NucNews January 3, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR The Potential Emerging Energy Crunch Part II The Nuclear Solution by Sol Palha, January 03, 2006 http://www.safehaven.com/article-4377.htm "You can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and still come out completely dry. Most people do." - Norman Juster Over 50% of the world's supply of Uranium is located in just 3 countries, Australia 30%, Canada 14% and Kazakhstan 17%. Even though Australia has the world's largest reserves Canada produces the worlds most uranium accounting for 18% of total output. Over the next 15 years China plans on building 40 additional nuclear plants (these numbers keep changing the thing to keep in mind is that they are going to keep building). China 's known uranium reserves stand at 77,000 tons; currently it consumes 1,650 tons a year. In 2020 this could increase to 8250 tons a year. Further more China has signed strategic deals with Kazakhstan and Canada. It is just a matter of time before it does so with Australia; currently Australia supplies China with significant quantities of uranium. Why are we spending time focusing on what China is doing? We have always stated that one must view the Chinese as advanced chess players; they plan for events decades in advance. Patience and discipline seem to be one of their key strengths and assets. Presently China has enough uranium to power their existing reactors for 46 years; think about that for a second. How many countries have managed to build up such huge reserves so fast; this action definitely indicates that these chaps like to plan for things way in advance. We are positive that they are going to make sure that they have enough uranium to feed the new plants they are building for at least 18 years without any interruption. Hence the bidding war will be left to the other nations. China must be building huge reserves of uranium for a reason; they probably foresee massive price swings in the future. Consider the following facts 1. Uranium prices have almost tripped since the start of 2004. 2. It is projected that world's energy demand will increase by an additional 65% in approx 15 years. At this point in time the only solution that appears to have a chance of dealing with this increase is nuclear power plants; the only material able to power these plants is uranium. 3. One pound of Uranium produces roughly the same energy as 37 barrels of oil or 8.9 tons of coal; the choice is all but obvious. Technically speaking there is more than enough uranium out there to power all the stations that are going to be built. (Look at the chart towards the end of this article). The problem is that this uranium is in the ground and needs to be mined and at the moment there are not enough mines to produce all the uranium we need. Furthermore not enough money and resources are being dedicated to exploration and the opening up of new mines; another thing to remember is that it can take up to 2 years before a closed mine or a new mine becomes fully operational. Hence demand cannot be rapidly quenched even with the opening of 100's of new mines. It's for this reason we think that the long term out look for uranium is rather bright. Conclusion The race to build new nuclear plants to supply developing nations future electric needs is about to create a very explosive situation. It's no longer a matter of if but when this situation will go out of control; we do not have enough uranium above the ground to power current nuclear power plants. At present approx 50% of the demand is coming from reserve supplies (mostly the decommissioning of old nuclear war heads); imagine what will happen when all those new nuclear power plants come online. The tragedy here is that these plants can only operate on uranium and nothing else and so at some point in time these plants will have to do whatever it takes to get uranium or shut down. It's for this reason we have been taking position in certain stocks that we feel will benefit tremendously from this potentially huge disaster. One such stock already doubled in less than 3 months. On a separate note there is plenty of Uranium in the ground; the problem is that it takes time for these new mines to come online. It can take up to two years for these mines to be fully operational. So far no major effort has been mounted to address this issue and demand already exceeds supply and the supply situation keeps getting worse with the passage of each day. A few experts in the field have written articles about new and existing technologies (both non military and military) out there that can extract additional energy from spent nuclear fuel rods (some experts suggest that only about 20-30% of the potential energy has been extracted from these spent nuclear rods.); the problem is always the same companies take forever to implement new technologies. As of now very few companies have decided to implement these technologies and another issue to consider is the cost factor. Even if cost were not issue there is still going to be a lag time between deciding to implement and implementing these new technologies. All one needs to do is look at the coal sector; cleaner coal burning technologies exist which make new coal plants nearly as clean burning as natural gas plants. However there has been no mad rush to build new coal plants even though the USA has extremely huge reserves. The thing to keep in mind is that most disasters are actually preventable but history has clearly indicated that man does not believe in prevention but only in responding after such an event has taken place. The graph below clearly indicates that there is actually an endless amount of uranium available in the Earths crust and in seawater; the main problem right now is the exorbitant cost factor. One day it might be economical to obtain uranium from these sources but not right now which means uranium still has the potential to move up significantly higher. Every market goes through a bullish phase, a bearish phase and bottoming phase; there is no exception to this rule. Uranium happens to be in the early stages of a bullish phase. http://www.safehaven.com/images/palha/4377.gif http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/NuclearSlides/Uranium01.htm "A child-like man is not a man whose development has been arrested; on the contrary, he is a man who has given himself a chance of continuing to develop long after most adults have muffled themselves in the cocoon of middle-aged habit and convention." - Aldous Huxley 1894-1963, British Author -------- business GE Energy's Nuclear Business Wins Contract To Boost Mexico Nuclear Plant's Output 1/3/2006 SOURCE: GE Energy http://www.poweronline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=%7B272548E0-CD3C-4618-AF0B-F452ED0AA7AA%7D&VNETCOOKIE=NO Wilmington, NC - GE Energy's nuclear business has been awarded a contract to support the next phase of a Mexico utility's preparations for an extended power uprate (EPU) at the Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Mexico. Originally designed by GE, each of Laguna Verde's two boiling water reactors (BWRs) has an output of 695 megawatts. The plant is located in the state of Veracruz, 70 kilometers northwest of the city of Veracruz and 60 kilometers northwest of the city of Jalapa, the state capital, along the Gulf Coast. Plant operator Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) awarded GE the contract to provide the safety and licensing evaluations required to support plans to boost Laguna Verde's output by as much as 20%. Under its multi-phase contract with CFE, GE will provide the engineering analyses required to support development of a Safety Analysis Report (SAR), which will be submitted to Mexico's nuclear regulator for approval. In addition, GE will implement its Performance 20(SM) reliability evaluation product to identify plant modifications and preventative maintenance programs that maintain or improve plant reliability and availability at the increased power levels. The EPU uses GE's latest nuclear technology to improve plant output (by up to 20%) and generates other benefits that include operation at reduced core flows for enhanced plant operation; improvements to the power range neutron-monitoring system; and use of the advanced TRACG core-wide transient nuclear analysis model, which provides a more realistic and less restrictive analysis of plant performance. GE will also implement a proprietary process to perform a detailed structural evaluation of steam dryer performance at power uprate conditions. This process will utilize GE's state-of-the-art scale model testing facility and methodology. GE and CFE have a long partnership, including through GE's role as the nuclear steam supply system vendor and fuel provider for Laguna Verde through its Global Nuclear Fuels (GNF) joint venture. CFE is performing a number of evaluations required to develop the SAR. The utility also is responsible for any plant modifications required to support its operation at the uprated level, such as replacing the high-pressure turbine section and feedwater heater system. The Laguna Verde contract - which should culminate with EPU implementation in 2009 and 2010 - is GE's latest power uprate project, as a growing number of plant operators around the world continue to seek ways to boost the production, efficiency and safety of their reactor fleets. GE Energy's nuclear business, headquartered in Wilmington, N.C., designs and constructs advanced light-water reactors and provides a wide array of technology-based products and services to help owners of both boiling-and pressurized-water reactors safely operate their facilities with greater efficiency and output. -------- depleted uranium Depleted Uranium: Dirty Bombs, Dirty Missiles, Dirty Bullets A Death Sentence Here and Abroad The US has a dirty (DU) little (CIA) secret By Leuren Moret, January 3, 2006 Coastal Post http://www.coastalpost.com/06/01/03.html At an April press conference, a group of New York Army National Guard vets raised their hands when asked if they have health problems. The soldiers, all from the 442nd Military Police Company, are complaining of headaches and fatigue after what they think is exposure to depleted uranium during their recent tour in Iraq. "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger, quoted in "Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW's in Vietnam" Vietnam was a chemical war for oil, permanently contaminating large regions and countries downriver with Agent Orange, and environmentally the most devastating war in world history. But since 1991, the US has staged four nuclear wars using depleted uranium weaponry, which, like Agent Orange, meets the US government definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Vast regions in the Middle East and Central Asia have been permanently contaminated with radiation. And what about our soldiers? Terry Jemison of the Department of Veterans Affairs reported this week to the American Free Press that "Gulf-era veterans" now on medical disability since 1991 number 518,739, with only 7,035 reported wounded in Iraq in that same 14-year period. This week the American Free Press dropped a "dirty bomb" on the Pentagon by reporting that eight out of 20 men who served in one unit in the 2003 US military offensive in Iraq now have malignancies. That means that 40 percent of the soldiers in that unit have developed malignancies in just 16 months. Since these soldiers were exposed to vaccines and depleted uranium (DU) only, this is strong evidence for researchers and scientists working on this issue, that DU is the definitive cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Vaccines are not known to cause cancer. One of the first published researchers on Gulf War Syndrome, who also served in 1991 in Iraq, Dr. Andras KorŽnyi-Both, is in agreement with Barbara Goodno from the Department of Defense's Deployment Health Support Directorate, that in this war soldiers were not exposed to chemicals, pesticides, bioagents or other suspect causes this time to confuse the issue. This powerful new evidence is blowing holes in the cover-up perpetrated by the Pentagon and three presidential administrations ever since DU was first used in 1991 in the Persian Gulf War. Fourteen years after the introduction of DU on the battlefield in 1991, the long-term effects have revealed that DU is a death sentence and very nasty stuff. Scientists studying the biological effects of uranium in the 1960s reported that it targets the DNA. Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist retired from the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and formerly involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in soldiers from the 2003 war as "spectacular" and a matter of concern." This evidence shows that of the three effects which DU has on biological systems - radiation, chemical and particulate - the particulate effect from nano-size particles is the most dominant one immediately after exposure and targets the Master Code in the DNA. This is bad news, but it explains why DU causes a myriad of diseases which are difficult to define. In simple words, DU "trashes the body." When asked if the main purpose for using it was for destroying things and killing people, Fulk was more specific: "I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people." Soldiers developing malignancies so quickly since 2003 can be expected to develop multiple cancers from independent causes. This phenomenon has been reported by doctors in hospitals treating civilians following NATO bombing with DU in Yugoslavia in 1998-1999 and the US military invasion of Iraq using DU for the first time in 1991. Medical experts report that this phenomenon of multiple malignancies from unrelated causes has been unknown until now and is a new syndrome associated with internal DU exposure. Just 467 US personnel were wounded in the three-week Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991. Out of 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are dead, and by 2000 there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. This astounding number of disabled vets means that a decade later, 56 percent of those soldiers who served now have medical problems. The number of disabled vets reported up to 2000 has been increasing by 43,000 every year. Brad Flohr of the Department of Veterans Affairs told American Free Press that he believes there are more disabled vets now than even after World War II. They brought it home Not only were soldiers exposed to DU on and off the battlefields, but they brought it home. DU in the semen of soldiers internally contaminated their wives, partners and girlfriends. Tragically, some women in their 20s and 30s who were sexual partners of exposed soldiers developed endometriosis and were forced to have hysterectomies because of health problems. In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects. They were born with missing legs, arms, organs or eyes or had immune system and blood diseases. In some veterans' families now, the only normal or healthy members of the family are the children born before the war. The Department of Veterans Affairs has stated that they do not keep records of birth defects occurring in families of veterans. How did they hide it? Before a new weapons system can be used, it must be fully tested. The blueprint for depleted uranium weapons is a 1943 declassified document from the Manhattan Project. Harvard President and physicist James B. Conant, who developed poison gas in World War I, was brought into the Manhattan Project by the father of presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry's father served at a high level in the Manhattan Project and was a CIA agent. Conant was chair of the S-1 Poison Gas Committee, which recommended developing poison gas weapons from the radioactive trash of the atomic bomb project in World War II. At that time, it was known that radioactive materials dispersed in bombs from the air, from land vehicles or on the battlefield produced very fine radioactive dust which would penetrate all protective clothing, any gas mask or filter or the skin. By contaminating the lungs and blood, it could kill or cause illness very quickly. They also recommended it as a permanent terrain contaminant, which could be used to destroy populations by contaminating water supplies and agricultural land with the radioactive dust. The first DU weapons system was developed for the Navy in 1968, and DU weapons were given to and used by Israel in 1973 under US supervision in the Yom Kippur war against the Arabs. The Phalanx weapons system, using DU, was tested on the USS Bigelow out of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in 1977, and DU weapons have been sold by the US to 29 countries. Military research report summaries detail the testing of DU from 1974-1999 at military testing grounds, bombing and gunnery ranges and at civilian labs under contract. Today 42 states are contaminated with DU from manufacture, testing and deployment. Women living around these facilities have reported increases in endometriosis, birth defects in babies, leukemia in children and cancers and other diseases in adults. Thousands of tons of DU weapons tested for decades by the Navy on four bombing and gunnery ranges around Fallon, Nevada, is no doubt the cause of the fastest growing leukemia cluster in the US over the past decade. The military denies that DU is the cause. The medical profession has been active in the cover-up - just as they were in hiding the effects from the American public - of low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plants. A medical doctor in Northern California reported being trained by the Pentagon with other doctors, months before the 2003 war started, to diagnose and treat soldiers returning from the 2003 war for mental problems only. Medical professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers were threatened with $10,000 fines if they talked about the soldiers or their medical problems. They were also threatened with jail. Reporters have also been prevented access to more than 14,000 medically evacuated soldiers flown nightly since the 2003 war in C-150s from Germany who are brought to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington, DC Dr. Robert Gould, former president of the Bay Area chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has contacted three medical doctors since February 2004, after I had been invited to speak about DU. Dr. Katharine Thomasson, president of the Oregon chapter of the PSR, informed me that Dr. Gould had contacted her and tried to convince her to cancel her invitation for me to speak about DU at Portland State University on April 12. Although I was able to do a presentation, Dr. Thomasson told me I could only talk about DU in Oregon "and nothing overseas. nothing political." Dr. Gould also contacted and discouraged Dr. Ross Wilcox in Toronto, Canada, from inviting me to speak to Physicians for Global Survival (PGS), the Canadian equivalent of PSR, several months later. When that didn't work, he contacted Dr. Allan Connoly, the Canadian national president of PGS, who was able to cancel my invitation and nearly succeeded in preventing Dr. Wilcox, his own member, from showing photos and presenting details on civilians suffering from DU exposure and cancer provided to him by doctors in southern Iraq. Dr. Janette Sherman, a former and long-standing member of PSR, reported that she finally quit some time after being invited to lunch by a new PSR executive administrator. After the woman had pumped Dr. Sherman for information all through lunch about her position on key issues, the woman informed Dr. Sherman that her last job had been with the CIA. How was the truth about DU hidden from military personnel serving in successive DU wars? Before his tragic death, Sen. Paul Wellstone informed Joyce Riley, R.N., B.S.N., executive director of the American Gulf War Veterans Association, that 95 percent of Gulf War veterans had been recycled out of the military by 1995. Any of those continuing in military service were isolated from each other, preventing critical information being transferred to new troops. The "next DU war" had already been planned, and those planning it wanted "no skunk at the garden party." The US has a dirty (DU) little (CIA) secret A new book just published at the American Free Press by Michael Collins Piper, "The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America's Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire," details the early plans for a war against the Arab world by Henry Kissinger and the neo-cons in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That just happens to coincide with getting the DU "show on the road" and the oil crisis in the Middle East, which caused concern not only to President Nixon. The British had been plotting and scheming for control of the oil in Iraq for decades since first using poison gas on the Iraqis and Kurds in 1912. The book details the creation of the neo-cons by their "godfather" and Trotsky lover Irving Kristol, who pushed for a "war against terrorism" long before 9/11 and was lavishly funded for years by the CIA. His son, William Kristol, is one of the most influential men in the United States. Both are public relations men for the Israeli lobby's neo-conservative network, with strong ties to Rupert Murdoch. Kissinger also has ties to this network and the Carlyle Group, who, one could say, have facilitated these homicidal wars beginning from the time former President Bush took office. It would be easy to say that we are recycling World Wars I and II, with the same faces. When I asked Vietnam Special Ops Green Beret Capt. John McCarthy, who could have devised this omnicidal plan to use DU to destroy the genetic code and genetic future of large populations of Arabs and Moslems in the Middle East and Central Asia - just coincidentally the areas where most of the world's oil deposits are located - he replied: "It has all the handprints of Henry Kissinger." In Zbignew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives," the map of the Eurasian chessboard includes four regions strategic to US foreign policy. The "South" region corresponds precisely to the regions now contaminated permanently with radiation from US bombs, missiles and bullets made with thousands of tons of DU. A Japanese professor, Dr. K. Yagasaki, has calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The US has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. Four nuclear wars indeed, and 10 times the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere from atmospheric testing! No wonder our soldiers, their families and the people of the Middle East, Yugoslavia and Central Asia are sick. But as Henry Kissinger said after Vietnam when our soldiers came home ill from Agent Orange, "Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used for foreign policy." Unfortunately, more and more of those soldiers are men and women with brown skin. And unfortunately, the DU radioactive dust will be carried around the world and deposited in our environments just as the "smog of war" from the 1991 Gulf War was found in deposits in South America, the Himalayas and Hawaii. In June 2003, the World Health Organization announced in a press release that global cancer rates will increase 50 percent by 2020. What else do they know that they aren't telling us? I know that depleted uranium is a death sentence. For all of us. We will all die in silent ways. Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who has worked around the world on radiation issues, educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab after experiencing major science fraud on the Yucca Mountain Project. An environmental commissioner in the City of Berkeley, she can be reached at leurenmoret@yahoo.com. -------- iran Iran Says It Will Resume Nuclear Fuel Research By JOHN O'NEIL, January 3, 2006 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/international/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print Iran said today that it will resume nuclear fuel research, and appeared to toughen its bargaining position on a Russian proposal meant to head off a showdown with the United States and Europe over Tehran's nuclear program. Iranian officials in recent weeks have given contradictory signals about their willingness to accept a compromise in the long-running dispute. Both announcements today represented a swing toward a harder line and could increase the likelihood of confrontation. The Iranian official who announced the decision, Mohammad Saidi, vice president of Iran's Atomic Organization, said that the nuclear research, to begin on Monday, would be carried out "in cooperation and coordination with the I.A.E.A." and would not involve the enrichment of uranium, a step necessary for the production of nuclear weapons. But Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the State Department, responded that even preliminary research on the process of enriching uranium could trigger sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. "Our view is that if Iran takes any further enrichment-related steps, the international community will have to consider additional measures to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions," he said at a briefing. "We strongly oppose Iran proceeding with any further enrichment-related activities," Mr. McCormack said. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a statement that he would bee seeking more details about the research. He also reminded Iran that the suspension had been an important step toward restoring its reputation. Iran agreed to suspend its nuclear program in 2003 after admitting that it had deceived nuclear inspectors for years. In Britain, a spokesman for the Foreign Office called the resumption of research "unhelpful" and said that any resumption of enrichment or enrichment-related activities would seriously aggravate the situation." Britain, France and Germany have been leading the European effort to convince Iran to curtail its nuclear program. But the spokesman said that any further reaction would depend on the details of the new research. One nonproliferation expert who follows Iran said those details are crucial, because even preliminary work to hook up and test the centrifuges used to turn uranium into weapons-grade material could trigger a showdown. The expert, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonpartisan research group, said that the whole focus of the European-led negotiations with Iran was to halt the Iranian program before the point at which it mastered the process of running a centrifuge - something the Iranians could learn by running it on air instead of uranium gas. "The point of no return is once they learn how to run this successfully," he said. Mr. Albright said that as a result, the details of the kind of research the Iranians plan will be crucial to determining the international response. "If it turns on its centrifuge, I think there's no choice but to have an emergency meeting" of the atomic agency's board to refer the matter to the Security Council, he said. Mr. McCormack of the State Department underscored that point when he was asked how the United States might respond if the work involved only the construction of centrifuges. "That's an enrichment-related activity," he said. Mr. Albright said the Iranians may have come to think that if they proceed very slowly, they can restart their overall program without sanctions. "Iran is starting to believe they can treat this like boiling a frog," he said. "If you put it in hot water, it jumps right out, but if you put it cold water and raise the heat slowly, it stays put." Steve Fetter, the dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, said that the move might reflect a search by Iran for a face-saving solution. "They might be looking for something that will allow them to say that they've preserved their right to do this kind of research, even if it's not on a military scale." "That's the optimistic interpretation," he said, adding that "it's hard to know without more details about the research exactly what this means." The other strand of negotiations has involved proposals by the European nations and others of alternatives for Iran that would not involve creating the capacity to build atomic weapons. In the latest twist in that maneuvering, Hamid Reza Assefi, the spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, suggested that a proposal made by Russia is inadequate as it stands, news agencies reported. Russia's proposal, made last month, was the latest bid to salvage talks that collapsed in August when Iran resumed converting uranium into gas. Since then, the European nations, backed by the United States, have been working to convince Russia and China that all reasonable steps have been taken to reach an agreement and that the only option is sanctions. Russia offered to take Iran's uranium to its own facilities, enrich it and return the enriched uranium in a form which could be used to fuel nuclear reactors but not to build nuclear weapons. Iran had initially reacted coldly to the proposal, but last week a senior official said the country would study it "seriously and enthusiastically." Mr. Assefi, however, today suggested that it would only accept the Russian plan if the out-of-country enrichment were in addition to in-country enrichment, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency. "Iran will not accept any proposal that calls only for mere enrichment inside Russia, but will consider one that offers a complementary and workable plan," he said. Mr. Assefi did not totally close the door on the plan proposed by Russia, which is sending a delegation to Tehran for talks this weekend. "We are waiting for the Russians to come to Iran before deciding whether to reject it or not, or to accept something in between," he said, according to news agencies. The swings in position on the Russian plan have led some American and European officials to wonder if a struggle is underway within Tehran's new government over nuclear policy. "We're not clear who's calling the shots," a senior American official said last week. At the State Department briefing, Mr. McCormack said the Russian plan was "a good faith proposal, but thus far the Iranians have really done a bob and weave on this issue, seeking to extend out discussions, not really commit to whether or not they're going to negotiate in a serious manner." "And frankly," he said, " the patience of the international community is not infinite on this issue." ---- US threatens action if Iran resumes nuclear fuel research WASHINGTON (AFP) Jan 03, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060103204753.1n8ll1m1.html The United States threatened Tuesday to seek international action against Iran if it resumes nuclear fuel research, suggesting the world's patience with Tehran could be wearing thin. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack accused the Iranians of doing a "bob and weave" in negotiations to persuade them to halt uranium-enrichment activities that could lead to a nuclear bomb. "Our view is that if Iran takes an further enrichment-related steps, the international community will have to consider additional measures to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions," McCormack told reporters. He made his remarks after Iran announced it would resume nuclear fuel research after a suspension of more than two years, prompting the UN atomic watchdog to warn Tehran to maintain a freeze on such sensitive work. US officials had previously drawn a red line at Iran producing enriched uranium that could be used in a bomb. But McCormack said Tehran's general evasiveness on the issue made it necessary to ban research as well. "Trying to draw a line around something being pure research with respect to enrichment activities is not something that we're going to buy, and I don't think the international community will either," he said. The United States has been hoping to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. McCormack would not say what new measures the Americans might seek but suggested the showdown was coming to a head. "Frankly, the patience of the international community is not infinite on this issue because it's a serious issue," he said. Washington has been backing stalled efforts by Britain, France and Germany to wean Iran off its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions with a package of economic and security incentives. McCormack also pointed to an offer by Moscow to enrich Iranian uranium on Russian soil as a control measure, saying it was "a very interesting proposal. We think that it is a good-faith proposal." But both the State Department and the White House urged Tehran's Islamic regime to help build confidence in a nuclear program that Iran insists is strictly for peaceful purposes. "They (Iran's government) made some agreements, they need to abide by those agreements and act in a good-faith way in the negotiations," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "They need to come clean and cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency," he said. The IAEA urged Iran on Tuesday to "maintain its suspension of all enrichment-related activity" and said it was seeking clarification of Tehran's intentions. -------- korea ‘NK Has Plutonium to Make 8 Bombs’ 01-03-2006 16:09 (Yonhap) http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200601/kt2006010316072111950.htm SEOUL _ North Korea has already produced enough plutonium to make eight nuclear bombs, a British journal reported Sunday, quoting a U.S. expert. Siegfried Hecker, the former director of the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratory, believes that North Korea has been making plutonium since last summer, apart from participating in the six-party talks aimed at resolving the dispute over Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, the Sunday Times said. The fourth round of the talks took place in Beijing from late July to early August. ---- U.S. Sanctions Called Hurdle to Nuclear Talks From Times Wire Reports January 3, 2006 Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs3.2jan03,1,6090480.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true North Korea said today it can't return to nuclear disarmament talks unless the U.S. lifts recently imposed sanctions. "While under U.S. sanctions, it's impossible to sit face to face and discuss abandoning our nuclear deterrent … with a counterpart who seeks to isolate and stifle us," said the Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of the ruling Workers' Party, in a commentary carried by the nation's official news agency. This fall, the U.S. placed sanctions on a Macao-based bank it accuses of helping North Korea distribute fake currency and on eight northern companies it said were proliferating weapons. -------- pakistan Pakistan in talks to buy Chinese reactors Tuesday, January 03, 2006 Peak Oil http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=10434 Pakistan is negotiating the purchase of between six and eight nuclear power reactors from China during the next decade in the most ambitious expansion yet of the country’s nuclear energy capability. The deal could cost $7bn-$10bn and would involve adding 3,600-4,800 megawatts of capacity using a series of 600MW reactors. The plants are expected to be completed by 2025, with construction starting by 2015, a senior Pakistani official told the Financial Times. ---- Pakistan denies new reactor plan China has already built a nuclear plant like this in Pakistan Tuesday, 3 January 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4577044.stm Pakistan has denied a report it is in talks to buy between six and eight nuclear reactors from China in a deal worth up to $10bn (£5.8bn). Britain's Financial Times newspaper quoted an official saying construction could begin in 2015 and take 10 years. Such a deal would add more than 4,000 megawatts of electricity to Pakistan's national grid, the paper said. But a spokeswoman said that while Pakistan was considering more nuclear energy, the FT report was "baseless". 'Peaceful' "As our economy is expanding we require more energy and we remain interested in acquiring safe nuclear energy," Tasneem Aslam of the Pakistani foreign ministry told the BBC. "But the report about Pakistan's talks with China regarding six to eight nuclear reactors is baseless. "Since this report has also given specifics of the so-called talks we want to clarify that the report is not true." Pakistan already has two nuclear reactors, and began building a third with Chinese help at Chashma in Punjab province last week. At the time Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said Pakistan would import two further 600MW plants from China. "Co-operation between China and Pakistan in nuclear energy for peaceful use will increase in the future," he added. Proliferation fears Concerns rose over Pakistan's nuclear activities after a top scientist admitted in 2004 to leaking secrets. Dr AQ Khan shocked the nation and sparked international alarm when he publicly confessed to sharing nuclear technology with North Korea, Libya and Iran. In September Pakistan urged the US and other Western countries to help it develop civilian nuclear technology to meet its growing energy needs. Observers say concerns over the illegal trading of nuclear technology from Pakistan - technology which could be used to make weapons - have made it difficult for Islamabad to secure agreement on nuclear collaboration. Pakistan has sought to allay fears, saying its civilian nuclear plants are run under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. The country also has a nuclear-weapon and missile technology programme, and conducted its first nuclear weapons tests in 1998, more than a decade after rival India built its first nuclear weapon. -------- russia Nuclear Back-Scratching by Gordon Prather, January 3, 2006 http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8336 Fifteen years ago – on the eve of the disintegration of the Soviet Union – Congress authorized financial and technical assistance to the Russians to help them secure, store, and dismantle excess Soviet nuclear weapons and to peacefully dispose of the excess weapons-grade materials recovered thereby. Furthermore, under the 1997 U.S.-Russia Trilateral Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, we are committed to dispose of our excess weapons-grade plutonium and to pay the Russians to peacefully dispose of theirs. The Russians intend to dispose of theirs as uranium-plutonium mixed-oxide power plant fuel (MOX), and to, thereafter, continue making MOX – under IAEA supervision – using plutonium recovered from spent fuel. A nuclear fuel element is typically left in a conventional water-moderated, water-cooled nuclear power plant for four or five years. About 3-5 percent of a new enriched-uranium fuel element is fissile and will "burn." Additionally, in the "burning" of fissile uranium, fissile plutonium is bred from the non-fissile uranium. Hence, when the typical fuel element is removed from the power plant, about two-thirds of its uranium-plutonium fissile material (and virtually all its uranium non-fissile – but breedable – material] remains "unburned." Hence the spent-fuel element is still worth – as fuel – about two-thirds as much as was the original fuel element. Hence in Europe and Russia, spent-fuel elements are chemically reprocessed, and remaining uranium-plutonium fissile material – as well as the very large amount of breedable uranium – is recovered and incorporated into new fuel elements. Because enriched uranium is needed only for the original uranium fuel element, the need for uranium-enrichment services – and for new supplies of yellowcake – will be drastically reduced once the MOX fuel cycle is fully implemented. What has all this got to do with current Israeli and neo-crazy American threats to destroy the Russian-built IAEA safeguarded nuclear power plant now nearing completion at Bushehr, Iran? Or to destroy the IAEA safeguarded uranium-enrichment facility barely under construction at Natanz, Iran? Well, the rest of the world – concerned about nuke proliferation – also concluded long ago that if the Russians are willing to burn up their weapons-grade plutonium as MOX, then they are willing to help them, financially and technically. Even though MOX is barely cost-effective now, it undoubtedly will be very cost-effective in another 20 years or so when the world's current supply of cheap yellowcake is near exhaustion. Now, spent-fuel contains appreciable fractions of Pu240 and Pu241. The radioactive properties of these higher plutonium isotopes are such that (a) the recovery of the plutonium from the spent fuel, (b) the manufacture of the MOX-fuel elements, and (c) the installation of the MOX in the power plant need to be well-coordinated, with the time interval between each step essentially minimized. So the Russians intend to build (with international financial assistance) humongous spent-fuel storage facilities and MOX-fuel fabrication plants. The Russians will then charge the rest of the world annual fees for storing their spent fuel and for fabricating new MOX fuel. The Russians intend to build several dozen reactors – in Russia and elsewhere – specifically designed to run efficiently on MOX fuel. Meanwhile, existing water-moderated, water-cooled reactors are already operating – with relatively modest modifications to the plant and to operating procedures – on MOX fuel in Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. So what should the Iranian mullahs do, if they're smart? Forget about enriching uranium. Have the Russians make – before it begins operation – certain modifications to the Bushehr power plant so that it can use Russian MOX fuel. But how can the Iranians be assured of a Russian fuel supply in future? They can't. The Iranians haven't got anything the Russians need. But the Iranians do have something the Pakistanis (and the Indians, and the Chinese) need. And need badly. Natural gas. Now, the Pakistanis have uranium-enrichment facilities, and for at least the last 15 years have been offering uranium-enrichment services. Furthermore, IAEA safeguarded facilities employ efficient supersonic second-generation gas centrifuges. However, the uranium-enrichment facility the Iranians had been planning to construct at Natanz will use unreliable, much less efficient, first-generation gas centrifuges essentially obtained secondhand from Pakistan. So why doesn't the Islamic state of Iran cut a deal with the neighboring Islamic state of Pakistan to obtain from them a guaranteed contingent supply of enriched uranium in return for a guaranteed supply of Iranian natural gas? Well, recall that Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki did recently meet with his Pakistani counterpart "to bolster defense, trade, and cultural ties." They reportedly focused on the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline, but at a joint press conference afterwards, Foreign Minister Kasuri made it clear that nuke-armed Pakistan would oppose any use of force against Iran's IAEA safeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle programs. -------- security Even After 'Dirty Bomb' Exposure, Residents Might Be Allowed Back In By MATTHEW L. WALD Published: January 3, 2006 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/national/nationalspecial3/03cnd-nuke.html WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - The Homeland Security Department, preparing for an attack by terrorists who would spread radioactive material, advised government officials on Tuesday that they should consider permitting people to re-occupy contaminated land and buildings even if they would be exposed to radiation at a level double what nuclear plant workers can legally receive. The department published a document that stressed trying to balance the health risk of radiation exposure with minimizing the disruption that a “dirty bomb” would cause. If there is a delay in reoccupying areas evacuated because of contamination, “the disruption and harm caused by the incident could be inadvertently and unnecessarily increased,” the department advised. “Failure to restore important services rapidly could result in additional adverse public health and welfare impacts that could be more significant than the direct radiological impacts.” The document, published in The Federal Register, listed precise exposure limits for emergency workers and members of the public in the immediate aftermath of a dirty bomb attack. For the long term, it said that officials responsible for public health and safety should consider a variety of “benchmarks” in use around the world, some far higher than the standards in use in the United States for protection of the public in routine operations and nuclear accidents. One of those, from the International Commission on Radiation Protection, says that actions to reduce exposure to radiation, like evacuation or cleanup, may not be required until doses equal 10 rem a year, an amount that is about 30 times what the average American receives from natural and manmade sources of radiation, and double what power plant workers can legally receive. It is also about five times as high as the maximum that power plant workers commonly receive in a year. An opponent of nuclear power, Daniel Hirsch, of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, said the standard that should apply is the one that the Environmental Protection Agency uses when power plants are torn down, which is 25-thousandths of a rem per year, one-400th of the international standard. But a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, John Millett, said that when his agency’s guidelines were set in 1991, with nuclear power plant accidents in mind, there was no consensus on what long-term exposure should be allowed. Larry Orluskie, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the new guidance did not necessarily suggest using the international agency’s number, but recommended considering its use, “depending on what the circumstance is, and what the environment is, and the state and local authorities’ need for that area.’’ The document issued Tuesday lists a variety of factors, including the cost of cleanup. Mr. Hirsch and a second antinuclear group, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said that the 10 rem figure would produce cancer or leukemia in one person in four who was exposed to that amount annually for a total of 30 years. The two groups called the advice “a nuclear Katrina in the making.” The department characterized its advice as a draft, because, it said, it would take public comment until March 6, but the advice takes effect immediately. The document offered advice on both dirty bombs, a postulated weapon that is a conventional explosive laced with a radioactive contaminant, and on nuclear bombs that a terrorist group might smuggle into a city. Security experts say that a dirty bomb is far easier to construct and thus might be the more likely threat, and that if a terrorist group managed to detonate an actual nuclear bomb, then the No. 1 issue would probably not be the long-term health risk of radiation exposure. The Homeland Security Department, with the E.P.A., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other agencies, has been working on the advice since 2003 but has had trouble developing a consensus. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- washington Key WA Lawmaker: Nuclear Energy On the Table 1/3/06 KPLU http://www.nwpr.org/HomepageArticles/Article.aspx?n=1534 OLYMPIA, WA - Could nuclear energy make a comeback in Washington? A Republican lawmaker from the Tri-Cities wants to build a next generation nuclear plant at Hanford. A Seattle Democrat promises to give the proposal a hearing this legislative session. But as Olympia Correspondent Austin Jenkins reports it's a debate that stirs up a lot bad memories. Mention nuclear energy to any longtime Northwest resident and chances are it will trigger memories of WPPSS. That's an acronym synonymous with the Washington Public Power Supply System fiasco of the 1980s. The original plan was to build five nuclear power plants. But cost overruns and mismanagement doomed the project. In the end, only one of the plants got up and running. Fast-forward to 2006 and there's talk again of nuclear power. Poulson: "Nuclear has been a dirty word in Washington State for a long, long time. But it's not off the table. State Senator Eric Poulson is a Seattle Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy Committee. Poulson: "I think there will come a day when Washington looks at nuclear as a viable alternative. But I don't think you'll see it in the next sixty days." Sixty days is the length of this year's legislative session. However, Senator Poulson's counterpart in the House is promising to hold a hearing on a plan to ask the Department of Energy to build a next generation nuclear plant at Hanford instead of in Eastern Idaho. Alternative energy is a hot topic this year because of rising energy costs. -------- MILITARY -------- china China Releases Jailed Journalist Tue Jan 3, 2006 4:54 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060103/ap_on_re_as/china_jailed_journalist BEIJING - A Chinese journalist who was jailed on subversion charges after reporting on corruption has been released early from prison, ahead of a planned U.S. visit by President Hu Jintao, a U.S.-based activist announced Wednesday. Jiang Weiping was released Tuesday after the one year remaining on his sentence was commuted, and he was with his family in the northeastern city of Dalian, said John Kamm, executive director of the Duihua Foundation in San Francisco. Kamm said he had spoken to Jiang's wife. Kamm said he didn't know the reason for the early release. But Hu is due to visit the United States early this year, and Beijing frequently releases prominent prisoners in connection with high-level official contacts with the United States. "It could be related to preparations for Hu Jintao's visit," Kamm said by telephone from San Francisco. "Certainly the U.S. has been saying some gestures are needed, because we haven't had any recently." There was no immediate comment from the U.S. State Department. Jiang's name was on a list of prisoners cited in speeches by Clark T. Randt, the U.S. ambassador to Beijing. All of the others have been released, though China hasn't freed a prominent prisoner since its best-known Muslim activist, Rebiya Kadeer, was released in March 2005 and allowed to leave for the United States. Jiang was detained in 2000 and sentenced in June 2001 after writing articles for a Hong Kong magazine in 1999 accusing the governor of the northeastern province of Liaoning of covering up corruption. A court later cut his sentence from eight to six years. The governor, Bo Xilai, is now China's commerce minister. Jiang was convicted under China's vague state secrets law, which has been used recently against other journalists. -------- iraq White House cold to Chalabi leading Iraq oil ministry Tue Jan 3, 4:43 PM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060103/pl_afp/usiraqoil WASHINGTON - The White House reacted coldly to the naming of disgraced former US ally Ahmed Chalabi to lead the Iraqi Oil Ministry. White House spokesman Scott McClellan evaded reporters' questions about the US feelings towards Chalabi's appointment to lead the ministry on December 30, after minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum was relieved of his duties when he opposed a sharp oil price increase. The increase has provoked widespread protests in Iraq. "It is not up to the United States, it is up to the Iraqi people to make those decisions and it's up to their government that is elected by the Iraqi people to make those decisions," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Living in exile, Chalabi was a White House favorite for information he provided which supported the US justification for attacking Iraq in 2003. But he lost favor after the invasion when much of his information regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false. He has also been accused of providing secret intelligence in the wake of the invasion to Iran, where he is well-received but which is at odds with the US administration. Chalabi was also tried and sentenced to prison in his absence in Jordan in 1992 for financial fraud in the collapse of a bank. Chalabi has denied the accusations against him. ---- Four Demonstrators Killed in Oil-Cost Protest Near Kirkuk Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1434256 Elsewhere in Iraq, armed forces have killed four Iraqis demonstrating against the country’s drastic increase in oil prices. It is unclear if the demonstrators were killed by US or Iraqi forces. The shootings occurred in the northern village of Rahinawa, near Kirkuk. An unidentified relative of one of the dead said: "They killed my brother. I was standing in the streets about 10 metres away from him and they wouldn't let me go near his body. They dragged him out of his car with other residents and they were treating them like they weren't human beings." Outrage has erupted across the country as Iraq has seen a five-fold increase in oil prices in recent weeks. The increase is attributed to the elimination of Iraq’s oil subsidies, as required by a debt relief deal Iraq’s interim government signed with the International Monetary Fund. Chalabi Appointed Iraq Oil Minister In related news, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi has been named interim oil minister. Chalabi was appointed to replace Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, who was forced out after publicly criticizing the IMF deal. This is the second time Chalabi has held the oil minister position. Iraq Oil Exports At Lowest Level Since War Began Meanwhile, government officials say Iraq's oil exports have reached their lowest level since the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003, with shipments now at about half the level seen under Saddam Hussein. ---- Iran's nuclear capacity 'can be destroyed' Jan. 3, 2006. 09:59 AM (AP) http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1136289366856&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_Ontario&call_pageid=968256289824&call_pagepath=News/Ontario JERUSALEM — Israeli military chief Dan Halutz on Tuesday said that Iran's nuclear program "can be destroyed," Israel's Army Radio reported. The report quoted Halutz as making the comments during a conference at Tel Aviv University. It did not elaborate, and the report could not immediately be confirmed. Israeli officials and politicians have openly discussed the possibility of an attack on Iran, either alone or with other countries, aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear development capabilities. Israel and the United States accuse Iran of working to build an atomic bomb, but Tehran denies having such plans. -------- spies National Security Agency Whistleblower Warns Domestic Spying Program Is Sign the U.S. is Decaying Into a “Police State” Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435201 Former NSA intelligence agent Russell Tice condemns reports that the Agency has been engaged in eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants. Tice has volunteered to testify before Congress about illegal black ops programs at the NSA. Tice said, “The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state." [includes rush transcript] We turn now to the growing controversy over President Bush’s decision to order the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens inside the country without the legally required court warrants. Bush’s decision was first revealed in the New York Times in mid-December. The Times published the expose after holding the story for more than a year under pressure from the White House. The paper reportedly first uncovered the illegal order prior to the 2004 election. When the editors at the Times decided last month to go ahead with the article, President Bush personally summoned the paper’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, and executive editor, Bill Keller, to the Oval Office in an attempt to talk them out of running the story. Since the story broke, calls for Congressional hearings and the possible impeachment of the president have intensified. Conservative legal experts have even admitted Bush may have committed an impeachable offense by ordering the NSA to break the law. On Sunday, the New York Times revealed there was dissent within the upper echelon of the Bush administration over the legality of the president’s order. According to the Times, Attorney General John Ashcroft's top deputy, James Comey, refused to sign on to the continuation of the secret program in 2004 amid concerns about its legality and oversight. At the time, Comey was serving in place of then Attorney General John Ashcroft while Ashcroft was hospitalized for a medical condition. Comey’s refusal prompted senior Presidential aides Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales to visit Ashcroft in his hospital room to grant the approval. The Times reports Ashcroft expressed reluctance to sign on to the program. It is unclear if he eventually relented. Both Ashcroft and Comey’s concerns appear to have led to a temporary suspension of parts of the program for several months. But the administration has repeatedly defended its actions. * President Bush, speaking on Sunday: “If somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties as am I. This is is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America - and I repeat limited. It is limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that's what we are doing. We're at war with a bunch of cold blooded killers who will kill in a moment's notice. I have a responsibility to act within the law which I am doing. The program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials. A program to which the Congress has been briefed. A program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people." Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting that the NSA passed on records of intercepted email and phone calls to other government agencies including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. This news come on the heels of several other reports that the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, military intelligence and local police departments have all been engaged in monitoring peaceful groups including Greenpeace, PETA - the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Catholic Worker, anti-war groups and even bicyclists in New York City. During the 1960s and 1970s, the military used NSA intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists. It was this domestic surveillance that led Congress to intervene and pass Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 in order to prevent future such abuses. The statute permits domestic intelligence surveillance with the approval of a court order from the FISA court. In 1975, Senator Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho, said, "We have a particular obligation to examine the NSA, in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. . . . The interception of international communications signals sent through the air is the job of NSA; and, thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the NSA to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications." Now Congress is considering holding a new round of hearings on Bush’s domestic spying program. A bipartisan group series of Senators have already issued their public support including several top Republicans including Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Two weeks ago, a former NSA intelligence officer publicly announced that he wants to testify before Congress. His name is Russell Tice. For the past two decades he has worked in the intelligence field both inside and outside government, most recently with the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in May 2005 after he spoke out as a whistleblower. In his letter, Tice wrote, "It is with my oath as a US intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to Congress acts that I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state." * Russell Tice, former intelligence agent at the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency. He worked at the NSA up until May 2005. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: This is President Bush speaking on Sunday. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I can say that if somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat: limited. And it’s limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. And I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that's what we are doing. We're at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment's notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing. It’s a program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials, a program to which the Congress has been briefed, and a program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people. AMY GOODMAN: That was President Bush speaking Sunday. Meanwhile, The Washington Post is reporting the N.S.A. passed on records of intercepted email and phone calls to other government agencies, including the F.B.I., the Defense Intelligence Agency, the C.I.A. and the Department of Homeland Security. This news comes on the heels of several other reports that the F.B.I.’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, military intelligence and local police departments have all been engaged in monitoring peaceful groups, including Greenpeace, PETA (the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the Catholic Worker antiwar groups, and even cyclists in New York City. During the 1960s and 1970s, the military used N.S.A. intercepts to maintain files on U.S. peace activists. It was this domestic surveillance that led Congress to intervene and pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, in order to prevent future such abuses. The statute permits domestic intelligence surveillance with the approval of a court order from the FISA court. In 1975, Senator Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho, said, quote, “We have a particular obligation to examine the N.S.A. in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. The interception of international communications signals sent through the air is the job of N.S.A., and thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the N.S.A. to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications,” Church said. Congress is now considering holding a new round of hearings on Bush's domestic spying program. A bipartisan group of senators have already issued their public support, including several top Republicans, including Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. This is Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: This warrant-less eavesdropping program is not authorized by the PATRIOT Act, it's not authorized by any act of Congress, and it's not overseen by any court. According to the reports it’s being conducted under a secret presidential order, based on secret legal opinions by the same Justice Department, lawyers, the same ones who argued secretly that the President could order the use of torture. Mr. President, it is time to have some checks and balances in this country. We are a democracy. We are a democracy. Let's have checks and balances, not secret orders and secret courts and secret torture, and on and on. AMY GOODMAN: That was Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. Two weeks ago, a former N.S.A. intelligence officer publicly announced he wants to testify before Congress. His name is Russell Tice. For the past two decades he has worked in the intelligence field, both inside and outside of government, most recently with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was fired in May 2005, after he spoke out as a whistleblower. In his letter, Tice wrote, quote, “It’s with my oath as a U.S. intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to Congress acts I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.” Russell Tice joins us now in our Washington studio. Welcome to Democracy Now! RUSSELL TICE: Good morning. AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. RUSSELL TICE: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: What made you decide to come forward? You worked for the top-secret agency of this government, one that is far larger and even more secret than the C.I.A. RUSSELL TICE: Well, the main reason is, you know, I'm involved with some certain aspects of the intelligence community, which are very closely held, and I believe I have seen some things that are illegal. Ultimately it's Congress's responsibility to conduct oversight in these things. I don't see it happening. Another reason is there was a certain roadblock that was sort of lifted that allowed me to do this, and I can't explain, but I will to Congress if allowed to. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the letter you have written to Congress, your request to testify? RUSSELL TICE: Well, it’s just a simple request under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which is a legal means to contact Congress and tell them that you believe that something has gone wrong in the intelligence community. AMY GOODMAN: Can you start off by talking overall? Since most people until recently, until this latest story of President Bush engaging in these wiretaps of American citizens, as well as foreign nationals in this country, perhaps hadn't even heard of the N.S.A., can you just describe for us what is the National Security Agency? How does it monitor these communications? RUSSELL TICE: Well, the National Security Agency is an agency that deals with monitoring communications for the defense of the country. The charter basically says that the N.S.A. will deal with communications of -- overseas. We're not allowed to go after Americans, and I think ultimately that’s what the big fuss is now. But as far as the details of how N.S.A. does that, unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to say that. I don’t want to walk out of here and end up in an F.B.I. interrogation room. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times, you know, revealed in -- perhaps late, knowing the story well before the election, yet revealing it a few weeks ago -- the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT officer at N.S.A., we're taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this. This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer. You will not spy on Americans. It is drilled into our head over and over and over again in security briefings, at least twice a year, where you ultimately have to sign a paper that says you have gotten the briefing. Everyone at N.S.A. who’s a SIGINT officer knows that you do not do this. Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that’s a gospel to a SIGINT officer. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Russell Tice. We will go to break and come back to him. He’s a former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of this past year, May of 2005. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We talk to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked with the N.S.A. up until May 2005. Russell Tice, what happened then? What happened in May 2005? RUSSELL TICE: Well, basically I was given my walking papers and told I was no longer a federal employee. So -- AMY GOODMAN: Why? RUSSELL TICE: Some time ago I had some concerns about a co-worker at D.I.A. who exhibited the classic signs of being involved in espionage, and I reported that and basically got blown off by the counterintelligence office at D.I.A. and kind of pushed the issue, because I continued to see a pattern of there being a problem. And once I got back to N.S.A., I pretty much dropped the issue, but there was a report that came across my desk in April of 2003 about two F.B.I. agents that were possibly passing secret counterintelligence information to a Chinese double agent, Katrina Leung, and I sent a secure message back to the D.I.A. counterintelligence officer, and I said I think the F.B.I. is incompetent, and the retaliation came down on me like a ton of bricks. AMY GOODMAN: What would you say to those who say you are speaking out now simply because you are disgruntled? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I guess that’s a valid argument. You know, I was fired. But, you know, I’ve kind of held my tongue for a long time now, and basically, you know, I have known these things have been going on for a while. The classification level of the stuff I deal with, basically what we call black world programs and operations, are very, very closely held. And you know, whether you think this is retaliation or not, I have something important to tell Congress, and I think they need to hear it. I'd like to think my motives aren't retaliation, but, you know, after what I have been through, I can understand someone's argument to think I have been jaded. AMY GOODMAN: What about the risks you take as a whistleblower? I wanted to play a clip of F.B.I. whistleblower, Sibel Edmonds. She was working for the F.B.I. after 9/11 as a translator, translating intercepts, and ultimately she lost her job. And I asked her if she was afraid of speaking out. SIBEL EDMONDS: There are times that I am afraid, but then again, I have to remind myself that this is my civic duty and this is for the country, because what they are doing by pushing this stuff under this blanket of secrecy, what they are hiding is against the public's welfare and interest. And reminding that to myself just helps me, to a certain degree, overcome that fear. AMY GOODMAN: That was Sibel Edmonds. Russell Tice, you are a member of her group, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. RUSSELL TICE: That, I am. National Security Whistleblower Coalition is basically put together of people who are in sort of the same boat that I am in, that have brought whistleblower concerns to the public or to their perspective chain of supervisors and have been retaliated against. And the intelligence community, all of the whistleblower protection laws are -- pretty much exempt the intelligence community. So the intelligence community can put forth their lip service about, ‘Oh, yeah, we want you to put report waste fraud abuse,’ or ‘You shall report suspicions of espionage,’ but when they retaliate you for doing so, you pretty much have no recourse. I think a lot of people don't realize that. And Sibel has basically started this organization to bring these sort of concerns out into the public and ultimately to get Congress to start passing some laws to protect folks that are going to be in a position to let the public or just, you know, to let Congress know that crimes are being committed. And that's what we're talking about. We're talking about a crime here. So, you know, all of this running around and looking for someone who dropped the dime on a crime is a whole lot different than something like the Valerie Plame case. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the Justice Department launching an investigation into the leak, who leaked the fact that President Bush was spying on American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I think this is an attempt to make sure that no intelligence officer ever considers doing this. What was done to me was basically an attempt to tell other intelligence officers, ‘Hey, if you do something like this, if you do something to tick us off, we're going to take your job from you, we're gonna do some unpleasant things to you.’ So, right now, the atmosphere at N.S.A. and D.I.A., for that matter, is fear. The security services basically rule over the employees with fear, and people are afraid to come forward. People know if they come forward even in the legal means, like coming to Congress with a concern, your career is over. And that's just the best scenario. There’s all sorts of other unfortunate things like, perhaps, if someone gets thrown in jail for either a witch-hunt or something trumping up charges or, you know, this guy who is basically reporting a crime. AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of the news that the National Security Agency spying on American citizens without a court order and foreign nationals is now sharing this information with other agencies like, well, the other agency you worked for, the Defense Intelligence Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Intelligence officers work with one another all the time. As an analyst, you might have a problem. Everybody gets together. It’s just common sense to find out what everybody knows, you know, come to a consensus as to what the answer is. It’s sort of like a puzzle, you know, chunks of the puzzle. And maybe you have a few chunks as a SIGINT officer, and the C.I.A. has a few chunks in their arena and D.I.A. has a few elements of it, and everybody gets together and does a little mind meld to try to figure out what’s going on. So it’s not unusual for the intelligence community to share information. But when we’re talking about information on the American public, which is a violation of the FISA law, then I think it's even something more to be concerned about. AMY GOODMAN: Were you ever asked to engage in this? RUSSELL TICE: No, no, and if I did so, I did so unwittingly, which I have a feeling would be the case for many of the people involved in this. More than likely this was very closely held at the upper echelons at N.S.A., and mainly because these people knew -- General Hayden, Bill Black, and probably the new one, Keith Alexander, they all knew this was illegal. So, you know, they kept it from the populace of N.S.A., because every N.S.A. officer certainly knows this is illegal. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean if you did so, you did so unwittingly? RUSSELL TICE: Well, there are certain elements of the aspects of what is done where there are functionaries or technicians or analysts that are given information, and you just process that information. You don't necessarily know the nitty gritty as to where the information came from or the -- it's called compartmentalization. It’s ironic, but you could be working on programs, and the very person sitting next to you is not cleared for the programs you're working on, and they're working on their own programs, and each person knows to keep their nose out of the other person's business, because everything's compartmentalized, and you're only allowed to work on what you have a need to know to work on. AMY GOODMAN: What about the telecoms, the telecommunications corporations working with the Bush administration to open up a back door to eavesdropping, to wiretapping? RUSSELL TICE: If that was done and, you know, I use a big “if” here, and, remember, I can't tell you what I know of how N.S.A. does its business, but I can use the wiggle words like “if” and scenarios that don't incorporate specifics, but nonetheless, if U.S. gateways and junction points in the United States were used to siphon off information, I would think that the corporate executives of these companies need to be held accountable, as well, because they would certainly also know that what they're doing is wrong and illegal. And if they have some sort of court order or some sort of paper or something signed from some government official, Congress needs to look at those papers and look at the bottom line and see whose signature is there. And these corporations know that this is illegal, as well. So everyone needs to be held accountable in this mess. AMY GOODMAN: When you come on board at these intelligence agencies, as at the National Security Agency, what are you told? I mean, were you aware of the Church hearings in the 1970s that went into the illegal spying on monitoring, of surveilling, of wiretapping of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, that’s something that’s really not drummed in your head. That’s more of a history lesson, I think. And the reasoning, ultimately, for the FISA laws and for what's called USSID 18, which is sort of the SIGINTer’s bible of how they conduct their business, but the law itself is drilled into your head, as well as the tenets of USSID 18, of which the number one commandment is ‘Thou shalt not spy on Americans.’ AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of 2005. What is data mining? RUSSELL TICE: Data mining is a means by which you -- you have information, and you go searching for all associated elements of that information in whatever sort of data banks or databases that you put together with information. So if you have a phone number and you want to associate it with, say, a terrorist or something, and you want to associate it with, you know, ‘Who is this terrorist talking to?’ you start doing data on what sort of information or what sort of numbers does that person call or the frequency of time, that sort of thing. And you start basically putting together a bubble chart of, you know, where everybody is. Lord help you if you’ve got a wrong phone call from one of these guys, a terrorist overseas or something, and you're American. You’re liable to have the F.B.I. camping out your doorstep, apparently, from everything that’s going on. But it's basically a way of searching all of the data that exists, and that’s things like credit card records and driver's license, anything that you can get your hands on and try to associate it with some activity. I think if we were doing that overseas with known information, it would be a good thing if we’re pinning them down. But ultimately, when we're using that on -- if we’re using that with U.S. databases, then ultimately, once again, the American people are -- their civil rights are being violated. AMY GOODMAN: Do you expect you are being monitored, surveilled, wiretapped right now? RUSSELL TICE: Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, in – you know, sometimes you just don't know. And being, you know -- what they’ve basically accused me of, I can't just walk around thinking that everybody is looking at my heels and are following me around. But in one scenario I turned the tables on someone I thought was following me, and he ducked into a convenience store, and I just walked down there -- and I saw him out of my peripheral vision -- and I basically walked down to where he ducked into and in the store, I walked up behind him. He was buying a cup of coffee, and he had a Glock on his hip and his F.B.I. badge. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on there. AMY GOODMAN: The National Security Agency, or I should say the United Nations Security Council, there was a scandal a year or two ago about the monitoring of the diplomats there. It was in the lead up to the invasion, the U.S. wanting to know and put pressure on these Security Council ambassadors to know what they were saying before any kind of vote. What is the difference between that kind of monitoring and the monitoring of American citizens? RUSSELL TICE: Well, if the monitoring was done against foreigners and the monitoring was done overseas, as far as I know, that's perfectly legal. It's just a matter of who you are monitoring and where you're doing the monitoring. If it’s done at home and they're Americans, then you have a different scenario. And we’re all trained that, you know, hands off. If you inadvertently run across something like that in the conduct of what you’re doing, you immediately let someone know; if it’s involved in something being recorded, it’s immediately erased. So, you know, it’s something that we all know you just don't do. Overseas, okay; here at home, not so okay. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play for you the clip that we ran of President Bush earlier and get your response. This is President Bush on Sunday. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I can say that if somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why. In the meantime, this program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I. This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat: limited. And it’s limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States. But, they are of known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates. And I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy is thinking. And that's what we are doing. We're at war with a bunch of cold-blooded killers who will kill on a moment's notice. And I have a responsibility, obviously, to act within the law, which I am doing. It’s a program has been reviewed constantly by Justice Department officials, a program to which the Congress has been briefed, and a program that is in my judgment necessary to win this war and to protect the American people. AMY GOODMAN: President Bush. Russell Tice, you’re with the National Security Agency, or you were until May 2005. If al-Qaeda's calling, the U.S. government wants to know. Your response? RUSSELL TICE: Well, that's probably a good thing to know. But that's why we have a FISA court and FISA laws. The FISA court – it’s not very difficult to get something through a FISA court. I kinda liken the FISA court to a monkey with a rubber stamp. The monkey sees a name, the monkey sees a word justification with a block of information. It can't read the block, but it just stamps “affirmed” on the block, and a banana chip rolls out, and then the next paper rolls in front of the monkey. When you have like 20,000 requests and only, I think, four were turned down, you can't look at the FISA court as anything different. So, you have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone want to go around the FISA court in something like this? I would think the answer could be that this thing is a lot bigger than even the President has been told it is, and that ultimately a vacuum cleaner approach may have been used, in which case you don't get names, and that's ultimately why you wouldn't go to the FISA court. And I think that’s something Congress needs to address. They need to find out exactly how this system was operated and ultimately determine whether this was indeed a very focused effort or whether this was a vacuum cleaner-type scenario. AMY GOODMAN: Did you support the President, Russell Tice? Did you vote for President Bush? RUSSELL TICE: I am a Republican. I voted for President Bush both in the last election and the first election where he was up for president. I’ve contributed to his campaign. I get a post -- I mean, a Christmas card from the White House every year, I guess, because of my nominal contributions. But – so, you know, it’s not like, you know -- I think you’re going to find a lot of folks that are in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are apt to be on the conservative side of the fence. But nonetheless, we're all taught that you don't do something like this. And I’m certainly hoping that the President has been misled in what’s going on here and that the true crux of this problem is in the leadership of the intelligence community. AMY GOODMAN: You're saying in the leadership of your own agency, the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: That's correct, yeah, because certainly General Alexander and General Hayden and Bill Black knew that this was illegal. AMY GOODMAN: But they clearly had to have authorization from above, and Bush is not contending that he did not know. RUSSELL TICE: Well, that's true. But the question has to be asked: What did the President know? What was the President told about this? It's just -- there's just too many variables out there that we don't know yet. And, ultimately, I think Congress needs to find out those answers. If the President was fed a bill of goods in this matter, then that's something that has to be addressed. Or if the President himself knew every aspect of what’s going on, if this was some sort of vacuum cleaner deal, then it is ultimately, I would think, the President himself that needs to be held responsible for what’s going on here. AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think should happen to him? RUSSELL TICE: Well, you know, it’s certainly not up to me, but I've heard all of the talk about impeachment and that sort of thing. You know, I saw our last president get impeached for what personally I thought should have been something between his wife and his family, and the big guy upstairs. It’s not up to me, but if the President knew, if this was a vacuum cleaner job and the President knew exactly what was going on -- and ultimately what we're hearing now is nothing but a cover-up and a whitewash -- and we find that to be the case, then I think it should cause some dire consequences for even the President of the United States, if he indeed did know exactly what was going on and if it was a very large-scale, you know, suck-up-everything kind of operation. AMY GOODMAN: This investigation that the Justice Department has launched – it’s interesting that Alberto Gonzales is now Attorney General of the United States – the latest story of The New York Times: Gonzales, when he was White House Counsel, when Andrew Card, chief of staff, went to Ashcroft at his hospital bedside to get authorization for this. Can he be a disinterested party in investigating this now, as Attorney General himself? RUSSELL TICE: Yeah, I think that for anyone to say that the Attorney General is going to be totally unbiased about something like this, I think that’s silly. Of course, the answer is “No.” He can't be unbiased in this. I think that a special prosecutor or something like that may have to be involved in something like this, otherwise we're just liable to have a whitewash. AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the term “police state”? RUSSELL TICE: Well, anytime where you have a situation where U.S. citizens are being arrested and thrown in jail with the key being thrown away, you know, potentially being sent overseas to be tortured, U.S. citizens being spied on, you know, and it doesn't even go to the court that deals with these secret things, you know, I mean, think about it, you could have potentially somebody getting the wrong phone call from a terrorist and having him spirited away to some back-alley country to get the rubber hose treatment and who knows what else. I think that would kind of qualify as a police state, in my judgment. I certainly hope that Congress or somebody sort of does something about this, because, you know, for Americans just to say, ‘Oh, well, we have to do this because, you know, because of terrorism,’ you know, it’s the same argument that we used with communism years ago: take away your civil liberties, but use some threat that's, you know, been out there for a long time. Terrorism has been there for -- certainly before 9/11 we had terrorism problems, and I have a feeling it’s going to be around for quite some time after whatever we deem is a victory in what we're doing now in the Middle East. But, you know, it’s just something that has to be addressed. We just can't continue to see our civil liberties degraded. Ultimately, as Ben Franklin, I think, had said, you know, those who would give up their essential liberties for a little freedom deserve neither liberty or freedom, and I tend to agree with Ben Franklin. AMY GOODMAN: And your colleagues at the N.S.A. right now, their feelings, the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Boy, I think most folks at N.S.A. right now are just running scared. They have the security office hanging over their head, which has always been a bunch of vicious folks, and now they've got, you know, this potential witch hunt going on with the Attorney General. People in the intelligence community are afraid. They know that you can't come forward. You have no protections as a whistleblower. These things need to be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean you have no protection? RUSSELL TICE: Well, like I said before, as a whistleblower, you're not protected by the whistleblower laws that are out there. The intelligence community is exempt from the whistleblower protection laws. AMY GOODMAN: So why are you doing it? RUSSELL TICE: Well, ultimately, I don't have to be afraid of losing my job, because I have already lost my job, so that's one reason. The other reason is because I made an oath when I became an intelligence officer that I would protect the United States Constitution, not a president, not some classification, you know, for whatever, that ultimately I'm responsible to protect the Constitution of the United States. And I think that’s the same oath the President takes, for the most part. So, something like -- imagine if something -- if we were like, I don't know, taking Americans and assassinating them for suspicions of suspicions of terrorism, and then we just put some classification on it and said, ‘Well, this is super top secret, so no one can say anything about that.’ Well, at what point do you draw the line and say enough is enough. We have to say something here. AMY GOODMAN: What was your classification? How high up was your clearance? RUSSELL TICE: Well, clearances go up to the top secret level. But once you get to the top secret level, there are many caveats and many programs and things that can happen beyond that point. I specialized in what’s known as black world operations and programs that are very closely held, things that happen in operations and programs in the intelligence community that are closely held, and for the most part these programs are very beneficial to ultimately getting information and protecting the American people. But in some cases, I think, classification levels at these special -- we call them special access programs, SAPs -- could be used to mask, basically, criminal wrongdoing. So I think that’s something ultimately Congress needs to address, as well, because from what I can see, there is not a whole lot of oversight when it comes to some of these deep black programs. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, did you know anyone within the N.S.A. who refused to spy on Americans, who refused to follow orders? RUSSELL TICE: No. No, I do not. As far as -- of course, I'm not witting of anyone that was told they will spy on an American. So, ultimately, when this was going on, I have a feeling it was closely held at some of the upper echelon levels. And you’ve got to understand, I was a worker bee. I was a guy that wrote the reports and did the analysis work and -- you know, the detail guy. At some point, your reports have to get sent up up the line and then, you know, the management takes action at some point or another, but at my level, no, I was not involved in this. AMY GOODMAN: Has Congress responded to your letter offering to testify as a former employee of the National Security Agency? RUSSELL TICE: Not yet. Of course, the holidays – you know, we just had the holidays here, so everybody is out of town. I can't condemn Congress too much yet, because I faxed it out on, I do believe, the 18th of December, and we're just getting into the new year. AMY GOODMAN: And who did you send it to? RUSSELL TICE: I sent it to the chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, the SSCI and the HPSCI. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Is there anything else that you would like to add? RUSSELL TICE: Well, I can't think of a whole lot, except ultimately I think the American people need to be concerned about allegations that the intelligence community is spying on Americans. You know, one of my fears is that this would cause, just going into the N.S.A. and just tearing the place up and making the good work that’s being done at the N.S.A. ineffective, because the N.S.A. is very important to this country's security. And I certainly hope that some bad apples, even if these bad apples were at the top of N.S.A., don't ultimately destroy the capabilities of N.S.A.'s ability to do a good job protecting the American people. AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked for the N.S.A. up until May of last year. Thanks for joining us. RUSSELL TICE: Thank you. ---- Former “Economic Hit Man” John Perkins on “The First Truly Global Empire” and its Impact on Latin America Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435206 We speak with the author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” about his former work going into various countries to create a secret empire through economics after being recruited by the National Security Agency. Perkins discusses the policy in the context of the recent WTO meetings, the NYC transit strikes, and U.S. economic interventions in Latin America. [includes rush transcript] * John Perkins, from 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described "economic hit man." He is the author of the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to John Perkins, returning to our airwaves, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Years ago, he wrote the words: “Economic Hit Men (E.H.M.s) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other foreign so-called aid organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that’s taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. I should know,” John Perkins writes, “I was an E.H.M., an economic hit man.” Welcome to Democracy Now! JOHN PERKINS: Thank you, Amy. It’s great to be here again. AMY GOODMAN: Well, since we have last talked, many things have taken place, from the World Trade Organization meetings in Hong Kong to Evo Morales being elected in Bolivia to the New York City transit strike. Can you talk about the connections you see? JOHN PERKINS:I think we're seeing a real change in consciousness, which is something we called for here last year about this same time. One of the reasons I wrote the book -- because people need to be aware -- where you live in a democracy, and people need to be aware of what’s going on, and I think increasingly people are becoming aware of that. Yes, Bolivia voted for Evo Morales, who ran on a very strong anti- corporation, anti-U.S. platform; and now Evo Morales becomes one of seven presidents in South America, representing over 80% of the population of South America who have voted – presidents who have gone into office because they opposed American policy. We see in the New York transit strike, laborers standing up to the corporatocracy, saying, ‘We deserve to have pension funds. We deserve to have health care. We deserve to have benefits.’ And, yes, at the World Trade Organization in Hong Kong, we basically saw the corporatocracy beaten. In the end, they put together, you know, a statement that made it sound like things were all hunky-dory; but, in fact, the developing countries really one in that one. Of course, that started in ‘99 in Seattle and then again in 2003 in Cancun with the World Trade Organizations there. So, I think in the last year we’ve seen a tremendous rise in consciousness among people that we want to move into new directions, becoming more democratic, make our leaders respond in democratic ways. AMY GOODMAN: When you talk about yourself as an economic hit man, explain very briefly. Though we have spoken before, for people who didn't hear that conversation, talk about your work as a consultant. JOHN PERKINS: Well, as an – we economic hit men, basically in the last four decades, have managed to create the world’s first truly global empire; and I talk in detail in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, about this and in various countries where we went in to create this first truly global empire. We’ve done it primarily without the military. The military comes in only as a last resort. We’ve done it through economics, and we’ve done it very, very subtly, so it’s been a secret empire, unlike all of history’s previous empires. Most Americans don't realize that we’ve created this empire. They don’t realize what we've done in Latin America. And the way economic hit men work, we use many different techniques, but probably the most typical is that we'll identify a company [country] that has resources that corporations covet, like oil. We'll arrange a huge loan from an organization like the World Bank for that country; but the money won’t go to that country at all. It goes to big U.S. corporations -- Bechtel, Haliburton, ones we all hear about all the time -- to build infrastructure projects in that country. These projects, like industrial parks and power plants, benefit the very rich of those countries and do nothing for the poor, except to leave the country in a huge debt, one it can’t possibly repay, which means it can’t give social services, education, health to its poor, and it’s put in a position where it doesn't repay its debts; so, at some point, we economic hit men go back in and we say: ‘Look, you can’t repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell oil to our oil companies real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote, or send troops in support of ours some place in the world.’ And that's how we’ve created this empire; and we’ve done it without most Americans even realizing that it’s happening. AMY GOODMAN: And explain who you were working for. JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was recruited by the National Security Agency, the agency that’s getting so much attention right now because of spying on Americans, while I was still in college at Boston University; and the National Security Agency put me through a series of very extensive tests, including lie detector tests, personality tests. And I was in business school. They determined that I could be a good economic hit man. They also discovered a lot of weaknesses in my character (I like to think of them as kind of the big -- the three big drugs of our culture: money, power, and sex) that they could use as a hook to bring me in. So, I was told from the very beginning by this amazing woman, Claudine, (who’s described in detail in the book) who is basically my trainer that, ‘Look, you're going into a dirty business. Once you’re in, you can never get out of this business; but we’re going to make it very attractive for you to go into this business.’ AMY GOODMAN: Now, you didn’t join the N.S.A.? JOHN PERKINS: No, I never worked directly for the N.S.A., I worked for a company called Chas T. Main, big consulting firm out of Boston. And these days almost all of this work is done by private contractors. It’s not done directly by the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. They may recruit us, but we work for private industry. The same is true of the jackals, Amy. If economic hit men fail, which we don’t usually do (but I did in Panama, for example, and I tell in detail in the book about how that ended up) – but my failure ended up in a jackal going in and assassinating Omar Torrijos, the president of Panama. When economic hit men fail, the jackals go in and either overthrow governments or assassinate leaders; and they, too, do not work directly for the government. These days, they’re private contractors. The days of the government agent, the 007, who’s licensed to kill, are long gone. AMY GOODMAN: When you say you failed, you mean what? JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was sent in to Panama to bring Omar Torrijos around, to bring him into our system, and he refused to do that. He said, ‘Look, I know if I play your game’ -- he told me directly -- ‘If I play your game, I'll become very rich. But that's not what interests me. I want to help my poor people.’ And, so he said, ‘You can either get out of Panama or play the game my way.’ Well, we decided to stay and try to bring him around. He never would come around. And I knew all along that if I failed to bring this man around something dire would happen to him. And, you know, this is what’s going on in Latin America right now. Evo Morales is being visited this week by an economic hit man who’s going into his office saying, ‘Congratulations, Mr. President –’ AMY GOODMAN: Who? Who is he being visited by? JOHN PERKINS: Well, an economic hit man who has to remain nameless at this point, but -- AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there for right now; but this is just part one of our conversation, as we come to the end of our hour. We're talking to John Perkins. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is his book, from a man who’s done it, who’s been there, who calls himself an economic hit man. -------- us The Pentagon's Homegrown Theater of War By Peter Carlson Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 3, 2006; C01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010201543_pf.html Grandma used to say that there's a silver lining inside every dark cloud and maybe she was right. This month, Harper's magazine has found a big, heartwarming silver lining inside that gloomy old Global War on Terrorism. Here it is: Our government has hired a bunch of poor souls who lost their arms and legs in accidents and has rigged them up with bags of fake blood so they can play wounded civilians in war games down at Fort Polk, La. Not only that but Cubic, the defense contractor that produces these games, has also hired 250 Arabic-speaking immigrants at $220 a day as "Cultural Role Players" in the war games. They've also hired hundreds of local Louisianans to play random Arab civilians, plus "dozens of scriptwriters" to come up with realistic scenarios for the war games. "The best way to describe what we're doing here," says one of the Army intelligence officers who plan the games, "is that we're producing a very complex movie with a huge number of plotlines and a very high budget." How high is the budget? "The military spends an average of $9 million staging each 3 1/2 -week mission rehearsal exercise," writes Wells Tower, author of this jaw-droppingly bizarre article. Which works out to about $117 million a year, he writes. That doesn't include the $49 million spent constructing the state-of-the-art fake city of Suliyah, which contains 29 buildings, each one equipped with remote-controlled smoke-making machines and an intercom system that pipes in "recordings of screaming women, crying babies, barking dogs and other sound effects throughout the whole city." Plus 900 video cameras so the brass can watch the games in real time while sitting in high-back black-leather chairs in Suliyah's control center. "We also are fixing to start implementing smells of the battlefield," said Marty Martinson, Suliyah's chief administrator. "Smells like vomit, burning rubber, burning bodies, those kinds of things. . . . Soldiers need to understand, there's a smell to the battlefield. There's a smell to death." Needless to say, the Army doesn't use live ammo in these exercises. Basically, the soldiers are playing very sophisticated games of laser tag. Each of the 4,000 or so participants wears a harness that chirps when it's hit by a laser "bullet." And when the game is over, referees wander the battlefield with "god guns" -- devices that erase "wounds" from the harnesses and resurrect the "dead" so they can play again. One day at the war games, Tower was chatting with some of the amputees who play wounded civilians when suddenly a horn went off, signaling the start of another fake battle. A Humvee and a convoy of trucks were attacked with a fake rocket-propelled grenade, causing a fake explosion that caused Cole Young, 71, who lost a leg in an oil pipeline accident, to lie on the ground with fake blood spurting from his amputated leg. A soldier came to give Young some fake first aid. But when he saw that Young's hand was under his poncho, working his blood-spurting machine, the soldier yelled, "He's got a [bleep] wire!" and started firing laser bullets into Young's chest. That caused the other fake civilians to start screaming, "Murderers!" That distracted the soldiers, enabling a bunch of fake insurgents to sneak up and wipe them all out -- "mowing down the troops as effortlessly," Tower writes, "as they might a herd of grazing cows." Which is, alas, not unusual: Time after time, Tower reports, the fake insurgents massacred the American troops in these games. Grandma would no doubt say that the silver lining in that news is that the games are just . . . well, games. In the real war in Iraq, we're kicking insurgent butt, says President Bush. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Intelligence panel had clue about spying 1/3/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-03-spying-clue_x.htm WASHINGTON — Congressional intelligence committees had at least a hint in October 2001 that the National Security Agency was expanding its surveillance activities after the 9/11 attacks, according to a letter released Tuesday by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The California Democrat had raised questions to Gen. Michael Hayden, then the NSA director, about the legal authority to conduct the eavesdropping work. In the October 2001 letter, Pelosi said she was told in a briefing that month that the agency "had been operating since the Sept. 11 attacks with an expansive view" of its authorities "to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations and guidelines." "I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting," Pelosi, then the top Democrat on the intelligence panel, wrote Hayden. President Bush has acknowledged he authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaeda or its affiliates. "I can say that if somebody from al-Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why," Bush said this week. "This program is conscious of people's civil liberties, as am I." Bush and other senior officials have said he personally renewed the program more than three dozen times since October 2001, and a small group of Congress members was briefed on the highly classified effort. But it appears that Hayden may have at least alluded broadly to the new surveillance work with a wider audience of House and Senate intelligence committee members during the classified October briefing. According to Pelosi's letter, Hayden spoke about the agency's new posture to expand its operations. Hayden, who is now the nation's No. 2 intelligence official, told Pelosi he wanted to clarify ambiguities. "In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA's collection and reporting," he wrote on Oct. 18, 2001. The subsequent crucial sentences of the letter, released Tuesday, were blocked out for security reasons. Key parts of Pelosi's letter were also withheld. For instance, one sentence indicates that the NSA was forwarding intercepts and other undisclosed information to the FBI without first getting a request. A series of independent commissions have encouraged national security agencies to improve cooperation. But it is far from clear in the letter how this work may be happening. Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists, said: "It does seem that the NSA is doing something different and in a different way than what it has done before." -------- us politics Presidential Snooping Damages the Nation Bush has put himself above the law and in the company of rogues By BOB BARR (former Republican Representative) Tuesday, Jan. 03, 2006 Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1145243,00.html Back in the 1930s, when confronted with clear evidence he had violated the law, Georgia's then agriculture commissioner and gubernatorial candidate Eugene Talmadge popped his bright red suspenders and dared those accusing him of corruption to do something about it, declaring, "Sure, I stole, but I stole for you." He was elected Governor in 1932. Accused of breaking the law in the current debate over electronic spying, President George W. Bush has, in his own way, dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of our Constitution, I hope they will. Let's focus briefly on what the President has done here. Exactly like Nixon before him, Bush has ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic snooping on communications of various people, including U.S. citizens. That action is unequivocally contrary to the express and implied requirements of federal law that such surveillance of U.S. persons inside the U.S. (regardless of whether their communications are going abroad) must be preceded by a court order. General Michael Hayden, a former director of the NSA and now second in command at the new Directorate of National Intelligence, testified to precisely that point at a congressional hearing in April 2000. In response, the President and his defenders have fallen back on the same rationale used by Nixon, saying essentially, "I am the Commander in Chief; I am responsible for the security of this country; the people expect me to do this; and I am going to do it." But the Supreme Court slapped Nixon's hands when he made the same point in 1972. And it slapped Bush's hands when, after 9/11, he asserted authority to indefinitely detain those he unilaterally deemed "enemy combatants"--without any court access. Bush's advocates also argue that the congressional resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan and elsewhere--to bring to justice those responsible for the 9/11 attacks--authorized those no-warrant wiretaps. But there is absolutely nothing in the clear language of that resolution or in its legislative history suggesting that it was intended to override specific federal laws governing electronic surveillance. If Bush succeeds in establishing this as a precedent, he will have accomplished a breathtaking expansion of unilateral Executive power that could be easily applied to virtually any other area of domestic activity as long as a link to national security is asserted. Finally, presidential defenders have argued that efficiency demands bypassing the courts. There again, the clear language of the law does them in. Even pre--Patriot Act law provided a very robust mechanism through which a President, facing what he believes is such an emergency that the short time needed to secure court approval for a wiretap would obviate the need for one, can order a tap without prior court approval as long as he eventually gets an O.K. within three days. If that degree of flexibility does not suit a President, it is hard to imagine what provision would. And if the President thought the law governing eavesdropping was misguided or impractical, he should have proposed amendments. The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the assertion that a President may conduct electronic surveillance without judicial approval for national security, noting in 1972 that our "Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch." Rather than abiding such a clear missive, the Administration instead is taking the road mapped out nearly two centuries ago by Andrew Jackson, who, in response to a Supreme Court decision he didn't like, ignored it and is said to have declared, "The Supreme Court has made its decision. Now let them enforce it." Alleged associates of al-Qaeda are today's targets of that breathtaking assertion of presidential power. Tomorrow, it may be your phone calls or e-mails that will be swept up into our electronic infrastructure and secretly kept in a growing file attached to your name. Then everyone you contact could become a suspect, a link in an ever lengthening chain that would ensnare us all in the files of the largest database ever created through unlimited electronic spying that touches every aspect of our lives. Barr, a Republican, was a member of the House of Representatives from Georgia from 1995 to 2003 # George W. Bush - Should He Step Down As President? Vote Now To See Survey Results! http://www.popularq.com -------- ACTIVISTS Coca-Cola Contracts Fizzle at University of Michigan ANN ARBOR, Michigan, January 3, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2006/2006-01-03-01.asp In a victory for student environmental and human rights activists, the University of Michigan has suspended its business relationship with the Coca-Cola company because of its practices in India and Colombia. The decision, effective January 1, suspends 13 contracts with Coca-Cola worth $1.4 million annually because the company has not agreed to protocols for a third-party review of labor practices in Colombia and has not developed protocols for reviewing environmental concerns in India. In response to student concerns, the university convened a Dispute Review Board (DRB), an advisory body composed of students, faculty and administrators to look into the issues in India and Colombia. After deliberating for 10 months, the DRB recommended in June 2005 that the Coca-Cola company be placed on probation. The DRB laid out a series of benchmarks that the company would have to meet to show that it was acting in good faith to solve the problems in India and Colombia, including agreeing to an independent, third-party investigation into issues in those countries. According to deadlines established by the university, the company and the university were supposed to select an independent auditor together and reach an agreement on review protocols by December 31, 2005. In a letter dated December 16, Coke said it would miss that deadline because of legal complications. The university's total yearly expenditure on Coke products is $1.4 million. The university says that if the situation is resolved, it will resume purchasing of Coke products. For the present, campus vending machines that contain Coke products will either be stocked with alternate products or remain empty. The Coalition to Cut the Contract with Coca-Cola, a group of student organizations that is pressuring Coca-Cola to change its ways, congratulated the university on its decision in a statement. The statement condemns what it calls the company's efforts to treat the alleged environmental and human rights violations "as public relations issues, instead of taking the necessary steps to become a socially responsible corporation." The coalition said it is concerned that the university still maintains Coke is acting in "good faith." Clara Hardie, a student leader at the university, said, "The campaign to hold Coca-Cola accountable is far from over, and we will continue to fight to ensure that the University of Michigan administration is moving in the right direction, and putting Coca-Cola on notice that this suspension can lead to expulsion if they fail to act in good faith." Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center, an international campaign organization that worked with the student organizations to make the case against Coca-Cola, is pleased with the suspension. "We welcome the move by the University of Michigan to cease doing business with a company that engages in flagrant human rights and environmental violations, and this will send a strong message to the Coca-Cola company that it must clean up its act," said Srivastava from the India Resource Center's office in San Francisco. Coca-Cola is the target of numerous community-led protest actions in India. Villagers accusing the company of creating severe water shortages and pollution. One of Coca-Cola's largest bottling plants in India, in the town of Plachimada, Kerala state, has been shuttered since March 2004 because the local community says the beverage production has created severe water shortages and pollution in the area. In November, the Kerala state government declared the area's water resources to be "over-exploited." The state government notified the area under the Kerala Groundwater Control and Regulation Act to regulate the use of groundwater due to scarcity. The company must register its wells and borewells with the newly formed Ground Water Regulatory Authority, which will decide whether the company can use the groundwater for beverage production. There are frequent demonstrations against the company's operations across India. The most recent was in Kala Dera, Rajasthan in north India where over 1,500 people marched on December 12 demanding the closure of the Coca-Cola factory. Community leaders have vowed to increase the pressure on the company. "We will not rest until we have shut down the bottling plant," said Sawai Singh in Rajasthan. More protests in India are planned for January and February. In Colombia, the company is accused of murders, kidnappings and torture of union leaders and organizers with the National Union of Food Industry Workers, says Javier Correa, president of Sinaltrainal, the union's name in Spanish. In July 2001, the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sinaltrainal, several of its members and the estate of Isidro Gil, one of its murdered officers. The lawsuit alleges the workers have been murdered and tortured by paramilitary death squads brought in by local Coca-Cola bottling plant managers to suppress the workers’ organizing efforts with violence. Coca-Cola bottlers “contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces that utilize extreme violence and murdered, tortured, unlawfully detained or otherwise silenced trade union leaders,” the lawsuit states. Ray Rogers, director of the New York City based Campaign to Stop Killer Coke, says of the company's Colombia operations, "Coca-Cola continues to rake in billions each year, yet the frightening conditions at the Coke plants remain unchanged." The lawsuit and campaign aim to force Coca-Cola to prevent further bloodshed and to provide safe working conditions. In April 2005, Coca-Cola released the report of an independent workplace assessment conducted in Colombia for the company, saying the report reveals "a workplace environment where labor and human rights are respected and protected." Cal Safety Compliance Corporation, an independent firm that conducts social accountability and workplace environment, safety and health audits for companies around the world, found no violations and uncovered no allegations with respect to human rights abuses at any of the plants. In the areas of environment and safety and health, "minor infractions were noted at four of the plants." The infractions were brought to the attention of plant management and the Coca-Cola Company, and all are being addressed based on a corrective action plan, the company said. Stuart Kyle, director of social compliance for the company, said the report's findings are not surprising. "While outside claims of anti-union activities have been levied against our company and our bottlers, we have always believed that the people who work in our Colombian bottling facilities do so in an environment free of intimidation, harassment or discrimination based on union affiliation or activities." The Coca-Cola system in Colombia currently has signed labor contracts with all 12 of its unions. Students in other colleges and universities in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom are campaigning to revoke Coca-Cola's contracts until they meet the demands of the communities. On December 8, 2005, New York University joined the list of universities that have kicked Coca-Cola out. The NYU students who led the campaign were part of the United Students Against Sweatshops effort to raise awareness about human rights violations in Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia and Turkey, among other places. New York City Councilmember Hiram Monserrate who led a delegation to Colombia, concluded, "It seems indisputable that Coke workers have been systematically persecuted for their union activity." In November 2005 the company issued a statement on a lawsuit filed after demonstrators at the company's headquarters in Turkey were allegedly subjected to violence by police. "The Coca-Cola Company and its bottling partners comply with all applicable labor and employment laws in the countries in which we do business," the company said. "We recognize international labor standards and are committed to respecting the workplace human rights of our employees and the parties with whom we do business. We respect our employees' right to join or not join labor unions, and ensure that those rights are exercised without fear of retaliation, repression or any other form of discrimination." But company statements do not satisfy the protesters. "We are putting the Coca-Cola company on notice. It will continue to lose lucrative contracts with more colleges and universities until it cleans up its act in India," said Srivastava of the India Resource Center. Coca-Cola products will not be completely eliminated from the University of Michigan campus. Some third-party vendors such as chain restaurants may continue to carry the products because of agreements with the company that require them to stock the beverages. Coca-Cola manufactures some 400 different products and distributes them in 200 countries. The company says it is involved in an ongoing global effort "to work with its bottling partners and suppliers to assess and correct noncompliance with local law, identify and implement best practices in the areas of labor, health, safety and environment throughout the company's entire supply chain."