NucNews - December 5, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain Plea to make Wales nuclear-free Greenpeace members protested to the Prime Minister Monday, 5 December 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4497628.stm Welsh politicians are being urged by environmental campaigners to say "no" to nuclear power. Friends of the Earth Cymru has written to all Welsh Assembly Members saying it should be rejected as an energy option because it is unsafe and uneconomic. The Assembly Government said it did not see a commercial need for nuclear power, but welcomed "an open debate. Prime Minister Tony Blair has launched an energy review which could pave the way for new nuclear plants. The Scottish Executive has already made it clear that it would not accept new stations until the issue of waste disposal was solved. Friends of the Earth Cymru (FoEC) wants a similar declaration from the Welsh Assembly Government. The WAG has made it clear that it supports the use of renewable energy sources, particularly wind power. The aim is to increase the amount of energy from renewable sources by 10% over the next five years. A WAG spokeswoman said it had recently published details of how it would continue to meet the energy needs of Wales "whilst minimising the impact on the environment". Alternatives to traditional energy generation must be found She added: "We believe we have identified the right mix of energy sources and with substantial new energy investments coming on stream over the next three to five years we do not see a commercial need for new nuclear energy installations - quite apart from the perennial issues associated with nuclear power i.e. costs, waste and security. "However we welcome an open debate in this important area." Gordon James of FoEC said: "Nuclear power has had 50 years to prove itself, but has failed to deliver economic, safe or clean energy and has left a legacy of hazardous waste and financial costs for future generations. "It is once again being promoted as a quick-fix solution to an energy challenge, but in reality amounts to no more than an expensive fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of failed attempts to make adequate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions." FoEC argues that, within Wales, nuclear power could not fill the gap left by the closure of Wylfa nuclear power station in five years time. It claims it would, take at least 10 years to build a new nuclear power station and that the gap could be filled by renewable energy sources. Alternatives include using onshore and offshore windfarms, wave power and solar power. The environmental organisation said many other options were also available for filling this gap cost-effectively while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. These include new gas-fired power stations and combined heat and power (CHP) systems, which use the heat normally wasted in electricity generation. Fitting the coal-fired power stations at Aberthaw and Uskmouth with modern technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was also an option, it said. ---- Doubts over UK Executive's nuclear veto PETER MACMAHON 05-Dec-05 11:06 GMT The Scotsman http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2351282005 THE Scottish National Party last night called on Labour to clarify its energy policy after claims by one of the architects of devolution that the Scottish Parliament would be unable to prevent the building of new nuclear power stations north of the Border. Lord Sewel, the Labour peer who took devolution through the Lords as a Scottish Office minister, was quoted yesterday as stating that the "Executive could not use its planning powers to prevent, as a matter of policy, the construction of nuclear power stations in Scotland". Richard Lochhead, the SNP's energy spokesman, said the peer's remarks proved Labour at Westminster was prepared to ignore Jack McConnell, the First Minister, on nuclear power. However, Lord Sewel's claims have been flatly contradicted by ministers from both the Scottish Executive and the UK government. David Cairns, the Scotland Office minister, told a Westminster committee last week that "consent decisions for any such new generating plant are for the Scottish Executive". Scotland Office sources have also confirmed that Executive ministers have powers under both planning law and the Westminster acts of parliament which govern the building of new nuclear power stations. Related topic * Nuclear energy http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1343 -------- europe German RWE NUKEM wins contract for Lithuania nuke waste plant VILNIUS (AFP) Dec 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051205100253.1wlji856.html RWE NUKEM of Germany has won a contract worth 120 million euros (160 million dollars) to build a treatment center for solid radioactive waste in Lithuania, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development announced Monday. RWE NUKEM will plan, build and instal the components of the new waste treatment center, which is expected to start operations in late 2009, the bank said in a statement. The waste treatment centre will be built on the site of the Ignalina nuclear power plant, situated in eastern Lithuania near the border with Belarus. The project will be financed by the Ignalina International Decomissioning Support Fund, administered by the EBRD, the statement said. In accession talks with the European Union, Lithuania committed to shut down the Ignalina nuclear plant in 2009 and has already closed one of its two Chernobyl-type reactors. The international fund to support the closure of Ignalina was set up in The closure of Ignalina is also supported by the EU, which is to provide close to 500 million euros until 2006 to assist with the plant's closure and develop Lithuania's energy sector. ---- Hungary: Atom power István Zvolenszky 2005. december 05. 10:52 HVG Hungary http://hvg.hu/english/20051205zvolenszky.aspx?s=rss For months, Paks nuclear power station has been placing full-page adverts in local and national papers testifying to the generator's safety, to its bright future prospects, to its promise of carbon-free energy, and even about the cheapness of their power. The head of the International Atomic Energy Authority was in Budapest recently at a conference and was received by our 'green' president. This signals that our energy chiefs have almost achieved their dream of building two new 1000MW generators at the power station. Billions of forints have been spent on this project over many years. The main focus so far has been on securing an extension of the station's working life. This is unavoidable, just to satisfy our energy needs. For the next step, building two new reactors, they will need more than HUF1000bn in state subsidies. The proponents of nuclear energy dwell upon the fact that nuclear generation produces no greenhouse gasses. But the tens of thousands of tons of iron used to build a nuclear power station, the mining of uranium and waste treatment are all based on traditional power sources. It thus increases carbon dioxide emissions. So the indirect carbon dioxide emissions from a nuclear power station is around a fifth of a traditional power station's. This could be attractive - except the cooling water running out of the power station just pumps 2,500MW of heat into the Danube. That could be used to heat 250,000 homes. In Hungary, renewable energy would almost certainly mean biomass utilisation. Biomass just recycles carbon, it does not create it. Our overproduction of corn and wheat alone could replace 3bn cubic metres of natural gas each year - about as much gas as we import. But the nuclear lobby thinks that biomass could only produce a tenth of this energy. Several coal-fired stations have switched to burning wood, even those these could burn corn for around 30 per cent less money, without pushing up wood prices. We lead the EU in unused biomass surpluses, but we use less of it than anyone else. With just half of the money we plan to spend on new reactors, we could provide 30 per cent of the country's energy needs. We could create 100,000 jobs at the same time. István Zvolenszky is a retired engineer. -------- india India, Russia to cooperate in defense production MOSCOW (AFP) Dec 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051205095858.7foa83eq.html Russia and India plan to begin joint work in design and production of weaponry, Indian Defense Minister Manmohan Singh said in an interview with a Russian newspaper published Monday. Singh, who arrived in the Russian capital Sunday for a three-day visit, was quoted by the daily Izvestia as saying that the two countries planned to move from a relationship of "buyer and seller" to joint planning and production of high-tech arms. He did not provide more specifics, but said Russia and India would sign an accord regulating intellectual property rights in several areas including military cooperation during his visit. Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited Russia last month and announced that the two countries were drafting contracts for the sale of Russian military equipment to India worth 10 billion dollars, Interfax news agency said. In response to a question about a warming trilateral bond between Russia, China and India, Singh said India regarded this three-way cooperation as "very fruitful" because it would help all three countries resolve shared problems. -------- iran Iran plans to build second nuclear plant 12/5/2005 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-05-iran-nuclear_x.htm TEHRAN, Iran — Iran plans to construct a second nuclear power plant despite international concern over its nuclear program, state television reported on Monday. The broadcast said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Cabinet ministers decided Sunday night to build the reactor in Khuzistan province, southwestern Iran. Previously Iran had said it would build a second power plant at Bushehr, where its first nuclear reactor is due to begin generating electricity in 2006. Khuzistan province was the site of a French-built power plant that began in the mid-1970s and was stopped after 1979 Islamic revolution. The Iranian parliament is seeking the construction of 20 nuclear power plants. Russia, which built the Bushehr reactor, has offered to build more nuclear plants in Iran. Iran is under intense pressure to curb its nuclear program, which the United States claims is part of an effort to produce weapons. Iran says its program is limited to generating electricity. The International Atomic Energy Agency has warned Iran that its nuclear program could be referred to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions on the country. On Saturday, Iran approved a bill that would block international inspections of its nuclear sites if it were referred to the Security Council. The step strengthens the government's hand in resisting international pressure to permanently abandon uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for either nuclear reactors or atomic bombs. While Iran has frozen its enrichment program, it restarted uranium conversion — a step toward enrichment — in August. The United States and European Union want Iran to permanently halt uranium enrichment. But Tehran says the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows it to pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. It has said it will never give up the right to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel. ---- Iran to build nuclear power plant with 'domestic technology' TEHRAN (AFP) Dec 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051205081714.m0k8dbee.html Iran's government has given the go-ahead for the construction of a nuclear power plant in the southwestern province of Khuzestan using "domestic technology", Iranian media said Monday. The official IRNA news agency said the plan was approved during a cabinet meeting headed by hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Absolutely no further details were given. Iran has already announced plans to build 20 nuclear power plants to produce 1,000 megawatts of electricity within the next 20 years, and officials have said they would soon open an international tender for two of them. Iran insists it needs nuclear energy to meet the increased energy needs of a booming population, and boost its oil and gas export by reducing domestic fossil fuel consumption. Iran's first nuclear plant is currently under construction near the southern city of Bushehr. Iran is dependent on Russia for plant construction and fuel. ---- Russia could build another nuclear power plant in Iran 14:48 | 05/ 12/ 2005 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20051205/42317155.html MOSCOW, December 5 - Russia can build another nuclear power plant in Iran, a senior official from the company that builds Russian-designed nuclear plants abroad said Monday. "If Iran holds a tender to build a nuclear plant, Atomstroieksport will bid for it, because we have the opportunity for the successful construction of another nuclear power plant in Iran," Vladimir Pavlov said. He said Russia's recent successful projects to build nuclear power plants overseas, including in China, attested to Russia's ability to carry out another project in Iran. Earlier reports said an Iranian government session chaired by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided to build another nuclear power plant in its southwestern province of Huzestan. In early 2005, the Iranian parliament ratified a bill on the construction of nuclear power plants in the country in the next 10 years, targeting 20,000 Megawatts to satisfy Iran's electricity demand. Russia is currently finishing the construction of the first unit of a nuclear power plant in the Persian Gulf city of Bushehr to become operational in 2006. ---- Iran, Israel and nukes TODAY'S EDITORIAL December 5, 2005 Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051204-102937-5841r.htm As it becomes increasingly clear that diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear-weapons plans are going nowhere, Israel has been taking steps to deter a nuclear attack aimed at wiping it off the map. On Wednesday, outgoing Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi Farkash said that, after March, Israel must be prepared to use means other than diplomacy to halt Iran's atomic-weapons program. "If by the end of March 2006 the international community will have failed to halt Iran's nuclear-weapons program, diplomatic efforts will be pointless," Farkash said. "Iran has the upper hand in negotiations with the international community." Although other Israeli officials subsequently tried to downplay Gen. Farkash's warning and reiterated Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's call for the international community to do something about the problem, there is no question that Israeli worries about the Iranian nuclear program have been mounting for years. In a Dec. 14, 2001, speech, former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (long depicted by the Europeans as an Iranian "moderate"), declared that, if the Muslim world had an atomic bomb, it would be in good shape after a nuclear exchange with Israel, because a nuclear bomb would destroy the Jewish state, while Muslim countries (with their much larger populations) would survive. The man who defeated him in this year's presidential election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking in October at a conference in Iran titled "The World Without Zionism," vowed that a wave of Palestinian attacks would destroy Israel. "There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world," he declared. "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," while any Islamic leader "who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world." Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran has produced 45 tons of uranium hexafluoride gas since June, enough for at least three or four nuclear devices, and Tehran's capability to develop this material continues to grow every day that it continues its illicit nuclear activities. With Tehran making its genocidal intentions clear, Israel is not waiting around to see if European Union or American diplomacy will change Iran's behavior. Ironically, Germany, which has played a leading role in Western kowtowing to Tehran, may hold part of the key to ensuring that Israel retains its deterrent against attack. Recently the German government approved the sale of two Dolphin-class submarines to Israel. Writing in yesterday's Jerusalem Post, Israeli military analyst Efraim Inbar noted that the submarines, (augmenting a fleet of three already in Israel's possession) are capable of firing cruise missiles carrying nuclear weapons; the subs are able to remain submerged for weeks. This indicates that Israel may be preparing for the possibility of surviving a nuclear first strike and being able respond in kind to such an attack. Given the complete failure of Western diplomacy to halt Iran's march toward development of an atomic bomb, it should come as no surprise if Israel has decided to make surviving a nuclear first strike a top priority. -------- iraq / inspections Netanyahu hints could consider Iran nuclear strike JERUSALEM (AFP) Dec 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051205080141.5tmg1a0v.html Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted Monday that he could consider a pre-emptive air strike against Iran's nuclear installations if he were to be re-elected. Netanyahu, who is widely expected to regain the leadership of the right-wing Likud party later this month, said Israel needed to "act in the spirit" of the late premier Menachem Begin who ordered an air strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. "I view the development of the Iranian nuclear (programme) as a paramount threat and as a real danger to the future of the state of Israel," Netanyahu told the Yediot Aharonot newspaper. "Israel needs to do everything to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear threat against it." "We need to act in the spirit of Menachem Begin, who defied the entire world and with a bold step prevented Iraq from arming itself with nuclear weapons." Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu's arch rival said last week that Israel would never allow its arch-enemy Iran to come into possession of nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused an international backlash in October when he called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map". The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in September found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, paving the way for the matter to be referred to the UN Security Council if Iran does not halt nuclear fuel work and cooperate fully with an IAEA investigation. Iran has insisted that its nuclear programme is merely designed to meet domestic energy needs. ---- Iran warns Israel after Netanyahu attack threat TEHRAN (AFP) Dec 05, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051205141658.u8cpz7c4.html Iran on Monday warned Israel of "heavy consequences" if its nuclear installations were attacked by the Jewish state, after a former Israeli premier suggested Israel should take an aggressive stance toward Iran. "The Islamic republic is a tough target and there would be heavy consequences," said Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. He was speaking after former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel needed to "act in the spirit" of the late premier Menachem Begin, who ordered an air strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. "I view the development of the Iranian nuclear (programme) as a paramount threat and as a real danger to the future of the state of Israel," Netanyahu told the Yediot Aharonot newspaper. "Israel needs to do everything to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear threat against it," said Netanyahu. But Larijani said Iran, which maintains its nuclear programme is peaceful, was not afraid of an attack. "Comparing Iran and Iraq is an error, because Iran is not an easy target. You should not pay attention to such rude comments by Israeli officials," he told a news conference. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also said Iran's response to such an attack would be "devastating and unbearable". Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Netanyahu's arch rival, said last week that Israel would never allow its arch-enemy Iran to come into possession of nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused an international backlash in October when he called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map". The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in September found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, paving the way for the matter to be referred to the UN Security Council if Iran does not halt nuclear fuel work and cooperate fully with an IAEA investigation. Iran has insisted that its nuclear programme is merely designed to meet domestic energy needs. --- Netanyahu threatens Iran N-plants By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank Monday 05 December 2005, 4:43 Makka Time, 1:43 GMT Aljazeera + Agencies http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/802A3FE4-2196-4913-93BD-433E4F1EFE95.htm Former Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu has told Israeli state-run radio he will take action against Iran's nuclear plants if he is elected the next prime minister. "The Iranian threat is an existential one. In this regard, I will continue the legacy of (former Israeli prime minister) Menachem Begin, who thwarted Iran's neighbour, Iraq, from acquiring nuclear weapons by adopting bold and daring measures. "I believe that is what Israel needs to do," Netanyahu said on Sunday. The frontrunner to lead Israel's right-wing Likud Party evoked the memory of Begin, who in 1981 ordered the Israeli air force to destroy Iraq's nuclear plant at Osirak. In the same interview, Netanyahu said he believed that every thing ought to be done to prevent what he called Iran's "nuclear armament". "This is the Israeli government's primary obligation. If it is not done by the current government, I plan to lead the next government to do it." Prime Minister Ariel Sharon quit the Likud to form his own political party in the run-up to March 28 elections. Iranian vow Iran, the world's fourth-biggest oil producer, has stated that its nuclear programme is for energy needs only. It has vowed to retaliate against any attack. Netanyahu made no mention of Israel's own large nuclear arsenal, which according to most strategic experts includes as many as 280 nuclear bombs, with delivery systems, including the Yariho intercontinental missile. The Israeli government, while distancing itself from Netanyahu's remarks, lashed out at the Islamic republic. An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said Israel was not planning unilateral action against Iran. However, he suggested that Israel might be forced to change its policy if the international community failed to "stop the Iranians". "The Iranian regime is very extremist. It doesn't possess the kind of rationality that prevailed during the cold war between the West and the Soviet Union. Gimmicks Shlomo Avneri, head of the Hebrew University's political science department, termed Netanyahu's remarks "electioneering gimmicks." "I think we should view these remarks in the context of two things, first the present election campaign, and second, the all-clear fact that Netanyahu is not going to win," he told Aljazeera.net. Asked whether Netanyahu's remarks would pressure Sharon to attack Iran, Avneri said he did not think so. Independent analysts, however, think Israel, perhaps with US support, could mount a similar strike against Iran, though its facilities are numerous, dispersed and well-defended. Avneri said it was unlikely that Israel would spearhead the "international campaign against the Iranians". Avneri suggested that Israeli leaders were frustrated by the failure of the American bullying approach and the European negotiating approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Sharon recently said that Israel could not accept the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, but steered clear of threatening military action. Record Netanyahu's actions have drawn criticism in the past. In 1997, he ordered the assassination of Khalid Mashal, the head of Hamas politburo, who was based in the Jordanian capital, Amman. The failed poisoning sparked a political crisis with Jordan, and King Hussein reportedly threatened to sever relations with Israel if it did not provide the antidote that would save Mashal's life. Israel eventually gave Jordan the antidote and agreed to release Hamas leader and founder Shaikh Ahmad Yassin from prison. In 1996, Netanyahu triggered a crisis with the Palestinians when he ordered the opening of a tunnel beneath Jerusalem's al-Aqsa Mosque, considered the third-holiest site in Islam. The measure led to bloody clashes between the Israeli army and the Palestinian Authority police. ---- U.S. and Britain try a new tack on Iran December 5, 2005 (New York Times) http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=12/5/2005&Cat=2&Num=002 WASHINGTON -- In a new effort to pressure Iran to allow strict controls on its nuclear program, Britain and the United States are trying to persuade Russia and China to endorse their conclusion, derived from what officials call new evidence, that Tehran intends to build nuclear weapons, American and European diplomats said. Until now, the effort to rein in Iran's nuclear program has occurred largely in the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog. But the agency focuses on identifying possible diversions of nuclear material and has little weapons expertise. The diplomats, who asked not to be identified to avoid any possible disruption of the delicate negotiations, say the new effort has been floated by Britain and endorsed by France and the United States, and seeks the declaration on Iran from the five major nuclear weapons powers that are the permanent members of the Security Council, which has the power to impose penalties. The statement is the hoped-for result of arms specialists in China and Russia examining the evidence on Iran - including thousands of pages found on a laptop computer obtained by the United States last year - and concluding, as the United States, Britain and France have with varying degrees of certainty, that it points at least to an intent to build a weapon. "If we could get China and Russia to agree that this bears all the hallmarks of a weapons program, it could have an enormous impact on Iran," said one senior European diplomat, because it might signal that if the issue reaches the Security Council, Iran could not count on Beijing or Moscow blocking action. Russia and China have extensive energy and economic dealings with Iran and have argued that a confrontational approach will simply drive its government to walk away from international obligations on its nuclear program and oust the inspectors who are examining its facilities. While Russia and China have declared that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, they have resisted American efforts to get the nuclear agency to refer Iran to the Security Council for possible penalties. A resolution passed by the agency's member nations in September said the case should be referred, but specified no time frame, and none was established at a subsequent meeting last month. Running parallel to the effort to declare that Iran is trying to "weaponize" its program, despite its denials, is a diplomatic effort to support a Russian proposal that Iran be allowed to enrich uranium for its nuclear reactors - but only on Russian soil. Russian officials said this would guarantee that the material could not be used secretly for nuclear weapons, because it would be enriched only to "reactor grade." Many aspects of the Russian proposal remain unclear. An American official said it could involve Iranian investment in a company based in Russia, but with the actual enrichment done elsewhere in the country, with no Iranian participation. The official said the Russian initiative was "more of an idea than a proposal," and European officials said it was being discussed more as a way of involving Russia in the diplomacy than out of a conviction that Iran would accept it. Eventually, the United States hopes that Russia will develop its idea, and that Britain, France and Germany will try to get the Iranians to resume talks on it, as part of a strategy to keep the talks going. But Iran has so far declined to discuss the Russian proposal and has steadily insisted that it cannot surrender its sovereignty in developing enriched uranium for what it says is a peaceful nuclear program. The British, as part of the effort to persuade Russia and China to join a declaration on Iran, are citing documents turned over to the nuclear agency by Iran apparently showing that it was offered technology to make metallic hemispheres from highly enriched uranium. Iran maintains that it never acted on the offer, which came from the former Pakistani nuclear chief, Abdul Qadeer Khan. British and American officials say they find that explanation impossible to believe. Britain, France and Germany have forged an ambitious effort to persuade Iran to abandon nuclear fuel activities that could lead to the making of a bomb, in return for economic and political incentives and also some form of security guarantees. But Iran has refused to give up its right to these activities. "The most important aspect of our discussions is to broaden the support by countries like Russia, China, India, South Africa and Brazil," said a top European diplomat. "To do that, it's important that they feel all the diplomatic possibilities are exhausted before we step up the pressure." The impasse with Iran is at a stage where "they are talking about talks," said an American official. That is, European officials say, they are trying to reach out to Iran to discuss informally the possibility of resuming negotiations on an eventual abandonment of its nuclear programs. -------- japan Japan Gives Kansai Electric Go Ahead to Restart Nuclear Reactor December 5, 2005 (Bloomberg) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10001099&sid=arBkfGNMpd9w&refer=energy Dec. 6 -- Japan's government gave Kansai Electric Power Co., the country's second-biggest power producer, the go ahead to restart a nuclear reactor 16 months after a fatal accident at the unit. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency yesterday lifted an operating ban on the No. 3 reactor at the utility's Mihama power plant, the unit of Japan's trade ministry said in a statement. The agency removed the ban after conducting on-site inspections at the reactor, it said. The decision brings closer the time when Osaka-based Kansai Electric can restart the 826-megawatt reactor. It will be the last of the company's reactors to restart after the government ordered all 11 shut for inspections in stages following the deaths of five workers on Aug. 9, 2004. The Mihama No. 3 unit met technical standards assessed during inspections, Kenkichi Hirose, the agency's director-general, told Kansai Electric President Shosuke Mori in a letter, the nuclear safety agency said on its Web site. Five workers died and six others were injured after a water pipe ruptured at the Mihama reactor. A 28-year-old carbon-steel steam pipe had worn down to 1.4 millimeters (0.06 inches) in places before it burst. The steam system's pipes were made from 10-millimeter thick steel and rated for a working life of 30 years. The Mihama plant has three nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 1,666 megawatts. Kansai Electric owns 11 reactors at three nuclear power plants in the central prefecture of Fukui on the Japan Sea coast. To contact the reporter on this story: Meggan Richard in Tokyo at mrichard3@bloomberg.net. -------- u.n. Rep. Tauscher Cautions Against Aggressive Nuclear Policy 16 Democrats Voice Concern about Draft Nuclear Document FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 5, 2005 http://www.house.gov/tauscher/Press2005/12-05-05.htm Today, seven Senators and nine Representatives authored a joint letter to President Bush, expressing their deep concern about a draft nuclear weapons doctrine currently under consideration by the Department of Defense. The draft document advocates what many believe to be a risky nuclear posture, which would keep nuclear weapons on high alert and could authorize pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Rep. Tauscher was joined by co-signers Sens. Dianne Feinstein (CA), Daniel Akaka (HI), Edward Kennedy (MA), Jack Reed (RI), Byron Dorgan (ND), John Kerry (MA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Reps. Neil Abercrombie (HI), Rob Andrews (NJ), Marty Meehan (MA), Ed Markey (MA), Susan Davis (CA), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Adam Smith (WA), Mark Udall (CO). The letter can be seen below: December 5, 2005 The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States Dear Mr. President: We are writing you to express our strong concern about the draft U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine being prepared by the Pentagon. This draft calls for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to make pre-emptive strikes, if necessary on adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction. We recognize that in large part the draft "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" is based on principles contained in the 1995 Nuclear Posture Review, the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and other directives published by the Bush administration since 2001. For instance, your 2002 National Security Presidential Directive 17 reportedly states, “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” On the other hand, the language in the draft doctrine removes the ambiguity of the previous doctrine, and now suggests that your administration will use nuclear weapons to respond to non-nuclear WMD threats and suggests that this use could include pre-emptive nuclear strikes thereby increasing reliance on nuclear weapons. On page III-2 of the March 15, 2005 draft, it states that combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons under such conditions as: • To counter an adversary intending to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S., multinational, or allies forces or civilian populations; • To counter an imminent attack from an adversary’s biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy; • To attack on adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons, or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies; • To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces; • To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use. We believe this effort to broaden the range of scenarios in which nuclear weapons might be contemplated is unwise and provocative. The costs of using a nuclear weapon in the cases contemplated would almost always outweigh the benefits. Many potential targets are near major population centers. Striking a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons cache would require perfect intelligence and is impossible to do without significant collateral damage. The draft doctrine says that the belligerent that initiates nuclear warfare may find itself the target of world condemnation but notes that no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from using nuclear weapons in armed conflict. In other words, the draft Pentagon doctrine seems to conclude the United States is legally free to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively if it chooses, even against non-nuclear weapon states. This drastic shift in U.S. nuclear policy threatens the very foundation of nuclear arms control as shaped by the 1970 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which has helped prevent nuclear proliferation for over 35 years. In the context of efforts to strengthen and extend the treaty, the United States issued a negative nuclear security assurance in 1978, reiterated in 1995, that the United States would not use nuclear force against NPT member countries without nuclear weapons unless attacked by a non nuclear-weapon state that is allied with a nuclear-weapon state. The draft doctrine contradicts clear statements and assurances of your administration. On February 22, 2002 State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stated a similar version of the negative nuclear security pledge: “The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear- weapon state-parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state toward which it has a security commitment carried out, or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association with a nuclear weapon state.” Abandoning this clear negative security assurance under the NPT would further undermine the treaty and our many other efforts to prevent others developing or using nuclear weapons. Partly as a result of U.S. inflexibility on key disarmament issues, your administration has already squandered opportunities to build greater global support for measures to update and strengthen the nonproliferation system. In addition, this new doctrine, if approved, could exacerbate the danger of nuclear proliferation by giving states of concern, such as North Korea and Iran, an excuse to maintain their nuclear weapons options and would send a green light to the world’s nuclear states that it is permissible to use these weapons offensively. The draft nuclear doctrine also appears to undermine the credibility of other U.S. negative security assurances, such as those contained in the recent six-party statement of principles outlining the terms for the verifiable and complete dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons capabilities. Mr. President, it is one thing to threaten a devastating response to a biological or chemical weapons attack or the threat of a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack. It is quite another to say explicitly that the United States is prepared to counter non-nuclear weapons threats or attempt to pre-empt a suspected WMD attack by striking with nuclear weapons. As former Secretary of State Powell said in response to the possibility that India and Pakistan might use nuclear weapons during their confrontation in the summer of 2002: “Nuclear weapons in this day and age may serve some deterrent effect, and so be it, but to think of using them as just another weapon in what might start out as a conventional conflict in this day and age seems to me to be something that no side should be contemplating.” We urge you to personally review the draft doctrine and consider its serious negative consequences for U.S. national and international security interests. U.S. nuclear use policy and doctrine should be consistent with your often stated goal of significantly reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons worldwide. Thank you for considering our suggestions and we look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (CA), Daniel Akaka (HI), Edward Kennedy (MA), Jack Reed (RI), Byron Dorgan (ND), John Kerry (MA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Reps. Ellen Tauscher (CA), Neil Abercrombie (HI), Rob Andrews (NJ), Marty Meehan (MA), Ed Markey (MA), Susan Davis (CA), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Adam Smith (WA), and Mark Udall (CO). CONTACT: Hayley Rumback (202) 225-1880 http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ 1034 Longworth HOB - Washington, D.C. 20515 - (202) 225-1880 (phone) & (202) 225-5914 (fax) -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- michigan MI: CMS Energy to seek bidder qualification in December for Palisades nuke December 05, 2005 10:31 AM By Jennifer Zajac, SNL Financial http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-2240449-11370 CMS Energy Corp. said Dec. 5 that it will sell its Palisades nuclear plant through a competitive bid process, with bidder qualification beginning in December and due diligence commencing in the first quarter of 2006. The auction process is expected to lead to a sale in 2007. Concentric Energy Advisors (CEA) was retained to serve as the auction manager and financial adviser for the sale of Palisades. CEA will provide strategic support throughout the transaction and regulatory approval process. The process will include a long-term power purchase agreement with the new owner to retain the benefits of the low-cost nuclear generation for Consumers Energy Co.'s 1.8 million electric customers. The Palisades plant, located near South Haven, Mich., is the only operating nuclear plant owned by Consumers Energy, CMS Energy's principal subsidiary. It produces up to 798 MW, or about 18% of Consumers Energy's electricity generating capacity. Currently, the plant is licensed to operate until 2011. The company has filed with the NRC seeking to renew the license for 20 years. CMS Energy President and CEO David Joos said the decision to sell the plant reflects the current realities in the nuclear power marketplace. "Ownership of nuclear power plants is consolidating as companies with multiple nuclear units are able to share operating practices, experience, and resources and benefit from economies of scale," Joos said. "Though we've seen great improvements at Palisades since turning over operations to the Nuclear Management Co. in 2000, NMC has shrunk as other member utilities have sold their plants, and we believe our best course of action is to sell Palisades." Joos emphasized that Palisades will be sold only if a satisfactory bid is made. "We will sell Palisades only if it makes sense for the company and its customers," he said. "We expect a high level of interest in Palisades and we're optimistic that we'll see some attractive bids." The NRC will have to approve the transfer of the plant's operating license to a new owner. The FERC and the Michigan Public Service Commission also will review various elements of any sale. The MPSC also will have an ongoing role in approving any power supply agreements resulting from the sale. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Russia confirms sale of missiles to Iran 12/5/2005 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-12-05-russia-iran_x.htm MOSCOW — Russia has struck a deal to sell short-range, surface-to-air missiles to Iran, the defense minister said Monday, confirming reports that have raised concern in the United States and Israel. (Related story: Iran plans to build second nuclear plant) Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov didn't give details. But Russian media have said that Moscow agreed in November to sell $1 billion worth of weapons to Iran, including up to 30 Tor-M1 missile systems over the next two years. "A contract for the delivery of air defense Tor missiles to Iran has indeed been signed," Ivanov was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. "This unequivocally does not change the balance of forces in the region," Ivanov added. Tor M1 missiles are short-range, surface-to-air missiles already used by several other armed forces, including China. The reports last week prompted expressions of concern from the U.S administration and Israel, which considers Iran to be its biggest threat. Israeli concerns recently were heightened after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged that Israel be "wiped off the map." Interfax said the Tor-M1 system could identify up to 48 targets and fire at two targets simultaneously at a height of up to 20,000 feet. On Saturday, an influential Iranian official played down the deal, telling the official Islamic Republic News Agency that Tehran has been trading arms with many countries and would continue to do so. The Russian Foreign Ministry, without commenting on the reported missile sale, also said Saturday that all Russian weaponry supplied to Iran is purely for defensive purposes. However, a senior Bush administration official, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the subject, said last week that any arms sale to Iran is a source of concern. The official would not say whether Russia had advised the United States of any negotiations with Iran. ---- Israel slams Russia for selling anti-missile system to Iran Tehran defends its right to buy arms Compiled by Daily Star staff Monday, December 05, 2005 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=20514 Israel on Sunday lambasted Russia over the sale of anti-missile systems to arch-enemy Iran, the latest round of what the local press has dubbed the "Iranian-Israeli arms race." Iran, already under intense international pressure over its nuclear activities, has reportedly bought 29 mobile air defense systems from Moscow in a deal worth more than $700 million. Defending the Russian deal, Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said: "Is this a problem? Do we need permission?" "We have contracts with other countries to buy or sell arms. This is not the first time we have signed a contract with the Russians. We have done so in the past with Russia and other countries like China," he told AFP in an interview. Reacting to the arms deal, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokes-man Marc Regev said: "When a country sells arms to Iran, it strengthens the military strength of the state and serves only the interests of the most negative elements in the region." The contract with Russia coincided with an Israeli announcement it had successfully test fired an Arrow defense missile against a mock Shahab missile. Iran has been constantly upgrading the Shahab-3 missile, a single-stage device that is believed to be based on a North Korean design and have a range of at least 2,000 kilometers - meaning that arch-enemy Israel and U.S. bases in the region are well within range. "For the first time we have verified the Arrow's capabilities against the Iranian Shahab and this test has allowed us to demonstrate that we have the means to counter Iranian threats," Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Sunday. The latest test of the Arrow, or Hetz in Hebrew - which is not yet operational - followed a pledge by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Israel would never allow Iran to come into possession of nuclear weapons. The Shahab-3, which means "Meteor" or "Shooting Start" in Farsi, was once described by Israel's Mossad spy agency as the greatest threat to the Jewish state's existence since its creation in 1948. First launched in 1988 during the now-defunct Star Wars strategy under former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, the U.S.-inspired Arrow program was stepped up after Israel was hit by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles that left two people dead during the 1991 Gulf war. Development of the Arrow is half-funded by the United States. Its army chief Dan Halutz predicted Sunday diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions would fail but suggested a military strike was not yet on the cards. "The Iranians are determined to get a nuclear capability. From Israel's viewpoint such a situation is unacceptable ... We should be prepared for the worst scenario," he said. Asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear project, Halutz quipped, "2,000 kilometers." Mofaz said the United Nations should step in. "This is a hot potato which should be placed on the table of the Security Council." Russia's news agency ITAR-TASS on Friday quoted an unidentified top Russian Defense Ministry official as saying the deal involved 29 Tor M-1 mobile systems capable of bringing down both aircraft and missiles. Larijani said with a smile that Iran's air defenses "do not have many weaknesses," but went on to dismiss fears that his country was also seeking to equip itself with long-range ballistic missiles. "We always announce the range of missiles we test. There is nothing secret," he said. Israeli newspapers noted the weapons build-up with some alarm, with respected military commentator Alex Fishman calling the arms race a "cancerous illness" in a column in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper. "The Iranians do not yet have nuclear weapons, but we are already at the early stage of the game: we are running an arms race against them for defensive weapons, trying to understand where they're headed and to run a few steps ahead," he wrote. "The race will go on unless some sort of miracle happens to stop this lunacy, which sucks billions of dollars from each side." ---- Chemical Saddam Met Nuclear Uncle Sam And we are living with the consequences by Jorge Hirsch, December 5, 2005 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8206 Hypothesis: In the 1991 Gulf War, after ejecting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, the United States was determined to invade Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and pursue the same goals it is pursuing in Iraq today. It was "deterred" from doing so only because Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons then, deployed and ready to be used against U.S. troops if they had proceeded towards Baghdad. I argue that this hypothesis provides a rational explanation for many events that the official history does not, and in particular sheds light on the evolution of U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine since then and explains events that are about to unfold in connection with Iran. The conventional history holds that George H.W. Bush was not interested in invading Iraq to remove Saddam from power. Why not? Saddam was much stronger militarily in 1991 than in 2003, a much larger threat to the region. All the imaginable reasons that could have existed for the invasion in 2003, stated or unstated, were at least as strong in 1991: eliminate Iraq's WMD, bring democracy to Iraq, benefit U.S. corporations, control oil, expand U.S. influence, reduce the threat to Israel. The risks (difficulty to stabilize Iraq, risk of civil war and the breakup of the country, greater regional influence for Iran) were no greater in 1991 than in 2003. The memories of Saddam using WMD against Iran and against its own people were much fresher in the early '90s than they were over a decade later. The U.S. had half a million troops in place the first time around, and was responding to an act of aggression by Saddam. The international community would have been far more supportive of ousting Saddam at the outset of Gulf War I than it was at the beginning of Gulf War II. After 12 years, Iraq had been substantially weakened by UN sanctions, and UN inspectors had combed the country up and down in search of chemical weapons. Moreover, Saddam had not threatened anyone in the region nor elsewhere in the intervening years. True, 9/11 happened, but there was no evidence that Saddam's regime had any connection, practical or ideological, with al-Qaeda. Why oust Saddam in 2003, rather than 1991? An explanation based on the personality differences between Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. is conceivable but hardly convincing. There was only one real difference between 1991 and 2003: Saddam had chemical weapons in 1991. In 2003, the U.S. knew, with reasonable to absolute certainty, that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq that invading U.S. ground troops would have to face. The conventional view holds that the U.S. made it clear to Saddam in 1991 that it would respond to a chemical attack with nuclear weapons, and this warning was what deterred Saddam from using chemical weapons. However, chemical weapons were Saddam's weapons of last resort. It was rational for him not to use them to hold on to Kuwait, but he is likely to have been fully prepared to use them if the survival of his regime was at stake, no matter the nuclear threat. Chemical weapons are primarily defensive weapons, and they were used as such by Iraq (successfully) against the counteroffensive that Iran launched into Iraq's territory during the Iran-Iraq war in the '80s. If U.S. forces had driven toward Baghdad in 1991 and Saddam had used chemical weapons, it would have resulted in thousands of U.S. casualties. Nonetheless, the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. in such a circumstance would have been condemned by much of the rest of the world as criminal. Memories of Hiroshima were more vivid then, and the world would not have condoned the breaking of the nuclear taboo by an invading superpower against a non-nuclear country. Hence it is more plausible that the U.S. was deterred from invading Iraq by Saddam's chemical weapons than that Saddam was deterred by the nuclear threat from using chemical weapons. This must have dealt a devastating blow to U.S. policymakers from which they have been attempting to recover ever since. Think about it: the greatest power in the world was prevented from achieving a military goal against a country with negligible military forces, despite the immensely superior conventional and nuclear arsenal of the United States. And Saddam achieving this feat without firing a single shot, so to speak. Whether Saddam explicitly told the U.S. that Iraq would use chemical weapons against invading forces or it was inferred from U.S. intelligence, it must have played a determining role in Bush Sr.'s decision not to march on Baghdad. Twelve years later, Saddam's removal had been made possible by the success of the UN inspection and disarmament process, not necessitated by its alleged failure. When Donald Rumsfeld mused in 2003 that U.S. forces would encounter chemical weapons around Tikrit and Baghdad, he was in a time warp. His mind must have flipped back to 1991, when the U.S. was considering going to Baghdad and chemical weapons were indeed deployed surrounding Baghdad as Saddam's ultimate weapon of survival. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense then, and a feeling of impotence about having been "deterred" by Saddam Hussein must have stuck with him. He patiently waited 12 years until he was in a position to complete the mission. Beginning in 1991, U.S. policymakers and military planners worked hard to modify the rules of the game so that this David-Goliath scenario could never happen again. Here is how: 1. They ensured through UN inspections and sanctions that Iraq got rid of all its WMD so that it would be safe for the U.S. to invade. There is a logical inconsistency otherwise. Iraq did not use chemical or other WMD in invading Kuwait. Even in its war with Iran, it used chemical weapons only for defensive purposes, and the UN did not attempt to impose sanctions against Iraq. Why would the primary UN punishment for Iraq's aggression against Kuwait be that it had to get rid of weapons that played no role in the attack on Kuwait? But it makes perfect sense if chemical weapons did play a key role in the Gulf War, as in the hypothesis considered here. 2. Year after year, U.S. policymakers created and drummed up [.pdf] the mythical concept of WMD, which encompasses chemical and nuclear as well as other unconventional weapons. Nuclear weapons are a million times more powerful than chemical and all other weapons and have the potential to destroy humanity many times over. It is absurd to lump chemical weapons and nuclear weapons in the same category [.pdf]. Nevertheless, the U.S. has been able to convince much of the world, through incessant propaganda since 1991, that chemical and nuclear weapons are comparable. The purpose, of course, is to legitimize answering chemical weapons (which the U.S. doesn't have, or at least doesn't plan to use) with nuclear weapons (which the U.S. does have and does plan to use). 3. The U.S. government worked to strengthen international agreements outlawing chemical and biological but not nuclear weapons (see the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention). This, of course, contradicts the WMD concept and is blatantly hypocritical; nevertheless, the world has accepted it. 4. U.S. military planners lowered the declared threshold for using nuclear weapons. The U.S. now states in policy documents that it will use nuclear weapons against a WMD attack, whether the WMD use was offensive or defensive. Moreover, the U.S. declares that it is prepared to use nuclear weapons against enemy underground facilities and adversaries "intending" to use WMD. It will even use nuclear weapons for "favorable war termination on U.S. terms," no matter what the circumstances. What a far cry from the times when nukes were weapons "of last resort," to be used only when the survival of the nation or of allied nations was at stake. Today, the U.S. openly advocates using nuclear weapons as a "deterrent" to prevent other countries from doing anything the U.S. opposes that could lead to a conventional war. But despite all this effort, the Pentagon's latest nuclear deterrence strategy is still an empty threat, and the U.S. government knows it. The problem is candidly stated in the document "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control" [.pdf] that served as a blueprint for the official Nuclear Posture Review of 2001: "Will U.S. conventional and/or nuclear threats be judged credible by foes and prove effective for deterrence? Or will challengers judge the credibility of U.S. deterrence policies to be low? There can be no confident answers to these questions, particularly in today's dynamic unfolding international environment." Precisely. The much-touted nuclear deterrent is not a credible strategy against "rogue" non-nuclear nations, because nobody believes that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons in the scenarios described in the policy documents. They are just empty words – until the U.S. demonstrates, by doing it once, that it is actually willing to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. And it is planning to do just that in the upcoming war with Iran. Unlike the attack on Iraq, it will be a purely aerial mission, probably a joint operation with Israel. Given that U.S. forces in Iraq and Israeli citizens will be exposed to Iranian retaliation with chemical missiles, a nuclear attack will be consistent with U.S. doctrine, which makes it "defensible" and even "legal" to use U.S. nuclear weapons preemptively against underground Iranian missile and potential WMD storage facilities. Once the nuclear threshold has been crossed in an act of aggression against a non-nuclear country, there will be no doubts left about the "deterrent" value of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to deal with any foes for any reasons. "Confident answers" [.pdf] will be possible. Saddam Hussein wannabes will never again be able to stop a U.S. invasion with the threat of chemical or other non-nuclear weapons. They will be nuked to the ground before they finish uttering any threat. The trillions of dollars and millions of man-hours invested in building the U.S. nuclear arsenal will never again be proven useless by pitiful adversaries. North Korea is likely to disarm in the immediate aftermath without extracting any concessions from the U.S. In the minds of U.S. policymakers, ours will be a safer world. In the minds of rational people, entirely the opposite. The U.S. will have established that the only remaining check on U.S. aggression is nuclear weapons. Many more countries will go nuclear [.pdf], and the risk of global nuclear war will increase exponentially. And terrorists sympathetic to the victimized country will do their utmost to retaliate in kind, and eventually succeed. Brace yourself. -------- europe Bulgarians Want Limits on U.S. Military Bases December 5, 2005 (Angus Reid Global Scan) http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10097 Many adults in Bulgaria express unease over a proposed arrangement of cooperation between their country and the United States, according to a poll by Alpha Research. 59.7 per cent of respondents oppose allowing the U.S. military to operate in Bulgaria, if it is able to launch attacks on third countries. In March 2004, Bulgaria officially joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In December, the European Union (EU) announced that the accession treaty with Bulgaria and Romania would be finalized in April 2005. The two countries could conceivably join the continental group in 2007. Last August, Socialist leader Sergei Stanishev became prime minister after a 169-67 vote in the National Assembly. Stanishev expressed his intention to "meet the expectations of Bulgarians, to give Bulgaria the possibility of joining the EU and to improve living standards." Bulgaria recently offered to allow U.S. forces to use its military bases. The Bush administration is considering the Bezmer air base and the Novo Selo training base, both located in southeastern Bulgaria, as potential facilities. Last month, Bulgarian defence minister Veselin Bliznakov said he expected a deal to be finalized by next spring. The previous government headed by conservative prime minister Simeon Sakskoburggotski deployed 380 soldiers to support the coalition effort in Iraq. Bulgarian soldiers are scheduled to take over security duties at Afghanistan’s Kabul Airport next year. Polling Data Percentage of respondents who oppose allowing the U.S. military to operate in Bulgaria, if it is able to launch attacks on third countries 59.7% Source: Alpha Research Methodology: Interviews with 1,200 Bulgarian adults, conducted from Nov. 15 to Nov. 24, 2005. No margin of error was provided. -------- prisoners of war Kidnappers Threaten to Kill Four Western Peace Activists In Iraq Monday, December 5th, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/05/1455234 In news from Iraq, it has now been 10 days since four peace activists with the Christian Peacemaker Team were kidnapped in Baghdad. Over the weekend relatives of each of the men urged their captives to release them. In addition more than 13,000 people including Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy signed an online petition urging their release. The petition read in part "They are people who have dedicated their lives to fighting against war and have clearly and publicly opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq." The petition is online at the website freethecpt.org. On Friday, Al Jazeera broadcast a video showing the four hostages, in which the kidnappers threatened to kill them by Thursday unless all prisoners in U.S. and Iraqi detention centers are released. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- torture Extraordinary Rendition Scandal Reaches New Heights: Rice on the Offensive in Europe Over Bush Administration's Use of "Torture Flights" Monday, December 5th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/05/1455239 The scandal over the Bush administration's use of so-called "extraordinary renditions' is reaching new heights. Rendition - what many call kidnapping - is the highly controversial practice of transporting detainees seized overseas by U.S. agents to countries known for using torture. On Sunday, the Washington Post detailed how a German citizen was seized in Europe by the CIA, beaten, drugged and held to a secret prison in Afghanistan for five months before the agency realized they had the wrong man. [includes rush transcript] The scandal over the Bush administration's use of so-called "extraordinary renditions' is reaching new heights. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrives in Europe today for a five-day trip to address the issue directly. Last month the European Union wrote to Rice expressing concern over reports that the US was using secret jails in Europe for its rendition program. Rice will reportedly respond by telling allies to "back off" over the issue. The highly controversial practice of rendition involves transporting suspects seized overseas by US agents to countries known for using torture and holding them there for interrogation. Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union has announced it is taking the CIA to court over its rendition program. The lawsuit - which will be filed on Tuesday - charges the CIA broke both US and international law when they authorized agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan. Over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that the US admitted to German officials in May 2004 that the CIA had mistakenly imprisoned a German citizen for five months but asked the German government to remain quiet about it. The man, Khaled El-Masri, was arrested in Macedonia on December 31, 2003. He says he was handed to US officials and flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan where he was held in appalling conditions and interrogated as a terrorism suspect. He was returned to Europe five months later when the CIA realized they had the wrong man. Citing interviews with current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials, the Post reported that after the September 11th attacks, the staff of the CIA's Counterterroist Center - or CTC - quadrupled in size nearly overnight. The center's Rendition Group is made up of case officers, paramilitaries, analysts and psychologists. According to the Post, members of the group follow a simple but standard procedure: "Dressed head to toe in black, including masks, they blindfold and cut the clothes off their new captives, then administer an enema and sleeping drugs. They outfit detainees in a diaper and jumpsuit for what can be a day-long trip. Their destinations: either a detention facility operated by cooperative countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, including Afghanistan, or one of the CIA's own covert prisons...which at various times have been operated in eight countries, including several in Eastern Europe." The CIA, working with other intelligence agencies, has captured an estimated 3,000 people since 9/11. There is no tribunal or judge to check the evidence against those picked up by the agency. The CIA's inspector general is now investigating a growing number of what it calls "erroneous renditions." One official told the Post about three dozen names fall in that category. - Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We're joined now in our New York studio by Michael Ratner. He’s president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Welcome to Democracy Now! MICHAEL RATNER: Welcome, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: Well, this is an amazing story in The Washington Post, especially in its details about what happened to this one man, Khaled Masri. Beginning with the cooperation of the German government, which was anti-Iraq war, and the U.S., Dana Priest, the writer, begins, “In May 2004, the White House dispatched the U.S. ambassador in Germany to pay an unusual visit to that country's interior minister. Ambassador Daniel Coats carried instructions from the State Department transmitted via the C.I.A.'s Berlin station because they were too sensitive and highly classified for regular diplomatic channels, according to several people with knowledge of the conversation.” Priest goes on to write, “Coats informed the German minister that the C.I.A. had wrongfully imprisoned one of its citizens, Khaled Masri, for five months, and would soon release him, the sources said. There was also a request that the German government not disclose what it had been told even if Masri went public. The U.S. officials feared exposure of a covert action program designed to capture terrorism suspects abroad and transfer them among countries and possible legal challenges to the C.I.A. from Masri and others with similar allegations.” A remarkable story. MICHAEL RATNER: Well, Dana Priest's story was absolutely amazing because of the detail. I mean, we have all known about the extraordinary rendition program for a long time. The Center for Constitutional Rights has had this case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was detained at Kennedy airport, sent to Syria where he was tortured, but what this story does is put detail on it. It talks about this unit that’s set up in the basement of the C.I.A., 1,200 people working on extraordinary rendition. It talks about “black sites,” which are C.I.A. sites, which may even be in Europe, Romania and Poland. And then, of course, it has the story of Khaled El-Masri, who was innocent, picked up, taken to Afghanistan, interrogated, tortured and then released, with the Germans closely involved. And what I think is going on here is that Europe has been deeply involved in this whole process. Certainly, the intelligence agencies of Europe have been involved. And hundreds of flights, hundreds of flights have gone out of Germany, taking people, C.I.A. flights, all over the world to be tortured. And now that it's being exposed, Europe is sitting there demanding -- supposedly demanding from the U.S., ‘Tell us what's going on. Tell us what's happening.’ Yet at the same time, they have been involved in not only some of their countries allowing these camps to be there, but in allowing these flights to go from Sweden, from England, from Germany, from Spain, all over Europe, to take people to torture facilities everywhere in the world. What it reminds me of, and I think people should really be aware of this, we all see now that Pinochet in Chile is being condemned and may actually have to stand trial for the Operation Condor, the running of essentially a gulag through South America, where he picked up people, had them tortured and killed and taken to various facilities. And you have to ask yourself: What's the difference between what the United States is doing now in cooperation with Europe, essentially in running a worldwide gulag of detention and torture facilities? AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. We're also joined on the phone by a British Member of Parliament, Andrew Tyrie, who is a Tory, a chair of the All Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. Welcome to Democracy Now! ANDREW TYRIE: Hello. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Can you talk about the issue of the responsibility of countries that either allow planes to land and take off, that are known to be carrying these -- some call them kidnapped people -- people who are going through extraordinary rendition, and also the facilities, for example, in Britain, if there are, places, black sites, where these people are being interrogated or tortured? ANDREW TYRIE: Well, let's deal with each of those points in turn. First of all, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me fairly clear that since Britain, for example, has incorporated the U.N. Convention Against Torture directly into its domestic law, if we are knowingly allowing flights to pass through the U.K., land there, have refueling, and then go on, knowing that it's likely that people are going to be tortured, it strikes me that those actions must make us complicit in the torture and that, therefore, we have broken the Convention. Likewise, I suspect that we may have broken the Human Rights Act if we have done this. There would also be possibly breaches to the criminal law, the ordinary criminal law, which, of course, prohibits torture, and that's a question which another pressure group in Britain called Liberty is actually pursuing with the police authorities at the moment. As far as your second question is concerned, the problem is, none of us know the facts. None of us know whether there is any holding center in the U.K. I think that's unlikely, because I think we would have got to hear about it. I suspect that's perhaps why the Americans have been -- administration has been setting up these in countries in Eastern Europe. So, I don't know whether that's the case. But I think it's unlikely. What I do know -- I hope I have not gone on too long -- what I do know is that we need a healthy debate about this in a democracy, and we need to make up our minds whether this is the right way to go. I don't; I think torturing people is likely to make the war against terrorism more difficult, not less difficult. Of course, Condoleezza Rice has now said we must have this healthy debate, but only yesterday her spokesman, Mr. Hanley, was saying these are things that shouldn’t be talked about in public. And there does seem to be a pretty flat contradiction between those two points. AMY GOODMAN: Do you know how many flights, torture flights, have gone through Britain? ANDREW TYRIE: No. And there are many allegations being made by plane spotters and others that this may be in dozens or hundreds. But it's so difficult to know; unless one can get onto the plane and inspect and find out what's going on, we can’t know. What I do think is -- which is what we will be pressing the government about in the -- today and in the days and weeks ahead, that it's up to the government to make an effort to find out. The benign neglect that they seem to be going in for at the moment is, in my view, absolutely outrageous. A former foreign office minister has himself said that there seems to be an extraordinary lack of curiosity on behalf of the British government about these actions. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to British M.P. Andrew Tyrie, a chair of the All Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. What is the feeling in the British Parliament right now around this issue? And in Britain, do you call it “kidnapping”? ANDREW TYRIE: Well, the attitude of a lot of people is deep concern without knowing quite where to turn. A lot of people in Britain, and I'm talking now more widely, British public opinion, are very, very concerned about terrorism. You have got to remember that in Britain, we have had 30 years of terrorism, so we're quite experienced about it. And I know it’s relatively new for the United States, but it's not at all new for us. We’ve got a spectrum of opinion from some saying, ‘Well, if you can torture some information out of people and thereby save some lives, maybe that's a good thing,’ right the way through to those who think that torture under any circumstances is completely wrong. I think that the mood of the British public opinion has moved much more in the direction of those who are against torture. And that's because, I'm afraid, our closest ally, the United States -- or I should really say the U.S. administration -- has lost the confidence of a large chunk of British opinion and, indeed, European opinion. And it's done that because, to us, used to terrorism as we are in Spain, Germany, France, Britain, we think America has overreacted. We think the U.S. administration overreacted to September 11, that regime change and preemptive action are not the way to go around trying to deal with terrorism, and that what we saw in Abu Ghraib and what we hear about from Guantanamo is not likely to win over the hearts and minds of moderate Muslim opinion. And we know from hard experience -- the British know in dealing with the I.R.A., the Irish terrorists, the French know from dealing with terrorists in Algeria, that these techniques, these very, very heavy-handed techniques tend to inflame the problem. So, it's not just a question of my personal moral repugnance against all this that leads many to be concerned, but it is something much more practical, as well. Is this going to help us actually deal with the problem we’ve got? And in the view of, I think, an increasing number of the British population, and that's reflected in Parliament, the answer to that is: No, it's not helping us. AMY GOODMAN: As a Tory M.P., I'm wondering how things break down politically, in terms of the parties, yours a more conservative party. ANDREW TYRIE: Well, traditionally, the strongest repository of support for human rights issues is in the Labour Party. And so, it is, I suppose, ironic that it should be a conservative who is leading this group. I am a conservative. I should also say there's a very strong strand of libertarian opinion in the Conservative Party, and I'm certainly part of that, who are deeply concerned about the infringement of civil and political liberties that’s taking place, not only in Britain but in many other countries. In Britain, we’ve had a – and indeed, we're in the midst of a big debate about how long -- for how long the government may detain people without trial, which is a related issue. And the government was recently defeated in a big debate in Parliament on that issue. The government was asking for 90 days, and that was rejected. There are a good number of other issues, too, where there's this tension between the libertarian strand and those who say, ‘No, we’re in a new world, we’ve got to be much tougher on terrorism.’ It crosses party lines now. The Conservative Party is not united, as it might -- one might imagine from their name, behind a view of ‘Let's have tougher measures.’ The libertarian strand in conservatism in the Conservative Party is, at the moment, I think, much stronger than it was a short while ago, and of course, the Labour Party is deeply divided about it, and Tony Blair has trouble leading his party on these issues. AMY GOODMAN: Before we go to break, we're going to stay with this issue, but because we have you on, I wanted to ask you about this whole issue of the Downing Street memo that the Blair government has forbid any newspaper in Britain to print, that allegedly involves a report that Tony Blair dissuaded President Bush from following through on bombing Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha in Qatar. Your response to that? ANDREW TYRIE: Well, if it's true, it reflects, I think, quite badly on the American administration, frankly, that there should be just this another example of a colossal misjudgment. I mean, can you think of anything more calculated to stir up moderate Muslim opinion than to go and bomb Al Jazeera? This is meant to be the leader of the democratic world. The sadness is that for someone like myself, who is an absolutely cut and dried Atlanticist, for whom the alliance with the United States is the bedrock of everything I believe in, as far as defending my country is concerned, and with so many shared values, the irony is that we could be undermining the very values that we're telling other countries that they should adopt. We're undermining the values we're seeking to export by some of the actions we are taking. And that's just one example, if it's true. As for the specifics of the memo, I am a freedom man, and I'm a freedom of information man. And clearly, a document like that should be put into the public domain, and that should happen immediately. AMY GOODMAN: So, are you encouraging a newspaper to defy the Blair government and actually print this memo? ANDREW TYRIE: Well, that's a matter -- I mean, there's a good number of editors, who have made newspapers in Britain, sitting on it, I expect, and that will be a decision for them. My view is that this information should be in the public domain. It's an example for those of us who believe in maximum freedom that we can get on such things that in the information age, to a great extent, the rules of discovery and obtaining information in the United States can assist us here in Britain, and vice versa. And that's all to the good. Maybe I can end on just an optimistic note, before we all get too gloomy about this. Only ten or 15 years ago, we were fighting an oppressive monolith in the form of the Soviet Union, and the forces of freedom are on the march everywhere, and the forces of oppression are in retreat. We won that Cold War, partly because we did not lower ourselves to their techniques, because we did hold out a better way of doing things to the peoples of Eastern Europe, Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. Well, that's the way now that we have got to embark on, beating this current wave of terrorism, not adopting their methods, but repudiating them and showing that we know a better way. AMY GOODMAN: Well, Andrew Tyrie, I want to thank you for being with us, a member of the British parliament, a Conservative, a Tory, chairman of the All Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. Thank you for being with us. Michael Ratner will remain with us, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and we'll be joined by Stephen Grey, who writes for the Sunday Times of London, and exposed this week how the U.S. is operating secret flights to transport detainees to countries that torture prisoners. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We're joined by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Michael, the issue of international law, and Condoleezza Rice going on the offensive, the Secretary of State, around the issue of black sites, where people are taken to in different countries and the flights themselves, of which there are hundreds. MICHAEL RATNER: Well, Amy, it's a given that what the U.S. is doing in setting up black sites and torturing people, detaining people without any arrest warrant or out any court is flatly illegal. I mean, that's what the Tory minister said, and he's right. He said you cannot – the Convention Against Torture absolutely prohibits what's going on in rendition and in the black sites, and it prohibits any country in Europe, anywhere in the world from cooperating with the United States, whether by giving them airspace, refueling, helping out at all, it's considered aiding and abetting torture, aiding and abetting illegal detentions. So there's not a question here. That's under the international law. And under these countries’ domestic law, that's the case, as well. The European Union, in particular, has a human rights treaty that prohibits any of this kind of conduct. So, this is extremely, extremely embarrassing for members of the European community. And Condoleezza Rice now going to Europe – she's arriving, I think, in Germany today, Germany, which has had -- apparently 467 flights have been measured going from Germany to possibly these various detention facilities around the world. She has to go now to Germany and say to them – She's not saying, ‘We didn't do this.’ Let's understand this. She's not saying, ‘We don't have these detention facilities.’ She's not saying that. She's not saying, ‘We're not torturing people.’ She is trying to make the argument, ‘Look at Europe. We're all in this together. We stand or we die together fighting terrorism, and therefore, just take it easy on us. You're involved in this. Not only because you're involved in it, actually, but because this is all our fight.’ So, it's incredible to see a Secretary of State now going out and saying, ‘U.S. can set up secret detention facilities, black sites, a gulag around the world,’ and try and justify it as saying, ‘We're all involved in the fight on torture.’ AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read a little more from the Washington Post piece that tells the human story of what happened to Khaled Masri. Dana Priest writes, ”Khaled Masri came to the attention of Macedonian authorities on New Year's Eve 2003. Masri, an unemployed father of five living in Ulm, Germany, said he had gone by bus to Macedonia to blow off steam after a spat with his wife. He was taken off a bus at the border crossing by police because his name was similar to that of an associate of a 9/11 hijacker. The police drove him to Skopje, the capital, and put him in a motel room with darkened windows, he said in a recent interview. The police treated Masri firmly but cordially, asking about his passport, which they insisted was forged, about al-Qaeda, about his hometown mosque. When he pressed them to let him go, they displayed their pistols. “Unbeknownst to Masri, the Macedonians had contacted the C.I.A. station in Skopje. The station chief was on holiday, but the deputy chief, a junior officer, was excited about the catch and about being able to contribute to the counterterrorism fight. ‘The Skopje station really wanted a scalp because everyone wanted a part of the game,’ a C.I.A. officer said. Because the European Division chief at headquarters was also on vacation, the deputy dealt directly with the CTC and the head of its al-Qaeda unit. In the first weeks of 2004, an argument arose over whether the C.I.A. should take Masri from local authorities and remove him from the country for interrogation, a classic rendition operation. The director of the al-Qaeda unit supported the approach. She insisted he was probably a terrorist, and should be imprisoned and interrogated immediately. Others were doubtful. They wanted to wait and see whether the passport did prove to be fraudulent. Beyond that, there was no evidence Masri was not who he claimed to be – a German citizen of Arab descent traveling after a disagreement with his wife. The unit's director won the argument. She ordered Masri captured and flown to a C.I.A. prison in Afghanistan. On the 23rd day of his motel captivity, the police videotaped Masri, bundled him, handcuffed and blindfolded, into a van and drove to a closed-off building at the airport. There, in silence, someone cut off his clothes. As they changed his blindfold, he said, ‘I saw seven or eight men with black clothing, wearing masks.’ He said he was drugged to sleep for a long plane ride. “Masri said his cell in Afghanistan was cold, dirty, in a cellar, with no light and one dirty cover for warmth. The first night he said he was kicked and beaten and warned by an interrogator: ‘You are here in a country where no one knows about you, in a country where there is no law. If you die, we will bury you, and no one will know.’ Masri was guarded during the day by Afghans, he said. At night, men who sounded as if they spoke American-accented English showed up for interrogation. Sometimes a man he believed was a doctor in a mask came to take photos, draw blood and collect a urine sample. Back at the CTC, the counterterrorism headquarters, Masri's passport was given to the Office of Technical Services to analyze. By March, OTS had concluded the passport was genuine. The C.I.A. had imprisoned the wrong man. “At the C.I.A., the question was: Now what? Some officials wanted to go directly to the German government; others did not. Someone suggested a reverse rendition: Return Masri to Macedonia and release him. ‘There wouldn't be a trace, no airplane tickets, nothing. No one would believe him,’ one former official said. ‘There would be a bump in the press, but then it would be over,’ the official said. Once the mistake reached George Tenet, he laid out the options to his counterparts, including the idea of not telling the Germans. Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's National Security Adviser, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage argued they had to be told, a position Tenet took, according to one former intelligence official. ‘You couldn't have the President lying to the German chancellor’ should the issue come up, a government official involved with the matter said. Senior State Department officials decided to approach the German interior minister, who had been a steadfast Bush supporter even when differences over the Iraq war strained ties between the two countries, and the ambassador to Germany, Ambassador Coats, had an excellent rapport with him. The C.I.A. argued for minimal disclosure of information. The State Department insisted on a truthful, complete statement. The two agencies quibbled over whether it should include an apology. “Meanwhile, Masri was growing desperate. There were rumors that a prisoner had died under torture. Masri could not answer most questions put to him. He said he steadied himself by talking with other prisoners and reading the Koran. A week before his release in May 2004, Masri said he was visited in prison by a German man with a goatee who called himself ‘Sam.’ Masri said he asked him if he were from the German government and whether the government knew he was there. Sam said he could not answer either question. Masri asked, ‘Does my wife at least know where I am?’ Sam replied, ‘No, she does not.’” MICHAEL RATNER: Of course, remarkable, of course, as we know as the story continues, his wife did not know where he was. He had two young children, and she figured he had married another woman, actually, or left her. And she moves back to her country of Lebanon, not knowing anything about what happened to her husband. A remarkable story. Unfortunately, you know, it's one that Europe has known about for a long time. I mean, I think the minister referred to in the article used to be a Green, a progressive man, a lawyer, Otto Schily, and yet, he is sitting there helping the C.I.A. hide what happens to a German resident. We had Swedish men who were sent out of Sweden to Egypt for torture. We had a man picked off the streets in Italy, Abu Omar, off the streets in Italy, sent to Egypt for torture. Now a very, very courageous Italian magistrate has indicted 22 C.I.A. agents for that kidnapping off the streets of Italy, including the C.I.A. station chief. This is going on throughout Europe. For Europe to now be screaming and crying about it – maybe it wasn't known by some of the officials, but it was certainly known on many, many levels of various European governments. AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned the issue in Milan in Italy. Well, there's a piece today in the paper, actually in the Los Angeles Times, which is datelined Rome. It says, “He's not been arrested. He's probably nowhere near Italy, but a former C.I.A. station chief has begun to sketch his defense against charges he led a clandestine operation that kidnapped a radical Egyptian Imam from the streets of Milan. Robert Seldon Lady, identified by Italian prosecutors and law enforcement officials as the retired station chief in Milan is one of 22 current or former C.I.A. operatives for whom Italian prosecutors have issued arrest warrants in connection with the 2003 abduction. The cleric was seized on his way to a mosque, bundled off to an Egyptian jail where he later says he was tortured. The case is being watched closely because it threatens to expose in the greatest detail yet, the Bush administration's practice of extraordinary rendition.” MICHAEL RATNER: You know, Amy, one thing that's going on here is the C.I.A. and the C.I.A. people who are actually doing this stuff, the torture or the rendering, are getting frightened, because here you have Italy saying we're going to arrest – we want arrest warrants for 22 people and already people sketching their defenses. And then you have, look at – it joins in with the opposition to the McCain Amendment and this administration. The McCain Amendment, which is the amendment prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment being used by anyone – anyone working for the United States, not at all, not allowed to be used. They want to exempt the C.I.A. because the C.I.A. is sitting there with people in black sites all over this world, saying, ‘We're going to continue to want to torture people and you're trying to pass an amendment forbidding us from doing it.’ They're getting frightened. They're getting frightened that they might be prosecuted for this kind of stuff. That's why you are seeing that defense. They're getting frightened of the McCain Amendment. They're sitting there, and they thought they could torture people with impunity, and they have been unable to do it. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, you mention the McCain Amendment. Explain what it is, voted 90-9, what Vice President Cheney is pressuring McCain to do, and the deal that’s being made, as I watched McCain on television yesterday, the Arizona senator, he talked about meeting at least three times with Stephen Hadley, the National Security Adviser, optimistic that they're hammering out a deal. What's going on here? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, the law in the United States as of 9/11 is that you can’t torture anyone anywhere in the world, and you can’t send anybody to be tortured. It also included a prohibition on what we call lesser torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The administration has taken the position, under Alberto Gonzales, President's counsel, now Attorney General, that they can use cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against non-citizens all over the world. And that includes, really, things that constitute torture, waterboarding where you put people under water or drip water onto them to make them think they're drowning, assaults on people, temperature control where you can keep someone in a prison with temperatures up to 100 degrees and down to below zero, or whatever, for long periods of time. They're doing that. They want to continue to do that. McCain said, “I don't want this anymore. Let's pass an amendment.” 90-9, it prohibits not just torture, which even the administration acknowledges is prohibited, although it defines it very narrowly, what’s prohibited, but it prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The negotiations going – and 90-9 it passed. The administration said – President said, ‘I'm going to veto that bill, but it’s part of the defense authorization bill.’ So they got a problem. So now they’re trying to amend the bill, and they’re trying to do it in two different ways. The initial amendment was: ‘Exempt the C.I.A. from this.’ What is that saying to us and the world? Exempt the C.I.A. so it can continue to torture people in black sites. And now the latest little negotiation is if they're not going to exempt the C.I.A., they want to make it possible that no criminal prosecution can be brought against the C.I.A. for engaging in this kind of conduct. What is that saying except, ‘C.I.A., continue doing what you are doing. Don't worry about it,’ and that's what they're doing here. They're trying to protect the C.I.A. Now the deal that's really being made with the devil here is not only is there this McCain Amendment prohibiting torture anywhere in the world or in any of these U.S. facilities, but there's another amendment that’s in the same bill, and that's the one that's going to take away the right of the Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detentions in U.S. court. It's called habeas corpus. It's trying to strip that right away from the Guantanamo detainees. the case the Center won almost two years ago now. And I think the deal with the devil here is that the administration may allow the McCain Amendment into the legislation, the one that forbids torture, if there's also an amendment in the legislation that strips the courts of any right to hear these cases from Guantanamo. Now what is that saying? That's saying that, yes, we have the McCain Amendment, but we might as well put it up on the wall and just look at it and read it, because we're not going to have any way to go to court to challenge it when people are tortured. So, it's – AMY GOODMAN: And McCain is agreeing to this? MICHAEL RATNER: And apparently McCain is on board on this. A remarkable, remarkable thing. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights. ---- Extraordinary Rendition Under Fire: Lawsuit Charges CIA with Kidnapping and Torture of German Citizen Wednesday, December 7th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/07/1519249 On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a German citizen who says U.S. agents mistakenly kidnapped him and sent him to a secret prison in Afghanistan where he was tortured. We speak with British journalist Stehen Grey who helped expose the CIA rendition program of flying detainees to secret prisons around the world. [includes rush transcript] On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a German citizen who says U.S. agents mistakenly kidnapped him and sent him to a secret prison in Afghanistan. The suit was filed against former CIA Director George Tenet and three companies that operate CIA aircraft. This marks the first time the federal government has been sued for the secretive practice known as extraordinary rendition where CIA agents essentially kidnap people overseas and then transport them to overseas prisons. The victim in this case - Khaled El-Masri - says he was first detained while on vacation in Macedonia. Once in CIA custody he says he was repeatedly beaten, roughly interrogated by masked men, detained in squalid conditions and denied access to an attorney or his family. He was only released after the CIA realized they had detained the wrong man. After the ACLU announced the lawsuit on Tuesday, Khaled El-Masri spoke to reporters by videophone from Germany. * Khaled El-Masri, speaking December 6, 2005. Khaled El-Masri was unable to attend the ACLU's Washington press conference because he had been refused entry to the United States after arriving Saturday in Atlanta on a flight from Germany. His lawsuit comes at a time when the Bush administration's secret practices are coming under intense scrutiny in Europe. Investigations are underway throughout the region over the CIA kidnappings as well as the possibility that the U.S. has operated secret prisons inside Europe. ABC News reported earlier this week, the U.S. was operating two such prisons as recently as last month. The men were moved ahead of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to Europe and are now being held in a secret prison in North Africa. On Tuesday President Bush defended his administration clandestine operations. * President Bush, speaking December 6, 2005. We speak with British journalist Stephen Grey, who helped expose that the CIA was flying detainees to secret prisons around the world. * Stephen Grey, has written extensively on these secret CIA programs for the Sunday Times of London, New Statesman, New York Times and other publications. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: After the ACLU announced the lawsuit Tuesday, Khaled El-Masri spoke to reporters by videophone from Germany. KHALED EL-MASRI: [translated] I was denied being medically examined. In this room -- they took me to this room, and I had handcuffs, and I had a blindfold. And when the door was closed, I was beaten from all sides. I was hit from all sides. I then was humiliated. And then I could hear just like -- that I could hear that I was being photographed in the process when I was completely naked. Then my hands were tied to my back. I got a blindfold, and they put chains to my ankles and a bag over my head, and just like the pictures we have seen of Guantanamo, for example. Then I was dragged brutally into the airplane, and in the airport I was thrown to the floor. I was tied to the floor and to the sides of the airplane. At some point when I woke up again, I found myself in Afghanistan. I was brutally dragged off the airplane and put in the trunk of a car. I was thrown into the trunk of a car. AMY GOODMAN: That was Khaled El-Masri, unable to attend the ACLU’s Washington news conference because he had been refused entry into the United States after arriving Saturday in Atlanta on a flight from Germany. His lawsuit comes at a time when the Bush administration’s secret practices are coming under intense scrutiny in Europe, investigations underway throughout the region over the CIA kidnappings, as well as the possibility that the U.S. has operated secret prisons inside Europe. ABC News reported earlier this week the U.S. was operating two such prisons as recently as last month. The men were moved ahead of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to Europe and are now being held in a secret prison in North Africa. On Tuesday, President Bush defended his administration's clandestine operations. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I don't talk about secret programs, covert programs, covert activities. Part of a successful war on terror is for the United States of America to be able to conduct operations all aimed at protecting American people covertly. However, I can tell you two things. One, that we abide by the law of the United States. We do not torture. And two, we will try to do everything we can to protect us within the law. I mean, we are facing an enemy that would like to hit America again, and the American people expect us to -- within our laws -- do everything that we can to protect them. And that's exactly what the United States is doing. We do not render to countries that torture. That has been our policy, and that policy will remain the same. AMY GOODMAN: Today, we're joined in our New York studio by British investigative journalist, Stephen Grey, who has written extensively on the secret CIA programs for the Sunday Times of London. Welcome to Democracy Now! STEPHEN GREY: Hi. AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. So, as you hear this case breaking, at least publicly, on Khaled El-Masri with the ACLU filing a lawsuit, he comes into the United States, he’s not even granted entry. Does this surprise you? STEPHEN GREY: It doesn't surprise me. I was surprised he actually tried to come here, but what seems to be the case is that the customs officials may have repeated the same error, which was responsible for him being captured in the first place. Khaled El-Masri just means Khaled the Egyptian, in fact, and there was someone they were looking for in relation to 9/11. And it seems they abducted Khaled El-Masri in Macedonia, sent him to Afghanistan for 6 months, where he was held and, he says, beaten and had to go on hunger strike to get himself released. Finally they admitted their error, but they didn't send him back to Germany to sort of go back home. They dropped him in the mountains in Albania to make his own way back. That was all because of a mistaken identity. When he came again Saturday, it seems like the same mistake was made again to send him back. And now I see that The New York Times is saying that the German officials are saying that if he wants to come back again, he could come back. But I'm not sure he will want to try again. AMY GOODMAN: Now, it's interesting, with Condoleezza Rice going to Germany, and the new leader of Germany, Merkel, saying, well, the U.S. has admitted a mistake; even there the U.S. government has said, no, she is wrong. They did not admit a mistake. STEPHEN GREY: Well, exactly. It was immediately after the meeting, Merkel said that the U.S. had finally admitted their error here, but that was immediately denied by the State Department. So, although the U.S. is saying, in general, that there are mistakes that are made and they apologize for those mistakes, they have not admitted an error in this case. And also, you wonder whether what it means to admit a mistake. Is it -- in Europe, the concern really is that the U.S. believes it has the right to abduct people, take them to prisons secretly without any legal process. And that's the point, really. Obviously, mistakes happen in any situation, but what the Europeans are saying is, well, actually, the U.S. doesn't have the right to make the law for itself. If you are going to capture someone, then they should be brought before a court. AMY GOODMAN: Isn't the U.S. making these countries accomplices by sending them off to these different prisons? Now, Stephen Grey, this is just part one of our conversation, because we just have a minute to go, but you have been the leading investigative journalist on tracking these, what are called, torture flights, these -- taking these people off the streets and sending them somewhere else. How have you been following them? STEPHEN GREY: I'm among a number of journalists who have been doing this, but basically, we have managed to find the planes responsible, and then, through sources, obtained thousands of flight logs of their movements around the world. And what we did is you match those flight logs with the accounts of detainees who describe what had happened to them. And what that showed was those accounts from the detainees were true, that they really were taken to these prisons, because precisely what they said happened to them was shown to be true by the flight logs of these CIA planes. AMY GOODMAN: And now, how many of these flights do you estimate have taken place? STEPHEN GREY: Well, there are thousands of flights. Not all of them are rendition flights. There are many legitimate purposes that the CIA have for flying around the world. But there are dozens of people who have been rendited, have been moved to jails, both the CIA’s own secret jails and also, in more greater numbers, the jails of countries like Egypt, Morocco, Syria, which clearly practice torture and which the U.S. knows practice torture. And that's what is, I think, the biggest concern for people in Europe at the moment is that the U.S. is quite aware of the policies of torture of these countries and yet is saying that they won't send – that these people won't be tortured when they get sent there. It doesn't seem very credible, really. AMY GOODMAN: The Guardian published for the first time the details of more than 200 flights in and out of Britain. STEPHEN GREY: That's right. I mean, Britain is a major center. Germany is a bigger center in Europe for the CIA’s planes, and Britain is number two. It's a major base from which, clearly, operations are launched. But there hasn't been really much official investigation so far, public knowledge, as to where prisoners have actually been moved whether prisoners have come through Germany and Britain. That remains to be seen. AMY GOODMAN: We have to end this here, but this is part one of our conversation to find out where these flights are going, who is being taken and what happens to them when they are put in these secret prisons. Stephen Grey of the Sunday Times of London with us in our New York studio. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy More of Third World Fit for Wind Power - UN Study December 5, 2005 Story by By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent REUTERS NEWS SERVICE http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33816/newsDate/5-Dec-2005/story.htm MONTREAL - Windmills have far bigger than expected potential for generating electricity in the Third World, according to new UN wind maps of countries from China to Nicaragua. "Our studies show about 13 percent of the land area has potential for development," Tom Hamlin of the UN Environment Program told Reuters on the fringes of a UN climate conference. Previously, he said, maybe just 1 percent of developing nations was judged sufficiently windy, discouraging governments and investors from considering the nonpolluting source as an alternative to burning oil, coal or natural gas. The new maps, part of a $9.3 million study, use data from satellites, balloons and other sources to model winds in 19 developing nations. In the past, wind potential was based on data from meteorological stations that were often built in Third World countries too close to trees or buildings which braked winds. Or winds were typically gauged at airports - not built in the windiest locations. "It's very consistent," Hamlin said. "The weather data was not reliable and generally low." Among the nations surveyed, Nicaragua, Mongolia and Vietnam had the greatest potential with about 40 percent of the land area suitable for windmills. Least promising was Bangladesh, with just 0.2 percent of the land area suited to windmills, along with countries including Cuba and Ghana. Hamlin said the UN maps, part of the Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment, could help poor nations facing high bills for oil imports. "A lot of what's really driving investments is the price of oil," he said. In Nicaragua, for instance, the government in the 1980s estimated the nation's wind power potential at just 200 megawatts. The UN map estimates its potential at 40,000 megawatts, a rough equivalent of 40 nuclear power plants. The study defines suitable areas as those that could generate 300 watts per square metre (10.8 square feet), needing winds of at least 6.4-7.0 metres (21-23 feet) per second at 50 metres (164 feet) above the ground. The UN talks, from Nov. 28 to Dec. 9, are looking at ways to step up a fight against global warming, widely blamed on a buildup of heat-trapping gases released by burning fossil fuels. -------- OTHER -------- environment Inuits Transformed by Global Warming December 05, 2005 — By Phil Couvrette, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9381 MONTREAL — While Canada's isolated northern aboriginals are not sitting at the same table as the 180 nations attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference, they have a front-row seat to the chilling effects of global warming. From eroding shorelines, to thinning ice and loss of hunting and polar bears, Canadian Inuits of the Arctic north have seen rising temperatures transforming their lives. "Environmental changes of all kinds are coming at a rate and to an extent that may exceed the threshold of Arctic peoples capacity to respond," states a report released Friday on the sidelines of the conference that is reviewing and expanding on the Kyoto Protocol, which places greenhouse gas emissions caps on industrialized nations. The report is a result of workshops held across Canada's northern communities between 2002 and 2005 and documents the changes seen in the Arctic through the eyes of Canada's 45,000 Inuits, the natives who are called Eskimos in neighboring Alaska. Inuit leaders point to the increased frequency of freezing rain, thinning ice and freakish weather patterns forcing centuries of habits to rapidly change. Natives who have grown up in vast expanses are today finding themselves stranded, their regular paths hindered by melting snow and ice, blocking their hunting routes for the seals and polar bears that provide them food and warmth. With warmer temperatures, some bacteria, plants and animals could disappear. Polar bears and other animals that depend on sea ice to breed and forage are at risk, scientists say, and some species could face extinction in a few decades. Inuit leader Jose Kusugak said his community is bearing the brunt of pollution by others. The United States contributes about one-fourth of the greenhouse gases that scientists believe are exacerbating global warming and Canada is also a top polluter. "It is changing our way of life in every sense of the word," Kusugak told The Associated Press in an interview. He said the risk of skin cancer had also increased in a community used to spending much of its time outdoors. "People are not used to sunscreen but they need to wear it today, everybody is getting burned," Kusugak said. "When I was a kid, we liked to stay outside all day and only went in to sleep. It was part of our life -- and now it is changing." The shrinking access to food means Inuit are relying more on expensive, store-bought foods, which is damaging diets and their overall health. Kusugak said he brought along hunters, trappers and Inuit elders to the conference to reassure them that people from the south were not indifferent to their plight. "It was important to show there are a lot of people in the world who care," he said. ---- Groups Urge Soil Cleanup in New Orleans December 05, 2005 — By Cain Burdeau, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9380 NEW ORLEANS — The city's parks and yards will be contaminated with dangerous chemicals and heavy metals for years unless the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency orders a widespread cleanup of areas flooded by Hurricane Katrina, environmentalists said Thursday. The assessment, presented by the Natural Resources Defense Council and several Louisiana groups, was a stark contrast to statements by state and federal agencies that contamination does not appear to be widespread. The EPA hasn't found soil contamination in New Orleans to be something warranting a major cleanup, and state regulators say they haven't found a need to remove large amounts of sediment. Tom Harris, a toxicologist with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, said soil samples studied by the state don't justify wide-scale soil removal. "The vast majority of the city, we see nothing that is a problem for long-term exposure," Harris said. The clash over the potential dangers is the latest disagreement between environmentalists and regulators over the effects of the extensive flooding and damage from Hurricane Katrina. Environmentalists say regulators have downplayed the risks caused by environmental waivers for factories, debris disposal and oil spills. They say independent soil tests show high levels of arsenic and other contaminants throughout New Orleans. "Until these problems are cleaned up, it's not a good idea to have people moving for the long-term into these communities," said Dr. Gina Solomon, an NRDC senior scientist. Harris disputed the arsenic claim, saying the naturally occurring metal is often found in similar concentrations. "It's a little irresponsible to tell people they can't go back in their houses because of the level of arsenic, because wherever they go they will find arsenic in the soil," Harris said. He also disputed test results presented by environmental chemist Wilma Subra, who said she found that banned pesticides from a closed-down pesticide plant and contaminants from an old landfill that flooded were leaching into surrounding areas. New Orleans-based Advocates for Environmental Human Rights hopes to persuade the EPA to order a large-scale cleanup in the city, said attorney Monique Harden. In the meantime, she said, the public should be informed of the risks and how to protect themselves. ---- Toxic slick heads for Russia Monday, 5 December 2005, 3:24 pm Press Release: Greenpeace http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0512/S00084.htm Russian-Chinese Border, Russian Federation — Eighteen days after an explosion at a chemical factory in Jilin Provence launched a huge 80 kilometer (50 mile) slick of cancer-causing benzene down the Songhua River, and nine days after the Chinese government admitted to suppressing the news, activists from Greenpeace Russia are in place and awaiting the slick to slide across the border. Millions of Chinese people who rely on the Songhua for their drinking water have had to rely on bottled water and emergency supplies instead. Our activists are keeping a close eye on Russia’s Emergency Ministry, Emercom, to make sure that sampling and public information are accurate and that no expense is spared in protecting human health and the environment. Neither Russia nor China enjoy much of a reputation for openness when it comes to industrial disasters. The recent description of the initial cover-up by Zhang Zuoji, Governor of Heilonggjiang Provence as a "benevolent lie" has done little to help. But will it be any different in the Russian Federation? Greenpeace’s man on the ground, Alexi, says: "On paper and in their reports they are pretty much set up to meet the slick. However, we in the area say that they are under-staffed. The amount of activated carbon -- which can be used to filter benzene from the water -- is insufficient. Not to mention that the way they take samples -- using a helicopter and a bucket on a rope -- raises a lot of questions." "There are still many unknown facts, like exactly how much benzene and other toxic substances really spilled into the Songhau; or how the freezing temperatures and ice-cover on the rivers will effect the slick; or whether or not it will still be a slick or a more dispersed plume. But Emercom and local scientists, probably also to avoid panic, are saying that the slick will not reach Russia at all." Both Emercom and some local scientists believe, or hope, that the larger part of the slick will turn into the Chinese side of the river, but not all of it, so they are preparing some safety measures. The city of Khabarovsk on the Amur has a population of some 800,000 people. Other large river cities include Amursk (about 70,000 people) and Komsomolsk-on-Amur (up to 300,000 people). There are also many villages and small towns along the river. To a various extent and depending on the response of the Russian authorities and influence of icing the slick may affect some 1,200,000 or so people. But the myths and rumours are already starting to build around the nearly invisible benzene’s ghostly trip down river. At the moment it is believed to be passing the Chinese city of Jiamusi, a city about two thirds of the way to the Russian border from Harbin, the first Chinese city to have its water supply cut. According to Alexi, there is a dam near Khabarovsk which dampens water flow. So in order to channel the polluted water away from the Khabarovsk water supply inlets, the authorities are considering blowing up the 400-million rouble (12-million euro) dam. Already, on November 25th the Khabarovsk authorities turned off the tap water because it was rumoured a day earlier they found benzene in Amur. Later the authorities tried to calm the population down explaining the turn-off was for technical reasons only. Rumours also abound that another pollutant heptyl had been found in the water. "This news was made hotter by the Emercom spokesman who said that this information was closed" says Alexi. "Oleg Mitvol, from the Government, who was there at the time demonstratively drank some tap water to show that it is safe. But, even that backfired, people started saying that he had eaten lots of adsorbents beforehand and that he did this because he had gotten a phone call from Moscow telling him to stop any panic even at the price of his own health." So added to certain danger of benzene we can add the legacy of years of misinformation and no information, a heady cocktail of Government incompetence and intransigence. We'll do our best to bear witness and continue to apply pressure for full monitoring over the next few months and well into the spring thaw, but also to promote honesty and independence in the battle to provide a wary public with information that they can have confidence in. -------- ACTIVISTS Hampton University Punishes Seven Student Protesters Monday, December 5th, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/05/1455234 And in a follow-up to a story we covered last week - Hampton University has reprimanded seven students for taking part in an unsanctioned protest against President Bush last month. The school originally threatened to expel seven students for participating in the protest. Five of the students have been ordered to complete 20 hours of community service. The school accused them of cajoling and proselytizing students, distributing unauthorized handbills and holding an unauthorized demonstration. ---- Sacramento City Council Refuses to Rescind Iraq Resolution Despite National Right Wing Campaign by Dan Bacher Dissident Voice December 5, 2005 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Bacher1205.htm The Sacramento City Council, in spite of vitriolic testimony by Iraq war supporters and hundreds of threatening e-mails from mostly out-of-town residents, has refused to back down on a resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Approximately 100 supporters and 50 opponents of the resolution attended a recent council meeting, but only 15 minutes was allotted to each side during the public comments section of the meeting. The resolution, passed by an 8 to 1 vote on November 1, called for “a humane, orderly, rapid and comprehensive withdrawal of United States military personnel and bases from Iraq.” The Council also asked Congress and Bush to deliver “promised veterans' health, education, disability, and rehabilitation benefits, and otherwise meet the needs of returning veterans.” Councilman Robbie Waters cast the lone vote against the resolution. “I’m extremely disappointed by the council’s action,” said Deborah Johns, co-founder of Northern California Marine Moms and a leader of the national Move America Forward counter-protests against Cindy Sheehan in August. “This message has been heard by the military men and women who feel this town doesn’t support them.” The most bizarre part of her testimony was when she singled out Steve Cohn, known as one of the more conservative members of the council, for criticism. Johns, a Roseville resident, said that she was “extremely alarmed that he (Cohn) would align himself with radicals like Code Pink and Moveon.org.” “Why are you not standing up against the terrorists?” Johns quizzed the council. “If we pull out of Iraq now, it will become a breeding ground for terrorists.” Several other people with Johns’ group spoke about their support for Bush’s war and their dismay with the council’s action. After their presentations, the pro-war group left the room in a loud and disorderly manner, shouting, “Rescind the resolution!” Repeated outbursts by one man, who stayed after the others left, prompted Mayor Fargo to tell him, “You’re out of order!” And he was escorted out of the room. George McAdow of the Sacramento Community Forum and other speakers expressed gratitude to the city council -- and urged them to stand up to the onslaught of hate mail from the right-wingers. “You made us very proud,” said McAdow. “There is nothing wrong with being peacemakers and saving lives. The air waves have been contaminated with hate speech and I offer you an apology for the racist and anti-Semitic language that has been directed at you by right wing talk show hosts and their supporters.” “You deserve accolades, not threatening messages,” stated Ruth Holbrook, past president of the Sacramento Labor Council. “You and those who work for an end to the war are the true patriots in our country. I’m proud of you.” Genevieve Shiroma, SMUD Board member and a city resident who has family members in the military, said, “We honor each soldier by getting them out of harm’s way. It is time for our leaders to bring back the federal dollars that we are spending on the war -- and to bring back our most precious resource, our men and women.” Hugo Vera of the Mexican American Political Association, Harry Wang from Physicians for Social Responsibility, Ellen Schwartz of the Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, George Main from Veterans for Peace and CSUS Professors Eric Vega and Arline Prigoff also spoke in support of the anti-war resolution. After hearing the testimony, Robbie Waters made a request to place rescinding the resolution as an item on the next meeting's agenda, but none of the other council members would second his motion. “I oppose the resolution because it demoralizes the military in Iraq and their families and sends a message to the terrorists that we will not win,” said Waters. "Matters like this should be left to the President and Congress. I still believe that I did the right thing in opposing the resolution.” However, Council Member Lauren Hammond strongly opposed revisiting the resolution, especially after receiving shockingly vitriolic e-mails, including death threats, from right wing war supporters. Hammond received a total of 1,300 e-mails, including those from both supporters and opponents of the resolution. “What I find disappointing is that in America today we can't have a civil discussion about one of the most important issues,” said Hammond, who co-sponsored the resolution with Ray Tretheway. “One’s position on the war doesn’t mean you don’t love your county and are a traitor. I don’t believe any further vote should be held on this issue.” Council Member Bonnie Pannell, who also opposed Waters’ request, said: “I didn’t realize we had the likes of these people out there with their hateful, nasty e-mails. I don’t understand how people can write the things they did.” The nasty campaign by Move America Forward and right wing radio talk show hosts and their antics at the meeting did nothing to convince the council to change their minds, but only solidified their position in support of the anti-war resolution. “It was the strangest group of rude, disorderly, emotional and vicious people I have ever seen in my life -- victimizers from start to finish,” commented Leuren Moret, an international expert on depleted uranium and Berkeley Environmental Commissioner, whose request to speak before the council was turned down by Mayor Heather Fargo in favor of people from Sacramento. “This collection of cultish ‘group think’ people were not concerned in the least that they were sending their own children off to die in Iraqi violence and to become uranium meat,” she stated. “Some of the older women were running around with teddy bears in camouflage fatigues and muttering ‘my Jesus.’ They exactly reflect Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and are the core of the few Americans left that support this illegal war.” Apparently, these folks have never read a book such as Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends and Influence People! Dan Bacher is an outdoor writer, alternative journalist and satirical songwriter from Sacramento, California. He is editor of the Central America Connection and contributes to numerous publications and websites, including Dissident Voice, CounterPunch, Because People Matter and the Sacramento News & Review. Email: danielbacher@hotmail.com.