NucNews March 29, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Radioactive Goat Mystery in Connecticut Wednesday, 29 March 2006 CBS Radio http://www.1010wins.com/pages/19516.php HARTFORD, Conn. (1010 WINS) -- The state Department of Environmental Protection said Tuesday that radioactive material found in two samples of goat milk did not come from Millstone Power Station in Waterford. At Gov. M. Jodi Rell's request, the agency reviewed thousand of environmental samples taken near the Millstone nuclear facility over the past 35 years. It found levels of radiation similar to those found around the world because of radioactive fallout from weapons testing and the Chernobyl incident, according to the report. DEP said two samples of milk taken from a goat in 2001 had slightly higher levels of radiation than thousands of other samples of vegetation, soil, cow and goat milk taken near the plant. But the agency said the radioactive material in the milk did not share the characteristics of materials that would have been produced by Millstone. DEP also said the levels were within acceptable limits established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The citizens group Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone has raised questions about the goat milk samples, carting a goat around the state to make its point. A message seeking comment was left with the group's president. The goat lives about five miles from Millstone on a farm in Waterford. ``While we appreciate the concerns some people may have about Millstone, we do not believe the two isolated samples of goat milk, or any of the other samples reviewed by my staff for that matter, indicate any unsafe activity by the plant,'' said DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy. ---- A Process To Render Nuclear Weapons & Waste Less Harmful By Dennis F. Nester, special for NuclearNo.com, Originally published 20 June 2003 Friday, 29 August 2003, 12:36 pm Guest Opinion http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0308/S00219.htm - Recycling plutonium from warheads into MOX nuclear reactor fuel only perpetuates the security and environmental problems of bomb grade elements - There is a better way which will completely transmute plutonium and other high level nuclear waste known as the Roy Process It was the TMI partial meltdown that moved Dr. Roy to spend the summer school break proving calculations to see if it was possible to transmute high level nuclear waste cost effectively. He found it could be done with existing infrastructure, commercially available machinery and current supporting technology. Estimated cost to build a pilot facility was $80 million dollars. A newspaper editor persuaded Dr. Roy to release his Roy Process to the press which was published in November of 1979. (see article on web site below). The Roy Process Brief Description from the web site: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? Maybe! One possible solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent 52 years in European and American universities researching and writing recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students. Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products. In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and the chemical separation processes needed are well known. What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a reasonable amount of time. How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process. It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive wastes. To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as above until the stable element is formed. The Roy Process could be developed in three distinct phases, according to Roy. Phase I consists of a theoretical feasibility study of the process to obtain needed parameters for the construction of a prototype machine. Phase II will involve the construction of a prototype machine and supporting facilities for demonstrating the process. Phase Ill will consist of the construction of large scale commercial plants based on the data obtained from Phase II. Cost estimates for Phase I and II are in the neighborhood of $10 million. For Phase Ill, Roy estimates a cost of $70 million. Says Roy, `It will be interesting to do a cost analysis of eliminating nuclear waste by using my process and by burying it for 240,000 years - ten half-lives of plutonium - under strict scientific control. There is also an ethical question: can we really burden the thousands of generations yet to come with problems which we have created? There is no God among human beings who can guarantee how the geological structure of waste burial regions will change even after ten thousand years, not to mention 240,000 years." If you are interested in finding out more about this process, please contact Dennis Nester, Roy`s agent, whose address is listed below. A final note To those who say that a process for transforming nuclear wastes is an invitation to keep making them, I ask, when we find a cure for cancer, shall we say it`s okay to continue to eat, drink and breathe carcinogens? "There is no way one can change nuclear structure other than by nuclear reaction. Burial of nuclear waste is not a solution." Radha Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus "Do not be surprised if you learn that the nuclear industry makes billions of dollars by being a part of government`s policy of burial of nuclear wastes. It is not in their financial interest to try any other process. They are not idealists. Radha R. Roy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus The below includes the Patent application claim.....describing other uses for the Roy Process transmutation method http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/additional-uses-royprocess.html AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILS Dennis F. Nester 4510 E. Willow Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85032 USA (602) 494-9361 theroyprocess@cox.net -------- australia PM hunts for nuclear loophole Dennis Shanahan, Political editor March 29, 2006 The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18639649%255E2702,00.html AUSTRALIA is exploring avenues "a step at a time" to sell uranium to India, which refuses to join nuclear non-proliferation pacts, as it prepares to sign the first uranium deal with China. John Howard said yesterday that Australia's first nuclear deal with China could be signed next week during the visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. "It's possible that the discussions could be satisfactorily concluded so that something could be said or signed when the Chinese Premier visits Australia next week," the Prime Minister said. Mr Howard said the negotiations with Beijing had been on the basis that China was a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but the negotiations with India were in a different category. Mr Howard and visiting British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they supported India's deal this month with US President George W. Bush on nuclear technology, despite New Delhi not being a signatory to the NPT. While Australia was not about to change its policy of selling uranium only to NPT signatories, Mr Howard said India's behaviour on nuclear weapons had been "impeccable" since 1974, when it last exploded a nuclear device. "We're not contemplating, let me put it that way, the policy change in relation to India," he said. Mr Howard said that as a supplier of 40 per cent of the world's uranium, Australia was a major player when it came to uranium reserves and nuclear power. He told his Coalition colleagues in the party room that Australia was not under any pressure from the US to sell uranium to India, but it was clear that New Delhi wanted Australia's uranium. Mr Howard said Australia was sending a delegation to New Delhi and Washington to seek out the details of the agreement between the US and India. Legal ways for Australia to sell uranium to India include quarantining its nuclear power industry. "We think the American agreement with the Indians is good because it's going to put India's domestic nuclear capacity under international inspections and that is a huge step forward," Mr Howard said. -------- britain British Gov't set to approve nuclear clean-up strategy Wed Mar 29, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060329/sc_afp/britainpoliticsenergy_060329185226 LONDON - The government was expected Thursday to approve a strategy for the withdrawal from service and clean-up of the nation's civil nuclear facilities. Trade and Industry secretary Alan Johnson was set to approve a strategy drawn up by Britain's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a spokesman for the NDA said. "We are expecting approval of the strategy tomorrow," he told AFP Wednesday. A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said Johnson would give Thursday judgement on the strategy and also on whether to approve the sale of the state-owned British Nuclear Group. The Guardian newspaper said Wednesday that the government would back the sale of BNG, the clean-up arm of British Nuclear Fuels, alongside plans to hand over the decommissioning of atomic sites across Britain to private companies. The sale of BNG would reap 1.0 billion pounds (1.44 billion euros, 1.73 billion dollars), the daily added. Meanwhile the Financial Times said Wednesday that the cost of decommissioning Britain's ageing nuclear power plants would be 9.0 billion pounds higher than ministers' estimates. The NDA was expected to say that it has uncovered far more hazardous radioactive waste than anticipated beneath the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria, northwestern England, the FT reported. The NDA has therefore revised higher its estimate for the total clean-up costs across British sites to 65 billion pounds from 56 billion, it added. "I can't confirm that the figure is either accurate or inaccurate," the NDA spokesman said. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is a non-departmental public body, set up in April 2005. Its strategy was being published after British Prime Minister Tony Blair's goverment announced last November a sweeping review of the country's energy needs that will specifically look into the option of building new nuclear power stations. The government was expected to publish a policy statement later this year. Blair -- who is reportedly in favour of resurrecting Britain's nuclear energy programme -- has suggested that a combination of nuclear and renewable sources such as wind power could be the way forward. Blair believes that Britain, like many countries, needs to diversify out of dependence on one source of energy as the country's existing coal and nuclear plants neared decommissioning. A switch to nuclear would be a major policy shift for Blair and likely to provoke strong reaction from environmentalists but also within his governing Labour Party. Britain has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s, providing about 25 percent of the country's electricity, compared with natural gas which provides about 40 percent. Proponents of new reactors -- which emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- argue they would help Britain meet its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2010. Opponents highlight a number of issues, particularly the unresolved problem of nuclear waste. ---- Investors and firms eye nuclear future By Jorn Madslien BBC News business reporter at Sellafield Wednesday, 29 March 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4818370.stm The instantly recognisable silhouette that greets visitors to Sellafield has long stood out as a potent symbol of perhaps the most despised industry in Britain. Ever since the fire at the Windscale nuclear reactor in 1957, the industry has had to face profound hostility and loathing, fiercely voiced both by environmental campaigners and by some of Britain's neighbouring governments. But Sellafield's image could be about to change, as the concrete monstrosities that spoil this otherwise idyllic Cumbrian beach will soon be flattened. The "golf ball" will be knocked off its perch and controlled explosions will demolish the enormous concrete cooling towers . Once the dust settles, it should become clear that the changes currently taking place at Sellafield and Windscale amount to much more than a cosmetic exercise aimed at giving the site a streamlined facade. New industry The sprawling Sellafield site, where many a decaying building lies dormant, feels a bit like a museum of Britain's nuclear heritage. Energy calculator: nuclear, fossil or renewable energy? The UK's first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall, which was opened by the Queen in 1956 and stayed in operation until March 2003, is still standing tall, though its operations have long since ceased. The solid waste storage silo B41 is still full of intermediate waste, waiting to be emptied and decommissioned. The B203 plutonium purification and residue recovery plant has not been operational since 1987. The uranium purification plant closed in 1973. And the absolutely huge Magnox storage and decanning facility, which was operational for 30 years, was closed down in 1992. But these "historic" buildings are not museum pieces. The reason why they are still here is simple: removing them is both tricky and expensive. Yet, with decommissioning of Britain's old nuclear installations gathering pace, industry operators are preparing for a golden handshake as they bid Britain's old nuclear industry farewell. Vast, long-term contracts could soon be up for grabs if the government green-lights a proposal tabled by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). The plan could create a new clean-up industry in the UK worth just short of £100bn, including waste from Britain's nuclear weapons industry. The clean-up bill from half a century of civilian nuclear activity accounts for about £72bn of that, with well over half expected to go towards cleaning up Sellafield, the latest figures from the NDA show. In short, says one industry official: "There's going to be some big contracts, of which Sellafield is going to be the biggest." Massive storage facility Up to now, the bulk of Britain's nuclear waste has been stored above ground at 37 sites across the UK. When measured by volume, 65% of Britain's total waste mountain is stored at Sellafield. Sellafield prepares for a commercial future In pictures Unlike in many other countries, which tend to favour deep underground depositories, the nastiest high-level waste is kept in a somewhat tall yet ordinary-looking warehouse. The waste, left over from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods, has been converted from liquid to solid glass by temperatures of 1,100 degrees Celsius. It is so radioactive that it continues to generate heat for five decades. The waste is stored in stacks of 10 small steel cylinders the size of milk churns, that are in turn sealed into place by two-metre deep yellow shielding plugs. The whole storage facility covers an area similar to that of a football pitch that is shielded by thick, solid concrete walls. By volume, it accounts for just a tenth of a per cent of total nuclear waste in the UK, though it accounts for 95% of the radioactivity. "You're standing on one of the most concentrated sources of radioactivity anywhere in the world," says BNFL spokesman Neil Stagg. The bulk of Britain's nuclear waste - 470,000 cubic metres in total - is classified as intermediate: nuclear fuel casings, transport containers, reactor cores and even the remains of torn-down buildings. Much of it is here at Sellafield, although in July, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will publish recommendations for how to deal with it in the long term. By comparison, the sprawling low-grade waste repository of Drigg, a few minutes drive from the main Sellafield site past the small Seascale fishing village, is "only slightly radioactive", says Mr Stagg. There are rows upon rows of containers, stacked and sealed with cement, ready to be buried and grassed over. They contain a mixture of hospital waste, building materials, wrapping material that has been exposed to radioactivity, and even contaminated soil. Clean-up contracts This flat and windswept beach landscape is about to become a battleground as companies begin to fight over clean-up contracts. Drigg Rivals will fight for the right to clean up Drigg Next month, a £1bn contract to clean up Drigg is going out to tender. Current operator BNG is the expected favourite, and this should stand it in good stead when much larger clean-up contracts come up for grabs. "If you're the first-tier contract, you run the site," observes one industry official. But BNG may have to share the spoils with others. On one level, there is a string of UK firms like Serco, Carillion and WS Atkins lining up to provide services. "It's a big market and the Americans are keen to get involved," the industry official says, pointing out that in most cases, they are vastly more experienced than their British rivals. Among BNG's leading contenders are the experienced US clean-up firms Fluor and Shaw. But there are others too, most notably CH2M, which has teamed up with the UK engineering group Amec and with the government body UKAEA. Bechtel is also expected to bid for clean-up contracts, though it cannot do so during the early stages as it helped create the NDA, which will be awarding the contracts during the next five years. Investors ranging from big institutions such as pension funds and insurance companies to smaller private equity firms are also eager to get in on the act. In part, this is because of the predictable long-term nature of the contracts the NDA is expected to award. As an added bonus, those involved in cleaning up the old waste might be first in line if the government decides to sanction the building of new nuclear power plants. It is becoming increasingly clear that the nuclear industry's survival does not merely hinge on whether or not the public will stomach the proposed revival of nuclear power. This is the second of two features exploring the way the nuclear industry is changing. The first feature was published on 28 March. Commercial independence awaits Sellafield http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4782450.stm ---- Jobs: Team Leader Strategic Support - Radiation Protection Group Dstl Environmental Sciences Department 29 Mar, 2006 http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/8-0&fp=4431a4571987c084&ei=SuAxRIvCOsT0HNuj4boJ&url=http%3A//www.telegraph.co.uk/core/exit.jhtml%3Fexit%3Dhttp%3A//www.jobs.telegraph.co.uk/item.aspx%3Fid%3D177610&cid=0 Alverstoke, Hampshire - Dstl’s Environmental Sciences Department (ESD) provides support to the MOD in the management, monitoring, control and disposal of its environmental, chemical weapons demilitarisation and radiological hazards. We are based at two sites at Porton Down, Salisbury and Alverstoke in Gosport, Hampshire. A leader is required for the Strategic Support Team within the Radiation Protection Group. Responsible to the Group Leader, you will provide leadership and line management to a highly technical team of around 15 people, who are primarily Radiation Protection Advisors and Health Physicists with a wide spectrum of technical knowledge and experience. Your responsibilities will include managing the performance and development of the team, dealing with H&S, quality and financial issues, ensuring successful delivery to time and cost of tasks and projects, and scrutinising the technical content of reports and projects led by the team members. The team’s main and developing customer base is currently MOD Centre, Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO), Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) and associated Integrated Project Teams (IPTs), with the focus of the work supporting Nuclear Accident Response, CBRN, and provision of advice to MOD Centre Policy Branch, including Veterans Policy Unit and compensation claims. The team carries out training and intervention management, and its members lead or contribute to a number of Directors of Equipment Capability (DEC) requirements and supporting programmes. The team also provides support to DEC (CBRN) and Radiac Project Office in Capability Management, and support to MOD’s internal nuclear regulator. The programmes of work typically involve joint working with staff in other groups or Dstl departments and integrating knowledge across MOD, including issues relating to Depleted Uranium. Above all, you must have excellent leadership and people management skills, including financial, H&S and quality, along with personal drive and a proven track record in delivery (including project management). Good Information Technology (MS Office), communication, organisation, decision-making and influencing skills, along with the willingness to travel to other Dstl and customer sites are also essential. A good degree (or equivalent) in a maths, science or other related discipline is required, along with a broad understanding of military systems, structures and the MOD. Specific knowledge and experience of MOD NAR and CBRN is desirable. In addition to a stimulating and rewarding career, as a civil servant you’ll enjoy a competitive benefits package. This includes a choice of pension schemes, generous holiday allowance, relocation assistance where appropriate, good sports and leisure facilities and flexible working hours. Applicants who reach a suitable standard in this campaign, but are not appointed, may be considered for other vacancies. Dstl is committed to diversity and recruits on the basis of specified competencies and skills. This permanent post is only open to UK Nationals who are willing to satisfy Government/MOD security vetting procedures. For an application pack, please contact, quoting reference 020911T, response@aia.co.uk or Response Solutions, aia*, 5 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4BH. Tel: 020 7553 9120 (9.30am – 5.30pm). Closing date: 28th April 2006. Interviews will take place on 30th & 31st May 2006. *aia is handling the response to this advertisement on our behalf. Your details will be sent to Dstl only and will not be used for any other purpose. Up to £45,000 & benefits · Alverstoke, Hampshire http//www.dstl.gov.uk -------- business Uranium boom By JOHN ROLFE Business Editor March 29, 2006 Australia Daily Telegraph http://feeds.asiapacificnews.net/?rid=04811ee2cefb8848&cat=4a8b544d0e80ba53&f=1 URANIUM stocks glowed yesterday as John Howard hinted that a deal to sell yellowcake to China was close. The Prime Minister said a deal on safeguards that may open the way for uranium sales could be signed during next weekend's visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. China needs uranium to produce nuclear energy, which it considers a key source of power for its booming economy. China intends to boost nuclear energy production fourfold by 2020 by building 28 nuclear plants. "This is significant," said Alan Eggers, managing director of Summit Resources, a uranium explorer whose shares have risen from 5c in September 2004 to $1.30, including a 12.5c gain yesterday. Summit – which has a market value of $240 million – claims to be the "most advanced uranium exploration company in Australia". The biggest mover yesterday was West Australian explorer Encounter Resources, which shot up 40.5c to 88c – an 85 per cent gain. It was followed by the Northern Territory's Deep Yellow, which jumped 5c or 43 per cent to 16.5c. Aequs Securities dealer Ric Klusman said investors were betting the Federal Government would sign a deal with China. "Uranium is the new gold," Mr Klusman said. He said most of the buying of uranium stocks at this stage was from smaller speculative investors but if the run continued the bigger investment houses would start to take notice. Gavin Wendt, a senior resources analyst at Fat Prophets Funds Management, said the opening up of the Chinese market provided "greater confidence that all the exploration spending going on is actually worthwhile". "If it was possible to add more enthusiasm to the uranium sector this has done it," Mr Wendt said. Shaw Stockbroking mining analyst John Colnan said the market was ignoring the opposition of most Labor state governments to opening new uranium mines. "The pressure will now come on various state and territory Labor governments (and their policy) of not approving new mines," Summit's Mr Eggers said. He said there were signs Labor was beginning to change its tune, with various players saying the ban should be dropped. Australia has 31 per cent of global uranium reserves though it meets only 21 per cent of global demand, partly due to bans. Shaw's Mr Colnan said BHP's massive Olympic Dam mine in South Australia, which holds the world' largest uranium deposit, was the pick of the producers. "The rest of it is just reminiscent of dotcom days," he said. The price of uranium has risen almost fourfold in the past three years. It is currently about $56 a pound, but could hit $76 by the end of the year, some analysts say. -------- india Key states hold judgment on N-deal Reuters Wednesday, March 29, 2006 http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=65092 U.S.-India Washington, March 29: Most nuclear-supplier nations are waiting to see what the U.S. Congress does with the U.S.-India civil nuclear energy deal before taking a position on the controversial agreement, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on Monday. U.S. officials last week briefed the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on the India deal, which requires changes in U.S. law and international regulations to take effect. Only Britain, France, Russia and Australia were strongly supportive, Burns said. The NSG sets rules for nuclear transfers. "The other countries are clearly in the middle categories, waiting to see more of the details (and) wanting to see action by the U.S. Congress" before taking a position, he told the Council on Foreign Relations thinktank. Under the pact, India would receive U.S. nuclear technology, including reactors and nuclear fuel, in return for separating its military and civil facilities and opening the civilian plants to international inspections. ---- Carter slams US-India nuclear deal Wed Mar 29, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060329/wl_sthasia_afp/usindianuclearpoliticscarter_060329154939 WASHINGTON - Former US president Jimmy Carter criticized Washington's civilian nuclear deal with India, saying it was "just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation". "Knowing for more than three decades of Indian leaders' nuclear ambitions, I and all other presidents included them in a consistent policy: no sales of civilian nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the NPT," Carter said in an opinion piece in The Washington Post. India has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and developed nuclear weapons on its own. US President George W. Bush clinched the landmark nuclear deal with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a visit to New Delhi on March 2 and is pushing Congress to amend the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to non NPT signatories, to make the agreement effective. It would give energy-starved India access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of its civilian nuclear reactors under international inspection. Carter, a Democrat, slammed the Bush administration for abandoning many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower. "This change in policies has sent uncertain signals to other countries, including North Korea and Iran, and may encourage technologically capable nations to choose the nuclear option," he said. Carter said although US companies reportedly might win two contracts arising from Indian plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012, "this is a minuscule benefit compared with the potential costs. "India may be a special case, but reasonable restraints are necessary," he said. The Bush administration had often cited what it called India's unblemished nuclear non-proliferation record to go ahead with deal. Carter said as the five original nuclear powers had all stopped producing fissile material for weapons, "India should make the same pledge to cap its stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients. "Instead, the proposal for India would allow enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be its current capacity," he said. So far, Carter said, India had only rudimentary technology for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, and he urged Congress to "preclude the sale of such technology to India." India should also join other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, he said. -------- iran Iran must dispel doubts it wants atom bombs-Germany 29 Mar 2006 15:04:07 GMT Source: Reuters By Louis Charbonneau http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29741895.htm BERLIN, March 29 (Reuters) - Germany said on Wednesday Iran had to prove to the international community it does not have an atomic weapons programme and reiterated its demand that Tehran halt all sensitive nuclear activities. Speaking ahead of Thursday's meeting in Berlin of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Tehran needed to restore confidence by freezing its uranium enrichment programme. "Iran must erase all doubts about a possible military use of its nuclear programme," Steinmeier told a session of the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of parliament. Iran says it only wants peaceful nuclear energy and refuses to halt enrichment work, which can produce fuel for power stations or bombs. The West believes it plans to build weapons. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters in Paris it did not appear that the sole purpose of Iran's programme, parts of which Tehran concealed from U.N. inspectors for nearly two decades, was the production of electricity. "I want to say here that we think that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear programme," he said. "A civilian nuclear programme does not explain the programme that it has today." Iran's resumption of enrichment -- a process that could produce fuel for atomic power plants or bombs -- prompted the EU in January to break off 2-1/2 years of talks with Iran and to back a U.S. demand to refer the Iranian nuclear dossier to the U.N. Security Council, which can impose sanctions. Steinmeier did not rule out a resumption of talks with the Islamic republic, though he said Iran would have to show it was ready to take the negotiations seriously. STRIVING FOR CONSENSUS Steinmeier's spokesman explained at a government news conference that the demand for suspension of enrichment had been made by the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s Vienna-based nuclear watchdog. "We are ready to return to negotiations on the condition that Iran fulfills the IAEA's demand for a long-term, verifiable suspension of all enrichment and enrichment-related activities," Martin Jaeger said. The foreign ministers of the "EU3" -- Britain, France and Germany -- and Russia and the United States will attend Thursday's meeting, he said, along with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. China was sending a deputy foreign minister. "The goal of the meeting is to reach a common position that will be expressed in a text of a 'presidential statement' of the U.N. Security Council drafted by the participants," Jaeger said. Diplomats in New York said the five permanent Council members are close to a deal and hope for approval of a new draft statement when the full council meets on Wednesday. Britain and France, backed by the United States, distributed a revised text late on Tuesday to all 15 Security Council members that makes concessions to Russia and China. It still calls on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment efforts. (Additional reporting by Anna Willard and Jon Boyle in Paris and Evelyn Leopold at the United Nations) ---- Using force against Iran 'counter-productive': Russian FM Wed Mar 29, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060329/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsrussia MOSCOW - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that any attempt at using force or coercion to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme would be counter-productive. "Any ideas about a coercive, forceful solution to the issue are highly counter-productive and cannot be supported," Lavrov told reporters in Moscow. "We are aiming for the Security Council to do what is necessary on a professional, not a politicised, basis," he added Wednesday. "Exclusively political methods" should be used to resolve a dispute over Iran's nuclear programme, he continued, adding: "We want all the international community's concerns to be dispelled." Lavrov spoke before travelling to Germany for a key meeting on Thursday of top diplomats from the UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany, aimed at finding a strategy to deal with Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment. The United States and European powers believe Iran's civilian nuclear programme hides an effort to develop weapons. Tehran insists its research is peaceful. Russia, along with China, has said it will oppose any draft statement in the UN Security Council that hints at punitive measures against the Islamic republic, an ally and trading partner. However, Russia has also expressed frustration at the lack of a clear response from Iran on its standing offer to enrich uranium in Russia on Iran's behalf as a guarantee that it only be used to create nuclear energy. "Iran must give an unambiguous agreement or refusal to this offer," Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Tuesday. Diplomats have reported progress in the Security Council, particularly after a Franco-British statement that calls on Iran to meet demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was watered down. The new text includes vague language that the Council "recalls its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security," according to a draft circulated by Britain and France. ---- Neocons Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks With Iran by Gareth Porter March 29, 2006 (Inter Press Service) http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8778 The George W. Bush administration failed to enter into negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program in May 2003 because neoconservative zealots who advocated destabilization and regime change were able to block any serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to former administration officials. The same neoconservative veto power also prevented the administration from adopting any official policy statement on Iran, those same officials say. Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, says the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-2003 was the result of obstruction by a "secret cabal" of neoconservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney. "The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran," Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to IPS. The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address U.S. concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs. It also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely sociopolitical organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran "end its support for terrorism." In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the United States to address security questions, the lifting of economic sanctions, and normalization of relations, including support for Iran's integration into the global economic order. Leverett also recalls that it was drafted with the blessing of all the major political players in the Iranian regime, including the "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khomeini. Realists, led by Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer. Exactly how the decision was made is not known. "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints," Wilkerson told IPS. "But I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. Bush." As Wilkerson observes, however, the mysterious death of what became known among Iran specialists as Iran's "grand bargain" initiative was a result of the administration's inability to agree on a policy toward Tehran. A draft National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran calling for diplomatic engagement had been in the process of interagency coordination for more than a year, according to a source who asks to remain unidentified. But it was impossible to get formal agreement on the NSPD, the source recalls, because officials in Cheney's office and in Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans wanted a policy of regime change and kept trying to amend it. Opponents of the neoconservative policy line blame Condoleezza Rice, then the National Security Adviser, for the failure of the administration to override the extremists in the administration. The statutory policymaker process on Iran, Wilkerson told IPS in e-mail, was "managed by a national security adviser incapable of standing up to the cabal." In the absence of an Iran policy, the two contending camps struggled in 2003 over a proposal by realists in the administration to reopen the Geneva channel with Iran that had been used successfully on Afghanistan in 2001-2002. They believed Iran could be helpful in stabilizing post-conflict Iraq, because the Iraqi Shi'ite militants who they expected to return from Iran after Hussein's overthrow owed some degree of allegiance to Iran. The neoconservatives tried to block those meetings on tactical policy grounds, according to Leverett. "They were saying we didn't want to engage with Iran because we didn't want to owe them," he recalls. Nevertheless, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad was authorized to begin meeting secretly in Geneva with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq. The neoconservatives then tried to sandbag the talks by introducing a demand for full information on any high-ranking al-Qaeda cadres who might be detained by the Iranians. Iran regarded that information as a bargaining chip to be given up only for a quid pro quo from Washington. The Bush administration, however, had adopted a policy in early 2002 of refusing to share any information with Iran on al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. On May 3, as the Iranian "grand bargain" proposal was on its way to Washington, Tehran's representative in Geneva, Javad Zarif, offered a compromise on the issue, according to Leverett: if the United States gave Iran the names of the cadres of the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) who were being held by U.S. forces in Iraq, Iran would give the United States the names of the al-Qaeda operatives they had detained. The MEK had carried out armed attacks against Iran from Iraqi territory during the Saddam regime and had been named a terrorist organization by the United States. But it had capitulated to U.S. forces after the invasion, and the neoconservatives now saw the MEK as a potential asset in an effort to destabilize the Iranian regime. The MEK had already become a key element in the alternative draft NSPD drawn up by neoconservatives in the administration. The indictment of Iran analyst Larry Franklin on Feith's staff last year revealed that, by February 2003, Franklin had begun sharing a draft NSPD that he knew would be to the liking of the Israeli embassy. (Franklin eventually pled guilty to passing classified information to two employees of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group and was sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison.) Reflecting the substance of that draft policy, ABC News reported on May 30, 2003, that the Pentagon was calling for the destabilization of the Iranian government by "using all available points of pressure on the Iranian regime, including backing armed Iranian dissidents and employing the services of the Mujahedin e-Khalq." Nevertheless, President Bush apparently initially saw nothing wrong with trading information on MEK, despite arguments that MEK should not be repatriated to Iran. "I have it on good authority," Leverett told IPS, "that Bush's initial reaction was, 'But we say there is no such thing as a good terrorist.'" Nevertheless, Bush finally rejected the Iranian proposal. By the end of May, the neoconservatives had succeeded in closing down the Geneva channel for good. They had hoped to push through their own NSPD on Iran, but according to the Franklin indictment, in October 1983, Franklin told an Israeli embassy officer that work on the NSPD had been stopped. But the damage had been done. With no direct diplomatic contact between Iran and the United States, the neoconservatives had a clear path to raising tensions and building political support for regarding Iran as the primary enemy of the United States. ---- UN Council calls on Iran to halt nuclear program By Evelyn Leopold Wed Mar 29, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060329/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_11 UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday formally approved a statement calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment efforts that the West suspects are part of a secret nuclear weapons program. The meeting of the 15-nation council took place shortly after the five permanent council members, the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France agreed on the statement, after three weeks of arduous negotiations. The statement, which needed the approval of all 15 council members, was read at a public meeting by Argentine Ambassador Cesar Mayoral, this month's council president. The text made significant concessions to Russia and China, which were anxious to avoid language that might later be used to press for sanctions against Iran, should it remain defiant. After the five powers reached agreement, the United States hailed the statement as a breakthrough in efforts to block Iran's drive to become a nuclear power. "We are very close today to taking the first major step in this council to deal with Iran's nearly 20-year old clandestine nuclear weapons program," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. "It sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to deny the obvious fact of what it is doing are not going to be sufficient," Bolton told reporters. But China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, said the statement sent a strong message for the council to support the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. watchdog in Vienna. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov finalized the agreement after last-minute telephone calls, diplomats said. Foreign ministers of the five powers and Germany meet in Berlin on Thursday to map out strategy on Iran and council members raced to finish the statement before then. Iran restarted its nuclear enrichment program earlier this year but insists its aim is to develop nuclear energy rather than weapons. LAST CONCESSION Western ambassadors said the five nations reached agreement only after a provision stating that the council was responsible for international peace and security was removed at Russia's insistence. Russia and China both feared such a statement could later be used as a legal basis for sanctions or a military strike against Iran. Bolton criticized Russia and China for deleting that paragraph, saying it was a direct quotation from the U.N. Charter. "We accept that it they don't want to quote from the U.N. Charter, because the message is clear nonetheless that Iran's nuclear weapons program is unacceptable," Bolton said He said that while the statement "may not win any awards in tennis heaven, the ball is back in Iran's court, and we'll be here in 30 days to see what they will do." The statement calls on Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, to report back on Iran's compliance within 30 days instead of the 14 days in the original text. "This is an unambiguous signal to Tehran that the Security Council of the United Nations, charged with the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter, is now dealing with this issue," Bolton said. The West has refused to rule out sanctions if Iran does not comply and U.S. officials have said that military action was an option, although Britain has disavowed it. The IAEA reported the Iranian issue to the council on March 8 after Tehran resumed nuclear fuel work. This prompted European negotiators -- Germany, France and Britain -- to break off 2-1/2 years of negotiations. -------- japan Bill in works to officially allow military use of space The Japan Times: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060329a1.html In a shift away from a nearly 40-year-old commitment to an exclusively nonmilitary space program, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party announced plans Tuesday to draft a bill that would authorize Japan's military to use space for self-defense. The bill, which would reverse the current policy limiting space projects to civilian purposes, will allow the Defense Agency to build and operate high-resolution reconnaissance satellites. The move was endorsed in a subcommittee meeting of the party's Special Commission on Space Development, members said. The bill will also encourage private companies to take part in space projects linked to national security, including development of reconnaissance satellites capable of detecting the launch of ballistic missiles, they said. The party plans to draft the bill by August and submit it to the Diet at a subsequent ordinary session, which is expected to begin in early 2007, they said. Japan has satellites operated by the Cabinet's satellite intelligence center that gather intelligence on North Korean missile deployments, but officially, their main purpose is collection of data on natural disasters. The current policy of limiting Japan's space program to peaceful purposes dates back to a 1969 Diet resolution. The government has strictly interpreted the resolution to mean exclusively nonmilitary use of space, since the then chief of the now-defunct Science and Technology Agency presented the agency's position on the matter to the Diet. But the LDP is now eyeing a fundamental shift in the country's space policy, saying the current restrictions have impeded Japan's use of space for security purposes and industrial applications of space technology, the members said. ---- Japan to Start Recycling Spent Nuclear Fuel to Trim Use of Oil March 29, 2006 (Bloomberg) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=aArBFbVONu9c Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., a joint venture of the nation's biggest utilities, will start recycling spent nuclear fuel, the government of northern Aomori prefecture said, enabling Japan to cut its dependence on oil. The company will produce plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, known as MOX fuel, for the first time in the country as Japan seeks to revive the project that was stalled after accidents at nuclear plants and revelations that utilities had falsified safety data aroused safety concern. The MOX fuel will be produced on an experimental basis at the Rokkasho plant located in Aomori after Japan Nuclear Fuel's Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata and President Isami Kojima signed an agreement with the prefecture's governor Shingo Mimura, the government said in a statement. ``It is a big step forward for Japan to get stable energy supplies,'' Kojima said in a statement. ``We will proceed with the project while placing a priority on safety.'' Japan, which imports 84 percent of the energy it needs, promotes nuclear fuel recycling projects and spent about 2.19 trillion yen ($18.6 billion) building the Rokkasho plant, to increase energy security, after oil prices rose to records. Japan Nuclear Fuel said today it is still awaiting approval from Misawa city and towns neighboring Rokkasho and expect to start recycling spent nuclear fuel as early as the end of this month. Japanese utilities including Tokyo Electric Power Co., the nation's largest utility, and Kansai Electric Power Co. plan to use imported MOX fuel for a year starting April 2010 at 16 to 18 reactors nationwide. The utilities expect to start using MOX fuel produced at Rokkasho for a year starting April 2012. -------- russia Russians balk on light-water reactor deal March 29, 2006 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060329-025911-4900r WASHINGTON - Russia will only build a light-water reactor to burn 34 tons of excess plutonium if it is paid for by others, a U.S. energy official said Wednesday. The United States and Russia agreed in the year 2000 to each burn 34 metric tons of plutonium in a nuclear reactor, thus providing both energy and keeping the material out of the hands of terrorists. Russian government officials now want to use the plutonium to fuel a Russian-built fast-breeder reactor, said Jerald S. Paul, the principal deputy administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration at the Energy Department during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. "The Russians are no longer committed to the program as" agreed in 2000, Paul said. "They are still committed to the destruction of 34 metric tons of plutonium but their preference is for a fast (breeder) reactor unless the international community provides all the money to do it." Fast-breeder reactors are generally considered a greater proliferation risk than light-water reactors as they produce, or "breed," more fissile material than they consume; depending on the configuration of the reactor, the material could be used for weapons. Light-water reactors must be refueled every few months to continue to produce fissile material. The Russians are building a BN-800 (800 MWe) fast-breeder reactor at Beloyarsk. The program to build mixed-oxide fueled light-water reactors in South Carolina and in Russia has hit repeated snags. The two countries were initially supposed to begin burning plutonium in 2007, but that date has been pushed back to at least 2013, according to Energy Department documents. The countries lost two years over disagreements about who would be liable in the event of a nuclear accident in Russia. The United States has a $10 billion fund for nuclear accidents. The international community has donated about $850 million for the construction of a Russian light-water reactor, which will cost an estimated $2.7 billion, up from initial estimates of $1.5 billion. The U.S. MOX reactor will cost about $3.5 billion, up from the $1 billion estimated in 2002. ---- Southern CEO lays out supply strategy including nuclear, clean coal March 29, 2006 By Kathleen Hart http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-2412570-14179 Southern Co. Chairman, President and CEO David Ratcliffe foresees meeting the needs for new generation in the coming 20 years with a combination of options that is rich in next-generation nuclear and clean-coal baseload units. "We along with other members in the industry are moving forward to position ourselves to file an early site permit with the NRC for a new nuclear plant," Ratcliffe said at a March 29 media breakfast in Washington, D.C., sponsored by King Publishing. In the Georgia Power Co. service territory, Southern Co. projects a need to build new baseload generation in the 2012-2015 timeframe and is considering nuclear as a key option. The Georgia Power subsidiary of Southern would propose to build in rate base a new nuclear facility, Ratcliffe said. However, he conceded that the ultimate decision on what type of technology is most appropriate for consumers will be made by the Georgia Public Service Commission after the state works through the certificate of need process, showing there is a need for capacity. The need for new generation in Alabama is right behind Georgia, projected in the 2016-2017 timeframe, he said. Southern Co. is considering nuclear baseload, probably an expansion of the Joseph M. Farley plant, he added. The Farley expansion would be in the area of 1,000 MW. Both the Farley nuclear site in Alabama and the Vogtle nuclear site in Georgia were designed for more than two units. Earlier in March, Southern and Duke Energy Corp. announced they were teaming up to consider the feasibility of building a 2,200-MW nuclear plant in Cherokee County, S.C., on a site not currently occupied by an existing facility. Southern has also been in discussions with the Tennessee Valley Authority about building a new reactor at TVA's Bellefonte site, where a nuclear plant was planned but never completed. For the electric utility industry to be successful in building the next generation of nuclear plants, Ratcliffe cautioned that it will be important "to stay together and be consistent about design criteria" and present a consistent approach to the NRC. The industry needs to work together so that individual engineers do not create differences in designs that end up costing the industry in licensing costs, he said, adding that the NRC has made it clear that the industry will be best served by being consistent in the design and certification process. In addition, Ratcliffe emphasized the need for more certainty around the nuclear waste disposal issue. He said that industry officials raised the need for certainty about the future of waste disposal with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who spoke to the Edison Electric Institute's quarterly meeting in Washington on March 29. Ratcliffe said that the Bush administration is contemplating amending the Waste Policy Act. "Hopefully, they will put forward their legislation with some dispatch here in the next months because we would like to move aggressively to get that certainty as quickly as we can," he said. "Those of us who are considering building new reactors need desperately to have that certainty, particularly as we enter the licensing and the permitting process, both at the NRC and at the state level." Ratcliffe prefers a plan that will take the waste offsite to an interim repository, which contemplates reprocessing, or a permanent repository. While looking to new nuclear generation, Southern also sees a strong future for coal going forward, especially clean coal. Southern Co. burns about 60 million tons of coal a year and continues to believe that coal is one of the better fuel choices for the nation going forward, Ratcliffe said. Southern's coal fleet, since 1990, Ratcliffe said, is making about 30% more electricity with about 40% less NOx and SO2 emissions. The company plans to invest about $6 billion in the next 10 years plans to move that 40% number to 70% or greater, he said. Ratcliffe said that Southern Co. has been one of the most aggressive utilities in the country in partnering with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy as well as with corporate entities to sponsor coal utilization research, including state-of-the-art research on how to reduce mercury levels. Ratcliffe pushes technology, not trading, to cut greenhouse gases With the Senate energy committee slated to hold a conference on April 4 to discuss proposals for creating a mandatory trading program to control U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, Ratcliffe conceded that the electric industry will likely face some form of legislation regulating carbon "at some point in the future." However, he said that EEI continues to support voluntary measures to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Industry members went back over EEI climate change policy on March 28 and "reaffirmed" the industry position that the approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be voluntary and technology-based, Ratcliffe said. "Southern Company has been very clear. We think the notion that we would impose any taxes or any caps on this country, and more specifically, on the utility industry singly," is inappropriate at this point in time, he said. "I'm very reluctant for us to set mandatory caps when we don't know that we have the technology to achieve those caps." Southern favors "an aggressive evolution" of the technology. "We know that this is an issue. We know that we're in a warming period," Ratcliffe said. Southern is "focused on doing something more tangible, as opposed to imposing a tax," which he believes would be the wrong thing for this nation and the economy. "While we get dinged a lot about being somehow anti-climate, if you look, the fact of the matter is that we're doing — not just talking," he said. "We're doing as much as anybody in the industry is doing with regard to trying to position us, from a technology standpoint, to actually accomplish the objectives which we all have with regard to reducing CO2." -------- security 'Dirty bombs' called threat to shipping By Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 29, 2006 http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060329-120348-7524r.htm The marine shipping industry will be devastated if foreign countries do not increase cargo screenings to protect against a "dirty bomb" terrorist attack, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is telling Asian officials this week. During a trip to Japan on Monday and China yesterday, Mr. Chertoff urged cooperation to strengthen the shipping industry and to protect the United States against a nuclear attack. "I think we all know that if a container were used to bring a dirty bomb or something similar into the United States, in addition to the obviously catastrophic consequences in America, it would be absolutely devastating to marine shipping," Mr. Chertoff said during a press conference yesterday. "We can only really build our own security if we build it in partnership with other countries," Mr. Chertoff said. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported 662 known attempts to smuggle nuclear or radiological material across borders around the world. Mr. Chertoff said it would be a "mortal blow" if Asian ports failed to use nuclear radiation detection equipment on ships bound for the United States. Hong Kong ports are experimenting with technology for such a program. On his first trip to Asia, the homeland security chief is examining cutting-edge technology used to secure foreign ports, including a visit to one of the largest ports of the world, Singapore. "We're looking to build a stronger partnership overseas, particularly in port and container security," said Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle. "It will make us and them more secure." On Capitol Hill, lawmakers criticized the department for failing to block nuclear-weapon smuggling in a sting set up by the Government Accountability Office. Witnesses told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations yesterday that enough nuclear material entered the country as part of the investigation to make two dirty bombs. "The radiation detectors correctly alarmed," said Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican and panel chairman. "This is the good news." "The bad news, however, is that officers were fooled by fraudulent documents and didn't have the mechanisms to verify the documents. These are documents my 20-year-old son could easily develop with a simple Internet search. We cannot allow this potentially deadly material to transmit our borders with ease," Mr. Coleman said. The forged documents showed the nuclear shipment was approved by federal officials. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's ranking Democrat, said Homeland Security officials have made significant improvements to detect such materials at land- and seaports, but said the GAO report shows "much more can and should be done." ---- US Senate in 'dirty bomb' warning San Ysidro border post between Mexico and the US Wednesday, 29 March 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4852410.stm US senators have urged the government to act more quickly to strengthen border security after radioactive material was brought into the country. The quantity of Cesium-137 was said to be enough to build two dirty bombs. The Senate Homeland Security Committee began hearings on Tuesday to discuss an undercover operation by US agents. They crossed into the US from both Canada and Mexico with the material, despite radiation detection alarms going off when they went through. Border guards let them through after being shown false paperwork. At the opening of the Homeland Security Committee hearings, lawmakers described the incident as "an alarming wake-up call". "If terrorists were to obtain nuclear or radiological material and smuggle it into this country, the consequences could be catastrophic," said Republican Senator Susan Collins, the chairwoman of the panel. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in its report on the incident: "The [Customs and Border Patrol] inspectors never questioned the authenticity" of the documents shown. The radioactive material was bought from a commercial source by telephone, the GAO said. Vendors are not required to ask about or check a purchaser's documentation when small quantities are purchased, the agency said. 'Pre-9/11 mindset' The GAO said the radioactive material was enough for two dirty bombs - devices that use conventional explosives to spread dangerous radiation over a wide area. It also found that the installation of 3,034 radiation detectors at US border crossings, seaports, airports and mail facilities was taking longer and costing more than anticipated. "This operation demonstrated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] is stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset in a post-9/11 world and must modernise its procedures," said Republican Senator Norm Coleman, the chairman of the Senate committee, who ordered the investigation. However, NRC spokesman David McIntyre defended his body and disputed that there was enough material to make two bombs. "It was basically the radioactive equivalent of what's in a smoke detector," he told the Associated Press news agency. ---- 'Dirty bombs' expose US security March 29, 2006 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2108409,00.html Four years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, investigators were able to enter the US with enough radioactive material to make two so-called dirty bombs, according to a report on a government undercover investigation. Two teams made simultaneous entries last December at the US borders with Mexico and Canada. They were transporting radioactive material, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote in the report on its investigation. The congressional watchdog said that the test was designed to examine potential weaknesses related to radiation monitors that have been installed at ports of entry. The monitors worked, but the investigators, posing as employees of a fictitious company, still got past the border patrol with fake paperwork that authorised them to transport the material, the report read. “The (Customs and Border Patrol) inspectors never questioned the authenticity” of the investigators’ documents, the GAO wrote. Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican, has scheduled a hearing to examine how the US is guarding against nuclear and radiological threats. A dirty bomb could spew radioactive material. A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately available for comment. (Reuters) ---- US to beef up nuclear detection ability at ports Wed Mar 29, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060329/pl_afp/singaporeusattacks_060329153055 SINGAPORE - The United States will spend more than 500 million dollars to boost its ability to detect nuclear weapons material at US ports, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said. Chertoff said the money will be used to buy high-tech equipment that can monitor radioactive materials and other items that can be used to make a nuclear bomb and packed in a container bound for US ports. US President George W. Bush has set up a domestic nuclear detection office that will manage "innovation, research and the deployment of anti-nuclear detection equipment," Chertoff said at the US Chamber of Commerce in Singapore. He said Bush's national budget this year "put over 500 million dollars" into the effort. "Perhaps the greatest threat -- and the one we work hardest to prevent because there's very little you can do to respond -- is the possibility of a nuclear device being detonated by a terrorist," Chertoff said. "Unlike other kinds of threats where response and protection can mitigate the damage, in a nuclear bomb there's not a lot of protection against it and there's not a lot of response. You better prevent it up front." Washington has embarked on a strategy to make sure that containers bound for US ports are thoroughly inspected following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States which killed about 3,000 people. There are fears militant groups may smuggle in components of a nuclear device. Among the key measures against the smuggling, US customs officers are now stationed in main ports abroad including Singapore as part of an initiative that allows them to inspect containers at the point of shipment. Singapore is the world's biggest container port. Chertoff, whose department covers the security of maritime ports, said the US government will continue to push for technology to improve port screening. By next year, close to 100 percent of all containers passing through US ports will be screened for nuclear radiation using a special monitor. "But we want to build the next level of monitors -- wider, quicker, cheaper and more precise," he said. In order to avoid bottlenecks, these radiation monitors can inspect containers for radioactive materials while the boxes are being moved. Washington will also work with major ports worldwide to install radiation monitors. Singapore is one of the first ports where this initiative will be tested, said Chertoff, a senior justice department official named to the post in January. He is on a tour of the region. The United States will also improve its inspection and tracking of containers to prevent them from being tampered with. "We're going to be looking in the next year or two to build a capacity to have better information about what's in containers. We're going to look to the private sector to pioneer this," he said. An estimated 80 percent of global trade is carried at sea. -------- treaties U.S. a Major Supporter of Atomic Energy Agency, Official Says All IAEA weapons inspectors trained in U.S., says nuclear agency deputy administrator By David Anthony Denny Washington File Staff Writer 29 March 2006 U.S. Department of State http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=March&x=20060329175200adynned0.3379022&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html Washington -- The United States is a major contributor to the international community's principal guardian against nuclear weapons proliferation, an Energy Department official says. In March 29 testimony before a Senate Armed Services subcommittee, the principal deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Jerry Paul, detailed U.S. support for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitors compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Bush has focused on increasing IAEA funding within the United Nations and continuing to provide technical support to the IAEA and its secretary-general, Mohamed ElBaradei. "Every one of the more than 200 nuclear weapons inspectors at the IAEA were trained at Los Alamos National Laboratory here in America, here within the National Nuclear Security Administration," Paul said. "We're very proud to continue to fund that training." The IAEA has 128 governments as members, Paul said, but the United States provides 25 percent of its funding. "We also provide … on a rotational basis, a lot of our technical experts from our national laboratories" to work with the IAEA, he added. “I am in the process right now of increasing the number of technical experts that we send over there." The full text of Paul's prepared testimony(PDF, 12 pages) is available on the committee Web site. For more information on U.S. policy, see Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. (The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) -------- u.s. nuc facilities Spurgeon trading Orchid for halls of power in D.C. By ED BIERSCHENK ed.bierschenk@scripps.com March 29, 2006 Scripps http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,2545,TCP_16736_4578484,00.html ORCHID — It is a good week for Dennis Spurgeon to recharge his batteries with some last-minute golf and a planned outing to a Dodgers spring training game, because next week he'll be entering the high-powered world of Washington, D.C., as the new U.S. assistant secretary of energy for nuclear energy. Spurgeon is scheduled to be sworn in next Monday and begin what he anticipates will be a "very intensive period" of life for himself and his family. The U.S. Senate approved Spurgeon's nomination Monday. "It's quite an honor to be nominated by the president and it's very gratifying that the Senate has voted 88-0 for the confirmation, so I'm very happy," said Spurgeon from his home in Orchid. Spurgeon and his wife of 40 years, Carrol, plan to keep their home in the community, which he describes as a "little piece of paradise" and return there as often as they are able during the next two years. In a statement after Spurgeon's confirmation, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, praised Spurgeon's selection. "Mr. Spurgeon has had a distinguished career in government and the private sector. He brings remarkable expertise to the Department of Energy," said Domenici, who once pitched for a farm team of the old Brooklyn Dodgers. "We are on the cusp of a nuclear power renaissance in this country. I think Mr. Spurgeon's leadership and expertise comes at a critical time. It's apparent from the vote today that the Senate agrees." According to the committee's Web site, Spurgeon recently served as vice president and chief operating officer of USEC Inc., a leading international supplier of enriched uranium for nuclear power plants. He previously served as chief operating officer for UNC Resources. Prior to joining UNC, he was assistant director for fuel cycle in the Energy Research and Development Administration. He received a bachelor of science degree, majoring in marine engineering and nuclear science, from the U.S. Naval Academy and a master of science in nuclear engineering from MIT. Who is Dennis Spurgeon? Nominated: Feb. 13 by President Bush to be assistant secretary of energy for nuclear energy. Confirmed: 88-0 by U.S. Senate on Monday. Swearing in: Scheduled for Monday. Prior experience: Executive vice president and chief operating officer for USEC, Inc.; chairman and CEO for Swift Group, LLC, and chief operating officer for UNC Resources. A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he served as a captain in the Navy. Family: Wife, Carrol, spent 16 years as a contract employee for the CIA. Two sons, Dennis and Scott, and daughter, Kimberly. -------- connecticut CT Group Seeks More Information From NRC By Patricia Daddona 3/29/2006 The Day http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=a27a1609-8319-4440-984b-de0f82fc484f http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=705870e9-7fe2-48b5-bfee-137a605f2662 Waterford - A citizens nuclear watchdog group sought reassurances about reactor and workplace safety today as they probed for more information about a whistleblower's allegations of compromised security at Millstone Power Station. At the Nuclear Energy Advisory Council's meeting, council members asked pointed questions about the case of whistleblower Sham Mehta, whose job was eliminated after he informed a supervisor that company managers often allow operators to disable the electronic system used to warn of the presence of trespassers near in the heart of the 524-acre nuclear complex. Evan Woollacott of Hartford, a watchdog group co-chairman, wanted to know if Mehta's concerns are valid, and what the implication of that is for safety of the community around Millstone. John Markowicz of Waterford, another member, wanted to know if the increase in allegations in 2005 reflects a “rampant” problem or whether people making the complaints are “a small subset” of the Millstone work force. In each case, NRC Region 1 branch chief Paul Krohn could not answer, citing security and confidentiality as the reason. “The frustrating thing I feel,” said Woollacott, “is we as a committee are responsible for the well-being of the plant and the area, and responsible to the legislature, and we can't get information.” Earlier in the day, however, Millstone site Vice Chairman J. Alan Price addressed the subject when it came up during a review of the NRC's favorable annual report of Millstone, saying, “It's my personal expectation and the expectation of everyone who works here that we operate at absolute safety and security. We love the area and would not do anything that would have a detrimental effect.” ------- wyoming Energy Metals Corporation Adds to Critical Mass in Wyoming (CCNMatthews - March 29, 2006) http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=586701 VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA - Energy Metals Corporation (TSX VENTURE:EMC) ("Energy Metals" or "the Company") is pleased to announce the official opening of its Wyoming Regional Office. The office is located at 139 West Second Street in the Mineral Resource Center building in downtown Casper, Wyoming. The Casper office central phone number is 307-234-8235 and the facsimile number is 307-237-8235. The Casper office will be responsible for the development of the Company's numerous advance stage uranium properties in the state as well as the Company's holdings in the neighboring state of Colorado. EMC is also pleased to announce Dayton Lewis, P.Geo., as Chief Geologist-Wyoming. Mr. Lewis will head the Company's Wyoming projects and manage the Casper office. Mr. Lewis has over 20 years of extensive experience in the exploration, development, and production of ISL amenable uranium ore deposits throughout the western U.S. He began his career with Fisher, Harden, and Fisher, ISL consultants, and proceeded to join Everest Minerals Corporation in Corpus Christi, Texas where he was an exploration and development geologist on ISL projects in Texas, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Mr. Lewis was a member of the initial geologic development team that created and operated the Highland Uranium Project ISL mine in Converse County, Wyoming through start up until its sale to CEGB in 1989. He joined Rio Algom Mining in 1990 as the Senior Geologist - ISL Mining, where he was responsible for all geological aspects of developing the Smith Ranch In-Situ Uranium Project in Converse County, Wyoming through 2000. Mr. Lewis returned to the Smith Ranch - Highland Project in 2004 with Power Resources, Inc., a Cameco Company, as the Senior Geologist and supervised well field geologic planning and development. Additionally he initiated geologic mine planning for the adjoining Reynolds Ranch Project and renewed assessment of the exploration potential within the Powder River Basin. Most recently, he was a Senior Evaluation Geologist for Wyoming in PRI's Casper, Wyoming office. Mr. Lewis is a registered Professional Geologist in Wyoming and holds a B.Sc. in Geologic Sciences from Texas A&M University - Kingsville in Kingsville, Texas. Jill Reed has also joined the Casper office as the Land Manager-Wyoming. Ms. Reed has over 25 years of experience in natural resource land acquisition and management. She began her career as Contract Manager with Jack Grynberg and Associates, a drilling contractor, from 1979 to 1981. From 1981 to 1992 she was employed by Burton/Hawks, Inc., an oil and gas exploration and development company where she managed the Land Department and acted as a liaison between the company and governmental agencies. As the Land Manager for Power Resources, Inc. from 1992 until 1998 she was responsible for landowner relations, public relations, and contract management for the land department of Cameco's US subsidiary. From 1998 to present, Ms. Reed served as President of Reed Land Associates serving mining, oil and gas companies, financial institutions and landowners. Ms. Reed has served as the President of the Wyoming Professional Landmen Association. She is a member of the American Professional Landmen Association and has achieved the Certified Professional Landman designation. Kristin Reid, M.Sc., has also joined the staff as Project Geologist in the Casper Office. Ms. Reid has most recently been employed by Power Resources, Inc., a subsidiary of Cameco Corp. where she was responsible for the day to day geology of the Smith Ranch-Highland uranium ISL facility. Her expertise includes reserve calculation, log evaluation, hydrologic planning and testing, delineation drilling, as well as injection and production well location. Ms. Reid holds a M.Sc. in Geology from Texas Tech University and a B.Sc. from San Diego State University. Dennis Stover, Chief Operating Officer of Energy Metals Corporation, said, "We are extremely pleased to announce the formation of our core organization in Casper. These individuals will provide a strong unparalleled basis to advance our properties in Wyoming towards ISL production." Paul Matysek, President and CEO of Energy Metals Corporation, echoed this sentiment in saying, "Opening and expertly staffing our Casper office is the key next step in meeting our stated goals of multiple property ISL production from the state of Wyoming. We are indeed fortunate to have had Dayton, Jill and Kristin join us in forming the base of our Wyoming operations." Energy Metals is a Canadian listed company involved in developing resources to power the 21st century. The Company has adopted a corporate strategy to focus on the acquisition and development of uranium assets in politically favorable and mining-friendly jurisdictions within the United States to take advantage of growing electrical energy needs in the U.S. and worldwide. This increasing consumption is occurring at a time when uranium mine supplies are dwindling and inventories are being depleted. The Company is targeting prospective advanced uranium properties in Wyoming, Texas and New Mexico that are amenable to ISL (in-situ leaching). This form of uranium mining was pioneered in Texas and Wyoming and utilizes water wells and oxygen-fortified groundwater to mine the uranium in place. Energy Metals is also actively advancing other conventional mining and ISL opportunities for uranium properties in the States of Utah, Nevada, Oregon and Arizona. The TSX Venture Exchange does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. CONTACT INFORMATION Energy Metals Corporation Paul Matysek CEO and President (604) 684-9007 or Energy Metals Corporation Bill Sheriff Corporate Development, Director (972) 333-2214 or Energy Metals Corporation Ran Davidson Corporate Communication (604) 697-5688 http://www.energymetalscorp.com -------- us nuc waste Utilities push for Yucca's completion Bush prods Congress on issue Mar 29, 2006 NC News Observer http://www.newsobserver.com/110/story/423011.html Utility officials from across the country are trying to turn up the momentum on a major nuclear waste proposal the Bush administration is planning to make public soon. The legislation, expected out within the next couple weeks, is intended to accelerate progress at Yucca Mountain, the Nevada site chosen as a long-term storage ground for the nation's used nuclear fuel. Aside from getting closer to a permanent plan for high-level radioactive waste that is now stored at about 120 interim sites nationwide, the Department of Energy has been gently suggesting the bill's success will come with another bonus -- a delay in the politically contentious requirement of finding a second repository for additional waste. At a news conference Tuesday, officials from Minnesota, South Carolina and Maine spoke in favor of a bill that would expedite burial of waste at Yucca. "We're way behind already," LeRoy Koppendrayer, chairman of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and chairman of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, said. "The ratepayers' money is there. Let's use it. Let's get the job done." Koppendrayer said he would support legislation that would allow the $25 billion in fees ratepayers have been paying into a fund to be funneled directly into a building account so that it wouldn't have to be appropriated by Congress every election cycle. He also supports lifting the cap of 70,000 tons of nuclear waste that can be stored at Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy has been vague about the exact details of the bill, but it has previously acknowledged that those are provisions it has either considered or remains open to. "Yucca Mountain remains the top, the greatest remaining uncertainty as it relates to nuclear power in the United States," Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell told lawmakers this month. "And we intend to work over the course of the next three years to resolve that uncertainty." Yucca Mountain has been plagued with delays. The federal government originally had promised communities it would begin disposing of the nation's spent commercial fuel by 1998. Now, the latest deadline of 2010 has been scrapped as well. Sell said a new schedule will be released this summer. Second site With a legal deadline looming in 2007 to begin looking for an additional repository in the United States, the Bush administration is trying to prod Congress on the stalled Yucca Mountain project with a not-so-subtle reminder of the political bedlam that tends to coincide with a site selection process. Sell told House energy subcommittee members that if they back the major nuclear waste bill, they could "postpone indefinitely" the siting of a second repository, which the agency is supposed to identify between 2007 and 2010. "There are more than two dozen states we would look for to site a second repository," Sell said this month. States identified for their potential to store waste within crystalline rock, mainly granite, include Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Georgia, Maine, Wisconsin and Virginia. -------- whistleblowers In praise of the federal watchdogs protecting taxpayers By JOEL CONNELLY Wednesday, March 29, 2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/264726_joel29.html?source=rss Given the abuse directed at government nowadays, little tribute is paid to those public employees who -- often at professional risk -- try to save the taxpayers money and resist political interference. My first experience with the genre, years ago, was an ex-nuclear Navy technician schooled in Adm. Hyman Rickover's by-the-book excellence. He was appalled at the sloppy, cover-your-fanny attitude he found in nuclear waste handling at Hanford. This column is in appreciation of public servants who have put their necks on the line. # The no-bid Iraq war: The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq carried with it enough multibillion-dollar contracts to shock and awe. One prime beneficiary was Halliburton, the oil services firm once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Examining a Halliburton subsidiary's contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment, Defense Department auditors found $263 million in charges they felt inflated or unsupported by documentation. It was part of a $2.4 billion no-bid contract with Kellogg Brown & Root. KBR has reported $15.4 billion in revenue from Iraq. In late February, however, the Army Corps of Engineers ignored auditors' findings and reimbursed KBR for $254 million of the questioned costs. During World War II, Sen. Harry Truman fearlessly investigated and exposed war profiteering. Nowadays, remarked Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., "There have been virtually no congressional hearings on this matter." A pair of the House's leading sleuths, Dingell and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., tried to act when the House took up a big war-on- terrorism/Hurricane Katrina spending bill. They offered an amendment to prohibit new contracts to contractors found by the Defense Contract Audit Agency to have had more than $100 million in unreasonable costs in contracts involving work in Iraq. The amendment was voted down 225-193. In early 2004, the Defense Contract Audit Agency recommended that the corps refrain from entering new contracts with Halliburton. Three days later, the Army awarded Halliburton a new $1.2 billion contract. # The fish counters: On the surface, the federal Fish Passage Center has performed a needed, low-profile task for the past 24 years. It looks beneath the surface of the much-dammed Columbia and Lower Snake rivers, and provides analysis of salmon runs and river flows needed to sustain them. In 2005, the Bonneville Power Administration mounted a major campaign to stop spilling water over dams to help young salmon migrate downstream. The late spring, early summer spill cuts into the surplus power the BPA can sell to California. U.S. District Judge James Redden blocked the BPA's plan, however, and ordered continued spills. The judge relied on salmon survival figures supplied by the Fish Passage Center. A new front was quickly opened in the war on science. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, inserted language in a committee report to cut off all money to the Fish Passage Center. A group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility intervened. It filed suit charging that Craig's action perverts constitutional free speech and due-process rights of center scientists marked for unemployment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency order earlier this month telling the BPA, which funds the Fish Passage Center, to continue to do so. The case must still go to court. In a telling affidavit, Rod Sando, former boss of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, overseer of the Fish Passage Center, declared, "This is the first time a decision has been made to eliminate funding of a mitigation project that was performing its duties as assigned, simply because the analysis results were inconvenient for some of the region's policy-makers. ... "This flat-earth approach to science does not bode well for the management of fish resources in the Columbia." # A utility's power: An analyst at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filed a legal action this week charging that the FERC secretly negotiated a back door settlement with a major utility -- and exiled its own staff. Rich Heidorn was part of a trial staff preparing a case against the Southern Co. The inquiry focused on violations of energy deregulation rules: The rules bar vertically integrated utilities from favoring their own affiliates over marketing competitors in the wholesale energy industry. It's a mouthful, but Heidorn's complaint under the Whistleblower Protection Act is straightforward: FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher ignored agency staff and did not review the evidence they had compiled. The result, Heidorn charged, was "a complete capitulation to Southern Co. The ratepayers get nothing out of it." Removed from the trial staff, Heidorn went to the Government Accountability Project. Why should we care? The FERC has the power to disallow Enron's bid to collect a $122 million claim against Snohomish County ratepayers resulting from the 2000-01 energy "crisis." The Snohomish County PUD, and Sen. Maria Cantwell and Rep. Jay Inslee, both Washington Democrats, dragged out of the FERC obscenity-laced memos from Enron traders who were manipulating the market. If the FERC caved in at one end of the country, can it be trusted to stand firm here? P-I columnist Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or joelconnelly@seattlepi.com. -------- MILITARY -------- israel / palestine Party licks wounds after poll crash By Michael Blum in Tel Aviv March 29, 2006 The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18641991-1702,00.html ISRAEL'S right-wing Likud party, which dominated politics in the Jewish state for decades, was facing an uncertain future today after suffering the most humiliating election defeat in its history. Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the party's brash leader, conceded defeat after exit polls suggested Likud would win barely 11 seats in the 120-seat Parliament, less than a third of its showing in the last election in 2003. "There is no doubt that we have suffered a heavy blow. It is the second time in 100 days that we've been left in disarray after the departure of he who led us," Mr Netanyahu said, referring to stricken prime minister Ariel Sharon's decision to bolt from Likud to form the centrist Kadima in November. Mr Netanyahu, a charismatic champion of the right wing who became Israel's youngest prime minister, nevertheless told disappointed supporters that he would strive to "put the Likud back in its proper place at the head of the country". But Danny Naveh, who sat in the cabinet as a Likud minister until January, made no attempt to hide the disastrous nature of the result. "There can be no doubt that this is a very difficult hour for the Likud, a great catastrophe, the largest in the history of the party, and which will mean we will have a great deal of very profound soul-searching within the Likud. "I think we have a lot of hard work in front of us in order to rehabilitate the party... I think well pretty much have to start all over again, almost from the beginning, to bring hope back to the Likud. "I don't want to get into the whole business of what should have been done. I think we still have to digest the results and study what they mean. There can be no doubt that this constitutes a bloody wound for the Likud." Formed in 1973 when four right-wing parties united under the stewardship of Menachem Begin who later become premier, the party suffered a huge jolt when Mr Sharon resigned as party leader in frustration at the internal fighting over last year's Gaza Strip pullout. The election has dramatically altered the political landscape in a country which had for years been ruled by coalitions led by either Likud or the centre-left Labour party. This time round, a new party - the centrist Kadima led by Sharon's loyal deputy Ehud Olmert - is set to form a new government, while the staunchly secular far-right Yisrael Beitenu is on course to triple its representation to around a dozen seats. Exit polls suggested the Likud would receive only 11 or 12 seats in the Knesset parliament, leaving it in fourth or even fifth place while Kadima was set to win between 29 and 32. In the last election in 2003, before Mr Sharon's breakaway, Likud won 38 seats. Mr Netanyahu, who was elected party leader in December, ran a campaign full of venom over the emerging Hamas-led Palestinian government and the ever-present threat of militant violence. Likud adopted a resolution in May 2002 to never accept the creation of a Palestinian state. "We've paid dearly for the anger and frustration that we caused in rescuing this country's economy," Mr Netanyahu said in reference to austerity policies he implemented in his position as finance minister under Mr Sharon until last August. Senior Likud candidate Reuven Rivlin, speaker of the outgoing Knesset, said the result was worse than the party could ever have imagined. "According to the polls, the Likud has indeed suffered a more severe blow than could be imagined in the worst dreams of its pessimists," he told Channel 10 television. "However, the Likud is a party with tradition and ideology." Asked if the party needed a new leader, Mr Rivlin replied: "No, I think that the movement has to see whether its voters have abandoned it temporarily or whether an earthquake has taken on a conceptual level in Israel, where the Likud has lost its vitality." -------- us The Long War's Pricetag Frida Berrigan March 29, 2006 TomPaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/29/the_long_wars_pricetag.php Frida Berrigan is a senior research associate at the World Policy Institute’s Arms Trade Resource Center. “We will stay in the fight until the fight is won,” pledged President George W. Bush from the podium at Cleveland’s Renaissance Hotel on March 20. “I’m going to say it again: If I didn’t believe we could succeed [in Iraq], I wouldn’t be there,” Bush shrilled at his White House press conference the next day. And then he said it again the next day in West Virginia, “If I didn't think we'd succeed, I'd pull our troops out.” We have heard a lot from President Bush in the last week, as the “educator in chief” (as he called himself in Wheeling, West Virginia) embarked on another desperate round of PR to explain three years of war to the America people. Despite hours of talking—the text of his three speeches and Q-and-A fills more than 50 pages (10 point, single spaced)—the president failed to say what Americans want to hear. A March 17 Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq is not worth the costs. But the costs continue to mount. According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will increase more than 40 percent between 2005 and 2006. CRS estimates that in 2006 the Pentagon is spending $9.8 billion a month on military operations, compared to $6.8 billion a month last year. Democrats in the House Budget Committee estimate that once the most recent $68 billion in supplemental funding is approved, the United States will have spent more than $445 billion on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. This $68 billion request for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan passed in the House and is likely to be taken up by the Senate Appropriations Committee early next week. Once approved, these funds will mostly cover the predictable expenses of fighting two intractable wars—things like body armor and other protective gear, tanks and attack helicopters. These expenditures make sense if the United States is fighting what they are now calling “the Long War,” but why not add these costs to the Pentagon’s $439.3 billion budget request for 2007? Adopting this budget is a process open to full debate, as the House Budget Committee takes it up again today along with the rest of federal spending. In January, the assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said, “This generation of service members will be in what we're calling the Long War… Our estimate is that for at least the next 20 years … our focus will be … the extremist networks that will continue to threaten the United States and its allies." Why are we paying for the Long War with emergency supplementals that receive almost zero debate in Congress? Because it allows the Pentagon and Bush administration maintain the fiction that the war is happening on the (relative) cheap and foments a false sense of urgency that undercuts Congressional and public debate about the war and its costs. At his press conference on March 21, President Bush was asked: “Will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?” He responded that while that is “an objective,” that decision will be made by “future presidents and future governments of Iraq.” For the first time, the American people have a timetable from the White House, albeit a vague and obtuse one; sometime after 2008. It is time for an honest appraisal of the war and its costs. But it comes from far outside the Beltway. In the “Economic Costs of the War on Iraq,” economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes try to gauge of the long term economic consequences of the war. In the January 2006 paper, they assert “even taking a conservative approach and assuming all U.S. troops return by 2010, we believe the true costs exceed a trillion dollars.” In his article on the report, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert struggles to explain that number: “imagine a stack of bills worth $1 million that is roughly six inches high... $1 billion [stack] would be as tall as the Washington Monument… If it were worth $1 trillion, the stack would be 95 miles high.” Ninety-five miles of bills. A huge deficit. American and Iraqi lives destroyed each day. From the New York stage of the “Bring ‘Em Home Now” concert on March 20, Geoffrey Millard, a soldier who spent 13 months in Iraq, declared "We don’t need an exit strategy… ‘Exit' is not a strategy; it's an executive order." Those are the words America wants to hear, the sooner the better. -------- war crimes Taylor taken to Sierra Leone to face war crimes tribunal 3/29/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-29-liberia-taylor_x.htm ABUJA, Nigeria — A handcuffed Charles Taylor was flown to Sierra Leone Wednesday after he was captured carrying sacks of cash, opening the way for the former Liberian president to become the first African head of state tried for war crimes by an international court. Looking dejected, Taylor was led behind a razor-wired gate to the holding penitentiary at the U.N.-backed Sierra Leone court that has indicted him on 17 counts of crimes against humanity for supporting brutal rebels. (Related: More on Taylor's arrest) On Tuesday night, police caught Taylor in northern Nigeria, wearing a safari suit and carrying sacks full of dollars and euros in his car, which bore diplomatic plates. He was trying to cross the border to Cameroon. He was captured nearly 600 miles from the villa in southern Calabar where he lived in exile and from which he reportedly disappeared Monday night. Taylor's imprisonment was a watershed moment for the tribunal and for West Africa, a region long shaken by Taylor's warmongering. "Today is a momentous occasion, an important day for international justice, the international community, and above all the people of Sierra Leone," said Desmond de Silva, chief prosecutor of the tribunal called the Special Court. "His presence in the custody of the Special Court sends out the clear message that no matter how rich, powerful or feared people may be, the law is above them." De Silva said Taylor had been read his arrest warrant and would make his first court appearance by the end of this week. Taylor, a bombastic speaker during his time in the bush and as Liberia's president, made no comment. Nigeria, which had hosted Taylor in exile since he stepped down in 2003, agreed reluctantly on Saturday to hand Taylor over to the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal. But he vanished Monday night while traveling in a guarded convoy taking him from Calabar to Port Harcourt, site of the nearest airport. Nigeria had to admit Tuesday they had lost track of Taylor, embarrassing President Oluesgun Obasanjo on the eve of a state visit to the United States where he met President Bush. Bush congratulated Obasanjo on apprehending Taylor when they met Wednesday. (Related: Bush meets Nigerian leader) "The fact that Charles Taylor will be brought to justice in a court of law will help Liberia and is a signal, Mr. President, of your deep desire for there to be peace in your neighborhood," Bush said. After his capture Tuesday night, Taylor was deported to Liberia and then shuttled in a white U.N. helicopter to the war crimes tribunal compound in neighboring in Sierra Leone. Once inside the compound, he was driven to the prison in a white van, wearing a bullet-proof vest. U.S. officials said Wednesday that Washington is seeking to move the war crimes trial of Taylor from Sierra Leone to the Netherlands for security reasons. Taylor is charged with 17 counts of crimes against humanity stemming from his support of the Revolutionary United Front rebels that terrorized the civilian population here for years, chopping off the arms, legs, ears and lips of their victims. The court began trials in 2004, but Taylor is their highest-profile defendant and the first African head of state to face trial on war-crimes charges in front of an international court. Nine other defendants are on trial, all charged like Taylor with crimes committed during Sierra Leone's brutal 1989-2002 civil war. Nigeria had granted asylum to the fast-talking, U.S.-educated economist under a 2003 agreement that helped end Liberia's 14-year civil war. Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf said earlier this month Liberia wanted Taylor sent to Sierra Leone to stand trial, not to Liberia, where it was feared his presence could destabilize an already fragile country taking its first steps toward rebuilding since the new leader was installed in January. Many people in Sierra Leone also fear his presence there and statements he makes in court could inflame tensions both in their country and across West Africa. Some 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers are in Liberia and the last U.N. soldier of what was once 17,500-strong force left Sierra Leone in December. Another 10,000-strong U.N. and French peace force remains in Ivory Coast, where many former child soldiers that fought for Taylor are now believed embroiled in that conflict. While the Sierra Leone tribunal's charges refer only to the war there, Taylor also has been accused of backing rebel fighters elsewhere in West Africa and of harboring al-Qaeda suicide bombers who attacked the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing more than 200 people. "I think his capture and being put on trial does not only close a chapter but it also sends a powerful message to the region that impunity will not be allowed to stand and would-be warlords will pay a price," said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said at U.N. headquarters in New York. ---- The legacy of Vietnam Wednesday, 29th March, 2006 http://www.7days.ae/2006/03/29/the-legacy-of-vietnam.html Vietnam War veterans and activists from six countries urged the US government yesterday to compensate millions of people they say are victims of toxins in the military defoliant Agent Orange. Three decades after the war ended, Washington has yet to admit that the lethal chemical dioxin had harmed Vietnamese villagers and foreign soldiers through illness and birth defects, speakers told a Hanoi conference. "This toxic chemical has destroyed the environment… and the lives of millions of Vietnamese people," said Professor Nguyen Trong Nhan of the Vietnam Dioxin/Agent Orange Victims Association. From 1961 to 1971, US "Operation Ranch Hand" dropped more than 80 million litres of defoliants, half of it Agent Orange, on southern Vietnam, exposing between 2.1 million to 4.8 million people to harm, he said. The two-day meeting drew veterans from Vietnam, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea to discuss the effects of the chemical that was used to strip away jungle cover and destroy enemy food crops. Dioxin has been linked to leukemia, immune deficiencies and nervous system damage as well as birth defects. It accumulates in human tissue and can be passed on to babies through breast milk. "It’s bad when you’re not just killing the enemy soldier but you’re also killing his grandchildren and you’re poisoning his environment," said Joan Anne Duffy Newberry, a former US Air Force nurse in Vietnam. "Agent Orange was designed as a herbicide, but in actuality it was a weapon, a chemical weapon." US herbicides destroyed two million hectares of forest, half of Vietnam’s mangrove areas, and animal species in many areas, said Canadian researcher Thomas Boivin of Hatfield Consultants. Dioxin was still poisoning thousands of people near three "hot spots" - former large US bases. They consume it through the organs of ducks and fish raised in ponds some of which are bomb craters, he said. The US government, which sent no representatives to the meeting , has denied liability for Vietnamese health defects. US ambassador Michael Marine earlier this month said: "I hear this constant refrain: the term ‘victims of Agent Orange’," he told a press briefing. "What they’re describing is every person who’s disabled. And that’s, as I’m sure you know, simply inaccurate." New Zealand Green Party legislator Sue Kedgley said it was "scandalous" that Washington still denied having created a "toxic environment in Vietnam," something her government had now accepted. "The US government offers free medical treatment to American veterans who fought in Vietnam for a range of illnesses," she said. "Yet it refuses to give assistance to hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who suffer from exactly the same illnesses caused by exactly the same agents." Monsanto Corp, Dow Chemical and other former producers of Agent Orange in 1984 paid 180 million dollars to US veterans without admitting liability. Last year a New York court dismissed a Vietnamese lawsuit, but in January a South Korean court ordered chemical companies to compensate 6,800 veterans. Activists said a victory in the Agent Orange battle may help limit the future use of other toxic weapons. "They poisoned the land of Vietnam and people are suffering 30 years later," said Daniel Shea, a Vietnam War Marine turned peace activist. "Now we see depleted uranium used in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan.” -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- immigration / refugees A Debate on the Senate's Proposed Overhaul of Immigration Laws Wednesday, March 29th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/29/154206 The Senate is debating an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws this week. We host a debate on various aspects of the bill with Aarti Shahani of Families for Freedom and Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute. [includes rush transcript] Protests are continuing across the country against proposed changes to the nation's immigration laws. In the Los Angeles area at least 11,000 students took part Tuesday in a second day of walkouts despite school lockdowns and threats from administrators. On Monday 40,000 took part in what may have been the largest student walkout in the country's history. Later in the show we will head to Los Angeles to hear from student protesters and we will look back to the historic 1968 student walkouts in Los Angeles. But first we will examine the immigration legislation being considered in Washington. The Senate is preparing to begin debate this week on overhauling the nation's immigration laws. On Monday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would allow the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in this country a chance to work here legally and eventually become U.S. citizens. Written by Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and Republican John McCain, the bill would give undocumented immigrants a chance to earn green cards and eventually obtain citizenship. In order to do this the immigrants would have to agree to spend six years as temporary workers; pay $2,000 in fines and all back taxes; undergo criminal background checks, and show proficiency in English and civics. The committee agreed to the bill by a vote of 12 to 6 with all six votes against coming from Republicans. Immigration reform is proving to be an issue that deeply divides not only the country but the Republican Party. The House has already approved legislation written by Republican James Sensenbrenner that has been described as the most repressive immigration bill in 70 years. House bill 4437 would, among other things, make every undocumented immigrant a felon and make it a crime for priests, nuns, health care workers and other social workers to offer help to undocumented immigrants. Today we are joined by two guests who have been following the legislation closely: * Aarti Shahani, co-founder of the group Families for Freedom. * Tamar Jacoby, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She has written extensively on immigration and citizenship. Her most recent book is "Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What It Means To Be American." RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Today, we're joined by two guests who have been following the legislation closely. With us here in New York is Aarti Shahani, co-founder of the group, Families for Freedom. In our Washington studio, Tamar Jacoby. She is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who has written extensively about immigration issues. Juan? JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I'd like to welcome you both, and I'd like to start with Aarti, if you could talk to us about the latest developments in the past few days, especially what the prospects are for some kind of legislation coming out. AARTI SHAHANI: Sure. The day before yesterday, the Judiciary Committee of the Senate agreed on an immigration bill, but the details of that bill are actually obscure and not as optimistic as many people have been painting it to be. The headlines the very next day were “Earned Legalization” or “Legalization About To Come.” El Diario in New York, for example, proclaimed “Victoria,” victory for immigrants. Unfortunately, this earned legalization bill seems to actually be an immigration enforcement bill. So just to break down what the provisions look like, there is a discussion about a temporary guest worker program that may ultimately result in green cards, but the restrictions placed on people are so strong that it's not clear that any of the 11 million people here currently would be able to benefit, and in that six-year process of having to gain employment, seek employment, secure employment, it's not clear that even six years from now people are going to be able to gain green cards. Apart from that, however, what's been a stated focus of immigration legislation in the comprehensive immigration reform debate is the need for more enforcement. A lot of Americans don't realize that already America's immigration system is very, very tight, very harsh. Interior enforcement and border enforcement are really out of control, resulting in the deportation of 1.4 million people in the last ten years alone. Now, this bill would actually expand interior enforcement and border enforcement yet again, so that as we're fighting for green cards that may not even come, the actual value of the green card is diminishing. JUAN GONZALEZ: As I understand it, some of the debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee on C-SPAN, they would be doubling the number of border patrol agents over five years, I think from about 11,000 to 22,000 or so within the next five years, so it's a sharp ramping up of border security. AARTI SHAHANI: As well as detention beds in the interior. They’re talking about taking military bases and adding 10,000 new detention beds. Immigrants are already the fastest growing segment of the domestic prison population. That would only continue with this bill. AMY GOODMAN: Now, you both are criticizing legislation, but from very different perspectives. Tamar Jacoby of Manhattan Institute, can you talk about your perspective on the immigration laws as they've been passed in the House and being considered in the Senate? TAMAR JACOBY: I actually disagree very strongly with the other guest, not just about this bill, but about her assumptions about the immigration debate. It's not an either/or, can we have immigration and can we have legality, too? What all of the bills, except the House bill, what everyone from President Bush to Senator Kennedy, and that's a pretty broad range in American politics today, are suggesting is that we can have robust immigration. We can treat the immigrants who come here today humanely and in a dignified way, and we can have control of the system and the rule of law and legality and enforcement, and that they're not necessarily contradictions anymore or they don't have to be contradictions, and that both would be good for the country. And the way we get there – what the argument is, is that if we have a system that has big enough quotas to accommodate the number of people who are coming here now to do jobs, largely – they're largely coming to work, and they do jobs that Americans don't tend to want to do anymore – if we can have our immigration quotas be big enough to accommodate all those people, then enforcing those immigration quotas won't necessarily be draconian or repressive or oppressive or anything like that. Think about traffic laws or liquor licenses or all kinds of laws that work for people, keep people happy and safe and are not necessarily draconian or oppressive. That's the idea of the overhaul of the immigration system now, that we can have the immigrants, treat them humanely and in a dignified way and have enforcement and the rule of law and security, too. And believe me, if we can't find a way to have both, the American people are not going go for this law. We have to find a way to get to that middle ground where enforcement isn't a dirty word anymore. The House bill is a bad bill, because it’s only enforcement and doesn't create a way for immigrants to come in a legal and dignified humane way. If you do only enforcement, if you try to enforce our current laws where the quotas are too low, then you're going to get repression and a draconian, Orwellian situation. But if you change the laws to make them more realistic, enforcement doesn't need to be a dirty word. AARTI SHAHANI: You know, I actually take issue with the way that you frame it from the outset. And I think that, Tamar, I want to thank you for basically exemplifying the problem with the immigration debate right now. The problem is that from the very beginning, the immigration debate in the Beltway has been a conversation about whether or not we should have legalization. Is it legalization or a guest worker program? Now, alongside that very important question, there is another fact which is that already our enforcement regime in this country is out of control. Already, we've had the Supreme Court -- a conservative court, by the way -- actually rule against pieces of the immigration enforcement, such as, for example, indefinite detention. So, in the bill that we're talking about now, that you advocate now as being a compromised bill or a sensible bill, the bill would actually, for example, reverse Supreme Court decisions and allow for the indefinite detention of people because they're not citizens of this country. The bill would further expand grounds of deportability and mandatory detention and deportation. So, I actually don't think that you can talk about the bill as though it's sensible or tempered, because it’s starting from a place with the assumption that we don't have strict enough enforcement, when already the fact is families are being devastated. I work in New York with immigrant families and citizens who are married to immigrants, who day by day are losing parents and spouses, because already the immigration laws are unforgiving. So I think that that's one point to really keep in mind as we talk about the immigration debate. And I thank you for really laying out how it's been framed and how we actually need to reframe it, which is not just from a conversation of the business interests that you represent, but also the rights interests that presumably American people care about. TAMAR JACOBY: Well, first of all, I don't represent business interests, and I resent the characterization, but this bill that passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week is supported by – it's going to be supported by all the Democrats in the Senate; it's going to be – it's strongly supported by the Change to Win labor coalition. It's strongly supported by immigrant advocates here in Washington, so, I mean, to characterize it as some sort of rightwing business bill is just not particularly informed, and unfortunately, what's probably going to happen in the Senate is that we're going to have to compromise on a bill that's considerably tougher is what’s eventually going to pass. This is, if you will, the most generous liberal version of this bill of any kind of immigration reform that anyone is going see on the table, you know, probably in our lifetime. So, if this doesn't work for you, I think you're going to be disappointed as the debate proceeds. JUAN GONZALEZ: Ms. Jacoby, I'd like to ask you, in terms of what the impact of – because right now we don't have any bill. We have various versions, and we're still not clear whether Bill Frist, the Majority Leader, is going to introduce his own more, I guess, repressive bill in the Senate to attempt have that voted on before the Judiciary Committee bill is voted on, but it does appear within the Republican ranks itself there are major differences over immigration, period. You do have -- TAMAR JACOBY: Yes, indeed, there are. There are very strong divisions, and on that score, you're right. There are a lot of people who would make a big mistake in trying to pass and trying to impose on the country a very unworkable repressive enforcement regime. There are Republicans in the House who, again, just want to throw more enforcement resources at our unrealistic laws, and there are – and you're right, Bill Frist is probably going to – is at least advocating something like that, as well. But to understand the difference here, the difference is between taking a 25-mile-an-hour speed limit on an interstate or prohibition and trying to enforce that, and when you enforce that kind of unrealistic law, yes, then everybody on the highway basically is driving illegally, and enforcement becomes very oppressive, because you're cracking down on everyone. When you have a realistic law, enforcement is not necessarily a bad thing. When the speed limit is 65 miles-an-hour, enforcement keeps everybody safe. AARTI SHAHANI: You know, maybe you could speak to one fact in the current bill, as it stands, that you seem to be fairly pleased with. Right now, the current bill has provisions around fraud, for example, so that if you are an undocumented worker that has been – that admits to committing certain types of fraud to obtain employment, you can’t actually legalize. Now, I'm not sure, you know, how well aware you may be of this -- I just don't want to make any assumptions -- but a lot of workers have to commit fraud to gain employment, and they often do it with the complicity of their employers, so now those workers -- AMY GOODMAN: Like what? Explain. AARTI SHAHANI: So, for example, you can fill out a form for employment, and your employer will actively tell you, ‘Oh yeah, check out -- you have a Social Security number here. Put these numbers in it.’ It happens all the time. It happens in New York; it happens in L.A.; it happens in cities all around the country. Now, that type of activity, technically, under the letter of this law that you’re advocating, would make it so that you're barred from actually gaining legalization. I'm not sure that the millions of people that have been mobilizing this week are aware of all the strict provisions, and this is another concern I have, is that you have the conversation in the Beltway. The conversation in the Beltway about comprehensive immigration reform is really a conversation about a limited earned legalization program that looks more like a temporary guest worker program, and then hyper interior and border enforcement. Now, the mobilization in the streets is actually a mobilization where people are coming out thinking that it's going to be legalization the way it was imagined from 1986, the type of legalization where you actually get your green card because you've already been working here for decades, you've already been paying taxes, and that's not what's actually up for grabs, and so I think the disconnect between what Tamar and people in the Beltway are talking about and the popular mobilization on the street is one very important point. TAMAR JACOBY: Well, you know, look, the American people are going have to support this law in order for it to pass, and, you know, I agree with you. If people have committed fraud that's in the normal course of being an undocumented immigrant here, you know, it's going to be tough, and if that means millions of people can't come onto the right side of the law that will be problematic. But it's not really realistic to expect the American people to say, ‘Well, we don't care if people have committed crimes. We're going to legalize them anyway.’ People are hesitant to legalize people in the first place. And they're going to want people -- one of the criteria is to not have committed a crime, and if this bill ends up allowing 11 million people to work their way onto the right side of the law, I think it will be pretty promising – not just promising, it will be landmark legislation. AARTI SHAHANI: I mean, the main problem -- if the bill allowed 11 million people to regularize their status, it would be an amazing accomplishment, but let's not kid ourselves. There are so many things right now in place that would ensure that that, in fact, does not happen. JUAN GONZALEZ: Like what in the bill? AARTI SHAHANI: First of all, the fraud provisions will ensure that of the 11 million people, people who actually admit to having to commit fraud to obtain work, which is just about everyone, could be barred. Now apart from that, okay, apart from that, the bill’s provisions around enforcement are really, really strict. TAMAR JACOBY: But look, the American people do want an airtight immigration system now. And in the age of post-9/11, they're not wrong to ask for that. People are fed up with the system where the rule of law is routinely undermined in their communities and their neighborhoods. You know, I say it's one thing to ask the American people to accept a million-and-a-half foreigners in their midst every year, people who they fear might be taking their jobs -- they're not, but, of course, there are natural fears that come with that kind of immigration flow -- and ask them to accept guaranteed illegality. People just don’t -- AARTI SHAHANI: You know, I'm not sure that it’s a conversation about what the American people -- TAMAR JACOBY: I didn't interrupt you. I didn’t interrupt you. AARTI SHAHANI: I’m sorry. Go ahead. TAMAR JACOBY: I think -- we're talking about politics, and it is a conversation about what the American people will accept, and I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation, that we restore the rule of law in this country and restore security on our border. I happen to believe that we can do all of that and treat immigrants in a humane, decent way, but asking the American people or the Senate -- if it becomes a choice and the American people or the Senate have to choose between the two of them, believe me, the rule of law and security will win. So, if you don't like a debate where it's framed and where some, I think, very astute lawmakers have figured out a way to try to deliver both, if you're not happy with that, as I said before, I think you're going to be very disappointed as the debate proceeds, and frankly, I think your position where you're trying to make people make a choice between those two is not going to be a very promising strategy. JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, once again, I'd like to get back to the issue of what could potentially pass, because I've been covering this immigration issue now for about 30 years, and I was around in 1986 when the IRCA was originally passed and the debate over that, and so I'm familiar with the reality that the forces at play in this issue are a lot deeper on both sides in terms of the intensity of feelings. So, you have a situation where the possibility -- the reality is that the current House bill has sparked unprecedented mass protests of the Latino community around the United States, and Senator John McCain said yesterday, “This issue has gotten the attention of Hispanics like no other issue in history.” And there is a raging debate in the Republican Party to what degree they are trying to win support of Hispanic voters, the legal citizen voters, and this issue cuts across, whether you are undocumented or documented. My question to you, because whatever comes out of the Senate will have to be reconciled with the House bill, do you see any good prospects for some kind of an immigration bill actually coming out that would provide some kind of route to legalization for those 11 million people now who are living in the shadows in this country? TAMAR JACOBY: Yeah, that's a very good question. As in any game, the best defense is a good offense. And you're right, that the bill out of the House is a completely unacceptable bill, but the best hope, I think, of defeating or modifying the House bill is a strong bill out of the Senate that accomplishes what I believe needs to get accomplished, which is to give people a way to come legally, combine that with enforcement measures and have the transition for the 12 million people already here. So if we get a good comprehensive bill out of the Senate and we take that to conference, that's going to be the best -- our best hope of countering all the bad things in the House bill. Now, if what comes out of conference isn't closer to the Senate than to the House, I think you'll see the Democrats in the Senate vote against it. So the idea of a strong bill coming out of the Senate is really the only way I can think of to counter what's coming out of the House, because if you ask people to vote just against or to dilute – nobody, Democrat or Republican is going to vote to dilute a border security bill just on its face. So the best way to answer it is to say, ‘Here's a better answer,’ and to counter the bad answer in the House with a better answer out of the Senate. AMY GOODMAN: We're heading to Los Angeles to hear from some of the protesters, but Aarti Shahani, 15 seconds. AARTI SHAHANI: I think the bottom line with this bill is that even in the best of all worlds, if you actually take it as an earned legalization bill and it's not watered down in a conference committee, which it probably will be, this bill doesn't seem to guarantee green cards, has tremendous provisions that will bar people from green cards and requires the registration of immigrants and citizens alike, which will result in a de facto national I.D. system and immigrants having to register themselves with the government with the hope that they may actually get green cards eventually, which is not in any near future going to come. AMY GOODMAN: We'll leave it there, but we'll continue the discussion. Aarti Shahani, organizer with the immigrant advocacy group, Families for Freedom, and Tamar Jacoby, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, written extensively on immigration and citizenship. Her most recent book is Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What It Means to be American. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Libby's Defense to Lay Blame for Leak on State Department By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 19, 2006; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/18/AR2006031801148_pf.html Lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the indicted former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, want access to many Bush administration documents they say will demonstrate that an undercover CIA officer played a "peripheral role" in the government's debate over prewar intelligence and that Libby had no motive to lie about her, according to new court filings. In documents filed late Friday, Libby's attorneys cast a wide net for information that they said would help demonstrate that Libby did not discuss the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame as part of a supposed administration effort to besmirch her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. They wrote that they anticipated the trial would showcase testimony by a Who's Who of senior administration officials involved in the Iraq policymaking at the heart of the CIA leak investigation, including three top officials at the State Department who the lawyers asserted played key roles in the unraveling of Plame's covert CIA position. Those officials include then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy secretary, Richard Armitage, and undersecretary for political affairs, Marc Grossman. The lawyers argued that if press reports are correct that some reporters first learned of Plame's CIA connections from Armitage, then "the State Department (and certainly not Mr. Libby) bears responsibility for the 'leak' that led to the public disclosure" of Plame's CIA identity. Libby was indicted Oct. 28 on criminal charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI about how he learned of Plame's employment and what he told reporters about her. He was not, however, charged with leaking the information to the reporter who first published it, columnist Robert D. Novak. Libby's lawyers have asserted that inaccurate statements made by him are the result of mistakes or forgetfulness caused by the long hours he put in every day dealing with the nation's most critical national security issues. The charges against Libby resulted from an investigation -- still underway -- by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald into whether administration officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity to Novak and other reporters after Wilson publicly contended that the administration had twisted intelligence when it asserted that Iraq had attempted to buy nuclear weapons material from Niger. Wilson's report was embarrassing because senior administration officials -- including President Bush -- had cited the alleged attempted purchase as one of the justifications for an invasion of Iraq. In Friday's filing, Libby's lawyers, using Plame's married name of Wilson, said they "expect documents from the White House, the State Department and the CIA will corroborate Mr. Libby's account that Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was regarded throughout the government as a minor issue prior to Mr. Novak's article." They also said the papers will help them show that "Mr. Libby had no intent to lie because he did not believe that Ms. Wilson's employment status was classified." Fitzgerald reiterated in his own filing that he believes Libby's team already has all the documents in hand that are relevant to Libby's defense, except a few that may be produced under seal. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Buildings of the Future Energy Self-Sufficient, Carbon Neutral GENEVA, Switzerland, March 29, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-29-03.asp Buildings that use no energy from external power grids, are carbon neutral, and can be built and operated at fair market values may sound like dream buildings today, but the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is working towards making that dream a reality. The Council announced today that it is forming an alliance of global companies to ensure that by 2050 all new buildings meet these standards. The two companies that are in on the ground floor of this effort are United Technologies Corp., the world's largest supplier of capital goods including elevators, cooling and heating and on-site power systems to the commercial building industry, and Lafarge Group, the world leader in building materials including cement, concrete, aggregates, gypsum and roofing. WBCSD President Bjorn Stigson said today, "Being smarter and more efficient about how we use energy in buildings will help us conserve energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change." Stigson's idea is to partner with companies that have technological expertise and presence that no single existing organization or government could provide on its own. The initial target areas for the creation of these new buildings are China, India, Brazil, the United States and the European Union. "We believe this initiative can provide extremely cost-effective solutions, Stigson said. "It will also set the course for self-sufficient and environmentally sound buildings in which future generations will live, work and be entertained." Based in Geneva, the WBSCD is a coalition of some 180 international companies from 35 countries and 20 major industrial sectors. They share a commitment to sustainable development, encompassing economic growth, ecological balance and social progress. Buildings today account for 40 percent of energy consumption in developed countries according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an association of industrial democracies. Constructing buildings that use no net energy from power grids will require a combination of onsite power generation and ultra-efficient building materials and equipment. It is possible to transform the way buildings are conceived, constructed, operated and dismantled by 2050, Stigson and his partners believe. Lafarge Chairman Bertrand Collomb said, "Lafarge has been leading efforts in energy efficiency and sustainable construction in the building materials sector for a number of years, not only by reducing greenhouse gas emissions during the production process but also by developing materials that contribute to making buildings more energy efficient." "In this context, Lafarge has been collaborating with leading architects to promote sustainable construction as illustrated by our partnership with French architect Jacques Ferrier, which led to the development of the Hypergreen concept," Collomb explained. "This multi-use tower building, designed for the world's mega-cities, is highly energy self-sufficient thanks to the use of the latest construction methods and technologies." Lafarge, headquartered in Paris, has four businesses - cement, aggregates and concrete, roofing, and gypsum. The company employs 80,000 people in 75 countries and posted sales of $16 billion in 2005. It is the only construction materials company to be listed on the 2006 "100 Global Most Sustainable Corporations in the World." "Buildings of tomorrow should be self-sufficient in energy and have carbon neutral emissions," said Jan van Dokkum, president of UTC Power, a United Technologies company, which includes UTC Fuel Cells. "This can be done by incorporating renewable energy sources into a building's design, optimizing energy efficiency of support systems, and taking advantage of geographic and culturally acceptable building practices," Dokkum said. "Additionally, this aim is enhanced by using the cradle to cradle concept of producing, using and later re-using building materials," said Dokkum "This vision of energy and carbon neutral designs is a necessary evolution we need to embrace to achieve sustainability for buildings." United Technologies, based in Hartford, Connecticut reported $43 billion in 2005 revenues. UTC employs 220,000 people worldwide and provides high technology products and services to the building and aerospace industries. The company is listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes and was one of 20 U.S. based companies to be listed on the 2006 "100 Global Most Sustainable Corporations in the World." The sustainable buildings project will take place in three phases, each producing reports that together will form a roadmap to transform the building industry. The first report will document existing green building successes and setbacks. The second phase will identify the full range of present and future opportunities, and the third will present a unified industry strategy for realizing those opportunities by 2050. Each report will take one year to complete and involve hearings and conferences with building contractors and suppliers, sustainability experts, government representatives, regulators, utility officials and others. Green buildings already are erected in various parts of the world but current cost structure prevents widespread adoption by general contractors. The project will build on these examples, aligning costs and benefits in the building equation and by working in close collaboration with architects, builders, suppliers and building owners to promote a more sustainable approach to construction. -------- ACTIVISTS Thousands of Students Defy School Lockdowns and Continue Walkouts to Protest Anti-Immigrant Bill Wednesday, March 29th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/29/154212 Tens of thousands of high school students have staged walkouts in protest over a House bill that proposes a sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigrants. We go to Los Angeles to speak with Jasmine Chavez, a 17-year old student at Montabello High School and Luis Rodriguez, a community activist, poet and writer. [includes rush transcript] As we continue to look at the issue of immigration, widespread protests continued across the country on Tuesday against the anti-immigrant House bill. Thousands of students walked out of classes for the second day in a row. The majority of walkouts took place in California where some 8,000 students from the Los Angeles Unified School District took to the streets. Over 3,000 students walked out of schools in other cities across California as well as Las Vegas, Phoenix and Texas, where a crowd of demonstrators converged on City Hall in Dallas and Houston. Scores of schools were put under a strict lockdown to avoid the mass walkouts, but students defied the ban and marched in the streets waving flags and holding banners, many of them in the rain. A small numbers of arrests were reported as authorities began cracking down on the protests, rounding up demonstrators as truants and issuing citations. The widespread demonstrations appeared to be loosely organized, with students learning about them through mass e-mails, fliers, instant messages, cellphone calls and postings on myspace.com Web pages. On Monday, as many as 40,000 students walked out of classes in Los Angeles alone. The walkouts followed a weekend of enormous rallies, including one Saturday that drew upwards of one million people in LA. Yesterday we reached some of the students in California who were staging walkouts. They spoke out about immigration reform and why they were taking to the streets. * Fermin Vazquez, Bauman High School * Katie Delgado, Rennaissance Academy * Leno Silva, Woodrow Wilson High School * Sarah, Montebello High School * Christopher Aldrear, Wilson High School We go to Los Angeles to speak with two guests: * Jasmine Chavez, a 17-year old student at Montabello High School. * Luis Rodriguez, community activist, poet and writer. He is author of the award-winning memoir "Always Running: La VidaLoca: Gang Days in L.A." and, most recently, "Hearts and Hands: Creating Community in Dangerous Times." He founded the Tia Chucha Press, which publishes young socially-engaged poets, and is also a founder of Youth Struggling for Survival, a Chicago-based youth community organization. Rodriguez walked out of his middle school in Los Angeles during the walkouts of 1968. - Website: Luisjrodriguez.com RUSH TRANSCRIPT JUAN GONZALEZ: Yesterday, we reached some of the students in California who were staging walkouts. They spoke out about immigration reform and why they were taking to the streets. FERMIN VAZQUEZ: My name is Fermin Vazquez. I'm a senior at Bauman High School. A group of friends and I decided to walk out of school after first period, because we are opposed to the law that is currently being discussed in the Senate called HR 4437. KATIE DELGADO: My name is Katie Delgado. I go to Renaissance Academy. Students in L.A. County who walked out believe that the Sensenbrenner bill is utterly, like, unconstitutional and just wouldn't work. It would make criminals out of families. It would make criminals out of our families and our relatives. And it would make felons, actually, out of anyone who helped immigrants, illegal immigrants, in any way. And seeing that 73% of the [inaudible] is Latino, obviously a majority of our school system is going to walk out. The majority of the kids here are going to walk out, because this affects all of us, and that affects all of our families. And this type of thing is not going to go over easily in L.A. LENO SILVA: My name’s Leno Silva, and I attend Woodrow Wilson High School, which is located in East Los Angeles. Many of the high schools that are located in Los Angeles and many other states [inaudible], the high rate is basically undocumented students. For example, we could have, like L.A. High, they have a high percentage of undocumented students. Wilson High School, we also have a high percentage of undocumented students. And this is affecting students, because if we cannot have an education in the United States, then what's the point of our families coming down to live a so-called American dream? SARAH: My name is Sarah, and I attend Montabello High School. We walked out today, basically because of the proposition for HR 4437. We feel like -- well, we felt the need to come over here, because, you know, we had to support people over here. They’ve been sleeping here for four nights in a row, you know, in the rain, through the cold and everything. And we just think that's so great, so we came out to support. CHRISTOPHER ALDREAR: My name is Christopher Aldrear. I'm 16 years old, and I attend Wilson High School. And I think the walkouts are very important, because as young Latinos in our community, we all face this problem, and it will affect all of us in a major way. So, personally, I think that Latinos are not doing this just to ditch school. We're doing this because we’re trying to make a difference. We're trying to be heard, you know? Today, I attended a walkout, and it was very peaceful. And I had students coming up to me. They were telling me, “Man, what about -- what if they take my parents from me? I'm going stay here by myself, because I was born here.” And, you know, what is that? You know, the government should realize this. The government realizes this, and, you know, for some reason they're showing that they don't care. And a lot of students are walking out. My family immigrated here from Mexico. And, you know, I’m doing it for my family, I’m doing it for my friends, you know? It's going to affect all of us in a major, major way, because we're the future generation. We're the next doctors. We're the next lawyers. We're the next all that, and if we don't stand up for it and try to do something for it, then who will? You know, who will? Honestly. AMY GOODMAN: Some of the students staging walkouts this week in Los Angeles. Special thanks to our student intern, Danielle Strandburg-Peshkin, who spoke to these students last night. For more on the protests, we go to Los Angeles, where we're joined by two guests. Jasmine Chavez is a high school student at Montabello High School. Also joining us, Luis Rodriguez, a community activist, poet and writer. Author of the award-winning memoir, Always Running: La Vida Loca: Gang Days in L.A., and most recently, Hearts and Hands: Creating Community in Dangerous Times. He founded the Tia Chucha Press, which publishes young socially-engaged poets, is also founder of the Youth Struggling for Survival, a Chicago-based youth community organization. We are going to begin with the student who is joining us right now, who was out on the streets this week. Jasmine Chavez, tell us what happened. How did this walkout of tens of thousands of high school students occur? JASMINE CHAVEZ: Well, we were not going to walk out on Monday. We figured that we needed to get organized, and we were going to wait until Tuesday or Wednesday to walk out. But students from Whittier and Rancho [inaudible], they came to support us. They came to pick us up. They came, and they waited for us very peacefully. And our teachers put us on lockdown. They weren’t letting us out. So, we -- at first we agreed. But then we were watching the news, and we were seeing that it wasn't really going in good terms. So I -- personally, I jumped the fence. I heard later on that they opened the gates, because they just couldn't hold the students in. There was more than 500 students who were walking out from Montabello High School, double the number at Garfield, Roosevelt, all of these schools went to go pick us up. AMY GOODMAN: Why? For what reason did you walk out? JASMINE CHAVEZ: Me, personally, I did it to represent my mom, because she has tried -- attempted to come to the United States from El Salvador three times as a nine-year-old. She was actually in jail, in prison, with real criminals and prostitutes and all that. All that trouble she went through as a nine-year-old to come to the United States for a better education for me, for a better life, for that to be taken away from her. And my father -- and not just representing my family, because this is -- everybody is an immigrant. This is a salad bowl. The United States is a salad bowl. It's not like the so-called white people, they come and they're the official Americans, because everybody’s American. It's your human rights. JUAN GONZALEZ: Jose Luis Rodriguez, I’d like to ask you, because this is an issue that I think that many Americans do not understand. There are an estimated three million children in the United States, who if their parents who are undocumented had to be deported would then be separated from their families possibly, because they were born -- those children were born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. And so, this is a deeply personal situation for millions of young people around the country. LUIS RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, I think it's the destruction of families again. I think it's the destruction of the human rights that people should have to live, to survive. People, as Jasmine says, they come from poor countries, countries who have had war, have had poverty. They come for a better life. They're willing to work. They're willing to contribute. They're willing to give whatever they need to give to better this country. These aren't people who are taking away. These are people who are giving. And they've been doing this for generations. And I think, especially in California, there's, I think, a lot of racism involved with this, the sense that we don't belong. The brown-skinned people have now become the illegals, the undocumented, the ones that nobody wants. And when you think about it, that kind of turns everything on its head, because this land was first brown-skinned. And it's kind of interesting how the Native peoples are now being treated as strangers. So, to me, I think the young people seem to understand that very deeply. They understand that they're fighting for their lives. This is not just a march for a good time. This is marches and demonstrations to show that, in fact, they're willing to fight for their life and a good, decent, dignified life. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn for a minute to look at how some of the corporate media has been covering the mass student walkouts. And, Juan, you also have been covering in the New York Daily News how the non-Spanish media is hardly giving this attention. It's quite astounding for not just largest Latino protest in an area, let's say Chicago or Los Angeles, but the largest protest ever in these cities. In Arizona, the largest protest, as well. It is astounding. But yesterday, CNN was doing some coverage. This is one of the CNN anchors, Daryn Kagan, who made this comment on CNN live. DARYN KAGAN: Walking into the Harbor Freeway at any hour, let alone rush hour, not the smartest move. Perhaps these kids could use some more time in class to work on the smartness. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get the comment of Jasmine, saying maybe it's not so smart to walk in the street, that you should be learning something in class. JASMINE CHAVEZ: Well, I agree with her. And I go to school every day. And that's why I'm here, to make sure that after this I go to class. But if you think about it, they‘re saying that a lot of schools, quote/unquote, are ditching. But if they're ditching, why did we march up to eleven miles to get to City Hall. Why did we do that? Couldn't we just have gone home? If we didn't care, why did we go through all that trouble? Why were we there supporting? AMY GOODMAN: Jasmine Chavez and Luis Rodriguez, we want to ask you to wait for a minute. We're going to go to break for 60 seconds, and then we're going to come back. And we’re going to play a clip of a movie that came out just this week, and it's called Walkout. And we will also be joined by another guest involved with that movie, Moctesuma Esparza, who was there with Luis Rodriguez in 1968 and is now here today looking at what is happening with young people like Jasmine. ---- Walkout: The True Story of the Historic 1968 Chicano Student Walkout in East L.A. Wednesday, March 29th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/29/154216 "Walkout" - a new HBO film tells the story of the 1968 walkout by high school Chicano students in East Los Angeles to protest academic prejudice and dire school conditions. We speak with the executive director of the film, Moctesuma Esparza. An award-winning film producer and community activist, Esparza helped organize the 1968 walkout and was arrested and jailed along with 12 others for conspiracy to disturb the peace. [includes rush transcript] The mass student walkouts this week across California and other states are not the first of their kind. In 1968, Chicano students in East Los Angeles staged a historic walkout in their high schools to protest academic prejudice and dire school conditions. Students were forbidden from speaking Spanish in class or from using the restrooms during lunchtime. Schools taught a curriculum that largely ignored or denied Mexican-American history and Chicano students were steered toward menial labor and away from college by counselors and school officials. In March 1968, the students decided to take a stand against the injustice and staged walkouts in schools across L.A. Many date the modern Chicano movement to the walkouts when some 20,000 teenagers took to the streets Many of the students who participated in the walkouts went on to successful careers in politics, academia and the arts. One of them was Antonio Villaraigosa - he's now the mayor of Los Angeles. Another was award-winning filmmaker Moctesuma Esparza, who was indicted for his role in organizing the walkouts. He is now executive producer of a new HBO film about the 1968 protests simply titled "Walkout." We are joined on the line by now by award-winning film producer and community activist, Moctesuma Esparza. He is the executive producer of "Walkout," based on the historic 1968 student walkout in Los Angeles which he helped organize. Esparza and 12 others were arrested and jailed for conspiracy to disturb the peace. They became known as the East LA 13. Esparza is portrayed in the film by Bodie Olmos, son of the movie's director, Edward James Olmos" son. And Esparza's real-life daughter, Tonantzin Esparza, plays Vickie Castro, a protester who went on to become a principal and a school board member. RUSH TRANSCRIPT JUAN GONZALEZ: Many of the students who participated in those walkouts went onto successful careers in politics, academia and the arts. One of them was Antonio Villaraigosa. He's now the Mayor of Los Angeles. Another was award-winning filmmaker Moctesuma Esparza, who was indicted for his role in organizing the walkouts. He is now executive producer of a new HBO film about the 1968 protest, simply titled Walkout. This is an excerpt. STUDENT: Walkout! Walkout, Garfield! STUDENT: Roosevelt, walk out! STUDENT: Wilson, walkout! TEACHER: Paula, get back in your seat, please. PAULA CRISOSTOMO: Walkout. STUDENT: Walkout! Walkout! STUDENT: Walkout! CROWD: Chicano Power! Chicano Power! REPORTER: Excuse me, aren't you Sal Castro, the teacher who orchestrated today’s walkout? SAL CASTRO: Yes, I am Sal Castro, and, no, I didn't orchestrate the walkouts. The kids did it on their own. REPORTER: Why do you think they did it? SAL CASTRO: Well, the Mexican American community has long been referred to as the sleeping giant. And today, it’s getting its wake-up call. CROWD: Chicano Power! Chicano Power! AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the film, Walkout, courtesy of HBO. We're joined on the line now by award-winning film producer and community activist, Moctesuma Esparza. He's the executive producer of Walkout, based on the historic 1968 student walkout in Los Angeles, which he helped organize. Esparza and twelve others were arrested and jailed for conspiracy to disturb the peace. They became known as the East L.A. 13. Esparza is portrayed in the film by Bodie Olmos, son of the movie's director, Edward James Olmos. And Esparza’s real-life daughter, Tonantzin Esparza, plays Vickie Castro, a protester who went on to become a principal and a school board member. Moctesuma Esparza joins us on the line from California, headed to Mexico today. We welcome you to Democracy Now! MOCTESUMA ESPARZA: Good morning, Amy. It's great to be with you. AMY GOODMAN: It's great to be with you, as well. So, you made this film. It airs this week. And the students -- high school students like those you were with 38 years ago are walking out. What are your thoughts? MOCTESUMA ESPARZA: I feel blessed to be associated with a powerful rebirth of social consciousness in my community. That's how I feel. JUAN GONZALEZ: Moctesuma, the impact of not only the student protests, but these massive demonstrations throughout the country of the Latino community responding to the debate and to the draconian proposals for immigration restriction. MOCTESUMA ESPARZA: We made this movie to be an actual manual on how to organize, you know, what the risks are, what has to be thought of, and what could happen, and what needs to be done. And prior to its airing on March 18, from mid-February to the actual airdate, Eddie Olmos and I went on a over a 20-city tour where we presented this movie to over 15,000 people, who all just completely gave themselves to the movie and the experience of the movie and what the movie was talking about. And so, I've been getting back reports continually that many young people have seen this film and have been inspired by its message and are applying its tactics and strategies to the current situation. AMY GOODMAN: Moctesuma Esparza, can you talk about how it happened in 1968, what role you played, how the students responded, and then how the police responded? MOCTESUMA ESPARZA: Well, I had been organizing in East L.A. since 1965. I had been fortunate to attend a youth leadership conference, the Chicano Youth Leadership Conference at Camp Hess Kramer at Malibu, where Sal Castro had recruited me to go, and I had met students from the other high schools. And we portrayed this experience in the movie. And out of that, people from all of the high schools came together, and we organized a group called Young Citizens for Community Action. This was 1965. That group eventually changed its name into Young Chicanos for Community Action and then evolved into the Brown Berets and UMAS. So, once I graduated from high school in 1967, and we had been trying to organize while I was still in school, all of us were -- the membership was from all East L.A. schools -- we continued organizing. I went to UCLA. I was a founder of UMAS there. There were twelve of us, Chicano students, that started the organization, and we made a commitment that we would go help organize the rest of the campuses. We had a huge conference that summer of 1967, in which college students -- there were a couple of hundred -- came together from throughout Southern California. It was basically almost everyone who was in college then, because there was less than 2% of all Chicanos that even enrolled in college. And we then gave ourselves the assignments for each campus to mentor the high school students of a particular high school. Those high school students were already experiencing a growth in consciousness. This is 1967, while the Vietnam War is in full bore, and protests are growing, and the Civil Rights Movement is flourishing. And throughout the world, young people are looking to change the world. And this was not lost on the kids in East L.A. They were able to see what their own circumstances were and how they were being oppressed, how they were being denied an opportunity for an education, an opportunity to fulfill their lives. And so, it was not difficult to organize them. They wanted to be organized. They wanted to do something, and so what we did at that point as college students was provide them context and assist them. And they made all of their decisions. It was an extremely democratic movement. The high school students were very jealous of their own prerogatives and of their own independence. And what we did as college students was to provide a safety net for them once they did decide to walk out, to act as monitors and as security for the movement, and providing resources and the community support system to then begin to reach out to parents and to labor movements and to the clergy. So we went on it very methodically. It took us a couple of years. And what is going on now has happened -- it looks and feels like it's almost spontaneous. I do know that there was organizing that was going on, but it was much faster. And the results were just combustible. So what took us several years back in 1968 seems to have taken a couple of weeks here. JUAN GONZALEZ: Jose Luis Rodriguez, I'd like to ask you about this accelerated development of this movement. There's a new element here, it seems to me, which is the role of the media, not so much the English-language corporate media, but the Spanish-language media. As I understand it, a lot of the Spanish-language radio disc jockeys were actively promoting the various protests around immigration, even many of the Spanish-language Univision personalities put out a public service ad for the big Saturday march in L.A., urging people to attend. So there was a real sort of split in the media as the Spanish-language -- while the English-language media paid almost no attention or criticized these protests, the Spanish-language media, in effect, helped to promote it. LUIS RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. Actually, rival disc jockeys got together and decided that they would participate. They actually talked on air. These were rival stations that probably were competing, you know. But now they’re saying, ‘Let's get people organized, let's get them together.’ So it was very massive, the mobilization. The other things, you had cell phones, you have blueberries, you have myspace.com. You have a lot of ways that young people are communicating that didn’t happen in 1968 the way that it is now. Of course, I was also involved in 1968, and I remember my walking out. And when I was a senior, I ended up leading three walkouts. And by then, Paula Crisostomo, who is featured in the Walkout film, was one of the leaders. She actually worked at [inaudible] High School when I was there. So I also developed that work and got the leadership training. But I do agree with Moctesuma, it took a lot longer. And to see the mobilization now is really amazing to me, but it's also important that young people are already conscience and coherent about what the issues are. I think all it took was people to say 'Let's mobilize, let's get organized, let's get these things moving.’ And the leadership, I think, is getting to the point where it's engendering new leadership. Young people themselves are gaining the leadership that took a few years in the past. Now it's happening much more quickly. AMY GOODMAN: Jasmine, did you see this movie, Walkout? JASMINE CHAVEZ: Actually, I went to the conference this weekend, and I saw it at the CYLC. They showed us a documentary, and I did see it. AMY GOODMAN: And what did you think? JASMINE CHAVEZ: It was beautiful. Beautiful in the fact of how much power -- a lot of students -- well, at least at my school and I have spoken to -- have seen it. And that, to me, I'm hoping motivates them to see that if you were put on lockdown, that shows how much power the students have. If they had to put you on lockdown and you still were willing, and they couldn't stop you to walk out, to me that was very powerful. AMY GOODMAN: Moctesuma Esparza, I wanted to ask, one of the poignant parts of this film is the student saying, after the video footage and seeing lots of photographers there documenting police brutality against the high school kids, they felt this would be a turning point. And then they turned on their televisions, and they looked at the papers, and they didn't see any of those images. Can you talk about the coverage in 1968? MOCTESUMA ESPARZA: The coverage was extraordinarily censored, on a corporate level following the lead of the district attorney and the mayor and the power structure. They self-censored. It was astonishing to me. I mean, looking back on it, the fact that CBS and NBC and all of these corporate stations that had tremendous news coverage capability and were there, and all of these photographers that were there for the L.A. Times and the Herald, they did not publish or show or comment on the police violence. And the police violence was extreme. I mean, it makes Rodney King look like a picnic, really, because Rodney King was a gentleman who was evading arrest. And, you know, what was done to him was brutal and awful, but the police there, you know, had at least some modicum of provocation. These were high school kids who were peacefully protesting for their rights. They were children. And they were brutalized. There are blows that were recorded on film that were like death blows. It was really, really awful. And when that footage was finally discovered in 1995, when the research was being done for the PBS documentary Chicano, it was astonishing to us that that footage had survived and even existed. It was vital, because it gave us the ability to show HBO that what we were re-creating was absolutely accurate and real. And it was necessary, because HBO wanted to make sure that what we did was real. And we had to go through very careful steps to authenticate everything that we portrayed in the movie. And I want to thank HBO, because no other studio would have let us make movie. It is an astonishing event that this movie got made at all. JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Moctesuma Esparza, looking back over those 38 years, especially at all of the current day Chicano leaders that really emerged from that struggle, not only yourself, Jose Luis Rodriguez, Antonio Villaraigosa, Gil Cedillo, the state senator from L.A., so many of the current leaders of the Latino community in Southern California, the lessons you draw about how leadership is forged and emerges. MOCTESUMA ESPARZA: Well, certainly, I think that we're being blessed right now, because the young people who are participating realize that they can do this and survive, that their bravery has a payoff, and that they can continue throughout their lives to be activists, which is one of the things that has occurred. The people who were involved as part of the leadership of 1968, and who continued their younger brothers and sisters, because there were walkouts all the way to 1972, 1974, on a fairly regular basis, all of them have a social conscience that continues to this day. All of them are making contributions in one way or another in whatever walk of life they've chosen. And we show that in the movie by interviewing and giving short clips to some of the leaders of the walkouts who were regular kids and who today are continuing to be activists in their particular profession. JASMINE CHAVEZ: Moctesuma, I wanted to end with Jasmine in the studio in Los Angeles. One of the students who has walked out. Los Angeles Unified School District Chief Roy Romer warns students, starting today, that you will be treated as truants if you don't turn up for class or if you walk out. What's your response to this, Jasmine? JASMINE CHAVEZ: Well, actually, we're organizing for a walkout on Friday. We're going to walk out on Cesar Chavez’s birthday. And we're mobilizing. We’re going to have teach-ins. Thanks to CYLC, the Chicano Youth Leadership Conference, I met up with more than 20 schools. I’ve gotten their numbers. We're organizing. We're going to have one representative from each school go to somebody's house and do this in a calm, peaceful way. And despite the consequences, we're still going to do this, because we have a voice, and we're not afraid to use it. LUIS RODRIGUEZ: And let me just add, this is education. JASMINE CHAVEZ: Yes, it is. LUIS RODRIGUEZ: This is also learning. This is also the way people learn who they are, what they should be. And some of these leaders will be the future Moctesumas, they’ll be the future leaders, they’ll be the future mayors of these cities. AMY GOODMAN: On that note, I want to thank you all for being with us. Luis Rodriguez, Jasmine Chavez, high school student, one of those walking out, and finally, we want to thank Moctesuma Esparza, award-winning film producer. ---- D.C. Judge Gives Protesters "Time Served" For Disrupting Congressional Hearing On Iraq War Funding Submitted by Scott on March 29, 2006 - http://vcnv.org/d-c-judge-gives-protesters-time-served-for-disrupting-congressio FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 28, 2006 Contacts: Mike Ferner 419-729-7273 Jeff Leys 773-878-3815 WASHINGTON - A District of Columbia Superior Court Judge this morning sentenced two anti-war activists to “time served” for disrupting a March 8 meeting of the House Appropriations Committee as it considered an additional $67,000,000 for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Federal Prosecutors had asked Judge Stephen Milliken to sentence Ed Kinane, of Syracuse, who had previous arrests at the School of the Americas at Ft. Benning, Georgia, to 180 days in jail, suspended except for one weekend, probation, and a “stay away order” from the grounds of the Capitol, and Mike Ferner, of Toledo, to probation and a “stay away order.” At the Appropriations Committee hearing, Ferner stood up and began reading a list of names of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the war, and Kinane stood, holding a banner that said, “Stop the Killing!” The two were quickly taken from the hearing room by Capitol Police and arrested. After being booked they were later released at 2:00 am, the morning of March 9. This morning in court, Kinane pled no contest and Ferner pled guilty to one charge each of disrupting a Congressional committee hearing. National Lawyers Guild attorney, Mark Goldstone, represented Ferner and advised Kinane who conducted his own defense. Each of the defendants read a prepared statement to Judge Milliken who had several questions for the two men and then imposed his sentence of “time served.” In his statement to the judge, Kinane, 62, said, “I saw myself as petitioning my elected representatives, my government, for redress of a policy that grieves me enormously,” and concluded by saying, “May each of us do whatever we can to end this heinous war as soon as humanly possible.” In his statement, Ferner, 55, described his experiences as a Navy Hospital Corpsman taking care of wounded soldiers and Marines during the Viet Nam war. He said images of those days have not left his mind for 35 years and that he believes the U.S. government is committing war crimes in Iraq. “I cannot stand by and watch these crimes continue. I must add my voice to the thousands of others crying out for an end to them until we awaken America’s conscience,” and invted the judge to “help us wake our nation’s conscience by ruling what I did.was not a disruption but a civic duty.” Ferner’s statement follows. Statement by Mike Ferner Washington, D.C. Superior Court March 28, 2006 Your Honor, when some people learn of my appearance before you today they ask me why I found it necessary to disrupt the House Appropriations Committee as it was preparing to vote another $67,000,000,000 for war in Iraq and Afghanistan. “What justifies disrupting Congress,” they ask? I answer them, and can tell you in one word: images. Images that have not left my mind for 35 years; from when I worked as a Corpsman in a Navy hospital during the Viet Nam war. Images of young soldiers and Marines lying in row upon row of hospital beds, shrouded in layers of white bandages. Images of picking shrapnel out of Mike Ramsack’s backside.of dressing Bob Butikofer’s wounds every day, trying not to make h! im screa m.of changing colostomy bags on guys hoping they wouldn’t defecate out the hole in their guts caused by a gunshot wound. Images of the young soldier I couldn’t hook up properly for a brain scan because he was missing his entire left temporal lobe. Images of long lines of ambulatory patients waiting for supper in the hospital chow hall, sitting in wheelchairs, leaning on crutches, missing arms and legs and eyes.Images of a young man, silent and broken, sitting in a corner of the psychiatric ward. And there are other, more recent images from my trips to Iraq that I cannot forget. Images of the kids I met on the streets of Baghdad, and the ones in Abu Hishma who shared their chicken and rice dinner with an American journalist two days after a cruise missile blew their orange grove to bits. Images of the young U.S. Army sergeant from West Virginia I accompanied on patrol one night near Balad, who answered my question, “why are you in Iraq?” with a tired shrug saying, “I reallydon’t know.” And his partner, just as bone tired, who answered simply, “oil.” I see these images every day. And I know that the young men in that Navy hospital 35 years ago, just like the ones I met last year in Iraq, are getting killed and maimed for a preposterous lie. As my blood boils I tell my government to “BRING THEM HOME NOW!” by writing letters, signing petitions, speaking at rallies, and yes, when I can, testifying uninvited to the very committee preparing to vote more billions for this war. Before the Capitol Police put me face down on the floor outside the Appropriations Committee hearing room, I told the committee members that their actions were making Americans less safe, not more; that in addition to causing great suffering, they were also violating dozens of international and domestic laws, waging a war of aggression, committing crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. A chill should run through our very soul as we remember when those words were use! d to ind ict another nation’s warmaking, a nation over which we stood in judgement. And just as Good Germans were complicit in the crimes of their government not that very long ago, so to are we American citizens complicit in the crimes of our own government. Because we are complicit, we must speak out against this monstrous war in every nonviolent way possible if we want to absolve ourselves of that complicity. Your Honor, I cannot stand by and watch these crimes continue. I must add my voice to the thousands of others crying out for an end to it until we awaken America’s conscience. I invite you to help us wake our nation’s conscience by ruling that what I did when I read the names of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis killed in this war, to a Congressional Committee about to vote more money to prolong the killing, was not a disruption but a civic duty. Voices for Creative Nonviolence 1249 W Argyle Street #2 Chicago, IL 60640 Phone: (773) 878-3815 info@vcnv.org http://www.vcnv.org