because it saw the U.S. military as a serious threat. U.S. officials have repeatedly said Washington has no plans to invade the North. The two Koreas, the United States, Japan, China and Russia met for three inconclusive rounds of nuclear talks up to the middle of 2004. A planned fourth round never took place. The North accuses the United States, which keeps more than 30,000 troops in South Korea under a defense pact, of storing nuclear weapons on the peninsula and has demanded their removal. The official U.S. position is that it has no such arms in South Korea. (Additional reporting by Jack Kim and Jon Herskovitz in Seoul) ---- North Korea to Increase Nuclear Deterrent By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS April 14, 2005 Filed at 8:52 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Koreas-Nuclear.html?pagewanted=print&position= SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- North Korea's No. 2 leader said Thursday the communist nation will increase its nuclear deterrent to defend against the alleged threat of a U.S. invasion, and ordered citizens to defend the regime ''at the cost of their lives.'' The United States has repeatedly said it has no intention to invade despite an ongoing standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The secretive nation claimed in February to possess atomic weapons and said it would boycott international disarmament talks. Last month, it said it had bolstered its nuclear arsenal. ''We will continue increasing our self-defensive nuclear deterrent against the enemies' policy to isolate and stifle the republic,'' Kim Yong Nam, head of the North's legislature, said at a meeting honoring the birthday of founding President Kim Il Sung. ''If the U.S. imperialists recklessly set the fire of war on the Korean Peninsula despite our repeated warnings ... we will mercilessly and completely destroy the invaders so they won't live again,'' Kim was quoted as saying by the North's official Korean Central News Agency. Pyongyang has demanded that Washington apologize for remarks by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describing North Korea as one of the world's ''outposts of tyranny.'' In an interview published Thursday in The Wall Street Journal, Rice said North Korea's recent declaration that it had nuclear weapons was a bid for attention. ''I do think the North Koreans have been, frankly, a little bit disappointed that people are not jumping up and down and running around with their hair on fire because (they) have been making these pronouncements,'' she said. Kim Il Sung's birthday is the biggest national holiday in North Korea, known as the ''Day of the Sun.'' He remains the country's ''eternal president'' in its constitution, even after dying at age 82 on July 8, 1994, following more than a half-century in power. In his speech Thursday, Kim Yong Nam ordered all citizens to defend the country's current leader, Kim Il Sung's son, Kim Jong Il, ''at the cost of their lives'' and continue working to strengthen the military, KCNA said. Since June, North Korea has stayed away from international talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons ambitions, citing what it calls hostile U.S. policy. Also Thursday, the North accused Washington of trying to seek economic sanctions against it through the U.N. Security Council. The United States intends to ''have U.N. forces-helmeted multinational troops inveigled automatically into a Korean war,'' the North's Communist Party newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said in a commentary carried by KCNA. ''It should never forget that (North Korea) is a mighty possessor of nuclear weapons.'' During an Asian tour in March, Rice said Washington may have to look at ''other options'' in case the nuclear talks failed. She didn't spell out the options, but analysts have said they could include seeking tough economic sanctions on the North through the U.N. Security Council. On Wednesday, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said the North and Washington would work out their differences ''after long dialogue.'' He also said the two Koreas would only reunite ''in a very stable process after predictable stages.'' ''The possibility of North Korea's collapse is very low,'' Roh said. ''And the (South Korean) government has no intention to encourage it.'' ---- Roh: N.Korea Collapse Unlikely and Undesirable By REUTERS April 14, 2005 Filed at 1:04 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north-roh.html?pagewanted=print&position= SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea is unlikely to collapse any time soon and such an event should not be encouraged, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said on a trip to Germany. ``The possibility of a sudden collapse is very low,'' Roh said Wednesday after meeting South Korean residents in Germany. ``And we don't intend to encourage it either.'' The text of his remarks was provided by his office in Seoul. He said the remote chance of a swift collapse made the Korean situation different from Germany's experience in unification. ``Even if there is a certain situation in North Korea, I think there is an internal organizational ability to manage the situation,'' he said. Successive administrations in Seoul have pursued unification with the North as a top priority since the end of the Korean War, but rising economic disparity has fueled concern in the South about the impact of such an occurrence. Some analysts have cited the cost of unification to be as high as $1.8 trillion and said it could break the South's economy, the third largest in Asia, and scupper decades of development. The South is more than 30 times as prosperous as the communist North and twice as populous. Roh's unification policy is built around the premise that aiding the North's economy would soften the impact when it eventually comes. But aid from the South and international assistance have slowed since a North Korean nuclear crisis flared in late 2002. Three rounds of talks by the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and China on dismantling the North's nuclear weapons programs have made little progress. The last round was in June and a fourth round has not materialized after Pyongyang sought political concessions from Washington. ``North Korea is willing to give up its nuclear programs,'' Roh told the meeting in Germany. He said Pyongyang and Washington distrusted each other but were in agreement on how to resolve the problem -- security guarantees and economic aid for the North in return for dismantling its nuclear programs. ``They don't seem to trust each other,'' Roh said. ``But distrust is not a problem of substance, so it will be resolved if you talk long enough,'' he said. -------- pakistan Dirty Bomb a Fear, Not Nuclear Terrorism-Musharraf Thu Apr 14,10:00 AM ET - Reuters By David Brunnstrom http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050414/ts_nm/nuclear_pakistan_dc_1 RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, his country at the center of one of the world's worst nuclear proliferation scandals, said on Thursday fears that terrorists could get their hands on nuclear weapons were unfounded. But he said in an interview it was possible they could get hold of a far less threatening "dirty bomb" using enriched uranium and conventional explosives to spread radioactivity. "My frank view is very different to all the concerns the world shows and my frank view is, no way, this cannot happen," Musharraf, who is also Pakistan's army chief, told Reuters when asked if he saw a risk of a terrorist obtaining a nuclear bomb. "Something called a dirty bomb could go into their hands but if we think that they can possess a bomb, they can make a bomb and possess it, that is not the case." Musharraf said the proliferation by disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, being talked about around the world, had involved technology to enrich uranium to weapons grade. "But having done that, having got enriched uranium, it's sawdust lying around, you ought to have very high technology available to you to make that into a bomb," he said. He said it had taken thousands of Pakistani scientists 30 years to produce nuclear weapons and make them portable. "I cannot imagine terrorists running over in the mountains, hiding in cities, to be able to put through all this chain to develop a bomb; I don't think so at all." DISGRACED FATHER OF BOMB Musharraf said Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's atomic bomb who has admitted to nuclear proliferation to Iran, North Korea and Libya, was a metallurgist and an expert on the centrifuge technology needed to enrich uranium. "The remaining steps he is not the expert on and they are equally, if not more, hi-tech." Musharraf said someone trying to build a trigger mechanism for a nuclear bomb from scratch would end up with a enormous device perhaps two meters in diameter. "How do you carry that? It's the size of that sofa," he said, pointing across the room at his military residence in Rawalpindi. "Whatever I am saying is after I analyzed this through our own scientists," he said. "I have seen and I have talked to them and I am very sure that we overdo this hype. "I feel the West is overly concerned about this aspect." He said a dirty bomb would produce radioactivity in the area of the explosion, which might be 50 or 100 meters in diameter. "It will get contaminated. It can be cleaned -- maybe there will be some casualties -- but it is not a nuclear explosion. That is not going to take place." Musharraf said he did not know if the centrifuge parts Pakistan says it has agreed in principle to provide to U.N. investigators trying to determine whether Iran's nuclear program is peaceful or aimed at producing weapons had been delivered. "Frankly, until about two weeks back, they had not gone; but since then, frankly, I am not sure." Pakistan has said Khan acted independently in his proliferation and there was no state involvement, a position analysts say stretches credibility. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last month after meeting Musharraf -- a key ally in Washington's global war on terrorism -- that the United States wanted to be certain Khan's proliferation network had been completely closed down. ---- International experts play down threat of terrorists acquiring WMDs HELSINKI (AFP) Apr 14, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050414175928.gvhs5rho.html Terrorist groups and organizations have neither the capacity nor the ambition to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and other experts said at a conference in Helsinki on Thursday. "I'm as concerned about global warming and its long term effects" as about the immediate threat of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, said Blix, a former Swedish diplomat who was charged with searching for such weapons ahead of the US-led invasion of Iraq. "Support and coordination from states would be needed for terrorists to produce WMDs," he insisted, speaking at a conference here entitled "WMD terrorism: how scared should we be?". Blix acknowledged however that "there is a small but not zero risk" of terrorists laying their hands on weapons of mass destruction, and called for more preventive measures. "Material and technology are now widespread and an ability to create WMDs is also greater," he said. John Parachini, a political analyst with the California-based Rand Corporation, agreed that the current threat of terrorists gaining access to such weapons had perhaps been exaggerated. "WMDs are not easy to produce," he said, adding that "the mix of terrorism and WMDs becomes really dangerous if a group or groups form a sort of connection with a state and get knowledge from states how to produce WMDs". "WMDs used by Al-Qaeda is much further off than we think," agreed Thomas Sanderson of the Strategic and International Studies' Transnational Threats Project. He cautioned however that the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001 showed that "the intention of terrorist groups to cause major damage is there". "You don't need to kill thousands of people in order to cause a terrible effect on a country, as anthrax showed," he added, referring to a scare soon after the 2001 attacks. According to Parachini, there have been only four known cases in recent history of non-state actors using non-conventional weapons to wreak havoc: the Rajneeshee sect's salmonella poisoning of an Oregon town in 1984, the chlorine attack on the Sri Lankan air force carried out by the Tamil Tigers in 1990, the Aum sect's release of deadly sarin gas on a Tokyo subway train in 1995 and finally the deadly anthrax letters, believed to be of domestic origin, that terrorized the United States in 2001. ---- Rumsfeld Discusses F - 16 Sales in Pakistan By REUTERS April 14, 2005 Filed at 8:45 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-pakistan-usa.html?pagewanted=print&position= BISHKEK (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf discussed Pakistan's purchase of U.S. F-16 aircraft among a range of issues, a senior U.S. defense official said on Thursday. Washington recently lifted a 15-year ban on the supply of F-16 fighters to Pakistan, a major ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism launched after the Sept. 11 attacks. The announcement angered India, Pakistan's nuclear-armed rival and neighbor, but the United States also offered to sell India F-16s as well as the more advanced F-18 Hornet. The U.S. official, briefing reporters on board Rumsfeld's aircraft as he traveled to Kyrgyzstan, said no decision had been made on the number of F-16s Pakistan would buy, or when they might be delivered. Lt. Gen. Jeff Kohler, head of the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which handles foreign arms sales, was in Pakistan on Thursday to discuss the F-16 purchase, the official said. He declined to be identified. Asked if Pakistan would seek to buy the most advanced Block 60 version of the F-16, bought by the United Arab Emirates, the official said: ``I don't know.'' ``The (U.S.) staff people are assessing what they want.'' Pakistan has not publicly specified which version of the F-16 it is seeking, except to say it wants advanced aircraft. In a statement on Thursday's talks with Kohler, the Pakistani Defense Ministry said: ``The early delivery of hi-tech F-16 aircraft capable of firing AMRAAM missiles ... needed to be expedited.'' AMRAAM stands for advanced medium range air-to-air missile. Pakistan was also seeking AIM-9M missiles, which can also be installed on F-16s, TOW-II missiles, C-130 aircraft, 155 mm howitzers and TPS-77 radars, the ministry said. Rumsfeld arrived in Pakistan on Wednesday from Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai said he planned to ask Bush for long-term security protection for Afghanistan. The United States has more than 17,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld praised Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terrorism, which has seen Pakistani security forces arrest hundreds of al Qaeda and allied militants. However, despite improved relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, some Afghan officials complain that Taliban guerrillas are still finding sanctuary in Pakistan, which backed the Taliban during their 1996-2001 rule of Afghanistan. -------- russia Russian Atomic Energy Agency head approves environmental policy MOSCOW. April 14 (Interfax) http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11270070 Federal Atomic Energy Agency head Alexander Rumyantsev has approved a new set of amendments to the agency's environmental policy and regulations for the Agency's Environmental Protection Council, the agency's public relations center reported. Research must be broadened to resolve environmental problems in the atomic energy industry, the report says. The agency will upgrade the environmental safety of its enterprises and solve problems stemming from the handling of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. -------- treaties Bipartisan Resolution submitted to US Congress on NPT Review From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Date: Tue Apr 19, 2005 0:17am If I may offer a brief comment, it is that while vertical disarmament is by no means absent from this resolution, and I believe that it does in fact represent progress, its treatment of article VI is by no means sufficient - Article VI does after all amandate the elimination of nuclear arsenals, and is by no means commensurate with the 13 steps. I believe that the resolution should have mentioned if not the 13 steps by name, at least said that the US ought not to retreat from disarmament committments already made and signed by the rest of the world. That said, it will be worth slightly less than two cheers if it gets through, or about a half middy of fosters. Lets hope it does so. John Hallam (This is cut and paste from Alyn Ware) Dear PNND Members and Supporters Attached is a resolution for the US Congress introduced today by Representative John Spratt and co-sponsored by Reps. Leach, Skelton, Shays, Markey, and Tauscher. The resolution calls for implementation and strengthening of both non-proliferation and disarmament aspects of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Below is a statement from Rep Spratt regarding the resolution. Representative Spratt and Representative Markey have been invited to address delegates, parliamentarians, mayors and non-governmental organisations attending the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations in New York May 2-27, 2005. We will contact you again in the near future with further details. Please contact us if you are intending to attend the Conference and would like information on events relating to parliamentarians and the NPT. For further information see http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/events.html Alyn Ware Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament P.O.Box 23-257, Cable Car Lane Wellington, Aotearoa-New Zealand Phone (64) 4 385-8192. Fax 385-8193 mailto:alyn@pnnd.org http://www.pnnd.org News from U.S. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) Assistant to the Democratic Leader Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget US House of Representatives - Washington, DC http://www.house.gov/spratt http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats Thursday, April 14, 2005 - For Immediate Release Contact: Chuck Fant, 202-225-5501 Spratt Resolution and Statement on Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) today introduced the attached resolution on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and issued the following statement. Reps. Leach, Skelton, Shays, Markey, and Tauscher joined as original cosponsors. "In the first Presidential debate last fall, Senator Kerry and President Bush were asked to identify the gravest threat facing the United States. Both replied, without hesitation, nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Graham Allison, of Harvard University, has called this threat a 'preventable catastrophe.' To prevent such a catastrophe, the plan begins with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is the most effective international tool we have, but it must be made more effective. "The NPT embodies one of the best security bargains ever struck. States without nuclear weapons pledge not to acquire them, states with nuclear weapons agree eventually to eliminate them, and agree also to make nuclear technology available to non-nuclear-weapon states, to be used for peaceful purposes, subject to inspection. "The NPT marshals the world-186 countries-against nuclear weapons with a collective force that the United States could not muster on its own, and provides a framework and forum for handling the problems that continually arise. The United States has plenty of non-proliferation programs; we need non-proliferation partners; and the NPT helps supply them. "When non-compliance is found, or cheating occurs, the NPT allows the United States to act with other states under the auspices of the treaty, and not take unilateral, pre-emptive action. "The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control Association (ACA) acknowledge the importance of the NPT, and what it has accomplished, but recognize that the NPT must be stronger if it is to continue being effective. They lay out a series of ideas for bolstering the treaty. Building on their work, our resolution supports these recommendations as U.S. policy going into the NPT Review Conference for 2005. "Our resolution calls on participants in the Review Conference to: * Establish stronger controls on nuclear weapons technology. * Strengthen IAEA inspections and ratify the Additional Protocol. * Continue the moratorium on nuclear test explosions, and eventually ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. * Pursue a verifiable treaty halting the production of new fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. * Secure nuclear materials by the strictest standards. * Tighten export controls, national and international, over nuclear materials and nuclear technology. * Clarify that no state can withdraw from the NPT and retain nuclear materials acquired for "peaceful" purposes. * Strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative. "These are not new ideas. Many were among the 13 steps agreed to at the last Review Conference in the year 2000. Others, like the Additional Protocol, tighter export controls, and the Proliferation Security Initiative, are gleaned from speeches made by President Bush and members of his Administration. "Two former Secretaries of Defense, one former Secretary of State, seven Ambassadors, and a host of other military and diplomatic leaders have signed the Carnegie-ACA letter, which is a testament to the gravity of this problem. With this resolution, we bring their ideas to Capitol Hill. We will marshal support for it, and for the proposition that the NPT is indispensable protection against the gravest threat we face, but must be made stronger if we are to keep the world's most dangerous weapons out of the world's most dangerous hands." # # # CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Stating the policy of the Congress concerning actions to support the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) on the occasion of the Seventh NPT Review Conference. Whereas the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968 (NPT) codifies one of the most impor-tant international security agreements of all time, where-by states without nuclear weapons pledge not to acquire them, while states with nuclear weapons commit to even-tually eliminate them, and allowances are made for the peaceful use of nuclear technology by non-nuclear-weapon states under strict and verifiable control; Whereas the NPT has 188 signatory states; Whereas the NPT has encouraged many countries to offi-cially abandon nuclear weapons and their nuclear weap-ons programs, including Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Libya, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, and Ukraine; Whereas at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995, the signatory states agreed to extend the NPT in-definitely, to reaffirm the principles and objectives of the NPT, to strengthen the NPT review process, and to im-plement further specific and practical steps on non-proliferation and disarmament; Whereas at the NPT Review Conference in 2000, the parties agreed to specific steps toward nonproliferation and dis-armament, including entry into force of the Comprehen-sive Test Ban Treaty, negotiation of a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes, and verifiable reductions of the alert status and number of strategic and substrategic nuclear weapon ar-senals; Whereas President George W. Bush on March 7, 2005, called ''the NPT . . . a key legal barrier to nuclear weapons proliferation and . . . a critical contribution to inter-national security,'' and stated that ''the United States is firmly committed to its obligations under the NPT''; Whereas in 1995, the United States reaffirmed its negative security assurance to non-nuclear-weapon states of the NPT, stating ''The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon state-parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state to-ward which it has a security commitment carried out, or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in associa-tion or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.''; Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 calls upon all states ''to promote the universal adoption and full implementation, and where necessary, strength-ening of multilateral treaties to which they are parties, whose aim is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, bio-logical or chemical weapons''; Whereas the United Nations Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change concluded that ''Almost 60 States currently operate or are constructing nuclear power or research reactors, and at least 40 pos-sess the industrial and scientific infrastructure which would enable them, if they chose, to build nuclear weap-ons at relatively short notice if the legal and normative constraints of the Treaty regime no longer apply'', and it warned that ''We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irre-versible and result in a cascade of proliferation.''; Whereas the threat of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials has grown significantly since the in-ception of the NPT as a result of inadequate security and accounting at nuclear facilities throughout the former So-viet republics and in dozens of other countries; Whereas despite the fact that Article IV of the NPT makes clear that access to peaceful nuclear cooperation by non-nuclear- weapon states requires their conduct to be ''in conformity with Articles I and II'' of the Treaty, some parties to the Treaty have nevertheless abused this right by pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities; Whereas North Korea ejected international inspectors in 2002 and announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, and has declared its possession of nuclear weapons and its intention to bolster its nuclear arsenal; Whereas Iran continues to assert its right to pursue nuclear power and related technology, its intent to resume enrich-ment processes that it has temporarily suspended through an agreement with the European Union, and has not fully cooperated with the ongoing investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its nu-clear activities; Whereas the A.Q. Khan network sold nuclear technology, in-cluding a weapon design, to states including Iran, Libya, and North Korea, and represents a new and dangerous form of proliferation; Whereas the Additional Protocol to the NPT would allow in-spections of suspected nuclear facilities in addition to de-clared nuclear facilities; Whereas on February 13, 2004, President Bush stated ''Na-tions that are serious about fighting proliferation will ap-prove and implement the Additional Protocol.''; Whereas the global nuclear threat cannot be reduced without stronger international support and cooperation to achieve universal compliance with tighter nuclear nonproliferation rules and standards; Whereas sustained leadership from the United States is es-sential to implement existing legal and political commit-ments established by the NPT and to realize a more ef-fective global nuclear nonproliferation system; and Whereas the United States and other countries should pursue a balanced and comprehensive set of initiatives to strengthen the global nuclear nonproliferation system, be-ginning with the NPT Review Conference in 2005: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 1 concurring), 2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3 This concurrent resolution may be cited as the ''Non- 4 Proliferation Treaty Enhancement Resolution of 2005''. 5 SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY. 6 The Congress- 7 (1) reaffirms its support for the objectives of 8 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 9 Weapons (NPT) and expresses its support for ap- 10 propriate measures to strengthen the NPT; 11 (2) calls on all parties participating in the Sev- 12 enth Review Conference on the Treaty on the Non- 13 Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to make good 14 faith efforts to- (A) establish more effective controls on 16 critical technologies that can be used to produce 17 materials for nuclear weapons; 18 (B) ensure universal adoption of the Addi- 19 tional Protocol to the NPT and support the authority and ability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect and monitor compliance with nonproliferation rules and standards; 3 (C) conduct vigorous diplomacy and use 4 collective economic leverage to halt uranium en- 5 richment and other nuclear fuel cycle activities 6 in Iran, and verifiably dismantle North Korea's 7 nuclear weapons capacity; 8 (D) conduct diplomacy to address the un- 9 derlying regional security problems in North- 10 east Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East, 11 which would facilitate nuclear nonproliferation 12 efforts in those regions; 13 (E) accelerate programs to eliminate nu- 14 clear weapons, including their fissile material, 15 and to safeguard nuclear weapons-grade fissile 16 materials to the highest standards in order to 17 prevent access by terrorists or other states, de- 18 crease and ultimately end the use of highly en- 19 riched uranium in civilian reactors, and 20 strengthen national and international export 21 controls and material security measures as re- 22 quired by United Nations Resolution 1540; 23 (F) establish procedures to ensure that a 24 state cannot retain access to controlled nuclear 25 materials, equipment, technology, and compo- nents acquired for peaceful purposes or avoid 2 sanctions imposed by the United Nations for 3 violations of the NPT by withdrawing from the 4 NPT, whether or not such withdrawal is con- 5 sistent with Article X of the NPT; 6 (G) implement the disarmament obliga- 7 tions and commitments of the parties that are 8 related to the NPT by- 9 (i) further reducing the size of their 10 nuclear stockpiles (including reserves); 11 (ii) taking all steps to improve com- 12 mand and control of nuclear weapons in 13 order to eliminate the chances of an acci- 14 dental or unauthorized use of nuclear 15 weapons; 16 (iii) continuing the moratorium on nu- 17 clear test explosions, and, for those parties 18 who have not already done so, taking steps 19 to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban 20 Treaty; 21 (iv) pursuing an agreement to verifi- 22 ably halt the production of fissile materials 23 for weapons; 24 (v) reaffirming existing pledges to non-nuclear-weapon state members of the 2 NPT that they will not be subjected to nu- 3 clear attack or threats of attack; and 4 (vi) undertaking a rigorous and accu- 5 rate accounting of substrategic nuclear 6 weapons and negotiating an agreement to 7 verifiably reduce such stockpiles; and 8 (3) affirms its support for the Proliferation Se- 9 curity Initiative, and urges additional nations to join 10 the Initiative. 11 ---- World Governments Unanimously Adopt Treaty on Nuclear Terrorism NEW YORK, New York, April 14, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-14-04.asp The 191 nation UN General Assembly unanimously adopted an international treaty against nuclear terrorism on Wednesday. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan hailed the treaty as "a vital step forward" in multilateral efforts to prevent terrorists from gaining access to "the most lethal weapons known to humanity." The treaty makes it a crime for any individual or group, but not a government, to possess or use radioactive material or a radioactive device with the intention to cause death or serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment. It also makes it a crime for an individual or group to damage a nuclear facility. Nations that are parties to the convention must change their national laws to make those acts "punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of these offenses." The treaty, formally known as the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, requires the extradition or prosecution of those implicated and encourages the exchange of information and inter-state cooperation. All signatories must make clear that such terrorist acts cannot be justified "by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, religious or other similar nature." The Nuclear Terrorism Convention will open for signature on September 14 at the high level plenary meeting scheduled for the Assembly's 60th session, and it will enter into force after 22 governments ratify it Annan called on all countries to become parties to the convention without delay, noting that it was one of the key recommendations contained in his recent report on overall UN reform called "In Larger Freedom." The secretary-general urged adoption of the convention most recently in his March 23 address to the meeting of the League of Arab States in Algiers, Algeria. Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Stuart Holliday said the new convention "will provide a legal basis for international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution, and extradition of those who commit terrorist acts involving radioactive material or a nuclear device." The convention sends "an undeniably clear signal that the international community will not tolerate those who threaten or commit terrorist acts involving radioactive material or nuclear devices," Holliday said. The treaty joins 12 other anti-terrorism treaties, but it is the first counterterrorism convention adopted by the General Assembly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on U.S. targets. "By its action today, the General Assembly has shown that it can, when it has the political will, play an important role in the global fight against terrorism," said Holliday. U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States welcomes the General Assembly’s unanimous adoption of the Nuclear Terrorism Convention. He said that President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin called for early adoption of this convention in their February 24 joint statement on Nuclear Security Cooperation. An ad hoc committee of the General Assembly began drafting the convention in 1996 at the urging of Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Moscow Wednesday that the initiative, advanced by Russia almost eight years ago, "was approved actually unchanged." He said it is the first international accord adopted at the Russian initiative and he emphasized its preemptive nature. "Today the threat of weapons of mass destruction getting into the hands of terrorists is on everybody's lips," Lavrov told the Novosti news agency. Ad hoc committee Chairman Rohan Perera of Sri Lanka told a press briefing on April 1 at UN Headquarters in New York that negotiations had been stuck on several politically motivated, outstanding issues that the Committee had tried to deal with for several years. Perera noted a proposal by Pakistan on use of nuclear weapons by governments, which many felt were outside the scope of a law enforcement convention dealing with non-state actors. While disarmament treaties deal with the actions of States, this convention deals with the acts of individuals. The scope of the convention, as with the other 12 in the area of terrorism, deals with individual criminal responsibility. The proposal of Pakistan was to include the acts of States in the convention. Another proposal was by the United States, which wanted to include in the preamble the idea that the goals of the peaceful utilization of nuclear technology should not be used as a cover for proliferation. That, in turn, prompted Iran to propose an amendment to the United States proposal, saying that all States parties to the treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Both proposals failed. Quote of Note "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." -- Aldo Leopold, American environmentalist and author Questions or Comments: editor@ens-news.com ---- -------- u.n. U.N. Votes To Outlaw Nuclear Terrorism No New Restrictions Put on Atomic Arms By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A23 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51708-2005Apr13?language=printer UNITED NATIONS, April 13 -- The 191-member U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday unanimously approved a treaty outlawing the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists and their supporters. The Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism is the first anti-terrorism treaty to be adopted since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. It is the 13th anti-terrorism treaty and builds on recent efforts by the U.N. Security Council to compel states to strengthen their laws and policies to combat terrorist groups. The treaty, which governments will begin signing at the General Assembly session in September, criminalizes the possession or use of radioactive material or a nuclear device "to cause death or serious bodily injury." It also makes it a crime to use a nuclear device to damage property or the environment or to attack a nuclear facility. It requires governments that ratify the treaty to amend national laws to prevent terrorists and their supporters from financing, planning or participating in nuclear terrorism. It also calls on governments to share information, ease extradition proceedings and pursue criminal prosecutions of suspects linked to such terrorist acts. The nuclear treaty, which places no new restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons by states, will become law after it is ratified by 22 states. "The convention will provide a legal basis for international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and extradition of those who commit terrorist acts involving radioactive material or a nuclear devices," said Stuart W. Holliday, the U.S. representative to the United Nations for special political affairs. Wednesday's vote ended seven years of negotiations that began when former Russian president Boris Yeltsin proposed a treaty to prevent rogue terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear material from insecure facilities spread across the former Soviet Union. An agreement on language was struck after members of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference were assured that the treaty would not be used to impose a generic definition of terrorism. Defining terrorism has been an intensely controversial issue at the United Nations, where Islamic governments have argued that anti-Israel national liberation movements that have targeted civilians should not be considered terrorists. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has pressed the U.N. membership to adopt another convention by the end of next year that would provide a simple, universal definition of terrorism and outlaw all forms of terrorism against civilians. Nuclear arms proliferation experts generally welcomed the General Assembly's actions as an indication of its recognition of the threat but voiced skepticism over the treaty's capacity to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. "It's a good thing" that they are making a concerted effort to grapple with the threat of nuclear terrorism, said Charles D. Ferguson II, an expert on terrorism at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the bottom line is, it's not going to stop it." ---- ------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- connecticut Millstone Changes Meant To Keep Better Track Of Spent Fuel Two Fuel Rods Disappeared From Plant Five Years Ago By PATRICIA DADDONA The Day Staff Writer, Waterford Published on 4/14/2005 http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=7cfe19a2-0e13-460d-9561-aecd0653003f Waterford — Millstone Power Station, the poster child for poor tracking of nuclear waste, has implemented two changes in how it accounts for radioactive spent fuel since two fuel rods disappeared five years ago. Those changes are a computer system that tracks the location of spent fuel rods and closer oversight by reactor engineers of any workers coming into spent fuel pool areas, according to Pete Hyde, spokesman for Millstone owner Dominion Nuclear Connecticut. The adjustments in record-keeping and plant oversight are not part of any industry-wide improvements called for by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Today, according to industry critics, the NRC still has not implemented mandatory methods for tracking and storing the spent fuel rods. “The overarching problem,” said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for the Nuclear Information Resource Service, “is that the NRC has deferred its nuclear regulatory responsibility of the management of spent fuel to reactor owners. When the NRC does that, the industry often abuses self-reporting. This is never more apparent than with the missing fuel rods.” Gunter's comments were in response to the release on Tuesday of a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office asserting that several plants had missing rods or fragments before Millstone's came to light and that control of spent fuel in this country is “uneven.” The report calls for the NRC to set up uniform instructions for inventories. It also calls for the NRC to monitor more than once a year each plant's system for tracking spent fuel, a practice the NRC discontinued in 1988. The NRC has always required record-keeping of spent fuel and an annual inventory, but every reactor owner is allowed to devise its approach, the GAO report states. Although the NRC took steps before the GAO study to begin gathering data that could lead to revisions of its regulations on spent fuel, it likely will end up with guidelines rather than instructions, said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan and Todd Jackson, an NRC senior health physicist. The federal agency typically sets goals that reactor owners are required to meet but lets the owners decide how to achieve them, the two men said on Wednesday. GAO report author Jim Wells notes in the study that Millstone's experience led to improvements last year at Vermont Yankee and the now-closed Humboldt reactor in California. Vermont Yankee recovered missing fragments of a fuel rod but only after learning that its records were poorly kept and periodic inspections were inadequate. In 2004, Vermont lawmakers asked for the GAO study because of public concern over the missing fragments. •••The previous owner of Millstone, Northeast Utilities, realized it was missing two spent fuel rods in 2000. At the time, it was trying to account for all its nuclear material before selling the three reactors in Waterford to Dominion. NU spent $9 million to investigate what happened and paid a $288,000 fine. The rods were never recovered. Nuclear fuel rods are 12 feet long and the thickness of a person's thumb. Hundreds are arranged vertically inside metal grids called assemblies. Ceramic pellets of radioactive uranium inside the rods create fission in the reactor core, but once used, they must be cooled in 40-foot-deep pools of treated water to diffuse intense radioactivity and heat. Exposure to uranium can kill or cause cancer, and used fuel can be recycled in weaponry. Millstone's missing rods had been hanging in a container on the side of the fuel pool at Millstone 1, which had been shut down in 1995. Millstone 2 and 3 continue to operate. Investigators hired by NU evaluated 75 plausible scenarios before concluding the rods were not stolen but had likely ended up in a low-level hazardous waste dump in Barnwell, S.C. Managers on the floor of the Millstone 1 pool failed to be vigilant when outside contractors conducted work there, according to Hyde and Jackson, who was the lead inspector of the NRC's investigation. It was not uncommon, they said, to hang equipment or debris irradiated in the reactor core along the side of the pool. A contractor apparently disposed of the container and its two rods, along with other low-level radioactive waste. There is no written record of where they went, the GAO report states. Since the Millstone incident, Dominion keeps pool areas free of irradiated debris, Hyde said. “As of February, 2002, everything's accounted for in Millstone 2 and 3 and in Millstone 1, except for the missing rods,” Hyde said. “Typically we don't handle fuel if we can avoid it.” Millstone began refueling its two operating plants on Saturday, a process done every 18 months to remove a third of the assemblies from the core, where fission occurs, and put them into storage. This spring, Millstone and other reactor owners must give the NRC information on how they are tracking the storage of their spent fuel. Detailed inspections of some plants will follow, said Sheehan of the NRC. The GAO report criticized the NRC for not establishing more demanding regulations in the five years since Millstone discovered that two of its rods were missing. Gunter said that the NRC appears more concerned with the financial interests of the utilities it regulates than with fixing the problem. “Who knows,” said Gunter. “The NRC is noted for its glacial response to policy issues and its prompt response to production issues.” Sheehan said the NRC has had to set aside some initiatives while addressing the nation's security concerns. “There's a lot of things that are under way that might not be fully satisfying to everyone, but it's not something we take lightly,” he said. p.daddona@theday.com -------- utah Energy backs Utah uranium removal April 13, 2005 By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050412-103014-7574r.htm The Bush administration will recommend that 12 million tons of radioactive waste in Moab, Utah, be relocated to protect the nearby Colorado River, which provides drinking water to 25 million people in four states. The Energy Department's decision came as a surprise to many officials and environmentalists, who feared the final determination would be based on a low-cost solution: storing decades of uranium mining waste within 750 feet of the river's edge. 'The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the Southwest, and it makes sense environmentally and economically to move this pile now to a safe location,' said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, a Republican and senior member of the Utah congressional delegation who has lobbied aggressively to move the waste pile. 'The tailings have to go, and I'm glad the [Energy Department] finally saw the light and agrees with us,' he said. Uranium was mined for atomic weapons and nuclear reactors in the 1950s. All that is left of the abandoned mines are 130 acres of radioactive waste towering 90 feet above the Colorado River, which flows through Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California. The Moab facility is the last decommissioned uranium mill to be decontaminated. Energy Department officials say the waste already is leaking into the river but that it quickly dissipates. Residents and local officials, however, fear a major flood could push even more of the waste into the water. The recommendation is to relocate the waste by rail to a permanent site 35 miles north of the river. This 'preferred alternative' is included in the Environmental Impact Statement due this summer, said Joel Berwick, Moab project manager at the Energy Department. The desert town of Moab is known for skiing, rock climbing, mountain biking, skydiving and kayaking. Millions of tourists each year visit the nearby red rock cliffs and parks, including Arches National Park. However, Moab's 6,000 residents did not have the political power necessary to get action until this year. 'We live in paradise here, a small town in the middle of nowhere, and we recognized from the very beginning that to make this happen, we had to get water users downstream to speak out loud and clear with us,' said Grand County Council member Joette Langianese. Bill Hedden, executive director of the Grand Canyon Trust, said lobbying efforts from state and federal agencies, governors and members of Congress were essential to provide a unified front with local residents and environmentalists to get the uranium waste moved. In the 1990s, mine owner Atlas Minerals Corp. was given permission by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to store the waste by the river, but when the company went bankrupt in 2000 Congress turned over the cleanup to the Energy Department. -------- vermont VY waste storage worries Mass. lawmakers By CAROLYN LORIé Brattleboro Reformer Staff Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 2:15:55 AM EST http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8862~2815728,00.html BRATTLEBORO -- In a letter to Gov. Jim Douglas, five Massachusetts legislators voiced their concerns about dry cask storage at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The April 5 letter asked the Vermont Legislature to "effect safe, secure, limited and temporary storage of nuclear waste" at the plant. It was signed by Massachusetts Reps. Christopher Donelan, Stephen Kulik, Denis Guyer, Stephen Brewer and Mass. Sen. Stanley Rosenberg. Brattleboro's nuclear watchdog group the New England Coalition released the letter in a press release on Wednesday. Vermont's Legislature has been weighing whether or not to allow the plant to store some of its spent fuel in dry casks at the Vernon site. There will be a hearing on the matter at Brattleboro Union High School tonight at 6. The plant currently stores all of its spent fuel in a pool in the reactor building, but will need additional space by 2008 or 2007, if power production is increased. While the plant is in Vermont, Massachusetts residents are affected by what happens at the site, especially those living within the 10-mile emergency planning zone. Seven Massachusetts towns -- Leyden, Bernardston, Northfield, Colrain, Warwick, Greenfield and Gill -- are either entirely or partially within a 10-mile radius of the plant. All residents within the EPZ would be part of an evacuation and/or shelter-in-place plan if there were an accident at Vermont Yankee. The representatives and senators who signed the letter made five specific requests: * that cask radiation emanations are minimized; * that the casks are protected from line-of-sight targeting from missiles, ballistics or aircraft; * that the casks are protected from assaults from explosives; * that sufficient fuel is moved to dry cask to ensure density of fuel storage in the spent fuel pool is substantially reduced; * that dry cask storage is not used to enable license renewal. According to Rep. Stephen Kulik, D-2nd Franklin, Massachusetts legislators and residents are frustrated by their inability to take part in the decision-making process regarding Vermont Yankee matters. "A significant amount -- if not the majority -- of the impact of an accident falls on those in the communities downwind or down river, most of which are in Massachusetts," said Kulik. Though elected officials to the south cannot play a formal role in legislating policy around Vermont Yankee, they have consistently lobbied Vermont and federal officials to listen to the concerns of their constituents. At a public meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March 2004, several letters from Massachusetts selectboards and state representatives were presented to the federal regulator. When fuel was reported missing from the plant in April of last year, U.S. Rep. John Olver, D-Mass., joined Vermont's congressional delegation in urging the U.S. Government Accounting Office to investigate the matter. Kulik said that there is a "significant level of concern" among Massachusetts residents in Northern Franklin and Worcester counties, not only about dry cask storage but about the possibility of increased power production at the plant. "We can beat the drum, try to raise awareness and get our feelings on the record and hope that officials in other states and in Washington D.C. do the right thing," said Kulik. -------- MILITARY -------- business Billions More for Military Contractors and Permanent Bases April 14, 2005 by Aaron Glantz Antiwar http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=5550 In Baghdad yesterday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters the U.S. has no "exit strategy" for the country – just a "victory strategy." That statement seems in line with the sentiment of most lawmakers on Capitol Hill. They're posed to approve another $80 billion for American military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Included in the request is money to construct 14 "enduring" military bases in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Ask any one senator what he or she thinks of building 14 new military bases in Iraq, and you're likely to get an answer like this one from Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow. "I think it's very clear and very unfortunate that we are a long way from having stability in Iraq," she told me as she walked off the Senate floor. "Unfortunately, we're going to be facing a lot of challenges in Iraq for a long time." The new U.S. military bases in Iraq will likely be built in concert with Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton. Congressional staffers told me that the company will like to receive 5 to 6 billion dollars more if the new monies are approved, and that number could rise. Halliburton hasn't been on-budget in the past. "Excess cost, unaccounted-for lost equipment – really a whole variety of things" is how Charles Cray described the company's practices over the last three years. Cray helps manage the Web site www.HalliburtonWatch.org. He notes data released by Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) this week that showed Halliburton has overcharged the U.S. government $212 million since the occupation began. "This $82 billion supplemental [that Congress will be voting on], when it came from the White House, it had no provisions to increase oversight," he said. Republicans on Capitol Hill have blocked Democratic efforts to increase oversight. Meantime, the Los Angeles Times reported this week that of the 20 water treatment and 24 sewage plants San Francisco-based Bechtel Corporation had announced it fixed, none are currently working. Still, Democratic senators say they have no choice but to join their Republican colleagues and approve $80 billion more for the wars. "The overriding goal of supporting the troops is one I can't argue with," Senator Barack Obama of Illinois told me. "I meet too many families back in Illinois whose children are over there – you visit Walter Reed [military hospital] and you see double amputees who are 18 years old, and you can't hold them hostage despite some significant policy differences." Some, however, see more support for the U.S. military in Iraq as continuing and worsening a cycle of violence. Sean Langan is a documentary filmmaker with the BBC who spent months reporting both embedded and unembedded in Fallujah. He told me that the more the U.S. cracks down on the insurgency, the more it grows. And, he says, that's not good for the troops. "Many of these guys back home would be the good guys," he said. "They would be the guys who would help out in the community, and yet finding themselves in a town like Fallujah where they are getting shot at every day, they ended up as the bad guys. The nice guys and good guys were then the same guys who would shout abuse at the Iraqi civilians and run cars off the road. Whatever kind of guy you are, you end up in a difficult, no-win situation." Final approval of George Bush's $80 billion war package is expected by early next week. -------- us Pentagon Drops Cleanup and Resource Conservation Duties WASHINGTON, DC, April 14, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-14-09.asp#anchor3 The Pentagon has reduced its environmental responsiblities in a policy shift that eliminates Clinton era protections. The change originates in a directive signed on March 19 by outgoing Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who is moving on to head the World Bank. Under the Wolfowitz directive, the Pentagon will confine its anti-pollution work to activities that directly “sustain the national defense mission.” The new "Environmental Safety & Occupational Health" directive cancels the Clinton era “Environmental Security” directive. The new policy eliminates provisions for: * “Reducing risk to human health and the environment by identifying, evaluating, and where necessary, remediating contamination resulting from past DoD activities” * “Protecting, preserving, and, when required, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the environment” * “Conserving, and restoring where necessary, the natural and cultural heritage represented on DoD installations within the United States.” In an apparent concession to criticisms leveled when Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) posted a draft of the new policy in December, the final version was changed to add as policy “to protect DoD personnel from accidental death, injury or occupational illness” and “to protect the public from risk of death, injury, illness, or property damage because of DoD activities.” “These changes show that protecting the public and even their own personnel from environmental threats is an afterthought,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “One additional change to the final policy is opening ‘dialogue’ on environmental issues, which is ironic coming in a document that was developed in secret in the utter absence of dialogue.” At the same time, the U.S. Army issued an Earth Day 2005 message that justifies using natural resources to support military training. As "the Army’s most precious resource," soldiers need "a realistic training environment in which they can test their equipment, hone their skills, and prepare for combat. They deserve a healthy environment in which they and their families can live safely. We must nurture the environment with an eye toward partnerships so that our neighbors understand and support our mission," the Army says in a message approved March 7. "Over the past 35 years, the Army has joined the Nation in celebrating Earth Day on April 22nd. The Army’s Earth Day theme this year, “Sustaining the Environment for a Secure Future,” reflects our commitment to meet the current and future needs of Soldiers, their families, and the Nation through the sound stewardship of environmental resources," the Army states. The new policy directive reduces Pentagon compliance with anti-pollution rules by dropping requirements that it obey “regulations, Executive orders, binding international agreements” and other federal “environmental, safety, occupational health, explosives safety, fire and emergency services, and pest management policies.” In its place, the Pentagon pledges only to abide by “applicable law and DoD policy.” The new Directive says that the Pentagon “will evaluate all activities…and make prudent investments in initiatives that support mission accomplishment, enhance readiness, reduce future funding needs, prevent pollution, ensure cost effective compliance, and maximize the existing resource capability.” Department of Defense directives define the agency’s mission and responsibilities. By its terms, this Directive covers all “DoD operations, activities, and installations worldwide, including Government-owned/contractor-operated facilities.” See the new directive at: https://www.denix.osd.mil/ Review the Pentagon’s Five-Year Plan to Exempt Itself from Environmental Laws at: http://www.peer.org/watch/federal_info.php?row_id=3 -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence GMU Faculty Decries Patriot Act Resolution Warns of Threat to Academic Freedom By Maria Glod Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page B06 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51216-2005Apr13.html George Mason University's faculty senate passed a resolution yesterday critical of the broad investigative powers granted to law enforcement agencies after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying they could have a chilling effect on academic freedom. In a statement that mirrors those supported by scholars at institutions including Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley, the professors said the wide latitude government agencies have in secretly reading e-mail or reviewing a person's library selections could mute debate and research at all institutions of higher education. "The preservation of civil rights and liberties is essential to the well-being of a democratic society and an academic environment," the resolution reads. The governmental powers, particularly those set out in the USA Patriot Act, "threaten fundamental rights and liberties." In the 2 1/2-page resolution, the faculty senate, joined by the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors, calls on university administrators to inform students if authorities seek their school records and to make sure students know that authorities can secretly view their library records, bookstore purchases and electronic communication. The resolution, which the professors asked to be forwarded to President Bush, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez and other federal and state officials, comes as Congress is considering whether to renew the Patriot Act fully. The act was passed overwhelmingly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon but has been criticized by liberal and conservative groups. Several of the act's provisions are set to expire at the end of the year. James T. Bennett, faculty senate chairman and an economics professor, said all but one of more than 30 members who attended the meeting voted for the resolution. "The Patriot Act runs against the grain of the typical academic," Bennett said. "The whole idea of the academy is to look at all different points of view. This is the kind of thing that takes place in a dictatorship." Clifton D. Sutton, a statistics professor, cast the sole vote against the resolution. He said the possibility of government intrusion is a small price to pay if it means that more people will be safe from terrorist attacks. "I think it's just something we have to live with," Sutton said. "I think most of us don't have anything to hide, and I'm comfortable the FBI and other agencies will do the right thing." In addition to criticizing the powers for library searches, the resolution speaks out against the government's authority to search medical and financial records "with little if any judicial oversight." It also is critical of the authority to deny enemy combatants access to the courts. David L. Kuebrich, an associate professor of English who is secretary of the faculty senate, said he thinks the danger in the Patriot Act "is that we will curtail speech or research that would be quite critical of foreign policy at a time when we really need a broad review and to be open to dissenting voices." -------- prisons / prisoners Guantanamo Detainee Suing U.S. to Get Video of Alleged Torture By Carol Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A02 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51466-2005Apr13.html A detainee at a U.S. military prison alleges that U.S. military guards jumped on his head until he had a stroke that paralyzed his face, nearly drowned him in a toilet and later broke several of his fingers, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court. The detainee, Mustafa Ait Idr, 34, an Algerian citizen living in Bosnia, has been held at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for three years on suspicion that he plotted to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Bosnia. The lawsuit, filed by his attorneys in federal court in Boston, alleges that the government has probably videotaped Idr's beatings and demands that it produce any such tapes and all records of alleged torture and interrogation tactics at the detention facility. The lawyers asked for the material seven months ago under the Freedom of Information Act. The lawsuit asserts that the Defense and Justice departments are refusing to provide the material. A Defense Department representative, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the department does not comment on individual detainees' cases and could not comment on the lawsuit because it had not yet received it. Idr described the alleged abuse to his attorneys when they visited him in Cuba recently. His account of the beatings is very similar to written military summaries of the incidents, according to the lawsuit. The military videotaped the work of teams of prison guards responsible for quelling disturbances by detainees and created written summaries of the material on the tapes. More than two dozen detainees have alleged in declassified accounts given to their attorneys that the teams' real purpose was to force them to confess or cooperate with interrogators. "The departments of Defense and Justice must explain how these abuses happened and take action," said Avi Cover, senior associate at Human Rights First, an advocacy group. Idr was accused of plotting with five others to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo in November 2001. All were acquitted by a Bosnian court in January 2002, but U.S. agents arrested them as they left the courthouse and eventually took them to Guantanamo Bay. Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Broadcasters Must Reveal Video Clips' Sources, FCC Says By Frank Ahrens Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A02 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51375-2005Apr13?language=printer Television broadcasters must disclose to viewers the origin of video news releases produced by the government or corporations when the material runs on the public airwaves, the Federal Communications Commission said yesterday. The FCC's ruling comes as video news releases produced by the Bush administration and aired as part of local television news reports have come under attack from critics who call them unlabeled Republican propaganda. Some members of Congress say greater disclosure is needed. Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) plan to introduce an amendment to a junk fax bill today that would require government agencies -- such as the Department of Health and Human Services, whose video news release on Medicare and Medicaid was deemed propaganda by the Government Accountability Office last year -- to tell viewers that a clip was produced and paid for by the U.S. government. "The bottom line is, the government's role in these news stories needs to be disclosed," said Lautenberg, a member of the Commerce Committee, which will consider the amendment. Yesterday, the FCC unanimously clarified rules applying to broadcasters, saying they must disclose to the viewer the origins of video news releases, though the agency does not specify what form the disclosure must take. "We have a responsibility to tell broadcasters they have to let people know where the material is coming from," said FCC Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, a Democrat. "Viewers are hoodwinked into thinking it's really a news story when it might be from the government or a big corporation trying to influence the way they think. This will put them in a better position to decide for themselves what to make of it." Critics of the video news releases say their style -- often featuring an actor portraying a reporter interviewing a government official, giving the government's side of a issue -- easily can be confused for the journalistic reports they appear alongside of. The TV news industry is increasingly inclined to air such releases in an era of 24-hour news channels and shrinking budgets that hamper news organizations' ability to produce their own reports, experts say. Corporations also produce and distribute video news releases to promote products or burnish their image. The Lautenberg-Kerry amendment follows a GAO recommendation to include on-screen disclaimers during the video news release, explaining the piece was produced by the U.S. government, Lautenberg staffers said. The GAO report said the administration had violated the law by using federal money to produce propaganda. "The government makes these things," said Dan Katz, Lautenberg's chief counsel. "If they would identify themselves upfront it would be a much more efficient way of dealing with this problem." The Bush administration's Office of Management and Budget disagreed with the GAO's finding. -------- voting British fury over 1,000 ballots found April 14, 2005 (UPI) http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050414-110842-4532r.htm Birmingham, England, Apr. 14 -- A legal uproar swept England Thursday when about 1,000 uncounted ballots from last June's local elections were found in a Birmingham electoral office. The discovery was triggered by a Birmingham city council member, who received a tip Tuesday from a staff member in the elections office that the box was in an archive room, The Telegraph reported. Chief Elections Officer John Owen was immediately suspended as fraud squad officers attempted to determine how and why the mail-in ballots were never opened and then hidden. While they have yet to be opened, the ballots are believed unlikely to have influenced a result, the newspaper said. However, the incident is sure to raise more questions about the vulnerability of the postal voting system, recently criticized as an "open invitation to fraud" by an election court judge. It also sets back government officials trying to restore public faith in the run-up to next month's general election. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Solar Firms Say Silicon Shortage Will Stall Growth Story by Georgina Prodhan REUTERS GERMANY: April 14, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30382/story.htm MUNICH - Top solar power executives voiced fears on Wednesday that their industry's stellar growth over the past few years might stall due to a global shortage of polysilicon, the main component of solar cells. Takashi Tomita of Japan's Sharp, the world's biggest solar-cell maker, warned of what he called a "vicious spiral" in which the market could grind to a halt as rocketing silicon prices meant suppliers could not afford to meet demand. "I am very worried about it, because a shortage of polysilicon materials would lead to an increase in prices of polysilicon and could ultimately lead to a stagnation of the solar-cell market, said Tomita, chief of solar systems at Sharp. The solar market currently supplies a fraction of 1 percent of the world's energy needs and is worth an estimated $7 billion annually. The industry may increase that proportion to 8 percent by 2030, according to the European Renewable Energy Council. Given generous subsidies from some governments -- notably Japan and Germany, the world's two biggest producers of solar power -- demand has soared for the panels that harness energy from the sun to provide electricity without emitting carbon. But prices for solar-grade silicon, which have leapt from around $9 per kilo in 2000 to $25 last year and $60 this month, are threatening to put the brakes on the annual growth rates of 30 to 40 percent the industry has seen since 1997. Silicon makes up most of the earth's crust, but it is very expensive to purify into forms such as polysilicon that are used in the high-tech industry. Unlike in 2000 when solar-cell firms could snap up cheap surplus polysilicon no longer required by semiconductor makers after the high-tech bubble burst, the solar industry now has to compete with a healthy electronics sector. And chipmakers can more easily afford higher prices, because silicon is a far smaller component of chips than of solar cells. Polysilicon producers, meanwhile, are developing means of making cheaper, solar-grade silicon especially for solar cells, which need not be as pure as that used for semiconductors, but volume production is some years off. HITTING THE BUFFERS In the face of the looming crisis, managers of companies including Shell Solar and Norway's REC lined up at a conference at the Semicon trade fair in the German city of Munich to suggest a variety of cost-cutting strategies. Proposals ranged from making the silicon wafers that solar cells are built on bigger, or thinner, to moving to a different production method altogether, so-called thin-film, in which entire panels are made in one go rather than being assembled. But in the short term, none of these will make a serious dent in costs, because materials -- largely polysilicon -- account for 80 percent of the production costs of solar cells. At the same time, subsidies are being slowly reduced in Germany and will be stopped in Japan this year. Tomita declined to give a forecast for the Japanese solar market this year, beyond saying he expected "moderate growth". "We've hit the buffers at the moment," Tim Bruton of Britain's New and Renewable Energy Centre told Reuters. "There's not enough silicon to keep fuelling this rate of growth." Bruton, a former head of research and development at BP Solar, said he expected growth to slow to around 10 percent this year and next, before a likely acceleration in 2007. "I would say the industry has been quite lazy," he added. "When it was able to buy cheap, scrap silicon, there was no real incentive to be more efficient. It has to do so now." -------- energy House Committees Advance Slimmed-Down $8 Billion Energy Tax Package April 14, 2005 — By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7528 WASHINGTON — Lawmakers plowed through an energy bill Wednesday that would provide billions of dollars in tax breaks to industry, open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling and aid farmers by expanding the use of ethanol in gasoline. House tax writers advanced an $8 billion package of energy tax breaks as two other committees moved closer toward approving non-tax sections of the massive legislation, which largely mirrors one the House approved two years ago only to see it die in the Senate. Democrats failed in an attempt to remove a provision that would, for the first time, allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Their effort was rebuffed 30-13 in the House Resources Committee. "This is about making the country safer," said Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, because it will increase domestic production and ease reliance on imports. The government estimates about 10.4 billion barrels of oil beneath the refuge's coastal plain. Environmentalists complain oil drilling will harm caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife. The refuge drilling issue is all but certain to be rejected in the Senate, where opponents have vowed to block it by filibuster. Refuge drilling proponents in the Senate, instead, are hoping to get the measure passed as part of the budget process where the filibuster cannot be used. The House has repeatedly favored opening the refuge, despite strong opposition from environmentalists. The full House was expected to take up the energy legislation next week. The tax provisions, many of which would help energy companies, included more favorable tax treatment to spur expansion and modernization of the electric grid and construction of natural gas pipelines to meet growing demand for electricity and gas. Democrats complained that the tax package, which advanced out of the Ways and Means Committee, provides little to promote renewable energy sources and reduce energy use while funneling tax benefits to energy companies that already are making huge profits from high energy prices. "There is no provision ... that will lower the price of gasoline, only protect the profits of the oil industry," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. "What do the American people get -- nothing but a raw deal." Of the $8 billion in tax incentive over 10 years, less than $500 million would go to promote renewable energy sources or foster efficiency and conservation programs. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., the Ways and Means Committee chairman, said he expects programs to be added during negotiations with the Senate. The final array of tax provisions "will look somewhat different," he said. The tax incentives, approved 26-11, dwarfed proposals agreed to in energy legislation two years ago when lawmakers cobbled together more than $23 billion in tax breaks for energy development and conservation. That bill died because of a dispute over a gasoline additive, MTBE, and because some Senate Republicans objected to the legislation's huge cost. Separately, Republicans deflected an attempt by Democrats to include in the energy legislation tougher fuel economy requirements on automobiles -- a subject barely addressed in the GOP-drafted energy legislation. A proposal, offered by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would require the Transportation Department to boost fleet-wide auto fuel economy requirements to 33 miles per gallon beginning with 2015 model year cars, was defeated. The federal requirement is 27 mpg. Markey said cars are less fuel efficient than they were eight years ago. "We are now moving backwards," he said. The GOP bill, as did the legislation two year ago, would increase the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive, a major boost for farmers. It will require at least 5 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol to be used annually, about a third more than current production. The legislation also would: -- Require the Energy Department to stop oil from being added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if oil prices dip below $40 a barrel. The bill also calls for expanding the reserve from 700 million barrels, slightly more than it now has, to 1 billion barrels. -- Give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission clear final authority to approve liquefied natural gas import terminals, even over state or local objections. -- A 20 percent tax credit up to $2,000 for homeowners who put in more energy efficient windows, doors and insulation. -- Ease environmental reviews of alternative energy projects such as hydropower dams, offshore wind farms and waste incinerators used for making energy. -------- health Labs Asked to Destroy Killer Flu Virus Story by Richard Waddington REUTERS SWITZERLAND: April 14, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30364/story.htm GENEVA - A killer strain of a flu virus sent to laboratories around the world as part of routine test kits could trigger a global outbreak, although the risk of a pandemic is low, officials said on Wednesday. Senior World Health Organization scientist Dr. Klaus Stohr said the virus, which killed between 1 million and 4 million people in the late 1950s, had gone to about 3,700 laboratories, nearly all of which are in the United States. "The virus could cause a global (flu) outbreak. It was an unwise decision to send it out," said Stohr, who heads the United Nations health agency's influenza program. But the laboratories, which are sent viruses so they can test their own capabilities in detecting flu strains, are experienced in handling such material. Most already had been alerted to the danger, so there was little chance of anyone catching it, Stohr said. "It is a risk, but it is considered low. It should not lead to a big scare," Stohr said. The virus, known as H2N2, was deadliest in 1957 and 1958, and people born after 1968 would have little immunity to it. It was not certain whether all US recipients had been located yet. "There is more detective work to be done there," Stohr said. He added that the first batches were delivered as far back as October and no infections had been reported. Outside North America, the microbes went to some 61 laboratories, and all of them had been contacted, Stohr said. GLOBAL SCARE Headlines about the mix-up raised concern in Washington and around the world. "It's a high priority that the Centers for Disease Control (and Prevention) and the Department of Health and Human Services are working to address," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "They have assessed that the risk to the public from these samples is low. Nevertheless, we do not want to take any chances," he added. It was not immediately clear why the samples of H2N2 were distributed to labs. The US CDC was expected to make a statement later. Cincinnati, Ohio-based Meridian Bioscience, which sent out the H2N2 virus samples, denied it violated any rules and said it was working on contract to the College of American Pathologists. "Such samples are used by professional laboratories accustomed to handling viral agents. The company has a long history of supplying samples to the (college) and believes it has been and is in compliance with all applicable regulations," it said in a statement. The College of American Pathologists issued instructions for all samples to be destroyed and planned to report to the WHO and US health authorities by Friday, Stohr said. The latest alert comes as the WHO is already sounding the alarm over influenza because it fears that a continuing outbreak of the deadly bird flu in Asia, if not contained, could eventually trigger a human pandemic. In an average year influenza kills up to 500,000 people globally and 36,000 in the United States alone. WHO was first alerted on March 26 by the Canadian Public Health Agency. Countries outside the United States that had received samples for testing included Saudi Arabia, Jamaica, Mexico, Lebanon, Brazil, Hong Kong and Italy, Stohr said. -------- ACTIVISTS NY Law Enforcement Caught Doctoring Video of RNC Arrests Thursday, April 14th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/14/1349256 New York law enforcement is caught doctoring video of arrests made during the Republican Convention. We speak with Alexander Dunlop, whose charges were dropped after the edited video was exposed, his lawyer Michael Conroy as well as a member of I-Witness Video who helped find the footage that eventually vindicated Alexander. And we get response from the NYPD. [includes rush transcript] During last year's Republican National Convention, the city of New York witnessed some of the largest mass arrests in the city's history. 1800 people were arrested. But now the cases against the vast majority of the arrested have fallen apart. Of the nearly 1700 cases that have run their full course, 91 percent ended with charges dismissed or with a verdict of not guilty. The New York Times reported earlier this week that in some 400 cases charges were dropped because video recordings emerged showing that the arrested had not committed a crime or that the charges against them could not be proved. In at least one case video evidence was doctored. During court proceedings, the police presented a video of the arrest of a man named Alexander Dunlop. It turned out that the video presented by the police was edited in two spots - images that showed Dunlop acting peacefully were removed. We interviewed Alexander Dunlop and his lawyer Michael Conroy in our New York Studio as well as Eileen Clancy, a member of I-Witness Video. She helped find the footage that eventually vindicated Alexander. - Alexander Dunlop, arrested during Republican convention. He was charged with resisting arrest. The charges were dropped when videotape was produced that contradicted police. - Eileen Clancy, a member of I-Witness video, a project that assembled hundreds of videotapes shot during the RNC. - Michael Conroy, attorney for Alexander Dunlop. - Paul Browne, appointed the New York City Police Department's Deputy Commissioner of Public Information in January 2004. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Well, yesterday Alexander Dunlop joined us in our studio, with his lawyer, Michael Conroy as well as Eileen Clancy. She is a member of I-Witness Video. She helped find the footage that eventually vindicated Alexander. I began with Alexander Dunlop by asking him to describe what happened on that day of his arrest. ALEXANDER DUNLOP: I was trying to go to my favorite sushi place, which is on 2nd Avenue, just a few blocks away, and I took my bike and went out the door. It was about 8:45 or so. And there was an electricity in the air. I could feel it immediately as I got close to 2nd Avenue. And when I turned on to 2nd Avenue, the street was a mob scene. It was just full of people. I had never seen it like that before. And I got off my bike and I was walking around. I was asking people, “What's going on?” No one seemed to know. There was a helicopter above, on the intersection of 10th Street and 2nd Avenue. So there was something happening. I just didn't know what it was. And I even asked a few police officers. They didn't know, either. They said they didn't know. And I walked up -- I kept walking up closer to 10th Street, and I heard people chanting, and the noise kept building and building and the electricity building, and then the riot police came. And they blocked off 10th Street, and then I realized to my horror that I was blocked in by the barricade on 9th Street. They had formed, I guess, a perimeter around the area with the riot police. And I could see that I was blocked in. So, I asked a police officer, I said, “How do he get out of here?” And he pointed south toward 9th Street. And he said, “Well, you walk over there.” So I started walking over there, and I got up there, and I realized there was no exit point. And I turned around to find him again, and he said, “Well, I just asked you to go up here so I could arrest you.” So then, I was standing there. I was totally shocked. I didn't believe him. It just didn't sink in. I couldn't believe that I was going to be arrested. Then a moment later, several police officers grabbed me behind the neck and twisted my arm behind my back as if they were going to throw me on the ground. They didn't, but they sort of bent me down and put snips on, the white snips that they used there, the plastic handcuffs. And as they were leading me away one of the policemen was saying, “I bet you have never had these on you before,” which, of course, I hadn't, but he was just mocking me. But as they led me away and sat me down, and there was a big group of us in the intersection that they had arrested. They put me on the bus first, their police bus, and as they put me on, I could feel that they were very tight; it was cutting the circulation, and I saw the officer who was driving the bus, and I asked him, I said, “Could you take a look at these? I think they might be too tight. It's cutting off the circulation.” And as I turned around to him, he cinched them tighter. And I turned around, and I said, “Why did you do that?” And he said, “Well, because you might attack me.” And I was still so astonished, I couldn't -- I couldn't even process that I was being arrested, and that the police were treating me this way. It just didn't make any sense to me. AMY GOODMAN: And so what happened then? ALEXANDER DUNLOP: What happened then was I was transferred to another police van. Everyone else was loaded on, and they kept us waiting for an hour or so, and then they drove us to the piers, Pier 57, whatever it was, the temporary holding facility they had. And, I mean, they took their time putting us -- processing us, and they kept us in the holding cells, which the floors were really dirty, grimy, and people were sleeping on the floors. They were waking up in the morning, and they were all covered in grease. But I didn't -- I refused to sit on the floor. I refused to lie down. And in the morning, they took us to central booking to the Tombs. AMY GOODMAN: How were you able to reach your friends or tell anyone where you were? ALEXANDER DUNLOP: Well, I wasn't. Well, that was the thing, too, is that I was supposed to meet friends in the morning to get on a flight. My flight was at 6:00 a.m. to go to Reno, and I wasn't able to reach them. And they were worried sick, needless to say, because I was supposed to be in the cab with them to get on the plane. And they had no idea what happened. Maybe I died; maybe -- they didn’t know what happened to me. AMY GOODMAN: And so, talk about the course of this case. So you’re arrested, what were you charged with? ALEXANDER DUNLOP: Okay, so after I was held in jail, I came out at about 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. And it was then that I met a public defender who told me what my charges were. It was the first time I heard the charges against me. And I was being charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, parading without a permit and obstructing government administration, which I had never heard of before. Then I appeared in court, and I heard a prosecuting attorney say that we offer a plea of disorderly conduct with time served. And I said, “Absolutely not. I’m not taking the plea.” And then, luckily, through a mutual friend, I was able to find my current attorney, and we went back and forth to trial, pretrial hearings many times from there. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we are joined by your attorney, Michael Conroy, attorney for Alexander Dunlop. We are also joined by Eileen Clancy, a member of I-Witness Video, which assembled hundreds of videotapes during the convention, much of it used by defense lawyers. Eileen also found the video of Alexander's arrest. Can you talk about where you found this? EILEEN CLANCY: Alright. I-Witness Video coordinated a large project to gather video material for criminal cases to help defend people who were arrested during the Republican Convention. We did this in partnership with the National Lawyers Guild. So, what we have been doing is reviewing the videotapes with the defendants to try to see if we can find them on it, so we can establish the circumstances of their arrests and what happened at these scenes. Alexander came in to view videotapes of what happened at that scene, and he was unable to find himself on it. But because I had spent some time with him, and I was aware that there was no footage of him that we had, I kept a lookout for it. And when I received some police videotapes in another case, so these were tapes that were given over by the District Attorney to a lawyer as evidence in another case, I reviewed those, and I spotted him in a couple of places. So, I took a look to see when he was coming up for trial, and it was about a day-and-a-half. So I called his attorney right away, Michael Conroy, and said, “I have your guy on tape in a couple of places, including the arrest.” And he said, “Really?” And I said, “Yes.” So he said, “Well, I better come look at that.” And I said, “Well, do you have any tapes? Because we'd like to also see, you know, what other tapes are out there.” He says, “Well, I have a tape. It's not helpful, particularly,” I think is what he said. So, he came in the next day, and I said, “Well, let's take a look at your tape.” And I said, “Gee, it looks an awful lot like my tape. Well, I wonder what the problem is.” So we kept looking. I thought, “Maybe there's two cameras that are nearby. It just looks the same.” But he said, “But what you are describing is not on my tape.” AMY GOODMAN: And, Michael Conroy, this was police tape? MICHAEL CONROY: This was a police tape that was provided to me by the District Attorney's office as part of the discovery process in Alex's case, and it was represented to me to be the complete unedited tape of the incident that was done by that person at that scene. AMY GOODMAN: And what did it show? MICHAEL CONROY: That tape showed the demonstration. It showed what was going on. Then, the tape pans to the ground, and at that point, my tape jumps to a shot of a street sign. Unfortunately, between the time that it demonstrates the tape going to the ground and the scene of the street corner, that's the point which Alex should be on the tape. It’s the point in which he is on the official tape that I was never given, and it shows that Alex is actually approaching a police officer to ask for directions, to ask what is going on, and it shows Alex being arrested very calmly, very quietly and not resisting arrest, and obviously, those are two key pieces that had I had earlier, I would have had a much better fight with the District Attorney's office to get this dismissed in the fall as opposed to eight months later. AMY GOODMAN: So, the raw footage showed what you described. The edited footage just showed -- MICHAEL CONROY: Just showed Alex at the end with a group other people, basically insinuating guilt by collective thought, but it never showed the pieces of the tape where he was actually active on the tape. And the District Attorney's office represented to me that it was a mistake. But they have not explained how the mistake was made yet. AMY GOODMAN: Well, what's the significance of this? The fact that you had, what, an edited tape? MICHAEL CONROY: In any criminal case, there shouldn't be an edited tape. They shouldn't have an edited tape lying around the District Attorney's office, because, quite frankly, if they are going to give this to a police officer to testify on the stand, and that police officer is going to state under oath this is a complete tape, one, that police officer is going to be lying, but two, you have evidence that’s beneficial to my client that was left out, and under the United States Constitution, they have to provide that. They should have provided that, and they didn't. AMY GOODMAN: So what was their explanation? MICHAEL CONROY: The explanation is that it was a mistake. It was edited by mistake. It never should have happened. AMY GOODMAN: Edited by who? MICHAEL CONROY: That we don’t know. That we do not know, and that's really the question I'd like to know is whether it was the District Attorney's office internally or whether this was done by the police officers. If it was done by the police, I have a bigger problem here, because I would like to know whether those police officers were involved with what happened that night, whether any of them were related to the arresting officers. That's what I really would like to know. AMY GOODMAN: Attorney Michael Conroy, his client Alexander Dunlop, and Eileen Clancy of I-Witness Video. We'll come back to them in just a minute, and then we'll get police response. Stay with us. [break] AMY GOODMAN: I'm Amy Goodman here with Juan Gonzalez, continuing the interview we did in our studios yesterday with Alexander Dunlop, who was arrested by police during the Republican Convention. Ultimately, the charges were dropped when the District Attorney -- when they had to admit that the videotape was edited of Alexander Dunlop. We're also joined by his attorney, Michael Conroy, and Eileen Clancy, who is with I-Witness Video. I asked Eileen how she gets all these tapes, and how many cases her group, I-Witness, is working on. EILEEN CLANCY: We’ve been dealing with hundreds. Hundreds of defendants have come in to view videotapes. The videotapes were made by some people that work specifically with our group, and then we actually set up workshops and had 200 people go through our workshops to train them how to shoot to make -- to record videotapes that would be valuable for the legal process. And there's certain things that you want to do to keep in mind that make it more useful for the legal process. So, we -- in partnership with the National Lawyers Guild, also a certain number of legal observers also carried video cameras. And then Indymedia was very kind to kind of try to corral some of their material that they thought would be valuable for us. So that’s been a wonderful resource, independent videographers out in the streets there, and they're making their own films, but they're also able to share copies with us. And we're not making films, so it’s not really a -- there's no competing interest. In fact, they're sharing their material with us, and then we're able to basically link up the people who were arrested, witnesses, and attorneys; and it's that collection of information that's really valuable to understand what went on in these scenes. AMY GOODMAN: Now, because of these cases, you have a whole new treasure trove of tapes, is that right? And that's from the police, because they have to hand it over. EILEEN CLANCY: Bit by bit, we have some new – we have some tapes that have – that were generated by the police, yes. We know – that’s a -- they haven't handed over to the defense attorneys very much videotape compared to what they actually recorded. I don't know what the numbers are, but they certainly recorded a tremendous amount of videotape. AMY GOODMAN: How does their tape compare cinematically? EILEEN CLANCY: Well, we’re -- You know, because this is -- almost all the footage we're looking at is amateur footage. It's in with like kind of cheaper cameras, and it's not high quality. But the police certainly have an advantage when they're videotaping in that they can walk into the middle of any area, and they can be very calm about what they're doing. But if you’re an independent videographer, when you’re out there, you may get pushed back by the police. You may not be able to get the shot. The police may be blocking your picture and all that, or you -- or have actually a quite a valid concern that you may be arrested if you’re standing near the scene where someone else is being arrested. So, it's a bit more treacherous for the other people. So, I think some of the police tapes are – they’re a little more calm than our independent videographers who sometimes have to sort of scoot away. AMY GOODMAN: Is other police footage that you’ve gotten in other cases, is it edited? EILEEN CLANCY: We don't know. It really hadn't occurred to us that they were making these kinds of edits. It was really shocking. I mean, when we had to put these two tapes on monitors next to each other and run them at the same time, and we sat there and you saw the -- when we saw the cut, I think -- I mean, I was astonished that this happened. This is -- I mean, it’s just absolutely outrageous. They took out the parts that basically prove he's innocent. So, I mean, it was -- it's quite extraordinary this happened. So, what we're going to have to do now is we're going to have to take police tapes that we had things that we knew that were duplicates, copies -- you know, what we assumed were copies -- and we’re going to have to set them all up and laboriously put them up against each other and review them and see if there were other edits in other tapes that were provided to lawyers. I mean, these are tapes that came from the state, from the government, that are handed over to defense attorneys and they are supposed to be for a particular case. So, does that mean that the tapes then are going to be tailored in such a way for each defendant? That they're looking for each defendant and they're just going to give you certain bits that they deem useful to their side? And that's really not how it's supposed to work. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Conroy, if you didn't have Eileen Clancy noticing that Alexander was in other tapes, would you have won this case? MICHAEL CONROY: I still think we would have won the case. I still believe that my client taking the stand, we would have won this case. I was also disturbed, quite frankly, at another comment I saw in the Times. When this hit The New York Times, there was an additional comment in there that the police officer is changing her mind as to exactly the specifics of what happened that night. That’s something that should be told to the defense, too, and that was never told to me in court. AMY GOODMAN: Explain that. MICHAEL CONROY: Apparently the police officer who was assigned the arrest was one Myra Gomez. We’ve looked at the video tapes. I have not seen her anywhere near my client. Alex has told me that she was not there at the time of the arrest. AMY GOODMAN: Were any women police officers there, Alex? ALEXANDER DUNLOP: Not that I saw. And that's the other interesting thing about the edited part of the video is, it shows who my arresting officer actually is, which was not the same person who I was assigned to, not the same officer who signed the sworn statement against me. So, they edited that out of the video, as well. AMY GOODMAN: Not the one who told you to go to another street to get out and then told you he sent you there because he wanted to arrest you. Is he the same guy who tightened the handcuffs? ALEXANDER DUNLOP: He was the same one in the video who you can see is arresting me. And then several other police officers grabbed me, as well. MICHAEL CONROY: And you want to, you know, you want to believe the police. As a society you want to believe the police, that when they're doing this kind of situation, that they're doing it accurately, and if they can’t do it accurately, that they're going to say: You know what? We can’t do this accurately; we're not going to make the arrest. But this complaint was signed. Now the officer is apparently changing her story, and I shouldn't have to hear about that from The New York Times, that should have been told in court by the District Attorney's office to me, and that was never told to me in court. It was never told to me in any correspondence; and if their case all of a sudden becomes weaker because a witness is changing their story, or the witness's recollection is changed, that is something that should always be told to the defense attorney, and I was not told that, and that, I find very disturbing AMY GOODMAN: What would these charges have meant in your life, Alexander? ALEXANDER DUNLOP: Well, any charges -- So, they did offer me a plea bargain of disorderly conduct with a time served, about 24 hours in jail. But even that, quite literally, could have ruined my life. I wouldn't have been able to get the job that I wanted, perhaps. Any background check, the record would have come up, the criminal record would have come up. And I graduated from Harvard, and then I would have had a criminal record, and I wouldn't have been able to go to work at any bank or law firm that I might have wanted to. I‘ve heard stories where this kind of criminal record comes up when you try to cross a border. A friend of mine was telling me about a friend of his who had a visa denied to go to another country because of a disorderly conduct charge coming up at a political protest. So, it really restricts what you're able to do, and what job you can get, the travel you can do. It might have ruined my life. It really might have. AMY GOODMAN: Eileen Clancy, how did these videos that you have now seen changed the perception of what happened on the streets in that week of the Republican National Convention? EILEEN CLANCY: I mean, I think one of the most interesting things about this is that what we're doing is we're trying to bring a level of basic information and facts to these situations, to the legal side of it. Instead of it being just a he said/she said kind of situation, we'd like to know how many people were on the scene. Where were they standing? Was a police command given? If a command to disperse was given, was there sufficient time for people to leave? These types of basic questions which are just the basic facts. And these are often in these criminal cases, at protests, the thing at which -- the thing which the whole case turns on. So, we’ve had this experience before, and we know that if you can bring the basic facts in, then you see -- then the court can make a decision that's based on something that's a little bit more solid than everybody's recollections and whatever testimony that people may sort of craft a certain way or another. So, it actually is quite important to bring this in. I mean, I was talking to a law professor about this, and he used the expression “truth-telling.” And I think that’s something that – that we really want to see here. In a situation where people are just exercising their rights to either just walk around as Alexander was doing or participate in events where they're exercising the right to free expression, that needs to be protected. And, so, if we can shed a light on what's going on there, and what the police practices are and all of that, I think that’s a good service for people. AMY GOODMAN: Alexander, are you planning to sue? ALEXANDER DUNLOP: We have filed suit, and it remains to be seen what comes of that. But -- AMY GOODMAN: What are you asking for? ALEXANDER DUNLOP: We haven't put -- we haven't said what we're asking for. I mean, we’ve just started the preliminary process, and frankly, we started that process before this story blew up and before my case was dismissed. We had no idea that this would all transpire. We had no idea there was a cut video. We had no idea of any of that. We just were planning to file motions, mainly, you know, for false arrest, and the small punitive damages. I had to change my flight. My vacation was altered. My bicycle was impounded and other inconveniences that I suffered. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Conroy, you're a Republican attorney here in New York. MICHAEL CONROY: That's correct. AMY GOODMAN: Will this change the way you do your work in the future? MICHAEL CONROY: Well, this case was disturbing to me. To see what happened, to see that -- and I’ve never had this situation before. I served for ten years as an A.D.A. I actually served on the. board of directors of the National District Attorney's Association at one point in time for five years. This is not something that should happen. It's not a war of us against them. It shouldn't be. The police, the prosecutors should be open when they have a case. They should be open with discovery. They should be open with their evidence and work hand in hand with the defense to make sure that an innocent person is not convicted. And in this case, providing me with the tape that was maintained was an unedited tape certainly did a disservice to Alex, but it did a disservice to the criminal justice system as a whole. It certainly threatens the basis of trust that should exist in the courtroom between D.A.s and defense attorneys; and the comments that were made later with regard to the police officer that I never heard about, I should have heard about from the District Attorney's office. AMY GOODMAN: So, you have served very closely with police? I mean, you're the attorney; they’re the people who provide the evidence. Has this changed your view of police and of protesters? MICHAEL CONROY: I’ve always had a questioning view of the police, even when I was an assistant D.A. I believe that you need to question the police very carefully and very closely to make sure that what they're telling you is the truth. It certainly has hurt my perspective with respect to the Police Department. I am certainly more or less saying I’m less trusting of the police now than I was years ago, when I began in this business from having dealt with the police on a regular basis. I certainly don't trust them as much as I did when I was in law school; and, unfortunately, it deteriorates on a regular basis, and that's not good. That's a problem in the city. AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Eileen Clancy, is there going to be some kind of class action lawsuit filed that will release all of the police videotape over that entire period? EILEEN CLANCY: My -- well, I wouldn't have anything to do with that. I'm not an attorney. But my understanding is that moves have been made to file class action suits and that there are numerous civil suits. And my understanding is that in the discovery process, in the civil discovery process, that then police videotapes and other materials will have to be turned over by the city to those civil attorneys. Yeah. AMY GOODMAN: Eileen Clancy of I-Witness. Alexander Dunlop was arrested during the Republican Convention. Ultimately, the charges were dropped when doctored video was proven. And Michael Conroy, his attorney, they came into our studio yesterday to discuss what had happened. JUAN GONZALEZ: We're now joined on the phone by Paul Browne. Paul is the New York City Police Department's Deputy Commissioner of Public Information. Welcome. PAUL BROWNE: Thank you, Juan. JUAN GONZALEZ: Paul, we'd like to get your response to this particular case, the Alexander Dunlop case, which definitely raises some questions in terms of law enforcement procedure. And also, you know, Jim Dwyer's article, in general, and the reality that usually prosecutors have an 85% or 80% conviction rate in normal crimes but here it's almost been reversed. More than 90% of the cases that were brought during the Republican National Convention have now either been dismissed or the people found not guilty. PAUL BROWNE: Yeah. Well, first, on the -- there were statements said about the police editing tapes. That's just untrue. There's an accusation in the Times piece that a tape was edited by a technician in the District Attorney's office. I refer you to them as to whether or not that was an edit or a mistake, or whatever. But the Police Department edited no tapes. They presented them as they were and as requested. As to the broader question, you're talking about conviction rates. You're talking about serious felony crimes; that's true, very high conviction rates. Typically in something where there isn’t a felony or somebody isn't hurt, it's very common and expected, as a matter of fact, for somebody to get what's called an A.C.D., an “Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal.” I sit down and block traffic, for example. I have no criminal record. It goes before the court of the D.A. And they will say, “Okay, here's the deal, basically: If you don't get arrested for sitting down in traffic in the next six months, we'll dismiss the case. But we're going to wait six months to do that.” That's what over 64% of these cases are, and that's been lumped into this kind of big, misleading, I think purposefully so, number of 90% being dismissed. Anybody who is familiar with the -- I mean, you had, for example -- was it Mr. Dunlop complaining about having an arrest record, that it may damage his future? You had, on August 29th, the biggest demonstration, which the Police Department worked with the organizers for months to do in a successful way, and it was very successful with a few minor incidents. There were groups that two days later said they were unhappy, they felt that the United for Peace and Justice had co-opted by agreeing to a march, and that they were going to engage in civil disobedience or direct action and planned to get arrested. When they get arrested, then they complain that an arrest record may be trouble for them in the future. But in many instances on the 31st, if not most, people had communicated openly that was their intent, to either as a form of -- traditionally we all see it, traditional -- traditional civil disobedience or in more recent phenomenon, direct action, with the notion of trying to actually stop the convention from proceeding. JUAN GONZALEZ: But Paul, there’s no doubt that there were people that were determined to be arrested as part of the protest of the convention, but we have also had incidents like the situation with Mr. Dunlop, not only that he claims that he was just an observer, and people caught up in these sweeps, you also have the reality that there was a police officer who filed a sworn complaint that she arrested him, and it turns out she wasn't even on the scene, so that there is a question as to how the Department handled some of these arrests. I'm just wondering whether you are conducting any kind of a review of your policies and whether you're fully satisfied with how you dealt with it? PAUL BROWNE: I think we're very satisfied overall with the conduct of the police during the convention. You mentioned, and I think part of the theme of this -- of the program was the notion that with so many video cameras and just this enormous amount of material that can be checked, the only serious assault that occurred on tape by anybody was that of a police officer being kicked unconscious by a demonstrator. It was witnessed by members of National -- at least one observer of the National Lawyers Guild. And the National Lawyers Guild was mentioned as filming a lot of this. Not one of those individuals -- I saw a tape provided by a freelance journalist -- not one of them either came to the aid of that police officer or volunteered or produced videotape afterwards, although the Lawyers Guild that claims to be objective observers, but when you had a violent assault on a police officer, kicked unconscious, everybody kept their mouth shut. No videos were produced, except by a bona fide journalist as opposed -- as opposed to an advocate. AMY GOODMAN: Paul Browne is a New York City Police spokesperson. He is Commissioner of Public Information, the Deputy Commissioner of Public Information. But we're talking about the more than 1,800 people who were arrested, now 91% of these cases don't hold up. PAUL BROWNE: Wait, wait. I just told you that 64% of the cases -- you cannot have 64 and 91 and get to 100. That is the big lie. 91% don't hold up. That's -- that's just untrue. And the more times it's stated doesn't make it any truer. The fact of the matter is Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, if anything, may indicate that the arrest was valid, and the person taking the A.D.C. is essentially agreeing if I don't do the same thing over the next six months, I'll have my charges dropped. And that happens all the time. JUAN GONZALEZ: But, Paul, on that point, I mean, I'm familiar with the A.C.D.s, and I think you would agree that quite a few people take those A.C.D.s, because they just don't want to keep coming back to court on a case over and over again, for instance, as Dunlop did many times. That, while it's a possibility that many of those people were guilty, it's also a possibility that they just agreed to the A.C.D. because that was the fastest way to resolve this issue and move on. PAUL BROWNE: Okay, fine, but don't translate that into 91% of these cases are without merit. That's just not true. AMY GOODMAN: The majority. PAUL BROWNE: I mean, you had -- I'm not even saying the majority. The majority -- I would indicate just by the stats alone that they were valid. You have hundreds of people who would say, for example, the most recent demonstration in New York, they actually met with us ahead of time to tell us exactly when and where they were going to break the law in sort of a classic civil disobedience effort, but in the case of direct action, a lot of these people were doing it spontaneously, hoping to, in some cases, like prevent delegates from coming out of hotel lobbies, for example, or in the hopes of stopping Wall Street from doing business. These were a number of the ones on the 31st. They resulted in arrests. Now, admittedly, a lot of the people engaged in this are not, you know, John Dillingers. They don't have big criminal records, and when they go to court, they're going to be offered an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, but those arrests were valid. These were individuals who wanted in the main either to symbolically object to either the war or the convention or whatever their statement was, or in other cases attempt to actually prevent the delegates from attending the convention or from the process that week from going forward. It was irrelevant to the Police Department what their motives were. But however, if they break the law, and they're arrested, then they go through the system, and they're processed. And in most cases, and this has happened in demonstrations for the last 30 years, A.C.D.s are offered. Now, what's different here is this kind of post campaign propaganda campaign -- post-convention propaganda campaign, that tries to translate that information, those A.C.D.s, into meritless arrests. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we're going to have to leave it there for today, but we hope to continue this discussion. PAUL BROWNE: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you very much for joining us, Paul Browne, New York City Police Department’s Deputy Commissioner of Public Information. ---- Santa Fe, New Mexico passes nuclear disarmament resolution From: Greg Mello Date: Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:13pm Dear colleagues -- Some of you may be interested in the recent resolution passed (7 votes to 1) by the City Council in Santa Fe, New Mexico anathematizing nuclear weapons and requesting complete nuclear disarmament pursuant to the NPT. The text of the resolution follows a short news account, below. The key points of the resolution have also been publicly endorsed by about 200 New Mexico businesses and about 80 nonprofits so far. This very strong resolution is one fruit of the consistent work of quite a few people here in New Mexico. We were fortunate to have that one dissenting vote, so that other City councilors could speak eloquently to the nuclear weapons issue and to the importance of the City taking it up. There are at least 2,600 Los Alamos National Laboratory and prime subcontractor personnel living in Santa Fe County; many of these live in the City. This 7-to-1 vote is a fair reflection of the preferences of the U.S. voting public. See, for example http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/WMD/WMDreport_04_15_04.pdf, which shows that some 84% of Americans interviewed prefer nuclear disarmament pursuant to the NPT. So despite decades of contrary state practice in the U.S., with associated public fealty to nuclear weapons from essentially all spokespersons from both political parties, opposition to nuclear weapons remains very high in the United States. In recent AP/Ipsos poll released on March 30, 2005, 66% of Americans polled agreed that no country should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, more than four times as many as agreed with any other policy option (http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com/). These polls suggest there is a great deal of much-neglected political capital available for nuclear abolition. This is the experience of our volunteer organizers as well, to a degree that has surprised me. Best to all, greg mello *************** Council Wants Ban on Nukes By Laura Banish Thursday, April 14, 2005 Albuquerque Journal http://www.abqjournal.com/north/338658north_news04-14-05.htm The City Council quickly passed a resolution demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons by a vote of 7-1 Wednesday night. Councilors approved the resolution, which calls for complete nuclear disarmament as per the 1969 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The treaty will be up for review by the United Nations in New York in May, and the United States has already signaled its likely unwillingness to participate in the forum. Councilor David Pfeffer dissented. He disagreed with the resolution being presented to the council, calling it a misuse of the governing body, as well as with the document's substance. "Nobody elected any of us up here to represent them on national or international affairs," Pfeffer said. Pfeffer said the council would make better use of its time working on water issues or road maintenance, such as fixing potholes and installing speed bumps. Councilor David Coss said he found comments placing the importance of potholes over world peace demeaning. "I would like for my great-great-great-great-grandchildren to be fixing potholes in Santa Fe because we didn't have a nuclear war that ended our society," Coss said. The resolution was introduced by Councilor Miguel Chavez. This was the second Chavez-sponsored anti-nuke resolution this year. His earlier version called for the end of nuclear weapons work at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. The resolution was never passed by the council after Chavez pulled it from consideration. Pfeffer voiced strong disagreement with a section of the resolution that called national security dependent on weapons of mass destruction immoral. "Instruments of mass destruction and the will to use them is what kept us safe for 50 years without a nuclear war in our confrontation with the Soviet Union and Soviet empire and dictatorships of the east," Pfeffer said. Cerrillos resident Dave Stephenson said he thought that notion was "archaic" and "barbaric." Dee Homans of Santa Fe said she thought approval of the resolution was critical. "To say it's not a city issue just seems like a technicality on such an important moral issue," Homans said. "It's critical, especially in New Mexico where we have nuclear facilities, to stand up against nuclear weapons." Mayor Larry Delgado was lauded by councilors and members of the Hiroshima World Peace Mission for being one of more than 60 U.S. members of Mayors for Peace, a collection of mayors who have voiced support for peace initiative around the globe. During the public comment period, which was held after the resolution passed, a handful of residents stood up to thank the councilors. "We know this resolution may not change things overnight, but it changes what we can tell our children about the courage and the foresight of our elected officials here at home," Santa Fe resident Erwin Rivera said. "This is a journey of peace for all of us. Gracias." ************ 1. CITY OF SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO RESOLUTION NO. 2005-____ INTRODUCED BY: Miguel Chavez, David Coss, Patti Bushee Unanimously passed by the Public Works Committee on 3/29/05, with Patti Bushee, Miguel Chavez, David Coss, Karen Heldmeyer (Chair), and Matthew Ortiz in attendance. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMPLIANCE BY THE UNITED STATES WITH THE TREATY ON THE NONPROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WHEREAS, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was ratified by the United States on November 24, 1969 and entered into force on March 5, 1970, becoming part of what the U.S. Constitution calls the supreme Law of the Land; and WHEREAS, the NPT has now been ratified by 188 countries (all but four), and according to the United States Department of State, it has been remarkably successful in achieving its main goals and is an indispensable tool in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; and WHEREAS, Article VI of the NPT requires that “each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”; and WHEREAS, the United States appears committed to (1) retaining and upgrading a large nuclear arsenal including more than 10,000 nuclear weapons of which many reside in New Mexico, reportedly more than in any other state, along with large stocks of fissile materials; (2) designing new kinds of nuclear weapons; (3) building new factories for nuclear weapons components; and (3) upgrading existing ones; and WHEREAS, more than 40% of all United States nuclear weapons spending occurs in New Mexico, more than in any other state, at facilities located within 70 miles of Santa Fe; and WHEREAS, the radioactive wastes are being permanently disposed in large quantities at Los Alamos and Carlsbad, and continued nuclear weapons design and manufacturing activities will only cause more radioactive waste to be generated and disposed in New Mexico; and WHEREAS United States compliance with the NPT and specifically with its disarmament requirements is an important step towards the goal of preventing nuclear proliferation; and WHEREAS, large public opinion polls have shown very strong public support for nuclear disarmament, exceeding 80% nationally, and numerous civil society initiatives have sprung up around the world to strengthen and guide public opinion, legislation and executive action toward nuclear disarmament, including the Mayors for Peace campaign, which includes the mayors of at least 56 U.S. cities and 700 international cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE THAT Section 1. The governing body recognizes: (a) The legal obligation to nuclear disarmament stated in Article VI of the NPT and authoritatively interpreted in the 1996 unanimous advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice; (b) The importance of United States leadership in nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation; (c) That a posture of nuclear threat or deterrence cannot remain the sole prerogative of the United States and a small group of countries friendly or not actively hostile to the United States; (d) That the federal commitment to nuclear weapons expends enormous resources and talent, creates security and safety problems that can never be fully solved; undermines the ethical basis of our society by promoting massive and indiscriminate violence, and permanently contaminates portions of our environment; (e) That proposals to upgrade nuclear weapons, design new varieties of such weapons, maintain thousands of nuclear weapons or build new or expanded factories for the manufacture of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons components should be viewed with dismay; and (f) As immoral the notion that human security can ever be built upon instruments of mass destruction and the will to use them. Section 2. The governing body calls upon our elected representatives to Congress as well as upon our Governor to publicly: (a) Reaffirm the complete commitment of the United States to an unequivocal undertaking to the total elimination of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI; (b) Call for progressively and systematically dismantling our nuclear arsenal in concert with other nuclear powers pursuant to Article VI of the NPT and any other treaties and agreements as may be prudent to negotiate; (c) Call for negotiations on treaties involving universal norms against all weapons of mass destruction; (d) Reject all proposals to build new or expanded factories for nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons components; and (e) Request that the federal government minimize and ultimately halt disposal of nuclear waste in northern New Mexico. Section 3. The City Manager is directed to forward this resolution to the Monitoring, Data Base and Information Branch of the Department for Disarmament Affairs of the United Nations, all members of the United States Congress, the Governor of the State of New Mexico and all members of the New Mexico Legislature. Greg Mello Los Alamos Study Group 2901 Summit Place NE Albuquerque, NM 87106 505-265-1200 voice 505-265-1207 fax 505-577-8563 cell (signal very weak in the office; messages on cell phone may not be received promptly) gmello@lasg.org http://www.lasg.org ---- Alice Slater on X-Zone radio talk show on line April 15th theroyprocessox... From: "The Roy Process" Date: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:57am NucNews list: Hear Alice Slater on X-Zone radio talk show on line April 15th. Topics include the big May 1st END WAR - ABOLISH NUKES demonstration in Central Park, New York City. Web site: http://www.xzone-radio.com/ ALICE SLATER President, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) "Now is the time to embrace a new paradigm of nuclear abolition that frees the planet from the threat of nuclear holocaust once and for all. The only question is whether our current leadership is bold enough to champion it." - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 28, 2004 "The time for nuclear arms fixes with the promise of better verification and enforcement is over. The game is up. There is only one way to move forward." - Chicago Tribune, Sept. 17, 2004 "The U.S. space command has a mission to militarily dominate space. We are starting an arms race in space." - The Los Angeles Times, Jan. 15, 2004 "We need to cancel all our nuclear weapons research and testing programs and invite all nuclear-weapons states to begin negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear arms." - The New York Times, May 18, 2003 ALICE SLATER is the President of Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE), a nonprofit organization working to form links between the research, policy, and grassroots communities in order to promote solutions to preserve the future of the planet and protect the quality of the environment. She is a founder of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons and is the Co-Convenor of the Abolition 2000 Working Group for Sustainable Energy. Ms. Slater serves on the Advisory Board of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space and on the Executive Committees of the Middle Powers Initiative, formed to influence the nuclear weapons states to move more swiftly to nuclear abolition. She also serves on the NYC Bar Association's Committee on International Security Affairs and United Nations Working Group, and is a board member of the Lawyers Committee for Nuclear Policy. She is a UN NGO Representative and has organized numerous conferences, panels, and roundtables at the UN on nuclear and environmental issues and spoken frequently at meetings and conferences in the US and internationally. Ms. Slater has written numerous articles, interviews, and op-eds, and has appeared frequently on radio and national TV. Chris Cooper Public / Media Relations Director GRACE (Global Resource Action Center for the Environment) 215 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10016 212-726-9161 ---- MASSIVE DEMONSTRATION – MARCH AND RALLY IN NYC May 1, 2005 No More Nuclear Excuses for War! UFPJ, April 14, 2005 http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2788 *ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS *U.S. OUT OF IRAQ – BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW *NO WARS ON IRAN AND NORTH KOREA In August 1945, the United States incinerated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs, initially killing more than 200,000 human beings, and starting a nuclear arms race that has held humanity hostage ever since. In the ensuing decades, enough nuclear weapons were produced to wipe out all life on this planet many times over. But people didn’t remain silent in the face of this growing horror. An international movement for nuclear disarmament was born, ultimately forcing governments to sign treaties banning both the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries. This movement also was instrumental in bringing about a series of arms control treaties between the U.S. and the USSR/Russia. But today, the risk of use of nuclear weapons is climbing towards levels not reached since the darkest days of the Cold War. Formerly the private domain of the “Big Five” (U.S., USSR/Russia, Britain, France, China), other countries are joining the list of nations with nuclear weapons capabilities. The proliferation of nuclear weapons endangers everyone and must be opposed. However, global nuclear nonproliferation cannot succeed when those in the nuclear “club” cynically manipulate public fears of proliferation, while at the same time modernizing their own nuclear arsenals and threatening to use them. The Bush Administration has declared a sweeping, open-ended policy of preventive war, in which “America will act against... emerging threats before they are fully formed” with a nuclear option. In the run up to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush told the American public that “we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” He didn’t tell us that the mushroom cloud was more likely to emanate from the U.S. than from Iraq. The Bush administration cowed many into supporting the invasion of Iraq with charges that Saddam Hussein was developing “weapons of mass destruction” — meaning nuclear weapons. The whole world now recognizes this fabrication as an attempt to justify a war to control access to Iraq’s oil and enhance U.S. power in the Middle East. And as this war rages on, with mounting casualties, a country in ruins, and the poor in the U.S. facing drastic cuts in vital services, Washington is turning its sights on Iran and North Korea, seeking again to inflame public fears of a new nuclear threat. In the late 1990s, when both India and Pakistan went nuclear, the U.S. responded with condemnation, but it has turned a blind eye to Israel’s sizable, sophisticated nuclear arsenal — described by The Economist as “the world’s worst kept secret.” While it demands that other nations cease and desist, the U.S. will spend nearly $7 billion this year to maintain and modernize its nuclear warheads, keeping them useable for decades to come, and many billions more to operate and modernize their means of delivery. Altogether, the U.S. spends about $40 billion a year on its nuclear forces. Ten thousand nuclear warheads — two thousand on hair-trigger alert — remain in the U.S. arsenal, each one many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped 60 year ago. Worse yet, the nuclear hawks in the Bush Administration are trying to sell the idea that it is acceptable to use nuclear weapons in the field of battle. No one can deny that the world has seen many horrendous conflicts since 1945. Nonetheless, the international norm against the use of nuclear weapons has held firm. Now, the Bush Administration is flirting with breaching that “firewall”. Once breached, it will be forever weakened. If the most powerful country that has ever existed asserts the right to use nuclear weapons to ensure its security, we shouldn’t be surprised to see other countries follow suit. As responsible global citizens, we must demand a more sustainable concept of universal security based on human and ecological needs. Nuclear weapons have no place in this new security paradigm. This May, world leaders and citizens from many countries will converge at the United Nations in New York City to discuss the fate of the endangered Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While ignoring their own NPT disarmament obligations, the nuclear weapons states are selectively and hypocritically accusing other nations of seeking nuclear arms. Inspired by the aging “hibakusha” (the survivors of “hell on earth” in their cities), the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have launched an Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons, enrolling Mayors around the world to come to New York to demand immediate negotiations to eliminate all nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control. On Sunday, May 1, 2005, the day before the NPT Review Conference begins, United for Peace and Justice and Abolition Now! are calling for a massive demonstration for global nuclear disarmament, culminating in a rally in New York City's Central Park. To end nuclear proliferation and to avert further “preventive” wars, we urge you to join us and help build the May 1st mobilization for immediate negotiations to ban all nuclear weapons — including our own. As we mark the 60th anniversary of the first — and only — use of nuclear weapons in war, we must commit ourselves once more to the cause of nuclear disarmament. No less than our collective survival depends upon it. We urge you to join us and help build the May 1st mobilization for a nuclear weapon free world. Initiated by: Abolition Now! United for Peace and Justice ---- Senate Committee Approves Greater Protections for Whistle-Blowers By Stephen Barr Thursday, April 14, 2005 Washington Post; Page B02 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51335-2005Apr13?language=printer These are tough times for federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse. Their cases take months to investigate; they often face reprisals from bosses, and once in court, they find that the protections granted by Congress are not all that strong. In an effort to strengthen those protections, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a bipartisan bill that supporters hope will encourage employees to step forward when they spot wrongdoing in government offices. "Strengthening whistle-blower protections is more than just an employee protection issue. It promotes good government," Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), a chief sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. "If federal employees fear reprisal for blowing the whistle, then we not only fail to protect the whistle-blower, but we fail to protect taxpayers and . . . national security," Akaka said. Among those sponsoring the bill are Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). The legislation would clarify congressional intent as to what type of whistle-blowing is protected and where it may take place. It also reinforces the right of whistle-blowers to turn over classified information to Congress, but only to members and aides who hold security clearances and who are authorized to receive the information. The bill would prohibit federal managers from suspending or revoking an employee's security clearance in retaliation for whistle-blowing. The Merit Systems Protection Board would be able to conduct expedited reviews in disputes over security clearances but would not have the power to restore a security clearance, according to the bill. Under the bill, federal employees would be required to offer "substantial evidence" in court to support disclosures of improper activities. That would make clear that employees did not have to provide "irrefragable proof" of official misconduct, a standard used in a 1999 court ruling and one that watchdog groups contend is impossible to meet. The bill also would suspend the monopoly held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on whistle-blower retaliation cases and permit multi-circuit review for a period of five years.