NucNews - November 17, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- business GE Technology helps Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant achieve record outage time Work Covers Steam Turbine-Generator at 700-MW Facility November 17, 2005 Electric Energy Online http://www.electricenergyonline.com/IndustryNews.asp?m=1&id=43492 ATLANTA, GEORGIA – GE Energy has completed this year's inspection and maintenance outage for the steam turbine-generator unit at the only operating nuclear plant in Romania in a record time of just 23 days, greatly improving on the more than 30 days typically required for this process. The work was performed under a five-year contractual service agreement (CSA) that GE signed last year with Societatea Nationala Nucleoelectrica S.A. (SNN), the national nuclear utility of Romania. The agreement covers maintenance, parts and services for the Unit 1 steam turbine, generator and related balance of plant equipment at the Cernavoda Nuclear Power Station (CNE-PROD) located approximately 165 kilometers east of the Romanian capital of Bucharest. Reducing the length of this year's outage enabled the plant to produce an additional 170 gigawatt/hours of power for the Romanian grid, resulting in major economic benefits for the plant owner. "The use of our latest service technology and advanced outage planning process, executed with the full support and cooperation of SNN, enabled us to achieve this highly successful result," said Dan Ionescu, GE’s Regional Executive for Southeastern Europe. "Over the life of the CSA, we will continue to supply high-tech products and services that meet the requirements of SNN in Romania." The agreement with SNN marks GE's first CSA with a nuclear power facility in Eastern Europe. "This is a region with growing power needs, where we see strong opportunities to use our service technology and experience to help power plant operators extend the reliable operation of their facilities," Ionescu added. GE originally supplied the steam turbine and generator for the 700-megawatt Unit 1 at Cernavoda, which meets more than 10% of Romania's electricity requirements. A second unit is under construction and is scheduled for completion in 2007. SNN’s long-term plans call for five nuclear units at the Cernavoda site. "Our joint efforts and business partnership with GE have brought success and benefits. We will continue this cooperation towards even bigger challenges in the future," said Teodor Chirica, president of Nucleoelectrica. Established in 1998, SNN's primary mission is the production of nuclear power and nuclear fuel, and the continuing development of the Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant. SNN reports to Romania's Ministry of Industry and Trade. About GE Energy GE Energy (www.ge.com/energy) is one of the world's leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technology, with 2004 revenues of $17.3 billion. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, GE Energy provides equipment, service and management solutions across the power generation, transmission and distribution, distributed power and energy rental industries. For More Information Contact Dennis Murphy GE Energy +1 678 844 6948 dennis.murphy@ge.com -------- canada Nuclear and Wind to Produce Hydrogen Thursday, November 17, 2005 http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/11/nuclear-and-wind-to-produce-hydrogen.html That's an idea two scientists from Canada are exploring: In the system envisioned by Alistair Miller and Romney Duffey of Atomic Energy of Canada, nuclear power plants would be paired with wind turbines to power electrolysis cells, which make hydrogen by passing an electric current through water. Wind on its own is too variable, Miller says, leaving electrolysis equipment frequently idle and driving up costs. "The economics just don't work," he says. "It produces very expensive hydrogen." Pairing it with nuclear would keep the equipment operating closer to full capacity and bring the cost down, he says. A bonus is that when the wind is strong and electricity demand is high, excess power can be sold at a profit to the grid. This means that, unlike traditional electricity-based hydrogen production, Miller's system actually makes hydrogen cheaper as the cost of electricity goes up. -------- europe Romanian nuclear power station shut down after 'minor fault' BUCHAREST (AFP) Nov 17, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051117162524.qtzn0555.html A nuclear power station in southeastern Romania was shut down on Thursday due to a "minor fault", the economic ministry said, adding that the incident did not threaten the plant's safety. A wrong signal at the plant in Cernavoda "led to an electric generator being disconnected and a drop in pressure", the ministry said in a statement. "Because of this incident, the Termoelectrica company has put coal-fired power plants in Braila and Borzesti back into service to ensure the country's energy needs are met," the statement said. Work may begin to get the Cernavoda station up and running again as soon as Friday, the ministry said. The plant uses the Canadian Candu 6 process, relying on natural uranium and heavy water. The first and only one of five units originally due to be on-stream by now has a capacity of 705 megawatts and provides around 10 percent of Romania's energy needs. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Scientists Work on New Nuclear Weapons by David Kestenbaum All Things Considered, November 17, 2005 NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5017369 For the first time in nearly 20 years, U.S. nuclear weapons labs are drawing up plans for new atomic bombs. They would replace the ageing warheads in today's missiles with more robust ones that would be easier to maintain. The work would completely transform the country's nuclear arsenal. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- nevada Energy Inspector General: More Suspect Yucca Mountain E-Mails November 17, 2005 — By Erica Werner, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9271 WASHINGTON — There is more evidence of questionable work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada, an Energy Department inspector general's report said Wednesday. Criminal investigations already were underway into a batch of e-mails the Energy Department disclosed in March that suggest government scientists falsified data on the project. The inspector general uncovered more e-mails that raise new questions about work on the project. "The office of inspector general found e-mails by other authors that identified possible conditions adverse to quality at Yucca," the report said. "However, these e-mails had not been identified by Yucca personnel as requiring further review." One e-mail cited by the report says that the office of quality assurance "just discovered that (quality assurance) software requirements were being ignored." Another says: "We may want to backdate the notebook to when we started putting things together." The report doesn't say who wrote the e-mails or how many were found, and a spokeswoman for the inspector general said she couldn't elaborate because of the criminal investigation into the original e-mails. Those were written by U.S. Geological Survey scientists studying how water moved through the dump site in the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It's not clear whether the newly discovered e-mails dealt with the same issue. The report also says Yucca Mountain workers have not adequately focused on quality control in their reviews of e-mails written in connection with the project, and they should go back and look at approximately 10 million project e-mails. The e-mails and other documents are being reviewed as the Energy Department readies an application for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to operate the dump. Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the Energy Department, said department managers have signed off on a corrective action plan to implement the report's recommendations. He said the 10 million e-mails -- plus an additional 4 million subsequently discovered -- will be reviewed through statistical sampling "We certainly appreciate the information the inspector general gave and the recommendations the inspector general presented and this is something we take very seriously," Stevens said. Problems at the Yucca Mountain dump, including the e-mail controversy, have delayed the projected opening date by years and it's now not expected until after 2012. The dump was approved by Congress in 2002 as a national repository for 77,000 tons of spent reactor fuel and high-level defense nuclear waste. It faces strong opposition from Nevada lawmakers. -------- vermont Engineer terms Yankee reactor cracks 'significant' November 17, 2005 By Susan Smallheer Rutland Herald Staff http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051117/NEWS/511170397/1003 BRATTLEBORO — A retired research engineer from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified on behalf of an anti-nuclear group Wednesday that the proposed power boost at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant left many serious questions still unanswered. Joram Hopenfeld told members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent arm of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that the biggest question mark was the condition of Vermont Yankee's steam dryer and he said the recent discovery of additional cracks was "significant." Just last week Entergy Nuclear, owner of Vermont Yankee, announced that new high-tech tests revealed 42 additional cracks in the steel component, for a total of 62 cracks discovered since the 17-foot-wide component started undergoing additional scrutiny in 2004. Despite their recent discovery, the cracks, mostly hairline, are believed to be about 30 years old. Regulators are unsure what caused the cracks, but have determined that continued operation at current power levels is safe, but left open the question of the power boost. The steam dryer is considered a critical component in any power boost because other nuclear reactors which have undergone similar power production boosts have developed serious problems in their dryers, causing the plants to shut down. Wednesday marked the second of two days of testimony and public comment before the national panel, which is made up of nuclear experts from all over the country. Wednesday's panel included nuclear researchers, consultants and college professors and focused on the thermal-hydraulics of the plant. Hopenfeld wasn't the only scientist testifying Wednesday who still had concerns about the 20 percent power boost, which recently won preliminary approval from the NRC staff with a positive safety evaluation of the proposal. The NRC however has recommended additional monitoring and testing of the reactor as a required condition. William Sherman, the Vermont state nuclear engineer, said that Entergy's plans for calculating the pressure inside the reactor during an emergency cut back on the so-called defense-in-depth philosophy, or the multiple layers of safety systems to protect the public from a catastrophe. "Modification of the 'defense-in-depth' concept is troublesome," Sherman testified, adding that the NRC staff had only addressed "part of the problem, but not the whole problem." Vermont has locked horns with the NRC staff over the issue, and has initiated a separate proceeding before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a quasi-judicial arm of the NRC. Sen. Roderick Gander, D-Windham, won a standing ovation from about 100 area residents who came for the afternoon session when he told the advisory group that it was "the last line of defense" for the people of the region, who had voted twice in recent town meetings against the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. "We're really counting on you," he told the group, asserting that Entergy had successfully manipulated the regulatory process by applying for three separate permits — power boost, high-level waste storage in Vernon, and a 20-year license extension — rather than in one, complete and comprehensive application. "All of them should have been bundled, it's been maddening," Gander said. Gander said that Entergy was poised to make a minimum profit of an additional $20 million a year from the additional power — power that is not currently needed by Vermont power companies. Gander said that the issue boiled down to safety versus a corporation's profits, a theme voiced by many who spoke. "Profits are fine," Gander said, "but this is a license to coin money, a license to steal." Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. -------- MILITARY -------- business US Contractor Charged For Iraq Graft Thursday, November 17th, 2005 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/1515217 The New York Times is reporting an American businessman has been charged with paying bribes and kickbacks to American occupation authorities in return for reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Phillip Bloom, who received up to $3.5 million in contracts, has been charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and transportation of stolen property. The indictment also includes two officials with the Coalition Provisional Authority, the US-controlled body that ruled the country until June 2004. Indictments are expected in several other investigations of US officials and contractors. A spokesperson for the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction said: "This is the first case, but it won't be the last." -------- chemical weapons US Defends Use of White Phosphorus Weapons in Iraq Story by Will Dunham REUTERS USA: November 17, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33502/newsDate/17-Nov-2005/story.htm WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Wednesday acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Falluja and defended their use as legal, amid concerns by arms control advocates. Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said the US military had not used the highly flammable weapons against civilians, contrary to an Italian state television report this month that stated the munitions were used against men, women and children in Falluja who were burned to the bone. "We categorically deny that claim," Venable said. "It's part of our conventional-weapons inventory and we use it like we use any other conventional weapon," added Bryan Whitman, another Pentagon spokesman. Venable said white phosphorus weapons are not outlawed or banned by any convention. However, a protocol to an accord on conventional weapons which took effect in 1983 forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians. The protocol also forbids their use against military targets within concentrations of civilians, except when the targets are clearly separated from civilians and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid civilian casualties. The United States is a party to the overall accord, but has not ratified the incendiary-weapons protocol or another involving blinding laser weapons. White phosphorus munitions are primarily used by the US military to make smoke screens and mark targets, but also as an incendiary weapon, the Pentagon said. They are not considered chemical weapons. The substance ignites easily in air at temperatures of about 86 degrees F (30 C), and its fire can be difficult to extinguish. 'APPROPRIATE OR NOT' Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, questioned whether the US military was using the weapons in a manner consistent with the conventional weapons convention. "White phosphorous weapons should not be used just like any other conventional weapon," Kimball said. Kimball called for an independent review of how the United States was using the weapons and possibly an investigation by countries that are parties to the convention "to determine whether their use in Iraq is appropriate or not." US forces used the white phosphorus during a major offensive launched by Marines in Falluja, about 30 miles (50 km) west of Baghdad, to flush out insurgents. The battle in November of last year involved some of the toughest urban fighting of the 2-1/2-year war. Venable said that in the Falluja battle, "US forces used white phosphorous both in its classic screening mechanism and ... when they encountered insurgents who were in foxholes and other covered positions who they could not dislodge any other way." He said the soldiers employed a "shake-and-bake" technique of using white phosphorus shells to flush enemies out of hiding and then use high explosives artillery rounds to kill them. The Italian documentary showed images of bodies recovered after the Falluja offensive, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against civilians. "We don't target any civilians with any of our weapons. And to suggest that US forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would simply be wrong," Whitman said. -------- prisoners of war Senate Reaches "Compromise" on Habeas Corpus that Could Still Strip Guantanamo Detainees of any Trial Thursday, November 17th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/1515231 The Senate this week approved what lawmakers hailed as a bipartisan "compromise" on legal rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees that can still strip them of a federal trial. We speak with attorneys Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights and David Rivkin who served in the administrations of President Reagan and George HW Bush. [includes rush transcript] Facing intense criticism from human rights, legal and civil liberties groups, the Senate voted on Tuesday to restore some of the rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Under the deal - worked out by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Carl Levin - detainees convicted by military tribunals can have their cases reviewed by federal courts. Graham sponsored the original amendment hastily passed by the Senate last Thursday that stripped detainees of their right to Habeas Corpus which is their right to challenge their detention in federal courts. This amendment overturned a June 2004 Supreme Court ruling that had affirmed detainees right to Habeus Corpus. The compromise, reached with Levin, still reverses the Supreme Court ruling but allows any detainee sentenced to death or at least 10 years in prison by a military tribunal, to automatically appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In addition, the deal restores federal court jurisdiction over pending cases and provides for a court review of whether standards and procedures of the tribunals are consistent with the Constitution. Graham also linked the legislation with another measure by Arizona Senator John McCain that forbids U.S. troops from torturing or abusing detainees. That measure was overwhelmingly passed by the Senate last month. We will be discussing this issue with two attorneys who have followed this closely. But first I want to play a clip from an interview that I conducted with Professor Peter Linebaugh when I was in Ann Arbor Micghigan last March. Professor Linebaugh teaches history at the University of Toledo and is author of the article, "The Secret History of the Magna Carta." The Magna Carta is the English charter signed in 1215 that articulates the right of Habeus Corpus and is the basis of much of American constitutional law. * Peter Linebaugh, University of Toledo professor and author of the article, "The Secret History of the Magna Carta." To talk about the Senate legislation on Habeas Corpus and detainees at Guantanamo Bay we are joined by two attorneys: * Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. * David Rivkin, a partner in the Washington law firm Baker & Hostetler. He served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He is a member of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We'll be discussing this issue with two attorneys who’ve followed this closely. But first, I wanted to play a clip from an interview that I did with Professor Peter Linebaugh when I was in Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, last March. Professor Linebaugh teaches history at University of Toledo and is author of the article, "The Secret History of the Magna Carta." The Magna Carta is the English charter signed in 1215 that articulates the right of habeas corpus and is the basis of much of American constitutional law. I began by asking Professor Linebaugh to explain the significance of the Magna Carta. PETER LINEBAUGH: It still plays a very important part in law against tyranny. For example, last summer in June 2004, when the Supreme Court admitted that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay should have some kind of judicial hearing, Magna Carta was cited. Or two months ago in December, the House of Lords in England struck down the English equivalent to the PATRIOT bill on the grounds of arbitrary arrest, putting people away without a trial or an indictment. And we've seen in England, Ian McDonald, for example, a barrister, has resigned from any of the kangaroo courts on the grounds that this is a violation of Magna Carta. AMY GOODMAN: I then asked Professor Linebaugh how the Magna Carta relates to the detentions at Guantanamo. PETER LINEBAUGH: It prohibits torture, and it says that no man -- no free man may be arrested or imprisoned without due process of law and judgment by his or her peers. So you can see already, in quoting that chapter, as I've just done, that its provisions are violated in Guantanamo Bay. All four that I cited. There's no jury trial. There's without due process of law, without habeas corpus. And by the exercise of torture. So these are the ways that in Guantanamo Bay it is violated. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Peter Linebaugh, speaking recently in Ann Arbor. When we come back, we'll be joined by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [break] AMY GOODMAN: Our guests, Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and David Rivkin, a partner at the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler, a visiting fellow at the Nixon Center and contributing editor of The National Review magazine, as well as a member of the U.N. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which is an expert body supporting the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Juan? JUAN GONZALEZ: Michael, I'd like to begin with you. Your assessment of the compromise that was reached by the Senate on this issue? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, we don't like it. I mean, since 1789 and really even since the Magna Carta -- 1789 is when the habeas statute was put into our law, there has only been really a suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and since then there really hasn't been. And all of a sudden, really, without hearings, without any kind of real procedures, the Senate now, with a lot of the Democrats, strips out some of the major rights having to do with habeas corpus. And we at the Center of Constitutional Rights won this case, Rasul v. Bush, giving Guantanamo detainees the right to test their detention in a federal court, and what this statute purports to do is to take that right away. The only thing I'll say that's positive about it, maybe, is that Senator Levin went on the floor and said it's only prospective, which gives us a strong argument that it doesn't apply to the current habeas cases we have filed. But look, Juan, it's been four years. Our clients have not been charged with a crime. They haven't been convicted of a crime. And they haven't been sentenced. And they have not yet had a hearing in federal court, where they can contest why they're in prison. This so-called compromise may give us two more years of litigation before we get them what they need. JUAN GONZALEZ: And David Rivkin, your perspective on the compromise? DAVID RIVKIN: I largely share Michael's views. I think that the compromise is better than the original version of the amendment, which would have stripped all of habeas jurisdiction, not just prospectively, but applicable to pending cases, but effectively strip all the jurisdiction of federal courts to consider cases brought by aliens. Depending on which version you looked at, it would have applied to aliens, not only aliens held overseas, but in the United States. I certainly agree that Congress does have the power to suspend habeas corpus; I do not think it would have been justified in this case. Michael is right, it only happened last time in American history during the Civil War. I also think -- but to put things in perspective, it is burdensome and difficult for the federal government to litigate literally dozens and dozens and dozens of cases. But I think that's a necessary price you pay. And to me, at least, the very existence of a strong habeas process is something that should reassure people who are concerned about possible abuses of executive power. That's the price you have to pay in a democracy for your ability to detain individuals as enemy combatants. And I think every time the courts have upheld the administration's position, and I would say despite the loss in Rasul, most of the basic propositions involved in the administration's legal paradigm, namely that individuals who are classified as enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, can be held for the duration of hostilities, that it's not a criminal process, they don't have to be charged, they have to be treated humanely but can be, as I mentioned, held for a protracted period of time, the courts have upheld it. And I think it's a good thing. Both decisions by the American judiciary legitimate hopefully, at least in my view and hopefully in the view of the critics, the executive branch’s position. So I think that was a very unfortunate and unnecessary effort. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, David, I’m really – you know, it's really good to have you with us on this habeas issue. It is a fundamental right. It's our protection, really, since the Magna Carta. So I think it's essential. And I was really pleased to see your article speaking out against it. There's still a chance, I hope, to reverse this. It goes into the conference. There's still hope by pushing some of the senators to say ‘Let's get rid of this bad bill. This tinkers with habeas, not just tinkers, but wipes it out for a whole segment of people, particularly people detained at Guantanamo. So I think there’s still a good chance we can beat this back, because it is a nasty piece of legislation. One point that we have differed on in our various debates and I still differ with you about is whether they have actually -- the courts have upheld the right to hold enemy combatants indefinitely. What they upheld was really the right in the Hamdi case to keep in prison somebody who had fought in the war in Afghanistan ‘til the end of the duration of that war in Afghanistan. And I don't think they've gone farther to simply say that you can hold the people in Guantanamo forever based on being enemy combatants. That's a point that you and I differ upon. But I'm glad to say that we agree on the nastiness of this legislation in the Senate. DAVID RIVKIN: I would just add also technically it is utterly confusing. It's not clear if it applies to prospective cases. I would hate to see the spectacle of another two years spending litigating what is the true meaning of this legislation. I don't see how it helps anybody. It doesn't help people who want to contest their detention, to which they're fully entitled, nor does it help the administration that wants to lessen the burden of dealing with hundreds of cases and wants to actually move forward with military commission proceedings. This is a solution in search of a problem. MICHAEL RATNER: I agree with you, David, that what should be clarified here is – first, I think it should be stripped out altogether. We should just get rid of this piece of legislation. But at a minimum, it should say that it doesn't apply to current people litigating cases around Guantanamo, which is what Senator Levin says and which we think is right. AMY GOODMAN: Isn't this the administration's worst nightmare, why we're seeing President Bush, Vice President Cheney, really hitting hard on the issue of people criticizing the administration? I mean, here we have Michael Ratner, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and David Rivkin, who worked for Reagan, who worked for George H.W. Bush, writes for The National Review magazine. David Rivkin, what about this comment? Have you seen this in the 20 years, from the time of Reagan, really a quarter of a century ago, to now, this unanimity that we're beginning to see now against the administration policies? DAVID RIVKIN: Well, to be clear, Michael and I share the view that the jurisdiction stripping the habeas impairing provision is a bad thing. There are a number of other aspects of the administration's policy that I think are more deserving of support. My concern, however, with this whole effort, and I think Michael mentioned it earlier, is the process effort. Look, for a long time I've been of a view that the executive branch would have been well advised early after September 11 to work together with Congress in coming out with a comprehensive legislation addressing issues relating to treatment, detention and interrogation of enemy combatants. Have serious hearings, have a serious national debate, and come up with a joint solution by both political branches. Unfortunately, it has not happened. Now, Congress is being involved. How are they being involved? It's being done in a typical Washington fashion, as amendments to defense authorization bill, with language switching literally overnight, without serious hearings. Michael probably likes the McCain Amendment. Well, I'd say one thing about the McCain Amendment, that’s the one you mentioned earlier, dealing with the issue of inhumane and degrading treatment. Whatever you think about the merits of a McCain Amendment, I would submit to you the language of it is entirely confusing. I read the thing three times, and I talked to a number of colleagues in the administration, and even among congressional staffers. It's not clear whether McCain means to suggest that the Fifth, Eighth and the 14th Amendment applies overseas or does not, which is a fundamentally different issue from level of treatment, because if those amendments do apply overseas, which they never held to apply, under the 14th Amendment, which incorporates other amendments in the Bill of Rights, enemy combatants held overseas would have a right to a lawyer to be present during all interrogations. I very much doubt that even Senator McCain would be willing to go that far. But what we're going to have if this thing passes is the next three years of litigation about what exactly this thing means. That's not very responsible. We should be able to do a better job dealing with those difficult issues. JUAN GONZALEZ: Michael, your response? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I think the McCain Amendment is obviously crucial to me. It bans cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. I think that's already been banned. I think Gonzales's interpretation of the Convention Against Torture, saying we can somehow use those techniques against non-citizens, was a really poor legal interpretation that I would have flunked any first-year law student for writing. And I think, in terms of the Fifth, Eighth and 14th Amendment, what McCain is saying, what the Convention Against Torture says, is really the substance of what those prohibitions are, applies, not that the amendments directly apply. I will agree with David that the way this has been done in Congress, particularly the stripping of habeas, was like something I've never seen. I mean, there were no hearings. There was a bunch of senators puffed up, getting up in front of Congress. I thought I was looking at the Roman Forum; they could have been wearing togas, you know, just talking about how a series of lies about what this litigation has represented, that it wasn't really about people's freedom. that it was about what kind of CDs they could get. That's just bull. JUAN GONZALEZ: But, Michael, given the enormous dissatisfaction that members of Congress have evinced in recent weeks with the conduct of the war in Iraq, with questions of torture by American forces, with this whole issue of the secret detention facilities of the C.I.A., isn't it surprising that yet you find on both the PATRIOT Act and on this compromise that Congress seems to be willing to go right ahead with the administration's policies? MICHAEL RATNER: And on Iraq, I should say, as well, a reporting requirement, and you and I have lived through that stuff in El Salvador and Vietnam, where all you got was Congress continuously reporting, reporting, reporting, and not actually telling the President anything about what really to do. So until there's a lot more public pressure here, Juan, on each of these issues, on torture, on habeas and on the war, you're going to see the congressmen essentially wrapping themselves in the flag and making, I think, very mild criticisms. AMY GOODMAN: There's a piece in the Chicago Sun-Times, "The United States has detained over 83,000 foreigners in the four years of the war on terror, enough to nearly fill the NFL's largest stadium. The administration defends the practice of holding detainees in prisons from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay as a critical tool to stop the insurgency in Iraq, maintain stability in Afghanistan, get suspected terrorists off the streets. Roughly 14,500 detainees remain in U.S. custody, primarily in Iraq. The number has steadily grown since C.I.A. officers touched down in Afghanistan in 2001." 83,000 foreigners, enough to fill the NFL's largest stadium. I wanted to go to the issue of what the U.S. calls rendition, others call it kidnapping. But now increasing international opposition to countries when people in their countries learn about the use of their air fields to take prisoners that are kidnapped off the street from one country to another and these secret C.I.A. bases that Juan referred to. MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it's good to see this kind of opposition finally building up in these countries. We've had the indictments, of course, in Italy, where 13 C.I.A. people had been indicted, and their extradition has been asked for from the United States, for kidnapping an Egyptian cleric and sending him to Egypt. You just saw recently in Spain, where now people are saying that the Spanish airport – I think the one in Majorca – was actually used for these rendition planes. You've seen this in Sweden. So there's a growing opposition to using airports in Europe right now for rendering people to other countries where they are tortured or to C.I.A. places where they're tortured. It's just the beginning. The Center has, as you know, the one case, Maher Arar, who was sent from the United States, actually, to Syria. We're litigating that. The administration is fighting against it. But this is like a huge hidden elephant, because what we are doing is taking people from anywhere in the world and sending them to torture chambers. And one of the things they're afraid of in the McCain Amendment is that they won't be able to continue to torture people when they get them in these C.I.A. hellholes. JUAN GONZALEZ: David Rivkin, what about this issue of these secret detention facilities abroad? DAVID RIVKIN: Well, let me just say one thing, briefly. I agree with Michael that it is absolutely unacceptable to send people to be tortured by third parties. We have to be careful, however, not to extrapolate from that the broader proposition that we should not send anybody anywhere, because, look, the only way we can win this war is to do that in the multilateral context, cooperating at the military intelligence and economic level. I personally would not be comfortable sending anybody to Syria. Whether or not I would be prepared to send people to Jordan, a country like Jordan, for example, a country like Morocco, is a different story. Both are not exactly Jeffersonian democracies but have better track records when it comes to dealing with prisoners and especially for obtaining adequate assurances. All I'm saying is we cannot be absolutist about it, because, I mean, otherwise we're getting in a situation where everybody would say Americans once again are being unilateral. So Syria and countries like that are probably in a different basket. I wouldn't send people to Iran. I certainly wouldn’t send people to North Korea. AMY GOODMAN: On that note, David Rivkin, we have to leave it there. David Rifkin, a partner at Baker & Hostetler, visiting fellow at the Nixon Center, worked under the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations; and Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. -------- spies CIA Flights Spark Concern in Europe, North Africa Thursday, November 17th, 2005 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/1515217 Outcry is growing in several European and North African countries over the use of local airports for renditions of CIA detainees. Government officials and newspapers in countries including Norway, Sweden, Morroco, and Spain have raised concerns over specific incidents of CIA flights in their respective territory. The Spanish newspaper El Pais cited a civil guard report saying CIA planes made at least 10 secret stopoffs in the Balearic Islands last year. Meanwhile, an Italian prosecutor demanded Friday the extradition of 23 CIA agents believed to have been involved in the abduction of Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr. Nasr was kidnapped by CIA agents in Milan and brought to Egypt for interrogation in February 2003. -------- us Pentagon Reverses Position and Admits U.S. Troops Used White Phosphorous Against Iraqis in Fallujah Thursday, November 17th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/1515223 The U.S. government has now admitted its troops used white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against Iraqis during the assault on Fallujah a year ago. Chemical weapons experts say such attacks are in violation of international law banning the use of chemical weapons. We speak with columnist George Monbiot and the news director of RAI TV, the Italian TV network that produced the film "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre." [includes rush transcript] The U.S. government has now admitted its troops used white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against Iraqis during the assault on Fallujah a year ago. Chemical weapons experts say such attacks are in violation of international law banning the use of chemical weapons. Peter Kaiser, of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said, "Chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." White phosphorous is often compared to napalm because it combusts spontaneously when exposed to oxygen and can burn right through skin to the bone. The Pentagon"s admission comes after a week of denials that it used white phosphorous as a weapon in Fallujah. While reporters have noted the use of white phosphorous since the war began, it only became a major story last Tuesday when Italian state broadcaster RAI TV aired the documentary "Fallujuah: The Hidden Massacre." On that same day Democracy Now aired an excerpt of the documentary and interviewed Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, the director of the Pentagon's Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad. During our show Boylan denied the claims made in the documentary that white phosphorous was used as a weapon to target Iraqis. * Lt. Col. Steve Boylan interviewed on Democracy Now, Nov. 8, 2005.. But the Pentagon was caught in a lie after it was revealed that an official Army publication called Field Artillery magazine had disclosed that the Army had in fact used white phosphorous as a weapon. The magazine, in its March-April issue, reported "[White Phosphorous] proved to be an effective and versatile munition... [and] as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes." The magazine went on to report "We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP [White Phosphorous] to flush them out and HE [high explosives] to take them out." On Tuesday, Lt. Col. Barry Venable, another Pentagon spokesperson, admitted on the BBC that white phosphorous was used as an offensive weapon to target insurgents. * Lt. Col. Barry Venable interviewed on BBC. The Pentagon has defended its use of white phosphorous by claiming it is a not chemical weapon and that it was only used against Iraqi insurgents, not civilians. However even this would have been illegall according to the Army's own rules of combat. In 1999 the Army published a handbook that read, "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets." An Iraqi human rights team has reportedly gone into Fallujah to investigate the use of white phosphorus as a weapon by U.S. forces. * Maurizio Torrealta, News Editor for the Italian state broadcaster RAI and co-producer of the documentary "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre." * George Monbiot, a columnist for the Guardian of London. He published an article titled "The US Used Chemical Weapons in Iraq - And Then Lied About It." Note: We contacted Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col Barry Venable yesterday but he refused to come on the program. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: While reporters have noted the use of white phosphorus since the war began, it only became a major story last Tuesday when Italian state broadcaster, RAI TV, aired the documentary, Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre. On that same day, Democracy Now! aired an excerpt of the documentary here in the United States and interviewed Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, the director of the Pentagon's Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad. During our broadcast, Boylan denied the claims made in the documentary that white phosphorus was used as a weapon to target Iraqis. LT. COL. STEVE BOYLAN: I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus. Again, I did not say white phosphorus was used for illumination. White phosphorus is used for obscuration, which white phosphorus produces a heavy thick smoke to shield us or them from view so that they cannot see what we are doing. It is used to destroy equipment, to destroy buildings. That is what white phosphorus shells are used for. AMY GOODMAN: That was Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, speaking on Democracy Now! last Tuesday. But the Pentagon was caught in a lie after it was revealed that an official Army publication called Field Artillery magazine had disclosed the Army had, in fact, used white phosphorus as a weapon. The magazine in its March/April issue reported, quote, "White phosphorus proved to be an effective and versatile munition and a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes." The magazine went on to report, quote, "We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents using W.P. [white phosphorus] to flush them out and H.E. [high explosives] to take them out." On Tuesday, Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable, another Pentagon spokesperson, admitted on the BBC that white phosphorus was used as an offensive weapon to target insurgents. LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It's not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal. We use them primarily as obscurants, for smoke screens or for target marking in some cases. However, it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants. BBC REPORTER: Can you confirm, then, that it was used as an offensive weapon against enemy troops during the siege of Fallujah? LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: Yes. It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. BBC REPORTER: There are suggestions here that if used in that way, an incendiary weapon such as white phosphorus would be against the various conventions governing the use of weapons during war. You disagree? LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: Cite the conventions. BBC REPORTER: The Chemical Weapons Convention. LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: Okay. Does it list white phosphorus as a chemical? BBC REPORTER: No, it doesn't. But it says a chemical weapon can be any chemical which, through its chemical action, on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm. LT. COL. BARRY VENABLE: But this isn't -- we're talking white phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon. AMY GOODMAN: That was Pentagon spokesperson, Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable, being interviewed on the BBC. The Pentagon has defended its use of white phosphorus by claiming it's not a chemical weapon and that it was only used against Iraqi insurgents, not civilians. However, even this would have been illegal according to the Army's own rules of combat. In 1999 the Army published a handbook that read, quote, "It's against the law of land warfare to employ W.P. against personnel targets." An Iraqi human rights team has reportedly gone into Fallujah to investigate the use of white phosphorus as a weapon by U.S. forces. To discuss this controversy, we're joined by two guests. On the phone from Italy, Maurizio Torrealta. He’s News Editor for the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, co-producer of the documentary, Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre. We're also joined from Britain by George Monbiot, a columnist for The Guardian of London. On Tuesday, he published an article entitled, "The U.S. Used Chemical Weapons in Iraq and Then Lied About It." We first go to Maurizio Torrealta. You did the documentary. Your response to the new statement of the Pentagon, following up on the Pentagon's denial when you were on the broadcast last week, saying they didn't use white phosphorus as a weapon against people in Fallujah. MAURIZIO TORREALTA: Well, first of all, I want to say that any time any institution corrects itself, I think, is a great event. And I would like to see many more institutions that are able to admit their mistakes. Then, the correction is not complete, because the Pentagon said that they used white phosphorus as a weapon, but not on civilians. And unfortunately we got really hundreds of pictures of people that seemed to be killed by white phosphorus. And I think an investigation, a United Nation investigation, on that could really finally say the last word about how much has been used against civilian people. And then there is another couple of questions that I have in my mind. First of all, since the news are something that wasn't unknown -- The Independent, The Guardian wrote about the use of white phosphorus, and a lot of Arabian website was -- they published information about that. And what make that became news right now? It is a question that I really can't answer. And I think we should discuss a little bit about this second question. JUAN GONZALEZ: George Monbiot, I'd like to ask you, the Pentagon is trying to split hairs in terms of how it defines chemical weapons; your perspective on their attempt to get through their own contradictions on this? GEORGE MONBIOT: The Chemical Weapons Convention could not be clearer. There are two kinds of chemicals listed under it: One is the scheduled chemicals, such as phosgene and mustard gas and VX gas which cannot be used under any circumstances; then there is all other toxic chemicals which may be used for purposes which do not depend on the use of their toxic properties. However, the moment you use one of those other chemicals for its toxic properties against human beings, you are in breach of the convention. And what we saw very clearly from that extract in Field Artillery magazine was that they were firing these munitions directly at the combatants in Fallujah in order to exert the toxic effects of those munitions upon those combatants to flush them out so they could then be killed. In doing so, the U.S. Army was acting in direct contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It committed a war crime. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play an excerpt from the RAI TV documentary, Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre. This part features an interview with Mohamad Tareq Al Deraji, a biologist from Fallujah who heads the Fallujah Center for Human Rights. NARRATOR: Mohamad opens his PC and shows us images of a victim in Fallujah, a woman lying on the side, clothes intact, hiding a scorched body, a veil covering like a shroud a face melted by the heat. MOHAMAD TAREQ AL DERAJI: In al-Askeri, I hear some witnesses say, ‘Here’s some bodies – here’s killing by the -- a man died from the [inaudible] burns.’ REPORTER: In what state did you find the dead? MOHAMAD TAREQ AL DERAJI: Different type. Children, women, younger youth, older men. All different form of people. But many from them has killing and the dead, inside the chicken room or cooking room, some from them when he [inaudible]. There is some witnesses. He say when American attack some places, the big [in Arabic] – shower? WOMAN: A shower of fire? MOHAMAD TAREQ AL DERAJI: Yeah, shower, but different color [inaudible]. And after this, all the people in this place is dead. REPORTER: Why was the bombing so severe? MOHAMAD TAREQ AL DERAJI: In the April battle, American say we want to cut the people killing the foreign counters, American counters. After the battle in April, American -- he cannot enter the city, but he search about another reason. He found maybe a terrorist is a suitable reason. He continues to attack Fallujah between April and November. More than one hundred houses destroyed to kill Zarqawi and the assistant of Zarqawi. AMY GOODMAN: That is Mohamad Tareq Al Deraji, a biologist from Fallujah, quoted in the documentary, Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre. We'll get response when we come back. And I should also say we did call the Pentagon. We called the Lieutenant Colonel Venable and asked him to join us, who had stated the reversal of the military position on whether they used white phosphorus as a weapon against people in Fallujah. He was extremely angry, and he refused to come on the broadcast. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We're on the line with George Monbiot, author and columnist for The Guardian of London, wrote the piece, “U.S. Lied About Chemical Weapons in Iraq”; and Maurizio Torrealta, News Editor for the Italian television, RAI, co-producer of the film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre. We just saw this biologist from Fallujah speaking. Maurizio Torrealta, could you amplify on who he was and what he saw? MAURIZIO TORREALTA: Yes. He is a member of a human rights organization in Fallujah. He tried a couple of times to be brought to the attention of the Western people what's happening in Fallujah. He visited Rome. And then he went to Strasbourg in the European Parliament, invited by organizations, some political organization and some European deputies. And we met in there, and he told us some information. But what strikes me is the fact that it's been a year that he was speaking about such things, and just the recent days, I got a lot of letters that have been sent by organizations in Fallujah to the U.N., to Kofi Annan, denouncing the same thing, and nothing happened. And we had to put on video those horrible pictures, in order to have some kind of reaction. And the reaction came before from the society. The politicians didn’t really care less. So finally it break through. I mean, it became news. And after a year people knows what happened, knows, at least has some idea, of what happened in Fallujah. And really, as a journalist, I'm really scared by the impossibility that the people in Fallujah had, for years, to brought to the attention of all the media what really happened over there. JUAN GONZALEZ: George Monbiot, your column also mentions that the Field Artillery article was not the first mention of the use of white phosphorus, that there was actually some reporting by an embedded reporter at the North County Times in Southern California as early as April 2004. Could you talk about that? GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes. I'll coach you from what he said. He was an embedded reporter with the Marines during the siege of Fallujah, which, as you say, took place in April 2004. And his article goes as follows: “’Gun up,’ Millikin yelled, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. ‘Fire!’ Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call ‘shake and bake’ into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.” Now, the key term there is into a cluster of buildings. In other words, again they were not using this white phosphorus for the purposes of illumination or for the purposes of smoke screening, both of which are legal uses of white phosphorus in war. They were using it as a weapon in order to flush the insurgents out of those buildings. Doing so is in breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention. JUAN GONZALEZ: And in both that article and in the Field Artillery, they keep referring to this mixture called “shake and bake,” which is obviously a mixture of white phosphorus and explosives at the same time, so it's clearly meant to be used as an offensive weapon, no? GEORGE MONBIOT: I believe it's a pun on some seasoning which you have in the United States which you put on a chicken before you put it in the oven. And the idea is that you shake them out of their hiding place and then you can bake them or kill them with high explosives, having shaken them out with your white phosphorus. The use of white phosphorus to do that is not legal. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to the documentary, Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, which is the documentary that RAI Television, the Italian state broadcaster, did last week that Democracy Now! also broadcast. BBC then got this reversal from the military on whether they used white phosphorus as a weapon against people in Fallujah. And this goes to the testimony of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena who worked as a reporter in Iraq before she was kidnapped. She spoke to RAI TV after she was released. GIULIANA SGRENA: [translated from Italian] Not only in Fallujah. I had heard stories from the inhabitants about the use of certain weapons like napalm in Baghdad during the battle at the airport in April 2003. And then I had collected just before going to interview the city refugees testimonies from other inhabitants in Fallujah about the use of guns and white phosphorus. In particular, some women had tried to enter their homes, and they had found a certain dust spread all over the house. The Americans themselves had told them to clean their houses with detergents, because that dust was very dangerous. In fact, they had some effect on their bodies, leading some very strange things. I would have liked to interview those persons, but unfortunately my kidnappers, who were said to be part of Fallujah's resistance, had forbidden me to tell what I have known about Fallujah by kidnapping me. This world cannot have witnessed this. It cannot have witnessed it, because it’s based on lies. The Americans have permitted only to embedded journalists to go to Fallujah. AMY GOODMAN: That was Giuliana Sgrena. And now Jeff Englehart, who is a former U.S. soldier. REPORTER: Were any chemical weapons used in Fallujah? JEFF ENGLEHART: From the U.S. military, yeah, absolutely. White phosphorus. Possibly napalm may or may not have been used; I do not know. I do know that white phosphorus was used, which is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, a chemical weapon. REPORTER: Is he sure of it? JEFF ENGLEHART: Yes. It happened. REPORTER: How can he be certain? JEFF ENGLEHART: Well, it comes across radio as a general transmission. When it happens like that, you hear it on the radio through -- we have speakers in our trucks -- speakers and then the transmission goes to the speakers, so it's audible. And as they'd say, “In five [inaudible], we're going drop some Whiskey Pete.” “Roger. Commence bombing.” I mean, it just comes across the radio, and like, when you hear “Whiskey Pete,” that's the military slang. NARRATOR: Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in the open field to illuminate enemy troops. For this, tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of the 8th of November. [inaudible] will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that a chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way in districts of Fallujah. In the days that followed, U.S. satellite images showed Fallujah burned out and razed to the ground. JEFF ENGLEHART: The gases from the warhead of the white phosphorus will disperse in a cloud. And when it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone. It doesn't necessarily burn clothes, but it will burn the skin underneath clothes. And this is why protective masks do not help, because it will burn right through the mask, the rubber of the mask. It will manage to get inside your face. If you breathe it, it will blister your throat and your lungs until you suffocate, and then it will burn you from the inside. It basically reacts to skin, oxygen and water. The only way to stop the burning is with wet mud. But at that point, it's just impossible to stop. REPORTER: Have you seen the effects of these weapons? JEFF ENGLEHART: Yes. Burned. Burned bodies. I mean, it burned children, and it burned women. White phosphorus kills indiscriminately. It's a cloud that will within, in most cases, 150 meters of impact will disperse, and it will burn every human being or animal. AMY GOODMAN: That was Jeff Englehart, who is a former U.S. soldier, speaking from Colorado. As we wrap up, Maurizio Torrealta of RAI, where he is being broadcast, the documentary Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre. The response in Italy, not to mention the rest of the world, to this documentary? MAURIZIO TORREALTA: The response in Italy is bizarre, because when we broadcast it, we had one day before, having some response, because then we had two days of strike. The newspaper were on strike. So there were a few newspaper that wrote about it, and then there was a silence for two days. And then again there was nothing, nothing for three or four days. But actually, now, yesterday and the day before, it was the first news on the first page. Why? Because it came from outside. At that point, the news had been bounced in the United States, in England, and it became -- some information transformed themselves in news and now is the news. And now, yesterday was a major newsbreak of the major channel of the Italian television. So it has been a strange, very strange [inaudible]. The news really has been diffused, but didn't have a reaction right now. It seemed like there are two different media that are fighting: One media which is based on the internet and which is based on the net and on streaming and has a different way to spread around; and the other media, the mainstream media, which is very slow, very much controlled, and doesn’t come out right away with information, only after it became something bigger. That is my impression, which is not – doesn’t make me happy at all. JUAN GONZALEZ: And George Monbiot, this news is now beginning to spread on the corporate media here in the United States. But what's happening in Britain? Are you having similar battles between the corporate media and the internet? GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, the corporate media has picked it up pretty well comprehensively, and they have messed it up pretty well comprehensively. The misreporting of this issue is second almost to none that I've ever come across before. They have managed to mix up the use of white phosphorus against military versus civilian targets. For example, repeatedly, I'm saying, in the media, that it's a war crime if it's used against civilians but not if it’s used against the military. The Chemical Weapons Convention does not mention the word civilian. It does not mention the word non-combatant. There is no distinction made. If you use white phosphorus as a weapon against human beings, that is a war crime. It doesn't matter whether those human beings are civilians. It doesn't matter whether they are military. It remains a war crime. They've mixed up several other things, as well. And the result of this is that if we're not careful, we can see excuses made for the use of this weapon as a weapon of war. And the whole point of the Chemical Weapons Convention is to prevent that from recurring. If we look back to the first World War and saw how mustard gas and phosgene were used and saw in the subsequent commemorations of that war these lines and lines of men with their hands on each other's shoulders walking along, because they could not see, because they had been blinded by this gas or their lungs had been destroyed by this gas, the undermining of the Chemical Weapons Convention threatens to bring about the kind of gas warfare which we saw in the first World War and which we saw in the war between Iran and Iraq. It's absolutely essential that we get this story right and we make it completely impossible for states such as the United States or, indeed, any other, to use poison toxic chemicals as a weapon of war and to use it ever again. AMY GOODMAN: Well, George Monbiot and Maurizio Torrealta, I want to thank you both very much for being with us. And I want to point out I don't think the military is confused, because when Lieutenant Colonel Boylan first on Democracy Now! denied the use of white phosphorus as a weapon, he said as a weapon against people. He didn't say insurgents or civilians. He said we didn't use it against people. So that's an interesting point, and I wish they had joined us today. George Monbiot of Tthe Guardian of London, and Maurizio Torrealta, News Editor for the Italian television, the state broadcaster, RAI, co-producer of the film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, thanks so much for joining us. ---- Military body armor vests recalled By Christian Lowe, Marine Corps Times 11/17/2005 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-17-body-armor_x.htm WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps and Army have issued a recall for more than 18,000 body armor vests that did not pass ballistic requirements when they were manufactured in 2000 and 2001. Wednesday's recall is in addition to the more than 5,000 Marine vests recalled in May after a Marine Corps Times investigation showed the vests had failed tests, yet were still approved and sent to troops in the war zone. The Corps discovered the problem that led to this most recent recall in September during a Pentagon-initiated review of the ballistic strength of outer tactical vests that had returned from deployments to Iraq. After reviewing original test data from the vests' production lots, military officials discovered eight lots were accepted despite originally failing tests, according to a written Marine Corps response to a Times reporter's questions. The 10,342 recalled Marine vests were sent in 2000 and 2001 to units across the Corps, both active duty and Reserve. The Marine Corps maintained that there is "no evidence to suggest that soldiers or Marines have been at risk." The evaluation of previous test data also revealed the Army fielded six lots of vests with failing grades, or more than 8,000 vests. Army officials were unable to provide immediate comment on the recall, Pentagon officials said. Some vests in the latest recall may have been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. Made between 1999 and 2001, they were green or woodland camouflage, making it less likely they were used in the Gulf, where troops use the newer, desert-colored camouflage vests. -------- war crimes SHAMELESS BBC: WHEN MISINFORMATION MEANS WAR CRIMES Thursday, November 17, 2005 http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2005/11/shameless-bbc-when-misinformation.htm Exclusive interview with Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers By Gabriele Zamparini (*) The BBC News website, in a special page “Q&A: White phosphorus” and under the title “The BBC News website looks at the facts behind the row.” reads: What are the international conventions? Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians. White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas. The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III. The same BBC News website, in the article “Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons” reads: “Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.”I asked Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers based in San Francisco to comment on what the BBC reports. Question: Karen, how do you comment on what the BBC writes? Answer: The comment “Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance [WP] against civilians.” assumes that therefore civilians may be targeted by WP weapons. This is an outrageous assumption because civilians may NEVER be the target of military operations -- whether using bows and arrows or white phosphorous, or any other weapon. This rule is not dependent on specific treaties but is a fundamental part of the laws and customs of war. Protocol III relating to incendiary weapons (of the Convention on Prohibitions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1983)) makes all this clear by reinforcing this. While this treaty mainly sets out rules relating to WP in regards to combatants, it also reinforces the rule against targeting civilians. There seems to be some controversy about whether WP might be a chemical weapon or a poisonous gas weapon and hence prohibited by treaties ratified by the US relating to these types of weapons. While a technically interesting question, it deflects attention from the fact that the US forces targeted civilians with WP and other weapons, both illegal and legal in Falluja. The debate about what category of weapons WP weapons are is irrelevant to THAT issue. What is important is to focus on the deliberate targeting of civilians or using weapons against a legal military target when there is a substantial likelihood of serious and numerous civilian casualties. Such targeting is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, especially due to the nature of the weapons such as those containing WP used against them. While the US may not have ratified certain weapons conventions, this does not mean that therefore the US may legally use the weapons that are the subject of such treaties. This is because weapons may be otherwise banned by operation of existing humanitarian law. Under these rules, a weapon may be considered banned if: (1) it cannot be contained to the legal field of battle; (2) it cannot be stopped or cleaned-up when the war is over; (3) it causes "undue suffering" or "superfluous injury" (terms from The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 -- echoed in the "Conventional Weapons Treaty"); or (4) it unduly harms the environment. The nature of WP makes it difficult to control, so it cannot be contained to legal military targets. In this sense, it could be banned by operation of international law in urban areas, as it cannot be sufficiently controlled to the legal field of battle. Note that the Incendiary Weapons Protocol was intended to limit the use of these weapons even against combatants because of the "excessively injurious" issue. Most specific weapons treaties have provisions that provide for "similar, but unnamed weapons" that are "analogous" to the names ones. For example, the 1925 Protocol on Gases has such clauses. WP weapons fit this rule as either "chemical" or "gases" by analogy. Q. The US government has just admitted to have used WP in Fallujah as a weapon. What’s your comment on this? A. It is very disturbing that the US lied for a number of months about the use of WP in Falluja, and only came forward with an admission of use after clear evidence. While combatant forces are allowed to withhold certain information from the general public at certain times, the US apparently lied to US Members of Congress and other officials. This is especially disturbing because the use of WP in urban areas is prohibited by operation of law. In this sense, the US was covering up war crimes. Q. Which other WMD - if any - have been used by the US in Iraq? A. The US has used weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) in both the first and second Gulf Wars. DU weapons also fail the test set out above, as attested by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in its resolutions and reports on this issue. Both the UN Secretary General and a Sub-Commission expert, Chief Justice Sik Yuen (Supreme Court, Mauritius) addressed this issue in their reports, that concurred with my prior assessment, submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights and its expert body, that DU weapons are illegal. I also understand that napalm may have been used in Iraq. At present, I have not been able to verify this conclusively. Q. What should the international community do now and what you and your organization are doing? A. My organization, the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, has filed a legal action against the US at the Organization of American States for attacking hospitals and medical facilities in Falluja and for using illegal weapons in those attacks. For details, please see www.humanlaw.org. Obviously, this lawsuit needs to be fully supported, and I welcome help in that regard. In addition, however, we at AHL are trying to set up a "conclave" of attorneys to look at both this and a number of other legal challenges to the way that the US has conducted military actions in Iraq. I would hope to look at illegal weapons, illegal military operations and a wider variety of humanitarian law violations than just torture. I would also hope to look at the "anticipatory" agreements that the US pushed with a number of European and other governments in which the signatory States agreed to NOT bring the US to either the International Criminal Court (not possible anyway, as the US has not ratified the treaty) or to its own domestic Courts as mandated by the Geneva Conventions. These "anticipatory" treaties are "void" as they violate the Geneva Conventions and basic principles of international law, but they need to be judicially challenged. Such challenges are very expensive and economically beyond the reach of human rights organizations such as ours. One reason to force these agreements is that there are no funds to challenge them. So "they" win by default. This is tragic. Q. How the antiwar movement may help? A. The anti-war movement can help by making certain that they understand the gravity of the breaches of international law. This is not a "rogue elephant" situation -- this is a herd of rogue elephants. The US, and to a lesser extent the UK, are decimating the Geneva Conventions and all other rules of the laws and customs of war. It is shocking that most MP and Members of US Congress do not even know the rules: they are willing to send their citizens to die, but don't know the rules. It doesn't get any worse than this. The anti-war movement could also help to raise funds for legal actions. Yes, we must be in the streets, but we must also be in the courthouse. There simply must be legal challenges to these egregious violations. For those interested in helping in my Association of Humanitarian Lawyers action against the US at the OAS, please feel free to contact me at ied@igc.org or reb@xcaretresearch.com. And as stated, we are interested in holding a conference for attorneys who are ready, willing and able to take on the US in national and regional and UN forums. To know more: Association of Humanitarian Law 154 Fifth Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118 USA Telephone: + 1 (415) 465-9900 http://www.humanlaw.org/ (*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars New Documents Released on Nixon Bombing of Cambodia Thursday, November 17th, 2005 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/1515217 And newly-released documents from the National Archives provide fresh insight into the Nixon administration’s efforts to deceive the public over its 1970 attack on Cambodia. The over 50,000 pages of declassified material include records of then-President Richard Nixon meeting with aides at a time Americans were told US forces in Cambodia were there to support South Vietnamese. Nixon told aides: "That is what we will say publicly. But now, let's talk about what we will actually do." Nixon instructed staff to continue the bombing of Cambodia and Vietnam. He also ordered them to extend the attacks to Laos, which had remained neutral. Nixon said: "I want you to put the air in there and not spare the horses. Do not withdraw for domestic reasons but only for military reasons." ---- SHAMELESS BBC: WHEN MISINFORMATION MEANS WAR CRIMES Exclusive interview with Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers By Gabriele Zamparini (*) Thursday, November 17, 2005 http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2005/11/shameless-bbc-when-misinformation.htm The BBC News website, in a special page “Q&A: White phosphorus” and under the title “The BBC News website looks at the facts behind the row.” reads: What are the international conventions? Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians. White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas. The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III. The same BBC News website, in the article “Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons” reads: “Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.” I asked Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers based in San Francisco to comment on what the BBC reports. Question: Karen, how do you comment on what the BBC writes? Answer: The comment “Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance [WP] against civilians.” assumes that therefore civilians may be targeted by WP weapons. This is an outrageous assumption because civilians may NEVER be the target of military operations -- whether using bows and arrows or white phosphorous, or any other weapon. This rule is not dependent on specific treaties but is a fundamental part of the laws and customs of war. Protocol III relating to incendiary weapons (of the Convention on Prohibitions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1983)) makes all this clear by reinforcing this. While this treaty mainly sets out rules relating to WP in regards to combatants, it also reinforces the rule against targeting civilians. There seems to be some controversy about whether WP might be a chemical weapon or a poisonous gas weapon and hence prohibited by treaties ratified by the US relating to these types of weapons. While a technically interesting question, it deflects attention from the fact that the US forces targeted civilians with WP and other weapons, both illegal and legal in Falluja. The debate about what category of weapons WP weapons are is irrelevant to THAT issue. What is important is to focus on the deliberate targeting of civilians or using weapons against a legal military target when there is a substantial likelihood of serious and numerous civilian casualties. Such targeting is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, especially due to the nature of the weapons such as those containing WP used against them. While the US may not have ratified certain weapons conventions, this does not mean that therefore the US may legally use the weapons that are the subject of such treaties. This is because weapons may be otherwise banned by operation of existing humanitarian law. Under these rules, a weapon may be considered banned if: (1) it cannot be contained to the legal field of battle; (2) it cannot be stopped or cleaned-up when the war is over; (3) it causes "undue suffering" or "superfluous injury" (terms from The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 -- echoed in the "Conventional Weapons Treaty"); or (4) it unduly harms the environment. The nature of WP makes it difficult to control, so it cannot be contained to legal military targets. In this sense, it could be banned by operation of international law in urban areas, as it cannot be sufficiently controlled to the legal field of battle. Note that the Incendiary Weapons Protocol was intended to limit the use of these weapons even against combatants because of the "excessively injurious" issue. Most specific weapons treaties have provisions that provide for "similar, but unnamed weapons" that are "analogous" to the names ones. For example, the 1925 Protocol on Gases has such clauses. WP weapons fit this rule as either "chemical" or "gases" by analogy. Q. The US government has just admitted to have used WP in Fallujah as a weapon. What’s your comment on this? A. It is very disturbing that the US lied for a number of months about the use of WP in Falluja, and only came forward with an admission of use after clear evidence. While combatant forces are allowed to withhold certain information from the general public at certain times, the US apparently lied to US Members of Congress and other officials. This is especially disturbing because the use of WP in urban areas is prohibited by operation of law. In this sense, the US was covering up war crimes. Q. Which other WMD - if any - have been used by the US in Iraq? A. The US has used weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) in both the first and second Gulf Wars. DU weapons also fail the test set out above, as attested by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in its resolutions and reports on this issue. Both the UN Secretary General and a Sub-Commission expert, Chief Justice Sik Yuen (Supreme Court, Mauritius) addressed this issue in their reports, that concurred with my prior assessment, submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights and its expert body, that DU weapons are illegal. I also understand that napalm may have been used in Iraq. At present, I have not been able to verify this conclusively. Q. What should the international community do now and what you and your organization are doing? A. My organization, the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, has filed a legal action against the US at the Organization of American States for attacking hospitals and medical facilities in Falluja and for using illegal weapons in those attacks. For details, please see www.humanlaw.org. Obviously, this lawsuit needs to be fully supported, and I welcome help in that regard. In addition, however, we at AHL are trying to set up a "conclave" of attorneys to look at both this and a number of other legal challenges to the way that the US has conducted military actions in Iraq. I would hope to look at illegal weapons, illegal military operations and a wider variety of humanitarian law violations than just torture. I would also hope to look at the "anticipatory" agreements that the US pushed with a number of European and other governments in which the signatory States agreed to NOT bring the US to either the International Criminal Court (not possible anyway, as the US has not ratified the treaty) or to its own domestic Courts as mandated by the Geneva Conventions. These "anticipatory" treaties are "void" as they violate the Geneva Conventions and basic principles of international law, but they need to be judicially challenged. Such challenges are very expensive and economically beyond the reach of human rights organizations such as ours. One reason to force these agreements is that there are no funds to challenge them. So "they" win by default. This is tragic. Q. How the antiwar movement may help? A. The anti-war movement can help by making certain that they understand the gravity of the breaches of international law. This is not a "rogue elephant" situation -- this is a herd of rogue elephants. The US, and to a lesser extent the UK, are decimating the Geneva Conventions and all other rules of the laws and customs of war. It is shocking that most MP and Members of US Congress do not even know the rules: they are willing to send their citizens to die, but don't know the rules. It doesn't get any worse than this. The anti-war movement could also help to raise funds for legal actions. Yes, we must be in the streets, but we must also be in the courthouse. There simply must be legal challenges to these egregious violations. For those interested in helping in my Association of Humanitarian Lawyers action against the US at the OAS, please feel free to contact me at ied@igc.org or reb@xcaretresearch.com. And as stated, we are interested in holding a conference for attorneys who are ready, willing and able to take on the US in national and regional and UN forums. To know more: Association of Humanitarian Law 154 Fifth Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118 USA Telephone: + 1 (415) 465-9900 http://www.humanlaw.org/ (*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com -------- OTHER -------- environment DuPont Accused of Hiding Studies on Dangerous Chemicals Thursday, November 17th, 2005 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/1515217 Internal documents show the chemical company DuPont hid studies documenting the risks of a Teflon-related chemical used in the manufacture of hundreds of different types of food containers. The studies said the chemical Zonyl can rub off packaging and contaminate food with a potentially carcinogenic compound know as PFOA. A former DuPont chemical engineer backed the claim the company hid the studies. Referring to the chemicals, Glenn Evers told reporters: "They are toxic. They get into human blood. And they are also in every one of you. Your loved ones, your fellow citizens." DuPont denied the allegations. The Environmental Protection Agency has been investigating whether DuPont has withheld information on potentially dangerous chemicals. -------- ACTIVISTS Cindy Sheehan and 26 other peace activists found guilty 11/17/2005 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-17-sheehan-guilty_x.htm WASHINGTON — Iraq War protester Cindy Sheehan and 26 other peace activists were found guilty Thursday of protesting without a permit near the White House. They were each ordered to pay $75 in fines and court costs, but Sheehan's lawyer said he plans to appeal the verdict. "We weren't demonstrating," Sheehan told reporters after the trial. All the defendants contended they were trying to deliver petitions to the White House calling for an end to the war in Iraq on Sept. 26, but found no one willing to accept them. "Our petitions were rejected like every request I have made of the president has been rejected," Sheehan said. Sheehan, 48, of Berkeley, Calif., has tried repeatedly to meet with President Bush since her 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year. She spent several weeks near the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch this summer, and plans to return there Thanksgiving week. "I absolutely believe he has an obligation to meet with me," Sheehan said. The defendants were among 300 people arrested by U.S. Park Police after they spent more than an hour on the Pennsylvania Avenue sidewalk north of the Executive Mansion. While some sat on the sidewalk, others chanted and sang songs. They were taken into custody after refusing police orders to leave. "The actions they were taking were designed to attract attention," said U.S. District Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. A federal regulation prohibits demonstrations without a required permit outside the White House by groups larger than 25 people. "They were consciously violating the law for publicizing their case," Kay said. Sheehan said she plans to take her peace activist message to Europe next month with stops in London and Madrid. ---- Protesters bar boat with GM soya from docking in Poland WARSAW (AFP) Nov 17, 2005 http://www.terradaily.com/2005/051117203301.44c6plir.html Greenpeace activists on Thursday lifted a blockade of a ship off the northern coast of Poland which they had tried to prevent offloading its cargo of genetically modified (GM) soya. "We are ending our action because of the bad weather so as not to put our activists in danger," the organisation's Poland spokesman Jacek Winiarski told Earlier on Thursday Greenpeace had said that three activists -- a Pole, Hungarian and German, had chained themselves to the anchor of the boat, the Croatian-flagged Hope, which was waiting at the entrance to the Polish port of Gdynia. It was due to deliver a 25,000-tonne cargo of Argentinian-grown GM soya, Winiarski told AFP. Other activists had unfurled a banner saying 'Poland doesn't want GMOs' on one side of the ship, while one sailboat and six inflatable speedboats which belong to Greenpeace had put to sea and were near the Hope. Around 76 percent of Polish consumers are against the introduction into Poland of GM foodstuffs, according to Greenpeace.