NucNews - September 5, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety US nuclear sub in Gulf collision with cargo ship MANAMA (AFP) Sep 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050905075858.4gd7f55j.html A nuclear-powered US navy submarine and a Turkish-flagged cargo ship collided in the Gulf on Monday, but there were no injuries or initial damage reported, the US military said. "The collision between USS Philadelphia and the Turkish-flagged MV Yaso Aysen occurred at approximately 2 am local time (2300 GMT Sunday) while the submarine was conducting surfaced operations as it transited to Bahrain for a scheduled port visit," said a statement from the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. It said the submarine's propulsion system was unaffected by the accident but that the vessel would head to Bahrain to check for any exterior damage. "The incident is currently under investigation," it added. The 6,000-ton USS Philadelphia, an attack submarine which is powered by a nuclear reactor, is involved in maritime security operations in the region, including counter-terrorism efforts. ---- Major UN report counts human cost of Chernobyl 17:33 05 September 2005 NewScientist.com news service Rob Edwards http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7951 The huge cloud of radiation that spewed from the broken reactor at Chernobyl in 1986 will kill 4000 people, says the most authoritative report yet on the nuclear disaster. The radiation also caused 4000 thyroid cancers amongst young people and contaminated more than 200,000 square kilometres of Europe. And the stress of events triggered widespread mental health problems amongst the populations of the worst-hit countries. These are the conclusions of the biggest study to date of the impact of the explosions that ripped apart Chernobyl reactor number 4 on 26 April 1986. It was compiled by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising more than 100 scientists, eight UN agencies and the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The total amount of radioactivity released by the accident over 10 days was huge, reaching 14 exabecquerels (14 x 1018 becquerels). Previous estimates of the death toll this would cause have varied – from under 50 clean-up workers to hundreds of thousands of people across Europe. But the UN study predicts the real number that will die from long-term cancers caused by the radiation to be about 3940. The deaths will be among the 586,000 most contaminated by the accident - the 200,000 clean-up workers, the 116,000 evacuated from around the plant and the 270,000 residents of the most radioactive areas. Paralysing fatalism In addition, some 50 emergency workers have already died from acute radiation poisoning or linked causes. Nine of the 4000 children who contracted thyroid cancer have also died. Because of the difficulty of attributing specific cancers to radiation over decades, the precise number of deaths is "unlikely ever to be known", the study says. Alongside radiation, the study suggests that mental illness has been the biggest public health problem caused by the accident. Families forcibly relocated were left deeply traumatised and residents of contaminated areas have succumbed to a "paralysing fatalism", it says. According to Michael Repacholi, radiation manager for the UN's World Health Organization, a "high proportion" of people most contaminated have suffered from stress. Sometimes this had led to reckless behaviour, including eating highly contaminated food, overindulgence in alcohol and tobacco and "unprotected promiscuous sexual activity". Permanent blight Repacholi nevertheless insisted that the study's overall health message was "reassuring". He notes that 25% of those affected by Chernobyl would ultimately die from spontaneous cancers anyway, and only 3% would die from cancer as a result of exposure. "Most people will be surprised that there are so few deaths," he told New Scientist. His remarks, however, were criticised as "quite inappropriate" by a former WHO radiation scientist, Keith Baverstock. The lives of people living in contaminated areas had been "permanently blighted", he says. "I doubt they find that reassuring." Baverstock was also concerned that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, whose remit is to promote nuclear power, may have had too great an influence in the study. The study's assessment of radiation risks should be regarded with scepticism, he argues. But this was disputed by Murdoch Baxter, a former IAEA radiation scientist. "Chernobyl unfortunately set back the development of nuclear power by decades," he says. "This authoritative study will help put its real impact on people and the environment into perspective." Related Articles * Chernobyl's link to thyroid cancer confirmed 21 May 2005 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625004.600 * Cheating Chernobyl 21 August 2004 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18324615.300 * Forests near Chernobyl still under stress from fallout 06 September 2003 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg17924110.900 Web Links * WHO http://www.who.int/en/ * IAEA http://www.iaea.org/ * Becquerel units, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becquerel ---- Chernobyl : The True Scale of the Accident 20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers to Repair Lives International Atomic Energy Agency, September 5, 2005 http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/index.shtml A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded. The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts," just released by the Chernobyl Forum. More » * Press Release: English http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/ChernobylForumFINALPR.pdf # Digest Report http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/05-28601_Chernobyl.pdf # Full Report: Environment, Socio-Economic Impacts, Health [zip 2.18Mb] http://www.who.int/entity/ionizing_radiation/a_e/chernobyl/EGH%20Report%20in%20PDF.zip UN Chernobyl Forum Activities * Chernobyl Forum Web Pages http://www-ns.iaea.org/meetings/rw-summaries/chernobyl_forum.htm * Forum Clarifies Consequences, April 2004 http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/consequences.html * Terms of Reference & Work Plan http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/meetings/chernobyl_forum_launch_2003.pdf * Experts Meet 3-5 February 2003 to Set Roles and Work Plans http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/index_forum.shtml * Forum Sharpens Focus on Consequences, 6 Feb 2003 http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/forum_launched.shtml International Conference, 6 -7 Sept 2005: * Chairmain's Remarks http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/Chairman_Remarks.pdf * DG's Statement http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2005/ebsp2005n008.html * IAEA Deputy Director General's Statement http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/DDGs/2005/tanigucchi.html Links & Background Documents * The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident: A Strategy for Recovery, UN Report 2002 http://www.undp.org/dpa/publications/chernobyl.pdf * UN organizations Call for Action, February 2002 http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/index.shtml * Fifteen years After Chernobyl http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cherno15_main.shtml * Ten years After Chernobyl http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernoten/index.html * Executive Summary Kiev Conference, English http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/execsum_eng.pdf * Post-Chernobyl Global Co-operation: 5 Years Later, April 1991 http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cooperation.shtml * The Chernobyl Shelter Fund: A report from EBRD http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/shelter-fund.pdf * WHO Chernobyl Site http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/chernobyl/en/index.html ---- Chernobyl Toll May Be Less Than Feared By SUSANNA LOOF, Associated Press Writer Mon Sep 5, 4:53 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050905/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_chernobyl http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090500402.html VIENNA, Austria - Fewer than 60 deaths have been directly attributed to radiation released by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, and the final toll could be thousands less than originally believed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Monday. However, anxiety caused by fear of death and illness from radiation poisoning is causing serious mental health problems, and such worries "show no signs of diminishing and may even be spreading," the International Atomic Energy Agency said, citing a report compiled by 100 scientists. The death toll attributed to radiation could reach 4,000, said the report, compiled on behalf of the Chernobyl Forum, a group that includes the Vienna-based IAEA, seven other U.N. agencies and the governments of Ukraine — where Chernobyl is located — Belarus and Russia. Ukraine said previously it had registered 4,400 deaths related to the accident, and early speculation following the radiation release predicted that tens of thousands would die. But forum chairman Dr. Burton Bennett said Monday that previous death tolls were inflated, perhaps "to attract attention to the accident, to attract sympathy." He said the majority of workers and residents around the plant received low doses of radiation, and that poverty and "lifestyle diseases" posed a "far greater threat" to local communities. A two-day meeting to discuss the report starts Tuesday. Greenpeace condemned the findings, accusing the IAEA of "whitewashing" the impacts of the accident. "Denying the real implications is not only insulting the thousands of victims — who are told to be sick because of stress and irrational fear — but it also leads to dangerous recommendations, to relocate people in contaminated areas," said Jan Vande Putte, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner. The 600-page U.N. report says a lack of accurate information about the accident's consequences has made the mental health impact "the largest public health problem created by the accident." "These problems manifest as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative and dependency on assistance from the state," the agency said in a statement. "Persistent myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation have resulted in 'paralyzing fatalism' among residents of affected areas." Teachers and others with influence must receive better information so they can counter those fears, said Kalman Mizsei of the U.N. Development Program. "The health and environmental effects ... have been relatively and surprisingly minor," Mizsei said. He added that support programs to Chernobyl victims should concentrate on the groups affected by high levels of radiation. As of now, 5 million to 7 million people receive handouts, while only 200,000 people were exposed to higher levels of radiation. For example, Belarus spent 22 percent of its national budget in 1991 on Chernobyl-related expenses. That amount since has fallen to 6 percent, according to UNDP statistics. Ukraine spends 5 percent to 7 percent of its budget on costs related to the accident. By moving away from the illusion that the accident still has a ruinous effect, people can start improving their lives, Mizsei said. "Pushing millions of people into this dependency is not helpful," he said. However, Ukrainian officials and a Chernobyl activist group said the accident continues to cause health and environmental problems, and its victims will require international support for years to come. "Chernobyl was, is and will be one of Ukraine's biggest problem," said Ukraine Emergency Situations Ministry spokesman Oleh Andreev. "The one who says the devil is not as black as he is painted had better live here and see the problem from the inside." The report also says there is no evidence of decreased fertility following the accident nor of any increase in congenital malformations. The survival rate of the about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer caused by the accident has been almost 99 percent, the report said. Nine of the 56 deaths recorded so far were children who succumbed to thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer patients and thousands of workers exposed to high levels of radiation in the days following the accident suffered "major health consequences," Bennett said. "The majority of workers and population received fairly low doses," Bennett said. Lung cancer caused by smoking was expected to kill three times as many people as Chernobyl-related cancers, he added. ---- Death and environmental toll from Chernobyl less than feared: report VIENNA, Sept 5 (AFP) Sep 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050905171238.klc963bd.html Some 4,000 people may eventually die from radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster nearly two decades ago but this toll, and environmental damage, is much lower than had been feared, a panel of UN experts told reporters Monday. Michael Repacholi, from the World Health Organization (WHO), said there had been "speculation (of) tens of thousands of deaths, lots of cancers" but that the "likely deaths that could occur, using good solid background of radiation research ever since the (atomic World War II) bombing in Japan (was that) approximately 4,000 people would likely die from cancer over their lifetime." Kalman Mizsei, from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), said the death toll from the accident in 1986 so far was 56 deaths, 47 of them rescue workers who received high doses of radiation and the other nine children who contracted thyroid cancer. The panel was presenting results from a 600-page report, "Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts" to be presented at a conference Tuesday and Wednesday in Vienna bringing together nuclear, health and development experts from eight UN agencies, meeting under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the Chernobyl Forum meeting "is a fascinating story as there is finally a consensus on the health and environmental consequences" of the explosion on April 26, 1986 of Chernobyl's number four reactor, in what was then the Soviet Union and is now Ukraine, sending a radioactive cloud across Europe. It was the largest nuclear accident in history. A press release on the report said "the 4,000 figure is not far different from estimates made in 1986 by Soviet scientists." In all, out of more than 600,000 people who received the most exposure from the accident -- reactor staff, emergency and recovery personnel in 1986-87 and residents of the nearby areas -- an estimated 3,940 are expected to die from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia. Burton Bennett, the chairman of the meeting, said this number was not at all an exact figure and that what was important was realizing to what extent authorities have "overplayed the health consequences" from the accident. Mizsei said the Chernobyl Forum sought for science to be "on the side of hope rather than gloom" and for there to be a "dialogue based on science rather than mythology." The experts all said that misinformation was responsible for a range of psychological problems as people in the region of Chernobyl thought they were doomed to get cancer, when if fact the radiation exposure and so the risks were relatively low. Mizsei said an "industry has been built on this unfortunate event," with 22 percent of the national budget of Belarus in 1991 being dedicated to Chernobyl relief, a figure that has since dropped to six percent. In Ukraine, the portion of the national budget devoted to benefits for Chernobyl survivors and other measures has risen from five to seven percent during the same time period, a UNDP expert said. Since the accident, some 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been recorded among affected people, mostly in those who were either children or adolescents at the time of the explosion, but "the survival rate among such cancer victims, judging from experience in Belarus, has been almost 99 percent," the press release said. "International experts found no evidence for any increase in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents," Repacholi said. The report said "the mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem created by the accident." This includes problems that manifest themselves as peoples' "negative self-assessments of their health and well-being, coupled with an exaggerated sense of the danger to their health from radiation exposure and a belief in a shorter life expectancy," the release said. On the environmental front, "the reports are also reassuring, for the scientific assessments show that, except for the still closed, highly contaminated 30-kilometer (18-mile) area surrounding the reactor, and some closed lakes and restricted forests, radiation levels have mostly returned to acceptable levels," the release said. ---- Effects of Chernobyl Accident Less than Previously Expected By Andre de Nesnera, Washington 05 September 2005 Voice of America http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-09-05-voa28.cfm Almost 20 years after the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, in Ukraine, a United Nations study says the effects of radiation on people and the environment are far less than previously expected. In this report from Washington, VOA Senior Correspondent André de Nesnera looks at the findings of the U.N. study. On April 26, 1986, a major accident occurred at the nuclear power station in Chernobyl, located about 80 kilometers north of Ukraine's capital Kiev and close to the border with Belarus. The accident, considered the worst in the history of nuclear power, was due to a flawed reactor design and the ensuing explosion spread radioactive material over much of Europe. The three countries affected the most were Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Thirty-one people were killed in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. Initial reports predicted tens of thousands of cancer deaths over time as a result of the released radiation and suggested land in the surrounding area would be contaminated for decades. However, almost 20 years after the Chernobyl tragedy, a new report says negative effects of released radiation from the nuclear accident on people and the environment are far less than earlier predictions. The report was the result of a two-year study by hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, including some from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. It was commissioned by a group known as "The Chernobyl Forum," bringing together eight specialized agencies of the United Nations, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Development Agency - or UNDP. Louisa Vinton is a senior UNDP executive (Senior Program Manager for Europe and the CIS). "And the whole idea was to get a U.N.-wide consensus on what exactly the impact of the accident was. Because without a clear understanding of what the impact was, it is impossible to have good guidance and good guidelines for solutions to the problems that people face in the affected areas," Ms. Vinton says. Ms. Vinton says scientists found that the number of people who died as a result of the initial release of nuclear radiation was low. "To date, the figure that they pinpoint is 50 people, most of whom died of acute radiation syndrome in the days, weeks and months after the accident," Ms. Vinton says. "So these were people who were exposed to extremely high doses. They were what were called "liquidators": they were engaged in trying to liquidate the consequences of the accident at the reactor. And then overall, and this is based on highly sophisticated medical modeling and probability, the figure that they have come down to as the number of people who will die over time, of consequences from the accident, is four-thousand." That number, says Dr. Mike Repacholi, radiation expert at the World Health Organization, is also lower than previous estimates. "Earlier media reports suggested there would be tens or hundreds of thousands of people who would die as a result of radiation exposure, through cancer or other effects. When you compare, just in Russia, every year, that about 100-thousand people die on the roads, four-thousand -- or four percent -- from a major nuclear accident is, I guess, a reassuring thing that the accident wasn't worse, or didn't cause greater health effects," Dr. Repacholi says. Dr. Repacholi also says there were fears of increased incidences of thyroid cancer, especially among children. "Now the good thing is, or the good news is, that thyroid cancer is almost always curable. And in fact, about 99 percent of the people who got those thyroid cancers, in fact recovered. But there was about -- nine that we know of died of thyroid cancers. So the numbers are fairly low from what was initially anticipated, at least," Dr. Repacholi says. The U.N. report also notes that the impact of other cancers, such as leukemia, is statistically insignificant in the populations affected by the Chernobyl radiation. Louisa Vinton from the UNDP puts to rest another, what she calls, Chernobyl myth. "One of the real strong fears that people had at the time and continues to this day, are fears about the impact on reproductive health," Ms. Vinton says. "And that's an interesting find too: the report finds no scientifically credible evidence of any impact on deformities, birth defects, genetic effects on people." Ms. Vinton also addresses other fears, some tied to the environmental impact of the Chernobyl catastrophe, especially on regions close to the nuclear power plant. "The findings of the scientists were very paradoxical, because what you would expect from the mythology of Chernobyl would be kind of deformed and mutated plants and animals and if anything, an area struggling to regain any kind of natural balance," Ms. Vinton says. "And what the scientists found was yes, there was an impact, up to a year after the accident. But then nature recovered very, very quickly. And today, the area is an oasis of biodiversity and could, in fact, be used as something of a nature preserve, because plants and animals, flora and fauna are flourishing there simply because they have been isolated from any human impact." The U.N. report says large parts of the populations in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine -- the three countries most affected by the Chernobyl catastrophe -- still don't have adequate and reliable information about the effects of the nuclear accident. The report says the governments must find better ways to inform their public about Chernobyl in order to address the fears and myths connected with the 1986 tragedy. -------- africa Earthlife gagged on Eskom 'leak' Monday September 05, 2005 11:39 - (SA) South Africa Sunday Times Business Day By Ernest Mabuza http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimesNEW/business/business1125913195.aspx Power utility Eskom won an interim order at the weekend prohibiting environmental group Earthlife Africa from publishing information on the pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) project that Eskom mistakenly sent to Earthlife in June. The Johannesburg High Court also extended the ban to media organisations that received these documents from Earthlife on Thursday. Eskom told the court and Earthlife of its error, and brought an application on Friday. Judge Francois Malan ordered the lobby group and media organisations not to publish the documents until a hearing on October 18 into whether they should remain confidential. The documents contained information given at Eskom board meetings on the nuclear reactor project, as well as business plans and cost estimates. Business Day published some of the details on Friday. Eskom said at the weekend it was retrieving the confidential information supplied, and replacing it with the documentation the company had undertaken to provide. The utility's lawyers by mistake sent Earthlife minutes of the board meetings intended for its own use in preparation for a case brought by the lobby group. Earlier last week Eskom was in court to defend an application in which Earthlife demanded the release of Eskom board minutes on financial, commercial and technical aspects of the project. Earthlife has already delayed the project by obtaining a Cape High Court order in January to set aside government authorisation of the modular reactor. That court accepted Earthlife's argument that the environmental affairs director-general had not afforded it a fair hearing before deciding to authorise the plant in 2003. The PBMR project forms part of Eskom's plan to meet the country's future electricity demand as its surplus electricity capacity begins to run out. The development entails building a demonstration reactor project at Koeberg near Cape Town and a pilot fuel plant at Pelindaba, near Pretoria. Responding to the Earthlife application in the Johannesburg High Court last week, Eskom said the project was in the developmental stage, and revealing technical information could reduce the competitive advantage SA held in the nuclear energy sector. Earthlife wanted information on technical and financial aspects of the project as it believed safety concerns over the modular reactor had not been addressed and economic benefits had not been demonstrated. It also wanted to know how Eskom justified its investment in the project. -------- australia Growing demand prompts call for more uranium exploration Monday, September 5, 2005. 1:06pm (AEST) Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1453233.htm Geoscience Australia says the world demand for mined uranium will rise significantly over the next 15 years. The organisation's principle geologist, Aiden McKay, has told a parliamentary inquiry that Australia has the world's largest reserves of known uranium. He says Australia is the second-largest uranium producer after Canada. The inquiry is examining the strategic importance of Australia's uranium reserves. It coincides with negotiations between the Australian and Chinese governments over uranium exports to China. Mr McKay says while the price for uranium has trebled in recent years, money for mining exploration in Australia has fallen over the past two decades. "There is an emerging consensus that by about 2020 there will be a considerably greater requirement for primary uranium for mined production," he said. "Given the long lead times for environmental clearances and permitting of new uranium mines this means that new discoveries will be needed in the short- to medium-term." Meanwhile the Australian Minerals Council says the nation will miss significant economic opportunities if it fails to cash in on the global demand for uranium. Uranium is currently mined in South Australia and the Northern Territory, but the council's chief executive Mitch Hooke says it is vital other states get on board. "It's quite nonsensical to have restriction on the establishment of further uranium mines when there's no restriction on production from the existing operations," he said. "If you look at Olympic Dam uranium operations in South Australia ... that's 39 per cent of the world's resources right now ... so you know from one mine alone you're going to increase production quite substantially or certainly that's the schedule of that company's activities," he said. -------- china China says military powers are not directed at Japan By Leonard Doyle Published: 05 September 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article310321.ece The swaggering economic and military giant that is China, celebrated the 60th anniversary of Japan's World War Two defeat this weekend, while denying that it had any expansionist military ambitions today. Beijing's military is expanding at break-neck speed and official comments about China's neighbours are increasingly laced with xenophobic threats. But China's president Hu Jintao used the occasion to emphasise that China's economic and military power was not directed against its old enemy Japan, or the US. "China did not seek hegemony in the past, and it will never seek hegemony in the future," Mr Hu said at a ceremony at the Great Hall of the People. "By solemnly commemorating that victory, we will keep history in mind, never forget the past, cherish peace and create a better future." Mr Hu's first visit as president to the US was due to take place this week but Mr Bush cancelled a Wednesday summit meeting amid the deepening crisis over Hurricane Katrina. Mr Hu and President Bush will meet instead during the annual session of the United Nations general assembly, in New York next week. China and Japan are competing for influence in Asia and they frequently clash over their separate interpretations of history. In the absence of a free media, China's Communist party has kept the country focused on the abuses committed by Japan before and during World War Two. Violent anti-Japanese protests swept across China in April, triggered by Japan's attempt to win a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Mr Hu said he did not intend to "give rise to hatred" for Japan. But he also criticised "some elements" of Japanese society for failing to recognise Japan's wartime aggression and the atrocities it inflicted on China during its 1931-1945 occupation. -------- europe Lithuania steps up electricity imports as Ignalina nuclear plant halted VILNIUS (AFP) Sep 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050905101739.aoabghsh.html Lithuania is to step up imports of electric power from Russia and Estonia after its Ignalina nuclear power plant was shut down for maintenance, officials said Monday. The Ignalina plant, which has two Chernobyl-type reactors and supplies about 80 percent of the energy consumed in the Baltic country, was shut down on Saturday for routine maintenance and will not operate for 36 days, officials at the plant said. "Lithuania's needs in September are estimated at about 820 million kilowatt hours. Some 400 million kWh will be produced by Lithuanian power stations in Kaunas and Kruonis, about 260 million will be imported from Rusia, and another 160 million form Estonia," Aurelija Trakseliene, spokeswoman of the state-owned energy distribution company, Lietuvos Energija, told AFP. The closure of the plant came as prices for petrol and fuel hit record highs in the Baltic state, but amid unseasonally warm temperatures. The first of two reactors at Ignalina was halted on December 31 in line with a pledge made by Lithuania during European Union membership talks. The Baltic state joined the EU in May last year. The deal with the EU provided that the nuclear facility be entirely closed in 2009. But the Lithuanian government is considering building a new nuclear plant using Ignalina's infrastructure and has already ordered a feasibility study. The Ignalina plant operated two RBMK reactors -- the same type as those used at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear plant, which exploded in 1986 in the world's worst civil nuclear disaster. -------- india India, China duel over Indian minister's remark on 1962 'Chinese invasion' NEW DELHI (AFP) Sep 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050905154602.0iq067g0.html India and China, trying to mend ties after decades of mistrust, engaged in a verbal spat after the Indian defence minister called a 1962 border conflict the "Chinese invasion", reports said Monday. The incident came at a defence seminar in Mumbai at the weekend, the Indian Express daily said, and weeks before special envoys from New Delhi and Beijing were to meet in a bid to resolve the long-standing dispute. India's Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee reportedly referred to "the Chinese invasion in 1962" and said: "We cannot keep our eyes shut. China has solved border disputes with 10 neighbours, except India and Bhutan." He reportedly also said that "we have differences" on Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh -- areas disputed since the brief but bitter 1962 conflict which left ties between the world's most populous countries in shreds. The minister added that the Sikkim dispute had been resolved during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's April visit to India. His remarks drew a strong reaction from the Chinese consul general, Song Deheng, who was present at the event, the report said. "I cannot agree with the words 'China invaded India'," Song was quoted as saying. "As a defence minister, you must know the background of the war. "You also mentioned border disputes. I don't know what you mean by mentioning this issue in your speech." Song told reporters later that "the war was in self-defence" and that he could not agree with the words "invasion and aggression". Mukherjee reportedly said he had been misunderstood and that India greatly "values its friendship with China", adding however that there were differences of opinion on issues concerning Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. The verbal duel comes weeks before special envoys appointed by the two governments in 2003 were to meet to resolve the pending dispute. India says China is occupying 38,000 square kilometres (14,670 square miles) of its territory in the Himalayan state of Kashmir, an area it says was illegally ceded to Beijing by Pakistan in the 1950s. Beijing, in turn, claims the remote Indian-administered state of Arunachal Pradesh belongs to China. A formal ceasefire line has yet to be agreed, but the unsettled frontier has remained largely peaceful, thanks to agreements signed in 1993 and 1996. -------- russia Novovoronezh NPP's turbogenerator shut down following alarm 18:28 | 05/ 09/ 2005 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/business/20050905/41306088.html MOSCOW, September 5 - A turbogenerator was shut down Monday morning at the Novovoronezh Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) following an alarm, Russian nuclear energy company Rosenergoatom reported. Turbo-generator No. 13 of the fifth power-generating unit of the Novovoronezh NPP was shut down. "The causes for shutting down [the turbogenerator] have been identified and eliminated. The power-generating unit is being put back into full operation," the company said. There were no infringements of safety procedures and the radiation level at the plant and the surrounding territory are consistent with natural levels, the company reported. The Novovoronezh NPP was the first nuclear plant in Russia to have a water-cooled power reactor. -------- MILITARY -------- afghanistan Osama ruined Afghanistan: former foreign minister Kabul | September 05, 2005 Web India 123 http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=113317&cat=Asia Osama bin Laden ruined Afghanistan by reneging on his promises to revive agriculture and to construct highways and parks devastated by decades of war, a new book says. Written by Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, Afghanistan's foreign minister under the Taliban regime, the book castigates Osama for his failure to spend even a fraction of his immeasurable wealth for the prosperity of a nation that offered him refuge in the face of mounting international pressure. The book lashes out at Taliban chief Mullah Omar for ignoring international calls for Osama's expulsion from Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror bombings. Titled "Afghanistan and Taliban", the book touches upon the strengths and weaknesses of the seven-year Taliban rule and also the daunting tasks before the present Afghanistan government of President Hamid Karzai. Thirty-six-year-old Mutawakil, a soft-spoken Pashtun who can also speak English and Dari fluently, has published the book ahead of historic parliamentary elections later this month. Mutawakil is contesting for parliament's lower house, the Wolesi Jirga, from his hometown of Kandahar. In the 98-page book, an advance copy of which IANS accessed, the former minister makes no bones about his aversion to the destruction of Bamiyan Buddha statues by the Taliban. "The already defaced statues did not look like living beings. Hence, knocking them down was not necessary even from the Islamic point of view. Clearly, the destruction, decreed by the Vice and Virtue Department in compliance of a Supreme Court fatwa, did not take into consideration the political, cultural or artistic sensitivities involved," Mutawakil maintains. On controversial issues like the ban on cinemas, television, female literacy, working women and photographs, he says the Taliban temporised in the absence of a precise fatwa from religious scholars. As for the much-hated Vice and Virtue Department's performance, Mutawakil says: "In a bid to prevent evils, the department, with an extremely vulnerable teaching branch, often ran into bust-ups with people. In some instances, its incompetent staff didn't balk even at humiliating citizens on trifling matters." About the ban on women's education, he observes: "Dealing with the other half had been a big teaser for the Taliban, who closed down girls' schools in Kabul, Herat, Nangarhar and Balkh, dealing a blow to female literacy in the process. The introduction of hijab (veil) or segregation of boys and girls would have been a better option," Mutawakil says. The former foreign minister reveals that in its last days, the Taliban made contact with the former King Zahir Shah's son-in-law, Sardar Wali and National Islamic Front leader Pir Sayed Ahmad Gillani for arranging a fence-mending meeting with the US officials. But, he says, "they never got back to us". Mutawakil also discloses a Taliban-Russia contact in Turkmenistan capital Ashkabad. He claims the Russians offered to recognise the Taliban if they derecognised Chechnya. The Taliban spurned the proposition, says Mutawakil. Printed by a local publisher, the book provides a unique insight into Afghanistan's economy and administrative problems under the Taliban. -------- arms Survey: 1.7M kids at home with loaded guns By Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY September 5, 2005 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-05-children-guns_x.htm About 1.7 million U.S. children live in homes with loaded, unlocked firearms, according to the largest survey ever done on home weapons storage, out Tuesday in the Pediatrics online journal. James Mercy, researcher with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleague Catherine Okoro analyzed surveys of 224,000 adults done by health departments in 50 states and the District of Columbia during 2002. One-third of adults have handguns, rifles or shotguns at home, says the CDC report. But states vary greatly in the percentage of adults who keep weapons, and in how many with children at home store their guns loaded and unlocked. The states with the highest percentage of adults who have children at home and leave guns unlocked and loaded are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Eighteen states have laws dealing with proper storage of guns to limit access by children, says Jon Vernick, co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University's school of public health. But the laws vary in strictness — 7 states make it a felony under some circumstances to give minors access to weapons — and they vary in the ages of kids covered, he says. There's little known about how well these laws are enforced, Vernick adds. "They're great, and we absolutely need more states with laws. But often they seem to get enforced after it's too late, when a child has shot himself or someone else." Two studies show accidental gun deaths and teen suicides decline in states with these laws, Vernick says. The Pediatrics report says that of 1,400 children and teens shot to death in 2002, about 90% were home when it happened. "It's a frightening problem," says Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a lobbying group that favors limiting gun ownership. The gun storage survey may underestimate kids with access to firearms, says CDC's Mercy, because women tend to underreport the presence of weapons at home, past studies show. About 60% of survey participants were women. Gun ownership has declined in the past decade, says Barnes, because the USA is increasingly urban and fewer adults hunt. Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association of America, declined to comment on specific laws but says, "The sad reality is, you cannot legislate responsibility." Education is the best way to reduce gun accidents, and the NRA runs many education programs, he says. "Children are by nature curious and will try to seek out objects they shouldn't have. ... It's up to the parents to see that firearms are stored safely." -------- chemical weapons Honduras ratifies chemical weapons convention THE HAGUE (AFP) Sep 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050905144601.9rqho815.html Honduras will join the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on September 28, after the central American nation ratified its convention on August 29, the Hague-based group said Monday. "Following ratification by Honduras, all of the countries (of) central, north and south America are now covered by the convention's arms control and disarmament regime, together with the vast majority of states in the Caribbean basin," the OPCW said in a statement. Honduras is the 173rd nation to join the convention, which aims to eliminate chemical weapons by 2007. The convention prohibits all development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer and use of chemical weapons. It also requires each member state to destroy chemical weapons and chemical weapons production facilities that it may have. -------- china Chinese defense minister arrives in Moscow MOSCOW (AFP) Sep 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050905175918.peyvu8wy.html Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan arrived in Moscow on Monday for a five-day visit just 10 days after the completion of unprecedented Sino-Russian military exercises, the ITAR-TASS news agency reported. "During the meeting scheduled Tuesday with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov the two will raise the topics of continuing the development of bilateral relations in the military domain and in technical and military cooperation," a Russian defense ministry spokesman was quoted as saying. Military delegations from the two countries are due to travel later to the Black Sea resort of Sochi, ITAR-TASS said. Sino-Russian military maneuvers carried out in the Russian Far East and in China August 18-25 enabled Russia to showcase military hardware that China may want to purchase. Cao and Ivanov met for breakfast in the east Chinese port city of Qingdao on August 24 as nearly 10,000 service personnel from the two sides simulated various war scenarios. The exercises were the first major land, sea and air war games jointly carried out by the two military heavyweights and former Cold War foes. Since the early 1990s Russia has supplied 85 percent of China's arms imports, representing a turnover of three billion dollars (2.4 billion euros) a year, according to the Pentagon. -------- latin america President Chavez accepts Robertson apology From correspondents in Caracas 05 sep 05 (AFP) http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16494480%255E1702,00.html VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez said overnight that he accepted a letter of apology from US televangelist Pat Robertson, who called two weeks ago for his assassination. But Mr Chavez, speaking in his weekly television show "Hello, President," said he would reserve the right to sue Robertson. On August 22 Pat Robertson said on his televised religious program in the United States that the US government should assassinate President Chavez. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," said the conservative Christian leader. "We don't need another $US200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." President Chavez said yesterday that Mr Robertson had apologised to him in a letter, and that he accepted the apology "wholeheartedly, as the good Christian that I am." "But my government and I reserve the right to take legal action on the case," said Mr Chavez. -------- nato New batch of Portuguese troops heads to Kosovo on NATO mission LISBON (AFP) Sep 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050905160519.o57i8mzd.html A fresh group of 38 Portuguese troops headed to Kosovo on Monday to relieve forces already there as part of Lisbon's commitment to NATO's KFOR peacekeeping force. The troops are part of a unit of 300 soldiers scheduled to arrive in the Balkan territory by September 16 for a six-month mission. The battalion will replace a similar-sized Portuguese contingent that is wrapping up its own six-month mission. The UN and NATO have controlled Kosovo since June 1999 following NATO's air war against Yugoslavia which forced then president Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his troops from the Albanian-dominated province. Tensions have remained high with Kosovo's ethnic Albanian leaders eager for talks leading to independence, while Belgrade and the Kosovo Serbs want the territory to remain part of Serbia and Montenegro. Lieutenant Colonel Vasco Sobreira, who will lead the latest unit of Portuguese troops to be sent to Kosovo, said the soldiers were ready for any possible conflict. "We have been preparing for these scenarios for six months," he told Radio Renascenca before the troops departed from a military airport in Lisbon. Portuguese forces have participated in NATO peacekeeping tasks in Kosovo since 1999. -------- prisoners of war Beating of a Russian Lawmaker Puts Spotlight on Police Brutality Opposition says the nation has returned to a police state under Putin, a former KGB officer. By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 5, 2005 http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes823.html MOSCOW — Ivan Musatov wouldn't have gotten involved normally. In this violent city, it wasn't that unusual to see two men beating up another young man on a sidewalk. It was the way they were doing it. Photographing it with a cellphone. First one would knock the youth's slumping head with a fist under his chin, then the other would snap a picture. Musatov, a deputy in the Russian parliament, didn't need to be in the middle of someone else's trouble. But when they started dragging the weakened man into the bushes, Musatov jumped out of his car. The two men turned on Musatov, and when the lawmaker's friend also rushed in, a dozen or more men sprang out of a nearby cafe and began beating both of them. Musatov got to his cellphone and called his wife. "Come to the Paveletsky train station," he pleaded. "They're killing me." Three nearby shopkeepers shouted that they were calling the police. "We are the police," one of the attackers said curtly. By the time it was over, Musatov had three broken ribs, a concussion and a black eye. His friend was covered in blood, with damage to his stomach and liver. And three of the officers, all off-duty at the time, were under investigation for hooliganism and abuse of office. "Russian people are much more scared of the police than they are of the mafia, because the police are more dangerous," said Musatov's wife, Anastasia Mikhailovskaya, sharing lunch with her husband at a downtown restaurant last week as he was discharged from one hospital and preparing to check into another. Of all the hazards that menace a Russian as he leaves his house each day — drunk drivers, Chechen terrorists — none as a rule inspires more dread than the street-corner cop who halts someone going into the subway and directs him into the feared militsia office in the corner. In a poll conducted by the respected Levada Center, 38% of respondents ranked terrorists and drug dealers as the second and third most criminal professions in Russia, behind the police. A separate poll in March showed that 56% of Moscow residents feared the police. At his annual state of the nation address in April, President Vladimir V. Putin acknowledged that reforming the police had become a national priority. "We need law-enforcement authorities that a law-abiding citizen can be proud of, rather than crossing over to the other side of the street at the sight of a uniformed man," he said. Defense lawyers have filed cases on behalf of clients who leapt to their deaths from the fifth-floor windows of detention centers rather than face torture during interrogations. Human rights advocates chart the disappearance and death of citizens who have had contact with the police, and most Russians consider an encounter with the police a success if it concludes with the payment of a small bribe. Police violence and intimidation have reached such a level that they have become a focal point for Putin's opposition, which argues that the country has returned to a police state under the leadership of the former KGB officer. "When people do something which violates human rights, it's one thing. But when they have the authority of the government to do this, that is police terror, because one of their aims is to terrorize civil society, to make them keep silent and abide by all the rules," said Roman Dobrokhotov, spokesman for the pro-democracy youth opposition group Us. "Some people are afraid that we are sliding back to the Soviet Union, but in fact, people see more and more that this strong arm cannot solve their real problems," Dobrokhotov said. "We see the rising of social protest, and the more it is suppressed, the stronger it becomes." Musatov, a 29-year-old deputy with the Liberal Democratic Party, is nominally in the political opposition but comes from a strongly nationalist party that generally supports an authoritarian bent in government. Yet the lawmaker announced that as a result of the Aug. 26 attack, he was organizing a telephone hotline for citizens to call with complaints about the police. He said he believed the officers who attacked him, whom he believes to have been a drunken mix of new recruits and experienced officers celebrating a recent police academy graduation, would have killed the youth, and possibly him, if bystanders had not called police from other stations to the scene. Even then after a large number of uniformed police arrived, Musatov said, he was left lying handcuffed on the sidewalk and was repeatedly kicked in the ribs and had his head banged against the pavement by officers who claimed his parliament credential was a forgery. "One of the officers who was in plainclothes threatened to rape me. He said, 'We will take you to the police station and we will [assault] you there.' He was holding up his private parts like Michael Jackson in a dance." He said a senior police lieutenant listened to his protests and filed a report that led to the criminal investigation by the Moscow prosecutor's office. Prosecutor spokesman Sergei Marchenko said two officers were in custody and a third was hospitalized with an eye injury. There has been no other official reaction, and no apology; senior Interior Ministry leaders have been silent on the case. "It is not a police force which acts like this. They provide no safety, no security. But it may be that I am the stone they stumbled on," Musatov said. "It is time to act. And if we need to cure the state of its sickness, we need to start at the head." -------- spies Cuban Spy Case Poses Dilemma for U.S. The government must decide whether it is worth the effort to retry five men whose espionage convictions have been overturned. By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 5, 2005 http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes822.html MIAMI — They're known in Cuba as the Five Heroes and their faces, names and the details of their seven-year legal drama are familiar to schoolchildren and sugar cane cutters across the Communist island. The Cuban Five, as they are known in the U.S., were convicted four years ago here in Miami of spying for President Fidel Castro and sentenced to maximum-security prisons for terms of 15 years to life. Cubans' reaction to the case rivals the collective fury that mobilized them to demand the return of castaway Elian Gonzalez in 2000. Since a federal appeals court overturned the quintet's espionage convictions last month on grounds that their trial venue was tainted by fierce anti-Castro sentiments, the U.S. government must decide whether to request a retrial. The case has been one of the most divisive issues between Washington and Havana since the five were arrested in 1998. The men admitted to being Cuban agents but have insisted throughout that they were only gathering intelligence on radical and sometimes violent exile groups to protect Castro and their Cuban homeland. U.S. prosecutors, who contended the five were spreading disinformation, posing a threat to exiles and trying to steal military secrets because one of the men worked as a laborer at a Key West naval air station, won convictions in June 2001. The Miami federal court also found alleged ringleader Gerardo Hernandez guilty of murder conspiracy, based on allegations that he provided intelligence to Havana that led to the deaths of four Cuban exiles shot down by Cuban MIGs in international airspace in 1996. Deemed amateurs even by some of Castro's harshest critics here, the five, if not retried, could instead be expelled to Havana or swapped for U.S. fugitives long sheltered in Cuba, according to their attorneys and foreign policy analysts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' reversal of the convictions of Hernandez, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando Gonzalez, Ramon Labanino and Rene Gonzalez, can also be appealed to the same court, said Alicia Valle, spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Miami. She declined to say how the prosecution would proceed. Last week, a group of Nobel laureates and intellectuals including Desmond Tutu and Noam Chomsky, released a letter to the U.S. government calling for the release of the five men. Castro used the occasion of his 79th birthday on Aug. 13 to visit the family of Hernandez, who coincidentally called his wife from custody in a U.S. prison while Castro was at his Havana apartment. "The best they could do would be to free you," Castro told the prisoner, according to Cuban reporters who were present. Castro also warned that a retrial could prove embarrassing to the U.S. because it would allow defense lawyers to present evidence of American support for terrorism against Cuba, alluding to the case of Luis Posada Carriles, a radical anti-Castro exile accused of blowing up a Cuban airliner. U.S. immigration authorities arrested Posada in May and charged him with entering the country illegally two months earlier. He remains detained at an El Paso facility pending a court decision on whether to extradite him to Venezuela to face trial in the airliner bombing, allegedly planned in Caracas. Castro calls the months of indecision on extradition evidence of hypocrisy by Washington in its global war on terrorism. The 77-year-old Posada was convicted by a jury in Panama in connection with a plot to assassinate Castro in 2000 but was freed a year ago by outgoing Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso, an action that Castro claims was orchestrated by the White House. Some Cuba analysts predict that the United States probably won't use the appellate decision as an opportunity to advance relations with Havana. Since Washington pulled out of twice-yearly migration talks with Cuba two years ago, there are no remaining forums for official contact or dialogue between the two countries. FBI media liaison Judy Orihuela said the agency does not maintain a formal list of wanted fugitives believed to be living in Cuba, nor has it made any requests for extraditions. Civil rights attorney Leonard Weinglass, who represents Guerrero, one of the men sentenced to life, said the Justice Department had asked for a 30-day extension of the usual 21-day period for requesting that the appellate court reconsider its decision. Noting that no classified documents were involved in the case brought against the five for being unregistered agents, Weinglass said he is convinced the federal prosecutors "recognize privately" the weakness of their case and that convictions would be unlikely in a more neutral venue. "There's never been a 93-page decision on venue," Weinglass said of the appellate decision. "Any lawyer would say you don't retry this case." Cuba-watchers at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs contend that the Bush administration is bent on maintaining the status quo of total disengagement in hopes of undermining Castro, who has held power for nearly half a century. Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based think tank, said he has met with three Cuban diplomats since the Aug. 9 appeals court decision and "the subject came up about a political settlement or a joint release of people. They are extremely prone to negotiate a solution to this problem." Among the longtime U.S. fugitives in Cuba are financier Robert Vesco, convicted cop-killer and Black Power figure Joanne Chesimard and one of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted, Victor Gerena, sought in connection with a $7-million armed robbery and hostage-taking in Connecticut in 1983. At least 70 suspected criminals are believed to be taking refuge in Cuba. But Birns doubts any such resolution will emerge. "This thing is so churned up by ideology and domestic politics that even though there is a compellingly rational path to a solution, the United States doesn't want to do anything that would portray Cuba as anything but a nation of beasts," said the director of the left-leaning think tank. Longtime Castro critic Joe Garcia, former head of the right-wing Cuban-American National Foundation, predicts that the U.S. government will pursue a new conviction, even though the Cuban Five represent no threat to U.S. security and are of limited symbolic value because most Americans outside Cuban exile-heavy Miami know nothing about them. "It's impossible at this stage to just deport them," said Garcia, now a Democratic Party advisor. "The return of these people would be a victory for Fidel." The Bush administration could also seek to exchange the Cuban Five for Castro's promise to release dozens of dissidents and independent journalists jailed in Cuba, Garcia said. But that action would backfire on the Cuban opposition by linking it with the U.S. government, he added, validating Castro's claims that his domestic critics are paid lackeys of Washington. Moreover, Castro is not likely to give up a prominent U.S. fugitive, Garcia said. Vesco is jailed in Cuba on conspiracy charges and knows too much about Cuban government dealings to be trusted, Garcia said, and it would be politically difficult to turn over Chesimard or other Black Power radicals wanted in the United States for murder. "Joanne Chesimard is a symbol in Cuba. To turn her over would be a betrayal of the left, and Fidel is the last leftist. It's tough for him to give up symbols," said Garcia. Damian Fernandez, director of Florida International University's Cuban Research Institute, sees little hope of the Cuban Five prompting either Havana or Washington to change their adversarial postures. "I don't sense either the United States or the Cuban government having the will to change the status quo. They like it the way it is," he said. "The five are a cause celebre for Castro. For the United States, they're a symbolic repudiation of Castro's Cuba." The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five objects to the idea of using the men as political trade goods. The private support group instead has lobbied for their release without conditions. "We feel the Cuban Five have already suffered enough," said the group's New York spokeswoman, Teresa Gutierrez. "As for a swap between prisoners, we don't think that's fair at all. It's apples and oranges." -------- us Nat' Guard Describe New Orleans as "Little Somalia" Monday, September 5th, 2005 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/05/1426205 Meanwhile some National Guard officials compared the efforts in New Orleans to U.S. military operations in Africa. Gary Jones, the commander of the Louisiana National Guard’s Joint Task Force told Army Times on Friday, “This place is going to look like Little Somalia. We’re going to go out and take this city back. This will be a combat operation to get this city under control.” Halliburton Hired To Rebuild Army & Marine Facilities And Dick Cheney’s former company Halliburton is back in the news. The company has been hired to help rebuild naval and Marine facilities on the Gulf Coast that were damaged during the hurricane. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- death penalty Stop executions, United Nations tells Iraq Press Trust of India United Nations, September 5, 2005 http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1482174,001300180001.htm Expressing regret over Iraqi government's decision to execute by hanging three men accused of kidnapping, killing and rape, the United Nations has called on Baghdad to commute the death penalty in future. While recognising the "serious challenge" posed to the rule of law by terrorism, the insurgency and criminal activity, the UN Assistance Mission for the country said that evidence around the world suggests that capital punishment is a poor deterrent to crime. "The United Nations will continue to assist the Government in Iraq in its attempts to foster a culture based on the rule of law and respect of human rights," it said. "In this spirit, the United Nations urges the Government of Iraq to commute all future sentences of capital punishment and to base its legitimate quest for security on the protection and promotion to the right to life." -------- justice ONLINE EXCLUSIVE: An Hour-Long Special on John Roberts, President Bush's Nominee to Be Supreme Court Chief Justice Monday, September 5th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/05/1551208 In this hour-long online special we examine the legal background and history of Judge John Roberts. Earlier today President Bush nominated Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court replacing the late William Rehnquist, who died at the age of 80 on Saturday. Today we spend the hour on John Roberts, going back through Democracy Now!'s coverage of his record. We speak with: * Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights * Gary Marx, Judicial Confirmation Network * Ralph Neas, People for the American Way * Jamin Raskin, American University Law professor and author of "Overruling Democracy." * Alfred Ross, the founder and President of the Institute for Democracy Studies * Rev. Jesse Jackson, civil rights leader * David Luban, Georgetown University Law Professor, He co-wrote an article for the online magazine, Slate, entitled "Improper Advances: Talking Dream Jobs with the Judge Out of Court." * Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: A showdown is scheduled to take place tomorrow on Capitol Hill as the Senate Judiciary Committee begins hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Roberts - a conservative appeals court judge - was tapped by President Bush to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Her resignation created a vacancy on the court for the first time in 11 years and set in motion a high stakes political battle in Washington that could last for months. Justices are lifetime appointees and if confirmed to the Supreme Court, Roberts could affect major national issues ranging from abortion to property rights for decades to come. On this Labor Day special, we spend the hour going through John Roberts record. But first, lets go back to July 19th, when President Bush first announced the nomination in a primetime broadcast from the White House. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: One of the most consequential decisions a president makes is his appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court. When a president chooses a justice, he's placing in human hands the authority and majesty of the law. The decisions of the Supreme Court affect the life of every American. And so a nominee to that court must be a person of superb credentials and the highest integrity, a person who will faithfully apply the Constitution and keep our founding promise of equal justice under law. I have found such a person in Judge John Roberts. And tonight I'm honored to announce that I am nominating him to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. John Roberts currently serves on one of the most influential courts in the nation, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before he was a respected judge, he was known as one of the most distinguished and talented attorneys in America. John Roberts has devoted his entire professional life to the cause of justice and is widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and personal decency. Judge Roberts was born in Buffalo and grew up in Indiana. In high school he captained his football team, and he worked summers in a steel mill to help pay his way through college. He's an honors graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School. In his career he has served as a law clerk to Justice William Rehnquist, as an associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan and as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the Department of Justice. In public service and in private practice he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and earned a reputation as one of the best legal minds of his generation. AMY GOODMAN: Bush chose Roberts despite pressure from Republicans and even from his own wife, Laura Bush, that he should name a woman to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who was considered a swing vote on the closely divided court. After Bush made the announcement, Roberts stepped to the microphone to accept his nomination. JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS:It is both an honor and very humbling to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Before I became a judge my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court. That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy, and a deep regard for the court as an institution. I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court. And I don't think it was just from the nerves. I am very grateful for the confidence the President has shown in nominating me. And I look forward to the next step in the process before the United States Senate. It's also appropriate for me to acknowledge that I would not be standing here today if it were not for the sacrifice and help of my parents, Jack and Rosemary Roberts, my three sisters, Cathy, Peggy and Barbara, and, of course, my wife, Jane. And I also want to acknowledge my children, my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack, who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy. AMY GOODMAN: John Roberts is 50 years old and a solidly conservative Republican who has served in the administrations of George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan. For years, he worked as a top corporate attorney before being appointed in 2003 to serve on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is widely considered the nation's second-highest court. In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general, the government's second highest lawyer, under Kenneth Starr. He has argued more than three dozen cases before the Supreme Court. Roberts wrote the government's brief in a 1991 case in which the Supreme Court held that government could prohibit doctors and clinics who receive federal funds from discussing abortion with their patients. In his brief, Roberts wrote: "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also stated that the 1973 Court decision finds "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." He also co-authored a brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the government in support of the anti-choice group Operation Rescue and six individuals who had obstructed access to reproductive health care clinics. Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on abortion, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Since his nomination, tens of thousands of pages of documents have been released from Roberts' days working in the Reagan White House. In one paper, Roberts wrote that a controversial memorial service for aborted fetuses was QUOTE "an entirely appropriate means of calling attention to the abortion tragedy." He also approved a telegram written by President Reagan that compared Roe vs. Wade to the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which upheld slavery. In other cases, Roberts has argued that the Supreme Court should invalidate a federal affirmative action program; that the Constitution permits religious ceremonies at public high school graduations; and that environmental groups lacked the right to sue under the Endangered Species Act. During his time at the Washington law firm Hogan & Harston, Roberts practiced telecommunications, energy and other business law. The Wall Street Journal reports that business leaders who began reviewing records of the White House finalist list placed Roberts at the top of their candidate list. Roberts may also have played a key role in the disputed 2000 presidential election. While his name did not appear on any of the briefs during the Florida recount, three unidentified sources told the Washington Post Roberts gave Gov. Jeb Bush critical advice on how the Florida legislature could name George W. Bush the winner at time when Republicans feared the courts might force a different choice. Roberts was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court by George HW Bush in 1992, but his nomination died when Bill Clinton was elected president. The current president nominated Roberts again in 2001, but he didn't get a floor vote in the Senate until 2003. Just one week before his nomination to the Supreme Court in July, Roberts was part of a three-judge panel that handed Bush an important victory in the so-called war on terror. It ruled that the military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed. The decision also found that Bush could deny terrorism captives prisoner-of-war status as outlined by the Geneva Conventions. Today we spend the hour on John Roberts, going back through Democracy Now!'s coverage of his record. The day after his nomination was announced we hosted a roundtable discussion with Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Gary Marx of the Judicial Confirmation Network, Ralph Neas of People for the American Way and Jamin Raskin, American University Law professor and author of "Overruling Democracy." Nancy Northup began by responding to the nomination. NANCY NORTHUP: Well, Americans who care about women's reproductive health and decision-making should be concerned about Judge Roberts's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. As you talked about before, he has in his legal career advocated for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and it's not just a matter that he was a government attorney who was on a brief. He was a Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. It's a high ranking position, and it was a centerpiece of the Bush I administration, as it had been of the Reagan administration, to ask the court again and again to reverse Roe v. Wade. It was the policy of the department. He was a high ranking policy official in that department, and we should have very close questioning of Judge Roberts when he is before the Senate confirmation process, because what people do is critical, and we need to find out if these are, in fact, his beliefs. AMY GOODMAN: Jamin Raskin, what about the comment that you really don't know what Judge Roberts thinks, even though he wrote the brief that said Roe v. Wade should be overturned, because he was just doing the bidding of his client? JAMIN RASKIN: Well, he certainly was representing the Solicitor General's office and the administration, and that had been the policy of both Bush Sr. and also Reagan. Under Solicitor General Charles Fried, they had been advocating for an overruling of Roe v. Wade. And in that case, Rust v. Sullivan, they were pushing the idea that there was nothing unconstitutional about prohibiting abortion counseling in federally funded clinics, and they won before the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision there. So, you know, I think that for the opponents of the nomination, I think trying to tease out some serious answers about his views of Roe v. Wade and Casey and privacy is the most promising avenue of attack, but personally I feel like the nomination is a reflection of the weakness of Bush politically at this point. He, you know, clearly would have preferred to go with more of a movement right wing conservative, somebody like Edith Jones or Michael Luttig, but didn't do that, I think, because he didn't think that he could withstand the kind of bloodshed that there might be in the Senate. So this is a much safer appointment for him. It's a much shrewder appointment, and I think it's going to be, you know, it's going to be very tough to take this guy on. AMY GOODMAN: Gary Marx of the Judicial Confirmation Network, your response. GARY MARX: Well, I think Judge Roberts is an absolute home run. He follows through on what the President promised to the American people, who is going to be a nominee who is going to interpret the Constitution as it's clearly written and not, you know, be an activist from the bench and not legislate from the bench. You know, he's the first nominee of the 21st century and I think America's future is in safe hands with this guy. You know, regarding the Roe v. Wade question, I don't think it's really a debate for this nomination. Clearly, Roe v. Wade is a 6-3 decision as the court stands now. And even if John Roberts is, you know, in support of correcting that decision and sending it back to the states and back to the people, even if that was the case, it would only be 5-4. The real question on Roe v. Wade is abortion restrictions, issues like partial-birth abortion, parent notifications, which overwhelmingly the American people support, and those are the issues that will immediately come before him when he's confirmed in October. He'll have a case from New Hampshire on parent notification that he'll have to, you know, address then. He's a home run of a nominee, and I think he's going to pass, but I do think Democrats are going to be split right down the middle on this one as they were on his previous nomination when he was passed in committee 14- 3 and then passed overwhelmingly by voice vote in the U.S. Senate. AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Neas of People for the American Way? RALPH NEAS: Amy, we were extremely disappointed that the President didn't name someone in the mode of Sandra Day O'Connor, a mainstream conservative who had been approved unanimously in 1981. Rather, as Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Counsel said last night, President Bush promised to nominate someone along the lines of Scalia and Thomas, and that's exactly what he has done. If that's true, this nomination of John Roberts, if confirmed, could be a Constitutional catastrophe. Sandra Day O'Connor, 17-18 times in just the last five or six years has been the fifth and deciding vote preserving privacy, preserving environmental protections, equal opportunity laws, preserving a woman's right to choose, and many other fundamental Constitutional issues. We did a report called "Courting Disaster," which looked at every dissent and concurring opinion of Thomas and Scalia going back to 1991 and 1986, respectively. With one or two like-minded justices, more than 100 Supreme Court precedents would be overturned. This is going to be a very serious confirmation process, as always. With all due respect to the advocacy organizations on all sides, the hearings will be the absolutely key phase of the confirmation process. I expect tough questions from Democrats and Republicans. I think that the nominee who has got a sparse record has the burden of proving to the Senate and to the United States of America, to all of our citizens, that he has the commitment to equal justice under the law, that he has a commitment to protecting the rights of all ordinary Americans across this country. That's a burden he has to meet. If there's any doubt as to where his judicial philosophy is, the doubt should be resolved on behalf of the Constitution and the American people. If he doesn't have a commitment to the bipartisan consensus that's existed in this country the last 70 years, he should be rejected. AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Neas of People for the American Way, speaking on Democracy Now! as part of a roundtable discussion the day after President Bush announced Roberts' nomination. One week before being nominated to the bench, Roberts was part of a three- judge panel that handed President Bush an important victory when it ruled that the military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed. The decision also found that Bush could deny terrorism captives prisoner-of-war status as outlined by the Geneva Conventions. We spoke with Bruce Shapiro, contributing editor for The Nation magazine and a national correspondent for Salon.com . He also teaches journalism at Yale. He authored a piece at The Nation online titled "The Stakes In Roberts's Nomination." He began by talking about the significance of the Guantanamo Bay ruling. BRUCE SHAPIRO: Well, the case involves a man name Hamdan, who was allegedly Osama bin Laden's driver. He is one of the detainees at Guantanamo, captured on the field in Afghanistan, who the military has designated, the Pentagon has designated, for military tribunals, trials without benefit of review of court. A lower federal court had thrown these tribunals out, issued an injunction against them, saying that they violated the Geneva Convention and were -- and represented an illegitimate extension of presidential authority. Well, one day after being interviewed by President Bush, a Federal Appeals panel, three judges of which Judge Roberts was a member, handed down a unanimous decision -- all three judges, by the way, Reagan-Bush appointees -- permitting the tribunals to go forward, reinstating them, and in particular, invalidating those Geneva Convention protections, and saying, in fact, that the courts had no business reviewing this question of Geneva Convention status, that it was purely a matter for the Executive Branch. The crucial thing here is not just that this is a single victory for the White House and that Judge Roberts was part of it, but rather, if you look over his career, deference to the Executive Branch, a sense of favoring the power of the Presidency over the other branches, is the most consistent thread of his career. This is a man who, as a lawyer, served the Executive Branch of government for many years. This is a judge who in the last couple of years has issued some striking rulings. For example, in the case of a teenager arrested for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, thrown into handcuffs and put in a police vehicle. Judge Roberts wrote that this was a reasonable policy on the part of police to discourage delinquency. This is a guy who is in love with the power of the Executive Branch, and I think what that says is that the deepest motivation of the Bush administration in choosing him, along with the questions of confirmability and so on, is, in fact, that he's a judge who will reliably extend presidential power in the war on terror. I think that's the bottom line. There are a huge number of cases coming through the pipeline, cases from Guantanamo, cases involving the PATRIOT Act, cases involving prisoners in other U.S. facilities, cases involving rendition. All of these are going to come forward and having that kind of an ally who genuinely follows in the tradition of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who kind of cut his eye teeth as Deputy Solicitor General defending the Nixon administration's invasion of Cambodia without Congressional approval, that is more than anything else, I think, what the Bush Administration wanted in this nomination. AMY GOODMAN: Bruce Shapiro, talking about the ruling on the side of the police in the case of the arrest of the 12-year-old girl who was eating a single French fry in the Washington Metro. The latest decision, Judge Roberts siding with police around the issue of -- in searching the trunk of a suspect's car. He was on the losing end of an Appeals Court decision on whether officers were within their authority to search the trunk of a suspect's car. "Roberts dissented in a 2-1 ruling" - I'm reading from Newsday right now - "from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, reversing a man's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. The decision was released by the court Friday, even as Roberts was touring the Senate in a political candidate-like search for confirmation votes." BRUCE SHAPIRO: We have to remember, I think, Amy, that there are really many kinds of conservatives, you know. It doesn't really help us to say, "Is Judge Roberts a conservative or a moderate or a textualist or a liberal?" That's not really the point. You know, there are some conservatives, libertarian conservatives, who take great exception to the PATRIOT Act, who worry about police search and seizure powers of the kind you were just discussing, who worry about the idea of the President simply seizing power to classify prisoners abroad or to go across national boundaries in violation of treaty with no possibility of judicial review. This is not about liberal and conservatism. This is about an image of the imperial presidency or an image of strong executive power, whether you're talking about a local police force or the White House. And that, I think, is the tradition which Judge Roberts most definitively belongs to. AMY GOODMAN: Just to amplify on that story, Roberts said in his minority opinion that U.S. park police were justified in searching the trunk of a car and seizing a .25 caliber pistol found there after the officers performed a records check and discovered the vehicle's temporary license tags were stolen in Fairfax County, Virginia. They pulled the car over because the tag light on the license plate wasn't functioning. Roberts wrote, in his dissenting opinion, "Stolen tags often accompany stolen cars." BRUCE SHAPIRO: I think this harkens back again to that -- to the French fry case, which seems so trivial. You know, a child eating a McDonald's French fry on the Metro. What's striking is not even the particular position that Roberts took, but the language that he described this as part of a reasonable campaign against delinquency. What that says to me is that beneath this very amiable, genial surface of Judge Roberts who has many friends in Washington on both sides of the aisle, who has choreographed his own career in public life with great care, beneath that there is a kind of ideological rigidity and it's going to become very important, I think, for the Senate to explore that, and going to be particularly important for the Senate Judiciary Committee to get hold of some of the documents, some of the records, some of the memos of his years as Solicitor General so that we can get a better sense of his thinking and understand, I think, more clearly that this is a systemically, ideologically-driven conservative of a particular type. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Bruce Shapiro, teaches journalism at Yale University, contributing editor for The Nation, and a national correspondent for Salon.com. What about the documents that the Bush administration is deciding whether or not to hand over, but will not hand over, the group of them? BRUCE SHAPIRO: Well, you know, the Bush administration's argument is that attorney-client privilege holds between the Deputy Solicitor General or Deputy White House Counsel, which were the two jobs that Roberts held. Deputy White House Counsel under Reagan, Deputy Solicitor General under Bush I. Certainly with regard to his years as Deputy Solicitor General, the client in that case is the United States government. The client is the people of the United States, and I think we will see some real pushing back from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee on this point. There is no blanket attorney-client privilege. In fact, when Chief Justice Rehnquist was up for confirmation, he provided voluntarily many of his own memos from when he was Deputy Solicitor General, or rather Deputy Attorney General, under President Nixon. And I think that while the White House may claim executive privilege today, we're going to see an accommodation. We may even see Judge Roberts waive his privileges on some of these things, because it's not going to look good to have a judge up for the highest court in the land seeming to have something to hide, especially when his own paper trail is intentionally, I think, so thin. It's really striking that -- you know, as the Washington Post is reporting this morning, Judge Roberts seems to, in fact, have been a member of the Federalist Society, the sort of conservative alternative to the Bar Association. It doesn't appear on his resume. He has stepped clearly around that, trying not to be tagged as a Federalist Society member. Yet it does appear that at one point in the 1990s he was active in it. You know, well, it's not a big deal. You know, we don't believe that someone should be denied membership on the Supreme Court just because of the group that he's a member of. But it does say that beneath the amiable surface, beneath the kind of bipartisan friendships that he has cultivated around Washington, Judge Roberts is and has been a conservative activist, a Republican activist, a loyal member of the G.O.P. judicial patronage network, and that's his main qualification, in effect. AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Bruce Shapiro, contributing editor for The Nation and a national correspondent for Salon.com, is speaking to us from Yale University where he teaches journalism. We are talking about the Bush nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts, a lot made of his wife being very active in Feminists for Life, a group that very much wants Roe v. Wade overturned, and the question of whether this is relevant. Senator Ted Kennedy says that's off limits. What are your thoughts, Bruce Shapiro? BRUCE SHAPIRO: Well, I certainly don't think that any nominee should be punished for the political associations of his spouse. I do think the real question here is the context of Judge Roberts's own thinking on abortion rights. Now, back in 1991 in Rust v. Sullivan in a brief you mentioned in the introduction to our segment, Judge Roberts wrote that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned. He now claims, claimed in his confirmation hearings as an appellate judge, that that simply represented what his client, the President of the United States, wanted him to do; it was the position of his administration, and he was doing what any lawyer would do. Well, you can say that, but the fact of the matter is that Judge Roberts is not someone who has chosen a diverse range of clients over the years. He has had two kinds of clients his entire life. Mostly he has had Republican political clients, the first Reagan - the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration, and then along the way, he has had corporate clients, business clients. He has never taken the other side on abortion rights. He has never taken the other side on environmental cases. He has never taken a pro bono case on behalf of criminal defendants. There's no evidence anywhere that Judge Roberts harbors what you might call a balanced view of these issues. Now, on abortion rights, I think the Bush administration was really hoping to play to both constituencies. They found in Judge Roberts a person who on the one hand has this anti-abortion track record, so they could persuade the religious right to go along, a religious right which is increasingly anxious about where this administration is going to go. And on the other hand, they could persuade pro-choice, moderate voters and pro-choice moderates in the Senate that that was all history and that, in fact, Judge Roberts thinks, as he said in his confirmation, that Roe v. Wade is now settled law after Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. You know, the senators, if they are smart, will ask him a lot of questions about the right to privacy and whether the Constitutional right to privacy, in which Roe v. Wade is grounded, exists, because someone like, let's say, Judge Clarence Thomas doesn't think that that right to privacy exists. That's really at the heart of this. It's not about his wife, and it's not about his own private religious views, but rather how Judge Roberts sees the precedent of Roe v. Wade, the precedent of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which three Republican nominees, Bush-Reagan nominees, Justice O'Connor, Justice Souter, and Justice Kennedy, all wrote together that reproductive freedom has now become part of women's equality in the United States, so that two generations of women have come to understand control of reproduction as central to their equality. That was what three Reagan-Bush appointees said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey about Roe v. Wade. And I think the Senate will want to know if Judge Roberts feels the same way. That is really the question. AMY GOODMAN: In the next session of the Supreme Court, Planned Parenthood has a case before the nation's highest court in New Hampshire. BRUCE SHAPIRO: Indeed, and this is a very important case involving funding for abortion in New Hampshire, involving state regulation of funding, state limitations on funding. There are other important cases working their way through the pipeline on third trimester abortion and other infringements on reproductive freedom. And my guess is that where the Supreme Court is headed is not to a blanket reversal of Roe v. Wade - I think that's not in the cards yet - but rather a piecemeal erosion of reproductive rights so that even what are now already a crisis in abortion services, a crisis in reproductive health services in many rural areas and poor areas of the country, is likely to go critical. And I think that's really where we're headed and why on the question of abortion rights this -- the Roberts nomination is so troubling. We're not yet at Roe v. Wade being overturned, but we are at the point of the court making abortion in big parts of the country much harder to get. AMY GOODMAN: Bruce Shapiro, you write in your piece in The Nation, "The Stakes in Roberts's Nomination," "Judge John Roberts is a white male who has spent his entire adult life in Washington. Those facts themselves mean nothing, but they do beg a question: What could be so compelling about Judge Roberts as a Supreme Court candidate that the White House was willing to forswear all claims on ethnic diversity and all geographical political advantage, not to mention the express desire of Laura Bush and countless other women to see a nominee of their gender?" What do you expect will happen next? Will, well, Judge Roberts's boss, Rehnquist, he was a clerk for Rehnquist, leave before the next term? Will we see two candidates almost at the same time being questioned by the Senate? BRUCE SHAPIRO: I think that if Chief Justice Rehnquist can make it through this next term, he will. I think the Chief Justice, first of all, wants to hold on to power, and secondly, does have an interest in institutional continuity and would take great delight in sitting on the same court as his protégé, really, ensuring the continuance of the Rehnquist revolution, particularly since, I think, the kind of conservative that Judge Roberts is fits in so well with the Rehnquist vision: someone who on the one hand believes in eroding the power of the federal government over civil rights enforcement, environmental regulation and so on, and on the other hand believes in strengthening the power of the Executive Branch, giving police agencies, giving the state, giving, in particular, the presidency ever greater power. So I don't think Rehnquist is going to retire. I do think that this may yet be an unpredictable fight. We have to remember that at this point in 1991, the Clarence Thomas nomination looked like a pretty sure thing. There was no sense of the turbulent waters it was headed into, at least if you were talking to senators. At this point back in 1986, Judge Robert Bork, a quite distinguished Yale professor who had been nominated by the Reagan administration, there was -- while there was a big fight, there was no sense that he was, in fact, going to lose. It's very important to remember that Supreme Court nominations can turn unpredictable, and there's a lot of time between now and the middle of September, a lot of terrain in those memos, at least some of which will be released, a lot that will probably turn up about Judge Roberts himself that can change the dynamic in Washington. And that's really what we should be looking for in the next couple of months. AMY GOODMAN: Yale journalism professor Bruce Shapiro. He is a contributing editor for The Nation magazine and a national correspondent for Salon.com speaking on Democracy Now June 25. Soon after his nomination, Roberts claimed he could not remember whether or not he joined the Federalist Society. Roberts and the White House said the nominee had no recollection about his possible membership. But the Washington Post reported that it had obtained a 1997-98 Federalist Society leadership directory listing Roberts, then a partner in a private law firm, as being a steering committee member in the group's Washington chapter. Roberts declined to say why he was listed in the directory when asked by a reporter about the discrepancy during a morning get-acquainted meeting with Sen. Dianne Feinstein. And White House Spokesperson, Scott McClellan, was asked about Roberts and the Federalist Society at a daily press briefing. REPORTER: It was reported, as you know, that he was in the Federalist Society, which is an important legal group in conservative -- on the conservative side. Then the White House said, `No, it was not the case.' And now it appears that he was part of the leadership group. What is the real story here? SCOTT McCLELLAN: He has no memory of ever joining or paying dues to the Federalist Society. He has no recollection of that. He has participated in events and panel discussions. He has given speeches at Federalist Society forums, but he doesn't have any recollection of ever paying dues or joining the organization. REPORTER: Isn't that kind of a simple thing to nail down? Prior to now? SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, David, he has answered this over the last few years. The issue has come up, and he certainly has participated in some of the events that they have sponsored or that they've hosted, but he just doesn't have any memory of ever paying any dues to the organization. AMY GOODMAN: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan being questioned Monday at the White House. Meanwhile, another man with close ties to the Federalist Society, Timothy Flanigan, is on Capitol Hill today, where his confirmation hearings begin in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has been nominated as Deputy Attorney General. We are joined now in Washington, D.C. by the man who uncovered John Roberts's membership in the Federalist Society. Alfred Ross is founder and President of the Institute for Democracy Studies. Welcome to Democracy Now! ALFRED ROSS: Well, Amy, it's a pleasure to be here. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Can you tell us about what you know, what evidence you have that John Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, and then, of course, what the Federalist Society is? ALFRED ROSS: Well, Roberts, whether he's paid his dues or not, was prominently listed in the 1997/1998 leadership directory published by the Federalist Society itself. So it is very difficult to believe that he didn't have any membership. He was on the Steering Committee. The important question is not whether he paid dues as a member or not. The question really at stake here is where does Roberts and his Federalist Society cronies plan to steer our ship of state. If one looks at the history of the Federalist Society, which was established at the inspiration of Robert Bork in the early 1980s, their entire trajectory has been to move our judicial system in an extremely radically right wing direction. In order to effectuate this, the Federalist Society has established 15 practice groups which you can find on their own website which is fed- soc.org. These 15 practice groups are busy developing new legal theories for every area of American jurisprudence, from civil rights law to national security law, international law, securities regulations law, and so on. And if one goes through the publications of their practice groups, one can only gasp not only at the breadth of their agenda, but the extremism of their ideology. It is not insignificant that today Timothy Flanigan will have hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States. In the same leadership directory that lists John Roberts on the Steering Committee to the Federalist Society, it lists Timothy Flanigan on the Program Committee of the Federalist Society. And both men have their own personal track records in the right wing of American jurisprudence. In 1987 the Senate Judiciary decided that Robert Bork's ideology was so far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence that he was not fit to serve on the Supreme Court. The same kind of strict scrutiny should be applied to John Roberts who is on the Steering Committee of the organization that Robert Bork inspired. AMY GOODMAN: So the Federalist Society founded under the first term of Ronald Reagan? ALFRED ROSS: Yes, it was established in early 1980s, on their website, they claim 1982. AMY GOODMAN: And how did you get a hold of the documents? Here you have The Washington Post first doing a piece, saying that John Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, then they retracted that, and now yesterday another piece saying that they were wrong, that in fact they were right the first time that he was a member. ALFRED ROSS: Well, we were able to obtain the document, which is not particularly secret, although it was their own internal leadership directory. I mean, it has a very glossy cover, it must have had hundreds, if not thousands of copies made and distributed all across the country. My recollection is that someone handed it to me at one of their meetings, which anyone can go to. The question is not the document itself, the issue is why did the White House issue this unprecedented series of calls to the national media to try to cover up his membership? And the answer to that question is that the White House does not want the Senate Judiciary Committee or the American people to understand the full agenda of the Federalist Society. Timothy Flanigan was one of the people who signed onto the Supreme Court brief in 2000 in Bush v. Gore to try to get this born- again Christian, George Bush, into the White House. The goal was not just to get Bush into the White House. The goal was to use the Bush Administration to implement the wide-ranging agenda of the Federalist Society, and it wasn't coincidental that along with Flanigan on the cover of the brief was the name of Ted Olson, Chair of the Federalist Society in D.C., who then became Solicitor General of the United States and argued strenuously against affirmative action and other programs while he was Solicitor General. AMY GOODMAN: Timothy Flanigan, the man who is before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, nominated as Deputy Attorney General of the United States. ALFRED ROSS: Yes, I think it's important for the Senate Judiciary Committee to inquire into the jurisprudence of the practice groups of the Federalist Society. But their agenda goes beyond just the substantive law of the different practice groups. As the right wing legal groups begin to push their theories of devolution, basically states' rights, moving more of American law into the states, the Federalist Society recently launched a state judicial selection project so they could move not only their judges into the federal courts, but also into the state courts. If they accomplish their agenda of dominating the federal and state courts, they will have an effective stranglehold on the American legal system. The man who was chosen to head the Federalist Society state judicial selection project is a chap named Clint Bollick, who wrote a book called The Affirmative Action Fraud and edited another book called Unfinished Business: Civil Rights Strategy For the Next Century. Again, it is not coincidental that the introduction to Unfinished Business was by Charles Murray, who wrote The Bell Curve, arguing basically that African Americans had a lower IQ than white people, and therefore were basically forever limited in how far they should get, making affirmative action programs useless. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Al Ross, head of the Institute for Democratic Studies, who got a hold of the document that said that John Roberts, the Supreme Court nominee, was on the -- in the directory of the Federalist Society in 1997/1998. Now, John Roberts claims he cannot remember if he joined or not. Your response to that, Al Ross? ALFRED ROSS: Well, we can't yet do an MRI scan of his brain to see whether there is a memory cell there or not. But it would be very difficult, indeed, for him to deny his association with the organization. How does he get to be listed as a member of the Steering Committee? And I suppose the Senate Judiciary Committee could inquire and ask for whatever correspondence existed. But again the important point here is not this memory lapse, which is strange given his reputation as having one of the more spectacular memories in the legal community in Washington, D.C., but again the growth of this organization within the Bush Administration and the implementation of its views. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense had been also with Roberts on the Steering Committee of the Federalist Society, and Paul Clement, the current Solicitor General of the United States chaired the litigation practice group for the Federalist Society. Alex Acosta, another Federalist Society member and leader was recently deployed to be the U.S. Attorney in the critical state of Florida having served as Assistant Attorney General of the United States for Civil Rights. So Roberts can deny it, and people can decide whether or not to believe him. But it would be hard for him to deny his association with a group of lawyers furthering the agenda of the Federalist Society. Before the election of 2000, we actually published a brief on the Federalist Society, which people can obtain by contacting our office, the Institute for Democracy Studies in New York. But the agenda is there, it's on their website. It `s clear that Roberts was on the Steering Committee. Whether his partners at Hogan and Hartson realize that he was there feeding information to the Federalist Society and presumably trying to recruit and helping develop their agenda. AMY GOODMAN: Al Ross, why the title Federalist Society? Why the name? ALFRED ROSS: Well, it's interesting. At one of their recent conferences at Yale Law School, which was opened to anyone who wanted to attend, they actually chuckled about the fact that originally they were going to name it the Anti-Federalist Society, but it didn't sound very good, so they called it the Federalist Society. The point here is the -- this organization of extremist lawyers really has no principles about what they call themselves, whether they remember if they were members of the Steering Committee or not. The point is whatever sells and moves their agenda forward, they're prepared to use. And this debate over Federalist or the Anti-Federalist is really illustrative of the underlying cynicism and ruthlessness of this organization. AMY GOODMAN: Are you saying that the White House called The Washington Post to get them to retract that Roberts was a member of the Federalist Society, which then they did and now with the documents they are reasserting that he was? ALFRED ROSS: Well, that's clear. They not only called The Washington Post but they called a number of other prominent newspapers across the country. And the reason why they were doing it is they very much did not want the Senate Judiciary Committee or the American people to unravel the thread of the Federalist Society and begin to discover the incredible penetration of its membership throughout our judicial system and, more importantly, the underlying ideology that the group represents. Roberts himself has only sat on a federal court for basically about two years, which is amazing for someone to be appointed to the Supreme Court. And the question is how does one begin to access his underlying ideology? And this is a very important way for the Senate Judiciary and the American people to understand Roberts, Flanigan, and the Bush administration's goals for our legal system. AMY GOODMAN: Al Ross, while you may not agree with the Federalist Society, apparently there are tens of thousands of members. Why doesn't, with conservatives in the ascendancy in the government, why don't they just say, `Sure, he represents our ideology? What is wrong with that?' ALFRED ROSS: Well, it's interesting. A number of conservatives actually were upset with the White House for trying to cover up the connection because they're quite proud of it. But I think the issue here is the, I believe, correct awareness by the Bush administration's spin masters, that the majority of the American people would not support the ideology of the Federalist Society, even though admittedly thousands of right wing lawyers are very glad to further their agenda. AMY GOODMAN: Finally, do they take a stance on abortion? ALFRED ROSS: Well, officially the Federalist Society, as an organization, doesn't take a stance on anything. But that's rather a sham. Throughout their literature and at their forums, they endorse not only anti- abortion ideology, but extremist ideology on civil rights, national security law, telecommunications law, and every other issue you can possibly imagine. AMY GOODMAN: Alfred Ross, the founder and President of the Institute for Democracy Studies speaking on Democracy Now in late July. Soon afterwards, the White House released tens of thousands of pages of documents stemming from Roberts service as an attorney for the Reagan administration. Questions began to be raised over Roberts' role in the civil rights debates of the 1980s. The documents showed that Roberts advocated a narrow interpretation of a variety of civil rights laws, and presented a defense of congressional efforts to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over busing, abortion and school prayer cases. Aides for Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy distributed materials that Roberts drafted while at the Justice Department and White House counsel's office during the Reagan administration. The documents showed Roberts expressing criticism of an extension of the Voting Rights Act, support for a court ruling narrowing the civil rights requirements on colleges, and doubts about a law to combat discrimination in housing. As the news broke Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzales and I spoke with the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way. Neas began by laying out Roberts' record in the early 1980s. RALPH NEAS: From 1981 to 1993, the Reagan and Bush administrations did everything possible to turn back the clock on civil rights protections for women, for minorities, for people with disabilities and older Americans. It looks more and more with every passing day and with every passing revelation that John Roberts was at the epicenter of all of these efforts during the 1980s and early 1990s. The American people have a right to know precisely what his role was. According to the Washington Post in articles that they have written and others have written, it appears that he is even to the right of Ted Olson, one of the most archconservative lawyers in the country and in the Reagan- Bush administrations. If this is true, I think that the composite picture that the White House tried to create last week, which is somehow that this guy is an above-the-fray lawyer representing truly and clearly his clients, is not exactly what this man really is. This is someone who went and helped Jeb Bush in December and November of 2000. This is someone who is a leader in the Federalist Society. This is someone who looks like he was a partner with William Bradford Reynolds and all those radical right activists in the Reagan and Bush years. This is troubling. This is not someone who's in the mode of a Sandra Day O'Connor. This is looking more and more like someone who's in the mode of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The American people have a right to have all of these documents. The Senate needs all of these documents to exercise responsibly its advice and consent responsibilities, but it looks like the Bush administration is going to stonewall. JUAN GONZALEZ: We're joined also by Reverend Jesse Jackson on the phone from Washington. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Reverend. REV. JESSE JACKSON: Good morning. Good to share with you today. JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you tell us your immediate reaction to some of the documents that have come out already on the nomination of Judge Roberts? REV. JESSE JACKSON: Well, first of all, he is touted as being a very brilliant man with a good mind, yet he forgot he was a member of the steering committee of the Federalist Society. That raises a question not of intelligence, but integrity. He was counseling Reagan on how to maneuver not supporting Mrs. King on supporting the King Center in Atlanta Georgia. His position on challenging women's right to self-determination has been unconstitutional, is a very serious threat to the majority of our society. And now the idea of not supporting Voting Rights extension, which today President Bush has not put forth a Voting Rights extension. That's why we're going to have a major march in Atlanta, Georgia, August 6 on the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, because so far this administration will not commit to voter opposition nor voter enforcement. So, if he has that view of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Section 5 of Voting Rights Act, he has a very, very serious case of a velvet glove over his very right wing iron fist. JUAN GONZALEZ: Ralph Neas, also the documents apparently indicate that in the 1982 Supreme Court decision that overturned the State of Texas law that denied children who were in the state illegally, illegal immigrant children, from going to public schools, the Supreme Court overturned that, and apparently Judge Roberts criticized the Justice Department for failing to properly defend the State of Texas. Can you talk about that? RALPH NEAS: Certainly an unconscionable decision. We are working with the Latino organizations across the country, as well as other civil rights organizations, and I know Jesse feels very strongly about this issue. It's almost beyond comprehension that he could take such a position, just as it's almost beyond comprehension that someone who said just after being nominated, that "I get a lump in my throat as I walk up the steps to the Supreme Court." This same person goes to the right of Ted Olson and says that Congress has the right under the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over civil rights issues, over school prayer and over abortion rights. This man, if these reports are true, has little respect for the rule of law, little respect for the Congress, and little respect for the Supreme Court. REV. JESSE JACKSON: Well, one, also, the right wing is against the Supreme Court until they take it over. They are for the Supreme Court if it rules on the 18th of December, and the blacks have no right to [inaudible]. They are for it if it supports 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson. They are against it if it supports the Supreme Court decision - I mean, they believe in states' rights until it's time to intervene in Florida, of which Roberts was a part in 2000. So, they -- it's really a kind of power grab and they have crafted him out as this clean slate, clean cut guy with no agenda. He is at least as dangerous as Bork was. AMY GOODMAN: : Looking at an A.P. piece, you know, these articles are coming out as these thousands of documents have been released, so the White House says they're not going to release any when he was -- any more under Kenneth Starr, when he was Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration. But it says -- and this refers to Reverend Jesse Jackson talking about the 1965 Voting Rights Act, "Congress was considering an extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act against the backdrop of the Supreme Court ruling that held proof of intent was needed to demonstrate someone's rights had been violated." Following up on Juan's point, "House democrats sought legislation to change so election results would be sufficient. In a draft opinion article he sent to a county commissioner in San Antonio, Roberts wrote, `The proposal would not simply extend the existing and effective Voting Rights Act, but would dramatically change it. It's not broken, so there's no need to fix it.'" In other documents, Roberts, then working in the White House, wrote that legislation designed to overturn a different Supreme Court ruling would radically expand the civil rights laws to areas never before considered covered. He recommended against it. In a third, he wrote the administration could go slowly on housing legislation without fearing political damage. Ralph Neas, first your response. RALPH NEAS: Number one, with respect to his tenure in the Solicitor General's office as the top political deputy, there are many precedents that support giving up such documents. Bork had to give up his documents when he was up in 1987 for the Supreme Court. Rehnquist had to give up documents when he was up for Chief Justice in 1986. There are many, many democratic and republican precedents. With respect to the Voting Rights Act, Jesse Jackson and I worked together many times, but especially in 1981 and 1982. The House of Representatives by a vote of 389-24 rejected the opinions of John Roberts; the House by - the Senate by a vote of 85-8. By the way, in 1985, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by the Republicans, rejected the nomination of William Bradford Reynolds to be Associate Attorney General, because he was defying the civil rights laws of the country as passed by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court. John Roberts appears to have been the pardoner of William Bradford Reynolds during this time. I think the Senate should go back to those hearings in 1985, and perhaps we have an analogy here as to how the Senate should treat the confirmation of John Roberts to a much, much higher post, Supreme Court of the United States. REV. JESSE JACKSON: Let me hasten say that while they decry activists on the court, we who feel the pain and threat of this, must ourselves become reactivated. And August 6 is the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and speaking of activism, when the Congressional Black Caucus met with President Bush, and Congressman Jackson asked him would he extend the Voting Rights Act with enforcement provisions, he said I don't support this estatehood. That's not the question. Do you support the 1965 Voting Rights Act with provisions of enforcement? He said, `I don't know what you are talking about. When it gets to my desk, I will address it,' which is the Roberts position of not supporting it in the first place. It is in light of that, I must say quickly, in Georgia, they've reduced voting access I.D. from 18 down to five. You can only use state-issued I.D. So if you vote - or if you are from Georgia Tech, you can use your I.D. to register. But if you are from Emory or Moorhouse you cannot. They're private schools. My point is this kind of voter restriction, worker suppressing ideology is what Roberts typifies. That's why on March 6, we will have a major march in Atlanta, Georgia, because we, the people, must take our case back to the street. We can't just analyze. We must also act. AMY GOODMAN: : This is August 6? REV. JESSE JACKSON: August the 6th, which is a Saturday. We`ll gather at 8:00 a.m. in Atlanta, Georgia. And there will be a major march. I might add that Stevie Wonder and Willie Nelson and Roberta Flack and Darius Brooks, but the entire Congressional Black Caucus and Latino Caucus and LULAC and MALDEF and Council of LaRaza, and NAA, and Urban League and SCLC. Nancy Pelosi will be there. The AFL-CIO, both John Sweeney and Andy Stern will be there, because Sweeney now says that voter rights denial is -- and worker suppression is a big deal. We cannot take it lightly nor academically. So I want those who hear today may hit us on our website at www.RainbowPush.org or call on our Atlanta offices [inaudible]. AMY GOODMAN: : Reverend Jackson, we're going to ask you to stay with us. We're going to go to break right now, but I did want to ask Ralph Neas a last question, which is: How are you organizing? They're talk about the hearing being a month after the march that Reverend Jackson is talking about, the hearing, the nomination hearing being September 6. How are you organizing at People for the American Way? RALPH NEAS: Right now, we are trying to make sure those hearings are at a time when they're -- after they're sufficient, ample opportunity for the Senate Judiciary Committee members to go through these documents. The administration is slow walking if not stonewalling right now. So, it looks like the hearings will be first week of September. But there may be more time required. With respect to People For, we have contacted all of our 750,000 members and activists across the country. We're doing internet organizing, where our - in coalition in 20 states, the key 20 states, with moderate and conservative Republicans and Democrats. We're doing pay TV, radio and print media starting this weekend. We're working very closely with 125 organizations nationally and many more locally and regionally, asking the senators not to make a commitment until after the hearings. Make sure all of the documents are there for the American people, and make sure that the senators take their advise and could be sent responsibilities seriously. AMY GOODMAN: : The Reverend Jesse Jackson and Ralph Neas of People for the American Way speaking on Democracy Now! in late July. As we reported previously, Roberts was part of a three-judge panel that handed President Bush an important victory the week before he announced Roberts' nomination to the bench. The appeals court ruled in the Hamdan V. Rumsfeld case that the military tribunals of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed. The decision also found that Bush could deny terrorism captives prisoner-of-war status as outlined by the Geneva Conventions. New details eventually emerged concerning the timing of Roberts' interviews for the Supreme Court post with senior Bush administration officials which called into question his impartiality in the Hamdan case. Roberts' answers to a Senate questionnaire revealed that he met with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales six days before hearing oral arguments. The Hamdan case was argued on behalf of the administration by a top Gonzales deputy, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kiesler. In addition to Gonzales, he met with Vice President Dick Cheney, the vice president's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove and White House legal council Harriet Miers. And, on the day the ruling was issued in favor of the administration, Bush himself conducted the final job interview with Roberts. Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee - Democrats Chuck Schumer of New York and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin - have since called on Roberts to explain before his confirmation hearings tomorrow why he continued to judge the suit as he was being interviewed to be a justice. On August 18th, Democracy Now co-host Juan Gonzalez and I spoke with Georgetown University Law Professor, David Luban. He co-wrote an article for the online magazine, Slate , entitled "Improper Advances: Talking Dream Jobs with the Judge Out of Court." We also spoke with Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. David Luban began by talking about the chronology of events of Roberts' meetings. DAVID LUBAN: Well, he knew that he was on the three-judge panel as early as last December. The case was argued, the oral argument was on April 7. Six days before that, as Juan mentioned, he had an interview with Attorney General Gonzales. And then while the case was being deliberated on, there's a gap between April 7, when the oral argument took place, and July 15, when the court issued the decision. He had numerous other interviews for the Supreme Court judgeship. Now, that's the period of time in which he is deliberating and presumably discussing with the other judges on the panel what the ruling should be in the case. One of the important things about it, the three-judge panel, the case raised a number of different issues. They were unanimous on most of the issues. There was just one really crucial issue, though, in which they split two-to-one, with judge Roberts among the two. So, if he had recused himself from the case, then that issue would have been a one-to-one issue, and it wouldn't have been settled, and that's the issue about whether the Geneva Conventions give al Qaeda captives any rights at all. So, now it is decided that, on the basis of this case, that Geneva doesn't give any rights at all, including the rights against cruel and humiliating and degrading treatment, along with the rights to a fair trial that Mr. Hamdan was litigating about. So, this is an important issue that Judge Roberts' vote really swung. JUAN GONZALEZ: But, David Luban, some legal experts say, number one, the discussions occurred before there was even a vacancy on the court. Sandra Day O'Connor did not announce her retirement until much later on. And the - and are federal judges to not have these kinds of discussions when -- for the possibility of promotions within the federal judiciary while they're holding -- while they're handling cases, especially in the D.C. Circuit, where much of the caseload is about the federal government. DAVID LUBAN: Yeah. That's a fair question, but I don't think the chronology quite bears that out. Remember that Justice O'Connor's retirement came as a surprise, but what wasn't a surprise was that there was very likely going to be an opening on the court, and that's because the Chief Justice developed thyroid cancer and it was unclear whether he was going to resign or not. Now, as early as February 22nd of 2005, the New York Times mentioned that Roberts was a prominent possible successor to Chief Justice Rehnquist. So, at least from February on-that's a couple of months before the Hamdan case is argued-it's already being reported that there's very likely going to be an opening on the Supreme Court and that Judge Roberts is a candidate for the opening. Now, one of the other things that's important: You said correctly the case is called Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, but President Bush was himself a defendant in the case along with Rumsfeld. That's because the President personally signed the finding that there was reason to think that Mr. Hamdan was a terrorist. So, here you don't just have a case of a lawsuit against the government. You know, the government could be anything. It could be any of thousands of offices. This is a case against the President, the President personally, among other defendants; and the people who are conducting the interviews with Judge Roberts while this case is going on, are the President's very top aides. AMY GOODMAN: : David Luban is with us, Georgetown University law professor who co-wrote a piece in -- on Slate, the online magazine. Michael Ratner, you're with the organization Center for Constitutional Rights that is representing the man who brought the case before the Supreme Court, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, in Guantanamo. Your response. MICHAEL RATNER: Well, to be more accurate, Amy, we represent many Guantanamo detainees, and the issue we represent them on, in many cases, are the application of the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan was actually represented by one of David's colleagues at Georgetown, Neal Katyal, who actually argued the case in the D.C. Circuit. I mean, my reaction is just with utter amazement, to be honest. I mean, here you have on April 1, a week before the argument, you have Roberts meeting with Gonzales, Gonzales the Attorney General who was the architect of the entire policy that the Geneva Conventions should not apply to the people in Guantanamo, that they should use military commissions, and he's meeting with this guy at the same time that he is sitting on a case that's going to determine whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply. So, at a minimum, as David's article clearly says on Slate, that his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned -- that is, Judge Roberts -- and he should have disqualified himself. There's not any issue about it. But I would go further. It reminds me of a case when Ellsberg, the man who revealed the Pentagon Papers, was on trial for espionage, and during the trial President Nixon, briefly, but other people in his office, Ehrlichman and others, meet with the trial judge to offer him to be the head of the F.B.I. Well, the outcry in the community was huge about that when it was discovered, and it wasn't just looked at as, `Well, he might -- His impartiality might reasonably be questioned,' but it was looked at as essentially the offering of a bribe to the President - to the judge - the offering of a bribe by offering him a head of the F.B.I. And that is -- was an impeachment offense, really, and it was one of the offenses listed in the impeachment. So, this goes, I think, way beyond the question of impartiality be questioned. This looks really bad. This was the central policy of this administration, which the Center has been challenging since day one: the non-application of Geneva Conventions to the people in Guantanamo. So, I - and the fact that so little has been made out of it so far. There was David's Slate article; there was a piece in the Washington Post that in my view, while it exposed some of it, was very mealy-mouthed; and almost nothing today. I can't understand it, actually. AMY GOODMAN: : I wanted to ask you about this other development, just your informed comments on it. The Washington Post, reporting about the documents missing. The scandal involving two Bush administration lawyers going to the Reagan Library to look at documents, among them on affirmative action and John Roberts' stance during the Reagan administration. They leave, the documents go missing. What is your response? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, my response is it's obviously very, very suspicious. I mean, they were - they are releasing 38,000 pages of documents in the next day or two that will be very important, but they're holding back many. And the question is: What did these documents say, and why are they being -- in my view, why were they all of a sudden, these documents, suppressed or lost? It sounds very, very suspicious to me; but, you know, when you look at the chicanery that's going on in this administration, even on just this appointment, such as happened with this -- meetings with Gonzales and even the President at some point, I would put nothing short of what this administration is willing to do to get this confirmation in. So, my suspicions are very high that these documents were intentionally, (quote), "lost." AMY GOODMAN: : Well, I want to thank you, Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, for joining us, and David Luban, Georgetown University Law Professor who co-wrote a piece for Slate called, "Improper Advances: Talking Dream Jobs with the Judge Out of Court." AMY GOODMAN: : Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and David Luban, Georgetown University Law Professor speaking on Democracy Now August 18th. Since then, Democrats on the judiciary committee have said they plan to question Roberts about the Justice Department memo that critics say laid the legal groundwork for torture at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Patrick Leahy of Vermont - the ranking Democrat on the committee - said he gave Roberts a copy of the so- called "Bybee memo" so he would be prepared for questions at his confirmation hearings. Meanwhile, the White House is still refusing to release all of the existing documents relating to Roberts. Democracy Now! will cover the Senate hearings throughout the week. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Feingold Could Be First Anti-War Candidate By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press Writer Monday, September 5, 2005 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/09/05/politics/p234906D63.DTL (09-05) 23:49 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- By issuing an early call for a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Sen. Russ Feingold could emerge as the Democrats' anti-war candidate of 2008, in the tradition of Eugene McCarthy and Howard Dean. Although Democrats have been critical of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, they have been reluctant to call for a timetable to leave, fearing it could reinforce stereotypes that their party is weak on national security. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who is comfortable on the outskirts of his party, counters that setting an end date in Iraq — preferably by the end of 2006 — would free U.S. leaders to focus on terror threats worldwide. Right now, that sets him apart from other likely Democratic presidential candidates. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, has called for more troops if they are needed to complete the mission. Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said that a timetable would be used against U.S. troops. In a speech in Los Angeles last month, Feingold rejected what he called Bush's "false choice" between staying the course in Iraq or cutting bait. "The Bush administration has been very successful in one thing: in intimidating people into not uttering the words timetable or timeframe," Feingold said, adding that any mention of the words is taboo in Congress. As the first senator to call for a withdrawal timetable, Feingold finds himself in familiar terrain. In 2001, he was the only senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers. Feingold was out of the country last week and unavailable for an interview. He has demurred when asked whether he would run for president, but his travels, including a scheduled visit to New Hampshire this month, have helped stoke talk of a candidacy. Now his call for a troop withdrawal timetable has helped define what that campaign could look like. "He's putting a marker down that an awful lot of his colleagues have been unwilling to do," said Norm Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. Bill Dixon, a Madison, Wis., lawyer who ran Gary Hart's national 1988 presidential campaign, said, "I think Russ has catapulted himself above other Democrats nationally." While Americans are growing restless with the conduct of the war, few seem receptive to Feingold's approach. An AP-Ipsos Poll last month found that 58 percent disapprove of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and consider it a mistake, but 60 percent want U.S. troops to stick it out until Iraq is stable. But Feingold, who stresses he is proposing a target date, not a deadline, might also benefit from rising anger about the war. At a recent town hall meeting in Star Prairie, Wis., one man told Feingold he was "livid with anger" over the war. "And I can no longer look at the president," he said to applause. "If I hear him speak, I hit the mute button." Political analysts say if Feingold can tap that anger, he could emerge as the 2008 version of Dean, the former Vermont governor who vaulted to the lead in Democratic presidential polls before flaming out last year. "It seems to me that the public, and in particular many Democratic Party activists, are way ahead of the politicians on this question," said Steve McMahon, a longtime Dean adviser. "Feingold's going where few politicians right now dare to go." There are even comparisons to Eugene McCarthy, the former Minnesota senator whose 1968 anti-war challenge helped lead President Johnson not to seek re-election. "McCarthy emerged in the person of Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin," wrote former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan in an Aug. 24 column. Curtis Gans, who organized the "Dump Johnson Movement" in 1967 and became staff director of McCarthy's 1968 campaign, rejected that comparison. "McCarthy ran at a time when he was virtually alone against a sitting president," said Gans, now director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate in Washington. "Feingold is running now for an open presidential seat." Gans predicted that by 2007, all the Democratic candidates will have adopted Feingold's position. "If he stakes his future on the war issue, that's not where someone will win," Gans said. "I don't think there will be that division in the Democratic Party." Ken Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who served as an adviser to Feingold's 1992 and 1998 Senate campaigns, said Feingold's stance will help him offer a contrast to Clinton, the presumed front-runner. "As she moves to the center, that opens up some space on the edges," Mayer said. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Polish Lotos To Switch Small Refinery To Biofuel POLAND: September 5, 2005 Reuters http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32343/story.htm TYCHY - Polish oil refiner and retailer Lotos will shut down its small Czechowice refinery to convert it to production of bio-fuels, the company's CEO said on Sunday. This year Czechowice is expected to refine about 500,000 tonnes of crude oil, while its main refinery in the Baltic port of Gdansk has capacity of 6 million tonnes. "It's too early to talk about the scale of investments or the potential capacity of the facility -- we will make decisions on the preparations for bio-fuel production at some point in the third quarter," Pawel Olechnowicz told journalists. He added that the company will likely adjust its financial forecasts in November. The company officially expects to earn net profit of 404 million zlotys ($127.6 million), after booking 141 million zlotys in the first half. (US$1=3.167 Zloty) ---- Fuji Heavy To Develop Electric Car With TEPCO REUTERS JAPAN: September 5, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32339/story.htm TOKYO - Subaru car maker Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. said on Friday it would co-develop and produce 10 electric cars with Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) to be tested by the utility as a first step towards spreading the use of the ecological vehicles. Over the next year, the partners aim to develop cheaper and more efficient technology to meet several conditions including a minimum driving range of 80 km (50 miles) and a recharging time of 15 minutes for 80 percent of the battery's capacity. Japan's biggest electricity provider would purchase Fuji Heavy's electric cars for internal use if the price were limited to around 3 million yen ($27,290), a Fuji Heavy spokesman said, and test them for practicality, feasibility and cost. Fuji Heavy currently has a prototype mini electric car that runs on a lithium ion battery co-developed with NEC Corp. The auto maker said last month it was also aiming to market a hybrid gasoline-electric car in 2007 using the high-performance battery, which lasts 15 years, or about twice as long as those used in today's hybrid cars. Most auto makers have given up on pure electric vehicles, instead focusing on hydrogen-fuelled fuel-cell vehicles and gasoline-electric hybrids as an ecological alternative to internal combustion-engine cars because they found that electric cars required too many hours of recharging for relatively short distances. Japan's Mitsubishi Motors Corp. is the only other major auto maker with plans to commercialise electric vehicles. It now has a prototype that can run 150 km (93 miles) on about 10 hours of recharging, also using a lithium ion battery, and is aiming to expand the driving range to 250 km (155 miles) by 2010. Mitsubishi Motors has said it was also talking with TEPCO and other utilities to exchange information on electric car-related technology as part of its aim to market a practical and affordable electric minicar. If the issues of charging time, driving range and cost are resolved, electric vehicles could be a more attractive alternative to fuel-cell vehicles, which require massive investment for hydrogen fuelling stations, among other hurdles. During the experiment, TEPCO would also gauge the possibility of switching some or all of the 3,000 or so in-house small cars that it uses for travelling short distances beyond March 2006. It estimated that if all 3,000 were switched to electric vehicles, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by 2,800 tonnes a year and fuel costs cut by 190 million yen ($1.73 million) annually. Fuji Heavy said it would aim to offer electric vehicles to other companies through technology gained from the experiment, with the eventual aim of commercialising them for personal use. Shares in Fuji Heavy, held one-fifth by General Motors Corp. , jumped as much as 4 percent on local media reports of the imminent announcement, before closing up 2.1 percent at 490 yen. TEPCO shares rose 0.18 percent to 2,720 yen. ($1=109.91 Yen) -------- ACTIVISTS Argentine Government Takes Pulp Protest to Washington September 05, 2005 — By Louise Egan, Reuters http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8693 BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — An Argentine provincial governor said Thursday said he would try to block construction of two European-owned pulp mills in neighboring Uruguay by taking the case to an international human rights commission. Jorge Busti, governor of Entre Rios province, said he would file a petition with the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the week of Sept. 12. The petition argues that the Uruguayan pulp mills emit toxins into the air and water, violating the rights of Argentines, who live across the border, to a healthy environment. "We are doing this fundamentally as citizens who defend the the 300,000 residents who live on the river banks and who are victims of the contamination," Busti said. The mills will be built on the banks of the Uruguay River, which forms a natural border between the two countries. Widespread Argentine opposition to the pulp mills, which have been authorized by Uruguay, has caused diplomatic friction between the two nations. On Monday, Argentine President Nestor Kirchner vowed to defend the interests of Entre Rios in the dispute. Kirchner has been a close ally to leftist Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez. The mills will be built by Finland's Metsa-Botnia, Europe's second-largest pulp producer, and Spain's Ence, at a combined investment of $1.7 billion and produce 1.5 million tonnes of wood pulp for export. Botnia is expected to begin producing in 2007 and Ence in 2008. Uruguay has hailed the projects, among the largest private investments in its history, as a boost to the economy. But residents of Gualeguaychu, Argentina, have held massive protests against the plants, including frequent highway blockades. Argentina and Uruguay, which jointly administer the river, have set up a bilateral commission to do an environmental impact study on the projects within six months. But Busti said people were getting jumpy. "People are getting very nervous because they see the companies keep on building at a very fast rate," he said.