NucNews - October 31, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion? By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent Published: 31 October 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article323509.ece Tony Blair's determination to ensure that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent will be retained well into the middle of this century is set to provoke the most ferocious row yet in his increasingly fraught third term. The Government will today be accused by rebellious Labour MPs of preparing to squander up to £20bn of taxpayers' money by replacing Trident with a new generation of nuclear weaponry. The cost is equivalent to 800 new city academy schools, 60 medium-sized hospitals or the employment of 20,000 new NHS consultants. A coalition of independent military analysts, dissident Labour MPs and groups such as Greenpeace and CND argue that replacing Trident will contribute very little to Britain's security in a world that has been transformed since the days of the Cold War. Britain's nuclear deterrent was last modernised in 1980. In a growing insurrection that threatens to split the Labour Party, MPs will argue that any decision to upgrade Britain's nuclear defences would be a disastrous own goal. Party chiefs have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent a vote on the divisive issue at this evening's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) which will be addressed by John Reid, the Defence Secretary. But rebel MPs, spurred on by the belief that they have the private backing of several cabinet ministers, are planning to embarrass the Government by collecting a House of Commons motion underlining the strength of opposition to the move. One hope is that a final decision could be put off until Mr Blair, who has made clear he favours replacing Trident, steps down as Prime Minister. The current Trident fleet consists of four submarines carrying up to 48 nuclear warheads - each eight times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb - mounted on Trident II D5 missiles. As the vessels are due for replacement between 2020 and 2025 and there can be a lead-in time of up to 14 years to develop new weaponry, a decision is due shortly on whether to replace them. The Government says it has to be taken this parliament. Labour MPs fear the decision has already been taken in Downing Street and worry the "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair on the subject is cosmetic. They point to a comment by the Prime Minister two weeks ago that he believed the "independent nuclear deterrent" was "an important part of our defence". There is also anger that ministers have sidestepped demands to give Parliament the chance to vote on the issue. Backbenchers had hoped to force a vote at tonight's meeting on a motion questioning the "wisdom of spending billions on Trident replacement" . But internal PLP papers seen by The Independent disclose that the Labour Parliamentary Committee, senior backbenchers who meet the Prime Minister each week, believed it "would be unhelpful to have a vote on the future of Trident" at tonight's PLP meeting. The strong feelings in PLP ranks are, from the Government's point of view, an ominous precursor to other looming rebellions on such issues as education and welfare reforms. One of the Trident motion's proposers, Gordon Prentice, MP for Pendle, dismissed Mr Blair's call for a debate on Trident as "completely vacuous ". He added: "John Reid will no doubt say that no decision has been taken yet, that the various options haven't been worked through yet." MPs will argue that no decision needs to be taken for several years and should not be reached until the issues have been fully aired. Paul Flynn, the Newport West MP, said: "The Cold War has ended and it's possible to discuss these things openly. There's no reason why we should not have a debate and a vote in the Commons on it. Having a new Trident would make the world a more dangerous place. We campaign against nuclear proliferation among other nations and we should lead by example." He said possession of a nuclear arsenal was irrelevant to British forces' main tasks of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has launched a nationwide petition against the replacement of Trident. It has also circulated among Labour MPs an article by Robin Cook, the late foreign secretary, written weeks before his death, arguing that updating Trident was "against Britain's national interests" and "against our international obligations" . Kate Hudson, the chair of CND said: "We are opposed to any replacement of Trident - no matter what that may be. We need to move towards multi-lateral disarmament." Possibilities being mooted for a new generation of Trident include the development of multi-role submarines, which can fire both nuclear and conventional missiles, or that new Astute submarines being designed for the Royal Navy could be adapted for nuclear weapons. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "There are no official costs or even a list of replacement options for Trident at this time. Any decision on the future of Trident is needed in this parliament and ministers realise the importance of retaining the current Trident provision." What else could you buy? * 4 Channel tunnels * 60 medium-sized hospitals * 400 new trains for the London Underground * 715 miles of motorway * 800 city academies * 1p cut in basic-rate income tax for five and a half years (or 5.6p cut in basic-rate tax for one year) * Run the Metropolitan Police for 10 years * Stage the 2012 Olympic Games 10 times over ---- UK Women's Institute asked for views in survey on disposal of nuclear waste David Adam, environment correspondent Monday October 31, 2005 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1605259,00.html Some members have stripped naked for a charity calendar but now the Women's Institute has been charged with addressing a more serious matter: how to handle thousands of tons of radioactive nuclear waste. The WI is among a host of groups asked by a government committee to weigh up the various ways of safely disposing of the UK's store of lethal radioactive waste. The results of the public discussions will feed into the committee's final advice to ministers next year, a key step in the decision over whether to build new nuclear reactors in Britain. Gordon MacKerron, chairman of the committee on radioactive waste management, said: "This is an issue that affects the entire country. The views of the public are very important and combined with detailed scientific considerations will help us find a solution." To guide public discussion, the committee has produced a booklet that introduces options and the criteria on which they should be evaluated. Professor MacKerron said: "The guide is designed for groups of people to get together, whether in a school, village hall or the local pub, to discuss the subject. You do not have to have any specialist knowledge on radioactive waste to take part." More than 1,700 copies have been sent to groups including schools and councils. But the move has fuelled criticism that the committee is pursuing public consultation at the expense of expert advice. Senior scientists at the Royal Society and the House of Lords science and technology select committee have expressed concern over the committee's work and two members have quit in protest over how it ignored scientific advice. John Large, an independent nuclear consultant, said: "This is public consultation gone bananas. The disposal of radioactive waste is extremely complex and you have to make sure what you're going to do is technically possible." The committee has four options for the public to consider, including burying the waste deep underground or keeping it in specialist facilities at the surface. Prof MacKerron said: "We have another process for getting the best technical information together and there will be some way we will combine that with the best of the consultation." The government has said it first wants to solve what to do with nuclear waste before it builds more reactors. Some 470,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste are stored. -------- business Solar Begins Engineering Solid-State Fusion Thermal Energy Modules October 31, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/topix/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20051031006106&newsLang=en VANCOUVER, British Columbia--Oct. 31, 2005--Solar Energy Limited (OTCBB: SLRE) ("Solar") today announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, D2Fusion Inc. ("D2Fusion"), has commenced engineering and development activities at its laboratories in Los Alamos, New Mexico and Foster City, California. Operations are focused on the engineering and development of practical solid-state fusion thermal energy modules. The teams are lead by Dr. Thomas Claytor, at the Los Alamos facility, (also of Los Alamos National Laboratory) and Dr. Thomas Passell, at the Foster City facility, (formerly of the Nuclear Power Division of the Electric Power Research Institute of Palo Alto). Both locations are engaged in the design and testing of fusion energy devices derived from work sometimes referred to as LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) or CANR (Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions). These reactions utilize deuterium, a common isotope of hydrogen, which when loaded into solid-state materials produces heat and helium without significant energetic radiation such as neutrons, gammas, and x-rays. Certain reactions produced by members of the Los Alamos team have also shown the production of minute amounts of tritium. D2Fusion is in the business of developing and delivering low-cost, clean, waste-free, practical nuclear energy applications for use in a wide range of environments from homes to industry. D2Fusion is headed by President and CEO Mr. Russ George and is headquartered in Foster City, California. On October 21, 2005, Mr. George presented details of D2Fusion's science and work at an invited lecture at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University in the UK at the invitation of Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate for his pioneering work in solid-state and condensed matter physics. The science and news surrounding solid-state fusion and D2Fusion can be viewed on the company's website at www.d2fusion.com. Solar is a public company; its common shares trade on the OTCBB under the ticker symbol "SLRE". A number of statements contained in this press release may be considered to be forward-looking statements that are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, including timely development, and market acceptance of products and technologies, competitive market conditions, successful integration of acquisitions and the ability to secure additional sources of financing. The actual results Solar may achieve could differ materially from any forward-looking statements due to such risks and uncertainties. Solar encourages the public to read the information provided here in conjunction with its most recent filings on Form 10KSB and Form 10QSB. Solar's public filings may be viewed at www.sec.gov. Contacts Solar Energy Limited Andrew Wallace, 604-669-4771 or D2fusion, Inc. Russ George, 650-638-1975 ---- Bechtel Bettis lands $480 million Navy contract to maintain nuclear reactors West Mifflin unit builds on previous award Dan Reynolds October 31, 2005 Pittsburgh Business Journal http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2005/10/31/story8.html?from_rss=1 West Mifflin-based Bechtel Bettis Inc. received a $480 million contract from a division of the U.S. Navy this week for its work maintaining 103 nuclear reactors for the U.S. Department of Energy and the Navy. Cindy Clark, public information officer for Bechtel Bettis Inc. and the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in West Mifflin, said the work is for maintenance of nuclear reactors on naval submarines and aircraft carriers. The contract, awarded through the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, is the latest renewal of an ongoing 10-year, $4.2 billion contract first awarded to the Bettis Atomic Laboratory in 1998. The Naval Nuclear Propulsion program is a joint venture between the Department of Energy and the Navy. Clark said the Navy has the option of renewing the contract on an annual basis. She said the contract has been renewed every year since 1998, but is not guaranteed. A Navy spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The $480 million contract follows the awarding last week of a $280 million contract to another local Bechtel division, Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc., which is located in Wilkins. Work on nuclear submarine propulsion components in that contract will be split between a plant apparatus division here in Pittsburgh and a BPM machinery apparatus division in Schenectady, N.Y. Jim Dillon, a procurement manager and public affairs officer for Bechtel Plant Machinery, said there will be no additional hires as a result of the latest contract. Dillon said Bechtel Plant Machinery provides project management for the nuclear submarine work and doesn't do any actual manufacturing. He declined to say how much of Bechtel's manufacturing work is done locally. Ralph Ciacco, president of Penn State Tool & Die Corp., a supplier to Bechtel that's based in North Huntingdon and has additional locations in Mount Pleasant and Uniontown, believes as much as half of the Bechtel subsidiaries' manufacturing work is done locally. Ciacco said between 15 percent and 20 percent of the work that his company does is for Bechtel. "They are a big customer of ours," he said. Ciacco said his company also does civil nuclear component work for Westinghouse Electric Co. Both Bechtel Bettis and Bechtel Plant Machinery are subsidiaries of Bechtel National Inc., the government services arm of San Francisco-based Bechtel Group, which employs 42,000 people and was listed by Forbes Magazine in its 2004 list of private companies as the fifth-largest private company in the United States with $16.3 billion in revenue. Bechtel Bettis employs roughly 2,000 at its West Mifflin facility. Bechtel Plant Machinery employs more than 550 engineers and project managers in Wilkins. Work on nuclear reactors to propel Navy submarines goes back nearly 60 years in this area, to December 1948, when the Atomic Energy Commission first awarded a contract to Westinghouse Electrical Corp. to design and build a nuclear reactor that could power a submarine. Bechtel National acquired the Pittsburgh and Schenectady, N.Y., nuclear submarine divisions formerly owned by Westinghouse Electric in an April 1999 deal with CBS Corp. It acquired the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory earlier that same year. DAN REYNOLDS may be contacted at dreynolds@bizjournals.com. ---- Atomic Energy of Canada: Van Adel Proposed for Reappointment Monday, Oct. 31, 2005 Government of Canada http://news.gc.ca/cfmx/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=177009& OTTAWA — The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Natural Resources, announced today that Mr. Robert G. Van Adel has been proposed for reappointment as President and Chief Executive Officer of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). Mr. Van Adel was first appointed to the position in February 2001. The proposed reappointment will be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology for review. "I am pleased that Mr. Van Adel is being considered for reappointment to AECL," said Minister McCallum. "Through his hard work, his extensive knowledge and his ability to motivate people, he continues to play a critical role in the Canadian energy industry." Mr. Van Adel served in a number of different capacities within the public service before his appointment at AECL, including at the Anti-Inflation Board and the Export Development Corporation. He also has extensive experience in the private sector, primarily with the AGRA group of companies, where he served in a number of executive positions, including President of AGRA Monenco Inc. He sits on a number of boards, including the Nuclear Energy Institute, Energy Council of Canada, Canadian Nuclear Association, Canada China Business Council and Junior Achievement of Canada. AECL is a Crown Corporation established in 1952 to develop peaceful applications of nuclear technology. As one of the largest suppliers of nuclear energy systems and technology in the world, AECL develops markets and manages the construction of CANDU power reactors, carries out reactor research, supplies reactor refurbishment and support services and offers radioactive waste management products and services. The corporation employs people at locations across Canada and nine other countries around the globe. -------- canada Second nuclear plant needed for power-hungry Maritimes: P.E.I. power boss CHRIS MORRIS Mon Oct 31, 4:05 PM ET (CP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051031/ca_pr_on_na/maritime_nuclear_1 SAINT JOHN, N.B. - The time has come to look into building a second nuclear reactor in the Maritimes to satisfy the region's growing demand for electricity, the head of Prince Edward Island's electric utility said Monday. Jim Lea, president of Maritime Electric, told an energy conference that while it's fine to talk about wind power and energy conservation, the region needs a new source of constant and reliable power. Construction of a second reactor, most likely at the same site as the region's first reactor in Point Lepreau, N.B., would be a 10-to 15-year project, he said. "When we look at the reliability and the cost of nuclear energy and compare that with the costs of fossil fuels and the need to reduce greenhouse gases, we don't have too many options," Lea told the Atlantic Power Summit in Saint John, N.B. "I raised it at this conference because I believe we have to start thinking about it soon." The other two Maritime energy chiefs at the summit, David Hay of NB Power Corp. and Ralph Tedesco of Nova Scotia Power Inc., reacted cautiously to Lea's suggestion. "In Nova Scotia, by statute, nuclear is today not an option," Tedesco said. "But it is an important part of the overall supply picture in the Maritimes." Hay said NB Power is focused on completing New Brunswick's $1.4-billion plan to refurbish the existing, 23-year-old reactor at Point Lepreau. The overhaul is expected to last 18 months, from April 2008 to September 2009. Meanwhile, Hay said he believes public opinion is softening toward nuclear power. "Fossil fuel prices have just gone out of this world . . . (and) no one could have predicted that," he said. "But on the nuclear front, I think people are seeing that the operating rates and the safety records - all of those aspects of nuclear - have improved dramatically in the last 15 to 20 years. So, yes, people are feeling more comfortable about it." The idea of expanding nuclear power in the Maritimes is moving up the region's political agenda. In New Brunswick, Opposition Liberal Leader Shawn Graham is calling for construction of a second reactor at the Lepreau site. Lord said Monday he is not ruling out the possibility and admits there have been discussions with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. "But we're far from making any announcement on a second or a third nuclear power plant," he said, raising the possibility of even more reactors down the road. Lord said the problem is money. "If anyone thinks we should have another nuclear power plant, I'd like to see what their financial contribution would be," he said. Once the Lepreau upgrade is completed, it's expected the 680-megawatt Candu reactor will continue pumping electricity into the Maritime grid for the next two to three decades. Lea said Maritime Electric wasn't interested in becoming a part owner of a future nuclear plant. He said the Island utility likes the current arrangement it has with NB Power where it is a long-term customer for the province's output, including its nuclear output. Lea said promoting nuclear does not go against the island's bucolic image as a haven of renewable energy. He said energy needs range from constant, base-load demand to peaking energy requirements. Wind and renewable energy can meet some of the middle requirements for power, but they are not sufficient to supply base-load demand, Lea said. "Energy supply requires a basket of resources. This is not a tomorrow project, but it is time to talk, to raise the concept." -------- iran [Read this with a clear understanding of who wrote it. You can choose to trust or distrust, believe or challenge. See end of article.] Nuclear Iran: Race Against Time Ryan Mauro - 10/31/2005 Global Politic http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=1331&cid=2&sid=4 "If one day, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession-on that day this method of global arrogance would come to an end. This is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam." -Former Iranian President Rafsanjani on December 14, 2001. During the Presidential campaign, Iran became one of the major foreign policy crisis issues, with both candidates agreeing it's the world's greatest threat today. While North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, and the Administration has failed to find any "actual" weapons in Iraq, Iran is fast at work on its own nuclear arsenal. The world's most active state sponsor of terrorism will have it's own nuclear bomb in one or two years. And worse, the actual creation of the fissile material needed for the bomb is set to begin within months. From this point, sanctions or bombing raids will be unable to adequately delay the nuclear program. Some even claim Iran already has nuclear weapons. The former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Yossef Bodansky, has claimed just that in his book, "The High Cost of Peace". Before I quote from that book, please take note that I lack the ability to confirm these claims (although I have seen these same details in the overseas press reports over the years). It is possible that Iran obtained nuclear devices in the late 1980s or early 1990s, but that these devices are unable to be used-the book does not say if the status of the weapons is known. The book's statements on Iran's nuclear program are as follows: "Even before the final Soviet breakup, and while Tehran was beginning its talks with Beijing, Iranian intelligence operatives were scouring Soviet Central Asia for weapons, technologies, and nuclear material, in search of a shortcut to operational nuclear capabilities. In summer 1991, one of these operatives was offered access to nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan. Tehran dispatched a delegation of senior officials, including US-educated physicists, who returned convinced that the offer was genuine. In early September, the Iranian delegation returned to Kazakhstan to renew negotiations. Their Kazakh interlocutor told them he was speaking for a group of about twenty-five security, scientific, and government officials who were willing to obtain the 'atomic bombs' for Iran. The weapons would come in separate pieces from different sites throughout Central Asia, but the group would assemble these pieces into operational weapons. At the same time, the Iranians and their allies initiated a comprehensive effort to acquire delivery capabilities-both ballistic missiles and strike aircraft. These developments boosted Tehran's confidence in its ability to implement its grand strategic design. As Hashemi-Rafsanjani would put it later in the year, it had fallen to Iran to acquire nuclear weapons for the entire region, if only because the Arabs had proved incapable of doing so. Such weapons would be the key to a rejuvenated and vibrant Islamic unity. With them, Hashemi-Rafsanjani concluded, it would be possible to eliminate the Western presence in the Middle East and liberate Jerusalem.... ...In December, the Kazakh deal came to fruitition, and Iran made its first purchase of nuclear weapons. The deal included two 40-kiloton warheads for a SCUD-type surface-to-surface ballistic missile; one aerial bomb of the type carried by a MiG-27; and one 152-mm nuclear artillery shell. These weapons reached initial operational status in late January 1992 and full operational status a few months later."[1] "On October 10, Khameini made an inspection tour of the special facilities of the Air Force's Eighty Shahid Babai Base in Isfahan, where Iran's aerial nuclear bomb was stored. Iran intended to use this bomb in a kamikaze-style attack against a US Navy carrier in the Persian Gulf. Iran had several North Korean-trained pilots willing to undertake the mission, all of them with extensive operational experience, qualified on the latest Soviet aircraft. Iran's two nuclear warheads were fitted to their ballistic missiles at Isfahan, although the warheads themselves were usually stored in Lavizan, in the Tehran area. Khameini also visited these facilities and discussed the shift of emphasis from indigenous development of missiles to massive purchases abroad. He emphasized the long-range importance of developing and producing strategic weapons in Iran; however, he explained, under certain emergency conditions foreign weapons could be acquired 'with our pride intact'. While all this was going on, Tehran was not neglecting its nuclear arsenal. In the fall of 1992, Iran signed a new deal with officials in Kazakhstan for the purchase of four 50-kiloton nuclear warheads, upgraded and adapted to fit on the SSMs purchased from North Korea...Rahmani confirmed that four warheads had indeed been purchased but added that their delivery was postponed due to 'a technical problem'-ensuring clandestine support. The warheads were eventually shipped to North Korea, where they were optimized for the soon-to-be-delivered Nodong-1 SSMs."[2] In October 2002, Debkafile, which apparently has close ties to Israeli intelligence, reported that they believed that Iran had a "basic" nuclear bomb do to the assistance of scientists and technicians from Pakistan, Russia, China and North Korea.[3] Of course, I cannot confirm if this is true, and there has been little corroboration to support the claim. However, there is evidence that Iran is discussing the purchase of North Korean nuclear weapons. As a close ally of the Communist regime, and the regime's top customer, such negotiations can be assumed to be occurring. It is understood by the experts that North Korea first seeks to secure its future by creating a nuclear deterrent-but once that deterrent is achieved, it is likely entire nuclear bombs or critical components will be sold for large amounts of money. The cash-strapped regime's most likely customer for this is of course, Iran. Should sanctions delay Iran's nuclear ambitions, or should an attack by Israel or America become imminent, it is likely that Iran will opt to buy a nuclear weapon. It appears that the Iranians feel that obtaining such a bomb before the West can take action will secure the regime from such action. Both Debkafile and terrorism expert, Michael Ledeen (author of War Against the Terror Masters) have written articles confirming that negotiations have been taking place since the first quarter of 2003. Unfortunately, there is no reporting to confirm or deny if a deal has been reached. The only thing that can be confirmed is that at the very least, North Korea is helping Iran in its quest for an Islamic bomb. Over the summer, the government of South Korea confirmed that teams of North Korean and Iranian nuclear scientists had several meetings.[4] The meetings began producing results in August, if the media reports are to be trusted. Negotiations for the purchase of a Taepo-Dong-2 ballistic missile by Iran were reported to be in their "advanced stages", probably to be finished in mid-October.[5] The missile gives Iran the ability to strike mostly anywhere in Europe and Asia. This caused a media frenzy, and soon reports began filtering out about the cooperation between the two rogue states. The mainstream press, particularly in Japan, began finding out the details of the duo's talks. Among the revelations were that: Korean military scientists were recently spotted entering suspected nuclear sites in Iran, possibly to test a nuclear warhead; so many Koreans are in Iran that a special Caspian Sea resort was made for them; negotiations for an agreement on the joint development of nuclear warheads are set to be finished in October; and Iranian nuclear experts had visited North Korea in March, April and May, possibly to learn how to keep the program alive despite inspections and internal pressure.[6] The Bush Administration and Israel apparently believes Iran is not yet a nuclear power, but will be around 2005. We cannot know the status of their nuclear weapons capabilities. There are several possibilities: A: The reports are untrue, and Iran has no nuclear weapon. The main concern truly is about Iran's plans to produce a nuke on its own. B: The reports are true, and Iran has nuclear weapons bought abroad. C: The reports are true, and Iran has bought nukes abroad, but they are inoperable. It is anybody's guess which of the possibilities is accurate. Ever since members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an Iranian opposition group labeled as a terrorist organization (some members are militant, most are now just attached to the opposition's efforts) disarmed in Iraq in late May, 2003 and gave intelligence to the US, the pressure on Iran has built up. The political branch of MEK reported on May 26th that Iran had two uranium-enrichment facilities west of Tehran, which operate as "satellite plants" to the larger facility centered at Natanz. The Iranians reportedly had already installed several centrifuges at one of the sites. The purpose of the sites, besides to assist in the nuclear program, is to take over the work of the Natanz site should it be bombed. The dissidents explained that there were small, dispersed sites around Iran to prepare for an Israeli or American air campaign, and they listed 8 businesses used as front companies to obtain components for the program.[7] They confirmed that the goal set by Iran was to become a nuclear power in 2005.[8] It didn't take long for the IAEA to report that Iran was suspected of violating international treaty, by concealing the import of nuclear materials and not reporting the construction of sites to process uranium.[9] From the wealth of information provided by the dissidents, the United States and Israel agreed that they're window of opportunity amounted to less than a year, because at the earliest, Iran could begin producing nukes in the end of the fall of 2004. By the summer of 2004, the uranium enrichment program will be finished, and therefore, unstoppable by anything short of regime change. At the end of 2007, the infrastructure will be large enough and advanced enough to allow for the production of up to 15 nuclear weapons a year.[10] Eventually, no air raid would be able to destroy their plans. The facilities were large in number, were disguised, and dispersed. Some were even hardened to protect against explosions.[11] By the beginning of July, the pressure had an impact on the IAEA to express concern about Iran. Inspectors stated that they were "puzzled" by Iran's uranium program, and said they were receiving unsatisfactory answers to their questions about the activity related to converting imported uranium to enriched uranium metal. Nevertheless, the IAEA refused to cite Iran as in direct violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[12] The IAEA revelations revealed several things: - In 1991, Iran imported 1.8 kilograms of uranium, and did not declare it. - Traces of UF6 were found in soil samples at Natanz, which indicated the centrifuges may have already been used. - Iran was developing sophisticated laser technology that can be used to enrich uranium. Iran has already converted 400 kg of UF4 into uranium metal (done in 2000) at the Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Labs at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center. UF4, or, uranium tetraflouride, is a compound that comes from uranium processing. UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is another compound that indicates the process of uranium enrichment. The fact that UF6 was found, and that UF4 can be confirmed to be converted into metal, is a clear sign of an ongoing nuclear program.[13] - The report acknowledged that there were signs that Iran had used UF6 gas bought from China (and not declared) and used it to test four centrifuges, as part of the plan to make a centrifuge production facility at Natanz. Inspectors noticed that 1.9 kilograms was missing from the containers, and may have been used. Iran claims that over the many years they had the containers, the sealing caps became loose and the gas evaporated. Further inspection however showed that the caps fitted perfectly, and there was no way for evaporation to occur.[14] The Los Angeles Times finished their three-month investigation into the matter in the first week of August. They confirmed that Iran was trying to obtain nuclear bombs, had a concealment program to hide it, and was using the scientists and technology of Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea to pursue it. It concluded that several research labs were hidden, and that one plant was disguised as a watch-making factory in Tehran. It also mentioned that in June, inspectors were denied access to two large rooms and barred from testing soil samples at a factory known as Kalaye Electric Company.[15] The New York Times was also convinced, stating that Iran appeared to be planning to mine uranium, convert it to a gas, and transform it into nuclear fuel using centrifuges. The current array of 1,000 centrifuges was enough to make one nuke a year. They also opined that the reason Iran was focusing mainly on using uranium as a nuclear fuel was because using plutonium requires reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, which requires a reprocessing plant.[16] Such a plant is believed to be in its infant stages of construction today. By the end of the month, Iran was forced to admit that they had foreign assistance in building a uranium enrichment facility south of Tehran, which the UN evidence indicated was Pakistan.[17] This is certainly what Israeli intelligence indicated. Debkafile reported that in the middle of May, President Musharraf of Pakistan had dispatched a team of nuclear engineers to Iran with blueprints for the construction of gas centrifuges, and the team still is in Iran.[18] On September 8th, the IAEA issued another warning about Iran. Inspectors had visited an underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz that contained approximately 1,000 gas centrifuges, accommodations for about 1,000 people, and components for up to 50,000 centrifuges. This is the same facility that traces of weapons-grade uranium was found, which Iran only recently admitted to having once the dissidents revealed it (the site was denied for the past five years). Sophisticated equipment to enrich uranium to the level needed for use in nuclear weapons was found. There were two large halls inside the site that have the features of a facility used to conduct uranium enrichment. The halls were 25 feet underground with a concrete barrier that is eight feet thick, apparently to protect the site from air assault.[19] Despite denials, Iran was forced to admit they used nuclear materials for research and have made uranium metal. There was also concern about a heavy-water facility at Arak, also kept secret and undeclared until exiles revealed it. If Iran was simply going for an alternate fuel supply, there'd be no purpose for a heavy-water facility! The Bushehr complex is to be run by light-water reactor. But heavy water, with an extra hydrogen atom, is needed to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence was reporting that Russia had secretly sold to Iran an advanced AVRII uranium enrichment processor system installed at Natanz and the super-secret Moallen Kalayeh site.[20] By the end of the month, Israel warned that Iran would "reach the point of no return" on its nuclear quest in 1 year. The head of the IAEA also said that Iran had shopped on black market for components related to a nuclear program.[21] It was leaked that the major suspected nuclear sites are at Arak, Natanz, Esfahan, and Kashan. This does not even include the sites this article has listed. Due to the failure of Kay's inspection team to find WMD in Iraq, I have heard several people question the claim that Iran does indeed have a nuclear program. However, in this case, the program is much more obviously for weapons, than for an alternative energy source, like Iran claims. Simple logic disproves these claims, as an alternate energy source means that the nuclear power industry lacks fuel. If the industry lacks fuel, why is there a program for a "closed-loop nuclear fuel cycle"? Another point: If Iran produced its own nuclear fuel, it will cost two to four times as much as buying foreign nuclear fuel. The country also is rich in natural gas and oil. There is enough to take care of its needs for centuries, which is another reason that the claim that the program is for an alternative fuel source is suspicious. Besides, it will cost several more times to produce electricity from uranium than from petroleum.[22] Iran's nuclear weapons program is huge and complex. The Russian-built and Russian-managed nuclear reactor at Bushehr is the center of the complex, and the most critical aspect of it. The reactor will be activated in late 2004 or 2005, at which time it will be able to provide the electrical power production required to enrich the uranium fuel. In May 2003, Iran and Russia finished plans for the delivery of the first 90 tons of enriched uranium to Iran. Once the uranium is enriched sufficiently, it can become the fuel used to cause a nuclear explosion. Talks are already underway for Russia to help with construction of a second reactor at Bushehr (and up to 6 more by 2018, but there is no telling what will happen before then). There are uranium deposits in the Jazd province, which even if they are quickly depleted for the weapons program (the deposits only contain 50 grams of uranium per every 100 kilograms of uranium), is enough to produce a few nuclear warheads over the next couple of years. The complexes used to make the actual weapons are also available, and soon will be activated. In 2005, the uranium-separation facility at Erdekan will be activated. The uranium-concentrate complex around Isfahan will also be activated at that time, most likely in late 2003 or early 2004. Iran also has plans to build a uranium-conversion facility and a uranium-enrichment facility, approximately 150 kilometers from Isfahan, which is believed to be activated within 1-3 years. Parts of the Isfahan complex are scientific laboratories which will produce the fuel necessary for water-cooled reactors, as well as sites to produce the fuel-assembly cases. The Iranian program is not limited, and is focused on the creation of a "close-looped fuel cycle". This means Iran will be able to create its own fuel for its own nuclear bombs by 2006. Perhaps the scariest thing about the program is that the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is unable to do much about it. It is obvious countries like France, Russia, and China will oppose any meaningful action to stop the program, and most likely will stop any meaningful sanctions (which could only stall the ultimate result). Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is allowed to produce highly-enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium, as long as they are stockpiled at separate facilities, and the UN can inspect the sites. At the same time, Iran is permitted to collect the materials and resources needed to produce the weapons from the fissile materials, which takes very little time. When ready, Iran can violate the treaty and kick out inspectors and begin assembling nukes right away (it is unlikely there will be a collective decisive response to the action in time to stop Iran from having nukes). Iran can also abide by the rules, and announce its nuclear plans six months in advance, and count on the slim chance that the world community will be able to do much about it in that time. The race against time has begun. Time is not on our side, and neither is the international community. Sanctions can extend the time we have to stop this from occurring, but it is unlikely that Russia, France and China will allow such sanctions to be put in place. Bombing raids could extend the time limit, but they are unlikely to succeed in destroying the program. At best, the results of the program can be delayed for months. The race against time has begun. The clock is ticking. SOURCES [1] "The High Cost of Peace: How Washington's Middle East Policy Left America Vulnerable to Terrorism" by Yossef Bodansky. 2002. Prima Publishing, Roseville, California. Pages 76-77. [2] Ibid., pages 84-87. [3] Debkafile, Sept. 25, 2003. [4] Al-Zaman, June 12, 2003. [5] Middle East Newsline, August 7, 2003. [6] Washington Times, August 7, 2003. [7] New York Times, May 26, 2003. [8] New York Post, June 18, 2003. [9] Middle East Newsline, June 8, 2003. [10] Debkafile, June 26, 2003. [11] Middle East Newsline, June 29, 2003. [12] Middle East Newsline, July 1, 2003. [13] Geostrategy-Direct.com, week of July 8, 2003. [14] Debkafile, June 26, 2003. [15] LA Times, August 5, 2003. [16] New York Times, Aug 3, 2003. [17] Washington Post, August 27, 2003. [18] Debkafile, June 26, 2003. [19] London Sunday Telegraph, September 8, 2003. [20] Debkafile, August 28, 2003. [21] Ha'aretz, August 30, 2003. [22] New York Times, August 3, 2003. Ryan Mauro is a geopolitical analyst. He began working for Tactical Defense Concepts (www.tdconcepts.com), a maritime-associated security company in 2002. In 2003, Mr. Mauro joined the Northeast Intelligence Network (www.homelandsecurityus.com), which specializes in tracking and assessing terrorist threats. He has appeared on over 20 radio shows and had articles published in over a dozen publications. His book "Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq" is scheduled to be published in the coming months. He publishes his own web site called World Threats. tdcanalyst@optonline.net -------- israel Analysis: Iran provides Russia with wiggle room By Peter Lavelle United Press International Published October 31, 2005 http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051031-115301-4931r MOSCOW -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has given the Bush administration a public relations boon at a time when any good news is desperately welcomed. Russia -- seen to be friendly to the Islamic republic -- declared Ahmadinejad's comments as unacceptable. The call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" maybe the wiggle room Kremlin may now want to use to "wash its hands" of a problematic relationship with Iran and the country's suspected nuclear weapons program. Ahmadinejad's stunningly undiplomatic language may have been for consumption in the Arab world and as a means for the recently elected Iranian president to shore up political support at home. Abroad the reaction has been almost universal -- a member of the United Nations calls for the destruction of another has been met with outrage. While American foreign policy has failed to convince the world that Iran is a member of the "axis of evil," Ahmadinejad appears to have gladly appropriated this appellation for his own country in eyes of the international community. For more than two years the United States has warned of Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. During most of this time, Europe called for patience and engagement of Iran. Russia, the source of nuclear power know-how and the primary contractor of Iran's declared peaceful designs, maintained a hands-off approach and even vouched for one of its most important friends in the Greater Middle East would not develop a nuclear weapon. As it often happens in Middle East the geopolitics, sands have shifted. EU countries have moved closer to the US position -- stating that unless Iran suspends its conversion activities and return to the negotiations table, they have no choice but to support having the issue referred to the United Nations and possible sanctions put in place against Iran. Russia's position, interestingly, actually hardened during this time. Shortly after a surprise visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza to Russia early this month to discuss Iran's nuclear program, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated on national television that, "No one, including the United States, will challenge our right to continue building the atomic electricity station in Bushehr." Move fast forward to Oct. 27 when Ahmadinejad's made his remarks: Lavrov's was crystal clear when stating the Iranian president's words would provide more arguments for those countries that wanted to refer the Iranian nuclear dossier to the U.N. Security Council. Does this mean Russia has changed its position on Iran and the country's nuclear power program? The answer this to question is far from a simple 'yes' or 'no.' At first glance, Russia's foreign policy appears to be replete with contradictions. A closer look depicts a very different picture. Russia's interest in seeing Iran become a nuclear power is no different from the position of the U.S. or of Europe's -- not to speak of Israel's very real and serious security concerns. Iran with a nuclear weapon would not only destabilize and already very destabilized region, but could also become a direct threat to sovereign Russia. So why does Russia befriend Iran? There are many obvious reasons. Russia stands to earn billions of the dollars over the long-term out-fitting Iran with peaceful nuclear technology. Second, what Russian can do for Iran -- at an attractive profit -- it can do for other countries in the world seeking to develop the same technologies. Third, engagement of Iran maintains Russia position as a powerbroker in the region. Russia is keen to have good relations with all players in the Greater Middle East -- the U.S. can't say the same. Additionally, the most important and not so obvious reason, Russia is acting upon its "multilateralism" or "multipolarism" approach to foreign policy. This is not an anti-American or even anti-Western foreign policy agenda. It is an agenda that seeks to avoid conflict with old and new friends at time that the U.S. and Europe, to some extent, are willing to draw thick and hard lines regarding international security issues. America's "unilateralism" and "unipolarism" is obviously not well received in the world, particularly as the conflict in Iraq continues without a clear outcome justifying the war in the first place. Both "multilateralism" and "multipolarism" can also used to describe the Kremlin's "wiggle room" -- to sit on the fence attempting to exact diplomatic advantage while not being deemed as an obstructionist in the eyes of world opinion. This means that Russia will support Iran's nuclear program or Syria against Western pressure as long as the political costs end as a net gain. Ahmadinejad's comments clearly over-stepped the line even for the Kremlin's approach to diplomacy. The current logic of the Kremlin's foreign policy suggests that it could withdraw its support of Ahmadinejad's regime with little fanfare. The Kremlin garners billions of dollars a month in petroleum and natural gas revenues. Finding itself as an international pariah for the sake of a nuclear power program that could eventually threaten Russia and defending a country that goes to extremes undermine its own international standing is the last thing the Kremlin wants. -- Peter Lavelle is a Moscow-based analyst. -------- korea Chinese Upbeat After Talks With North Korea By JOSEPH KAHN October 31, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/international/asia/31china.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1130938271-SQj6n1XNlQQALwl5c7hS+g&pagewanted=print BEIJING, Oct. 30 - The North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, has told President Hu Jintao of China that he is committed to ending the North's nuclear weapons program and that he will push forward with multinational negotiations on the matter soon, Chinese officials said Sunday. The upbeat assessment of the nuclear talks was issued shortly after Mr. Hu concluded a state visit to North Korea, his first since becoming China's top leader in 2002. Mr. Hu promised during the visit to provide aid to neighboring North Korea's struggling economy "within China's means." Wang Jiarui, chief of the Chinese Communist Party's international department, said that it was difficult to forecast the results of a new round a nuclear talks, but that both sides intended to carry out a framework agreement that North Korea signed with the United States, South Korea, Japan, Russia and China in September. The talks are expected to resume in early November. "I am no fortuneteller, but from my observations we have reason to believe that the fifth round of talks will be held on schedule and will lead to results," said Mr. Wang, who helped arrange Mr. Hu's visit. In September, six nations signed a communiqué in which North Korea made a commitment to ending its nuclear weapons program in exchange for diplomatic, security and economic benefits. The accord is a delicately worded document that leaves the most delicate issues of timing, inspections and the delivery of aid for future negotiations. Shortly after it signed the agreement, North Korea contested the American interpretation of what North Korea had committed itself to do, and said it would not move toward nuclear disarmament until the United States and other countries provided it with a new light-water nuclear reactor. In the text of the agreement, the other five countries had promised only to consider North Korea's demand for a light-water reactor at some stage. More recently, North Korea has taken a softer line and signaled its willingness to resume talks based on the earlier agreement. Mr. Wang avoided answering a question about whether the light-water reactor would be an obstacle in the November round, but reiterated China's view that the six parties were making slow but steady progress and that North Korea had not sought to back out of its earlier promises. "Both sides reiterated their commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Korean nuclear issue by dialogue," Mr. Wang said. Mr. Hu's visit to North Korea was the first by a Chinese leader since his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, made the trip in 2001. While China had not publicly linked a visit by Mr. Hu to progress in the six-party talks, an earlier trip by him was postponed last year at a time of concern that North Korea was refusing to engage in serious discussions about its nuclear program. China has energetically served as host of the nuclear talks and has prodded the participants, especially the United States and North Korea, to make concessions. China has opposed imposing diplomatic or military sanctions on North Korea, and has said many times that any solution to the nuclear problem must preserve peace and stability in the region. Chinese officials often complain privately about the difficulty of dealing with North Korea. The two countries, which fought together against the United States in the Korean War, have not acted as close allies for many years. But China has worked to prevent an economic collapse of North Korea and has provided large amounts of food and energy aid. Mr. Hu was given an elaborate reception in North Korea, reminiscent of the ideological warmth Communist brethren routinely displayed toward one another during the cold war. Tens of thousands of people lined the streets and waved banners to greet him, calling him a "friend emissary of the Chinese people." Mr. Hu and Mr. Kim also discussed North Korea's economic troubles, Mr. Wang said. He said the Chinese delegation toured North Korean farms and was given a briefing on the country's efforts to revive its agriculture after several years of severe food shortages. But he added that the industrial sector was still sluggish and that power and transportation woes had hobbled the overall economy. ---- US nuclear negotiator arrives in South Korea Monday October 31, 2005 News International, Pakistan http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2005-daily/31-10-2005/world/w5.htm SEOUL: The chief US negotiator in six-nation North Korean nuclear disarmament talks arrived in Seoul on Sunday to meet with his South Korean counterpart ahead of the next round. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill was to meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon later Sunday before leaving for Tokyo the following day. Hill said he expected the nuclear talks to begin as expected early next month, but did not specify when. "We are looking forward to getting things going as scheduled," he said. "What we really have to do is identify the way forward and see how the principles will actually work in practice." The most recent round of six-nation nuclear talks ended last month with North Korea pledging to abandon its nuclear programme, which it claims has already yielded weapons. But the North later demanded that it first be given a light-water nuclear reactor to meet its dire energy needs. The United States says this issue should be tackled only after North Korea has verifiably dismantled its nuclear programmes. Hill said North Korea’s statement that it would not provide details of its programme until after it has received the reactor is "inexcusable." Hill’s trip comes amid a flurry of diplomacy ahead of the new round of six-nation talks on the North’s nuclear programme. No specific date has been set for the upcoming talks in Beijing, which bring together the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia. Last week, Song, the South Korean negotiator, held talks in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart. Chinese President Hu Jintao began a three-day visit to North Korea on Friday and Beijing’s deputy chief nuclear negotiator, Li Bin, arrived in Seoul from Washington later that day. ---- US says negotiator misquoted on N.Korea talks Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:57 AM ET (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-10-31T055654Z_01_MAR121359_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH-TALKS.xml&archived=False SEOUL - A U.S. official said on Monday that remarks made by the top U.S. negotiator to the North Korean nuclear talks on the North's demand for a civilian nuclear reactor were taken out of a context by a local news agency. South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Christopher Hill as saying on Sunday Pyongyang's demand for the nuclear reactor before it scrapped its atomic weapons programs was "inexcusable." But a spokesman of the U.S. embassy in Seoul said Hill's remarks were not directed at Pyongyang's position on the ongoing process but at a recent public outburst by a North Korean envoy. "The secretary was commenting on Ambassador Han's outburst, not about the reactors," spokesman Robert Ogburn said by telephone, referring to the deputy North Korean ambassador to the United Nations, Han Song-ryol. "The comments were taken out of context." Han Song-ryol said last week in Washington that Pyongyang would not dismantle or make disclosures of its nuclear programs until it was given a civilian nuclear reactor. Han had heated words with anti-North Korea activists who confronted him after the North Korean diplomat met members of the U.S. Congress in Washington. "I'm sure Ambassador Han deeply regrets that he lost his temper, because the things he said are inexcusable," Hill said upon arrival at Seoul's international airport on Sunday, according to Ogburn. Hill met South Korean officials for consultations ahead of the fifth round of the six-party talks expected to resume next week in Beijing. South and North Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China reached an agreement at the fourth round last month under which Pyongyang would dismantle its nuclear programs in exchange for economic assistance, security guarantees and greater diplomatic recognition. Hill left South Korea for Japan on Monday. Yonhap officials were not immediately available for comment. -------- mideast Mehlis Report: Another Shot at Syria [10/31/10 2005:42: 00AM] By Dr. Elias Akleh Arab 2000 http://www.arab2000.net/wnewsDetails.asp?id=27929&cid=25 Mehlis’ report about the assassination of Rafiq Hariri did not come as a surprise. Accusing Syria was an outcome expected by even naïve politicians. In reality accusations to Syria came immediately after the assassination. This reminds me of accusing Bin Laden of 911 attacks while the planes were still hitting WTC. Later on, many independent American investigations had accused the American administration of previous knowledge of the attack, while some went further and accused elements of the administration of planning the attack. Hariri’s assassination resembles American911 ; it had tumbled Lebanon upside down, and is geared towards a regime change in Syria as just another step in the American hegemonic scheme for the Arab World. After Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon the Lebanese government dissolved itself into competing political parties each trying to control the government. Some resorted to France to get support while others resorted to the US. Claiming inability to investigate Hariri’s assassination due to deteriorating security measures, the Lebanese political leaders asked for UN help to form an international investigative team in the hope to give international legitimacy to the outcome, especially when the aim was to indict Syria. For this goal Detlev Mehlis was the perfect choice to head such a team. He had investigated the bombing of the French consulate and cultural center in Berlin, Germany in1983 , when he accused a Syrian diplomat of providing the explosives to the German terrorists “Veinrich”, who planted the bomb in the consulate. He also accused another Syrian operative of planting a second bomb in the cultural center. In investigating Hariri’s assassination Mehlis started with the assumption of Syrian guilt, since he believes that given Syrian control over the Lebanese government and over the security of the country “it would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby such a complex assassination plot could have been carried out without their (Syrian) knowledge.” Mehlis based his case against Syria upon a major “eyewitness”- Mohammad Zuhair Saddig-, who claimed to be a previous Syrian intelligence officer. He claimed to have witnessed the plotting of the assassination by Syrian high officials and Syrian and Lebanese intelligence operatives. Among the high ranking Syrian officials Mehlis accused the brother of president Bashar al-Asad, Maher al-Asad and his brother-in-law ‘Assef Shawkat. Accusations were also pointed at Ahmad Jibril, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Jamil al-Sayyed, head of Lebanese intelligence, Hassan Khalil, former head of Syrian intelligence, and Bahjat Suleyman, a personal friend of the Syrian President, as partners in the planning and assassination of Hariri. At the end of his report Mehlis stated that, in his views, all the accused are still innocent until the present time. Mehlis, later on, discovered that his main witness, Saddig, was a convicted criminal and an army defector. The adviser for the Syrian Foreign Ministry, Mr. Riadh al-Da’oudi, gave Mehlis a criminal file about Saddig proving that he was only a regular soldier in the Syrian army, and that he was wanted for fraud and embezzlement. Yet Mehlis waited until the French government arrested Saddig and provided proofs that he was a convicted felon, who was indicted for 96 counts of fraud and embezzlement, and had seven wives. The German magazine “Der Spiegel” ran a report about Saddig stating the same facts. Rumors have it Saddig was recruited by Ref’at al-Asad, Bashar’s uncle, Saad Hariri and Marwan Hamada to give false testimony and accuse members of al-Asad family. With such questionable and unreliable witness Mehlis removed the names of al-Asad family members from his report, and the Secretary General Anan gave him an extension until December15 th to “correct” his report and to come up with some tangible evidence rather than just empty suspicions. Mehlis had also failed to investigate other facts of the assassination. He claimed that the assassination was carried out by a suicide bomber using a Mitsubishi van that was stolen from a Japanese city and was shipped to Lebanon. Mehlis failed to get Japanese police report about the theft of the van, and failed to check custom’s reports concerning the shipping of the van to Lebanon. He also ignored the experts’ reports that the explosives were planted in the street, as evidenced by the crater it made, rather than being carried by a car bomb. He also failed to take notice of the engineering analyses of the manufacturer of Hariri’s vehicle, who stated that the vehicle was made of a strong alloy of titanium and steel to withstand any explosion and attacks by rockets. Yet the explosion had “melted” the vehicle. The engineers concluded that the only explosive that could do such damage is a special type of explosives made of depleted uranium that could not be found except in the US and its closest ally Israel. Such “nuclear” weapon could not be obtained by Syrian or Lebanese intelligence. Mehlis had also failed to look for a motive and for the beneficiaries of Hariri’s assassination. Syria has nothing to gain from Hariri’s death, who was a strong ally for al-Asad. Faced with numerous American threats Syria needs all the international support it can get, and would not risk losing that support by assassinating Hariri. It is the US and Israel that get to benefit greatly from Hariri’s assassination. They get to weaken the only Arab country that still opposes Israel and supports Palestinian and Lebanese freedom fighters. Israel has a long history of assassinating Arab political figures especially in Lebanon, yet it was not included in the investigation. France, also, wanted to benefit from this “game”. France has a long colonial history in Lebanon, and still has some loyal friends in the government. We need only to see how many Lebanese government officials are staying in France now to understand this loyalty. France is joining in the pressure on Syria in the hope that it would regain influence in Lebanon. A regime change in Syria had been sought by the American administration long before Hariri was assassinated. The US had tried to impose economic sanctions against Syria and to isolate its government politically. In 2003 Collin Powell had openly threatened Syria to change the role it plays in the region regarding its relationship with its neighbors or face severe consequences. The administration is constantly accusing Syria of supporting Iraqi Sunni fighters and allowing terrorists to cross its borders into Iraq. President Bush is repeatedly accusing Syria of destabilizing Iraq and Lebanon, and of supporting “terror” organizations such as Hezbollah and Popular Front for the Palestinian Liberation. The US even pushed Syrian Kurds to stage protests against the Syrian government in an attempt to stir internal riots. After Hariri’s assassination the US coerced the UN to draft resolution 1559 to drive Syrian troops out of Lebanon. One can notice that the UN has become a tool the American administration uses to draft resolutions against any country that opposes its expansion policies. The administration is pushing the UN to issue a condemnation of Syria to use it as a justification to impose sanctions and eventually for changing the Syrian regime. Special UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen had joined in and accused Syria of smuggling weapons and personnel into Lebanon in violation of resolution1559 . The UN had issued a strong demand for Syria to cooperate fully with the Mehlis investigation by allowing him to interrogate any Syrian official he chooses in any place he chooses, even outside Syria. Syria is also demanded to boot the Palestinian Islamic Jihad out of the country. The American administration has a scheme for the Arab World. The ultimate goal is to use UN as a tool to carve the region down into small weak warring sectarian mini-federations, with Israel as the only major power player. Iraq was made the example for this scheme. Lebanon and Syria come next, where Syria would be forced to abandon its support to Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Hezbollah would be dissolved, and the Palestinians would succumb to Israeli brutality. Iran with its nuclear ambition would come third. Then they would move down south to the rest of the Arab states. -------- pacific Atoll still scarred by tests By Michael Field October 31, 2005 Sydney Morning Herald The Dominion Post http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/atoll-still-scarred-by-tests/2005/10/30/1130607150319.html Unexpectedly high levels of radioactive contamination are being discovered in French Polynesia almost a decade after nuclear testing ended on Mururoa Atoll, says the territory's President, Oscar Temaru. Up to five people a day are being sent to private hospitals in Auckland for diagnosis and treatment for what may be radiation-related illnesses, officials say. Mr Temaru has accused the French Government of covering up the health and environmental consequences of the testing. France conducted 41 atmospheric nuclear tests over the Tuamotu atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa between 1966 and 1974. It followed these with 134 underground nuclear tests at the same testing sites between 1975 and 1991. Eight more tests took place in 1995 and 1996. In July Mr Temaru set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the tests. It was due to report back next month. But he said the French Ministry of Defence was refusing to co-operate with the commission and was keeping secret files in Paris while insisting that Mururoa and Fangataufa were still off limits. "One of them [commission members] told me they found out very strange, very high levels of contamination from the atoll of Tureia." Tureia, 115 kilometres north-east of Mururoa, has about 100 people. It is the closest resident population to the test sites. The inquiry commission head, Tea Hirshon, said its aim was to make a precise assessment of the effects of nuclear tests on the environment and the health of the Polynesians. "The major question put forth was to know whether or not the Mangarevans still live in a contaminated environment." The news agency Tahitipresse reported last week that Bruno Chareyron, head of the independent French Commission on Radioactivity Research and Information, was unable to say whether there is or was radioactivity on Mangareva, in the Gambier Islands. At the inquiry hearing on Mangareva, 450 kilometres south-east of Mururoa, witnesses talked of "an accident" on July 2, 1966, after which the French military bought vegetables in Papeete instead of locally and talked about children being covered with wounds after an atmospheric test. A witness also told of an important French military official going to the island and leaving abruptly after a test. -------- u.s. nuc facilities Regulations killed nuclear power By Mike Sylvester Posted on Mon, Oct. 31, 2005, Fort Wayne IN Journal Gazette http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/13041971.htm I spent six years as a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine in the U.S. Navy. I spent another two years as an equipment operator in a civilian nuclear power plant in Nebraska. I strongly believe that nuclear power is a good source of energy and is safe. The nuclear power industry has been nearly destroyed by the U.S. government and its excessive regulations. The regulations are so oppressive that I decided to make a career change in 1998. I do not think we will ever complete a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. The government has undermined nuclear power in two ways: •Excessive government regulation. The nuclear power plant I worked at, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Station, is a perfect example. In 1978, before the accident at Three Mile Island, the plant employed about 80 people, mostly equipment operators and security guards. The plant was operated in a safe and efficient manner. Today, the plant employs about 550 people. The plant makes the same amount of power today that it did in 1978; it just costs a whole lot more to produce that power. The plant hired about 470 people to comply with government regulations after Three Mile Island. •Dealing with nuclear waste in the form of spent fuel rods. These fuel rods are radioactive and must be safely disposed of. The U.S. government taxes all U.S. consumers of nuclear power and collects enough money to finance and build a disposal facility. The Nuclear Waste Fund was created in 1982. One-tenth of a cent was charged for each kilowatt of electricity produced at a nuclear power plant. By 1992 the government had collected enough tax revenue to build a state-of-the-art disposal facility. Eventually, due to pressure from the utility industry, the government finally agreed to build the facility by Jan. 31, 1998, at Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain was not completed in 1998 and about 60 lawsuits were filed by the utility industry and various states against the federal government for breach of contract. It is estimated these lawsuits could cost the federal government, i.e., taxpayers, as much as $50 billion. In 2001 the Department of Energy completed a cost study and determined it would cost $4.5 billion to build the Yucca Mountain facility. Today, The Nuclear Waste Fund has almost $16billion. This fund is currently used by Congress to offset a small portion of the annual budget deficit. The nuclear waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain is nowhere near completion; in fact, Department of Energy officials openly question whether the facility will be completed by 2010, 12 years after the promised completion date. Because the disposal facility is not operational, nuclear power plants have been forced to store their own spent fuel rods at their own cost. President Bush wants to spur the growth of nuclear power plants. I am all for nuclear power; that being said, Bush’s proposal makes no sense. In fact, it will waste billions of dollars. The new energy bill provides almost $6.5billion of subsidies and direct spending to nuclear power generation companies to persuade them to build new nuclear power plants. This is absurd. I would suggest the Department of Energy finish Yucca Mountain before it gets involved in building new nuclear power plants. If we want nuclear power plants built, we need to minimize government regulation. A new nuclear power plant has not been started since 1973 because of excessive government regulation. The free market should dictate which power generation companies succeed and which ones fail– not the government. We have experience with failed nuclear power plants right here in Indiana. Public Service Indiana proposed the Marble Hill nuclear power plant in 1973 with an estimated cost of $700 million. Construction on the plant began in 1977, and expenses quickly doubled to about $1.4 billion. In 1984 the project was halted and the plant was abandoned. This failed project cost the state of Indiana $2.8 billion. Mike Sylvester is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Allen County. He wrote this for The Journal Gazette. -------- florida Nuclear plant shuts down Tampa Bay Business Journal October 31, 2005 http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2005/10/31/daily3.html?t=printable Progress Energy has shut down its Crystal River nuclear plant for scheduled maintenance. During the refueling outage, plant workers will replace approximately one third of the nuclear fuel in the reactor and perform major maintenance on the unit. Nuclear power plants are shut down approximately every two years to replace fuel and perform maintenance. Crystal River's last refueling was completed in late October 2003. A company spokeswoman declined to speculate on how long the shutdown would last but said that the plant was down for a month during the last maintenance two years ago. Since the last refueling outage, the plant generated more than 14 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, enough electricity to serve needs of more than 1 million typical homes, 24 hours a day, for one year. This was the most electricity the unit has ever generated between refueling. The nuclear unit is one of five electric generating plants located at the Crystal River Energy Complex in Crystal River. The other four generating plants are fueled by coal. These and other Florida generating plants will provide electric power for customers while the nuclear plant is out of service for refueling. St. Petersburg-based Progress Energy Florida, a subsidiary of Progress Energy (NYSE: PGN), provides electricity and related services to more than 1.5 million customers in Florida encompassing more than 20,000 square miles and including the cities of St. Petersburg and Clearwater. -------- iowa Nuclear Plant Sale Support Monday, October 31, 2005, 6:59:16 PM By Dave Franzman KCRG-TV9 News (Cedar Rapids IA) http://www.kcrg.com/article.aspx?art_id=98388&cat_id=123 A sale of Iowa's only nuclear power plant still needs an "OK" from state regulators. But that proposed sale is getting enthusiastic support from some lawmakers and business leaders. The Iowa Utilities Board starts hearings Tuesday morning in Des Moines to determine if Alliant Energy can sell a majority stake in the Duane Arnold Energy Center. Alliant announced a deal with Florida Power and Light this summer to sell a 70 percent share in the Palo nuclear power plant. The plant has produced power with a nuclear reactor since the early 1970's. But the license to operate expires in 2014. Alliant officials say without a sale, they'll let the license lapse and shut the plant. But Florida Power and Light wants to buy the DAEC, invest another $150-million dollars and seek a 20-year license extension. Two weeks ago, the Iowa Consumer Advocate's office opposed the sale saying it might cost consumers more in the long run. But a group supporting the sale held a news conference Monday morning to add their support to the sale plan. At least five Cedar Rapids-area lawmakers say the deal would preserve more than 500 jobs at the plant and offer the possibility of expansion and extra jobs too. The coalition believes residents should treat the sale as if it were an economic development opportunity. Supporters say Florida Power is a nationally-known company with five nuclear plants. They believe that company can operate the Duane Arnold Energy Center in a manner that would allow it to thrive rather than close down in another eight or nine years. The Iowa Utilities Board is expected to rule on the sale by the end of November. A number of other regulatory agencies must also approve the deal. -------- new york Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Subject to Special Inspections WASHINGTON, DC, October 31, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2005/2005-10-31-09.asp#anchor4 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will conduct additional inspections at Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, New York. Through specialized inspections the NRC will oversee Entergy's efforts to address leakage from the Unit 2 spent fuel pool and reliability issues with the site's siren system for alert and notification in case of an emergency. The two unit nuclear power plant is operated by Entergy Nuclear using two pressurized water reactors manufactured by Westinghouse. In late September, the NRC began a special inspection at Indian Point into apparent leakage from the spent fuel pool area at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant. But the leakage is "minimal" and "does not pose any immediate health or safety concern for members of the public or plant workers," the Commission said. The NRC inspectors will also examine why the radioactive substance tritium was detected in six of nine on-site locations earlier this month. No tritium has been detected off-site, the Commission said. The Special Inspection is expected to continue for several weeks as the NRC is monitoring and evaluating Entergy’s ongoing characterization and mitigation activities. The NRC also has been overseeing Entergy's actions to address recent siren issues and improve overall system reliability. The Indian Point siren system has experienced performance problems in the recent past including: primary and back-up actuation system problems, siren monitoring system failures, and some actual siren failures. Entergy has indicated that it plans to replace the entire siren system in response to the new requirement for backup power that was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. NRC Region I Administrator Samuel Collins, said, "In the case of Indian Point, the staff considers it prudent to apply additional inspection focus to specific areas, even though licensee performance in these areas has not crossed any specific thresholds mandating additional regulatory oversight." Citizens' groups and most nearby county, town and village governments in New York and New Jersey want to close Indian Point, saying it is a terrorist target endangered in the 20 million people who live within 40 miles of the power plant. The Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC), formed shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, includes 70 environmental, health, and public policy organizations concerned with the vulnerability of the Indian Point Nuclear Facility and the radioactive waste it produces, both to internal incidents and to external accidents or acts of terrorism. IPSEC has mobilized to call for its closure, orderly decommissioning, and securing of the irradiated fuel pools. Located 40 miles from Ground Zero in the most densely populated region of the country, the nuclear plant is a risk to women, men, children, the environment, and the financial stability of the United States, IPSEC says. The purpose of their campaign is to stop Entergy’s anticipated bid to re-license Indian Point for another 20 years. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Russia, US to exchange data on portable missiles MOSCOW (AFP) Oct 31, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051031124201.ywgcul2l.html Russia and the United States will soon for the first time begin sharing information on transfers of mobile surface-to-air missiles outside their respective national borders, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Monday. "In mid-November, the first exchanges of information on transfer outside the national borders of Russia or the United States of portable anti-aircraft missiles will take place," Ivanov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies. He said the United States had recently signed an agreement to this effect with Russia, which already has similar accords with countries of the former Soviet Union. According to the news agencies, Ivanov referred in general to "mobile" missile systems. Both the United States and Russia however focused specifically in the past on man-portable surface-to-air missiles, or MANPADS, in efforts to tighten controls on dangerous conventional weapons. -------- chemical weapons Nerve Agent Destruction Halted in Indiana after 500-Gallon Wastewater Spill October 31, 2005 — By Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9133 NEWPORT, Ind. — Army contractors halted operations Saturday at a western Indiana complex built to destroy a deadly nerve agent after nearly 500 gallons of caustic wastewater spilled in a contained area. No workers were injured or exposed to the hydrolysate, a byproduct of the destruction of the agent, when it leaked onto the floor of a sealed area at the Newport Chemical Depot, depot spokesman Dennis Lindsey said. The facility was to be shut down until the spill was cleaned up and its cause determined, Lindsey said. The western Indiana facility destroys the Cold War-era chemical weapon VX using a mixture of heated sodium hydroxide and water. A droplet is enough to kill a healthy human. The leak occurred in a recirculation loop that workers use to take samples of material to ensure that each batch of chemically neutralized VX contains no trace of the nerve agent. In May, workers for Army contractor Parsons Technology Inc. began destroying more than 250,000 gallons of VX. The project was halted in June after a leak allowed about 30 gallons of VX, sodium hydroxide and water to spill in a contained area. Work resumed in late August; Lindsey said the valve system that was replaced after the June incident worked properly during the latest leak. Pending federal approval, the Army plans to ship millions of gallons of hydrolysate to a DuPont Inc., plant in New Jersey for treatment and eventual discharge into the Delaware River. -------- iraq US admits it has counted 26,000 Iraqi dead By Daniel Howden and David Usborne in New York Published: 31 October 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article323498.ece The Pentagon has admitted for the first time that it is keeping track of civilian casualties in Iraq. The figures, slipped into a bar graph in a lengthy report to the US congress this month, show that the daily number of Iraqi casualties has more than doubled in the past 18 months. The report says that nearly 26,000 Iraqis have been killed or wounded in attacks by insurgents, with an estimated 26 casualties a day between January and March of last year, rising to 64 a day in the run up to the referendum on the new constitution. This contradicts the Pentagon's assertion that the security situation in Iraq is improving - and that appearances to the contrary reflect the media's focus on bombings in and around Baghdad. Previously, the US military has insisted it kept records of the casualties among only its own personnel, and avoided discussion about civilian tolls. It also refuses to release information on the number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded by US forces. Washington and London have regularly doubted independent estimates of the number of Iraqis killed since the 2003 invasion. Pentagon officials said the report was only a rough estimate and did not distinguish between civilian casualties and members of Iraq's nascent security services killed or wounded in insurgency attacks. "They have begun to realise that when you focus only on the US it gives the impression that the US doesn't care about Iraqis," Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a research group in Washington told The New York Times. Greg Hicks, a Pentagon spokesman, trying to play down the significance of the information, said: "It's a kind of a snapshot. The Defence Department doesn't maintain a comprehensive or authoritative count of Iraqi casualties." The estimates in the graph were based on casualty reports filed by US and allied forces who responded to attacks, but Mr Hicks noted that troops did not respond to all attacks. The graph appeared in a quarterly audit of Iraq operations. Analysis carried out by the independent group Iraq Body Count, which compiles statistics for civilian casualties based on reports by news outlets, suggests the figure of 26,000 casualties would correspond to a death toll of nearly 6,500 - based on a ratio of one death for every three casualties. This figure is lower than Iraq Body Count's estimate for the same period of 11,613, which includes those killed by US and allied forces. It is also lower than the Iraqi Interior Ministry estimate for the period from August 2004 to May this year of 8,175. The appearance of the graph will increase pressure on the Pentagon to be more open in releasing data on fatalities in Iraq. Hamit Dardagan from Iraq Body Count told The New York Times: "We now know that the US military does keep records of Iraqi civilian deaths. There seems to be no obvious reason for keeping them a secret." * Ghalib Abdul Mehdi, a brother of Adel Abdul Mehdi, a prominent Shia politician, and his driver were killed yesterday in Baghdad in an attack claimed by al-Qa'ida in Iraq. In a separate incident, Qais Dawoud Hassan, the deputy Trade Minister was wounded in an ambush.The attacks came one day after a bomber killed 30 people after luring them to a truck bomb disguised as a date vendor's van in Howaider, north of Baghdad. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Known for Discretion, Libby Is A Surprising Figure in CIA Leak By Lois Romano Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 31, 2005; A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103001130_pf.html Friends recall how relieved I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was that his 15 minutes of fame seemed to be behind him, when as Marc Rich's lawyer he was hauled before an aggressive congressional committee investigating how the fugitive financier came to be pardoned by President Bill Clinton. For a man known to thrive on anonymity, who as Vice President Cheney's top aide would only talk to reporters if his name was not used, and who cautioned White House subordinates not to talk to the media -- no one, least of all Libby, expected an encore. If only he had known his next 15 minutes would turn out so badly, that he would spiral from the pinnacle of government power to criminal charges. The senior White House aide was in seclusion over the weekend at his McLean home with his wife and two grade-school-age children trying, as one friend said, "to put one foot in front of the other," after being indicted Friday on five counts of lying, perjury and obstructing justice -- the only person charged in the 22-month CIA leak investigation. Libby, 55, was braced for the worst, his friends say, but not necessarily prepared, as he pushed through what were likely his darkest days leading up to the indictment. He was grieving over his mother's death about 10 days ago -- the same day he learned that White House adviser Karl Rove told the grand jury that Libby may have been the first to inform him of the identity of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame. A few days later, Libby's relationship with New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- who spent 85 days in jail protecting his identity as a source -- was described enigmatically as an "entanglement" by the paper's executive editor. And on Friday, the man who friends insist was honored to serve for all the right reasons was forced to resign his $161,000 job as the vice president's chief of staff and as a special assistant to the president -- hobbling out of the White House on crutches because he recently broke his foot. "He has no sense of entitlement, no sense that he's been victimized. Just an attitude of 'circumstances have to be dealt with,' " said Mary Matalin, a friend and former White House colleague, who spoke to Libby over the weekend. "He knows he has got a job to do, and he will get it done. . . . Whining is not in his lexicon." Matalin described Libby's friends as "crushed" by the turn of events -- and all of those interviewed expressed bewilderment that a man so meticulous, so discreet, so smart -- could end up in this situation. The investigation was triggered when news outlets reported that Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV -- a very vocal White House critic on the war -- was a CIA operative. Although Libby was spared an even more serious charge -- purposely unmasking Plame -- reporters testified that Libby did steer them to her. No one would ruminate on the record about Libby's motives, but there is speculation that perhaps Libby is falling on his sword to protect Cheney, not only his boss, but also a personal friend. The two ride into work together in Cheney's motorcade most mornings. Although Libby testified otherwise under oath, his own notes indicate that it was Cheney who first told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. What is not known is whether Cheney was aware of -- or sanctioned -- Libby's effort to discredit Wilson and his wife. "I've thought about this all night," said one acquaintance. "One possibility is that Scooter was just pushing back because Wilson was after them -- but it just went too far. And frankly he may have thought the reporters would never testify." Another, who worked with Libby in the White House and considers him a friend, echoed the position of Libby's lawyer: "Perhaps he really did get balled up in the sequencing of his conversations and didn't remember who first told him about her. Unless you've been there, you can't imagine what those jobs are like. It starts at 6 in the morning and ends 8, 9, 10, 11 at night. Seven days a week the phone is ringing off the hook. . . . Not many people would be able to recall who you talked to first." Friends say Libby is working on expanding his legal team to include white-collar criminal lawyers to get him through this week's arraignment and a potential trial. But at least two close friends worried that the legal battle facing Libby would wipe him out financially. He left a high-paying job at a law firm to work in government five years ago, and he had recently talked to friends about returning to private practice to rebuild his finances. His wife, Harriet Grant, was a Democratic staff lawyer on the Senate Judiciary Committee who chose to stay home after their children were born. "It takes a lot of dough to deal with this, and I would not characterize him as wealthy," said Jackson Hogan, a friend from Andover and Yale. "It wouldn't take too long to empty the family's coffers with legal bills." Another friend who, like others interviewed, spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case, said that Libby had often talked about going back into the private sector to secure his family's future. "He certainly does not have enough money -- not with what he's facing now," the friend said. Some friends are planning to set up a legal defense fund to help Libby. He found his way into government in the early 1980s through his mentor Paul D. Wolfowitz, now president of the World Bank, whom he met when Wolfowitz was teaching at Yale. An undersecretary of state at the time, Wolfowitz hired him as a speechwriter and later brought Libby to the Defense Department with him. From those early days in government, Libby developed an interest in terrorism, particularly chemical warfare. He also built a reputation in Washington as a self-effacing public servant, more interested in service than power, more interested in dealing with terrorism than pushing a political agenda. "Despite what you read, Scooter Libby is not an ideologue," said another longtime friend who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He was very much a pragmatist." It is for this reason that those who know him are astonished that a quiet guy who writes fiction and is interested in poetry, and who strove to stay under the radar screen, is now viewed as a guy who talked too much to reporters, and who concocted a story to cover up his role in the revealing of Plame. William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said that he never viewed Libby as anything but discreet and honorable in his dealings with the media. "If I talk to 10 people at the White House, the other nine are more open than Scooter. . . . We got nothing from him." "I remember he would tell us early on not to take a lot of notes -- and if you do, get rid of them shortly thereafter. And not to talk to the press," said Cesar V. Conda, a former domestic policy aide to Cheney. "If there was such an award in high school -- most likely not to be indicted -- that would have been him," said Ed Rogers, a veteran of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. "He's a by-the-book guy, sure-footed and careful. He's not someone known to play footsie with reporters." But journalists he spoke to testified that Libby did just that -- that it was Libby who tipped them off to Plame's identity. "I know he has a story. Believe me, he'll answer," Matalin said. "People who wish the best for Scooter . . . have to take a step back. It's so completely inconsistent with Scooter's work ethic, his intelligence and his history. There's no context in the indictment . . . it's only one side of the story." ---- Did Cheney Know Plame Was Undercover? by DAVID CORN The Nation [posted online on October 31, 2005] http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20051114&s=cornweb The Scooter Libby indictment is rather straightforward. He first told FBI agents and later the grand jury that he had no independent information regarding Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie (and her employment at the CIA). He said that he only had picked up rumors about Wilson's wife from reporters and that this was the information he passed to other reporters. He said he wasn't even certain the scuttlebutt he had shared with the journalists was correct. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald uncovered evidence, which seems rather strong, that Libby actively gathered information on the Wilsons from the CIA and the State Department before talking to reporters about Valerie Wilson. And the most intriguing piece of evidence Fitzgerald mentioned in the indictment (with, alas, no elaboration) was that on June 12, 2003--nearly a month before Joseph Wilson published his now-infamous op-ed piece on his trip to Niger but several weeks after he had shared information about this trip with the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as an anonymous source--Vice President Dick Cheney told Libby, in the words of the indictment, that "Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division." By sharing this information with Libby, Cheney was telling his chief of staff that Wilson's wife was employed by the Operations Directorate of the CIA--the clandestine service of the intelligence agency where undercover officers work. The Counterproliferation Division is part of the DO--as it been called within the CIA--and anyone familiar with the CIA, especially a senior administration official obsessed with weapons of mass destruction ought to know that. This short sentence suggests that Libby had reason to assume that (or wonder if) Valerie Wilson was working undercover at the CIA. As Barton Gellman noted in an important front-pager in Sunday's Washington Post, this statement from Cheney was ...an unambiguous declaration that [Valerie Wilson's] position was among the case officers of the operations directorate... It's possible that Libby didn't catch the significance of Cheney's assertion. Or that he figured--wrongly--for some reason that Valerie Wilson worked in the Operations Directorate but was not operating under cover. But if the indictment is accurate--and Cheney's office has not challenged it--Libby at the very least was profoundly careless in discussing Valerie Wilson with two reporters (Judith Miller of fhe New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time) without first checking on her position at the CIA. After all, it was the Vice President who had told him that she worked in the clandestine portion of the CIA. Let's sum up: Libby disclosed identifying information about a covert official of the US intelligence service after being told she was employed by a division of the Operations Directorate. This scenario comes close to being a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and it does appear that Fitzgerald, even recently, had contemplated seeking an indictment of Libby or someone else under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Just last week, FBI agents working with Fitzgerald were investigating issues that would be relevant to such a prosecution. But perhaps Fitzgerald realized it would be difficult to pursue this sort of case because Libby (or anyone else) could mount a defense by claiming he had not checked to see if Valerie Wilson specifically was under cover and, thus, did not really, really know her status. Conservative and Republican critics of the leak investigation have long argued that since there was no way Fitzgerald could indict anyone under the narrowly drafted (and poorly written) Intelligence Identities Protection Act, his whole inquiry was pointless. But this one sentence is a hint that Fitzgerald came close. And his investigation, Fitzgerald says, is not over yet. This sentence suggests Libby was either damn close to breaking that law or recklessly negligent by not determining Valerie Wilson's CIA position before discussing her with reporters. Moreover, it prompts serious questions about Cheney. How did he find out about Valerie Wilson? The indictment notes that "Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." But from whom at the CIA? The indictment does not say. Shouldn't Cheney have realized that a person working at the DO's Counterproliferation Division was probably--or possibly--an undercover official? Given Cheney's long years of government service--when he was in the House of Representatives he sat on the intelligence committee--it's not a stretch to expect that Cheney would understand a DO officer might be undercover and that one should handle information about such a public servant with much care. (As the indictment notes, Libby was "obligated by applicable laws and regulations...not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information." Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA, the indictment says, was "classified.") Yet Cheney's chief of staff leaked information on Valerie Wilson to reporters. As the Post piece notes, on July 12, 2003--six days after Wilson published his op-ed--Libby apparently discussed with Cheney what he should say to reporters, particularly Matt Cooper, about the Wilson imbroglio. The indictment does not disclose what Cheney said to Libby at this point. But the next day, Libby confirmed for Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Would Libby have done so had Cheney told him to be careful not to identify a DO officer when discussing the Wilson affair with reporters? Perhaps so. But it's not unreasonable to wonder if Libby was--inadvertently or knowingly--spreading classified information about an undercover officer with the tacit or explicit consent of his boss. The indictment does not resolve this issue, and Fitzgerald is not likely to offer any other evidence about Cheney's conversations with Libby unless he produces additional indictments. At his press conference, Fitzgerald yielded no hints as to whether other indictments would come. The consensus of reporters there--which I shared--is that he acted like a fellow who was close to done with this endeavor; other close-watchers of the scandal that I have spoken with since have offered various analyses that lead to the--wishful?--conclusion that more indictments are on their way. But the questions generated by this one line in the Libby indictment could be resolved if Cheney would speak candidly about his role in the leak affair. What exactly did he tell Libby about Valerie Wilson? What did the two discuss during that July 12, 2003, conversation regarding what Libby should say to reporters? And what was Cheney doing seeking out information on Joseph and Valerie Wilson on his own? Why did he not rely on Libby or other staffers? Why was this macher down in the weeds? When he learned that Valerie Wilson worked at the DO's Counterproliferation Division, what was he told about her job there? Now that it is clear--according to the statements of Cooper and Miller--that Libby did reveal the identity of a DO officer to reporters, why hasn't Cheney expressed any regrets, apologized, or acknowledged his role in the affair? And when the White House and Bush declared in the fall of 2003 that Karl Rove and Libby were not "involved in the leak," why did Cheney not speak up and note that he, for one, had sought out information on Valerie Wilson and shared this sensitive material with Libby? If Fitzgerald has answers to these questions but cannot make them public because he is bound by law not to reveal grand jury evidence that does not appear in an indictment, there is no reason why Cheney and the White House cannot address such matters and tell the public what transpired. Bush did say in 2003 that he wanted the truth to come out. And recently his press secretary, Scott McClellan, said that FItzgerald should "determine the facts and then outline those facts for the American people." Cheney and the White House can say that Fitzgerald has asked people involved in his investigation not to talk publicly about the matter--a request, not an order--but perhaps Cheney can agree to tell all at a no-holds-barred press conference once Fitzgerald signals his probe is completed. Cheney champions and Bush backers have claimed that the narrow indictment Fitzgerald issued shows that the leak was not a criminal act. But it was an act of wrongdoing an it was a violation of government rules that prohibit officials from divulging classified information. According to the Libby indictment, Cheney--wittingly or not--helped Scooter Libby break the rules (governing the handling of classified information) if not the law. The White House has said the American public deserves to know what happened. That one sentence--and other issues raised by the Libby indictment--warrant much explanation from Cheney and the Bush White House. -------- us politics Rumsfeld's growing stake in Tamiflu Defense Secretary, ex-chairman of flu treatment rights holder, sees portfolio value growing. October 31, 2005: 10:55 AM EST By Nelson D. Schwartz, Fortune senior writer http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/?cnn=yes NEW YORK (Fortune) - The prospect of a bird flu outbreak may be panicking people around the globe, but it's proving to be very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences, the California biotech company that owns the rights to Tamiflu, the influenza remedy that's now the most-sought after drug in the world. Rumsfeld served as Gilead (Research)'s chairman from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001, and he still holds a Gilead stake valued at between $5 million and $25 million, according to federal financial disclosures filed by Rumsfeld. The forms don't reveal the exact number of shares Rumsfeld owns, but in the past six months fears of a pandemic and the ensuing scramble for Tamiflu have sent Gilead's stock from $35 to $47. That's made the Pentagon chief, already one of the wealthiest members of the Bush cabinet, at least $1 million richer. Rumsfeld isn't the only political heavyweight benefiting from demand for Tamiflu, which is manufactured and marketed by Swiss pharma giant Roche. (Gilead receives a royalty from Roche equaling about 10% of sales.) Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is on Gilead's board, has sold more than $7 million worth of Gilead since the beginning of 2005. Another board member is the wife of former California Gov. Pete Wilson. "I don't know of any biotech company that's so politically well-connected," says analyst Andrew McDonald of Think Equity Partners in San Francisco. What's more, the federal government is emerging as one of the world's biggest customers for Tamiflu. In July, the Pentagon ordered $58 million worth of the treatment for U.S. troops around the world, and Congress is considering a multi-billion dollar purchase. Roche expects 2005 sales for Tamiflu to be about $1 billion, compared with $258 million in 2004. Rumsfeld recused himself from any decisions involving Gilead when he left Gilead and became Secretary of Defense in early 2001. And late last month, notes a senior Pentagon official, Rumsfeld went even further and had the Pentagon's general counsel issue additional instructions outlining what he could and could not be involved in if there were an avian flu pandemic and the Pentagon had to respond. As the flu issue heated up early this year, according to the Pentagon official, Rumsfeld considered unloading his entire Gilead stake and sought the advice of the Department of Justice, the SEC and the federal Office of Government Ethics. Those agencies didn't offer an opinion so Rumsfeld consulted a private securities lawyer, who advised him that it was safer to hold on to the stock and be quite public about his recusal rather than sell and run the risk of being accused of trading on insider information, something Rumsfeld doesn't believe he possesses. So he's keeping his shares for the time being. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy France Looks to Frying Pan to Fire Biofuel Story by Muriel Boselli REUTERS FRANCE: October 31, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33226/story.htm PARIS - French biofuel makers are turning to kitchen waste in the shape of used fats and oils as they seek ways to meet the country's ambitious target for renewable energy sources to supply 10 percent of all fuels by 2015. "We need to study all existing possibilities if we want to reach the 10 percent target," said a spokesman for oilseed growers' group FOP, which, with its financial arm Sofiproteol, owns over half of Diester Industrie, France's main biodiesel producer. France plans to raise biofuels' share of the market to 5.75 percent by end-2008, seven percent by end-2010 and 10 percent by 2015, becoming Europe's top producer in the next five years. Industry players have welcomed the targets, but say the long-term goals may be a struggle. To reach the seven percent target, the grain and oilseed area devoted to biofuel output will have to increase tenfold to three million hectares. Biodiesel makers, which mainly use rapeseed, say one way to meet the targets would be to use small amounts of used cooking oil and animal fat but warn that France lags other countries in developing the necessary technology. "Their development has already started in Germany, Austria, Italy or Spain," said Etienne Poitrat, an engineer at the French Agency for Environment and Energy Management (ADEME). "They are cheap raw materials we mustn’t disregard, but it is important to refine them properly," the FOP spokesman added. Diester Industrie joined forces earlier this month with US-based multinational Bunge to create Diester Industrie International, grouping the companies' biofuel assets elsewhere in Europe. Bunge's Italian subsidiary Novaol has experience in new oil processing techniques and has been turning 50 percent of cooking oil used in McDonald's restaurants in France into biodiesel since 2003. The other 50 percent is bought by Vital, a German biodiesel manufacturer specialising in blending. NEW INITIATIVES More biofuel projects involving such alternatives are starting to emerge in France. "It's a great time to get into that kind of business," said Jean Quentin, who has set up Gazoleo, a firm aiming to produce up to 100 million litres of a five percent ether derived from animal fat and 95 percent diesel mix, which could keep 100,000 cars on the road for a year. "Animal fats as well as animal by-products are wasted right now because they have been banned from animal feed since 1996 due to the mad cow crisis," he said. "The second project is by French oil giant Total and has good chances of succeeding," Poitrat said, referring to the firm's plans to build a 200,000-tonne biodiesel production unit using a mix of vegetable oils and animal fats. "The unit should be built in France and should participate in the government's aim to reach the 5.75 percent biofuel share in fuels by the end of 2008," he added. -------- OTHER -------- environment Tribes Should Get Faster Decisions on Managing Tribal Environment WASHINGTON, DC, October 31, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2005/2005-10-31-09.asp#anchor5 The Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Clean Air Acts authorize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to treat eligible Indian tribes in the same manner as a state (Treat as State, or TAS) for implementing and managing environmental programs on Indian lands. But some states fear that tribes receiving authority to manage these programs may set standards that exceed the state standards and hinder states’ economic development. The investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), was asked to report on the extent to which the EPA has followed its processes for reviewing and approving tribal applications for TAS and program authorization under the three laws. The GAO also reviewed programs EPA uses to fund tribal environmental activities and the amount of funds provided to tribes between fiscal years 2002 and 2004, and the types of disagreements between parties over EPA’s approval of TAS status and program authorization and methods used to address these disagreements. GAO investigators concluded that the EPA should reduce the review time for tribal requests to manage environmental programs. The EPA provided Indian tribes about $360 million in grants to fund a broad range of tribal environmental activities from fiscal years 2002 through 2004, the GAO found. About half of these funds were distributed through two acts - the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act, which received about $114 million to help build capacity to administer environmental programs, and the Clean Water Act, which received about $66 million to help prevent and reduce water pollution. The EPA generally followed its established processes for reviewing and approving tribal requests for TAS and program authority under the three acts, according to GAO’s analysis of approved requests, but the review time for approving these requests took up to four years. In addition, nearly all of the requests currently under review were submitted more than one year ago. Key factors contributing to the lengthy reviews include the multiple reviews required by the agency’s regional and headquarters offices, a lack of emphasis within the agency to complete the reviews in a timely manner, and turnover of tribal and EPA staff. Moreover, the EPA has not developed a written strategy that establishes overall time frames for reviewing requests. EPA officials agreed that more could be done to improve the timeliness of the review process but said that complex issues, including evolving Indian case law and jurisdictional issues, may have contributed to the lengthy reviews. Since 1986, when Congress began amending the three environmental acts to allow TAS for tribes, disagreements over land boundaries and environmental standards have arisen between tribes, states, and others. Disagreements have been addressed through litigation, collaboration, and federal laws. The investigators found that the EPA’s review process is not always transparent on the status of tribes’ TAS requests. Lack of transparency limits tribes’ understanding of what issues may be delaying EPA’s approval and what actions, if any, may be needed to address the issues. The GAO recommends that the environmental agency develop a written strategy, including estimated time frames, for reviewing tribes’ TAS applications for program authority and updating the tribes on the review status. In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA agreed with the GAO’s findings and emphasized its commitment to addressing the issues raised in the report.