NucNews - May 22, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- latinamerica Chavez Says Venezuela Interested In Nuclear Energy By REUTERS May 22, 2005 Filed at 1:43 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-venezuela-nuclear.html?pagewanted=print CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his government was interested in nuclear energy and could start talks with Iranian partners to study possible atomic and solar power projects. Chavez, a fierce critic of the United States and a leftist ally of Communist Cuba, said Venezuela and other Latin American countries could develop nuclear energy as an alternative power source for civilian purposes. ``We are interested too, we must start working on that area... the nuclear area. We could, along with Brazil, with Argentina and others, start investigations into the nuclear sector and ask for help from countries like Iran,'' Chavez said on his regular Sunday TV program. ``It is for development, for life, for peace and energy,'' the president said during the program broadcast at an event in Caracas for Iranian companies. Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, is a key energy supplier to the United States, but its relations with Washington have soured since Chavez came to office six years ago promising to fight poverty with a raft of social reforms. Chavez has backed Iran, branded by Washington part of an ``axis of evil,'' in Tehran's dispute with the United States and Europe over its nuclear program. U.S. officials accuse Iran of secretly working to produce nuclear arms, but Tehran says its atomic program is only for civilian energy uses. ``I am sure the Iranian government is not making any atomic bomb,'' Chavez said, repeating support he gave during a visit by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to Venezuela in March. Venezuela is rich in heavy crude oil and natural gas. About 75 percent of its electric power is generated by state-run hydroelectric plants. A self-proclaimed socialist revolutionary, Chavez says he is offering an alternative to U.S. ``imperialism'' and accuses Washington of trying to oust or kill him. Supporters applaud his education and health programs to help the poor. He has strengthened political, energy and economic ties with China, India and Russia as an alternative to Venezuela's traditional alliance with the United States. -------- russia No danger of arrested Russian ex-minister revealing nuclear secrets: expert MOSCOW (AFP) May 22, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050522190003.nkvnyli6.html A former Russian energy minister being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant is too much of a patriot to reveal state secrets, but Moscow should in any case do everything to return him to Russia, a top nuclear safety official said here Sunday. "He knows secrets, of course, but he has not given any to anyone and he will not," Bulat Nigmatulin, the head of scientific research at Russia's centre for nuclear station safety, told Echo Moscow radio. "He is a citizen and there can be no question of him giving up secrets." The arrest May 2 of Yevgeny Adamov, a former Russian energy minister, in Switzerland on a US warrant on suspicion of fraud and money laundering provoked a sharp reaction in Russia. Media reports and some politicians have raised fears that Adamov, who held the portfolio from 1998-2001, could give US investigators information about Russia's nuclear programme. A subsequent extradition request by Russia to Switzerland last week was widely interpreted in the media as an attempt to undercut the US extradition and rescue Adamov. "The Russian side must do everything possible so that Adamov gets to Russia," Nigmatulin said. "Adamov must return to Russia and if there are criminal charges, face a court." -- older stories about safety: Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues Updated April 12, 2002 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9580.pdf -- Computer mishaps plague Russian nuclear arsenal U.S. downplays prospect of accidental launch May 12, 1997 Web posted at: 10:24 p.m. EDT (0224 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9705/12/russia.nukes/index.html WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russian computer glitches recently have switched nuclear weapons to combat mode, although U.S. officials downplayed the threat of an accidental launch. The malfunctions were reported by the Washington Times, which said Monday that a classified CIA report indicated the equipment controlling Moscow's vast nuclear arsenal had spontaneously switched missile instructions, increasing the risk of unauthorized launch. But U.S. officials say that doesn't mean an attack -- accidental or otherwise -- is more likely. "We believe that nuclear weapons in Russia remain under the secure and centralized control of the Russian government," State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns said. Last year, Russian Defense Minister Igor Rodinov -- in a plea for money -- went public with warnings that Russia's military was self-destructing. Later, an internal investigation concluded the nuclear forces were in no danger of revolting. U.S. officials point out during the Cold War that Russian missiles were always in "combat mode," but that then -- like now -- special codes held by Moscow were still needed to launch an attack. Trying to temper concerns, a senior Pentagon official who asked to remain anonymous said: "I have never seen any credible report from our intelligence services that the risk of unauthorized of accidental launch has been raised." But U.S. and NATO commanders are watching the decline of Russia's military with growing concern. "This brings another bit of information and we're going to assess that and look into it," said Gen. George Joulwan, Supreme NATO commander. The Pentagon says Russia's nuclear command and control problems underscore the value of a U.S. Russian agreement to stop aiming missiles at each other. The agreement is unverifiable, but in theory means a missile accidentally launched would fall into the ocean. The Times said the 13-page CIA report was based in part on statements from a former Russian officer in the Strategic Rocket Forces but did not specify when the alleged incidents occurred or how many missiles accidentally went on alert. While not denying the CIA report, Pentagon officials insist the secret analysis doesn't change the U.S assessment of Russian nuclear security. It's unauthorized release comes as Russia's Defense Minister is visiting Washington -- in part -- to learn how the U.S. rebuilt its military after the Vietnam War. Correspondent Jamie McIntyre and The Associated Press contributed to this report. -- Lebed: Small nuclear weapons may be in wrong hands October 1, 1997 Web posted at: 2:19 p.m. EDT (1819 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9710/01/russia.lebed/ MOSCOW (CNN) -- Suitcase-size nuclear weapons are missing from Russia's nuclear arsenal and could be in the hands of terrorists, Russia's former security chief insisted Wednesday. Russia's Defense Ministry repeatedly has denied Gen. Alexander Lebed's claims, which he initially made last year as President Boris Yeltsin's national security adviser. Russian officials maintain all of its nuclear weapons are accounted for, and that the country never has produced so-called "nuclear suitcases." But Lebed, a gruff reserve general with presidential ambitions, stood by his allegations Wednesday in a CNN interview, and vowed to hunt down the weapons he says are missing. "I hate the very idea of some idiot threatening mankind with a nuclear device that could be used at any time, in any place," he said. "There are different types of nuclear dangers, and all of them should be eliminated." According to Lebed, the weapons could be detonated by one person within a half-hour, killing as many as 100,000 people. Lebed was asked about a statement by Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, who called Lebed's claims absurd. "If the prime minister wants to sleep, that's his business," Lebed responded. He pledged to complete an investigation into the weapons issue that he began last year, before Yeltsin ousted him from his post. The probe "established the existence of those weapons and that they were produced by industrial means," Lebed said. He said the arms specialists guiding the probe ran out of time. "It wouldn't be a problem to hide a nuclear bomb in some small-sized compartment," the general said while holding his arms about 3 feet apart to indicate the size. Last month, after repeated denials from top Russian officials, Yeltsin's former environmental safety adviser, Alexei Yablokov, appeared to give some credence to Lebed's claim. Yablokov said the military may not have a record of the portable nuclear bombs, which he said were made in the 1970s for "terrorist purposes" for the Soviet KGB, the former Russian secret police and intelligence agency. The United States has expressed concern about nuclear safety in Russia and a possible transfer of Russian nuclear know-how to other countries, primarily Iran, which Washington views as a sponsor of international terrorism. -------- treaties As Nuclear 'breakouts' Loom, Diplomats Are at Odds Over Action By Charles J. Hanley The Associated Press May 22, 2005 http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB0UD5O19E.html UNITED NATIONS (AP) - After 21 days at a near-standstill, a global conference to toughen controls on nuclear arms enters its final week with prospects dimming for agreement on new ways to keep the ultimate weapons out of more hands. Concerns over nuclear "breakouts" are growing. In Europe, diplomats this week resume difficult talks with Tehran to rein in an Iranian nuclear project that could help make bombs. In Asia, North Korea is pondering its next move in the tense maneuvering over its weapons plans. In U.N. lounges and Manhattan hotel suites, meanwhile, diplomats bickered for weeks over simply defining the job at hand at their 188-nation conference, a twice-a-decade effort to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That backroom squabble over the conference agenda left them little time for substantive negotiation before Friday's closing session. "It's an opportunity we cannot afford to squander," said disarmament advocate Daryl Kimball, of the Washington-based Arms Control Association. But at a consensus gathering where agreement must be unanimous, the gaps between nations looked too wide to produce any major concrete steps on arms control. Under the 1970 treaty, 183 nations renounce nuclear arms forever, in exchange for a pledge by five nuclear-weapon states - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - to move toward disarmament. The nonweapon states, meanwhile, are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and claims to have built nuclear bombs - all without penalty under the nonproliferation pact. Many here want the conference to endorse measures making it more difficult to exit the treaty, and threatening sanctions against any who do. Many delegations also favor action to prevent future Irans. The Tehran government, saying it's pursuing civilian nuclear energy, obtained uranium-enrichment equipment that can produce both fuel for power plants and material for atom bombs. Washington contends the Iranians have weapons plans. Experts now propose limiting access to such fuel technology, despite the treaty guarantee, and possibly bringing all such production under international control. Consensus on these proposals is unlikely, however, without concessions by the nuclear-weapons states - particularly the United States and France - on the other treaty "pillar," disarmament. Those without the doomsday arms contend that those with them are moving too slowly toward eliminating the weapons, and point to Bush administration proposals for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal. A congressional committee last week approved $29 million to study new nuclear warheads. Even allies, such as South Korea, question the American moves. "We expect deeper cuts and further engagements by nuclear-weapon states," Seoul's delegate In-kook Park told a conference committee on Thursday. But the Americans showed no sign of bending, insisting that Iran and North Korea must be the priority here. Linking action on such cases with greater progress toward disarmament is "dangerous in the extreme," because it tends to excuse nuclear proliferation, U.S. Ambassador Jackie Sanders told the same committee the following day. A French diplomat signaled that the conference, at best, might produce a final document of generalizations, without specific action programs. Speaking privately because of the talks' sensitivity, this delegate maintained that agreement on an agenda was itself "not such a bad result," since it means the international community agrees on the nuclear challenges it faces. The agenda is vague, however, and excludes any reference to commitments made at the 2000 conference by the nuclear powers to take specific disarmament steps, such as activating the 1996 treaty banning nuclear tests. The Bush administration has since rejected that treaty. Arms-control advocates here saw opportunities slipping away. "The big fear is that if this review ends in a shambles - with no clear signal on one hand to North Korea and Iran, and on the other to nuclear-weapon states to honor treaty obligations - you will have confidence in the treaty eroding across the board," said Rebecca Johnson, editor of the journal Disarmament Diplomacy. More governments might then decide to pursue nuclear arms for their own security, the advocates say. ---- A new nuclear arms race looms By Simon Tisdall THE OBSERVER , LONDON Sunday, May 22, 2005,Page 9 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/05/22/2003256171 North Korea may be a rogue state, part of the "axis of evil," an outpost of tyranny and all the other things that US President George W. Bush says it is. But there is no denying that the isolated regime of self-styled Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, has an impeccable sense of timing. Just before the 188-country conference charged with reviewing the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) gathered in New York this month, Pyongyang shut down its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. Since then it says it has removed 8,000 spent fuel rods and extracted sufficient plutonium to "bolster our nuclear arsenal." Coming on top of North Korea's formal announcement in February that it had acquired nuclear weapons and its earlier withdrawal from the NPT, this latest shock seemed to confirm what every government knows but is reluctant to say in public. A wide array of international safeguards, diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, ill-disguised threats and a decade of on-off negotiations have failed to prevent egregious, highly dangerous acts of proliferation by one of the world's most unstable failed states. Any remaining uncertainty over whether North Korea really has the bomb could be banished soon. According to US intelligence, Pyongyang may be about to conduct an underground nuclear test. As with the Indian and Pakistani tests in 1998, such an event would radically and permanently alter geostrategic and military calculations. For East Asia, it would be a whole new ball game. The bad news for the NPT conferees in New York did not stop there. Even as they argued over an agenda, Iran was threatening to walk away from talks with the EU over its nuclear programs and ditch the treaty. "If Iran cannot use its legitimate rights in the framework of the NPT, it will no longer have respect for the treaty," Iran's chief negotiator, Hassan Rohani, said in Moscow. In other words, if the EU, backed by the US, continued to insist on a permanent freeze of all Iran's uranium enrichment activities -- which Tehran says are for purely peaceful, civil purposes -- then Iran, like North Korea, would go its own way. Iran's sense of timing also takes a lot of beating. Tehran is well aware that a major bone of contention at the NPT conference is the demand by non-nuclear weapons states that the five declared nuclear powers -- the US, Britain, France, Russia and China -- honor their own disarmament obligations. Under the "13 Steps" agreed at the last NPT review meeting in 2000, the so-called "big five" agreed to make "further efforts to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally." They also pledged "a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies ... and to facilitate the process of their total elimination." Iran and other countries point out, with justice, that these obligations have been largely ignored. The US is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, not moving to scrap it. It is also conducting research into new battlefield nuclear devices. France holds proudly to its "force de frappe," a symbol of its otherwise shrinking national potency. The UK meanwhile is examining replacements for its submarine-based Trident nuclear weapons system and may buy "off the shelf" from the US in breach of NPT rules. Concurrently, President Vladimir Putin is boasting of new world-beating Russian long-range missiles, with China showing even less interest in disarmament. Meanwhile, the NPT's Article IV does in fact stress that signatory nations have the "inalienable right to develop ... nuclear energy for peaceful purposes" and to acquire technology to this end. That, says Iran, is exactly what it is doing, and US distrust of its intentions is no good reason to desist. All in all, the uncomfortable bottom line is that, far from being reinforced as was promised in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, international non-proliferation efforts are in deep trouble. India, Israel and Pakistan, which never joined the NPT, have effectively got away with their bomb-making. Now, if North Korea is proved to have nuclear capability and if Iran, despite its denials, follows suit, countries ranging from Japan and South Korea to Egypt and Saudi Arabia may feel obliged to follow suit. In other words, the successes of the NPT, for all its considerable faults, may be overwhelmed by a new nuclear arms race. All the more reason, therefore, to heed the word of the former US president, Jimmy Carter. As a matter of urgency, he said this month, all nuclear-armed states should renounce first use of their weapons. The US should abandon its "Star Wars" ballistic missile defense project and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Russia should do more to secure and reduce its vulnerable stockpiles. And Middle Eastern countries should act together to remove nuclear weapons from their region. "If the US and other nuclear powers are serious about stopping the erosion of the NPT, they must act now on these issues," Carter warned. The relative indifference of the major powers to the gathering threat, he said, was little short of appalling. Carter's timing was impeccable, too. -------- u.s. nuc weapons ABC Radio National - Background Briefing: 22 May 2005 - Nuclear Nightmares [This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1374645.htm] Program Transcript Henry Sokolski: Well everyone talks about the worst future being nuclear terrorists blowing up, let’s say New York or Sydney. That may be the optimistic scenario. I think the worst thing that could happen is that more and more countries hedge their bets against North Korea’s and Iran’s by getting the means to make bombs through acquiring reprocessing and enrichment technology, and they end up having these capabilities in places like the Middle and Far East, where there is already a lot of reason for countries to distrust one another. Under these circumstances, what might set off a war could be as little as an assassin’s bullet. Under those circumstances, a war might break out that could last for some time, but the ammunition that might be used could be nuclear weapons. This is not a world you want to move towards. If you get enough countries that have nuclear weapons, or as Kofi Annan points out, are within a short period of time capable of getting them, the likelihood of a nuclear war goes up quite dramatically. Tom Morton: Henry Sokolski, a former senior official in the US Defence Department under Paul Wolfowitz. Hello, I’m Tom Morton, welcome to Background Briefing; and today: a nuclear nightmare. When the Cold War ended, we could all have been forgiven for thinking that the danger of nuclear war had passed. But this week, the man who played a central role in shaping US nuclear strategy at the height of the Cold War, warned that a new arms race is just beginning. Former US Secretary of Defence, Robert Macnamara, says that current US nuclear policy is ‘insane’. Robert Macnamara: The Cold War has ended and we haven’t changed our nuclear policy. It’s insane. As we talk, we, the US, have deployed 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads, each one on average with a destructive capability 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb that killed 80,000 people. "The Cold War has ended and we haven’t changed our nuclear policy. It’s insane." And secondly, of the 6,000, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15-minute warning by one man without any consultation, the President. That’s insane. And it’s insane secondly, because it stimulates others, the North Koreas, the Iran’s to try to move towards development of nuclear weapons, which is contrary to their national security interest, and certainly contrary to ours. Tom Morton: Shades of ‘Dr Strangelove’. Robert Macnamara, speaking to Fran Kelly on Radio National’s Breakfast program earlier this week. Excerpt from Dr Strangelove: US President: Now then, Dimitri, you know how we’ve always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the bomb. The bomb, Dimitri, the hydrogen bomb. Tom Morton: Now the full title of Stanley Kubrick’s famous film was ‘Dr Strangelove, or How I learnt to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb’. And we may all have to learn to love the bomb, all over again. There’s been speculation for the last two weeks that North Korea may be about to test a nuclear weapon. Earlier this week, President Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the United States would take ‘punitive action’ if that happens, but he’s refused to say what that action might be. And meanwhile, in New York, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference has been deadlocked, mired in procedural squabbles and backroom manoeuvring. The Conference is supposed to be shaping our nuclear future. But earlier this week, Australia forced a breakthrough. To the surprise of some at the Conference, our delegation made a forthright attack on the United States for failing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a treaty which would ban exactly the kind of nuclear test which North Korea may be contemplating. Rebecca Johnson, of the British-based Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy was there at the conference when the breakthrough came. Rebecca Johnson: Well really, this came as a surprise to some delegations because in many ways, Australia, as indeed one or two other countries, have helped to protect the United States, but on this case, the very strong statement that Australia was making on behalf of the G-10 was about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and they very clearly stated how important the CTBT is to the Non-Proliferation regime, and a very strong statement arguing that countries, particularly nuclear weapon states that have failed to ratify and that are trying still to hold their own door open to the possibility of future testing, must understand that other countries may try to go through that door to nuclear testing, (and obviously they have North Korea in mind, I would say) and that this would be both against the interests of the short-sighted nuclear weapon states who were failing to ratify, and against the interests of all those who wish to see a stronger, more credible non-proliferation regime. So it was a very strong statement on a very strong issue, that was being put forward. Tom Morton: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, would outlaw underground testing of nuclear weapons. But the United States, China and a number of other countries, have refused to ratify. Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, told Background Briefing that Australia has strongly urged the United States to ratify the Treaty. Alexander Downer: Yes we were the country that brought the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the United Nations General Assembly in September, 1996 and got it endorsed there, so Australia’s been very much part of giving birth to the CTBT, so not surprisingly we’re very keen to continue to push for all of those countries that have may have signed but yet to ratify the CTBT, and we hope that this will increase pressure on them to do so. Tom Morton: It is quite an urgent issue at the moment though, isn’t it, because we’ve heard reports in recent weeks that North Korea may be about to test a nuclear weapon. I mean it’s not sending the right signal to the North Koreans if the US on the one hand is arguing that they shouldn’t test, but the US refuses to ratify the Treaty. Alexander Downer: Yes, it’s not just the US though. I don’t want to disappoint you, it’s not just the United States unfortunately, which is at stake here; it is the United States but it’s not just the United States, let us not just single them out. China has not signed or ratified the CTBT and countries like India and Pakistan clearly haven’t. All of those countries will have to, but your point, without just singling out the US, in a broad sense, I think your point is completely right, that clearly we want to get the CTBT taken further forward. There is a perception for right or for wrong, that where some countries are not contributing to taking that agenda forward, that leads to resistance from other countries to taking forward the broader non-proliferation agenda. Rebecca Johnson: I think that message from Australia and the G-10 was aimed towards the United States, very clearly as an NPT State party that has failed to ratify the Treaty, and indeed is threatening the stability of the non-proliferation regime by persistently speaking out against the Test Ban Treaty and actually trying to hold open the possibility of resuming nuclear testing in Nevada. So Australia’s message was very clearly to the United States, ‘Look, you can’t keep holding this option open forever, because if you do, we are in danger of seeing a country like North Korea conducting a nuclear test. We need to reinforce the Test Ban Treaty for everybody, across the board; we need this Treaty to enter into force.’ Tom Morton: Rebecca Johnson, speaking to Background Briefing from the studios of UN Radio in New York. The Test Ban Treaty is just one of the pressing nuclear issues which the Non-Proliferation Conference is supposed to be dealing with. For nearly 40 years the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has stopped nuclear weapons from spreading to more and more countries, or proliferating, in the arms control jargon. But the Treaty is now close to breaking point. As you’ll hear today, many experts believe we’re not that far away from a world in which Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries decide it’s time to get nuclear weapons. Joe Cirincione is Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and he’s been watching the Conference closely. Joe Cirincione: We are at a nuclear tipping point. That is, there are a number of crises we confront: Iran, North Korea, reform of the nuclear fuel cycle, this Treaty Conference itself in New York, where if we handle them right, we can continue the progress that we’ve made over the last 15 or 20 years: sharp reductions in nuclear arsenals, more states giving up nuclear weapons programs, in those last 15 years, than have actually started them. We’re down to the few hard cases of Iran and North Korea. "Then it’s off to the races. And then you’re back in that nightmare world of the 1960s that President John F. Kennedy warned us about." But if we handle them wrong, if we don’t reform the fuel cycle, if North Korea consolidates as a nuclear weapon state for example then the danger is, that other states will lose faith in the Non-Proliferation system and will reconsider their own nuclear options and will decide that ‘Well, you know, maybe South Korea does need its own nuclear bomb’, or if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia decides it can’t stand that, it has to develop its own nuclear option perhaps, using its ally, Pakistan, whose nuclear weapons program it underwrote. Or Egypt might re-start the nuclear program that they had in the ‘60s, or Turkey, or even the new government of Iraq. And then it’s off to the races. And then you’re back in that nightmare world of the 1960s that President John F. Kennedy warned us about, that if we didn’t do something, there’d be 15, 20, 25 nuclear nations and then every regional conflict has the potential for being a nuclear conflict, every regional conflict has the potential for dragging in the great powers. John F. Kennedy: …that this nation and the Soviet Union stood on the verge of direct military confrontation in Laos, in Berlin, and in Cuba, a war today or tomorrow, if it led to nuclear war, would not be like any war in history. Tom Morton: President John F. Kennedy, in an address to the nation in August of 1963. John F. Kennedy: A full-scale nuclear exchange, lasting less than 60 minutes with the weapons now in existence, could wipe out more than 300-million Americans, Europeans and Russians, as well as untold millions elsewhere. And the survival… Tom Morton: Five years later, in 1968, the United States, the Soviet Union and 60 other countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of the guiding spirits behind the creation of the Treaty was the Irish Foreign Minister, Frank Aiken. Aiken said once that ‘a world of nuclear-ready states would resemble a town full of armed residents pointing guns at each other’s heads. At some point, mutual suspicion and the advantages of firing first would give way to mayhem.’ The Non-Proliferation Treaty is nuclear gun control. If it unravels, Australia could find itself inhabiting a region bristling with nuclear weapons. Former Australian diplomat, Richard Broinowski. Richard Broinowski: We have a lot to lose. Australia has invested huge diplomatic and I’d say economic capital in helping maintain if we can, a nuclear-free North Asia, and for that matter, South East Asia. We do not want this region to become nuclearised. We have a very dangerous situation in North Asia at present, a disaster waiting to happen; the North Koreans claim they have nuclear weapons. I think they’re playing this nuclear brinksmanship game because they’re under so much pressure from the United States and they feel threatened by the US, and therefore it’s the only card they have in their pack to play. At the same time though, the South Koreans who are very nervous about North Korean belligerency, have had in the past, and could easily dust off, plans for their own nuclear weapons. Japan has so much plutonium it also has the technology and the delivery systems to bolt together, overnight, nuclear weapons and rockets to deliver them. Taiwan is a country that is being put under enormous pressure, psychological pressure by China, at the same time it’s developing an independence of thought that belies the fiction that it is in fact just a province of China, and has had in the past, and could develop again, a nuclear weapons program. So if all this happens, then Australian uranium, and we’re the largest suppliers at present of uranium to Japan and South Korea, I think Australian uranium would certainly be used in nuclear weapons programs. Therefore that myth that we comfort ourselves with, that Australian uranium could never be used in weapons programs, would be immediately knocked sideways. Tom Morton: Richard Broinowski, a former Australian Ambassador to South Korea, Vietnam and Mexico. The whole question of just what constitutes ‘peaceful’ nuclear energy is probably the most contentious issue at the New York Conference. It’s a question that goes to the very heart of the Treaty. The Non-Proliferation Treaty has been called ‘a grand bargain’, one which gives the 188 member states the right to peaceful nuclear energy in return for renouncing nuclear weapons. Andrew O'Neil: So originally when the Treaty was negotiated, in exchange for not acquiring nuclear weapons, of giving up that option, if you like, the developing world, the Third World, insisted that “Well what we want in return, is an assurance from the industrialised world that we would have continuing access to civilian nuclear technology which is crucial for development.” Now for countries like Brazil, to name one very good example, the civilian nuclear sector is absolutely critical to its economic development. And of course the dual-edged sword, if you like, in all of this is that essentially if you have a very advanced civilian nuclear industry, that gives you an excellent jumping-off point, as it were, to replicate that civilian technology and to, if you like, morph that civilian technology into a military capability. So there’s a very fine line between the civilian and military applications of the nuclear fuel cycle. Tom Morton: Andrew O'Neil, who’s a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Flinders University. There are over 400 nuclear power plants in 30 countries around the world, humming away, generating electricity, just like the one you can hear in the background. The bedrock of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an assumption that peaceful and military uses of nuclear energy can be separated. But there’s a catch. The Treaty guarantees member countries access to the full nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment and reprocessing technology, which can also be used to make nuclear weapons. Now of course, the anti-nuclear movement has been saying for decades that the distinction between peaceful and military uses of nuclear energy is a false one, that you simply can’t separate the two. And interestingly enough, some of the more hawkish nuclear analysts in Washington are now starting to echo those sentiments. Henry Sokolski is no-one’s Peacenik. He was an official in the Defense Department in the first Bush Administration. But Sokolski says it’s time for a fundamental re-thinking of what we mean by peaceful nuclear energy. Henry Sokolski: The days of atoms for peace, where all civilian activities were looked upon as a good thing, no matter what, are over. Iran is manipulating the Treaty in a cynical fashion, saying, ‘Well, we have a right to get right up to having a bomb-making capability’. "Under this Treaty you can get within days of having a bomb, it becomes a bargaining tool to come so close." So the argument that there’s clearly a per se right for all countries to acquire the means to make nuclear fuel, I don’t think is sustainable. If it turns out that under this Treaty you can get within days of having a bomb, it becomes actually a bargaining tool to come so close that essentially you’re spreading the means to make bombs all over the world. I can’t believe that that’s the proper way to read this Treaty. So we’re going to have to make some distinctions between nuclear activities that are safe, profit-making, peaceful, and things that are unprofitable, dangerous and no safeguarded. Not only because you could violate with impunity, and stretch what the right to peaceful nuclear energy might include and mean, but because other countries will look at this and say, ‘Well we’ve got to hedge our bets too’, and then you have a world full of countries that are weeks away from having a bomb. I don’t know how that improves things a whole lot. Tom Morton: For the past three years, the United States has accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons under cover of a peaceful nuclear energy program. And those accusations were repeated on the first day of the New York Conference. Stephen G. Rademaker: Today, the Treaty is facing the most serious challenge in its history, due to instances of non-compliance. Some continue to use the pretext of a peaceful nuclear program to pursue the goal of developing nuclear weapons. For almost two decades, Iran has conducted a clandestine nuclear weapons program, aided by the illicit network of A.Q. Khan. After two-and-a-half years of investigation by the IAEA, and adoption of no fewer than seven decisions by the IAEA Board of Governors calling on Iran to co-operate fully with the IAEA in resolving outstanding issues with its nuclear program, many questions remain unanswered. Tom Morton: Stephen G. Rademaker, the United States’ most senior arms control official. The reply to Rademaker from Iran’s Foreign Minister, Dr Kamal Kharrazi, was equally blunt. Kamal Kharrazi: It is unacceptable that some tend to limit access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced states on the pretext of non-proliferation. Iran for its part, is determined to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology, including enrichment, exclusively for peaceful purposes, and has been eager to offer assurances and guarantees that they remain permanently peaceful. Tom Morton: But while the United States and Iran have been at loggerheads publicly, behind the scenes at the Conference, they’ve had a common interest in keeping things deadlocked on procedural issues. Rebecca Johnson: I’m sorry to say that there is an unholy alliance between both of them, not because I’m suggesting that there’s any overt collaboration, but because both are wanting to protect national positions that the vast majority of the rest of the world sees as positions that undermine and weaken the non-proliferation regime. Both of those countries want to avoid being criticised within the Conference, and they want to avoid more concerted international action to make them comply more effectively, or more fully, in good faith with the regime. And so yes, there is an unholy alliance being seen between Iran and the United States, to weaken the non-proliferation regime. Tom Morton: Well it’s easy on the face of it, to see what’s in it for Iran, because Iran wants the pressure taken of its uranium enrichment program. But what’s in it for the United States? Rebecca Johnson: Well I think at least certain very small groups, but nevertheless rather influential groups within the Bush Administration, would I think be quite comfortable with this conference appearing to be a major shambles, because they would then argue that this shows that multilateralism can’t be made to work, unless it has US leadership. "The US is shooting its own security, the security of its own people, in the foot." Now I think that’s a very dangerous game to play, because the non-proliferation regime is about preventing anyone from using nuclear weapons, preventing non-state actors and states from acquiring nuclear weapons or acquiring more nuclear weapons. It is actually about reinforcing a taboo on nuclear weapons use and the acquisition of nuclear weapons, such that we try to work for international security. The US is shooting its own security, the security of its own people, in the foot. Tom Morton: Rebecca Johnson, Director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy Excerpt from Dr Strangelove: Commander Ripper: Very well, now listen to me carefully. The base has been put on Condition Red. I want this flashed to all sections immediately. Group Captain Mandrake: Condition Red sir, yes, jolly good idea, it keeps the men on their toes. Commander Ripper: Group Captain, I’m afraid this is not an exercise. Group Captain Mandrake: Not an exercise, Sir? Commander Ripper: I shouldn’t tell you this, Mandrake, but you’re a good officer and you’ve a right to know. It looks like we’re in a shooting war. Group Captain Mandrake: Oh hell. Are the Russians involved, Sir? Commander Ripper: Mandrake, that’s all I’ve been told. Tom Morton: As well as disputes over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and limits to peaceful nuclear energy, there’s been a further deep rift running through the Conference in New York. The nuclear have-nots believe that the haves are being hypocritical. Or as Kofi Annan has put it, the nuclear weapon states continue to insist that nuclear weapons in their hands enhance security, while in the hands of others, they are a threat to world peace. Joe Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment. Joe Cirincione: Their concerns were basically over this issue of balance. Everyone was concerned about Iran and North Korea, no question about that. But they were also concerned about the example that was being set by the United States in maintaining a very large arsenal of weapons. And the United States goes into a conference like this and is presenting its position to the world in terms of the reductions that have taken place, how many nuclear weapons we’ve gotten rid of in the last five and ten years, and the reduction story is actually quite compelling. The arsenal has been cut in half, and it’s scheduled to be cut in half again by the beginning of the next decade. The problem is that at that point, in 2012, according to the plan, the US will still have 5,000 nuclear weapons. And the rest of the world is saying, ‘Look, you know, it’s like a smoker cutting back from the 2-pack a day habit, to one pack a day, and still extolling the benefits of tobacco, and still subjecting the rest of his family to the hazards of second-hand smoke. You’re still a smoker.’ Tom Morton: But United States Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Stephen G. Rademaker, told the Conference that the United States has been fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty. Stephen G. Rademaker: Since the last review conference, the United States and the Russian Federation concluded our implementation of Start-1 reductions and signed and brought into force the Moscow Treaty of 2002. Under the Moscow Treaty, we have agreed to reduce our operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700 - 2,200, about one-third of the 2002 levels, and less than a quarter of the level at the end of the Cold War. When this Treaty is fully implemented by the end of 2012, the United States will have reduced the number of strategic nuclear warheads it had deployed in 1990 by about 80%. Joe Cirincione: Well that’s a standard Administration line. ‘We’re being reasonable, anybody who disagrees with us is unreasonable.’ I disagree with that view, and here’s why: He’s emphasising the reductions that the US have made, but he’s missing the point about elimination, he’s missing the point about the strategic and political importance that the US still assigns to nuclear weapons, and the reason that is important is because even at the end of these reductions, the US is going to have a vast stockpile. And at the same time it’s developing new nuclear weapons, at least the Administration would like to. "It’s no longer just nuclear weapons to deter other countries from attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. Now we’re talking about new battlefield uses for these things." And, it wants to develop new missions for these weapons. That is, it wants to develop a bunker-buster weapon that could be used against conventional targets. So it’s no longer just nuclear weapons to deter other countries from attacking the United States with nuclear weapons, or that we would use them in a potential nuclear war, no. Now we’re talking about new battlefield uses for these things, that would be used to counter (and this is explicitly laid out in the US Nuclear Posture Review) to counter other countries’ potential use of chemical weapons, or biological weapons, or mobile targets, or (and here’s the catch-all) any unexpected military development, including going after deep underground bunkers that may or may not have chemical or biological weapons in them. So if the United States, the most powerful country in the world, says it needs nuclear weapons for its own security, well why doesn’t every country, why doesn’t Iran, for example, a country that’s been actually attacked by chemical weapons? That’s the problem. Tom Morton: The next generation of nuclear weapons has names straight out of a video game. They’re called things like ‘Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator’. But Stephen Rademaker says there’s no contradiction in building these new nukes while you’re getting rid of old ones. Background Briefing spoke to Stephen Rademaker in his office in Washington. Stephen G. Rademaker: For those who want to find something to complain about, they talk about you’re thinking about developing new nuclear weapons types; an important detail, we are not actually developing new nuclear weapons types, we’re spending small amounts of money to study whether it might make sense to develop new nuclear weapons types, and that’s what this whole debate is about, whether we should even spend small amounts of money to study concepts that would involve new nuclear weapons. My main response to this charge that that is improper is: point to me the provision of the NPT that says we are forbidden to do such work. This Treaty has been in effect for 35 years now, and that takes us back to the middle of the Cold War. I can assure you that for most of the last 35 years, in all of the nuclear weapons states, there was plenty of research, development, design, construction, deployment, of new nuclear weapons types. Nobody ever suggested that that kind of work was contrary to the NPT. It’s only in the last few years that this new interpretation has been put forward that it is somehow problematic under the NPT to engage in this kind of work. And again, as I said, we are not actually engaging in that type of work, we are studying whether to engage in that type of work. Tom Morton: But it’s not a good look, surely, is it, to be arguing on the one hand that no new states should acquire nuclear weapons, and on the other hand to be talking about developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. Surely there’s a problem of being perceived as being hypocritical? Stephen G. Rademaker: Again, I will concede that this could lead to misperceptions. But I stress that they are misperceptions. When a country possesses nuclear weapons, and particularly when the country is interested in reducing the number of nuclear weapons that it possesses, which is where we find ourselves today, the reality is that doing this kind of work can be helpful to the process of making reductions. And if we can develop a new type of weapon that enables us to eliminate a large number of older weapons, render them obsolete and get rid of them, we think overall that contributes to the goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and so I will concede that critics can demagogue this issue if they want, but it is demagoguery. What we are doing is absolutely consistent with what all nuclear weapons states have done for the last 35 years; it is not legally problematic under the Treaty, and it in fact, we believe, contributes to our ability to make further reductions. Tom Morton: US Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Stephen G. Rademaker. Excerpt from Dr Strangelove: US President: The bomb, Dimitri, the hydrogen bomb. Well now what happened is one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well, he went a little funny in the head. You know, just a little funny. And, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I’ll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes to attack your country. Well let me finish, Dimitri… Tom Morton: Dr Strangelove is the story of a US Air Force Commander who believes that nuclear war is just too important to be left to the politicians. So he starts one, all by himself. US President: Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dimitri? Why do you think I’m calling you, just to say hello? Tom Morton: The film was released just two years after the Cuban missile crisis, when the possibility of a real nuclear holocaust was still very much in everyone’s minds. Dr Strangelove: It’s a friendly call, of course it’s a friendly call. Listen, if it wasn’t friendly, you probably wouldn’t have even got it. Tom Morton: We now know that during the Cold War, the world came even closer to the brink of nuclear war than anyone guessed at the time. But the Cold War did have one thing going for it: it helped to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. As a former CIA Director, James Woolsey has said, ‘Back then, we had just two dragons, now we have a whole lot of snakes.’ North Korea is one of those nuclear snakes. And despite some tough talking from the Bush Administration in the last week, it’s a snake which the world may have to learn to live with. Gary Samore: Well the Bush Administration recognises that its policy towards North Korea has failed, that it’s been unable to prevent North Korea from leaving the NPT, expelling the IAEA inspectors, separating more plutonium. And it really doesn’t have any options available. Obviously the military option is not possible; so far the US has not been able to pressure North Korea effectively, because the Chinese and the South Koreans are not willing to run the risks of what would happen if they were to cut off foreign assistance to North Korea. And in the diplomatic sphere, the US is demanding that North Korea accept disarmament rather than just a freeze on its program. So the US doesn’t really have any options available. Tom Morton: You say that military action is not an option; why not? Gary Samore: Well I mean at this point there are several reasons. Since people assume that North Korea already has some number of nuclear weapons, maybe half a dozen, which of course we have no way of locating them, if we were to attack North Korea, and destroy their nuclear facilities, that could precipitate a broader conflict, and that would involve North Korean use of their conventional capability against South Korea, which would be very damaging, and potentially the use of nuclear weapons against either South Korea or Japan. So for those reasons, US allies are not prepared to support a US military attack against North Korea, and in any event the United States doesn’t have any spare troops available at this time because of commitments in the Middle East. So there really isn’t any plausible military option. Tom Morton: So are you saying then that basically the US has now decided it has to live with the fact that North Korea does have nuclear weapons? Gary Samore: Yes. I think that will increasingly become clear; I mean privately, I think it’s becoming more and more recognised in the region that there is no option to disarm North Korea. Tom Morton: Gary Samore, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Samore and most other commentators agree that North Korea wants nuclear weapons primarily as a deterrent; insurance against an attack by the United States or any of its neighbours. The real danger is that North Korea might set off a regional arms race, with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan playing nuclear copy-cat. That’s the view of Andrew O'Neil, a former analyst in the Defence Intelligence Organisation. Andrew O'Neil: What I do think will follow in time, certainly in the next half a decade to a decade is a major strategic review occurring in Japan, about Japan’s non-nuclear status, the South Koreans may review their non-nuclear weapons status, in the light of moves in Japan, and in the longer term, what this may lead to is a nuclear arms race, possibly, if there are no arms control initiatives between China and Japan. Now from Australia’s point of view, this presents a number of challenges. How do we respond to that? Tom Morton: If a regional arms race does break out, O’Neil says a future Australian government might decide it was time for us to get nuclear weapons too. Andrew O'Neil: It may force Australia, if you like, the Australian governments, as a result of public opinion, force the Australian government to at some point in the future, review its non-nuclear weapon status, and bear in mind that Australia, if it so decided, could embark on a nuclear weapons program. It would take some time, it would be expensive, it would involve significant risks, but Australia is a very advanced country industrially speaking. We’ve retained a degree of nuclear expertise that could give us the capability to embark on a basic nuclear weapons program. Tom Morton: While North Korea may be better a nuclear headline-grabbing, in many ways Iran poses a much more serious threat to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States says Iran is hiding away a covert nuclear weapons program. Iran does have a pilot uranium enrichment program. But making a bomb requires a much higher level of enrichment than making fuel for a nuclear power plant. And a top scientific advisor to the British government says Iran is still a long way away from having the technological ability to make a bomb. Norman Dombey is a former member of the Minister of State’s Advisory Group on Nuclear Proliferation. Norman Dombey: "Iran isn’t a major nuclear threat, it’s not even a minor nuclear threat. It took Pakistan ten years to set up their enrichment plants and they actually had the blueprints." Iran isn’t a major nuclear threat, it’s not even a minor nuclear threat. It took Pakistan ten years to set up their enrichment plants and they actually had the blueprints. It’s very unlikely – well it’s not unlikely, it’s impossible for Iran to do anything on that scale quickly. At the moment, it has a pilot plant with a few centrifuges and it got an enrichment of a couple of percent, using those few centrifuges. And the amount of material was microscopic, that’s a couple of grammes. In order to build a bomb, it would need 20 kilograms or so of 95% enriched uranium. If it is inspected, if there are NPT inspectors at its sites, it’s simply not going to be able to do that. Tom Morton: Norman Dombey, Emeritus Professor Theoretical Physics at Sussex University. The International Atomic Energy Agency says it’s found no concrete evidence that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. But the United States, and the EU-3, that’s Germany, Britain and France, remain suspicious of Iran’s nuclear intentions. Since last November, the EU-3 have been trying for a diplomatic solution. If Iran agrees to give up its uranium enrichment program, Europe will guarantee a supply of fuel for civilian power generation. But Iran is playing hardball. The Iranian government has said that it will re-start uranium conversion at its plant in Isfahan if talks with the EU fail. And the EU-3 are making ominous noises about referring Iran to the Security Council. But there’s a difficulty: Rebecca Johnson: The difficulty is, if Iran were to recommence uranium conversion, they would actually not be breaching the NPT, which currently allows the enrichment of uranium and the separation of plutonium. Now this is a very, very important distinction. Iran raised a whole set of concerns about its program because it did not declare that program to the IAEA and put it under full safeguards from the very beginning. So there was a sense they had something to hide, and this is why there’s so much concern. But the truth of the matter is, you can’t just point the finger at Iran while you’ve got countries such as Japan doing much the same thing, legally, under the Treaty. Shahram Chubin: The issue I think here for the Iranians is that they do not want to be singled out. If you can come up with a formula, and Mr ElBaradei’s suggested one, by which you have a blanket moratorium on any further enrichment facilities, then this clearly would be a way out for the Iranians, because then it would not be just applying to the Iranians, it would be applied across the board. Tom Morton: Shahram Chubin, an Iranian-born analyst at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. Chubin says that domestic politics is playing an important role in Iran’s nuclear negotiating strategy. Elections are due in Iran in June, and in the run-up to those elections, moderates can’t be seen to be kow-towing to the West. But below the surface, says Chubin, there’s a sharp division between moderates and hardliners about whether or not Iran needs nuclear weapons. Shahram Chubin: Absolutely. And the distinction is vital. And there’s a lot of misjudgement, misinterpretation abroad that says that actually all the Iranians want is to have nuclear weapons. That’s nonsense. What’s happened in Iran is that the debate has been about nuclear technology and it’s been sold to the Iranian people as a question of development, and being on the edge of scientific progress. And it’s also been sold as an issue of denying them the possibility of getting this technology, as denying the possibility of Iran to develop. And in that context of course, no Iranian would say, ‘Yes, that’s a good idea, let’s not have it.’ But as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, while the hardliners often talk about technology as a euphemism for weapons, the reformists are talking about technology and non-discrimination, and indeed one of the reformist candidates, Mr Rowhani, has suggested in his, as it were, campaign platform, that ‘Look, if enrichment means alienation from the international community, then we should forego enrichment.’ So indeed there is a debate, there is a division, but it’s been very poorly handled from outside, where the debate often seems like dictation from the West. Tom Morton: As we heard, Iran believes it’s being singled out, portrayed as a nuclear leper while countries like Japan and Brazil pursue ambitious uranium enrichment programs of their own without a word of protest. But that’s an argument that Stephen Rademaker rejects. Stephen G. Rademaker: Yes, of course, the Iranians claim that we are applying a double standard. We do not accept that at all. We think we have a single standard. Our standard is, that for any country that has engaged in an 18-year pattern of deception, of violation of its NPT obligations, of carrying out nuclear activities in secret, in violation of international treaty obligations, any such government, the international community should insist that they forego rights that they might otherwise have under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop a nuclear program, and particularly when it comes to these most sensitive technologies, enrichment and reprocessing. And you point to analogies with Japan and other countries; there is not an 18-year history of deception and violation of international treaty obligations in the case of Japan or the other countries that you mention. Henry Sokolski: We need to act, we need to be a little less of the view that friends of the United States can do anything they want with regard to nuclear civil activities, including enrich and reprocess. But countries which we don’t like, well they shouldn’t. I think we’re going to have to lay down some rules that apply, well, to everyone. Tom Morton: Henry Sokolski, Director of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been called the most ambitious attempt ever to extend the civilising reach of the rule of law. If that’s so, then Sokolski says the law needs to be applied equally to everyone. Henry Sokolski: I think that the tests for reasonableness on these matters is now, and it applies not just to the tough cases like Iran and North Korea, but I would argue some of the easier cases which would include Japan, Brazil, that’s now announcing that it wants to begin a big enrichment program that will take many years to complete, and will also not be cost-effective. So in some cases, like Japan, a country that’s considering its planning to open up an enormous reprocessing plant at Rokkasho-mura, it will be cost-ineffective, they’ll lose lots of money and then they will make a thousand bombs with this weapons-useful plutonium a year. And they’re going to stockpile this stuff. If you can’t talk with a country like Japan about holding off with that, I don’t know what you’re going to have with countries that are not as reasonable, and not as democratic and open to debate. I think that kind of thinking is going to get us in a lot of trouble. Tom Morton: The politics of nuclear proliferation is making some strange and interesting bedfellows. Henry Sokolski has impeccable conservative credentials, but he believes the world should be looking at alternatives to nuclear energy. Left and Right, Hawks and Doves are moving towards a common position that nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle need to be brought under tighter control. That could be a hard argument to win, especially at a time when many are saying that nuclear energy is the clean, green alternative to burning fossil fuels. But Joe Cirincione says it’s an argument we have to have. Joe Cirincione: This problem is going to be the most difficult one to solve, basically because it involves billions of dollars in international commerce, and the interests of dozens of very important countries. There are several creative suggestions, but the one that seems to have the best hope of succeeding is one that’s been proposed by Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he recommends that first we stop digging the hole any deeper, that we have a pause, a moratorium on the construction of any new fuel capabilities. This is perfectly reasonable because right now we have an international glut of uranium-enrichment capabilities. That is, we have more capability doing rich uranium than there is a market for. So a pause makes perfect sense. And the second is, that during that pause, we develop plans to have any future enrichment capability become multinational capabilities. The way Europe, for example handles this, is that there are three countries in Europe, Germany, the UK and Belgium, that co-operate on an international facility called URENCO, that is housed in a particular country, but is controlled by the three countries together. That doesn’t stop a country, say Germany, from seizing that facility and turning it to weapons purposes, but it would be a huge diplomatic and observable step, it wouldn’t be something that somebody could do in secret, it wouldn’t be worried about the diversion of this capability for weapons purposes, because it’s inherently impossible for one nation to actually take that step. So the idea is that all future capabilities would become like that, and then you’d go back and deal with the existing capabilities for example Japan’s enrichment capability and turn that into a multinational facility as well, or some other structure of international controls on it. That’s the basic idea. There are several other kinds of proposals, but that one seems to have the most likelihood of success. Tom Morton: You’ve been listening to Background Briefing. And you can find links to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference website and a whole range of other background on the Background Briefing website. Our Technical Producer today was Mark Don. Co-ordinating Producer is Linda McGinnis; research by Paul Bolger; the Executive Producer is Kirsten Garrett and I’m Tom Morton. Further information * The official website of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference http:///www.un.org/events/npt2005/ * An article by Henry Sokolski, Director, NPEC. “After Iran: Keeping Nuclear Energy Peaceful” http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0305/ijpe/sokolski.htm * The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy http://www.acronym.org.uk/npt/ * Carnegie Endowment – Proliferation News and Resources http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/ * The Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center http://www.npec-web.org/ * Arms Control Association - 2005 Campaign to Strengthen the NPT http://www.npt2005.org * A major Carnegie Endowment report on how to rethink the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16593 -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- nevada Los Alamos nuke lab up for bid May 22, 2005 (AP) http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050521-114225-2628r.htm LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- The Wen Ho Lee case. Confusion over the whereabouts of classified computer disks. Disgruntled scientists posting complaints on the Internet. Los Alamos, the government laboratory that built the atomic bomb during World War II, is beset with turmoil and uncertainty, and there could be more to come. The U.S. government is putting the contract to operate Los Alamos up for bid for the first time since the lab was created in 1943 as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project. The University of California, which has run Los Alamos from the beginning, could be out. A defense contractor with a more bottom-line outlook could be in. And that worries some. The government's request for bids appears to be "skewed toward a corporate structure, rather than a not-for-profit entity," said Rep. Tom Udall, New Mexico Democrat. "I hope this requirement does not affect the science at the lab -- or result in an exodus of employees, as many have feared." Tyler Przybylek of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Energy Department agency that plans to award the new contract by Dec. 1, gave assurances Thursday about Los Alamos' future. "I think that what people will see over time is good operations and good business aren't the enemies of great science -- they enable it," Mr. Przybylek said. Los Alamos is one of three chief installations responsible for maintaining the nation's nuclear arsenal and manufacturing weapons components. It also conducts research on a host of topics, including miniaturized technology, genetics, computing, the environment and health. In 1999, in a case that proved a major embarrassment for the government and the lab, Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was jailed during an investigation into possible Chinese espionage. The case proved to be weak, and the scientist pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information. He was released with an apology from a federal judge. The lab was rocked by other security lapses, as well as credit card abuses, and theft of equipment. Retired Vice Adm. Pete Nanos was brought in as director two years ago and was credited by the Energy Department earlier this month, when he stepped down, with instituting some sound business practices. But he also made enemies with his brusque management style. Some workers responded with a blog site, or Web journal, that ridiculed their boss. Thursday, the government released its request for proposals from businesses or institutions interested in running Los Alamos, offering to pay up to $79 million a year to a contractor. The University of Texas plans to team up with Lockheed Martin and bid on the contract. The University of California has joined forces with Bechtel but has yet to announce whether it will compete. Northrop Grumman also plans to bid. Charles Mansfield, who heads a group of retired lab employees, said uncertainty over the lab's future and poor morale have led key scientists to consider retiring early. "From the nation's standpoint, it's turning out to be a terrible debacle," he said. -------- MILITARY -------- afghanistan Karzai claims Afghans are following poppy pledge 5/22/2005 1:14 PM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-22-afghanistan-poppy_x.htm WASHINGTON — Afghanistan's president on Sunday sharply rejected reported U.S. claims that he had not worked strongly enough to curtail production of opium, the raw material for heroin. "We are going to have probably all over the country at least 30% poppies reduced," Hamid Karzai said. "So we have done our job. The Afghan people have done our job. "Now the international community must come and provide alternative livelihood to the Afghan people, which they have not done so far. Let us stop this blame," he told CNN's Late Edition. Ahead of his White House meeting Monday with President Bush, Karzai said he wants greater control over American military operations in his country and punishment for any U.S. troops who mistreat prisoners. He cited reports of prisoner abuse by American forces at the main military prison north of Kabul, the capital. (Related item: Karzai calls for crack down) Production of opium has soared since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, leading to warnings that the former al-Qaeda haven is fast turning into a "narco-state" despite the presence of more than 20,000 foreign troops. Last year, cultivation reached a record 323,700 acres and yielded nearly 90% of the world's supply. A diplomatic cable sent May 13 from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and addressed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said a U.S.-sponsored crackdown on the world's largest narcotics industry had not been very effective partly because Karzai "has been unwilling to assert strong leadership," according to a New York Times report Sunday. Taking issue with that report, Karzai said, "Instead of blaming Afghanistan, the international community must now come and fulfill its own objective to the Afghan people, and they must not spend money on projects that they cannot deliver properly in Afghanistan, and on creation of forces that are not effective." He added, "Where the Afghan government worked, it was effective. ... Where international money and creation of forces for destruction of poppies was concerned, it was ineffective and delayed and halfhearted. We have done our job. Now the international community must do its job, period." Karzai noted that he told the European Union this month that poppy production would decline by as much as 30% this year and that sustained aid is critical in maintaining the downward trend. The EU has funded farm projects to keep people from growing poppies and instead turn them toward essential food production. Afghanistan's illegal trade is estimated to account for over half of the country's gross domestic product. As for the abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan, Karzai said, "This is simply not acceptable. We are angry about this. We want justice. We want the people responsible for this sort of brutal behavior punished and tried and made public." The U.S. military has said it would not tolerate any incidents of abuse. Karzai spoke of the successful partnership with the U.S. that helped drive the Taliban from Afghanistan. "Now, we are in a different phase of this struggle. The Afghan people have gone to elections, they have a constitution, they have elected a government. ... The Afghan people now feel that they own that country," Karzai said. As a result, he wants some restrictions on how the U.S. military operates in his country. "Operations that involve going to people's homes, that involves knocking on people's doors, must stop, must not be done without the permission of the Afghan government," Karzai said. On the status of Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, still a fugitive, Karzai said, "We know that for sure he's not in Afghanistan, yes. If he were there, we would catch him." -------- asia Police in Azerbaijan Beat Back Protesters Demanding Free Vote Associated Press Sunday, May 22, 2005; A25 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100542_pf.html BAKU, Azerbaijan, May 21-- Azeri protesters demanding free elections were beaten back Saturday by police, who arrested dozens as they broke up a banned rally in the oil-rich country four days before the inauguration of a new pipeline. Tensions between the government and the opposition in the tightly controlled nation increased following an October 2003 election in which Ilham Aliyev replaced his late father, Geidar Aliyev, as president in a vote that the opposition said was marred by fraud. A parliamentary vote is scheduled for November. Officials had forbidden the opposition to protest, citing security concerns ahead of a visit by foreign leaders for a ceremony marking the opening of Azerbaijan's portion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which has been backed by the United States. The mostly Muslim country, a U.S. ally in Iraq, is the starting point of the pipeline that Washington says will reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East. The violence broke out as groups of protesters tried to make their way to a central square in the capital, Baku, shouting "Freedom!" and "Free elections!" Helmeted police with riot shields and truncheons chased protesters, dispersing the rally after about two hours. Police detained dozens of people, putting them into buses and vans. A human rights activist, Saida Godzhamanly, said more than 100 people were detained, including 10 women. Ali Kerimli, head of the People's Front of Azerbaijan party, said about 300 people were being held. The police said 45 people were detained for disorder and refusing to obey police. A journalist from an independent newspaper who was bloodied in the fracas -- despite wearing clothing marked "press" -- and a passerby who was knocked unconscious by a truncheon blow were taken to the People's Front headquarters. The clashes came against the backdrop of a wave of change in other former Soviet republics, where protests against long-entrenched governments over alleged election fraud have helped bring opposition forces to power in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan over the past 18 months. Uzbekistan has also faced unrest. ---- Terrified Uzbeks tell of three massacres Wounded finished off in cold blood May 22, 2005 UK TIMES Alexei Volosevich and Dimitri Beliakov, Andijan and Mark Franchetti, Kara Dariya, Kyrgyzstan http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1622286,00.html MOST people in the Uzbek town of Andijan were sleeping when Zikrillo Ayupov heard that his daughter-in-law had given birth to her first baby. Overjoyed, he went to wake Akhmad Khakkarov, a neighbour and old schoolfriend. The two men prepared a large celebratory pot of mastavu, a traditional bean and milk soup, and set off in a car at 2am for the maternity ward. They never arrived. At daybreak their bodies were found slumped in the front of their car, which had been pierced by more than 100 bullets. They remained in the middle of the street under a baking sun for more than two days while police prevented relatives from retrieving them for burial. “They had been hit by so many bullets I couldn’t recognise them at first,” said one of Khakkarov’s relatives. “Soldiers just opened fire on the vehicle, cutting them down without warning — two gentle men on their way to celebrate the birth of a baby.” Ayupov and Khakkarov, both 44, were among the first victims of a bloodbath in the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan. As many as 700 people — most of them unarmed civilians — are thought to have died in the worst incident of its kind since China sent its tanks into Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. The Sunday Times has compiled the most detailed account to date by speaking to dozens of eyewitnesses. Most were interviewed in Andijan, which was effectively closed to other foreign journalists last week, apart from a small group escorted into the city by officials but prevented from talking to inhabitants. Several witnesses were in evident fear of their lives. One interview was cut short by a telephone call, apparently from the security services. Islam Karimov, the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan, has resisted growing international demands for an independent investigation by insisting that no civilians were killed during what he described as a military operation to put down an uprising on May 13. He put the death toll at 169. What emerged from the witnesses, however, was that there were not one but three separate massacres of anti-government protesters in Andijan. Some of the wounded were finished off at point blank range and several children caught up in the slaughter also died. Some victims were killed in further sporadic attacks in Andijan; others when troops opened fire on refugees at the Kyrgyz border. A week later Andijan, a city of 350,000 people, was eerily quiet, its streets almost deserted apart from army patrols in armoured personnel carriers (APCs). Amid the narrow winding alleys and clay walls of the old town, men dressed in oriental robes and hats gathered to exchange condolences. The women wailed in private. Many were still searching for missing relatives, hoping that they had merely been detained by the SNB secret police, heirs to the Soviet-era KGB. The chain of events began shortly after 10pm on May 12 when several dozen armed men, believed to have been Islamic extremists, stormed the prison cells of 23 businessmen on trial for allegedly forming a terrorist group. The gunmen took several prison guards hostage and set off in a convoy along Navoi Avenue, a broad street that leads to the centre of town. Some had tried to force their way into the SNB’s headquarters by ramming a stolen fire engine into the compound’s high metal gates. But the security forces shot back, the vehicle got stuck and they ran off. The army was ordered on to the streets. Soldiers in APCs began combing the centre of the city, firing from heavy machineguns and AK-47s at passing vehicles they suspected of carrying insurgents. Among them was the car in which Khakkarov and Ayupov were driving to the maternity ward. By the early hours of the morning the gunmen had taken over a local authority building on the main Babur Square and barricaded themselves inside. -------- israel / palestine Sharon calls for 'complete quiet' so peace talks can move forward Updated 5/22/2005 8:01 AM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-22-sharon-peace_x.htm NEW YORK — Visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Sunday demanded an end to recent Palestinian attacks in the Gaza Strip, saying there must be "complete quiet" for peace-making to move forward. Sharon arrived in New York for a three-day visit to the United States to bolster ties with American Jews but said domestic issues, such as the planned pullback from Gaza this summer, were also on the agenda. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas "knows what he has to do," Sharon told reporters on his plane. "There certainly has to be complete quiet. Without quiet, it will be impossible to move forward on the peace process." In recent days, a flareup of fighting in the Gaza Strip has left three Palestinian militants dead and militants fired rounds of mortar shells and rockets at Israeli communities. The fighting has strained a four-month-old cease-fire and threatens to complicate Israel's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said Sunday that Palestinians also want hostilities to end so that talks can progress. "Both sides should exert an effort to achieve full quiet and once the Israeli guns are silent, we can assure that we will maintain the cessation of violence against Israelis anywhere," he said. Abbas was scheduled to arrive in Washington on Tuesday and meet with President Bush on Thursday. He has said he would seek political and financial support from the United States. Sharon reiterated that Israel would launch a harsh military response if Israeli troops came under fire during the planned withdrawal from Gaza in the summer. However, senior Israeli officials have said no major military operations in Gaza are planned. Sharon dismissed as "baseless" Israeli media reports that the pullback could be delayed beyond mid-August. Sharon said the forced evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza would begin Aug. 16 of Aug. 17. -------- prisoners of war Guantanamo prisoners tell their stories in secretive tribunals 5/22/2005 7:03 PM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-22-gitmo-tales_x.htm LONDON — Some boast they were Taliban fighters. Others — an invalid, a chicken farmer, a nomad, a nervous name-dropper — say they were in the wrong place at the wrong time when they were plucked from Afghanistan, Pakistan or other countries and flown to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Their stories are tucked inside nearly 2,000 pages of documents the U.S. government released to The Associated Press under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Representing a fraction of some 558 tribunals held since July, the testimonies capture frustration on both sides — judges wrestling with mistaken identity and scattered information from remote corners of the world, prisoners complaining there's no evidence against them. "I've been here for three years and the past three years, whatever I say, nobody believes me. They listen but they don't believe me," says a chicken farmer accused of torturing jailed Afghans as a high-ranking member of the Taliban. The farmer's name is blacked out in the documents released by the government, which also redacted most other identifying information such as the names of cities, villages and countries. There are scant references to allegations of abuse at the prison camp in the proceedings to determine solely if detainees are enemy combatants. One prisoner even calls the camp "paradise" compared to a Taliban jail where he was given little food and had medical problems. Another prisoner, however, claims U.S. forces in Afghanistan held him underground for two weeks. "They starved me. They handcuffed me, there was no food," he says. "I was surprised that the Americans would (do) such a thing," adds the Briton, who worked in Yemen at a cooking oil company shut down after authorities said it was a front for al-Qaeda. Many of the prisoners portray their circumstances as Kafka-esque, similar to Franz Kafka's The Trial where a man is arrested and forced to defend himself against a secret crime. The facility where the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) take place at Guantanamo Bay. "This is not lawful," complains one detainee who identified himself as a journalist. "If she (the tribunal recorder) has any secret documents against me, she should give them to you now." Because the U.S. government considers some information against the men to be of interest to national security, detainees were not allowed to hear all of the evidence. Case in point: a 29-year-old accused of having knowledge of a terrorist act. The prisoner admits that when he went to Indonesia after his father died in 2001, he dropped a name and flashed a snapshot to a man he met at a breakfast arranged by his mother's friend. He's posing with scientists, who allegedly worked for Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, but he says it was taken at a conference where he recited the Koran. The prisoner says the man — who thought the picture was proof of political prestige — later admitted to attacking the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta. The conversation became fodder for one of the allegations against the Guantanamo captive. "When I found out ... that these were very bad people, I tried to get away from them," the prisoner claims, adding, "I must be stupid." Another prisoner accused of being a member of "al-Irata," asks what the group is — a question that stumps the tribunal president. "As a court, how can you present it against a person and not know what it was?" asks the prisoner, who says he's a Saudi fruit and vegetable merchant who came to Pakistan the month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks to fulfill his obligation to help Muslims. The men complain of not having attorneys because only military-appointed representatives are allowed in the hearings. "It is unfair that the government is going to be talking about me and I don't have an attorney," says one whose calm testimony is punctuated by protest. The proceedings began after the Supreme Court ruled in June that Guantanamo prisoners could challenge their detentions as enemy combatants, a classification that has afforded the men fewer legal protections than prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions. Most of the prisoners' testimonies at the prison — which now holds about 540 from 40 countries — haven't been made public, though the tribunals were open to press coverage. Because of Guantanamo's remoteness, it was difficult for reporters to stay for indefinite periods. Testimonies from at least 60 prisoners have been filed as part of the habeas corpus cases challenging their detention in courts in Washington, D.C. The AP-obtained documents account for nearly 100 testimonies. The AP filed the request in November under the Freedom of Information Act, asking for testimonies, statements and other documents. The government on Friday handed over the documents after the tribunals ended in January and the AP filed suit. Most of the detainees proclaim their innocence, including one older prisoner who tells the tribunal he's too crippled to have been an enemy combatant. "How could I be an enemy combatant if I was not able to stand up," he says, describing how he hasn't been able to walk in more than 15 years. A witness testifies that the man had a stroke years ago and barely left his house except to visit the doctor. The United States accused him of being a member of the Hizb-I-Islamic group that authorities said were planning rocket attacks against U.S. forces. Troops also allegedly found weapons. The prisoner admits there was an AK-47, a BB gun and an antique rifle that didn't fire, but he says it's common for villagers to have weapons for protection. One nomad says he was looking for his lost goats when he and his brother were captured. U.S. officials say they were captured near an explosive device. Much of Afghanistan is heavily mined. "How do you move from place to place?" asked the tribunal member. "What do you use for transport? Do you have a vehicle?" "A camel," the prisoner says. "I am not against America." One detainee whose name was found on a document recovered at a former Afghan residence of Osama bin Laden argues that's "literally meaningless" because in his Saudi tribe "there are literally millions that share" his name, including two other detainees. Questions by tribunal members indicate they're aware of possible cases of mistaken identity. "In your village, are there other people with the name (blacked out)?" one asks a 47-year-old, who answers yes. The man is accused of being bodyguard to a person suspected of mounting a March 2003 ambush on a convoy in which a Red Cross member was killed. One 25-year-old prisoner testifies that not only wasn't he an enemy combatant, but he was a bodyguard for Afghanistan's U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai. He says his military training came by "order of American officers." The transcripts also include poignant vignettes, such as a tribunal member commiserating with a detainee who says 12 family members including his children and his brother's children were killed by an American bomb on their village in remote mountains of Afghanistan. Many of the men testify they were against the Taliban — though some boasted of fighting with the militia that protected al-Qaeda leader Bin Laden before the U.S. military attacked them. "It was my obligation, my duty," says one prisoner. Some challenge the definition of enemy combatant, admitting they were fighting foreign occupation in their regions but were not against the United States or its allies. One prisoner accused of being a member of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, a Pakistani group with alleged links to al-Qaeda, points to the disputed territory of Kashmir and says the struggle was backed by Pakistan, an ally of the United States. India and Pakistan claim Kashmir. "If you consider this organization a terrorist organization, then you should consider the Pakistan government a terrorist country," he says. One of the longest filings came from Feroz Abbasi, a British prisoner freed from Guantanamo this year. U.S. authorities accused Abbasi of training at a camp run by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and meeting bin Laden, but he was never charged. He denies the U.S. allegations and provides tribunal members with more than 100 pages of a scribbled biography that talks of a painful puberty and suicidal college years outside London. Abbasi began his testimony by quoting Malcolm X, the slain black Muslim leader: "I did not come here to condemn America. I want to make that very clear. I came here to tell the truth and if the truth condemns American then she stands condemned." Later Abbasi was kicked out of the proceedings for engaging in a heated debate about international law with the tribunal president, who snaps, "I don't care about international law. I don't want to hear the words international law again." The transcripts also include poignant vignettes, such as a tribunal member commiserating with a detainee who says 12 family members including his children and his brother's children were killed by an American bomb on their village in remote mountains of Afghanistan. And there are amusing moments. A man who says he was forced by the Taliban to serve as deputy minister of intelligence says he stopped working when the Americans attacked Kabul, the Afghan capital. Tribunal member: So when there was fighting in Kabul you were not there serving as deputy minister? Detainee: No. When the bombardment started in Kabul, I left my job and went home. Tribunal member: That's a pretty good indicator that it's time to punch the clock out. ---- Four hostages freed after being held for nearly two months in Iraq 5/22/2005 8:30 AM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-22-hostages-romania_x.htm BUCHAREST, Romania — Three Romanian journalists and their Iraqi-American guide were freed Sunday after nearly two months in captivity in Iraq, the president's office said. All four were in the custody of Romanian authorities. "They are unharmed and we will announce to the public when they will return to the country," said Adriana Saftoiu, a spokeswoman for President Traian Basescu. The three Romanians — newspaper reporter Ovidiu Ohanesian, TV reporter Marie-Jeanne Ion and cameraman Sorin Miscoci — were kidnapped in Iraq on March 28, along with their Iraqi-American guide, Mohammed Monaf. Their kidnappers had threatened to kill the hostages unless Romania pulled its 800 troops out of Iraq. Basescu has refused to withdraw the troops, saying the country would not negotiate its foreign policy with the kidnappers. "It's over. The nightmare has ended. We are waiting for them to come home now," said Petre Mihai Bacanu, managing director of Romania Libera, the newspaper that send Ohanesian to Iraq. ---- Dozens Have Alleged Koran's Mishandling Complaints by inmates in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba emerged early. In 2003, the Pentagon set a sensitivity policy after trouble at Guantanamo. By Richard A. Serrano and John Daniszewski Los Angeles Times Staff Writers May 22, 2005 http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes642.html WASHINGTON — Senior Bush administration officials reacted with outrage to a Newsweek report that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility, and the magazine retracted the story last week. But allegations of disrespectful treatment of Islam's holy book are far from rare. An examination of hearing transcripts, court records and government documents, as well as interviews with former detainees, their lawyers, civil liberties groups and U.S. military personnel, reveals dozens of accusations involving the Koran, not only at Guantanamo, but also at American-run detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon is conducting an internal investigation of reported abuses at the naval base in Cuba, led by Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt. The administration has refused to say what the inquiry, still weeks from completion, has found so far. But two years ago, amid allegations of desecration and hunger strikes by inmates, the Army instituted elaborate procedures for sensitive treatment of the Koran at the prison camp. Once the new procedures were in place, complaints there stopped, said the International Committee of the Red Cross, which monitors conditions in prisons and detention facilities. The allegations, both at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, contain detailed descriptions of what Muslim prisoners said was mishandling of the Koran — sometimes in a deliberately provocative manner. In one instance, an Iraqi detainee alleged that a soldier had a guard dog carry a copy of the Koran in its mouth. In another, guards at Guantanamo were said to have scrawled obscenities inside Korans. Other prisoners said Korans were kicked across floors, stomped on and thrown against walls. One said a soldier urinated on his copy, and others said guards ridiculed the religious text, declaring that Allah's words would not save detainees. Some of the alleged incidents appear to have been inadvertent or to have resulted from U.S. personnel's lack of understanding about how sensitive Muslim detainees might be to mishandling of the Koran. In several cases, for instance, copies were allegedly knocked about during scuffles with prisoners who refused to leave their cells. In other cases, the allegations seemed to describe instances of deliberate disrespect. "They tore it and threw it on the floor," former detainee Mohammed Mazouz said of guards at Guantanamo Bay. "They urinated on it. They walked on top of the Koran. They used the Koran like a carpet." "We told them not to do it. We begged. And then they did it some more," said Mazouz, a Moroccan who was seized in Pakistan soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Recently released, he described the alleged incidents in a telephone interview from his home in Marrakech. Ahmad Naji Abid Ali Dulaymi, who was held at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for 10 months, singled out a soldier or noncommissioned officer known to detainees only as "Fox." He said prisoners were forced to sit naked, were licked by dogs, and were soaked in cold water and then forced to sit in front of a powerful air-conditioner. "But frankly," he said, "the worst insult and humiliation they were doing to us, especially for the religious ones among us, is when they, especially Fox, tore up holy books of Koran and threw them away into the trash or into dirty water. "Almost every day, Fox used to take a brand new Koran, and tear off the plastic cover in front of us and then throw it away into the trash container." The hunger strikes erupted in 2002 at Guantanamo when word swept the camp that Korans were being desecrated. In response, the Defense Department's Southern Command, which oversees the prison, issued four pages of guidelines instructing soldiers in the proper way of "inspecting and handling" Korans. In essence, the books are generally to be handled only by Muslim chaplains working for the military, and guards were instructed not to touch the Koran unless absolutely necessary. Muslims revere the Koran as the word of God and have rules for handling it. It is always kept in a high place with nothing on top of it. A ritual ablution is required before touching a copy, which must be held above the waist. Some Muslims hold that nonbelievers must not touch the holy book. At that time, the Red Cross was fielding similar complaints from prisoners, and with the January 2003 written policy the problems seemed to cease. "The ICRC believes the U.S. authorities did take corrective measures," said Simon Schorno, a spokesman in Washington. Other sensitivity training is continuing. At Ft. Lewis in Washington state, guards and other soldiers headed to Guantanamo Bay and other facilities go through classes and exercises to increase awareness of Arab and Muslim customs, said Lt. Col. Warren Perry. Much of the training deals specifically with the Koran. "Don't step on it, don't bump it, don't disrespect it," he said. When handling a Koran can't be avoided, Perry said, soldiers are taught "to wash hands or put on sterile gloves before you touch." But several military officials suggested it was ridiculous to think guards and interrogators would bother to desecrate the Koran in an environment as dangerous as a military prison. "There were scuffles, there were problems, the prisoners were not happy," recalled Army Lt. Col. Raymond A. Tetreault, a Catholic priest and chaplain at Guantanamo Bay during 2002. He said prisoners sometimes physically resisted when being removed from cells and belongings such as the Koran would be inadvertently knocked around. Other times the books had to be opened and inspected by guards to make sure weapons or other contraband were not hidden inside, he said. "The guards were trying to do their job, and the detainees were not happy being there," Tetreault said. Acknowledging that detainees continue to raise allegations of Koran mistreatment, the chaplain said, "Well, it's human nature to embellish a little bit." Some reports on alleged Koran desecration have suggested it was sometimes a tactic to get prisoners to talk, but four interrogators interviewed by The Times said they never saw intentional mishandling of the Koran, or even its use as a prop during an interrogation. "We never took the Koran into an interrogation or used it in any way against them," said Paul Holton, a chief warrant officer with the Army National Guard in Utah who questioned high-level Iraqi military officers after the U.S.-led invasion. "It was just understood that that was off-limits." It was also considered counterproductive, he said. "We figured it was going to bring about additional anger and hatred toward us," Holton said. "With certain fanatical and religious types, you don't want to inflame them and give them further reason to dislike us, even in an interrogation. They just become more firm, more staunch and more resistant." An interrogator who served at Guantanamo Bay said he received no formal sensitivity training, and that there were miscues that offended Muslims. When Korans were delivered to the prison, he said, guards issuing the holy books "would put them on the floor and a lot of the devout Muslims went nuts right away." Later, guards allowed detainees to cradle their Korans in surgical masks hung from the mesh walls of their cells. The soldiers called them "Koran hammocks." The recent furor began after Newsweek magazine reported in its May 9 issue that Schmidt and his investigators "have confirmed" several infractions, including an incident where a Koran was flushed down a toilet. The news item was blamed for a series of protests overseas. At least 14 people died in rioting in Afghanistan and protests were held in several other countries. On May 15, Newsweek acknowledged that there were errors in the story, saying its source had backed away from an assertion that military investigators had concluded that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet. The next day the magazine retracted the story. "Based on what we know now," said Editor Mark Whitaker, "we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay." Newsweek also apologized and expressed regret about the violence. But the anger in the Muslim world — and in the White House — has not dissipated. On Friday, about 500 British Muslims prayed and chanted anti-U.S. slogans like "Desecrate today, die tomorrow," in front of the U.S. Embassy in London. Martin Mubanga, a Zambian who was detained at Guantanamo Bay, participated in the rally. In an interview with The Times, he said two guards made him kneel and held his wrists in locked positions while others searched his cell. His Koran was thrown to the floor; "I saw it in the corner of my eye," he said. As the protests continued over the last two weeks, Bush administration officials sought not only to denounce Newsweek, but also to state that the Pentagon did not deem the allegations credible. At the Pentagon, chief spokesman Lawrence Di Rita repeatedly dismissed them as untruths. "We anticipate, and have seen, in fact, all manner of statements made by detainees," he said, "many of whom as members of Al Qaeda were trained to allege abuse and torture and all manner of other things." The allegations have come in many forums. Five former prisoners have told The Times of Koran desecration. Jamal Harith, a British Muslim, said interrogators at Guantanamo often kicked or knocked his Koran around. He said guards once deliberately targeted his holy book while hosing down his cell. "Everybody was upset, but when you are in Cuba you learn to accept," Harith said after his return to Britain. "You accept it as the norm when you are in there." Other accounts from former detainees have been posted on the Internet. Tarek Dergoul, another British Muslim who was held at Guantanamo Bay, recalled soldiers insulting Islam. "They used to read the English translation of the Koran with their feet up, mocking, for example saying, 'There are more questions in it than answers,' " he said. Other times, Dergoul said, they "ripped up" Korans. When some soldiers were rotating out of Cuba they would write obscenities in the Korans. And some allegations are contained in lawsuits, such as one filed against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by seven men held in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the plaintiffs is Arkan M. Ali, who was held by U.S. authorities in Iraq for nearly a year, part of that time at Abu Ghraib. Ali listed 11 incidents of torture and abuse. He said he was twice beaten unconscious during interrogations. He said his arm was stabbed and sliced, his forearm shocked and burned. He said he was locked for several days in a wooden coffin-like box, sometimes naked except for a hood over his head. But it is his 11th and final allegation that in today's clamor over the Koran that stands out. Ali said U.S. soldiers repeatedly desecrated the Koran in front of him and other prisoners, "including having a military dog pick up the Koran in its mouth." Serrano reported from Washington and Daniszewski from London. Staff writers Nicole Gaouette, John Hendren, Mark Mazzetti and Greg Miller in Washington contributed to this report. ---- Former WMD inspector details Iraq prison life Australia Broadcasting Sunday, May 22, 2005. 9:40am (AEST) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1374089.htm Saddam Hussein is being kept in a jail where the small, windowless cells have only a small ventilation flap from which to view the outside world, former Australian Department of Defence analyst Rod Barton said. Mr Barton, who was once a senior weapons inspector in Iraq, said inmates spent 23 hours a day in their two-metre square cells at Camp Cropper, the top-secret Baghdad prison where Saddam and other former top members of his ousted Iraq regime are kept. The revelations come two days after British and US newspapers printed photographs of a half-naked Saddam in his cell. There were around 100 prisoners kept at the "bleak" Camp Cropper, inside three rows of single-storey cell buildings, Mr Barton, who conducted interrogations at the prison, told the Observer newspaper, published on Sunday. The only view to the outside from the cells was a ventilation flap about a metre from the bottom of the steel doors, he said, giving no specific information about Saddam's conditions. "Sometimes the prisoners would push the flap open to look out into the exercise yard or to get fresh air. The guards could lock the flap as punishment," he told the paper. Exercise was on a rotation basis, and was half-an-hour per day before being increased to an hour following protests by the Red Cross, Mr Barton said. Prisoners were interrogated in a separate block, and were clad in orange jumpsuits when this happened. "This is normally at the dead of night, which was deliberate, to disorientate them. The prisoner had no idea where he was being taken," Mr Barton said. Mr Barton said he had witnessed no physical abuse at Camp Cropper, but believed some inmates had been beaten before they arrived to "soften them up for questioning". On Friday, Britain's Sun newspaper and US sister publication New York Post created worldwide headlines after printing a photograph of a bare-chested Saddam standing in his underwear, and another of him washing his clothes by hand in a bucket. US officials launched an investigation into how the paper obtained the pictures, while lawyers representing Saddam said on Friday they planned to sue the Sun. ---- Inside secret Saddam prison Illicit humiliating pictures of the jailed ex-dictator have focused attention on the Baathist regime's fate. Peter Beaumont , Paul Harris and Antony Barnett report on how they shook America and the world Peter Beaumont, Paul Harris and Antony Barnett Sunday May 22, 2005 The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1489575,00.html The three rows of single-storey buildings stand among a wilderness of flat scrub, surrounded by a double ring of razor wire. In the winter the wind blows squalls of dust up from the south that insinuates itself through doors and windows, and into the clothes of the US soldiers who guard this place. The quiet is broken by the regular sound of the US Apache and Kiowa Warrior helicopters on patrol, as they wheel low across the dirt looking for insurgents attempting to infiltrate the vast closed zone that is the hinterland of Baghdad International Airport and its constellation of camps. Inside the buildings of Camp Cropper are the windowless cells, two metres square. The only entry is through bolted steel doors with a metal ventilation flap placed a metre from the ground. For those who are held inside for up to 23 hours a day it is their only view of the outside world. Sometimes the flaps are sealed as punishment. There is a small shower block at the end of each row. Separate from the cell blocks - once used by the Republican Guard - are the prison's administration wing and hospital infirmary. Set to one side are the metal cabins where the interrogations take place. For Saddam Hussein - and the other 'high-value detainees' - the shrinking of his world to the tiny boxes of Camp Cropper are the most visible sign of how his life has been transformed. Where once there were dozens of palaces, there is now only this. Most senior members of Saddam's former regime - about half the prisoners held inside the camp - are held in solitary confinement. For some that has meant almost two years without any contact with anyone except their CIA interrogators, the occasional lawyer's visit, and their guards. For two years Camp Cropper has been closed to the world. Until last week the only details of Saddam's imprisonment were the short reports of the International Commission for the Red Cross, who had visited him, a few sketchy details from a letter to his wife, and anonymous reports that Saddam had been tending some plants in the exercise yard where prisoners are allowed out for an hour a day. That was until last week. Now, suddenly the secretive world of Camp Cropper has been blown open - and in the way designed to most antagonise the escalating security crisis in Iraq. In the space of a few days Saddam has been exposed before the world in two tabloids belonging to Rupert Murdoch, a pathetic figure emerging from the camp's washroom in his underwear as he washes his trousers. US officials believe the pictures were taken between January and April 2004 when he was in US military custody. Apparently cameras were banned, but he was under 24-hour video surveillance, so the belief is that some of the stills, and perhaps all, are probably from that video surveillance footage. And in a separate interview a former Australian interrogator at Camp Cropper has revealed to The Observer for the first time the regime inside the prison, including suggestions that some of those arriving at the facility had been badly beaten. The publication on Friday of the photographs of Saddam wearing only underwear in his cell in Iraq led the Bush administration to open an investigation into how the pictures made their way into tabloid newspapers in London and New York, apparently supplied by a source in the US military in contravention of the Geneva Conventions. The newspapers, the Sun in London and the New York Post , both part of Murdoch's media empire, said the pictures had been provided by American military sources to 'undermine the Iraqi rebellion'. If true - and it is a big if - then it is a gambit that the US government has tried before, and found to be wanting: in December 2003 it released pictures of Saddam in his cell immediately after his capture, appearing dishevelled as he was examined by a doctor. In a statement issued Friday evening, the White House said those pictures were of a different nature. 'Those photos were released for overriding needs of security, to demonstrate to the Iraqi people and the insurgents that Saddam Hussein was in fact in custody, which we believed was important to help quell the insurgency,' the statement said. 'The recent release of photos had no such justification.' And in any case that first gambit failed. The insurgency got worse. The images of Saddam, which were joined by fresh images from inside the camp in yesterday's Sun - including one of a stooped Ali Hussein al-Majid (Chemical Ali) with a stick and wearing a bathrobe - have once again drawn the Bush administration into an international row over the conduct of American-controlled detention facilities from Bagram in Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay, and now Camp Cropper. Although the likely impact of the pictures on the insurgency was at first dismissed as negligible, within a few hours of the photographs' release a sense of alarm was spreading through the White Hose as officials met urgently to discuss the possible repercussions of the images. By Friday afternoon Bush's deputy press secretary, Trent Duffy, had been sent out to brief the media. The release of the pictures, he said, violated American military regulations, and almost certainly the Geneva Conventions too. Unlike the previous anonymous briefers, Duffy was less sanguine about the potential harm of the photographs' release, in the wake of a further US report confirming prisoner abuse - this time at Bagram in Afghanistan - and following global riots over the claim that a Koran had been flushed down the toilet at Guantánamo Bay. 'I think this could have a serious impact,' Duffy said on Friday afternoon, as he compared it with the revelations of prisoner abuses last year. Once again the White House had been forced to condemn the actions of those responsible for managing its detention facilities set up to process those it had captured in its 'war on terror'. 'There will be a thorough investigation into this,' said Duffy, adding that the President was 'upset' about the release and 'wants to get to the bottom of it immediately'. 'These photos were wrong; they're a clear violation of Department of Defence directives, and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals,' Duffy said. 'Multinational forces in Iraq, as well as the President, are disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare and detention of Saddam Hussein would take and provide these photos for public release.' The publication the photographs has come at the end of a bad week for the administration as it has been forced to fight allegations of abuse that have sprung up in every corner of the war on terror. Although the White House was successful in persuading Newsweek to retract a story on abuse involving the Koran at Guantánamo Bay after riots in Afghanistan and around the Islamic world, it was then confronted by allegations that bored and violent US servicemen in Afghanistan had overseen a regime of terror at the holding facility at Bagram airport near Kabul. Hard on the heels of that came the pictures of Saddam, which powerfully recalled other terrible images that have emerged from Iraq: of the sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by US troops and trophy photographs taken by British soldiers as they abused Iraqi looters in the south. And although the new pictures may have been taken as long as a year ago, according to the Pentagon, which has examined the images, that is all the more serious for the US authorities as Saddam was at that point classified a prisoner of war and subject to protection from 'public curiosity' and humiliation. The critical question also remained unanswered this weekend - who took the photographs and why? It has emerged that the Sun - or journalists in News International at least - had sat on the images for a considerable time, apparently concerned over the authenticity of the images in the wake of the scandal surrounding the Daily Mirror's publication of fake pictures of British soldiers apparently abusing an Iraqi. But what it most worrying of all is the confirmation of long-held suspicions - reported by this newspaper last May - that some prisoners were subjected to coercive interrogation that could be classified as being abusive, as part of their interrogation. The treatment of Saddam and other high-value Detainees was disclosed for the first time by Dr Rod Barton, an Australian who conducted interviews at the camp. 'Interrogations are carried out in metal portakabins on the prison complex. What happens is we decide when to interrogate them. 'This is normally at the dead of night, which was deliberate to disorientate them. The prisoner had no idea where he was being taken.' Barton said he witnessed no physical abuse at the jail, but he believed some prisoners had been physically 'softened' up before they arrived in an induction process known as 'purgatory'. He told The Observer last week: 'The prisoners, who I believe had been abused, were not the scientists. I believe some were former intelligence officials who had been beaten prior to their arrival at Camp Cropper to soften them up for questioning.' Barton, who saw photographs of at least two prisoners with bad facial abrasions, asked questions about the situation and was told they had received them when they 'resisted arrest'. It is a slow process. But like Guantánamo and Bagram before it - like the process of 'renditions' of terrorist suspects by the US to foreign countries, where they can be tortured - the secrets of Camp Cropper are now emerging into the light. Images that made the news The pictures from inside Camp Cropper are suggestive of the source, writes Peter Beaumont As in the most dramatic image of Saddam in his underwear, the subject seems unaware that the picture is being taken. One of yesterday's pictures shows Saddam, in a white dish-dash, his hands before him and preparing to pray, the picture shot from behind barbed wire. Other images of the camp's inhabitants appear shot from the same low angle, as if a camera or cameras had been set to cover the exercise yard. Other pictures, shot from inside, seem to have been taken from on high - a camera covering a corridor perhaps. It is also suggestive, as US officials are beginning to suspect, that the stills may have been taken from security cameras. Another clue is the pixelation. Blown up even to tabloid size, it is clear that the camera is low-resolution and digital - a telephone camera perhaps - but again suggestive of a security camera. If true, it would seem to back up the Sun 's story that the pictures were supplied by a member of the US military involved in guarding Camp Cropper. ---- UN inspector paints bleak picture of Saddam's jail Antony Barnett Sunday May 22, 2005 The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1489581,00.html?gusrc=rss Dramatic details of conditions at Camp Cropper, the top-secret Baghdad prison where Saddam Hussein is being held, have been revealed by a senior UN weapons inspector. Dr Rod Barton, former special adviser to the Iraq Survey Group and a leading expert in chemical and biological weapons, was involved in the interrogation of Iraqi scientists at Camp Cropper. Barton, who gave an exclusive interview to The Observer, decided to speak out to highlight what he believes is the unjust detention of scientists at the Baghdad jail. Camp Cropper leapt into the headlines last week when the Sun published photos of Saddam in his underpants. The newspaper also ran pictures of 'Chemical Ali' - Ali Hassan al-Majid - who ordered gas attacks against Kurdish Iraqis, and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, known as 'Chemical Sally', Saddam's biological weapons expert, both of whom are also at Camp Cropper. Barton's testimony offers a remarkable insight into the conditions the former dictator and his most loyal lieutenants are being kept in. He said there were about 100 prisoners kept at the 'bleak' prison, which consists of three rows of single-story buildings with tiny two-metre square cells and no windows. The cells have steel doors with a metal flap a metre from the ground. He said: 'Sometimes the prisoners would push the flap open to look out into the exercise yard or to get fresh air. The guards could lock the flap as punishment. Exercise was permitted on a rotation basis for half-hour a day though this was increased to an hour after the Red Cross protested in January 2004. Other prisoners shared larger accommodation sleeping on camp stretchers. Many, he said, have spent more than 18 months in solitary confinement. Barton revealed that three British intelligence officers had been among 45 mainly US interrogators questioning the 'high-value detainees'. However, last July, when the Iraqi provisional government took over, the British government took the decision it would be illegal to allow their interrogators to question the detainees. Barton describes how prisoners were brought into the interrogation rooms dressed in orange jumpsuits escorted by armed guards. 'There were about 45 case officers and each inmate had one case officer assigned to him. The idea was that the detainee would develop a rapport with his case officer.' Barton said he witnessed no physical abuse at the jail, but he believes some prisoners had been 'softened up' before they arrived in an induction process known as 'purgatory'. ---- Guantanamo battles to calm abuse storm Sarah Baxter , New York May 22, 2005 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1622786,00.html A NEW psychiatric ward being built behind barbed wire at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be ready to receive up to 16 inmates by July. The Pentagon touts it as proof that detainees are being given the best possible care. But it is also a sign that some of the terrorist suspects languishing indefinitely in the remote Caribbean outpost may have broken down. It is a disturbing backdrop to the firestorm over conditions at the American prison which was ignited when Newsweek magazine reported that an interrogator had flushed a copy of the Koran down a lavatory. The use of solitary confinement, unremitting interrogations after years of imprisonment and growing signs that the camp is permanent have added despair to the detainees’ humiliation. Rioting broke out in the Muslim world as word of Newsweek’s report spread. Seventeen people died in Afghanistan before the magazine admitted the lone source for its story could not back up his claim. The row has raised questions about reporting ethics. “Newsweek made a terrible blunder. Journalism is going to pay an enormous price,” said David Gergen, a director of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Photographs in The Sun of Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi dictator, in his underpants have also prompted debate about the possible consequences of publishing sensitive stories, although President George W Bush rejected suggestions that the pictures could provoke further attacks on coalition forces. “I don’t think a photo inspires murders,” he said. “I think insurgents are inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backward that it’s hard for many in the western world to comprehend how they think.” Conservative commentators and internet bloggers have seized the opportunity to berate mainstream news organisations for relishing any story that denigrates American soldiers. “Newsweek lied, people died,” was how Michelle Malkin, a right-wing pundit, summarised matters on her blog. Colonel Brad Blackner, a spokesman for the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo, said his men resented Newsweek’s story. “These troops know they are doing the right thing and they haven’t broken the rules.” Yet the allegations fit a pattern of abuse that began when the first hooded and shackled prisoners from Afghanistan were unloaded at the base. James Yee, the first and last Muslim army chaplain to serve at Guantanamo Bay after he was imprisoned and later cleared of mishandling classified material, claimed mistreatment of the Koran had led to a hunger strike in 2002. According to Tom Wilner, a Washington lawyer who represents 12 Kuwaiti prisoners, what disturbed them most was the desecration of the Koran. “It was thrown on the floor, stepped on and thrown in the toilet,” he said. Erik Saar, an army translator and author of Inside the Wire about his experience of Camp Delta, said female guards had rubbed themselves suggestively against detainees and in one instance spread fake menstrual blood on a prisoner. The International Red Cross revealed that it had complained many times about disrespectful treatment of the Koran in 2002 and 2003 but added: “Those allegations have not resurfaced.” Since the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, the crudest abuses seem to have stopped. But about 520 men remain behind bars, most of whom were brought in at the time of the Afghan campaign. Clive Stafford Smith, a British lawyer, said: “They’ve now built a permanent prison there. I just got back from a two-week visit there and it was an endless litany of abuse.” He had no knowledge that the Koran had been thrown down the lavatory at Guantanamo but knew of dozens of incidents of that kind at Bagram, Afghanistan, from where many detainees were sent to Guantanamo. Some American guards at Bagram have inflicted extreme physical abuse. An army prosecution dossier leaked to The New York Times last week detailed the deaths in 2002 of two prisoners who were strung by their arms from the ceiling, beaten repeatedly and taunted as they begged for water. While such behaviour is strongly condemned by Americans, the idea that insulting somebody’s faith amounts to torture has been greeted with incredulity in some quarters. “Why should desecration of the Koran be such a big deal anyway?” one correspondent wrote to the National Review online, a conservative journal. “If a book that important to me were desecrated, my response would be along the lines of a defiant, ‘Fine, there’s plenty more where that came from’.” By the end of last week there were signs that all parties wanted to change the subject. A new consensus is emerging: if there is one thing worse than showing disrespect for the Koran, it is killing people over it. Every American can comfortably blame Muslim extremists. -------- spies Analysis: CIA unit has Negroponte's ear KATHERINE SHRADER Sun, May. 22, 2005 Associated Press http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/politics/11712346.htm WASHINGTON - John Negroponte's early moves since taking over as the nation's intelligence director last month indicate he is focusing on one particular element of America's spy apparatus: the CIA's highly secretive clandestine service. Negroponte has promoted two veterans of the service to be his deputies. He also has sent a classified memo to the heads of the agency's foreign outposts, requiring them to report directly to him on matters of importance to the country's 15 intelligence agencies. Some intelligence veterans say Negroponte is signaling his plans to reach deep into the clandestine service and provide extra oversight to an organization whose mistakes make headlines and can cause diplomatic blowups. To other observers, his moves are an acknowledgment of the service's stature among those agencies. If this is a recognition by Negroponte "that the clandestine human intelligence business needs to be empowered, strengthened, properly budgeted and succeeding, than I endorse what he is doing with enthusiasm," said Jim Pavitt, who headed the clandestine service until last summer. "It could be an empowering of the chiefs of station," he said. Alternatively, "it's a way of showing that he's going to get his hands around this." Negroponte's actions also might reveal possible tensions with CIA Director Porter Goss and his inner circle. This month, Negroponte picked Mary Margaret Graham as his deputy for intelligence collection. She was a senior member of the clandestine service who tussled with Goss' senior aides soon after he began work. Negroponte's chief of staff is David Shedd, who spent much of his career in the clandestine service. At his Senate confirmation hearing, Negroponte said his to-do-list included improving the quality of intelligence collected by U.S. spies. At the time, it was not clear how deeply Negroponte would reach into the clandestine service to manage covert operations. "Obviously, Mr. Goss and I are going to have to work very closely together and reach good understandings on the division of labor with respect to this question," he told senators in April. Representatives from the CIA and Negroponte's office played down the memo that went to the heads of the clandestine service's foreign outposts. They said it reflected changes that Congress approved late last year in an intelligence overhaul, which created the director of national intelligence, or DNI. A CIA spokesperson said the chiefs of station will serve as representatives of Negroponte's office when carrying out intelligence functions and responsibilities for intelligence agencies, and noted that they still report through the traditional chain of command at the CIA. "There is no change in reporting channels," the spokesperson added. Officially known as the Directorate of Operations, the CIA's clandestine service is responsible for covert operations around the globe and dozens of CIA outposts abroad. The victories the clandestine service can claim are often kept classified - and overshadowed by public failings. Its operatives were the first to enter Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, setting the stage for successes by the U.S.-led coalition. But it has come under fire in reports by the Sept. 11 commission and a presidential board that studied intelligence agencies' ability to assess the threat from weapons of mass destruction. EDITOR's NOTE - Katherine Shrader covers intelligence and national security issues for The Associated Press. ON THE NET Office of the Director of National Intelligence: http://www.dni.gov/ -------- war crimes Behind three lines in a secret Army log lies real story of an alleged war crime Officers and soldiers are in the dock on some of the most serious charges brought against the Army. Severin Carrell reports 22 May 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=640414 The early morning raid was supposed to be a routine security operation by British troops to find an alleged terrorist weapons cache, and round up suspected Iraqi insurgents. Instead, it ended in the violent death of an Iraqi civilian, a hotel receptionist called Baha Mousa, and allegations that British troops systematically assaulted and tortured up to eight other Iraqis captured with him. And now, at least one senior officer, alongside up to four other members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, face some of the most serious charges yet brought against the British military - charges of war crimes and of murder. For the first time, a British Army commander, Colonel Jorge Mendonca, could face a court martial under either the Geneva Convention or recent British legislation outlawing war crimes under a treaty setting up the International Criminal Court. Either step would be a profound shock to the Army. One well-placed Army source claimed: "As I understand it, charges are being considered under recent [ICC] legislation, the same legislation that includes war crimes. These are not specifically war crimes charges, but charges such as lack of supervision and things like that." The Mousa case has already led to a humiliating reprimand for the military by the High Court. It has raised questions about the quality and impartiality of the Army's own prosecutions system. As The Independent on Sunday revealed last year, senior British commanders blocked investigations into more than 20 separate abuse cases in Iraq. With the Ministry of Defence now facing 40 cases of alleged abuse, torture and unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians, the High Court ruled last December that the UK was guilty of breaching the Human Rights Act by failing to prevent Mr Mousa's death, and for presiding over a botched investigation into his case. It began early on the morning of 14 September 2003, when a QLR unit raided the Ibn al-Haytham hotel in Basra, rousing sleeping staff and shocked guests from their beds. It was noisy and chaotic, as troops worked their way from room to room, pushing and shoving the men downstairs towards the hotel lobby. The raid came only two weeks after one of the QLR's most popular officers, Captain Dai Jones, had been killed by a roadside bomb. The hotel, their intelligence suggested, was used by the insurgents involved in Capt Jones's death. And the raid, codenamed Operation Salerno, was overseen by one of the Army's most senior commanders in south-east Iraq. Brigadier William Moore, commander of all 4,000 British troops in the city, was standing on the hotel's roof. Iraqi witnesses allege the raid quickly unravelled. The chief suspect, the hotel's co-owner, Haitham Vaha, escaped in the confusion. And several soldiers were allegedly seen stealing 4.5m Iraqi dinar from the hotel's safe by Mr Mousa's father, Colonel Daoud Mousa, a former Iraqi police chief. In front of their colleagues, Col Mousa later said, the troops were reprimanded and shoved into a military vehicle. All nine men arrested at the hotel were taken to the British Army's headquarters in Basra. And there, allege the eight survivors, they were hooded, repeatedly punched, kicked, verbally abused and hit with iron bars by members of the QLR. In chilling testimony, the men recalled Mr Mousa's last words. The oldest victim, Sattar Shukri Abdulla, 51, said: "On the second day they took Baha Mousa to the bathroom. I used to hear him screaming. The last thing I heard from him was: 'I am dying, blood'." The regiment's own record of Mr Mousa's death, in an Army log marked "secret", is terse. Timed at 22.42 on 15 September 2003, the three-line note reads: "Prisoner died in custody deceased at 2205 after CPR [resuscitation] from 2150 - Baha Nashen Mohamed - one of suspects from hotel raid yesterday." QLR sources insisted yesterday that Col Mendonca personally ordered the military police inquiry after learning of the death. "We bitterly regret the death of Baha Mousa," a source said. "The battalion itself initiated the investigation. We would want to remind people of the extreme circumstances the battalion faced in those six months in Basra in 2003." The regiment was working in 50-degree heat, routinely tackling rioting, looting, armed robbery, kidnapping and terrorist activities. Their work has been recognised with 21 honours and awards - including Col Mendonca's Distinguished Service Order. Yet, the other men allege, the abuse continued despite Mr Mousa's death. They contend that soldiers took turns to assault them. One detainee, Kifah Taha, barely survived a series of assaults which left him with kidney failure. Another victim, Bahaa' Hashim Mohammed, 26, claimed: "Soldiers took it in turns beating us non-stop with their hands and boots as well as an iron bar." More than 20 months have passed since Mr Mousa's death. But now following the direct involvement of the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, Baha Mousa's father may a major step nearer getting justice for his son. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr. David Ray Griffin 9/11 Visibility Project Sunday, May 22, 2005 Scoopt (New Zealand) From: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00295.htm In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true. Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique’s subtitle, “Omissions and Distortions.” It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated “distortions” can be considered lies. It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances. Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article. One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed. Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies: 1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20). 2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21). 3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22). 4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23). 5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25). 6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26). 7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26). 8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26). 9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27). 10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28). 11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28). 12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30). 13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30). 14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31). 15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32). 16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34). 17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34). 18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34). 19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36). 20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36). 21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38). 22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39). 23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44). 24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46). 25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48). 26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50). 27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51). 28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52). 29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57). 30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57). 31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59). 32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60). 33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61). 34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65). 35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68). 36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70). 37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76). 38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82). 39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86). 40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90). 41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91). 42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94). 43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101). 44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04). 45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07). 46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106). 47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09). 48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112). 49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113). 50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114). 51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114). 52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17). 53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18). 54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22). 55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122). 56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25). 57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26). 58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28). 59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33). 60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32). 61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34). 62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158). 63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162). 64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64). 65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66). 66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67). 67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69). 68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75). 69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82). 70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182). 71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183). 72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186). 73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88). 74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90). 75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190). 76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92). 77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93). 78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99). 79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12). 80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210). 81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211). 82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212). 83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17). 84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19). 85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220). 86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223). 87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23). 88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24). 89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25). 90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253). 91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31). 92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233). 93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234). 94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36). 95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237). 96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41). 97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53). 98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240). 99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240). 100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44). 101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44). 102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245). 103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252). 104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251). 105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58). 106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62). 107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63). 108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67). 109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69). 110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71). 111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75). 112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84). 113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85). 114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95). 115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291). I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call “the Kean-Zelikow Report” by writing that it, “far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?” (291) David Ray Griffin is author of New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Still learning in Shoreham Windmill test spurs reflections and hope for Babylon wind farm BY MITCHELL FREEDMAN STAFF WRITER May 22, 2005 Newsday http://www.newsday.com/features/printedition/longislandlife/ny-hebakx4267572may22,0,721050.story?coll=ny-lilife-print Earlier this year, Peter Maniscalco, an environmental activist and a bit of a poet, stood on the site of the former Shoreham nuclear power plant and looked up at two windmills - their 25-foot blades turning slowly in the wind - churning out electricity. Once a place of violent demonstrations - thousands of people surged against a fence and pulled down the chain link gates of the nuclear plant - Shoreham's problems nearly bankrupted Brookhaven Town and gave thousands on Long Island a new fear of a nuclear accident. The windmills are still turning every day, and the knowledge that the Long Island Power Authority is getting from them is turning out to be a small but important link to the future. Wind and the grid "We are learning a great deal, and we will continue to learn as long as they are in operation," Michael Lowndes, LIPA's director of media relations, said last week. He said one ongoing lesson is how to integrate the wind-driven turbines into the LIPA energy grid. Some see the Shoreham experiment as a prototype for the 140-megawatt wind farm LIPA is planning to construct 4 miles off the coast of Babylon Town, a wind farm large enough to power 44,000 homes. LIPA officials say it could be in operation by 2008. "That wind farm will be different. It will have bigger turbines and be in a different environment," Lowndes said. Windmills as laboratory But while LIPA engineers look at the Shoreham windmills as a laboratory, Maniscalco sees them as the end of a dream - an epic dream. Maniscalco was arrested a half-dozen times for protesting nuclear power plants, and when he looked past the LIPA windmills, he saw the dead, empty shell of what once was a nuclear reactor building. It was almost more than the adjunct professor at Southampton College could believe. "At some point in the '80s, I began to understand there is a Shoreham saga ... like all great stories, with monsters and dragons that are overwhelming, gargantuan, impossible to overcome. And heroes and heroines. I realized that what this really is ... something magical happened. The monster died, and something new and life-affirming was born right there. That's what those windmills represent." Maniscalco, who was an invited guest of the Long Island Power Authority for its dedication of the twin 50-kilowatt wind turbine generators in January, stopped short of comparing LIPA chairman Richard Kessel with Saint George, the dragon-slayer. Maniscalco said the community was the hero. The political pressure that ended the use of the reactor - and ultimately ended the Long Island Lighting Co. as a business - was the real source of power. Kessel was almost as poetic as the college professor at the dedication. He called the two wind generators a demonstration project that would be "a huge first step" toward the development of a windmill farm in the Atlantic. "This is the past intersecting with the future," Kessel reflected. "The end of a bad era [of nuclear power] for Long Island ... intersecting with renewable energy." The $2.2-billion Shoreham nuclear plant was a magnet for protest. On July 3, 1979, it was the site of one of the biggest protests ever seen on Long Island - more than 15,000 people gathered to demand the plant be shut down. Six hundred people climbed over the fence - the crowd actually pulled down the front gates - and hundreds were charged with trespassing, although those charges all were eventually dismissed. Chris O'Connor, program director for the Long Island Neighborhood Network, was another demonstrator who became a LIPA invited guest. "I demonstrated against the nuclear plant here," O'Connor reflected as he looked up at the 100-foot-tall towers which held the wind generators. "You could have struck me with lightning [then], and I wouldn't have believed this was possible." Now, as the big white wind turbine blades turn in the wind, LIPA is learning a different kind of lesson at Shoreham. Because of the slope of the land, one tower is catching more wind than the other. It turns faster and more often. The generators start to produce electricity when the wind blows steadily at five miles an hour. While the windmills can withstand hurricane-force winds, the generators shut down if the wind exceeds 50 miles an hour. The wind generators are not very efficient at low speeds. So, one of the experiments is to see just how much electric power they generate, day in and day out. LIPA engineer Dan Zaweski said the wind-powered generators are expected to actually produce about 20 percent of the electricity that would be created under ideal conditions - a steady, sustained wind, 24 hours a day all year long. -------- ACTIVISTS Peace protesters rally at VAFB By Neil Nisperos/Staff Writer May 22, 2005 Santa Maria Times http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7938270/ "Go back to Iraq," a man shouted while driving past about 120 protesters at the Vandenberg Air Force Base main gate Saturday afternoon. "We're not from Iraq," said one protester at the rally to speak out against the U.S. military's space and missile defense programs along with war in general. Protesters gathered at the base and Ryon Park to raise awareness about peace Saturday, which was Armed Forces Day -- meant to honor those in the military. The main speaker at the event, peace activist Kathy Kelly, denounced the war in Iraq. "I have never seen anything that would justify a terrorist act," Kelly said. "But I would say when we ask what other countries hold as grievances, people don't want to be under occupation, they don't want to be invaded, and they don't want to let their children starve." Protesters held up signs that read "All War is a Crime Against Humanity" and "No WMDs in Space." Protester Wayne Eppley of Lompoc said the rally's goal was to encourage other people to think about U.S. foreign policy. "It's flawed because we're acting as if we had the right to invade any other country through military means as a first resort or primary tool for forcing world outcomes which we believe is in our interest," Eppley said. "This sets a precedent for the rest of the world that any country can invade another country." Guy McCullough, another protester from Lompoc, said it's in the country's best interest to support international law. "The people who are leading this war on terror seem to be acting as if these laws and our constitution are vulnerabilities that our enemies can exploit," he said. "I think these rights are our strengths and the best way to earn influence in other parts of the world." Bruce Melton, a retired Navy veteran from Santa Ynez, held up a sign across the street from the protesters, thanking military members for their service. "The protesters protesting against the armed services on Armed Services Day is equal to protesters protesting against mothers on Mother's Day," Melton said. Capt. Todd Fleming of Vandenberg Air Force Base said a peace rally involving protesters happens at least twice a year. "We respect the right to protest here at the base while at the same time, we ensure we're protecting the resources and security of the base," Fleming said while base personnel snapped photos of the protesters for security purposes. Many of the activists from Vandenberg Air Force Base regrouped at Ryon Park at 3 p.m. later on Saturday where Kelly also spoke. "Putting weapons in space is going to engender a new arms race among other countries. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on that while 30,000 people a day die of starvation and 400,000 children in Iraq suffer from acute malnutrition," Kelly said at Ryon Park. Peace activist Dennis Apel of Santa Maria said the rallies at the base and at Ryon Park were important because "we live in a democracy and if we don't exercise our democracy then we'll lose it." * Staff writer Neil Nisperos can be reached at 736-2313, ext. 108, or by e-mail at nnisperos@pulitizer.net. ---- Peace protesters rally By Neil Nisperos - Staff Writer, May 22, 2005 Lompoc Record http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles/2005/05/22/news/news14.txt 5/22/05 "Go back to Iraq," a man shouted while driving past about 120 protesters at the Vandenberg Air Force Base main gate on Saturday. "We're not from Iraq," said one protester at the peace rally organized to speak out against the proposed United States space missile defense program and war in general. Protesters gathered at the base and Ryon Park to raise awareness about peace. Saturday was also Armed Forces Day - a day meant to honor those in the military. The main speaker at the event, peace activist Kathy Kelly, denounced the war in Iraq. "I have never seen anything that would justify a terrorist act," Kelly said at the peace rally. "But I would say when we ask what other countries hold as grievances, people don't want to be under occupation, they don't want to be invaded, and they don't want to let their children starve." Protesters held up signs that read "All War is a Crime Against Humanity" and "No WMDs in Space." Protester Wayne Eppley, of Lompoc, said the goal of the rally was to encourage other people to think about United States' foreign policy. "It's flawed because we're acting as if we had the right to invade any other county through military means as a first resort or primary tool for forcing world outcomes which we believe is in our interest," Eppley said. "This sets a precedent for the rest of the world that any country can invade another country." Guy McCullough, another protester from Lompoc, said it is in the best interest of the country to support international law. "The people who are leading this war on terror seem to be acting as if these laws and our constitution are vulnerabilities that our enemies can exploit," he said. "I think these rights are our strengths and the best way to earn influence in other parts of the world." Bruce Melton, a retired Navy veteran from Santa Ynez, held up a sign across the street from the protesters that thanked the military for their service. "The protesters protesting against the armed services on Armed Services Day is equal to protesters protesting against mothers on Mother's Day," Melton said. Captain Todd Fleming, of Vandenberg Air Force Base, said a peace rally involving protesters happens at least twice a year. "We respect the right to protest here at the base while at the same time, we ensure we're protecting the resources and security of the base," Fleming said while base personnel were snapping photos of the protesters for security purposes. Many of the activists from the base regrouped at Ryon Park at 3 p.m. later on Saturday where Kelly also spoke. "Putting weapons in space is going to engender a new arms race among other countries. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on that while 30,000 people a day die of starvation and 400,000 children in Iraq suffer from acute malnutrition," Kelly said at Ryon Park. Peace activist Dennis Apel said the rallies at the base and at Ryon Park were important because "we live in a democracy and if we don't exercise our democracy than we'll lose it." Staff writer Neil Nisperos can be reached at 736-2313, ext. 108, or by e-mail at nnisperos@pulitizer.net. ---- Uzbekistan: 'In the narrow lane, the machine guns clattered remorselessly for two hours' Witnesses and participants of last week's bloody Uzbekistan massacre reveal the dreadful secrets of that Friday 13th in May. Peter Boehm in Andijan and Andrew Osborn in Moscow report 22 May 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=640374 The number of people murdered on "Bloody Friday" 13 May in the Uzbek town of Andizhan is at least 500, not 169 as the authorities now claim, an investigation by The Independent on Sunday can reveal. It is also highly probable that, separately in other towns at different times, at least a further 200 people were killed. But our inquiries have also established that the incident which sparked the massacre was initiated by the storming of a prison which led to the "insurgents" themselves also murdering 54 men and women in cold blood. While some of these "insurgents" that the autocratic government of Islam Karimov was seeking to quell in Andizhan were armed, the majority of those killed were civilians. Most were men but women and children were also murdered and are now buried in unmarked mass graves as part of what witnesses say is "a massive cover-up". This extends to officials lying on death certificates, concealing bodies from public view and blasting the town's blood-stained streets with high-velocity water cannons. Two key witnesses interviewed by this newspaper - an "insurgent" who played a key role in the "uprising" and a pro-government former policeman taken hostage by the insurgents - have filled in other gaps in horrifying detail. The crowds, it has been established, were mown down by powerful coaxial 7.62mm machine guns mounted on two Russian-built BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers. Such cannons can unleash 2,000 rounds barely pausing for breath before they need to be reloaded. A military helicopter was used for reconnaissance purposes and Uzbek troops armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles opened fire on the demonstrators creating a deadly field of fire with the BTR-80s from which there was no escape. The soldiers made sure they had done their work well. After the shooting had finished they went from body to body delivering "control shots" to the back of people's heads and scoured the town's streets for survivors to finish off. Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov contends that nobody gave the order to open fire. In reality he was in command of the situation having flown to Andizhan from the capital Tashkent and almost certainly personally authorised the use of such deadly force. The "insurgents" themselves were not Islamist radicals as claimed by the authorities but largely devout Muslims the following the teachings of a jailed former maths teacher called Akram Yuldashev. Far from being spontaneous, however, their "uprising" was meticulously planned and they too were not averse to murdering people. The IoS has learnt that they killed 54 men and women, most of them prison guards, when seizing a local prison to free its inmates. We have also discovered that the insurgents encouraged the crowd to vent their fury on the 40 or so hostages they had captured - policemen, judges and soldiers. Hostages were beaten and received gunshot and stab wounds before being made to parade through Andizhan's streets, an event that immediately preceded what was to become the now notorious massacre. The IoS has managed to piece together the most complete sequence of events assembled so far. The "uprising" began in the early hours of Friday morning when at around 12.30 a group of around 30 insurgents attacked a police station seizing weapons. An hour later they attacked a military garrison capturing more weapons and equipment - Kalashnikovs, Makarov pistols, hand grenades and even an army lorry. Their next stop was the local prison where they released up to 2,000 inmates including 23 prominent local businessmen accused of Islamist extremism. The businessmen's trial was a key trigger for unrest. Sentence had yet to be passed but the insurgents, some of whom were friends or relatives, were sure they were going to be given stiff jail terms, which they considered unjust. But at the prison the insurgents did their own killing, murdering guards many of whose weapons were actually unloaded, a government-ordered precaution to prevent them from falling into inmates' hands. Taking hostages along the way they then tried to seize three key local buildings, Andizhan's administrative headquarters, the local branch of the Interior Ministry and the office of the National Security Service. They succeeded in occupying the administrative headquarters but met armed resistance at the other two buildings and were repelled. When inside they phoned relatives telling them to join them and that was when crowds that would later swell to several thousand began to form in central Andizhan. The insurgents used loudspeaker equipment to begin voicing their grievances - injustice, poverty and corruption in government. People in the crowd joined in and began to berate the hostages who were hauled before them. Negotiations dragged on with the insurgents demanding the release of people they considered wrongly imprisoned, including Yuldashev, the teacher turned Muslim philosopher who was jailed for 17 years in 1999. Seated in his house in the old part of Andizhan, a surviving insurgent who does not want his name published talks calmly about his actions. About how he took part in the attack on the prison and then the administrative HQ and then managed to survive what followed. Sitting cross-legged on a mat, he talks about how he read Yuldashev's pamphlet The Right Path. "Before I had been in trouble, but it showed me that the most important thing in life is to be merciful and respect other people." He started to work for a construction company belonging to one of the 23 businessmen who themselves tried to live according to Yuldashev's own interpretation of the Koran. Their firms made clothes and furniture and built houses. They paid above average salaries and donated thousands to schools, orphanages and homes for the elderly. In a country like Uzbekistan with its crumbling Soviet-era industry where the aviation factory in Tashkent is reduced to turning out pots and pans, their achievements seemed like a minor miracle. But when they were jailed and accused of Islamist extremism the insurgent saw his world fall apart and his income disappear overnight and joined others in picketing the court house every day for four months in a row. He won't say how long the uprising/jail break was planned or who planned it but makes it clear that the trigger was the trial. "Even after 106 people gave testimony saying they were innocent, the prosecutor asked for them to be given between three and seven years and the court pronounced them guilty. All we wanted was justice." He was among the crowd that at around 5pm on Friday 13 left Andizhan's central square and wended its way north along Prospekt Julpan. An army helicopter buzzed overhead and two BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers appeared. The crowd, which numbered around 2,000 people - not the 10,000 or more widely reported - presented a strange spectacle. It included armed men, but also unarmed demonstrators, including women and children. They had tied the hostages in rows of five and ordered them to walk in front for protection. Buttheir path was blocked by the two armoured personnel carriers flanked by Kalashnikov-toting troops. Other soldiers had taken up positions on the overlooking roofs. At that point the Prospect is narrow and when the shooting began it was hard to take cover. "Nobody thought that they would shoot at us," says the insurgent who walked in the middle of the crowd. "But they did. And everyone dived for cover. Someone next to me was immediately killed." The machine guns clattered away remorselessly for two hours and people hid beneath dead bodies in a desperate attempt to avoid the wall of bullets. By the time darkness fell the insurgent had been shot in the arm. He collapsed next to a wall and fitfully fell asleep. When dawn broke he heard more shooting and saw two soldiers combing the dead for survivors. "I closed my eyes and prayed to Allah, that they would spare me." He described how they weeded out survivors. " 'Are you the only one still alive?' they shouted. 'Get up. Faster!' " Then a shot would ring out and so it went on. Eventually the wounded man was found by three civilians who took him to a hospital where the bullet was removed. His account of events is corroborated by a witness who saw the events unfold from a very different perspective. Khodirjon Ergashev is a former policeman who has become a human rights activist for an organisation said to be close to the government. Ergashev was one of those taken hostage by the protesters. When he left the police nearly 10 years ago, he was head of Andizhan's criminal police department. He was taken hostage when he turned up to try to document the events in his capacity as a human rights activist. He says his hands were bound behind his back and that he had a conversation with one of the insurgent leaders, Sharifjon Shakirov, a brother of two of the freed businessmen. "He explained to me that the only thing they wanted was justice. He assured me that they would not use their weapons but only peaceful means." He and the other hostages were presented to the crowd, bound together by rope strung around their necks. "The terrorists started to accuse us, especially the judges, of having abused our offices. After that the mob started to beat some of the hostages. One of the men stabbed me in the backside with his knife." His loyalty to the regime did not, however, spare him the fate of the rest of the crowd. "Three or four bodies fell on top of me. This really saved my life," he remembers. He says he lay flat for eight hours. "I lay on the ground and did not raise my head for fear of catching a bullet." It is clear is that the Uzbek government perpetrated an atrocity against its own civilians and failed to distinguish between "insurgents" and ordinary protesters. They have also rejected international calls for an independent inquiry into the massacre. It seems unlikely that those responsible - the soldiers and their commanders and President Islam Karimov - will be held accountable for what happened in Andizhan. As for what he plans to do next the insurgent interviewed by this paper gives a wry smile of defiance. "We'll see..." ---- Uzbeks clash with riot police over 'ringleader' arrests By Deirdre Tynan in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (Filed: 22/05/2005) http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/22/wuzb22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/22/ixworld.html Armed riot squads came into fresh confrontation with demonstrators in Uzbekistan yesterday as fury grew over the detention of two alleged ringleaders of the country's anti-government rebellion. Police in the border town of Kara Suu maintained a stand-off against hundreds of protesters demanding the release of Bakhtiyor and Dimura Rakhimov, related local landowners who launched an Islamic-led uprising last Wednesday. Kyrgyz soldiers guard the border with Uzbekistan Tension in the town has been fuelled by claims that the two men and their families were badly beaten during their arrests, part of a nationwide crackdown by the National Security Service of Uzbekistan (NSS) after almost a fortnight of violence in the former Soviet republic. A woman who said that she was a friend of the Rakhimovs told The Sunday Telegraph in Kara Suu last week that masked members of the NSS burst into their house during the night. "His wife and children had guns put to their heads and were told they would be shot if they cried out," she said. "Bakhtiyor was hooded and handcuffed, and savagely beaten and kicked, before they threw him in the back of a van. They took all his male relatives, they were all beaten. We don't know if they are alive or dead." Another Uzbek trader said that every male over the age of 14 living near the house had been taken, and that at least 100 men were missing. Despite the protests, there were growing signs that President Islam Karimov's forces were regaining their grip on the country's eastern areas. Checkpoints manned by armed troops have sprung up across the Kara Suu region and in the town of Andizhan, 20 miles away, where the deaths of up to 500 demonstrators after troops opened fire on May 13 prompted international outrage. Human rights campaigners have highlighted the discovery of 20 unmarked graves containing an unknown number of bodies which were reported to have been found near a Muslim cemetery in the village of Bogu Shamol, near Andizhan. Britain and America have joined the United Nations in pressing for an international inquiry into the alleged killings, but the hardline Uzbek president, who is a key ally of Washington, has dismissed the demands. Bakhrom Azimbov, 31, a worker from Andizhan, said that the president's claims that the protests were orchestrated by Islamic militants allied to the Taliban in Afghanistan were false. "The authorities said that we were armed Islamist radicals, but it's not true," he said. "We have a saying at home: if you want to see heaven, watch Uzbek television, if you want to see hell, go to Uzbekistan."